1 Monday, 20 June 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon,
6 everyone in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case number IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus
8 Mico Stanisic and 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 for the Prosecution.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
14 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for
15 Stanisic Defence this afternoon. Thank you.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and
17 Aleksandar Aleksic for Zupljanin Defence.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
19 Yes, Ms. Korner.
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honours may have seen - I hope that you were
21 told from the e-mail I sent on Friday - in response to the Defence
22 notification that they propose to add at that stage a further, I think it
23 was 65, new documents, since yesterday 70 new documents to the list.
24 Your Honours, between -- on their list, between tabs 210 and now 289 are,
25 as I say, a further 79 documents that it is said that Mr. Zecevic
1 proposes to use with this witness.
2 Your Honour, can I saying straightaway, we have added about
3 49 documents this morning but the difference is that we have to add
4 documents because the 65 ter summaries really do not tell you, nor indeed
5 on this occasion did the interview we conducted with this witness, the
6 sort of assertions he's going to be making. And so it's only as you
7 listen to the evidence that you realise the documents that are going to
8 become relevant. Whereas the Defence are presumed, as we were, when
9 calling their witnesses in chief to have decided in advance through the
10 lengthy proofing sessions they apparently conduct with their witnesses
11 what documents they want to use.
12 But, however, Your Honour, the documents, it's themselves that I
13 want to raise. All of the documents relate to criminal cases in some
14 form or another, either criminal complaints or forensic examination or
15 the like. All of them relate to areas which are outside that of the
16 CSB Sarajevo. And, therefore, this witness cannot possibly have any
17 personal knowledge of these matters at all.
18 The majority come from Banja Luka. There are 63 of the documents
19 listed from the Banja Luka area, including municipalities, however, which
20 are not covered by this indictment, but Your Honours have expressed the
21 view before that leeway must be given. But they come from Laktasi, for
22 example, Bosanska Gradiska on the Croatia border, Mrkonjic Grad, Glamoc
23 and Celinac, Bosanska Dubica, and the like. Ten of the documents are
24 related to Bijeljina. Your Honours have heard quite a lot of evidence
25 about that they all relate to the murder of Krkic [phoen]. And seven
1 relate to Doboj, all of which were dealt with by Mr. Bjelosevic when he
2 gave evidence.
3 Now, Your Honours, the Defence have decided, for whatever reason,
4 not to call very many witnesses; that, of course, is their decision. But
5 they can't, we would submit to you, try to deal with the consequences of
6 that decision by making a witness, who patently cannot give evidence of
7 his own knowledge, as it were, a vessel for producing documents that they
8 have not otherwise been able to produce. A number of them, in fact, are
9 MFI'd because Mr. Zecevic sought to put them in through Mr. Tutus, who
10 one would have thought was clearly a witness who was at least closer to
11 most of these criminal report and analyses. It turned out he couldn't
12 say anything, Your Honours, and we objected on the basis that the -- that
13 he was not the suitable witness for these documents to come in to. And
14 this was left so that the documents that were shown to him were MFI'd.
15 Your Honours, if Mr. Tutus wasn't suitable, then how can it be
16 said that Mr. Tusevljak is even remotely suitable? Your Honours, the
17 Defence could have called a witness who could deal with them. Of course
18 Mr. Zupljanin, obviously, is in a position to deal with them. Or
19 alternatively if they cannot find a witness then the proper way is to
20 bar table them. But we would submit it's not proper to try and use this
21 witness to get these documents into evidence. As I say, it escapes me at
22 the moment entirely how he can give any useful or meaningful evidence
23 about these documents.
24 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. Your Honours, I'm sure
1 Your Honours would recall the exchanges we had on the transcript of
2 Friday, 20367. Your Honours, that is for the first time that the Defence
3 was made aware of the Prosecutor's case. Namely, the Prosecution changed
4 their case, and obviously even in -- during the Defence case they are
5 modifying their case. First, in the indictment and the OTP pre-trial
6 brief what was alleged was that our client participated in sham
8 Now, you will recall that during the Prosecutor's case we
9 presented a number of documents which were criminal complaints filed.
10 Then the Office of the Prosecutor changed their case again, stating that
11 there was a discrimination in the way how the police worked and that in
12 cases where the victims were Muslims or non-Serbs there was a completely
13 different situation than in case where the victims were Serbs.
14 Now, when we showed the documents, criminal complaints, which
15 were filed in cases where the victims were non-Serbs, now we come to the
16 point where Ms. Korner is suggesting that it is -- their case is not
17 about whether the criminal complaints were filed in cases where non-Serbs
18 were victims, but - and I'm quoting now: "We say there is no --"
19 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Page number?
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Page number is 22368, I believe, of Friday
22 "But we say that there's no -- absolutely no evidence before the
23 Court that any trials taking place 17 or 18 years later are based on the
24 evidence recovered by the police in 1992. And that is a real issue."
25 And then further:
1 "That does not mean to say that any prosecution now is based on
2 the evidence gathered or not gathered in 1992. And that's the issue."
3 Now, confronted with that fact, which was stated for the first
4 time, it became apparent to us for the first time during this last two
5 years what is the Prosecutor's case. We decided to show the documents,
6 which we have never proofed the witness with, but to show the documents
7 to him concerning especially this allegation which Ms. Korner explicitly
8 explained on Friday.
9 Now, it is my understanding, Your Honours, that the guide-lines
10 which require us to announce the documents is just that we put the
11 parties on notice that we are going to use these documents, that we are
12 going to use some of the documents for the -- during the direct
13 examination of the witness, as well as cross-examination of the witness.
14 Therefore, the moment when this became apparent to us what is the nature
15 of the Prosecutor's case, I mean, the change in the Prosecutor's case, if
16 I can say so, we informed all the parties that we are going to rely on --
17 that we are going to show some of these documents to the witness.
18 That's the first part. The second part of Ms. Korner's words
19 right now are actually misinterpretation of the situation which is in the
20 case -- in this case. On page 7840 during the examination of
21 Tusevljak -- the OTP Witness Tutus, I'm sorry.
22 Your Honour Judge Hall: "Mr. Zecevic, if you are continuing to
23 lead evidence from the witness to answer the second question that we
24 posed, we are satisfied on that aspect. And now our ruling is that the
25 documents may be marked for identification, not pending a further witness
1 coming in to prove them, but pending the matter of authenticity being
2 resolved at some point."
3 Now, after that, Your Honours, if you will probably recall, the
4 Defence informed the parties that the documents were received actually
5 from the RS MUP, these documents which the authenticity is asked for, was
6 questioned or objected by the Office of the Prosecutor, and we submitted
7 the document which is now 65 ter 20187, and it's in Prosecutor's binder
8 number 52. And that is the document where all these documents which were
9 MFI'd are contained, and it's a confirmation by the RS MUP that these
10 documents have been disclosed to us, and, therefore, we anticipated that
11 this would have been sufficient to prove the authenticity of these
13 Now, as the matter was not resolved with that, this document
14 which I just cited, the document 52 in the binder of the Office of the
15 Prosecutor, was in fact signed by this witness, who is a co-ordinator of
16 the team. And, therefore, what I intend to do with these documents is
17 that I show this document to him to -- that he proves that this is his
18 document and then I show him the example of these documents in order that
19 he verifies the authenticity of the documents so we can ask that the
20 documents be de-MFI'd.
21 And that is the only reason, Your Honours. Thank you very much.
22 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, that wasn't at all -- first of
23 all, can I say, we have not changed our case. And for Mr. Zecevic to say
24 he only heard this when we he had the discussion on Thursday cannot be
25 right because apart from anything else we made that very self-same point
1 in a written response to one of his motions for additions to the
2 65 ter list.
3 But if all that he wants this witness to do is to have a list of
4 the reports that are contained in his letter and say "Are those
5 authentic?" then of course we don't object. What I do object to is for
6 him going through all of these cases about which he has no personal
7 knowledge whatsoever. He can simply say he received them and passed them
8 on to the Defence. No objection to that at all. Whether Your Honours
9 de-MFI it at that stage is a matter perhaps to see also when we hear from
10 cross-examination. As I say, my only objection is to each and every one
11 of these - how many documents did I say they were? - 70, I think, or
12 whatever, being gone through with the witness who knows nothing about
14 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So matter seems to have been resolved.
15 MS. KORNER: Well, yes. Do I understand that's all that
16 Mr. Zecevic is going to do? So that we don't have to send the witness in
17 and out of court.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I think I said so.
19 Your Honours, I have a brief matter to inform Your Honours about.
20 Can we go into the private session, please.
21 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
22 [Private session]
11 Pages 22403-22406 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE HALL: Please continue, Ms. Korner.
8 MS. KORNER: I just wanted to put Your Honours on notice that it
9 may be - and I appreciate that the Court's not very receptive to
10 applications for leave to appeal - but it is of such -- we do consider
11 this of such importance, given, as I say, I have to go and check which
12 trial judgement it was, that we may well want to ask for leave to appeal
13 if Your Honours are going to rule that all of them may be 92 bis, just so
14 that Your Honours are on notice. This is not in terrorem but just that
15 that's the situation.
16 JUDGE HALL: So, if there are no other housekeeping matters,
17 would the usher please escort the witness back to the stand.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, if the other plans about -- with
19 regard to Mr. Macar wouldn't work, would a opening of your case in the
20 next week be a possibility? In the next weeks, I mean.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I understand Your Honour. I'm
22 afraid that's not possible. I was away from the courtroom several days
23 precisely because I was trying to deal with these newly arisen problems.
24 So at first I had this expert witness who was supposed to start the week
25 of the 17th, starting the 17th. And that would have wrapped up our
1 trial, at least as far as the part before the summer recess is concerned.
2 I moved him forward by about seven days. He should have been in Belgrade
3 on the 4th of July and then he would have been in The Hague on the 7th or
4 the 8th. On the 11th we would have started his evidence and perhaps been
5 able to complete that same day. So that was the idea.
6 But I did have a contingency plan as well, to bring another
7 witness, that's SZ-006. However, he underwent heart surgery in the
8 meantime and I had to give him up. I probably won't be able to call that
9 witness. Needless to say, we'll do everything within our power to make
10 sure we have other witnesses lined up, but it's just not realistic to
11 expect that we would be able to bring any witness at all over the next
12 two weeks to start their evidence in this court.
13 The most -- probably the expert witness Kolacevic [phoen] would
14 be ready on the 11th. That's as much as I can say. Regardless of
15 whether Mr. Macar is ready to testify that week, Witness Kolacevic has
16 been moved forward -- moved backward by a full week, and he will be able
17 to start on the 11th.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: So that witness would be able to start on the
19 11th and after he finishes you could have other witnesses? It's just to
20 know whether we have a plan B in case Mr. Macar is not able to come on
21 the 11th of July. And I suppose we have to make that decision some time
22 before the 11th.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what I said is as much
24 as I can promise at this point in time, as much as I'm certain about.
25 I'll do my best to bring other witnesses too, among those mentioned.
1 Most of these witnesses don't have passports. That's one of the
2 problems. Some of them are gainfully employed and find it difficult to
3 get leave from their employers. One of these witnesses happens to be in
4 Australia throughout this period, therefore the timing is quite
5 inconvenient. We have a total of three witnesses who were scheduled to
6 testify after the summer recess, yet are unable to make it.
7 Nevertheless, we'll certainly do everything within our power. But I
8 can't promise anything more to the Chamber at this point. I can't make
9 any further commitments, and I can't promise any other witnesses before
10 the summer recess with the exception of the expert witness.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you, Mr. Krgovic. Another, but related,
12 question: Will you make an opening statement?
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Indeed, Your Honour. A short one,
14 though. In my announcement I said that it would not exceed a single
15 session, and we'll start with the evidence straightaway after that.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you very much.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Tusevljak, good afternoon to you. Before
19 Mr. Zecevic resumes his examination-in-chief, I remind you you're still
20 on your oath.
21 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
23 WITNESS: SIMO TUSEVLJAK [Resumed]
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 Examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]
1 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Tusevljak.
2 A. Good afternoon.
3 Q. On Friday the 17th of June, at page 22388, I was showing you a
4 document from Vlasenica invoking CSB Sarajevo document 0147892. The
5 document is under seal and I won't be showing it to you now for that
6 reason. Nevertheless, you said at that time that it might be useful to
7 see what the document 01478/92 from Sarajevo CSB was about. That would
8 have allowed you, as you claimed, to comment on the document that we were
9 looking at at the time. Do you remember that, sir?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have a look at 1D584.
12 This is tab 24.
13 Q. [Microphone not activated]
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Zecevic, please.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies.
16 Q. Sir, is this the document that you said you would need to look at
17 in order to see what was being requested?
18 A. I think so. There are references here to our own documents,
19 123/92, the 25th of July, 1992. And you can also see that the public
20 security stations were familiar through this document with the order of
21 the minister of the interior, saying that all policemen should be removed
22 from police stations who have criminal records of any kind or have been
23 known to commit crimes during their work with the Ministry of Interior.
24 Q. This document in front of you, does it have anything to do with
25 the rules on disciplinary measures, war time disciplinary measures, and
1 the violations of the terms of service, those more serious as well as
2 those less serious, as described in the rules?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please move on to 194.
5 949D1. Tab 194. The document is 65 ter 949D1.
6 Q. Sir, was the public security station part of the
7 Sarajevo Romanija-Birac district during 1992?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. This is one of their documents, the 24th of September, 1992. The
10 subject reads "response to your document 478/92," signed by
11 Vujadin Klisaric. Are you familiar with this person, Mr. Klisaric?
12 A. Yes. At the time, he was the chief of the Sekovici Public
13 Security Station.
14 Q. They report here that disciplinary proceedings were underway
15 against one employee. It reads:
16 "The proposal has already been submitted to the CSB for their
17 information and for them to take steps."
18 Do you perhaps remember what this was about?
19 A. I can't remember at the moment what specific employee this was
20 about, but you can tell that steps have been taken against one of their
21 own and the whole case file was forwarded to the Security Services
23 Q. Thank you very much.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would
25 like to tender this.
1 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, I've said over and over again
2 that we don't say and we never have said that disciplinary proceedings
3 were not carried out. The question is whether they were carried out for
4 crimes committed against non-Serbs. And we don't even know what this
5 one's for. But other than that, Your Honours, if Your Honours want to
6 admit it, we don't object.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE HALL: How does this advance the case, Mr. Zecevic, the
9 admission of this document?
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, I explained already once and
11 the document I referred to at that time was admitted. It is important
12 for the Defence because it reflects the knowledge of the minister, the
13 ministry --
14 JUDGE HALL: Yeah, but if I might interrupt, as Ms. Korner says,
15 on the face of it, we don't know what this document is about.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: It's about the disciplinary proceedings conducted
17 against one of the members of the MUP. It says in the document.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: For what?
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, the point is not for what, with all
20 due respect. The point is that the disciplinary system exists at the
21 time, and that is the knowledge of the accused.
22 Your Honours -- Your Honours, please, the law lists what are the
23 major -- or the important or less important breaks of the duties of the
24 police officers. The law of the Ministry of Interior, the Law on
25 Public Administration. We established that the -- that there was an
1 instruction on the disciplinary proceedings --
2 Perhaps the witness can take the headphones off.
3 We established that there was an instruction signed by minister
4 on the disciplinary proceedings during the state of war. Now, if the
5 minister in 1992 is aware that the disciplinary system functions, that
6 the disciplinary -- that the disciplinary measures were taken against the
7 members of the MUP, I think that goes to the knowledge and therefore is
8 very relevant for our case.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE HALL: So the document may be -- is admitted and marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D592, Your Honours.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
13 Thank you very much, Mr. Tusevljak.
14 Can we now please have 65 ter 142D1. This is tab 59. Rather,
15 can we please first have 943D1 from tab 917. My apologies. 934. 934D1,
16 tab 197.
17 Q. Sir, this is a dispatch from the public security station in
18 Zvornik, sent to the Ministry of the Interior, police administration,
19 Security Services Centre in Bijeljina, as well as that in Sarajevo, the
20 Romanija-Birac CSB, signed by Chief Milorad Lokancevic. This document
21 reports on a disciplinary procedure that is being initiated against a
22 person called Brano Djurdje, son of Milan, the police employee. In the
23 last paragraph, the chief suggests that this person be suspended from
24 work because of a serious violation.
25 Sir, are you familiar with Mr. Milorad Lokancevic?
1 A. Yes. He was the chief of the Zvornik Public Security Station at
2 this time.
3 Q. Sir, when you look at the type of violation committed by this
4 member of the public security station, is this what you might classify as
5 a serious violation of his obligations?
6 MS. KORNER: The proper question is: "How would you classify
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise. Madam Korner is
10 Q. How would you classify this work-related violation based on the
11 description in the document?
12 A. It is quite obvious that the document states that the police
13 employee committed a violation. He caused an instance of public danger
14 and he was found to be in possession of a substantial amount of weapons.
15 Therefore, this constitutes a serious violation of work discipline.
16 Q. What about the actions taken by this member of the MUP, do they
17 have any features that would constitute a crime or a criminal offence,
18 and if so, which?
19 A. You're looking at the criminal offence of causing public danger
20 and possession of illegal weapons and ammunition. I can't specifically
21 remember the articles in the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina that
22 relate to these criminal offences, but there appears to be a total of two
23 criminal offences involved here.
24 Q. This is a member of -- or, rather, what about members of the
25 Ministry of the Interior who committed violations such as this one or
1 even more serious ones, were they suspended, and if so, at what point in
3 A. Yes, they were suspended. The measure would be taken as soon as
4 the circumstances were explained under which a criminal offence had been
6 Q. Thank you very much.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for the same reason
8 as that which was raised in relation to the previous document, I would
9 like to tender this one into evidence.
10 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D593, Your Honours.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have
13 65 ter 142D1, tab 59.
14 Q. Sir, the date on this document is the 22nd of September, 1992,
15 Zvornik Public Security Station, signed by Milorad Lokancevic. Reference
16 is to a dispatch by the Sarajevo Security Services Centre, which is also
17 the addressee. There is a reference to this dispatch that unfortunately
18 is not in our possession, dispatch number 477. On the 20th of August, a
19 criminal report was filed because of a criminal offence from Article 43
20 of the Criminal Code of the SRJ, war crimes against the wounded and sick.
21 It also says that a questionnaire was filled out, war crimes victims
22 questionnaire, and attached to this memo.
23 First of all, did you receive from the Ministry of Interior at
24 any point in May 1992 a set of instructions or guide-lines on what to do
25 in case you came across any war crimes?
1 A. Yes. As far as I remember, it was in the latter half of May. A
2 letter came that said we should take steps if we came across any of
4 Q. Do you perhaps remember who signed that letter, that
6 A. I think it was signed by the then chief of the crime police
7 administration, Dobro Kanjic [phoen].
8 Q. Thank you. Do you perhaps remember that at any point throughout
9 the summer of 1992 -- or, rather, during the summer of 1992 did you
10 receive any other guide-lines that had to do with war crimes?
11 A. We had this collegium meeting at the Ministry of Interior in
12 Belgrade. One of the conclusions reached was that appropriate measures
13 had to be taken to document war crimes. I'm not sure if there was a
14 special dispatch that was sent out to everyone dealing with war crimes,
15 but I know that at some point late that summer forms were distributed to
16 everyone that were to be filled by everyone at public security stations
17 across the range that had to do with war crimes.
18 I think that we from the Security Services Centres at some point
19 in August or possibly in September drew up some framework guide-lines on
20 what to do whenever one came across the commission of a war crime in the
21 line of duty. We had a very experienced criminal technician who worked
22 with us and he produced a sort of mock scenario as to what a technician
23 like that, a forensic officer, should do when they came across a crime
25 It's related to what I was saying before. When on the ground,
1 unfortunately we didn't have sufficiently-trained employees who were
2 trained in a way that would have allowed them to deal with this type of
3 crime. Regrettably they weren't even sufficiently trained to deal with
4 ordinary crimes. For the most part, they had no experience with the more
5 serious crimes. So the report that reached the Security Services Centre
6 is precisely in relation to the intensions that arose in the latter half
7 of 1992.
8 Q. Thank you. Just one intervention in the transcript. On page 21,
9 line 10: "Regrettably they weren't even sufficiently trained to deal
10 with ordinary crimes." I think you said something else.
11 Can you please slowly repeat your answer so that it would be
12 correctly recorded in the transcript.
13 A. I said in this part of my answer that they were not trained to
14 conduct investigation of the most ordinary criminal offences, such as
15 theft, aggravated theft. That is to say, the classic crimes.
16 Q. Tell me, what was the reason for you to draw up these
17 instructions for the forensic technicians during the month of
18 August 1992?
19 A. Well, we saw that documents which we were receiving from the
20 ground, from police stations, did not meet the most basic needs. And it
21 is well known that what forensic technicians collect at the sites of
22 crimes is then submitted to the prosecutor's offices so that the
23 prosecutor's office could present the evidence before a court. Which
24 means that the on-site investigations which were conducted by the
25 forensic technicians were not nearly adequate. That was the reason to
1 assist, at least a little, the forensic technicians who had begun working
2 on the ground. In the Ministry of the Interior no forensic -- no courses
3 for forensic technicians had been organised as yet at the time.
4 Q. Was the goal to improve the work of the forensic technical
5 service or was it something else?
6 A. Only improving the work of the forensic technicians on the
8 Q. Sir, let us return to the document. Are you familiar with the
9 first item, a criminal report? What does it have to do with?
10 A. I cannot specifically say judging by the numbers and the date
11 which criminal offence this was, but it is obvious that the
12 Zvornik Public Security Station submitted this against unknown
13 perpetrators with the basic public prosecutor's office in Zvornik.
14 Q. In paragraph 2, this document talks about a report dated the
15 26th of June, 1992, when genocide was committed against the Serbian
16 population in the territory of the Serbian population in Zvornik. And
17 the reasons for which criminal reports against unidentified persons or,
18 as they are called here, the Muslim extremists had not been submitted.
19 Tell me, Mr. Tusevljak, did the police have a different standard
20 when it came to war crimes committed against non-Serbs as compared to
21 those instances when the victims were Serbs?
22 A. No. When the police went out to a crime site and conducted an
23 on-site investigation, when we were called and when we could conduct an
24 on-site investigation, the same criminal report against unidentified
25 person was filed if the perpetrators were unidentified. And if the
1 perpetrators of a crime were known, then most often, when such persons
2 were within our reach, criminal reports were filed for crimes of
3 aggravated murder. Article 36, I think, paragraph 3 or 4, but I cannot
4 say that off the top of my head, but these were -- this was the most
5 serious crime. And this paragraph in the Criminal Code of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina envisaged the most severe penalties as well.
7 Q. I will show you these documents awhile later. Now, please tell
8 me, do you remember whether there were any requests to document war
9 crimes, particularly, or crimes against civilians committed against
11 A. I think that all requests asked for all war crimes to be
13 Q. Why was it sometimes insisted that crimes against Serbs
14 documented as well?
15 A. Because they were always committed in 90 per cent of the cases at
16 least. Territory which was not under the control of the Republika Srpska
17 MUP. Therefore we mostly learned of them through Serbs who had managed
18 to survive the crimes.
19 It happened very often that we could not reach these persons
20 because they wouldn't report to any police station, so that very often we
21 only learned about those crimes quite some time after they had occurred.
22 Q. Once again for the needs of the transcript, page 23, line 21, to
23 my question "was it sometimes insisted that crimes against Serbs be
24 documented as well," your answer has been recorded in the following way:
25 "Because they were always --" the crimes were in at least 90 per
1 cent of the cases committed, and then full stop. "The territory which
2 was under the control of the Republika Srpska MUP. Therefore we mostly
3 learned of them through Serbs who had managed to survive the crimes."
4 This is not what you said. It is very important, so can you
5 please explain for us what this is about, which crimes this refers to,
6 and please be so kind and say it in a slow and articulate manner so that
7 it would be recorded precisely.
8 A. The crimes against Serbs were committed in 90 per cent of the
9 cases in the territory which was under the control of the army of the
10 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the MUP of the Republic of Bosnia and
11 Herzegovina rather than in the territory which was under the control of
12 the Republika Srpska MUP. That was the reason why our ability of
13 learning that a crime had been committed was limited to Serbs who had
14 come as refugees from these areas. Very often these refugees did not
15 report themselves to any police station and did not report these events.
16 For that reason, it was requested that operatives interview such persons
17 and take their statements so that through such statements such crimes
18 would be documented.
19 Q. Let's provide a context for this or an example so that we could
20 understand it better. If you learned that a crime had been committed
21 against some Serbs who were in the territory of Sarajevo controlled by
22 the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, would that constitute such a case?
23 A. Yes. It was the only way at the time in which we could receive
24 such information.
25 Q. And as for the Ministry of the Interior of the Federation of
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was under the control of the Ministry of the
2 Interior, did it submit criminal reports in case of such crimes or
3 document them, from what you know, if you know anything?
4 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] How can he answer that
5 question? He's not a member of the MUP of BiH.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: I asked if he's aware of it.
7 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] I still ask: How can he
8 answer that question?
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, perhaps the witness can answer --
10 MS. KORNER: No. You explain to me on what basis.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Ms. Korner, the witness's testimony is that
12 ministry of RS is filing criminal complaints against the perpetrators of
13 crimes committed against the Serbs in the territory which was not under
14 their control, and I'm asking him whether he knows if the MUP of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina filed the criminal complaints for these very same
17 MS. KORNER: I appreciate and -- I appreciate that is the
19 I'm sorry, Your Honours, we should do it through you.
20 I appreciate that's the question. I'm merely querying the basis
21 on which a member of the MUP of the RS can know whether or not the MUP in
22 BiH, across the front lines which he's described so vividly, so often,
23 can know the answer to that.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, he explained that they were getting this
25 information from the people who managed to escape from the territory
1 which was under the control of the Bosnian army, so perhaps he has -- he
2 has knowledge through that. And it is admissible in this jurisdiction, I
4 May I continue?
5 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Sir, did you have information of this kind?
8 A. Yes, we absolutely did. I'm still investigating war crimes, and
9 I have had opportunity to see all criminal reports filed since 1992 in
10 Bosnia and Herzegovina to this very day. I'm currently co-operating with
11 prosecutors at the cantonal prosecutor's office in Sarajevo and I have
12 access to all files submitted by the Sarajevo Police between 1992 and
13 1995, and after that. I also have access to everything that was
14 submitted to the military cantonal prosecutor's office in Sarajevo. I
15 have not come across a single criminal report from that time which has to
16 do with war crimes except for criminal reports filed against Serbs and
18 However, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I think this is also the case
19 in other countries, the prosecutor is the person who determines how a
20 certain act is to be qualified regardless of what we from the police may
21 write and how we may classify an offence. That was the reason why the
22 prosecutor sometimes changed the qualification of many criminal offences,
23 both of those submitted by the police of the Federation and those
24 submitted by the minister [as interpreted] of the interior of
25 Republika Srpska. That is the absolute right of the prosecutor, to judge
1 by the characteristics of a certain offence and change the qualification.
2 What is most important in police work is that the report should contain
3 as many elements as possible and as much evidence as possible about the
4 act itself which was committed or evidence about the person who committed
5 the act.
6 I think I made myself clear.
7 Q. Just another intervention in transcript. On page 27, line 3, you
8 said criminal reports submitted by the police of the Federation or those
9 submitted by the "minister" of the interior of Republika Srpska. Did you
10 say "minister" or the "ministry"?
11 A. I said the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska.
12 Q. Sir, if a serious crime is committed in the territory that was
13 outside Republika Srpska, whose duty was it to file a criminal report in
14 accordance with the law, that is to say, who was supposed to prosecute
15 the crime?
16 A. In accordance with the Criminal Code or the
17 Law on Criminal Procedure which was in force, the report should be
18 submitted by the local police. However, it was standard that such
19 reports about information that crimes had been committed were filed both
20 by the MUP of Republika Srpska to its own prosecutor's office, and, as
21 far as I know, our colleagues from the Federation, if they learned that
22 some crimes had been committed in the territory of Republika Srpska, they
23 also submitted such reports to their prosecutor's office. I think that
24 there was a term on both sides at the time, of temporarily occupied
25 territory, or something like that.
1 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, if you're going on to something else,
2 perhaps we could take the break now.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. Yes, thank you, Your Honours.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 --- Recess taken at 3.40 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 4.04 p.m.
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, while the witness is being brought in,
8 and he can be brought in, can I just ask, in respect to Mr. Krgovic's
9 92 bis witnesses, and Your Honours said that you were minded to grant it,
10 does that mean, in other words, that they wouldn't attend for
11 cross-examination under 92 bis (c)?
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] That remains open.
13 MS. KORNER: That remains open. Thank you.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: That remains open.
15 MS. KORNER: Yes, thank you very much.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, another clarification. At page 27/22, you said it
19 was usual for such reports or information on crimes committed to be
20 submitted by the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska, to their
21 own prosecutors, and, as far as I know, to the colleagues from the
22 Federation. If the colleagues from the Federation learned of any crimes
23 committed in the territory of Republika Srpska, they would submit these
24 reports to their own prosecutor.
25 When you say the "ministry," who exactly do you have in mind?
1 A. I mean the organisational units of the Ministry of the Interior,
2 the Security Services Centres or public security stations.
3 Q. Thank you. In cases like that, when you had information
4 regarding a crime that was committed under the -- under the -- on
5 territory that was under the control of the opposite side, would you file
6 criminal reports in cases like that? And what supporting material would
7 you normally attach to such a criminal report?
8 A. Criminal reports would be filed with the relevant prosecutor.
9 Normally one would attach such evidence as was available at the time of
10 the filing. Normally statements, no more than statements, taken from any
11 witnesses or survivors. Whenever there were medical documents available
12 concerning any injuries that had occurred, those files would be submitted
13 too, along with the rest of it. If bodies were exchanged and if we were
14 invited by the military security people to give them a hand, because, as
15 you will realise, it was the military prosecutor that was in charge of
16 these matters at the time, and the reports would go to the military
17 prosecutor. So whenever that was the case, we would give a hand to our
18 colleagues from the military security to examine the bodies forensically.
19 Or if there was a pathologist who was available to conduct a postmortem,
20 we would give the pathologist a hand with that too.
21 Q. As a rule, would the hypothetical perpetrators of these crimes,
22 or the presumed perpetrators, be within reach of the organs of
23 Republika Srpska?
24 A. No.
25 Q. When I said hypothetical, I meant alleged perpetrators. Not
1 hypothetical perpetrators.
2 Based on what you know when criminal reports like these were made
3 in relation to crimes against Serbian people in territory that was not
4 under the control of the organs of Republika Srpska, would the relevant
5 prosecutors then take up these cases?
6 A. For the most part the prosecutors did not take any steps when
7 such reports were received. You can tell that that was the case because
8 up to this very day not even one per cent of those crimes have been dealt
9 with successfully, and it has been 19 years since.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would
11 like to tender this document, 65 ter 142D1.
12 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D594, Your Honours.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Sir, do you perhaps remember this: What about crimes encompassed
16 by the Federal Criminal Law of the former SFRY, crimes against humanity
17 international law, such as genocide, war crimes against civilian
18 population, against prisoners of war, and so on and so forth, do you
19 remember what maximum penalty was envisaged for crimes like that?
20 A. The maximum penalty envisaged for crimes like that was up to
21 15 years' imprisonment or death penalty, which could have been exchanged
22 for a 20-year prison sentence. Nevertheless, as far as I know, sometime
23 around 1990 or 1991 the federal Assembly abolished the dealt penalty and
24 it was no longer part of the state law, so the only thing that remained
25 was the maximum prison sentence of 15 years.
1 Q. When you say abolished and was no longer part of the state law,
2 which state law do you have in mind, or which legislation?
3 A. These crimes were defined by the federal law, the
4 Federal Criminal Code of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia,
5 chapter 15, I believe. These crimes, as such, did not exist in the
6 republican criminal codes, and those were the ones that we had been using
7 for our work in Bosnia and Herzegovina up until 1992. In about
8 90 per cent of the cases that we dealt with - when I say "we," I mean
9 those of us dealing with the more general crimes - we used the
10 Criminal Code of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina to guide us
11 in our work.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Just for the Chamber's reference,
13 Criminal Code of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia is part
14 of the case file in this case, L11, chapter 16, Articles 141 through 149.
15 Q. Sir, what about the crime of murder, was that a matter for the
16 federal law or was that a matter for the republican legislations?
17 A. The republican ones.
18 Q. Sir, what about the crime of qualified murder which at the
19 time -- or, rather, let me ask you this first: What about the provisions
20 of the criminal legislation of the Socialist Republic of
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina, did those apply throughout the territory of
22 Republika Srpska in 1992 as well?
23 A. Yes. It was a law that was simply copied and remained the same
24 as the one back in 1992.
25 Q. Again it wasn't recorded. You said that "it was copied and
1 remained the same as the one ... in 1992." Did you say that or did you
2 say something else, sir?
3 A. Up until 1992, that's what I said. The same laws.
4 Q. Sir, what about the laws that applied in Republika Srpska, what
5 punishment was envisaged for the crime of qualified murder under that
7 A. The maximum prison term, 15 years, or a sentence of up to
8 20 years or the dealt penalty.
9 Q. [No interpretation]
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, I didn't understand whether this was
11 the situation from 1992 and onwards.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Sir, let us try and clarify this. Did the Republika Srpska adopt
14 its own criminal code, and if so, when?
15 A. Republika Srpska adopted its own criminal code. I can't remember
16 at which Assembly meeting. Nevertheless, the criminal code that was
17 adopted by Republika Srpska was no more than a copy of the same law from
18 the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. There were no changes.
19 Not a single article was changed, not a single chapter was changed.
20 Therefore, a crime of murder, Article 36, was handled the same way in the
21 criminal code that applied in Bosnia-Herzegovina up to 1992 as well as in
22 the Criminal Code of Republika Srpska.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Does this clarify the matter, Your Honour?
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes and no, because I thought that the witness
25 told us that the dealt penalty was abolished --
1 MR. ZECEVIC: That is precisely my next question.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: And so if the dealt penalty was abolished before
3 the creation of the Republika Srpska, then how come that in the
4 RS Penal Code certainly the death penalty reappeared? That was the thing
5 that I did not understand.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Can you answer that question, sir?
8 A. We're talking about two laws here. The Law of the Socialist
9 Federative Republic of Yugoslavia Criminal Code defining war crimes as a
10 crime. The federal Assembly abolished the death penalty for that crime.
11 The Criminal Code of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in which the crime of murder was
12 included, no decision was taken to abolished death penalty. Therefore,
13 the republican criminal code still had the crime of murder which still
14 drew a dealt penalty, potentially, both prior to 1992 and at the
15 beginning of 1992. I think sometime during the war the Assembly of
16 Republika Srpska introduced an amendment to that. But one should go back
17 to the Official Gazette of Republika Srpska, go through the old copies,
18 to see whether a moratorium was in fact imposed on the execution of the
19 death penalty. So we are looking here at two different laws.
20 Q. Sir, when you say "during the war," which period do you have in
21 mind specifically, during 1992 or after 1992?
22 A. From where I stand now, it's difficult for me to say. I really
23 can't say. I just know that the decision was taken.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm reluctant to interrupt because it
25 normally wastes more time, but surely all of this can be the subject of
1 an admission if necessary, or we've got all the laws in the law library.
2 I'm not --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
4 MS. KORNER: It's on.
5 I'm not at all clear why this witness, who is not a lawyer in any
6 event, is being taken through it. It does seem to be an awful waste of
8 MR. ZECEVIC: It will be clear, Your Honours, once I come to the
10 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, bearing this in mind, was the more severe
11 punishment envisaged for the crime of qualified murder than that imposed
12 in the case of war crimes?
13 A. Before the amendment that was made, yes.
14 Q. And when the amendment was made, what was the relation between
15 the war crimes on the one hand and the qualified murder on the other, in
16 terms of the punishment?
17 A. The same punishment was envisaged for both crimes, and the range
18 was the same, 10, 15, or even 20 years.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Just a note for the transcript, Your Honours, I see
20 it was -- it's been translated "qualified murder" as it stands, qualified
21 murder. It's aggravated murder, actually. When I say, in Serbian,
22 [B/C/S spoken], means aggravated murder.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: We figured as much. Thank you.
24 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, I -- you know, again it's
25 probably the interpreters, but I think we need the interpreters to
1 confirm that's it, not what Mr. Zecevic says he says it means.
2 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters are happy to confirm that
3 Mr. Zecevic is correct.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... can we call the
5 transcript -- the interpreters to confirm?
6 Thank you very much. Much appreciated.
7 Your Honours, for the reference of the Trial Chamber, the
8 document is in our law library, however -- the Criminal Code, I mean, is
9 in the law library, republican Criminal Code, and, however, it has the P
10 number, P119, and what we were discussing was the Article 36.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, in your capacity as head of the service for
12 combatting crime in the Sarajevo Birac-Romanija centre, in situations
13 where you were dealing with the crime of murder where the perpetrators
14 and victims belong to different ethnic groups, back in 1992 how would the
15 police qualify these crimes?
16 A. The crime of murder, well, Article 36, paragraph 4, I believe.
17 Q. Did this apply to situations in which the perpetrator of the
18 crime was an ethnic Serb and the victims belonged to other ethnic groups?
19 A. No. As for the crimes committed in our territory, regardless of
20 the ethnicity of the perpetrator or the victim, depending on the actual
21 crime, more often than not this was aggravated murder, we would file for
22 murder, Article 36.
23 Q. Your answer to my first question was "no," but from the contents
24 of your answer it seems to me that something else would follow. So can I
25 rephrase the question because maybe I did not make myself clear.
1 If a murder was committed in which a Serb was the perpetrator, or
2 the supposed perpetrator, and the victims were of other ethnicity, how
3 was such a criminal offence qualified during the year 1992?
4 A. As the crime of murder.
5 Q. If the opposite was the case, namely, if the perpetrator of the
6 crime was of a different ethnicity and the victim was a Serb, how was
7 that qualified during the year 1992 as far as you know as the then chief
8 of the Sarajevo CSB?
9 A. If it was in our territory, it was also treated as the crime of
11 MS. KORNER: That was translated as he was the chief of the CSB,
12 which he wasn't as far as I'm aware.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I shortened it, so it's my mistake.
14 What I had in mind was chief of the crime prevention administration at
15 the Sarajevo CSB. Yes.
16 Q. Now, please tell me this, a practical question: When you filed
17 these criminal reports against believed perpetrators who were of other
18 ethnicity, did the prosecutor's offices, as far as you know, treat such
19 criminal reports differently than instances in which the perpetrators
20 were Serbs, perpetrators of the same crimes?
21 A. No, as far as I know, the prosecutor's offices treated equally
22 all reports submitted by us.
23 Q. Sir, once you file a criminal report, as there is suspicion that
24 a criminal offence has been committed, for example, the crime under
25 Article 36, paragraph 4, aggravated murder, is the prosecutor's office
1 bound by your criminal report in the sense of the qualification of a
3 A. No. The prosecutor has complete freedom, and the prosecutor is
4 the one who determines the qualification of the crime. That is to say,
5 he can change it, say that it is not that particular crime but, rather, a
6 different one. And our further obligation, in case the prosecutor judges
7 that the police or the minister [as interpreted] of the interior can
8 submit new evidence or conduct certain checks, then he would address us
9 with a request to collect previous information. And in accordance with
10 such a request, we would then do what we had to.
11 Q. Once again it says here that our obligation, in case the
12 prosecutor -- if you received such a request from the prosecutor or a
13 court, that the police or the minister of the interior can submit new
14 evidence or conduct certain checks.
15 Once again, did you say the "minister" or did you say the
17 A. I did not say the minister, but I said that when we talk about
18 the ministry we talk about members of the crime police or police. The
19 prosecutor addresses the local police station directly. He does not even
20 address the Security Services Centre. That was very often the case. The
21 basic prosecutor's offices, the district prosecutor's offices, or the
22 military prosecutor's offices had their territorial or actual
23 jurisdiction. On the basis of this jurisdiction, whether it's
24 territorial or actual, they would address their orders directly to police
25 stations on the ground. And they did not have any obligation to inform
1 the Ministry of the Interior about that.
2 We have to make a distinction here between three levels in the
3 MUP of Republika Srpska. In the first level is the ministry and its
4 services at the ministry's seat. The second level are the Security
5 Services Centres and their services at the centre's seat. And the third
6 level are the public security stations and their services.
7 The prosecutor's offices are almost always in co-ordination only
8 with the lowest-level police stations. And if the services of the
9 Security Services Centre submitted criminal reports, then they would
10 communicate with us.
11 Q. Sir, just to clarify a terminological problem, when you say
12 "territorial" or "local," are these two synonyms in the Serbian language?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: I know that on 37 and somewhere before it was
15 translated as "territorial or actual," where it means practically the
16 same thing in the Serbian language.
17 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, I will show you a document, 378D1. It is
18 tab 128. Sir, this is a document from the basic public prosecutor's
19 office in Zvornik. The date is the 26th of May, 1993, submitted to the
20 lower court and the investigating judge in Zvornik. And it says:
21 "Please find enclosed a criminal report of the Bratunac Public
22 Security Station of" a certain number "dated the 25th of May, 1992,
23 against Zoran Tomasevic."
24 And then later on the request says that there are reasonable
25 grounds to suspect that at around 1430 hours on the 20th of May, 1992,
1 that person committed a criminal offence against the underaged Meva Husic
2 by which he committed the crime of attempted rape pursuant to Article 88,
3 and this is signed by deputy public prosecutor.
4 Sir, is this a document or, rather, a request to open
5 investigation? What kind of a document is that in the procedural sense?
6 A. When we submit a criminal report to a prosecutor's office - when
7 I say "we," I mean the police - according to the Law on
8 Criminal Procedure which was then in force in Republika Srpska, the
9 prosecutor when he assesses that there is sufficient evidence, then he
10 submits precisely such a request to the investigating judge. And it is
11 now up to the investigating judge to use the evidence submitted by the
12 prosecutor as the basis on which he makes a decision.
13 If there is sufficient evidence, the investigating judge makes a
14 decision to conduct an investigation. And if the evidence is
15 insufficient, he then makes a decision that an investigation would not be
16 conducted and he sends it back to the prosecutor. So this is the
17 standard legal procedure which was in force in Republika Srpska at the
19 Q. Sir, once the investigating judge establishes that there are not
20 enough elements to open an investigation and sends back a case to the
21 prosecutor, does he give an order to that effect to the prosecutor's
23 A. No. The prosecutor can collect new evidence if he has it and
24 resubmit them to the investigating judge. I think that there was the
25 possibility of legal remedy as well, that is to say, the prosecutor could
1 send a request to a trial chamber so that it would make a decision if the
2 prosecutor did not agree with the decision to not open an investigation.
3 And I think that the decision of the trial chamber was final.
4 Q. Tell me, can you tell us on the basis of the first and last name
5 in this request to open an investigation what was the ethnicity of the
6 damaged party?
7 A. It is evident that it is a person of Bosnian ethnicity.
8 Q. And the person reported as the perpetrator, what was his
10 A. Serbian.
11 Q. Are you perhaps familiar with this case, as this is the Bratunac
12 Public Security Station which was in your territory, the territory of
13 your Security Services Centre, that is to say?
14 A. This report which was submitted as early as in 1992 was certainly
15 something we were informed about regularly at the end of the year. This
16 case should have been included in the report of the
17 Public Security Station Bratunac when it informed us about the number of
18 criminal reports submitted, who they were submitted to, and against whom.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would
21 tender this document into evidence.
22 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D595, Your Honours.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please show the witness
25 906D1. Tab 203.
1 Q. Sir, let me ask you this while you are still looking for that
2 document: Do you know whether in Bosnia-Herzegovina or Republika Srpska
3 today there are any prosecutions based on criminal offences committed in
5 A. Yes.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'll stipulate to that. There are
7 indeed many cases going on at the state court in particular which relate
8 to 1992.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. As Ms. Korner made things easier for us, for which I'm grateful
11 to her, tell me whether you know whether the documents which the
12 organisational units of the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska
13 drew up during 1992 with reference to particular crimes are being used in
14 the criminal proceedings which are currently ongoing before these courts?
15 A. Yes, they are being used.
16 Q. How do you know this?
17 A. It is the job I'm doing at the moment. I work with the
18 prosecutor's office of Bosnia-Herzegovina and with other prosecutors'
19 offices in Bosnia and Herzegovina on specific cases. I know which
20 documents are available to us in these cases.
21 Q. Can you tell us, the documents from 1992 which exist, what is the
22 weight that they have?
23 A. In all cases where there are reports on on-site investigations
24 that were conducted then, photo files, expert reports, certificates on
25 entry into apartments, receipts for items seized, various expert analyses
1 which were carried out at the forensic centre in Banja Luka, which was
2 founded in 1992, are irrefutable evidence and they are accepted by the
3 trial chamber. In cases when statements weren't taken and were not
4 taken, in accordance with the current Law on Criminal Procedure of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the prosecutor's office is obliged or perhaps it may
6 invest such an authority to the organs of the Ministry of the Interior to
7 take a statement from the same person again but in accordance with the
8 new legal regulations.
9 Only if the person deceased in the meantime, then the prosecutor
10 or the defence may offer such a statement as a piece of evidence during
11 the trial. But then most often the authorised official who took such a
12 statement is also called so that such a document could serve as evidence
13 before a court.
14 Q. Thank you. The document in front of you is a judgement from the
15 district court in Banja Luka from 2007 against Goran Petic, Zoran Djukic,
16 Mladen Djukic, and Goran Djukic. As we can see on pages 3 and 4, it is
17 for the criminal offence of war crime against civilians. On page 4 of
18 the Serbian version, we can see the sentence.
19 Are you familiar with this case?
20 A. Yes. This case was something that the department for war crimes
21 of the Banja Luka Security Services Centre dealt with. It was the crime
22 police sector, together with the prosecutor in charge. Inter alia, I
23 co-ordinate the work of this department.
24 MS. KORNER: Yes. No, I think, Your Honours, I'm now coming to
25 an objection. The only connection that I understand that this witness
1 has with this document for Banja Luka is his job as what he calls
2 co-ordinating war crimes. He doesn't know anything other than what he
3 sees himself, which we can all read. As I said, if the whole point is
4 simply to get the document into evidence and this is a document that he
5 supplied the Defence with, that's one matter. But the actual contents of
6 all of this, Your Honour, I object to. I do say he's not a witness who
7 can speak to this simply by reading what we can all read.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Sir, do you know whether in this case documents obtained in 1992
10 have been used?
11 A. Yes, these documents are from 1992. Can I just explain. The
12 prosecutor's office is in Republika Srpska. With the passing of a new
13 law, whenever there were cases of crimes when we accused someone for the
14 crime of murder, this was pre-qualified into the crime of war crime on
15 the basis of orders which we receive, and this is just one judgement.
16 Since 2006 to this day only in Banja Luka, the court sentenced various
17 Serbs to 247 years in prison for having committed war crimes.
18 In all these sentences, the court referred to evidence which the
19 Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska submitted in 1992
20 inter alia. This is my current job, therefore, I could talk about all
21 other prosecutor's offices in Republika Srpska. I could say how many
22 investigations have been opened precisely about such crimes and on the
23 basis of reports filed by the Republika Srpska MUP.
24 Q. Just to clarify another terminological imprecision, on page 43 in
25 line 9, you said that they were changed or pre-qualified from a crime of
1 murder into the crime of war crime. Can you tell us: This term which
2 was used here is pre-qualified, literally, but what does that mean when
3 something is pre-qualified by a prosecutor? Can you just explain that
4 for us?
5 A. When a prosecutor receives a report from the Ministry of the
6 Interior or any of its organisation units, has the discretion to look at
7 the features of the crime and reclassify that crime, as it were, if that
8 is what he sees fit to do. We are not necessarily dealing with a murder
9 or a war crime. Someone, for example, is suspected of having committed
10 grievous bodily harm and the prosecutor defines it or has it reclassified
11 as less serious bodily harm or slight bodily harm, aggravated theft -- or
12 theft reclassified as aggravated theft, and so on and so forth. There
13 are numerous examples where you see a prosecutor receive a police report
14 and subsequently reclassifying or redefining the crimes contained
15 therein. This is a matter of daily practice.
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we've heard this evidence about five
17 times from five different witnesses and we accept it, that the prosecutor
18 has the right to reclassify an offence, whatever the police put in it.
19 Your Honours, we've gone on without my objection being ruled on. My
20 objection remains the same because unless this witness is going to tell
21 us that he's read through every word of the file, attended the trial, and
22 knows exactly what was led, then simply all he can say is this was based
23 on a criminal report filed in, whenever it was, 1992. But he cannot say
24 anything more than that.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, the only reason I returned the
1 witness was that it was recorded as "pre-qualified" and I wanted to
2 clarify that, that is, for the benefit of the transcript. Because in my
3 understanding pre-qualified doesn't mean much in a legal sense in
5 Now, the second thing, Your Honours --
6 MS. KORNER: Can we have the witness take his earphones off,
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, the standard which Ms. Korner now is
9 imposing is a quite different one from throughout the Office of the
10 Prosecutor's case, when they presented their evidence. However, the only
11 point that interests me in this -- in respect to all these judgements
12 that I have listed, from 203, 284, tab 286, -87, -88, and -89, is
13 precisely to show that the documentation gathered in 1992 is used in fact
14 to bring the perpetrators in justice in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, or even
15 today. And that was the gist of Ms. Korner's comment on Friday.
16 MS. KORNER: No, I'm sorry, you misunderstood. Let me make this
17 absolutely clear. As I said at the time, no doubt at all that where
18 trials have followed 18 years later, they may have been based on the
19 original criminal reports filed. What we're saying is there's nothing to
20 suggest in any of these documents that when the trials are finally held,
21 as here in 2007 or thereabouts, that it is the evidence gathered in
22 1992 - which is obviously part of it, I agree, if there were forensic
23 examination - which results in the conviction. That's what our
24 contention is. Not that it wasn't used in the sense that Mr. Zecevic is
25 now saying.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: So perhaps then I need to go through the judgement
2 to show that that is not the case.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: You wouldn't know the entire file, would you?
4 MR. ZECEVIC: No, but, Your Honours, it's -- our judgements are
5 listed because the requirement by the law is that the court explains or
6 lists the evidence on which it based it judgement or all evidence
7 presented during the case they were sitting on or deciding upon. And if
8 we look at these -- all these documents, all these judgements, it is very
9 clear that in all of them there is a lot of evidence gathered in 1992,
10 which is precisely the point which Ms. Korner is making, which is
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Hold on a minute. Let me just put the question,
13 then: Is it your contention, Mr. Zecevic, that the judgements in 2002,
14 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 and so on were based exclusively on the
15 evidence collected in 1992? Or might there have been other evidence
16 coming in, in the meantime?
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, of course there is -- there was new
18 evidence. Even in this trial there has been 50-odd number of new
19 witnesses after the Office of the Prosecutor filed their indictment. Of
20 course there is new evidence. But the point is, Your Honours: If there
21 is a single document, a single statement, taken in 1992, that is
22 sufficient for our purposes because that shows that the Ministry of the
23 Interior was -- actually conducted as much as they can under these
24 circumstances in 1992 their investigations. Filed a criminal report with
25 the attachments, whatever the attachments are. They might not be as good
1 as it is required, but the point of the matter is that they exist, and
2 based on them, not exclusively on them, but based on them, in some cases
3 exclusively, the judgements are taken 18 years after. That is a point.
4 MS. KORNER: I mean, Your Honours, this is impossible of
5 resolution, quite honestly. We go down such a side track as to with
6 us -- them calling evidence of these files or us calling -- recalling the
7 evidence that was called in these trials that led to these judgements.
8 Your Honours, if it assists, we're not saying that no criminal reports
9 were filed. We are not saying that no statements were taken. We say
10 what Mr. Zecevic has just said is a matter for argument at the end of the
11 day and not susceptible to what he's trying to do with this witness.
12 It is -- if Your Honours looked at this thing, it would be almost
13 impossible to tell when the particular statements that they obviously
14 relied on were taken. But, Your Honours, this is such a side track from
15 the main issues of the trial that we say it is open to Mr. Zecevic to
16 enter into evidence through a bar table motion such of these criminal
17 cases as he wishes to and for us then to respond. It is not the way to
18 take it through this witness.
19 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, I find myself entirely in agreement
20 with Ms. Korner about this being a collateral issue which doesn't assist
21 us at all, or if so, only marginally. So why are we spending so much
22 time on this?
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, because that's the Prosecutor's
24 case, and I'm trying to rebut the Prosecutor's case. And I have the
25 document here, I have the judgements where they list the documents from
1 1992. And the Prosecutor says these documents are not there, and I'm
2 saying, yes, they are. And I'm showing the documents, the judgements,
3 where I claim all these documentation, and the forensic reports and the
4 other expert reports are contained.
5 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours --
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Made in 1992.
7 MS. KORNER: No, that's fine. Mr. Zecevic is perfectly entitled
8 to submit these through a bar table motion. What he's not entitled to do
9 is to take this witness through it. It -- he is not a witness who can do
10 anything more than read what anybody else can read.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, but I don't see how is that different from
12 all the Prosecutor expert witnesses, because they read through all the
13 documents and actually testified about what they read about in the
14 documents. With all due respect, this witness is involved in the -- in
15 the war crimes as a co-ordinator of Republika Srpska concerning the war
16 crimes, investigation of war crimes, and is very well aware of each and
17 every of these cases and judgements. And he can provide the firsthand
18 evidence about the contents of these files.
19 MS. KORNER: He can say "I've read the files." That's the
20 absolute limit of what he can say. And my understanding was, as
21 Mr. Zecevic said earlier, he never showed the extra documents, the 70-odd
22 to the witness in proofing. However, Your Honours, this -- I mean, I
23 know we're now wasting time almost more than that. We suggest that
24 Mr. Zecevic puts these in through a bar table motion if that's what he
25 wants to do. We do object to this witness who can do no more, whatever
1 than his position, than say I read through these files, if that's what he
2 wants to assert, that he's read through every single file ever submitted.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: What's wrong with that, Mr. Zecevic?
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, what is wrong, Your Honours, is that you
5 might decide against me, and that is not the standard which was adopted
6 in the -- during the Office of the Prosecutor's case. And I think that's
7 unfair to the Defence, because the Office of the Prosecutor was allowed
8 to bring all the documents where the witnesses were not even remotely
9 acquainted with and were commenting on reading these documents, and all
10 these documents were admitted. And the question -- when we objected, the
11 question was never as -- the decision was never to suggest to the Office
12 of the Prosecutor to include these documents in a bar table motion and
13 ask that they be admitted through the bar table motion. That is the only
14 reason why I'm doing this through this witness.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, the purpose of this, as I would
17 understand it, is to establish that in 1992 documents, statements, and
18 whatever were established and you'll find them in the files in 2006 and
19 2007, 2008, whatever; right? So, there, I go along with you. But what
20 happened in those trials in 2006, 2007, and 2008, that's not of any
21 interest for us, is it?
22 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct, Your Honours. What I'm
23 introducing these documents is for the sole purpose that it shows that
24 the Serb perpetrators for war crimes have been found guilty and sentenced
25 based on the documentation partially prepared by the -- in 1992 or
1 submitted by the MUP in 1992 together with the criminal complaints.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Well, that's what I don't understand. What is
3 the relevance -- the relevance about the fact that they have been
4 convicted in 2008? The problem -- if the documents exist, and you have
5 documents to show, then the question is what happened in 1992, what
6 should have happened, what did happen, and what did not happen. But not
7 what happened with that in 2008. Not the fact that criminals were
8 convicted in 2008 upon those documents. I don't see the relevance of
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, but, Your Honours -- Your Honour, with all due
11 respect, the job of the police is to file the criminal report and to
12 gather the evidence on the investigation, on-site investigation, and all
13 other expert knowledge and statements, gather all that as soon as
14 possible after the commission of the crime, and they file the criminal
15 report. And that is where the role of the police ends. We cannot --
16 Your Honours, we cannot -- also as in this Tribunal, these crimes have
17 been committed in 1992. They are put on trial in 2009. That is the very
18 same thing. Even the criminal complaints have been made in 1992. That
19 is precisely the same thing. And now what I'm trying to establish right
20 now is not -- it wasn't a part of our Defence case until Friday when
21 Ms. Korner articulated the position of the Office of the Prosecutor. I
22 never commented these documents with the witness. I haven't commented
23 these, but I wasn't under notice that this is a part of the Prosecutor's
24 case because they have been changing it, as I said at the very beginning.
25 And now when it becomes clear, when it becomes clear, I have to take the
1 measures in order to contradict the claims by the Prosecutor.
2 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, in fact, it's the other way around. We
3 haven't changed our case. The Defence asserted in one of their
4 applications to add documents to their 65 ter that this point, the point
5 that Mr. Zecevic is saying that we dispute, namely that the convictions
6 in 2007 or the trials in 2007 result directly from the evidence gathered
7 in 1992. And our response to that in writing over a week ago, if
8 Mr. Zecevic read our response, was you could not possibly say that.
9 There is nothing to show in these documents, any of them, on what the
10 convictions are based. And that is the only issue that I raised last
12 And Mr. Zecevic can, as I say, in order -- if he thinks it's
13 relevant -- my only objection at the moment is to this witness being used
14 effectively as a mechanism to get these documents in when he can say
15 nothing that actually goes to their admissibility or not. And that's the
16 only objection.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: But are we right, then, to conclude that the core
18 of the issue here is whether in 1992 criminal reports were made and filed
19 by the MUP? Because if that is the crux of the matter, then my question
20 would be to Ms. Korner --
21 MS. KORNER: We don't dispute that.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- if that is disputed.
23 MS. KORNER: No.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: And if it is not disputed, then we come back to:
25 What is the issue, then?
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, the issue, Your Honours, is a very simple
2 one, because the Office of the Prosecutor will say, as they continue
3 saying incorrectly, suggesting, that the filing of the criminal reports
4 without the attachment of the statements and all that is nothing but
5 sham inquiries or window dressing. That is their position. And when I
6 say -- and when we show the judgements which contain the documents
7 attached to the criminal reports that were filed in 1992 and based on
8 which the trial chambers now are getting the convictions of these peoples
9 or these perpetrators, then I think it's very relevant. That is our
11 JUDGE HALL: But, Mr. Zecevic, if I might reiterate the point
12 that Ms. Korner has made: Since we aren't going to be led into
13 ourselves, as it were, trying the cases which have been conducted in the
14 region since 1992 based on that evidence, but only -- we are only
15 concerned with the fact that that material which was gathered in 1992 has
16 been used subsequently, what is your objection to batching this material
17 and putting it forward in a bar table motion? Because, again, to repeat
18 what Ms. Korner has said: What is this witness on the stand going to do
19 other than to say that this is what these documents are, or something
20 that a witness doesn't need to say?
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I fully appreciate and understand
22 your position and I might say to a certain extent I do agree. However,
23 during the Prosecutor's case, Your Honour, let me remind you, we had --
24 we had members of the police, we had prosecutors, we had the judges who
25 were commenting on the documents which were being presented to them for
1 the first time when they received them from the Office of the Prosecutor,
2 namely in 2009 or so, and they commented on that, and all their testimony
3 and all these documents were admitted by the Trial Chamber.
4 That is precisely the same situation as here.
5 JUDGE HALL: Of course, Mr. Zecevic, if your analysis of what the
6 Chamber did then is accurate, why would you be inviting us to repeat
7 what, in your view, is an error? Shouldn't we correct it at this stage?
8 MR. ZECEVIC: No, I'm not saying Your Honour committed an error.
9 Not at all, with all due respect. What I'm saying is that this is a
10 different standard which is applied during the Defence case. That is my
11 only problem which I'm having. That there is a different standard now
12 when we are presenting our Defence case to the standard that we had
13 adopted during the Prosecutor's case.
14 MS. KORNER: We simply don't agree. Your Honours made exactly
15 the same points to us, that we couldn't use witnesses simply to get
16 documents in and we had to bar table them, and that's what we did. So we
17 suggest that's the right way of doing it. And can we get on and get this
18 witness to deal with something he actually knows something about.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE HALL: It's time for the break. We will deal with this
21 when we come back.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 --- Recess taken at 5.23 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 5.45 p.m.
25 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, to the extent that the Chamber
1 understands what -- the importance of these documents on which you wish
2 to rely, our recollection is that faced with a similar problem, when the
3 Prosecution was conducting its case, it was suggested that the course --
4 the most practical course was to lead oral evidence from the witness on
5 the stand to present and lay down a sampling of the type of documents and
6 then the bulk was brought in by way of a separate motion. So that is
7 what we are thinking could or should be done in this case, that -- and in
8 that vein, may I inquire as to how -- what is your bulk like? We've seen
9 one or two samples. How many documents are we talking about altogether?
10 MR. ZECEVIC: I have altogether six documents, Your Honours, six
11 judgements, which we requested in our motion that five of them be
12 admitted on the 65 ter list. And this is a pending motion. And one
13 document is on our 65 ter list and I would ask that this one be admitted
14 and ...
15 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, to save time, we will not object to
16 the admission on to the 65 ter list nor into evidence of these documents,
17 those six.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let's move quick.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, should I read on the record the
21 numbers of documents?
22 JUDGE HALL: Well, since you have them, yes, that would save more
23 time. Yes.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much. So first document is 906D1.
25 It's tab --
1 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, as a -- perhaps I'm being - what's the
2 word? - pernickety, but don't we have to have the witness on the stand
3 and formally admit the sample and then go for the --
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
5 MS. KORNER: In fact, Your Honours, I'm not sure that we do. I
6 think we can. As we are not disputing it, they can just read them out
7 and Your Honours admit them.
8 JUDGE HALL: Very well. I was just -- I just thought that the
9 list had to be admitted against an exhibit, but we haven't yet exhibited
10 anything. That was the only point I was making. So this one would be
11 exhibited, but the witness -- does the witness have to be on the stand
12 for it to be tendered, that's the only ...
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE HALL: So this is admitted and marked.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. 906D1 is the first document. Shall we admit
16 that one first? And then the rest.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D596, Your Honours.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay, the next document is 905D1, tab 284. And the
19 following document is 907D1, tab 286. Then 908D1, tab 287. Then 909D1,
20 tab 288. And 910D1, tab 289. Thank you very much.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, exhibit numbers assigned will be
22 1D597 through 1D601.
23 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, awhile ago we saw the destiny of criminal reports
1 filed for crimes perpetrated by members of the Serbian people in 1992.
2 What was the destiny of the criminal reports filed in 1992 encompassing
3 crimes committed by the other ethnic groups with the Serbs as victims?
4 A. Regrettably, nothing was done about those criminal reports. I
5 could explain, if you like. All the criminal reports filed by the
6 Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska and dually submitted to the
7 relevant prosecutors based on our information, and our information was
8 reliable, first of all seemed to be passed along from one prosecutor to
9 the next one down the line. The military prosecutor would forward a case
10 to a civilian prosecutor, and a civilian prosecutor would send the case
11 file back to the military prosecutor. From there it went on to the
12 district prosecutor. And then depending on the changing regulations,
13 something else would happen next.
14 This Tribunal probably knows about the fact that so-called rules
15 of the Roman path were adopted. The criminal files or formal reports in
16 this case ended up here in The Hague. When the prosecutor's office in
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina was established, the BH courts, the reports were
18 delivered to the BH prosecutor's office. To this very day, over
19 90 per cent of those cases are still at the investigation stage. The
20 same stage, in other words, that these cases were at back in 1992 or
21 indeed back in 1995.
22 MS. KORNER: I think, Mr. Zecevic, that page 56 line 2 should
23 read "rules of the road," as opposed to "rules of the Roman path" which
24 is a great description.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, I agree.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tusevljak, I only have a couple of questions
2 left for you.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show the witness
4 65 ter 20187, OTP tab 52.
5 Q. You don't have it in that binder. The document was announced
6 later on, and you will see it's come up on the monitor, on the screen in
7 front of you.
8 Mr. Tusevljak, your own service for investigating war crimes was
9 also assisting whenever a defence request arose to deliver documents, was
10 that not the case?
11 A. Yes. Whenever we received a request, quite regardless of whether
12 the request in question was from the OTP or from the Defence, we would
13 grant access to all of the documents available to us, in keeping with the
14 laws and regulations. Needless to say, each time we would clearly stress
15 that the documents could only be used for the purposes of a trial and
16 that these documents were by no means to be published or indeed used for
17 any other purpose.
18 Q. Sir, the date on this document is the 15th of November, 2007,
19 signed by team co-ordinator Simo Tusevljak. Is this one of your
20 documents, sir?
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 Q. Sir, among other things, at page 4 of the Serbian and number 50,
23 could you please comment specifically on what the documentation that you
24 delivered to the Stanisic Defence is in relation to?
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Page 5 of the English. Number 50.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure specifically what this
2 is about. There are just too many documents. The documents were
3 prepared by my units, my service, not me personally. Which means, when I
4 look at this, it's obvious that this was about an expert opinion,
5 obtaining an expert opinion on something. But it's impossible for me to
6 address each document separately and tell you what it was about.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Can you just look at the documents which are in your binder under
9 tabs 210 through to 256. Just glance through them, please, and tell us
10 whether you are familiar with these documents.
11 A. These are documents that are available to us. At the moment, in
12 our archives, we have thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of
13 various documents which are all stacked in cupboards and which
14 specifically have to do with war crimes. Not just where the seat of my
15 team is located in Pale, but also in departments located in the territory
16 of Republika Srpska that I co-ordinate. That includes Banja Luka, Doboj,
17 Bijeljina, Trebinje, and Sarajevo, which has a separate department.
18 Q. Sir, all these documents which I asked you to glance at are some
19 sorts of expert opinions. Please tell me whether these documents have
20 been submitted to the Prosecutor's Office of this Tribunal. Or let me
21 ask a more specific question: The documents which have been seized from
22 the Security Services Centre in Banja Luka, have they been submitted to
23 the Prosecutor's office of this Tribunal?
24 A. This is something I couldn't know. But if The Hague
25 investigators seized these documents, then they should have submitted all
1 these documents to the Prosecutor's Office. Why would they have seized
2 it otherwise?
3 Q. Do you know that in 1998 the complete documentation of the
4 Security Services Centre in Banja Luka was seized by
5 ICTY Prosecutor's Office investigators?
6 MS. KORNER: Well, sorry, I'm perfectly prepared to concede,
7 we've said this a number of times, that a large quantity of documents
8 were seized from the CSB. I'm not prepared to say that the complete was
9 seized because I'm aware that some rooms weren't searched and that's why
10 we've been finding a loft financial information. None of the financial
11 information, for example, was taken at that time.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay, fair enough.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Please tell me, as you have glanced at the
14 documents which I pointed out to you under these tabs 210 through to 250,
15 were these the documents which were submitted to us under item 50 in
17 A. Yes, I think it should be that that's it, because these are
18 the -- this is the expertise of different traces found at the scene by
19 the crime technicians during 1992.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, considering the
22 position of the Trial Chamber stated on page 7840, I would tender this
23 document into evidence.
24 MS. KORNER: The letter? No objection, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, document or documents?
1 MR. ZECEVIC: This document, Your Honour, the letter from the
2 RS which is 65 ter 20187, tab 52. I believe it's in front of
3 Your Honours.
4 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D602, Your Honours.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you. Based on this --
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] I'm sorry. Tab 52?
8 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Our bundle.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, the Prosecution binder.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] That one, it has a P
11 number, no?
12 MR. ZECEVIC: No.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] On your list it has.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Judge Delvoie, please.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: It hasn't. Okay. It's on your list with a
16 P number.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours.
18 And based on this, Your Honours, and in light of the decision of
19 the Trial Chamber handed down, oral decision, on page 7840 during the
20 testimony of Tutus, Vladimir, I would move the Trial Chamber at this
21 point to de-MFI the documents 1D214 until 1D232. Thank you very much.
22 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, it went a bit further than that,
23 when there was an attempt not, in fact, to put in all the documents that
24 Mr. Zecevic referred to, but only the ones that were MFI, whereas I think
25 Mr. Zecevic is now trying to put in every single solitary one under each
1 tab; is that right?
2 MR. ZECEVIC: No, I'm just talking about the documents which were
3 mentioned during the testimony of Mr. Tutus on page 7840 and further, and
4 it contains the numbers 1D214 until number 1D232. And all the documents
5 were MFI'd, and they were MFI'd because of the proof of authenticity --
6 pending matter of authenticity being resolved at some point.
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, in fact, it's a bit more complicated
8 than that. But, Your Honours, can I ask this: I do have some questions
9 about this letter and these documents, and may I ask that you wait before
10 making a decision, and also give me a chance to recheck this, until the
11 end of cross?
12 MR. ZECEVIC: That's fine with me, Your Honours.
13 Your Honours, thank you, I have no further questions for this
15 [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Tusevljak.
16 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have no questions
18 for this witness. Otherwise, if we started, we would have to deal with
19 around 7.000 criminal reports which Mr. Stojan Zupljanin filed, so we
20 won't be asking the witness anything about that.
21 JUDGE HALL: Noted. Thank you, Mr. Krgovic.
22 Yes, Ms. Korner.
23 MS. KORNER: I don't know how proper that is, but still.
24 Cross-examination by Ms. Korner:
25 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, you told the Court at page 22193 that you enrolled
1 in this police academy in Skopje in 1984 and were there for four years,
2 until 1988; is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And then you went to the SJB in Novi Grad in Sarajevo.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. That was your first job in the MUP.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And unlike we've heard from some witnesses, during the course of
9 your four-year study, you didn't actually take time out, did you, to go
10 and work as a member of the MUP?
11 A. I just had practical work after the second and third years of
12 study. It was a month on each occasion.
13 Q. Right. So by the time the conflict broke out and the split took
14 place in the MUP of Bosnia and Herzegovina, you had actually only been
15 working for around three years as a police officer; is that right?
16 A. Yes, exactly three years.
17 Q. Right. So it be right to say, wouldn't it, that you weren't,
18 perhaps, the most experienced of police officers?
19 A. That's certain if I only had three years of work experience
20 behind me.
21 Q. Right. And whilst you were at Novi Grad, you were an inspector
22 in the -- an ordinary inspector in the SUP -- oh, sorry, in the police
24 A. Yes, in the crime police department.
25 Q. And then you moved to the SUP in Sarajevo, and originally, when
1 you first joined the RS MUP, is that right - just let me find the right
2 page - you worked out of -- sorry, you did tell us which police station
3 it was. Oh, it was the police station at your home address -- at your
4 home in Nedzarici?
5 A. Yes, from the 4th of April, 1992, that was the reserve police
6 station. It was not the typical police station.
7 Q. Right. And did you then move to the CSB Sarajevo, you told us,
8 in early June 1992?
9 A. First I was in the crime police administration, and that was
10 where I was registered in the month of May. I'm not certain but for a
11 while I was an inspector at the crime police station administration at
12 the level of the Republika Srpska MUP. That means not at the Security
13 Services Centre but, rather, at the administration, but it was just for a
14 short period.
15 Q. Fine. So during the course of that time when you were still an
16 inspector, did you have dealings with prisoners of Muslim ethnicity?
17 A. No.
18 Q. None at all?
19 A. No.
20 Q. You told us later on, I think on Friday, quite a lot about what's
21 commonly called Kula Prison but I think is properly called the
22 Butmir Prison facility; is that right?
23 A. We call it the Kula Prison. And I live nearby. I'm living close
24 to that prison even today. So when it comes to that prison, this is
25 something I'm familiar with even though I didn't work in the police. My
1 house is perhaps 200 metres away from that prison, and I pass by it
2 practically every day.
3 Q. Right. As I say, you gave a very detailed description of the SJB
4 and the prison as they were in 1992, so do we take it from that that you
5 visited those premises on a number of occasions?
6 A. The prison is the same today as it was back then. The
7 administrative building is in the same place and so is the detention
8 unit. And we then took the measures of detention for persons who had
9 committed criminal offences. That was not just in 1992, but to the end
10 of the war there was a detention unit there. A detention unit where we
11 would send someone to be detained for 72 hours, that if we took such a
12 measure, this was a place where such persons were sent to be detained
14 Q. Right. But at the time it also had the SJB, didn't it, in the
15 same premises, divided, as you told us, by a wall?
16 A. Yes, at the very beginning of the war.
17 Q. Right. Now, you were shown by Mr. Zecevic a document which is at
18 your tab 205, and I think its number is 1D591. And you told us that this
19 document was never submitted to the -- sorry, you said you'd never seen
20 this document and you don't know why it says that. Is that correct?
21 That's at page 22376.
22 A. Yes, I haven't seen this document. The first time it was when it
23 was shown to me by the Defence.
24 Q. But wasn't it right that the SJB at Kula was actually keeping
25 Muslim prisoners at the SJB?
1 A. Not at the Kula Police Station.
2 Q. And how do you know that?
3 A. Well, I used to enter the administrative building. I would drop
4 by, because while it was still possible to go across the Sarajevo airport
5 from Nedzarici, to go there and back, when I went to the school at Vrace,
6 this is what I was talking about, I wanted to see what my assignment was
7 and where I would be deployed. We would drop by to this police station
8 to ask whether we could go across the Sarajevo airport, because at the
9 time it was under enemy fire. You would walk along the runway because
10 the airport was not open as such. No planes landed or took off, but you
11 could cross the runway of the airport.
12 Q. Don't worry about that for the moment.
13 This document is dated the 13th of June and the airport was taken
14 over by UNPROFOR at the beginning of June, wasn't it?
15 A. Yes, around the beginning of June this possibility of crossing
16 over ceased to exist.
17 Q. Right. So I'm asking you how you know that prisoners were not
18 being kept at the SJB Kula instead of the prison facilities.
19 A. Well, I'm telling you that, first of all, I had not seen this
20 document and another thing is that I did not see prisoners in the
21 administration building. This is the basis on which I'm telling you
22 this. This is what I know.
23 Q. All right. So you, from your knowledge, can think of no reason
24 why Mr. Mandic instead of sending this to the prison should be sending
25 this to the Kula SJB?
1 A. Absolutely not because the Ministry of Justice and the MUP have
2 nothing in common. They are two separate organisational units,
3 completely separate.
4 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honours, I've just got to trace because
5 we altered the bundle.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry, Your Honours, just for the clarity of the
7 transcript, if Ms. Korner would be so kind to clarify the existence of
8 the SJB.
9 MS. KORNER: Sorry, I thought that was what he said. And we've
10 got documents showing it exists.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Perhaps the witness can take his phones off --
12 headphones off.
13 MS. KORNER: Oh, okay.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If you could please take your
15 headphones off, Mr. Tusevljak.
16 [In English] The point of the matter is that the witness's
17 testimony during the direct was that it exist -- there existed no such
18 thing as SJB Kula. Well, I will find the reference in the transcript.
19 What he testified about was that the SJB Novo Sarajevo, New Sarajevo, was
20 at the administrative building in front of the Butmir KPD, so ...
21 MS. KORNER: Well, I'm sorry, I'm --
22 MR. ZECEVIC: And your question was directed at the SJB Kula,
23 so -- and he confirmed that no such thing existed.
24 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honours, he seemed to understand what I
25 was talking about. Whether it's technically called the SJB Kula or
1 not - and we'll be dealing with that with documents - as my understanding
2 is, there was no argument there was a police station, even if it was part
3 of Novo Sarajevo.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, there is no argument that the
5 SJB Novo Sarajevo was stationed at the administrative building in front
6 of the Butmir KPD prison.
7 MS. KORNER: Right. Thank you.
8 Q. I'd like you to have a look, please --
9 MS. KORNER: Right. Could we have document -- Your Honours, I'm
10 so sorry. Because of the additions we've made to the list, I've
11 completely confused myself as to where my document is.
12 Yes. Could we look, please, at Exhibit P1633, which is behind
13 tab 3 in the Prosecution bundle, so Mr. Tusevljak won't have it.
14 Q. Now, Mr. Tusevljak, are you familiar with this book? It's the
15 duty book held by the Kula KP.
16 A. No.
17 Q. I'd like you to have a look, please, at the second --
18 MS. KORNER: Can we go, please, to the second page in English,
19 and it's the third page in B/C/S.
20 Q. I want you to look at the last entry. Does that read:
21 "On the 2nd of May, 1992, criminal inspectors Dejan Vaskovic and
22 Simo Tusevljak took from the police station Kula" I think that is the
23 SM Kula, whatever its correct name have been - is that Stanica Milicije
24 or something like that? - "to Pale the following persons:"
25 And it lists those people.
1 Is that you? And, sorry, in B/C/S you'd have to look at the next
2 page as well to see the list of people.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. But I thought you told us not five minutes ago that you had no
5 dealings with Muslim prisoners while you were an inspector.
6 A. Yes, but I don't think these are Muslim prisoners but
7 perpetrators of criminal offences, and I think this had to do with drugs.
8 Q. Sorry. First of all, you make a distinction, do you, when I say
9 people -- "prisoners," you make a distinction between that and a
10 perpetrator of a criminal offence?
11 A. Yes, I'm talking about the difference because we detained, I mean
12 the crime police, detained persons who were suspected of having
13 perpetrated a criminal offence.
14 Q. Right. Were these people, or at least some of them, of Muslim
16 A. I think that they were, four of them.
17 Q. Right. And you're saying, are you, that on the 2nd of May you
18 were dealing with drug offences when the conflict had just broken out?
19 A. Well, if someone from the police took in these people because
20 perhaps they searched them at the check-point and found drugs, this was
21 probably why we took them over. Or maybe it was something else that was
22 not in accordance with the law.
23 Q. Right. And is the SM Kula, described here, the same police
24 station that we've been -- that you were talking about earlier and I was
25 asking you about earlier, based in the Kula Prison, or within the
1 compound of the Kula Prison?
2 A. Yes, it was in the administration building, rather than within
3 the compound of the prison. In the administration building.
4 Q. And whether properly or not, whether this was supposed to be part
5 of Novo Sarajevo, it was call the Kula SJB, wasn't it, or SM?
6 A. It had various names. It was supposed to be the Public Security
7 Station Novi Grad, but it says here Kula.
8 Q. And that's what everybody called it, wasn't it?
9 A. Yes. Mostly because of the location where it was, that was how
10 it was called. Now, whether it was officially an SM or an SJB, that's a
11 different issue.
12 Q. Right. And why were you taking them to Pale, may I ask?
13 A. Well, probably for the investigation to continue over there of
14 these persons.
15 Q. Then why Pale? You weren't working at Pale.
16 A. Well, by the 2nd of May we didn't have a Security Services Centre
17 really. Nor, indeed, were we unable to put in any quality police work.
18 Nor, indeed, did we have a proper prosecutor's office.
19 Q. You've said that, and I'll come back to all of that now, but I
20 want to know why you as an inspector from the station that you were in
21 May were taking people from Kula to Pale?
22 A. I don't know. As for this other well-known criminal, I don't
23 even really remember this, believe me.
24 Q. Sorry, which other well-known criminal?
25 A. Nihad Rovcanin.
1 Q. And it couldn't have been, could it, for the purposes of some
2 kind of prisoner exchange, rather like the letter we saw from Mr. Mandic?
3 A. No, I was not so involved in any of these exchanges at any point
4 in time.
5 Q. All right. Now, I want to, as it were, deal with your career.
6 When did you acquire your present position?
7 A. My present position, in 2005.
8 Q. And you've been supplying documents to the Stanisic Defence since
9 at least 2007 and have you been co-operating with them since before that?
10 A. Not as far as I know. It was the moment we started receiving
11 formal requests.
12 Q. Did you have meetings with Mr. Stanisic personally?
13 A. Yes, once.
14 Q. Just once?
15 A. I think so.
16 Q. And when was that?
17 A. I can't remember specifically. Perhaps 2007 and perhaps not. I
18 really don't know. The indictment had been published already and then he
19 was provisionally released at one time.
20 Q. And did he come to see you or did you go and see him?
21 A. I had some contacts in Belgrade with the war crimes prosecutor.
22 We were working on some things together and I was working with Serbia's
23 MUP again. I think it was at one of those meetings that I met
24 Mr. Stanisic.
25 Q. Apart from what you've been asked to corroborate in this letter
1 for the purposes of documents for court, have you provided other
2 documents to Mr. Stanisic and/or Mr. Stanisic's lawyers?
3 A. No, just what is included in the file.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, just one clarification. I don't believe
5 the witness's answer, the previous answer, was correctly recorded.
6 70/3 and 4. "I think it was at one of those meetings that I met
7 Mr. Stanisic." And he was talking about some MUP meetings and war crime
8 prosecutor, and I think the witness said something different. Can you
9 please, for the sake of clarity, clarify that.
10 MS. KORNER:
11 Q. Okay. I'll repeat the question I asked you. When you met
12 Mr. Stanisic, you say on that one occasion, where did you meet him and
13 how -- well, first of all, where did you meet him?
14 A. In Belgrade. I don't know Belgrade well. It was in a
16 Q. And how did you meet him? Did he ask to meet you? Did you ask
17 to meet him?
18 A. Believe me, I never thought about it then or afterwards. I think
19 it was by accident. Perhaps Stanisic found out from someone that I was
20 around, so he gave me a call. I think that's how it was, but I didn't
21 think about it.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to repeat the
23 last part of his answer.
24 MS. KORNER:
25 Q. You are being asked to repeat the last part of your answer.
1 A. I wasn't thinking about it, the reason I met this person who was,
2 in fact, my minister, my superior.
3 Q. Yes. I'm sorry, but at that stage you say you knew he'd been
4 indicted by this Tribunal and he was no longer your minister or your
5 superior. Were you friendly with him during 1992?
6 A. Not particularly. I met Mr. Stanisic when he came from
7 Cetar [phoen], the Sarajevo SUP, when he became the secretary of
8 Sarajevo's SUP. During that time I met him maybe two or three times.
9 Afterwards, we got to know each other a little better when he became
10 minister of the interior of Republika Srpska. And Mr. Stanisic was there
11 twice. I got to know him better the second time around when he became
12 minister of the interior, because at the time I worked with the crime
13 police administration in Bijeljina and I was in charge of certain
14 activities, uncovering some serious crimes. And that was when we got to
15 know each other better and became closer friends.
16 Q. Right. And just a final one question before I move on to another
17 topic: How did he have your telephone number?
18 A. My telephone number is public. One of my friends probably passed
19 it on to him. My telephone number is easy enough to find in a directory,
20 perhaps in one of my business cards which I distributed thousands and
21 thousands of. It really wasn't a problem for anyone who wished to know.
22 Q. All right. I want to come on to this centre for war crimes
23 investigations which you head.
24 It's right, isn't it, that you don't have in your archives one
25 single original document?
1 A. Not that we don't have a single original document. What the
2 Republika Srpska MUP did in relation to our own activities from 2005 on,
3 it's all originals. The greatest problem for us was when we started this
4 activity in 2005 was precisely this. We were unable to retrieve the
5 original documentation. First we got from you a total of 23 or 24 DVDs,
6 copied documents, documentation that the OTP investigators seized from
7 the Republika Srpska MUP or the public security stations throughout the
8 territory. We also asked the people from the war crimes investigation
9 centre in Belgrade and they accommodated us. We spent a full three
10 months making copies of their documents.
11 We were also given some documents from our own war crimes
12 investigation centre in Banja Luka, which is part of the justice
13 ministry. We also contacted all the NGOs who we had learned were in
14 possession in some documents -- in possession of some documents related
15 to war crimes, so we tried to obtain those too.
16 Q. I'm not -- can I put it this way, Mr. Tusevljak: I'm not
17 criticizing you. I'm merely asking for a fact. The reality is, and for
18 the reasons you described, you don't have a single original document
19 prior to, as you say, 2005? That's right, isn't it?
20 A. Yes. In 90 per cent of the cases, the documents were like that.
21 Q. Yes. And, again, please, I'm not criticizing you for this at
22 all, but you have absolutely no method whatsoever of assessing whether
23 your documents that you have got from various sources, I accept, are
24 authentic or not authentic?
25 A. Well, we do. When we enclose a document like that and send it to
1 the prosecutor, normally we get a request from the prosecutor. And this
2 was very often the case. We go back to whoever we got the document from
3 in order to obtain a certified copy of the document.
4 It was the case on several occasions that documents obtained from
5 the war crimes investigation centre in Belgrade would be forwarded to the
6 BH prosecutor and then the BH prosecutor would seek international legal
7 assistance and would ask that the court in Belgrade confirm the
8 authenticity of whatever document, which they would invariably do.
9 Likewise, if we knew that the documents were from The Hague
10 Tribunal, we would advise the prosecutor to again seek co-operation and
11 get the original documents from the OTP or from the Tribunal itself.
12 Therefore, that was the only way to prove the authenticity of the
13 documents we were using in our own court proceedings. We were not able
14 to examine or cross-examine those who produced those documents, unlike
15 you. That, you will agree, is a job for the prosecutor.
16 Q. For any of that list of documents that was on that letter
17 Mr. Zecevic showed you, did you go back to the originators and say, Can
18 you certify that these are genuine, proper, that the originals are
19 genuine documents produced on the date and at the time that it appears to
21 A. Well, in some of the letters and exchanges we would even clearly
22 point out that the documents in question were copies.
23 Q. Right. Well, I mean, I'm simply asking you about that letter.
24 And you can take it with you, if you like, a copy of it. And whether, in
25 respect of any of the documents, the 170 I think it is, you are able to
1 say that you got a certificate to say these are the originals properly
2 produced at the time and by the people who they appear to be?
3 A. No, no one asked us to do that. We're simply asked whether we
4 had documents available in our archives and whether we had the copies
6 Q. Now, you also told the Trial Chamber about your work with, you
7 say, the state court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Could you tell the
8 Court, please - and if may be better, I suppose, if we go into private
9 session for this - the names of the investigations on which you have
10 worked for the -- or with the prosecutor's office of BiH.
11 MS. KORNER: I don't think we need to have the blinds for private
13 [Private session]
11 Pages 22472-22475 redacted. Private session.
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
21 MS. KORNER:
22 Q. I'd like you, please, Mr. Tusevljak, to take with you tonight a
23 copy of the CSB Sarajevo KU book, and I would like you, please, to go
24 through it and check to see whether you have any criminal reports in this
25 going up until 1995, which I think it runs up to, for Serbs committing
1 crimes against non-Serbs, war crimes. Whether they're described as
2 murders, you've told us, or war crimes. And secondly, I'm going to give
3 you, because there was a complaint last time about this, a copy of the
4 MUP report, that came out in January of 1993, the annual report, which
5 doesn't appear that Mr. Zecevic showed you, so that you can take that
6 away and read that overnight. Unless there's an objection.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, has this document ever been disclosed to
8 the --
9 MS. KORNER: Yes.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: -- Defence?
11 MS. KORNER: It has. I don't know when. All the Prosecutor's
12 log-books were disclosed. KU books.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: It has the number 20188.
14 MS. KORNER: That doesn't mean -- we haven't used it. But it was
15 disclosed. All the Prosecutor's books -- all the KU books have been
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Can you please provide us with a date.
18 MS. KORNER: Yes, I will. Tomorrow. I'd like him to have it
19 back, please.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, but I will have the objection if it's not
21 disclosed before.
22 MS. KORNER: I want him to have it. Would Your Honours allow the
23 usher to give him that document and this one?
24 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
25 MS. KORNER: Batch 110, 5th of March, 2010.
1 JUDGE HALL: Before we adjourn, Mr. Tusevljak, do you understand
2 what it is the Prosecution is requesting of you? Do you have any
3 questions that you would want to put to her through the Chamber before we
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is just one of the logs that
6 we kept for reports submitted directly by the Security Services Centre.
7 Public security stations in the centre area had their own registers, and
8 the total number of criminal reports filed would be added up based on
9 those received by the police stations and this register.
10 But, yes, I do understand what Ms. Korner is expecting me to do.
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
12 So we take the adjournment to tomorrow morning at 9.00.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 21st day
16 of June, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.