Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 20297

 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

14     you.

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

Page 20298

 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]

Page 20299

 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

22     area.

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

Page 20300

 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

Page 20301

 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

Page 20302

 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

Page 20303

 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

Page 20304

 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.

Page 20305

 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

Page 20306

 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

 6     cross-examination."

 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

Page 20307

 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

Page 20308

 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

Page 20309

 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

Page 20310

 1     him a list of 800 documents --

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Hannis, may I suggest we stop here and just

 3     continue.

 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

Page 20311

 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

Page 20312

 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

Page 20313

 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

18     documents.

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

Page 20314

 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

Page 20315

 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

Page 20316

 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

 7     crew?

 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

24     detention?

25        A.   That depends on the situation.  I cannot remember specific

Page 20317

 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

24     that.

25        Q.   I think that's a good practice in general, Professor.

Page 20318

 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

 7     B/C/S.

 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

Page 20319

 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

 9     document.

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

18     that?

19        A.   Yes, it's the signature of the chief of the department where I

20     worked.

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.

Page 20320

 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

Page 20321

 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

10     him?

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

25     now.

Page 20322

 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

Page 20323

 1     memory?

 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]

Page 20324

 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?

Page 20325

 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

21     given?

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

Page 20326

 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.

Page 20327

 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,

20     thousands?

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

Page 20328

 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

 6     documents?

 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

16     you.

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

Page 20329

 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

Page 20330

 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

13     foreigners.

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

Page 20331

 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?

Page 20332

 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

13     departments.

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.

Page 20333

 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

Page 20334

 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

Page 20335

 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.

Page 20336

 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

 8     said:

 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

19     all.

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

Page 20337

 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

17     example?

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

24     events"?

25        A.   Well, for example, Sefer Halilovic's book, "A Cunning Strategy."

Page 20338

 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

10     1992?

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

Page 20339

 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

Page 20340

 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

11     team-work.

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.

Page 20341

 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,

Page 20342

 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

17     operations?

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

Page 20343

 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.

Page 20344

 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

Page 20345

 1     merely -- this merely has to do with the technical approach, nothing

 2     else.

 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

Page 20346

 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.

Page 20347

 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.

Page 20348

 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

Page 20349

 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

10     progress?

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

Page 20350

 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?

Page 20351

 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

 5     importance.

 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

Page 20352

 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

 5     interview?

 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

Page 20353

 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.

Page 20354

 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

16     general.

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?

Page 20355

 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

11     you.

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

Page 20356

 1     question.

 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

 7     explanation.

 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,

Page 20357

 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

Page 20358

 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

Page 20359

 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

 5     report?

 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

23     question:

24             "Whatever I considered important is mentioned in my footnotes."

25             63, 1 and 2.

Page 20360

 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

17     military?

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

Page 20361

 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

Page 20362

 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

 9     report?

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?

Page 20363

 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;

10     correct?

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

Page 20364

 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

 6     said:

 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

17     footnotes.

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

Page 20365

 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

Page 20366

 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?

Page 20367

 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.