1 Thursday, 16 June 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon,
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 afternoon to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
11 MS. KORNER: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Joanna Korner and
12 Indah Susanti standing in for Crispian Smith for approximately the next
13 two weeks for the Prosecution.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
15 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for
16 Stanisic Defence this afternoon. Thank you.
17 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. For
18 the Defence of Mr. Stojan Zupljanin, it's Aleksandar Aleksic. Thank you.
19 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Ms. Korner.
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, yesterday you asked if we could give
21 you a response by this afternoon to the Stanisic's 14th of June, so
22 Monday's, motion for leave to amend his Rule 65 ter list. Your Honours,
23 as I speak, of the 41 documents listed, 12 still do not have
24 translations. So we cannot deal with those at all.
25 Your Honours, can I just mention something in passing, yesterday
1 Mr. Zecevic remarked that the search engine for EDS did not always
2 produce the desired results. And can I just say that this is something
3 we've been saying throughout, that our search engines don't, without any
4 sympathy from the Defence at all. And so we trust the Court will not be
5 very impressed by that.
6 The -- a number of the documents which start with the ERN numbers
7 0360-9, in fact the Defence have already got several documents starting
8 with these ERN numbers from EDS. And so, as I say, it does rather add to
9 our, I suppose it's complaint, that they could have discovered these
10 documents before, had they run proper searches.
11 However, having said all that, of the documents that relate to,
12 effectively, the CSB Sarajevo, which run from 65 ter 922D1 through to
13 952D1 - in all, 31 documents - we do not object to the addition of the
14 following, and I will read it out slowly so that it's, I hope, on the
15 transcript for Your Honours: 924D1, 925D1, 928D1, 929D1, 933D1, 936D1,
16 949D1. And so we don't object to the addition to the 65 ter list.
17 We do object to the following because we say they have no
18 relevance at the present that we can see. Some relate to municipalities
19 outside the indictment. Some relate to events that are irrelevant to
20 this case. And those are: 923D1, 926D1, 931D1, 932D1, 934D1, 937D1,
22 The further category for which we object are those that, although
23 they could be said to be marginally relevant, are not sufficiently
24 important, which is the test, to be added at this stage: 922D1, 930D1,
25 935D1, 950D1.
1 Your Honours, 65 ter 927D1 is a list of operatives which was
2 tendered through Mr. Tusevljak yesterday. Now, the version that was
3 tendered, in fact, has a different ERN and has additional handwritten
4 markings on the one, the one that was exhibited yesterday, and so we
5 query whether 927D1 adds anything to the document that was admitted, but
6 we agree that it's relevant.
7 Your Honours, no translations that I said, and I won't bother to
8 read out all the numbers. They're not available for 12 of the documents.
9 Nine documents of these relate to the witness that the Defence have
10 dropped, Mr. Vlaco. They were disclosed by us. They are 65 ter 953D1 to
11 961D1. We do not object to their addition, however, despite the fact of
12 the witness having been dropped to the 65 ter list.
13 And, Your Honour, the last one was the map of Sarajevo that was
14 drawn, or marked, by Mr. Tusevljak when he was interviewed by the OTP and
15 that's already been admitted.
16 Your Honour, I hope -- that's as helpful as we can be, given, as
17 I say, the lack of translations for the rest. Your Honours, may I also
18 publicly thank Mr. Demirdjian who spent most of this morning going
19 through this rather time-consuming exercise.
20 JUDGE HALL: Well, we commend the OTP for the effort they put
21 into being able to respond in a timely fashion and indicate their
22 position by classification. So that's all very helpful. Thank you,
23 Ms. Korner.
24 Anything to add, Mr. Zecevic?
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, perhaps I will have a comment
1 on some of these documents and the classification which was made by the
2 Office of the Prosecutor; however, I wasn't put on notice that Ms. Korner
3 would orally give their position.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 MR. ZECEVIC: And, therefore, I can only give our position on
6 these documents once the documents are brought to me in hard copy. And
7 after the break I can give our position on that.
8 JUDGE HALL: Yes, we understand.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
10 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
11 So would the usher please escort the witness back to the stand.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Tusevljak, good afternoon to you, sir. Before
14 Mr. Zecevic continues his examination-in-chief, I remind you you're still
15 on your oath.
16 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you. If I can ask the usher to provide the
18 binder to the witness, please. Thank you.
19 WITNESS: SIMO TUSEVLJAK [Resumed]
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 Examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]
22 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Tusevljak.
23 A. Good afternoon.
24 Q. Yesterday, 1D182, tab 2, was the document that we were dealing
25 with as we were about to break off.
1 Tell me, Mr. Tusevljak ... actually, I think you've answered that
2 question, but let me put it once again: In mid-July did you go to
3 Vogosca to visit the public security station of Vogosca?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. On that occasion did you speak to the chief of the
6 public security station, and what was the situation that you saw for
7 yourself at the Vogosca Public Security Station?
8 A. We spoke to the chief, and the situation we saw there was --
9 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the word.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- because the crime prevention
11 department was not functioning at all.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [No interpretation]
13 MS. KORNER: No translation.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. I shall repeat. Can you hear the interpretation now? Could you
16 please repeat your answer because the interpreters did not catch the
17 second part of your answer, the one that had to do with the situation
18 that you found at the public security station of Vogosca.
19 A. It was chaotic because the crime police was not functioning at
20 all at that station.
21 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, yesterday while you were testifying, when you were
22 shown a report that the operatives of the CSB compiled in July, you said
23 that that was the first information that you had received from Vogosca.
24 Did I understand you correctly?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I'm going to show you the next document, that is tab 67.
2 65 ter 132D1. This document is dated the 26th of July, 1992, that is to
3 say, after you went to Vogosca. It is signed by the chief of the public
4 security station, Borislav Maksimovic.
5 Do you remember this report of Mr. Maksimovic?
6 A. This report was sent to the Ministry of the Interior and it was
7 not sent to the CSB Sarajevo, whereas 69 --
8 Q. [Microphone not activated]
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Zecevic, please.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This first report, 67, was sent to
11 the Ministry of the Interior and then it was probably forwarded to us in
12 Lukavica as well. That's what we discussed.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Tell me, Mr. Tusevljak, before this report do you remember having
15 received any reports from Vogosca apart from this one from the end of
16 July 1992?
17 A. No. I as the then chief of the crime police department did not
18 receive a single report. That department simply did not exist.
19 Q. In paragraph 3 of this report on page 1 it is stated that in the
20 months of May, June, and July ten policemen were engaged on the front
21 line. Do you know whether some dispatches arrived at the CSB from
22 Vogosca to other departments before this one at the end of July?
23 A. I'm not aware of any.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would
1 like to tender this document.
2 MS. KORNER: Sorry. Can you take it if I don't get up and
3 object, I have no objections.
4 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D577, Your Honours.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Sir, let us please have a look at 932D1, tab 173.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, a moment ago
9 Ms. Korner said on page 2, line 18, that some of these documents,
10 including this one, do not -- or, rather, are irrelevant for this case
11 and that they have to do with events that are of no relevance to this
12 case. I absolutely disagree, since you will see from the document that
13 this document pertains to Vogosca. That is a municipality that is
14 included in this indictment. And this is an order of the chief to send
15 active, experienced policemen to the territory of the municipality of
17 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, do you see this order in front of you? The date
18 is the 10th of September and it is signed by the chief of the CSB,
19 Zoran Cvijetic.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Tell me, do you recognise Mr. Cvijetic's signature on this
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. The chief of the CSB by way of this order addresses some of these
25 subordinate public security stations and asks them to appoint some
1 active-duty policemen and to assign them to work on certain tasks in
2 Vogosca; do you recall that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Tell me, what was the reason for these policemen, these
5 experienced professional policemen, to be sent by --
6 MS. KORNER: Just a moment, there's no -- the words "experienced"
7 do not appear. It asks that they be experienced. It asks in paragraph 2
8 that they should be experienced. It doesn't say that those who were sent
9 were experienced.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Ms. Korner, it says clearly in -- at least in
11 Serbian, "the policemen who will be dispatched need to be experienced and
13 MS. KORNER: In the future. It doesn't mean to say that's what
14 happened, which is what you said.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm just talking about the order. This is the
16 order of the chief of the CSB. And clearly, Ms. Korner, chief of the CSB
17 requests that the people who are sent are experienced and qualified
19 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, I confess that I don't understand the
20 basis of your objection.
21 MS. KORNER: Yes. The objection was that what was the reason for
22 these experienced professional policemen to be sent, in other words, it
23 suggested that they be sent. My quarrel was with the way Mr. Zecevic put
24 it. If he simply read out the words that were in the document, in
25 English anyhow, that's one matter.
1 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed, Mr. Zecevic.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, do you know whether these policemen from these
4 police stations, the ones that are mentioned here, whether they actually
5 went to Vogosca?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Tell me, what was the reason for these policemen with these
8 characteristics to go to Vogosca?
9 A. Because it was obvious that the policemen who were working in
10 Vogosca at the police station were not up to the task for which they were
11 there in the first place, that is to say, to establish law and order and
12 to prevent the commission of different crimes.
13 Q. After this group of policemen went there, a total of 30, I
14 believe, did the situation in the public security station of Vogosca
15 change? Did it improve?
16 A. According to the information that we received, the situation was
17 considerably improved.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
20 tender this document into evidence. Obviously it is a relevant document.
21 And I don't know whether Ms. Korner intends to withdraw her objection.
22 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] No, Your Honour, I don't.
23 No, Your Honour, I don't. For two reasons: Firstly, it hasn't
24 been explained why the police officers went there; it hasn't been
25 explained - I'm just checking - whether the witness actually saw this
1 document at the time and, if so, why; third, he hasn't explained how he
2 knows that these officers were actually sent there. So we say this
3 witness cannot -- unless he can give further evidence about it, allow
4 this document to be admitted. We simply don't know what they were sent
5 there for.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Well --
7 JUDGE HALL: But isn't the document on its face relevant,
8 Ms. Korner?
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, in what sense? It simply says these
10 officers were sent to Vogosca. If one knew why they were sent there,
11 that would be one matter, but we don't. Your Honour, I have no doubt at
12 all that if one went through, ploughed through, all the documentation,
13 found many examples of officers being transferred from one police station
14 to another. There could have been combat, sickness, anything. We have
15 no idea why. If it's said to be relevant to an issue, then we have to
16 know why they were sent there.
17 JUDGE HALL: I think I now understand your objection, Ms. Korner.
18 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I'm probably missing something here.
20 The objection -- the objection by Ms. Korner at the beginning of today
21 was that the document 932 is irrelevant because it deals with the events
22 which are outside the scope of the indictment and it's irrelevant for
23 this case. That was her objection. Now we are getting another
24 objection, a different objection. However, however, if I may just quote
25 the transcript, the answer of the witness. My question was:
1 "Q. Mr. Tusevljak, tell me, what was the reason for these
2 policemen with these characteristics to go to Vogosca?" Meaning
3 experienced and qualified policemen.
4 "A. Because it was obvious that the policemen who were working in
5 Vogosca at the police station were not up to the task for which they were
6 there in the first place, that is to say, to establish law and order and
7 to prevent the commission of different crimes.
8 "Q. After this group of policemen went there, a total of 30, I
9 believe, did the situation in the public security station of Vogosca
10 change? Did it improve?
11 "A. According to the information that we received, the situation
12 was considerably improved."
13 Before that, Mr. Tusevljak said:
14 "The chief of the CSB by way of this order addresses some of the
15 subordinate public stations and ask them to appoint some of the" -- no,
16 that's my question. He confirms that.
17 And then, yes, another question:
18 "Q. Mr. Tusevljak, do you know whether these policemen from this
19 police station, the ones that are mentioned here, whether they actually
20 went to Vogosca?
21 "A. Yes."
22 Now, I'm probably, then, missing something, Your Honours.
23 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, can I -- I know he said yes, but
24 he doesn't explain how -- this document, on the face of it, has
25 absolutely nothing do with him or his department. I've no doubt at all
1 he's happy to agree with any questions that Mr. Zecevic puts to him, but
2 unless he can explain how he knows this, what they were actually sent
3 there to do, Your Honours, we say this document is not admissible.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. I will happily ask additional questions.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tusevljak, so I wouldn't accidently make a
6 mistake, I will quote Ms. Korner and I will ask you that question.
7 How do you know that these members of the police went to Vogosca?
8 A. At the Sarajevo CSB, we had morning collegium meetings. In
9 addition to the chief of the Security Services Centre, it was attended by
10 the chief of police, myself as the chief of crime prevention police,
11 chief of the administration department, chief of communications, and
12 perhaps some of the other managerial staff. At these morning meetings we
13 discussed the current problems, both at the centre or in the territory of
14 the centre, about which we sometimes received information.
15 As you can see, this document dates from the month of
16 September 1992. And as early as in July, that is to say, almost two
17 months earlier, we noticed problems at that police station. And by this
18 date the problems had not yet been overcome. For that reason, the chief
19 of police and the chief of the centre - and I was also among those
20 consulted, because the crime prevention police, although it had already
21 been set up at the time, had not been producing any results - it was
22 decided to try and select professional staff from these police stations,
23 that is to say, policemen who already had police experience from before
24 the war, and have them try and help their colleagues at the public
25 security station in Vogosca in carrying out their police duties.
1 Q. Thank you. And another question asked by Ms. Korner: What was
2 their task once they were sent to Vogosca? What specifically were they
3 supposed to do there?
4 A. Establishing public law and order, prevention of commission of
5 crimes, and setting up check-points in order to ensure that the life of
6 the citizens would be normal and undisturbed.
7 Q. Do you know whether they really carried out this task?
8 A. As far as I know, they stayed for over a month in Vogosca and
9 they managed to do this and to carry out the task.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, once again I tender
11 this document into evidence.
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, in the light of the evidence now, I
13 withdraw the objection.
14 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D578, Your Honours.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Sir, in your opinion, or in view of the Sarajevo CSB
18 Birac-Romanija at the time, was responsible or the most responsible for
19 such a situation at the Vogosca Public Security Station [as interpreted]?
20 A. It was the then chief of that police station.
21 Q. Thank you. Were any measures taken against the chief of that
22 police station because of the shortcomings in his work, I mean the
23 overall shortcomings?
24 A. I know that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
25 chief and commander. A criminal report was filed for some other
1 activities, and they were eventually removed from the police force.
2 Q. I will show you document 1D184, tab 26.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Tab 26. 1D184.
4 Q. This is a document dated the 15th of October, 1992. It is signed
5 by the chief of the Security Services Centre. It is a decision on
6 measures of temporary removal from tasks and assignments.
7 Do you remember this decision and the disciplinary proceedings
8 from October 1992 initiated against Borislav Maksimovic?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, as for Mr. Maksimovic and some structures in
11 Vogosca, did they put up any resistance to this decision made by the CSB
12 chief, that is to say, the temporary removal of Mr. Borislav Maksimovic?
13 A. Yes, because that police station did not recognise the centre as
14 someone who was managing them, not yet at the time.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] For reference, it is 1D342.
16 Q. And I will show you 1D185. It is tab 70.
17 This is a memo by Borislav Maksimovic. It is dated the
18 31st of October, 1992, and it tells how at a meeting of the
19 Vogosca Public Security Station it was decided not to accept the change
20 of the Vogosca SJB chief and, at the end, that the policemen issued an
21 ultimatum that they would all leave if there was a removal of the chief
22 who was appointed by the Assembly, and only the Assembly could recall
24 Do you know that this was the stand taken by the public security
25 station in Vogosca, its chief, and some political structures from
2 A. As one can see, the document was submitted to the
3 Security Services Centre as well, and we knew that we had a problem, that
4 Mr. Maksimovic did not want to leave the position he was at.
5 Q. Did Mr. Maksimovic -- was he eventually forced to leave the
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please see P627, tab 27.
9 Q. This is a report on the situation and work of the public security
10 station of Vogosca. It is dated the 12th of November, 1992. Please have
11 a look at this report. It is on the screen in front of you. On the last
12 page, page 4 of the Serbian text in the penultimate paragraph.
13 We'll just wait for the English text to appear on the screen.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] The English text begins on the
15 previous page, so if we could please show that.
16 Q. It says here that the centre undertook disciplinary measures
17 against the most responsible employees of the public security station,
18 including the former chief, the chief of the crime prevention service,
19 police commander, and his assistants, and they have all been changed by
20 new personnel. And a criminal report was filed against the SJB chief to
21 the relevant prosecutor's office because of abuse of authority and
23 Are you aware of this and is this what you had in mind in one of
24 your previous answers?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, who was this report addressed to?
2 A. To the chief of the Security Services Centre. And probably it
3 was then also forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior. I cannot see
4 that here.
5 Q. Do you know whether the Ministry of the Interior was informed
6 about the resolution of the problem at the public security station in
7 Vogosca, and which measures were taken against the responsible employees
8 from that public security station? Do you know that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. This document is dated, as we have seen, the 12th of November.
11 The document I will show you now, 65 ter 124D1, tab 28, is dated
12 the 13th of November, 1992. Sir, this is a report. And on page 4 it is
13 typed "chief of CSB, Zoran Cvijetic." However, the copy we have here is
14 not signed. Are you familiar with this report?
15 A. Yes. This is an operative report which was confidential at the
16 time, because one can see that it has to do with the TAS action, the
17 theft of vehicles, and what the Sarajevo CSB should do in order to
18 finalise this action.
19 Q. Who was this report addressed to?
20 A. The Ministry of Interior of Republika Srpska.
21 Q. Excuse me, did you say the minister or the ministry?
22 A. The ministry. Such reports we addressed to the Ministry of the
24 Q. Is this a comprehensive report about the issue, the theft of
25 misappropriation of vehicles from the TAS factory? Is it the most
1 comprehensive report that you had at that moment?
2 A. Yes, this is the exact data which were available to us at the
3 Security Services Centre at that moment.
4 Q. Did you have all the information included in this report before
5 the moment when the report was drafted?
6 A. This is the information collected by us from July 1992 up to and
7 including the moment of writing of the report.
8 Q. When we speak about the events mentioned in this memo and some
9 other events in the Vogosca municipality, is it possible to say that the
10 managerial staff of the public security station in Vogosca did not
11 exactly want to co-operate in resolving these issues?
12 A. Yes, until they were replaced by other people.
13 MS. KORNER: Do you know, I'm really sorry, but leading -- I did
14 object yesterday, and can I just point out that a leading question like
15 that, "is it possible to say that the managerial staff of the public
16 security station in Vogosca did not exactly want to co-operation," is a
17 thoroughly leading question.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. I accept that.
19 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tusevljak, I have to rephrase this question.
20 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Mr. Zecevic does not have to rephrase the
21 question. He's asked the leading question, he got the answer he wanted,
22 and to rephrase the question is absolutely pointless. I'm merely making
23 this objection so it's clear for the transcript.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there is no objection, I propose
25 to tender this document.
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, there's no objection. The only query I
2 have is, he said it was addressed to the -- the witness said it was
3 addressed to the Ministry of the Interior. I may be missing something,
4 but I don't see that on the document. If it's right, perhaps the witness
5 could just point out where that is or whether he simply knows as a result
6 of his experience.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, on the basis of what did you say that this
9 document was sent to the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska?
10 A. Well, that was the practice at the time. And this is not the
11 only example of this kind of information. There was a constant
12 information flow towards the ministry about similar events. There should
13 be a cover letter, that is currently not present here, from which it
14 would be possible to see that the document was sent to the ministry. Had
15 it not been sent to the ministry, it wouldn't have been worded in this
16 particular way. It is very comprehensive, it describes the TAS
17 operation, and that was the purpose of the writing of this document and
18 sending it to the ministry.
19 Q. Who signed this information?
20 A. As you can see, it was signed by the chief of the CSB,
21 Zoran Cvijetic. This means that the purpose of this information was to
22 be sent to the ministry.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I hope you're satisfied,
24 Ms. Korner.
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I said I didn't object. I merely
1 queried how he said it was addressed to the Ministry of the Interior,
2 which, on the face of the document, is not evident.
3 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D579, Your Honours.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Mr. Tusevljak --
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] For Trial Chamber's reference:
8 Disciplinary proceedings against Borislav Maksimovic is 1D186.
9 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, were there any other persons in Vogosca against
10 whom disciplinary proceedings were instituted by the chief of the
11 Security Services Centre?
12 A. I believe disciplinary proceedings were also instituted against
13 the commander of the police station.
14 Q. Do you remember his name?
15 A. Vlado Tjelovic [as interpreted]. I just read it here. He was
16 the commander.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] For Trial Chamber's reference, this
18 is 1D187. That's the document about the disciplinary proceedings against
19 Vlado Tjelovic.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Tusevljak --
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Just one minor thing for the
23 transcript: It's Vlado Kelovic.
24 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, yesterday you testified about the number of public
25 security stations that were subordinated to the Public Security Centre
1 Sarajevo Birac-Romanija. Could you remind us of the number once again?
2 A. I think that at the moment there were 22 public security stations
3 or police stations.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
5 65 ter, Prosecution document, 10133, tab 146. It's a map of BiH.
6 Q. I believe you have much smaller version. And on the screen you
7 will be able to see a much larger version. And I would like your
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, my understanding is this is an
10 exhibit; it's part of the bundle of maps that we handed over, I think,
11 right at the beginning, simply for the purpose of transcript. I thought
12 we made the whole -- there was a book of maps, as it were, and I thought
13 the whole book had become an exhibit. Because if it wasn't admitted, it
14 ought to have been admitted some time ago. It's been used quite often, I
16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
17 JUDGE HALL: We seem to agree with you that we think it was
19 MS. KORNER: Yes, that's what I thought.
20 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: In any case, Your Honours, since I will require a
22 witness to make some markings on the map, it will definitely get --
23 JUDGE HALL: -- a new number.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: -- a new number, yes.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Now, with the help of the usher, I would like to
1 ask you to mark, to circle, or whatever you find convenient, I would like
2 you to mark on the screen public security stations that were subordinated
3 to the CSB Sarajevo Romanija-Birac.
4 A. I would like to ask for one thing: Could we zoom in on the
5 eastern part of the republic.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: So actually the right side of the map should be
7 enlarged. The lower part. Right there. That's perfect.
8 Q. [Interpretation] Is that all right? And while you are making the
9 markings, could you also mention the names of the stations.
10 A. Trnovo, Hadzici, Ilidza, Rajlovac, Vogosca, Ilijas, part of the
11 police station in Visoko, Novo Sarajevo, police station in Novi Grad in
12 Sarajevo at the beginning. Pale, Sokolac, Rogatica, Olovo, Bratunac,
13 Skelani, I don't find it on the map but it's somewhere around here.
14 Zvornik, Vlasenica, Sekovici. I think that's about it. Excuse me,
16 Q. Milici as well, perhaps?
17 A. Yes, I forgot Milici.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have the exhibit number for
20 the map with the markings, that is, the names of the places underlined,
21 where the public security stations were.
22 JUDGE HALL: It's admitted and marked as an exhibit.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D580, Your Honours.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, you've explained and shown on the map the public
1 security stations that were subordinated to the Security Services Centre
2 Sarajevo Romanija-Birac. Yesterday you were describing the problems that
3 arose in attempting to physically communicate with Vogosca and Ilijas.
4 Did you have similar problems with some other public security stations
5 that you just underlined on the map? I'm talking here about the physical
6 access to those public security stations.
7 A. Yes. Let me mention just one more thing: I also forgot the
8 police station Centar and the police station Stari Grad.
9 Q. They are both in the city of Sarajevo? Part of Sarajevo?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Could you now answer my previous question.
12 A. All the communications with all the police stations in the
13 territory of the Birac region was severed.
14 Q. When you say the Birac region, could you list the stations that
15 you are referring to?
16 A. Skelani, Bratunac, Zvornik, Milici, Sekovici.
17 Q. Okay. Let's go one by one. What were the reasons that there was
18 no physical communication with those stations?
19 A. The communications were cut off. The roads that one would
20 normally use to drive there were taken over by the
21 BiH Territorial Defence. This means that the aforementioned places could
22 be reached only via a detour. Skelani and Bratunac could be reached only
23 from the territory of the Republic of Serbia. The other stations could
24 be reached only using a detour via forest roads.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we slightly move the map to
1 the part of the map that we looked at just a moment ago. One more. Yes,
2 thank you.
3 Q. Could you again show us on this map, or, rather, simply explain
4 the position, the location, of Skelani and Bratunac. You don't have to
5 mark anything; just tell us, where are they? Please explain this briefly
6 so that we shouldn't waste any more time. You can just say whether they
7 are --
8 A. They are practically on the bank of the Drina River. Both
9 Skelani and Bratunac and Zvornik.
10 Q. Let us explain something here. Was it possible to reach Skelani
11 and Bratunac from the territory of the Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former
12 Bosnia and Herzegovina?
13 A. No. In the beginning it was impossible to reach those places
14 from the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina because all the roads were
15 cut off or taken over.
16 Q. Thank you. Mr. Tusevljak, did you attend the first collegium
17 meeting of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina held in
18 Belgrade in July 1992?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have P160.
21 Q. It's number 153 in your binder.
22 Sir, this is a brief analysis of the work to date and basic
23 guide-lines for the future work, meaning a summary of the meeting. The
24 first part of the document contains the brief description of the
25 discussion at the meeting. And from page 20 onwards, we find the
1 conclusions of the collegium.
2 Do you remember whether you took floor on the meeting of this
4 A. I believe I did not speak. I think it was only the chief of the
5 centre who spoke at that meeting.
6 Q. On page 18 in Serbian, it says: "Simo Tusevljak, chief of the
7 crime prevention department in the CSB Sarajevo."
8 Could you read that part in order to refresh your memory so I can
9 then ask a question.
10 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Page in English, please.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Page 18 in Serbian. It's
12 ERN 0324-1868. 1868. Three more pages, please.
13 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] It's in Serbian. It
14 doesn't help. What is it in English?
15 MR. ZECEVIC: 18 in English as well.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I read it.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Do you remember now that you spoke at this meeting?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Having read the brief summary of your words at the meeting, do
21 you remember whether this is a correct summary of what you said on that
23 A. Yes, absolutely.
24 Q. Do you remember that you spoke at that meeting about the lack of
25 personnel dealing with the crime in the centre itself and in the
1 territory covered by the centre?
2 A. Yes, it's quite obvious that I spoke about that because it was
3 our main problem. We didn't have the sufficient number of operatives, of
4 inspectors who were supposed to work on the prevention of crime, and also
5 we did not have the sufficient number of the crime technicians.
6 Q. In paragraph 2 we see that the primary job was documenting war
7 crimes and filing crime reports including cases of war crimes committed
8 by Serbs. Do you remember that you spoke about this topic?
9 A. Yes. We requested the operatives working in public security
10 stations to document all crimes, wherever we had any crime police.
11 Q. Some information from Vlasenica is being provided here, the total
12 number of criminal reports and the number of criminal reports filed
13 against Serbs. Do you remember that?
14 A. Now that I read it here, I do remember. But it is 73 criminal
15 reports that were filed for all crimes, that is to say, everything that
16 is happening there and everything that the crime police in Vlasenica had
17 done until this period.
18 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, what is written here, was that really your primary
19 job? This, what is written here in relation to war crimes.
20 A. In addition to this work in terms of what we were asking the
21 crime police on the ground to do, I've already said this, our major
22 problem, in general, was the establishment of the crime police as such,
23 and you can see that from my initial remarks, namely that at that point
24 in time there were only two other inspectors working in the CSB alongside
25 myself, that is to say, I and two other men were doing the job of
1 100 persons.
2 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, did you really document cases of war crimes that
3 were perpetrated by Serbs?
4 A. Wherever the crime police was asked to come to the scene by the
5 investigating judge or anyone else, we did carry out an on-site
6 investigation, we gathered all the evidence, and we submitted it to
7 prosecutor's offices where they existed, and we tried to find the
9 Q. During 1992, at any point in time - how should I put this? - did
10 you make any kind of distinction in terms of filing criminal reports or
11 investigates crimes, including war crimes, in relation to the ethnic
12 background of the victim or the possible perpetrator?
13 A. No. All operatives on the basis of the instructions that we had
14 from July and August, and we could only work on the basis of
15 instructions, we asked in all of these instructions that everything be
16 done equally in respect of all of these crimes.
17 Q. On page 20 - and I assume that that is 20 or 21 in English - the
18 conclusions of this meeting of the 11th of July are listed. Three pages
19 ahead in Serbian - and I assume that is the same in English -
20 paragraphs 6 and 7 of the conclusions, can we have a look at that and can
21 we hear your comments.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I have just been informed that the
23 English starts on page 22 and continues, in part, on page 23 as well. I
24 think it's the next page. So it's 6 and 7. Over here, we see
25 paragraph 4. Can we please have the Serbian text as well, page 26 in
2 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, the conclusions are listed here. Number 6 is
3 preventing and documenting war crimes and using all
4 legally-prescribed resources and methods for documenting, et cetera, and
5 filing criminal reports not only against identified perpetrators but also
6 those who are unidentified. Do you remember that this kind of conclusion
7 was reached at this meeting?
8 A. We received these minutes and these conclusions, and I was aware
9 of all of this.
10 Q. When you said that you received this, who received it? Was it
11 the CSBs, the public security stations? Do you know?
12 A. I know that the CSB received it. Now, did the chief distribute
13 this further on to the public security stations? I don't know, although
14 I see that these conclusions themselves say that that was supposed to be
15 done. And this was probably sent further on to all the chiefs of the
16 public security stations.
17 Q. I assume that this response of yours pertains to conclusion
18 number 7 as well, which follows after the one we've just looked at.
19 A. Yes, that's an integral part as well, number 7.
20 Q. Tell me, do you remember whether these conclusions were carried
21 out in practice, first of the CSB and then also the public security
22 stations in the area?
23 A. In the CSB we immediately set out, those of us who were there, to
24 carry out these conclusions. And that is something that was called for
25 at the meetings that followed - at the collegium meetings, and with the
1 chiefs of the crime police, wherever these departments were formed - and
2 they were asked to take these measures.
3 Q. Could you please speak a bit slower for the interpreters.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] P610, tab 16. Could that please be
5 shown to the witness.
6 JUDGE HALL: Is this a convenient point to take the break,
7 Mr. Zecevic?
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours. Yes. Thank you very much.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 --- Recess taken at 3.40 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 4.20 p.m.
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, whilst the witness is being returned,
13 can I just say something in respect of the list of documents to which we
14 dealt with this morning. Your Honours --
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. Just for the usher, I need to make
16 submissions, so the witness should be kept.
17 MS. KORNER: Okay.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, one of the -- the problems, apart from
20 the speed and the lack of translations, was, Your Honours, when we
21 applied to add new documents to our 65 ter list, in terms said we had to
22 give full reasons as to why we wanted to do so and what the relevance was
23 so that Your Honours were able to see why we were making the application
24 for a late addition. Your Honours, one of the problems we had was this;
25 the Defence motion at paragraph 5 said, under subparagraph (a):
1 "Documents 922D1 to 938D1, 941D1 to 944D1, and 946D1 to 952D1
2 originate from CSB Romanija-Birac. These documents relate to the
3 functioning of the CSB, staffing, communications, implementation of
4 RS MUP orders, problems with paramilitaries, re-subordination to the VRS,
5 disciplinary proceedings, and inspections, which are all live issues in
6 the proceedings."
7 Your Honours, the difficulty is, with that particular
8 document - which when we had an explanation from the witness, I withdrew
9 my objection - on the face of it, it's quite impossible to see why the
10 fact that officers from other police stations had been sent to Visegrad
11 should be deemed to be relevant. Your Honours, we would ask that we get
12 proper descriptions, as we were made to do for the purposes of additions
13 to the 65 ter list, as to why, to what issue, the document is actually
14 relevant. As I say, in a round-up paragraph like that, it was almost
15 impossible to tell. It's only when you get an explanation that we're
16 able to give a reasoned response.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, that is precisely what I intend to do because
18 I was invited by the Trial Chamber to do so after the break. Your.
19 Honours, first, the documents which Ms. Korner objected as based
20 on the fact that according to her they are irrelevant to the case, is
21 document 923D1. 923D1 is a document sent by one of the SJBs to the
22 CSB Sarajevo. One of the SJBs being Bratunac SJB. This is the response
23 to the request by CSB of 18th of July, 1992. It shows the actual
24 problem, which the witness actually testified before, that there was a
25 lack of active-duty policemen and a lack of personnel in the CSB -- in
1 the SJB Bratunac, which is one of the SJBs under the territory of
2 CSB Sarajevo.
3 As the CSB Sarajevo is a part of the indictment and an allegation
4 made by the indictment, and during the Prosecutor's case are that the
5 chief of the CSB and some other members of the CSB were members of the
6 joint criminal enterprise, therefore it's very relevant to see what is
7 the situation in the field, in the territory which covers the CSB. Apart
8 from that, this document is important because it shows that after the
9 11th of July collegium, certain measures were undertaken to -- to see --
10 to actually definitely find that the CSBs were required to definitely
11 inform the ministry of the situation in the field and in their SJBs which
12 were subordinated to them.
13 It goes to the information. It goes to the knowledge of the
14 ministry and the accused about the situation in the field. So,
15 therefore, it's very relevant, in my opinion.
16 Document 926D1 is a document again dated 12th December, 1992, so
17 relevant for the indictment. It is SJB Sokolac sent -- dispatch sent to
18 MUP of Republika Srpska in Bijeljina and CSB Sarajevo Romanija-Birac.
19 And it goes to the issue of re-subordination of the police to the army,
20 because it says clearly "on request of the command of the
21 2nd Romanija Motorised Brigade and the staff of the Army of
22 Republika Srpska on this particular date re-subordinated the members of
23 police to the army."
24 Number three is the document 931D1. It is the document dated
25 31st of August, 1992, signed by Mr. -- late Zoran Cvijetic, the chief of
1 CSB Sarajevo Birac, where he dispatches 12 workers, 12 policemen, to
2 Zvornik for the purposes, and the witness will confirm that the purposes
3 were actually the same one as the other case which we discussed
4 previously, the case of Vogosca. Therefore, it's relevant since Zvornik
5 is in our indictment.
6 The next document is a document 932, and that is the one we
7 discussed and it was admitted earlier today.
8 The next document is 934D1. This is the document sent by
9 SJB Zvornik dated 18th of October, 1992, signed by the chief of the SJB,
10 sent to the Ministry of Interior of Republika Srpska, the police
11 department in Bijeljina, the CSB Bijeljina, and the
12 CSB Sarajevo Romanija-Birac. What the purpose of this document is that
13 towards the end of the document the -- the chief of the SJB informs the
14 CSBs and the ministry that he is conducting disciplinary action against
15 one of the policemen. And as Your Honours are aware, that is a live
16 issue in this case.
17 The next document is document 937D1. This is again a document
18 sent by late Zoran Cvijetic, the chief of the
19 CSB Sarajevo Romanija-Birac, dated 25th of October, 1992, sent to the
20 subordinate SJBs. And this document is about the obligation of the
21 police to -- to secure the convoy, the UNPROFOR convoy, which is going
22 from Belgrade to Sarajevo with the humanitarian aid. The reason why this
23 document is relevant, in our opinion, is that there has been -- during
24 the Prosecutor's case there has been a number of points where
25 Office of the Prosecutor alleged that the securing of the convoys was not
1 the part of the obligation of the Ministry of Interior in accordance with
2 the law and that that shows their criminal intent.
3 Now, and the last document, which allegedly, according to the
4 Prosecution, is relevant to the case, is document 951D1 and this is the
5 document dated 13 November 1992, sent to CSB Sarajevo and to -- and
6 through CSB Sarajevo to SJB Skelani. And Assistant Minister
7 Mr. Tomislav Kovac advises the CSB that the ministry will be sending one
8 of the inspectors to Skelani for the instructive ... inspection, yes, I'm
9 sorry. Instructive inspection. And therefore I believe, to this end, is
10 a relevant document.
11 Now, the second group of documents are the documents which the
12 Office of the Prosecution say is -- are marginally relevant or not
13 sufficiently important. The first document is document 65 ter 922D1.
14 922D1. It is the document sent from SJB Zvornik. Date of the document,
15 it's 22nd August 1992, to CSB Sarajevo, about the actual composition of
16 the -- and the personnel issues in the SJB Zvornik. SJB Zvornik, as you
17 know, is a part of the indictment. And furthermore -- furthermore, there
18 has been -- on a number of occasions there has been some question from
19 the Office of the Prosecutor to various witnesses about the fact that
20 SJB Zvornik at the beginning was reporting to CSB Bijeljina and there
21 was -- and information or order by Mr. -- by accused Minister Stanisic
22 that the Zvornik is actually a part of the CSB Sarajevo. And this
23 document, sent from SJB Zvornik to CSB Sarajevo, confirms that. And this
24 witness will actually comment on this document.
25 The second document is 930D1. It is, again, the document from
1 CSB Sarajevo Romanija-Birac, dated 28 August 1992, signed by chief of the
2 CSB, late Zoran Cvijetic, and it's sent to all -- sent to all SJBs
3 subordinated to the CSB. It really struck me that Ms. Korner said this
4 is marginally relevant or not sufficiently important because this
5 document actually talks about the instruction on disciplinary
6 responsibility of the workers of the Ministry of the Interior of
7 Republika Srpska. And with this document the actual instruction which is
8 already an exhibit in this case was sent to -- by the chief of the CSB to
9 all SJBs in the territory.
10 The next document is 935. 935D1. It is a document dated
11 24th of October, 1992, signed by chief of the CSB Zoran Cvijetic, and
12 it's sent to all the SJBs in the territory. And this is actually a
13 document by which the CSB chief is forwarding the order of minister of
14 interior dated 23rd of October, 1992. So it shows that at that point in
15 time these orders by the minister were -- were sent down the line to the
17 And the last document is the document which is allegedly
18 irrelevant or -- I'm sorry, it's not that, it's marginally relevant or
19 not sufficiently important. It's the document 950D1. And this document
20 is sent by SJB Vogosca. We assume it was sent to the CSB Sarajevo,
21 although it doesn't say so, but the witness will be able to comment on
22 that. This document is relevant because of two things: First thing is
23 that SJB Vogosca is a municipality in our indictment; and the second ...
24 and the second point of relevancy is, again, re-subordination of the
25 police units to the army, because at the very end it says all -- it is
1 informing about the number of the policemen who were killed in combat or
2 wounded in combat, and it says at the very end that all these
3 policemen -- all these members of the Ministry of Interior on the order
4 of the command of the Vogosca Brigade were engaged in defending the first
5 line because of the heavy attacks on our -- on their positions.
6 So, therefore, we believe that all these documents, for the
7 reasons I just stated, are relevant and that are for these reasons the
8 objection by the Office of the Prosecutor is not -- doesn't have merit.
9 Thank you.
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, we've just wasted 20 minutes on
11 something that should have been said in the original motion and might
12 have produced a different response from us. And I reiterate the position
13 that Your Honours place the Prosecution in, which should have been
14 adhered to by the Defence.
15 Your Honours, as I said yesterday, I knew that most of these
16 documents were probably going to be shown to the witness and could have
17 been dealt with on a case-by-case basis. However, I should say this:
18 The -- as Your Honours will see, it's confirmed a number of these
19 documents do not relate to either municipalities that are within the
20 indictment or matters that are within the indictment either. But,
21 Your Honour, can I just reiterate about disciplinary proceedings; I
22 cannot think how many times we have said this, and the Defence persist:
23 We do not dispute there were disciplinary procedures. We do not dispute
24 that disciplinary action was taken against members of the MUP. Our case
25 is, no disciplinary action was taken in respect of members of the MUP who
1 committed crimes against non-Serbs. Or - I say "no" - very little, if
2 any. And that's the issue.
3 It is not an issue - and Mr. Zecevic's sarcasm about us saying it
4 was irrelevant is misguided and misplaced - that there were disciplinary
5 procedures. And the rest, as it's all been gone through, as I say,
6 Your Honours, it is probably better to deal with it on a case-by-case
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, perhaps it is a thing that Ms. Korner
10 was not present. I think we discussed this issue about the disciplinary
11 proceedings and I provided an explanation why this is important, and
12 Your Honours, if you remember, accepted my explanation as relevant for
13 the Defence case. And based on that, one of the documents was admitted
14 into evidence precisely because the knowledge, it goes to the knowledge
15 of the minister, that the disciplinary system exists as such in the
16 territory in 1992. And that is precisely the reason why we are offering
17 these documents, to show that as far as minister is concerned, because he
18 is the one who has to decide and the initiation of the -- or the
19 disciplinary proceedings comes from the chief of the CSB, therefore, if
20 the minister is aware that the disciplinary proceedings are taken or
21 disciplinary measures are taken by the chief of the CSB, I think that
22 that is an important element in the overall view of the situation at the
23 time and for Your Honours' decision on that particular issue. Thank you.
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I was aware of that. It doesn't change
1 the position. Indeed, Your Honours had declined the Defence application
2 to admit a number of disciplinary actions before. It is not in dispute;
3 we know that the minister signed off on appeals on disciplinary action.
4 If Your Honours are prepared to have documents in that take this
5 case absolutely no further, that, of course, is a matter for Your
6 Honours. We took the view that Your Honours were reluctant to admit
7 documents unless they add real value to the issues.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE HALL: Could we have the witness back to the stand.
10 We would rule on this matter in the course of -- before we rise
11 for the day.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, before the break we discussed the document that
15 includes the conclusions of the first collegium meeting held on the
16 11th of July, 1992, in Belgrade.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please have a look at
18 P610, tab 16.
19 Q. Before we start commenting on this document, could you please
20 have a look at the document that we looked at previously. Conclusions.
21 That is tab 153. And could you please tell me, then, in your view, how
22 many conclusions are there? It's on the last page, the number of
24 A. Eighteen conclusions.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now go back to this
2 document, number P610, tab 16.
3 Q. Tell me, there is no date here. There is a reference to
4 August 1992. And it says "Report on the implementation of conclusions
5 from the meeting of senior MUP personnel held on the 11th of July, 1992."
6 The document is not signed. Can you tell us whether you are familiar
7 with this report, and can you tell us who this report was sent to?
8 A. This is a report that was also written for the Ministry of the
9 Interior of Republika Srpska.
10 Q. On the basis of what do you conclude that?
11 A. Well, on the basis of the first page where it says that this is a
12 strictly confidential report. If the CSB -- and we see in the letterhead
13 that it's the Serb Republic, Ministry of the Interior,
14 Romanija-Birac CSB, there is no reference to any department here, say the
15 department of the crime police, that means the chief of the CSB or his
16 service are writing this report, and this is being written in order to
17 respond to some request that had been made by the ministry.
18 Q. Tell me, how many points or items does this report have
20 A. You can see that it is 18 altogether.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. We're done with this
24 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, can we please look at 928D1, tab 151. This is a
25 document that states the date of the 18th of July, 1992. It Says "Public
1 Announcement." Romanija-Birac CSB. Can you tell us what this is? What
2 is this document? Are you familiar with it, and what was the reason for
3 writing up this kind of document?
4 A. Well, this is a public announcement or a press release dated the
5 18th of July, 1992. Actually, the media were in Pale at the time and
6 they were covering the CSB and citizens were being called upon -- since
7 it became obvious that crime was on the rise, the police was publicly
8 calling upon citizens to stop doing that kind of thing because the police
9 were not able to do their regular work, as they were defending the
10 country. So this is a press release written up by the chief or someone
11 from his office, and this was actually released to the media.
12 Q. What does this press release say? Persons who do not act in
13 accordance with this document or in accordance with the law, are there
14 going to be consequences?
15 A. Yes, that is obvious. You can see it from the document itself.
16 Q. Tell me, why was it possible for these kind of public
17 announcements to be made and released through the media?
18 A. Obviously the assessment then was, with the members of the
19 military of Republika Srpska as well, that all such things should be
20 brought to an end and that more energetic measures should be taken.
21 Q. Since this is the month of July, these energetic measures, as you
22 said, and also bringing this kind of conduct to an end, why was all of
23 that not done before that point in time?
24 A. For a simple reason, as I've already said: We did not have
25 enough people. Also, the number of people I had, say, in the crime
1 police and in the police itself, a huge number were involved in combat
2 and they were not able to be involved in police work.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would
5 like to tender this document.
6 MS. KORNER: I think, you know, Your Honours, it's a matter for
7 you, really, I mean, if you think it's relevant. I cannot see any strong
8 objection to it.
9 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D581, Your Honours.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you. [Interpretation] Can we please now have
12 tab 3. That's P589.
13 Q. This is a document dated the 25th of July, 1992. It is signed by
14 chief of the Security Services Centre, Zoran Cvijetic. And it is
15 addressed, as we can see, to the Ministry of the Interior, Sarajevo, and
16 it refers to a memo which was received from the ministry on the
17 19th of July, 1992, obviously.
18 Do you remember this report?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In the third paragraph on the first page, the report says that
21 the problems are present because of insufficient number of men and this
22 refers to the crime prevention service, which you were managing at the
23 time. Do you remember that this was the specific problem?
24 A. Yes, precisely. Throughout this time, our greatest problem was a
25 lack of adequately-trained workers, that is to say, inspectors who knew
1 how to discharge the duties of crime prevention.
2 Q. Sir, the second sentence here talks about problems with preparing
3 data due to war operations, poor communication, and so on. You have
4 explained to us what was the territory covered by the
5 Security Services Centre, and you confirmed in your previous testimony
6 what problems existed in terms of physical communication. Please tell
7 me, did you have any other way to communicate with public security
8 stations and to what extent was that operational?
9 A. A communications centre of the Security Services Centre was set
10 up; however, that communications centre very often could not meet our
11 needs. That is to say, the dispatches or the memos which were sent by
12 the Security Services Centre could not be sent. And then we looked for
13 other means such as sending couriers or in some other ways when
14 communication was possible.
15 Q. And these alternative ways of communication, how did they reflect
16 on the ability to receive information in a timely fashion or send
17 instructions to the field?
18 A. Well, this document itself shows that very often, precisely
19 because it was impossible to send requests or because we did not receive
20 answers in due time, we could not meet the dead-lines which we received
21 in dispatches and documents from the ministry.
22 Q. Thank you. Mr. Tusevljak, please tell me whether at the
23 Security Services Centre level during 1992 you held meetings with
24 managerial staff from public security stations on the basis of their
25 lines of work?
1 A. I think that the first meeting of the kind was only held in July
2 or perhaps August 1992. I cannot tell you exactly.
3 Q. I will show you the document 1D328, which is tab 6. This is a
4 report on the meeting of the managerial staff in charge of crime
5 prevention from the territory of the Romanija-Birac CSB. And at the
6 beginning it says that on the 27th of July, 1992, in Sokolac a meeting
7 was held.
8 Are you familiar with this document and its subject?
9 A. Yes. This is a report from that working meeting which we
10 organised on the 27th of July in Sokolac.
11 Q. What meeting was that? You said awhile ago that you held the
12 first meeting with managerial staff in July or August. Was that this
13 meeting or was that another meeting?
14 A. It was this meeting. So the conclusion is that this is the first
15 meeting we held.
16 Q. There is a summary here, the summary of what those who
17 participated in the discussion at the meeting said. It is mentioned here
18 that you opened the meeting and then it is outlined what you said at the
20 Can you please read that and tell me whether that more or less
21 reflects what you talked about on that occasion.
22 A. I just wish to point out that one can see from this report that
23 representatives of the crime police from Vogosca and Rajlovac did not
24 attend the meeting, though they were invited. That was the month of July
25 when we requested that they should begin working. And I can read from
1 the report that I said that in the war conditions crime services in all
2 their segments act under specific --
3 Q. No, sir, please, there is no need for you to read it out. The
4 document speaks for itself and it is already an exhibit. I'm just
5 interested in hearing from you whether it reflects what you talked about
6 at the time and then I will ask you a specific question so that we can
7 shorten the time needed for this.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So does this document accurately reflect what you said on this
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you please comment on what we can find on page 1 in the
13 sentence where you say:
14 "Due to difficulties in communication, he suggested that within
15 the CSB a mini-regionalisation should be done in such a way to compose
16 three regions," and then there is the first, the second, and the third
17 regions. "The purpose of this regionalisation is improvement of
18 coordination between different" and so on and so forth.
19 Can you give us an explanation and tell us why you proposed this?
20 A. Precisely because it was my assessment at the time that the work
21 of crime police departments would be significantly improved if we managed
22 to make this mini-re-organisation because it was impossible to keep
24 Q. The interpreters haven't heard you or didn't understand what you
25 wanted to say so can you please explain that and give us your answer
2 A. Due to difficulties in communication and because it was not
3 possible to have communication between the various departments, I
4 proposed this mini-re-organisation so that operatives or heads of crime
5 prevention service in the area could discharge their tasks and duties as
6 successfully as possible.
7 Q. Do you remember whether the meeting was also attended by some
8 employees of the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska? From the
9 seat of the ministry, I mean.
10 A. I'm sure that the chief of the crime prevention service
11 Goran Macar attended the meeting, and I think that he was also with
12 Nikola Milanovic --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness please repeat what was the
14 position of this person.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Sir, on page 3 of this document in the Serbian version -- can you
17 please repeat what was the position of Mr. Nikola Milanovic in MUP
18 because this has not been recorded.
19 A. He was an inspector at the crime police administration.
20 Q. Thank you. On page 3 it is noted that there was a discussion by
21 Predrag Lucic who was the chief of the crime prevention service in
22 Han Pijesak, who talked about the problem of official communication which
23 made it difficult to work on crime prevention cases. He also said that
24 his service had 40 completed files on criminal acts but they did not have
25 anyone to submit them to because the office of the prosecutor had not
1 been established in the area as yet.
2 Please tell me, this problem of the existence, or, rather, the
3 non-existence of the judicial organs at the time in the territory of the
4 Security Services Centre, the one that was covered by the CSB, was it a
5 big problem, and how big was it?
6 A. The non-existence of courts and prosecutors' offices in our area
7 was one of the major problems because, as you can see, in the month of
8 July in many areas there was no one that we could file the criminal
9 reports or official reports with because neither a court or a
10 prosecutor's office existed. If we knew who the perpetrator of a crime
11 was, there was no one to hand him over to. We had no prosecutor. We had
12 no investigating judge. And that represented a major problem for our
14 The problem was that on the territory of the city of Sarajevo
15 there were two basic courts and there was also the higher court in
17 Q. When you say that it existed, when did it exist? Can you just
18 specify that. Which period do you have in mind?
19 A. I'm talking about the period before the 4th of April, 1992. The
20 seat of these courts remained in the territory which was under the
21 control of the Bosnian Muslims. Which means that in the city,
22 territories which were under the control of the Territorial Defence of
23 Republika Srpska, these judicial institutions or the seats of these
24 institutions did not exist at all, and we needed to set them up.
25 Q. All right. In such instances if there was no one to submit a
1 criminal report with, what did you do with documents? Or if a criminal
2 report had been written, what did you do with it? In such cases, what
3 was done?
4 A. We waited for a prosecutor's office and court to be set up. And
5 once they were established, all these reports were handed over to them.
6 Q. Was that just the way in which you worked at the
7 Security Services Centre or was there an instruction for public security
8 stations to do the same if the judicial organs in their area had not been
9 established as yet?
10 A. It was not possible for them to do this in any other way because
11 who can you submit a report to if there is no court and no prosecutor's
12 office in your area?
13 Q. Can you please tell us what was the percentage of the stations or
14 even what was the number of stations, if you know, or how many places
15 were there in which public security stations existed, and in which
16 judicial organs also existed; and on the contrary, in how many places
17 were such institutions non-existent throughout 1992, or at least until
18 some point in 1992?
19 A. Yes, I think that in the month of April, and perhaps even in May,
20 in perhaps 100 per cent of the territory the judicial organs did not
21 exist, and then they began to be set up on a monthly basis. I think that
22 it was only in late fall that the whole territory was covered. So by the
23 fall about 80 per cent of these stations were not able to submit criminal
25 MS. KORNER: I don't know whether Mr. Zecevic wanted the question
1 answered, because it wasn't answered. He asked at page 44, line 9:
2 "Was that just the way in which you worked at the security
3 services centre or was there an instruction for public security stations
4 to do the same ...?"
5 And the answer came back, It wasn't possible for them to do them
6 in any other way. And the actual question wasn't answered. I don't know
7 if Mr. Zecevic wants it answered.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
9 Q. [Interpretation] It's an issue of interpretation. The question
10 was whether the crime reports and the whole files were set aside waiting
11 for the judicial organs to be established. Was this the practice only in
12 the public security service or were all public security stations in the
13 territory supposed to follow the same practice?
14 A. There was no official instruction on this. In the
15 Security Services Centre in this period, it was only I and two inspectors
16 who worked on this, which meant that we did not file a single criminal
17 report. Public security stations in the field had to rely on their own
18 resources and ingenuity. They did what they could.
19 Q. Could you explain what it means, "they did what they could"?
20 A. In those places where a court and prosecutor's office had been
21 established, crime reports were submitted. And where those organs had
22 not been established, crime reports were not submitted. They waited
23 until the moment that judicial organs would be established.
24 Q. Now that we've touched upon this issue, Mr. Tusevljak, do you
25 know what a KU register is?
1 A. This is a register of criminal reports. This means that when the
2 crime prevention service completes a file, they submit a criminal report
3 against a known or unknown perpetrator. Such a report is submitted to a
4 prosecutor's office. On this occasion, basic elements of the file are
5 recorded in the crime register, KU register: usually, the kind of the
6 offence; whether the perpetrator is known or unknown; the identity of the
7 perpetrator, if known; and to which basic or district prosecutor's office
8 the crime report was submitted. So it's a register of all criminal
9 reports and official reports submitted by the crime prevention service to
10 the competent prosecutor's office.
11 Q. Could you tell me, At which moment in time is there an entry made
12 in the KU register?
13 A. On the day when the report is submitted.
14 Q. Does that mean that on the day the report is submitted to the
15 public prosecutor's office, on that same day it is entered into the
16 register; did I understand you correctly?
17 A. Yes, because on that day we know exactly what documents we are
18 submitting to the prosecutor.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: I see the time. I don't know if --
20 JUDGE HALL: Well, you have another six minutes, Mr. Zecevic.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Oh, I'm sorry.
22 Q. [Interpretation] Let us then go back to the document first.
23 Thank you for your explanation.
24 Sir, on page 4 we see the contribution of Ratko Jovicic, the
25 chief of the crime prevention service in Zvornik. He states that because
1 of the lack of communication they would send their reports to Bijeljina.
2 He also highlighted the problem of various paramilitary formations and
3 sought help to resolve this problem.
4 Do you remember this person and his contribution to the
6 A. That was the first time that I saw this gentleman, on that day.
7 Although Zvornik was part of the Security Services Centre
8 Sarajevo Romanija-Birac, we had never received any information from them.
9 Q. Do you remember what paramilitary formations were highlighted by
10 this gentleman and sought help in order to resolve the problems related
11 to them?
12 A. It was Yellow Wasps.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 On the same page, at the beginning of this page, we see the
15 contribution of Nikola Milanovic. You said that he was an inspector of
16 the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska. In the last sentence
17 he says, he, that is, Milanovic, emphasised the need to resolve the
18 problem of judicial organs and detention facilities. He also emphasised
19 the need to observe persons of Serbian ethnicity who committed crimes
20 against civilian population.
21 Do you remember these words by Inspector Milanovic?
22 A. Yes.
23 MS. KORNER: I'm so sorry, could you just read all that again
24 very slowly, please, Mr. Zecevic, because the English translation
25 doesn't -- that we got over the earphones doesn't bear much relation to
1 what's in the English translation on the screen.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm going to read from the Serbian
3 original: Nikola Milanovic from the Serbian MUP from the crime
4 prevention administration emphasised that in the cases where detention,
5 where people are taken into custody, it is mandatory to issue appropriate
6 documents. Then he highlighted the need to resolve the issue of judicial
7 organs as soon as possible, as well as the situation related to prisons
8 and detention facilities. After that, he emphasised the need to deal
9 with the persons of Serb ethnicity who commit crimes against civilian
11 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I think this is one of our
12 translations and I think it may have to go back because "deal with" and
13 "observing" as well as some of the other matters that Mr. Zecevic read
14 out is not quite what appears there.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. And the last thing in relation to this document that I'm
17 interested in are the conclusions on the last page, where we find
18 conclusion number 6:
19 "Maximal engagement of all the operational workers for
20 documenting war crimes and submitting criminal reports against known and
21 unknown perpetrators ..."
22 Do you remember this conclusion?
23 A. Yes, because I was the person who wrote up the conclusions.
24 Q. On the basis of this meeting, this report and the conclusions,
25 was any action taken in the subsequent period, after the
1 28th of July, 1992?
2 A. The crime prevention service, depending on the way it was
3 organised in public security stations, began working in a more
4 concentrated way in relation to all the issues related to crime,
5 including this particular issue.
6 Q. When you say "this," are you referring to the period after
7 July 1992?
8 A. Yes, after this meeting.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: I note the time.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 --- Recess taken at 5.26 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 5.59 p.m.
14 JUDGE HALL: Before the witness resumes the stand, we have a
15 brief oral ruling to deliver.
16 The Trial Chamber is seized of a Stanisic motion filed on the
17 14th of June to amend its Rule 65 ter exhibit -- list of exhibits by
18 adding 41 documents which are intended for use with the witness currently
19 on the stand. The Trial Chamber notes the submissions made orally by the
20 parties earlier in court. The Prosecution does not object to the
21 addition of 17 of them: 924D1, 925D1, 928D1, 929D1, 933D1, 936D1, 949D1,
22 953D1 to 961D1. And also 927D1, in relation to which the Prosecution
23 merely highlights the apparent duplicity with a document admitted in
24 court yesterday as 1D575.
25 The Prosecution objects to the remaining documents, arguing that
1 seven are not relevant as they concern municipalities outside the
2 indictment, that is, 923D1, 926D1, 931D1, 932D1, 934D1, 937D1, 951D1.
3 And four are not sufficiently important, namely 922D1, 930D1, 935D1, and
5 Two documents, 962D1 and 932D1, have already been tendered and
6 admitted as 1D576 and 1D578, respectively. The motion is therefore moot
7 in this respect.
8 The Chamber further notes the submissions and reply made by the
9 Defence in relation to the individual documents. All documents for which
10 translations have been provided fall within the temporal scope of the
11 indictment and relate to matters relevant to the functioning of RS MUP,
12 including policies, structure, and communications. The Trial Chamber is
13 thus satisfied that they are all prima facie relevant, probative, and of
14 sufficient importance so as to justify their late addition on to the
15 Stanisic's Rule 65 ter Exhibit list.
16 Nine of these documents, 953D1 to 961D1, were only disclosed to
17 the Defence on the 8th of June. And thus the Defence has shown good
18 cause for its request to add them to its Rule 65 ter list.
19 With regard to the other documents, the Trial Chamber notes the
20 Defence submission that it only discovered them last week on the
21 electronic disclosure system, stating that prior searches using the same
22 parameters have not been successful. Due to the nature and shortness of
23 these documents and the fact that the Prosecution will not start its
24 cross-examination until next week, the Trial Chamber is satisfied that no
25 undue prejudice arises from granting the request. For these reasons, and
1 in the interests of justice, the Chamber allows the addition of the
2 translated documents to the Rule 65 ter list of the Stanisic Defence.
3 The Trial Chamber remains seized of the motion with regard to the
4 12 documents which are not yet translated.
5 Could we have the witness back on the stand, please.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I, before the witness starts, just
8 mention something. I've just received an e-mail pointing out that before
9 Your Honours came in the microphones all apparently were working in court
10 so that people outside the court could hear what was being said. As it
11 so happens, we were having a discussion about the legal merits of part of
12 the indictment. But could I just ask, please, that we make sure that
13 everything is switched off when the court's not in session.
14 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Ms. Korner.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: May I continue?
16 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much, Your Honours.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tusevljak --
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have P1061. It's tab 7.
20 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, this document is dated the 28th of July, 1992.
21 It's signed by the chief of the Security Services Centre, Zoran Cvijetic.
22 The document was sent to the public security stations, more specifically,
23 their chiefs. The document is already in evidence so I will only need
24 you to comment on one issue related to it. On page 2 of this document,
25 and this is a document transmitting an order by the minister of the
1 interior of the 27th of July related to disbanding of special units. And
2 it goes on to say, in the second passage from the top on page 2, and it's
3 at the very bottom of the English page:
4 "This order also reiterates that individuals who have criminal
5 responsibility for criminal offences prosecuted ex officio (except
6 political and verbal misdemeanours) as well as persons who during the war
7 in Bosnia and Herzegovina committed crimes and against whom no criminal
8 proceedings have been instituted should be removed from the Ministry of
9 the Interior."
10 Do you remember this order by the minister of the interior that
11 all individuals who had criminal records should be removed from the
12 ministry, that is to say, persons who do not rise to the standards of the
13 Ministry of the Interior as well as the persons who committed crimes? Do
14 you remember this?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In the last sentence it says:
17 "Persons who during the war in the territory of the former
18 Bosnia and Herzegovina committed criminal offences and against whom for
19 known reasons no proceedings had been instituted."
20 Do you know what does it mean, "for known reasons"? What reasons
21 are they?
22 A. Well, that is precisely the non-existence of courts and
23 prosecutor's offices in certain areas under jurisdiction of certain
24 police stations.
25 Q. Does that mean the same thing that we saw in the previous case,
1 that criminal reports are submitted -- were submitted when judicial
2 organs were established, or does it mean something else?
3 A. It means that when the appropriate judicial organs are
4 established, then it can be done, because they had not existed before, so
5 it was not possible to submit the criminal reports.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm sorry, before Mr. Zecevic leaves
7 the document, in the original, which doesn't show up on the screen, where
8 you can see the highlighting or the marking by that particular paragraph,
9 something is written, and it may be in the copy that Mr. Tusevljak has.
10 I'd like him to read it out and tell us, please, what it says.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, on the second page of this document, on the
13 left-hand side of the page, we see some handwriting and some lines.
14 Could you read out what it says here, if it's possible to read it out.
15 A. On page 2 I see the word "Pantic." And I can explain this, why
16 we see Pantic written here. We can see from this dispatch that it was
17 taken from a public security station in Milici. We can see that from the
18 first page. Take a look at the stamp. You can also see that Milici is
19 also underlined. This was most probably written by the then chief of the
20 public security station, Zvonko --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter did not hear the last name.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because Pantic was the commander of
23 the station in Milici at the time. So this was not part of the original
24 dispatch. This is the copy of the person who received the dispatch and
25 that person wrote this.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Just one thing. The interpreters could not hear one thing. We
3 see "Zvonko" in transcript. You said: "This was ... probably written by
4 the ... chief of the ... station ..."
5 Could you repeat once again: To whom was this sent and who was
6 the commander of the station in Milici?
7 A. The commander of the police station was Rade Bjelanovic. While
8 komandir of this station was a person called Pantic, whose first name I
9 cannot recall right now.
10 Q. Was Rade Bjelanovic the chief of the public security station in
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And Pantic was the commander, komandir; is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Does this satisfy, Ms. Korner?
16 MS. KORNER: Yes. Thank you very much. That's very helpful.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, now that we are talking about the members of the
19 Ministry of the Interior that committed criminal offences, in those cases
20 when members of the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska
21 committed criminal offences, were they treated in the same manner as all
22 other persons or were they treated differently?
23 A. They were treated in the same manner as all other persons. But
24 besides filing an official report against them, there would also be
25 disciplinary proceedings, which means that they would be removed from the
2 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, was there any distinction made - and I'm talking
3 here about the disciplinary proceedings - depending on whether the
4 criminal offence or grave breach of work duty was committed against a
5 non-Serb victim as opposed to the situation when the victims of criminal
6 offences or those grave breaches were of Serb ethnicity?
7 A. They received the same treatment regardless of the victim of the
8 criminal offence.
9 Q. Are you sure about this?
10 A. Yes, why wouldn't I be? The law was the same for everybody.
11 Q. Thank you. At the beginning of today's session we spoke about
12 the removal of the chief of the public security station in Vogosca and
13 the criminal report submitted against him, as well as the replacement of
14 some other managerial staff in that public security station, because the
15 station did not carry out their tasks and duties in accordance with the
16 Law on Internal Affairs. Were there such cases in some other stations in
17 the territory covered by the Security Services Centre
18 Sarajevo Romanija-Birac?
19 A. I think that in 1992 the entire management of the public security
20 station in Pale was also replaced. I also believe that there were some
21 other personnel changes in police stations. I believe Sokolac may have
22 been one such station. But chiefs and commanders were being replaced all
23 the time.
24 Q. Tell me, reasons for replacement or removal of top personnel in
25 public security stations, what were they actually?
1 A. These decisions were made only by the then chief of the CSB
2 Zoran Cvijetic. And he, on the basis of the reports he received and the
3 assessments made, dismissed these persons because they were not carrying
4 out their duties in accordance with the Law on the Interior.
5 Q. And if there were elements of crime involved in what they had
6 done, what would happen then?
7 A. Where criminal liability was established, then a criminal report
8 was filed with the office of the prosecutor and they were held
10 Q. Tell me, you mentioned the public security station in Pale, what
11 about the members of this police station in Pale, were disciplinary
12 proceedings instituted against any one of them or were criminal reports
13 filed against any of the top personnel from the Pale Police Station?
14 A. As far as I can remember, a criminal report was filed against the
15 chief of the administrative and legal department in that police station
16 and his employees because of some of the things they did in relation to
17 issuing public -- personnel documents and the like.
18 Q. Do you remember his name perhaps? His last name?
19 A. Right now I don't seem to remember.
20 Q. You said a moment ago that the entire top personnel of the public
21 security station of Pale was replaced at one point in time in 1992. Do
22 you remember who the chief of the public security stations of Pale was
23 basically throughout 1992 or, rather, from April until October?
24 A. Malko Koroman was the chief.
25 Q. Was Malko Koroman replaced?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you know whether that had been requested earlier on as well,
3 whether there were requests for his removal even before the end of 1992?
4 A. As far as I know, the chief of the CSB had asked for him to be
5 removed even earlier than that.
6 Q. Do you know what happened to that request of the chief of the
8 A. I think that that first time the citizens did not allow that to
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm sorry, I think we really need to
11 establish the basis for this line because at the moment he's saying "I
12 think," "I don't know," and whether he has any basis in anything he was
13 told at the time or saw at the time. At the moment it seems to be
14 nothing but guess-work.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, the public security station in Pale, did it belong
17 to the CSB Sarajevo Romanija-Birac?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. At collegium meetings of the CSB were you usually present, along
20 with other top personnel?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you remember whether there was mention at any one of these
23 collegium meetings of problems or the situation at the public security
24 station in Pale?
25 A. Yes, because we received quite a bit of information regarding the
1 situation in the public security station in Pale.
2 Q. What did this information indicate, the information that you
4 A. It indicated how the Pale Public Security Station was working and
5 what the problems there were.
6 Q. What about the chief of the CSB or other top personnel, did they
7 make any comments on the work of the public security station in Pale and
8 its chief?
9 A. Yes, comments were made with regard to the work of that public
10 security station and its chief.
11 Q. At these meetings, including the late Chief Zoran Cvijetic, did
12 anyone say anything or mention anything, any kind of measures that had to
13 be taken in this regard or that he intended to take in this regard?
14 A. Chief Zoran Cvijetic insisted in the Ministry of the Interior
15 that the chief in Pale be replaced.
16 Q. How come you know that?
17 A. I was present, myself, when Mr. Zoran Cvijetic asked for that.
18 Q. Who from the ministry was asked?
19 A. The top personnel of the Ministry of the Interior, so it's
20 probably the minister or one of his assistants.
21 Q. Well, you say that they were there together with him. Were you
22 present or ... or ... or what?
23 A. Mr. Cvijetic talked to me personally about that and he said that
24 he insisted on his removal.
25 Q. And how do you know that he talked to someone from the top
1 echelons of the Ministry of the Interior?
2 A. Because he told me so.
3 Q. And from whom did you receive that information that you told us
4 about at the very beginning, namely that citizens prevented the removal
5 of Malko Koroman the first time?
6 A. I don't know who I received that information from. But it was
7 generally known that citizens had assembled around the station and
8 prevented his removal. It was generally known. It was probably in the
9 media or someone from the police or some citizens said so. It doesn't
10 matter, it was a generally-known thing.
11 Q. Do you know what happened with Mr. Malko Koroman after he was
13 A. As far as I know, he got a lower position at the public security
14 station in Foca as an inspector or something.
15 Q. Thank you. Do you know whether other top personnel from the
16 public security station of Pale were removed as such?
17 A. I think that this chief of the administrative and legal
18 department was replaced on that occasion. And now I cannot remember
19 whether the komandir was replaced as well, but I think that someone did
20 replace him as well.
21 Q. Thank you. I apologise, like yesterday we have a problem with
22 the map. I've just been informed by the Registry that the map that you
23 drew, 1D580, tab 146, due to certain electronic difficulties in this
24 computer programme, was not saved.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 1D580. Could that please be shown
1 to you once again. 65 ter 10133, Prosecution. Tab 146.
2 Q. And could the usher please give you a marker so that you could
3 once again underline those public security stations that belong to the
4 CSB Sarajevo. I am sorry. Perhaps it's better if we take a blue marker
5 this time.
6 A. I would really like to ask that this eastern part be zoomed in,
7 enlarged, because you can barely see anything.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Fantastic. Thank you.
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, would it not -- may I make a
10 suggestion: Would it not be quicker if simply this was an exercise he
11 did outside court rather than going through all of this again and it can
12 be then admitted by us. In fact, in a proper map, all the police -- all
13 the SJBs are clear as to where they all are.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: But what I want to show is the vast territory that
15 it covers.
16 MS. KORNER: I understand that. But why not simply give him a
17 map which he can take back with him, mark it, and bring it back and we'll
18 have it admitted as an exhibit. This is going to take forever otherwise.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't have a problem. If the Trial Chamber is
20 satisfied with that, I can provide my map and then give it to the
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes, provided that the -- as long as the witness has
23 a copy with which he can work. I suppose we'll have to forego any
24 advantage of having an electronic version of the exhibit.
25 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, it seems to me I'm not quite
1 clear about this -- [Microphone not activated]
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Ms. Korner, please.
3 MS. KORNER: We'll make an admission as to where these places
4 are. They're all set out here in the chart, in any event. They can
5 all -- anybody getting a map can see where these places are. I'm not at
6 all clear why we need to spend time on this exercise.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, but instead of having this
8 conversation, we already could have had the witness mark the map and we
9 move on.
10 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] We couldn't because it
11 takes him forever.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: No, it doesn't, Ms. Korner, it takes three minutes.
13 I gave the reasons why I think it's important and in due time I will make
14 submissions on that.
15 Q. Please, just underline them. You don't have to tell us anything
16 now; we already have it in the transcript. We have all the public
17 security stations. So just underline them so we have this saved and
18 let's move on.
19 A. [Marks]
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you. This should be now Exhibit 1D580.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tusevljak, could you please take a look at
22 tab 152.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I hope we haven't lost this again.
24 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] We have it. You
25 misinterpreted the nod.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. [Interpretation] Could the witness
2 please be shown P730, tab 152.
3 Q. Sir, this is a document dated the 3rd of August, 1992, addressed
4 to the Ministry of the Interior to the minister, report on the
5 realisation of the order number 10/17/92, dated the 27th of July, 1992.
6 And it says:
7 "Acting in accordance with your order, number as above, and in
8 accordance with the working agreement with the Romanija-Birac
9 Security Services Centre chief, I visited the majority of the public
10 security stations in that area except for Skelani and Bratunac, which
11 were visited, as agreed, by chief of the police department in CSB,
12 Drago Borovcanin."
13 We only have six pages of this document. It is incomplete and it
14 is not signed. Can you tell us who is the author of this document, if
15 you know?
16 A. Judging by the heading of this document, one can see that the
17 author of the document is someone from the administration for the police
18 duties and affairs of the Ministry of the Interior.
19 Q. On page 6 of this document under (a) to (g) we can see these
20 points and then the penultimate paragraph that begins with:
21 "There are obvious problems with information transmission from
22 the SJB level to the MUP level, in all lines of work. The system of
23 communications is broken, the telephones are not working, the faxes are
24 out of order, there are risk areas that are often disrupted, et cetera."
25 Is this, as noted in the report, in agreement with what you know
1 about the issues from the period in question?
2 A. I absolutely agree with this because I said awhile ago that we
3 had difficulties in communicating with the police stations at the level
4 of the Security Services Centre.
5 Q. Thank you. The next document I wish to show you is P993. It is
6 tab 18. This is a document from the Sarajevo CSB, that's the
7 Romanija-Birac one. It's a report about performed supervision of the
8 state of the organisation and the work of the Bratunac and Skelani police
9 stations. It says that the supervision was performed from the
10 1st of August until the 3rd of August and that it was performed by
11 Drago Borovcanin and Kojo Vucicevic.
12 So in accordance with the previous document, what I'm interested
13 in is the following; on page 2 in the sixth paragraph, talking about the
14 Skelani Public Security Stations, it says:
15 "By a decision of the minister of the interior,
16 Stevanovic, Bogdan was assigned komandir, and Vasiljevic, Milos as his
17 deputy. At the same time, the local municipal organs without the
18 agreement of the ministry appointed Slavoljub Simic as commander and
19 Ostoja Bozic as his deputy. After a short period of time, Simic left the
20 service on his own free will and he assigned all of the duties and the
21 administration to his deputy Bozic, who completely ignored commander
22 Stevanovic and his deputy, who were legally appointed by the ministry."
23 Mr. Tusevljak, did you know anything about this situation in
25 A. Well, as Drago Borovcanin was the chief, he was the chief of the
1 police department at the collegium. When he returned from this trip, he
2 informed the chief of the CSB, and I attended this collegium meeting.
3 Q. Did you have such or similar situations in the territory covered
4 by the CSB in other places except for Skelani?
5 A. Well, this is already the third police station that we are
6 talking about which had the same or similar kind of problems. I think
7 that there were such problems also at the Rajlovac Public Security
8 Station because from the beginning it was not known who was the komandir,
9 who was the chief, who was appointed and who wasn't.
10 I also wish to note that, now that we are talking about Skelani,
11 I think that this problem was only resolved in January 1993.
12 Q. Let us please look at 1D188, which is tab 20. It's a report on
13 measures, crime prevention measures, on the territory of the centre.
14 This document has three pages. It is not signed. It's not even stated
15 which centre is this, which centre does it refer to. Can you tell us
16 something about this document? Are you familiar with it? Do you know
17 who the author is and what it refers to?
18 A. This is a document produced by my service. It is an internal
19 one. And it was probably submitted to the chief of the centre, that is
20 to say, the analysis service, so that a compiled report could be made
21 about the activities of the centre and the services.
22 Q. And this amalgamated report, who was it submitted to?
23 A. The amalgamated report is submitted to the Ministry of the
25 Q. I will now show you another document, and I would like you to
1 comment on the connection between the document which I'm about to show
2 you with this document.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please show the witness
4 P992. That is tab 8.
5 Q. This is a document dated the 30th of July, 1992. It was sent to
6 the public security stations on behalf of the crime prevention department
7 of the Sarajevo CSB. I apologise. On behalf of the
8 Crime Prevention Department Sarajevo. It is signed by
9 Chief Simo Tusevljak.
10 Tell me, do you recognise this document?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Is that your signature? Is that your document?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I see that the subject is "Forwarding information," and the text
15 then states what information that is. Why did you need this information
16 in the period between the 1st of April and the 30th of July?
17 A. Precisely in order to draw up the complete report.
18 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, this forwarding of information, as it refers to
19 the period between the 1st of April and the 30th of July, 1992, was that
20 the first request made in 1992 for information to be forwarded or
21 submitted to the local public security station and sent by the
22 Security Services Centre?
23 A. Yes, as far as I know it was.
24 Q. On the basis of the information that was submitted, was that the
25 basis on which the previous document we looked at was drawn up? It was
2 THE INTERPRETER: Can the counsel please repeat the name of
3 the -- the number of the document.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, the interpreters ask that you repeat
6 the number of the document.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. My question was: Was this the basis -- the information that was
9 submitted to you, was that the basis for drawing up the document which we
10 saw earlier, which is marked as 1D188, tab 20?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did this report - I'm talking about the document 1D188, tab 20 -
13 represent the first complete report sent by the Security Services Centre
14 in dealing with the situation with regard to crime which was submitted to
15 the MUP in the year 1992?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. There is no date here in this document, but when you look at it
18 can you tell us approximately what was the date or the month when this
19 report was drawn up and submitted to the Ministry of the Interior?
20 A. This document, tab 20, which I have here before me, was submitted
21 to the chief of the centre or the analysis department which then, on the
22 basis of this document, wrote a report on the work of the entire centre,
23 not just with regard to duties relating to crimes but also other duties
24 that the centre discharged. So this was submitted within the centre.
25 Q. My question was whether you could tell us, as the document has no
1 date, when this was, in which month in 1992, when you submitted this
2 document to the centre so that they would then draw up the complete
3 report for the ministry.
4 A. One can see from this document that it was most probably drawn
5 around the 15th of August, 1992, or immediately thereafter.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MS. KORNER: Let me give Mr. Zecevic and the witness a hand. If
8 you look at the report - which you've got the wrong one up on the
9 screen - you will see on page 3 it talks about receiving a memo on the
10 25th of August. So it must have been sometime after that.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm grateful to Ms. Korner for the intervention.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you, sir. Just one more question because
13 we have three or four minutes left.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please see 929D1. It is
15 tab 154.
16 Q. Sir, this is a document dated the 9th of August. It is signed by
17 the chief of CSB Zoran Cvijetic, and it was submitted to the chiefs of
18 public security stations which are subordinated to the centre, or which
19 belong to it. And it informs them about a document of the Ministry of
20 the Interior of the 7th of August, 1995 [as interpreted], that the
21 official IDs of the Doboj CSB are temporary by nature and that they are
22 currently being replaced by new ones and that their display and use is
23 irregular, that they must be taken away and destroyed.
24 Do you remember this report?
25 A. This was also discussed at the level of the centre. And this is
1 just one. There must be other such reports for the reason that there was
2 still no official ID of the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska
3 in use and then many station chiefs, of their own initiative, produced
4 official IDs and distributed them to their police staff who then used
6 I think that this is the date when the rules had already been
7 adopted which defined the design and use of the official IDs of the
8 members of the ministry and we who had received those IDs could show them
9 to the citizens who could then know that we were really members of this
10 ministry. And there were many who falsely identified themselves and
11 produced forged or false official IDs.
12 It's obvious that at the ministry this problem with the false IDs
13 was identified. It was identified that something that existed in Doboj.
14 And, therefore, the order was that at check-points the policemen and
15 crime prevention employees should take away such IDs, from persons who
16 would show them, and be destroyed.
17 Q. Thank you. Tell me whether you know whether there were any cases
18 when someone broke into police stations in the territory of your CSB or
19 some other CSBs in the territory of Republika Srpska from which such or
20 similar official documents were stolen?
21 A. Yes, in the beginning, at the very beginning of the war, when
22 some other units broke into some police stations rather than members of
23 the ministry themselves, they also took away passports, driving licences,
24 personal IDs, all other documents for citizens which were not fulled out
25 but were just blank forms.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. If there are no
2 objections, I would tender this document into evidence.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, help us out: What's the relevance?
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours will remember --
5 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Not with the witness
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay, may the witness take the headphones off.
8 Your Honours will remember that during the testimony of MS-001 he
9 testified that on a number of occasions in certain police stations in the
10 territory of CSB Doboj there has been cases of stolen cards and I'm
11 just -- and that he informed -- yes, but Your Honours, the point of the
12 matter is that it is obvious that at that time the situation was such
13 that you would have people who were representing themselves as police,
14 members of the Ministry of the Interior, where in fact they were not.
15 JUDGE HALL: But what does the document add to the viva voce
16 evidence already on record?
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, this document -- this document shows that the
18 Ministry of Interior has taken the measures to inform all the CSBs about
19 this situation and to take the appropriate measures in taking these
20 documents and destroying these documents, because those are the
21 official -- the official MUP ID, Your Honour, and that -- the holder of
22 that ID does have, by holding that document, does have certain rights
23 which we will discuss with the witness tomorrow.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, we don't object because we're going to
25 be suggesting this has nothing to do with anything other than the Mice,
1 and that's what this is all about, this document.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE HALL: By a majority, Judge Harhoff dissenting, the
4 document is admitted and marked.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D582, Your Honours.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: I see the time, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes, and with that we take the adjournment to
8 tomorrow morning, and we are back in this courtroom.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.,
11 to be reconvened on Friday, the 17th day
12 of June, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.