1 Friday, 17 June 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
6 everyone in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
8 Stojan Zupljanin.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Good morning to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
11 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner and
12 Indah Susanti for the Prosecution.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
14 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for
15 Stanisic Defence this morning. Thank you.
16 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.
17 Representing Stojan Zupljanin, Aleksandar Aleksic.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
19 And if there is no reason to delay us, may the usher please
20 escort the witness back to the stand.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Tusevljak, good morning to you. Before
23 Mr. Zecevic continues, I remind you of your solemn declaration.
24 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
1 WITNESS: SIMO TUSEVLJAK [Resumed]
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 Examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]
4 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Tusevljak.
5 A. Good morning.
6 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, let's take a look at P997. Tab 23.
7 Mr. Tusevljak, this is a report dated the 27th of August. It's
8 signed by Sasa Blagojevic, the person who submitted the report. Are you
9 familiar with this person, Sasa Blagojevic, and if so, who was he?
10 A. I know him. He was an operative in the Security Services Centre.
11 He worked on crime prevention.
12 Q. Is this a report about his visit to the public security station
13 in Vlasenica? Did he go there on your instructions?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And what was his task?
16 A. Precisely what he wrote here. He went there to speak to the
17 chief of the crime prevention department and to assess the situation in
18 that department.
19 Q. You, as chief of the crime prevention police in the Security
20 Services Centre, did you send your inspectors to perform such visits in
21 public security stations or, more precisely, crime prevention departments
22 in public security stations? I'm speaking here of your line work.
23 A. Yes, in the second half of 1992, in the fall.
24 Q. Did all the operatives in all cases receive the same or similar
25 assignment like this one?
1 A. Yes. That was their assignment. They were supposed to assess
2 the situation in crime prevention departments.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have 930D1. It's tab 155.
5 Q. [Microphone not activated]
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Microphone.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry. Thank you.
9 Q. [Interpretation] This is a document dated the
10 28th of August, 1992, signed by CSB chief Zoran Cvijetic. The document
11 was sent to the public security stations in the territory of the
12 Security Services Centre.
13 Could you first confirm whether this is the signature of
14 Mr. Cvijetic?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Enclosed to this memo was the rules on disciplinary
17 responsibility of employees of the Ministry of the Interior of the
18 Serbian Republic under conditions of a state of war and the rules and the
19 form of IDs of authorised officials of Internal Affairs organs, and all
20 employees in all public security stations were supposed to be informed
21 about this. Do you remember these rules on disciplinary responsibility
22 promulgated towards the end of August 1992 in the state of war?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you remember whether disciplinary responsibility of the
25 employees of the MUP was made any harsher by these rules?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 JUDGE HALL: I'm sorry, I heard the question, I heard the answer,
4 but I confess I don't understand it. Could you expand on that for me,
5 please, Mr. Zecevic. When you say --
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Of course, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE HALL: -- made any harsher by the rules. Could you get the
8 witness to expand on that, please.
9 MS. KORNER: Can I just point out that's a leading question.
10 "What change, if any, did this produce in the rules" is the proper
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I accept this.
13 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, do you remember what were the changes in
14 disciplinary responsibility envisaged by these rules on disciplinary
15 responsibility in the state of war?
16 A. As far as I know, the discipline and the behaviour of a policeman
17 in police stations had to be much stricter. This means that the
18 envisaged sanctions were much harsher. So many misdemeanours that would
19 normally be accompanied by removal to another post now became the
20 misdemeanours that would be accompanied by the removal from the service,
21 which means that those persons were fired from the MUP.
22 Q. Were there any changes in the procedure pertaining to the
23 disciplinary misdemeanours?
24 A. I cannot remember that. I don't remember the procedure and
25 whether there were any changes.
1 Q. Do you remember whether dead-lines to institute or complete
2 disciplinary proceedings were changed by this rule book?
3 A. I cannot remember that. I really haven't had a chance to look at
4 these rules for the past 18 years.
5 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you. I believe there is ample evidence in
7 the transcript already about the contents of this rule, and actual rule
8 instruction is an exhibit in this case. However, at this point, if
9 there's no objection, I would like to tender this document.
10 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D583, Your Honours.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. I would like to take a look at 122D1. It's tab 24.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, while we're waiting for the new
15 document, I thought you said that the rules to which this letter that we
16 have just admitted was already in evidence. Do you happen to have the
17 exhibit number of the rule?
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours, in just one second I will
19 provide you with that. May I continue, Your Honours, and I will provide
20 the exhibit number.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Absolutely. Please proceed.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, this is a document dated the
24 12th of September, 1992, signed by the chief of Security Services Centre
25 Zoran Cvijetic. It's on the following page. The document was sent to
1 the chiefs of public security stations. Can you first confirm whether
2 this is the signature of Mr. Cvijetic?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. This document is dated some 15 days after the previous document.
5 It comes about 15 days after the document that we just saw by which the
6 new rule book during the state of war was sent to public security
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] And for Trial Chamber's
9 information, it's 1D54. This is instruction on disciplinary
10 responsibility during the state of war.
11 Q. In paragraph 2 of this document we find the following: First the
12 reference to the previous document by which the new rule book was sent on
13 the 28th of August, and then it goes on as follows:
14 "Among other things, this rule defines what constitutes minor and
15 serious dereliction of duty in the condition of war, as well as the
16 levels of emergency in the conducting of disciplinary proceedings. In
17 spite of these obligations, a certain number of SJBs have not taken this
18 problem seriously enough. The responsibility for this lies with the
19 chiefs managing these SJBs, who are authorised to do so by certain
21 And then we find the instruction that the SJBs who have not done
22 so yet are to analyse the potential involvement of employees in criminal
23 acts and other forms of dereliction of duty as defined by the law and to
24 inform by the 30th of September, 1992. And if there were no such cases,
25 a memo to this effect was also supposed to be sent.
1 Sir, do you remember whether on any of the collegium meetings in
2 the Security Services Centre these issues were discussed?
3 A. There were discussions on the collegium meetings by the chiefs of
4 the police departments. They spoke about the answers received from the
5 police stations. I assume that the first request sent by the chief of
6 the centre did not produce adequate response. And then in order to
7 [Realtime transcript read in error "Municipal Board"] amplify and
8 highlight the seriousness of this request, another request from the
9 centre and the Ministry of the Interior, another dispatch, was sent
10 15 days later.
11 Q. Just a moment, please, on page 7, line 1, we find "Serbian" or
12 "Serb," while what I said was "CSBs."
13 My question was whether you remember if any of those issues were
14 discussed on any of the collegium meetings. So this is merely to correct
15 the transcript.
16 And I think that a part of your answer was not recorded properly.
17 It says here on page 7, line 4, that you said: "I assume that the first
18 request sent by the chief of the centre did not produce adequate
19 responses," from the field. And then the "Municipal Board." I actually
20 don't understand what it says here, so I would like you to repeat the
21 answer but slowly. What was it that you wanted to say?
22 A. As we can see from this document, this dispatch, there was a
23 discussion at the collegium meetings in the Security Services Centre.
24 The subject of the discussion were the responses received from public
25 security stations. These responses were inadequate, and that is why the
1 chief of the centre sent another memo 15 days later, so that the chiefs
2 of public security stations would take their duties more seriously and
3 discharge their tasks in a more responsible manner.
4 And as we can see from this document, they were supposed to act
5 upon the new rules on disciplinary responsibility. And if they still
6 found among their employees policemen who had committed criminal offences
7 or were held responsible in some other way for such offences, they were
8 supposed to be removed from the service on the basis of the new rule
10 Q. Thank you. Just to clarify this once more: In case that an
11 employee of the Ministry of the Interior committed criminal offences,
12 what proceedings would be instituted against him?
13 A. A criminal report would be submitted to the competent
14 prosecutor's office. His immediate superior, chief of the public
15 security station, was supposed to suspend him and institute disciplinary
16 proceedings against such an employee.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I
19 propose to tender this document.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: There's something that I do not quite understand
21 with this. What we saw in the previous document was that the chief of
22 the CSB of Sarajevo forwarded these new rules, the new rule book that
23 applied during war time, to all the SJBs under its jurisdiction, and then
24 only 15 days later the same chief of CSB finds it necessary to send out a
25 new dispatch to call for action because, as you say, the response wasn't
1 satisfactory. Now, two weeks is quite a short span of time, so what
2 happened? And was there some events in between that triggered this
3 second attempt by Mr. Cvijetic to remind the SJBs of their duties? I
4 would have thought that it would take longer time to discover that the
5 actions which the SJBs were supposed to take could lead to the conclusion
6 that SJBs weren't taking this seriously. I mean, you couldn't discover
7 that in only two weeks, could you?
8 So my question to you is whether there was any incident between
9 the first and the second dispatch that triggered the second dispatch? Do
10 you understand my question?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand the question. If
12 in this memo we find the reference to the dispatch of the
13 25th of July, 1992, it means that on the 25th of July, 1992, a dispatch
14 was sent requesting the removal of the employees who had committed
15 criminal offences. This means that the centre chiefs were supposed to
16 start doing this from the 25th of July onwards. It is very probable that
17 they invoked the lack of the rules on disciplinary responsibility.
18 So in this memo the chief of the centre references first the memo
19 of the 25th of July; that's more than a month before that. And then on
20 the 12th of September he highlights once again the duty of the chiefs of
21 public security stations without giving them a dead-line. He merely
22 states that they are supposed to deal with this problem in a more serious
23 fashion, the employees who are still employed in the Ministry of the
24 Interior and who had committed criminal offences. Which means that they
25 could not work in the ministry anymore, are supposed to be removed from
1 service as soon as possible in accordance with the law.
2 So nothing happened. There was nothing that made this following
3 dispatch -- there was nothing that caused the next dispatch to come so
4 soon after the first dispatch.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: And that's what I did not quite understand, but
6 let's proceed.
7 JUDGE HALL: So the document is admitted and marked.
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm not going to object to the
9 admission of this document, but Mr. Cvijetic -- I'm obsessed by
10 Mr. Cvijetic, obviously. Mr. Zecevic only asked the question "do you
11 remember this" and never asked the actual question "did you see this
12 document at the time." I don't want to have to waste time going back
13 over this when I cross-examine, and I would be grateful if it could be
14 made clear before the document is admitted in short whether the witness
15 is actually saying he saw the document at the time. It may be important.
16 JUDGE HALL: Well, I suppose it is something that -- for tidiness
17 that should have been asked.
18 MS. KORNER: Yes.
19 JUDGE HALL: But it struck me that the obvious connection between
20 this and the previous exhibit --
21 MS. KORNER: As I say, Your Honour, I'm not -- this is a general
22 request that simply for each of these documents, which are not signed by
23 this witness and on the face of it there's no good reason why he would
24 have seen it at the time, it's important that each time Mr. Zecevic seeks
25 the admission of such a document we know for certain whether the witness
1 saw it at the time.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand that, Your Honours, but that is
3 precisely why I asked the witness whether he recognises the signature of
4 the chief of the CSB. If Mr. Cvijetic would have been available - he
5 passed away - we would have called Mr. Cvijetic on the stand, but there
6 is no other way we can introduce the documents by the chief of the CSB
7 but through one of his employees.
8 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, as I say, I perfectly understand
9 and, as I say, I'm not objecting to the admission. I'm simply asking
10 that each time the witness is asked whether he actually saw the document
11 at the time, because clearly what was discussed is important, but so is
12 whether he saw the document.
13 JUDGE HALL: And as I did say in response to Ms. Korner's first
14 intervention, for completeness, it's a question that could be asked, but
15 I -- for myself, I would have thought that the witness's answers to the
16 document would have been sufficient to explain his familiarity and
17 therefore allow it in. But, as I said, for tidiness, you'd ask the
18 necessary question.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Witness, did you see this document at the
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I should have seen every one of
23 these documents because I was a member of the collegium of the centre
24 chief where the documents were drafted and then presented in the morning,
25 but to remember every piece of paper from 18 or 19 years ago and claim
1 that I saw it or didn't, that would be absurd that I should have such
2 memory and such recollection. But when I see a document which is in
3 front of me, I see that it's from the Security Services Centre and sent
4 to police stations. It was discussed in the centre chief's collegium
5 meetings in the morning and we had to report, for each department, which
6 documents were sent on behalf of the chief of the Security Services
7 Centre with his signature.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Can we get the --
9 JUDGE HALL: A slight question -- well, I don't know if it's a
10 question of interpretation or what the witness intended to convey, but I
11 fully understand and appreciate what the witness has said about the
12 dealing with something that would have happened years ago and his
13 explanation as to the ordinary practice, but the word that was used in
14 response to the question was "I should have." Had he said "I would
15 have," then the rest of that answer would fall perfectly into place. But
16 I'm just wondering whether I am making too much out of the fact that what
17 came over the English was his choice of "should" as opposed to "would
18 have," because there would, in English, be a subtle difference in what is
19 intended to be conveyed.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Have you understood the question of His Honour?
22 A. No, I didn't understand. This is why I'm not sure what I was
23 supposed to have said. The interpretation was wrong. I said that all
24 these documents which I see now before me which were sent on behalf of
25 the Security Services Centre chief, that is to say, which he signed, and
1 it's obvious that his signature is here, they were all discussed and they
2 were presented at the morning collegium meetings which we held with the
3 Security Services Centre chief.
4 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. I'll have to make due with that.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: May we have the ...
7 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
8 JUDGE HALL: So the document is admitted and marked.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D584, Your Honours.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please show the witness
12 Q. It is tab 177. Precisely in order to illustrate --
13 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] No translation.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: I have a translation on the monitor. I'm not sure
15 if you are missing something in your --
16 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Well, It must have come
17 in, because it wasn't there yesterday. It must have come in overnight.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: I think --
19 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Your Honours, I see -- I
20 mean, I'm sorry, we shouldn't do this.
21 I said to Mr. Zecevic no translation because I didn't have a
22 translation in my binder. It wasn't -- it's one of the new documents, I
23 think. I see there is a translation on the screen, so it must have been
24 uploaded into e-court sometime between when we last looked at it and
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, does that mean that this is one of
2 documents we didn't decide upon yet for their admission to the
3 65 ter list?
4 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm not sure, Your Honours, at this point. If you
5 just bear with me one moment, please.
6 Your Honours ...
7 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have a list of
9 12 documents which were pending translation as of yesterday which you
10 haven't decided upon. This document is not on that list, but I can read
11 the list just for the record, perhaps, so we have it in -- on the record.
12 It refers -- so the documents which are pending translations as
13 of 16th of June, yesterday, which are added to Defence 65 ter list and
14 which were not decided by Your Honours are: Document 938D1,
15 document 939D1, document 940D1, 941D1, 942D1, 943D1, 944D1, 945D1, 946D1,
16 947D1, 948D1, and 952D1. Therefore, this document has been -- has had
17 the translation before and it was --
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, Mr. Zecevic is quite right, because
19 I've just seen that it is, in fact, one of the documents I'm looking at
20 that we don't object to. Some how or other the translation didn't get
21 into my binder, so I apologize for wasting the Court's time.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Ms. Korner.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tusevljak, this is a document dated the
24 28th of September, 1992, and I think that it is precisely the one that
25 will explain and provide an answer to the question asked by Judge Harhoff
1 awhile ago.
2 This document was signed by the chief of station Malko Koroman,
3 or somebody did it for him. It was addressed to the Romanija-Birac CSB
4 and it says "reference your document number 01478/92 dated the
5 12th of September, 1992."
6 Please have a look at the previous document which we looked at,
7 1D584, under tab 24, so that you could -- so that we could compare them.
8 What is the number of that document and what is the date of that
9 document? I'm talking about 1D584 under tab 24.
10 A. This is the response of the police station Pale to the document
11 dated the 12th of September, 1992.
12 Q. Can you please read the number of the document and the date for
13 us, the one that's under tab 24.
14 A. The number of the document is 01-478/92, dated the
15 12th of September, 1992.
16 Q. Sir, have you seen this document before, the one we are looking
17 at now, 924D1 under tab 177?
18 A. This document was sent to the chief of the police department. It
19 says here "Drago," which means that I probably did not see it at the time
20 because my name is not recorded. But this was standard. The department
21 which received this document from the chief of centre also collected all
22 the responses so that the chief of centre could then send the report,
23 once it was amalgamated, to the Ministry of the Interior.
24 Q. When you say Drago, "it says here Drago," where do you see that?
25 Can you please clarify that for me.
1 A. It's handwritten by pencil in the upper right-hand corner of this
3 Q. And which Drago does this refer to?
4 A. It refers to Drago Borovcanin who was the chief of the police
5 department at the centre.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for the sake of
8 completeness of this issue, I would propose that this document be
9 admitted into evidence as there are no objections from the Prosecution.
10 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D585, Your Honours.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we please now see
13 the document under tab 157, 933D1.
14 Q. This is a document dated the 23rd of September, 1992 --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry.
17 Q. [Interpretation] The date on this document is the
18 23rd of September, 1992. It is signed by the chief of the
19 CSB Zoran Cvijetic. It was addressed to the public security stations in
20 the territory of this CSB. Can you confirm whether this is
21 Mr. Cvijetic's signature?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Have you seen this document at the time, in 1992, do you
25 A. Yes. The reason being that the chief of the centre has signed it
1 again and this was discussed at our collegium meetings.
2 Q. This document deals with the issue of difficulties on roads and
3 difficulties with communications equipment. Mr. Tusevljak, do you
4 remember -- you said that this was discussed but do you remember who or
5 what were the measures which were taken on the basis of this order and
6 this document in terms of improving the dispatch system or improving the
7 communications system in the territory of the Security Services Centre at
9 A. We can see here that this type of communication was only
10 requested in case of urgent information being transmitted, that is to
11 say, informing police stations. And the improvement was only that in a
12 way what I told you about on the previous days could be speeded up. Due
13 to difficulties with communication and the lack of adequate
14 communications equipment, the information we received or sent were many
15 days late. And, of course, if you have urgent information or something
16 that is current and you cannot forward it, if you lose time, then the
17 information loses its value completely.
18 Q. And the third paragraph says "in order to submit information to
19 the Public Security Station Ilidza, Hadzici, Rajlovac, Ilijas, and
20 Vogosca, the fax machines of the Ilidza SJB will be used." Does this
21 mean that dispatches would only be sent to the Ilidza SJB and then from
22 the Ilidza SJB it would be -- I apologise. Can you tell us what this
23 means, technically speaking? How were the dispatches communicated?
24 MS. KORNER: Well, the first question, Your Honours, should be
25 whether he knows this. In fact, a witness from the CSB dealing with
1 communications was actually called, and this document wasn't put to the
2 witness who was in a position to deal with it. He has to lay the
3 foundation for being able to deal with that question.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, the witness confirmed that it
5 was discussed at the collegium meeting. We didn't have this document
6 when -- in our possession before and that is why we didn't show it to the
7 Prosecutor's witness who were called for the communications. I'm just
8 trying to establish the witness's knowledge about the problem that they
9 were facing, and he already testified about that, and the ways how -- how
10 the CSB tried to remedy the situation at the moment.
11 JUDGE HALL: Please continue, Mr. Zecevic.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Let me first ask you this, or ask you again: Are you familiar
14 with this problem and the resolution which was adopted? Was that a
15 resolution adopted at a collegium meeting?
16 A. Yes, I'm familiar with the problem and I know that we agreed at
17 the collegium that in this way speedier communication would be achieved.
18 And that means that if a dispatch was sent to Public Security
19 Station Ilidza, or a report perhaps, then the duty was either for these
20 other police stations, which are listed here, to come to the police
21 station in Ilidza to get the report there or the Ilidza SJB would
22 distribute the report or the dispatch to the listed police stations.
23 Q. This is the instruction from paragraph 4; however, it also says
24 here that these copied information should be distributed by relay to the
25 SJB. Can you explain to us what this expression "by relay" means?
1 A. It means that -- that the SJB Ilidza Police would take all
2 dispatches which are addressed to Vogosca, Rajlovac, and Ilijas and then
3 take them only to the Rajlovac Police Station. Rajlovac Police Station
4 would take their dispatch, the one addressed to them, and then bring the
5 others to Ilijas and Vogosca. Those from Vogosca had the obligation to
6 carry the remaining one to Ilijas. And this was how the response was
7 brought back as well. It means that dispatches were handed from hand to
8 hand to police patrols who had their vehicles.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would
11 tender this document into evidence.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Witness, it's a bit unclear to me what the
13 type of information was which should be communicated through all these
14 means. Was it every dispatch that should be communicated immediately
15 through all available fax machines or was there any attempt to give
16 priority to certain kinds of information? I mean, I suppose that some
17 types of information were more important than others. And if there was a
18 difficulty in transmitting information from one station to another, I
19 suppose that what you would wish to do is to make some sort of priority.
20 But I don't see that here. This dispatch is only about the means of
21 communication but says nothing about the contents of the information or
22 the type of information. Did I understand this correctly?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The territory of the Security
24 Services Centre at the time was affected by war operations. On a daily
25 basis, the areas which were under the control of the Security Services
1 Centre were under attack. This is a period when perhaps 80 per cent of
2 the policemen were involved in active combat operations. The front lines
3 shifted on a daily basis and policemen got killed every day. This was
4 mostly information that was needed in order to carry out defensive
5 operations. That means that assistance was to be given to a certain
6 territory which was defending itself, or they informed us about the
7 number of policemen who had been killed or if anyone had been wounded,
8 and the like. That was the sort of information that was urgent and that
9 needed to be transmitted to the final user as quickly as possible.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thanks. Please proceed.
11 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 933D1 shall be
13 Exhibit 1D586.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Let us have a look at the next document. This is 931D1, tab 196.
16 Mr. Tusevljak, this is a document dated the 31st of August, 1992.
17 An order signed by the chief of the CSB Zoran Cvijetic but signed for
18 him. Can you recognise whose signature this is?
19 A. This is signed by Cedo Nogo, who was an inspector from the crime
20 police department.
21 Q. From the police department where?
22 A. The police department of the Security Services Centre.
23 Q. This order orders some of the relevant police stations to send to
24 the Zvornik Public Security Station four policemen each, whereas
25 Novo Sarajevo SJB is to send eight policemen to Zvornik. Do you remember
1 that these employees were sent to the public security station in Zvornik
2 at the time?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you remember what was the reason for this and what was their
5 task over there?
6 A. I think that an action of the Ministry of the Interior was
7 carried out in Zvornik at the time. The task was disbanding and routing
8 the Yellow Wasps, and the assistance from the Security Services Centre
9 was requested at the time. And this is why there was this request for
10 the said employees to report to the SJB Zvornik as soon as possible.
11 Q. Do you know when this action relating to Zute Ose took place?
12 A. I don't know the exact date because I was not involved in this
13 action so I cannot remember the exact date, but I think it was around the
14 end of August or early September. I wouldn't know exactly.
15 Q. If I tell you that the action in Zvornik was carried out on the
16 30th of July and 1st of August, would that make it easier for you to
18 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, Mr. Zecevic, I pointed out yesterday that
19 this witness's recollection and his connection between events was a
20 matter of importance and he should not be led on any dates. And you've
21 just done it again.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Just trying to find out if I can refresh his
23 memory. That is all.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, A, there should be an application if
25 that's the case. Secondly, as I pointed out yesterday, and I made it
1 very clear, we are querying how the witness comes by some of his
2 knowledge and how he connects things together. And therefore he should
3 not be led in the fashion or helped out in a fashion that Mr. Zecevic has
4 just done.
5 JUDGE HALL: Standing on its own of course, Ms. Korner, you're
6 perfectly correct. But I'm wondering -- I thought - and please correct
7 me if I'm wrong - that the dates of these events were established
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I ask -- I'm not at all clear
10 whether the witness actually doesn't speak some English because he has a
11 great deal of dealings with internationals. But nonetheless, for these
12 purposes, I'll ask him to take his earphones off.
13 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Tusevljak, could you please remove your
15 MS. KORNER: As I say, Your Honours, I think it's important if
16 there's really serious argument that he leaves court, because my
17 understanding is he does speak English. He's dealt with international
18 prosecutors, apart from anything else.
19 Your Honours, the point is this: We are going to be contending
20 that this witness's ability to give evidence about just about everything
21 under the sun is a matter that we're going to be cross-examining on.
22 And, therefore, how he's able to say what this is all about and whether
23 he's correct in that assertion is a matter of his credibility. And
24 therefore, as I pointed out yesterday when Mr. Zecevic gave him a date,
25 he shouldn't be doing that because we say that this witness's ability to
1 give evidence is not directly from his own knowledge, as he appears to be
3 JUDGE HALL: Well, Mr. Zecevic, you've heard Ms. Korner's
4 concerns, and you will phrase your questions accordingly.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours, I understand. Can I establish
6 with the witness whether he speaks English, Your Honours?
7 JUDGE HALL: That would perhaps be useful, yes.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Do you speak English, Mr. Tusevljak?
10 A. Unfortunately, I don't speak English. But very often when
11 talking to persons from the international community when I presented
12 certain matters to them and when we talked, very often I had to explain
13 that I could not have tête-à-tête meetings with them for the simple
14 reason that I do not speak their language. During my education for
15 12 years I studied Russian and I knew Russian very well, but I've
16 forgotten that as well because I haven't been using it. So I don't
17 understand English. I never attended any course whatsoever. So
18 regardless of whether anyone believes it or not, I would sincerely be
19 very happy if you were right, if I did understand or speak English, but I
20 do not.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
22 document 65 ter 126D1. That is tab 13.
23 Q. Sir, this is a document sent to the command of the
24 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps to the commander personally, and it has to do
25 with problems of the members of the Ilidza SSJB, and the date is the 23rd
1 of November, 1992. In the signature it says "for CSB chief Zoran
2 Cvijetic." Can you tell us whose signature this actually is?
3 A. This is my signature.
4 Q. Did you send this document to the command of the
5 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Tell us, briefly, what is this about? What kind of problems
8 concerning the members of the Ilidza SSJB did you want to inform the
9 command of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps about?
10 A. This shows that in this document I am simply relaying the
11 communication sent from the Ilidza SSJB. In it they say that they were
12 mistreated by some units of the Army of Republika Srpska and that they're
13 asking for that to be brought to an end.
14 Q. And what was your request then to the commander of the
15 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?
16 A. It is obvious that it's only in the last paragraph that I say
17 "please take action in line with the above document." I mean, I'm
18 addressing those people from the command of the Sarajevo-Romanija corps.
19 "And place the said formations under control so that similar situations
20 do not arise in the future." And I'm asking them to get back to us with
21 some information, however, referring to the number of this document.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could this be admitted.
24 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D587, Your Honours.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] For the Trial Chamber and the
2 Prosecution, this is a two-page document. So the first page is this
3 letter signed by the witness and attached is the document or letter sent
4 by the Ilidza Public Security Station. P842, tab 48, is the number of
5 this attachment as a separate document.
6 Could the witness please be shown 950D1, tab 174. Page 2,
7 please, could we have that on our screens.
8 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, before I put a question to you, after
9 Borislav Maksimovic was replaced as chief of public security station of
10 Vogosca, do you remember who was appointed chief of the public security
12 A. Zivko Lazarevic.
13 Q. This document before us is dated the 14th of December and it is a
14 reply to a dispatch of the 11th of December. What is typewritten at the
15 bottom is "chief of SJB Zivko Lazarevic." Can you tell us whether you
16 have seen this document before and can you tell us what this document
17 refers to?
18 A. I have not seen this document because, yet again, as you can see
19 up here, it was sent to Drago Borovcanin. But it is evident that it has
20 to do with what was happening in that area, in that part of the Sarajevo
21 front line, and the chief of the public security station is informing the
22 chief of the centre that the police is involved in combat. Also it is
23 stated which policemen were wounded and also who engaged them in the
24 first place.
25 Q. Can you tell us, or, rather, can you give us an answer, or,
1 rather, clarify this last thing that you said, "engaged them in the first
2 place." What do you mean by that?
3 A. This shows that these policemen were engaged at -- upon an order
4 from the Vogosca Brigade.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would
7 like to tender this document as well.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, the witness testified he hadn't seen
10 the document before. His answers about what it says are something that
11 any reader would determine for themselves. In any event, what's the
13 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours. I withdraw my
15 Q. [Interpretation] Let us move on to a different subject matter
16 now. Mr. Tusevljak, do you remember whether at some point in time during
17 1992 there was a vacancy advertised for admitting policemen into the
18 MUP of Republika Srpska, and if so, when did that happen?
19 A. I remember that this was advertised but I really cannot remember
20 exactly when it happened. I know that that was done because it was the
21 crime police that was supposed to be manned.
22 Q. Was it only the crime police that was supposed to be manned on
23 the basis of this vacancy announcement, or other police departments too?
24 A. Other police departments too. That's what I said -- meant.
25 Q. Since these documents haven't been translated yet, I'm going to
1 skip this and perhaps I'll ask you on Monday about all of this.
2 Sir, at the beginning of your testimony we looked at a report
3 from the beginning of July from Vogosca that was written up by the
4 operatives who had gone there to establish what the situation was. Do
5 you remember that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. In that document there was a proposal made by these operatives in
8 their report, namely that Brane Vlaco be appointed chief of the crime
9 police in Vogosca. Do you remember that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Then I asked you about this gentleman and you gave us some
12 information. Tell me, do you remember what his real name was? His first
14 A. Branislav, I think. Branislav Vlaco. His full name. Brane is
15 just a nickname.
16 Q. Do you know a person with the same last name but a different
17 first name, namely Branko Vlaco?
18 A. Yes, I met that person sometime during the course of the war in
20 Q. What do you know about this gentleman, Branko Vlaco?
21 A. I think he was a retired policeman and that at the beginning of
22 the war he was prison warden, or sometime during 1992, I don't know
24 Q. The warden of which prison?
25 A. A prison that was somewhere in the area Vogosca.
1 Q. Do you remember, do you know, what the name of this prison was?
2 A. I don't know the exact name of that prison. I know it was
3 somewhere in Semizovac.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] For the Trial Chamber, these are
6 documents P1499, P1500.13.
7 Q. I'm going to show you a document, tab 96 [as interpreted].
8 683D1. Sir, the document is dated the 25th of May, 1992. It's the
9 Crisis Staff of the Serbian municipality of Vogosca. It's an order.
10 Tell me, did you know that there was a Crisis Staff in Vogosca?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you know who headed this Crisis Staff, who was its president?
13 A. The president was Jovan Tintor.
14 Q. Let us please look at paragraphs 1 and 3 of this order. In
15 paragraph 1 it is ordered to put into operation the municipal court, the
16 municipal misdemeanours court of the Serbian municipality of Vogosca, and
17 to start resolving top priority cases in the areas of security,
18 public law and order, and national defence. And in parentheses it says
19 to be implemented by Zdravko Luketa.
20 Tell me, do you know who Zdravko Luketa is?
21 A. No, I've never met the man.
22 Q. Tell me, the area of public law and order is under whose
23 jurisdiction, according to the law?
24 A. I cannot remember right now who established municipal
25 misdemeanours courts and what their jurisdiction was.
1 Q. Public law and order, was that under the MUP, or, rather, the
2 Ministry of the Interior, maintaining law and order?
3 A. That, yes. That was one of the basic duties of the Ministry of
4 the Interior.
5 Q. Paragraph 3 says:
6 "The public security station of the Serbian municipality of
7 Vogosca is to be immediately put into operation and all necessary
8 measures are to be taken to ensure that it functions properly."
9 In parentheses it says: "To be implemented by Slavko Draskovic."
10 Tell me, do you know who Slavko Draskovic is? Do you know him?
11 A. Yes, I know Slavko Draskovic. He was one of the top people in
12 the CSB Sarajevo before the war.
13 Q. Since this is the 25th of May, do you know whether
14 Slavko Draskovic was a member of the MUP of Republika Srpska?
15 A. That I don't know, whether he was a member of the MUP of
16 Republika Srpska. More than a month had elapsed since the MUP was set
17 up, so I really don't know whether he was a member at that time.
18 Q. Before hostilities broke out was there a public security station
19 in Vogosca?
20 A. Yes, that was one of the public security stations in the
21 territory of the town of Sarajevo.
22 Q. Tell me, what is your understanding of this order, paragraph 3,
23 to put into operation the public security station and to take measures to
24 ensure that it functions properly?
25 A. This is absolutely not in accordance with the Law on the
1 Interior, and the municipal authorities should not have anything to do
2 with police stations.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am aware of the
5 fact that the witness said -- actually, I didn't even ask him, I just
6 assumed that he hasn't seen the document before. But because of some of
7 the other documents that we already have in evidence, I would like to
8 tender this document, unless there are any objections by the Prosecutor.
9 I can also provide appropriate references.
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I would like you to adjourn that
11 question until after the adjournment. There's something I need to check
12 over the adjournment in respect of this document.
13 JUDGE HALL: So we take the break now, to return in 20 minutes.
14 MS. KORNER: And can I say that in our earphones and on the
15 screen was recorded tab 96, which caused some confusion because it isn't,
16 it's tab 90.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry, it's tab 90 and I said tab 90.
18 MS. KORNER: Yeah, it came over as 96. That's okay.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, before we rise today, I would require
24 10 minutes to inform the Trial Chamber of the schedulings of the next
1 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: We have some information.
3 JUDGE HALL: And we trust the extended break, which we didn't
4 fully anticipate when we rose, was such that Ms. Korner has been able to
5 complete the checks that she required in terms of the application to
6 admit this document.
7 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Ms. Korner was able to do
8 it in five minutes and I've no objection to the document being exhibited.
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 JUDGE HALL: So it's admitted and marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D588, Your Honours.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tusevljak, let us take a look at document
14 684D1, tab 91. This is a document originating from the Crisis Staff in
15 Vogosca. It's dated the day after, the 26th of May, 1992. It's an order
16 signed by president of the justice department, Zdravko Luketa. And it's
17 an order sent to the warden of the prison in Vogosca.
18 First of all, tell me whether you have seen this document before.
19 A. No.
20 Q. You told us that you do not know Zdravko Luketa.
21 A. No, I don't know him.
22 Q. In paragraph 2 of this document we see the following:
23 "Twenty persons are left in the prison and are being operatively
24 processed. Their well-being shall be the responsibility of the prison
1 Being operatively processed, are you aware that some individuals
2 were being operatively processed in the prison in Vogosca?
3 A. No. On the 26th of May, 1992, we did not have crime prevention
4 police in Vogosca, so I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, being
5 operatively processed. I don't think that this was any operational
6 processing. I think this is just a word game. The person writing the
7 document probably thought that he was defining something while he wasn't.
8 Operative work is work in the field, not work with some individuals.
9 Anyway, there was no crime prevention police, which means that no
10 operative work could have been conducted at the time.
11 Q. Could you explain the phrase "operative work," somebody being
12 operatively processed within the framework of the crime prevention
13 police, what does it mean?
14 A. You learn that a criminal offence was committed. You undertake
15 certain operative measures and activities in order to shed light on this
16 offence. This entails performing informative interviews in the field,
17 carrying out certain checks in various registers, collecting all other
18 information. This is the essence of operative work.
19 Q. Is this operative work carried out by the inspectors of crime
20 prevention police?
21 A. Yes, mostly it's the inspectors of the crime prevention police.
22 And also, within their domain, members of other services. If we are
23 talking about criminal offences, then it is exclusively members of the
24 crime prevention police.
25 Q. If you remember, when was the crime police department formed in
1 the police station in Vogosca?
2 A. Sometime towards the end of July.
3 Q. Let us go back to the document at hand. According to you, who
4 was able to perform operative work on those 20 persons, could you tell
6 A. I really don't know.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we find ourselves in
9 the same situation as with the last document. This document together
10 with another document tendered during the Prosecution case, P1494, makes
11 a whole, so I propose to tender this document into evidence. I do agree
12 that the issue of the nexus between this witness and this document is
13 somewhat unresolved. Maybe I should first ask Ms. Korner whether she has
14 any objection.
15 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I didn't object because of the
16 inquiries I made on the last occasion, but as Mr. Zecevic points out,
17 some of these documents came in through a witness who was more qualified
18 to deal with it than this one, and I'm not clear why a witness -- why a
19 document that was disclosed in 2006 is being put to a witness who can't
20 talk about it at all, other than to say he doesn't know what they mean by
21 "operatives." And, as I say, I let the last document go in, and it's a
22 matter for Your Honours if you think this is a proper way of dealing with
23 it. But it does seem to me that the proper witness ought to have dealt
24 with this.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HALL: We appreciate, Mr. Zecevic, your wishing to connect
2 this with a document that's already in evidence, but we don't see how we
3 can accede to the present application to admit it at this stage through
4 this witness. So what we will do is mark it for identification pending
5 either a better witness coming in or I suppose it may be left to become
6 part of your bar table motion.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you so much, Your Honours. I understand.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D589 marked for identification,
9 Your Honours.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have 953D1, tab 161.
11 Excuse me, 954D1, tab 162.
12 Q. This is a bulletin by Serbia municipality of Vogosca, prison
13 department, dated the 27th of September, 1992. It pertains to the
14 26th of September, 1992. It's signed by the prison warden Branko Vlaco,
15 and we see a signature.
16 Have you ever seen this document before?
17 A. No, this is a bulletin that had not been submitted to us.
18 Q. Have a look at tabs 163, 164, and 165, documents 955D1, 956D1,
19 and 957D1. Those are also bulletins pertaining to various dates, two
20 from July and one from August. And then tell me whether you ever saw any
21 of these bulletins. Was any of those bulletins sent to the Ministry of
22 the Interior or, more precisely, to the Security Services Centre in
24 A. No. We had nothing to do with this department. It was part of
25 the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska and I had no opportunity
1 to see this or to know anything about it.
2 Q. Sir, does the Ministry of the Interior have any jurisdiction, any
3 authority, over the prisons or other places where prisoners are kept?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 I'm going to show you another document. 960D1, tab 168. It is
7 another document originating in the prison department in Vogosca. It's
8 report on release of prisoners. It's dated the 9th of October, 1992, and
9 it's signed by the prison warden Branko Vlaco. Sir, have you ever seen
10 this report? Have you ever received this report in the Security Services
11 Centre in Sarajevo?
12 A. No. Just like the previous documents, we haven't received this
13 or any other similar reports.
14 Q. Was the chief of the public security station in Vogosca already
15 replaced in October? I'm referring to Branislav Maksimovic. He was
16 replaced by -- excuse me, I -- he was replaced by Zivko Lazarevic in the
17 position of the chief of public security station?
18 A. I think, yes. I think that the management personnel had already
19 been replaced at that point.
20 Q. Public security stations -- or, rather, what are public security
21 stations supposed to include in their daily reports sent to Security
22 Services Centres?
23 A. The reports included, first of all, the situation at the front
24 line relating to the engagement of police forces on the front line. All
25 those police stations were in the territory of intense combat activities.
1 After that there was a bulletin of events related to public law and order
2 and also to criminal offences whose -- which had been detected. So those
3 were the three main points in those daily bulletins. If there were any
4 extraordinary events, they also would have been mentioned in the
6 Q. In case a criminal offence was committed and the perpetrator was
7 arrested or detained, would this kind of information also be included in
8 the daily report?
9 A. This kind of information would have been included in the daily
10 report but also in a special dispatch sent to the Security Services
12 Q. Does the same go for the situation in which persons would be
13 released from police detention?
14 A. If it was the police who made a decision on detention of three
15 days, there would have been information on detention first. After that
16 there should have been information on criminal reports submitted to the
17 local prosecutor, and then it would depend on whether the prosecutor
18 extended the detention or not.
19 Q. Thank you. Do you remember that at some point in October 1992
20 you received a report from Vogosca relating to the fact that
21 11 individuals were released from detention?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have 593D1, tab 172.
25 Q. [Microphone not activated]
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Microphone.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. This is a document originating in the Vogosca Brigade Command on
5 the 17th September, 1992. It's addressed to the Vogosca Prison,
6 attention of Brane Vlaco. Request 50 prisoners to work in the field.
7 It's signed by Commander Trifunovic. Do you know this officer of the VRS
8 named Trifunovic who belonged to the Vogosca Brigade?
9 A. No, I do not know him.
10 Q. Have you ever seen this document before?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Do you know that prisoners from the Vogosca Prison were taken out
13 to work in the field? Do you have any information, operative
14 information, did you learn anything from the report sent by the public
15 security station in Vogosca?
16 A. We received no information from the public security station in
17 Vogosca about these kind of activities. They never reported anything
18 similar to us.
19 Q. Thank you. I'm going to show you P1327, tab 100. Tab 100. Have
20 you ever heard of the name Planja's House?
21 A. [No interpretation]
22 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] We didn't get a
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not in the war, only later on.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Could you repeat the answer.
2 A. I did not hear during the war for Planja's House. Only later on
3 when I was engaged in some other work did I find out about this name.
4 Q. When you say that you were engaged in some other work, what
5 exactly are you referring to?
6 A. I'm referring to my current job. I work in accordance with the
7 guide-lines from the prosecutor's office.
8 Q. On the first day of your testimony when I posed questions about
9 your career, I made an omission. I didn't ask you what is your current
10 job. So I think this is a good opportunity for you to explain what you
11 are currently doing.
12 A. I'm employed in the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska.
13 I'm co-ordinator for discovery and documenting of criminal offences
14 related to war crimes. My job is to co-ordinate activities of the
15 department for investigation of war crimes within the
16 Republika Srpska MUP with the prosecutor's office of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
17 district and cantonal prosecutor's office in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and
18 other police agencies in Bosnia-Herzegovina involved in investigation of
19 the aforementioned criminal offences, as well as the federal Ministry of
20 the Interior. I also assist in investigations of those criminal offences
21 conducted abroad. We had some cases in Norway, Sweden, United States,
22 currently one in Great Britain, and so on.
23 Q. Thank you. With this decision, the Serbian municipality of
24 Vogosca on the 8th of July, 1992, assigned the house of
25 Almas and Miralem Planja in Semizovac for use to the Ministry of Justice.
1 Were you aware of this at the time?
2 A. No.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please show the witness
4 document 587D1. It is tab 169.
5 Q. This is a decision, without a date though, signed by the minister
6 of justice, Momcilo Mandic, and it says:
7 "Decision. The detention department in Vogosca is hereby
8 established as part of the Ilidza Butmir Penal and Correctional Facility.
9 This decision will come into force on the day of issue."
10 Tell me, first of all, are you familiar with the
11 Butmir Correctional Facility in Ilidza?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. That penal and correctional facility in Butmir in Ilidza, did it
14 exist before the outbreak of conflict in April 1992?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And what kind of penal and correctional facility was that
17 Butmir facility in Ilidza?
18 A. It was a prison which was of the half-open type. That is to say,
19 prisoners who had committed minor offences were sent to it. These were
20 mostly traffic offences or crimes of economy or those who were prosecuted
21 for misdemeanours and were sentenced with prison sentences.
22 Q. Thank you. Tell me, do you know whether in the territory of
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina what were the penal and correctional facilities in
24 which persons served their sentences for more serious crimes?
25 A. It was the penal and correctional facility in Foca, then the one
1 in Zenica, in Doboj, and in Banja Luka. I think that these were the
2 facilities for the most serious crimes.
3 Q. But we are talking about the period prior to the outbreak of
4 conflict in April 1992; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. Tell me, these penal and correctional facilities, the
7 four which you mentioned where persons served their sentences for more
8 serious crimes, as well as the Butmir Penal and Correctional Facility,
9 under whose jurisdiction had they been before the 1st of April, 1992?
10 A. Under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice.
11 Q. And those who were located in the territory of Republika Srpska
12 after the 1st of April, 1992, under whose jurisdiction were they?
13 A. Also under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice.
14 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, during this morning's examination - though I'm not
15 sure, as we have been talking for several days now - you mentioned that
16 you know that in Vogosca there was a department of the prison and you
17 mentioned a place or a name. Can you please repeat that for me? Where
18 in Vogosca was that?
19 A. That was in Semizovac, as far as I knew.
20 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Your Honours, could we ask
21 that be spelled.
22 Is that correct as it's come out on the screen?
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Awhile ago I showed you a decision of the
25 Serbian municipality in Vogosca on allocating Planja's House building to
1 the Ministry of Justice, and the decision says that the house of
2 Miralem and Almas Planja in Semizovac. Does that refer to the same
3 place, Semizovac?
4 A. Yes, it's the only place with that name in the territory of
5 Vogosca municipality, and I think that there's even no other Semizovac in
6 all of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
7 Q. Sir, do you know that Momcilo Mandic was the minister of justice
8 of Republika Srpska during 1992?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would tender the
11 document 587D1, tab 169, into evidence if there are no objections.
12 MS. KORNER: Well, honestly, Your Honour, this could have been
13 put to the witness himself when he gave evidence. This witness knows
14 nothing about it.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, perhaps the witness can take the -- his
16 phones off.
17 Your Honours, this document was found during the preparation of
18 our Defence case in Sarajevo. It was located in the office of criminal
19 support of defence teams for the State Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina. As
20 Your Honours will surely recall, there was a case before the state
21 criminal court, State Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina against Mr. Mandic and
22 some other persons who were in charge of various detention facilities at
23 the -- in the area of Sarajevo and so therefore we obtained this document
24 only after the 1st of February this year and therefore were unable to
25 present this document to Momcilo Mandic when he took the stand over here.
1 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honour, to contradict Mr. Zecevic,
2 you'll see it's one of our documents. It's got an ERN number.
3 Disclosed, batch 12, 2006 in response to a Rule 66 request. A Rule 66(B)
5 MR. ZECEVIC: I wasn't aware of that fact. Sorry.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: And, Mr. Zecevic, what is this document to show?
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, this is just to confirm that the -- that the
8 Ministry of Justice actually established the correctional facility in
9 Vogosca at Planja's House in Semizovac.
10 MS. KORNER: In fact, Your Honour --
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Before -- sorry.
12 MS. KORNER: Sorry, can I just say, Your Honour, I seem to
13 recall - and I wasn't aware this application was going to be made, I
14 thought this was more of this has got nothing to do with us - I have a
15 feeling that Mr. Mandic was actually cross-examined about these matters
16 and had something to say about it. And I don't know, I'd have to go back
17 and check the transcript.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Before we go to that, Mr. Zecevic, is your
19 reading, and perhaps it's a translation issue, but is your reading that
20 detention department being established means a detention centre? The
21 detention -- first of all we didn't hear -- we didn't hear about what
22 detention centre is meant here. You made a long way to come to
23 Planja's House, but is this about Planja's House? And first of all, is
24 what is said here in English, the detention department is hereby
25 established, does that refer to detention centre or to a detention - I
1 don't know - service? Offices? Perhaps it's more clear in the Serbian
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I'm afraid -- I'm afraid perhaps it needs an
4 explanation. Every penal correctional facility has a part where the
5 people who are sentenced are serving their sentence, and at the same time
6 they have a part where the people who are in detention pending trial are
7 kept. And according to our system, there is certain different rules
8 which apply to one category, to the other category.
9 Therefore, my reading of this document is that this refers to the
10 establishment of the part of the KPD Butmir as a part for persons
11 awaiting trial, and that is called the Department of Detention. That is
12 my understanding. And I believe we have the evidence of Mr. Mandic to
13 that respect, that it was actually situated in Planja's House, as we see
14 from the document which I presented to Your Honours earlier on and
15 witness commented on it.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE HALL: The document may be admitted and marked.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D590, Your Honours.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Let us please now look
21 at 1D339, which is tab 206.
22 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, this is a decision of the Ministry of Justice
23 dated the 21st of July, 1992, by which Branko Vlaco from Vogosca is
24 appointed warden of the detention department of the Penal and
25 Correctional Facility Butmir Ilidza located in Vogosca. It is signed by
1 Avlijas. Do you know who Radomir Avlijas is? Excuse me,
2 Slobodan Avlijas, rather.
3 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Can I ask where you see
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I know who Slobodan Avlijas
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm sorry, maybe it's missing on the
8 translation, but it says it's an illegible signature. And I'm just
9 wondering how Mr. Zecevic is able to say it's Mr. Avlijas.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I can clearly read the words which are
11 written on the original, and it says Avlijas. And I don't think that was
12 disputed before. This document is already admitted.
13 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] I'm just asking.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. You say you know who Slobodan Avlijas is. Just tell me, where
16 did he work in 1992 if you know, or, to be more specific, in July 1992?
17 A. At the Ministry of Justice of Republika Srpska, or the Serbian
18 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
19 Q. Please look at 1D189. It is tab 201. This is a document from
20 the public security station in Vogosca dated the 12th of December, 1992,
21 signed by the chief of the station, Zivko Lazarevic. It is a criminal
22 report addressed to the military prosecutor's office in
23 Sarajevo, Jahorina, in brackets, against Stanko Knezevic, and then his
24 personal information is noted. Employed as a guardian in the
25 Kula KPD Semizovac department, a Serb, et cetera, for the crime, as it is
1 noted here, as there are reasonable grounds to suspect that --
2 A. I apologise, could we please move into private session now, and I
3 will explain why. Can I ask that as a witness?
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please move into private
6 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
7 [Private session]
11 Pages 22367-22369 redacted. Private session.
14 [Open session]
15 [The witness stands down]
16 --- Recess taken at 12.02 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 12.26 p.m.
18 JUDGE HALL: For the final session today, we convene under
19 Rule 15 bis, Judge Delvoie being absent.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tusevljak, you were chief of the crime
24 police of the CSB. Tell us, please, when a criminal report is filed to
25 the prosecutor's office in charge, when that is done by the police, along
1 with the criminal report, does one submit some attachments as well?
2 A. Yes. All the evidence that was obtained in the pre-trial
3 procedure, certificates of documents, reports, report from the site
4 itself, and so on. Statements that were taken from various persons, that
5 is to say, all the evidence that was gathered is an integral part of the
6 criminal report, its attachments, that is.
7 Q. Tell me -- just a moment, please. As a rule, when does the
8 on-site investigation take place?
9 A. As a rule, it is best to have it carried out as soon as possible,
10 that is to say, immediately after the incident itself. However, if the
11 situation does not permit that, then it can be done subsequently. The
12 important thing is to secure the scene so that it is not compromised in
13 any way.
14 Q. Tell me, why is that important?
15 A. It is important because the traces that can be found on the scene
16 become evidence before a court of law against the person who is charged.
17 Also, on the basis of the traces found, an unknown perpetrator is looked
19 Q. Sir, as time goes by, is it possible for the traces of a crime to
20 disappear from the scene itself?
21 A. Absolutely. As soon as it is compromised, it is compromised.
22 And then other traces may be found, those that happened after the
23 commission of the crime. And that may have destroyed the traces of the
24 crime itself.
25 Q. Tell me, you mentioned reports, what reports do you mean? What
1 kind of reports were you referring to?
2 A. There is the forensic report that is done by the crime
3 technicians, the forensics people who deal with the traces found on the
4 scene itself. If some expertise was carried out, then we also have
5 expert reports. And also, along with the criminal report itself, there
6 is an official report attached, that is to say, the factual description
7 of the crime involved. The elements involved, the actual crime itself,
8 and the description on the basis of which a person has been deemed a
9 perpetrator of a crime.
10 Q. When you say expertise, what kind of expertise do you mean?
11 Could you please tell us that.
12 A. Different kinds of expertise may be carried out on the scene
13 itself; it depends on the crime involved. If it is fire or arson, then
14 that can be examined. Also there can be preliminary investigations as to
15 whether, for example, the samples of blood are human blood, and so on.
16 And then also all biological traces can be dealt with too. They are sent
17 to forensic labs, and then, of course, experts do their work there and
18 they submit the results to the crime police, whereas the crime police
19 submits that to the prosecutor's office and to the court.
20 Q. Sir, if a crime was committed with the use of fire-arms, is a
21 ballistics expertise carried out, as a rule?
22 A. Of course. If casings are found on the scene and if fire-arms
23 are found and if the suspicion is that they were used in the commission
24 of that crime, it is only natural that these fire-arms are examined in
25 order to see whether they are linked to the commission of that crime.
1 Q. If someone died during the commission of a crime, is there a
2 postmortem that is carried out?
3 A. According to the laws that were then enforce, or, rather, the
4 Law on Criminal Procedure that was then enforce of the Serb Republic or
5 the former law of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a
6 postmortem could be ordered only by the investigating judge concerned.
7 The police, therefore, could not request a postmortem. And the same goes
8 for exhumation. That is to say that this was exclusively under the
9 authority of the investigating judge and no one else.
10 Q. Tell me, finally, you mentioned statements, what kind of
11 statements are you referring to in terms of these attachments to the
12 criminal report itself?
13 A. These are statements of witnesses and of a suspect, if the
14 suspect is accessible to the organs of the Ministry of the Interior.
15 Q. My last question in this regard, Mr. Tusevljak: The Ministry of
16 the Interior, or, rather, the CSB Sarajevo, the crime police department,
17 did it send all these attachments along with criminal reports throughout
18 1992? I'm referring to the criminal reports that were filed.
19 A. The attachments that we had available were attached. Whatever
20 you had found, you sent further on to the investigating judge.
21 Excuse me. For instance, at that time, throughout 1992 all the
22 way up until the end of the war, in that area we did not have a single
23 doctor who was a forensic expert. There was another problem involved:
24 In many police stations there weren't any forensics to speak of, except
25 for the very basic things that I already told you about, photographing
1 the scene. These are problems that we came across not only in 1992 but
2 throughout the war.
3 Q. During 1992, when you filed criminal reports, did you also submit
4 all the attachments that you had in your hands?
5 A. Yes, absolutely.
6 Q. Thank you. Sir, I'm going to show you P1493, tab 105. Sir, this
7 is a document of the War Presidency of the municipality of Vogosca. The
8 date is the 6th of November, 1992, signed by Dr. Nikola Poplasen for the
9 War Presidency. And this is an order concerning the release of some
10 prisoners who would be exchanged for some other persons of Serb
11 ethnicity. It also says that this order shall be implemented by the
12 prison warden. On the left-hand side it says who this order was sent to.
13 In your view, to the best of your knowledge, such orders or such
14 documents, documents with this kind of content, were they submitted to
15 public security stations or, rather, the CSB, where you worked?
16 A. I can say that such orders were never submitted to the CSB where
17 I worked. Therefore, they were not submitted to the police stations
18 either because otherwise they would have been duty bounds to provide this
19 to us. That is to say, no, this was not sent to us.
20 Q. Sir, now that we are dealing with this particular subject matter,
21 tell me, this Penal and Correction Facility Butmir Ilidza, you know where
22 it was, don't you?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Was there a police station within that penal and correctional
1 A. There was a police station. It was the police station
2 Kula Novi Grad, but in the administration building of that penal and
3 correctional facility, not in the prison itself. In the administration
4 building that is by the very entrance, that is to say, the area that
5 prisoners were not kept in.
6 Q. Could you please explain this to us a bit more. Perhaps it's not
7 all that clear to everyone what this actually looked like. Let me ask,
8 you first of all: The penal and correctional facility in Butmir, what
9 did it consist of?
10 A. Within the compound of that prison, when you enter through the
11 gate, on the right-hand side there was this administration building. It
12 was right there. And then as you go on, along the wall there was the
13 prison itself, that is, where only prison guards entered and where the
14 prisoners were kept. The administration building was, in fact, the
15 building for the prison administration.
16 Q. Let's just clarify this a bit. Was there a fence or wall within
17 this penal and correctional facility that separated the part of the penal
18 and correctional facility where the prisoners were from the
19 administration building itself?
20 A. Yes, there was a wall.
21 Q. This wall, did it have a door, an entrance?
22 A. Well, yes. Through that door one entered this confined area.
23 And that door was kept locked.
24 Q. Was there any security at that door?
25 A. Well, there should have been. There is no prison without
2 Q. Do you know whether it existed or not?
3 A. I never entered that part of the prison, but there had to be
4 security there. It was impossible for there not to be any security
6 Q. If there was security, who was providing that security? Who
7 worked on that?
8 A. The prison employees. There's no one else.
9 Q. The prison employees. Which ministry was in charge of these
10 prison employees, that is to say, persons employed in penal and
11 correctional facilities?
12 A. The Ministry of Justice.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
15 588D1. Document 205.
16 Q. Sir, this is a document of the Ministry of Justice dated the
17 13th of June, 1992, sent to Kula Butmir, taking over detained
18 individuals, minister of justice, Momcilo Mandic. Have you ever seen
19 this document?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Can you give us an explanation as to why it says
22 Police Station Kula Butmir?
23 A. No, because I've never seen this. I don't know why it says that.
24 Q. The police station Kula, was it within the CSB Sarajevo?
25 A. Yes. That was a police station. It was the
1 Sarajevo-Novi Grad Police Station. It was not the Kula Police Station.
2 That is to say, there never was any such name, officially,
3 Kula Police Station.
4 Q. So this police station that was in the administration building,
5 as you told us, of the Penal and Correctional Facility Butmir, did it
6 pertain to the Novi Grad municipality of Sarajevo?
7 A. Although this is the municipal area of Ilidza, it then pertained
8 to the police station of Novi Grad because it is this area that is
9 territory of Novi Grad.
10 Q. Do you know what was the reason that the public security station
11 of Novi Grad was situated in the administration building of the
12 Penal Correctional Facility Butmir?
13 A. Because it was the only available space. In that area there were
14 only privately-owned houses. This was the only location where the police
15 would have been accommodated.
16 Q. And the last on this issue: Bearing in mind that this public
17 security station was subordinated to the Security Services Centre, did
18 this police station have any authority over the persons who were detained
19 in the Penal Correctional Facility Butmir?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have now P591D1.
23 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, I don't see this is an exhibit.
24 Is Mr. Zecevic not asking for it to be exhibited?
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, obviously the witness said he never saw the
1 document. I don't see any nexus between the document and the witness.
2 It was signed by Mr. Momcilo Mandic. And I'm perfectly fine with the
3 testimony that we have on the record.
4 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, there's been no nexus between
5 any of the other prison documents and this witness, but they've been
6 exhibited. It's up to Mr. Zecevic, but I'm going to ask for it to be
7 exhibited in cross and it seems to me it's more sensible that it's
8 exhibited at this stage so we know what we're talking about.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, in some of the cases we didn't have the nexus
10 I explained why I thought that this -- that the admission of this
11 document would be helpful to the -- to Your Honours. Now, in this case I
12 don't see that it would add anything else to the testimony that we have
13 already on the record.
14 JUDGE HALL: I must confess that personally I'm surprised at the
15 Prosecution's application at this stage because I -- it didn't appear to
16 me to be, for the reasons Mr. Zecevic has given, something that would be
17 admissible through this witness. But if it is a document which
18 Ms. Korner has now given notice that she intends -- to which she intends
19 to return, then I suppose the sensible and practical thing is to enter it
20 at this stage.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm sorry, I objected to the last one
22 because it should have been shown to Mr. Mandic and wasn't. And
23 Your Honours overruled that. And there was absolutely no nexus between
24 what the witness said and that document. This document, we would
25 suggest, is just as important, perhaps not -- the Defence aren't very
1 happy with it, and we are therefore saying --
2 JUDGE HALL: You persuaded us, Ms. Korner.
3 MS. KORNER: Right.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. Can we have the document admitted then.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, exhibit number is 1D591.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Sir, while we are discussing this document, in order to satisfy
8 the curiosity of Ms. Korner: Does the minister of justice have any sort
9 of authority over the members of the Ministry of the Interior?
10 A. No, none whatsoever. These are two separate ministries.
11 Q. Thank you. The document on the screens goes as follows:
12 Republika Srpska, Ministry of Justice, list of employees at the
13 Butmir KPD, penal and correctional facility, the date is the
14 30th of September, 1992.
15 Then it says Minister Momcilo Mandic, and there are 122 persons
16 listed in the document.
17 Do you know the persons listed under numbers 1 and 2?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Number 1, Radoje Lalovic. What did he do at the time?
20 A. I think he was the warden of the prison, the warden of the penal
21 correctional facility.
22 Q. And number 2, Soniboj Skiljevic?
23 A. I think that he was the assistant chief of department.
24 Q. Have you ever seen this document before?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do not intend to
3 tender this document. However, if Ms. Korner is of different opinion, I
4 will be glad to oblige her and I'm going to tender this into evidence.
5 JUDGE HALL: What end, Mr. Zecevic? You said you didn't -- you
6 yourself have no -- see no need to tender it, but why do you think it
7 would be helpful for the case as a whole?
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I personally don't know, Your Honours, but
9 Ms. Korner intervened before for the document which was for KPD Butmir
10 and now in this document we know who are the chief and his deputy, so
11 perhaps for some reason it is important for Ms. Korner. Again, this
12 document --
13 JUDGE HALL: But that was the only -- your question was the only
14 reason why you had this called up and shown to the witness?
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, that is correct.
16 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Well, let's move on.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, do you know what Mr. Radoje Lalovic was
19 doing in the second half of 1992? Was he transferred from the Penal
20 Correctional Facility Butmir?
21 A. As far as I know, he left the penal correctional facility for
22 Bijeljina. I don't know what he did there.
23 Q. Thank you. After the departure of Mr. Lalovic, who became the
24 warden of the Penal Correctional Facility Butmir, if you remember?
25 A. I think that Soniboj Skiljevic was appointed and that he remained
1 in this position until the end of the war. I don't think anybody else
2 was appointed to this position in the meantime.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have 65 ter 601D1. 184.
4 It's tab 184.
5 Q. Sir, this is a certificate originating from the Ministry of
6 Justice, dated the 3rd of January, 2007. It pertains to
7 Soniboj Skiljevic. And in item 2 we see that he worked in the Butmir
8 Penal and Correctional Facility as counsellor and head of the admission
9 and discharge department from the 2nd of June, 1976, until the
10 3rd of April, 1992. And as the head advisor to the director and
11 assistant director of the re-education service from the
12 4th of April, 1992, until the 31st December, 2006. Do you know that
13 Mr. Soniboj Skiljevic worked all this time in the
14 Penal Correctional Facility Butmir from 1976 to 2006?
15 A. I'm not aware of that. I met Mr. Skiljevic sometime in the
16 second half of 1992 in the penal correctional facility when he was
17 appointed warden. I hadn't known him before. So I cannot speak about
18 where he worked and how long he worked there.
19 Q. Thank you. I think that you said that he worked in the
20 Penal Correctional Facility Butmir until the end of the war.
21 A. Yes, he was the warden from the fall until the end of the war and
22 also after the war.
23 Q. You said the fall, the fall of which year?
24 A. The fall of 1992.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have now 21D1. It's
2 tab 124.
3 Q. [Microphone not activated]
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Excuse me.
6 Q. Sir, this is a decision by the minister of the interior dated the
7 8th of August, 1992. It pertains to Mane Djuric and his temporary
8 appointment to the post of the chief of the SJB in Vlasenica. Can you
9 confirm that Mr. Mane Djuric was provisionally appointed to the post of
10 the Vlasenica SJB in August of 1992?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Sir, did you ever receive a similar appointment pertaining to
13 your new position?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The decision that you received, did it contain the same text as
16 this one? I'm referring to the printed part of the document, so to
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So was it a standard form?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have 961D1, tab 204.
22 Q. Sir, this is an identical document bearing the date the
23 1st of April, 1992, Ministry of the Interior, signed by Mico Stanisic.
24 Is this the form that I just mentioned?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. You can see that this form contains no personal data. We don't
2 know to whom it pertains. Are you aware that similar forms existed in
3 the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska in 1992?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Take a look at the signature on this document. Is this a genuine
6 signature or a facsimile of a signature?
7 A. I think this is a facsimile of a signature. I say this because
8 in the school at Vrace I saw many similar decisions.
9 Q. Now, when we say a facsimile of signature, could you explain what
10 exactly that is.
11 A. This is probably stamp and signature of Mr. Stanisic that was
12 imprinted on all the decisions.
13 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Something turns on whether
14 it's a facsimile or manual signature, Mr. Zecevic?
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, that is correct. I wanted to ask that
16 question, and that is precisely what I asked, but the witness's answer
17 was differently recorded.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, did you hear the question posed by
19 Judge Hall? The question was: Is this a facsimile, that is, a stamp
20 containing the signature of a person, or is this a genuine signature by
21 this person?
22 A. I think it's a stamp that was made on the basis of a genuine
23 signature of a person.
24 Q. Based on what, you say this?
25 A. I think that in my archive I have my own decision, and that
1 decision was stamped with blue ink, which means that it wasn't written
2 out in a pencil. It was stamped.
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, I think you may have misunderstood my
4 question. I was only asking whether the -- it's probably universal that
5 officials have facsimile signatures for routine matters, but does it
6 matter at the end of the day whether you're dealing with a manual
7 signature or a facsimile signature in terms of the official character of
8 the document. That's what I was asking. So why are we spending time on
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we heard evidence about this from
11 another witness, and it's not disputed.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. I understand. I'm sorry, Your Honours. I
13 misunderstood your question.
14 Your Honour, now we have 1D190. This is a document under seal.
15 Do you wish us to move to private session? It's tab 76.
16 JUDGE HALL: Well, can it be dealt with without being publicly
17 shown, or will your questions compromise the document?
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, my questions -- my questions
19 are actually directed at the contents of the document, so perhaps --
20 JUDGE HALL: So we go into private session.
21 [Private session]
11 Pages 22385-22387 redacted. Private session.
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would now move to
22 another subject. And I thought perhaps I would suggest that we finish
23 for the day with this witness so that I could report to the Trial Chamber
24 on some issues I deem to be important and relating to the continuation of
25 the Defence case.
1 JUDGE HALL: Very well.
2 Mr. Tusevljak, we are about to take the adjournment for the week.
3 We reconvene on Monday afternoon and -- but the Chamber is not about to
4 rise now; we have some administrative matters with which to deal. And,
5 therefore, the usher will escort you from the courtroom. And, of course,
6 I remind you of what I said at the first day of your adjournment about
7 not discussing the matter with anyone outside of the court. Yes. So we
8 will see you on Monday afternoon.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I would like to advise the
11 Trial Chamber of a pretty serious problem that we are facing, but I would
12 ask for a closed session. Private session. I'm sorry, private session.
13 JUDGE HALL: Very well. We revert to private session.
14 [Private session]
11 Pages 22390-22393 redacted. Private session.
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE HALL: So we reconvene on Monday afternoon.
24 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
25 JUDGE HALL: Counsel and parties will inform themselves
1 accordingly by the public schedule. But the time is Monday afternoon at
2 2.15. And I trust everyone has a safe weekend.
3 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
4 JUDGE HALL: It's Courtroom I. Thank you.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.41 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Monday, the 20th day
7 of June, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.