1 Thursday, 14 April 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
6 everyone in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
8 Stojan Zupljanin.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Your Honours.
10 Good morning to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
11 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner,
12 Alex Demirdjian, Catherine Loftus, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution
13 this morning.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
15 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, Ms. Tatjana Savic, and
16 Ms. Deirdre Montgomery appearing for the Stanisic Defence this morning.
17 Thank you.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and
19 Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
20 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. And I note this morning for the record
21 that we reconvene under Rule 15 bis; Judge Harhoff being absent.
22 We have been alerted that counsel on both sides would wish to
23 raise something arising out of the last issue which was canvassed
24 yesterday. But before we hear from counsel, there's a comment that I
25 would wish to make and which may assist counsel in anything further that
1 they have to say, and it is this. And I recognise that in response to
2 the query -- to the issue that was raised by Ms. Korner from the Office
3 of the Prosecution that the response that I would have, given that she
4 would have had rather short shrift, and I plead in my own defence the
5 pressure of time because we were very near the adjournment, what I would
6 wish to add is this: Without gainsaying the overriding or overarching
7 principle of relevance which governs all trials, and relevance being
8 determined by the pleadings, which in the case of a criminal matter is
9 the indictment, in reality it is recognised that the indictment is --
10 being related to certain historical events is necessarily selective,
11 indeed some even may say in some cases arbitrary, in order for a trial to
12 be made manageable. But the near artificiality almost of drawing a line
13 around what the indictment lays out in terms of charges means that very
14 often, and this is not the first time it is has arisen, it arose from
15 time to time during the case for the Prosecution, that in order to make
16 sense, and this is especially so in proceedings such as that in which we
17 are engaged in terms what would have happened in the former Yugoslavia
18 during the time-period that is set out in the Statute, there is -- it is
19 often necessary for -- in order to set a context, both temporally and
20 geographically, for a witness to be led beyond the strict confines of the
21 indictment, the challenge always is. And in this context, the Chamber
22 must rely on the experience and good sense and goodwill of counsel
23 leading it to guide the witness in such a way that such -- that any such
24 necessary contextual or ancillary matters do not stray too far outside
25 the confines of -- and I come back to the broad term of relevance. And
1 if I may use the example of what would have happened over the past two or
2 three days, it may not be apparent when counsel takes a particular line
3 as to whether, even in terms of the question or document which is sought
4 to be admitted, it is, on the face of it, relevant, and the Chamber
5 inquires, and depending on counsel's response, the Chamber may or may not
6 be satisfied and rule accordingly.
7 So to return specifically to the question that was posed by
8 Ms. Korner, I think the more nuanced answer to which she would be
9 entitled, and this having been raised on the record, this explanation is
10 added in this context, is that to the extent that it becomes apparent
11 that evidence may have been permitted to be led by the side calling the
12 witness, may arguably appear to be somewhat outside of the confines, that
13 logically the side opposite would be permitted and must be properly
14 permitted to explore those areas. And I trust that the explanation that
15 I have sought to give this morning hasn't further muddled the matter and
16 that counsel is more assisted than they would have been by what I said
18 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I'm very grateful for that
19 clarification. Indeed, although it not the real matter that I want to
20 deal with this morning, I was going to return to that matter for
21 clarification. And if I may, at the end of what I have to say about the
22 matter that Mr. Zecevic raised yesterday, I will return to that.
23 But, Your Honour, what I want to deal with this morning is what
24 Mr. Zecevic raised at the beginning of yesterday's proceedings, when he
25 applied for a sanction against the Prosecution for what I understood to
1 be a violation of our obligations under Rule 68, because he applied for a
2 sanction under Rule 68 bis, but which has been clarified by e-mail this
3 morning or, rather, I'm sorry, last night, that we're in violation of our
4 obligations under Rule 66(B).
5 I also understood, which must be right, because some of the
6 documents that were mentioned yesterday as not disclosed before, do not
7 come within the category of Rule 66(B), that there is also an application
8 that all documents that we propose to use in cross-examination as
9 notified when the witness goes into the witness box, must have been
10 disclosed in advance. And it's those two aspects that I need to deal
11 with this morning.
12 Your Honours, Mr. Zecevic rattled off a series of cases which we
13 took the opportunity to look at, and, Your Honours, it seems to me that I
14 should start with the position of the law in this Tribunal as it appears
15 to be. And with the greatest of respect, I don't think that any of the
16 authorities that Mr. Zecevic quoted yesterday really assist the Court at
17 all on this aspect.
18 Your Honours, he began with the Lukic and Lukic decision on the
19 3rd of November, 2008. Your Honours, in summary, that authority deals
20 with the situation where it was said by the Defence that material
21 relating to a Prosecution witness had not been disclosed, as it ought to
22 have been.
23 So, Your Honours, I do not see how that is at all relevant to the
24 issue that Your Honours have to consider now.
25 The second matter was Rule 68, and it doesn't appear that this is
1 the argument, in relation to Karadzic. Now it doesn't need repeating
2 because everybody knows there has been a series of disclosure problems in
3 the Karadzic case which has resulted in various adjournments, but, again,
4 the complaint that was made in that case is a failure to provide Rule 68
5 material in respect of Prosecution witnesses. The Bralo case seems even
6 more removed, it would seem to us, from what we're dealing with here,
7 because this was an application on appeal, Mr. Bralo having pleaded
8 guilty to various offences. And I can quote from page 10 of the
9 Judgement of the 30th of August, 2006:
10 "The Appellant seeks an order from the Appeals Chamber directing
11 the Prosecution to comply with its obligations under Rule 66 and Rule 68
12 of the Rules and, in particular, to identify material obtained from the
13 Appellant which the Prosecutor has used or intends to use in any other
14 proceedings as well as the cases in which such use occurred or is
15 intended to occur and the reasons for such use or reference; and (b) to
16 declare that the Prosecution is unaware of any other material capable of
17 being relevant to sentence."
18 And, Your Honour, the second -- the next paragraph, 22, says:
19 "The Appellant particularly focuses on his motion for disclosure
20 on two categories of documents relevant to his cooperation with the
21 Prosecution; those provided by the Appellant in 1997 that he claims were
22 used in at least two other cases before the Tribunal, and documents of
23 2005 which may be used in the Blaskic review proceedings."
24 And finally, Your Honour, Karemera, which is the Rwanda case,
25 2006, was whether the Prosecution's Rule 68 obligations could be subsumed
1 by the use of EDS, to which the answer was no and we entirely accept
2 that. And we have never sought to argue that our Rule 68 obligations are
3 satisfied by the fact that the document is on EDS. If there's a
4 Rule 68 document, we have an obligation to disclose it personally to the
6 But as I say, Your Honour, it doesn't seem to me that any of
7 these cases have any application whatsoever to the problem that now faces
8 Your Honour; namely, the complaint, as I say, which is a two-fold one,
9 one, that we haven't complied with our obligations under Rule 66(B), and
10 can I say straight away that Mr. Zecevic is right in that on some of
11 these documents, and I'll explain in a moment what -- why that is.
12 But the second matter is whether we have an obligation to
13 disclose material which is -- we're going to use in cross-examination
14 which has not hitherto been disclosed and doesn't come under the
15 provisions of the Rule 68 or 66(B).
16 Your Honours, we would say that the authorities which are the
17 most relevant on this begin with the case of Boskoski on the
18 31st of January, 2008, where the Defence -- there was Defence motion that
19 requested that the Chamber order the Prosecutor to disclose any
20 statement, audio-video, or any other record, decision or note that
21 mentions any of the Boskoski Defence witnesses; any statement, audio
22 video, or other record, decision or note sought and obtained by the
23 Prosecutor in relation to a particular witness; any statements or notes
24 taken after the filing of the Boskoski Defence of its witness list that
25 make reference to the role, function or proposed evidence of any of the
1 proposed witnesses. Effectively that's this.
2 The Prosecution responded that it would not disclose material
3 that pertains to the credibility of Defence witnesses, referring to the
4 Rules and practice of this trial, which, in its view, permit a party to
5 withhold material going to credibility until the start of
6 cross-examination. And that's what we have been effectively relying on.
7 Your Honour, the decision cites the case of Bagosora, that's
8 B-a-g-o-s-o-r-a, and may I say I gave this list to the Defence last
9 night, Your Honours, and made sure that they were aware of it, of the
10 25th of September, 2006. And this is actually referred to in the -- the
11 Boskoski Judgement at paragraph 10:
12 "The Appeals Chamber observes that this plain reading of
13 Rule 66(B) of the Rules does not create a broad, affirmative obligation
14 on the Prosecution to disclose any and all documents which may be
15 relevant to its cross-examination, as suggested by the Defence."
16 Your Honour, the ruling in the Boskoski case, -- and can I say
17 there have been a number of different rulings in various Trial Chambers
18 here, but this is perhaps the fullest. The -- at paragraph 8, the
19 Appeals Chamber has held that this rule, 66(B), applies to material which
20 is relevant to the selection of witnesses for the Defence case, as this
21 is an important element of the preparation of the Defence. Documents or
22 other records relevant to credit therefore may, in certain circumstances,
23 may be considered material for the purposes of Rule 66(B). An example of
24 this is where a document relevant to credit may be capable of influencing
25 a decision whether to call a certain witness or not.
1 And I suppose one could give an example, though no examples are
2 given here. The Prosecution were in possession of a statement by a
3 proposed Prosecution witness where, in effect, he confessed that he'd
4 taken part in some killings or beatings or something of that nature.
5 Well, clearly that might affect the decision to call.
6 Your Honours, there's further consideration of this particular
7 issue in the Popovic case, on the 4th of November, 2008. And then,
8 finally -- and the 17th of December of 2008, and finally, in the Prlic
9 case on the 26th of February, 2009, and -- which is the Appeals Chamber
10 one, I think ... yes. The Appeals Chamber decision there, dealing with
11 the 13th of January, 2009, decision by the Prlic Trial Chamber.
12 It's not quite on point because the issue was the question of
13 brand new documents but, nonetheless, it deals with this particular
14 aspect of the obligation to disclose under Rule 66(B) and whether -- it
15 really -- as I say, it's more about whether they can be admitted as
16 exhibits if they're only produced during the course of cross-examination.
17 So we -- effectively we say that the two major cases on this are
18 the Bagosora decision which was an Appeals Chamber decision, I should
19 say, although it is quite old.
20 Your Honours, if there is any other point in the law that
21 Mr. Zecevic wishes to raise, I'm sure he will.
22 Now can I move to the actual complaint in this case.
23 Your Honours, Mr. Zecevic listed out and finally checked that we had a
24 revised list of documents on our list which had not been disclosed and
25 which he suggests comes under Rule 66(B). Now, Your Honours -- and I'll
1 wait to be corrected if I'm wrong because I would never guarantee that
2 our correspondence with the Defence is entirely accurate. We certainly,
3 many, many years ago, before Mr. Krgovic came into the case, received a
4 Rule 66(B) request from counsel then acting on behalf of Zupljanin but
5 limited to certain matters.
6 We then from Stanisic, who had not invoked the rule -- although
7 interestingly enough, as I pointed out, we had actually been, as it were,
8 voluntarily making disclosures of certain matters. On the
9 15th of October, 2009, we received a letter from Mr. Zecevic or on
10 behalf -- sorry, from both Mr. Zecevic and Mr. Cvijetic which
11 effectively - and if necessary we can give Your Honour a copy - asked for
12 everything and anything that had ever moved in this case. All
13 information received from persons who have personal knowledge of all
14 events in the indictment; all information from persons who have testified
15 as Defence witnesses; all information received from the Bosnian
16 government; all information received -- and so on and so forth.
17 And, Your Honours, the response that we gave was this was a
18 wholly unrealistic request that -- in fact, we described it as
19 wide-ranging and imprecise and said that accordingly, unless you provide
20 more realistic parameters for any searches to be done and more detail of
21 why these matters are material to the preparation of your Defence, we are
22 unable to comply with your request.
23 Your Honour, we then had various short and much more specific
24 requests for material which I -- if Mr. Zecevic wants to refer to them,
25 that's fine. But I think that the real one in this case or for these
1 documents is this. After the to-ing and fro-ing over then-Colonel now
2 General Lisica's documents and his book and all the [indiscernible] and I
3 accept entirely buried in our vaults Mr. Milosevic had, in fact, given us
4 way back in 2004 a copy of the book but we weren't aware of it, as you
5 would have gathered. The -- was a request dated the 21st of January,
6 the Defence kindly requests urgent disclosure of all documents relating
7 from TG3 Doboj; all documents originating from the city defence Doboj;
8 all documents originating from the city defence Derventa; all documents
9 signed by Colonel Slavko Lisica; all documents signed by
10 Andrija Bjelosevic. Accordingly we instituted searches and I believe
11 that certainly in relation to the -- we disclosed a very large number of
12 documents including some 300 or so, I believe, that were actually
13 documents signed by Mr. Bjelosevic. Over 200 I'm told, Your Honours.
14 We can -- when we get searches - it is necessary to explain
15 this - we give them search parameters and, indeed, we actually extended
16 the search parameter not just signed but any documents provided to us by
17 Mr. Bjelosevic, although that wasn't within the request. When you get
18 the searches back, and we have actually printed out what happens if
19 anybody wants to see them, they come in various different sections. One
20 of the sections is documents not authored by, not received from.
21 Therefore, they may affect Mr. Bjelosevic but neither authored by -- so
22 we didn't check that section. And as it turns out, Your Honour, some of
23 the documents that are on the Defence list, and we can show them to the
24 Defence or to Your Honours if you want, turned up, and we don't know why,
25 in that section. But, the whole matter is -- is rather odd, as I will
1 now go on to explain.
2 Your Honours, it may be as well if we have up on the screen, if
3 we can, the -- our document list.
4 In Sanction. The list of documents that we sent. Thank you.
5 Your Honours, the Defence say, and we accept that these documents
6 were not disclosed in advance, that the first document number 2 is -- was
7 not disclosed in advance. We accept that. We say we had no obligation
8 to disclose it. It does not come under Rule 68 or Rule 66(B).
9 Your Honours, we -- we rely on that. We are not obliged to disclose in
10 advance the documents that are only pertinent to cross-examination.
11 Well, and when I say "in advance," I mean obviously we have to disclose
12 once the witness goes into the witness box. And, Your Honour, may I say,
13 there would be no point in having the ruling that we don't have to
14 disclose until such time what documents we're going to use in
15 cross-examination if, in fact, we had to reveal all the documents well in
16 advance. The obvious effect is which gives the witness and the Defence a
17 chance to tailor their evidence which is not the point of
18 cross-examination, particularly when you're testing credibility.
19 Your Honours, number 3, same thing. We say no obligation to
20 disclose. It's another intercept.
21 Now, Your Honours, 5, I am afraid is one of the oddities. During
22 the course of his conversation with the Office of the Prosecutor in -- in
23 2004, Mr. Bjelosevic handed over -- the interview went over, I think, two
24 or three days. And on the second day he came back with his own personal
25 notes of an incident. And they were handed over to the investigator. He
1 signed them, I believe, as either AB 1 or AB 2. They're contained in the
2 interview. And, Your Honour, I have no explanation at all for why, when
3 we turned over the 2004 interview, we didn't hand over at the same time
4 the documents that Mr. Bjelosevic had given to us. He gave us a large
5 number. This particular -- and we handed over the 2004 interview on the
6 20th of July, 2009. And according to Mr. Zecevic on Monday, they're
7 using that interview as the basis for his examination-in-chief. And I'm
8 going to return to that because I have, in the light of what's being
9 going on, severe doubts about that. But, therefore, they must have read
10 it or listened to it.
11 At no -- I mean, it's not an excuse, but it is odd is all I can
12 say. Have we ever had a request for the documents that Mr. Bjelosevic
13 handed over in the interview until that very late one which came in
14 January of this year? So, Your Honour, I don't know why that was -- and
15 I don't know why we didn't disclose them at the time. But it was there
16 for them to see. And there's no specific reference to it.
17 This -- it never was translated either. It seems to have
18 disappeared into one of these black holes and they're being translated at
19 present. As you will see, it says "Translation requested" on the screen.
20 And it turned up under not authored by and not received from. We simply
21 have no explanation for why that is.
22 Your Honour, item number 6, again, was a document given to us by
23 Mr. Bjelosevic in interview. I've forgotten what the AB marking is.
24 Document number 7 is the same. And, again, it just seems to have
25 disappeared because we didn't even ask for a translation. Oh, and indeed
1 now, Your Honour, that's the other point. So -- there can be absolutely
2 no prejudice to the Defence on this at all, but in fact, Mr. Smith has
3 kindly reminded me, it has turned up in the Defence list of exhibits as
4 1D437. So clearly, they got their own copy from Mr. Bjelosevic, which
5 doesn't surprise me. I imagine that everything Mr. Bjelosevic gave us he
6 gave to the Defence and more, and I'm going to return to that again,
7 Your Honour, at the end of what I have to say.
8 The next document I understand that there's disclosure -- the
9 complaint is -- is that at 16. Go to item number 16. Again,
10 Your Honour, handed over by Mr. Bjelosevic in the interview.
11 23 is the next one, I believe. I should be corrected if I've got
12 anything wrong. Your Honours, this one I think -- can I just check what
13 that is.
14 I'm reminded by Mr. Demirdjian helpfully. Your Honours, this is
15 a Kezic document not authored by or received from Mr. Bjelosevic. We say
16 we had no obligation to disclose this.
17 28 is the next one. This again is one that was handed over to
18 Mr. Bjelosevic at interview. And is in fact on the Defence list as
19 65 ter 00194D1.
20 30, again, handed over in the interview, this time in 2009,
21 marked by him as AB 3.
22 31, handed over in interview in 2004. Also on the Defence list
23 as 65 ter 196D1.
24 33, again, handed over by Mr. Bjelosevic in the interview, marked
25 by him AB 2. That was the 2009 interview. And again it came up,
1 Your Honours, under the section not authored by or received from in the
2 ISU searches. And I believe, Your Honour, that's the last of the
4 No, sorry, the one that's -- sorry. 86 on our list.
5 Your Honour, that one we say that falls under no 66(B) request. The same
6 with 87. The same with 88. And the last is number 90. This was a
7 sketch made by Mr. Bjelosevic in the interview in 2004.
8 94 -- oh, sorry. Yes, sorry, 94 on our list was marked AB 10 in
9 2004 by Mr. Bjelosevic who handed it over, and again, it came up under
10 the section of not authored by, not received. And 97, we say is not a
11 document that falls under any 66(B) request.
12 So, Your Honours, I accept we are in violation of the
13 66(B) request as regards the specific documents that, for some reason, as
14 I say, should have been disclosed that related to the interviews with
15 Mr. Bjelosevic. But as I say, certainly it's a lesson learned that we
16 cannot check things that -- under the ISU searches that say not authored
17 by or not received by. But we say it has nothing to do with any
18 sanctions under Rule 68, and, in any event, there is no prejudice at all
19 to the Defence.
20 However, Your Honours, I return to the question of our obligation
21 to disclose in advance documents which we intend to use in
22 cross-examination and which do not fall under proper Rule 66(B) requests.
23 It is our contention, based on the authorities here, and based on, in
24 fact common sense, that we have no obligation to disclose until such time
25 as the witness has gone into the witness box and we give our list of
1 exhibits which we wish to use for cross-examination.
2 So, Your Honours, those are our submissions on this matter that
3 was raised by Mr. Zecevic yesterday.
4 MR. KRGOVIC: Okay. I need some clarification. What about the
5 document in your tab 34, what is your position in relation to this
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I wasn't aware that was one that was
8 under -- one that hadn't been disclosed. It's not one -- wasn't on the
9 list. Oh, was it? Oh, right.
10 Right. Your Honour, and I'm so sorry, you're quite right. This
11 one should have been disclosed not under, I suppose, any Rule 66(B) --
12 well, no, actually I think it probably -- because I'm pretty certain we
13 would had a 66(B) from Mr. Zupljanin's counsel. I'm sorry, this just
14 fell through the net. I don't know why we didn't disclose it because
15 it's is clear it is addressed to Stojan Zupljanin and it should have been
16 disclosed under all circumstances. I don't know how it fell through.
17 So I accept entirely that's right.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: So if I understand correctly your submission, you
19 use this document relating to the credibility of Mr. Bjelosevic. That's
20 the issue.
21 MS. KORNER: Sorry?
22 MR. KRGOVIC: Particularly this document you will use because I'm
23 interested only in that document.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, this is a document that we intend to
25 ask Mr. Bjelosevic about because his name appears at the top. It's not
1 authored by him or anything like that. But it's -- it goes to his
2 relationship with Mr. Zupljanin.
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: I will be very short, Your Honours, I'm trying to
5 save the time.
6 The authorities that we cited were related to the -- to the
7 question of whether the EDS is -- is equal to the -- the disclosure
8 obligation by the Office of the Prosecutor, because we anticipated that
9 that is going to be the argument that the -- that the Office of the
10 Prosecutor will use. That is -- that was the only purpose for the
11 authorities that we cited.
12 Your Honours, let me be very clear. Rule 68 bis is the only
13 rule in the Rules of Procedure, and it covers all disclosure obligations.
14 It doesn't cover only 68. It covers 66 as well. So that's the only Rule
15 that covers the disclosure obligations. Failure to comply with the
16 disclosure obligation. And it goes for all Rules that provide for the
17 disclosure obligation.
18 Your Honours, we, in our -- in my submission, I listed all the
19 documents that were not disclosed to us by the Office of the Prosecutor,
20 and we say they should have been disclosed to us on the -- on the basis
21 of Rule 66(B). Now, some of them are on our list, that's true. And --
22 but it doesn't change the fact that these documents were in possession
23 and they should have been disclosed to us by the Office of the
24 Prosecutor. We received them during our preparation of the Defence case
25 from the witness.
1 And the last point, Your Honours, in our opinion, we say,
2 Rule 66(B) overrides disclosure by the Office of the Prosecution when
3 examination-in-chief begins.
4 That is our position. So the Rule 66(B) must be applied and
5 the Office of the Prosecutor is expected and it must disclose to us,
6 based on Rule 66(B), documents which Ms. Korner correctly cited were, for
7 some reason, lost or, I don't know, in a black hole or whatever the
8 wording was used. However, I understand that this might happen, but,
9 still, it doesn't change the fact that it is -- it is highly prejudicial
10 to the Defence.
11 Thank you very much.
12 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Well, obviously -- sorry.
13 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... on that matter I have
14 and I've dealt with. I say there is no prejudice, quite obviously,
15 because they have got these documents, and that's something I want to
16 come back to.
17 Your Honours may recall that at the end of Monday's hearing,
18 after Mr. Zecevic had finished opening the case, Judge Harhoff asked for
19 statements made by Defence witnesses, and Mr. Zecevic told the Court, and
20 this is at page 19404, that the 92 ter witnesses they were relying --
21 proposed 92 ter they were relying on [indiscernible] interviews that we
22 had done with those witnesses, one of the witnesses gave an additional
23 statement, he said, top of page 19405, part of the package also
24 disclosed -- already disclosed to Your Honours. All other witnesses,
25 none of them gave any statements although they were on -- the majority of
1 them were on the list of the Office of the Prosecutor.
2 Well, that is not actually quite right, but I'm not concerned
3 with that.
4 Mr. Hannis, who was in court, said this:
5 "I have a concern and a question, I guess. The interviews that
6 were given to the Prosecution that did not result in any statements being
7 created were generally tape-recorded conversations, and you have seen or
8 heard some of those transcripts of those. I guess I'm wondering out loud
9 is the Defence saying that they took no statements from any of their
10 witnesses. There are no witness statements other than, I think, the one
11 that has been disclosed. If they have investigator notes or
12 tape-recorded interviews of their witnesses and they're willing to
13 disclose those to the Trial Chamber, then that would affect our position
14 as to what we want to do.
15 "Mr. Zecevic: We don't have any notes, nor recorded interviews.
16 We relied on their interviews given to the Office of the Prosecutor and
17 based on that we spoke to the witnesses."
18 Your Honours, I may say, I express some reservations about that
19 in the light of the tonnes of evidence that has been given over the last
20 two days by Mr. Bjelosevic which isn't remotely dealt with in any of the
21 interviews that were conducted with him.
22 But, Your Honours, my point, I'm afraid, is a slightly different
23 one. Your Honours may recall that Mr. Zecevic yesterday raised that we
24 knew that Mr. Bjelosevic was a Defence witness, and we agreed that a
25 number of the witnesses had told us that they were going to be Defence
1 witnesses. I then went -- and I said I would check, because I wasn't
2 entirely sure what Mr. Bjelosevic had told us, so I went back last night
3 and checked in the 2009 interview. I believe it's in e-court, isn't it?
4 I wonder if we could have it put up.
5 All right. It may not matter, Your Honours. I can read it. At
6 the end of the interview, and it starts at -- it's a separate --
7 unfortunately, the pagination here -- because each tape seems to have
8 been typed separately, but it's the last tape. It's page 2 of 5 in
9 T001-1858. All right, I'll read -- Your Honours, I'm sorry, it's not
10 that easy to find.
11 The investigator was confirming that -- with Mr. Bjelosevic that
12 when he had been spoken to on the phone, he had said that he was likely
13 to be the witness of Mr. Stanisic, yes. That you asked us to speak to
14 his lawyer Mr. Zecevic, yes. And in the subsequent telephone
15 conversation, I told you that I informed my STA, Joanna Korner, and she
16 had done so accordingly. And I told you that the reply that we got from
17 Mr. Zecevic was that the decision is purely yours if you want to talk to
19 It is now in Sanction, Your Honours. It's coming up on the
21 Question by the investigator at the top of the next page, please.
22 "I want to ask you whether you've made a statement to the
23 investigators for Mr. Stanisic, the Defence investigators?
24 "Yes, I have, to Slobodan. First name Slobodan. I forgot his
25 last name. A lawyer from Bijeljina, anyway, from the team. I think that
1 was about two years ago. We had short interviews and he made some notes
2 relating to this interview.
3 "We just need to confirm for the purposes of the tape that you,
4 in fact, made a statement to them. We're not asking what you said to
6 "This was -- this was the initial statement. We didn't have much
7 contact later on, but Zecevic, lawyer Zecevic, confirmed to me they are
8 counting on my" and that was inaudible. "And so from your point of view,
9 you are still prepared to testify on behalf of Mr. Stanisic about the
10 facts that I know."
11 Your Honour, it is absolutely clear that there are notes of the
12 conversations with Mr. Bjelosevic. I now make a formal request, which we
13 haven't done so far, under 66(B), that all notes of conversations and all
14 documents handed over by Mr. Bjelosevic to the Defence are provided --
15 copies are provided to us.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, for the record, again, there are no
17 statements. There are no notes. We don't have investigators. We never
18 took any statements from the witnesses except the ones disclosed.
19 However, Ms. Korner knows that this case has been going on, the
20 preparation in the pre-trial in this case, Mr. Stanisic's Defence case,
21 the overall Stanisic case started in 2005, when I was only appointed in
22 late 2008.
23 So everything what happened before, Ms. Korner is well aware,
24 very well aware, as well as the Trial Chamber, I believe, at least the
25 Pre-Trial Judge, about the problems that I experienced asking for the
1 documentation from the previous lead counsel Mr. Bezbradica. Where in
2 fact I haven't received any. And the actual disclosure of the OTP has
3 never been provided, and after I took over the case, I asked that the
4 disclosure be repeated from the day one to me.
5 Now concerning this situation that Ms. Korner has brought up, I
6 guesses Mr. Cvijetic can explain this situation or maybe provide some
7 information about it, because I can't. Thank you.
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
9 Back at the time when lead counsel in this case was
10 Mr. Bezbradica, we toured the field, as it were, where we were making a
11 preliminary screening of potential Defence witnesses among individuals
12 who had not been placed on the Prosecution list. These were just
13 interviews in the sense that we wanted to hear from these individuals
14 whether they had already decided that they would be Prosecution witnesses
15 or whether they could be, in fact, Defence witnesses. In that process,
16 we did not take any substantial information from them, especially not
17 reports. We merely wanted to hear if they wanted to be Defence witnesses
18 and gave them an outline of the possible issues that we might elicit
19 evidence from them on that point.
20 At that point we didn't know whether they would be Defence
21 witnesses. We could not make that decision before we received the
22 Prosecution 65 ter list. So that is where it for the most part ended, at
23 the preliminary conversation, exchange of contact details and -- until
24 such time as we would possibly contact them later.
25 MS. KORNER: I hear the Defence response. They have no notes.
1 Mr. Cvijetic's notes don't exist, I take it, and no statement of any sort
2 from this man, and they're calling him absolutely blind. Well, that's
3 their position.
4 But the second matter that I raise is that I would like now
5 copies of all the documents that Mr. Bjelosevic turned over to them.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Just a second and let me consult.
7 [Defence counsel confer]
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, the Rule 66(B) does not apply to --
9 to the Defence. It applies only to the Office of the Prosecutor.
10 However, I can assure Ms. Korner that, as far as I know, all documents
11 that have been disclosed to -- to us by Mr. Bjelosevic which have any
12 relevance are on our 65 ter list.
13 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... I made a mistake on
14 the rule. Of course it's -- it's Rule 67. They apply under Rule 66. We
15 apply under Rule 67.
16 So I make the application under Rule 67.
17 I'm not asking for documents whether they're relevant or not.
18 I'm asking what the Defence consider to be relevant, which appears to be
19 a far wider field than we would seem to be relevant because, as we've
20 seen for the last two days, we've been covering huge areas unrelated to
21 this indictment.
22 I'm asking under Rule 67(A)(i), although I see I'm out of time.
23 So I should have done this before, in fact. Your Honours, it shows one
24 should always check the rules. Within the time limit prescribed by the
25 Trial Chamber at a time -- no, I'm sorry. Yes, at a time not prior to
1 ruling under Rule 90 but not less than one week prior to the commencement
2 of the Defence case.
3 But it seems I'm out of time, Your Honour, so I will have to
4 approach it from a different angle.
5 Your Honours, finally, can I return to the matter that arose
6 yesterday and that Your Honours dealt with this morning.
7 Your Honours, the first matter is this: None of what has been
8 said by this man for the last two days, nearly five hours, not none,
9 that's exaggeration, but as I put it yesterday, something like 10 to
10 15 per cent actually deals with the matters that are covered by this
11 indictment, and what is more, nothing of this appears in the
12 65 ter summary. There is no indication that this witness was going to
13 deal with the events in Brod, Slavonski or Bosanski, no indication that
14 he was going to deal with the events in Derventa and so on and so forth.
15 Your Honours, we would ask that for future witnesses we get
16 proper 65 ter summaries so that we can object in advance. What's been
17 happening here is, of course, we have had no notice of this, and though
18 I've been making the objections throughout, it is much more difficult.
19 And we accept that Mr. Zecevic is entitled to adduce through the
20 witness the reasons which, as he put, why the split in the MUP took
21 place, which is unrelated to any suggestion that there was -- this was
22 part of the joint criminal enterprise to carve out the Serb state. The
23 split in the MUP. That, of course, of course, he is entitled to lead
24 such evidence as is relevant to that. But there must come a point where
25 we stray into completely irrelevant evidence. And yesterday's long
1 answer at the very end, unstopped, which wasn't an answer to
2 Mr. Zecevic's question at all, Mr. Zecevic let this go on, which had
3 absolutely nothing to do with the question that was asked and was the
4 Serb view of the events that he was describing.
5 So, Your Honour, we say there has to come a limit and it's for
6 Your Honours, not really us, to say, This does not come within the terms
7 of relevant matters to the indictment, nor indeed is it covered by the
8 65 summary. It is unfortunate that Prosecution counsel has to keep
9 leaping to their feet the whole time and saying, This is not relevant.
10 Your Honours, as regards what's gone on so far, we will have to
11 cross-examine on some of the matters that he has raised because, as we
12 say, our case is that it is a very partial, one-sided view of the events
13 that he described and he has omitted a number of events that Your Honours
14 may feel are relevant. Although we should say we accept entirely that
15 that part of Bosnia and Croatia, there was continual conflict going on
16 from very early stages all the way through 1992, but not in the way or
17 not in the limited way that this witness has described. And I'm afraid
18 that that extends the time that we will require for cross-examination.
19 We based our estimates for cross-examination on the fact that the -- what
20 was going to be led from the witness was specifically relevant to the
21 matters on the indictment and specifically relevant to -- or covered by
22 the 65 ter summary.
23 And so, Your Honours, that is the actual situation we're in at
24 the moment. As I say, we don't intend to spend anything like the time
25 that Mr. Zecevic has spent with this witness on events outside the
1 parameter of the indictment, but we will have to deal with some of it.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: I will briefly respond again.
3 I don't think that making submissions at this point is
4 appropriate. But, however, I will give my explanation.
5 Your Honours, yesterday, page 19560, 24, my question was:
6 "Could you explain to us what the situation was like in the
7 territory of the Doboj CSB, what stations were you in contact with, the
8 SJB stations in relation to which station the hierarchy functioned and
9 the standard procedures of MUP? Could you please describe that to us."
10 On page 19561, after I stopped the witness to give an
11 explanation, he says, on line 23:
12 "By your leave, Your Honours, I would like to elaborate on this
13 event and on the actions of the members of MUP in Bosnia-Herzegovina in
14 response to that ..."
15 And then he goes into the territory which I agree is not relevant
16 to specifics of the case. However, Your Honours, I have been cautioned
17 at least six or seven times during the Prosecutor's case even by
18 Your Honours when stopping the witness. That is why I was reluctant to
19 stop him and that is why I didn't stop him. And, as a matter of fact, he
20 was actually asking for permission by Your Honours to elaborate on that.
21 Now, I -- I definitely and totally disagree with Ms. Korner just
22 said. All this is very relevant. If Ms. Korner stands on the position
23 that the CSB Doboj is not part of their allegations and the part of the
24 indictment, then she should say so. Because it is my understanding that
25 we have the MUP of RS and we have the CSBs on the next level. According
1 to my reading of the indictment, some or all chiefs of the CSBs are
2 alleged members of the joint criminal enterprise.
3 Now, what I wanted to show is the relationship between the
4 CSB Doboj and the MUP of Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in
5 parallel to their relation to MUP of RS, Republika Srpska. It is not
6 my -- there is nothing I can do that, at that point, the issue that they
7 were discussing between the MUP of Socialist Republic of Bosnia and
8 Herzegovina and the CSB Doboj was the situation in -- in Bosanski Brod,
9 in Derventa. This is the fact of the matter and the -- and the situation
10 that happened over there. Therefore, in order to properly understand,
11 this evidence must have been -- must have been heard in Court.
12 That is all I need. I'm not going to use any more of your time.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE HALL: Well, in terms of the last two issues which have
15 been canvassed by counsel, I don't think it's necessary for the Chamber
16 to say anything further at this point.
17 In terms of the first matter, and that harks back to the motion,
18 I suppose it is, without notice that would have been made by Mr. Zecevic
19 at the beginning of yesterday's hearing, it is obvious -- well, it should
20 be obvious to counsel that the issues are such that the Chamber is not in
21 a position to rule extemporaneously and would have to consider carefully
22 the submissions made by counsel and the authorities cited in support.
23 I notice that it is 10.05, which is about 20 minutes short of
24 when we would ordinarily rise. I'm wondering if, whether -- and I'm
25 thinking out loud. I'm wondering whether we should stagger the sitting
1 today, and in that context, I should alert counsel that I'm going to have
2 to -- we're going to have take the adjournment at 1.25 because I have a
3 meeting with one of the other Judges, and the only convenient time for
4 him is 1.30, which is before the ordinary time for rising today. So I'm
5 wondering whether it would be -- the practical course would be to take
6 the first break now and then have the witness in and adjust the remaining
7 sittings accordingly.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: We -- we do not oppose it.
9 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour, we don't either.
10 JUDGE HALL: So we would resume in 20 minutes.
11 Thank you.
12 --- Recess taken at 10.07 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 10.29 a.m.
14 JUDGE HALL: Would the Usher please escort the witness in.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 JUDGE HALL: You may be seated.
17 Good morning to you, Mr. Bjelosevic. As a matter of courtesy I
18 should explain that the reason why you would have been kept waiting for
19 an hour and a half is that, as is not unusual in trials, from time to
20 time there are procedural matters with which the Court must deal, and
21 virtually the whole of what would have been the first session this
22 morning was taken up with those matters.
23 So we are only now in a position to resume your evidence. And
24 before I invite Mr. Zecevic to begin, I would remind you you're still on
25 your oath.
1 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
3 WITNESS: ANDRIJA BJELOSEVIC [Resumed]
4 [Witness answered through interpreter]
5 Examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]
6 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Bjelosevic.
7 A. Good morning.
8 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, yesterday we adjourned at the end of a long day,
9 I imagine for you as well. The last question had to do with the
10 situation as it existed in the public security stations subordinated to
11 you. My question had to do with what was the situation like in these
12 SJBs in general at the end of -- at the end of April 1992 and in
13 individual SJBs.
14 A. I started explaining what the situation was like in SJBs, and I
15 started my account from the north, heading towards the south.
16 Can I ask Their Honours whether I should complete my explanation
17 as to what the situation was really like at the time, or should I leave
18 that story unfinished? Because if I speak briefly, I'm afraid that the
19 picture I will paint will not be a complete one.
20 Q. Well, I tried to focus you on the issues relevant to us. I do
21 understand your need to paint the whole picture for us, but we have to
22 stick to what is strictly relevant. So can you give us just a brief
23 outline of the situation in each of the SJBs, what was their situation,
24 what was your communication with them, were you in touch, and what course
25 did these matters take?
1 A. In mid-April, the northern area was deep in the war, first
2 Derventa, then Odzak, Modrica and Samac. So Brod, Odzak and Derventa was
3 placed under their control, and I mean the Croatian Muslim forces. There
4 was fighting going around. Modrica and Samac, again, I think it was in
5 mid-April, was placed under the control of the JNA. In all these areas,
6 from that point on, it was the Crisis Staff that took charge of things
7 and the centre no longer was in communication with any of the SJBs of the
8 towns I mentioned. There was no communication in terms of information
9 and in terms of traffic. In all those roads, barricades emerged.
10 The municipality of Doboj was also divided. The villages such as
11 Johovac, Kotorsko, Foca, and Komarica, that's the northern area facing
12 the Sava river, was under the control of -- were under the control of the
13 Croatian Muslim forces. The town proper, its urban core, was under the
14 control of the joint JNA and police forces; whereas, the area beyond the
15 town proper, namely, Carsija, Orasje and all the way up to Putnikovo
16 Brdo, Alibegovci and then Civska, omega, et cetera, were under the
17 control of the Muslim forces. Likewise, east of the Usora river, it's
18 the place called Karuse, and the villages in the direction of Maglaj were
19 also under their control.
20 East of the tunnel on the main road leading to Tuzla, the
21 villages of Stjepan Polje, Brijesnica, Klokotnica were under the control
22 of the Muslim forces. Barricades were erected on these roads as well and
23 the service was no longer able to function there. The village of Gradska
24 was also under the control of -- well, there was a reserve police station
25 there that had been mobilised and there were some other forces not
1 belonging to the police, so these forces basically erected barricades,
2 making it impossible to travel that way. Along all these roads, there
3 were instances of car hijacking, plunder, the president of the
4 Executive Board and president of the Municipal Assembly of Prnjavor were
5 kidnapped. A JNA officer by the name of Ozegovic was also pulled over as
6 he was travelling along the road and abducted.
7 The stations of Maglaj and Tesanj, further to the south, were
8 fully out of control of the CSB Doboj.
9 The SJB Teslic, pursuant to a decision taken by the Municipal
10 Assembly of Teslic, directed all of its work and the dispatches it sent
11 out to the CSB Banja Luka. Therefore, the CSB in Doboj was left without
12 its stations, and, as I told you, not even the entire Doboj area was
13 under the control of either the CSB or its SJB.
14 Q. What was the situation like in the SJBs Maglaj and Tesanj that
15 belonged to you as well?
16 A. I said a moment ago that they were fully out of control. They
17 were -- there was no communication with them. The SCB [as interpreted]
18 Doboj had no sort of control, no effective control under them -- over
20 Q. Tell us, at that point in time, in late April, what sort of
21 communication did the CSB have either the MUP of Republika Srpska or with
22 the MUP of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo?
23 A. Since there was a war on by that time, the communication was
24 intermittent and finally ground to a complete halt. There was no
25 communication whatsoever.
1 Q. I don't think the last part of the answer was recorded.
2 Did you say that there was no telephone or teleprinter
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, yesterday we talked about the MUP finances and
6 specifically of the Security Services Centres. You said that the
7 finances were left in the so-called joint MUP of the Socialist Republic
8 of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
9 Now, this situation, as it existed in April, as well as the
10 disruption of communications, how did it reflect on the payment of
11 salaries and all the other benefits due to the MUP members?
12 A. Well, salaries for the month of April were not paid out, nor were
13 any funds intended for overhead expenses and similar.
14 Q. When did it happen for the first time that you received finances
15 from the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska or, rather, from
16 the government of the Republika Srpska?
17 A. From what I recall, it was, at any rate, after the corridor was
18 set up and after the collegium met in Belgrade. In other words, in
19 July or was it early August? I'm not sure.
20 Q. I will show you document 291D1; that's tab 38. It's a document
21 which was written in July of 1992, as it seems, and it's a list of
22 employees who have salaries due for April 1992.
23 On page 2 of the document, there are signatures testifying to
24 payments being made, receipts. And on page 3, a supplement to the list.
25 Is there anything you can tell us about this document?
1 A. From what I can see, this is a list of SJB members in Doboj.
2 Where it says "Authorised official," I recognise the signature of
3 Obrad Petrovic. And as for the two other signatures, I can't tell who
4 they belong to.
5 Likewise, on page 3, I do recognise the left-hand signature as
6 that of Obrad Petrovic and the other two I don't recognise. And I can
7 see that it has to do with the month of April. Yes, the list was made in
8 July. It was probably a document based on which funds would be requested
9 for the payment of salaries, I suppose.
10 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, in the course of April, May, June, and July, to
11 the best of your knowledge, did members of the CSB or SJB receive any
12 sort of reimbursement, such as salaries?
13 A. In the course of May and June, none of it was paid out. And I'm
14 sure about it, because I would have received my salary and I didn't. And
15 I don't remember exactly what the situation was, whether it was in late
16 July or early August that the salaries were finally paid out.
17 Q. Please have a look at the next document, which is behind tab 39,
18 190D1. Another list of sorts. It's a list of staff members. And on
19 page 3, a list of staff members employed in the police club or hall, and
20 apparently it relates to April of 1992. The preamble on page 1 reads:
21 "CSB, the police centre or hall." It is a list of employs who, in the
22 course of the month April 1992, performed the duties at this police
23 station and received advance pay of salary for this month.
24 Can you comment on this?
25 A. Well, let me tell you first off that there was no police social
1 centre or hall in early April. Because what later came to serve as a
2 police hall or centre was initially an old people's home, and at this
3 point in time it was still an old people's home. What I suppose happened
4 was that those employees who used to work in the old people's home also
5 didn't have their salaries paid out, and this was a way of then paying
6 the -- them the income due; or, in the alternative, this was a way to
7 justify the disposal of some funds. There were stories circulating about
8 funds having been taken from the SDK and perhaps those funds were
9 syphoned off somewhere. But what I know for a fact is that there was no
10 police social centre in existence in April.
11 Q. Did I understand you correctly that you said that it is possible
12 that this document was drafted subsequently, in order to provide
13 justification for the money that was taken from the vaults of the social
14 auditing office, or seized in Doboj?
15 A. Yes, I said that that could be one possible option.
16 Q. According to what you know, when was this money taken out from
17 the social auditing office vault in Doboj?
18 A. I think that that took place in May.
19 Q. 1992?
20 A. Yes, May 1992.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there no objection, I would like
22 to tender this document into evidence.
23 JUDGE HALL: Unless I'm missing something, Mr. Zecevic, I'm not
24 sure -- what the witness says is that this doesn't -- his appreciation of
25 this document is that it doesn't say what it purports on its face to say.
1 Indeed, it's a cover for something else. So on what basis --
2 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm withdrawing. I understand Your Honour's
3 position. And I appreciate. Thank you.
4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bjelosevic, can you please look at -- but
5 first of all, tell me, up until which date -- or actually, when was it
6 that the conflict broke out in the town of Doboj?
7 A. That happened on the 2nd of May. I think on the night between --
8 or the period between the 1st and 3rd May.
9 Q. Were you in Doboj on that date?
10 A. Yes, I was.
11 Q. Can you just briefly describe the situation and what occurred.
12 A. I already said how the municipal territory was divided and what
13 had happened with the northern and southern parts of the region.
14 Q. Excuse me, maybe, since you explained the region to us, maybe it
15 would be beneficial for us to look at the map. That's tab 230, P1344.
16 So maybe if you look at the map, you can better explain the
17 situation to us and possibly make some markings, if necessary. With the
18 assistance of the Court Officer, you would be handed a pen to make these
20 A. Which tab did you say it was?
21 Q. Tab 230. In front of you, you can see the map on the screen.
22 Maybe it is more convenient for you.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If we can just zoom in it for the
24 benefit of the witness.
25 Q. Is it enough?
1 A. Yes. It is quite visible.
2 Q. Just tell us if you want to make any markings, and in that case
3 we shall ask the Usher to give you a pen.
4 A. I already said that the northern parts, up there, were under the
5 control of the Croatian Muslim forces, and that some 17 villages in that
6 area had already been ethnically cleansed. The Serbian population fled
7 mainly towards Doboj and also to Banja Luka.
8 So before this conflict in Doboj, the situation was being
9 monitored and there were discussions in political circles and also with
10 the JNA command, et cetera, and Cazim Hadzic, the garrison commander in
11 Doboj, decided to pre-empt an attack from this part here that I mentioned
12 earlier, coming from Carsija, Alibegovci, Susnjari, all the way to
13 Alibegovo Brdo, because there was information indicating that the same
14 scenario would be played out in Doboj as -- as in Derventa.
15 That is why the commander decided to engage the army forces and
16 to place the town under their control. That was carried out, if I
17 remember correctly, between the 2nd and the 3rd of May. I know that
18 there was an order issued to that effect.
19 Q. You said that the Doboj garrison commander was Cazim Hadzic?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Mr. Hadzic is a Muslim; is that right?
22 A. Yes, it's right.
23 Q. And he was the garrison commander of the JNA in Doboj, and,
24 according to what you just said, if I understood you correctly, and
25 correct me if I'm wrong, he was the one who ordered this operation to be
1 carried out, in order to prevent an attack on Doboj. Is that what you
3 A. Precisely so. That was the order that he issued, in order to
4 pre-empt an attack and the seizure of Doboj by paramilitary formations.
5 Q. Can you tell us just briefly how this operation evolved and what
6 happened and where the separation lines were.
7 A. On the night between the 2nd and the 3rd, the commander's order
8 was implemented. The forces entered the town - the JNA forces, I mean -
9 and they took key positions in the urban quarters of the town. By that I
10 mean certain intersections, institutions such as municipality building,
11 the court building, the police building, the SDK building, banks,
12 et cetera.
13 In the morning, a request was sent out to the formations that
14 were deployed above the town to surrender their weapons, and that would
15 then prevent any fighting from taking place.
16 Q. What -- whose formations are talking about?
17 A. I'm talking about the Muslims formations deployed above the town,
18 and I believe that they were given a deadline by 1800 hours. I'm not
19 quite sure, but I know it was definitely in the afternoon.
20 I remember that before the deadline expired that the army had
21 given them, an armed conflict broke out in which these paramilitary
22 formations did not want to discuss any surrender of the weapons, but,
23 rather, chose to advance towards the town, which resulted an armed
24 conflict. According to what I know, that happened some time during the
25 afternoon, because, at the time, I was in the police building.
1 I think that it was quite late into the night when the fighting
2 stopped and everything became calm, but the operations were -- continued
3 the following day towards Putnikovo Brdo.
4 As for the villages to the east of Doboj that I mentioned, such
5 as Stjepan Polje, Brijesnica, Mala Klokotnica, and so on, remained under
6 the control of Muslim forces and it was later declared Doboj istok or
7 Doboj east municipality.
8 Q. If it is not problem for you, can we use the map in order to get
9 a clear picture about the locations that you have been mentioning.
10 Can you please mark where Doboj istok is, and if there are any
11 other municipalities as well.
12 A. I'm sorry, I made a mistake. I didn't realise it worked so fast.
13 So here, to the right, this is Svjetlica Klokotnica and the
14 border is up there. Stanic Rijeka, Brijesnica. Suho Polje was not
15 included, so it would be approximately like this. Later on that became
16 Doboj istok municipality. I'm not sure but I believe that included
17 Lukavica as well.
18 Q. Could you please make a circle around what you think was Doboj
20 A. That's it. Roughly speaking.
21 Q. Can you mark it with the number 1. Put a number 1 in the middle
22 of the circle.
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. So you marked with the number 1 Doboj istok municipality; is that
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. At that time was any other municipality formed; and, if so, can
3 you show it to us on the map?
4 A. Yes. That was Doboj jug, or Doboj south. I can't see very
5 clearly and I'm having difficulties finding my bearings, but I think that
6 it was here underneath -- it would have made it much easier for me if the
7 river was there, but I see Matuzici, Karuse, et cetera, but that would be
8 it. More or less due west of the river Bosna, like this. And then Usora
9 municipality, which is west of Martinovac, Ularice, and I suppose you
10 would ask me to mark this as well. Which number shall I put?
11 Q. Put the number 2 and tell us what it indicates.
12 A. Number 2 indicates the municipality Doboj jug, and to the left is
13 Usora municipality, comprising Martinovac, Ularice and this part here.
14 Q. Can you please encircle it and put number 3.
15 A. It's south of Prisade, so that would be Usora municipality. It
16 is it not very accurate because this is a small scale and there are no
17 topographic features, but that would be more or less the situation.
18 Q. If I understood you correctly, this means that the territory of
19 Doboj municipality was divided, in fact, into four separate
20 municipalities, i.e., number 1, Doboj jug; number 2 -- sorry number 1,
21 Doboj istok; number 2, Doboj jug; and number 3, Usora municipality?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. And as for the rest, we might say was the remaining part of the
24 original Doboj municipality; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to have this
2 photograph [as interpreted] tendered into evidence.
3 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D462, Your Honours.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Have you managed to save the
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These municipalities still exist
8 and function within the Federation. That's just what I would like to
10 MR. ZECEVIC:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Unfortunately, Mr. Bjelosevic, you will have to
12 put your markings again. It sometimes happens with this electronic
13 equipment that we lose data.
14 So, please mark with the circle and with the number 1 Doboj
15 istok. You should better wait for the assistance ...
16 A. If we can enlarge it a bit as before, that would be good.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Witness was asking if it can be enlarged a bit. I
18 thought it was translated.
19 Q. [Interpretation] Is this okay?
20 A. More or less, yes. I can do it now.
21 I have trespassed into another municipality. You said number 1;
22 is that right?
23 I think that would be it.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Have we managed to keep it this
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 JUDGE HALL: Apparently the technological god is not with us, so
3 the suggestion is that he use the paper copy.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. Well, maybe I can return to that some other
5 day, tomorrow or ...
6 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Yes. The -- while we have
7 this brief interruption, I indicate that the staggered times I have
8 worked out for today is that we would take the break at 11.50, resume at
9 12.10, and then rise for the day at 1.25, so counsel and the support
10 staff should govern themselves accordingly.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand. Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, the municipalities that you marked and that
13 we are going to mark yet again tomorrow, they're marked with numbers 1, 2
14 and 3. Doboj istok, jug and Usora. These are municipalities that came
15 into being -- or actually, did they come into being then, around that
16 point in time, the 3rd of May, 1992?
17 A. Yes, since then that is how it has been functioning. Everyone in
18 his own area. They exist to this day under those names.
19 Q. In these municipalities, what is the majority population?
20 A. Doboj istok, Doboj jug, Bosnian population. And the municipality
21 of Usora has a predominant Croat population.
22 Q. Is that the way these municipalities remained in accordance with
23 the Dayton Agreement?
24 A. Yes. And they're within the Federation on that basis.
25 Q. Very well. Sir, after these conflicts on the 2nd and 3rd of May,
1 if I understood you well, what happened after that with the CSB Doboj?
2 A. Already on the 3rd of May, when I came to the centre in the
3 morning, I tried to convene a meeting of the top personnel that made up
4 the collegium of the CSB. The communications were down. They were sort
5 of on and off, but, at any rate, I didn't manage to convene the meeting.
6 Then, during the course of the day, at a meeting in the Crisis
7 Staff, we were asked to come to a meeting in the Crisis Staff, and the
8 chief of the station was there as well, it was agreed that, since the
9 centre no more had its territory, as you could see all of Doboj was not
10 under the control of the CSB Doboj, and also due to the lack of
11 personnel, as such, for it to be possible for departments to function,
12 namely, the milicija, then the crime police and the administrative
13 department and so on, it was decided that the public security station
14 should function until further notice with its own elements, and that the
15 personnel that remained and who were ethnic Serbs within the centre
16 itself should be re-directed to the station so that the station could
17 function in the best possible way. And that is, indeed, what was done.
18 Therefore, since then, not a single department in the CSB hasn't
19 functioned, except for the communications department. The centre for
20 communications is a single one and it is used for the CSB and for the
22 Q. A few questions. This collegium that you refer to, if I
23 understood you correctly, you wanted to convene it on the 3rd of May, the
24 collegium of the CSB. The members of that collegium, that is to say, the
25 top personnel in the different departments within the CSB, were of which
1 ethnic affiliations?
2 A. The head of the Milicija department was Blagojevic, but the head
3 of the sector for public security was Hasan Klokic. The head of the
4 crime police was Pejo Krnic; he is a Croat. And I didn't say what the
5 ethnic background of the other two was. Klokic is a Muslim, Blagojevic
6 is a Serb. Pejo Krnic is a Croat. The head of the administrative and
7 legal office was Mato Krizic, a Croat. The head of the fire department
8 was Turolic. I cannot remember his first name but he was an ethnic
9 Muslim. The head of the financial department was Dizdarevic. Right now,
10 I don't seem to be able to remember his first name either. Yes, it is
11 Mustafa, Mustafa Dizdarevic. He's a Muslim. And the head of the
12 communications department was Jovan Spasic. He was a Serb.
13 Ethnic Serbs responded to the invitation to attend this meeting.
14 As to the others, none of them responded. None of them came. And what
15 happened is what I referred to already, in terms of where different
16 personnel went.
17 Q. Thank you. This decision that, in fact, the CSB, in fact,
18 de facto, would stop operating and the public security station of Doboj
19 would take over their powers and duties was actually a decision taken by
20 which organ?
21 A. I would just like to explain this. It's not that they would take
22 over the powers of the centre because the centre simply ceased to
23 operate. The CSB Doboj simply ceased to operate. Because it had no
24 territory. It would have been pointless for the centre to exist because
25 it didn't have any stations under its control. And also, they did not
1 have the personnel that was needed. So at that meeting of the
2 Crisis Staff that was the decision that was taken.
3 Q. When this decision was made by the Crisis Staff, what happened
4 with you then, as the chief of the centre that ceased to operate?
5 A. We discussed the centre, as such, at that point in time, and I
6 explained to them, and I actually made a suggestion to them and they went
7 along with it, that, formally, we should not go into changing what was
8 regulated by law, to say that that there would be no centre any longer.
9 Rather, it was agreed that the service should function within the
10 station. The centre would cease to operate until further notice, and I
11 was directed towards the military because Operation Corridor was being
12 prepared then.
13 I would like to remind that you the area of the Krajina and this
14 part, that is to say, part of the Doboj municipality, part of the
15 Derventa municipality, that it was totally encircled. There was no way
16 out of that territory at that point in time. That is when I became
17 involved in that particular work. We prepared intelligence and other
18 information. I was at the command post, at the forward command post of
19 the 1st Krajina Corps on a more or less general basis. General Talic was
20 there and his other assistants.
21 Q. Tell me, since you are a member of the Ministry of the Interior,
22 and you say that you were at the command post and you became involved in
23 that, in what capacity did you become involved in this work with the
25 A. In order to make things clearer, allow me to give a more detailed
1 explanation, if possible.
2 In Yugoslavia, the concept system and doctrine were elaborated on
3 the basis of the system of Total People's Defence and the system grew out
4 of that. The Yugoslav People's Army, the JNA, was the operative army
5 that had its peacetime corps and its wartime units that were manned if
6 there was an immediate threat of war. There were also certain structures
7 that were area related. Those were the Territorial Defence units, the
8 self-protection units, and the wartime police stations were among these
9 structures too.
10 In accordance with the Law on National Defence, the federal
11 republican laws and the Law on the Armed Forces of the SFRY, the
12 commander, a commander of a regiment, or a brigade, or bigger units than
13 that, have the right to place under his command all area-related units
14 within his area of responsibility and to command them. It is on that
15 basis that I was involved in this planning and preparation of
16 Operation Corridor.
17 Q. If I understood you correctly, at that point in time, in
18 accordance with these regulations that you quoted a moment ago, you were
19 resubordinated to the army, weren't you?
20 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry.
21 One's hair always stands on end when you heard the words "if I understood
22 you correctly," because it's -- counsel is just going to put what his own
23 theory is. The word "resubordination" has not been mentioned. This is a
24 matter at issue. There is to be no leading at all.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, my mistake. I withdraw the question.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bjelosevic, on the basis of what you said,
2 when you say that, "On that basis I became involved," et cetera, which
3 basis were you referring to?
4 A. I mentioned the regulations on the basis of which commanders were
5 authorised to place all forces in the area of their responsibility under
6 their command.
7 On that basis, I became involved in preparing Operation Corridor,
8 on the basis of the authorities stipulated by law, and also on the basis
9 of a request from the command.
10 Q. Let us clarify this. Under whose command were you?
11 A. At first, during the preparations, under the command of the
12 1st Krajina Corps. Later on, I was appointed commander, and I became a
13 part of Tactical Group 3. At the time, it was commanded by
14 Colonel Lisica. He was a colonel then and later became a general.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, just one moment.
16 Mr. Bjelosevic, was this an order that concerned you
17 individually? Were you placed under the command of the military as an
18 individual, or was that order in regard to a corps or an institution?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the very beginning, it pertained
20 to me personally so that I would become involved in the corps command.
21 As for the complete forces of the milicija, immediately,
22 practically from the 2nd or 3rd of May onwards, they were under the
23 command of Operative Group Doboj. The Doboj Operative Group.
24 I personally was engaged later within Tactical Group 3 that was
25 commanded by Colonel Lisica. Of course, I was involved with a certain
1 number of forces, of course.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: So I understand you well, the regulations on the
3 basis of which commanders were authorised to place all forces in the area
4 under their responsibility -- of their responsibility under their
5 command, such an order could apply to an individual? That was within
6 their competence.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 MR. ZECEVIC:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bjelosevic, the fact that you were placed
12 under the command of the army, how long did it last?
13 A. Up until the 30th of June, in the evening.
14 Q. Was it after that date and in the course of 1992, or even at a
15 subsequent date, that you would again receive orders from the army
16 command by which you were engaged in the army?
17 A. I was called yet again to be engaged in the army as commander,
18 pursuant to an order from the commander of the Operational Group Doboj,
19 Mr. Lisica, because, once the initial task was accomplished,
20 Tactical Group 3 was dissolved, and he was given the command over the
21 Operational Group Doboj. Based on his order, it was sometime in
22 November that I was appointed commander of a battalion and deployed to
23 the Teslic front line, where I spent a certain period of time with the
24 forces that were placed under my command.
25 Q. The forces that were placed under your command, were they members
1 of the police or the army?
2 A. It was a mixed composition. If I remember correctly, there were
3 two, three, or four police structures. There was a military police
4 company. And scouts, I believe. I also received forces that were to
5 serve as my support, and I mean artillery support, et cetera.
6 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic --
7 A. Excuse me.
8 Q. Go ahead.
9 A. There was also the 5th Special Detachment of the special police
10 forces. Yes. Those were the forces under my command.
11 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, all these members of the police, including
12 yourself, during the time you spent in the army, in what capacity were
13 you there?
14 A. For the duration of our engagement in the army, we formed a
15 unified entity. We were fully subject to the regulations and the command
16 of the army. Because what was at stake was the conduct of combat
17 missions, and this was regulated under the Law on National Defence and
18 the Law on Armed Forces.
19 Q. Thank you. Mr. Bjelosevic, I'll show you a document, 1D259,
20 which is behind tab 50.
21 This is a Crisis Staff decision, 1D5 -- 259, tab 50.
22 A. I've found it.
23 Q. It's a Crisis Staff decision dated the 15th of June, even though
24 there is a reference in the text to a meeting held on the 15th of May.
25 At the bottom, we see president of the Crisis Staff, a signature,
1 and a stamp. Can you tell us, are you familiar with this decision? Did
2 you attend the meeting? And what can you tell us about it?
3 A. I know this decision. I was given a copy of it with the exact
4 same contents. I wasn't there when it was made, but it does reflect the
5 situation as it existed in early May, when the Crisis Staff charged the
6 chief of the public security station to, within five days, see to it that
7 all the decisions and conclusions by the Crisis Staff were implemented.
8 Item 2 was related to me personally as the chief of centre.
9 Under that item, I was asked to provide explanations for certain
10 appointments, or, rather, ministry decisions that were received. Let me
11 remind you that deputies attended a meeting of the Republika Srpska
12 Assembly, or, rather, at the time it was the Serbian Republic of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina. They flew there by helicopter because the meeting
14 took place at Pale. They brought along a number of documents, enactments
15 issued by Minister Stanisic and gave them to me. This was roughly around
16 the 15th of May, if I recall correctly. They gave me the documentation
17 and asked that I provide explanations. It was a very difficult thing for
18 me to do because we had had no communication whatsoever with the ministry
19 of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
20 In item 3, you can see that the station chief is charged with
21 making lists of the senior staff and inspectors and sending them to the
22 Crisis Staff, as the Crisis Staff was supposed to approve these lists.
23 So we can already see that there's a hierarchy in place.
24 And item 4 says that the Doboj municipality Crisis Staff orders
25 all the groups and individuals present in the area of Doboj municipality,
1 even there you can see that the municipality is not complete, who are
2 charged with maintaining law and order to place themselves under the
3 command of the chief of the SJB who is the only person authorised to
4 organise and manage security-related issues in the municipality.
5 Q. Can we just clarify one thing. The head of the public security
6 station was not you. Who was it?
7 A. No. The head of the -- or the chief of the SJB Doboj was
8 Obren Petrovic. Further, as part of this particular item, you can see
9 that the chief was duty-bound to inform the Crisis Staff about the latest
10 developments and the situation in Doboj, so the Crisis Staff made it
11 incumbent on him to report back to them.
12 And then the Crisis Staff expressed its support of the police,
13 et cetera.
14 Further down, the station chief is ordered to provide for an
15 organised delivery of supplies to the police, et cetera.
16 Q. As you say, item 2 had to do with you. I seem to recall you
17 saying that.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did you act upon item 2?
20 A. As I said, the deputies came back from the minister with a set of
21 documents and they wanted explanations for them. So I did. I provide
22 them explanations for these documents.
23 Q. Can you look at 699D1, tab 52, please?
24 MS. KORNER: Sorry, if we're leaving that document, I know it's
25 already an exhibit, can I just ask, is this a document provided by this
1 witness to the Defence?
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Which document are you --
3 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] The Crisis Staff minutes
4 that we have just been looking at.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: The decision by the Crisis Staff. It's the Exhibit
7 MS. KORNER: I understand that. I just said that. I said I know
8 it is already an exhibit. I'm merely querying, because it wasn't made
9 clear at the time it was made an exhibit, whether this is a document
10 provided [Overlapping speakers] ...
11 MR. ZECEVIC: I will inform you after the break, Ms. Korner.
12 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
13 MR. ZECEVIC:
14 Q. [Interpretation] So 699D1, tab 52. This is a --
15 A. Conclusion.
16 Q. -- conclusion, dated 22nd of June. The Serbian municipality of
17 Doboj. It bears a signature, president of the Crisis Staff. Are you
18 familiar with the document at all?
19 A. Yes. I was asked to explain the regulations which applied to the
20 ministry. Since I was engaged in the army, on a couple of occasions I
21 was asked that, in keeping Minister Stanisic's instructions that CSB
22 chiefs can at their own discretion assign their various members to
23 different duties, I was asked that I should appoint myself a deputy --
24 appoint a deputy to my role. Milan Savic was nominated for the job, and
25 he did not satisfy the requirements as provided, not for a deputy,
1 because that did not exist, but for an assistant.
2 I said that it wasn't a good solution because the candidate did
3 not satisfy the requirements. They insisted on their choice. And that's
4 why we have such a large interval, a long interval between the request
5 that was put for me to explain these matters and the final conclusion
6 adopting my explanations.
7 After my resistance to the candidacy of Savic and explanations
8 that this wasn't in accordance with the regulations, I was told that I
9 should appoint him, that they would see to it and that once the contact
10 with the ministry is re-established, they would be the ones to justify
11 his appointment. Therefore, we agreed to do so, and I think it was on
12 the 22nd or the 23rd of June that I appointed Milan Savic was assistant
13 CSB Doboj, and I continued performing my duties within the army.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can this document be admitted into
16 evidence, please: Conclusions of the Crisis Staff.
17 MS. KORNER: Sorry. Same question. I assume it comes from
18 Mr. Bjelosevic as his name is on the top.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Just one second. We're checking.
20 I can ask the witness.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bjelosevic, did you provide us with this
23 A. I don't know if I gave it to you or to the investigators. But
24 this was my copy, and it was addressed to me.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, it's a document we received
1 from the witness. I was just told by my colleague.
2 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D463, Your Honours.
4 MR. ZECEVIC:
5 Q. [Interpretation] One other short document which is 192D1, tab 53.
6 Let's deal with it before the break. 192D1, tab 53.
7 A. Yes. It's a decision where I temporarily assigned Milan Savic to
8 the post of assistant chief of the Security Services Centre in Doboj. We
9 see the date, and the signature is mine.
10 Q. In other words, it's a decision you issued.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And this was a follow-up to what you were asked to do by the
13 Crisis Staff.
14 A. Yes. This was done at the request of the Crisis Staff. Later
15 on, the commander of the defence the town, Stankovic, asked me to do the
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
18 document into evidence.
19 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D464, Your Honours.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours --
22 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... I'm asking the same
23 question. I was just going to remark it would really be much simpler,
24 rather than me wasting time, getting up and asking each time, "Is this a
25 document Bjelosevic gave," is if the Defence -- they don't have to, but
1 it might save time, gave us a list of all the documents on their list
2 which were supplied by this witness. Because, otherwise, I'm going to
3 get up each time and ask the same question.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: We shall definitely provide that because we don't
5 need these interruptions, pauses.
6 I see the time, Your Honours. Can we take the break now?
7 [The witness stands down]
8 JUDGE HALL: Yes. We would resume in 20 minutes.
9 --- Recess taken at 11.50 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.11 p.m.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Just for the record, if -- Your Honours, we have
12 advised the Office of the Prosecutor and the Trial Chamber, and -- the
13 provenance of the documents. Let me just remind the Trial Chamber, that
14 the document 1D259 was admitted through testimony of Prosecutor's
15 Witness ST-162.
16 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE HALL: You may be seated, sir.
19 Yes, Mr. Zecevic, you may continue.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, just a short digression prompted by a
22 response that you gave.
23 I'd like to show you a document, 1D73, tab 46.
24 A. I have found it.
25 Q. In your response, you mentioned an order that you had received
1 from the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska, specifically from
2 Minister Stanisic, relating to appointments. And just to paraphrase what
3 you said, the Crisis Staff, based on that, asked to you make a specific
5 Did that order refer -- or, rather, the instruction refer or does
6 this document refer to this order and can you explain?
7 A. Yes. This is the decision by which Minister Stanisic is
8 authorising heads of Security Services Centres and that was the decision
9 that was brought to me by the deputies after the assembly session, and we
10 discussed this issue on the Crisis Staff, and on this basis, they
11 requested me to proceed with the appointment of Mr. Savic as assistant.
12 Q. When you say that the deputies brought this to you after the
13 assembly session, I think that you mentioned in an earlier answer some
14 helicopter flights. Is that related in any way?
15 A. Yes. Because regular communication links were severed, and if
16 the deputies wanted to attend the assembly meeting, they would go there,
17 and on this occasion, they brought some documents with them and handed
18 them over to me. I think that took place some time in mid-May.
19 Q. Did they fly by helicopter, these deputies?
20 A. Yes. That was the only mode of transportation. That's what I
22 Q. Thank you. Let me show you another document, P1342, tab 233.
23 Mr. Bjelosevic, this is a letter sent by -- at least that's what
24 it says in the heading, Doboj Security Services Centre, dated the
25 17th of July, 1992. We have the typed name of Andrija Bjelosevic at the
1 bottom. There is an stamp. But I think there is something handwritten
2 in that part of the letter. Is that a letter of yours?
3 A. As you can see from the signature, there is an word "for" and
4 it's another person's signature. I think this was signed by Milan Savic,
5 and from the content of the document, you can see what this is all about.
6 Q. Did you authorise Mr. Savic to send out this letter; and was it
7 sent with your knowledge?
8 A. No, it was not sent with my knowledge, and I didn't know anything
9 about this document at the time. I only saw it later.
10 Q. Thank you. Mr. Bjelosevic, can you just confirm for me whether
11 it is true that, from the beginning of May until the 30th of June, you
12 were discharging your duties in the military?
13 A. Yes.
14 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, Mr. Zecevic. Have you left this document
15 that you had last put to the witness?
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Bjelosevic, although you -- you said you had no
18 knowledge of this until later, would it have been within the ordinary
19 authority or practice of the CSB for whoever signed this document to have
20 signed it on your behalf although would you not have been aware of it
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not quite sure if I understood
23 you correctly. But something like this shouldn't have left the centre at
24 all and, truly, at the time when he drafted and signed this document, I
25 knew nothing about it. And I wouldn't have agreed with it anyway.
1 You saw that Savic came and became my assistant, contrary to my
2 choice and contrary to my will, which resulted in poor communication
3 between the two of us.
4 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. That's a partial answer to the question
5 I have, but I still come back to notwithstanding the fact that you
6 wouldn't have agreed with it, and notwithstanding the fact that you
7 didn't know about it beforehand, whether, in the usual and ordinary
8 arrangement, it is something that he could have done, could have properly
9 done. "Properly" is probably the wrong word. That as a matter of
10 routine that -- it's something that could have issued although you had no
11 knowledge of it. That's my real question.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In principle, the assistant was
13 entitled to sign certain documents, yes.
14 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
15 MR. ZECEVIC:
16 Q. [Interpretation] One more question relating to this,
17 Mr. Bjelosevic.
18 Was the police authorised to ask the investigating judge to
19 release certain individuals?
20 A. No. That's what I said.
21 Q. Does that mean that these kind of letters -- or let me ask you
22 this: According to your knowledge, had any similar letter sent earlier
23 from the Security Services Centre?
24 A. Not to my knowledge.
25 Q. Under the law, did you have this kind of authority at all? Could
1 you make such a request to the investigating judge or the court?
2 A. No. Those persons were under the jurisdiction of the court, and
3 there was no basis whatsoever or any authority for anyone to write such a
5 Q. Up until which point, according to the Law on Criminal Procedure,
6 can the police authority stretch during the so-called preliminary
7 criminal proceedings?
8 A. Until the filing of the criminal report and until the handing
9 over of the suspects to the custody of the court. And the prosecutor's
11 Q. After the filing of a criminal report and the handing over of a
12 suspect, was police authorised to undertake any actions in relation to
13 that case of their own accord?
14 A. Yes. They could collect information relating to the case,
15 provided they exist, and that they would pass this information to the
16 investigating judge and the prosecutor's office. However, for the people
17 in detention, they could not take any action whatsoever. Even if they
18 wanted to interview them, they would have to ask approval from the judge
19 to do that, and it was up to the judge to accept or to decline such a
21 Q. Was the police duty-bound at the request of investigating judge
22 or a prosecutor to undertake certain actions as instructed by them?
23 A. Yes. But in this instance - let me just remind you - that this
24 was under the jurisdiction -- or, rather, the investigation was being
25 conducted by a different centre, and there was no basis whatsoever for
1 this kind of action or for this kind of letter to be written as Savic
3 Q. I'm not asking you about a specific case. I'm just talking about
4 general powers that are in line with the Law on Criminal Procedure.
5 According to the Law on Criminal Procedure or other regulations,
6 did the police have any authority or any possibility to request anything
7 from the investigating judge or the prosecutor, or to make any
8 suggestions or issue instructions relating to their work?
9 A. No. That was beyond their competence, and they didn't have this
10 kind of authority.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: May I move on, Your Honours?
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, it would perhaps help if we could
13 see the previous page of this document. Because I have no clue about
14 what it is all about. We only saw -- saw the page with the signature.
15 Unless I'm wrong.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Sorry about that. I didn't see the first page.
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, if it assists, you didn't see the first
19 page, but actually it is in connection with the arrest of the Mice. That
20 is what this is about.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, my document has only one page as far
22 as I can see. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm looking at the
23 original and -- I'm really sorry.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. But the problem is solved. Thank you.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bjelosevic, let us go back to my question,
2 if you can just give me a moment. It seems to me that you confirmed that
3 you were in the military service from the 3rd of May until 30th of June.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. During that period, did you used to visit the Doboj CSB?
6 A. Yes. I would come occasionally to my office there. The
7 State Security Service was operating there at the time, and I would
8 collect information from them that they gathered on the ground, and they
9 provided useful intelligence about what we might encounter in the field
10 and in the battlefield and in the general surrounding area, in terms of
11 possible attacks that were being prepared from other directions,
12 et cetera.
13 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, from that period, do you know that there were any
14 exchanges of prisoners of war?
15 A. I know that something was happening in that domain, and I know
16 that the Crisis Staffs established certain communications pertaining to
17 exchanges of prisoners, but I was not personally involved in this.
18 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, when you say "Crisis Staffs," do you mean
19 Crisis Staffs from different sides of the front line, if I can put it
20 that way?
21 A. Of course. I believe that goes without saying. It's not one and
22 the same side that is going to exchange prisoners. It's going to be the
23 two sides that are fighting each other.
24 Q. Did you know that Crisis Staffs existed on the other side as
1 A. Yes. I think that I've already said that, when I spoke about the
2 situation in April. Already in -- at that point in time, Crisis Staffs
3 had taken over in Brod, Samac, all these municipalities. Odzak,
4 Derventa. Later on Modrica as well. Doboj, of course.
5 Q. Let us look at P1305, tab 46 -- 49.
6 Before that, let me just ask you something, Mr. Bjelosevic. Did
7 the police have any authority over the prison or prisons? I mean,
8 according to the law, and according to the rules and regulations of the
9 service and the Law on the Interior and specifically the CSB of Doboj,
10 did it have any authority in relation to the central prison in Doboj?
11 A. No. The prisons had their own security services, and police
12 authority did not extend to these institutions.
13 Q. Do you know which ministry or which part of the state
14 administration the prisons belonged to?
15 A. The Ministry of Justice had prisons within their province of
17 Q. Was that the case with the central prison in Doboj, if you know?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at P1305,
20 tab 49.
21 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, this is a document dated the 12th of June, 1992.
22 It is an order. At the bottom of the page, what is typewritten is "Head
23 of the centre, Andrija Bjelosevic," and there is a seal and a signature.
24 Tell me, is this your document? Are you familiar with this
25 document and what can you tell us about the document?
1 A. Yes. This is a document that I signed and that I dictated so
2 that it would be typed up, and it was done in quite a bit of a hurry as I
3 was coming to the centre. It was either the prison warden or his deputy
4 that I came across, and this person told me that they had certain
5 problems regarding the entry of different persons wearing different
6 uniforms, that they would violently enter the premises of the prison, and
7 that they committed violent acts against the prisoners there. And this
8 person asked for help.
9 When I entered the building, I think that I came across
10 Mladen Vulic, and I dictated this to him. I did it off the cuff.
11 Perhaps the wording is not the best possible but it does reflect the
12 situation as it was. When it was typed up, I signed it. I said that
13 this should be put on the bulletin board in the police building, and I
14 said that it should be provided to the station as well. Also, that he
15 should tell Chief Petrovic that the police should help the service
16 running the prison, because they were nearby, if they could help them so
17 that this kind of thing would not happen again.
18 Whenever I see this, I remember a situation that happened to me
19 personally after this order, when I came to the centre once again, when
20 people with rifles were waiting for me there, four of them. One of them
21 was Petar Petrusic. He was a very violent man. And later on, he killed
22 Luka Radojcic, a lieutenant-colonel who was commander of Tactical Group
23 Ozren, and his commander. He killed him using a fire-arm.
24 It was shocking when I entered the premises and when I
25 experienced that. I asked what this was all about. He pointed a pump
1 action rifle at my head. He cocked the rifle, and they said that I was a
2 Serb Ustasha and that I was protecting Ustashas and Balijas. I looked at
3 the bulletin board, because it was in the hallway there, and I saw this
4 order. I saw that they used cellotape to put it up there, and it was
5 stabbed with a knife. I brought the original here now, with the
6 cellotape and with those traces, so if you wish -- if you want me to, I
7 can show it to you.
8 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, you handed this document over to the
9 investigators of the OTP, or, rather, was that the case?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. When they interviewed you?
12 A. Yes, I think it was in 2004 in Banja Luka.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, the witness volunteered he has an
14 original document if the Trial Chamber would like to see it. I'm at your
15 hands -- in your hands entirely.
16 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... he -- can I confirm,
17 as Your Honours can see at the top of the page, that's why it's one of
18 the documents that I was discussing this morning. You will see it says
19 "AB 13" and it's signed. He handed over in the document, that's when the
20 writing was put on. But I'm sorry, when did he volunteer to produce the
21 original? Oh, I see the one that he's just --
22 MR. ZECEVIC: He just said.
23 MS. KORNER: Yes. I'm sorry. I missed that bit. Thank you.
24 JUDGE HALL: It's not original but it's the copy that was with
25 the cellotape with the knife mark through it.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: That's the only original.
2 JUDGE HALL: Yes. No, I'm not taking issue with that it's the
3 original, but for what purpose do you think that this document would be
5 We know what the content of the document was. Whether we're
6 dealing with one of a number of copies of the original is neither here
7 nor there for these purposes. But he has described this particular
8 incident and I'm not sure how the -- how it assists that, beyond what he
9 has already said. Yeah.
10 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Your Honour, can I ask so
11 that we don't have to go back to this. Is the witness saying that what
12 he gave to us in interview is a copy of another copy or a copy of the
13 original with, as he asserts, the knife thrusts through it. That's what
14 I'm not clear about at the moment.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I believe, Your Honours, the answer is -- is
16 obvious. Why is it needed that the witness shows the original?
17 According to Ms. Korner's question.
18 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, all I simply want to know is he
19 saying that he has two copies of this. One which he provided a copy of
20 us to, or -- and another one which he has -- alleges has this knife
22 JUDGE HALL: And my question is: Does it matter? He --
23 MS. KORNER: It may do. It may do, Your Honour. [Microphone not
24 activated] ... that part of the question, whether he says he has two
25 entirely separate copies, may -- may matter.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE HALL: As Ms. Korner has said, something may turn on this.
3 So let's proceed. Carefully, Mr. Zecevic.
4 MR. ZECEVIC:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bjelosevic, if you can, would you please
6 show us this document and then explain to us whether that document is the
7 original and what you see in front of you, in the binder and on the
8 monitor, whether that is the copy of that document or some other
10 A. Your Honours, this is the copy that was on the bulletin board.
11 JUDGE HALL: Could you hand it to the Usher first. The Usher
12 will then show it to counsel on both sides and then Mr. Zecevic will ask
13 you to speak to it.
14 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, you will see it is clear they are two
15 entirely separate copies. Unless the holes were put in afterwards.
16 JUDGE HALL: The -- what we see has an original stamp on it. So
17 it appears to an original. It may be a copy -- well, copy. Well,
18 it's ...
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 MS. KORNER: Yes, if Your Honours look at what's on the screen,
21 there is nothing to indicate from the photocopy that we took certainly --
22 I say "we," that the OTP took back in 2004 to show that any of such
23 markings on it. So the question is: Where does this copy come from?
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Perhaps we can put it on the ELMO. If it's needed,
25 Your Honours. Or I can just ask the question.
1 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Yes.
2 MR. ZECEVIC:
3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bjelosevic, this document that you have
4 there in the original now, in that plastic cover, is that the document
5 that you placed on the bulletin board on the CSB in Doboj in 1992?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Is that the document that you saw the second time when you
8 returned, when this incident occurred involving these four men, is that
9 the document that you saw in the very same bulletin board, stabbed with
11 A. Yes, with these holes that you can see now.
12 Q. And what did you do with the document after that?
13 A. I left it there. This was photocopied and it is the photocopy of
14 this document that I handed over to the investigators in 2004.
15 If you focus on some details, will you see that that is the
16 situation. First of all, in the preamble where it says, "On the basis of
17 the Law on Interior," et cetera, you will see, that where the hole is,
18 you cannot see the letter N and you cannot see the letter A. Also, you
19 will see -- in the upper part of page, you will see traces of cellotape
20 on the copy, to the left of where my signature was placed when I handed
21 over the document, the AB number, et cetera. And you will see in the
22 right-hand corner, at the bottom, you will see traces of cellotape
23 underneath my signature there. If you focus on all of this, you will see
24 that this is precisely the document that was photocopied.
25 Q. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bjelosevic.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, do you want me to pursue this
2 anymore? Is there any need? Ms. Korner?
3 MS. KORNER: No, no, thank you very much. That's very helpful.
4 Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bjelosevic, I'm going to show you another
7 document, 193D1, tab 54.
8 The date of the document is the 27th of June, 1992. It was sent
9 to public security stations, and the signature is that of the centre --
10 the chief of the centre, Andrija Bjelosevic. There is a signature there.
11 I don't know whether you can see it properly.
12 A. Yes, this is my signature. And this is the content of a document
13 that I wrote.
14 It has to do with certain problems that had been noted. The
15 objective of this order of mine was to oppose that, to have the police,
16 the milicija, prevent this kind of behaviour on the part of groups and
17 individuals, to gather information about persons and locations, namely,
18 individuals who had committed unlawful acts, and locations where they
19 left the property that they had stolen so that that could be found later.
20 As for the procedure with property that was seized by the police
21 at check-points, that should be left at check-point -- at collection
22 points and that proper certificates should be provided on the seizure of
23 such goods. Also, policemen should energetically oppose wilful behaviour
24 on the part of groups an individuals, in terms of entering apartments
25 belonging to other people, arresting persons, et cetera. If such
1 operative work is necessary, then legal procedure should be followed.
2 Because I was receiving information to the effect that there was unlawful
3 action taken by persons who had introduced themselves as belonging to the
5 Since this was already the end of June, the corridor was
6 established already on the following day, and it was quite obvious that
7 certain territories were being liberated and stations would be
8 established there, so I gave people this task, and I said that these
9 stations should receive copies of this same document. The Petrovo
10 station had already started functioned by then. Modrica had already been
11 liberated. Derventa Grad was about to be liberated in a matter of days,
12 and that's why I addressed it to all of them.
13 As for this part of the municipality of Maglaj, in Jablanica, a
14 public security station had already started operating.
15 Q. Thank you. We saw the two documents from June, in one and the
16 previous one. During your stay in the army, would you, from time to
17 time, go to the CSB Doboj to perform certain duties?
18 A. Yes, I would go there on occasion, though, admittedly, I would
19 not stay there for long periods of time. I told you already that my
20 visits there primarily had to do with certain information relevant to the
21 conduct of the corridor operation. In other words, intelligence.
22 On those occasions, I would always meet up with some of the
23 people in the service who would brief me on issues as briefly as they
25 Q. You've already referred to -- in some of the documents to the --
1 or, rather, when discussing that document, you said that you were exposed
2 to threats and unpleasant situations. Did it happen again? Were you
3 again exposed to such a situation within the centre; and, if so, by whom?
4 A. Well, it would happen frequently that certain formations which
5 had in early May wrested themselves out of the control of the MUP -- let
6 me digress briefly.
7 When -- I think it was in early April that the Federal Republic
8 of Yugoslavia was declared. By that time, the area was rife clashes.
9 Certain combat groups and units that were part of the JNA would leave
10 the -- their superior units would wrest themselves out of their control
11 and act independently and arbitrarily. On several occasions, they
12 engaged in hostile behaviour toward the police force and police stations,
13 including myself.
14 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, on such occasions, when you were threatened, were
15 these threats serious? Were they a cause for concern to you?
16 A. Of course, it's serious when someone points a rifle to your head
17 and cocks it. Then the threat cannot be more serious than it is. You're
18 just waiting to hear the trigger being pulled.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, before I move to something else, I
20 was reminded that I didn't offer this document for admittance. So it's
21 Defence 65 ter 193D1, tab 54.
22 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D465, Your Honours.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bjelosevic, please have a look at another
1 document bearing your signature, which is 65 ter 194D1, tab 55.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies, I'd like to check
3 something first.
4 [Defence counsel confer]
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 194D1, tab 55.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This is a work-plan.
7 MR. ZECEVIC:
8 Q. [Interpretation] A moment, please. Let me put my question first.
9 The date on this document is also the 27th of June, 1992. There
10 is a typed signature, chief of centre. The signature is not particularly
11 visible. And it was sent to some of the public stations, public security
13 Can you tell us, is this your document, and what is the reason
14 why it was made?
15 A. In the area of Modrica municipality, there was a paramilitary
16 group present, and the members it comprised are listed in this document.
17 This was not in Modrica proper. It was to the south, the villages of
18 Koprivna and Vranje. While Operation Corridor was still going on,
19 information was received about this group being violent, engaging in
20 plunder, stealing vehicles from the police force, and they were
21 characterised as very violent and dangerous. Since this was a
22 paramilitary formation, we agreed that they would be arrested. We, in
23 the army. And they were arrested quite in advance of the date stated
24 here, and together with the documents that were found on them, they were
25 forwarded to the military prosecutor's office in Banja Luka. They were
1 transferred there.
2 They were placed in detention there, on remand, and after a
3 while, the group was released. When they were taken to the military
4 remand facility in Banja Luka, one Nikodin Cavic, who used to be a priest
5 apparently, came to Doboj with four more men. People saw them step into
6 the police building. This man was looking for me. He told them my name,
7 and I was told that they had Skorpion weapons with silencers fitted on
8 them. Apparently he broke open into my office to check whether I was,
9 indeed, away, because he was told that I wasn't there. He stormed into
10 my office, saw that I wasn't there, and then they left.
11 Later on, when this group of people was released -- and, as you
12 see, the document says according to the available information, there is a
13 possibility for the group to reappear in the area, hence my order. Aware
14 of how dangerous they were, I specified in my order that should they put
15 up any resistance, they should be restrained by all means. There was a
16 possibility that they might place the lives of policemen at risk, and
17 that's why I said that they should use all means available to them.
18 Q. One question. Did you have any information to the effect that
19 this same group had in the earlier period or -- or had been prone to
20 committing crimes against members of other ethnicities? In other words,
21 war crimes.
22 A. Yes. That they broke into their homes, plundering. The
23 properties involved were in the direction of Modrica. There were Muslims
24 there. The village was called Tarevci [phoen]. And, in some cases, the
25 victims were Croats as well.
1 Q. Can you tell us if you know whether the 14 individuals listed
2 here were Serbs?
3 A. I don't know them personally, but it transpired later on, from
4 various documents, that they hailed from different areas, as you can see
5 here, from Belgrade, Nis ... in other words, a heterogeneous group in
6 terms of their backgrounds. There's Negotin there as well. They formed
7 a group that was quite problematic.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I think that His Honour
9 Judge Delvoie has a question for you.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Bjelosevic, you said, on the one hand, "we,
11 the military, arrested or decided to arrest them." And this document is
12 a document signed, "I, the chief of CSB," right?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's a little bit confusing for me, so if you
15 could clarify the different caps you were wearing?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will do my best. I will try to
17 explain this.
18 They were arrested before this date, the date of this order.
19 Some 15 days earlier perhaps, and they were arrested by the military
20 police with the assistance of, I believe, policemen from Modrica.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: I understood that, Mr. Bjelosevic. But on the
22 date of this document, the 27th of June, you are still in the military,
23 as you have told us.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But the information we got
25 was that the group would re-emerge. First of all, in the area of the
1 municipality of Modrica where a station was in the making. And I already
2 told you where it was that we had functioning stations.
3 Now, since the army released them - and I don't know why this was
4 done - in my view, it was now up to the police to arrest them, because
5 they were released from remand with military authorities, and I
6 considered them to be a dangerous group. That's why this order was sent
7 to public security stations.
8 It became obvious that the corridor operation would soon be
9 brought to an end. On the 28th, the corridor was broken open. I was
10 preparing to go back to the centre and to restore the system of
11 functioning SJB. I was already contemplating the idea to set up the
12 various departments that were supposed to operate under the law within
13 the Security Services Centre in Doboj, and I was trying to deal with the
14 events just before they would actually happen.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: So you were acting as chief of a CSB while being
16 in the military service?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first steps to set up the
18 centre were only to be made. We still didn't have a crime service, a
19 legal service. I was trying to anticipate the events.
20 The centre was yet to be given its various elements, but I was
21 trying, nevertheless, to act as a centre chief. Because formally there
22 was a document appointing me to that position, even though I was in the
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: And what was your function then in the army?
25 What were you actually doing in the army? I mean, at that precise
1 moment, in June.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At this point in time, it already
3 had to do with the intelligence department, so I was dealing with
4 intelligence, the analysis of intelligence as to what was going on in the
5 enemy ranks, the enemy just opposite us and around us.
6 My duty as commander -- perhaps that's what you're interested in.
7 My duty as commander ceased when a line was reached in the direction of
8 Derventa; we don't have a map here. It's a topographic feature, the
9 Karaula or the border crossing. So the positions were reached. I
10 remained within the command of the 1st Krajina Corps at a forward command
11 post which was in Duge Njive, south of Modrica.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: So basically you had two different jobs at a
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One could put it that way, yes.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, there's one other matter, if I may.
17 Mr. Zecevic asked the witness, at page 68, line 22:
18 "Can you tell us if you know whether the 14 individuals listed
19 here were Serbs?"
20 I think he meant of Serb ethnicity. I don't think that question
21 was asked -- answered, sorry.
22 MR. ZECEVIC:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Can you please answer the question repeated by
24 Ms. Korner? And I'm grateful to her for reminding me of that question.
25 A. Yes, those were member of the Serbian community, or the Serb
1 ethnicity, and you can see that by their names.
2 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, before I put my next question --
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
4 document into evidence, lest there is no -- or -- unless there is no
6 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D466, Your Honours.
8 MR. ZECEVIC:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bjelosevic, for how long did you command the
10 unit on the battle-field during the corridor operation? Can you give me
11 a date?
12 A. I'm not sure, but I think that was up until the 22nd, 23rd, or
13 24th of June. But after that date, I'm sure that it was disbanded and
14 the regrouping of the military forces took place.
15 Q. So after the disbanding and regrouping of members of that unit,
16 if I understood you correctly, you were transferred to the command, more
17 specifically to the forward command post of the 1st Krajina Corps in
18 Duge Poljane.
19 Now what were your duties in the command?
20 A. The name of the location is Duge Njive, not Duge Poljane. As I
21 said, I was in the intelligence department of the command, and my duty
22 was to collect and analyse intelligence relating to the enemy army at the
24 Q. So this intelligence department was attached to the command of
25 the 1st Krajina Corps; is that right?
1 A. Yes, it is. And I was a sort of intermediary between the
2 State Security Service and the command, and then together with them, we
3 would assess the information or cross-reference information and then,
4 later on, this information would be used by the commanders on the ground.
5 Q. Tell me, if you now, this: During the time you were in the
6 military unit -- let me just phrase the question precisely.
7 I think that we already saw a document, and if you can remind me,
8 when was it that this person, Savic, was appointed your assistant at the
10 A. On the 23rd of June.
11 Q. Does that mean that practically between the 3rd of May and the
12 23rd of June, there was no executive staff in the Doboj CSB?
13 A. That is correct. There were no departments and there were no
14 executive staff in the centre.
15 Q. This man, Savic, did he have an executive position, and did he
16 discharge these duties accordingly at the centre until you returned to
17 the centre on or around the 30th of June?
18 A. No. He acted individually, so to speak, because, I would like to
19 reiterate once again, the centre didn't have its essential parts. There
20 were no departments, so he acted individually.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I see the time. Perhaps this is a
23 good point that I can -- or maybe I have just one more document which is
24 connected with the previous one so we can use up the time.
25 JUDGE HALL: Yeah, I was going to ask if you couldn't make use of
1 the ten minutes.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
3 Q. [Interpretation] Could you please look at 197D1, tab number 60.
4 This is a document entitled "Work-plan," compiled on the
5 7th of July, 1992, and on page 2, we will see in the left-hand corner
6 that it says that the plan was approved by Andrija Bjelosevic and who
7 drew up this plan and who also agreed with it.
8 Can you explain to us briefly what this is all about, and is it
9 connected to the previous document?
10 A. Yes, there is a connection.
11 In the meantime, between that order and this date, I don't know
12 exactly when this group was re-arrested, because I was in hospital in
13 Doboj at the time, but people from the service came to visit me and we
14 discussed this topic, among other things. This plan was endorsed by
15 Vojo Blagojevic and he signed it, and it was drawn up Inspectors
16 Jovan Gostic and Veljko Solaja. These inspectors were working at the
17 centre until early May, and as the territory became liberated, I was
18 counting on them, that once we start establishing the centre -- and I
19 wanted them to be given to me to form the criminal investigation
20 department at the centre. Blagojevic accepted to become the head of this
21 department for criminal investigation.
22 When this group was arrested, a problem arose about what to do
23 with them. The prosecutor's office and the investigating judge did not
24 want to take in those individuals or any reports against them, due to
25 lack of evidence. Everything that accompanied them at the time when they
1 were first arrested, all the evidence, was sent alongside them in the
2 files that were taken away by the military police.
3 Now, we were facing people under arrest but we did not have any
4 evidence about the crimes that they were suspected of having committed.
5 Now, we drew up this plan in an attempt to carry out these activities as
6 envisaged in the plan, with a view to acquiring elements that would be
7 sufficient for these individuals to be processed.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: If there's no -- [Interpretation] I would like to
10 tender this document into evidence, if there is no objection.
11 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D467, Your Honours.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I remember
14 correctly, you have instructed us to complete by 1.20, and with that in
15 mind, I would like to finalise my examination for today.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Bjelosevic.
17 JUDGE HALL: It was actually 1.25, but if you can't make use
18 of --
19 MS. KORNER: I was going to, in any event, raise a question of
20 future timing, so that we could do it now, rather than Mr. Zecevic going
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
23 Mr. Bjelosevic, we are about to take the adjournment for the day.
24 We will resume tomorrow morning. We will be in a different courtroom
25 tomorrow morning, but you will be escorted there. So you will be
1 escorted from the courtroom now. We are going to rise shortly. Thank
3 [The witness stands down]
4 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Ms. Korner.
5 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, this morning we were informed that, so
6 far, because of the various discussions and legal aspects, Mr. Zecevic
7 had only used up something like, in two days, five hours of his allotted
8 20 hours. I don't know how much he has done today.
9 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
10 JUDGE HALL: Seven hours, I've been advised.
11 MS. KORNER: Yes. Well, Your Honour, in those circumstances, the
12 examination-in-chief is not going to finish until Tuesday or Wednesday of
13 next week.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: I will definitely try my best to shorten the time
15 of the direct examination but it might be --
16 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
17 MR. ZECEVIC: No, no, no, I understand, but I can't stand on my
18 feet more than seven days. So ... no, I think -- I think I would -- I
19 would be able to finish perhaps, perhaps by Monday or early Tuesday, my
20 direct examination of this witness.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, there is then Mr. Krgovic to go, and
22 though I appreciate he isn't going to be very long, Your Honours, there
23 is no way that can I complete my cross-examination by the end of
24 Thursday. That would give me approximately six hours or something like
1 So, Your Honours, in those circumstances, I would not wish to
2 start cross. I do not want there to be a gap of ten days between the
3 beginning of my cross-examination and the continuation.
4 Your Honours, that's the application I make. There are such
5 obvious reasons for this that I hope I needn't spell them out.
6 JUDGE HALL: We will think about this overnight, of course; but
7 perhaps when we return tomorrow morning, counsel, plural, could indicate
8 in that scenario what best use would be made of the two days. But we
9 would speak to this tomorrow.
10 MS. KORNER: Yep.
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes. So we take the adjournment.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.24 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Friday, the 15th day of April,
14 2011, at 9.00 a.m.