1 Wednesday, 8 June 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 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, together
12 with Crispian Smith and, this morning, Jim Cruess, who's an intern.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. On
14 behalf of Mico Stanisic, Slobodan Cvijetic, Tatjana Savic, and
15 Eugene O'Sullivan appearing.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and
17 Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. And unless there is some reason to --
19 Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan.
20 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Just one matter, Your Honour. These may be
21 famous last words, but it appears this witness will finish early this
22 week. It appears the parties have overestimated the time for his
23 testimony; we estimated 8 hours for examination-in-chief, we only took
24 five. All right. Only took five. Just under five. Monday evening the
25 Prosecutor advised us that they would need six.
1 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... no, four.
2 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, by e-mail -- by e-mail on Monday evening
3 we were told six, but be that as it may, it appears he'll finish early.
4 To answer the question you had yesterday, Your Honour, we do not have
5 another witness available for this week. I just want to repeat
6 Mr. Zecevic's request to address you tomorrow on procedural and
7 scheduling matters. Thank you.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan.
9 Would the usher please escort the witness back to the stand.
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, can I just say something about this. I
11 appreciate that it's not always easy to give estimates. This one was
12 particularly over for the Defence and this witness. But my concern is
13 this, I did say to Mr. Zecevic last week that it was highly unlikely that
14 the witness would take the whole week. He did say that he only had the
15 next witness lined up for Tuesday. And my concern is, given that we're
16 told that other matters that Your Honours are going to be involved in
17 will be starting at some stage, probably before the recess, that we
18 shouldn't lose days unnecessarily. And in one sense it would be better
19 to have a witness ready and available to go even if the witness maybe has
20 to wait. But, I mean, that's the only thing I'm saying, because it seems
21 to me that we have the possibility of losing a great deal of time over
22 the next few months, potentially.
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes, it's not an easy problem, but we're -- it --
24 and as you would be well aware, Ms. Korner, VWS has -- has views on this
25 matter of having witnesses standing by, and it's something which is not
1 easily resolvable. And it isn't peculiar to the Tribunal.
2 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honours, I appreciate that. But, I mean,
3 all I'm saying is this particular case the Defence were told that this
4 witness was not going to take that long. In any event, having seen him
5 yesterday, unless he's prepared to answer questions more shortly, he may
6 well trickle into tomorrow morning, so that's it.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 JUDGE HALL: Good morning to you, Mr. Orasanin.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Morning.
10 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, I didn't realise you didn't have your
11 headphones on.
12 Yes, before Ms. Korner continues, I remind you you're still on
13 your oath.
14 Yes, Ms. Korner.
15 WITNESS: MILOMIR ORASANIN [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Cross-examination by Ms. Korner: [Continued]
18 Q. Mr. Orasanin, yesterday His Honour Judge Delvoie pointed out that
19 I asked you a question about Novo Sarajevo and whether Mico Stanisic had
20 put out a statement saying that the attack had been carried out by what
21 he described as Green Berets. And His Honour Judge Delvoie pointed out
22 rightly that you went into a long description, and this is at page 21983,
23 of what had actually happened and never answered the question I actually
25 Now, before I ask the question again, can I please ask you this
1 morning - I think you would like to go home, and we would all like to be
2 able to finish the cross-examination - just to answer the questions I
3 ask. If I want more detail, then I will ask for it. Or if Defence
4 counsel think that more detail is required, they can deal with it in
5 re-examination. So do you understand that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, the question I asked was: Did Mico Stanisic put out a
8 statement to the effect that the attack had been carried out by
9 Green Berets?
10 A. My answer is this: I know that it was the Green Beret that
11 carried out the attack. I know it personally.
12 Q. No, that's what I mean. Just concentrate on the question, not
13 what you know, say you know. The question was: Are you aware that
14 Mico Stanisic put out a statement in which he said this was an attack by
15 the Green Berets?
16 A. I don't remember any such statement. However, I know that the
17 Green Berets carried out the attack.
18 Q. All right.
19 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, it's not on my list, but, in
20 fact, Your Honours have already seen that. It's Exhibit P537. And I
21 don't know whether Your Honours want me to call it up so that you can
22 just see it. As the witness says, he didn't -- he doesn't know about
23 that. I had it a minute ago. Can we just -- just call it up, if we
24 could, just so you can see it because it came in a long time ago. 537.
25 It's dated the 5th of April. I think it came in through Dr. Nielsen,
1 such a low number. And you will see on the 3rd page -- second page
2 you'll see the description of the attack in English. I think it's still
3 the same page in B/C/S. "Novo Sarajevo Public Security Station was
4 captured in a classic terrorist attack by so-called Green Berets." And
5 can we go to the next page in B/C/S and the last page, third page, in --
6 you'll see there Mico Stanisic's signature.
7 Q. Do you recognise, while we're on this document, Mr. Orasanin, is
8 that Mico Stanisic's signature?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. Now, can we just for a moment go back to the
11 description of your career that you gave yesterday.
12 You told Mr. Cvijetic about your various appointments in the MUP.
13 And that's at -- yes, you worked -- you told him, at page 21842, that you
14 completed the police academy and so on and so forth. Then you went to
15 the crime prevention department as chief in Novo Sarajevo until 1992.
16 Then you worked as the crime prevention inspector, as you said, until
17 November, when you went to border affairs, and then you told us that you
18 became the deputy chief of public security in Zvornik until you retired.
19 MS. KORNER: However, can you have a look, please, now at
20 65 ter 20151, tab 9, Your Honours.
21 Q. This is a document -- in fact, it comes from Prijedor,
22 Simo Drljaca, who was passing on information about appointments in 1994,
23 and at number 14, do we see you?
24 A. Under 14 I can see the name Milomir Orasanin, chief of department
25 for general crime prevention. But --
1 Q. Is that you?
2 A. -- that's a document -- I don't understand. I have to see -- I
3 have to look ... I was the chief of the public security station in
4 Sarajevo in charge of general crime before the war, but that was in
5 Novo Sarajevo. I had nothing to do with Prijedor at all. I'm analysing
6 all the names.
7 Q. No, sorry. It's my fault. The copy of this document came from
8 Prijedor, that's all I'm saying. That's why you see at the bottom that
9 it's got Simo Drljaca's name. But this apparently is appointments which
10 were made in 1994 when Mico Stanisic returned as minister of the
11 interior, and I'm simply asking whether you were then, by him, made the
12 chief of the department for general crime prevention? Is that so
13 difficult, Mr. Orasanin? Surely you remember whether you were promoted.
14 A. I worked in the crime prevention department administration as an
15 inspector in 1994.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: In 1992.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In November I joined the border
18 affairs administration and there I was the chief of the department for
19 border affairs. This may be a mistake of some sort.
20 MS. KORNER:
21 Q. Are you saying that this document, in showing you as being the
22 chief of department for general crime prevention, is in error?
23 A. I did do that previously, but at that time I was the chief of the
24 department for border affairs, not for general crime prevention.
25 Q. Well, according to this list of May 1994, the chief of the
1 department for border affairs is somebody called Slobodan Govedarica, at
2 number 17.
3 A. Yes. There was a reshuffle, a new organisation was put in place,
4 and there were times when border affairs was part of the general police
5 and there were times when it was a special department. And there was a
6 department for border affairs with its chief and there was also a section
7 for border affairs, and its parts were public security stations in
8 Zvornik, Bijeljina, and so on. This is what I remember.
9 Q. All right. Mr. Orasanin, this is really a simple question. Were
10 you or were you not in 1994 made chief of the department for general
11 crime prevention? The answer is either yes or no.
12 A. Maybe that was part of a plan. I can't remember now, but I know
13 I was assigned as the chief of department for border affairs. They are
14 different organisations. Ministers changed every two years. And every
15 time a new minister came, the first thing they did, they re-organised
16 everything. The border affairs administration was at time merged with
17 the police administration and there were also times when the border
18 affairs administration was on its own, hence all the confusion and
19 changes. I can't remember.
20 Q. But -- all right. So you can't say yes or no; you can't
21 remember. Are you saying you don't remember what was clearly a
23 A. Well, as I sit here, and I can say that in 1993 I worked, and in
24 1994 I was the chief of either the section or the department for border
25 affairs. The titles changed. And police stations from Zvornik to Brcko
1 were integral parts of that department. I don't see this as a promotion
2 at all.
3 Q. Because all I was going to suggest to you, Mr. Orasanin, was that
4 clearly Mico Stanisic thought very highly of your abilities as a police
5 officer and promoted you in 1994. Is that what happened?
6 A. Well, look, let me put it this way, let me tell you the truth, I
7 can't remember. Maybe that was planned. But my office was elsewhere
8 from August. I had an office in Bijeljina and another one in Zvornik
9 because of -- precisely because of this. I know I was told, You're going
10 to take over everything regarding border affairs. But it was not only
11 Mico Stanisic. Others thought that I was an honourable man, that I was a
12 professional, and they told me, Choose an office where you will. It may
13 be in Bijeljina or Zvornik, but things have to work. You have to
14 surround yourself with professionals. I remember that.
15 And I think that Tomo Kovac at one point when he joined, he also
16 had the same opinion. I believe that the minister planned for that to
17 happen. But within the next five days, I don't know what happened,
18 because it is the assistant minsters in charge of various administrations
19 who have the final say, and I agree that Mico Stanisic had a high opinion
20 of me, but not only him, everybody else did. And vice-versa. I thought
21 that he was the only professional minister that was in office. He was
22 one of the first ministers, and I thought this it was my moral obligation
23 to come here and to say what I know.
24 Q. Yes, all right. Now, can we just deal with some of the other
25 names just to see whether this document is not what it purports to be.
1 Did Tomo Kovac become the acting head of the public security
2 department and an assistant minister in 1994?
3 A. Yes. There was a period of time when there were two different
4 sectors, public security and state security. I don't remember when,
5 whether that was in 1993 or 1994. You would have to jog my memory. And,
6 yes, the answer is yes. Yes, he was. Yes, he was. There was the
7 minister and his office composed of two different services, state
8 security service, public security service; that was the organisation that
9 was in place.
10 Q. Honestly, Mr. Orasanin, all I'm asking you is whether that's
11 right. You don't have to give me a full explanation. As I say, if I
12 need more explanation, I'll ask for it.
13 Now, did an Andrija Bjelosevic become the -- be promoted from
14 head of the CSB Doboj to assistant in the public security department at
15 the headquarters? Either yes or no or you don't know.
16 A. It says here yes, but I don't remember that. I don't remember
17 for how long was -- I'm reading the document, and it says so in the
19 Q. Yes. All right. Now I'm asking you from your own knowledge
20 because I want to see about this document.
21 Did Vladimir Tutus, who you know, also become an assistant in the
22 public security department?
23 A. It says so here, but I remember him from a period after the war
24 when he was one of the officials, but that was in 1998.
25 Q. Do you remember Jesuric, who you knew, who had been in Bijeljina?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did he --
3 A. Yes. Yes.
4 Q. Did he become the chief of administration for border affairs and
6 A. Yes, this is the administration that I just mentioned a little
7 while ago. This is part of that new organisation that was to be put in
8 place. And pursuant to that there would have been a professional service
9 for border affairs which had its lower-ranking units sections and police
10 security stations, and Predrag Jesuric was the chief of that
11 administration, whereas I was the chief of one of the departments.
12 Q. Right. Thank you.
13 MS. KORNER: Now, Your Honours, I am going to ask that this be
14 admitted and marked, please. It wasn't on our 65 ter list. Its
15 relevance wasn't particularly apparent until this witness started to give
16 evidence. I say straightaway, it's not just a question of the
17 credibility of this witness, it also does go to the case because it
18 shows, as you can see, other names having been promoted by Mico Stanisic
19 in 1994. But we say it is relevant and admissible and the witness has
20 been able to speak to it, even though he says he can't remember whether
21 he got this promotion or not.
22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, first of all, this
24 is a period beyond the scope of the indictment, so this is not relevant.
25 It was not on the 65 ter list and it does not meet the requirements from
1 the Prlic decision and we object.
2 MS. KORNER: We suggest it is 1994 but it's not the date that
3 matters. It's the -- as I say, firstly, this witness's promotion, even
4 though he says he can't remember, and other people who Your Honours have
5 heard about or seen also apparently being promoted. That's the
6 relevance. The fact that it's 1994, I agree is outside the date.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE HALL: The Chamber is not persuaded that this document
9 should be admitted into evidence. It is outside of the -- it is well
10 outside of the relevant period, although promotions by their nature
11 admittedly reflect what would have happened in the past, but this is well
12 beyond the period. And also we have the witness's viva voce testimony.
13 MS. KORNER:
14 Q. Now, I want to just ask you, please, to deal for a moment with
15 the Law on Internal Affairs that was promulgated in March of 1992. That
16 is the law under which all members of the MUP acted; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Could you have a look, please, on the screen, then, please, at a
19 couple of sections. P530, and it's at tab 1B.
20 MS. KORNER: Could we have a look, please, at Article 28 first of
21 all, which is, sorry, on the - one, two, three - fourth page in English
22 and fourth page in B/C/S.
23 Q. And that sets out the new CSBs that were going to be operating
24 within the Serbian Republic. Do you agree?
25 A. Well, I don't have the Serbian version here.
1 Q. [Microphone not activated] Article 28.
2 A. Article 28. I can only see Articles 1 and 2.
3 MS. KORNER: I said page 4, please, in B/C/S. And page 4,
4 please, in English. Yes.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now I can see it.
6 MS. KORNER:
7 Q. And you were aware of that at the time, weren't you, that the --
8 instead of being -- you said there were eight CSBs under the old BiH MUP,
9 in fact there were nine, but you agree that they were reduced to those
10 five; you knew that?
11 A. When I spoke yesterday, I was referring to the old organisation
12 of the former MUP, and then I listed the CSBs, Banja Luka, Doboj,
13 Tuzla --
14 Q. Don't list them again. Sorry, I shouldn't have mentioned you
15 said there were eight under BiH, in fact we know, so you needn't worry
16 about it, there were nine. But don't worry about that. Please just
17 concentrate on this: Were you aware at the time in 1992, when you went
18 back to the -- when you went to the new MUP, the Serbian MUP, that there
19 were five CSBs?
20 A. I was speaking about the stations in the eastern part of
21 Republika Srpska. When we went there, they didn't belong to the
22 Sarajevo CSB until the new organisation was set up. Later on they were
23 placed under the Sarajevo CSB, and Zoran Cvijetic was chief. That's what
24 I know.
25 Q. I'm going to come on to what you say. All I'm asking you,
1 Mr. Orasanin, please, concentrate on the question: Were you aware, when
2 you started work at the MUP, as you say, the beginning of May, that there
3 were five CSBs?
4 A. I certainly knew that there was a CSB in Banja Luka, one in
5 Doboj, then there were the undefined municipalities, and there was
6 Trebinje. As I said, there were Bijeljina, Zvornik, Foca, Visegrad, they
7 had an undefined status; and Foca, Visegrad, Rudo became parts of the
8 Trebinje CSB. And there was a dilemma about Zvornik, as far as I know,
9 and Bijeljina. And that's why a new centre was established in Bijeljina.
10 There was a dilemma to who Zvornik should belong, whether to Bijeljina or
11 to Sarajevo.
12 When we went to the field, that was a problem for us because we
13 didn't know who these stations belonged to. I said that they had been
14 left hanging, to my understanding. And the SJBs in the eastern part, it
15 was decided that, probably it was the minister who decided that, that
16 they should become integral parts of the organisational structure of the
17 MUP but that they should be placed under the Sarajevo CSB. That's what I
18 know, and that was the basic problem, because you didn't know who to task
19 to implement the obligations and authority under the Law on Internal
20 Affairs. We were the ones who went to visit them first, and that was an
21 ad hoc visit. That's what I said, that we didn't do what we were
22 supposed to do. When we had made a snap-shot of the situation and we saw
23 chaos, we wanted the people to act as police officers, but they weren't
24 under our administration. They were uniform police and we were from the
25 crime police department, but they were actually appointed by the local
1 authorities. And that's why we sent other teams there too, because our
2 idea when we set out from Pale was something else, but then we saw that
3 there was chaos. There were people without appointments, and that's why
4 we went about --
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Orasanin, are you still answering the
6 question whether you knew or not that there were five CSBs? Because I'm
7 lost. Would you please -- would you please answer the question: Did you
8 know that there were five CSBs or did you not know that at the time? Or
9 did you know at the time there were more than five? That's a yes or a no
10 or there were more. Nothing else.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I knew, but --
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- during the period after our
14 return in July, not when I went on my first visit. When I first went
15 there to those SJBs in the east, I didn't know. And, in fact, there
16 weren't, actually, because they didn't know who they belonged to. And we
17 were there in the field and we made a snap-shot of the situation. And
18 that's certain. That was the real state of affairs. And in May and June
19 those stations did not belong to a centre. I'm positive about that.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: So now it's clear: In May you did not know and
21 people did not know because there was some uncertainty, but in July you
22 did know. Thank you.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In late July.
24 MS. KORNER:
25 Q. Now, Mr. Orasanin, I give you fair warning: Unless you answer my
1 questions simply and in one sentence, you will be here not just today,
2 but tomorrow and the day after.
3 Now, is it your -- are you telling the Court that when you joined
4 the MUP, you did not bother to look at the new Law on Internal Affairs?
5 A. No. When I was a member of the crime prevention administration,
6 we were at different locations. There was a disorganisation. We were in
7 one place, and the legal department was in a different place. In May I
8 didn't know. Later I found out. Now I can't remember when the law was
9 promulgated, and I must be honest, I accept what you --
10 Q. Are you seriously telling the Court, Mr. Orasanin, that as a
11 professional, long-serving police officer you did not bother to look at
12 the Gazette published in March which set out the new Law on
13 Internal Affairs? Is that really what you're saying?
14 A. Well, in March I didn't know that. But I did know in --
15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter is not sure if the witness said
16 June or July.
17 MS. KORNER:
18 Q. Could you tell -- the interpreter wasn't sure whether you said
19 June or July. I think that's because I left my mike on.
20 When did you say you saw it, June or July?
21 A. Well, I suppose it was in June, because March 1992 was before the
22 war, if we're talking about this period.
23 MS. KORNER: Article 33, please, which should be on the same page
24 in both English and B/C/S.
25 Q. Which sets out the activities and tasks of the ministry and one
1 of them is that it monitors, directs, and co-ordinates the activity of
2 the Security Services Centre and public security stations. Is it under
3 this provision that the inspections which were carried out by you and
4 others took place?
5 A. Yes, but I was saying that in 1992 it wasn't possible. We --
6 Q. No, don't you tell me, please, about the inspections. I'm going
7 to come on to them. But I just want your agreement, and you have agreed,
8 that it's under this provision that the inspections are carried out.
9 Now, other than the inspection checklist, which I'm going to also
10 come back with -- to, was there any other rule that specifically set down
11 how inspections should be carried out?
12 A. Yes, it was a bylaw. But we also implemented the old laws and
13 regulations that were taken over. So this instruction about
14 instructional supervision was one from the former MUP of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it's basically the same, and I remember those
16 duties and obligations.
17 Q. Yes, I understand that. I fully accept that until later on in
18 the year there was no new rule book. But what I want to know, please, is
19 under what provision, apart from the Law on Internal Affairs, you carried
20 out the inspections? Was it a -- was it in the rule book, was it
21 somewhere else?
22 A. As far as I remember, it was a bylaw, a piece of subordinate
23 legislation, which was passed in 1993. It was called the instruction on
24 instructive supervision.
25 Q. I understand that. I know that there were new laws passed later
1 on, but what I'm asking you is: As you were carrying over the old BiH
2 rule book, was there any other provision in any old legislation, as you
3 call it, which regulated the conduct of these inspections?
4 A. Well, as far as I remember there was this instruction. Or maybe
5 it was called "the rule book on inspections." It was a bylaw.
6 Q. Well, that's what I'm asking you --
7 A. Actually, it's name may have been called "instruction on
8 instructive supervision" or something like that.
9 Q. Right --
10 A. Those rules and bylaws and instructions are passed by the
12 Q. I fully accept that. What I want to know is, you mean there is a
13 book that is headed "conduct of inspections" as issued by, the then
14 minister it would have been, Delimustafic?
15 A. Yes, yes, in the former MUP.
16 Q. All right. And you were using that when you carried out your
17 inspections, were you, in 1992?
18 A. Yes, we used that and applied it. We were duty-bound to do so.
19 The inspectors who went out to conduct inspections must work by some
20 rules where it is set out what they're supposed to do.
21 Q. Did you keep a copy of that rule book?
22 A. Well, yes, before the war and in 1992, as I was saying, we didn't
23 have a thing.
24 Q. No. I fully understand you, you were using the old one. Do
25 you -- what I mean is, do you still have in your possession a copy of
1 that rule book?
2 A. It was adopted in 1993, the crime prevention and detection
3 administration, but that was later.
4 Q. Yes, no. Do you have still, in your parents' place or wherever
5 it is, a copy of the old BiH rule book on the conduct of inspections?
6 A. I do not remember. I know I did have a copy of the rule book
7 about public security, but that's a thin booklet and little is said about
8 this there. But in 1992 I did not have that rule book. But when we went
9 out to do our work, we just worked from memory.
10 Q. All right. All that I'm going to ask you to do, Mr. Orasanin, is
11 to check, when you've finish testifying, to see if you have a copy of the
12 book you were using in 1992 which sets out the guide-lines for
13 inspections. And we'll deal with that at the end of your evidence.
14 MS. KORNER: Now, finally, can we look, please, at Article 41,
15 which we will find on the sixth page in, I think, both English and B/C/S.
16 Q. Which sets out the special duties and powers of officials. And I
17 want to go to the second column, please, the column on the right-hand
18 side at the top where in the second paragraph it says:
19 "The minister shall decide which employees will be considered
20 authorised officials."
21 Do you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And that is the provision, is it, that gives the minister the
24 power to make appointments?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, you have said yesterday, in answer to questions from
2 Mr. Cvijetic, or maybe the day before, that unless there were written
3 appointments made, none of the people could be considered to be -- none
4 of the people who held positions, such as chiefs of the SJBs, could be
5 considered to be members of the MUP. Do you remember saying that?
6 A. I was speaking about members of the service who didn't have
7 appointments, that they couldn't exercise police authorities. And
8 legally speaking they couldn't exercise police powers as laid down in the
9 law if they didn't have appointments. That's why the appointments were
11 Q. I understand that. And I'm going to come back to the actual
12 reality in a little while. But what is there that prevents the minister
13 making a verbal appointment rather than putting it into writing?
14 A. Well, firstly, before his appointment, that person must meet the
15 general and the special conditions to be an employee of the MUP. And if
16 he meets all these conditions, once he's appointed, can exercise police
17 authorities, such as detaining persons, using force, including weapons,
18 et cetera. That is that risk, to my understanding. That's why the
19 appointments were temporary.
20 Q. And I absolutely understand that. There are conditions laid down
21 as to the qualifications that must be held. But what I'm simply asking
22 you is: What is there to prevent the minister, particularly in a time of
23 conflict and bad communications, from making a verbal appointment and not
24 putting it into writing?
25 A. As far as I know, and I may not be the most competent person to
1 speak about this, but talking about the crime enforcement administration,
2 there must be proposals and all the persons must be qualified and meet
3 the general and special conditions to do that work. And of course, a
4 certain time is required for that. You can't go about this hastily. You
5 must check people, especially from some remote places. The procedure was
6 rather slow, as far as I know.
7 Q. What exactly -- and what I'm putting to you, Mr. Orasanin, is
8 that in a time of conflict it is perfectly possible, in order to speed
9 matters up, for the minister by telephone, or whatever it is, saying, You
10 are appointed, even if only temporarily, as chief of the SJB, or whatever
11 it may be. There's nothing that prevents that happening, is there?
12 A. Well, I must be honest and say what I know. My answer may not be
13 correct. But at the stations that we visited in the eastern part, and I
14 must stress that it is the eastern part, they were kind of hanging in the
15 air, hovering. The local authorities were appointing people.
16 Crisis Staffs, as I said, appointed commanders at Zvornik, Skelani, and
17 other places, and that was a problem. The phone didn't even work.
18 Traffic was disrupted, road traffic, I mean. There were technical
19 problems and other problems. That's why the minister couldn't issue
20 appointments, only temporary appointments. I think it would have been
21 too much responsibility to authorise somebody over the phone to do
22 something without applying the procedure and without checking people.
23 The minister insisted on verified personnel that had experience
24 from before the war. Goran Macar wasn't there, Dobro wasn't there, so I
25 had to be present. He insisted that we find people, the old, experienced
1 people. In other words, get rid of those lazy sods who only work for
2 their personal gain. I remember that. And I brought an inspector, Cedo
3 Tosic, who was appointed to a position in the police administration.
4 Then there was Kapetanovic, Ratko Kapetanovic, who was in the crime
5 prevention and detection administration. That was -- I worked on all
6 that much more than on my proper line of business.
7 Q. Yes. All right, Mr. Orasanin, I don't want a full description of
8 everybody you employed. I'm sticking to one simple principle.
9 You said "the minister couldn't issue appointments, only
10 temporary appointments. I think it would have been too much
11 responsibility to appoint somebody over the phone ..." But that was his
12 responsibility, wasn't it? because that's what the law said, the minister
13 shall decide which employees will be considered authorised officials.
14 And that's right, isn't it? And if you don't agree, say so. Just say
15 yes or no.
16 A. Well, I disagree because --
17 Q. [Microphone not activated] ... that's all you have to say.
18 A. -- the procedure wasn't applied. It was a huge risk, a huge
19 responsibility, to appoint people who don't do their work and who aren't
20 professionals. And then the minister is responsible for the activities
21 of those people who are 100 or 200 kilometres away from the ministry
23 Q. Yes, right.
24 A. That was a problem.
25 Q. All right. Now, I want to move on, please, to the evidence you
1 gave on the day before yesterday, on Monday, when you were talking about
2 starting work with the RS MUP, and you said -- or it was, in fact, when
3 you were asked about the working conditions and you were shown the
4 document which is a Defence document. It is, I think, 10D1, which is in
5 the binder you have, or you no longer have but I'm sure the Defence will
6 give it back to you. Tab 3.
7 MS. KORNER: Anybody want to give him his binder back?
8 Q. You were saying there was hardly anybody there, there was no
9 phone, typewriters, or whatever. So this is right at the beginning or a
10 month after the RS MUP has been put into place. And if we look at the
11 first page, there are 16 people working at headquarters.
12 MS. KORNER: If we go over to the next page in English and B/C/S.
13 Q. That's a further 24, isn't it, including a large number of
14 communication officers? Eleven in all -- well, with the head, 12 in all.
15 24 people on that page. So working already in May are some 40 people in
16 headquarters. Wouldn't you say that was at least an adequate number of
17 people within a month of the MUP starting up?
18 A. Well, according to this document in terms of operative services,
19 there's six plus four, a total of ten. And the rest are, auxiliary
20 services. However, in the headquarters, in our headquarters, there was
21 the police administration as well as the crime prevention department, and
22 the two had a total of ten people; four or five in the administration for
23 the police, and the other administration, four to five. We were in the
24 headquarters Kalovita Brda. I don't remember where the communications
25 centre was, maybe on Mount Jahorina. The administration for
1 administrative affairs was also located somewhere, if my memory serves
2 me, in a restaurant or in a hotel, also on Mount Jahorina, some
3 200 kilometres away. So this document was drafted in the administration
4 for legal affairs. They had more modern typewriters, I can see. There
5 were ten people in operative administrations. In the public security
6 service, that is a public service that works pursuant to the law that we
7 just saw a little while ago. The police administration, the crime
8 prevention administration, a total of ten.
9 Q. But look, at the headquarters, wherever they -- and I agree they
10 were in separate buildings, part was in Vraca school in May, there were
11 no less than 40 people working. That does not include, if you go through
12 the document, because you were taken through it by Mr. Cvijetic on
13 Monday, all the other people that we can see if you go to the next page
14 in English and B/C/S. The specialist staff, over the page, crime
15 investigation. All crossed out but you say that you don't understand the
16 crossings-out because everybody was working there, and so on and so
18 So I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Orasanin, that to say that there
19 were no personnel and no communications at this period is simply not
20 right, is it?
21 A. I spoke about May and the beginning of June. The roads were not
22 passable towards public security stations in the eastern part.
23 Q. I'm not -- please, Mr. Orasanin, I'm not talking about how you
24 got about. I'm talking about the number of staff that were working at
25 the MUP headquarters in May, because this is a payment list for May.
1 Anyhow, I've made my suggestion. Let's move on, please. Can you
2 look, please, now at a document which is 20 -- 65 ter 20162. It's
3 tab 4A, you haven't got it, Mr. Orasanin, of the Prosecution binder.
4 Now, do you recognise this book, as we look at the cover?
5 MS. KORNER: Perhaps we can zoom in on the label. Yes.
6 Q. Can you just read out what it says?
7 A. CSB, the Security Services Centre notebook or log-book. A
8 log-book of staff, I believe.
9 Q. All right.
10 MS. KORNER: Well, let's go to the next page, please. I think
11 you'll find it's not that. In B/C/S. You can stay on the same page in
12 English, thank you. Right.
13 Q. Does that say "sent and received dispatches"?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And does that show, just to take the first example, 22nd to the
16 23rd of April from the minister of the interior, a daily events bulletin,
17 which is going to those places that we can see listed in the next column?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. We go, please, to item number -- we'll leave out the media stuff
20 that follows, item number 4, 24th of April, from the Serbian MUP in S MUP
21 BiH Vraca, as I say, part of the MUP was there. Does that show a
22 decision going out, temporary assignment to the head of the SJB Sokolac?
23 A. Yes, 24 April 1992, Vraca.
24 Q. If we go into May, can we go, please, to -- well, actually, no,
25 let's go to number 15, please, on this list. Still in April.
1 MS. KORNER: Thank you. And 15 is on the fourth page of the
2 document in English. No, in English.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just a moment, if I
4 may. This is a document which is not on a 65 ter list. The signatory in
5 the column entitled "remark" was a Prosecution witness, however, he was
6 not shown this document although he was a competent witness. I'm afraid
7 that we are now showing a document to the witness who is not competent to
8 talk about the communications system, or at least not as thoroughly as
9 the -- as Witness Radovan Pejic. So this document does not meet the
10 requirements that I mentioned a little while ago, primarily, it's not on
11 65 ter list. We will not get very far with this witness unless we read
12 through everything that is written in here. However, whether this
13 witness is going to be able to draw any valid conclusions based on this
14 document, I'm not sure. I don't think that we will go very far with
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, the point that I'm obviously making is
17 because of what the witness asserts about the lack of communication and
18 the no staff and all the rest of it. As to -- this wasn't, I understand,
19 on the 65 ter list. It was, however, disclosed to the Defence in 2008.
20 [Microphone not activated] Sorry, Your Honours, I'm just checking on the
21 history of this one.
22 Your Honours, it appears it was added but withdrawn and we're
23 having a slight problem in sorting it out. But the point is, I'm not
24 seeking to exhibit it. I'm merely going through this with the witness to
25 see if he'll agree that clearly what he's saying about communications
1 cannot be, putting it at its lowest, entirely right.
2 JUDGE HALL: I have a bit of a problem, Ms. Korner. Whereas I
3 appreciate the -- that the witness is -- that you will elicit particular
4 answers from the witness, the problem is that, this not being an exhibit,
5 the -- it is -- he is, to my mind, being challenged as to the
6 reliability, to put it at its lowest, of his answers against a document
7 which is not before the Chamber. That's the disconnect that I'm having.
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, well, that's the difficulty on
9 Your Honours' ruling about this question of exhibits, is that things
10 become much more relevant when we have a witness like this. And so
11 documents which obviously have always had some relevance but not enough
12 to try and get it on become much more relevant, and I would like to
13 exhibit it. But, I mean, if Your Honours' ruling is that something which
14 advances our case, although this one has actually been disclosed, and
15 disclosed in 2008, we have difficulty in getting in, then I'm in a bit of
16 a quandary, as it were. I understand what Your Honour says.
17 I would, provided the witness, which actually -- I'm sorry, I'm
18 interrupting my own train of thought. I should, of course, check that
19 he's familiar with books like this and that he may recognise his
21 I'm sorry, I'm being told something else. Would Your Honours
22 forgive me.
23 [Prosecution counsel confer]
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can we -- Your Honours, I'm sorry, can
25 I help. I have a feeling that we may have -- it is an exhibit already,
1 after all of this. We're just going to check. I was quite surprised to
2 hear it wasn't an exhibit when I saw the 20.000 number, but it seems to
3 have a different 65 ter number. So can I be just given a minute or so,
4 or shall I move on while we check this out?
5 JUDGE HALL: Perhaps that would be the better course, Ms. Korner.
6 MS. KORNER: Yes. We'll come back to this, then. Your Honours,
7 we're just doing a double-check. We -- the trouble is we have a number
8 of versions, and sometimes we get the 65 ter numbers right.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may we be of
10 assistance as well. The document has been exhibited, and it was
11 commented upon by a competent witness, as P1428. It was admitted during
12 the examination of a witness who explained the essence of all of the
13 documents listed in here. I believe that we shed enough light on this
14 document with a competent witness. I don't think that we can advance any
15 further with this witness. We can't do more than we did with the witness
16 who is the signatory of this document, who was here and commented upon it
17 when he testified in this court.
18 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, if you are correct that the document
19 is an exhibit, isn't it open to counsel to challenge the witness on the
20 stand against the -- what that document shows if it is inconsistent with
21 the representations which he has made so far? I take your point about it
22 not being on the 65 ter list and he not being the author and whatnot, but
23 you have an official document which is exhibited, as you say, and the --
24 Ms. Korner is cross-examining a witness who is testifying to the same
25 facts which are contradicted, on the face of it, by the exhibit. So
1 what's the problem?
2 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... and it was on our
3 65 ter -- Your Honours, it was on our 65 ter list, and it's P1428. And
4 I -- it's our fault but, nonetheless, I don't think Mr. Cvijetic has any
5 further objection that he can possibly make.
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let me just say, the
7 witness who testified here had worked and was in charge of the
8 communications systems, and he explained in very great detail practically
9 every entry in this document. I'm afraid that this witness is in no
10 position to know any more about this document, so that's why I'm saying
11 we cannot go any further with him.
12 JUDGE HALL: We hear you, Mr. Cvijetic, but that's an argument,
13 and we will no doubt come to it later.
14 Yes, Ms. Korner, please continue.
15 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm not in any way seeking to get him
16 to explain this book. I'm getting him -- I'm challenging his assertion
17 that there was no communications.
18 Q. Now, do I need to take you through any more of this document,
19 Mr. Orasanin, or do you accept that your assertion of no staff and no
20 communications simply isn't right?
21 A. I will answer your question. Actually, I already answered this
22 question during our first visit in May. We didn't have a possibility to
23 communicate. Whether dispatches were later on sent at the local level in
24 terms of different frequencies, I'm not an expert. I'm not competent.
25 The chief of communications was Dragan Tesanovic. He could answer your
1 questions. And Pejic, Dragan was in Sarajevo. He was the head of our
2 communications centre in Sarajevo, and they are privy to that part of
3 communication. But I know that there was a report when we visited the
4 police stations in Vogosca and Ilijas, people told us there that they
5 could not communicate between Ilijas and Vogosca, therefore they could
6 not co-operate, and the distance between the two was only about 20 to
7 30 kilometres. And this is what is imprinted in my mind, that the
8 communications did not function. We could not report back from Skelani.
9 I'm talking about the month of May. Now, if this could function at the
10 local level, I don't know how it was possible because I don't know
11 anything about communications. Maybe dispatches could be sent by some
12 other lines of communication --
13 Q. Mr. Orasanin, all I am putting to you is - forget, please, about
14 outside MUP headquarters - that as far as headquarters, wherever the
15 buildings were, they had communication, they were able to send and
16 receive documents. Now, do you accept that is correct, yes or no?
17 A. That may have been at a local level, I don't know. I have never
18 seen this log-book before. I don't remember that we at the crime
19 prevention administration used this. This is my answer. I don't know if
20 their service could do something. We couldn't. I'm talking about the
21 month of May and the beginning of June. As far as I know, it was only in
22 late 1992 that communications were properly up and running. I have never
23 seen this before, and I don't know anything about this. I don't know
24 whether it was possible at a local level. I claim that there was no
25 communication between these two public security stations and there were
1 no dispatches sent, and that's what I was governed by in my previous
3 Q. All right. Have a look, please -- that's all I'm going to ask
4 you about that document. Have a look, please at document which is P1437.
5 MS. KORNER: Tab 5 of the Prosecution binders, Your Honours.
6 Q. Were you familiar with the daily reports, Mr. Orasanin?
7 A. Not during this period. This is a bulletin of daily events,
8 right, in public security stations? At least this is what I'm reading.
9 Q. No, this is sent by the -- if you look at the handwritten at the
10 top --
11 MS. KORNER: Can we pull down the B/C/S slightly.
12 Q. Does that read "sent at 2150 hours to the Serbian news agency and
13 the government"?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. This is a MUP headquarters daily report. In fact, it's
16 number 12. So these were documents that you had seen before; is that
17 right, or the type of document?
18 A. I must say that I didn't know that daily reports were sent to --
19 this is our internal document as far as I know, but I may be mistaken.
20 You will allow me that.
21 Q. I just want to deal with two -- three matters.
22 In the second paragraph, does that deal with what is happening in
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. In the third paragraph, does that deal with what is happening in
2 A. Yes.
3 MS. KORNER: And if we go over the page, please, just in English.
4 Q. In the fourth paragraph, does that deal with what is happening in
5 Novo Sarajevo?
6 A. I can't find this.
7 Q. If you focus --
8 MS. KORNER: If we can highlight, please, the fourth paragraph in
10 Q. You see Novo -- immediately after Ilijas, does it talk about
11 Novo Sarajevo?
12 A. Yes, yes.
13 Q. Right. Do you agree that somehow or other, regardless of the
14 conditions, on the 4th of May MUP headquarters is able to get information
15 about what is happening in those municipalities?
16 A. I'm not familiar with this. I was not familiar with this during
17 this particular period of time. I know nothing about Novo Sarajevo. I
18 knew nothing about this. I'm not familiar with the document either.
19 Q. Yes. All right. The question was: Do you agree, from reading
20 this document, that somehow MUP headquarters is able to get information
21 from these places which you say had no communications?
22 A. Before the 4th of May, telephones were up and running in town.
23 There was communication before that time. All communication lines were
24 up and running during this period of time, I think. Later on there were
25 disruptions, after the 4th of May. There were separations, as it were,
1 and the communication lines were disrupted. And during this particular
2 period of time I think that telephones were up and running. You could
3 call from one station to a place in the city. There were no separation
4 lines in the city, as far as I can remember, which means that you could
5 establish communication during this period of time. You could make
6 telephone conversations. I don't know about teleprinter communications;
7 I don't know if that was disrupted at all.
8 Q. Well, forgive me, Mr. Orasanin, I understood from your long
9 non-answer to one of my earlier questions that there was no
10 communications between Ilijas and Vogosca at this period. When do you
11 say -- from what period do you say there was no communication?
12 A. Seven days after this period, something happened. This is the
13 beginning of war. Before the war, all communication lines were up and
14 running. The situation was normal. After the 4th of May when the war
15 started, somebody else started controlling their communications system.
16 I don't know how it was done. I'm not an expert. I don't know how that
17 worked. Some ten days later, there were disruptions left, right, and
18 centre. And it all depended on who controlled what, which part,
19 which ... and as far as I remember, the chief was Kezunovic. He is an
20 engineer, and he's --
21 Q. Yes, don't you worry about Mr. Kezunovic.
22 It is generally accepted that the conflict started around the --
23 between the 4th and the 6th of April, not the 4th of May. Now, you're
24 saying, are you, it was only a week after the 4th of May, so roughly the
25 11th of May, that communications began to be disrupted? Is that what
1 you're saying? A simple yes or no.
2 A. I misspoke. I meant the 4th of April. And, here, this
3 information was issued on the 4th of May. That's why I said the
4 4th of May and that's why I said 10 or 15 days later everything was
5 disrupted, when we were in Skelani, Brcko, Zvornik, during our first
6 visit, that is.
7 Q. Mr. Orasanin, that's the point I've been trying patiently, I
8 hope, to make to you; that you clearly are wrong when you suggest that
9 there was no communications going on in May between MUP headquarters and
10 Ilijas and Vogosca. Do you accept that, having seen this document?
11 A. I claim that there were no communications between Ilijas and
12 Vogosca, because people there complained. They complained that they
13 couldn't get in touch with the closest municipality. They complained to
14 us. I would have forgotten that if there hadn't been this report. I
15 know that there was always a problem that they couldn't communicate, that
16 they couldn't call in, that the communication lines were down, that there
17 were disruptions. I don't know what kind of disruptions there were, but
18 I know that they could not send this information from Skelani or
19 elsewhere. There were no telephones up and running. We could not --
20 ourselves, we could not call our own boss to report back to him.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, that's probably --
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
23 MS. KORNER: -- an appropriate moment.
24 JUDGE HALL: So we take the break now, to resume in 20 minutes.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 10.58 p.m.
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 MS. KORNER:
5 Q. Mr. Orasanin, I want to move to the topic of the inspections
6 themselves. First of all, did you see reports on inspections that had
7 been done by other inspectors as part of your job?
8 A. Yes, as far as I remember, some. After our stay on 25 August,
9 but I don't remember which ones exactly.
10 Q. No. But obviously if you were inspecting somewhere which had
11 previously been inspected by another inspector, you would want to check,
12 would you not, to see what they had done, reported on?
13 A. In this case since we were the first team, there were no previous
14 inspections. We were the first ones to go there, and after us I think
15 that some other teams went there, after the 15th of May and the
16 25th of August, our visits to Doboj and Foca in early September.
17 Q. Yes. Well, in fact we'll see that the -- before you went to
18 Doboj there had been an earlier inspection of Doboj, but I think you've
19 dealt with the matter.
20 Now, is it also correct that during the period of 1992 until you
21 left in November, working in the administration for crime prevention and
22 detection - you've dealt with Mr. Planojevic and Mr. Macar - were
23 yourself, Inspector Milanovic.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Inspector Ostoja Minic.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And somebody called Inspector Sinisa Karan.
3 A. As far as I know, Sinisa Karan came to the administration later,
4 possibly even after I left, but I can't be sure.
5 Q. [Microphone not activated] All right. Now, you told us, or you
6 told Mr. Cvijetic on Monday, when you were shown the inspection
7 checklist, and this is at page 21870, that he put to you:
8 "Could you tell us how many employees and from which services of
9 the ministry would be involved in such an inspection?"
10 And you said:
11 "The document talks about the manner of work and inspection. For
12 such work you would need two or three inspectors who would be able to
13 examine the entire situation."
14 Now, it's right, isn't it, that you, in fact, on these
15 inspections always had at least two and sometimes three inspectors?
16 Don't worry about the document. I'll tell you -- I'll come back to the
17 document. I just want you to answer that question, please. It's right,
18 isn't it, from what we've seen, there were at least two of you and at
19 least sometimes three of you doing these inspections?
20 A. Yes, two are sufficient for an inspection of one administration,
21 that is, one region. But in other cases, three or more.
22 Q. So --
23 A. But there were three of us.
24 Q. Right. So in fact, when you told Mr. Cvijetic that it needed at
25 least two or three to do the job, you were able in every case to do the
1 job properly, weren't you?
2 A. I was speaking about our first visit, that we had problems there
3 because we had nothing to inspect there, as those police stations were
4 not under our administration. Later there was Doboj --
5 Q. Yes, no, no. Sorry, I understand what you're saying. You say
6 that in the earlier inspections there weren't any police stations to
7 inspect, but you appear to give the impression that you weren't able to
8 carry out the requirements on this checklist because you needed two to
9 three people. But as I'm pointing out to you, you did have at least two
10 and often three people to do these inspections. So you were able, when
11 there was a police station that was operating, to carry out a proper
12 inspection; is that right?
13 A. In some towns, no. But in Doboj we were able to conduct an
14 inspection. That's what I said when I gave my first statement in 2005,
15 that we had problems on our first visit and the real -- the only one was
16 in Doboj.
17 Q. All right. Please don't just repeat everything over again.
18 You were able, if a police station was functioning properly, to
19 carry out the full inspection, weren't you?
20 A. Yes, if it was functioning and if the management was under our
22 Q. And you would always do a report; is that correct?
23 A. It was a rule to write a report.
24 Q. Yes. And you would give that report, would you, to your direct
25 supervisor, Mr. Macar?
1 A. The reports of a uniformed team of inspectors was submitted to
2 Mr. Macar, my supervisor. But if it was a mixed team, including
3 inspectors from the uniformed police, then reports would be submitted in
4 accordance with the respective lines of work. That is, the inspector for
5 the uniformed police would do these tasks, and the crime prevention
6 inspector would deal with crime prevention matters. Everybody would
7 inspect their line of work. That's in accordance with the rules.
8 Q. Right. But the whole idea, wasn't it, was so that through the
9 chain of command - that is, from inspectors to Mr. Macar to
10 Mr. Planojevic - the minister, Mr. Stanisic, would be informed of any
11 problems that were occurring in the places where you did inspections?
12 A. Well, yes, if the conditions allowed that. But we didn't write a
13 report after our first inspection because we were in a traffic accident.
14 And the incident was suspicious because it may have been staged.
15 Q. All right. I appreciate that's what you are saying. I didn't
16 want to jump ahead, but why did -- I understand you had the accident and
17 you had some injuries, but what was to prevent you, after you had
18 recovered from the accident, and your colleagues from using your notes to
19 put in a report, even if it was a late report?
20 A. We didn't write reports because this colleague was transferred to
21 hospital and he stayed there for some 10 or 15 days and we were also
22 injured, and basically I didn't even report to anybody at work for a
23 while, maybe 10 days or so. And that is why we didn't write a report.
24 And that was a very short visit to those stations. We didn't do much
25 work because we simply couldn't. We were driven out of Brcko by sniper
1 fire. If we had done anything, I probably wouldn't be here now.
2 Q. Yes, yes, I'm sure it was a very distressing experience for you,
3 Mr. Orasanin, but what I'm asking you is: Didn't Mr. Macar or
4 Mr. Planojevic say to you, Now that you've recovered from this nasty
5 experience, could we have a report, please, about what you found?
6 A. Well, we didn't submit a report. I don't know if
7 Drago Borovcanin ever did that for his line of work, because the greater
8 problem was with the police administration and their remit, since the
9 police stations, that is, the uniformed police are far more numerous and
10 they have specific tasks. So I don't know whether he submitted a report
11 for his line of work, but I don't think so after our injuries.
12 Q. All right, Mr. Orasanin. Now, if there were problems as
13 identified in one of the inspection reports, it was the job, wasn't it,
14 of the minister, through his subordinates, to deal with those problems,
15 to put into place solutions; that's right, isn't it?
16 A. If we are talking about a later period, then, yes, I would agree.
17 But in 1992 there was so much confusion. It was the phase of the
18 organisation, the setting up of the service. The centres, the
19 administrations, that was a problem. I said so in my first statement,
20 that the ministry was only being set up.
21 Q. Well, I know that, but who -- even if the ministry was only being
22 set up and even if there was confusion, it was the job, wasn't it, of the
23 minister to deal with the problems that arose?
24 A. Well, I don't know that. We did the things that had to do with
25 our administration and our tasks. What the relations were between
1 minister and minister, well, I'm not privy to that. We did work in the
2 field, and that's why we don't know what happened later, where that
3 information went or our reports.
4 Q. Well, when you say you don't know what happened later to your
5 reports, you, for example, described how the minister had taken action
6 over what was happening in Foca and other places. Wasn't it clear to you
7 that the minister was getting the information?
8 A. I know that Goran Macar issued me that order. He said to me, See
9 about this and prepare our activities. That's what I remember. And I
10 drafted something by hand, considering who was available in terms of
11 human resources. I was -- I limited myself to the crime prevention
13 Q. Did anybody other than the minister have the power to issue an
14 order removing or replacing the head of an SJB?
15 A. Well, under the law, it's the minister who appoints people;
16 whereas the nominations come from the centres. These are the legal
17 provisions, I think. That was after the centralisation of the MUP. The
18 war broke out when the MUP was centralised, as compared to a pre-war
19 situation when it was decentralised. In 1984 [Realtime transcript read
20 in error "1994"] there was a decentralisation of the police.
21 Q. Don't worry about the history, please. Did anybody other than
22 the minister have the power to order --
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] If I may, I believe that the year
24 was wrongly recorded in line 17. It says "1994." I believe the witness
25 said "1984." That's how it was interpreted. Ms. Korner must have heard
1 it too. The reference to the pre-war decentralisation, the year is
3 MS. KORNER: Yeah, yeah, it's just been wrongly --
4 Q. Don't worry, Mr. Orasanin, it's just been wrongly recorded. I
5 heard through my earphones "1984," not "1994."
6 Did anybody other than the minister have the power to order the
7 reduction of reserve policemen? Yes or no, please. Not an explanation.
8 Yes or no.
9 A. I know as far as appointments go that in 1992 the centre chiefs
10 were authorised to issue temporary appointments, but I'm not sure which
11 centres those are. I'm referring to temporary appointments of police
12 officers. And they also had the authority to downsize the reserve
13 police. So centre chiefs were authorised to issue temporary appointments
14 for police officers in police stations, as far as I remember.
15 Q. And that's because Mico Stanisic delegated that authority to
16 them; is that right?
17 A. Well, I know that they made decisions on these appointments, I
18 mean the centre chiefs, but whether they were authorised to do so, I
19 cannot remember. But that's not my line of business. We had information
20 that the centre chief can appoint a person to do the work of a police
21 officer in a police station.
22 Q. Right. Now, you told the Court on Monday, at page 21872, that
23 your priorities - I'm trying to find it, 21872 - were staffing at the
24 places you inspected and also the crime reports; is that right?
25 A. I was saying that we were duty-bound to check what the crime
1 prevention services of some SJBs were doing. We were inspecting the
2 crimes log and everything else that had to do with crime.
3 Q. Well, let's -- can we just take, please -- have another look at
4 that inspection checklist.
5 MS. KORNER: P988.
6 Q. Which you've got at tab 34 in your binder, Mr. Orasanin. Defence
8 Now, if we look again at some of the items, you have to -- it
9 says "purpose" -- it says: "In the course of the inspection of
10 investigation departments, it is necessary to meet employees, working
11 meeting," and then, "purpose of the inspection: Gain an insight into
12 criminal charges submitted." That is in the KU log-book entries. And
13 then the records, other records, including, and that's one before the
14 bottom on the English, "the log-book of on-site investigations"; is that
16 MS. KORNER: And then over the page, please, in both English and
18 Q. "Upon completion of the inspection, a written report is to be
19 compiled ... positive qualities, failures noted ... and then submitted
20 to" it makes it quite clear it has to go to the minister, the assistant
21 minister, the CSB head, and the files. So that there's no question but
22 that your report had to go to the minister, didn't it?
23 A. Talking about this instruction, I was saying that in our report
24 itself where it says visit to police stations, and I don't want to be
25 very long again, that we didn't use the term "inspection" but "visit."
1 And -- but if we choose the term "inspection," then what you said follows
2 from that. But since it wasn't possible, there were no conditions on the
3 occasion of our first visit, possibly with the exception of Doboj, the
4 terms we used, visits to police stations. And we did some of what is
5 listed here. In Doboj we had a meeting. It is logical to look at the
6 rule book on internal organisation, if it's in effect, to see how many
7 inspectors there are, what they do, the structure, and then start
8 reviewing the log-books, such as the KU log-book and the others. It is
9 logical that then a report must be submitted.
10 Q. Yes, but whether you called it a visit because you couldn't, for
11 the reasons you've explained, carry out a full inspection, nonetheless,
12 the report that you made had to go, didn't it, to the same people because
13 that was the purpose of the visit?
14 A. We were duty-bound to submit a report to our supervisor and that
15 was Goran Macar. He was the coordinator, or his official position was
16 assistant minister of the interior, as far as I know. And before him it
17 was Dobrislav Planojevic.
18 Q. Don't worry about who it was before. All right. Let's consider
19 the KU books. The purpose of that inspection, is that right, was to see
20 whether there were any anomalies in the books?
21 A. The purpose is to make a review in accordance with the checklist.
22 But at the time we didn't have this checklist. We used the pre-war
23 checklist. So we worked based on our experience from before the war.
24 And by inertia we went about this job, and what we saw there we also
1 Q. Yes, stop, please, Mr. Orasanin. That's not the question I
2 asked. But you've now sent me down another side track. Even if this
3 list was produced during 1992, is there any difference between this list
4 and the previous list that you had?
5 A. In 1993?
6 Q. No. Was there any difference between the old checklist that came
7 from the BiH MUP, the joint MUP, and this one?
8 A. I think that this is more or less the same, that it contains the
9 same duties for the crime prevention department. Or at least that's how
10 it should be. I cannot be very precise now.
11 Q. Now, when you were -- let's go back to my original question.
12 When you were checking the KU books, was one of the purposes of doing it
13 to see whether there were any obvious anomalies; for example, that there
14 were too many unknown perpetrators being listed?
15 A. Well, I remember that when we were in Doboj that we reviewed --
16 Q. [Microphone not activated] -- I want the general principle,
17 please. As a general principle, with your years of experience, when you
18 were checking the books, was one of the purposes to look for anomalies,
19 things that weren't right, based on your experience?
20 A. The KU log-book contains the reported crimes, with the dates and
21 so on, as well as the subsequent activities where that criminal report
22 ended up --
23 Q. We know what the KU books contain. We've got the KU books. What
24 I'm asking you is what was the purpose of your inspecting them. Was it
25 to look for things that suggested were not quite right in what was
2 A. Well, the purpose was to identify any shortcomings and whether
3 they worked in accordance with the procedure when it comes to reported
4 crimes. Where those criminal reports ended up, whether they were
5 submitted to the prosecutor's office, because that was their duty under
6 the Law on Criminal Procedure. And then the prosecutor's office should
7 trigger a further work to clarify those --
8 Q. Stop, stop, stop. I don't want to deal with that. One of the
9 things you would be looking for is to see whether they had put in
10 criminal reports to the prosecutor's office; is that right?
11 A. That's what we required. I said that this inspection was done in
12 Doboj. And as far as Skelani, the others, are concerned, well, there
13 were -- those were very short visits because the service wasn't really
14 organised, but in Doboj, yes.
15 Q. Do you understand what is meant by "general principles,"
16 Mr. Orasanin?
17 A. General principles follow from a rule, from an attitude or from
18 the law.
19 Q. Right. I'm not asking you specifically what you found at the
20 moment in Doboj or Skelani or anywhere. I'm just asking you what, as an
21 experienced inspector, you were looking for when you inspected the
22 KU books. And you've said already to see whether reports were being sent
23 to the prosecutor.
24 Would a book full of reported crimes with a lot of unknown
25 perpetrators be something that you would query?
1 A. Well, yes, we wanted to see the results of the crime prevention
2 department's activities. We wanted to see what they did under the law.
3 Q. Yes, no. Right, because -- I'm sorry, is the answer to my
4 question, which I will repeat, would a book full of reported crimes with
5 a large number of unknown perpetrators be something that you would raise
6 with either the chief of the SJB or the CSB or the relevant official at
7 the place you were inspecting?
8 A. Well, yes, we would take stock of the numbers and we would see
9 what activities had been undertaken. That's what we did. We spotted
10 problems and we insisted on task forces to be established in order to
11 deal with the problem. That was our obligation under the law.
12 Q. I'll try one more time, Mr. Orasanin. Concentrate hard. If you
13 saw a KU book that was full of crimes with unknown perpetrators recorded,
14 would that be something that you would raise with the officials at the
15 place that you were inspecting?
16 A. Well, yes, it was our analytical service that did that. They
17 looked at the reports. It would be the head of the department for crime
18 prevention and the police department who did that.
19 Q. I'm asking you whether when you saw it, you personally, you would
20 think that was something that should be reported, something you should
21 raise with -- you personally, with the officials at the place you were
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that the
24 question has been asked and answered. He even gave you a very concrete
25 example as to what was done in situations when there was a large number
1 of criminal reports featuring unknown perpetrators in Doboj. I believe
2 that the question has been asked and answered in a very concrete manner.
3 The witness did say what they did.
4 MS. KORNER: I disagree.
5 JUDGE HALL: Well, I was about to say, Mr. Cvijetic, in my view
6 the question has been asked several times. I'm not sure it's been
7 answered directly.
8 MS. KORNER:
9 Q. Now, I'll try it one last time, Mr. Orasanin. When you saw a
10 book -- and, all right, let's say, for example, as in Doboj, with a large
11 number of unknown perpetrators, is that something you would raise at the
12 time? You, not your analytical section.
13 A. Yes, we discussed that at our meetings and we launched
14 initiatives for task forces to be set up in order to deal with that. And
15 then in our subsequent visits, we would have looked at the results of our
16 previous remarks. So as a result of our first visit, we established how
17 many unknown perpetrators there were. And then we set up operative
18 groups in order to elucidate those crimes. I remember that we wrote a
19 report to that effect.
20 And then during the subsequent visit, the one that I wasn't a
21 part of, they went there to see what concrete results had been achieved,
22 they visited all the other centres, they wanted to see what activities
23 had been undertaken and involved the chief of the centre. Of course,
24 it's logical, and that was our obligation. And information on all of
25 that would have been contained in our reports.
1 Q. Right. Exactly. And what applied to Doboj applied everywhere
2 else as well; is that right?
3 A. That was the rule.
4 Q. Right. And indeed it was important enough, as you say, for the
5 information to go to your analytical section; is that right?
6 A. We submitted reports to the crime prevention administration. If
7 a team was mixed, then it -- the reports would go to both
8 administrations, the police administration and the crime prevention
9 administration. And then the respective heads contacted our head of
10 service, not us.
11 Q. No. All right. [Indiscernible].
12 In 1992, when you were going to areas where you knew that there
13 had been conflict, would the fact that nearly all reports appeared to be
14 against non-Serbs in any way cause you to ask questions at the time?
15 A. I said that our visit to the stations in Skelani, Zvornik, and
16 Brcko was a blitz visit and that we couldn't do much there, practically
17 nothing. For example, in Zvornik the station had not even been set up,
18 there was no chief --
19 Q. No. When you were doing your visits outside that first one that
20 you've told us about - and, for example, let's take Doboj again - was the
21 fact that the whole crime register appear to mainly have reports against
22 non-Serbs something that caused you to question what was happening?
23 A. Well, yes. But in Doboj, when we looked at the crimes, there
24 were some known perpetrators, there were some murders or killings, for
25 example, a Serb killed another Serb, and there were victims on both
1 sides, both Serbs and Bosniaks. The reports that we analysed prompted us
2 to launch an initiative to elucidate all of those crimes. I remember
3 that. Irrespective of who the victims were, we formed operative groups
4 that would collect information, and so on and so forth. It was not our
5 obligation to contact any of the courts or the prosecutor's offices. We
6 still contacted them. We were the ones behind the initiative to get both
7 of them involved.
8 Q. Look, look, all I'm asking, Mr. Orasanin, is this: Whether if
9 you saw that there appeared to be an overwhelming preponderance of
10 reports against non-Serb perpetrators, would that be something that you
11 would ask questions about? Either yes or no.
12 A. Yes, of course. We spoke to the crime prevention service again
13 and we asked them to work on all of the cases, all 11 of them, and then
14 the inspectors were resent out to see what had been done in the meantime,
15 from the first to the second visit.
16 Q. I'm not talking about the 11 cases that had unknown perpetrators.
17 Now, for the last time, Mr. Orasanin --
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, could you eventually ask the witness
19 whether he noticed the fact you're putting to him.
20 MS. KORNER: Yes. I'm trying to get general principles.
21 Q. If you noticed, when you were checking the KU book, that the
22 overwhelming number of cases had non-Serb perpetrators, not unknown ones,
23 named non-Serb, would you have raised that?
24 A. I can only talk about what I know, about the 11 cases. Those
25 were war crimes, as far as I could see, as far as I could glean from the
1 reports, if we are talking about those 11 cases that were crimes, that
2 were homicides. And in legal terms and in logical terms that was what it
3 was, and we were behind the initiative to set up teams that would deal
4 with those cases. That's why we sent reports, Madam Prosecutor. This is
5 my answer to your question.
6 Q. Okay. This is actually the last time. Leave aside Doboj and the
7 11 cases, please.
8 If when you conducted inspections in places that had KU books and
9 you noticed that in those books the overwhelming majority of crimes had
10 non-Serb perpetrators, is that something you would have queried at the
11 time? Please, either yes or no.
12 A. Well, I can -- I really apologise, I can only tell you what I
13 know, what I saw with my own two eyes on my inspection visits to those
14 stations. And if we're talking about rules and regulations, then yes.
15 However, what I noticed, what I observed, is what I told you and what was
16 entered in the reports about those stations. I'm talking about things
17 that we were looking for. We looked at all the criminal reports and we
18 insisted on the law being observed and carried out. That was our
19 obligation. That was our task.
20 If we're talking about general rules, they arose from rules and
21 regulations and from the laws. I am telling you what I saw, what I was
22 in a position to see. And I'm just sharing with you what my mental
23 capacities allowed me to see at the time. There were no conditions in
24 place for us to do full inspection supervision. I'm always coming back
25 to the inspection supervision. It is a very tall order, in legal terms,
1 to do an inspection supervision. I'm just sharing with you what I saw,
2 what we observed, and what our obligation was. And all the police forces
3 do that. It's not something that only we did.
4 Q. All right. I'll ask the simple question --
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, I take it that at line -- at page 48,
6 line 2, at the end of line 2, the witness answered your hypothetical
7 question. But it's still a hypothetical question.
8 MS. KORNER: It's not, Your Honour, with respect. I'm going to
9 ask the specific question that Your Honour wanted me to ask, because it's
10 not hypothetical, it's what he considered to be part of his job, with his
11 experience. So it's not a hypothetical question, but I will ask the
12 specific question.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
14 MS. KORNER: And I'm sorry that I was trying to get general
15 principles, unsuccessfully.
16 Q. When you went to Doboj on what was a proper, full, complete
17 inspection that took two days, did you notice in the KU book for Doboj
18 that the majority of named perpetrators were of non-Serb ethnicity?
19 A. I don't understand your question. I don't understand your
20 question. What do you mean by perpetrators?
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The word "perpetrator" in Serbian
22 was used, the non-Serbian perpetrators. Can you repeat?
23 THE INTERPRETER: The Croatian variant of the word was used and
24 that -- the interpreter believes that that may be the problem.
25 MS. KORNER: Well, we've been using "perpetrators" throughout the
1 whole case without anybody telling us you can't call them perpetrators.
2 Q. People accused of crime.
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Orasanin, do you now understand the question?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not sufficiently. When we looked
5 at the KU, the question was whether we noticed the list of Serbian
6 perpetrators of crimes or --
7 MS. KORNER:
8 Q. No, stop. I'll repeat the question again, as the translation
9 went haywire.
10 When you inspected the Doboj KU book in August of 1992, did you
11 notice that the bulk of people accused of crimes were of non-Serb
12 ethnicity, Muslims or Croats?
13 A. I don't remember that. There were some crimes committed by known
14 perpetrators, both Serbs and Bosniaks. As far as I can remember, there
15 were several such cases. And there were also crimes committed by unknown
16 perpetrators. It was our obligation to look at the crimes committed by
17 unknown perpetrators, those crimes that hadn't been elucidated by then.
18 And we urged them to collect information and to submit that information
19 to the prosecutor's office.
20 And I remember that there were two Serb cousins who were both the
21 perpetrator and the victim of a crime and the criminal report had been
22 filed. So there were all sorts of different things there. Maybe if you
23 showed me the document again, you would jog my memory, but that's -- this
24 is my answer to you.
25 Q. Sorry, show you what document again?
1 A. If I were to see that document or those documents, those criminal
2 reports featuring unknown perpetrators of crimes.
3 Q. I'm not talking about unknown perpetrators. I'm talking about
4 allegedly known perpetrators. Do you understand the question,
5 Mr. Planojevic -- Mr. Orasanin? When you looked at the KU book in Doboj,
6 which you say you did, did you notice the vast majority of those persons
7 accused of crime were non-Serb? If you didn't, then say so.
8 A. I didn't notice that. Maybe it was the next team that noticed
9 that, but I really can't remember. And I'm being sincere when I say
11 Q. All right. Now, finally, before I look at some of the
12 inspections that you did, you told us you didn't file a report in the
13 respect of your first visit, I'll call it, but did you give a verbal
14 report to Mr. Macar or Mr. Planojevic about what you found there?
15 A. If we're talking about my first visit, as far as I can remember,
16 Macar was not my superior. We had been sent on that first visit by
17 Cedo Kljajic, who was the chief for public security at the time, and our
18 team was a mixed team consisting of Drago Borovcanin on behalf of the
19 uniformed police, myself, and Pekic, Petko Pekic.
20 Q. If it was Mr. Kljajic, did you give a verbal report of what you
21 pound to anybody at headquarters, when you finally got back there?
22 A. I answered your question. We had that incident and the short
23 break and my colleague was in hospital and for a while I was in a village
24 and we didn't file any reports. We didn't submit reports.
25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I know you didn't file a
1 written report. I hope the translation's not going wrong here.
2 Did you speak to Mr. Kljajic or anybody else and say, Look, this
3 is the problem that we've found in Skelani or Zvornik or whatever it is?
4 A. No, because after the incident I joined the crime service, and I
5 did not see Cedo Kljajic for a month or maybe two. His office was in
6 Vraca and my office was in Kalovita Brda. So after our visit and our
7 return, I really didn't see him. I reported to Kalovita Brda, in Pale,
8 and his office was not in Pale but in Vraca.
9 Q. I'm sorry, are you saying that your bosses, the senior officials
10 in the MUP who sent you off on this visit or inspection, whatever you
11 call it, that nobody, none of them, asked you, and not you personally, or
12 any of your colleagues what you had found? Is that what you're saying?
13 A. I'm not saying that. That was the organisation in place. It was
14 the early days. Drago Borovcanin, I believe, along his line which was
15 uniformed police, it is possible that he conveyed some information,
16 because he was the least wounded of all of us in that incident.
17 Q. That's all I wanted to know. Thank you.
18 Now, the inspection of Zvornik that you did - let's deal with
19 these places - you did that in about mid-May; is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Could you have a look, please, then, at the document which is 1C
22 in the Prosecution tab, which is -- it's got a number 20160.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: It's not 1C.
24 MS. KORNER: Sorry. Oh, we did have -- that's right, it was
25 the -- sorry, it's P346. I've forgotten that we had discovered that it
1 had been admitted as well. P346.
2 Q. Now, I don't know -- well, you may have seen this before. Have
3 you ever seen this before?
4 A. No.
5 Q. But this is the report that they sent you -- sorry, sent you --
6 sent to the CSB at Bijeljina about what they had done between
7 April the 1st and the 30th of June, and this is the station you say
8 wasn't working at all and indeed you could only go to, I think you said
9 Karakaj or something like that. During this period, 300 individuals were
10 interviewed, 200 statements --
11 MS. KORNER: Oh, sorry, page 2 in English and page 2 in B/C/S.
12 No, page 1. Sorry, page 1 in B/C/S.
13 Q. 300 individuals were interviewed, 200 statements taken about the
14 activities of Muslims, 80 searches of apartments and other premises
15 belonging to Muslim extremists, all police station employees armed but
16 lack of communications equipment.
17 MS. KORNER: And then if we go to the third page in English and I
18 think it's the second page in B/C/S.
19 Q. In addition to that, the employees, the crime prevention
20 department were engaged in operative tasks. At first when the conflict
21 broke out, there were three inspectors, later on an additional five
22 inspectors were hired and a chief of the crime prevention department
24 MS. KORNER: Please the next page in English. Same page in
25 B/C/S, I think. Sorry, no, can we go to page -- sorry, we should be on
1 page 2 in B/C/S.
2 Q. Does that say "tasks and activities of the police station" in
3 B/C/S? In the middle of the --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Right. Thank you. Underneath that, in English, "Zvornik public
6 security service currently employs," and nobody can read it because
7 something's gone over it, "members of the police, 33 are active police
8 officers, all management posts have been filled."
9 MS. KORNER: Can we go down the page.
10 Q. "In the reporting period, the police employees brought in 537
11 persons for interview and interviewed 48 Muslim extremists."
12 MS. KORNER: And next page in English, please.
13 Q. "There were 336 inspection outings on the territory of the
14 Zvornik municipality ..." and so on and so forth.
15 MS. KORNER: And if we go, please, to the last page in English
16 and B/C/S.
17 Q. That's signed by Mr. Vasilic, who was the person you met, wasn't
19 A. Can I comment?
20 Q. Well, let me ask you the question: Are you saying that all of
21 that activity recorded there must have taken place after your inspection
22 and before the end of June?
23 A. I was saying that we called at Karakaj and Zvornik and that the
24 police station wasn't really operational, that it was in two offices.
25 Later on they moved to Zvornik to work. I know that on the occasion of
1 our visit, which took about an hour too, there was a personnel problem --
2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... yes, you told --
3 A. And we were trying to persuade Vasilic to take over. He was
4 deputy commander or assistant commander, as far as I remember. And
5 before him Slavko Jelic was commander but he got killed. That was the
6 problem. We were there only on a very short visit and they weren't in
7 their own facilities. There were in new facilities in Karakaj and they
8 really didn't do anything there. That's why I said that our first visit
9 wasn't really an inspection. I only found a couple of people there. I
10 remember that there was Petko and that there was Vasilic, who was deputy
12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... all right --
13 A. Or -- anyway, he wasn't chief.
14 Q. This is what -- this is what I'm trying to ask you about: You're
15 saying, effectively, because that's what you said to Mr. Cvijetic,
16 page 21877, you went mid-May or late May to this Karakaj place, they were
17 totally disorganised, they weren't operational, the police station didn't
18 have executive personnel, there was Marinko Vasilic and Petko Panic. So
19 everything they describe there on your account must have taken place
20 between mid-May and the 29th of June when this report was sent up; is
21 that right?
22 A. I haven't seen this report nor did we conduct an inspection
23 there. That's why I don't know about this report. We basically didn't
24 do anything there. I can only say what I know. And I know about this
25 information, that for a month or two this man stayed there, Pantelic.
1 That is what I know.
2 Q. All right. See, this is what I want to ask you about. I really
3 am suggesting to you, Mr. Orasanin, that for whatever reason this visit
4 or inspection was nothing of the sort, was it? Wasn't even beginning to
5 be an inspection?
6 A. Well, I don't disagree. The first visit was just to go and see
7 what they had there, to make a snap-shot. But what we saw was total
8 disorganisation. There weren't any police there. They were all
9 frightened. It was the same at Skelani and Zvornik. They were very
10 short visits. And we didn't even start with the instructive inspection.
11 And that's the only truth.
12 Q. Well, you see, this isn't right, is it?
13 MS. KORNER: But I see the time, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes, so we take the break, to pick this up in
15 another 20 minutes.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 --- Recess taken at 12.04 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 12.41 p.m.
19 JUDGE HALL: We apologise for not having announced an extended
20 break at the beginning, but we were in a meeting. We didn't think it
21 would take as long as it did.
22 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I don't think it will come as a
23 surprise to hear that I won't be finishing today, though I would've if
24 all things had been equal.
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 MS. KORNER:
2 Q. Now, I want to stay with the subject of Zvornik and what you
3 described as this non-working police station when you did your visit in
4 May. Could you have a look, please, at a document which has been given
5 the number 20159 at tab 1D of the Prosecution bundle.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I say that it was disclosed in
7 August of last year in connection with a witness who testified then. If
8 we go, please, to -- does it say "Lists of SJB Workers" on the front?
9 And can we go to the next page, please in English and B/C/S.
10 Q. A list --
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. -- of public security station workers at Zvornik. SJB chief
13 Milorad Lokancevic, I think that's the person you mentioned?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Then we see administration, communications, national security.
16 MS. KORNER: Then can we go, please, to the next page both in
17 English and B/C/S.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, only for the sake of
19 the record, we repeat our usual objection that this document does not
20 meet the conditions. It isn't on the 65 ter list. And it's for the
21 Trial Chamber to rule on its admissibility. It was disclosed in
22 connection with the Prosecution witness, but it was not used with that
24 MS. KORNER: Correct, Your Honour. And I'm dealing with his
25 assertions, and this goes to his credibility as a witness. At that
1 stage, of course, nobody knew that this witness was going to turn up and
2 make these assertions. Thank you.
3 Q. Now, next page, it's a letter dated the 1st of June, 1992,
4 addressed to the Serbian contemporary municipal government, which is a
5 somewhat odd translation, I think. I think it's the municipality. And
6 it says, submissions of the workers engaged in SJB Zvornik. Enclosed
7 with the file, we submit to you the list of active and reserve police at
8 Zvornik Public Security Station being submitted according to the payment
9 of salaries for the month of May.
10 Do you agree, Mr. Orasanin, it appears that the SJB chief
11 Mr. Pantelic is asking for the municipal authorities to pay the salaries?
12 A. Yes. I know that they were controlled by the Crisis Staff, but
13 when I was on my visit, they were in Karakaj. This is from a later
14 period. I'm speaking about the time when the police station was
15 functioning in Karakaj.
16 Q. Yes, no, no, just wait. Because you said this was a
17 non-functioning police station. Right, now, go to the next page, please.
18 They're asking for the salaries of those who worked in May, so at the
19 time when you made this visit. Employed SJB workers, numbers 1 to 33.
20 Mr. Pantelic, Mr. Vasilic, Petko Pantic, the person you spoke to, and so
21 on and so forth. 33 of them in all. Do you see?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And if we then go -- the rest are the reserve police. And it
24 runs -- I'm not going to take you through all the pages.
25 MS. KORNER: Can you pull up the B/C/S for a moment, please, or
1 is it the next page, maybe. Yes. Yep. Reserve police numbers 1 and,
2 indeed, if we go to the last page, please, in English and B/C/S.
3 Q. Does that show that there are -- there were working or attached
4 in May, and in fact it gives the dates that they apparently were working,
5 some 187 reserve police?
6 A. Yes, according to this document.
7 Q. Well, are you suggesting that Mr. Pantelic was trying to extort
8 money from the municipality by giving totally false lists of police
9 officers who were working? Surely not.
10 A. No. No, no. I didn't mean that. But possibly this list was
11 compiled later. I had the feeling that in those three offices in
12 Karakaj, I only found a few people on duty. That's how they functioned
13 in that remote police facility. Later they moved to another location.
14 Karakaj is 5 kilometres from Zvornik. That's what I'm talking about.
15 Q. Yes, but you gave the impression that you were told this was a
16 non-functioning, non-working, non-staffed police station. And we've seen
17 the report, Mr. Orasanin, that was done in June. We've now seen the list
18 of police officers. Are you saying that Mr. Vasilic, who you spoke to,
19 and Mr. Panic and everybody else told you this was a non-operating police
21 A. No, no. I had the feeling when I was there, because we were only
22 there for an hour, I spoke to Marinko, I didn't even speak to Pantelic
23 about anything, and that's why we weren't able to conduct an inspection.
24 They had their premises inside a company in Karakaj at that period. I
25 didn't see any people there. That's why I had this feeling. But I said
1 that we were only there on a very brief visit. And possibly later when
2 they moved to the police station building, once the conditions were
3 created, possibly this list was compiled, but I didn't see this these
4 people there on the premises. That's what I meant.
5 Q. But you'd been sent -- I'm sorry, Mr. Orasanin, but presumably
6 with some difficulty, given the conditions that undoubtedly existed in
7 May, you and your fellow inspectors had been sent off to do an
8 inspection. Now, why did you only spend one hour there and not make any
9 inquiries, as you clearly didn't?
10 A. I said that the first visit is something that I don't really
11 consider an inspection because the legal obligations are very serious.
12 When we went to Skelani, Zvornik, and Brcko, we didn't really review the
13 lists or registers. They were only very short visits. But we left it
14 for later inspections because we couldn't really do it. We only went
15 there to see if there is anybody, and if they are properly staffed,
16 whether there's a commander, a deputy, and that was our intention. And I
17 believe that we were successful in this respect. But the police station
18 was not in its own building, the building that was built to be a police
19 station. They weren't at Zvornik at all.
20 Q. You've said that three times, Mr. Orasanin. What I am trying to
21 get you to explain is how, given the reality of how Zvornik was
22 operating, as we can see from documents, you gained the impressions it
23 was not operating at all and presumably reported back to your superiors,
24 or somebody else, that it wasn't operating.
25 A. As far as the functioning is concerned, I meant the executives,
1 the commander and his deputy. Slavko Eric, the deputy commander was
2 killed as far as I know, and they said that their problem was nobody
3 wanted to take over his duty. And that's what I remember, something
4 conspicuous. But I didn't see any people there at that location. And
5 that's why I concluded that they weren't functioning, because management
6 was a problem. They had the staffing issue of nobody willing to accept
7 the position of the one who was killed. That's what I remember.
8 Marinko Vasilic.
9 Q. Did you ask Mr. Vasilic, Do you have police officers or reserve
10 police officers who are working at this time? Did you ask that simple
12 A. Well, yes. There was Drago Borovcanin on behalf of the police
13 administration. That was his duty. I was tasked to see about crime
14 prevention. The police station should be placed under the command of the
15 ministry, and he should become commander instead of the one who was
17 Q. Yes, well, I think I've taken this as far as I can take it.
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I do ask that this document now be
19 admitted. As I say, it was disclosed last year; that's accepted by the
20 Defence. Its relevance has only become now apparent as a result of the
21 evidence which this witness gave, and this document clearly demonstrates
22 that this witness is in error.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE HALL: The Chamber agrees that the document may be admitted
25 and marked as being received on the issue of credibility only.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P2351, Your Honours.
2 MS. KORNER:
3 Q. Now, although I'm going to turn to that a little later in more
4 detail, you also asserted that this period, and indeed for some months,
5 Zvornik was not attached to any CSB. Do you remember making that
7 A. Yes, I said that the stations in Podrinje were not included in
8 the organisational structure. And later on they were placed under the
9 responsibility of the Sarajevo CSB. I don't remember the date when that
11 Q. All right. Could you have a look, please, at a document which is
12 P -- it's actually an exhibit, I think. Just a moment, just let me check
13 that. I don't want to get that wrong. It is P2005. Tab 4C.
14 This is apparently a fax document, but it comes, apparently, from
15 the chief of the CSB Bijeljina, Mr. Jesuric. Did you know Mr. Jesuric at
16 the time to be the chief of the CSB in Bijeljina?
17 A. Yes, as chief.
18 Q. Is he actually writing to the ministry for the attention of the
19 minister, stating that on the 27th of April, so before your visit: "I
20 visited the Zvornik SJB, acquainted with him, learned about their
21 situation. We have agreed upon steps for returning the situation back to
22 normal and everyday life in Zvornik municipality. You will be informed
23 on time about particular operation," blah, blah, blah, and "help
24 forwarded from Bijeljina CSB to Zvornik SJB."
25 So could you be wrong, Mr. Orasanin, when you say that Zvornik
1 was not attached to any CSB?
2 A. Well, as far as I know and as far as I can see, at the time the
3 Bijeljina CSB did not function. It was later organised. And this
4 document reads Bijeljina SJB, and it speaks about the Zvornik SJB. So
5 it's the pre-war organisation and the war-time organisation. And as far
6 as I know, the Bijeljina CSB was only set up later. And this document
7 does not speak about the CSB. I think that's how it was. I remember,
8 yes, there was a special station. The Zvornik SJB was under the
9 Bijeljina CSB, during the war remained in the same position as before the
10 war. I cannot see here that this is about the CSB. This is about SJBs.
11 They kept the pre-war organisation.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the English
13 version, the line "Bijeljina SJB" is indeed missing, whereas it's present
14 in the original. You can see it says "Stanica Javne Bezbjedrosti
15 Bijeljina" in the third line from the top.
16 MS. KORNER: Sorry, you're quite right, but that's not --
17 Q. I'm not dealing with where -- it's the text. Does the text read,
18 and if it doesn't, please let me know: "You will be informed about -- on
19 time about particular operations, assignments, and help forwarded from
20 Bijeljina CSB to Zvornik SJB"? Is that what the document says? And
21 equally, is the signature of Mr. Jesuric, chief of Bijeljina CSB?
22 A. Yes, but I remember that the two stations were functioning.
23 Bijeljina is one and Zvornik is the other. This is probably a mistake.
24 We should check the stamp. But as far as I remember -- actually, I'm
25 sure that I remember that there was no Bijeljina CSB. It came into
1 existence later when the MUP headquarters was moved to Bijeljina,
2 possibly in July or August. I don't understand why Jesuric is writing to
3 the station if they are at the same level. This must be a mistake,
4 this -- where it says CSB. We should check the seal.
5 Q. Mr. Orasanin, the Court has heard evidence, firstly, and you've
6 seen it, that the CSB Bijeljina was created by the Law on
7 Internal Affairs passed in March 1992. Additionally, the Court has seen,
8 and I can show it to you if we can find it, the appointment of
9 Mr. Jesuric as the chief of the CSB made by Mico Stanisic in April, or
10 temporary appointment, I think it was, until later.
11 So please do not go off on frolics of your own. If the fact is
12 that you simply don't know and are just guessing when you make these
13 statements, then say so.
14 Now, the original question was: You clearly, Mr. Orasanin, when
15 you made these assertions about these stations and the CSBs, were unaware
16 of what the situation was; isn't that correct?
17 A. Yes, I didn't know the organisation, although it was there.
19 MS. KORNER: And, Your Honours, I'm reminded that the temporary
20 appointment of Mr. Jesuric as the chief of the CSB Bijeljina is P2017.
21 And it was confirmed on the 15th of May, as so many of the others were.
22 Q. Right. Now, finally, on Zvornik, can we look at one other
23 document to lay to rest all your -- the information you gave about
24 Zvornik. Could you look, please, at P348, which is tab 35A. And it's a
25 very long document, so I'll try and direct you to the ...
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we get the
2 document that Ms. Korner cited as the foundation for her assertion on the
3 appointment of Mr. Jesuric. That was P2017. That's how it was recorded.
4 Could we just see it on our screens.
5 MS. KORNER: Sorry, it's the wrong exhibit number. It's 14 --
6 I'm sorry, P1409. Sorry, Your Honours, I gave the wrong number. It's
7 P1409. Can we take off this document and go to that one, please.
8 Q. Do you recognise the stamp and the signature of Mico Stanisic,
9 1st of April?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And does that show Predrag Jesuric temporarily appointed as head
12 of the CSB Bijeljina?
13 A. Yes, according to this document. But I don't remember this. I
14 know that he was chief of an SJB. That's what I remember. I don't know
15 this document. He was chief of an SJB. And when we were in Bijeljina,
16 that's how we treated them. And we asked to see Boro Grkinic.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a convenient
18 moment for the comparison of both documents. The one used by
19 Ms. Korner --
20 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. This is cross-examination.
21 If Mr. Cvijetic wants to take up these matters, he can do so in
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we just scroll up because
24 there is a handwritten remark at the top. We can see a date, a
25 handwritten date. It says sent to Bijeljina on 19 April 1992. And
1 there's another appointment with the same date, and I call it up and
2 Ms. Korner did erroneously. Maybe it would be good to see them both.
3 P2017. One appointment --
4 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I really object to this. I'm sorry --
5 JUDGE HALL: Just a moment, please.
6 MS. KORNER: I --
7 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, do I understand the basis of your
8 intervention to be that the document to which Ms. Korner has referred is
9 the - I don't want to use the word wrong - is the wrong document, and
10 that if the correct document is shown, she may wish to rephrase her
11 question? Because if it isn't that, then I would have to agree with her
12 that you should wait until your turn comes in re-examination.
13 Could you clarify that for me, please.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yes, I can, very
15 briefly. I'm afraid that the Prosecutor is leading the witness astray
16 because -- and that's why it would be good to see both documents.
17 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner.
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, up till now there's never been any
19 suggestion that Mr. Jesuric was not the chief of the CSB Bijeljina.
20 We've got the permanent appointment as well, but I don't want to get
21 sidetracked down this. I think if Mr. Cvijetic says I've got it wrong,
22 then he can deal with it in re-examination. The permanent appointment is
23 P546, the 15th of May. But, Your Honours, I only went down this because
24 he said he wasn't aware of it.
25 JUDGE HALL: Well, we leave it for re-examination.
1 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much.
2 JUDGE HALL: Let's move on.
3 MS. KORNER: And, Your Honours, can I just make it absolutely
4 clear that there is another appointment the same day. I don't want
5 anybody to think I'm misleading the Court. But his permanent appointment
6 is confirmed on the 15th of May, and the evidence throughout from
7 numerous witnesses has been that's what Mr. Jesuric was.
8 Q. And the only point that I'm trying to make with you,
9 Mr. Orasanin, is that you make sweeping assertions without really knowing
10 the facts. That's the problem, isn't it?
11 Mr. Orasanin? You actually make sweeping assertions when you're
12 not aware of the facts?
13 A. No, Madam Prosecutor. As for this document, it's probably a
14 valid document. But at the time I thought he was chief of the SJB
15 because that's what he was before, and that's what I remembered. And
16 probably this temporary point is valid.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I must intervene.
18 The third document Ms. Korner has referred to is not an appointment -- is
19 not the appointment of a chief.
20 MS. KORNER: I can see that in order to satisfy -- I'm just going
21 to be continually interrupted. Let's have all the three documents one,
22 after the other, that refer to Mr. Jesuric. Could we have P2017 up.
23 Q. Right. On the 19th of April, so some 18 days later, Mr. Jesuric
24 is also -- is temporarily appointed to the task and duties of the head of
25 the personnel section in the MUP BiH. Did you know that?
1 A. I don't remember this appointment either.
2 Q. All right.
3 MS. KORNER: And finally can we look at the one on the
4 15th of May, which is P456.
5 Q. "Decision: Predrag Jesuric is appointed as head of the
6 CSB Bijeljina, member of the MUP staff Serbian Republic Bosnia and
7 Herzegovina for command and control of the general forces of the Ministry
8 of the Interior."
9 Did you know about that, Mr. Orasanin?
10 A. I didn't know about the decision. I know that he was physically
11 present in Bijeljina in that building, but what kind of job he did,
12 whether he was chief of SJB or a centre chief, but he always used the
13 same office. I know that he was physically present, but the personnel --
14 the details of the personnel policy, well, I worked in a different
15 administration, the crime prevention administration, and it wasn't my
16 duty to be acquainted with these decisions except in my line of work.
17 Q. I understand. Mr. Orasanin, stop. I understand that. I'm not
18 criticizing you for one moment for not knowing about these appointments.
19 I'm merely pointing out to you, as I say, that when you made the
20 assertion about Zvornik not having any -- being attached to any CSB from
21 that document from Mr. Jesuric, who signs himself chief of the CSB, it
22 would appear you were mistaken. But I've dealt with that. And I'd like
23 now, if I can not have any further interruptions, please, to go back to
24 the document I wanted to ask you about, which is P348 at tab 35A.
25 Now, at line 2 of this handwriting document, can we see that it
1 says report of the Serbian security centres in Zvornik for the year 1992?
2 A. [No interpretation]
3 MS. KORNER: And if we go, please, in the English to page 20 of
4 59, it may be because of the -- the number -- the ERN -- it's quite
5 difficult. Can I just see what comes up. In B/C/S I can say that the --
6 it should be 0176-9084. Yes, that's it in English. And in B/C/S it
7 should be ... yep. Thank you very much.
8 Q. Right. It says it's a description of the activities undertaken
9 on the organisation and winning over of personnel for the Serbian MUP by
10 the 4th of April. And there's a long description, which I think the
11 Court has already been through before, about how Zvornik was taken over.
12 MS. KORNER: But can we go, please, to the -- it will be three
13 pages on in English, and it should be on page 1769086 [sic], page 19.
15 Q. And here we go on Karakaj, Mr. Orasanin:
16 "Serb SJB based in Karakaj was formed on the 5th of April, 1992.
17 The station had about 29 active and 50 reserve policemen. A decision was
18 then reached on the makeup of the senior staff SJB chief, the station was
19 operational, had organised all patrols, held all check-points,
20 barricades, and reserve had risen to 70 policemen. SJB personnel acting
21 together with the forces of the Serb TO took hold of the town on the
22 8th of April."
23 And then under C do you see, I hope, that "in addition, work on
24 the clearing up of the SJB building continued so the building could be
25 used -- the station in Karakaj transferred its operation to the building
1 of Zvornik SJB sometime around the 15th of May."
2 I hope that appears there somewhere. Can you see that bit?
3 MS. KORNER: No, sorry, it's the wrong page. No, I'm sorry,
4 Your Honours, I haven't got the right page in English. The page in
5 English should say, at the bottom, 22 of 59. Next page, please. Oh,
6 previous, sorry. It's so small I can't read it, myself, on the screen.
7 For some unknown reason the translation or the copying was done in that
8 way. It should be the penultimate paragraph on that page that's got C.
9 Can we highlight that paragraph, please. Zoom in, rather. In English.
10 No, you can't. See, it's going to be difficult.
11 Q. Anyhow, and finally:
12 "During May, the following organisational units operated within
13 the SJB: A police station of about 400 men strong, 31 of whom were
14 policemen active service, crime enforcement department which had 7,
15 department for general, legal, and administration affairs which had 9."
16 MS. KORNER: We need to go to the next page in English.
17 Q. "At the end of May, the SJB had a total of 420 employees."
18 Now, that's all I want to put to you about Zvornik. You must
19 have been wrong, mustn't you, Mr. Orasanin, when you told the Court that
20 this was a non-operating, non-functional police station?
21 A. What I know is this: When we paid a visit to Karakaj, it was my
22 impression that they were not functioning, because I only found three or
23 four people there. That was what I saw. They were in Karakaj when I saw
24 them. We were there in the first half of May, and this report speaks
25 about a later time after they had changed their location and there were
1 conditions in place for their work. When we visited Karakaj, they were
2 not on their own, they shared the building with somebody else. They had
3 one, maybe two or three, offices. That's why my impression was that they
4 were not properly functioning, because I only found four or five of them
5 there. And then they moved to Zvornik to a police station where the
6 conditions were better, and the report is about that, about that second
7 location, which was a big improvement, hence the difference in the
8 impressions and descriptions.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Orasanin, could you remind me how long you
10 were in Karakaj?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] An hour. We just popped over.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: So as for Zvornik, your conclusion about the
13 functioning of the SJB in Karakaj was based on a one-hour visit? That's
14 right, isn't it?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: And is that a reasonable -- a reasonable way of
17 concluding about how a police station functions, when you are there for
18 one hour?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I agree. Those were blitz
20 visits. And that's why I was saying that they were not supervisions or
21 inspections. There were no conditions in place for that. We visited
22 those stations only in passing. And when we saw the conditions that they
23 were in, we went back in order to report for things to be improved. That
24 was the purpose of our visits to Bijeljina, Brcko. Those are not proper
25 inspections as they were prescribed. What I saw is what I -- is the
1 truth of the matter. This is the truth. That's what I saw. Later on
2 things may have changed, but I know nothing about that. I'm talking
3 about the first visit, about what we saw during that visit, and about
4 information that we received on that occasion.
5 We saw a few rooms -- sometime later their rooms had been
6 broken -- were broken into. I learned that subsequently. But during
7 that one hour that I was there, I just saw what I saw. It was not a
8 proper inspection. I can't speak about anything that happened
9 subsequently in Zvornik and Bijeljina. I based my impressions on our
10 blitz visit, on that one hour. We could not do a professional
11 inspection, and we couldn't do anything that was within our purview. My
12 colleagues will confirm that, because later on they returned to their
13 previous building, the building that was functioning properly, where all
14 the conditions were in place for their functioning.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, I would suggest that you move on.
16 MS. KORNER: Yes. The difficulty, Your Honour, is -- [Microphone
17 not activated] -- the difficulty is, of course, these are quite
18 important, these inspections, but.
19 Q. Can you just answer this simply: Were your instructions from
20 your superiors who sent the three of you out there simply to conduct, as
21 you put it, a blitz visit?
22 A. No. When we departed, we were aware of all the regulations and
23 the laws. We thought that we could -- we were able -- we would be able
24 to do everything properly. When we arrived, we saw that there was a
25 state of confusion, we saw that there were problems. That's why we --
1 Q. Yes, yes, stop. All I asked you was whether your instructions
2 were for blitz and you've answered that no. Right.
3 Let's move, please, to Skelani, that same visit, where you told
4 the Court, at page 2188 -- 21880, that you saw somebody there, and there
5 was -- a Mr. Milanovic, and there wasn't a proper police station. Right.
6 Skelani, would you agree, was a very, very small place indeed?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Just trying to find my census document.
9 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honours, I had flitting around somewhere
10 the census document. I just wanted to put the ... All right, I'll come
11 back to that.
12 Well, can we have it up on the screen, actually, it's the
13 easiest. It's P230, please. No, that's not -- is that P230? Sorry,
14 then I've given the wrong, as usual. Oh, I'm sorry, P2321. And can we
15 go in that to page -- we don't need any English for it. P2321. And I'd
16 like to go to the ERN number which is 0048213 [sic]. Sorry, 8213.
17 Your Honours, I don't want -- at the moment I'm afraid there's --
18 every now and again my note goes wrong. I did have the right pages
19 printed out, but they've gone walk-about as well. So forget that.
20 Page 303.
21 All right. Instead of which, can we have, please, a document
22 which is 20163, 16A. [Microphone not activated] This is tab 16A that we
23 are looking at now.
24 Q. Does that show that at this very small town, which we've found
25 the census in a moment, in May this was apparently an operating SJB, with
1 some ten officers working?
2 A. Yes, the list proves it.
3 Q. Right. So again, Skelani, which, as I say -- well, perhaps we
4 better show -- we finally found the census.
5 MS. KORNER: Right. Can we have the document back I asked for,
6 2321, Exhibit P2321. And can we go in that to 0048-2139. Page 230,
7 B/C/S. We only need it in B/C/S.
8 Q. Number 2 on the list, Skelani, which is part of the Srebrenica
9 municipality; is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 1948 through to 1981.
12 MS. KORNER: We need to go to the next page, please, to find out
13 the figures for 1991.
14 Q. Second line down again, 1.123 in total persons, of which 950 were
15 Muslim, 160 were Serb, and seven describe themselves as Yugoslav;
17 A. [No interpretation]
18 Q. It was in fact, wasn't it, largely a Muslim town which had been
19 taken over by the Serbs, attacked, hadn't it?
20 A. I had never been in Skelani before that. That was my first time.
21 And the information here, yes, this is what it says.
22 Q. And therefore it had an adequately functioning SJB for the number
23 of people who were present, didn't it, in May?
24 A. Previously it was just a brand [as interpreted] police station,
25 if I remember the organisation well.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Branch police
3 MS. KORNER:
4 Q. Yes, but -- I'm sorry, you gave the Court the impression again,
5 Mr. Orasanin, that when you visited Skelani there was virtually nothing
6 there, there was just one man. In fact, it had, did it not, a perfectly
7 functioning police station; it had a chief, a station commander, and
8 eight other police officers working there?
9 A. I didn't say that it was totally dysfunctional or not
10 functioning. There were police officers there. But as far as I
11 remember, they had problems. They were just -- there was just one
12 office. I don't know whether they went on to develop into a proper
13 police station and I don't know on whose orders. However, before we
14 arrived there, the ministry had not done it. The ministry had not set it
15 up properly. That's what I can claim.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, didn't the witness answer this
17 question at page 73 -- your question -- 72/24 and 25, your question, and
18 73, line 2: "Yes, the list proves it."
19 MS. KORNER: Right. Sometimes, you know, you get caught up.
20 Thank you.
21 Q. That's all I wanted to ask you there. All right.
22 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, in this particular case, although I
23 would like to have it exhibited, it is not a document that had been
24 disclosed before and that is because nobody had ever talked about
25 Skelani, nor is Srebrenica one of the municipalities in the indictment,
1 but until this witness came along and gave this information. So it's a
2 document that purely goes to his credit. And I make the application
3 notwithstanding that it hadn't been disclosed before because this really
4 could not have been anticipated and equally wasn't relevant to any matter
5 at all except, as I say, his credibility.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Would you remind us the tab number, please?
7 MS. KORNER: It's tab --
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Is it 16A?
9 MS. KORNER: 16A.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, he has looked at the document and spoken
12 to it. We don't need to have it exhibited.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I won't press the matter then.
14 Your Honours, I'm going to move on to a slightly different topic,
15 and I note -- well, I can start it and we'll see where we go in five
17 Q. You discussed -- sorry, you answered questions from Mr. Cvijetic,
18 beginning at 21883, about the police officers not being under your
19 command because you -- they hadn't got decisions as to the appointment
20 from the minister, and we dealt with that briefly. But one of the things
21 that you said, and this is at 21884, is:
22 "Once an employee of the MUP receives a decision, then according
23 to the regulations and according to the rules of procedure on internal
24 structure, the person has certain rights, but also has certain
25 obligations. The rights are that he would get a salary."
1 So, Mr. Orasanin, if there are documents showing that persons
2 were receiving salaries as police officers, then it follows from what you
3 are saying whether or not there was a written appointment, it was
4 accepted that he was a police officer?
5 A. As far as I know and as far as I know the regulations, it is
6 clear. A person who had received decision on employment pursuant to the
7 labour law and the law on internal affairs, that person has rights and
8 obligations. And as far as the payrolls are concerned, those persons
9 whose names are on the payrolls must use police authorities. That's why
10 they are authorised officials, which is uniformed police who work on
11 crime prevention and crime detection. And they had to use police
12 authorities. Anybody else working in financial departments or
13 administrative departments, they don't have police authorities, and they
14 are not considered authorised personnel or authorised officials because
15 they are not police officers.
16 Q. Right. But this is the point. You -- your complaint, and many
17 others have complained the same, is that appointments or people are being
18 put into place not by the minister but by Crisis Staffs. It was open,
19 wasn't it, to the minister to accept that appointment and agree with it,
20 whether in writing or verbally?
21 A. All I know is that this is correct. That when a decision is
22 issued, that a person acquires rights and obligations and is in a
23 position to use police authorities. It is not whether they are on a
24 payroll or whether they receive salaries, especially when it comes to the
25 reserve police. According to regulations, when a policeman is engaged as
1 a reserve policeman and if he only works for seven days, he is furnished
2 with an official ID, a pistol, and that person performs duties for seven
3 days, and during those seven days he is an authorised official. When his
4 tour is finished, he returns all those things, goes home, and he no
5 longer has authorities as a policemen. Those are the differences. And
6 as far as I know, this is how things worked, this is how it was
7 regulated. It doesn't mean that everybody on the payroll belonged to the
8 MUP or that they were authorised officials. And I'm now referring to
9 crime prevention and detection police officers and inspectors.
10 Q. Yes, I understand the difference between those who were
11 authorised officials and those who were not. What I'm asking you about,
12 and just listen to this question: Even if the original appointment is
13 done by the Crisis Staff or the municipal authority, it is open, is it
14 not, to the minister to accept and authorise that appointment, whether in
15 writing or verbally, or by simply doing nothing at all?
16 A. Well, in -- what I know is that those people had to comply with
17 certain requirements, irrespective of who issued the decision. That was
18 the problem. They had to comply with certain legal requirements. And as
19 for that decision that you're referring to, in this case it was the
20 Crisis Staffs who appointed people. But they were not authorised to do
21 that. Under the law, they were not supposed to have anything to do with
22 the police organisation. Neither the local authorities nor the
23 Crisis Staffs were supposed to have anything to do with the police. They
24 should have acted in keeping with the Law on Internal Affairs.
25 Q. Stop, Mr. Orasanin. I understand that. What I am putting to
1 you -- just try and concentrate and don't go off on a tangent. Is it, in
2 your long experience as a police officer, open to the minister to accept
3 and confirm, whether verbally or in writing, an appointment which has
4 been made by the Crisis Staff? Is that within his authority, yes or no?
5 A. He could only issue decisions in keeping with the law. He could
6 not have done it ad hoc. He could not have made ad hoc approvals. But
7 this is not what I'm versed in. I'm not a legal expert or professional.
8 MS. KORNER: All right. Your Honours, that will be as far as we
9 can take it today, I think.
10 JUDGE HALL: Yes. We reconvene in the afternoon tomorrow. And
11 I'm advised that we are in this courtroom again. So we take the
13 [The witness stands down]
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 9th day
16 of June, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.