1 Friday, 6 May 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-08-91-T.
7 The Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Good morning to
9 everyone. May we have the appearances for the day, please.
10 MR. HANNIS: Good morning, Your Honours. For the Prosecution,
11 Tom Hannis, Belinda Pidwell and Crispian Smith.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
13 Eugene O'Sullivan appearing for Stanisic Defence this morning. Thank
15 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and
16 Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. While the witness is being escorted in,
18 there are two matters which the Chamber -- with which the Chamber wishes
19 to deal. The first is that the Trial Chamber is seized of an oral motion
20 first raised by the Stanisic Defence on the 13th of April, seeking
21 sanctions against the Prosecution for alleged failure to disclose
22 material relating to the witness Andrija Bjelosevic pursuant to
23 Rule 66(B) of the Rules. The Trial Chamber notes that it does not have a
24 copy of the request for disclosure made by the Defence on the 21st of
25 January, 2011, nor of the Prosecution's response. The Stanisic Defence
1 is accordingly ordered to file with the Trial Chamber by noon on Monday
2 next a copy of the request of the 21st of January, 2011, together with a
3 reply from the Prosecution and confirmation of date on which any
4 disclosure of the documents was made in response to the request.
5 The second matter is that we have seen the proposed list of
6 witnesses for next week and we note that the witness that the Stanisic
7 team indicates it would call in the gap between the conclusion of the
8 testimony of the witness presently on the stand and the return of
9 Mr. Bjelosevic is such that, for ourselves, we don't understand how
10 arithmetically that witness could be completed within the day, day and a
11 half, that we estimate would be remaining, because we were under the
12 impression that Mr. Bjelosevic was a firm fixture for the Monday
13 following, namely the 16th, and it would be useful if counsel could
14 clarify this for us. Not immediately, but at some point probably early
15 next week as to whether their proposal is that the demographers -- there
16 be a break in the testimony of the demographer or that the fixture in
17 relation to the return of Mr. Bjelosevic be varied to follow the
18 demographer. But counsel would inform us accordingly.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours, we can do that after
21 the first break.
22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Bajagic, the -- good morning to you. I remind
23 you, you are still on your oath.
24 WITNESS: MLADEN BAJAGIC [Resumed]
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Hannis.
2 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis: [Continued]
4 Q. Good morning, witness. Yesterday, I was talking with you near
5 the end of the day about your work at state security in Ilidza in 1992,
6 and I had asked you about whether you had interviewed any non-Serbs
7 during that time. I want to ask you about a particular person and
8 whether you know an individual named Perica Koblar, K-o-b-l-a-r, is the
9 last name, he is Slovenian by ethnicity. Does that name ring any bells
10 for you?
11 A. Not at this moment.
12 Q. I believe his nickname was Pero, Pero Koblar. Says his wife was
13 a schoolmate of yours. Mr. Koblar apparently was -- although Slovenian,
14 he was living in Sarajevo and when the war broke out he eventually was
15 conscripted into the ABiH army and was captured by Serbian forces in
16 mid-July 1993. And he says he was captured by some men under the command
17 of a Brne Gavrilovic. Do you know who Mr. Gavrilovic was?
18 A. Yes, I know who this man is.
19 Q. Can you tell the Judges who he was, what you know about him?
20 A. I don't know much, but I do know that this gentleman at the very
21 beginning of the war was in charge of a small military formation in the
23 Q. Some have described him as a sort of self-styled Chetnik Vojvoda
24 who had a group of men, armed men, under his control and he operated in
25 the Sarajevo area, particularly in the Ilidza area. Would you disagree
1 with that?
2 A. Yes, these are well-known facts about that gentleman.
3 Q. Can you tell me, and you'll have to excuse my pronunciation, was
4 there in Ilidza municipality a substation or a police station in a town
5 or a village or an area called B-l-a - and the first letter is the z,
6 like in Zupljanin - z-u-j. Blazuj. Am I pronouncing that correctly?
7 A. Ilidza was a municipality and it consisted of a number of local
8 communities. I don't know exactly how many, but one of them was Blazuj.
9 Q. I understand there was some sort of military police facility
10 located in Blazuj during the war; correct?
11 A. There wasn't a facility of the military police. There was one of
12 the brigade of the VRS, one of the brigades. But I don't know of any
13 separate facility of the military police. I really can't remember.
14 Q. How about the MUP, did the MUP have any sort of facility there?
15 A. No, members of the MUP in the territory of the Ilidza
16 municipality were under the SJB of Ilidza which is the municipal centre.
17 This is about 8 kilometres from Blazuj. The SJB was in the centre, as I
18 said, and the MUP members were located there.
19 Q. Related to that then, let me show you --
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis.
21 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Before we continue with something else, even if
23 it is related, in -- on page 4, line 2, you asked, "Would you disagree
24 with that?" And the answer is "Yes." But I think what the witness meant
25 was something else when we read the following, "These are well-known
1 facts," so perhaps it would be good to clarify that.
2 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. I didn't notice that. I
3 took that as agreement but I will follow up.
4 Q. Professor, I asked you earlier about whether you would agree with
5 the description of Brne Gavrilovic as a self-styled Chetnik Vojvoda who
6 had a group of armed men serving under him in the Ilidza area. Do you
7 agree that that is an accurate description?
8 A. I can agree with you with this description that the gentleman
9 with this last name led such a group. Whether he is self-styled leader
10 or anything else is something that was never an object of my interest.
11 Q. And that group, what would you describe them as, were they part
12 of the MUP, a part of the VRS, or some sort of paramilitary formation, if
13 you know?
14 A. I have mentioned that I took no private or professional interest
15 in this group ever. I know that they existed as a small military
16 formation and I know that soon all such formations were disbanded
17 pursuant to the orders of the highest leadership and they were put under
18 the command of the VRS.
19 Q. Well, I understand that there were orders issued to have that
20 accomplished. But I ask you, in Ilidza did that, in fact, happen? Did
21 Mr. Gavrilovic and his group subordinate themselves to the VRS or did
22 they continue to operate independently, if you know?
23 A. I can only give an answer from memory, it won't be very detailed.
24 As far as I remember, all formations, or rather, their members, were
25 eventually placed under the control of the VRS. I couldn't give you a
1 date for this group or any other, but that wasn't part of my job. My
2 professional duties were not related to these groups while I was in the
3 National Security Service.
4 Q. Let me show you Exhibit P756. This will be coming up on your
5 screen in a minute. It's a document dated 11 September 1993 from the
6 commander of a reserve police station.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Could we have a tab, please.
8 MR. HANNIS: I don't think I have a tab. This is one of the
9 documents from Mr. Nielsen's report.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, this is precisely why I raised the issue of
11 the information which was given to us two days ago. Your Honours, we
12 cannot be prepared for all expert Nielsen reports, all sessions of
13 government, all whatever Presidency sessions. They have to be listed and
14 given to us so we can have this. As we have all these other binders, we
15 need to have all these documents in our possession.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honours, with --
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, my recollection, unfortunately, is
20 weak, but I think that when you were cross-examining the Prosecution's
21 witnesses, we allowed both Defence teams to put documents to witnesses to
22 jog their memories even though those documents hadn't been announced in
23 advance and we did so because we realised that it isn't possible to
24 anticipate everything. So once in a while, if there is a need to show a
25 document to a witness in order to jog that witness's memory, we allowed
1 it and with an added that, of course, that document could not be admitted
2 into evidence because it had not been announced previously. Is my
3 recollection correct?
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours. But those were the situation
5 that happened only exceptional -- in exceptional circumstances. Now, the
6 problem here is a different problem. The agreement between the parties
7 during the Office of the Prosecutor case was that we list the document,
8 we announce the document that we are going to use. Now, we received the
9 announcement of the documents and then received an additional mail where
10 it says all the documents from expert Nielsen report, all the documents,
11 all the sessions of the government, all the sessions of Presidency,
12 without specifying them. And that is a problem because the announcement
13 of the document was not specific enough. Thank you.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Hannis.
16 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Judge.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Is the Court correct in understanding that you
18 are putting this witness -- this document to the witness in order to jog
19 his memory about a certain event in Ilidza?
20 MR. HANNIS: Yes, and about whether or not there was a police
21 station or a reserve police station at a certain location.
22 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed. As Mr. Zecevic says, this is an
23 exceptional situation, but it's probably unavoidable. Let's go on.
24 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. I would just indicate for
25 future reference with regard to Mr. Nielsen, documents in evidence
1 between the numbers of P454 and P872 are documents from Mr. Nielsen's
2 report, so in terms of a range, it's identifiable. If you see me calling
3 for an exhibit number in that range, that will be one that came from
4 Mr. Nielsen's report.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may, I really
6 think that this is unacceptable. If we were required all the time during
7 the OTP case to clearly specify the documents, to give the tab numbers
8 and announce them for the cross-examination, I believe that such an
9 obligation must be imposed upon the Prosecutor as well. What Mr. Hannis
10 has just said he announced, I don't know, 800 documents from number
11 so-and-so to number so-and-so, this is clearly unacceptable. We must
12 have the exact numbers and the sequence of the documents to be able to
13 properly prepare for the cross-examination.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis, your last answer, documents between
15 numbers so-and-so, does that mean that, in your opinion, these documents
16 are on your document list for cross-examination?
17 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. That was my intention. When I
18 notified the Defence that in addition to the list of 84 or 100 that we
19 had, I think -- I wanted to alert them that I might use any document from
20 Christian Nielsen's report and from this witness's report. I could have
21 printed it out and had a separate list of each one and I could still do
22 that, if that helps. But I would say that during the Prosecution's case
23 in-chief, when we got notification from the Defence of exhibits they were
24 going to use, typically, what we got was a list of ERNs, not any
25 description of the document, not a date of a document, just the ERNs.
1 And we regularly, frequently got in the middle of direct examination
2 further list of documents that they might use, which is typical and
3 understandable. It happens as things come up in examination. The
4 remedy, I would say, is not to bar me from using these documents, but if
5 the Defence can specify to you in some way why they were prejudiced or
6 why they need more time to deal with the document, that would be the
7 appropriate remedy, rather than precluding me from showing you something
8 that is relevant and helpful to your job in determining the truth and
9 finding the facts in the case.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE HALL: The Chamber is not unmindful of the practical
12 difficulty which the opposite side has in situations such as with which
13 we are now concerned, but we are unable to appreciate how, especially
14 respect of documents that are already in evidence, the Prosecution can be
15 required to do other than they have done. And as Judge Harhoff has said,
16 this has been the practice that we have followed up to this point. The
17 remedy, and we adopt what Mr. Hannis has said, is that if there is
18 demonstrated prejudice, then the Defence would be allowed time to put
19 themselves in the position to adequately deal with the document which
20 they were unable to locate. But we are, with respect, unable to see how
21 we could prevent the Prosecution from proceeding in the manner that they
22 are doing.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, I
24 want to point out the danger that this practice presents. I would like
25 to remind the Trial Chamber of the guide-lines for the announcement of
1 documents, paragraphs 14 and 15:
2 [In English] "Upon the witness making the solemn declaration
3 pursuant to Rule 90, the cross-examination party shall provide
4 electronically to the Trial Chamber, the Registrar, and the other parties
5 a list of the documents and other material they may use in
7 Paragraph 15:
8 "If any party wish to use material which has not been timely
9 noticed pursuant to this guide-line, it may only to do so with the leave
10 of the Trial Chamber."
11 [Interpretation] What does this mean in practice? The way we
12 understand it, documents are announced for all parties to the proceedings
13 to be able to follow and participate. This kind of announcement of
14 documents means that the accused, because it's their primary interest,
15 can only follow documents shown by the Prosecution. They can't see the
16 entire document because they cannot access e-court. Our practice is that
17 we give the accused copies of the documents that we are going to use and
18 the other party as well as the OTP, so as to be able to receive
19 instructions from them, either for cross-examination or
20 examination-in-chief. In this way, the accused are prevented from
21 following the proceedings in the proper way and that will affect the
22 fairness of the trial and the final outcome and that is the primary
23 interest of this court.
24 Technically, such an announcement of Mr. Hannis, he said that he
25 would use 800 documents, without specifically pointing them out, we had
1 no possibility to print them out and give them to the accused because
2 it's about them. Nor can we properly follow the cross-examination. This
3 is the prejudice to the Defence due to such an approach.
4 If -- if the OTP were allowed to proceed this way, then next time
5 they could say they -- we will use documents from the 65 ter list from
6 number 1.000 to number 15.000. That would be the logical consequence.
7 Or I could say next time I am going to use documents from number PX
8 through PY, and this is the danger that originates from this approach
9 both for the Trial Chamber and the parties to the proceedings.
10 JUDGE HALL: I don't wish to misunderstand you, Mr. Krgovic, but
11 do I understand your proposition to be that this would mean that even in
12 respect of documents that are already in evidence, the Prosecution cannot
13 be allowed to put them to the witness?
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Of course they can, Your Honour,
15 but in a way that enables the Defence to show these documents to the
16 accused because they cannot follow the proceedings or the documents
17 because they can only see what is shown on the screens. They cannot see
18 the entire document and they cannot give us instructions for that reason.
19 They cannot access e-court.
20 Secondly, documents that were admitted through the bar table or
21 through Witness Nielsen possibly there were no questions asked about
22 these documents in the courtroom at all.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: We are sorry to have taken your time, but this is
25 a problem that has reoccurred at many occasions during the Prosecution's
1 case and also so far in the Defence case, and we are sure that it is a
2 problem that will occur many times yet in the future. The Chamber's view
3 is that we would require the parties to be as specific as possible when
4 they announce their documents that they are going to use with the
5 witnesses. Having said this, however, the Chamber realises that you
6 can't always get it right because from time to time there will be a need
7 to put a document to a witness that has not been announced in advance.
8 And the Chamber will then take a position from case to case, but we do
9 accept that there is occasionally a document that it would make sense to
10 put to a witness even if that document has not been announced.
11 So the bottom line is that we invite, again, the parties to be
12 reasonable, to be as specific as possible putting, as the Prosecution has
13 done in this case, 800 documents forward in order to be on the safe side
14 is perhaps a bit too extreme. Mr. Krgovic and Mr. Zecevic do have a
15 point in that this is simply not -- it's not possible to overlook and to
16 go over all 800 documents with the accused in advance, yet, on the other
17 hand, to require the Prosecution to be so specific that they can only
18 announce documents that they are sure that they are going to use is also
19 too extreme. That would be too narrow, simply.
20 So our advice is to all three parties, be reasonable, be as
21 specific as you can, and let's move on.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, very short comment. But that is
23 precisely -- we understand, we are -- we have been cross-examining the
24 witnesses as well, we know that there is a situation where you need to
25 have an additional document, and we don't have a problem with that, and
1 the guide-lines say you can -- the party can use document with the leave
2 of the Trial Chamber. That's fair enough. That's no problem. The
3 problem is you cannot say I'm going to use 600 documents and when, in
4 fact, you know that you are going to use -- because in the time that you
5 have you can use only 50 of them, so you can say I'm going to use this 50
6 and in case -- in case there's something is needed, an additional
7 document is needed, I will approach the Trial Chamber and ask for leave
8 to -- that is precisely the point that we are trying to make. Thank you.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: That point is well understood and recognised by
10 the Court.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much, I understand.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: And I think I did indicate putting forward, as
13 Mr. Hannis has done, 800 documents is too extreme. So in the future, I
14 guess we will try to live with this uncertainty that, from time to time,
15 there will be a need to show documents to a witness unannounced.
16 MR. HANNIS: I am sorry, I just have to make one response. It's
17 rather serendipitous that Mr. Zecevic should mention the number 600
18 because when Christian Nielsen came to testify the initial disclosure we
19 got from the Defence on exhibits they wanted to use on cross-examination
20 was 600. After he had started to testify, we got a second list of
21 additional documents they wanted to use which was about a hundred
22 documents. And then before his final cross-examination was done, we got
23 a second -- a supplemental list of 50 additional documents, and I can
24 assure you they didn't use 750 documents during the cross-examination.
25 I take the point but what is -- what is the harm here? If I gave
1 him a list of 800 documents --
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Hannis, may I suggest we stop here and just
4 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Thank you.
5 Q. Now, Professor, you should have on the screen a document dated
6 11 September 1993. If we could go to the last page, I want to ask you if
7 you recognise the name of the person who sent this document. Do you know
8 who he was, Dusan Kalajdzic?
9 A. No, I do not know who this person was.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can I ask counsel, do the accused see the
13 documents when they are shown to us on the screen?
14 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe so, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes. Okay. Thank you.
16 MR. HANNIS:
17 Q. Professor, you see he is listed as commander of the Blazuj
18 reserve police station. Does that refresh your recollection about
19 whether or not there was a reserve police station in Blazuj?
20 A. It doesn't remind me of that, but as I saw the first page, if the
21 gentleman who is mentioned here as the signatory is the author of the
22 text, then it is a completely uneducated person because the heading on
23 the first page of the document is completely inaccurate. It does not
24 reflect the actual organisation within the ministry. And the text itself
25 is written in a spirit, and I'm talking about the first page, which does
1 not imply official correspondence, not at all.
2 MR. HANNIS: Well, could we go back to the first page.
3 Q. Can you point to us the portion which you say indicates this is
4 not official correspondence?
5 A. I was talking about the style and I will refer you to one error.
6 There was no police station of public security in Ilidza but just the
7 public security station in Ilidza so this is the first egregious error in
8 the heading itself. And further on, Ilidza public security police
9 station in the normal organisation which was envisaged, something like
10 that never existed, not even with the abbreviations which are used here,
11 the JBRM station Blazuj. And finally, I mention the style.
12 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic has an intervention.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: I would -- I just have a suggestion that Mr. Hannis
14 instructs the witness to slowly speak, otherwise I see that the
15 interpreters are struggling to catch what he is saying and interpret
16 that. Thank you.
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Bajagic, again we would remind you to slow
18 down. Thanks.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
20 MR. HANNIS:
21 Q. Do you want to continue or add anything further?
22 A. If something was left out of the record, I can repeat.
23 Q. Well, the last part I see recorded in the transcript, you said
24 this abbreviation used here was not appropriate, the JBRM, and you're
25 also recorded as saying, "Finally, I mentioned the style." Is there
1 anything else that you wanted to add?
2 A. That's it. That's what I wanted to say.
3 Q. But beneath that, we see that there is a document number or a
4 registry number. That is typically something that would be included in
5 official MUP correspondence, wouldn't it, the 01-33/93?
6 A. Yes, certainly.
7 Q. And a location and a date?
8 A. Precisely so.
9 Q. To be the commander of a reserve police station in the RS MUP in
10 1993, were there any minimal educational requirements, do you know, under
11 the law and the rules?
12 A. I don't know what exactly were the requirements for somebody to
13 be the commander of reserve police force. I know that to be commander of
14 a police station you had to have had secondary education completed and,
15 if possible, university degree.
16 Q. All right. I've gotten far afield from where I started out with
17 this. I was trying to establish what police presence there was in Blazuj
18 in Ilidza municipality. Did you -- do you recall ever having gone to
19 Blazuj to do any of your work in connection with the military police
20 located there?
21 A. Well, during the three and a half years during which I worked
22 there, there were countless times that I passed through Blazuj or went
23 there, but to remember exactly something specific is rather difficult
24 after almost 18 or 19 years.
25 Q. All right. Mr. Koblar, who said he recognised you as a person
1 from Ilidza and having been active in the communist youth organisation, I
2 don't remember the exact title that you gave us yesterday, said that you
3 were present in Blazuj at the location where he had been taken to be
4 interviewed by the military police. Do you recall that?
5 A. What Mr. Koblar remembers about me was known to the majority of
6 citizens of Sarajevo because I was covered in the media by a
7 representative of the youth organisation or the legal students at the
8 time, but I cannot remember the details which he mentioned about me in
9 connection with Blazuj. I simply seem to have forgotten that.
10 Q. Okay. He mentions that during the process you happen to see
11 pictures of his wife who apparently had been a schoolmate of yours and
12 that you asked him about her and his family members, does that refresh
13 your memory?
14 A. I'm glad if at the time I asked him about his wife, if she had
15 been my schoolmate, but I really do not remember this event.
16 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours and counsel, just for the record, I'm
17 looking at a document that's at tab 115 of our list of proposed
19 Q. He indicates that after the initial interview as he was leaving
20 the room, you stopped him and asked if he recognised you and he
21 apologised for not recognising -- and he says you apologised for not
22 having recognised him sooner, because then he, Mr. Koblar, would have
23 been beaten less.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: I am sorry, Your Honours, I don't see what is the
25 basis of Mr. Hannis' questions. He is citing the document, we don't know
1 where the document comes from, what is this document. This is the first
2 time we ever saw this document. It was never shown to us. I mean, we
3 had the situation before about the statements, and there was a fierce
4 battle about it and the objection from the Office of the Prosecutor. And
5 if Mr. Hannis want to ask the questions, he can ask the questions, but he
6 cannot refer to the statement. Thank you.
7 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, could we -- if we are going to have a
8 further discussion on this, I would ask that the witness be escorted out
9 of the room.
10 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Your Honours, this -- it's not my
13 present intention to try and introduce this document into evidence. As I
14 have objected to the Defence's attempt to introduce the testimony of
15 Alija Delimustafic from Mr. Mandic's state court proceedings, I don't
16 think it's appropriate to get around Rule 92 and introduce some out of
17 court statement by a non-present witness. But it serves as my good faith
18 basis for asking the questions I'm asking. I have a reason to believe
19 that this witness was present at a time when a non-Serb who was being
20 detained by Serb authorities was being questioned, was being beaten.
21 Part of our argument about this witness is that he is too closely tied to
22 the events on the ground, that he has a bias and a prejudice and a motive
23 that undermines his credibility as an expert witness, and I think I'm
24 entitled to ask him those questions.
25 Now, as I understand it and has been the practice in the last
1 trial I did, I'm entitled to ask that question, but I have to live with
2 his answer. If he says, No, I don't know that man; no, I was never
3 present when that happened; no, nobody was beaten in my presence; no
4 policemen ever beat any witness during my three years in state security
5 service, I have to live with that answer and my only remedy is to perhaps
6 seek leave from the Court in rebuttal to call a witness to address it.
7 But for now, either he agrees or remembers and says, Yes that's true or
8 that part is right or that part is not right, but I'm entitled to ask
9 those questions. I can't put in the statement.
10 JUDGE HALL: If I understand Mr. Zecevic's objection, he would
11 not disagree with what you have just said. What the -- what his
12 objection is, as I understand it, is that the -- whereas, obviously as an
13 attorney, you may have informed yourself out of court as to the
14 backgrounds on the basis of which you formulated the question. The --
15 you can't use that piece of information to put to the witness. I think
16 that is as narrow as the objection is. Mr. Zecevic, did I put my finger
17 on it?
18 MR. ZECEVIC: That's correct.
19 JUDGE HALL: Yes. In other words, there's nothing wrong with the
20 question, it's just that you can't refer to the document.
21 MR. HANNIS: Just so I'm clear, I think I understand. My problem
22 is I say, He says in the statement you did thus and so, my question
23 should be, Did you tell him you remember his wife after seeing the
24 pictures, something like that. So I'm not making a specific reference to
25 a document. I agree. I think that's the correct procedure, and I may
1 have phrased my questions poorly.
2 JUDGE HALL: So we could have the witness back on the stand.
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 MR. HANNIS:
5 Q. My apologies for that interruption. Professor, did you see
6 Mr. Koblar being taken to give an interview before a Crna television
8 A. I already noted several times that I do not remember this meeting
9 at all and let alone any facts or details.
10 Q. Did you during your time in state security service ever see or
11 hear about or hear -- actually hear any of your MUP colleagues abusing
12 non-Serb detainees during interrogation?
13 A. No, I did not have such information. I haven't heard. I can
14 only guess but I do not have any information that members of the MUP were
15 behaving in such manner, and it was not my duty to have such information.
16 Q. Well, whether it's your duty or not, that's the kind of thing
17 that you might hear about in your job -- in the course of your
18 interviews, did you have occasion to interview Serbs who had previously
19 been in the custody of either the Muslim or Croat forces and had been
20 either released, exchanged or had escaped? Did you interview or debrief
21 any Serb individuals during your time in the state security?
22 A. Yes. There were many such situations.
23 Q. And did they report that they had been abused during their
25 A. That depends on the situation. I cannot remember specific
1 examples but I know that some of them spoke about such experiences during
2 their interviews.
3 Q. And given the circumstances of the war and the inter-ethnic
4 conflict, that's not surprising to you, is it, that that sort of thing
5 would happen?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Have you ever been contacted by or interviewed by anyone on
8 behalf of the state war crimes prosecutor in Bosnia about events in 1992
9 through 1995?
10 A. No, if I understood correctly, you mean the Bosnian prosecutor's
11 office. No, nobody contacted me from that office.
12 Q. Have you ever produced any written account or given any interview
13 to anyone, any investigators or journalist or politician or supervisors
14 about your conduct or your activities within the MUP from 1992 until you
15 left in December 1995?
16 A. No. That especially applies to the media because what I did in
17 the National Security Service must remain confidential, I must keep it to
18 myself. That's stipulated by the rules of service as well.
19 Q. Does that mean you can't answer questions I ask you today about
20 what you did in the state security service between 1992 and 1995?
21 A. No, but what I meant to say is the following: When I leave the
22 service I shouldn't speak about these things to the media, and there was
23 no reason for me to speak to politicians or other personalities about
25 Q. I think that's a good practice in general, Professor.
1 Let me ask you to take a look at Exhibit 65 ter 20054. This is
2 at tab 84. This is dated the 2nd of October, 1992, to the
3 under-secretary of the National Security Service, Mr. Kijac, from a
4 Predrag Ceranic, who at the time, apparently, was chief of the SNB sector
5 in Sarajevo.
6 MR. HANNIS: Could we turn to page 2 in both the English and the
8 Q. We see a list of employees of Sarajevo SNB with activity codes;
9 number 3, Mladen Bajagic, A 03. Is that you?
10 A. Yes, that's me.
11 Q. And what is the significance of that number? How were those
12 numbers assigned? Did it have to do with seniority or ranking within the
13 department, or do you know?
14 A. It has nothing to do with one's place in the hierarchy, it is
15 merely the code of the operative worker. Probably it was done this way
16 at the time for a reason, but it has nothing to do with the hierarchy in
17 the National Security Service sector. It was just that each operative
18 worker and other member of the service was assigned a code.
19 Q. And if in other SNB Ilidza documents we see a reference to A 03
20 in 1992, can we assume that's referring to you?
21 A. Yes, certainly. That's a logical conclusion.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. HANNIS: If we could next take a look at 65 ter 20071. This
24 is tab 75.
25 Q. And, Professor, this is one also from Predrag Ceranic, dated the
1 2nd of September, 1992, from Dragan Kijac.
2 MR. HANNIS: Could we go to page 6 of the English and page 5 of
3 the B/C/S.
4 Q. And I think number 51, that's you; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And the VSS after your name refers to what, university education?
7 Do you know what that abbreviation stands for? Maybe you can't see it in
8 the B/C/S version, we have to scroll to the far right side of the
10 A. Yes, these abbreviations stand for one's education and I had a
11 university degree at the time, that is noted by this VSS abbreviation.
12 Q. Thank you. Next I'd like to show you 65 ter number 20068. This
13 is at tab 104. This is dated the 2nd of December, 1992, and the
14 operative referred to is A 03. That would be you in December -- or --
15 yes, December 1992?
16 A. Yes, this is me.
17 Q. Okay. And the signature at the bottom, do you recognise who is
19 A. Yes, it's the signature of the chief of the department where I
21 Q. Okay. And who was that at the time, is that Mr. Sehovac?
22 A. Yes, exactly.
23 Q. When had he replaced Mr. Ceranic as your boss?
24 A. I cannot remember the exact date, but it must have been in late
25 spring or early summer. I cannot be more precise than that.
1 Q. Thank you. I want to ask you about the presence of certain
2 paramilitary formations in Ilidza in 1992. We already talked a little
3 bit about Mr. Gavrilovic, and did you ever see or hear -- or hear about a
4 group referred to as Charlie's group or Charlie's men present or
5 operating in your municipality in 1992?
6 A. I only remember it very vaguely. I need something -- something
7 specific to jog my memory, but I really can't remember everything from
8 that time.
9 Q. How about Arkan's Men and specifically Legija, I think is one of
10 his names, was Milorad Ulemek, who was eventually convicted in Serbia in
11 connection with the assassination of Mr. Djindjic. Were you aware of the
12 presence of Legija in Ilidza in 1992 or any other Arkan's Men?
13 A. I know that for a number of days they were present, Ulemek and I
14 don't know how many others, but I don't have detailed information because
15 that coincides with the period when I had to be at Vraca for a few days
16 to give instruction. Upon my return, those people were no longer there
17 and I didn't take an interest in them.
18 Q. I understand you were working on state security side and more
19 focused on the enemy, but were you -- well, strike that.
20 Let me ask you, you mentioned you had gone to Vraca for a few
21 days to give instruction. What kind of instruction and to whom?
22 A. It wasn't me who instructed others, but rather more experienced
23 members of the National Security Service through conversation and showing
24 me legal regulations and in other ways taught me how to draft my first
25 Official Notes, what the difference is between an Official Note and other
1 types of documents, and the procedures that were applied before the war
2 and the same service in the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. So
3 some basic knowledge about the functioning of that service. Because
4 before the war I was not part of the MUP system, I was a student, and
5 dealt more with culture-related issues, the youth radio, and so on, and I
6 knew nothing about policing.
7 Q. We talked about Mr. Gavrilovic and his group. Did you know an
8 individual named Sinisa Milic, who had the nickname Mongo, and was
9 apparently a member of Mr. Gavrilovic's paramilitary group? Ever hear of
11 A. Sinisa Milic was born in Ilidza and his father, grandfather, and
12 great-grandfather were all born there. He was a young man who belonged
13 to one of the most respected families there and practically everybody
14 knew him. I don't know when exactly, but it was at the beginning of the
15 war that he died, and I really don't know that he was a member of
16 Gavrilovic's unit. Yes, but the man is Sinisa Milic and his nickname was
17 Mongo. This is what I know about him. He belonged to a wealthy and
18 highly-respected family in Ilidza.
19 Q. Did you not know about him allegedly murdering 22 Muslims in
20 June 1992, about the 12th of June, 1992, apparently prisoners that he was
21 either taking to Vogosca or going to Vogosca to pick up? You didn't know
22 about that?
23 A. I cannot remember that now. I only know that he died in unclear
24 circumstances. That was the rumour, but I don't remember any details
1 Q. I'm not asking you when he died, I'm asking you about when he
2 allegedly killed 22 Muslim prisoners. Mr. Ceranic, your boss,
3 Mr. Kovac and Mr. Cvijetic at CSB, they knew about it didn't they, and
4 you didn't?
5 A. Well, let me tell you, it depends on where the event happened and
6 whose jurisdiction that place is. I can immediately add that there's a
7 rule and a principle that everybody goes about the tasks assigned to him.
8 I mean specific operative tasks. Possibly my colleague was tasked to
9 gather information about that, but I didn't have the right to meddle or
10 ask him about his sources of intelligence. It depends on what your task
11 is at any given moment, even if an event happened and it happened in
12 Vogosca municipality. Possibly the headquarters of the National Security
13 Service was informed about that from the relevant department in that
14 municipality, but I don't know that. It may have been from my
15 department, but it may have been processed by another colleague of mine.
16 Q. But this wasn't some secret event. Wasn't part of the problem in
17 connection with this mass killing by Mongo the fact that it had taken
18 place in the presence of UNPROFOR personnel? Weren't you aware of that?
19 A. I see that you have in-depth information. I don't know what to
20 say to you. I cannot remember things that are really absent from my
21 memory. I don't have such information from that period.
22 Q. And us having talked about it now doesn't bring any of it back to
23 you? It sounds like it would have been one of the big events in Ilidza
24 in 1992, given the prominence of Mongo's family, the witnessing of the
25 event by UNPROFOR personnel, none of that rings a bell or refreshes your
2 A. I don't know for what reason I may have changed my attitude
3 toward that. I said that I don't remember the specific event and I also
4 gave you an answer with regard to Mr. Koblar.
5 MR. HANNIS: I see it's time for our first recess, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE HALL: So we take the break and resume in 20 minutes.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, while the witness is ushered in, two
11 things. First, I would like the record to show that Mr. Cvijetic has
12 joined the Stanisic Defence. And the second thing was about the
13 scheduling Your Honours inquired at the beginning of this morning's
14 session. Your Honours, we anticipate that this witness will finish on
15 Wednesday next week. According to our information that we received from
16 the Office of the Prosecutor, that is the -- in our opinion the
17 reasonable estimate. Therefore, having in mind the fact that we are
18 going to be a bit shorter, well, relatively quite shorter with
19 Professor Pasalic, we anticipate that Professor Pasalic will finish his
20 testimony on Monday the week after, which is the -- which is May 16th, or
21 perhaps the first session on Tuesday. Therefore, the witness who is
22 coming, Mr. Bjelosevic, will be perhaps delayed one day, which I think
23 shouldn't be -- shouldn't create a big problem in scheduling.
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 JUDGE HALL: We were alerted to the suggestive time that you
2 would have take within this witness of 10 hours and tried to divide the
3 four-hour sitting day into 10 hours, that is why we were alerted to the
4 possibility, but I follow how you propose to proceed. Thank you,
5 Mr. Zecevic.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Hannis, please proceed.
8 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 Q. Professor, let's move on and talk about your report now. Do you
10 have a copy of it in front of you?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. I know you told Mr. Zecevic that that report is your work and
13 your work alone. Did you type it yourself?
14 A. Yes, I did all the work alone and I typed it myself. I can use a
15 computer quite well.
16 Q. I'm sure you can. When did you start working on your report,
17 approximately, if you remember? Day and month, year.
18 A. Right when I was commissioned by the Tribunal I started to work
19 on this report.
20 Q. And do you recall that date?
21 A. No, I don't remember the exact date.
22 Q. Can you give me an approximate date, a month and a year?
23 A. Well, in early 2009, spring maybe, I began collecting material
24 and information.
25 Q. And when did you finally complete it?
1 A. The report was completed in March this year.
2 Q. And it was filed here with court maybe a six weeks ago. Did you
3 feel that you had adequate time to review it and make all the corrections
4 you wanted to before you turned it in in March of this year?
5 A. Yes, at the time I thought that I had had enough time, but as we
6 know, no one book or no one text is ever ideal. Even now when I reread
7 it, I notice some mistakes such as a missing comma or possibly a typo or
8 things of that kind. Nothing is ever flawless.
9 Q. Right. I completely understand that. We know that you made two
10 changes, two minor changes during your proofing with Mr. Zecevic last
11 weekend and I think Wednesday when you were testifying in the course of
12 your testimony there was one minor change that I think Mr. Zecevic made
13 with you on the record about Exhibit 1D46. And as you've said now,
14 reading it again, you see some minor changes, but are you generally
15 satisfied with the completed product, that there are not any major errors
16 remaining? Sorry, you'll need to answer out loud for the record.
17 A. There are no major errors. Nothing essential, just the regular
18 ordinary technical mistakes. I'm satisfied with the final version.
19 Q. Thank you, Professor. Can you tell me when you were first
20 approached about writing this report, what was the initial topic you were
22 A. The initial topic at the time was the Ministry of the Interior of
23 the Serb Republic from 1990 until 1993, and that is indeed the title of
24 my expert report. Then there's also the subheading which specifies it
25 additionally and reads: Beginnings, purview, jurisdiction, organisation
1 and control.
2 Q. Okay. When you testified Monday at page 20021, you said that:
3 "The first tentative topic for this report was given to me by the
4 Defence team of Mr. Stanisic."
5 And you went on to say that:
6 "The Defence team provided me with the general topic that I was
7 supposed to investigate."
8 And I guess you are telling me that general topic was RS MUP 1990
9 to 1993; right?
10 A. Yes, that was the meaning of my previous answer.
11 Q. Would you agree with me just that topic, RS MUP 1990 to 1993, is
12 a pretty broad topic because, I mean, what are we talking about? Do we
13 want to know the name of every member, we want to know all their
14 activities? You understand what I'm saying? Was it narrowed down to
15 what you were supposed to talk about in relation to the MUP during those
16 three years?
17 A. With the general topic which was assigned to me, I also received
18 just some suggestions about what some of the topics within the framework
19 should be important and should be developed, but certainly not in such
20 detail as can be found in the report which I submitted. The detailed
21 contents of the report are the result of my methodological approach,
22 which I believe to be necessary in order to be able to take into account
23 what we are discussing here, that is to say, the MUP of the Serbian
24 republic, its beginnings, its establishment, organisation, purview,
25 jurisdiction, and so on.
1 Q. Thank you. You said that you received some suggestions about
2 what some of the topics should be. From whom did you receive those
3 suggestions, do you recall?
4 A. I received these suggestions from the Defence team of
5 Mr. Stanisic.
6 Q. Specifically, was that Mr. Zecevic or Mr. Cvijetic or both or
7 someone else?
8 A. Yes, it was Mr. Zecevic.
9 Q. And you said that you received some relevant documents on the
10 basis of which you were to write the report. Can you tell us precisely
11 which documents you received and how many when you began your work on
12 this project, do you know?
13 A. Yes, I received a number of legal regulations and other
14 documents, but I cannot remember the exact number, nor did I keep that
15 sort of record while working on my report. And I already had some
16 documents in my possession, specifically the law library as I already had
17 produced another report for this Tribunal in another case which was
18 previous to this engagement.
19 Q. Any rough idea on how many documents? Did you receive hundreds,
21 A. Several hundreds of documents which I received from the Defence
22 team. But in dealing with this subject, I came to a significant number
23 of documents through my own research, and I integrated those into the
24 report. Even then, I made some selection so that I would not burden the
25 report with too many footnotes. For certain incidents, I could have
1 mentioned as many as 30 documents in one footnote, but I tried to use
2 just several as references. I classified the documents, and in this way
3 I decided which ones I would include in the report.
4 Q. And in the course of, what, almost two years from starting the
5 project until the completion, did you receive from the Defence additional
7 A. Yes, that happened on several occasions but the number of these
8 documents was very limited. It was a small number.
9 Q. Do you remember anything particular about the nature of those
10 additional documents you received?
11 A. I remember a situation in which I received another legal
12 regulation from the time when the Ministry of the Interior of the
13 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was still operational. Now,
14 whether this was a legal regulation from 1977 which we referred to
15 yesterday or another one from 1990, this is something I couldn't tell
17 Q. Okay. Thank you. At page 20022 on Monday, you mentioned that in
18 addition to the documents that were provided to you, you did searches on
19 your own and tried to find documents to help you in writing your report.
20 And in doing so, you found many studies and monographs that you referred
21 to and that are listed in the footnotes. Those studies and monographs
22 referred to in your footnotes, are those all materials you found on your
23 own or were any of those provided to you by the Defence team?
24 A. I found on my own all these studies and monographs. In my
25 electronic library I have more than 4.000 documents in pdf format, that
1 includes studies and monograph, I also have several hundreds of such
2 studies in hard copy. So this was exclusively my own material.
3 Q. I note in some -- or one of the early sections of your report you
4 have references to a number of books and articles, some which appear to
5 be posted on websites or blogs. Are those postings on websites and blogs
6 included in your term "monograph"?
7 A. A monograph is a monograph regardless of whether I bought it in a
8 book-shop or ordered it from the publisher or found it through the
9 Gigapedia system, the full text and download it. I have some of such
10 monographs in pdf format and other formats, I have really a number of
11 such monographs.
12 Q. I'm embarrassed to show my ignorance but it's been a long time
13 since I was in an academic setting. When you say monograph, can you tell
14 me what you are referring to? What is your definition?
15 A. Definition of a monograph is an original academic study done by
16 one person about a specific problem from a certain scientific discipline
17 which has to satisfy certain criteria. It has to have three reviewers
18 who hold the highest academic titles and who would give a positive
19 opinion about the work, and with this in mind it would be categorised
20 within the system that is used to categorise scientific and academic
21 research works.
22 Q. Thank you, that's helpful. When including any of these sources,
23 books or monographs or any of the other sources that are listed in your
24 footnotes, did you -- did you personally vet them; that is, check them
25 out to satisfy yourself that it was a reliable source to depend on in
1 writing your report?
2 A. I have to note that I'm also a professor who teaches, inter alia,
3 a subject called terrorism and political violence at master studies
4 level. For this subject, I really have lots of research materials.
5 These are all acknowledged authors and I used some of these sources
6 produced by these authors when I was writing my report.
7 Q. So -- were you finished?
8 A. If you allow me, I will add this: I made special effort to use
9 monographs which are used by others, most generally speaking in Europe
10 and worldwide, when dealing with certain specific issues, so these are
11 mostly foreign authors who are researching or discussing certain social
12 phenomena and processes. From the Serbian point of view, they are
14 Q. Thank you. You were -- you answered Mr. Zecevic's question at
15 page 20023 on Monday that you had received a copy of
16 Dr. Christian Nielsen's expert report submitted in this case by the
17 Prosecution. And I note that in your own report you have a few footnotes
18 where you make reference to Dr. Nielsen's report, but, as I recall, those
19 footnotes reference his 2004 report which was prepared for the Krajisnik
20 case. Did you not also have a copy of his, basically, updated report
21 from Krajisnik that was prepared in 2008 specifically for this case? Did
22 you have that report as well?
23 A. I cannot answer with full precision on questions relating to
24 Mr. Nielsen's report, not anymore. While I was working on my first
25 report for this Tribunal, I also had one or two versions of Mr. Nielsen's
1 report. But for my report, I believe that I used the version which
2 relates to this case, even if there is an error somewhere, it's an error
3 because I had something else in my memory while I was typing, but I think
4 that it was unimportant. So I have a number of Professor Nielsen's
5 reports with me in electronic versions.
6 Q. Okay. Well, you would agree that it would probably be important
7 to refer to the report he wrote specifically for this case. And I take
8 it from your answer that you did read his 2008 report as well as the 2004
9 Krajisnik report; is that right?
10 A. Precisely.
11 Q. Okay. And actually when Dr. Nielsen testified, as I remember, I
12 think that was the first time I saw you, you actually sat in court for
13 part of his testimony; right?
14 A. Yes, this happened on several days.
15 Q. Now, you mention in -- I'll have some further questions about
16 sources later on when we get to specific sections of your report, but now
17 let me ask a few general questions. In your discussion with Mr. Zecevic
18 on Monday, you stated that the Ministry of the Interior is a part of the
19 state authorities in the executive branch of the government. That's
20 correct, isn't it, MUP is part of the executive branch?
21 A. Yes, precisely so.
22 Q. And in Bosnia and the Republika Srpska what other branches do you
23 have? For my jurisdiction I'm familiar with an executive branch, a
24 legislative branch, and a judicial branch, is it the same for you or
25 something different?
1 A. Yes, it is like that in all modern states. The three main
2 branches of authority are the legislative branch, the executive, and the
3 judicial branch. And it was like that in Bosnia as well.
4 Q. And where would the army fit in? Is the army part of the
5 executive branch of the RS?
6 A. The Ministry of Defence and the armed forces, specifically the
7 Army of Republika Srpska, belonged to the branch of executive power.
8 Q. Yes. My English dictionary says executive means "having power to
9 carry out decisions and laws, decrees," et cetera. Would you agree with
10 that general definition?
11 A. Yes, that is general and it applies to all those who belong to
12 the executive system, and then by areas they are specified to certain
14 Q. The reason that I am persuing this is that later on in your
15 report, you, on several occasions, refer to the MUP and administrative
16 actions. Maybe it's a question of translation or semantics, but aren't
17 the acts of the MUP members executive actions? Why do you refer to them
18 as administrative actions?
19 A. When you deal with a research pertaining to national police
20 systems and the Ministries of Internal Affairs comparatively anywhere in
21 the world, you can read about several approaches to the notions of what
22 these administrative actions or authorities are. There is a whole branch
23 of researching police functions which calls this authority administrative
24 actions and categorises them as two kinds, administrative actions
25 addressed to items and others which are focused on persons.
1 The Law on State Administration in a legal system of the Ministry
2 of the Interior of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and it was
3 like that previously as well, defines the Ministry of the Interior as an
4 organ of state administration. It is the same with the Law on Ministries
5 and if we call something legally a state administration organ,
6 considering what I said and in theory of studying police organisation,
7 what I mentioned can be called administrative actions. Administrative
8 actions or authorities are one in the same thing here. It just depends
9 which terms you would use.
10 Q. Okay. The reason that I ask is, for me, in English have
11 different connotations for me, and administrative I am more familiar with
12 in a context of something is -- when I started working as a young lawyer
13 I had a secretary, but in later years it became more politically correct
14 to refer to that person as an administrative assistant instead of a
15 secretary. And I think it was yesterday you were talking about
16 situations where the police sometimes have to use force, either firing a
17 fire-arm or using a truncheon to carry out their duties. And, as I
18 recall, you talked about -- that was an administrative action, is that
19 correct, policeman firing his gun or using a truncheon to hit a
20 demonstrator over the head? Is that an administrative action?
21 A. Well, it's a power or authority of the police. As I said, it can
22 be administrative action which is directed to persons or directed to
23 objects. This is just a matter of terminology, so we can agree, you and
24 me, that we are talking about this and then just use the term power or
25 authority. It's not a problem if you don't like this phrase
1 administrative actions.
2 Q. Okay. I appreciate that. I just want to understand it. For me,
3 in my language, it would come as a small consolation to the person
4 arrested and shot or hit over in the head in the course of an arrest
5 being told, Don't worry, it was only an administrative action of a
6 policemen when he did that to you. That's the reason I was trying to
7 understand your use of the term.
8 Now, did you get any instruction or input from the Defence in
9 connection with what you talked about broadening the context? At page
10 20024 from Monday, you said that as you began working on your report, you
11 realised it was impossible to do the research about its organisation,
12 mission, and so on, unless you put it in a broader context. Did the
13 Defence team give you input on what the broader context should include?
14 A. No, that was my assessment. It was impossible to deal with the
15 beginning and foundation of the Ministry of the Interior Serbian republic
16 unless we could see what it was created from and in which social and
17 political circumstances. I believe, generally speaking, it is impossible
18 to single out from reality one institution such as the Ministry of the
19 Interior and see it outside of the actual context in which it was created
20 and developed.
21 Q. Sounds reasonable to me. You, in your report, in your first
22 section about constituting the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
23 and establishment of organs of state authority, have four subsections.
24 In the first one is the general characteristics of the crisis, which in
25 my English version runs about four pages. Then you have three sections
1 devoted separately to the activities of the SDA and the Muslims, the HDZ
2 and the Croatians, and the SDS and the Serbs. And I think Judge Delvoie
3 commented on this. In English, my -- by my count there are 18 and a half
4 pages devoted to the SDA and the Muslims, 11 pages to the HDZ and the
5 Croats, and 2 and a half pages to the Serbs and the SDS. Is that
6 proportion in your report reflective of your own personal view or opinion
7 about the relative percentage of responsibility each of those three
8 groups should be attributed for the war?
9 A. No, this has absolutely nothing to do with that. It is not up to
10 me to assess any sort of responsibility. I said that I devoted a certain
11 number of pages to the activities of Muslim members of the SDA, and the
12 HDZ, and the activities of the SDS relating to foundation
13 Republika Srpska were at least interesting to me because I did not want
14 to point to any one in this Tribunal, to anything that is well-known.
15 And I also took into account the fact that while analysing the work of
16 the ministry, I would specifically deal with these activities in my
17 further work. And in each of the activities of each of the three sides
18 in the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina one could write up to 15.000 pages
19 rather than 18, 11 and 4 so there is no gradation there. That was not
20 what I was tasked with.
21 Q. Okay. Is it reflective of the relative percentages of the
22 documents that you had received from the Defence team?
23 A. That can be significant only in part, but the materials which I
24 found on my own, as I said, directed me, for reasons which I mentioned,
25 to work in the way I did.
1 Q. All right, Professor. At page 20025, you talk about the
2 following chapter in your report, the one called the functioning of the
3 Ministry of the Interior of the Serb Republic of BiH in the period from
4 April to December 1992 and you mention that this is the basic chapter
5 where you describe the de jure aspect of the ministry, but you go on to
6 note and say, "Of course, we also had to deal with" -- and please listen
7 carefully and correct me if this is not a correct translation of what you
9 "We also had to deal with the -- with the surreal situation and
10 the organisation of the ministry in 1992."
11 Did you mean to say "surreal" or "real"?
12 A. Certainly real and not surreal.
13 Q. I assumed that's what you intended, although I can see an
14 argument for saying that it was also surreal in some ways in Bosnia in
15 1992. So the de facto situation?
16 A. Yes, I dealt with the MUP of the Socialist Republic of
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina, it's dissolution and the creation of the MUP of the
18 Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. These are concrete things after
20 Q. Yes. And I think you clearly recognise that there is, as I think
21 Judge Harhoff explored with you -- that there is a de facto situation on
22 the ground which may not always be in line with the de jure situation or
23 order intended.
24 Now, I would agree that looking at the constitution and the laws
25 is a good way to help us understand what the de jure situation was, but
1 what did you look at to help you understand what the de facto situation
2 was in connection with the RS MUP in 1992? Was it only documents?
3 A. I also analysed documents, but not only documents, also other
4 materials. Whatever I wrote in a paragraph, I tried to corroborate with
5 a source that refers to the same matter. And it was the sources that
6 determined how deeply I could delve into a problem or how broad my
7 approach should be. I basically dealt with documents of different kinds
8 and it's the facts from these documents that directed my work.
9 Q. At the beginning of your answer you said you analysed documents
10 but not only documents, also other materials. Can you tell us what kinds
11 of other materials you reviewed or analysed that were not documents?
12 A. For example, a great many monographs, books written by the
13 immediate participants of the events in Bosnia-Herzegovina and that were
14 published in the past 10 or 15 years, and any other sources I considered
15 potentially useful for drafting my report.
16 Q. I take it that you personally didn't interview anyone, for
18 A. No. It is sufficient for me if somebody publishes a book, and if
19 that person was a significant participant in the events in
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina during the war, then I would use the allegations put
21 forward in that book. I didn't speak to anybody in person.
22 Q. And can you tell us which one of the books you used as a source
23 was written by a person who was a "significant participant in the
25 A. Well, for example, Sefer Halilovic's book, "A Cunning Strategy."
1 Q. I knew you were going to mention him. How about any participant
2 from the Serb side in the MUP?
3 A. From the political and military establishment of the Federation
4 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, there are many high officials who wrote memoirs or
5 recollections or similar books. As for persons who were on the
6 Republika Srpska side, I haven't seen anything that they wrote that would
7 be nearly as important to me as Halilovic's book.
8 Q. Did you read any trial judgements from the ICTY or Bosnian state
9 court proceedings related to cases arising out of the events in Bosnia in
11 A. I visit the official site of this Tribunal very often just to be
12 up to date at a general level. I read the general information, briefs,
13 but I haven't read an entire judgement of this Tribunal or any other
14 court because I didn't consider them interesting. I only took into
15 consideration the information that is the result of a judgement but I
16 haven't read entire judgements.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you. At page 20027 on Monday, you were talking
18 about your chapter on the internal organisation of the MUP and the legal
19 framework in particular. You say:
20 "It is necessary, always considering the constitution as the
21 highest legal document of a country, also presenting a number of other
22 pieces of legislation."
23 And then you went on to say you were specifically referring to
24 the Law on the Government, Law on Public Administration, Law on
25 Ministries, and the Law on the Interior. Now, in connection with the
1 law, I note that when you testified as an expert in the Popovic case on
2 October 9th, 2009, at transcript page 26889, you said at line 23:
3 "I'm not a lawyer by profession and I'm not competent to study
4 any details that have to do with criminal law or any other body of law
5 for that matter. I can only share with you what I know about certain
6 provisions on disciplinary measures in the Law on Internal Affairs.
7 However, I do not dare delve any deeper than that since I believe I'm not
8 sufficiently competent."
9 That was in October 2009, do you recall saying that?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. And have you had any legal training since October 2009?
12 A. Even today I don't know the first thing about criminal law and I
13 make no secret of it, but that doesn't mean that I cannot make a
14 quantitative or qualitative analysis of the contents of a text, and that
15 is what I did when I analysed or dealt with the laws and regulations from
16 the Serb Republic of BH. I believe that my academic training and
17 position gives me the right to compare documents, whereas criminal law
18 certainly is a separate professional and line of work.
19 Q. Well, the quote I read you from Popovic, you were not demurring
20 simply about criminal law, but you said any other body of law apparently
21 outside of certain provisions of disciplinary measures in the Law on
22 Internal Affairs. You are not an expert on constitutional law; right?
23 A. Of course I don't deal exclusively with constitutional issues
24 here or in my report, I don't go into any detail with regard to that. I
25 only establish a link between constitutional matters and my line of work
1 or the area analysed.
2 Q. I'm sorry, Professor, I have to insist on an answer to my
3 question. You are not an expert on constitutional law; right?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Thank you. Nor on statutory construction; right?
6 A. No, that is not right. In order to write a law, you need a team
7 of experts, lawyers and any other professionals who can provide
8 significant assistance depending on the subject matter regulated. It
9 isn't exclusively lawyers that write matters, but also professionals from
10 other areas concerned by this law. A law is always the result of
12 Q. Okay. So do you then consider yourself an expert on statutory
13 construction, and if so, what statutes in particular?
14 A. I certainly could be a member of an extended team for making
15 draft laws or even bills, but I'll limit myself to the area of the
16 humanities. Certainly I couldn't say anything about telecommunication.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you. Apart from the report you wrote in this case
18 and your Popovic report, have you ever written about legal interpretation
19 of constitutions of the Republika Srpska or the former Bosnia or any of
20 these various laws? Are those the only two places you've done that?
21 MR. ZECEVIC: I am sorry, it was recorded, "I'll limit myself to
22 the area of humanities." It's 44; 9/10. Page 44, line 9 and 10. I
23 don't think that -- either it's not properly recorded. I don't recall
24 hearing anything about it from the witness's answer.
25 MR. HANNIS: I'll raise that.
1 Q. Professor, you heard what Mr. Zecevic just said. Can you help us
2 out with that? Did you say that you were going to limit yourself to the
3 area of humanities or did you say something else?
4 A. I was referring to social sciences or humanities, if you will. I
5 think that's clear enough.
6 Q. Thank you. Now I'll repeat my question. Apart from your Popovic
7 report and the report you wrote for this case, have you ever elsewhere
8 written anything about the legal interpretation of constitutions or the
9 various laws that you address in this report?
10 A. Not directly in this way, but in three or four of my monographs,
11 I studied the intelligence and security system of Bosnia-Herzegovina from
12 the time of the socialist republic and after that, and certainly if you
13 analyse the structure of the national security system of a country, you
14 must also analyse the legal framework for several reasons. You must know
15 who adopts laws, the organisation of the work of such service, how they
16 are funded, what kind of control of legality -- of the legality of these
17 services is in place and so on. In my monograph "Espionage in the 21st
18 Century," then in contemporary intelligence and security systems in two
19 editions, one from 2008, the other from 2010, I also deal with the laws
20 and regulations of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the
21 Federation of BH, and the Serb republic, to some extent. Likewise, in
22 the monograph mentioned in my CV, which also has two editions and the
23 title of which is the "Security of the World: From Secrecy to the
24 Public," I also deal with the same matters as in the first monograph.
25 Then in the framework of my institution at the specialist studies level,
1 I teach a subject called security systems.
2 All this boils down to the following: That you cannot speak or
3 deal with the security and intelligence systems of some entities without
4 knowing the legal framework.
5 Q. Are you finished?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you. At page 20028, you were mentioning that the Law on
8 the Interior defines the mission and the vision of the MUP and the scope
9 of its work, but you pointed out the law only deals with organisation at
10 a general level, and that it's the rule book that goes into the details.
11 And we've looked at the January 29th, 1990, rule book for the SRBiH that
12 was in effect in the early part of 1992 for the RS MUP, but you also told
13 us that the 1977 rule book about public security operations was something
14 that was also in effect. I want to ask you: Was there no rule book
15 specifically for your side of the house in the MUP, by that I mean state
16 or national security? Did it have a separate rule book for its
18 A. Of course it did.
19 Q. Okay. That's not cited in your report, is it?
20 A. Correct. I don't have that rule book.
21 Q. Is it not available? Is it a state secret?
22 A. I only had the chance to see that rule book once in my life, and
23 it was the old one of the state security service of the
24 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Because at the beginning of
25 the war, the National Security Service of the Serb Republic of BH did not
1 have a rule book, so that when I was first briefed about the service,
2 they showed me this rule book, so I -- and I leafed through it once. But
3 its current practice in these services that you can get a rule book to
4 read it and return it upon reading, not everybody could have it on them
5 to keep in a drawer of their desk. Such rule books are official secrets
6 or state secrets and that is the practice throughout the world.
7 Q. Did the RS MUP ever adopt its own rules for state security
8 operations during time you worked there?
9 A. It certainly did.
10 Q. Did you ever see a copy of those rules?
11 A. The ones who ran my organisational unit thought that the
12 instructions I had received as an intern was sufficient. Because even if
13 I had had a chance to compare these rule books, then apart from some
14 minor terminological differences, it would have been the same as the
15 previous one, so they didn't consider it necessary to give it to me, but
16 I'd like to have a copy.
17 Q. But having never seen the new rule book, you have no way of
18 knowing whether it's different from the old one, do you?
19 A. That wasn't at all important to me as an operative worker. These
20 rule books are more important for the organisation, the management. It
21 was the most important thing for me to learn what my tasks and duties
22 were, to learn the skills required for intelligence work, and act in
23 accordance with the law. That was important to me as an operative worker
24 and that's the very basic level of personnel, and not dealing with laws
25 and regulations at the time.
1 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, at page 20028, you were asked about
2 the annexes to your report, and as I recall, you have 12 separate
3 annexes; correct?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. And number 12 is the one that talks about the issue of
6 subordination or re-subordination. Is it correct that the others, the
7 first 11, are separate documents, whereas annex 12 is really more of a
8 supplemental report on the issue of subordination; is that fair?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. And when explaining about these annexes, you said:
11 "I came across some documents I considered extremely important
12 for the understanding of both the Ministry of the Interior and the
13 general context into which it came into being."
14 And then you said:
15 "So as not to overburden the report with footnotes, I considered
16 it much more effective to enclose some documents in the report itself."
17 Now, I am afraid, Professor, I don't understand that. How does
18 including 11 of these documents themselves not overburden the report with
19 footnotes which already before we come to the annexes has some 480
20 footnotes? Can you explain that for me?
21 A. The inclusion of annexes has nothing to do with the number of
22 footnotes, but rather with the fact that it would be difficult to edit
23 the main part of the text of the expert report. That's why I considered
24 it to be a better solution from the technical point of view to include
25 the annexes at the end and refer to them in the footnotes. This is
1 merely -- this merely has to do with the technical approach, nothing
3 Q. Okay. Well, I was reading your answer and I didn't quite follow.
4 It seems to me that you selected these 11 documents because you thought
5 they were particularly important and you wanted to be sure the Judges saw
6 those actual documents in their entirety; is that fair?
7 A. Yes, that is why I opted for the annexes in their present form.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I note it's time for the break.
10 JUDGE HALL: We shall reconvene in 20 minutes.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 12.29 p.m.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Professor, we were talking about your annexes. The -- apart from
17 Annex 12 which you've explained, the other 11 documents that you chose to
18 put in annexes, were those documents furnished to you by the Defence or
19 were those ones you found all on your own or is there some combination?
20 A. These are mostly documents which I found on my own, some of them
21 are in the law library and I just typed them up and included them in this
22 form in the annexes.
23 Q. All right. With regard to Annex 12, you testified on Monday that
24 this was created as a result of the Defence's wish from earlier this year
25 about the task of the army and the police during the state of imminent
1 threat of war. Do you remember when you were asked to include this
2 annex, was that in 2011?
3 A. Yes, it was in February 2011.
4 Q. And do you recall who on the Defence team requested you to
5 include that or provide that opinion?
6 A. Mr. Zecevic.
7 Q. And was that request oral or written? I mean, did you get a
8 letter or an e-mail, or did he just ask you orally?
9 A. Mr. Zecevic mentioned it first when he asked me to do that by way
10 of an annex on the telephone. We did not correspond on this or exchange
11 any written notes. We also had a conversation in Belgrade where he
12 mentioned this once again.
13 Q. And in connection with that were you provided any documents
14 related to what ended up being your Annex 12? From the Defence, I mean,
15 were you provided any documents?
16 A. When I received documents for the first time from the Defence, I
17 already had one document which is integrated into the annex. Then
18 another integrated document is the Law on All People's Defence which is
19 an open source, you can find it anywhere in Belgrade and in Serbia, and
20 on my own I found in a collection of international documents the protocol
21 and Geneva Conventions which are mentioned here.
22 Q. So I take it then Mr. Zecevic or nobody from the Defence team
23 provided you any specific new documents in February related to the
24 creation of Annex 12; is that right?
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. Okay. Thank you. Professor, for this next section I'm referring
2 to your testimony on Monday at pages 20029 through -030, and as I did
3 earlier when we talked about monographs, I'm afraid I have to display a
4 little bit of, perhaps, my own ignorance. You said:
5 "The methodology of researching social matters, or the research
6 methodologies in the humanities is unique in the entire world. There's a
7 single methodology."
8 I'm not sure I understand that. Do you mean there's only one way
9 of conducting research in the humanities? Is that what that means?
10 A. As social sciences as a whole cover a very wide area, there is
11 something which is a general methodology of researching social phenomena
12 as a part of the social sciences. It can be specific for sociology or
13 psychology or political science or law, the manner in which it is applied
14 in these areas, but the set of general methods and techniques is almost
15 the same for all social sciences. Therefore, the scientific apparatus
16 which is used to reach certain knowledge when researching a phenomenon is
17 very similar if not quite identical.
18 Q. Okay. I am sorry, I have to backtrack for a moment, I was
19 reminded that I forgot to ask a couple of questions on the general topic
20 of your assignment to write this report. We talked about specifically in
21 connection with Annex 12, but did you get any written instructions from
22 the Defence team about the preparation of the report, either at the very
23 beginning or during the course of the almost two years that you worked on
24 it? Did you ever receive any written instructions?
25 A. No. The contact was usually verbal, personal, that is to say.
1 Q. And during those verbal personal contacts, did you sometimes get
2 instructions from the Defence or was it just general discussions about
3 how it was going?
4 A. We only discussed general issues rather than any specific points
5 or details because when one is conducting this kind of research, he has
6 to be autonomous. The Defence team did not know until the moment when I
7 completed the report what were all the sources which I included, because,
8 as I said, there was a lot of research that I did on my own and that I
9 included as sources in the footnotes so that any going into details or
10 providing me with instructions would violate the methodological concept
11 which I defined for myself as pertaining to the research task which I was
12 given. And considering the classification of the documents for the
13 research, I made a draft or a thesis of my idea. Because, for me,
14 writing this expert report was just the same as doing scientific research
15 which has to be in every aspect founded on relevant sources and has to
16 observe the relevant methodological procedures.
17 Q. Thank you. And related to that, did you actually come up with
18 any draft report or draft reports before your final product was done?
19 A. These were not final draft versions. Every evening when I
20 finished my work I would have one draft version. The next day when I
21 started working or seven days later, the draft would sustain certain
22 changes, right, so I never stopped and had one draft version and then
23 continued working on it after a month or two. The report came into being
24 during two whole years, and in addition to writing it, I was also doing
25 other things from the remit of my professional work, that is to say
1 scientific work. I was always going back to the report and as I worked
2 on it, the version kept changing. I did not, however, make some specific
3 draft versions that would be almost final or final, it was only in the
4 end that the report got its shape as it is now. While working on the
5 report, I was also changing the structure of the report depending on the
6 direction that my research was taking at the moment.
7 Q. And while you had this work in progress, at any stage did you
8 share the current draft or work in progress with the Defence or were they
9 able to see it and give you any comment or input about that work in
11 A. Of course we had occasions to exchange information about the
12 progress of the writing of the report, which stage I had reached or so
13 on, but there were no objections, not in any sense that would have a
14 substantial impact on either the structure of my work or the conclusions
15 that I reached. I would not allow this to anyone, just as I do not allow
16 it when I'm doing my research in general, that anyone should influence my
17 views and positions.
18 Q. Thank you, Professor, that's what I wanted to know. Now, going
19 back to the single methodology that you've talked about using, again
20 transcript page 20030, you said:
21 "If you do research into such an institution," and I think you
22 are referring to the MUP, "or such a process which is a political and
23 legal phenomena and because of that I had to adhere to very strict
24 methodological rules from the very beginning. The first task was the
25 classification of sources by their subject matter, their nature, their
1 contents, and it was necessary to device a codex of classification into
2 various sets."
3 Can you explain to me exactly what is a codex in this context?
4 A. When you are drafting a research idea whether you want to submit
5 a draft thesis of your masters or PhD thesis, one of its integral parts
6 has to be precisely this codex, this is a matrix on the basis of which
7 you classify documents. In view of your opinion of them, whether they
8 are primary or secondary or tertiary sources, whether they deal with this
9 or that subject. In principle, it is just a framework which you use to
10 help yourself and you indicate to those who are to judge whether your
11 thesis is good or not that you properly classified documents depending on
12 the degree of their importance and taking into account the subject you
13 will deal with and that the thesis refers to.
14 Q. And do you still have the codex you prepared for use when making
15 this report?
16 A. Of course I made that, it's in Belgrade. But considering the
17 fact that today we use information technology and we have various
18 abilities, a codex can generally be one folder and within the folder, you
19 can have many sub-folders which you enumerate 1, 2, and 3 and so on. So
20 in one you have the primary documents, and then under folder two you have
21 secondary documents, then tertiary, and in folder number 4 you can just
22 call them other documents. And then you draw on this document as you
23 need them while writing certain sections of your report.
24 Q. In the context of your report about the RS MUP, can you tell me
25 generally what or which documents you considered to be primary documents?
1 A. The primary documents are all legal regulations which were used
2 to write the report, as well as some other documents relating to the
3 ministry or originating from the ministry and which I found to be very
4 important, and I classified them as such because of their degree of
6 Q. Okay. From that it sounds like primary doesn't necessarily
7 relate simply to the source, but it also relates to your qualitative
8 impression of those documents; is that right?
9 A. It is certainly so.
10 Q. And secondary sources, what are those?
11 A. Well, secondary sources are always the sources which indirectly
12 indicate a certain phenomenon, process and so on and so forth. They are
13 not directly related to the subject but they indirectly refer to the
14 subject of research.
15 Q. And tertiary?
16 A. Tertiary documents can be all other sources that may include the
17 media, various interviews, and other documents which may in some way
18 reflect one of the issues that one is researching, if we judge them to be
19 less important than the other ones. Of course, the documents which I
20 mentioned include scientific works such as monographs and so on, they are
21 always classified as primary or secondary documents. The tertiary ones
22 are those that can sometimes help us to have a wider, fuller and deeper
23 picture of the problem that we are dealing with.
24 Q. Let me ask you a hypothetical question. In the context of this
25 case, how would you classify an interview with Mr. Mico Stanisic about
1 the RS MUP in 1992? Would that be a primary document?
2 A. I'm not sure what interview you have in mind.
3 Q. Well, actually I have in mind the OTP, the Office of the
4 Prosecutor, suspect interview with Mr. Stanisic. Were you aware of that
6 A. No.
7 Q. Would you agree that that type of information would be helpful to
8 you when writing your report about the RS MUP in 1992?
9 A. I would certainly find it interesting to read and then on the
10 basis of qualitative analysis of contents, I would hypothetically
11 classify such a document. In any case, this document never came to my
12 hands because it was considered not to be important for the writing of
13 this report and I could not get it in any other way, so that's it.
14 Q. Do I understand then that if you had known it had existed, you
15 would have liked to have used it in preparing your report?
16 A. Well, I have to tell you that I cannot give answers to
17 hypothetical questions. I think that considering all the documents which
18 I received or collected, it was my personal choice which I would select
19 and include in the report which I have written.
20 Q. I understand. I don't think you answered my question, Professor,
21 and certainly a professor, you are used to dealing with hypothetical
22 questions, aren't you?
23 A. Certainly.
24 Q. Mico Stanisic was the minister of the RS MUP in 1992, and if you
25 had access to an interview where he was asked questions about the events
1 of 1992, about the creation of the MUP, about the structure of the MUP,
2 about the personnel of the MUP and he was shown documents including many
3 of the documents that you have seen and used in your report and they are
4 used in Christian Nielsen's report, that certainly would be at least
5 something you would want to read before finalising your report; agreed?
6 A. Yes, I would gladly have read it, and if I had had this occasion
7 considering your explanation which was quite detailed, it would certainly
8 be classified as one of the documents very important for my report, but
9 that is just hypothetical.
10 Q. Okay. Let me go back to your methodology. You said the first
11 step was classification of sources, but then in your answer it is not
12 clear to me what the next step is or how many steps there are in the
13 process. Can you tell us how many steps there are in this single
14 methodology of research in the humanities and what the second and
15 subsequent steps are?
16 A. What a thesis of a research work has it to include is the problem
17 which is to be researched, previous knowledge about this subject and
18 problem, the subject of the research, the social and scientific
19 justification, then time and space that are to be covered by the research
20 have to be limited, the hypothetical framework, and a draft structure of
21 the contents. Finally, it should have and it had a list of original
22 sources and documents which would be used but which is then expanded and
23 some of the sources which you already have are, to a certain extent,
24 already classified. And on the basis of all this, you set out and begin
25 the work.
1 Q. Okay. Part of your answer on Monday was at line 16, page 20030:
2 "In principle, this expert report is the result of a scholarly
3 process. I define hypothesis, I define indicators as material indicators
4 of what could be found in the de facto and de jure sets of the individual
5 problems dealt with, and, of course, the well-known logical processes
6 such as proving, disproving, et cetera."
7 I have a vague recollection of high school or college about the
8 scientific method. Let me ask you: What science are you talking about
9 here, this is social science; right?
10 A. Yes, of course.
11 Q. And for me social sciences is one that I put in the class of soft
12 science in contrast to what I would call a hard science like physics or
13 chemistry or mathematics, would you agree with that distinction?
14 A. Yes, of course. There is the group of humanities, technical
15 sciences, and natural sciences. This is a natural division of science in
17 Q. Okay. And it's not like trying to look at finger-prints or do
18 DNA or ballistics or tool-marks in criminal forensic work where I can
19 basically ask a question and get a firm answer - yes or no - would you
20 agree with me so far?
21 A. Of course.
22 Q. And in the context of the research that you were asked to do
23 here, the degree of reliability that you could attach to any conclusions
24 you reach is dependent in part, isn't it, on the amount of relevant
25 material you had to work with? Do you understand that question?
1 A. Yes, to some extent, but what social sciences or political
2 sciences or legal sciences study are things that were created by man and
3 you can never pronounce absolute and final judgements on these things,
4 only with some degree of certainty can you arrive at certain conclusions.
5 Of course you can say about some things that they are hard facts, for
6 example --
7 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm terribly sorry to interrupt. It is just that
8 the first part of the answer was not recorded because the witness was, as
9 usual, hurrying for whatever reason, and so the witness should repeat the
10 second part of his answer so that the rest can be understandable. Thank
12 MR. HANNIS: I'm not sure if I understood. You are asking him to
13 repeat the first part of his answer or the second part?
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Yeah, I am sorry, the second line of his first part
15 of the answer. The first sentence was -- the second part of the first
16 sentence of his answer was not recorded at all.
17 MR. HANNIS:
18 Q. Professor, maybe the easiest way to do this would be to just
19 start over, and if you need me to repeat the question, I can do that, or
20 if you have it in mind, just start your answer again and slowly so the
21 interpreters can keep up.
22 A. I would kindly ask you to repeat the question because we are
23 discussing complex issues and I can't remember every question, so if you
24 could please repeat it.
25 Q. That's fair. I have to look at the transcript to remember my
2 And the question was: In the context of the research that you
3 were asked to do here, the degree of reliability that you could attach to
4 any conclusions you reach is dependent in part, isn't it, on the amount
5 of relevant material you had to work with?
6 A. Even then I answered in the affirmative and I added an
8 Q. Can you add the explanation again because that's where we had a
9 problem with the translation before, and please speak slowly.
10 A. As opposed to natural science and technology, social sciences
11 study not only man-made things but also processes, events, appearances
12 and phenomena that are in progress or that have some duration. They are
13 never given with certainty. That is why the research into these things
14 is something very complex and you can never reach conclusions that are
15 100 per cent final. Therefore, in social sciences we speak about
16 scientific forecasts with regard to one set of conclusions as one of the
17 important scientific achievements of the scholar in this area.
18 For example, doctoral theses in this area must hint at a grain of
19 new scientific insight or knowledge which can be expressed through what
20 has been confirmed as a hypothetical framework and a scientific forecast.
21 Q. Okay, Professor, thank you. In some ways I think you and I would
22 approach this matter in a similar fashion. Me as a Prosecutor in the
23 context of this case, my ideal situation would be if I could have all the
24 documents from the RS MUP, every document ever signed or received by
25 Mico Stanisic and all the members of the collegium from, you know,
1 01-1-92 to the end and every communications log-book and all those same
2 things for every CSB and every SJB, and interviews of every member of all
3 the high-ranking positions. As much information as possible. And I
4 think you, too, would want, in an ideal world, to have access to all that
5 in order to try and reach a conclusion that you could feel most
6 comfortable with. You would agree with that, wouldn't you?
7 A. I agree, but then perhaps there would be no challenge. I'm
8 speaking from the point of view of science, of course.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Hannis.
10 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: I appreciate that your line of questioning here
12 goes to the credibility of the witness and the quality of his report, but
13 since you are not yourself, admittedly, an expert in social science, it
14 might perhaps be worthwhile considering to speed it up and make your
15 point, go directly to the challenge that you wish to push to the report.
16 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, actually the next question I had
17 has a reference to your name and a question that you asked, so I'll try
18 and go to that.
19 Q. At page 20333 on Monday, Judge Harhoff asked you:
20 "What was the common denominator that you would base your
21 conclusions on?"
22 And you said:
23 "I arrived at this common denominator or a general conclusion at
24 the very end of my research. I could only work with a general hypothesis
25 and that is that the Ministry of the Interior of the Serbian Republic of
1 BH truly operated in a very difficult period."
2 And then you go on to say:
3 "That is probably a global conclusion that anyone can arrive at,
4 anyone who reads this report."
5 Did you have more specific conclusions based on your research?
6 A. The other day I also said answering a question that this is one
7 possible general conclusion, whereas all other conclusions I made I
8 offered in the respective paragraphs. It would have been easier for me
9 to speak about individual conclusions I made or some positions of mine in
10 this manner rather than in remembering them. I believe it is not
11 necessary for me to try to remember. It would also be easier for me if I
12 was given a reference to a particular paragraph in my report.
13 Q. Okay, Professor, I will come to some of those as we go through
14 your report. But with the Court's indulgence, I would like to just ask
15 you a few more questions about what material you used or did not use in
16 preparing your report.
17 Did you, Professor, see the RS MUP annual report covering the
18 period of 1992, because I don't believe it's referenced in your report,
19 and you may recall Dr. Nielsen discussed it at some length in his report?
20 Did you have access to that document?
21 A. As far as I remember, there is no such report that would
22 encompass the whole year for the MUP of the Serb republic of BiH, the
23 time bracket could be from April until the end of the year. I did see
24 that report but I couldn't say exactly when and I don't want to speak
25 from memory. But I know that there's a report from the period from April
1 until December of 1992 for the MUP of the Serb Republic of BH.
2 Q. Yes. That's the one I'm talking about that covers the period
3 from April until December 1992, and I understand your answer to be that
4 you did see that report but you did not find it worthy of mention in your
6 MR. HANNIS: For the record, Your Honour, that's Exhibit P625 in
7 this case.
8 Q. Professor, I don't know if you heard my question. So you did
9 read that report, yes?
10 A. Yes, but I cannot say now which documents I used from the overall
11 material. That's what footnotes are for. I know that there is a report
12 that spans the period from April to December, but, of course, I cannot
13 say right here and now everything that I cite in my footnotes. Whatever
14 I considered important is mentioned in my footnotes.
15 Q. Well, I know this exhibit is listed, I think, in the list of
16 documents the Defence proposed to use with you at tab 70, but I don't
17 recall seeing it in a footnote in your report, and in the list of
18 documents there's no cross-reference to a footnote. So I take it then
19 you found nothing of sufficient information in that report -- nothing of
20 sufficient importance in that report to note in your report; correct?
21 That's why it's not in a footnote or mentioned in a text anywhere?
22 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe the witness already answered that
24 "Whatever I considered important is mentioned in my footnotes."
25 63, 1 and 2.
1 MR. HANNIS: All right. I will accept that. Thank you.
2 Q. What about any of the quarterly or annual reports for the CSBs or
3 SJBs, did you have access to any of those, Professor, for various RS MUP
4 organisations in 1992?
5 A. I know that in the material that I received there was a report of
6 a CSB, I'm not sure about SJBs, but I repeat, it would be best if you
7 showed me the document and then I could tell you yes or no or find it in
8 a footnote. I find it very difficult to speak from memory. I know that
9 I read some such reports, but remembering a specific situation would
10 amount to speculation.
11 Q. Okay. Professor, we know you looked at Dr. Nielsen's reports.
12 Did you look at any other Prosecution expert reports in this case? For
13 example, specifically, let me ask you some one by one. Did you read
14 Dorothea Hansen's expert report on Crisis Staffs?
15 A. No.
16 Q. All right. Did you read Ewan Brown's report on the VRS and the
18 A. I can assist you, apart from Mr. Nielsen's report, I haven't read
19 any other reports.
20 Q. Thank you for that assistance. All right. At page 20035 --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone please.
22 MR. HANNIS: Sorry.
23 Q. Page 20035 on Monday, you said:
24 "If we take a look at the title of chapter 1 and the four
25 subsections ... one can immediately see that my intention was that I
1 wanted to speak in great detail about the Serbian Ministry of the
2 Interior ... and that for that purpose I had to put it into a realistic,
3 social context that prevailed in Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time."
4 And we've already talked to you about how many pages you have on
5 the SDA, the HDZ and the SDS. And in the section on the SDA you talk at
6 some length about the patriotic league, paramilitary formations and the
7 Mujahedin. And in Dr. Nielsen's report, he has a section dealing with
8 paramilitaries and the interaction between those groups and the RS MUP.
9 My question is: Did you have information about the various Serb
10 paramilitary groups operating in Bosnia in 1992?
11 A. The very fact that I read Mr. Nielsen's report shows that I
12 acquainted myself with these things in this manner too.
13 Q. Okay.
14 MR. HANNIS: I'd like to show the witness Exhibit P591.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Could we have the tab number, please.
16 MR. HANNIS: I don't have a tab number for this one. This is one
17 of Dr. Nielsen's documents.
18 Q. This is General Tolimir's report on paramilitary formations in
19 the territory of the Serbian Republic. Professor, this is dated the
20 28th of July, 1992. Well, I said general but then he was Colonel Tolimir
21 of the army security. Have you ever seen this document before? I can
22 give you a hard copy if that's easier to look through the whole thing
23 rather than turning page by page.
24 A. No, no, it's not a problem. I can look at it as it is. I don't
25 think I have seen it before. I think not. However, in my original
1 sources, I did have documents which addressed this subject, of course.
2 MR. HANNIS: If we could go to page 4 of the English and page 5
3 of the B/C/S.
4 Q. Colonel Tolimir talks about several alleged paramilitary groups
5 throughout the territory. On this page, last paragraph of the English
6 and for you it's the third paragraph, he is talking about the Serbian
7 defence forces from Banja Luka. Could you have a read of that paragraph
8 and tell us if you were aware of this information when you wrote your
10 A. Not anything that was called the Serbian defence forces, no. I
11 was not aware at all that there was a formation with this name, the
12 Serbian defence forces from Banja Luka. While writing my report I never
13 came across such a name.
14 Q. And -- but you were aware of the existence of a Special Police
15 detachment in the Banja Luka CSB, weren't you?
16 A. Yes, and it is mentioned in my report.
17 Q. Thank you. You mentioned that --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 MR. HANNIS: I am sorry, thank you.
20 Q. You mentioned that one of the best ways to analyse the activities
21 of these three main political parties was to resort to a broader set of
22 material than, I guess, the materials you were furnished. How did you go
23 about to finding that material? You told us about your private
24 collection that you had, but did you start surfing the Internet or
25 Googling? How did you do that?
1 A. The source materials which I used for my report was, in total,
2 the result of all possible ways of collecting materials. Of course, I do
3 not mean by theft of any kind, but by reading documents, monographs,
4 borrowing books from friends if someone had a good book that might help
5 me or not. So I knew that someone had a specific book, why wouldn't I
6 ask him to borrow the book to me. I do this on a daily basis, so also
7 for this report I used everything that I could get my hands on legally so
8 as to get all the materials that might help me to produce the report.
9 Q. And I take it all available means does include Internet research;
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Hannis, do you think that you can
12 realistically pose any serious challenge to the witness's report through
13 this line of questioning?
14 MR. HANNIS: Yes, I actually do, Your Honour, because I think
15 some of the sources that he has footnoted from the Internet, when you
16 look at them you will see, I hope you will see, that there's some reason
17 to believe that that might not be the best source to cite in a report of
18 this nature.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: As I suggested a while ago, I believe it would be
20 more expeditious if you would go directly to the documents which you
21 think that the witness should have used in his reports but failed or
22 omitted to do, so as to, you know, bring yourself straight to the point
23 that you want to put to the witness.
24 MR. HANNIS: Well, I guess I felt I first needed to establish
25 that he actually had gotten the source in that fashion and not in some
1 other way as handed to him by a friend or something from the Defence. I
2 will come back to some of the specific sources when I get to the actual
3 section of the report.
4 Q. Professor, I would like now to ask you about your comment
5 concerning the section on the SDA and the Muslims. At page 20038, you
7 "On the basis of certain documents I analysed, I got the
8 impression that the party for democratic action, in particular, made an
9 effort to exercise dominant influence especially in those ministries
10 called the ministries of force."
11 Are you saying, Professor, it was your conclusion that the SDA
12 was trying harder than the SDS and/or the HDZ to exercise dominant
13 influence in those ministries of force? Is that what you mean?
14 A. In my expert report I specifically drew one such conclusion,
15 especially having in mind the Ministry of the Interior of the Serbian
16 Republic of BH, and I tried to support that by documents in the
18 Q. And can you tell us which certain documents gave you that
19 impression? Are those simply the ones listed in your footnotes?
20 A. Yes. I'm saying once again I would like to be shown a paragraph
21 from my report with a specific source and then we can discuss it, because
22 I do not wish to try to remember. Can you please refer me to a paragraph
23 in which I stated a certain conclusion then I will also tell you what was
24 the source with which I would support that claim.
25 Q. Okay. I will come to that a little later, Professor. You also
1 talked about the regional communities and the problems these cause for
2 the functioning of the RS MUP in 1992. You talked about the Croatian
3 community of Herceg-Bosna and the ARK, the Autonomous Region of Krajina.
4 First of all, let's talk about the de jure versus de facto establishment
5 of organs --
6 MR. HANNIS: I see Mr. Zecevic on his feet.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Mr. Hannis. Just 68, 13, it's recorded
8 "RS MUP," I believe you were referencing to MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
9 SR MUP maybe.
10 MR. HANNIS: Well, actually, I'm referring to both.
11 Q. Because as I understand it, Professor, isn't part of your
12 conclusions the conclusion that for the RS MUP in 1992, one of the
13 contributing factors to the difficult situation in which it was working
14 was the existence of these Serb autonomous regions, like the autonomous
15 region of the Krajina which had, you say, established its own organs; am
16 I right about that?
17 A. Yes, this was one of the ways in which I analysed the functioning
18 of the MUP, and I emphasised then, as well, that this particularly
19 referred to the period until the end of September 1992. Though there
20 were problems later on which were residual due to the existence of these
21 autonomous regions, but certainly until the end of September, this had a
22 significant impact on the functioning of the Ministry of the Interior of
23 the Serbian republic.
24 Q. In your report, you talk about the ARK and you make reference to
25 other autonomous regions, but I don't think you name any. Can you tell
1 us what other Serb autonomous regions were created or were functioning in
2 and after April 1992? Can you name any besides the ARK?
3 A. I never dealt with the number or exact names but I know that
4 there was such a Serbian autonomous region around wider Sarajevo area, it
5 was called Romanija something. I know that there was one in the area of
6 Herzegovina as well, but I never dealt with them in the report in such a
7 way that I would enumerate them and list their full names. It is a fact
8 that they did exist and this fact by itself, and, in particular, the fact
9 that there was the Autonomous Region of Krajina which prompted me to draw
10 such a conclusion. Through further analysis on several occasions, I took
11 several positions and finally I drew some conclusions about the problems
12 which existed because of the existence of these autonomous regions.
13 Q. What I'm trying to put to you, Professor, is that from the
14 information that you had and referred to relating to the ARK, you try to
15 extend that to other regions where I don't believe you have any support
16 for the evidence that in those other Serb autonomous regions they had
17 established their own organs. You mentioned something called Romanija, I
18 think there, indeed, was a Serb autonomous region called Romanija Birac,
19 does that sound familiar?
20 A. Yes, precisely.
21 Q. And I believe we may have seen a document or a reference to a
22 Serb autonomous region for Northern Bosnia, and maybe one for Semberija
23 Majevica. But did you see any documents showing that other than being an
24 idea or being on paper, that they ever actually got set up and functioned
25 and created organs of their own? You didn't, did you?
1 A. I did not deal with this issue, particularly, but they are
2 discussed in many documents, these Serbian autonomous regions, the
3 documents which I've read, and references are partly made in these
4 documents and sources that are of such nature that made me draw the
5 conclusions I have made.
6 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I apologise, I know it's early, but I
7 have been fighting my allergies and my cough and my cold all week and I
8 would like to request if we could recess 8 minutes early today and
9 perhaps when we come back on Monday I can go more directly to some of the
10 things Judge Harhoff has suggested.
11 JUDGE HALL: Very well.
12 Mr. Bajagic, we are about to take the adjournment for the
13 weekend. I remind you of what I alerted you to at the adjournment on the
14 first day that in such discussions as you have, you can't discuss your
15 testimony until you are released. So I trust everyone has a safe weekend
16 and we resume in this courtroom on Monday morning.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.38 p.m.
19 to be reconvened on Monday, the 9th day of May,
20 2011, at 9.00 a.m.