Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 23009

 1                           Friday, 8 July 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to

 6     everyone in and around the courtroom.

 7             This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and

 8     Stojan Zupljanin.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.  Good morning to

10     everyone.  May we have the appearances, please.

11             MR. HANNIS:  Good morning, all.  For the Prosecution, I'm

12     Tom Hannis along with Crispian Smith.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Slobodan Zecevic,

14     Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, Ms. Tatjana Savic, and we are

15     joined today by our intern, Ms. Margaret Artz.  Thank you very much.

16             MR. KRGOVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Dragan Krgovic,

17     appearing for Zupljanin Defence.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

19             Before the witness is escorted back into court, the Chamber is in

20     receipt of a motion for reconsideration filed by the Prosecution, and we

21     would request the Defence to make an expedited response -- sorry.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, may we file our response by Monday?

24             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Monday.  We think Monday would not be

25     unreasonable.  We would be grateful.

Page 23010

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, thank you.

 3             So would the usher please escort the witness back to the stand,

 4     if there are no other matters.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, just an information considering the

 6     scheduling.  I've noticed yesterday at the end of the day that, in my

 7     opinion, the witness was experiencing some difficulty, tired.  And, in my

 8     opinion, he was in pain again.  So I decided to shorten direct

 9     examination of the witness, and perhaps I will use another three hours.

10     So far, I spent only nine, and I guess I will -- I will use another,

11     perhaps, three hours, maybe not even that, and I will finish in the

12     course of today.

13             Thank you.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.  Much appreciated.

15             In that vain, I suppose that what we should be thinking in terms

16     of, should you complete within three hours, is an early adjournment today

17     so the witness would have an opportunity to rest, and then Mr. Krgovic

18     would begin his cross-examination when we resume on Monday.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  I think that would be the best solution,

20     Your Honours.  Thank you very much.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  We thank counsel for their consideration in

22     this matter.

23                           [The witness takes the stand]

24             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Macar, good morning to you.  Before Mr. Zecevic

25     resumes, I remind you, you're still on your oath.

Page 23011

 1                           WITNESS:  GORAN MACAR [Resumed]

 2                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  May I, Your Honours?

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, please.

 6                           Examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Macar.  Good morning.

 8        A.   Good morning.

 9        Q.   Mr. Macar, in the late part of the yesterday's session, we talked

10     about the action that took place in Zvornik to crush the Yellow Wasps.

11     Were there similar problems elsewhere involving paramilitary groups

12     throughout the RS of BiH in 1992?

13        A.   Yes, there were similar problems elsewhere.

14        Q.   Do you perhaps know whether there were problems involving

15     paramilitary groups and organisations in Foca, for example?

16        A.   Yes, I know about that.

17        Q.   The next document is 114, tab 54.  114D1, to be more specific.

18             Sir, this is a memo by the Trebinje CSB signed as authorised by

19     the chief, Krsto Savic, by someone apparently named Milorad Cuk.

20             The date is the 3rd of August, 1992.  It reads:

21             "Given the increasing complex security situation in Foca

22     municipality and the alleged attack on the police station carried out on

23     23rd of July, 1992, by military personnel from the so-called

24     Dragan Nikolic Detachment of which we have already informed you, we

25     hereby request that you urgently dispatch a special police detachment to

Page 23012

 1     intervene in the Foca area, and disband and disarm the paramilitary

 2     formations."

 3             Sir are you familiar with this particular incident, or were you

 4     familiar with it at the time, the 23rd of July incident, and the attack

 5     by that group on the Foca public security station?

 6        A.   Yes, I was aware of it at the time.

 7        Q.   What about the Ministry of the Interior of the RS of BiH?  What

 8     did they do about it?

 9        A.   I know about this document, too.  It was on the 3rd of August,

10     1992, that I came to Bijeljina where members of the special unit of the

11     RS MUP were completing their activities, in relation to bringing in the

12     Yellow Wasps back to Bijeljina from Zvornik municipality.  That day,

13     Mr. Cedo Kljajic met with me to discuss what to do with the Yellow Wasps,

14     and we agreed that we had to urgently prepare to dispatch a special unit

15     to the Foca area because of all these incidents that were occurring.

16        Q.   Did you have a chance to see this document at the time?  Did

17     Mr. Cedo Kljajic, as chief of the public security station, perhaps

18     familiarise you with the substance of this document?

19        A.   I was told about the substance of the document by

20     Mr. Cedo Kljajic.  Yes, that's true.  I'm not sure if I saw the actual

21     document, but he even went on to explain the broader context of

22     everything that was going on in the Foca municipality at the time.

23             I particularly wanted to know whether at least a portion of the

24     unit would remain in the Bijeljina territory so that we could complete

25     this operation of bringing in the Yellow Wasps.

Page 23013

 1        Q.   115D1, tab 51 [as interpreted], dated the 4th of August.

 2             This is a cover letter accompanying a report by the Foca public

 3     security station regarding the 23rd of July incident, and also a petition

 4     by some citizens from Foca municipality who were beaten, mistreated,

 5     humiliated by this paramilitary group described here as the

 6     Dragan Nikolic Detachment.  This was addressed to the police

 7     administration --

 8             MR. HANNIS:  I see in the transcript it is referred to as tab 51,

 9     but my tab 51 is something concerning the Yellow Wasps.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, I said 55.

11             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  It is 115D1, tab 55.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Sir, are you familiar with this document?

14        A.   Not with the report.  Nevertheless, I learned from

15     Mr. Cedo Kljajic about it.  We spent those days discussing the

16     possibility of dislocating or dispatching the special police unit.  I

17     wanted to get this done because of the Yellow Wasps, specifically.  I

18     learned about the extent of the problem in Foca municipality on those

19     days from Mr. Cedo Kljajic, but I did not, myself, have a chance to see

20     the report.

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, given what the

22     witness just stated, I would move that the previous document, 114D1,

23     tab 54, be admitted.

24             MR. HANNIS:  I would like a clarification when introducing the

25     document.  Mr. Zecevic, at page 3, line 19, stated that it appeared to

Page 23014

 1     have been signed by a particular named person.  The writing looks too

 2     long to be that name, and the witness didn't indicate what the name was.

 3             So could we have some clarification about that, if the witness

 4     can provide it.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Mr. Hannis.

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] Sir, let's go back to 114D1, tab 54.

 7             Sir, first of all, the handwritten part, the signature, and the

 8     abbreviation where it says "authorised by," is that the Latin script or

 9     the Cyrillic script?

10        A.   That is the Cyrillic script.

11        Q.   Are you able to read the name of the person who signed this

12     document?

13        A.   Chief of the police section in the Trebinje public security

14     station, Mr. Sokolic Murat [as interpreted].

15        Q.   Do you know Mr. Milorad Cuk?

16        A.   Yes, I do.

17        Q.   Mr. Milorad Cuk.  We see the name Sokolic Murat emerging on the

18     LiveNote but it is probably going to be changed later on.

19             Do you perhaps know what position Mr. Milorad Cuk held at the

20     time in the Trebinje public security station?

21        A.   I think he was head of the uniformed police department in the

22     Trebinje CSB.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  I don't know, Mr. Hannis, if that satisfies.

24             MR. HANNIS:  If he says that's what the name says, then I'm

25     satisfied.  And it appears to me it's the same signature on 115D1 as

Page 23015

 1     well.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Your application is for the admission of 114?

 3             And the -- as I understood your application was premised on what

 4     the witness said about 115.  Am I missing something?  I see the basis of

 5     the application, 114.  That stands on its own.  But what is the

 6     connection between this and 115?

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, I just wanted -- because

 8     basically both the document refer to the same incident on the 23rd of

 9     July in Foca, and I just wanted to find out whether the witness was aware

10     of this second document or the actual report filed by the SJB Foca.

11             Now my next document is in connection with 115D1, and I don't

12     think that we need to introduce two documents on the -- on precisely the

13     same subject.  And the document 114D1, tab 54, the witness confirmed that

14     he was discussing the contents of that document with Mr. Cedo Kljajic and

15     was aware of this.

16             MR. HANNIS:  I find myself in an unusual position, Your Honour.

17     If you're going to admit one, I'd ask that you admit both.  They're

18     clearly connected, and, for my purposes, they show communications

19     occurring smoothly and regularly and timely because it occurs the very

20     next day.  And it's going from Trebinje to Sarajevo and apparently being

21     seen in Bijeljina as well.  So I would like to have them both in.

22             JUDGE HALL:  And where are we in terms of the report to which 115

23     is the cover?

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, we don't have that report, Your Honours,

25     unfortunately.  We just have this cover -- cover letter which was sent

Page 23016

 1     together with the report, but the report was never found.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  I see.  Thank you.  So both documents are admitted

 3     and marked.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, as Exhibits 1D647 and 1D648,

 5     respectively.  Thank you.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Sir, the next document is 23D1, tab 56.

 8             This is a report by Vojin Vukovic and Cedo Tosic, both police

 9     inspectors, dated the 10th of August, 1992.  Report on the repeated

10     monitoring of the implementation of the Serbian Republic of BH interior

11     minister's order, strictly confidential number 10-17 of the 27th of July,

12     1992.

13             Two signatures there, I assume those to belong to the two

14     inspectors mentioned in the document.  Are you familiar with these two

15     gentlemen, Tosic and Vukovic?

16        A.   Yes.  I know them as uniformed police officers working at the

17     ministry's HQ.

18        Q.   Sir, at page 3 of this document, which I assumed to be page 2 of

19     the English.  My apologies.  It should be the bottom of page 1 of the

20     English text.

21             It reads:

22             "Having carried out an inspection, they propose certain measures

23     and steps to be taken."

24             The Serbian page is all right.  Page 2 in the English version,

25     please.  Can we bring that back.

Page 23017

 1             It goes on to state:

 2             "In the area of the Foca SJB, send a special unit or a part of

 3     the unit of the MUP of the Serbian Republic of BH as soon as possible.

 4     The objective being to destroy outlaw groups and paramilitary formation

 5     and establish and strengthen the human resources at the SJB which must

 6     then assume the responsibility of securing the conditions for the normal

 7     functioning of civilian authorities."

 8             Number 2:

 9             "Replace the supervisors at the Gacko SJB in order to normalise

10     the current situation and regain the trust of citizens in the MUP organs.

11     Urgently prosecute crime perpetrators and hold them to account."

12             Sir, the inspectors here comment on the situation at the Foca SJB

13     and the situation at the Gacko SJB.  As for Foca, we've seen that

14     already, and we know that you knew about this at the time.  What about

15     the situation in Gacko?

16        A.   Yes.  There was a briefing held in August in Mr. Cedo Kljajic's

17     office.  At this briefing, he told me about the fact that the problems in

18     Gacko were escalating because the supervisors realised that there was

19     more and more disruption of public order in Gacko.  And it was quite

20     clear that the people in charge of the public security station were

21     unable to restore peace and stability to the area.  I think proposals

22     were made at that briefing to dispatch special police units of the

23     Ministry of the Interior to the area in order to help the public security

24     station bring the situation back to normal and pick new supervisors for

25     that police station.

Page 23018

 1             [No interpretation]

 2             [Interpretation] I apologise.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] The witness apologised for speaking

 5     too fast.  It was not recorded, probably because the interpreters did not

 6     hear it because I was asking my question at the same time.

 7        Q.   Mr. Macar, do you know whether at the Gacko SJB there was a

 8     replacement?

 9        A.   Yes, I do.  There was a replacement carried out at the public

10     security station.

11        Q.   When we say a replacement, was this a replacement of the

12     executive staff, of the leaders of the public security station, and can

13     you more or less remember the actual date when this took place?

14        A.   I believe that it was late in August or early in September.  I

15     cannot be sure at this point.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Do you know, sir, whether this special unit, at the

17     end of August of 1992, did, indeed, leave and go to Foca?

18        A.   To the best of my recollection, I think it did not go to Foca

19     because of the specific situation with communications towards Foca.  I

20     know that it had to report to the ministries of the interior of Serbia

21     and Montenegro.  Any passages of armed units had to be reported to them.

22     And as far as I can remember, because of such and similar problems, I

23     believe that that did not take place.  I cannot be sure, but I don't

24     think that they went there.

25        Q.   Thank you.

Page 23019

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there no objections, I should

 2     like to move this document to be admitted into the case file as it is

 3     associated with the previous two documents.

 4             MR. HANNIS:  No objection.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D649, Your Honours.

 7                           [Defence counsel confer]

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown

 9     document 963D1, which is tab 89.

10        Q.   Sir, this is a letter.  It was type written and signed for the

11     minister of the interior, Mico Stanisic, by someone else.  It is dated

12     the 28th of November, 1992.  And it is addressed to the ministries of the

13     interior of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro.  And

14     it reads:

15             "In order to protect the security of the property of citizens in

16     the territory of eastern Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, we must move a

17     part of the special unit and the necessary equipment from Zvornik across

18     the territories of Serbia and Montenegro.  The movements would take place

19     on the 29th of November, 1992, at 2000 hours from Zvornik.  Since this is

20     the only route available to us, we ask that you allow free passage of the

21     unit so that it can carry out its planned task."

22             And then it goes on to say, to indicate the actual route that

23     would be followed by the unit in question, that is, via Bajina Basta,

24     Zlatibor, Prijepolje, so a part of Serbian and a part of Montenegrin

25     territory.

Page 23020

 1             Sir, are aware of the fact -- in fact, please first tell me what

 2     municipalities does eastern Herzegovina encompass, and to which CSB do

 3     those municipalities belong, in territorial terms?

 4        A.   In 1992, I believe that there were 12 municipalities -- I

 5     apologise, yes.  I believe that there were 12 municipalities that were

 6     compromised within the territory of Herzegovina and, in organisational

 7     terms, within the Ministry of the Interior security affairs within the

 8     remit of the Trebinje centre for public security.

 9        Q.   Tell me, was Gacko municipality and that of Trebinje and Bilice,

10     are these municipalities in eastern Herzegovina?

11        A.   Yes, that is the area of eastern Herzegovina.  Trebinje, Bilice,

12     Gacko, Nevesinje, Glogine [phoen], even a part of Mostar municipality

13     which was under Serbian control, then also Foca, a part of Gorazde,

14     Cajnice, Rudo, Visegrad municipalities.  Perhaps I have omitted some.

15        Q.   And what about Visegrad?  Was it also a part of that territory?

16        A.   Yes, it was.  Visegrad was a part of it.

17        Q.   Do you know whether this special unit or a part of that special

18     unit was, indeed, given permission at the end of November by the MUPs of

19     Serbia and Montenegro to pass through that territory and went to the

20     territory of eastern Herzegovina?

21        A.   First of all, I should like to remark that this document was

22     produced by Cvijetin Lekic, an inspector from the police administration,

23     and he signed it also.  This was standard procedure to announce to the

24     ministries of the adjacent republics any such moves.  And as far as I can

25     recall, members of the special police detachment which was in Zvornik

Page 23021

 1     were in the territory of Gacko municipality.

 2        Q.   Does that mean that in this particular instance, in contrast to

 3     the Foca case, the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia and that of -- and

 4     of Montenegro actually gave its permission for the special unit to pass

 5     through its territory?

 6        A.   Without permission, any uniformed police with or without

 7     armaments would not be able to pass; and in particular, not if they were

 8     armed and had hardware.  Without announcing their route and obtaining

 9     such permission, they would not have been able to pass.

10        Q.   Did I understand you properly that -- that you answered -- that

11     your answer to my question was affirmative?

12        A.   Yes, yes.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I

15     should like to move that this document be admitted into the case file.

16             MR. HANNIS:  I take it from the witness's answer that the

17     signature is the signature of the person named at the top of the

18     document?

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  That was my understanding as well, because he said

20     he was the author of the document.

21             MR. HANNIS:  In that case, no objection.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D650, Your Honours.

24             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Sir, I'm going to show you the next document, 1D334, MFI; the

Page 23022

 1     tab number is 80.

 2             Sir, this is a document dated the 25th of October, 1992, of the

 3     public security station of Visegrad, addressed to the Bijeljina MUP, the

 4     crime prevention administration, and to the competent Trebinje CSB,

 5     signed by chief Risto Perisic.  It has to do with operations in a

 6     particular case.

 7             Please tell me, firstly, when were communications, either system

 8     of dispatching dispatches in the territory of Republika Srpska, when did

 9     that start to function in a normal way in 1992?

10        A.   The system of sending dispatches with the relocation to Bijeljina

11     and the creation of technical preconditions was significantly improved

12     sometime from mid-October, although there still remained some problems,

13     but the system kept being improved in the field as well.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Tell me, who was the chief of the Visegrad public

15     security station in October 1992?

16        A.   I know that the chief of the station was Mr. Perisic, but I had

17     no occasion to meet him in person.

18        Q.   This document refers to a case of the kidnapping of 18 Muslims

19     under Rudo-Priboj road in the territory of the Visegrad public security

20     station.

21             Are you familiar with this case?

22        A.   Yes, I am familiar with that case.  I believe that we were

23     informed by the MUP of Serbia about this incident, as far as I can

24     recall, that is.

25        Q.   To the best of your recollection, what was this incident about,

Page 23023

 1     this kidnapping?  What was it about; and how come you were informed about

 2     it by the MUP of Serbia?

 3        A.   That is a border area between Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 4     The road, actually, crosses from Serbia to Bosnia, and I believe that

 5     this is an railway line also in that area.

 6             To the best of my recollection, we were informed that the

 7     relatives of the kidnapped had reported their disappearance.  They had

 8     reported them from missing from Priboj, I believe, to the effect that a

 9     group of armed people in military uniforms had taken a group of citizens

10     off a bus, and I believe that this was reported to the MUP of Serbia.

11     And we were informed on that basis and on our part, asked the station,

12     these police station to actually establish the fact.  We sent them a

13     request to that effect.

14        Q.   Unfortunately, we have not been able to locate that particular

15     document.  We do not have it.

16             Tell me, this route that you -- is referred to, Rudo to Priboj,

17     that particular road, I believe that you explained, but it is not quite

18     clear.  Just please confirm whether I understood you correctly.

19             So this route goes from Serbia, from the territory of Serbia,

20     through the territory of Serbia, and then partly goes through the

21     territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and then comes back to the territory

22     of Serbia again.  And both these towns, both these cities, are, in fact,

23     in the territory of Serbia?

24        A.   No, Rudo is in Bosnia and Herzegovina territory; and Priboj is in

25     Serbian territory.

Page 23024

 1        Q.   Thank you.  I shall show you the next document, and I believe it

 2     might refresh your memory.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] It is 1D335, MFI, tab 81.

 4        Q.   This is a report on the following day, dated the 26th of October,

 5     which is a report regarding the kidnapping of 18 Muslim passengers which

 6     took place on the 22nd of October, 1992, in the place called Mioca, Rudo

 7     municipality.  This document was signed by the chief of the Rudo public

 8     security station and the Visegrad public security station chief, Risto

 9     Perisic.

10             Tell me, did you know Dragan Radjen, the chief of the Rudo

11     station?

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Will the speakers please not overlap.

13             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Can you please look at this document and tell me if it jogs your

15     memory about the incident itself, the kidnapping of these persons?

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic, due to overlapping speakers, the

17     answer to your previous question wasn't recorded.

18             The question was:

19             "Tell me, did you know Dragan Radjen, the chief of the Rudo

20     station?"

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  I see, Your Honours.  I'm sorry, I was -- I had the

22     document on my monitor so I didn't notice this problem.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Sir, again, we need to make a pause between my

24     questions and your answers.

25             The question was:  Did you know Dragan Radjen, the chief of the

Page 23025

 1     Rudo public security station?

 2        A.   I remember his last name, but I did not know him personally.

 3     Never met him.

 4             If I may just answer your following question.  I know about this

 5     situation.  This definitely jogs my memory.  The line overlaps across two

 6     municipalities.  There were certain activities being pursued, in terms of

 7     shedding light on this report.  There were two stations that took charge

 8     of this task:  The Rudo station and the Visegrad station.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, unless there are any

11     objections, I would like the MFI to be taken off both these documents so

12     they may be admitted.

13             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I'm not sure of the relevance of

14     these.  Rudo is not a municipality that's in our indictment.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  But Visegrad is.

16             MR. HANNIS:  Well, as I understand it, this crime occurred in

17     Rudo.

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  The witness just confirmed that it occurred

19     basically in Rudo and in Visegrad, on the territory of both

20     municipalities.

21             MR. HANNIS:  Well, the document itself that we're looking at

22     says:  Information about the kidnapping of 17 passengers of Muslim

23     ethnicity which happened on 22 October in the municipality of Rudo.

24             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Sir, this location, Mioca, in Rudo municipality, do you remember

Page 23026

 1     if that is the location of the kidnapping?  Could you provide some detail

 2     on the incident, if you can?

 3        A.   To the extent that I can remember, Rudo and Visegrad are two

 4     adjacent municipalities crossed by the same road.  It would be hard for

 5     me to draw the line separating the two municipalities now.  Rudo is a

 6     small municipality with very few police officers working there, or was at

 7     the time.  In the early stages, we didn't know exactly where the crime

 8     occurred.  That is why the same instructions were received by both Rudo

 9     and Visegrad:  Work in your own area and try to shed light on these

10     events.

11        Q.   Sir, were there any doubts surrounding the identity of the

12     perpetrators?  Or, rather, I don't mean doubts.  I mean suspicions, in

13     terms of intelligence suggesting who these persons might be.

14        A.   There were assumptions made by the Visegrad station,

15     specifically.  In all likelihood, they believed the crime had been

16     perpetrated by members of paramilitary units from the neighbouring

17     republics.  At one point, a suspicion arose that the crime had been

18     committed by members of the same ethnicity from Serbia and Montenegro, in

19     order to cause an incident in the border area.  Those were some

20     assumptions being made initially when one first found out about the

21     kidnapping.

22        Q.   Was there any intelligence at any point that you received

23     suggesting that Milan Lukic's group had been involved in this incident?

24        A.   At a later stage, we started suspecting that Milan Lukic's group

25     was to blame for that incident.  We received information at a later stage

Page 23027

 1     suggesting that Serbia's MUP had attempted to get more information on his

 2     activity and the activity of his units.  At one point, Mr. Lukic was

 3     placed in custody.  This was done at the time by the Uzice police

 4     administration or whatever form of organisation they were using at the

 5     time.

 6        Q.   Mr. Lukic and his group, from which municipality were they?

 7        A.   As far as I remember, Mr. Lukic was from Bosnia and Herzegovina

 8     but was residing in Serbia before the war broke out.

 9        Q.   Do you perhaps know that Mr. Lukic and his group were operating,

10     or were based in Visegrad municipality, and they were suspected of

11     committing a number of crimes --

12             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, I must object to the leading nature of

13     the question.  Why doesn't he [Overlapping speakers] ... ask him where he

14     was based, not isn't it true he was based in Visegrad.

15             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my question was: Does

16     the witness know.  That's how I phrased my question.  If he doesn't know,

17     he might as well say that: No, I don't know.  I do not believe that I was

18     in any way at all leading the witness.

19             MR. HANNIS:  It would be non-leading if it didn't contain the

20     answer he is looking for.

21             JUDGE HALL:  I agree with Mr. Hannis, Mr. Zecevic.  But I suppose

22     you're still setting up the basis for the admissibility of this document.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Could you remind me as to why it was only marked for

25     identification, not fully admitted as an exhibit?

Page 23028

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, perhaps, Your Honours, I see the time, and

 2     during the break I will find out and inform the Trial Chamber.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  So we will take the break now and resume in 15

 4     minutes.

 5                           [The witness stands down]

 6                           --- Recess taken at 10.00 a.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 10.21 a.m.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, already the break, I checked the

10     transcript.  It's page 12735.  Date is 29th of June, 2010.  It was during

11     the testimony of Witness -- the prosecutor from Visegrad.  And the

12     documents were offered by Mr. Cvijetic, and there was objection from

13     the -- from the -- from the Office of the Prosecutor, and Your Honours'

14     ruling was:

15             "In the Chamber's view, the documents are admissible but not

16     through this witness so they would be marked for identification."

17             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

18             If we may have a moment, please.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE HALL:  In the Chamber's view, we have heard sufficient from

21     this witness that the -- such as that the MFI qualification may now be

22     lifted and marked as a full exhibit [Overlapping speakers] ...

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.  It refers to

24     documents 1D334 and 335.

25             [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown 41D1, which is

Page 23029

 1     tab 82.

 2        Q.   Sir, this is an order by the minister of the interior.  I'm

 3     unable to identify the signature, and you can try and give us a hand with

 4     that.  The date is the 27th of October, 1992.  The order was sent to the

 5     detachment of special MUP units, ordering that 50 police officers from

 6     the special MUP unit detachment and one of the managing staff be deployed

 7     on the territory of the Rudo and Visegrad SJBs in order to control roads,

 8     persons entering and leaving the territory of Republika Srpska,

 9     preventing crimes and other activities.

10             It also says that the unit will be on its way on the 27th of

11     October, 1992, at 1300 hours.

12             Sir, this is the day after the previous report that we looked at,

13     or, rather, the two reports dated the 25th and 26th of October,

14     respectively.  This is now the 27th of October, 1992.  And this is an

15     order.

16             Have you seen this document before, sir, and do you recognise the

17     signature?

18        A.   Yes, I know this document.  It was signed by Mr. Milos Zuban,

19     chief of the police administration.  The order was a result of an

20     assessment that was made of the situation in Visegrad and Rudo

21     municipalities, particularly because the border separating Bosnia and

22     Herzegovina and Serbia proved to be very porous.  There were several

23     roads crossing the border, and at the time, we didn't have a proper

24     border police set up or anything like that, nor, indeed, were we able to

25     place the roads under control with the assistance of the local police.

Page 23030

 1     On the other hand, we suspected that there were paramilitary units active

 2     in the area, and there were incursions by criminal groups from Serbia

 3     itself.  For these reasons, we decided to dispatch a number of the

 4     special police to the municipalities of Visegrad and Rudo to help out the

 5     local police with their work there.

 6        Q.   We see a handwritten addition in the upper right corner,

 7     someone's initials, too.  Could you identify those for us, please.

 8        A.   It reads: Sent to the unit A/A, whoever was in charge of

 9     dispatching this document.  This is someone in the communication centre

10     but the text reads sent to the unit.

11        Q.   Do you perhaps know if the unit eventually left for the territory

12     covered by the Rudo and Visegrad SJBs?

13        A.   If memory serves, I think the unit was actually of two of those

14     municipalities to help out the local police there.

15        Q.   Can you please just look again at the handwritten portion.  Does

16     it say "units sent"?

17        A.   Yes, that's what it says, "units sent" in the Cyrillic script.

18        Q.   What's your understanding of what it says, "units sent"?

19        A.   The order was carried out to send units.

20        Q.   Based on your recollection, what about the order and the fact

21     that these 50 members of the MUP special units were dispatched there?  Is

22     that, among other things, also in reference to the kidnapping incident

23     that we talked about a while ago, where 17 ethnic Muslims were kidnapped

24     in those two municipalities?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 23031

 1        Q.   Sir, do you remember what the investigation yielded in the case

 2     of these 17 Muslims being kidnapped?  What was the outcome; and were

 3     those persons ever found?

 4        A.   I don't think the persons were found.  The Visegrad and Rudo SJBs

 5     and the Sarajevo CSB did not manage to obtain any intelligence regarding

 6     the identity of the perpetrators.  I'm talking about the incident

 7     involving the kidnapping of these 17 Muslims, of course.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objection, I would

 9     like to tender this into evidence as well.

10             MR. HANNIS:  No objection.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D651, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Macar, before we move onto something else, I

14     thought you said before the break that the suspicions were that it was

15     Mr. Milan Lukic and his group who had conducted the kidnapping of those

16     18 Muslims in Rudo or Visegrad, or wherever it was.  And I'm just curious

17     to know, was that confirmed in the end?  Did you find out in the end who

18     had been responsible for the kidnapping; and were those people prosecuted

19     for the events?

20             What happened?  What was the end of the story?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Visegrad and Rudo SJBs and the

22     criminal police of the Sarajevo CSB, later on, because in terms of

23     organisation it also belonged to the CSB Sarajevo, did not obtain any

24     intelligence identifying the perpetrators of this crime.  Therefore, no

25     criminal report was filed because no evidence was obtained identifying

Page 23032

 1     the perpetrators.

 2             I'm not sure if that is specific enough for your purposes,

 3     Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  That's fine.

 5             And just one additional question:  Do you know if the 18 Muslims

 6     were ever seen again?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, not for as

 8     long as I worked with the police administration.

 9             I'm not sure what happened after the war.  I'm not sure if their

10     remains were ever found.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, sir.

12             Back to you, Mr. Zecevic.

13             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Sir, do you perhaps know whether a criminal report was filed

15     against unknown perpetrators, in relation to the kidnapping of these 17

16     Muslims?

17             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I think he answered that question when

18     he was speaking to Judge Harhoff.  Page 23, line 9.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  But that is precisely what I'm asking.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I answered Judge Harhoff, the

21     perpetrators were not identified, and no criminal report materialised.

22     It was the SJBs' responsibility to forward a report to the prosecutor

23     regarding the fact that some persons went missing.

24             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Mr. Macar, what about the crime prevention administration?  What

Page 23033

 1     about after this incident, the period of time that followed?  Did it

 2     conduct an investigation into the kidnapping and disappearance of these

 3     ethnic Muslims?

 4        A.   The crime police administration continued to follow the

 5     kidnapping case.  It tried to get through to the SJB in order to have

 6     more information on any reports of these missing persons.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 51D1, tab 83, please.

 8                           [Defence counsel confer]

 9             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Sir, this is a document produced by the crime prevention

11     administration in Bijeljina.  The number is 02-43, from 1993.  Dated the

12     15th of March, 1993.

13             It reads:

14             "Report on the inspection of Trebinje Security Services Centre,

15     Trebinje SJB, Visegrad SJB, Rudo, Cajnice, Gacko, and Nevesinje," signed

16     by Nikola Milanovic, the person submitting the report.

17             Sir, which organisational administration did Nikola Milanovic

18     belong to?

19        A.   He was inspector of the crime prevention police at the ministry's

20     HQ.

21        Q.   Was that your crime police administration of which you were head

22     at the time?

23        A.   Yes, that's the one.

24        Q.   Are you familiar with this report?

25        A.   Yes, I am.

Page 23034

 1        Q.   Sir, paragraph 1 reads:

 2             "Nikola Milanovic, crime inspector with the crime prevention

 3     administration of the Republika Srpska MUP, and Dragan Obradovic,

 4     inspector with the administration for police duties and tasks ... on the

 5     4th of March, 1993, arrived at the Visegrad SJB.  Their task being to

 6     establish facts regarding the hijacking of passengers from aboard a

 7     Belgrade-Bar intercity train that had taken place there Stprci, Visegrad

 8     municipality.  With regard to this case, a meeting was held at the

 9     Visegrad SJB attended by the head, the deputy commander," and so on and

10     so forth, "as well as Milorad Cuk and Dragan Gagovic from the Trebinje

11     CSB HQ.  A special report was compiled about this event which was

12     submitted to the Republika Srpska MUP officials."

13             Sir, Mr. Nikola Milanovic here claims that he had a task.  Who

14     gave him this task, the task of establishing facts surrounding this

15     kidnapping case?

16        A.   If you look at the procedure applied in the work of the Ministry

17     of the Interior and specifically what the public security sector did,

18     they often -- they often had these working meetings to discuss certain

19     types of problems.  It was at one of these meetings that the decision was

20     taken to dispatch to Visegrad, in the Centar area, a mixed team

21     comprising crime police administration inspectors.

22        Q.   Sir, the document speaks for itself.  It's all there.

23             The question was this:  Who gave Nikola Milanovic this task?  Who

24     told him to ascertain facts surrounding the kidnapping of Muslims in

25     Visegrad SJB, in an area covered by the Visegrad SJB?

Page 23035

 1        A.   I did.

 2        Q.   The document says that --

 3             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, I need to interject.  In my English

 4     translation I'm not sure I see a reference to hijacked persons being

 5     Muslims.  Could counsel direct me to where there is such a reference?  My

 6     English translation just says "persons" or "passengers."

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  That is exactly what I'm trying to establish right

 8     now.

 9             MR. HANNIS:  Well, the question shouldn't suggest that it says

10     Muslims.  That should come from the witness not from counsel.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] Tell me, sir, it is stated here that the

13     passengers who were kidnapped in Strpci, Visegrad municipality -- does

14     this kidnapping refer to the documents, the previous documents that we

15     saw, or does it not?  Is the case identical?

16        A.   No.  This is a instance of the kidnapping of passengers from a

17     train on the Belgrade-Bar railroad in the part of territory which passes

18     through Bosnia and Herzegovina, i.e., the village of Strpci which is a

19     border village adjacent to Serbia.

20        Q.   Then please explain to us, shed more light on this incident for

21     us, please, to the best of your knowledge.

22        A.   The Ministry of the Interior was informed that, on the route, on

23     the railroad line from Belgrade to Bar in the area of the village of

24     Strpci, a group of citizens have been taken off the train.

25             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, before we go much farther, could we

Page 23036

 1     inquire about the date of this particular incident?  It may bear on

 2     relevance.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Could you assist us in this regard, Mr. Macar.

 5        A.   Well, in hindsight, from this distance, I can't be sure whether

 6     it was the second half of 1992, the end of 1992.  It is hard for me to

 7     recall the exact date.  But I do know that it is an incident that

 8     elicited greater tension in the Ministry of the Interior.

 9        Q.   All right.  Please explain the facts that you are aware of in

10     connection with this incident.

11        A.   I do know that a group of citizens were taken off the train in

12     this area which immediately elicited reactions, actually, a demand

13     forwarded to the Visegrad public security station to collect all relevant

14     information.  Then this was followed by an order to dispatch this mixed

15     team.  At a meeting in the Trebinje CSB, it was decided that all support

16     should be given to the team in connection with this incident to see how

17     they would conduct their operative actions in the field and possibly to

18     establish the identity of the perpetrators of the -- that offence.

19        Q.   And the persons who went missing, who were taken off the train,

20     what was their ethnicity?

21        A.   The persons taken off the train were ethnic Muslims, I believe

22     from the area of the municipality -- or, rather, the area at the border

23     between Montenegro and Serbia.

24        Q.   Do you remember how many persons were involved in this incident?

25        A.   I do not know the exact number, and I would not wish to

Page 23037

 1     speculate.

 2        Q.   Were there 10, 20, more than 20?

 3        A.   Certainly more than 10.

 4        Q.   What was the intelligence that was gathered by the police in

 5     connection with the possible perpetrators of this crime?

 6        A.   The information collected by the police was that these persons

 7     were taken away by a number of persons who were in military uniforms.

 8        Q.   Were there any suspicions in respect of any specific individuals

 9     in this particular instance?

10        A.   There was suspicions, but it all literally boiled down to just

11     suspicions.  There was no tangible information that might be indicia,

12     that a certain person committed that crime.  I know that some attention

13     was also focussed on Mr. Lukic at the time.  But apart from speculations,

14     there was nothing tangible, in terms of tangible material on the basis of

15     which any further action could have been taken.

16        Q.   These persons of Muslim ethnicity who were taken off the train,

17     whose citizens were they?

18        A.   They were citizens of Serbia and Montenegro.

19        Q.   Were these persons ever found?

20        A.   Not to my knowledge, no.

21        Q.   Do you know whether any criminal proceedings were instituted in

22     connection with the disappearance of these persons?

23        A.   I know that criminal proceedings were conducted in Serbia against

24     Mr. Milan Lukic.

25        Q.   Do you know what the reason was for the criminal proceedings to

Page 23038

 1     have been conducted in the territory of the Republic of Serbia and not on

 2     the territory of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

 3        A.   I believe that in the period in question, Mr. Lukic was in the

 4     territory of the Republic of Serbia, and to the best of my recollection,

 5     he is a citizen of the Republic of Serbia.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objection, I move

 8     to tender this report as well.

 9             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I do have an objection as to

10     relevance.

11             The witness has indicated he doesn't remember the date of the

12     event.  He thinks it might be in the second half of 1992.  The best we

13     can say from this report is that it must have occurred before the 15th of

14     March, 1993.  And the fact that we have here is that an investigation was

15     done in March of 1993 at a time when Mr. Stanisic, Mico Stanisic, was not

16     the minister of the interior, so I'm not sure how that is relevant to

17     this case.

18             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honours, I believe that

19     it is relevant for a number of reasons.  First of all, this is a document

20     which was filed by an inspector who worked for the crime prevention

21     administration that the witness was head of at that time as well as in

22     1992.  The witness cannot state with certainty whether this incident took

23     place in 1992 or at the beginning of 1993, but that notwithstanding, it

24     was he who charged this inspector with the task of establishing the

25     relevant facts, and he has explained in detail why he had done so and

Page 23039

 1     what was in question.

 2             On the first page of this document, in particular, there are

 3     references to the previous incident which took place in 1992 that we have

 4     already discussed, the hijacking of the bus passengers, so that it is in

 5     that sense associated with the other already admitted evidence and

 6     relevant on that basis.

 7             MR. HANNIS:  Well, Your Honours, I would point out in my English

 8     translation, page 2, talking about Rudo.  And the second paragraph under

 9     Rudo SJB says:

10             "In 1992, in the area of responsibility of Rudo, passengers from

11     a bus had been taken in a place called Sjeverin."  S-j-e-v-e-r-i-n.

12             The documents that we looked at before 1D334 and 335 made

13     reference to passengers taken off a bus in Mioca, M-i-o-c-e.  So it is

14     not clear from looking at this document that it is talking about the same

15     event.

16             And again, my objection is, at best, this shows that this witness

17     in 1993 directed somebody working for him to do an investigation.  What

18     has that got to do with Mico Stanisic and his responsibility in 1992?

19     Nothing, I say.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, if the -- if the -- if the position of the

21     Office of the Prosecutor is that the JCE, alleged JCE, stopped after

22     Mico Stanisic was removed from his position as a minister of the interior

23     of Republika Srpska, we would like to be informed about that because, so

24     far, we understood that -- that the allegation by the Office of the

25     Prosecutor was that there was this overwhelming JCE starting from

Page 23040

 1     October 1991 and continuing until end of 1995.

 2             But I appreciate Mr. Hannis's comment about the second incident,

 3     and I will inquire with the witness.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Macar, on the first page here, the

 5     penultimate paragraph, it is stated:

 6             "In the area of the Rudo SJB, 1992, passengers were kidnapped

 7     from a bus in the village of Sjeverin.  And it was advised that this case

 8     should be processed because there is intelligence on the perpetrators of

 9     the persons who were -- would be kidnapped and the case should be worked

10     on until the final position on the case is taken."

11             There's now a reference to Sjeverin.  We have reference to

12     Sjeverin in this part.  And previously, we saw that in the previous

13     documents there was information about the village of Mioca, in the

14     municipality of Rudo.  Could you be of assistance and tell us whether

15     these were two distinction incidents and what is in question?

16        A.   It is the same incident.

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Will the speakers please

18     not overlap.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, Mr. Macar, you heard the interpreters.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand, Your Honours.

21        Q.   [Interpretation] We must pause between question and answer,

22     please.

23             Please be so kind as to explain to us then why the previous

24     documents refer to the village of Mioca and this document to a placed

25     named Sjeverin?

Page 23041

 1        A.   Well, probably it was based on the initial information gathered

 2     and because of the need to speedily relay the information.  That might

 3     account for the mistake.  But this -- this place, this incident, this

 4     hijacking took place there Sjeverin and that it was reported as such, as

 5     persons going missing.

 6             When the team was dispatched to inspect the field, one of their

 7     tasks was to check the quality of the gathered information and to

 8     actually confirm it so that it could be the basis for further work and to

 9     establish whether the task required the inclusion of additional forces.

10     Generally, they were to assist the current stage of the task on the day

11     of their inspection.

12        Q.   So let us clarify.  The kidnapping of the passengers from the

13     bus, information about which was dispatched in October 1992 from the Rudo

14     public security station and the one in Visegrad regarding the kidnapping

15     that took place in the village of Mioca, this other incident which is

16     described here as the kidnapping of passengers in Sjeverin, if I

17     understood you properly, you say that this is the same incident?

18        A.   Yes, this is the same incident.

19        Q.   What was the reason why the designated place of the commission of

20     this act was changed in the period from October 1992 until early 1993?

21        A.   Probably the collected information, because in rural areas --

22        Q.   Sir, please concentrate on my question.  Please answer my

23     question and then we shall go onto remark on the rural area and similar.

24        A.   The instructions given to Mr. Milanovic to check the information

25     was issued to him according to the instruction that we got from the

Page 23042

 1     Visegrad station in 1992, in respect of the missing persons from the bus,

 2     as I described a while ago.

 3        Q.   Mr. Macar, do you allow for the possibility that the actual place

 4     of the commission of the crime, the designation of the actual place of

 5     the commission of crime, was the result of the investigation of this

 6     offence?

 7        A.   Yes, that was what I was trying to say when you interrupted me.

 8     Yes, that was exactly the case.

 9        Q.   Do you remember that, ultimately -- do you remember whether it

10     was at all indisputably established in this case where the kidnapping of

11     the passengers had taken place?

12        A.   I think that the approximately correct location was established.

13        Q.   Which was -- which is?

14        A.   To my recollection, in hindsight, it is Sjeverin.

15             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I move to tender this

16     document.

17             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, just for the record, I wanted to

18     indicate that the indictment, to the best of my recollection, alleged

19     that the JCE from October 1991 to the end of December 1992, not 1995.

20     And so I maintain my objection about the relevance of this investigation

21     in 1993.

22             JUDGE HALL:  But it does touch and concern matters which,

23     according to the witness, I don't want to put words in his mouth,

24     probably but could have occurred in 1992, which was -- a part of your

25     initial objection, Mr. Hannis.

Page 23043

 1             Isn't that sufficient for our purposes?

 2             MR. HANNIS:  Yes, Your Honour, I guess if you only focus on the

 3     event concerning passengers taken off a bus in Rudo in 1992 and not

 4     passengers taken off the Belgrade-Bar bus sometime before March 1993.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  This is a not a Belgrade-Bar bus.  It's a

 6     Belgrade-Bar train.

 7             MR. HANNIS:  [Overlapping speakers] ... my mistake.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  And the witness could not specify whether it

 9     happened at the end of 1992, the second part of 1992, or possibly in

10     beginning of 1993.

11             MR. HANNIS:  But my point regarding the train is that there was

12     no investigation, apparently, ordered about that before March of 1993

13     when Mr. Stanisic was no longer the minister and had not yet become

14     minister again for a second time.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE HALL:  So the document is admitted and marked.

17             It goes without saying that when the time comes to assess the

18     document, such of it as is irrelevant, will clearly fall away.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, this is Exhibit 1D652.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you.

21             [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown P163, tab 59.

22        Q.   Sir, this is a summary from the working group meeting of the

23     senior staff members of the minister of the interior, the meeting held on

24     the 20th of August, 1992, in Trebinje.

25             Are you familiar with this document; and did you attend this

Page 23044

 1     meeting in Trebinje on the 20th of August?

 2        A.   Yes, I was present.

 3        Q.   Sir, on page 13 -- or, rather, page 14 of this document in

 4     Serbian, in e-court, we see a paragraph starting with the following

 5     words:  "Macar, Goran."  And then it goes on to convey what you

 6     apparently said at that meeting.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] That's page 17 in the English

 8     version.

 9        Q.   Do you remember this?

10        A.   Yes, I remember this part.  And I remember these words of mine,

11     where I pointed out to the fact that the crime services need to intensify

12     their work.  But, additionally, I also informed them about the problem

13     whereby the crime investigation workers, without the uniformed policemen

14     and other staff members, could not deal with the cases where there were

15     armed groups of criminals involved, that other methods and other

16     approaches were needed to deal with that.  I gave an example of Foca, and

17     there were other examples, too.

18             I remember a collegium meeting we had because of an incident that

19     had taken place.

20        Q.   What incident was it about?

21        A.   I have to repeat that one had to travel to Trebinje via Serbia

22     and Montenegro.  We set out in civilian clothes, and we were not armed.

23     And the colleague who travelled with me took his police blue uniform.

24     After the meeting concluded, in the building of the centre, since this

25     was in the late afternoon hours, we were rushing to get ready to travel

Page 23045

 1     back to Bijeljina.  My colleague was in his blue police uniform, and he

 2     wanted to change into civilian clothes just before the border with

 3     Montenegro.  And as we left Trebinje, we were stopped by this big

 4     soldier.  He waved to us and -- indicating that he wanted us to give him

 5     a ride somewhere.  And as soon as he saw my colleague in a blue uniform,

 6     and this soldier had a machine-gun, 84 type, he started cursing police.

 7     He made us get out of the car and lie down on the road.  I know that we

 8     did that under fierce threats coming from him, and we also noticed that

 9     there was another man in a similar position lying on the road.

10             So we stayed there for ten or so minutes.  And I think that

11     somebody came by in a military truck, somebody wearing a uniform, and

12     they managed to convince this soldier to let us go.  It was quite a tense

13     situation, this soldier with a big 84 machine-gun holding us there for

14     some half an hour.  This was just after we left Trebinje.  And it was a

15     good illustration of the situation as it was at the time.

16             This was an individual incident.  It did not -- it was not

17     general position that the army had towards the police, but,

18     unfortunately, I lived through it.

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 1D348,

20     which is tab 65.

21        Q.   Before we look at this document, tell me, please, in late August,

22     did you participate in the work of some commission looking into the

23     situation in the Bijeljina SJB?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Pursuant to his order -- to whose order this commission was set

Page 23046

 1     up; and do you remember who were its members?

 2        A.   The commission was set up pursuant to the order of the minister,

 3     Mr. Stanisic.  It was a three-member commission:  Gajic, Sreto;

 4     Spasojevic, Zoran; and me.  I think that Spasojevic, Zoran worked at the

 5     SJB Bijeljina, and Sreto Gajic worked in the police administration in the

 6     ministry headquarters.

 7        Q.   And what was the reason and what was the task of this commission?

 8        A.   The task of the commission was to record the materiel and

 9     technical equipment at the Bijeljina SJB, to audit the deposits at the

10     Bijeljina SJB, due to the information we received about the fact that

11     some confiscated funds and items were unlawfully handled.

12        Q.   [Microphone not activated]

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.  Microphone for counsel.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Sir, we have this report before us.  Would you please confirm

16     whether this is your signature under number 1; and is this, indeed, the

17     report that you wrote after inspecting the Bijeljina SJB and the

18     situation there?

19        A.   Yes.  That is the report signed by the members of the commission.

20        Q.   Signature under number 1 is whose?

21        A.   My signature is under number 1.  Gajic is number 2.  And

22     Spasojevic is number 3.

23        Q.   Tell me briefly, what was the conclusion of the commission?

24        A.   The conclusion of the commission was that it was established that

25     the items deposited at the SJB were not handled in accordance with the

Page 23047

 1     law, and that pursuant to the order of Mr. Cedo Kljajic, some items were

 2     requisitioned.  And later on, we heard that Mr. Andan, who used to work

 3     at the Ministry of the Interior, also took some items; whereas, some

 4     items were given to certain staff members of the station for their

 5     personal use.  The funds, the money, was used to repair vehicles and for

 6     some operative expenses.

 7        Q.   Did the commission reach the conclusion -- or, rather, what was

 8     the conclusion of the commission regarding the lawfulness of such a

 9     method of work, given the then-existing regulations?

10        A.   It was established that these actions were contrary to the law.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, perhaps before you move on, we can take

13     the break now --

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, Your Honours, I'm sorry.  I missed the time.

15             JUDGE HALL:  -- and resume in 15 minutes.

16                           [The witness stands down]

17                           --- Recess taken at 11.16 a.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 11.39 a.m.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, as soon as the witness resumes the

20     stand, the Chamber is minded to go into private session so that we, in

21     the presence of the witness, can get an understanding of the rest of the

22     day's scheduling, for obvious reasons.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand, Your Honours.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25                           [The witness takes the stand]

Page 23048

 1                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Before Mr. Zecevic continues his questions, there

 3     are some issues which the Chamber wishes to resolve, and I ask that we go

 4     into private session, please.

 5                           [Private session]

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 23049

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13                           [Open session]

14             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

15             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Mr. Macar, we talked about the findings of this commission.  Do

17     you know whether any disciplinary or any other types of measures were

18     taken against any staff members of the Ministry of the Interior, as a

19     result of the findings of the commission whose member you were?

20        A.   I know that after the first findings of the commission, a

21     disciplinary measure was meted out against Mr. Andan the very next month.

22     And, further on, based on these findings, other checks were made

23     concerning all items.  Interviews were had with all of the persons who

24     requisitioned any of the items, so all kinds of checks were made;

25     following which, additional disciplinary measures were needed.

Page 23050

 1             I can't remember the exact situation, but I think that the

 2     further checks took an additional month because some of the persons that

 3     needed to be interviewed were not available.  They were either on the

 4     front or busy with other assignments.  So it took another month or two to

 5     complete further checks.

 6        Q.   Tell me, please, what happened with the under-secretary for

 7     public security, Mr. Cedo Kljajic?

 8        A.   Unfortunately, Mr. Cedo Kljajic did not wait for the checks to be

 9     concluded.  Disciplinary action needed to be taken against him, too.  I

10     don't know whether he received some advance notice or something.  I just

11     know that he was gone.  For a period of time, he was gone.  And based on

12     what I learned, he had gone to Serbia.  So not even the disciplinary

13     commission of the Ministry of the Interior could take action against him,

14     could institute proceedings.

15        Q.   You say that he went to Serbia.  Did he terminate his employment

16     with the Ministry of the Interior of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and

17     Herzegovina?

18        A.   The very fact that he left his job with the ministry means that

19     he terminated his employment.  He was also a military conscript who had

20     wartime assignments pursuant to the enactments of the Ministry of the

21     Interior, where he held a position.

22        Q.   Based on your information, did Mr. Kljajic come back to the

23     Ministry of the Interior of the RS of Bosnia and Herzegovina, following

24     his departure in 1992?

25        A.   No, he didn't come back.

Page 23051

 1        Q.   Sir, I have to ask you for a clarification based on the document

 2     of Mr. Hannis, which we can see on the transcript page 34, line 9 to 12.

 3     This is related to the documents that we tendered.

 4             Mr. Macar, tell me, please, what is the obligation of the organs

 5     of the interior upon learning that a crime was committed?

 6        A.   The -- once they learned that a crime was committed, the organs

 7     are duty-bound, first, to establish what crime it was, where it was

 8     committed; then to carry out an on-site investigation; to fix all the

 9     traces on the site; to turn them all over to forensic department.

10     Unfortunately, in 1992, such work could only be carried out partially by

11     the Banja Luka CSB with their forensic department; whereas, other newly

12     established centres, including the Doboj centre, were not able to carry

13     out such forensic work.  The forensic equipment of the MUP of Bosnia and

14     Herzegovina was located in Sarajevo in two different locations.  And most

15     of the experts who used to work in those services were top experts in

16     their field, but were ethnic Muslims.  And it wasn't until early 1993,

17     owing to the assistance we received from Mr. Zupljanin and

18     Mr. Brano Buhovac, who was first head of the forensic centre, that we

19     were able to set up our forensic centre in Banja Luka, and then, in the

20     beginning of 1993, we managed to locate some quality people who we hired

21     for that work and sent them for training.  And we also moved some workers

22     of the Banja Luka forensic department to the Banja Luka CSB.

23        Q.   Very well.  I would like to focus on the first part of your

24     answer and would seek some clarifications from you.

25             In the first sentence of your answer, you told us what the duties

Page 23052

 1     of the members of the interior are, once they learn that a crime was

 2     committed.

 3             Tell us, please, these operative steps that are taken, the ones

 4     that you enumerated, are these steps taken based on their duty, as

 5     regulated by law, or not?

 6        A.   Yes.  These steps are taken pursuant to their duties regulated by

 7     the Law on Criminal Proceedings, and the Law on the Ministry of the

 8     Interior -- the Law on Internal Affairs.

 9             Once they collect information from the sites where the crime was

10     committed, if the perpetrators are unknown, then a criminal complaint is

11     filed against an unknown perpetrator.  And in that complaint, they have

12     to list the facts and also they have to list any attachments.

13             When it comes to serious crimes, homicide, violent crimes, and so

14     on, typically investigative judge has to come to the on-site

15     investigation.  When it comes to property crimes, they were not

16     duty-bound to go to the on-site investigation.  Rather, they authorised

17     members of the Ministry of the Interior to carry that out.  These are

18     typical, routine procedures in place when there is a functioning system.

19        Q.   I understand all that.  You explained about the situation in

20     1992.  I want to know about the following:  Information is received

21     suggesting that a crime was committed in an area covered by a certain

22     SJB.  Is it necessary for you, as head of the crime prevention

23     administration at the HQ, to order an investigation, to order this SJB

24     and its members to start an investigation to collect operative

25     intelligence, evidence, information, or is that not necessary?

Page 23053

 1        A.   No.  The Law on Internal Affairs and the Law on

 2     Criminal Procedure are very specific about this, about the respective

 3     jurisdictions.  When a crime is committed and information reaches the SJB

 4     and its members, by default, they start taking action from their own

 5     purview.

 6        Q.   So they have a responsibility to, by default, as you say, take

 7     measures.  Is that part of their duties under the law?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   So, in order to launch an investigation like this, in order to

10     set in motion the operative procedures by members of the police, your

11     answer, at page 43, line 20, I think, was that you were not required to

12     issue a specific order in that respect.

13             Is my understanding correct?

14        A.   Yes, it is.

15        Q.   Based on Mr. Hannis's comment which I described as the reason for

16     this line of questions, was the minister's order required to launch an

17     investigation like that and take operative measures like that?

18        A.   No.  No order of the minister was required.

19        Q.   Thank you very much.  Sir, you spoke about forensic examinations

20     a minute ago carried out in 1992, and you also talked about the problems

21     that you encountered.  You spoke about the Banja Luka CSB, saying that,

22     back in 1992, they partially carried out such examinations because, if my

23     understanding is correct, this was the only centre that was appropriately

24     equipped.

25             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have 430D1.  Tab 70.

Page 23054

 1        Q.   Sir, this is a memo, or letter, dated the 23rd of September,

 2     1992, produced by the Banja Luka CSB.  There's a cover letter, saying

 3     that the findings of the forensic analysis in connection with the killing

 4     of Dzevamira Remic is being delivered to the SJB here, as well as the

 5     wounding of Husein Ramic, who was slightly wounded, and Selim Cajic, who

 6     was seriously wounded, which occurred on the 9th of September, 1992,

 7     signed here by Milorad Djuric, described here as chief of department.

 8             Do you know this person?

 9        A.   Yes, I do.

10        Q.   Do you remember what sort of the duty he discharged back in 1992?

11     Which institution did he belong to?

12        A.   He was an employee of the Banja Luka CSB.  He was head of a

13     department there.

14             This document itself, I started discussing that a while ago --

15     some of the forensic work in the former Bosnia and Herzegovina for the

16     purposes of public security stations was conducted by the forensic

17     technicians of the CSB.  In more complex cases, where a more complex

18     forensic analysis was required, this was done by the Ministry of the

19     Interior because the equipment was there.  This is an example where a

20     ballistic report was produced for the purposes of a public security

21     station.  What we see them doing here is delivering their finds but in

22     this specific case.

23        Q.   Sir, you prompted us now with a hint now in terms of the forensic

24     work.  Let's go back to 1992.

25             At the time, was there an institution, a centre, within the MUP

Page 23055

 1     that had the capacity to perform such complex forensic work in the MUP of

 2     the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

 3        A.   No, there was no such centre or institution.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  At page 3 of this document, we see a signature.  It

 5     appears to be the signature of the person who carried out the

 6     examination; the forensic expert, in other words.

 7             It reads:

 8             "Vilko Maric, machine engineer, inspector with the Banja Luka

 9     CSB."

10             Are you familiar with this person, sir?

11        A.   Yes.  Vilko Maric was an employee of the forensic department of

12     the Banja Luka CSB.  He was an expert for ballistics, specifically.  And

13     when the centre was established within the crime prevention service in

14     Banja Luka, he was seconded by the centre to the forensic centre.  He

15     became head of the crime prevention department there.

16        Q.   Let's go to the last page of this document, sir.

17             We have the original memo containing the request of the

18     Sipovo SJB concerning this forensic examination.  The date there is the

19     11th of September, 1992, signed by chief of the SJB, Jovo Bogdanovic.

20             Is Mr. Bogdanovic familiar?

21        A.   I know his last name, but I didn't know the man.  The document

22     itself that you're showing me is a procedural way for a station to

23     address the public security station with a request for an examination and

24     a short description to be provided.

25        Q.   Thank you very much.

Page 23056

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would

 2     like to tender this.

 3             MR. HANNIS:  No objection.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D653, Your Honours.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Next document: 420D1, tab 63.

 7        Q.   Sir, another document by the Ministry of the Interior,

 8     specifically the Banja Luka CSB, dated the 27th of August, 1992.

 9     Typewritten, department chief, Milorad Djuric.  The document being sent

10     to military post 4627, military police.  Subject: Forensic report on

11     fire-arms in relation to the murder of Culum Camo, Sefik, Nijaz, Amir,

12     and Selim, which occurred on the 15th of August, 1992, in Bastasi

13     village, Banja Luka municipality.

14             Sir, do you know that the Banja Luka CSB carried out any forensic

15     examinations in 1992 in response to requests made by military bodies,

16     bodies of military security, more specifically.

17        A.   Yes.  I knew about that.  It wasn't just in 1992.  It was later

18     on, as well, when the forensic centre was set up within the

19     administration.  Military police didn't have their own forensic

20     institution.

21        Q.   Last page, page 4, we see a letter there by the Banja Luka

22     military police.  The date is the 23rd of August, 1992.  They are sending

23     an automatic rifle and a machine-gun to be forensically examined.  These

24     having previously been seized from people named Radenko Sugic and

25     Obrenko Sugic.

Page 23057

 1             You see that, don't you?  It was signed by Lieutenant

 2     Ostoja Trifunovic on behalf of the commander.

 3        A.   Yes, this is the established procedure.  The public security

 4     station forwards a case, the case file.  This has to be followed by a

 5     request explaining what is expected.  So these are the weapons in

 6     question here.

 7        Q.   Sir, I'm looking at the first and last names of the victims

 8     involved in this incident that occurred on the 15th of August in Bastasi

 9     village, Banja Luka municipality.  Are you able to tell the ethnicity of

10     these victims, sir?

11        A.   They're Muslims.

12        Q.   And what about the weapons that were temporarily seized from

13     these three persons, Miladen, Radenko, and Obrenko Sugic?  Can you tell

14     their ethnicity?

15        A.   Miladen, Radenko, and Obrenko are Serbs.

16        Q.   At page 3, we see a signature on the expert report.  Again,

17     Vilko Maric.  You agree, sir, don't you?

18        A.   Yes, I do.

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I move

20     that this be admitted.  Thank you.

21             MR. HANNIS:  Well, I guess I'm not sure what the relevance of

22     this particular one is to show that forensic works were being done.  If

23     it is about this particular murder and the case against the Sugic

24     brothers, that is a very long and complicated story.  And this document

25     standing by itself would be rather misleading.  So depending on

Page 23058

 1     specifically what purpose it is for, I may not have an objection.

 2             If I could have some elaboration.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  I believe the case file of Sugic brothers was -- is

 4     already an exhibit in this case.

 5             MR. HANNIS:  In that case, no objection.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D654, Your Honours.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9             Could the witness please be shown 336D1, tab 74.

10             MR. HANNIS:  While that is coming up, Your Honour, could I

11     request that that be sent for revision of the translation because it

12     doesn't capture the diacritics correctly, as far as the names of the

13     family.  My English translation has a bracket as the first letter in the

14     Cula family name, and I think it is important to have the names correct.

15     And Mr. Djuric, who is the department chief, is a /URI bracket.

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, you're referring to document 1D654,

17     Mr. Hannis?

18             MR. HANNIS:  Yes, tab 63.

19                           [Defence counsel confer]

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  I was just notified that the document that we

21     re-uploaded in the e-court with the Serbian diacritics.  The original

22     diacritics --

23             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you.

25        Q.   [Interpretation] Sir, this is a document of the first-instance

Page 23059

 1     court in Kljuc dated the 5th of October 1992; the lower court in Kljuc.

 2     Report of an on-site investigation.  A crime which took place on the 4th

 3     of October, 1992, in the settlement of Pudin Han where two dead bodies

 4     were found.

 5             Sir -- three dead bodies, actually.  I apologise.

 6             Dedic, Hatidza; Draganovic, Latif; and Draganovic, Selva.

 7             Are you familiar with this case, Mr. Macar?

 8        A.   Not this specific case, but I'm familiar with some of the people

 9     who were involved in the on-site investigation.  One of the previous

10     questions you asked me, I explained the procedure applied by the SJBs and

11     centres, what they did as soon as they learned that a crime was

12     committed.  So this is a case of violent crimes, crimes against life and

13     limb, the investigating magistrate is informed.  He goes to the scene and

14     he runs the on-site investigation.  People from the forensics unit and

15     other policemen are there.  I knew the inspector, Mr. Todo Gajic.  I also

16     remember Mr. Gojko who was the forensic technician.

17        Q.   Bade on the names of the victims here, Hatidza Dedic,

18     Latif Draganovic and Selva Draganovic, what seems to be their ethnicity?

19        A.   The victims are clearly Muslims.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have three on-site

21     investigation records like this.  They are all relevant in relation to

22     the indictment since they're all in reference to 1992.  The following

23     document is tab 76, 337D1.  That, too, is in relation to incidents

24     referred to in the indictment in this trial.

25             I move, therefore, that this document be admitted.  It might be

Page 23060

 1     used to show what an on-site investigation report or record looks like.

 2     And the same goes for the remaining two documents that are very much like

 3     this one.  But I do not wish to waste the Chamber's time since the

 4     documents are very similar, both in terms of substance and in terms of

 5     shape, only in reference to other crimes and other specific incidents.

 6             In each of these documents that it is my intention to tender, we

 7     find references to Muslim victims.  This is one of the key issues raised

 8     in this case.  For that reason, I would like to ask the Chamber to

 9     instruct me.  What course of action are we to take on this?  Shall we

10     take the established approach and show one of these documents, just to

11     explain, and then simply tender the remaining two without necessarily

12     producing them in open court?

13             JUDGE HALL:  I would think so.  But could you assist me,

14     Mr. Zecevic, by explaining what you mean, as appears at line 8 and 9 of

15     page 50, that:

16             "In relation to incidents referred to in the indictment in this

17     trial."

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, Your Honours.  I believe the incident in

19     Pudin Han, in the village of Pudin Han, is the incident in the

20     indictment.  I can give the reference.  I don't have it right ready at

21     this point, but I am very sure that both Pudin Han and the victim of

22     Kamicak, which are in the municipality Kljuc, are the specific incidents

23     in our case.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

25             Yes, Mr. Hannis.

Page 23061

 1             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I'd like to make a request that since

 2     it appears that this witness isn't really in a position to assist us very

 3     much about these specific documents other than the general nature of them

 4     reflecting the record of an on-site investigation, that Mr. Zecevic offer

 5     these documents in writing through a bar table motion.  Because I don't

 6     feel prepared here standing on my feet now looking at tab 76 and being

 7     able to tell you whether or not it relates to an incident in the

 8     indictment, et cetera.

 9             And I would prefer to have the opportunity to deal with it that

10     way, because I'm not going to be able to do anything with this witness

11     about it.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Hannis, what about marking them for

14     identification, pending the verification [Overlapping speakers] ...

15             MR. HANNIS:  I have no problem with that.  Then I feel I would

16     have an opportunity to deal with it.

17             Thank you.  That's a good idea.

18             JUDGE HALL:  So, Mr. Zecevic, that's the course we will follow.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.  May I reed the

20     numbers?

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And the tab numbers, please.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  The first document is 65 ter 336D1, tab number 74;

23     the second document is 337D1, tab 76; and the last document is 349D1,

24     tab 67.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, they will become Exhibits 1D655,

Page 23062

 1     1D656, and 1D657, all marked for identification.  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

 4             I should like this criminal complaint to be shown to the witness,

 5     which is document 341D1, the tab being 97.

 6                           [Defence counsel confer]

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Sir, this is a criminal report dated the 4th of December, 1992,

 9     filed by Mr. Savo Tepic, chief of the Kotor Varos public security

10     station, filed with the public prosecutor's office in Kotor Varos.  The

11     criminal report was filed against -- because of a murder which took place

12     on the 18th of August, 1992, to the detriment of Niko Orsulic and

13     Mara Orsulic, from the village of Cepak, Kotor Varos municipality.

14             Do you know this person, Savo Tepic, the chief of the public

15     security station?

16        A.   Yes, I do.

17        Q.   Can you tell us on the basis of the names, names of the victims

18     here, of the injured parties here, can you tell us what is their -- what

19     their ethnicity is?

20        A.   The victims are of Croat ethnicity.

21        Q.   Sir, are you aware of this investigation that was conducted by

22     the Kotor Varos public security station and the public prosecutor's

23     office in Kotor Varos?

24        A.   Not with the actual criminal report -- not of the actual criminal

25     report itself, but I believe that the report that we subsequently got

Page 23063

 1     from the public security station, there were references and information

 2     regarding this incident as well.  This is a classical example of

 3     communication between a public security station and the public

 4     prosecutor's office where, in relation of a certain incident with an

 5     unknown perpetrator, criminal reports would be submitted with supporting

 6     material to the office.  In the Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia and

 7     Herzegovina, there were prescribed forms which were the starting point

 8     for filing criminal complaints against unknown perpetrators, and so on.

 9     Namely, it was only towards the end of 1992 and 1993 that we managed to

10     obtain some material for the public security stations and the public

11     security centre.

12        Q.   I'm particularly interested in your comment on the last page of

13     this document.  That is, a letter of the public prosecutor's office sent

14     to the public security station in connection with this criminal report on

15     the 22nd of December, 1992.  This is signed by the public prosecutor

16     Zoran Zubic, or Bubic, I'm not sure.

17             In paragraph 2 of this letter, it is stated:

18             "You need to find and establish the perpetrator of the crime."

19             And:

20             "Should you detect him, collect all necessary information."

21             And so on and so forth:

22             "Please submit them to our above number together with a report."

23             Tell me, Mr. Macar, what is this document?

24        A.   This is routine correspondence between the competent public

25     prosecutor and the organ of the interior upon receiving a criminal

Page 23064

 1     complaint involving an unknown perpetrator.

 2        Q.   Tell me whether it was in this way that the public prosecutor's

 3     office issued instructions to the public security station to take

 4     specific measures in connection with a criminal complaint received?

 5        A.   Yes.  It would issue them instructions to take operative action

 6     upon receiving the criminal complaint in order to detect the perpetrator,

 7     as well as the actions that normally follow.

 8        Q.   Explain this -- what is written in the last sentence:

 9             "The statute of limitation for the above crime is August 2017."

10        A.   In practice, it was very infrequent by prosecutors to indicate

11     the statute of limitations period because this was something which is

12     normally known under the law.  But this obviously was a diligent

13     prosecutor.  Of course, the organs of the interior knew in the particular

14     instance what -- when the period would lapse under the statute of

15     limitations.

16             In the pre-war period, I occasion to see prosecutors acting in a

17     similar fashion in Sarajevo.  It was not customary practice, but when I

18     worked as an inspector prior to the war, I had occasion to see this also.

19        Q.   Is it your recollection also that the statute of limitations

20     applicable to prosecution for the crime of murder or qualified murder was

21     25 years?

22        A.   Well, off the top of my head, I believe that this -- there --

23     this didn't fall under the statute of limitations at all, actually.

24        Q.   Thank you.

25             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I

Page 23065

 1     should like to tendered this document as well.  It is relevant and it is

 2     related to the municipality of Kotor Varos, which features in our

 3     indictment.

 4             MR. HANNIS:  Well, I do have an objection because I'm not

 5     completely convinced about the relevance, the fact that it occurred in

 6     Kotor Varos and the victims apparently had names of Croats.  But as far

 7     as the perpetrator, all we have is, in this document, some information

 8     that he appeared to be a reservist and he said his name was Boris, the

 9     same as the four-year-old child whose parents were killed.

10             But I note on the first page the criminal report says on-site

11     investigation was not carried out because the site of the crime was under

12     paramilitary control.

13             And in the second page of the English on the Official Note of

14     interview, at the bottom it says:

15             "Since the house was located in the enemy controlled area, it's

16     impossible to carry out an on-site investigation."

17             This leads me to believe that the perpetrator may not have been a

18     Serb at all but may have been a Croat or a Muslim military man.  So I

19     don't see how that is relevant to this case.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, I do agree that it might be

21     anybody because the unknown perpetrator is -- but I believe I understood

22     the point of the Prosecutor's case was that the crimes against non-Serbs

23     were treated in a discriminatory matter.

24             MR. HANNIS:  It has been our position that the crimes against

25     non-Serbs commit by Serbs are at the heart of this case.

Page 23066

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, with all due --

 2             MR. HANNIS:  Crimes against non-Serbs committed by other

 3     non-Serbs.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  But with all due respect, Your Honours, it is

 5     unknown perpetrated [sic].  It can be a Serb.  I agree, it can be

 6     somebody else.  Even the persons who were conducting and filing this

 7     criminal report didn't know whether it was a Serb or any other -- other

 8     nationality of the perpetrator.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D658.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  I see the time, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  So we take the break and come back in 15

14     minutes.

15                           [The witness stands down]

16                           --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 12.50 p.m.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, the -- we understand that you are

19     unlikely to finished within 15 minutes.  And in the circumstances, we

20     propose to take the adjournment now, when the witness comes in.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand.  I was already advised by the

22     Registrar.  Thank you very much.

23                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

24             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I asked for a few

25     minutes.  I need to raise a procedural issue.  Namely -- or shall that be

Page 23067

 1     done after this witness -- thank you.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Krgovic.  Because the Chamber itself has a

 3     rule to go give.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             MR. HANNIS:  I can do that on Monday, Your Honour, if I may.

 6     Concerning agreements about adjudicated facts or adjudication about

 7     agreed facts, on Monday, if I could.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Macar, we have had you brought back -- escorted

10     back into the courtroom in order to formally release you for the weekend.

11     It is obvious that we are unable to complete your examination-in-chief

12     today, and therefore, the Chamber has certain procedural matters with

13     which to deal before it rises.  But we would now excuse you to return

14     when the Chamber resumes on Monday morning.  And this being a lengthy

15     break, I remind you of the cautions I gave you earlier about not

16     discussing the case with anyone outside of the courtroom, and, of course,

17     you can have no contact with counsel.

18             And we trust that you have a weekend to recover and to be with us

19     again on Monday morning.

20             Was there something you wish -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

21             MR. HANNIS:  Yes, Your Honour, just out of an abundance of

22     caution, Mr. Krgovic, in order to save time for his cross-examination,

23     asked the usher to give the witness three documents, rather lengthy

24     documents that he intends to ask the witness about.  I agree that is a

25     good time-saving measure, and I support it.  But I would ask that it be

Page 23068

 1     made clear to the witness the prohibition about discussing the case with

 2     anybody includes talking about the documents he's been given to read.  I

 3     had a witness one time who saw a distinction between talking about his

 4     testimony and talking about documents that he was reading.

 5             So that's why I asked that we make that clear.  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Hannis.

 7             Mr. Macar, I don't know that I need to repeat what you would have

 8     just heard Mr. Hannis said, but did you understand Mr. Hannis's comment?

 9     Do I need to add anything further?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did understand.  I understand

11     what you said, Your Honour, and I understood Mr. Hannis's comment.  I

12     have received a document, and I'm perfectly aware of with whom I should

13     not be in contact.

14             Thank you.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  So the usher would now escort you from

16     the courtroom.

17                           [The witness stands down]

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  The Trial Chamber has the following oral ruling:

19             On the 2nd of May, 2011, the Trial Chamber accepted

20     Mladen Bajagic as an expert for the Defence of Mico Stanisic and deferred

21     its decision on the admission of his report and related documents till

22     the conclusion of his testimony.  Mladen Bajagic testified from the

23     2nd to the 10th of May, 2011.

24             On the 10th of May, upon the conclusion of the expert's

25     testimony, the Defence withdrew Annexes 1 to 11 of his report, in view of

Page 23069

 1     the fact that those documents had been retyped and were not authored by

 2     Mr. Bajagic.  The Stanisic Defence requested the admission of the report

 3     and related documents, including an updated curriculum vitae, and

 4     indicated that the Defence would provide a list of footnoted documents to

 5     be admitted along with the report.  The Prosecution reiterated its

 6     objection to the admission of the report in its entirety.  It sought and

 7     was granted permission to file a written submission limited to addressing

 8     the footnoted document.

 9             The list was provided to the Prosecution by e-mail on

10     16 May 2011.

11             On the 18th of May, the Prosecution filed a motion objecting to

12     19 of the 59 footnoted documents on the basis that they are either

13     irrelevant, present a tu quoque defence, or that their provenance is

14     unknown.

15             The Defence submits that the 19 footnoted documents do not

16     present a tu quoque defence, since it is entirely legitimate to place

17     events in a social, historical, political, and military context,

18     particularly in view of the fact that Mr. Bajagic used a

19     multi-disciplinary approach in analysing and discussing issues relevant

20     to the RS MUP.  The Defence also addressed the challenge to provenance in

21     relation to two documents.

22             The Trial Chamber notes that the Prosecution challenged

23     Mr. Bajagic's report in its entirety, inter alia, due to the "his

24     questionable methodology and source documents."

25             In the alternative, the Prosecution objected to the admission of

Page 23070

 1     several sections of the report, on the basis that they are tu quoque in

 2     nature, irrelevant and beyond the scope of the witness's expertise.

 3             The Trial Chamber finds that indeed several passages referred to

 4     by the Prosecution are not particularly relevant to the case.  However,

 5     the Trial Chamber finds that these passages refer to the background of

 6     the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and are important to understand

 7     the report as a whole.  Trial Chamber finds that the Bajagic -- that the

 8     Bajagic's report is generally relevant.

 9             The Trial Chamber findings that although a number of the

10     footnoted documents may appear to lack relevance when considered in

11     isolation, they are relevant to the expert's conclusions and opinions on

12     matters discussed in the report.  Consequently, they constitute

13     inseparable parts of the report without which the Chamber is not able to

14     fully understand and assess the issues discussed in the body of the

15     report.  It will be a matter for the Trial Chamber at an appropriate time

16     to determine the weight to be given to the report and related documents,

17     in light of the Trial Chamber record as a whole.

18             The report, its Annex 12, and all 59 footnoted documents tendered

19     by the Defence, and Mr. Bajagic's updated CV, are, therefore, admitted

20     into evidence.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Judge.

22             Mr. Krgovic.

23             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wanted to raise an

24     issue.  I've already spoken to Mr. Hannis about it.

25             While preparing our Defence and during the production of our

Page 23071

 1     65 ter list, both that of the Stanisic Defence than of the Zupljanin

 2     Defence, the two Defence teams have co-ordinated our work, in order to

 3     avoid any documents appearing on both lists, or any duplication of

 4     evidence.  Some of the Zupljanin relevant documents are on the 65 ter

 5     Stanisic list, although they're actually in reference to the Zupljanin

 6     indictment.  Therefore, I wanted to submit a motion to be allowed to use

 7     Mr. Stanisic' 65 ter document in my own case since some of these are, so

 8     to speak, documents shared and evidence shared by both teams, some of

 9     these appearing on Mr. Stanisic's list and not on our list for purely

10     technical reasons in order to avoid duplication, as I have already

11     explained.

12             That is all from me.

13             Thank you.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Hannis, do you have any comment on what appears

15     to be an eminently sensible and practical suggestion?

16             MR. HANNIS:  Yes, Your Honour.  I really don't have a problem

17     with that.  I assume that we will get the usual notice before a witness

18     testifies, and they will list documents and whether it has a P number or

19     a 1D number, or a 2D number.  That doesn't seem to matter to me.  I

20     agree.

21             JUDGE HALL:  So we grant the motion, as prayed.

22             And, Mr. Hannis, you said you would come back to us on Monday

23     with the matters that you --

24             MR. HANNIS:  Yes.

25             JUDGE HALL:  So we take the adjournment until Monday.  Everyone

Page 23072

 1     would have seen that next week is staggered, both in terms of courtrooms

 2     and times, so persons would be forgiven if they make the mistake that I

 3     made this morning of turning up in two wrong courtrooms, but we'll see

 4     where we go.  So consult the schedule, and we reconvene on Monday

 5     morning.  And I trust everybody has a safe weekend.

 6                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.05 p.m.,

 7                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 11th day of July,

 8                           2011, at 9.00 a.m.