1 Tuesday, 3 May 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 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, Madam Registrar.
10 Good morning to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
11 MR. HANNIS: Good morning, Your Honours. On behalf of the Office
12 of the Prosecutor, I'm Tom Hannis, with Belinda Pidwell, and
13 Crispian Smith.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
15 Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic, appearing for the Stanisic
16 Defence this morning. Thank you.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic
18 appearing for Zupljanin Defence this morning.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. And could the usher please escort the
20 witness back to the stand.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE HALL: Good morning to you, Mr. Bajagic. Can you hear me?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning. I can hear you.
24 JUDGE HALL: Yes, before Mr. Zecevic resumes, I remind you of the
25 solemn declaration that you made yesterday.
1 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
3 WITNESS: MLADEN BAJAGIC [Resumed]
4 [Witness answered through interpreter]
5 Examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]
6 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Bajagic.
7 A. Good morning.
8 Q. Yesterday we broke off when you were commenting upon footnote 13,
9 1D78. When I asked you yesterday, I think I gave you the wrong
10 reference. Well, relatively speaking. Because in that part of your
11 report, you also mention this in 169 and 170, but basically you deal with
12 this document in paragraphs 123 and 124, on page 43 of your report.
13 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, for the record, the page
14 references between the Serbian and the English aren't the same, so ...
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Oh I'm really sorry. But --
16 MR. HANNIS: The paragraphs are.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: The paragraphs are. Okay. Thank you very much.
18 Sorry, Mr. Hannis.
19 Q. [Interpretation] Could we now please have a look at your footnote
20 148. That is in paragraph 124. This is tab 33. 396 -- 65 ter 3961.
21 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, if I may. This is a particular
22 footnote and document of which we have an objection. It's refers to the
23 testimony of Mr. Delimustafic in a trial in State Court. We think the --
24 if there's any effort to have this exhibit tendered through this witness,
25 it should be denied. It's -- attempting to introduce it through this
1 witness is trying to get around the provisions of Rule 92. If they want
2 the evidence of Mr. Delimustafic, he could be called as a Defence
3 witness. It's not appropriate to try and introduce his testimony in
4 another Tribunal in this fashion.
5 JUDGE HALL: Well, let me hear from Mr. Zecevic, but I confess
6 that the impression I had is that this was by way of reference and you
7 are anticipating at this point. But you may be correct.
8 Mr. Zecevic.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, I anticipated that this was
10 going to be the objection, and I didn't want to tender the witness -- the
11 document as an exhibit. But since the -- since the expert refers to it
12 in his footnotes, I -- I need to -- I need to get the explanation from
13 him why and for what purpose and I believe I'm entitled to.
14 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, am I missing something? Having regard
15 to the limited purpose for which, if I understand Mr. Zecevic correctly,
16 he is asking the question.
17 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I guess I need to hear the questions
18 and the answer and then make a submission at that time. What I'm trying
19 to avoid is getting in the content of that evidence in this fashion
20 because I see it as a way to try and avoid the requirements of
21 Rule 92 ter. But let's hear what follows.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. Bajagic, your footnote 148, paragraph 124 of your report, you
24 refer to this document that is a transcript of the testimony of
25 Mr. Alija Delimustafic in the case of Momcilo Mandic.
1 Could you tell us why, what the reason was, for you to cite this
2 document in your paper? Why are you referring to this document?
3 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry. I guess what I would request is before
4 that question is answered, that Your Honours are directed to the
5 paragraph or the sentences to which this footnote is supposed to be
6 support for so that you can understand why it's being offered. At page
7 50 of the English.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, at the very beginning, I said
9 we stopped at the footnote 13 and that is the -- the 1st of
10 April collegium meeting of MUP SRBiH, and that is the reference on the
11 document which is -- which is the focus of -- of paragraphs 123 and 124
12 of the expert report.
13 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. Page 50, paragraph 124,
14 immediately after footnote 147 in the text the sentence begins: "It is
15 evident from the instruction that the result of the collegium was the
16 factual recognition of the existence of a MUP of the Serbian People of BH
17 which is additionally confirmed by the fact that the minutes from the
18 collegium were also sent to the ministers of the interior, 'Mico Stanisic
19 and Alija Delimustafic' as well as the SSUP (Federal Secretariat of the
20 Interior) and others."
21 Footnote 148; that's what it's supposed to support.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: This is -- I mean, Mr. Hannis will have the
23 opportunity to cross-examine the expert witness. The expert witness made
24 the reference to this document in his -- in his expert report. I'm just
25 trying to find out what is the reason, and I am inviting the expert, the
1 author, to explain this to us. Nothing else.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed, Mr. Zecevic.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, I have put a question to you. If
6 you still remember it, please answer.
7 A. Of course, I remember. This footnote has to do only with the
8 last part of this paragraph, or, rather, the last sentence. In order to
9 support the comment that the result of that collegium was accepting the
10 fact that the MUP of the Serbian Republic of BH did exist, and the
11 gentleman did state --
12 Q. Sorry, which gentleman?
13 A. Mr. Alija Delimustafic, who was minister of the interior of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina. He confirmed that the transcript of that collegium
15 was sent to the ministers of the interior, Mico Stanisic of the
16 Serb Republic of BH, to him, and Mr. Delimustafic as well as to the
17 Federal Secretariat of The interior, in Belgrade that is. And to other
18 organs. So the reason why I refer to this document, is because
19 Mr. Alija Delimustafic confirmed the fact that he knew everything about
20 the collegium that had been held, that he knew what the results were
21 because he personally received the minutes of collegium meeting. Nothing
22 else is relevant here except for that fact, and that is why it was
24 Q. Thank you. Mr. Bajagic, paragraph 127, we've already mentioned
25 it. We mentioned it yesterday. It refers to the legal framework, if I
1 can put it that way, for the functioning of the Ministry of the Interior
2 of the Serb Republic in the period from April to December, and the
3 sources are provided here. I would like to ask you to give us brief
5 I know that you're not a lawyer by training, but could you just
6 give us brief comments with regard to these legal regulations that are
7 mentioned here in your paper.
8 I see that under the fourth bullet point, after the constitution
9 and the amendments to the constitution, the Law on the Government is
10 referred to. Can you explain to us why you put it there and why it is
11 important for understanding the legal framework within which the MUP of
12 the Serb Republic functioned in 1992?
13 A. The Law on the Government is the topmost law, after the
14 constitution, that regulates the functioning of the government and the
15 ministries, and as we can see on the basis of this expert report, there
16 are two paragraphs concerning this law. 133 and 134. Two particular
17 articles of that law are referred to: That is Article 6 in which it says
18 that among the other members of the government, that is to say, the
19 government and the members of the government, it is the minister of the
20 interior who is also appointed. The other important article is
21 Article 19 that refers to the duties of the members of the government.
22 And, finally, Article 13 states the rights and responsibilities of the
23 members of the government to put on the agenda of government meetings
24 various important issues and so on and so forth. So whatever pertains to
25 other ministers pertains to the minister of the interior as well. And
1 that is why this reference was made to the Law on the Government, which
2 is one of the system-based laws, and it has to do with the functioning of
3 the Ministry of the Interior as such.
4 Q. Thank you. By way of a reference, this is tab 30, your
5 footnote 142.1, P734.
6 The next regulation that you refer to in paragraphs 135 and 136
7 is the Law on State Administration. That is tab 37; your footnote 156.
8 And it is part of law library here; L32 is the reference. Could you
9 please give us your comment? Could you tell us why this law is important
10 for your research?
11 A. The Law on State Administration is of exceptional importance for
12 the organisation and functioning of the Ministry of the Interior and also
13 for the position of the minister of the interior, who is an elected
14 official in charge of that organ.
15 As we can see in paragraph 135, what is particularly highlighted
16 are Articles 11 and 12 of this law, referring to the rights and
17 responsibilities of executive organs and administrative organs in the
18 discharge of the functioning of the state administration. These articles
19 and this law show that the Ministry of the Interior within the system of
20 the executive government is one of the administration's agencies because
21 in Article 19 of the Law on Administration, it says that administrative
22 organs in the given system are organised as ministries, secretariats, and
23 administrations. At the level of the republic, it is ministries and
24 republican administration; and at lower levels, the level of lower social
25 communities, it is secretariats and administrations.
1 So what follows is that the Ministry of the Interior is a state
2 organ at the level of the republic.
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Bajagic. Could you please give us a brief
4 comment. Further on in your expert report you touched upon this issue.
5 However, since we are now dealing with this particular piece of
6 legislation, I would like us to discuss it now. It has to do with
7 Articles 38 and 39, and it is within the chapter on state organs and how
8 they are run.
9 A. In the briefest possible terms, since state organs at the
10 republican level are called ministers and secretariats, Article 38 of
11 this law states that the minister is in charge of the ministry, and a
12 secretariat -- a secretary is in charge of a secretariat.
13 In Article 39, things are spelled out in greater detail. Namely,
14 what the duties are of the official who was in charge of a particular
15 state organ. In view of this law, that is.
16 Q. When you say an official who is in charge, does that mean the
17 minister or the secretary, or someone else?
18 A. It refers to the official that is in charge of the organ and
19 represents it. So it is the minister, if we're talking about a ministry;
20 and it's the secretary, if we're talking about a secretariat.
21 Q. Thank you. The next piece of legislation that you refer to,
22 Mr. Bajagic, in paragraph 137 of your expert report is the Law on
23 Ministries. By way of reference, it is tab 31; your footnote 142.2. It
24 is part of the law library; L34 is the number.
25 Could you please give us your brief comment.
1 A. In this case as well, it is a system-related law of exceptional
2 importance for each and every organ of the state administration that is
3 at ministry rank. Therefore, the Ministry of the Interior included. In
4 general terms, this law spells out in more specific terms what the fields
5 of work are of all the ministries that are established on the basis of
6 this law. Namely, in Article 1 of this law, it says that: "This law
7 shall establish ministries as republican government organs and republican
8 government organisations and establish their competencies," their
9 province of work.
10 In this connection, it is very important to look at both
11 Articles 1 and 8 of the Law on Ministries, and that Article specifically
12 deals with the position of the Ministry of the Interior in the system of
13 ministries that exists. According to that Article, it is stated
14 unequivocally that the Ministry of the Interior carries out
15 administrative and other professional work related to an entire set of
16 issues that have to do with the overall mission and vision of the
17 Ministry of the Interior.
18 That is the significance of these two Articles related to
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Bajagic, could I just put a question to you
21 that relates to Article 6 of the law. If the usher could get us back to
22 the first page. Thank you.
23 My question is to the order in which the ministries are lined up
24 in Article 6. You see that the ministries shall be, first, the ministry
25 of National Defence; secondly, the Ministry of the Interior; thirdly, the
1 Ministry of Justice; then comes foreign affairs, finance, and so on, and
2 so on.
3 My question is: If, in this Article, there is a priority of
4 importance in the way the ministries are listed, or do they just come by
5 alphabetical order or by some other order that has nothing to do with the
6 importance and the significance and the position within the government of
7 the Ministry of the Interior?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my opinion, it's a list of 13
9 ministries, stating the ministries that are hereby established. There is
10 no specific significance to the way they are lined up, because all the
11 ministries are -- that are part of the executive branch of government of
12 equal ranking and importance. If I had the possibility to draft a bill
13 now, I would possibly place the Ministry for Information and
14 Technological Development first. But in my view this is a list of no
15 particular order and I don't believe that the ministry's placement on
16 this list in any way reflects its significance in the government. They
17 were all of equal importance.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, professor.
19 Back to you, Mr. Zecevic.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, through my fault, we omitted to
22 mention something. But before we move onto the Law on the Ministry of
23 the Interior, when I asked you about the Law on Government in
24 paragraph 134 and footnote 155, and that's a document behind tab 36 here,
25 and it is part of the law library, under L88, we see that the Law on
1 Government of Republika Srpska was amended in September of 1992, as
2 compared to the March 1992 version that we commented on. Can you give us
3 your brief comment on this particular law, since we had two laws on the
4 government in the relevant period?
5 A. This is a law which was improved on the 15th of December, 1992.
6 The amendment had to do with the substance and the way it was dealt with
7 in the various articles. But no substantial issues were dealt with.
8 Instead of Article such and such, it's a different Article that deals
9 with a particular matter. So there is nothing else that could be raised
10 in this other law and which would specifically have to do with the
11 Ministry of the Interior.
12 Q. Thank you. In paragraphs 138 and 139 and onwards, you speak of
13 the system-related law; namely, the Law on the Interior --
14 MR. ZECEVIC: May I?
15 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry.
17 Q. [Interpretation] This is tab 32, your footnote 142.3. The
18 document has been admitted as P530.
19 As I said, you addressed this issue in paragraphs 138, 139, and
20 onwards. Can we have your comment on the Law on the Ministry of the
22 A. The Law on the Internal Affairs is one of the system-related laws
23 and the topmost law dealing with all the matters pertaining to internal
24 or home affairs, as such. Right at the beginning of the law, the
25 province of internal affairs is set out specifically - that's in
1 Article 3 of the law - which says that the province of the home affairs
2 will cover the affairs of public and state security, tasks and affairs of
3 national security, and tasks and affairs pertaining to a number of
4 administration-related issues, from the issuance of identity papers to a
5 number of others.
6 Article 4 states that internal affairs are affairs of general
7 interest to the republic itself.
8 As can be clearly seen from these various articles, which deal
9 with matters ranging from generic to specific as we will see later on ...
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 JUDGE HALL: For the information of counsel, the Court Officer
12 just confirmed something to me. I was curious why this was a Prosecution
13 exhibit rather than part of the law library. But I am reminded that this
14 was exhibited before we come up with the concept of the law library.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct, yes.
16 JUDGE HALL: Please continue.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Please go ahead, Mr. Bajagic. Continue with
19 your answer. Please go ahead.
20 A. So, as we will see in our subsequent analysis, the law deals with
21 the entire province of internal affairs from generic to specific issues.
22 Q. Mr. Bajagic, tell us very briefly, in connection with
23 paragraph 139, where you explain the substance of the law, what was the
24 basic division in structural terms within the Ministry of the Interior?
25 A. Bearing in mind the law in its entirety, the global structure of
1 the ministry was set out in such a way that it was constituted of two
2 global units; one was the Public Security Service, and the other National
3 Security Service. The law provides that, in addition to the minister's
4 office, the other two are topmost leaders. Within the ministry would be
5 the individuals in charge of these two units. That's to say, the
6 under-secretary for public security, and under-secretary for national
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown, unless
9 there are objections from the Prosecution since I failed to announce this
10 document, but my colleague, Mr. Hannis, did. Can the witness be shown
11 P876, in order to give us his comments.
12 Q. The usher will hand you my copy because it is a better copy.
13 Mr. Bajagic, this folder is similar to the one that you looked at
14 yesterday which had to do with the Ministry of the Interior of the
15 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The chart was made by the
16 Prosecution for the purposes of their case. Please have a look at it and
17 tell us if there's anything in particular you'd like to comment on with
18 respect to the structure as presented in the chart.
19 A. As for the structure that we can see in the chart and in view of
20 what I said, that there were two global units, we can see that we have
21 the minister's office here, and below the two units, namely, on the
22 left-hand side, the Public Security Service, and on the right-hand side,
23 the National Security Service. As far as the factual situation is
24 concerned, I believe that is all.
25 Q. Does the Law on the Ministry of the Interior of the Serbian
1 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina provide for the post of assistant to the
3 A. I apologise, will you --
4 Q. And I mean under the Law on the Ministry of the Interior of
5 Republika Srpska.
6 A. You mean the post of Assistant Minister? No, not under that
7 piece of legislation.
8 Q. We have a document in English here, and beneath
9 Mr. Mico Stanisic's photograph, we have the name of Momcilo Mandic and
10 his duty of Assistant Minister.
11 A. Yes, I can see that. But this wasn't what I was referring to
12 when I was making my initial comments. It had to do with the two units.
13 The law clearly states that in addition to the minister, the two
14 top leadership positions are those of the under-secretary of public
15 security and the under-secretary of national security, and the law is
16 silent on anything else.
17 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry. May I intervene just to raise a
18 question. What we have on the screen lists Momcilo Mandic as deputy
19 minister is the English explanation we have on the chart. It has been
20 translated now as assistant minister. If we can have some clarification
21 as to whether those two terms are equal.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, I haven't seen the translation.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, can you give us a clear answer to
24 have it interpreted well. Under the Law on the Home Affairs -- a moment,
25 please. Under the Law on the Home Affairs of Republika Srpska from 1992
1 which is the subject of your research here, was the post of assistant
2 minister envisaged or any other such post as would fit within the
3 structure between the under-secretary -- under-secretaries of public and
4 state security and the minister himself?
5 A. I was quite clear a moment ago. In the structure between the
6 post of minister and those of under-secretaries, there are no significant
7 posts. The two functionaries are responsible to the minister for their
8 respective provinces of work and in between there are no posts envisaged
9 and the law is quite explicit on this. There is no function of assistant
10 or deputy minister under the law.
11 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, again, Mr. Zecevic's question got
12 translated as assistant. I understand we're talking about a person
13 between the minister and the two under-secretaries. But my confusion is
14 because at the next level when we have the heads of administration,
15 they're all described as assistant ministers. Is there not a word in
16 Serbian for "deputy" that is different than the word in Serbian for
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Mr. Hannis, there are two words. There is
19 pomocnik, there is zamenik [Interpretation] And that's it.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Pomocnik, assistant;
21 zamenik, deputy.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Let us clarify matters. You have the document before you. As
24 part of public security, there is a number of administrations. Can you
25 list the administrations that fall within public security? And let us
1 try and identify them on the chart that we have before us.
2 A. It would make it easier for me if I referred to the law as well.
3 But I do know that there is the administration for uniformed police,
4 administration for the prevention and suppression of crime. At all
5 times, there was an administration for communication and information,
6 administration for training, personnel administration.
7 Q. Mr. Bajagic, look at the legal provisions and disregard the
8 chart. What we want to establish is whether the chart reflects the law,
9 and, of course, you will agree with me that it is the law that is the
10 authoritative text, is it not?
11 A. Yes, the law is the authority. But, please, can you refer me to
12 the paragraph where I listed it or to the relevant provisions of the law,
13 rather than me flipping through the entire text of the law, and in that
14 event I will be able to analyse the chart in detail.
15 Q. Give me a moment, please.
16 Very well. Let's simplify the matter. Mr. Bajagic, the
17 individuals heading a given administration within public security, what
18 is their title? And I mean in the head office of the Ministry of the
20 A. These individuals in charge of administrations are referred to at
21 times as chiefs of administrations, and they may, at the same time,
22 perform the duty of assistant ministers. It is not an ex officio
23 position but they may at the same time be heads of administrations and
24 assistant ministers.
25 Q. In other words, if they are called assistant ministers, does that
1 mean that they were still subordinated to the under-secretary for public
2 or state security respectively?
3 A. All assistant ministers who are, at the same time, at the head of
4 these organisational units in the public security department, are
5 directly subordinated to the under-secretary for public security.
6 Q. Thank you. Let us now take another look at the chart and the
7 last comment from you. To the far right, you will see a line that links
8 Mr. Mico Stanisic, or, rather, his photograph with a box in which it says
9 "Sokolac, special police platoon, Commander Dusko Malovic."
10 Can you comment on this, please.
11 A. As you can see from the law itself, within the public security
12 department and its administration for uniformed police, also operational
13 was a special police brigade, and I know that that was stipulated by the
14 law and that existed before in the MUP of the Socialist Republic of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Under the law, this special police brigade existed
16 and this continued to exist in the MUP of Republika Srpska. It was part
17 of the police administration and it was within the public security
19 I can see that underneath here that there is mention of the
20 special police brigade, although this is the first time that I'm seeing
21 this kind of chart, which surprises me to see these functional links with
22 the office of the minister of another unit.
23 That would be my comment.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, Mr. Bajagic, the authority which
1 Mr. Dusko Malovic is supposed to have under this chart, or in this chart
2 - sorry - is that he is in charge of the Sokolac SJB, special police
3 platoon. But there were special police units in other districts, weren't
5 So my question is: Was Mr. Malovic only in charge of the special
6 police in Sokolac, or was he also in charge of special police units in
7 other municipalities?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I honestly don't know.
9 And I actually never addressed these issues in my expert
10 analysis. I did not analyse any specific unit in the whole territory of
11 the Serbian Republic of BH with the exception of one or maybe more
12 paragraphs where I tackled the issue of a special police unit that
13 operated in the Autonomous Region of Krajina. I addressed the fact that
14 this unit had been disbanded and then a special police brigade was
15 established in a centralised way in accordance with the law. That's why
16 I said that I find it surprising to see these links. The fact is, if we
17 accept this as a fact, it could indicate that maybe we could put another
18 30 boxes of the same kind relating to various regions. But I know that
19 the special police brigade in the first year was part of the uniformed
20 police department within the public security department. Under the law,
21 during that period, no special police unit had any direct links with the
22 office of the minister.
23 That would be my answer.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: So why was Sokolac so special? Or perhaps the
1 better question is: Was Sokolac, indeed, having or enjoying any special
2 or particular position at any point in time?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, and I learned
4 these facts from the documents, the ministry head office or any other
5 significant organisational unit was based in that town. When I analysed
6 the documents that spoke about some combat operations, I realized that
7 there were not even any direct combat operations conducted in or around
8 Sokolac. Of course, I know where Sokolac is, and I'm familiar with that
9 area, so in terms of discharging any crucial police work on even in
10 military terms, it did not have any strategic significance higher than
11 any other place. Quite the contrary. It was a town which was more
12 peaceful than many other towns. So in that context, at least as far as
13 the documents that I analysed are concerned, Sokolac does not feature as
14 any special town. That is why I said that I was surprised to see this
15 mentioned here.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Professor.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: And then a follow-up question, perhaps,
19 Who was the commander of the centralised special police unit, or
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the Ministry of the Interior of
22 the Serbian Republic of BH, once it was established according to the law,
23 the commander of the special police brigade was Milenko Karisik. And I
24 think I have mentioned that fact somewhere in my expert report. And,
25 sorry, I'd like to say that this is this specific box that you can see
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues]... thank you.
3 That's why I asked.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: May I continue? Thank you very much.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, before we analyse in more detail
6 some other aspects of the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska as
7 a systemic law, would you be so kind as to look at your footnote 178.1
8 which relates to your paragraph 145. That's tab 39. And in this case,
9 just like the previous ones, it's marked as P510. That's the Law on
10 Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina from
12 Could you please just comment on the differences between this Law
13 on Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina from
14 1990, and the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska from 1992.
15 A. If I make comparison between specific provisions and paragraphs
16 in these two laws, i.e., the BH law from 1990 and the Law on Internal
17 Affairs of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, I would like to
18 underline that organisational units of the ministry according to
19 territorial principle had certain obligations towards municipalities.
20 Q. No, no, I just took this as a reference, this particular
21 paragraph, not because of its contents but because of the fact that you
22 established a link. My question was: If we compare the contents of the
23 law of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Law on
24 Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska, to what extent do these two laws
25 differ and what is the essence of these differences?
1 A. These two laws are identical for the greatest part. The majority
2 of the provisions that govern the organisation, the functioning, the
3 territorial organisation of the ministry are identical.
4 There are, though, certain differences in a number of chapters,
5 but I can't tell you that off the top of my head. Generally speaking,
6 these two laws are similar, of course, and they regulate matters in the
7 same way.
8 Q. Thank you. Let us go back to the Law on Internal Affairs of
9 Republika Srpska.
10 A while ago, when we commented the chart, you explained to us
11 that there were two main departments, the public security department and
12 the state security department, that were headed by under-secretaries.
13 Can you please explain to us what was the function of these
14 under-secretaries with regard to the ministry and the administrations
15 subordinated to them, and then what was the relationship between these
16 under-secretaries and the minister of the interior? Under the law.
17 A. The under-secretaries for public and national security report to
18 the minister of the interior, and those directly responsible to these two
19 are, for example, in case of public security, is the chief of the
20 administration for suppression and prevention of crime, which means all
21 the heads of the sectors who are within the public security department
22 are directly responsible to the under-secretary for public security.
23 The same applies to the other department. When we talk about the
24 under-secretary for national security, head of certain administrations
25 that are part of this department are responsible to the under-secretary;
1 whereas, the under-secretary himself is responsible to the minister of
2 the interior.
3 Q. Are the under-secretaries answerable to the minister of the
4 interior, in terms of how their respective departments operate, or are
5 they responsible for some other things?
6 A. The law is very clear on that. They are answerable to the
7 interior minister for the entire operation of the department that they
8 are the head of, which means all important issues, starting from the
9 organisation of the work that they are performing. In other words, the
10 entire operation of the department, it is the under-secretary who reports
11 to the minister.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the counsel.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.
15 Q. Mr. Bajagic, speaking about general issues pertaining to the
16 functioning of the Ministry of the Interior, I would like to show you a
17 number of documents that would serve as an illustration of what a
18 ministry of the interior is practically involved in, and I would like to
19 hear your comments on that. That's tab 1. The document is 65 ter 336D1.
20 That's a Defence document.
21 It's tab number 1.
22 Sir, this is a document that has three pages. The first page is
23 a report on an on-site investigation compiled, as we can see, on page 2,
24 an investigating judge who signed it, and then page 3 is a record of
25 external examination of the body. Can you briefly comment on this
2 A. According to the legal regulations in force at the time and when
3 the Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist Republic of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina functioned and also at the time when the ministry of
5 the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina functioned, the Ministry of the
6 Interior, and let me just specify a particular department. The public
7 security department is responsible for safe-guarding the property of
8 citizens, public law and order, and preventing and curbing all forms of
9 crime. In the field of prevention and crime control, members of the
10 Ministry of the Interior, or the relevant department within it, have
11 certain duties in terms of carrying out certain activities with the
12 representatives of other state organs and in respect of the commission of
13 various crimes. So according to the system that was in force then, the
14 Ministry of the Interior was duty-bound to send its authorised officers
15 whose field of activity is crime control anyway, that is to say, crime
16 inspectors, and also representatives of that those departments that deal
17 with technical matters, right?
18 The person in charge of the on-site investigation was the
19 investigative judge in that system, and, of course, at the request of the
20 investigating judge, the team on the scene can include other persons as
21 well, in order to carry out a proper on-site investigation, in order to
22 preserve material evidence that might indicate who the perpetrator of the
23 crime was. From that point of view, this document precisely indicates
25 We see who the persons present on the scene are. It's the
1 Duty Judge, then the representatives of the military post, the forensic
2 medicine doctor.
3 That is what I can say about this record. Because I don't really
4 know anything else about medicine.
5 And I don't see anything controversial here. That's it.
6 Q. Could I just ask you to give us an explanation. You said in your
7 response that the Ministry of the Interior has the duty to send its
8 authorised officers, a crime inspector, and an inspector from the
9 department that includes crime technicians, the forensic departments.
10 Could you tell us what these inspectors, these forensic
11 inspectors do, the crime technicians?
12 A. Well, as far as I know, these inspectors, crime technicians, take
13 part in securing the scene of the crime; then also keeping the traces
14 there; taking various objects in accordance with the rules involved. So
15 these measures are taken, these technical measures, and all of them with
16 a view to preserving material evidence in the best possible way, the
17 evidence that might indicate who the perpetrator was and that is
18 important for the process that is to ensue. That is what crime
19 technicians do, these inspectors.
20 There are many forensic matters involved, but what is done on the
21 scene itself involves this kind of work.
22 Q. Thank you very much. If there are no objections, I would like to
23 tender this document.
24 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I'm not sure for what purpose or
25 how it relates to any contested matter in the case.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, by way of
2 illustration. I think it's a relevant document. Because it is a record
3 of an on-site investigation during the relevant period of time, the time
4 relevant to this indictment. It has to do with a crime that occurred in
5 a municipality that is included in the indictment and where the victim
6 was a person who was an ethnic Muslim.
7 JUDGE HALL: For myself, Mr. Zecevic, the -- in terms of public
8 security matters this is almost routine. What -- I appreciate you're
9 saying it's illustrative, but it isn't remarkable in any way, is it?
10 MR. ZECEVIC: No, no, it is not at all remarkable. I just wanted
11 to -- I'm leading another questions and you will see where I'm going with
12 this line. I'm not insisting on admitting this document. I'm just -- I
13 thought just as illustration of the -- of the -- of the expert opinion
14 given on -- during his testimony. And there are some additional reasons
15 why this document, in my opinion, is relevant, but ...
16 MR. HANNIS: Well, could I hear those other reasons and respond
17 to them?
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I just stated them. It's a crime that
19 happened in the relevant time in one of the municipalities which is in
20 the indictment and the victim is a lady of the Muslim ethnicity.
21 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honours, I guess if it is to rebut the
22 Prosecution's position that the police weren't investigating or
23 prosecuting crimes where the suspected perpetrators were Serbs and the
24 victims were non-Serbs, it may have some relevance. However, I think
25 this only indicates that an on-site investigation was done, which would
1 be the judge doing something. There's no evidence that the police then
2 followed -- followed up and filed a criminal report. And the absence of
3 that is consistent with our theory, that the police were not pursuing
4 these matters. I think we have had witnesses from Kljuc talking about
5 what is in the KU reports, and I don't believe this one is.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Well, Mr. Zecevic, the victim of this crime is
7 not in the victims' list in the indictment.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I'm not entirely sure, Your Honours, but I
9 can give you an answer after the break. Because the -- the surname does
10 sound a bell. But it might be -- it might be the case that, that it has
11 been mentioned during the case in some other -- in other relation.
12 Maybe we can take the break now and ...
13 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE HALL: So we return in 20 minutes.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.
19 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, while the witness is on his way in, we
20 have been alerted by the Court Officer that the Prosecution --
21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
22 JUDGE HALL: Yeah, I know. Has requested ten minutes at the end
23 of the day, so you will pace yourself accordingly.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: I was notified. Thank you.
25 JUDGE HALL: Have you abandoned your application to have this
1 document admitted, Mr. Zecevic?
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours. We checked, and it is not in
3 the schedules. The name of the victim is not in the schedules, yes.
4 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mr. Bajagic, tell me, please, from a technical point of view, if
9 I can put it that way, in the so-called pre-criminal proceedings, where
10 does the role of the police end?
11 A. The role of the Ministry of the Interior and its members ends
12 when the criminal report is filed, regardless of whether the perpetrator
13 is known or unknown. That is how far police powers go.
14 Q. Thank you. Tab 3. 340D1 is the 65 ter number.
15 This is a document dated the 2nd of December, 1992. It is a
16 criminal report. It's actually a set of documents. Five or six
17 documents are attached.
18 Could you please give us your brief comment on this document.
19 A. This document -- or, rather, this criminal report, confirms my
20 previous statement. We see that it is the public security station of
21 Kotor Varos that filed this criminal report. It was the head of the
22 public security station that filed this criminal report.
23 We see that there's a reference to the relevant laws on the basis
24 of which it is being filed, and we see that the general pattern is
25 followed there against whom it is being filed - in this case, the
1 perpetrator is unknown - and then various facts are given about the said
2 person. Then there's a description of the crime. And then the evidence
3 that is just listed briefly. And then there are the attachments that are
4 enclosed. So they're an integral part of the criminal report.
5 Q. What are the usual attachments that are enclosed with a criminal
6 report? Could you please tell us that.
7 A. Well, that is certainly a record of the on-site investigation
8 that is written up by the investigative judge. Then if there was
9 expertise carried out by doctors, then there are documents about that.
10 And then there is an Official Note of the members of the Ministry of the
11 Interior who wrote that. And it has to do with a specific crime, when
12 information was being collected about material evidence and about the
13 perpetrator of the crime involved.
14 Q. When you say "expertise of a doctor," what do you mean?
15 A. Well, that can be a record or a certificate of death, if the
16 injured party died; and it can also be a medical certificate, if there
17 were grave injuries sustained, or other things that belonged to the
18 domain of medicine.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 A. I do apologise.
21 Q. Please go ahead.
22 A. If it is a traffic incident, then it could also include some
23 expertise by a traffic expert.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, bearing in mind
1 Mr. Hannis's objection from a while ago, I think that this document meets
2 all the requirements, as it were, that Mr. Hannis referred to in relation
3 to the previous document we tendered, so I would like to tender this
4 document as relevant.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Bajagic, are you able to indicate the
6 ethnicity of the victim?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the description of the crime,
8 there is only a reference to the name, or, rather, the last name, and I
9 don't see any reference to ethnicity. Baric; that is what is written
10 here. I cannot say.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think there is an indication of his first name
12 also, Jako.
13 So the name Jako Baric does not --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Jako Baric, yes. But I cannot say
15 what that person's ethnicity was, only on the basis of the name and
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, what has this document have that the
20 previous one doesn't have?
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, Mr. Hannis objected to the
22 previous document, saying that the position of the Office of the
23 Prosecutor is not that -- that the -- that the Ministry of the Interior
24 was not conducting on-site investigations. The point they are -- they --
25 they are pursuing is that the ministry was conducting on-site
1 investigations but was not filing criminal complaints against the
2 perpetrator where the victim is a non-Serb.
3 Now I cannot say for sure that this person is -- is not non-Serb,
4 but it -- it sounds very much like a Croat name and surname. But I
5 wouldn't like to give evidence on this. But it's -- it's the -- it's
6 the -- it's the matter of doubt that I think we are in entitled to have
7 in this matter.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: But is it related to the facts and the crimes
9 we're dealing with here?
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Well --
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: I mean, if it's a -- a, for instance, a crime of
12 passion, and even if it's somebody of Croatian or -- or Muslim ethnicity
13 who is concerned, is that relevant?
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honour [Overlapping speakers] ...
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... the fact that
16 investigations are conducted in those cases relevant to this case?
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, according to this criminal complaint,
18 it says that on the 2nd of November, 1992, around 8.00, two unknown men
19 dressed -- between 20 and 30, dressed in olive-drab uniforms, armed with
20 automatic rifles, shot at the -- at the windows of the house, and
21 committed a murder of this person. Therefore --
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. I must admit that I missed that. I was
23 checking the victims' list. He's not on the victim's list.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: It's not on the victim list, but Kotor Varos
25 municipality is in the -- in the indictment.
1 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D532, Your Honours.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. I'd like to show you another document, Mr. Bajagic, behind tab 4.
5 It's 65 ter 374D1.
6 It's an entire criminal case file of which the military court in
7 Bijeljina was seized. Let's go through the documents that make up this
8 file, and can we have your brief comments on them.
9 A. This is --
10 Q. Pause there. Before you start giving your answer, let me state
11 for Their Honours that it's a document dated the 27th of September, 1992.
12 The crime scene is in Bijeljina municipality, which is referred in our
13 indictment, and it is the murder of one Enes Tabakovic who is apparently
14 a Muslim, because, on page 2, it says that the person murdered had been
15 taken prisoner in August 1992 and was held within the barracks in
16 Bijeljina. Can we have your comments now.
17 A. It's a set of documents. First of all, a record of the on-site
18 investigation was made on the part of military investigation bodies. We
19 can see that the investigative judge is Captain Radusa Bojcic. We have
20 the forensic technician and note-taker, all of whom are members of the
21 army, in contrast to the previous document where we had a civilian
22 investigative judge, a member of the Ministry of the Interior, and a
23 number of other individuals. The record of the on-site investigation
24 describes the crime committed.
25 We also have an Official Note here, which was compiled by the
1 authorised official of the military police, I presume. We also have the
2 criminal report filed by Commander Captain First Class
3 Dragomir Keserovic.
4 Q. That's page 7 in e-court in the Serbian version.
5 A. It was filed by a military prosecutor attached to a certain
6 military post. And, lastly, we have the judgement rendered by the court
7 seized of the criminal report and all the other documentation. Finally,
8 the same set of documents contains a judgement rendered by the
9 Supreme Court of Republika Srpska, denying the appeal lodged by the
10 defendants in this case.
11 Q. Mr. Bajagic, in your view, is this case illustrative of the way
12 in which a criminal procedure unfolded under the regulation in force at
13 the time -- under the regulations in force at the time?
14 A. We see that there are two procedures here. The civilian
15 procedure, and a procedure which took place under a set of military
16 regulations. In technical terms, the procedures are probably similar,
17 but in view of the bodies involved, from prosecutor's offices to
18 investigative judges, to judges, are different.
19 Q. Mr. Bajagic, in the civilian criminal procedure, does the
20 procedure initiate with the criminal report?
21 A. Yes. The criminal report is the basis from which everything else
22 follows. I don't know much about it because I am not an expert in the
23 area, but I do know up until what point the police are involved, and I do
24 know that there was the system of the military judiciary from the
25 prosecutor's offices to the judges of the courts of both instances
1 performing their respective duties.
2 Q. The civilian criminal procedure, as far as you know, did it end
3 with a judgement?
4 A. Yes. That's the customary practice across the world. Every
5 criminal procedure ends with a judgement. There may be other specifics
6 involved that I cannot go into right now.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'd like to tender
9 this document into evidence. I think that it is useful as an
10 illustration and relevant to this case.
11 MR. HANNIS: I'm not sure what the relevance is, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE HALL: I suppose by way of illustration, it's the -- it's a
13 specimen of a complete case from start to finish. And this is one of
14 the -- and bearing in mind that this witness is an expert, admitted and
16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D533.
17 MR. HANNIS: With your last comment in mind, Your Honour, I just
18 want to state on the record that it's our position that he's tendered as
19 a police expert. He, himself, just said now that he is not an expert on
20 criminal procedure in terms of in terms of military or civilian courts.
21 JUDGE HALL: We haven't forgotten the Prosecution's position on
22 that, Mr. Hannis.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Bajagic, we will now go back to the Law on the Internal
25 Affairs of Republika Srpska behind tab 32. Your footnote 142.3;
1 Exhibit P530.
2 In paragraphs 148, where you explain Article 33, and the
3 following paragraphs, in paragraph 148, you list the various powers of
4 the Ministry of the Interior under Article 33.
5 Let us start with Article -- or, rather, paragraph 149, and could
6 you please give us your brief comments on each and every competence or
7 power as envisaged under the law.
8 A. Based on the fact that the province of the internal affairs
9 comprises public security, national security, and a number of affairs
10 relating to administration --
11 Q. I apologise.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have Article 33 in e-court.
13 It's page 4 in the Serbian and English.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 A. Article 33 of the Law on Internal Affairs sets out the service of
16 national security and regulates that the MUP shall discharge, perform
17 duties of national security. And that's in the first bullet point:
18 "Directly conduct national security-related activities ..."
19 We have already referred to this one of the two global units
20 within the MUP; namely, the National Security Service.
21 Q. I am referring to Article 33 of the Law on Internal Affairs,
22 which reads -- yeah, I'm sorry. You were referring to the first
23 answer --
24 A. Yes, the first bullet point of the various bullet points listing
25 the duties and tasks of the ministry as a whole, which deals with
1 national security as the first set of tasks within that ministry.
2 And I was just going back to what I said earlier on, that this
3 was one of the two units within the ministry which has its own respective
5 Q. Please, go ahead.
6 A. As for the National Security Service, subsequently the law would
7 define the internal structure of the service as regulated -- or to be
8 regulated subsequently in a set of regulations or rules which are
9 actually bylaws. So that's one of the various competencies.
10 Q. Please go through all the competences under Article 33 that are
11 mentioned in the subsequent paragraphs.
12 A. The ministry at its seat shall, furthermore, monitor, direct, and
13 coordinate the activity of the Security Services Centre and public
14 security stations, especially in activities related to public security.
15 In cases of higher complexity, if necessary, it shall take direct
16 measures to prevent and detect crime.
17 Q. Next.
18 A. Next is the protection of citizens and their personal security
19 and lives, as well as the protection of facilities and other material
20 goods. In cases of general emergency or serious breaches of public law
21 and order.
22 Next is the competence whereby the Ministry of the Interior
23 shall, at its seat, monitor the administration of internal affairs
24 entrusted to other organs, enterprises and legal entities. Moreover, the
25 ministry shall, at its seat, prepare or draft the proposal for the
1 organisation and the strength of the reserve police force in the
2 republic, as well as the criteria for its manning, or the recruitment of
3 its personnel.
4 In this respect, the ministry has the power to activate the
5 reserve police force in emergency situations upon orders from the
6 president of the republic, as defined by other system-related laws and
7 the constitution itself. Likewise, the ministry shall, at its
8 headquarters, see to it that weapons are procured, as well as other
9 appropriate sets of equipment for the needs of the active duty and
10 reserve force from the funds earmarked for those purposes in the
11 republican budget.
12 Furthermore, the ministry has the power to set up professional
13 and specialised training programmes for the active-duty and reserve
14 police forces and other authorised officials and test -- or, rather, deal
15 with other forms of training and exercise.
16 Furthermore, the ministry is under the obligation to advance the
17 specialist and scientific methods of work, as well as the subject matter
18 of the work of the Public Security Service.
19 Its next competence has to do with the organisation development,
20 modernisation, and maintenance of communication systems of the Ministry
21 of the Interior, as well as their protection overall.
22 The next competence of the ministry headquarters is to perform
23 complex forensic analysis for the needs of Security Services Centres and
24 public security stations. The ministry headquarters is also authorised
25 to ensure the introduction and application of modern scientific methods
1 in crime prevention. It is also in charge of cooperating with foreign
2 organs and international organisations in the field of internal affairs.
3 Its next competence is to issue local search notices and publish
4 appropriate bulletins on searches.
5 And, finally, the ministry headquarters is in charge, or
6 competent, to keep mandatory and other necessary records of statistical
7 and operational data and ensure that such records are kept in all
8 Security Services Centres and public security stations.
9 And the final competence of the ministry headquarters is to
10 perform other duties and tasks placed within its remit by this and other
11 laws within the legal system of the Serbian Republic of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina in the relevant period.
13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Bajagic, would you please comment on
14 paragraph 162. And I would like to show you, in that respect, another
15 document under tab 74 of P262.
16 A. My apologies, I've just managed to locate that under the
17 tab number. But could you just remind me what paragraph you wanted me to
18 comment on?
19 Yes, I can see it now. Would you like me to comment on it?
20 Well, paragraph 162, as we can see, it says that as a rule,
21 pursuant to Article 33 on the Law on Internal Affairs that I commented on
22 just a moment ago, the Law on Defence and the decision of the Presidency
23 of the Serbian republic, MUP shall participate in the general
24 mobilisation of conscripts.
25 As I stressed earlier, the ambit of the ministry is not defined
1 by the Law on Internal Affairs alone but also by other laws, and in that
2 respect, I also mentioned that they also had a role in general
3 mobilisation, which is in conjunction with Article 33, the last
4 competence, as well as in keeping with the Law on Defence of June 1992.
5 In other words, they are -- they have a role in the general public
6 mobilisation of forces and resources in the republic in keeping with
7 general legal provisions.
8 Q. Thank you. Now what we have under tab 74 is an order, as we can
9 see, issued by the prime minister, pursuant to an order by the
10 Presidency, or a decision adopted by the Presidency, as we can see in the
11 preamble. And it also refers to the decision of the Presidency that you
12 mention in your expertise.
13 Now, would you please just comment briefly on paragraph 2 of this
15 A. Paragraph 2 of this document, as we can see, describes that all
16 military conscripts who do not comply with Article 1 of this decision,
17 against all such military conscripts, measures shall be determined by the
18 law and taken by the law.
19 And then we see that in the second subparagraph, it says:
20 "The implementation of these measures shall be pursued by members
21 of the military police, the army and staff members of the Ministry of the
22 Interior ..."
23 In other words, this is directly related to paragraph 162 of my
25 Q. Mr. Bajagic, is this document, this order from the president of
1 the government, in fact the implementation of the decision adopted by the
3 A. Well, as we can see, the first document that deals with this
4 matter - in other words, mobilisation - came from the Presidency of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina as the highest organ, and then we see that it is
6 implemented by the government and the prime minister, and then it is
7 further conveyed and assigned to lower levels, the ministries of internal
9 Q. Thank you. Now in paragraph 162, you also mention footnote 198.
10 That's under tab 75. And it is marked here as 1422 in this particular
11 case. Could you please take a look at that.
12 A. In paragraph 2 of the earlier document we just saw says that
13 measures taken against individuals who do not comply with Article 1 on
14 mobilisation, that the organisations in charge of taking such measures
15 against these individuals are the army and Ministry of the Interior.
16 Pursuant to the order from the government, we see that this is in keeping
17 with Article 33 of the Law on Internal Affairs and that pursuant to that
18 Article the ministry ordered -- issued an order to the special police
19 unit to conduct mobilisation in certain municipalities -- or, rather, to
20 mobilize those who have failed to report to call up, to a call-up up to a
21 certain date and that all of this was in keeping with the decision by the
22 Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina on general mobilisation.
23 Now, under 2, paragraph 2 of this order, we see that all those
24 conscripts who are mobilized pursuant to the decision there shall be
25 handed over to the Lukavica Barracks, or referred to the
1 Lukavica Barracks, and we see that, through the activity of one of its
2 organisational units, they participated in the mobilisation process, and
3 these individuals were handed over to the barracks, or, rather, a
4 military post.
5 Q. Just one question. Can you recognise the signature that appears
6 on this document?
7 A. No, it actually says that in the signature we see, it says that
8 it's the minister of the interior, Mico Stanisic. However, we see there
9 is some kind of symbol preceding the typed words "minister of the
10 interior," and I assume that this would mean "for the minister of the
11 interior" and that somebody else had actually placed their signature
12 there. Because as far as I can recall, this does not look like the
13 signature of the minister of the interior, because I believe I've seen
14 that signature on one of the dispatches sent by -- on his behalf. So I
15 believe this was signed on his behalf by someone at the headquarters.
16 Q. Mr. Bajagic, please tell me this. The ministry headquarters for
17 the needs of the service, are they in a position to detach or
18 resubordinate certain members of the internal affairs services and assign
19 them to the territory of another municipality and not the one where they
20 normally belong?
21 A. The Ministry of the Internal Affairs is an organ that, by
22 implication and also under the legal provisions, allows them to detach
23 certain functional organisational units and also individuals, as we can
24 see later on when we analyse the expertise, and assign them to certain
25 tasks for a certain period of time in another territory and not the one
1 where they normally belong. In other words, this could apply to a
2 functional unit, such as the special police brigade, or it can apply to
3 individuals, and individuals can be assigned to certain assignments
4 outside of their own territory for a certain period of time.
5 Q. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bajagic.
6 Now I would like you to give us your comments on paragraph 164 of
7 your expert report. It deals with Article 38 of the Law on Internal
8 Affairs, and perhaps it would be a good idea to put it back on our
9 monitors. That's under tab 32; your footnote 142.3 of P530. Page [as
10 interpreted] 38 is actually the fifth page of that document. And I
11 believe it is the same in both versions, both in English and B/C/S.
12 A. Could you please just repeat the tab number? I didn't get it.
13 Q. That's 32.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Your paragraph 164.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Mr. Bajagic, if you need some assistance, perhaps we can ask the
18 usher to remove one of the binders so that you can deal with them more
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Usher, if
21 you can help Mr. Bajagic that just one of the binders is moved. Thank
22 you very much, Mr. Usher.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In paragraph 164 of my expert
24 report, I analyse Articles -- I analyse the Article 38 of the Law on
25 Internal Affairs because of something that that took me by surprise.
1 This significantly, actually, restricts the role of the minister of the
2 interior in the event of emergency situations, such as an imminent threat
3 of war, and other emergencies, and I quoted parts of that Article which
4 suggest that the minister could not issue any such orders without the
5 approval of the assembly, such as, for instance, Assembly of Citizens in
6 a specified public area. In other words, he was unable to issue such an
7 order without the approval of the National Assembly or an order from the
8 president if the National Assembly was unable to meet. And I refer there
9 to a constitutional provision which provides for the president to issue
10 certain orders in the event that the National Assembly is unable to do so
11 at the time, which would then later just confirm it.
12 Q. Thank you. Now could we just briefly look at your paragraph 166.
13 It deals with Article 40 of the law. And it is on the same page in
14 Serbian, and I believe in English, it's on page 6.
15 A. Yes, I can just say this briefly. We see the same phenomenon, in
16 other words the restriction of the powers of the minister of the
17 interior, in external communication.
18 And Article 40 of the law specifies that it is only the president
19 of the republic who can decide on which socio-political communities, the
20 republic, town, municipality, or so forth are to be informed of the
21 activities of the MUP. In other words, the minister did not have the
22 power to inform other organs about the operations of the Ministry of the
23 Interior without the approval of the president.
24 Q. Thank you. I would now like you to comment on paragraph 175 of
25 your expert report relating to Article 43 of the law, and I believe
1 that's on the following page, page 6 in the B/C/S version, and we have
2 the right page in English already.
3 Again, that's paragraph 175 of your expert report.
4 A. Paragraph 175 analyses Article 43 of the Law on Internal Affairs,
5 which is of great significance in my view, because it regulates the
6 question of who issues orders in the administrative procedure to
7 authorised officials of the MUP, and I quoted there a sentence where it
9 "Authorised officials must execute orders issued by the minister
10 or by their immediate supervisor for the purpose of performing duties and
11 tasks of national and public security except when such orders contravene
12 the constitution and the law."
13 The importance of this lies in the fact that it states that the
14 Ministry of the Interior, as a state administration organ, uses the term
15 "control and order," which indicates that orders and other instructions
16 that the ministry headquarters send have the nature of an administrative
17 document within that particular government agency. That was important
18 for me, in order to be able to distinguish between this and the terms
19 that are used in the military. That is why I say at the end of this
20 paragraph that since the Law on State Administration and the Law on
21 Ministries and the Law on the Ministry of the Interior define the
22 ministry as a state administration organ. On that basis, I concluded --
23 and, anyway, it says in modern-day police science that as stated in
24 paragraph 133 there is control within the police; whereas, in the
25 military, there is command. So the way of issuing orders is quite
1 different. That was important and that is why I quoted that. When I
2 said that those who were issued orders to carry out tasks except those
3 that contravene the constitution and the law. However, I think that we
4 are going to explain that in detail at a different point.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: I have a couple of issues in the transcript. I
6 think quite some time ago, I think we seeked [sic] assistance from the
7 CLSS in -- in relation to -- to the specific term "rukovodjenje," and I
8 believe it was agreed that -- that the proper translation was
10 Now I see here "control and order." But I think it was
11 "directing," as opposed to "commanding."
12 And there is one other thing. The administrative act, I -- I
13 think needs to be explained by the -- by the expert because it has been
14 translated as "administrative document." 43:5.
15 But I will come to that. I will seek clarification from the
16 expert. But about the -- the -- the "directing," I would like to -- to
17 have it clear whether that -- that is the understanding of our friends
18 from the Office of the Prosecutor, that it has been agreed like that.
19 MR. HANNIS: Well, I -- I -- I don't recall. If you can direct
20 me to where there was a document or something we received from CLSS. I
21 simply don't remember if it was something I dealt with before.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I will provide the reference. We have to
23 find it in the transcript. So we will return to that.
24 Now --
25 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, when you say issuing orders in an
1 administrative procedure as an act of administration, when they say that
2 they have the nature of an administrative act, are you referring to a
3 document, or what is it that you mean when you say that?
4 A. What I mean, or what I meant, is everything that leaves the
5 Ministry of the Interior by way of internal documentation. That is,
6 documents and specific documents, such as orders.
7 Q. Is the core of the matter the fact that administrative acts, both
8 as acts and documents, are strictly prescribed by law or not?
9 A. Of course, they are prescribed by law. We're going to see later
10 in the analysis what kind of documents are issued by the ministry and
11 which were relevant for this expert report as well.
12 Q. Does that make a distinction between the situation in
13 administrative organs, in the one hand, and in the military, on the other
15 A. The ministry headquarters issues orders, how to act in general
16 situations or in specific situations. Of course, this action has to be
17 in line with the law. Members of the Ministry of the Interior, as
18 authorised officials, I mean, by virtue of the fact that they received
19 the status of authorised officials, they have the legal obligation to
20 exercise certain authority, regardless of whether there are specific
21 orders involved.
22 I think that members of the ministry --
23 Q. Mr. Bajagic, I don't think you understand my question. What you
24 say here and what you said in your answer a moment ago, you say in your
25 paper that is why it says that the police --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot find the
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. I am asking you whether this distinction that you have between
5 direction in the military and commanding in the army has anything to do
6 with the fact that the police is an administrative organ which has the
7 Law on Administrative Procedure there and the Law on State Administration
8 in contrast to the military. Is that the difference involved or is it
9 something different?
10 A. Well, that is the difference involved.
11 MR. HANNIS: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry.
12 Mr. Zecevic, I don't know if it is what you said in Serbian, but at line
13 15: "I'm asking whether this distinction that you have between direction
14 in the military and commanding in the army has anything to do with the
15 fact ... "
16 I think you may have meant the police instead of military. But
17 here it comes out as military and police -- military and army and I see
18 no connection [Overlapping speakers] ...
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... thank you very much. I
20 did say direction in the police and commanding in the army, yes.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In a military system, the members
22 of the military carry out their tasks on the basis of a direct order. In
23 the police, it's different. On the basis of all regulations and
24 administrative documents, the members of the police have certain powers
25 to take action.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Thank you. Could you please give us your comment on
3 paragraph 178 of your report.
4 A. One of the administrative actions, or powers, is the right to ask
5 persons to show their IDs and to bring them to an appropriate organ.
6 That is defined by Article 47 of the Law on the Interior and authorised
7 officials of the Ministry of the Interior --
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have paragraph -- or,
9 rather, Article 47 on our monitors, please. It's the next page in
11 A. Members of the Ministry of the Interior can carry out this
12 administrative action in accordance with this Article of the law and in
13 ways envisaged by the law. So that involves the Law on Criminal
14 Procedure that is very important in this context as well. I didn't go
15 into that specifically. And that is regulated by Article 48 of this law,
16 that you can see here.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.
20 Q. Could I please have your comment on paragraph 187 of your expert
21 report. It has to do with Article 54 of the law.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have that, please.
23 Q. That is the next page of the Serbian text. And I assume that it
24 is the same in English. Thank you.
25 A. In paragraph 187, I provide my comment on the basis of Article 45
1 [as interpreted], one of the powers vested in the members of the Ministry
2 of the Interior, that is to say, the right of authorised officials to
3 collect data and information when this is necessary for the purpose of
4 uncovering crimes and accomplices in the commission of these crimes.
5 So this is one of the usual administrative actions taken by
6 members of the Ministry of the Interior of the Serb Republic of BH and
7 before that for the ministries and for all modern police forces anyway.
8 Q. Thank you. Could I please have your comment on Article 55 of the
9 law. And it is paragraph 189 of your expert report.
10 A. Again, this is an administrative action, or one of the powers
11 that the members of the Ministry of the Interior have. It involves
12 closing off access to a specific area or facility and preventing people
13 from leaving the area or facility without permission.
14 So, in my judgement, this administrative action, or, rather,
15 this power of the members of the Ministry of the Interior, is, in most
16 cases, envisaged in the field of uncovering crime and fighting crime as
17 such. I provided a broader explanation here; but, in brief terms, I
18 should say that without this kind of entitlement to this kind of
19 administrative action, members of the crime prevention police could not
20 efficiently secure the scene or take many other tactical measures from a
21 crime-prevention point of view, in order to get to relevant facts that
22 may be of assistance to uncover a crime and possibly obtain preliminary
23 information for -- from persons who may be present there and thus collect
24 information that may lead to uncovering the crime.
25 Q. Thank you. I think that we have time to hear your comments on
1 Article 56. It's the next page in Serbian. It is your paragraph 190.
2 A. Article 56 of the Law on Internal Affairs, as can be shown -- as
3 can be seen from paragraph 190 of this expert report regulates the use of
4 instruments of coercion, which is, as I have been pointing out, one of
5 the standard administrative actions taken by all police forces in the
7 According to this Article of the law, this right has been vested
8 in the Ministry of the Interior; that is to say, its authorised
9 officials. Also, this Article states what is meant by instruments of
10 coercion. That is, physical force, rubber batons, police dogs, police
11 cavalry, water hoses, gas weapons, and other gas devices, binding
12 devices, devices for forcible obstruction and stopping of vehicles and
14 So all this is specified, every one of these instruments.
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Bajagic. Once again, I need to intervene in
16 relation to the transcript. Last time when we discussed this with a
17 previous witness we had a similar situation, and then Ms. Korner was so
18 kind as to give us the right explanation or interpretation of this term
19 "sredstvo prinude," how it should be translated. She said that in
20 English in her view the best term to be used would be "use of force in
21 the course of arrest," if I remember that correctly. I am going to find
22 it --
23 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... That is my
24 recollection, too, Mr. Zecevic.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
1 [Interpretation] For the purposes of the transcript, that's
2 19903. That's the page.
3 Q. We still have time left to hear your comments in respect of
4 paragraph 195.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Zecevic.
6 MR. ZECEVIC:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Which has to do with Article 159?
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, just for the transcript,
9 Judge Hall's last intervention was: "That is my recollection, too."
10 I think it is important to add that in the transcript. Thank
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much, Your Honours, I'm sorry. I
13 missed that Judge Hall was not recorded. Thank you. I know I'm creating
14 a problem because I'm shifting. I sometimes speak in Serbian and then
15 there is a translation going on and then ... but I'm ...
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]
17 MR. ZECEVIC: I will try my best to avoid making a confusion
18 anymore. Thank you.
19 [Interpretation] I apologise, I referred to Article 59. Yes, we
20 have it before us.
21 Q. And the paragraph of your report we're dealing with is 195.
22 Please go ahead.
23 A. In paragraph 195 of the expert report, I analysed Article 59 of
24 the law, which is directly related to Articles 56 and 57 of the law.
25 Article 59 regulates that the chief of the Security Services
1 Centre shall, within the legal time-limit, that's to say, within seven
2 days at the most, of being informed that an authorised official of one of
3 the public security stations within the system of the centre, has used
4 force in one of the ways described under Article 56, or fire-arm under
5 Article 57, that he will have the duty to assess the legality and
6 appropriateness of the use of force, one of the instruments thereof or
7 fire-arm. In other words, the chief of the CSB shall have seven days to
8 investigate this, to assess this, in respect of the use of force, or
9 fire-arm, on the part of any of the officials of any of the SJBs the
10 centre covers.
11 Q. Mr. Bajagic, in view of the provisions of Article 59 and the
12 inherent duty of a CSB chief, what is the obligation of the chiefs of
13 SJBs in this regard?
14 A. The stipulation of the law is that the chief of the CSB has the
15 obligation to assess the lawfulness of the use of force within the
16 prescribed time-limit, so whether it was used within the limits of the
17 law and whether it was used properly. But the Article does not confer
18 any duties or powers in this regard to any of the SJB chiefs. Rather, it
19 is only the CSB chief who is referred to.
20 Q. I do agree with that. But as the law regulates, and you confirm
21 in Article 59, the CSB chief is under the obligation to do this and that,
22 within seven days of learning of this. So if a member of the Ministry of
23 the Interior who is a member of any of the SJBs used force, including
24 fire-arm, how is the SJB chief going to learn this?
25 A. Well, he is definitely going to learn this or be informed of it
1 from the chief of the SJB concerned.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, I'm looking at the clock. Perhaps
4 this might be the right time for our break.
5 JUDGE HALL: Yes, if this is convenient.
6 We return in 20 minutes.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 JUDGE HALL: You may continue, Mr. Zecevic.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, footnote 184 and 185 of your
14 report, which relate to paragraphs 150 and 151, refer to the rule-book on
15 the operation of public security. It's 889D1. Unfortunately, I don't
16 have it in my binder. I asked for copies to be made, but until that
17 time, we can look at it on our screens.
18 Sir, these are 1977 rules of the Socialist Republic of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Were these rules also applicable with regard to the
20 duties performed by the Public Security Service of the MUP of
21 Republika Srpska of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992?
22 A. Just as was the case with some other bylaws regulating issues
23 related to the workings of the Ministry of the Interior of
24 Republika Srpska of Bosnia-Herzegovina, these rules were in force in 1992
25 as one of the documents which did not run contrary to the laws in force
1 at the time in the Serbian Republic of BH. These rules, as well as
2 others, were applied and adhered to by the Ministry of the Interior.
3 Q. Mr. Bajagic, these rules are on the affairs of public security.
4 Do they contain detailed interpretations of all the relevant articles
5 from the Law on Internal Affairs that we have discussed?
6 A. The 1977 rules set out in detail the departments and structural
7 units from the ministry headquarters down to the lowest territorial
8 units, as well as the tasks and duties that the various units down to the
9 level of departments and sections are duty-bound to carry out in keeping
10 with these rules.
11 Q. In your view, is this document important for the understanding of
12 the way in which the Ministry of the Interior operated when it comes to
13 public security?
14 A. It is certainly important. Some sections of the rules where the
15 establishment of certain structural units is discussed, be it in
16 territorial or hierarchical terms, also deal with the powers and
17 competences these departments have to perform their tasks within the
18 purview of the Ministry of the Interior. At any rate, together with the
19 law and other bylaws the rules are very important in order to gain an
20 insight into the workings of the Ministry of the Interior and its
21 respective units.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm told that the
23 document is not in the law library due to apparently what was an
24 oversight. On that basis, I'd like that the document be introduced into
25 the law library or that it be assigned an exhibit number.
1 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... I thought that
2 we had recently, when I say recently, since the Defence case opened,
3 visited this question and the understanding was that the law library is
4 not closed at this point. And as documents are newly discovered, then
5 they would just be included.
6 I don't know if the Prosecution has a different recollection.
7 MR. HANNIS: No, I don't. And I don't necessarily disagree with
8 that. But I have a question and maybe it arises out of my confusion.
9 But I thought we looked at the 1990 rules, earlier from January 29th on
10 the rules on internal affairs. And if there's a 1990 version that is in
11 effect in 1992, then I don't see a relevance of a 1977 version.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Just a second.
13 [Defence counsel confer]
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, there is a difference between two
15 rule-books. The rule-book Mr. Hannis is referring to bears the exhibit
16 number P850, and it's at tab 38; footnote 168 of the expert opinion. And
17 it's -- it's a rule-book on internal organisation of the -- of the
18 Ministry of the Interior.
19 Now, this is a rule-book on operational methods of the Public
20 Security Service, which is a different thing. It's a different
21 rule-book. And, therefore --
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: We understand. But, Mr. Zecevic, I suppose that
23 the issue is whether the 1977 rule-book on the operational methods was in
24 force in 1992 and had not been replaced by any subsequent rule-book.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I believe I asked the question of the witness
1 and he confirmed that this particular document from 1977 was in fact used
2 in 1992 in the MUP of Republika Srpska.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Your -- yeah. Your Honour, therefore, the only
5 question is whether -- whether the Office of the Prosecutor will agree
6 that we -- that we add this to the law library or not.
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes, that should be assigned an L number.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this will be Exhibit L332.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: And, Mr. Zecevic, just to make sure, it is not on
11 your list of documents. That's right?
12 MR. ZECEVIC: No, it is on the list of documents. It was just
13 not printed out for the binder for the witness.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated]
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Tab number 41.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated]
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
18 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, just a technical matter. I'm looking at
19 the e-court version on my screen of the English translation, and maybe
20 it's me, but it's blurry. I don't know if we need to have another
22 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
23 MR. ZECEVIC: It's pretty clear on -- on my monitor, Mr. Hannis.
24 Especially the English text.
25 JUDGE HALL: It appears that not all screens have your
1 deficiency, Mr. Hannis.
2 MR. HANNIS: [Microphone not activated] I understand my partner
3 has the same deficiency.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated]
5 MR. HANNIS: [Microphone not activated] carry on. I'll do the
6 best I can with what I have.
7 MR. ZECEVIC:
8 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, let's go back to paragraph 195 of
9 your report and footnote 229, which is related to the paragraph.
10 Was there rules governing the use of fire-arms?
11 A. In relation to the power to use fire-arms as provided for under
12 the Law on Internal Affairs for members of the ministry, it is only
13 natural that rules should be adopted on the use of fire-arms which
14 stipulate in greater detail the legal requirements for such use and the
15 appropriate conduct on the part of those using fire-arms, as well as
16 their obligation to report such events as soon as possible in writing and
17 verbally. In other words, under the rules, such individuals are under
18 the obligation to report verbally at once and in writing at a later
19 stage, as to the legal conditions that were in place and that allowed
20 them to use fire-arms.
21 Q. Thank you. Can we have your comment on paragraph 215, Article --
22 Article 127 of the law. Let me just check if we're still dealing with
23 the same law. That's tab 32, P530, your footnote 142.3. It's page 15 in
24 Serbian and probably 16 in English. Article 127. Page 15.
25 This has to do with paragraph 215.
1 A. In paragraph 215, Article 127 is addressed, which stipulates the
2 way in which all members of the Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist
3 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina are to be assumed by the Ministry of the
4 Interior of the Serbian Republic. In other words, with the date of the
5 coming into effect of this law, the Ministry of the Interior of the
6 Serbian Republic would take on all of these members of the MUP, in
7 accordance to their preferences. And it is stated in that Article that
8 all employees in the headquarters and all the employees in the security
9 stations on the respective posts that they held would be taken over by
10 the Ministry of the Interior of Serbian Republic of BH.
11 Q. In your view, on the basis of these legal provisions and in the
12 course of your research, was it your conclusion that there existed
13 certain restrictions or limitations with respect to those employees of
14 the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina who were of Serbian ethnicity?
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Who were of Muslim
17 A. No, it says here that all other -- all employees of Serbian
18 ethnicity and other ethnicities, that is to say, regardless of their
19 ethnicity can voluntarily express a wish to be taken on by the Ministry
20 of the Interior of the Serbian Republic of BH. There were no
21 restrictions. It was left up to them to say voluntarily whether they
22 would move on to the Ministry of the Interior of the Serbian Republic of
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina and continue their work there.
24 Q. Thank you. I would now show you the next document with a
25 different subject. I will go back with you to paragraph 106 of your
1 report and also paragraph 231, with which this document is also linked.
2 And it has to do with footnote 131. That's Exhibit 1D159, tab 29.
3 A. Yes, I found it.
4 Q. Can you please comment on this document for us, the one that you
5 referred to in your footnote 131.
6 A. I have not opened it in my binder. Which tab is it? I'll do it
7 very quickly.
8 Q. It's tab 29. And your paragraph in question is 106 and the
9 related footnote, 131, in which you referred to this document.
10 A. Yes. As we mentioned yesterday, as I think, this has to do with
11 the fact that deputy interior minister on 26th September 1992 issued an
12 instruction on mobilising the reserve police force, which we connected
13 with some other documents too. And considering the fact that such
14 mobilisation could only be carried out on the basis of orders of federal
15 organs, the organs of the federal state, as mentioned in the dispatch
16 which we dealt with in connection with paragraph 107.
17 So this was the manning and updating of the wartime organisation
18 of the MUP which was signed by Deputy Minister Zepinic together with a
19 form which is an integral part of the document and stating in which
20 manner the information should be filled and updated. That was the
21 information about the mobilisation of the Ministry of the Interior.
22 Q. I can see that it says here the 26th of September 1992 in the
23 record but I think you said and in your report it says 1991.
24 A. Yes, I apologise, 26th September 1991.
25 Q. Sir, as for the Ministry of the Interior of the former
1 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and also other organs, were they
2 obliged, according to the regulations that were in force in SFRY, to have
3 defence plans and plans for extraordinary situations or emergencies.
4 A. They certainly did. Not just state administration organs but
5 also all enterprises, all educational and health institutions,
6 considering the set of legal regulations which regulated specifically
7 this issue, the situation of an imminent threat of war, war, and other
8 emergency situations. It is certain that the constitution of SFRY which
9 was then in force included several provisions that had to do with this
10 subject, but systemic laws in this area, that is to say, the documents
11 where the law on All People's Defence and the strategy of the All
12 People's Defence and social self-protection.
13 Of course, on the basis of the Law on All People's Defence and
14 this strategy, in certain specific laws that primarily had to do with the
15 Ministry of the Interior in that period, and it was called the
16 secretariat of the interior, and also within the military system, the
17 laws pertaining to them regulated this subject matter in accordance with
18 the documents I already mentioned.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would
21 move to tender this document so it can be admitted into evidence.
22 MR. HANNIS: Sorry, can I confirm which one we're talking about?
23 Is this the Zepinic document?
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
25 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I do have a --
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, I'm sorry. It's already 1D159. I'm
3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, before we move on to the actual
4 situation, the organisation, and activities of MUP in 1992, I would ask
5 you a few general questions relating to item 3 from paragraph 233 of your
6 report and further. I believe that this is all connected. And in
7 connection with this, I would show you a couple of documents. It is
8 tab 6, 65 ter 444D1. I will ask you for your comment.
9 A. What is the tab number?
10 Q. Number 6.
11 A. This is a document, or, rather, a decision which was made on the
12 basis of item 2 of decision to form the Army of Republika Srpska, so this
13 is the decision on the forming, organisation, establishment, and command
14 and control of the Army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
15 which was signed by the then-president of the presidency of the Socialist
16 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Radovan Karadzic. So the decision is
17 based on the decision to establish the Army of Republika Srpska and it
18 deals with the organisation, forming of the Army of Republika Srpska,
19 command and control, establishing the Main Staff, and generally speaking,
20 which corps should make up the army, and where their seats would be and
21 what would be the zones of responsibility of individual corps.
22 Q. On page 3 there is the signature of ... ?
23 A. President of the Presidency, Radovan Karadzic. I already
24 emphasised that.
25 Q. Mr. Bajagic, do you remember what was the assembly session at
1 which the decision to establish the Army of Republika Srpska was made?
2 A. I know that it was made but I do not know the exact date. I know
3 that the decision was made, that the documents referred to it, but I
4 really could not guess the exact date.
5 Q. All right.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would
7 propose that we admit this document.
8 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
9 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D534, Your Honours.
11 MR. ZECEVIC:
12 Q. [Interpretation] Can you please comment on the next document.
13 This is document number 7, 65 ter 500D1.
14 A. This document deals with --
15 Q. Just a second so that we can wait until we get the English text
16 on the monitor so everyone could follow.
17 Please go ahead.
18 A. This document or, rather, the order to form and establish the
19 army of the Serbian Republic of BH is the result of the previous document
20 that is to say, the decision made by the president of the Presidency.
21 This order was issued and signed by the commander,
22 Lieutenant-Colonel General Ratko Mladic, and on the basis of the previous
23 document it talks about the seat of the Main Staff of the Army of
24 Republika Srpska and specifies in detail which units would belong to
25 which corps of the Army of Republika Srpska. On principle, this document
1 is a consequence of the decision to form and establish the Army of
2 Republika Srpska which was signed by the president of the Presidency of
3 Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadzic, and now this is specified by the
4 chief of General Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would
7 move to have this document admitted as well.
8 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D535, Your Honours.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, we are having a bit of a difficulty
12 in accepting that these documents be admitted through this witness, who
13 is an expert on police matters.
14 Now, we realize that the documents are -- are, indeed, relevant,
15 so we'll --
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, it wasn't intended for -- for any
17 specific comment by this witness because is he not expert on military
18 issues. But I -- it is just to illustrate actually the -- the -- the
19 time-line of the -- of the establishment of the -- of the -- of the
20 military -- of the VRS at the time. It -- the problem is -- the problem
21 is, Your Honours, that we came in possession of these documents only
22 after the -- the Office of the Prosecutor military expert has stepped
23 down. Otherwise, I would have, of course, shown it to him.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: My point, I think, perhaps was not clear. My
25 point is that we should limit ourselves to introducing documents into
1 evidence through particular witnesses who are capable of testifying to
2 them, and since this witness is a professor and expert on police and MUP
3 matters, it may not appear to be quite appropriate to have documents
4 relating to something completely different introduced through this
5 witness. You may have other witnesses through whom it would be more
6 appropriate to -- to introduce these documents.
7 But let's not dwell too long on this. I'm just giving you a
8 signal that this is on the border-line.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand and I appreciate it.
10 Mr. Hannis.
11 MR. HANNIS: I initially started to rise, Your Honour, because I
12 was going to complain that this is something that should have been shown
13 to Ewan Brown when he testified here. But I understand that Mr. Zecevic
14 says that he didn't get the document until after Mr. Brown testified.
15 However, I think your point is a good one. And I see that Mr. Zupljanin
16 has a military expert on his list as a witness to be called later in this
17 case, and perhaps would be a more appropriate witness to deal with this
18 document, in which case, I would suggest that we have this one MFI'd at
19 this stage.
20 JUDGE HALL: For tidiness, I suppose, Mr. Zecevic.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, yes.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Therefore, Your Honours, Exhibits 1D534 and 1D535
25 will remained marked for identification.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Now, Mr. Bajagic, as we have dealt with the de jure aspect of
3 your research, we have arrived to the de facto part. That's primarily
4 paragraph 219 and onwards.
5 Would you be so kind to provide us with a general comment on
6 paragraph 219 and generally what you discuss in this part of your report.
7 A. In the analysis of the factual situation concerning the
8 organisation and functioning of the MUP in the course of the year 1992, I
9 started by noting in paragraph 219 that, considering the de jure
10 situation, that is to say the obligation of the Ministry of the Interior
11 to act in accordance with the specific law and other documents which we
12 mentioned, that the status of the ministry, its organisation, and its
13 functioning, according strictly to organisations, was considerably
14 limited by the actual situation on the ground. In particular, it was a
15 problem to establish, strictly legally speaking, the organisational
16 structure, the management and control, and everything else that the
17 ministry is supposed to do, because some significant documents such as
18 the constitution and constitutional law, the constitution of the Serbian
19 Republic of BH is what I mean, the constitutional law on the
20 implementation of the constitution, limited some sections of the Law on
21 the Internal Affairs, and, therefore, prevented the Ministry of the
22 Interior to act fully in accordance with the law. That is on the one
24 On the other, as we know, there was a number of Serbian
25 autonomous regions, as well as the Autonomous Region of Krajina. These
1 were the regional organisational units in the area of the
2 Serbian Republic of BH, and as late as September 1992, they began to be
3 gradually incorporated in accordance with the amendments which were used
4 to change certain constitutional provisions, and they were gradually
5 being incorporated within the legal system of the Serbian Republic of BH,
6 which late on became Republika Srpska. So there were the two facts which
7 were limiting this: The constitution and constitutional law; the fact
8 that there was the Autonomous Region of Krajina and Serbian autonomous
9 regions on the ground which only in 1992, after the adoption of
10 constitutional amendments, began to be gradually incorporated into a
11 single and unified system of power.
12 Q. In relation to what you've just said to us, could you give us a
13 brief comment on paragraph 222.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, before we come to that question for
15 the witness, first, could you clarify, explain, what you mean by: The
16 ministry was prevented to act fully in accordance with the law and that,
17 on the basis of constitution.
18 How am I to understand this?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The constitution of the Serb
20 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, from 1992, and the constitutional law,
21 recognised the existence of autonomous regions as regional, territorial
22 entities, and Serb autonomous regions. They recognised them in the sense
23 of recognising that in that territory they have certain legal regulations
24 regulating the life and work of those regions.
25 The Ministry of the Interior -- or, rather, the Law on the
1 Ministry of the Interior does not in its text recognise any other subject
2 matter except for that which is related to the functioning of the
3 Ministry of the Interior. So, when we look at the factual situation, the
4 ministry worked in increasingly difficult conditions because it could not
5 function within a single territory. It was not a unified, single
6 territory, and that became possible only through the constitutional
7 amendments. When the Serb autonomous regions were no longer recognised
8 but only this single line of functioning from the central government
9 towards the local lower level -- levels of government.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: So if I understand you well, the ministry could
11 not function in the autonomous regions on the same level as in the other
12 parts of the republic. Is that basically what you're trying to explain?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you can put it that way. That
14 it could not fully carry through what running all the organisations of
15 the MUP in the territory meant. Some organisational units, especially
16 CSBs, were within the system of this -- of this system of autonomous
17 regions or Serb autonomous regions.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
19 MR. ZECEVIC:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, are you trying to suggest, or is it
21 your conclusion, that in terms of this aspect, there is some division
22 into two periods during 1992?
23 A. Well, many paragraphs of this expert report reflect that. I
24 think we can speak about two periods. One up until September,
25 functioning under increasingly difficult conditions, in terms of running
1 all the organisational units involved; and then, after September 1992.
2 Although we can say that establishing this unified territory and this
3 unified way of running the organisational units, that did not happen all
4 of a sudden. It happened over the course of a few months, so we can say
5 that only towards the end of 1992 this has been set in place -- or,
6 rather, the Ministry of the Interior was established in accordance with
7 the Law on the Ministry.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 65:25, the minister said in
10 accordance with -- oh, sorry, not the minister. The witness. In
11 accordance with the Law on Internal Affairs the way it was envisaged by
12 the Law on Internal Affairs. That's what the witness said.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In accordance with what was
14 envisaged by the Law on Internal Affairs.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Bajagic, to complete the picture, I'll take you back to
17 paragraphs 145, 146, and 147 of your expert report. At one point in time
18 today, you started speaking about that, and I interrupted you - I
19 apologise for that - but I said that we will be getting to that, and now
20 is the time for that.
21 Can you please explain? It has to do with Article 27 of the law.
22 We're going back to the law. That is tab 32. P530, Article 27. Could
23 you explain what this pertains to.
24 A. In this set of paragraphs, when analysing Article 27 of the Law
25 on Internal Affairs, it is stated that organisational units of the
1 Ministry of the Interior, in addition to the tasks specified in the
2 regulations, are -- they are duty-bound to carry out regulations passed
3 by the municipal assemblies relating to public law and order and road
4 traffic safety, as well as other regulations passed by the municipal
6 I particularly pointed out the fact that the rules on the
7 internal organisation of the ministry of the Serb Republic of
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina was involved in a procedure only from the Autumn
9 onwards, so it was the rules that were from 1990. The rules on internal
10 organisation of the Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist Republic of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1990.
12 So organisational units, like the CSBs -- the SJBs, rather, had
13 certain obligations vis-a-vis the local governments in peacetime and in a
14 state of imminent threat of war. And these obligations of theirs were
15 based on the already mentioned Law on National Defence of the SFRY.
16 Q. Mr. Bajagic, when you say here -- or, rather, when Article 27 of
17 the law says that public security stations have the obligation of
18 implementing regulations passed by the municipal assembly relating to law
19 and order and road safety, as well as other regulations in the domain of
20 internal affairs, can you give us an example of what kind of regulations
21 this pertains to?
22 A. Well, for example, these can be some situations that are specific
23 in terms of a particular municipality. For example, in the territory of
24 a particular municipality, there can be something that is special in
25 relation to others. For example, a sports hall where events of national
1 and international significance may be taking place, and then such
2 institutions can follow the situation together with the Secretariat of
3 Interior, with the SJB. They can provide safety and security so that
4 this kind of major events could be held in the first place. These are
5 situations that are of relevance to all citizens in the territory of a
6 municipality, or, rather, within a local self-government.
7 At any rate, everything that has to do with public law and order
8 and, generally speaking, as far as public law and order is concerned, in
9 a society by definition it is not only the police or the Ministry of the
10 Interior that is the only institution involved. It is the society at
11 large that has to be involved as well, and that is why there has to be
12 this kind of cooperation between organs of local government and public
13 security stations.
14 Q. Precisely. That is what I wanted to ask you about. I would like
15 you to comment on paragraph 147 of your expert report and Article 32 of
16 the law. And that paragraph of yours pertains to that particular
17 Article. I would just like you to provide us with a brief comment, and I
18 believe that that would be it for the day, because I think that we have
19 to adjourn early.
20 A. Well, my comment with regard to paragraph 147 is just a
21 continuation of the previous comment, in view of the provisions of the
22 law referred to.
23 Assemblies and the executive organs of local government may send
24 certain proposals to the ministry headquarters, as well as opinions and
25 initiatives that are related to matters that are of relevance to the
1 overall safety and security of the municipality, and in that connection,
2 the work of centres of public security and public security stations. As
3 the law says, the ministry is duty-bound to look at initiatives,
4 opinions, and proposals, and inform the organs of local government in a
5 municipality of their own views regarding these initiatives or certain
6 measures that may have been taken in relation to such initiatives.
7 So according to this law, the MUP was duty-bound to consider
8 these initiatives and to respond within a certain period of time.
9 Q. From the point of view of this comment of yours, I'm just giving
10 an example by way of illustration. For instance, if the municipality of
11 Visegrad were to launch an initiative to close down a road across the old
12 bridge on the Drina, and that is something that is related to traffic
13 safety, would that be an illustration of the kind of situation that you
14 have been telling us about now?
15 A. But of course. That could be an illustration of that kind.
16 Perhaps, since this is a historical monument in this specific case, that
17 would be it precisely, to restrict traffic along certain roads, in order
18 to improve traffic safety or public law and order. Or there can be a
19 different situation. For example, a marathon or another race, and, of
20 course, a town could ask for the police to take active part in this, not
21 only from the point of view of their regular work. Rather, they should
22 make an extra effort in order to ensure the success of such an event.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Bajagic.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... Your Honours,
25 I see Ms. Korner has arrived and this is about the proper place for me to
1 stop for the day and continue tomorrow. Thank you.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Bajagic.
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Bajagic, we are about to take the adjournment
4 for the day, but we have certain procedural matters with which to deal
5 before the Court rises. So the usher will escort you from the courtroom
6 at this point.
7 Tomorrow, we are scheduled to resume in the afternoon and in a
8 different courtroom. But you will be conducted to the appropriate place
9 at the appropriate time. Thank you.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 JUDGE HALL: Before we hear from Ms. Korner, who we understand
12 has requested the time to deal with certain matters there are two matters
13 which the Chamber -- to which the Chamber wishes to speak.
14 Firstly, upon the Registry's request, the Chamber clarifies that
15 its order of the 20th of April, 2011, whereby it rescinded the protective
16 measures of ST-219 also applies to the audio and video record of his
17 testimony in this case on the 22nd of November, 2009.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Brother.
19 The second issue we have is just to put a question to
20 Mr. Krgovic, because we noted that you filed a motion, I think it was on
21 the 15th of April, for protective measures for your witnesses. And it
22 states, at least in the English translation, that you wish to have this
23 motion cover all the viva voce witnesses that you intend to call; yet,
24 towards the end of that same motion, you only address protective measures
25 for three witnesses. I understand, and I recall, that you have asked
1 for, all together, 13 viva voce witnesses.
2 So my question to you, Mr. Krgovic, are you seeking protective
3 measures for all 13 witnesses that you call viva voce or only those three
4 that you have mentioned in your motion?
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this must be due to an
6 error when the submission was filed. I thought that I clearly stated in
7 my motion that we sought protective measures only in respect of the three
8 witnesses that were specifically named in that motion. The other
9 witnesses will be testifying viva voce in open session without any
10 protective measures.
11 That's the situation for the time being. We haven't received any
12 information from our investigators on the field of any other witnesses
13 appearing viva voce and seeking protective measures.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you for this clarification, Mr. Krgovic.
15 You may wish to consult paragraph 2 of your motion to see if there's a
16 mistake in the translation.
17 That's all.
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm really sorry to trouble
19 Your Honours with what really is an administrative matter, the first
20 thing I wish to raise.
21 Your Honours will recall that on the Thursday before Easter,
22 Maundy Thursday, I spent a little time asking Mr. Bjelosevic about
23 documents and asking him if he was agreeable to produce various documents
24 for us, which he was, and the question then arose as to the best way of
25 doing it. And it was decided that VWS should be the people to deal with
1 it. And at page 19977, I asked him this at line 22:
2 "Are you prepared to have someone from the Sarajevo field office
3 to collect these documents in advance," and I under line this, "because
4 otherwise it will mean a delay when you get here while we all look at the
6 And as I say it was then changed to VWS. Regrettably my
7 understanding is that as follows that between Maundy Thursday when he
8 left, and yesterday, there was no contact between him and VWS at all.
9 VWS turned up yesterday and delivered to him, and I don't know why, the
10 bundle of documents that he had had here which we all understood he was
11 going to take back with him simply to identify which documents he had
12 provided and which the CSB Doboj. He never had that bundle throughout
13 the whole ten-day period and VWS turned up yesterday and just gave it to
14 him. They did not ask him if he discovered any other documents, as I
15 understand it. The arrangement now is that he will give them any
16 documents he can find on the 9th which is next Monday, which is much too
17 late, because if he doesn't give them to VWS in Sarajevo until the 9th,
18 we are unlikely to get them here before I would imagine however they're
19 going to bring them up on the Thursday and he is due to come back on the
20 Monday. And if any of the documents are to be translated or looked at by
21 us, that really does not give very much time.
22 Accordingly, I have asked if VWS could contact him -- I asked if
23 they could contact him yesterday. I understand their position is they
24 will not do so unless this is a direction from the Trial Chamber. I
25 would be very grateful, therefore, if Your Honours would district VWS to
1 contact him and ask him if he can produce those documents by the latest
2 Thursday of this week, as it is now Tuesday, to them, so that, with luck,
3 we could have them by the 9th. And I understand -- I spoke to
4 Mr. Zecevic about this, to whom it most affects and he's in agreement
5 with the course that we suggest.
6 JUDGE HALL: If I may have a moment.
7 MS. KORNER: Certainly.
8 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
9 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, have you something to add, Mr. Cvijetic?
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, 15 seconds. I have
11 an administrative obligation towards the Registry to report my presence
12 here today. That's all.
13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
14 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So with the assistance of the
15 Court Officer we give the necessary direction. I'm saying that for the
16 record but to the extent that the Registry may need further
17 clarification, we will take the liberty of doing that out of court, for
18 the benefit of the Registry.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm perfectly content with that. I
20 understand that they just needed an order from Your Honours, a direction.
21 The second matter is even more administrative. It relates to a
22 document that was marked 2D89, MFI. Your Honours may recall, it's a
23 payroll list from Doboj. It was put in by Mr. Krgovic during originally
24 on the 31st of May? I think, 31st of May. And indeed at that stage the
25 OTP was saying that there ought to be a translation of the writing
1 that -- the handwriting that appeared on the document before it was
2 admitted. So it was MFI'd.
3 Mr. Krgovic put it again in cross-examination to Mr. Bjelosevic,
4 and at that stage the same problem over the untranslated words at the top
5 came up. We sent it off for a revised translation which we got, and we
6 asked the Defence, please, we sent it to the Defence, to upload it into
7 e-court and they declined to do that. I have no doubt that Mr. Krgovic
8 will explain why. But, Your Honour, all that we're asking at the moment,
9 leaving aside whether it becomes a full exhibit or not, is if the Defence
10 decline to upload the revised translation into e-court, we ask that the
11 document be released and we will upload the revised translation. It was
12 originally a document provided by us. We can then argue about whether it
13 becomes an exhibit later. But, at the movement, I say, because the
14 Defence won't upload it, we would like to do that. So could we have the
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can I provide an
17 explanation for this.
18 The document was disclosed to us for the first time during the
19 testimony of a witness from Doboj, a chief of -- or, rather, the chief of
20 the public security station in Doboj. The Prosecution didn't use it at
21 the time but I did use with Witness Radulovic. I asked that the document
22 be admitted into evidence. However, if you look at transcript pages 1107
23 to 1111, the Prosecution opposed the admission on the grounds of the fact
24 that it was a poor copy. And then, later on, when we were settling the
25 matter of all the documents that were tendered, we placed them all on the
1 list, but the Prosecution yet again opposed their admission at the end of
2 their case.
3 In the meantime, we produced our own draft translation, because
4 we believed that the document was translatable. We sent the draft
5 translation to the translation service, which rejected our request,
6 stating that they were unable to translate the document.
7 Now, once all these witnesses testified, and once the Prosecution
8 case is over, the translation service is providing us with a better
9 translation than was the one that we produced. The translation we
10 provided was a fair one, and yet the translation service rejected the
11 request for a final translation.
12 So this is a -- an important issue to us and I want the CLSS to
13 state the reasons why they rejected our request for the translation of
14 this document, whilst they actually accepted the request from the
15 Prosecution and translated the document. I am interested in the
16 specifically names, date and the stamp on this document, and this is what
17 we don't have on the translation version we have now, and on that ground,
18 we oppose its admission. And let me state that the CLSS version and the
19 Prosecution differ in only slight details.
20 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... Well, I
21 understand that Mr. Krgovic is aggrieved by the fact that CLSS acted on
22 our request but wouldn't have his. But that's not the point. The point
23 at the moment now is that there is a revised translation. It does show
24 the handwritten name and therefore there's no reason at all why it should
25 not be uploaded into e-court. As I said, the argument about whether the
1 document becomes a full exhibit is a separate matter. All we want at the
2 moment is for the revised translation to be uploaded into e-court.
3 Otherwise we can't show it to Your Honours when we have the discussion
4 and the Defence won't do it. It's as simple as that.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: If I may just shortly observe. It is my
6 understanding that the translation which was provided by the CLSS on
7 request of the Office of the Prosecutor, again, is not the full
8 translation. That is the problem. And Mr. Krgovic is having a problem
9 because this, again, is a partial translation. So I suggest that the
10 Trial Chamber instructs the CLSS to do their utmost to translate the
11 whole document and give us the whole document and then we will admit it.
12 I think the both parties basically agree [Overlapping
13 speakers] ...
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ... that's
15 precisely the point. The CLSS should take into consideration the draft
16 translation we sent to them originally. I agree fully with what
17 Mr. Zecevic said. We need a complete translation. We tried to assist
18 the CLSS back in June by enlarging the copy, by providing them with our
19 own translation, and yet they rejected our request. What we need is a
20 full translation.
21 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... All right, Your
22 Honours. I don't want to waste any more of Your Honours' time on this.
23 Perhaps Your Honours would direct, please, CLSS, using whatever
24 assistance they can get from the Defence, to produce the fullest possible
1 JUDGE HALL: So directed. Whatever assistance we can afford.
2 And with that, we can take the adjournment -- there was something else?
4 So with that, we take the adjournment to tomorrow at 2.15.
5 Courtroom III, I believe.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
7 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 4th day of May,
8 2011, at 2.15 p.m.