1 Tuesday, 7 June 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.
7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
8 Stojan Zupljanin.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Good morning to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
11 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner and
12 Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
14 Slobodan Cvijetic, Tatjana Savic, and Eugene O'Sullivan for the
15 Stanisic Defence.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and
17 Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
19 And if there are no housekeeping matters, may the witness be
20 escorted back to the stand, please.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Orasanin, good morning to you, sir. Before
23 Mr. Cvijetic continues his examination-in-chief, I remind you you're
24 still on your oath.
25 Yes, Mr. Cvijetic, you may continue.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 WITNESS: MILOMIR ORASANIN [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 Examination by Mr. Cvijetic: [Continued]
5 Q. Mr. Orasanin, yesterday we began to discuss your visit to the
6 Doboj CSB, do you remember?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. We'll deal with another topic that has to do with Doboj.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see Exhibit 1D356.
10 MS. KORNER: Tab?
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] That is tab 12.
12 I apologise, but could I ask the usher to hand the binder to the
13 witness. Let me just check if we can see the document on the screen,
14 because I can't see it there. Yes.
15 Q. Please open the binder at tab 12. Have you seen it, this
16 criminal report?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do read the report and then I'll ask you about it.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. [Microphone not activated]
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. While reviewing criminal reports at the Doboj CSB, did you see
24 this one? Do you remember it?
25 A. Now that I'm reading it and I see the date, the 1st of August,
1 and the rest, then, yeah, I remember that this body was found in a
2 freezer. Yes, I remember this detail. This criminal report was
3 registered and submitted to the prosecutor's office. The investigative
4 magistrate was present at the on-site investigation.
5 Q. This report is dated 1 August. As far as I remember, you were
6 there after the criminal report had been submitted?
7 A. Yes. Our visit was on the 25th of August. That's when we
8 visited the Doboj CSB. And the offence was committed before and
9 registered. An on-site investigation was made, and the report was
10 submitted to the public prosecutor's office, as can be seen by the report
11 itself. I remember. This is one of the reports that we saw and
13 Q. Very well. I'll show you another from the period before your
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see 1D357.
16 Q. Read the report, please, so it may jog your memory, and then I'll
17 ask you about it. The tab number is 13. I hope you found it.
18 A. Yes, I did. I'm reading the report.
19 Q. Yes, try to refresh your memory.
20 A. May I comment?
21 Q. If you remember. But very briefly tell us if you saw this
23 A. I've read it, and we discussed this report when we were in Doboj.
24 I remember since the tool used in the commission of the offence was a
25 knife, and I used -- I took a sheet of paper and put down the place and
1 time of commission as well as the tool used. That's why I remember. An
2 on-site investigation was made and the report was submitted to the
3 prosecutor's office. This is the second report of about a dozen.
4 I'm not sure how many were against known and how many against
5 unknown perpetrators, but I seem to remember the last name of the
6 person -- last names of the persons mentioned here. The criminal reports
7 entered in the log also included this one.
8 Q. All right. I only wanted to check whether these are the reports
9 that you reviewed at the time. They are already exhibits, so no need to
10 comment on them much.
11 You mentioned unknown perpetrators. Was there a criminal report
12 against an unknown perpetrator where the victim was a Serb, do you
13 remember that?
14 A. I spoke about it. I don't remember how many reports were against
15 known perpetrators. There was one criminal report against a Serb
16 perpetrator and the victim was also a Serb. They were from the same
17 village and their names were similar.
18 Q. No, but my question was whether there was a report where a Serb
19 was the victim and the perpetrator unknown.
20 A. Yes, there were some such reports. But the procedure was the
21 same whenever the perpetrator of a murder was unknown. The offence was
22 registered --
23 Q. Do explain what you said, the procedure was the same when there
24 was an unknown perpetrator; what exactly do you mean when you say that?
25 A. When there was an unknown perpetrator, the procedure was the same
1 regardless of the identity of the victim. The identity or the ethnic
2 affiliation of the victim didn't matter to us.
3 Q. All right. I'll show you another criminal report.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It's from the 65 ter list. 388D1.
5 MS. KORNER: Tab?
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It's tab 25.
7 Q. Mr. Orasanin, please read this and pay attention to the date the
8 offence was committed.
9 A. May I comment?
10 Q. My question is the same as about the previous two: Is this a case
11 of the type we discussed, an unknown perpetrator and a Serb victim? Can
12 you draw that conclusion based on the names halfway through the text?
13 Take a look at the names of the victims.
14 MS. KORNER: Just a moment. Sorry. I think we can all read this
15 and see what it says, but is it the case that the witness has seen this
16 before, at the time?
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, he can't have seen
18 this criminal report when he was there. But my question was the same
19 because I want to point out once more that the procedure was identical
20 regardless of who the victim was. I'm not going to tender this criminal
21 report because he hasn't seen it, but --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please let me comment. I wanted to
23 say with regard to the date, 10 November, we were there on 25 August and
24 clearly we couldn't have seen this, but the procedure and the way of
25 going about it were the same. The reports that were registered before
1 the 25th and -- which we analysed, it's the same as here. The victims
2 were Serbs but the procedure was the same regardless of who the victim
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Well, that was the essence of my question. Since you haven't
6 seen this document before, I'm not going to tender it.
7 Mr. Orasanin, do you know how long you stayed at Doboj? When did
8 your visit finish?
9 A. I think we spent the night at a hotel. It may have been an old
10 people's home which was turned into a hotel. On the following day we
11 visited the Banja Luka CSB, so it means that we stayed in Doboj two days.
12 Q. This was going to be my next question, where did you move on to,
13 but you've already said that you moved on to Banja Luka.
14 Tell us, then, how long you stayed in Banja Luka or when you
15 actually arrived there?
16 A. On the following day, having spent the night in Doboj, we set off
17 for Banja Luka. As far as I remember, we went by way of Stanari. That
18 was a route that we were able to take at the time, and we visited the
19 Banja Luka CSB. That was our following visit to an organisational unit.
20 It was the Banja Luka CSB.
21 Q. Very well. Can you remember who came to meet you there? Who did
22 you report to?
23 A. I must be honest about it, when we arrived at the CSB in
24 Banja Luka, I called at a colleague, Vladimir Tutus, and I spoke to him.
25 And I believe that Nikola Milanovic and Ostoja went to see the deputy
1 chief of the centre or possibly the chief himself. I think the deputy
2 chief was Bulic and they spoke to him. But since I knew Vladimir Tutus,
3 he was my generation at school, I called on him and I wanted to see the
4 logs and hear what they were doing there.
5 Q. Okay. Since you split, I'll ask you what you inspected in your
6 line of work when you arrived in Banja Luka.
7 A. We did the same there as we had done pursuant to our
8 instructions. We reviewed the crimes log-book, what the SJBs do when
9 they receive criminal complaints, whether they are submitted to the
10 prosecutor's office, whether the prosecutors get involved. And as far as
11 I remember, the logs were in order. They were kept in accordance with
12 the instructions.
13 Q. What did you find there with regard to the processing of criminal
14 offences? Did you inspect that, and what did you find out?
15 A. As far as I remember, it was the same as in Doboj: criminal
16 reports were submitted to the prosecutor's office, they were registered,
17 and they engaged in some operative activities. But I don't remember how
18 many they had. They had a certain number of operatives. I contacted one
19 inspector; his name was Jevic, Drago Jevic. He was one of the inspectors
20 there at the station.
21 Q. So what would be your assessment of the situation there with
22 regard to your line of work?
23 A. We did the same thing as in Doboj. We checked if criminal
24 reports were entered into the logs and whether they were acting in
25 accordance with the instructions about crime prevention and detection. I
1 remember that there was a lot of activity there.
2 Q. And what about your colleagues who went with you, did they do the
3 same thing you did?
4 A. Yes, we had the same mission, the same task. We were a team that
5 was sent on behalf of the Crime Prevention Administration, so we shared
6 the same task. We were sent to see whether regulations were being
7 applied, primarily the instruction on the prevention and detection of
8 crimes. That was our task and that was their task as well.
9 I believe that Nikola Milanovic and I looked at some criminal
10 report that had been registered there. However, if I were to look at the
11 reports, I might be able to remember them. But anything that happened
12 before the 26th and 27th of August when we arrived, so I'm talking about
13 those reports, the reports that had been filed before those dates and
14 were processed by the crime prevention services in Banja Luka.
15 Q. That would have been my next question. When you arrived there,
16 had some of the cases already been processed and submitted to the
17 prosecutor's office?
18 A. Yes, but I can't remember them. If you were to show me some of
19 those reports, I would be able to remember them just as I did with those
20 from Doboj, when I remembered some three or four criminal reports that
21 were filed there.
22 Q. Very well. When you finished your visit to Banja Luka, where did
23 you go next? Which route did you take, can you remember?
24 A. We took the same way back, Stanari-Doboj-Modrica. However, we
25 had received intelligence that the commander or the deputy commander of
1 the police station in Doboj had been wounded at Samac and that's why we
2 stopped to visit him, but just for a brief period, for half an hour. We
3 actually went to his house, visited him, and then we proceeded towards
4 Brcko and Bijeljina.
5 And I know that later on when we arrived in Bijeljina and when we
6 looked at the situation there, some new activities were planned in order
7 to prepare some other things and to find resources for the implementation
8 of all the tasks that we had been engaged in Doboj and Samac and so on
9 and so forth. That was our plan for later. And some people were engaged
10 after the 29th or 30th of August to implement that plan.
11 Q. That would have been my next question precisely. Maybe you can
12 tell us also whether what you had observed on the ground, should that
13 have been controlled, should some measures have been undertaken where you
14 noticed weaknesses? You already said that there were plans, but if you
15 want to add something to that, go ahead.
16 A. When we visited Doboj and Banja Luka, and since we were
17 affiliated with the same administration and we were very cautious when it
18 came to competences and authorities, at least I myself did not want to
19 interfere with other people's authorities, and we noticed that in Doboj
20 there were problems with manning the reserve police force and other
21 problems, so when we returned to Bijeljina, we had a proposal that there
22 should be a mixed team represented by the police administration, by
23 inspectors who would be more familiar with that part of the job. And I
24 believe that later on a mixed team was indeed set up involving uniformed
25 police and police from the Administration for Crime Prevention. We
1 thought that it would be better if such a team was mixed.
2 Q. So did such a team indeed go to Doboj after you?
3 A. Yes, but I can't remember the date. I don't remember whether
4 that was perhaps 10 or 15 days later. In any case, I remember that a
5 person was sent on behalf of the police administration. I believe that
6 that was the assistant minister and Goran Macar on behalf of the crime
7 prevention police, Radenko Vujicic perhaps, Cedo Tosic also, but I'm not
9 Q. Well, if you can't remember any other details, never mind. Let
10 me ask you this: During that subsequent visit, were they supposed to also
11 visit Samac?
12 A. Yes, I believe that that was planned. We were there only for
13 perhaps half an hour. There were some problems there, and they were
14 supposed to go there and fix those problems.
15 Q. Before I move on to your next visit, tell me something about your
16 method of work. When you, for example, returned from a visit of that
17 kind, how did you report to your superior administration and your
18 superiors as to what you had seen?
19 A. It was our obligation to file a report on our work, which
20 encompassed everything that we did pursuant to rules and regulations
21 dealing with such instructive visit. And the terminology we used was
22 "visit" to police stations and crime prevention departments, the reason
23 being that there were no conditions in place in order to carry out a
24 complete supervision. Pursuant to the prevalent laws, such a complete
25 supervision would have encompassed a lot more than we had time for. We
1 did not have time for a thorough inspection. It would have taken at
2 least five or six days to carry out such a thorough inspection, and
3 that's why we filed a report on visits to police stations or tours of the
4 police stations.
5 As per rules, it should have been reports on the instructive
6 supervision of the police stations. The term itself implies a lot more
7 obligations, a lot more things than we actually did, that's why we used a
8 different terminology in our reports.
9 Q. And now this -- after your visits, were there supposed to be
10 instructive supervisions?
11 A. Yes. I know that this terminology was subsequently used once the
12 instruction on instructive supervision was drafted, but that was later.
13 In 1992, unfortunately regulations were lacking. It was very early days,
14 so the administrations in the ministry were working on drafting proposals
15 for such future instructions, and it was the minister who was supposed to
16 issue such instructions pursuant to the Law on State Administration. He
17 was the one who issued decisions, instructions, and regulations.
18 At that time, during the time, the period of transition, some of
19 the police stations were in the eastern part and were not encompassed by
20 the police administration and the ministry, and that's why there was a
21 gap, a shortage of regulations and rules. I believe that rules and
22 regulations were finally issued in late 1992, or, rather, I think that
23 there was a rule on internal organisation that was in the pipeline. I
24 don't know when it was actually issued. Hence all the shortcomings. And
25 that's why we called our visits "visit," although such things did not
1 exist in the rules. It was a huge responsibility. It would have been a
2 huge responsibility if we had called it an inspection supervision, since
3 it was not.
4 Q. Since you touched upon the topic on regulations on internal
5 organisation yesterday --
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, where are we going with this?
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm dealing with the
8 things that the witness did on behalf of the Crime Prevention
9 Administration. I will be dealing with my -- with his next visit, and my
10 next question will pursue the team that he has just touched upon. I want
11 to ask him whether before the regulations were issued did the minister
12 take any steps to remove all those who did not comply with the
13 regulations from the Ministry of the Interior; did he do that even before
14 regulations were issued. And my next topic, the next thing that I'm
15 going to pursue, is his next visit, his next inspection. That's how I've
16 planned it.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: I believe the Chamber has been -- has been
18 receiving a lot of evidence about the rules and the procedures that
19 applied to these inspections, and I don't think that there's any
20 disagreement about it either from the Prosecution side. So this seems to
21 be a very dry path to follow.
22 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we certainly accept, and we always
23 have, that the inspections took place. What happened as a result of the
24 inspections is another matter. But certainly inspections took place, and
25 we've got reports.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: So there you have it, Mr. Cvijetic. Can I
2 suggest that you proceed straight to the results of these inspections and
3 the steps that the minister took in response to those reports.
4 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, can I just make an observation. In
5 relation to the transcript on page 11, line 24, in that line you'll see a
6 sentence begins with the words "all those such things," and I believe the
7 interpreter said "although such things."
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan.
9 Please proceed, Mr. Cvijetic.
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for the minister to
11 do something, he has to receive report from the ground. For example, the
12 next visit by the team that went --
13 MS. KORNER: No speeches, thank you. Not while the witness is
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I'm trying to answer
16 Judge Harhoff's remark and answer his question. Please don't interrupt
17 me while I'm doing that. I am explaining why I want to deal with the
18 next issue with the witness.
19 MS. KORNER: That's fine. But the witness, if he doesn't -- I
20 don't know whether he speaks English or not, should take his headphones
21 off while you explain, if he doesn't speak English.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Orasanin, are you -- do you speak English?
23 Do you understand English?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well.
1 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Your Honour, he also needs
2 to turn off the microphone because otherwise he gets the translations.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, we hope that you will be able to
5 address us in this matter in English. If that is not an option --
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, you know, it's not an
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: If this is not the case, then we should ask the
9 witness to leave the courtroom for a short while.
10 JUDGE HALL: But before we go on with this, returning to the
11 intervention that Judge Harhoff made earlier and Ms. Korner's response,
12 there is no issue, Mr. Cvijetic, as to whether these reports were done,
13 so I'm at a loss as to why you still consider it necessary to pursue the
14 fact of these reports having gone up.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there's a report
17 which hasn't been admitted and we want to tender it because it is in our
18 interest, and that report is about the last visit. I don't know why I
19 should be prevented from tendering it. And those visits that the witness
20 is talking about actually illustrate the method of work that was applied
21 by the Crime Prevention Administration and the ministry. Even after such
22 short visits high-quality instructive inspections were prepared pursuant
23 to the minister's decisions and orders, and once the minister received
24 reports, the minister would react with documents that have already been
1 I'm just trying to lay the foundation as to what preceded and
2 what the minister learned about what was going on on the ground, what was
3 the organisation on the ground, what the weaknesses were, and how he
4 reacted. I'm just trying to give you the logical course of events in
5 practical terms from the visit to the decisions by the minister. In
6 other words, this visit -- this witness participated in another visit. I
7 would like him to tell us something about it, and I would like to tender
8 a report from that visit that has still not been admitted into evidence.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Cvijetic, for your account. But
11 you see, if you look at the clock, it has taken you 45 minutes to get
12 here to the question of whether or not this witness filed a report after
13 his inspections and whether he submitted this report to the minister. I
14 really don't find all the background that you have taken the witness to
15 explain to be very useful to the Chamber because we know that these
16 inspections took place and the Prosecution agrees and stipulates to the
17 fact that they did take place. So this is an example, Mr. Cvijetic, of
18 the way we would like you to proceed when we continue, namely to get
19 straight to the point, and not seek to go through every piece of evidence
20 which we really don't need in the end. Is that understood?
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] If the report of the visits to the
22 following four municipalities that Mr. Orasanin with his team of
23 inspectors went to isn't anything you need, then I can drop the remaining
24 examination on these matters.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think you should actually drop them because
1 what the Chamber needs in terms of evidence is proof of the information
2 that was passed from this witness up to the ministry and to the minister.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] But that's what we've been
4 discussing all the time, Your Honour. This is the official way of
5 receiving information on the part of the minister. And so if that is not
6 relevant, I don't know how to proceed.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, the criminal reports that you have
8 brought to the witness this morning are of no significance in respect of
9 what this witness reported up to the minister after his inspections. We
10 know that the criminal reports were made in the CSBs and in the SJBs, and
11 the Prosecution agrees to it. We know that the inspections took place,
12 and the Prosecution agrees to that as well.
13 Now, from this point on, the crucial element is: What was the
14 results of these inspections, did the inspectors file reports up to the
15 minister, and what was the contents of these reports; and secondly, did
16 the minister ever receive the reports.
17 In terms of the charges in the indictment, this is really the
18 evidence that we're looking for.
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, all this you're
20 looking for you can hear from this witness and see in these documents.
21 This is the very thing. What follows, and I can say for the sake of
22 reference, is 65 ter 33D1 in relation to which I want to discuss the
23 Visegrad municipality, which is covered by the indictment. If do you not
24 care to hear that, we will not deal about it, but that was going to be
25 next. It's a written report of the visit conducted. This is what you
1 are looking for, a written report about the situation in these stations.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] Mr. Cvijetic, 65 ter --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge, please.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Sorry. 65 ter 33D1 is a report of inspection to
6 the minister, as I understand it; right? Or to the ministry; right? So
7 that's the kind of evidence we are indeed looking for, and you should
8 certainly not drop that one. If it's related to municipalities in the
10 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] What is the tab number,
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: That would be tab number - where is it? - 32, if
13 I'm not wrong.
14 Is that right, Mr. Cvijetic, tab number 32?
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, it's tab 29.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's a criminal report once again.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. 65 ter 33D1 is
18 under tab 29, and it's a report on the visit to Foca, Cajnice, Rudo, and
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm mixing up the tab numbers.
21 It's indeed 29 and it's indeed the report on inspection. So that one, if
22 that's a report of this witness to go to the ministry, you should proceed
23 and ask the witness about it, indeed.
24 JUDGE HALL: So, Mr. Cvijetic, now that you -- it's been -- now
25 that we understand where we're going, could the usher please escort the
1 witness back in.
2 Just a moment, please.
3 MS. KORNER: Sorry, can I just ask where this document comes
4 from? The one you're going to be showing the witness.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It is best to ask the witness
6 that. Oh, yes, and we got it from this witness.
7 MS. KORNER: Thank you. I don't want to go through any more
8 questions like with Mr. Bjelosevic. If I could be given, please, a list
9 of anything that is in this binder which comes from this witness, please,
10 just to save time asking each time.
11 JUDGE HALL: Do I take it, Mr. Cvijetic, that your silence should
12 be interpreted as an affirmative response to Ms. Korner's request?
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We are checking, Your Honours. I
14 know that we received this report from him. We may have received some
15 other things.
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm not expecting Mr. Cvijetic -- I'm
17 not expecting an immediate answer from Mr. Cvijetic.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Only two documents, that's not a
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And they are announced already.
22 But the witness will explain, but I believe we only received two
23 documents from him. That is not so much.
24 Q. Mr. Orasanin - let us just wait for the English
25 translation - please open the binder at tab 29. Take a look, sir. Do
1 you recognise this report?
2 A. Yes, I do. It's our report.
3 Q. We have to explain yet how the Defence came by this document. Or
4 let me ask you straightaway: Did you give it to us?
5 A. Yes, I did. I had this report on me, but I didn't have it when I
6 was interviewed by the investigators.
7 Q. Very well. Mr. Orasanin, during this inspection, you visited the
8 SJBs of Foca, Cajnice, Rudo, and Visegrad, so just tell us to which CSB
9 do these SJBs belong?
10 A. In 1992 when we were there in early September, the SJBs of Foca,
11 Cajnice, Rudo, and Visegrad belonged to the Trebinje CSB. And if
12 necessary, I can also say what the pre-war organisation was. Foca
13 belonged to Gorazde and so did Cajnice. I'm not sure about Rudo.
14 Q. Is that a group of SJBs that were left without their CSB once the
15 war broke out?
16 A. Yes. It's the same case as with the SJBs along the Drina. They
17 belonged to Gorazde. And as far as the crime prevention service is
18 concerned, they were left hanging. Later they were -- they were placed
19 under the authority of a CSB.
20 Q. It wasn't recorded which CSB.
21 A. The one of Trebinje in 1992.
22 Q. Mr. Orasanin, please turn the page and find the Visegrad SJB.
23 Have you read it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. [Microphone not activated]
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Halfway through there is a statement that the prosecutor's office
4 and the court have not started operating. Can you see it?
5 A. Yes. If I may explain, it was the same as in Rudo, Visegrad, and
7 Q. Please read the final section. You also propose measures to be
8 taken to improve the situation. Please read that part.
9 A. Yes. This is our proposal and a comment that more attention
10 should be given to these SJBs. The Trebinje CSB visits these stations
11 rarely, that is, they aren't covered. And there's also a statement about
12 the prosecutor's office and the court. So our proposal was to provide
13 them technical assistance or professional assistance.
14 Q. Did the ministry or your administration react to improve the
15 situation? Did anybody go there later?
16 A. As far as I remember, after our stay there was discussion in our
17 administration that Nikola Milanovic, I think, and Sinisa Karan should go
18 there after some time once the shortcomings are rectified. The following
19 visit was planned and the ones to go there were Sinisa Karan and --
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the name of the
21 second person.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Apart from Sinisa Karan, who was to go there?
24 A. I think it was Nikola Milanovic to go there on behalf of the
25 Crime Prevention Administration.
1 Q. Very well. I'll show you the following document --
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, but first I seek to tender
3 this document because this is a report signed by this witness.
4 MS. KORNER: No objections, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D571, Your Honours.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. I'm going to show you another document also dealing with
9 Visegrad. P633 is its number.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Tab number, please.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, tab 9.
12 Q. I would like to draw your attention to the second page in the
13 Serbian version.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] In English it could easily be
15 page 3. In the English version it's the last paragraph on this page.
16 And in the Serbian version I've already told you it's on page 2,
17 paragraph 3, starting with the words "from the early days, the Visegrad
18 Public Security Station has functioned."
19 Q. Do you see that?
20 A. The third paragraph?
21 Q. Yes, the third paragraph. We can all read, can't we?
22 A. Yes, this gives an overview of the situation in the public
23 security station, a lack of staff, and it says that there were only five
24 professional police officers there. This is what the report is about.
25 It highlights the shortage of the professional police staff.
1 Q. Yes. We could all read that, but I would like to ask you this --
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Cvijetic, "we could all read that," you say,
3 but we can't. It's probably the next page in English.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Microphone not activated]
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel.
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, yes, it does go on to
7 the following page. That's why you actually couldn't read it. Very
9 Q. Now, what you have just told us, that there were only five active
10 police officers, but I'm interested in the introductory part where it
11 says that the leadership of that police station had the War Presidency of
12 Visegrad; this is something I wanted to ask you about: Did you know about
13 that when you arrived in Visegrad?
14 A. Yes, all the police stations in the eastern part were appointed
15 by the War Presidency. That was the case in Skelani and Visegrad. The
16 local government, or, rather, the War Presidency appointed a commander
17 and a deputy commander, and that was not a problem only in Visegrad but
18 also in all the other police stations that I mentioned yesterday,
19 Zvornik, Visegrad, Skelani, and that was that the War Presidency
20 appointed the leadership staff in the police stations.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Microphone not activated]
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] In the English version we will see
24 that on the previous page where the War Presidency is mentioned. Can we
25 go to the previous page for the benefit of the Trial Chamber. We are
1 looking for page 3 in English to be displayed in e-court. The last
2 paragraph, yes.
3 Q. You've already answered my question about the War Presidency.
4 Could you please move on to the following page, page 3 in the Serbian
5 version, and you will see a reference to the reserve police force in the
6 third paragraph.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Obviously we will have to see what
8 page this is on in the English version. I believe it's on page 4 in
9 e-court in the English version. It will be the last paragraph.
10 Q. Can you please take a moment to read the paragraph which in the
11 English version goes on to the following page. It's a lengthy paragraph.
12 I will give you a moment to read that paragraph in the Serbian
13 version of the document and then I'll have questions for you.
14 Did you read it?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Very well. In the first part it says that there were 150 reserve
17 policemen to begin with. I'm not interested in what it says, but what I
18 would like to know is whether you were instructed to reduce the number of
19 police officers, reserve policemen, where there were too many?
20 A. Again, this was a prevalent problem in 1992. This was an
21 instruction or an order which I remember, it was issued by the minister,
22 for the reserve police strength to be reduced in compliance with the
23 organisation and to remove those that did not comply with the
24 requirements. And here you can see that the number was reduced from 150
25 to 40 reserve policemen. There's reference to some crimes and
1 difficulties in preventing crimes in the territory of the
2 Visegrad Police Station.
3 Q. Wait, let's look at the last part where paramilitary formations
4 are mentioned and also the problems that they were causing. The question
5 is -- the question is very specific: Were you informed about this problem
6 once you inspected the police station in Visegrad?
7 A. I know that Nikola Milanovic spoke to Perisic. I personally
8 didn't. That is why he planned a subsequent visit to the police station
9 in Foca, because there was a problem with those groups that prevented the
10 police from doing their work. They looted property, they broke in
11 apartments. My colleague spoke to the chief, and my colleague also was
12 the one who planned a subsequent visit after our return. I know all
14 Q. Very well. Mr. Orasanin, could you please tell us which route
15 you took in order to visit those four police stations? How many
16 kilometres did you do on your visit?
17 A. I must say that it was a problem, the problem with regard to our
18 stay and the conditions of our stay. The total distance was over
19 500 kilometres from the moment we departed from either Bijeljina or Pale.
20 In order to reach Visegrad and Foca, you have to do over 500 kilometres.
21 If you wanted to take a short cut via Sarajevo to Pale to Foca, it would
22 have been 80 kilometres. We had to cross the territory of the present
23 three states. We had to go to Serbia along the right bank of the
24 Drina River, across Tara Mountain, and then we had to go to the
25 Republic of Montenegro via Pljevlja along some scenic macadam roads
1 barely passable. We used such roads, and that's why we visited Cajnice
2 and Rudo as well, because they were on our route. We took some adjacent
3 auxiliary routes to all those places. We encountered some problems and
4 difficulties on our way. We even encountered some threats, but it's
5 neither here nor there.
6 Q. Did you use the same route to go to the Security Services Centre
7 in Trebinje?
8 A. Yes, the same, there's no other road. You had to go from
9 Bijeljina via Zvornik, then you have to cross to a different state, and
10 then along the left river bank, cross Bajina Basta, Tara, you have to
11 cross the border to Montenegro, and then arrive in the territory of
12 Pljevlja. And then you take a right turn towards Foca or you go via
13 Trebinje; in other words, you could have continued through Montenegro via
14 Puzine to arrive in Trebinje. You had to cross almost entire Montenegro
15 to get to Trebinje because that was the only safe road at the time.
16 Q. Thank you. When was it possible to take the shortest possible
17 way? When did that road become passable?
18 A. As far as I can remember, that was in 1993, but I'm not sure.
19 I'm talking about the road leading from Sarajevo to Trnovo and then on to
20 Karanovac and Foca and then Gacko, Bilice, Trebinje. That is the road.
21 I believe that it became passable in mid-1993.
22 Q. Very well. Mr. Orasanin, we have seen that you took four
23 different routes for your visits. I'm not sure that there were four.
24 Could you tell us how many such visits and trips did you take while you
25 worked in the Crime Prevention Administration?
1 A. There were four visits. One was a visit to the area of Podrinje,
2 including Skelani, Brcko, Zvornik, Bijeljina, Vogosca, and Ilijas. And
3 then another one to Doboj and Banja Luka. And the fourth visit was along
4 the route that I've just described. The first visit was to Foca, and
5 then on return we visited Visegrad, Rudo, Cajnice. That was the fourth
6 visit that we undertook.
7 Q. Did your colleagues from the administration cover any other areas
8 that you yourself did not visit?
9 A. As far as I can remember, one team of inspectors did visit, or,
10 rather, revisit Samac and Doboj. That was probably sometime in
11 September, October. Maybe they even went twice. They visited Brcko, and
12 I believe that a team was sent to the area of Trebinje as well. And
13 there was also a plan in place to pay another visit to Visegrad. One
14 team was to be sent to visit Visegrad and Foca, but I can't remember. I
15 left the Crime Prevention Administration, so I'm not familiar with any of
16 the detail.
17 I'm sure that a team did go just as I have just said, that they
18 went to Doboj and Samac.
19 Q. Slow down a little. It is not clear from the transcript that
20 there were four visits. It seems that all those stations were visited on
21 one visit. Can you do it to make a clear separation between those
23 A. The first visit was to Zvornik, Skelani, Foca, Brcko, and
24 Bijeljina. That was the first visit. The second visit was to Vogosca
25 and Ilijas. The third visit was to Doboj and Banja Luka and stopping in
1 Samac. And the fourth and last visit was to Foca, Rudo, Cajnice, and
3 Q. Let me just ask you, you said that you visited Foca the first
4 time around and you omitted Zvornik?
5 A. The first one was Zvornik, Skelani, Brcko, and Bijeljina. That
6 was the first visit.
7 Q. So no Foca?
8 A. No, no. No Foca. We visited Foca in September, not earlier.
9 Q. I just wanted to make that clear for the record.
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I note the time.
11 I'm about to move on to the topic that I've already announced and that is
12 the drafting of some regulations by the Ministry of the Interior, and
13 this witness participated in the drafting of those proposals. And this
14 is a completely separate topic from the topic of visits, that's why I
15 think it would be a good idea to take a break now and then after the
16 break I would be prepared to move on to that next topic.
17 JUDGE HALL: Very well, so we would resume in 20 minutes.
18 [The witness stands down]
19 --- Recess taken at 10.22 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Orasanin, during any stage of the proceedings or the
25 procedure, did you participate in drafting some legal regulations that
1 were later signed by the minister and passed by the minister?
2 A. Yes. This had to do with the Administration for Crime Prevention
3 and specifically about war crimes and deposits made, registrations and
5 Q. That's exactly what I called it, because these documents are
6 signed and adopted by the minister. But what I wanted to know was how
7 such a document would reach the minister and how that text of that
8 document would be drafted.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Now I would like to show you two
10 documents. First the exhibit which is Exhibit 1D538, tab 33.
11 Q. Have you read it?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. This dispatch -- we see in this dispatch the minister of the
14 interior is urging other people to take action pursuant to a document.
15 A. Yes, I can see that. I can see the dispatch.
16 Q. And mention is made there that anyone who should fail to take the
17 measures as required would be called to duty. Can you see that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Is this the area that you mentioned earlier that you were
20 involved in drafting?
21 A. Yes. The minister is requesting here that certain actions have
22 to be taken that relate to deposits made.
23 Q. Very well. Could you now tell us, please, what is the purpose of
24 registering deposits in a SJB, in a public security station? And you
25 will tell us where that was done.
1 A. Well, according to the rules on registering deposits, each public
2 security station has the duty to have a log-book of deposits, and the
3 rules actually regulate this issue, how items are to be handled. And
4 specifically it describes the items that are involved or related to crime
5 proceedings. So once a criminal report is submitted to the prosecution,
6 the competent prosecutor's office, then those items are deposited, but in
7 fact those deposited items are now within the jurisdiction of the court.
8 So the public security stations have to keep track and have a log-book of
9 such deposits. And here we see that the minister is requesting to be
10 informed on the deposits that had been made and whether they have been
11 done in a proper way as required by the rules.
12 Q. Well, the reason I'm asking you about this is this: Was there
13 any -- were there any reports that there were abuses of these items that
14 had been deposited? Do you know anything about that?
15 A. Well, I can't recall any specific case, but I assume that this
16 dispatch actually is the result of such possible reports that in some
17 public security stations there were some abuses or that the procedure for
18 registering deposited items was not properly enforced. And that's quite
19 clear. But then there are also other deposits that have to do with
20 reserve goods, and that would be guided and regulated by another set of
21 rules, and this specific dispatch is actually something that reflects
22 that procedure.
23 Q. Very well. I will show you another document that was sent by the
24 minister, 1D64, since you mentioned the reserves, strategic reserves.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] That's tab 31.
1 Q. Would you please read this order issued by the minister and then
2 we will briefly comment on it.
3 Have you read it?
4 A. Yes, it's very clear.
5 Q. Is it clear?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Could you please now just answer my question: Does this order
8 relate to the other type of items and the other type of registered
10 A. Well, yes, this has do with commodity reserves. And as far as I
11 can recall, this was done at the level of the municipality by the
12 authorities. There was a commission, I believe, that would compile such
13 items. But here we see that those items that were subject to a criminal
14 investigation, that they should be handled by the public security
15 stations, whereas the items that were under the law within the competence
16 of the commodity reserves, that they should be handed over to the
17 commodity reserves organs. So here it is also said that if anyone should
18 not abide by these instructions, that they would be punished. In other
19 words, abuses would be punished.
20 Q. Very well. Thank you.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Now I would like to show you the
22 instructions on keeping a log of reserves, and that would be -- or
23 rather, of keeping a log of all deposits, and that would be under
24 65 ter -- that's 65 ter 117D1. Tab 32. Let's just wait for the English
25 version to come up and then we'll proceed.
1 Q. Mr. Orasanin, we will just take a brief look at the first page.
2 This is the cover letter sent by the chief of the
3 Security Services Centre, Krsto Savic. The Security Services Centre in
4 Trebinje. And he is forwarding and distributing this document within his
5 Security Services Centre.
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And now I would like us to see
7 page 2, the next page.
8 Q. Would you please take a look at this. Is this a document which
9 was drafted among others by you, or, rather, you took part in the
10 drafting of this document, can you recognise it?
11 A. Well, yes, these are instructions on how to store items, and we
12 actually prepared a draft version as the public security station but this
13 document was in fact done by the legal services. However, the items in
14 these instructions are the ones that we proposed. We had a typed-written
15 version because we didn't -- we just had a typewriter, we didn't have any
16 other type of device. But the subject matter and the contents of these
17 instructions are the same, and this is -- these instructions were the
18 ones that were adopted and passed by the minister after they have been
19 given the proper legal form.
20 Q. Very well. I just wanted to show how such documents were sent to
21 the minister and how they were forwarded to the minister for signing, for
22 his signature. Now, I do also have that typewritten form, but I would
23 just like it to show it briefly to you, that's 1D06, so that you can --
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] So 1D065505.
25 Q. And I would like to show it to you so that you can just confirm
1 for us whether that is the original document that you had typewritten.
2 And that's under tab 37.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We can keep the same English
4 version because the documents are identical, and we do not actually have
5 a translation of the typewritten document. So can we just keep them as
6 they are on the screen now.
7 Q. Now, Mr. Orasanin, please take a look at this document and tell
8 us whether you recognise your own work, as it were, if I may put it that
9 way. And do you recognise the tripe writer that was used to type it up?
10 You can see it on the left-hand side, please take a look. You also have
11 a hard copy, and that's under tab -- oh, my apologies. I will give it to
12 you in the moment. It's not in the binder.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could I have the assistance of the
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well I can see it on the screen.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Very well, but you will also get the original document, the hard
19 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... what number is this?
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, it was announced. It was
21 under number 37.
22 Q. Now, please take a look at the hard copy. Do you recognise it?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Please tell us whether that's the document in question.
25 A. Yes, because I know that this typewriter would also sometimes go
1 and type in a slanted way. You can see it in the signature that it's not
2 parallel to the other lines because it was a tiny little machine, a Bizer
4 Q. Very well. Now, you were the agency that proposed such a
5 document. Now, what was the next step?
6 A. Well, the next step was this would go to the legal administration
7 and they would give it proper legal form and then it would be forwarded
8 by them to the minister.
9 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, I will touch upon another document
10 where you were involved in its drafting, at least as far as the text was
11 concerned. So could we see 1D63 now.
12 That's tab 35. My apologies, I haven't said it?
13 Do you have it before you? That's tab 35? Yes, that's the one.
14 Now please take a look at the cover letter first before you look at the
15 form. Here we see that the form or questionnaire is being forwarded, and
16 you can see from the first paragraph that it's a form which would be used
17 to enter information regarding war crimes. Can you see that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And do you see there that it also says that it should be entered
20 regardless of the ethnicity of the perpetrator against whom the report,
21 criminal reports, have been submitted? Are you familiar with this?
22 A. Well, yes, but this was also worked on and further expanded at
23 the minister's cabinet.
24 Q. Could you please take a look at the next page.
25 A. And as far as I can recall, we took this document with us when we
1 went to the field. We didn't wait for this to be officially forwarded.
2 We took it with us when we went in the field, and it did have to do with
3 war crimes. And it's true that -- well, at that time no one even
4 considered the aspect of ethnicity. That was not something that was
5 taken into account at all.
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we just see page 2 so that we
7 can take a look at that questionnaire, or form. That's the next page in
9 Q. Mr. Orasanin, this form has a certain name. It says, in the
10 title, "Form RZ." Could you please tell us what "RZ" stands for in our
12 A. Well, this form was type written in the Cyrillic script, and RZ
13 stands for war crimes, "ratni zlocin." In other words, victims of war
14 crimes, that's what RZ indicates. In other words, regardless of the
15 ethnicity of the victim, all information was captured in this general
17 Q. Very well. Now, was there another form -- was there a special
18 form that was to be used in the cases where Serbs were the victims?
19 A. Well, yes, there was a different type of form.
20 Q. What kind of designation did it have?
21 A. R1. So this is "ratni zlocin," war crimes, and general. In
22 other words, of general aspect.
23 Q. Well, but in your response you said "R1." Would it be, in fact,
25 A. Yes, that's correct. RZ1.
1 Q. These forms and the instructions to register war crimes, did you
2 carry them with you to the field?
3 A. Yes. We were duty-bound to submit these forms and enter
4 information in them, and they would be forwarded to the analyses
6 Q. Very well. Mr. Orasanin, I'll show a document now, 1D065506 or
7 920D1. Tab 38, I apologise.
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we were informed by
9 the translation service that the English translation of this document is
10 due any minute. It was only disclosed on Thursday. Therefore, I suggest
11 that the witness read out the contents of this dispatch from
12 Minister Stanisic or that I move on to my last topic and then we can get
13 back to this document once the translation has arrived. This dispatch is
14 very important.
15 Q. I'll just ask the witness now whether he knows this dispatch.
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Since he knows this dispatch, we
18 would like to tender it. But I ask the Trial Chamber how I should go
19 about it and have it done by the end of today?
20 MS. KORNER: I'm really sorry, but I haven't the faintest idea
21 what it says. So we can have the witness read it out and then I'll see,
22 but at the moment this is not something I know whether I can agree to or
24 JUDGE HALL: I, too, thought of having him read it out, but then
25 we would still have to return to it once we have the translation.
1 MS. KORNER: Yes.
2 JUDGE HALL: So perhaps Mr. Cvijetic's alternative of moving on
3 to something else then returning to that is the better course.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honours.
5 Q. Mr. Orasanin, I wanted to discuss this with you at the end, but
6 we are still waiting for the English translation and then we'll see what
7 we'll do next.
8 When you spoke about the regulations on internal organisation,
9 you said that a condition for somebody to be issued a final appointment
10 as a MUP employee was to meet the requirements of the regulations. You
11 said that it was not in force in 1992 and that everybody only got
12 temporary appointments.
13 Did the minister intervene by issuing orders to alleviate the
14 situation in the ministry at least somewhat and remove those who did not
15 meet the legal conditions?
16 MS. KORNER: Again, Your Honour, I've resisted this morning
17 objecting to leading questions, but that one is really atrocious. The
18 proper question is, What did the minister do, if anything?
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I disagree that the question is as
20 leading as that, Your Honours. And the question was, Did the minister
21 take any steps to alleviate the situation. I believe -- well, this is
22 the proper question.
23 JUDGE HALL: We agree with Ms. Korner here, Mr. Cvijetic. The
24 question could have been differently put.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Then I'm going to rephrase.
1 Q. How did the minister alleviate the situation until the
2 regulations entered into force?
3 A. As far as I know -- or, rather, I remember an order or a dispatch
4 from 1992 which was sent out to the SJBs, or the CSBs and then forwarded
5 to the SJBs, to review the staffing level of the organisational units,
6 that the number of staff should be reduced and adapted to the
7 organisational structure, and that the -- those members of the police
8 should be removed who did not meet the conditions. And those were both
9 the general and the special conditions under both the labour law and the
10 Law on Internal Affairs which gives special powers to police staff based
11 on checks that are conducted to find out whether they are suitable for
12 police work, and those members were from public security. They have
13 special powers and can exercise police powers.
14 Another group consists of those who do not belong to this sector,
15 that is, those who work in the administration and legal department. The
16 latter should be removed and placed at the disposal of the military.
17 Those who are responsible for any wrong-doing should be subject to
18 disciplinary action but only if they are proper police staff, because
19 only as such are they liable to disciplinary proceedings. It was also
20 proposed that they be given temporary appointments which entail what I've
21 just said.
22 Q. Was the purpose of these orders achieved?
23 A. Yes, certainly. Except in some stations. I don't remember
24 whether Doboj carried out what they were duty-bound to do. As far as the
25 reserve police force is concerned, I said yesterday that they were --
1 there were shortcomings or, rather, resistance to the minister's order
2 which was very clear. I remember Doboj. I can't remember whether there
3 was anything like that in other municipalities or SJBs.
4 Q. Very well. Do you know anything about the operation against
5 paramilitaries in Zvornik?
6 A. I'm familiar with these details because I was to be the duty
7 officer in the crime prevention service of the MUP. The operation was
8 prepared earlier because there was intelligence about the presence of
9 paramilitaries. It was my duty to be on duty shift and follow the
10 activities of the Crime Prevention Department, whatever was happening in
11 the field. But other people went out to implement it, to carry it out.
12 As far as I know, a special unit also took part. But we had to wait a
13 bit for it all to be organised because we lacked some equipment.
14 Q. I'm not going to ask you about that operation because you weren't
15 in the field to take part directly. Let me just ask you what the role of
16 inspectors from the Crime Prevention Administration in such an operation
18 A. As I said, I didn't take direct part. But the role of a crime
19 prevention inspector was to assist the local inspectors to carry it out.
20 I know that Nikola Milanovic, I think, took part, and so did
21 Ostoja Minic. The administration was to draft an operative plan for the
22 implementation of the operation, but there was also the police
23 administration who had their plan, and they had their materiel and
24 technical equipment.
25 Our plan that we worked out at the
1 Crime Prevention Administration became an annex.
2 Q. What exactly was envisaged by that plan?
3 A. The interviewing of persons, the arresting of persons, any
4 investigative activities, given the approval of the investigative
5 magistrate and the prosecutor, and anything else that the police has a
6 right to do.
7 Q. Very well. Were you personally to take part in this operation
8 that we can call Foca now, and if so, in what capacity?
9 A. Well, it's been a long time. I can't remember everything. After
10 the operation, and it was all in August, all these planned activities of
11 the MUP, I was convinced that the operation had been carried out without
12 my participation because I was transferred to another position. We were
13 drafting an operative plan for going to Foca.
14 Q. But my question was only: Did you have the opportunity to see an
15 order about the execution of such an operation?
16 A. Yes. That's why I was convinced that it had indeed taken place.
17 I remember that I drafted the operative plan and the order was clear.
18 There was something in that order that I remember. There was the order
19 to arrest those paramilitaries that were called terrorist groups.
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt and
21 object. At the moment Your Honours, as it were, adjourned your ruling on
22 this matter. I think we need an explanation of how this is relevant, as
23 Foca is not within the indictment nor have Your Honours heard anything
24 about the events in Foca.
25 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic --
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [No interpretation]
2 JUDGE HALL: -- when Ms. Korner adumbrated this matter yesterday,
3 you indicated that you only intended to touch on Foca. The Chamber, as
4 Ms. Korner has rightly said, never ruled on her objection, and it seems
5 that the time has come for you to formulate a response that would enable
6 the Chamber to rule.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [No interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ...
8 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honours, I'm afraid it would have to be
9 in the absence of the witness.
10 JUDGE HALL: Yes, I'm sorry, that struck me as well.
11 MS. KORNER: Yes.
12 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Orasanin, from time to time, these procedural
13 matters arise which are best taken out of the hearing of the witness, so
14 again I would ask the usher to escort you from the room for the time
15 being, while we resolve this matter.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as I said yesterday,
18 I will not deal with the events in Foca. I will deal with the events at
19 Pale and Minister Stanisic's order to carry out that operation. Why? I
20 will deal with the intention of Minister Stanisic, and it is relevant for
21 his responsibility under the indictment. His intention to eradicate
22 negative occurrences in the RS. We want to point out that this was not a
23 single operation or two sporadic operations but a sequence of continuous
24 operations as soon as the conditions were met, from Brcko to Bijeljina to
25 Zvornik to Foca.
1 In other words, I am dealing with the mens rea of Mico Stanisic
2 and his persistence in coping with these occurrences, and it can be seen
3 in the order to launch the operation in Foca. This witness was saying
4 that he personally read the order and, based on that, drafted an
5 operative plan of action for the crime prevention service to carry out
6 the tasks that Mr. Stanisic had given them. Tasks were also assigned to
7 anybody else involved in that operation, that is, the special unit of the
8 police, the police administration, and others.
9 We are exclusively dealing with Pale and Minister Stanisic's
10 order as well as the operative plan for such an operation. We will not
11 go to Foca. And apart from that, the operation was never conducted. I
12 wish to remind the Trial Chamber that Witness Dragan Andan gave evidence
13 about that operation and evidence was introduced through him about who
14 was meant to participate, with what, and so on, and it may be interesting
15 and relevant for the Trial Chamber to hear evidence about that.
16 We now have a witness who read the order, and I believe that it
17 is very relevant to see it because it shows to what extent
18 Minister Stanisic persevered in the carrying out of such operations.
19 This is what I would like to show.
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, the difficulty is -- I'd have to check
21 on the evidence of Mr. Andan. I don't know what, if anything, he was
22 asked about this. But the -- there are two difficulties. First is we
23 don't know the facts which led this apparent operation to be planned. We
24 have absolutely no idea because it's not part of the indictment, no
25 evidence has been led by the Prosecution nor the Defence about that
1 municipality, who these people were, or what they did, or why any
2 operation was being planned. Secondly, if an operation was planned and
3 never carried out, how is that going to assist the Trial Chamber in
4 assessing anything?
5 So, Your Honours, I maintain my objection to this evidence being
7 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, if I understand you correctly,
8 wouldn't the point that you wish to make be sufficiently made by merely
9 mentioning Foca as a fact and then -- I shouldn't say as a fact, as an
10 event, and without leading any details about it at all, especially having
11 regard to what Ms. Korner has just reminded us, that, as you yourself
12 have said, the operation planned for Foca was never carried out?
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes, in the view of the Chamber, Mr. Cvijetic, the
15 witness may be permitted to mention it but without any details whatever
16 because it's totally irrelevant for our purposes.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will focus on the
18 relevant part, the part from the indictment. I have to ask the witness
19 who the operation was supposed to target and why.
20 We know that the indictment contains the crimes committed also by
21 the paramilitaries against whom that operation would have been carried
22 out. This is how I intend to lead the witness. I'm going to ask him
23 what was supposed to be done against those people. This is the gist of
24 the indictment against Mr. Stanisic, i.e., what he did against certain
25 persons and their actions.
1 As for the reasons why the operation wasn't carried out, I
2 believe that Mr. Andan explored that quite sufficiently, and I do not
3 intend to ask this witness about that.
4 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, we're still checking the Andan
5 transcript. At the moment, we can find nothing except a very brief thing
6 saying the operation wasn't carried out and Mr. Orasanin knows about it.
7 But in any event, Your Honour, the problem is this: There is a real
8 divergence between the Prosecution and Defence on the reason why
9 Mr. Stanisic launched action against some paramilitaries but not others,
10 and it's our contention, and that's something we'll be dealing with in
11 the evidence, that the only times that action was launched was when the
12 paramilitaries in question, such as the Yellow Wasps or the Mice, carried
13 out attacks on members of the Serb population.
14 So it's, therefore, important to know, and Your Honours have
15 heard no evidence about this one way or another, who these people were,
16 what they were alleged to have done. And that's the difficulty in
17 allowing the Defence to develop this through a man who knows simply that
18 an operation was planned and abandoned. If that's what he wants to say,
19 he can say it, but no more than that.
20 JUDGE HALL: Yes, no more than that. And I would think that what
21 Mr. Cvijetic has just said can be accomplished within the compass of two
22 or three questions at the most.
23 Ms. Korner, what the Chamber -- what I continually bear in mind
24 is that whereas of course we are bound by the fundamental rule of
25 relevance as determined by the indictment, the reality is that we -- the
1 indictment is an artificial delineation of events which occurred in a
2 certain historical time, and there comes a point in which some overlap is
3 inevitable, and this was apparent throughout the case for the
4 Prosecution. So provided Mr. Cvijetic confines himself to, as I said,
5 for what he said, three questions should do it and we move on.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I agree. I mean, it's simply the
7 amount of detail that can be gone into that is my objection.
8 JUDGE HALL: So, Mr. Cvijetic, when the witness returns, you
9 understand what you're permitted to do.
10 So the usher could escort the witness back to the stand, please.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Orasanin, I'll have some very short questions for you and I
15 will invite you short answers. The first one is this: Did you read, did
16 you peruse, Mr. Mico Stanisic's order? Just briefly.
17 A. Yes, I believe that it was an original order. What I mean is
18 that it was handwritten.
19 Q. Who's the operation supposed to be carried out against?
20 A. It was supposed to be carried out in the territory of Foca
21 against criminal and terrorist groups. I still remember the term used,
22 criminal and terrorist groups of paramilitaries in the territory of Foca.
23 Q. In that order, did Mr. Stanisic also approve the use of
25 A. There was a specific reference as far as I can remember -- or,
1 rather, there was one chapter dealing with the application of laws, which
2 is one of the most difficult areas, the use of fire-arms to eliminate and
3 apprehend those groups.
4 Q. More specifically, was that part of that order?
5 A. Yes, as I'm saying.
6 Q. Just briefly.
7 A. Yes, yes. One paragraph dealt with the use of police authorities
8 highlighting the use of fire-arms.
9 Q. Tell me, please, in that order were the tasks of your
10 administration also specified and what did they consist of? Again, very
12 A. Yes, there were also tasks pertaining to Crime Prevention
13 Administration, the police administration, as well as the administration
14 dealing with logistics. The three administrations were highlighted.
15 Q. I'm specifically interested in the tasks given to your
16 administration and you personally.
17 A. The first was to draft an operative plan, to implement that
18 operative plan, to apply authorities and investigative procedures,
19 apprehension, taking people in custody, and filing criminal reports.
20 Q. Did your tasks also specify the processing of the crimes that
21 were committed by the paramilitaries in that area?
22 A. Yes, that was a general application.
23 Q. And my last question about this topic: The order and the tasks in
24 that order, were they either the same or similar as the order for
1 A. Yes, there were similarities. The only thing that differed was
2 the use of terminology, specifically "terrorist groups." The term
3 "terrorist groups" was used for the first time because in terms of their
4 activities, in terms of the fact that they were renegade armed groups,
5 that meant that they were terrorists and they should be treated as
7 Q. In keeping with the previously-given promise, we will not go on.
8 Before we open a document which has just been translated, and it will
9 take a few minutes to upload it, I will have just one more question.
10 After all your visits and after all your inspections --
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Cvijetic, on this Foca operation, one
12 follow-up question, please.
13 Mr. Orasanin, do you remember the date or the approximate date of
14 that order, of Mr. Stanisic's order?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that it was issued in
16 mid-August 1992.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you very much.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Orasanin, if you were asked to summarise all your visits
20 across the Republika Srpska and across all the public security stations,
21 would you be able to highlight the main problems in the work of crime
22 prevention services that would be common to all of them, not just
23 individual problems? If you were asked to highlight the most pressing
24 problems that hinder the work of those services, can you just give me a
25 list of the most prominent problems?
1 A. The first problem was the lack of professional staff, as we have
2 already seen. So the main problem was personnel. When we inspected the
3 area, we realised that another big problem was the fact that those
4 paramilitary groups were not under anybody's control. They were not
5 under the control of either the military or the police. And they were
6 the main cause of the problems in Foca, Zvornik, and elsewhere.
7 Q. And what about the local bodies of authority, were there any
8 hindrances on their part?
9 A. As I've already told you, the local authorities or, rather, the
10 Crisis Staffs at the beginning effectively controlled even the police.
11 In some towns they even appointed commanders and chiefs of their police
12 stations and that was also a very big problem. Probably the local
13 authorities were in cahoots with some of those local renegade groups.
14 For example, in Brcko, I believe that we were chased away by their
15 snipers. And that was one of the key problems. The issue was how to
16 establish the work of the Ministry of the Interior or, rather, how to
17 establish control over those paramilitary groups in Foca and Zvornik
18 where the police stations were not in control of them.
19 Q. And now I will ask you about the year 1992. Do you perhaps know
20 or could you be able to assess the percentage of detected and resolved
21 crimes in the territory of the Republika Srpska? You don't have to be
22 very precise but maybe you can give us an approximation. Did your
23 service carry out any analysis in that sense? This a very concrete
25 MS. KORNER: Let's start with that one, shall we, the basis for
1 which he can give any such opinion.
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. So, you've heard Ms. Korner. Start with last things first. Did
4 your service carry out an analysis of the crimes that were detected and
5 resolved in 1992?
6 A. Yes. This is within the purview of our analysis service and the
7 Crime Prevention Administration. All the reports that arrived at our
8 desk were analysed. I personally was not involved in that. In any case,
9 the analysis serves to monitor the work of the security services centres
10 and public security stations. I know that the percentage was very high
11 in our view, especially in the Security Services Centres of Banja Luka
12 and Doboj. The total percentage was over 45, up to 50 per cent of the
13 crimes that were resolved. In peacetime, I know that a percentage of
14 over 40 to 50 per cent is considered a good performance.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have received the
17 translation of the document. I would suggest that we take a short break
18 which will allow us to upload it. And after I show the document to the
19 witness, I will have a few questions and that will be the end of my
20 examination. I will have no other questions for the witness.
21 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So we would -- would the usual
22 20-minute break, or should I add an additional five minutes or so?
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I believe that a half an hour that
24 we normally take should suffice.
25 JUDGE HALL: So we will return at the usual time of 12.25.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 --- Recess taken at 11.53 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.35 p.m.
4 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, may I address you briefly before
5 the witness comes in?
6 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan.
7 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes, before the break there was a discussion
8 about the evidence on Foca and the witness Andan, and I understand
9 Ms. Korner hadn't had time to check the transcript, but can I just for
10 the record state that on the 30th of May in relation to Exhibit 1D557,
11 that was Andan's personal diary, he was questioned about the Foca
12 operation at pages 21503, -504. That was on direct. Again on direct, in
13 relation to Exhibit 1D556 -- sorry, 1D566, that's a letter from
14 Prime Minister Djeric, he was questioned about Foca at pages 21545, -547.
15 Finally, on direct, Exhibit -- or not exhibit, it's 65 ter 179D1, an
16 Official Note, and there he's questioned at 21552, -555. And finally, on
17 cross-examination by the Prosecutor on the 1st of June, Andan was
18 questioned about Foca at pages 21697 to -706. Thank you.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan. And of course while
20 Ms. Korner had no personal recollection of this, the Chamber, certainly
21 one of the members, did recall that the witness Andan spoke specifically
22 to the matter of Foca. Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan.
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
25 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
2 Q. Mr. Orasanin, we will continue where we broke off, but do repeat
3 once more, did you have an opportunity to see it while you were working
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I suppose that in the mean time you were able to read it.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Here is my question: Does this request, which is reiterated,
9 refer to the -- to entering information in the forms about war crimes?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Let us look at paragraph 3, that the nationality of perpetrators
12 or victims need not be entered. Is that in line with what we've
14 A. Yes. The ethnicity was not an issue. It was the same for
16 Q. There's another statement in the introductory part. Take a look
17 at the date of the minister's first dispatch.
18 A. Yes, that's a reference to previous dispatches, dated 16 May and
19 19 July. Those were earlier dispatches about the submission of the forms
20 mentioned here, RZ and RZ1.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since the witness is
22 obviously acquainted with this document and he acted pursuant to the
23 orders of the minister, he even took part in the drafting of the forms, I
24 seek to tender this document into evidence.
25 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] No objection.
1 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D572, Your Honours.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Orasanin, you don't know but I still owe something to the
5 Prosecutor, namely whether or not you gave a document to the Defence, so
6 that is made clear.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see 65 ter 143D1.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Tab number, please.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 36. Let us wait for the
10 technician to finish.
11 Q. Mr. Orasanin, you said at the beginning that you were transferred
12 from the crime prevention unit to the uniformed police, more
13 specifically, the border police; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did you give us this document that we see here?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Please tell us briefly why you considered it important for us to
18 receive this document. In one sentence, please.
19 A. I gave you this document because in the border department there
20 were also some problems with the jurisdiction of the MUP and the military
21 respectively or, more specifically, the military police. The military
22 police assumed the jurisdiction over some things that were -- that should
23 properly have been in our jurisdiction, and there was a problem. The MUP
24 was unable to carry out the assignments that it was legally bound to do.
25 We can see --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the latter part
2 of his answer.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are offices of the border
4 police whose superior I was.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Please repeat the end of your previous answer. It was about the
7 overlapping jurisdiction.
8 A. This document is about the interference of military bodies, that
9 is, the military police, in the work of the border police of the MUP, and
10 this report was filed by officers at the border crossing of Zvornik whose
11 superior I was.
12 Q. And do you know this document?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since the witness is
15 here and he brought this document, I will tender it into evidence.
16 MS. KORNER: Well, if Your Honours think a document about the
17 border patrol on the 25th of January of 1993 is relevant, I'll leave it
18 up to Your Honours. We would say it's not relevant to anything.
19 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, relevance?
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Then I will amend my question to
21 the witness.
22 Q. Mr. Orasanin, the date here is indeed 25 January 1993, so let me
23 ask you if these problems with the clash of jurisdictions go back earlier
24 than this?
25 A. Yes, certainly. This was from January when the border police
1 became operational, but in November and December of 1992 it was the same,
2 only worse. I found this report and I brought it here as an example, but
3 there were more drastic cases back in August and September. We had to
4 work in accordance with laws and regulations because there was an embargo
5 imposed in Serbia and there were UN observers there, and we insisted that
6 everything should be in line with the regulations, that the military
7 police do their job, and the MUP, their job.
8 Q. [No interpretation]
9 JUDGE HALL: To whom was this report sent?
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. You heard the question, witness.
12 A. The report was sent to the MUP, that is, to the chief of the
13 border department of the MUP of the RS, to have the ministry solve the
14 problem with the military. It's about jurisdiction. The minister should
15 have seen to it.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, insofar as the witness in your -- in
18 the last exchange, that is, the one before the -- to whom the report was
19 sent, he has explained, he has given viva voce testimony about events
20 prior to January of 1993, so that emphasizes the irrelevance of this
21 particular report. What is -- what may be of assistance is the latter
22 part of his testimony about similar events having occurred in 1992, so
23 this report is of no assistance.
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I appreciate the
25 position of the Trial Chamber, and I withdraw my motion to tender this
1 document. Now at least we know the provenance of the document, and I
2 hereby conclude my examination-in-chief.
3 Thank you, Mr. Orasanin.
4 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
5 Mr. Krgovic, I haven't forgotten the answer that you gave to us
6 yesterday, but for the record at this point I just wish you to confirm
7 that you decline cross-examination of this witness.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: Yes, Your Honour, we don't have questions for this
10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
11 Yes, Ms. Korner.
12 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, when I spoke to Mr. Cvijetic this
13 morning, he assured me he'd take the rest of the day and tomorrow, or
14 part of it, so -- but I am actually in a position to start.
15 I should say, Your Honours, just so Your Honours know, I will
16 complete my cross-examination tomorrow and we'll be ready for the next
17 witness to start on Thursday. I told Mr. Zecevic last week that I
18 wouldn't be very long, so ...
19 Cross-examination by Ms. Korner:
20 Q. Now, Mr. Orasanin, let's deal with document, shall we. You
21 produced for the Defence these two documents which you told the Court
22 that you didn't have at the time you were interviewed by the
23 Office of the Prosecutor; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And before you were seen in 2004, I believe it was, by an
1 investigator from -- sorry, 2005, by an investigator, he presumably asked
2 you when you were contacted to bring with you any documents you had that
3 might assist; is that right?
4 A. No, he didn't ask me to bring any documents. We only agreed
5 about the time of our interview in Sarajevo. That was in our telephone
6 conversation. In any case, I didn't have those documents at the time.
7 Actually, I knew that those documents existed somewhere, but they were
8 not accessible to me in 2004. That is why my 2004 statement doesn't
9 involve those documents which in my mind are authentic and valid. I
10 found those documents only recently.
11 Q. Right. I'll come on to that. Where did you find those documents
12 now some - what's the date? - 2011, nearly -- well, 18 years or
13 thereabouts after the event? Where did you get the documents?
14 A. I found the document in the house in the village where my mother
15 lived. Already then in 2004 I knew that some papers, some notes, were
16 lying around somewhere. They were in that house, but I only found them
17 later. There are a lot of papers hanging around there. It is our family
18 house and some of those papers belong to my brothers.
19 That document was produced in 1992. It's an authentic document.
20 Q. Yes. Now, Mr. Orasanin, I'm going to emphasise: If you answer
21 the questions shortly, and they're simple questions, you will be out of
22 here definitely by tomorrow. If you give me long answers like that,
23 you'll be here until the next day. Now, all that required you to say was
24 that you found it at your parents' or your brother's house.
25 That document, one of them at least, in fact both of them, are
1 confidential MUP documents, aren't they?
2 A. Both are copies. There were three copies of the same document,
3 and that document was the typist's copy.
4 Q. Well, it purports -- let's go back -- I'm not interested in the
5 last one. It purports to bear your signature, that's what you told the
6 Court. I've forgotten what number it is.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, I apologise, let's
8 clarify one matter. What is the basis for Ms. Korner's conclusion that
9 the document is confidential? She doesn't -- she hasn't laid sufficient
10 a ground to put this question to the witness. How does she know that the
11 document is confidential?
12 MS. KORNER: Well, actually, I rather thought it was self-evident
13 that a report on an inspection to the minister would not be something
14 that was for publication. However, I will ask that.
15 Q. The reports that you did after inspections, those were for the
16 eyes of the minister, were they not?
17 A. We were duty-bound to submit that to our boss, the assistant
18 minister, or the head of the Department for Crime Prevention. As for the
19 rest of the procedure, it was our immediate superior who was in charge of
20 that. And this document is not confidential, and I have kept this copy.
21 The other two copies were sent for further proceedings. They were sent
22 into the normal procedure.
23 Q. Are you telling the Court, Mr. Orasanin, that when you prepared
24 these or signed these reports about inspections or any other documents,
25 that they -- you were entitled to give them, for example, to the press?
1 A. There was a special procedure in place for any contacts with the
2 media, and one had to have authority in order to provide information to
3 the media.
4 Q. All right. Because you couldn't just give internal MUP documents
5 to anybody, could you?
6 A. Well, this document never went to anybody outside of the MUP.
7 Q. Right. But are you telling the Court that you were entitled to
8 take home and keep for yourself copies of documents that you had given to
9 the minister or the assistant minister, whoever it might have been?
10 A. Well, every employee could keep any copies of any documents to
11 remind them what they did, and that's why I kept this document. But this
12 is either a third or even a fourth copy, and I did not violate any rules.
13 This is not a confidential document. There's no degree of
14 confidentiality attached to it.
15 Q. By confidential, I mean it's internal MUP document. You're not
16 allowed to hand it to anybody outside the MUP, are you?
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
18 check where this leads to. The witness has already answered that this
19 document was not intended for anybody's eyes. He just kept it for
20 himself because he was one of its authors. I don't know how far
21 Ms. Korner is going to go with this line of questioning and what else can
22 be achieved with this line of questioning in addition to what this man
23 has already told us about the document.
24 MS. KORNER: It was quite wrong for Mr. Cvijetic to try and give
25 the witness the answer that he wants. Now --
1 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, I, too, was wondering how much farther
2 you're going with this, and I'm wondering whether, to what extent, the
3 short answer to your question is that Bosnia has no equivalent of what we
4 would know as the Official Secrets Act.
5 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I don't think that's correct, in fact.
6 And we've had other evidence about it but I am pursuing this for a reason
7 that you will, I hope, see in a minute.
8 JUDGE HALL: Very well.
9 MS. KORNER: Can we have the document up on the screen, please.
10 I think it's 1D064320, or something like that, at tab 29. Oh, 33D1.
11 Sorry. I don't know what 1D064320 is then.
12 Sorry, can we have the third page in English and the third page
13 in B/C/S.
14 Q. Is that your signature?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Why did you sign it if it's just a copy that you kept for your
17 own purposes?
18 A. Because this is my copy. I signed it because it's mine. The
19 first and the second copies were signed by Nikola Milanovic, myself, and
20 Ostoja Minic. I can confirm this.
21 Q. Yes, all three of you signed the copy that went up to the
22 assistant minister.
23 A. Yes, I'm sure of that.
24 Q. Right. Now, I just want to know why - this was simply your own
25 personal copy kept at home - you signed it.
1 A. This is my signature. There is my name there. It just signifies
2 that this copy is mine, and I'm sure that each of the other two has kept
3 their respective copies in their archives.
4 Q. And what else have you got at home? I mean, firstly, I'm sorry,
5 before we get on to that, what else did you give to the Defence? What
6 other documents?
7 A. Well, I've provided this one, the one that we have just commented
8 upon. It's at tab 36.
9 Q. I want to know, outside what's in this binder, how many other
10 documents did you give the Defence? Outside what is in here, how many
11 other documents, when you first saw them, whoever you first saw, how many
12 documents did you give them?
13 MS. KORNER: No. He has to answer the question, not you,
14 Mr. Cvijetic.
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, I was just going to say that
16 the witness has already answered.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first and the second report,
18 tab 29, and --
19 MS. KORNER:
20 Q. I'll repeat the question. Outside those two documents that are
21 in this binder, what other documents did you give the Defence?
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I have to object. You should ask
23 the witness whether he gave anything. Ms. Korner is leading the witness
24 and suggests that he indeed has given other documents.
25 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, there is nothing wrong with the
1 question. Let the witness answer it. Please take your seat.
2 MS. KORNER:
3 Q. Now, Mr. Orasanin, for the third time, don't look at Mr. Cvijetic
4 for help or assistance, how many documents outside these two did you give
5 the Defence?
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the answer.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Two.
8 MS. KORNER:
9 Q. You sure?
10 A. Two documents. The first report and the second report dated the
11 1st of January, 1993.
12 Q. And do you have other documents in your home or your parents'
13 home which relate to the events in 1992?
14 A. No, I don't. Possibly I have some handwritten notes, for
15 example, an operative plan related to a visit to Foca. I had worked on
16 that personally, but I'm not sure.
17 Q. May I ask why you kept that particular report or those two
18 particular reports on those two instances and nothing else? What was so
19 particularly important about your inspection on Visegrad, and other
21 A. Nothing special, but that was on the 14th of September. That was
22 my last visit, when I was already in the middle of the preparations for
23 transfer, I was about to be transferred into the border police
24 department, so those were the last events that I participated in before I
25 was transferred.
1 Q. As an inspector you were obliged to keep a notebook, weren't you?
2 A. No, that was not an obligation. However, when we went on our
3 visit, one would always take notes which were then served for our joint
4 report, because all of our reports were joint reports, the one from
5 Doboj, another one from Foca and Cajnice. Those were our joint reports
6 signed by the three of us because all the three of us had been there.
7 Q. Right. You did a number of inspections with Mr. Ostoja Minic,
8 didn't you?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did he carry a notebook with him on those inspections?
11 A. As far as I can remember, he did. It was either him or Milanovic
13 Q. If he carried one, how come you didn't carry one?
14 A. Because we did the same things. When we were there, we were
15 there all three of us at any of the meetings.
16 Q. Yes, but you did some inspections without Mr. Minic. On those
17 occasions did you get somebody else to keep notes of what was said?
18 A. In all of those cases, there was myself, Milanovic, and Ostoja.
19 We made a team. And we worked together in Banja Luka, Doboj, Brcko,
21 Q. You see --
22 A. As well as Visegrad. Well, in --
23 Q. Where is the report that you did on the Doboj visit on the
24 15th of August, 1992?
25 A. I'm sure it exists. This is an earlier report, that's why I
1 don't have it. And this report reflects my thoughts before my transfer.
2 There had already been discussions about me being transferred to another
3 service, and I'm sure that it was submitted to the Crime Prevention
4 Administration, this report from Doboj, and as far as I can remember it
5 is similar to this one. The method of work was the same. And if
6 somebody were to produce that report, you would see that the procedure
7 described in that report is similar to this one, and that procedure
8 relied on the instruction on how to do inspection visits.
9 Q. Well, we'll come to that in a minute. All right, so you have no
10 idea where that report for the 15th of August visit might be?
11 A. It must be with the Crime Prevention Administration of the
12 Republika Srpska MUP.
13 Q. All right. And in your getting hold of documents, it didn't
14 occur to you to go and try and find that one?
15 A. This was just a coincidence. It was September on the eve of my
16 transfer. I kept this one for that reason. But this is a copy bearing
17 my signature. The first and the second copies were signed by the three
18 of us. That was part of a regular procedure. There's nothing unusual
19 about that.
20 Q. I'm not going to pursue that, although, Mr. Orasanin, it's
21 somewhat curious. Some people might think that you signed simply a copy
22 that you're keeping yourself. However, let's go back to the beginning,
23 shall we.
24 You told the Court that you had been at the Novo Sarajevo
25 Police Station as the assistant commander until such time as the conflict
1 started at the beginning of April; correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Isn't it right that you hadn't actually been working since
4 February of 1992, having declared yourself to be on sick leave from that
6 A. Yes, let me explain. I was the chief of the Crime Prevention
7 Department and as of the end of February I was on a sick leave. The day
8 before yesterday I explained that I did come to work every other day and
9 I did because of my obligations and because of the people who were
10 working there. They came from different ethnic backgrounds and I
11 couldn't leave them because we dealt with custody cases every day. That
12 police station had 125 uniformed police officers, 15 inspectors. There
13 was the commander of the police station who was in charge of the
14 uniformed police. And at that time I was in charge of signing custody
15 decisions. I was the only person authorised to do that.
16 I went on a sick leave for some reasons. I can explain, but it
17 will take me two or three minutes to explain why I went on a six leave.
18 The reason was lack of professionalism, the service had been joined by
19 some new people who were in cahoots with criminals, and we all felt the
20 same, not just myself but also the Croatian and Bosniak inspectors. But
21 I couldn't leave them. I came back to work every day in order to deal
22 with the custody cases and also when there were some events taking place,
23 for example, cutting Sarajevo into different parts. And I can even tell
24 you the reason why I went on a sick leave if you want me to do so.
25 Q. Mr. Orasanin, in a moment you can if you want to, but the point
1 that I'm making is you led the Court to believe in your evidence-in-chief
2 that you had been working full time at this Novo Sarajevo Police Station
3 before the events of early April, and that is not correct, is it? You
4 did not tell the Court anything about being on sick leave nor about you
5 being -- coming every other day into the police station.
6 A. You can find it in my first statement in the audio recording.
7 I've never been in this courtroom before, but I thought that there was no
8 need for me to go over the same things that I already said in 1994. It
9 is true and correct that I was on sick leave. I went on a sick leave
10 because of a commission, and it's a special story.
11 There was a commission at the level of the Ministry of the
12 Interior; it was a governmental commission in charge of investigating a
13 trail of some money and burning of some money and things like that. I
14 wanted to avoid that because I thought it was a way to frame people up.
15 I didn't want to be a member of that commission. That's why I went on
16 sick leave. However, I continued working. I continued co-operating with
17 the operatives who were there. I had to be there. Those operatives,
18 they were of different ethnic backgrounds. Nobody could remand a person
19 in custody if a decision to that effect was not being signed. We had
20 custody cases every day. For example, the killing Petrovic, Pero. And
21 that proves how hard people worked.
22 A criminal was apprehended who had broken into several vehicles,
23 and that person Pero Petrovic and his Bosniak
24 neighbourhood [as interpreted] brought them in, and that Bosniak
25 neighbourhood [as interpreted] was a policeman, and that's why he asked
1 him to help him to get the person to the police station. My operative
2 who was on duty -- I was the one who actually assigned people on duty.
3 That inspector was on duty, and when that event had taken place, he
4 informed me by telephone about a crime that had taken place where the
5 conditions were in place for remanding him in custody, and then I had to
6 come, I had to be there, I had to be present. That's why I had to be
7 present, because I was the only one who had the authority to sign
8 decisions on remanding people in custody.
9 I would come to work every other day. For example, there were
10 individuals whom we would remand in custody two or three times in one
11 month. For example, we would remand them in custody, then we would refer
12 him to the court, and then the court would release him.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Line 63 -- page 63, line 8, the
14 year recorded is 1994. Maybe Ms. Korner could come back to that. Let's
15 clarify the period in question. It must be a typo. I'm sorry, I think
16 that the year has been wrongly recorded.
17 MS. KORNER: I have no doubt at all it was 1992 that he's talking
19 Q. Now, look, Mr. Orasanin, as I said to you before, I'm asking
20 fairly simple questions. If you disagree with my suggestion that you
21 were on sick leave and therefore were not working at the police station
22 during this period, all you have to say is "you're wrong," instead of
23 this long, long explanation. Now, do you understand?
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Ms. Korner, my intervention was
25 only with regard to the year when he was interviewed by the OTP. It says
1 that it was in 1994, so I kindly asked you to correct that, the time of
2 the interview.
3 MS. KORNER: I have already. I've told -- I've said -- given
4 that it's 2005 in fact.
5 Q. Now, Mr. Orasanin, you told -- as you say, you told the
6 investigator in 2005, and I will read out what you actually said to him
7 at page 4 of the transcript:
8 "Starting from the beginning of February, I was on sick leave,
9 and when the war erupted I was still on sick leave."
10 And my suggestion to you, Mr. Orasanin, is that having been on
11 sick leave, you're in no position to give the Court any description of
12 the events which led up to the beginning of the conflict, and that's
13 right, isn't it?
14 A. I beg to disagree. Although I was on sick leave, I still
15 performed my duties. I worked. I was present. I was there. So I know
16 about all those events. When the police station was attacked, the day
17 before I had left my car there and then I left. I worked. I performed
18 all of my duties.
19 Q. Let's deal with this attack on the police station in
20 Novo Sarajevo. It's right, isn't it, that a gang of masked men that
21 evening attacked the police station?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And nobody knows whether those men were Serbs or non-Serbs,
24 because they were masked.
25 A. May I answer?
1 Q. You may. Sorry, I should have said it's a question.
2 A. That group had arrived from the area of Stari Grad, old town.
3 They had arrived into vans. They changed their clothes in the vicinity
4 of the outpatient's clinic. They attacked the police station. They
5 killed some people, and they kidnapped a duty officer.
6 Q. Right. Have a look, please, at a report of this incident in
8 MS. KORNER: It's 201 -- 65 ter 20157.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Tab number, please?
10 MS. KORNER: Tab 4, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: In the OTP binder?
12 MS. KORNER: In the OTP binder, yes.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, but I've been
15 informed that this document has never been disclosed to the Defence.
16 MS. KORNER: It doesn't have to be disclosed because it's a
17 public newspaper, open source, and in any event it would never have
18 become relevant had not the Defence decided to go down the road of the
19 attack on Novo Sarajevo Police Station, which I objected to originally.
20 If there's no further objection, I'm going to ask the witness
21 about it.
22 Q. Did you read this account at the time? It's a report of -- in
23 the newspaper on the -- it's the 8th of April. Yes, 8th of April.
24 A. I cannot remember now.
25 Q. All right. And if we come to the relevant part, which is on
1 page 2 in English, attack on the SJB Novo Sarajevo:
2 "A dramatic night followed between Saturday and Sunday after the
3 split of the special task force," pausing there for a moment.
4 Were you aware of the split in the Special Police that had taken
6 A. There was talk about it, that the Special Police had split.
7 Q. "50 masked men conducted an attack on the public security
8 station, and on that occasion policeman Pero Petrovic was killed. And
9 the station was robbed and destroyed."
10 Is that correct?
11 A. Correct. But I don't know which number of members is correct,
12 30 or 50 or any other number. I don't think that this information is not
13 correct. I know that they had come in two vans from Stari Grad and that
14 they were headed by a certain Puska and that they were members of the
15 Green Berets.
16 Q. Well, this -- oh, yes, quite. This is what the Serbian MUP --
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, but I think that the
18 full name of the ring leader be recorded. This witness mentioned it but
19 it wasn't recorded.
20 MS. KORNER:
21 Q. I didn't hear it, but what's the full name of this certain Puska?
22 A. Zakid or Zahir, I'm not sure. This is our intelligence, that he
23 brought them, but whether he ...
24 Q. As the report goes on to say:
25 "The Serbian MUP release an announcement. Basic message - Putsch
1 of Green Berets members of the Muslim part of the MUP state in an
2 announcement that they occupy the building of the ministry and the base
3 of the special task forces Green Berets are accused of attacking the
4 public security station in Novo Sarajevo."
5 And that's the fact, isn't it, that a statement was actually put
6 out by Mico Stanisic to the effect that this attack had been carried out
7 by what were described as Green Berets? That's right, isn't it,
8 Mr. Orasanin?
9 A. I spoke about this event with the man who was kidnapped,
10 Lazar Bojanic, immediately after the event. And I said two days ago,
11 concerning the police station and their operations during the absence of
12 the commander, he takes responsibility. And he was even an experienced
13 police officer. They disarmed him when they entered the police station,
14 they took him to the basement, they lined up him and Pero Petrovic, since
15 Pero had processed this person. They broke into the storage, and one of
16 these men pointed a pistol at him. They -- actually, he leaned the
17 pistol against his back. And they made him turn around and face the
18 wall. And the -- he fired the pistol into the heart of Pero Petrovic.
19 He was taken to the Elektrodistribucija where --
20 Q. Mr. Orasanin, stop, please. I'm not asking you for a full
21 description of what you say happened. I'm merely dealing with the people
22 involved. These people were masked people, that's correct, isn't it?
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness answered
24 but it wasn't recorded. If this is correct, page 68, line 4: "He was
25 taken to the Elektrodistribucija," and then the witness said who was
1 located there but it wasn't recorded.
2 Why not let the witness say what was located there? Because
3 that's the question [as interpreted] to Ms. Korner's question.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was the headquarters of the
5 Green Berets, a group was there even before this event.
6 MS. KORNER:
7 Q. Two days after -- I'm sorry, two days after this event, it's
8 right, isn't it, that the Serbs did attack, and there's no dispute about
9 this, the station and seized it?
10 A. I don't understand the question. That the Serbs attacked the --
11 Q. On the -- by the 6th of April, the Bosnian Serb MUP was in
12 possession of Novo Sarajevo Police Station, wasn't it?
13 A. On the 6th of April? No.
14 Q. Do you know who Mr. Tintor is, please, Mr. Orasanin?
15 Jovan Tintor.
16 A. I've heard of him, but he has nothing to do with Novo Sarajevo.
17 He had contacts in the Vogosca municipality. This is probably a
19 Q. No, no, no, it's not a misunderstanding. You know who he is. He
20 was the president -- he was a member of the SDS and president of the
21 Crisis Staff in Vogosca, wasn't he?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you also know a Mr. Danilo Veselinovic?
25 A. Yes, I know that he worked there. I don't know him well.
1 Q. Well, if necessary we can play you this intercept, but I'm going
2 to ask you to look at the transcript, please.
3 MS. KORNER: Which is at 10391.08, which is -- oh, sorry, it's
4 Exhibit P1500.08 and tab 2. And can we look, please, in English at
5 page 3, and in B/C/S I think it's page 2. Yes, bottom of page 2.
6 Q. Mr. Tintor is saying to Mr. Veselinovic:
7 "Now we just need to take what is with the police station
8 Novo Sarajevo."
9 "Oh, that is already seized."
10 "Are you kidding me."
11 MS. KORNER: And then over the page in English, and B/C/S as
12 well, I think.
13 Q. Mr. Veselinovic says "aha."
14 "Has it been seized really?" says Mr. Tintor. And he says, this
16 "I mean, they've taken everything up to here, up to this one."
17 Right. Now, do you accept it would appear from that,
18 Mr. Orasanin, that two days after this incident, Novo Sarajevo, the SJB,
19 was in the hands of the Bosnian Serb MUP?
20 A. No, that is not correct.
21 Q. How do you know that?
22 A. Because people didn't work there. The Serbs withdrew after the
23 attack, and it stayed in the hands of the Bosniaks. I never entered the
25 Q. No, you didn't because you went off again. You went off to the
1 country somewhere, didn't you, and stayed there until you decided to join
2 the Bosnian MUP in April or May, the beginning of May?
3 A. But the police station was not controlled by the Serbs.
4 Zeljko Rakic was there who was supposed to conduct an on-site
5 investigation after the murder, and they were unable to do so.
6 Q. Well, so --
7 A. I know that from him. I have a report.
8 Q. So Mr. Veselinovic has got it all wrong, has he?
9 A. This is 1.000 per cent wrong. This is the first time I see it
10 and hear it. This is a disinformation.
11 Q. Between two Serbs talking to each other on the telephone? Two
12 members of the -- high members of the SDS?
13 A. I cannot comment their conversation. I took no interest in them.
14 Q. Right. Because you told the investigators that -- and indeed I
15 think you told the Court, you left Sarajevo between the 3rd and
16 4th of April, "the night when the attack occurred at our police station
17 in Sarajevo," and you went to your country -- you went to a village "with
18 my family and stayed there for about three or four weeks." That's what
19 you told the investigator in 2005. Is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So you wouldn't have known at all what, if anything, had happened
22 in the SJB in Novo Sarajevo, would you?
23 A. But I was in charge of these things and the inspector to conduct
24 an on-site investigator had the task to do that. And I said that this
25 person was -- if the person had been detained, we would have been
1 duty-bound to process it and forward the file to the prosecutor's office.
2 That's what I know. I was active. I did go to the countryside, but upon
3 my return I spoke to Zeljko and the others and I'm familiar with the
5 Q. How could you have been active if you were living in the country
6 out of any sort of communication with your police station?
7 A. I wasn't active during that period, nor were they, because the
8 police station had been taken and disarmed and they didn't work either.
9 Nobody was active during that period. But when I arrived, I spoke to
10 Inspector Rakic and I learned about all these facts and events.
11 Q. Yes, so you say. So before that you were on sick leave, after
12 the incident you left, and you didn't do anything until May of 1992; is
13 that right?
14 A. I said before I went on sick leave I was permanently present at
15 the police station with the commander. Alija Kazic was the commander,
16 and we had coffee every morning, and everybody else, until this event.
17 Q. In that case, just as a matter of interest, how come your
18 superiors allowed you to stay on sick leave if you were actually there
19 the whole time?
20 A. Well, I explained, because I was the only one authorised to sign
21 detention cases --
22 Q. I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you how come your superiors
23 at that stage, and this is before April 1992, allowed you allegedly to be
24 on sick leave, when in actual fact you were turning up every day?
25 A. Because they couldn't do it otherwise. The authorisation was
1 linked to my name, and a change would have required a special procedure.
2 Q. How did you come to work for Mr. Planojevic? You haven't
3 explained that. Who asked you to come and work?
4 A. No. At some time in early May when I arrive at Pale, I went to
5 the MUP. And Dobro Planojevic was appointed to establish a Crime
6 Prevention Administration. That was after the 4th of April, 1992, at the
7 beginning of the war.
8 Q. I'm sorry, I --
9 A. If we are referring to the period before the war.
10 Q. I'm asking how you came to potter along to Pale in the middle of
11 a conflict, according to you, and ended up working for Planojevic. Did
12 somebody ask you to come there? Were you appointed to come there? What?
13 A. No, no, no. I stated all that in my first statement, but I see
14 that my first statement isn't here. I explained that. And I explained
15 to the investigators, too. There were only two options: either to join
16 the army, that was a legal obligation, or join the MUP. And since I'm a
17 professional police officer, that's the only thing I can do, I decided to
18 go there, and that's logical. But there was no third option.
19 And I heard that Minister Stanisic was there and that he was
20 trying to set up an organisational structure, because it was all built
21 from scratch. But it was logical for me to be here, because there was no
22 other option. Or possibly I could have returned to the place where Pero
23 was killed and where my apartment was looted and searched. And it was
24 immediately after the attack on the police station, my apartment was
25 searched twice. Perhaps I should have returned there, but I opted for
1 the other way.
2 Q. And, of course, you might have had to go and actually get
3 involved in combat if you had gone to the military, mightn't you,
4 Mr. Orasanin?
5 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, we must leave it there for the day.
6 MS. KORNER: I think so, yes.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can I ask one thing. It can be dealt with
8 tomorrow, but, Ms. Korner, at page 67, starting line 19, it's about the
9 attack on the Novo Sarajevo Police Station. You asked a question,
10 particularly the part of it starting at page 21. The witness started
11 giving an account of the event itself but didn't answer the question.
12 Could you put that question again to him and, if possible, get a brief
13 answer from him. But tomorrow will be fine. Thank you.
14 MS. KORNER: Yes, Your Honour, I will. Thank you.
15 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan.
16 MR. O'SULLIVAN: With your indulgence, Mr. Zecevic has asked me
17 to convey a request to the Chamber. He's not here, as you can see. He
18 is arriving Thursday morning. He would like to address the Chamber on
19 Thursday concerning scheduling matters for the remainder of our Defence
20 case and procedural matters which are connected to the scheduling. So he
21 would like the opportunity to address you on the Thursday afternoon.
22 Even if we finish with this witness tomorrow, he would like to address
23 you on Thursday.
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. And while you're on your feet, I was
25 about to ask of the Stanisic team whether, having regard to Ms. Korner's
1 indication that she would be completed by tomorrow, whether you have a
2 witness available for Thursday and Friday, bearing in mind that Monday is
3 a holiday, but you can answer that question tomorrow.
4 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, can I say, as I say, I did make
5 it clear to Mr. Zecevic that this witness would be finished fairly
7 JUDGE HALL: We take the adjournment to tomorrow. Thank you.
8 [The witness stands down]
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,
10 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 8th day
11 of June, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.