1 Tuesday, 18 October 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 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.
10 Good morning to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Good morning, Your Honours. Matthew Olmsted,
12 Joanna Korner, and Sebastiaan van Hooydonk for the Prosecution.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
14 Slobodan Cvijetic and Ms. Deirdre Montgomery, appearing for Stanisic
15 Defence this morning.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honour. Dragan Krgovic,
17 Aleksandar Aleksic, and Miroslav Cuskic, appearing for the Zupljanin
19 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, having had the opportunity to think
20 about it, could you alert us as to how much longer you expect you would
22 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, I considered this very carefully last night,
23 and I determined that I will need approximately six hours to complete and
24 this is the reason.
25 First, I have to take additional time for these new topics that
1 are raised during this witness examination-in-chief. Despite my learned
2 friend's expression of surprise, though he didn't spent a lot of time on
3 them, to cross-examine on them will require documents and -- and other
4 evidence to be presented to this witness.
5 Secondly, we still need to deal with what we had expected this
6 witness to testify about based upon his 65 ter summary, based upon his
7 prior interviews with the Office of the Prosecution which is the issue of
8 access of the Milos group members to the accused, and the accused access
9 to their intelligence reports. That will require showing this witness a
10 number of documents.
11 And I just note that we have at this stage over 80 Radulovic or
12 Milos group reports in evidence, and this is an issue that -- that has
13 been contested in this case, whether these reports had made it to the RS
14 MUP leadership, and so it's important that we address them with this
15 witness as the Prosecution intended to do during its case in-chief.
16 JUDGE HALL: Well, taking matters one step at a time, do I infer
17 from what you have said that, notwithstanding what you indicated
18 yesterday, that we should keep the reserved extra session today.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Well, I would think that -- well, it's hard for me
20 to say how things go. If things go as I would hope they would, we would
21 need today and Thursday to complete my case in-chief and then that would
22 leave Friday for any -- I mean -- I'm sorry, for cross-examination, and
23 Friday, for any re-examination. So I don't think we'd run into any time
24 problems. But --
25 JUDGE HALL: No. It was the -- you would recall that in terms of
1 the arrangements that been put in place, it included the extra sitting
2 this afternoon. And unless I misunderstood what had you said yesterday,
3 you had on more than one occasion yesterday, as I understood it,
4 indicated that the extra session today would not be necessary. I'm only
5 asking, as I said, without even thinking about what's going to happen
6 after today, taking it one day at a time, whether we should keep the
7 extra session for today.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, I really don't think it's necessary.
9 Because I think six hours should be -- today, regular sittings, and
10 Thursday, regular sittings, that should cover the six hours. Just based
11 upon how we've proceeded so far with evidence.
12 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Aleksic, you seem to be entering a dissent.
13 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's only Tuesday
14 today. We have four hours of work and tomorrow another four, that's
15 eight. So my learned friend will finish on Wednesday, not Thursday.
16 That's why I reacted. And if I have any re-direct, and any questions
17 from the Judges, we have full days on Thursday and Friday.
18 JUDGE HALL: Well -- he didn't mention Wednesday because you may
19 recall that yesterday he indicated that with the - there's no other way
20 of putting it - jumping about that would have been necessary tomorrow, it
21 would be simpler to just vacate Wednesday and pick up on Thursday, and I
22 think that's still central on his estimate.
23 So the position is, we don't need the extra session today, we
24 rise at 1.45, and resume ...
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
2 JUDGE HALL: The Chamber is of the view that the more practical
3 and efficient approach would be to retain today's extended session, and
4 we will assess whether we need to pick up any time tomorrow, and go from
5 there. And, of course, Thursday is an afternoon session. But we will
6 sit the extended session that is reserved for today.
7 So unless there are any other housekeeping -- yes, Ms. Korner.
8 MS. KORNER: The only reason I'm here is because yesterday I made
9 a request that we now be given proper information about what witnesses
10 are going to say 72 hours in advance of their testifying.
11 As you'll recall, the proofing note, five day's worth, was sent
12 to us at 9.00 on Friday, and I rather casually said that Mr. Olmsted, of
13 course, did have the weekend, but what about administrative staff? I
14 should add I'd forgotten that Mr. Olmsted was running in the Amsterdam
15 marathon, and so he had rather less time and I imagine was rather tired
16 on Sunday.
17 But, Your Honours, I do say that this cannot go on like this.
18 The 65 ter summaries are utterly vague, totally useless as far as
19 actually knowing what the witness is going to say, and so I do ask that
20 we now have an order that the proofing notes be delivered 72 hours in
21 advance, particularly as there is now a two-week break when all witnesses
22 can be seen and proofed.
23 The second matter, Your Honours, was whether there is a change in
24 the order of the witnesses. We really would like to know that, because I
25 understand there may be.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, Ms. Korner, you're still on your feet.
3 MS. KORNER: No, I'm just waiting [Microphone not activated].
4 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, before we respond to Ms. Korner's
5 request, do you have a view on this?
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.
7 Speaking about a possible change of schedule, I said when I
8 talked to Ms. Korner that there is a possibility there would be a change
9 in schedule, but I also told her that at least ten days in advance I
10 would give her notice. Because there's a possibility that a witness who
11 is scheduled to testify first in November would be inversed with the
12 third witness. That means that SZ-007 would be switched with SZ-002.
13 But I just told Ms. Korner that this possibility exists and they would be
14 given sufficient notice and able to prepare. However, this is still not
15 final. I will know next Wednesday, and I will inform both the
16 Prosecution and the Trial Chamber immediately.
17 MS. KORNER: Does that -- Mr. Krgovic, so Wednesday week?
18 Because that's not ten days before the witness is due to testify. Not
19 ten working days.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Wednesday week, because the witness
21 starts on the 8th, on Tuesday, the Prosecution will have notice by the
22 27th at least at the latest.
23 MS. KORNER: We are asking for at least 10 working days, so
24 that's Monday at the latest. I don't understand the difficulty either,
25 why would he only know next Wednesday?
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Because, Your Honour, I will be in
2 Banja Luka only on Wednesday and will be able only then to look at the
3 documentation and talk to the witness. Because I must say we have
4 certain difficulties with him related to health. So I still have no
5 confirmation of this, and I will have it only on Wednesday.
6 JUDGE HALL: What was the second point. The first point, do you
7 have a difficulty with the Chamber imposing 72-hour rule?
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I do. And the reason is that
9 we asked the same standard to be applied as in the Prosecution case.
10 Namely, that as soon as the proofing of a witness is completed here in
11 The Hague, we were supposed to get proofing notes. And it happened in at
12 least ten cases so far that we received the proofing notes the night
13 before the witness's appearance, although the witnesses changed their
14 statements considerably and started mentioning events that had not been
15 mentioned either in prior evidence or in summaries and related directly
16 to the contact of the accused.
17 I will give you just a few references, pages of transcript, 18303
18 onwards; 16973, onwards; 17413 and onward; 17535 and on. When the
19 Prosecution brought witnesses who spoke about adjudicated facts, let's
20 say, and then led them to testify about the conduct of the accused, and
21 those witnesses started remembering where they had seen Zupljanin and
22 spoke about the accused. And then, on that occasion, the Trial Chamber
23 found that the Defence was not prejudiced in any way and allowed the
24 Prosecution to lead this evidence. This is a drastic example of how the
25 Prosecution behaved and led their evidence.
1 Second, it is baseless for the Prosecution to claim that they
2 don't know what the witnesses would be testifying about. Perhaps the
3 Trial Chamber is not aware of this because you don't have that
4 information. Most of our witnesses had given statements to the
5 Prosecution. They have testified in prior cases, and the Prosecution has
6 that information. I'm speaking about our witnesses, Defence witnesses.
7 Specifically, Mr. Hannis objected that he only has a 65 ter summary and
8 very small proofing notes concerning Witness Jakovic. And he had the
9 transcript of a -- of that witness who testified for a whole day. So
10 there are both interviews with the Prosecution and prior evidence in
11 prior cases.
12 I will speak again about transcript page 11361, when Mr. Pantelic
13 objected in the same way she is objecting now, and she answered exactly
14 as I am now. Namely, that there are interviews.
15 If I may add, all these witnesses - I'm not sure how many but out
16 of the viva voce witnesses perhaps only one or two do not have written
17 statements in the possession of the Prosecution - but all of them speak
18 to the events concerning which the Prosecution has led evidence and
19 introduced documents where these witnesses are mentioned as participants
20 in the events, and that's the reason why we are calling them; namely,
21 that Prosecution witnesses have mentioned them, spoke about their
22 participation in certain events, and they speak to those events. So in
23 the Prosecution can in no way be surprised by anything that these
24 witnesses would say. And the Prosecution has, after all, eight attorneys
25 who are taking turns here, and there is no way they cannot go through the
1 documents of witnesses who have testified before and prepare adequately.
2 What possible prejudice could be done to the Prosecution? I
3 would like to hear a specific example of shortage of time or any
4 prejudice they would suffer. We are only asking Your Honours for the
5 same standard to be applied as during the Prosecution case to Prosecution
6 witnesses. Namely, that a statement would be provided as soon as the
7 proofing is completed rather than asking us to give them a list of
8 questions, retell, give an account of the interview, and put it in
9 proofing notes. I don't think that is helpful to the Prosecution, and it
10 is detrimental to the Prosecution, and after all, it's not necessary.
11 Now specifically about this witness, Sajinovic. The witness
12 spoke to the Prosecution two times exhaustively and not a single topic
13 raised by Mr. Aleksic with the witness here in the courtroom goes beyond
14 that. And we have been asked by the Prosecution to move the witness's
15 testimony to Monday, if possible, so that the Prosecution would have the
16 whole weekend to prepare. Now we are hearing their objection, why the
17 administrative personnel had to work through the weekend. I suppose
18 after all the OTP is also sometimes required to work the weekends just as
19 we do.
20 That's all.
21 MS. KORNER: After that long involved explanation, there's still
22 no reason given why, given there's a two-week break, this witness --
23 their upcoming witnesses cannot be seen during the two weeks and properly
25 Now, Your Honour, first of all, I don't know what Mr. Aleksic is
1 talking about, about we asked for a witness to be moved to Monday. We
2 made no such request. Second -- I believe -- I believe it was the
3 Defence who said there was no point in having him called on Friday.
4 Second, I would be grateful if Mr. Aleksic would stop shaking his
5 head and interrupting. If he wants to say something, he can stand up and
6 say it when I've finished.
7 Second, Your Honour, the difference is - with one exception - one
8 of the witnesses who's upcoming, the one that Mr. Krgovic wants to swap
9 the order of potentially, I absolutely accept that he was interviewed and
10 has testified before, but none of the others are in that position.
11 The real difference is our proofing notes, with one exception,
12 again, when the Defence asked for time, have been short additions to
13 usually lengthy statements or transcripts. The Defence have therefore
14 known in advance everything, effectively, that was going to be said by
15 the witnesses. We do not. As I say, the one exception.
16 And, finally, as far as this witness is concerned, as Mr. Olmsted
17 said yesterday, and Your Honours heard a description from the witness of
18 his meetings with the OTP, at least two of the topics were never ever,
19 ever mentioned by the witness nor covered by him in any meetings that
20 were held with the OTP. But I return to my original suggestion,
21 Your Honours, which is that it be 72 hours in advance, given there's two
22 weeks off. And by my reckoning, I think there's only about another five
23 witnesses to go anyhow, and even some of them are doubtful.
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HALL: The concerns that the Prosecution has articulated
2 are not unwarranted, but we agree with Mr. Krgovic that it would be
3 arbitrary and probably result in unfairness if we were to impose a
4 72-hour rule as proposed by the Prosecution. And the -- what we would
5 say is that as Mr. Krgovic has himself recognised, that, as soon as
6 the -- they're in a position to provide a proofing note that they will.
7 And the -- that they should do so. And that proofing note should be one
8 of substance and not merely a skeletal outline which is, at the end of
9 the day, wholly unhelpful.
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let me just say this.
11 With these witnesses, regardless of your order, I will give my team
12 orders to go through the witnesses, again through their evidence, and we
13 will, of course, provide the Prosecution with the proofing notes as soon
14 as possible.
15 But the problem is that for any substantial proofing, is that the
16 witnesses arrive here 72 hours in advance. 72 hours before testimony.
17 And the real proofing takes place only here in The Hague and, of course,
18 if we get any additional information during that session or during my
19 stay in Banja Luka in my meeting with the investigators, we will provide
20 the Prosecution with that information immediately. But I would not like
21 to commit to a 72-hour notice, especially with witnesses who have not
22 testified before in this case, and that's only two.
23 JUDGE HALL: I thought we already said we agreed with you,
24 Mr. Krgovic, in that regard.
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm not going to go behind Your
1 Honour's ruling, but I want to point out this: It's not right to say the
2 witnesses are here only 72 hours before. Sajinovic has been sitting here
3 for a week at vast expense, no doubt, to the Tribunal and to certainly
4 get himself some DSA. I'm afraid I don't -- just repeat that for this
5 reason, Your Honours: There's two weeks where every single witness
6 that's left for the Defence case could be seen, proofed, and shown the
7 documents. Anyhow, but as I said, Your Honours have ruled and I'm not
8 going to take the matter further.
9 If Your Honours will then forgive me, that was the only reason I
10 came into court.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, we should proceed with getting the
13 Before we do so, Mr. Krgovic, I'd like to make it clear that the
14 Court actually shares the Prosecution's view on the quality and substance
15 of the statements and the proofing notes. You have to be much more
16 diligent in seeking the core substance of the witnesses' testimonies here
17 in court because it's not only the Prosecution is confused, so is the
18 Bench. So we need as well to have a much more elaborate basis upon which
19 we can assess the witnesses' testimonies.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honours. However,
21 unfortunately, the Trial Chamber has no access to the documents, such as
22 statements of witnesses. Perhaps that is what is creating a problem.
23 There is a proofing note relating to this witness that has 20 pages from
24 the statement of his interview with the OTP and you didn't have a chance
25 to get yourself acquainted with it, and I appreciate that. That means
1 that means that the Trial Chamber did not have an opportunity to get into
2 more details as regards the statement of this witness because it slipped
3 my mind that you don't have access to the same documents that the OTP
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you for this clarification.
6 Which reminds me that I think that we made an agreement at the
7 start of the trial that all witnesses statements, that is to say, not
8 only Prosecution witnesses but also Defence witnesses, all these
9 statements should also be addressed to the Court in advance of the
10 witnesses' testimony so as to enable the Court to familiarise itself with
11 the substance of the testimonies.
12 So if you have such statements, I remind you that you should send
13 them to the Chamber as well.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. Those were the
15 statements given to the OTP in the course of their interviews. These are
16 the ones that we are discussing, and these are the ones that we didn't
17 use. In the future, we are going to explore who is it who is supposed to
18 do that, whether it's us or them. But I'd like to underline, once again,
19 that those were the statements given to the Prosecution.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand that the statements were given to
21 the Prosecution, but I would find it natural that it is the party calling
22 the witness that has the duty to provide a copy of the statements to the
24 JUDGE HALL: So, the -- would the usher please escort the witness
25 back to the stand.
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 JUDGE HALL: Good morning, Mr. Sajinovic. Before Mr. Olmsted
3 continues, I remind you of the solemn declaration you made yesterday.
4 Yes, Mr. Olmsted.
5 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour. And if you see me wincing
6 in pain as I try to stand up, at least now you know why.
7 WITNESS: GORAN SAJINOVIC [Resumed]
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Olmsted: [Continued]
10 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, can you tell us when you first began working with
11 Mr. Radulovic?
12 A. Well, that was sometime in early 1992.
13 Q. You will agree that Mr. Radulovic, with the technical assistance
14 of the other team members, produced a large quantity of intelligence
15 reports in 1992.
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. And these intelligence reports were submitted under various
18 formats, depending, in part, on their intended recipients.
19 A. Well, yes. That's correct, to a certain extent -- to a great
21 Q. Yes. And let's explore that. We've already heard you talk about
22 the Milos reports. We'll just call them that. But they're the reports
23 that have Milos either signed at the bottom or typewritten at the bottom,
24 and those went to the Serbian MUP in Belgrade; correct?
25 A. Yes, correct.
1 Q. Yesterday you mentioned Marko Lazovic. Was he one of the
2 recipients of these reports?
3 A. Excuse me, yesterday when I spoke about those reports, I told you
4 who the recipient was, and the recipient was the state security centre in
6 During our trips, I know that Mr. Radulovic would occasionally
7 contact Mr. Radovic. I can only assume that Marko Lazovic was the person
8 who received those reports, but I cannot tell you exactly to whom the
9 operator sent those reports in Belgrade.
10 Q. Can you tell us which position Mr. Lazovic held in 1992?
11 A. I'm not sure, but he was one of the executives in the State
12 Security Department in Belgrade. However, which specific office he held,
13 I don't know.
14 Q. But he was a high-ranking Serbian state security officer.
15 A. Mr. Prosecutor, you must admit that you cannot expect me to know
16 what was the hierarchical structure of the RDB. I know that he was in an
17 executive position. As far as which specific position he held, I cannot
18 tell you anything more than I did, lest I should maybe make an error.
19 Q. I accept that. Now, later, this Milos group also sent reports to
20 the Serbian MUP under the name or symbol sigma; is that correct?
21 A. Yes, that's correct as well.
22 Q. I want to turn to a different type of report. Those reports that
23 were Official Notes were directed up the RS MUP chain of command;
25 A. Yes, that's correct.
1 Q. And some of those Official Notes would include the names of
2 Mr. Radulovic, yourself, and the third member of the Milos group who was
3 responsible for communications.
4 A. Yes, that's right. We saw that yesterday.
5 Q. And other Official Notes by Mr. Radulovic's team would include
6 your assigned code numbers. So it wouldn't have your names but would
7 have a number that indicated which officials were submitting the report?
8 A. Are you referring to the Official Notes, internal Official Notes,
9 that circulated within the State Security Service?
10 Q. Precisely.
11 A. Yes, you are right. Because, according to the rules of service,
12 during a certain period -- although I don't know which specific period.
13 You can find it in the notes. For that specific period the operatives,
14 when making Official Notes, did not put their names but, rather, their
15 code-names. And their supervisor, of course, was familiar with those
16 code-names. It was basically a name but it kept changing.
17 Q. I'm going to test your memory. Do you recall what your code-name
18 or code number was back in 1992?
19 A. I'm sorry, but I honestly can't remember. It's been a long time
20 since. I cannot recall.
21 Q. Understandable. Perhaps I will show you some documents that will
22 refresh your memory in a bit.
23 Other Official Notes that were --
24 A. Certainly.
25 Q. Other Official Notes that were sent up the RS MUP chain of
1 command just indicated they were from the state security. They didn't
2 actually have the names or the code numbers of the officers who gathered
3 the intelligence. In other words, they wouldn't mention Mr. Radulovic's
4 or the other team members' names or codes?
5 A. I really don't remember that there were such Official Notes. If
6 you would care to remind me, I would be only glad to comment on it, if
7 they exist.
8 Q. And I'll do that just in a moment.
9 Who decided which format to use for those Official Notes that
10 were sent up the RS MUP chain of command? Was that Mr. Radulovic who
11 made that decision?
12 A. Are you talking about the chain of command within the Republic of
14 Q. No I'm sorry, no. The when I say "the RS MUP," I mean the --
15 when I say the term "RS MUP" I mean the MUP of the Republika Srpska. So
16 the one that was part of the Republika Srpska.
17 A. Mr. Prosecutor, with all due respect, I think that you said the
18 Republic of Serbia. And I see that this is also recorded in the
19 transcript and in the interpretation, so I apologise.
20 Q. Not your fault. I apologise if I misspoke. At this time I'm
21 just talking about the internal chain of command. If you could tell me:
22 Was it Mr. Radulovic who decided what format to use for the Official
23 Notes that he was sending up the internal chain of command?
24 A. I have to say that I am sorry again, but I need an explanation
25 from you. What do you mean by "format"? The use of a name or a
1 code-name? Or are you asking whether we wrote our Official Notes or
2 dispatches in a certain way? I don't know what you are referring
3 specifically to. If you tell me that, then I can give you a precise
5 Q. I meant the former. We've talked about now a couple or a few
6 types of formats with regard to the Official Notes, whether they would
7 include your names, whether they include a code number, or whether they
8 include any reference to the team members at all.
9 Would that be Mr. Radulovic's choice?
10 A. This issue was decided by the leadership of the service, as I
11 said earlier. For a period of time, the Official Note contained names
12 and surnames, and then there was another period where code-names were
13 used. So that was not within the purview of Mr. Radulovic but, rather,
14 by the top executives of the service, and they were the ones who
15 suggested which kind of format was going to be used, whether we would be
16 using code-names or full names. If I understood your question correctly.
17 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that you did not type all of the
18 intelligence reports that were produced by Mr. Radulovic in 1992?
19 A. If we are still talking about the reports within the State
20 Security Department, it is true that I typed only a few documents. There
21 were members of the staff who were in charge of that. As far as those
22 first reports are concerned, the one [as interpreted] that you called the
23 Milos reports, I myself and another colleague of mine were providing this
24 technical support to Mr. Radulovic.
25 Q. Well, let's focus on those reports, those Milos reports that went
1 to Serbia.
2 Sometimes Radulovic typed up his own Milos reports; isn't that
3 correct? Sometimes at least.
4 A. Let us be clear once again. You obviously mean that he typed
5 them in the format that we had an opportunity to see here. Is that what
6 you're referring to?
7 Q. Well, I mean that you had no involvement in preparing that report
8 and producing it to the Serbian MUP. That Radulovic didn't use your
9 services in that regard. He processed them himself.
10 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know if I was clear yesterday, but let us
11 put this matter in a context that both you can understand me and I can
12 understand you.
13 We are talking about the Milos reports sent to Serbia. The
14 compiling of these reports and the gathering of intelligence for them was
15 mainly done by Mr. Radulovic. My colleague and I typed those reports. I
16 did it more often than he. And then my colleague would, through certain
17 devices, dispatch them to Serbia. In other words, on very rare
18 occasions, I don't remember actually not a single report that Radulovic
19 himself processed, typed, and sent a report himself. That is the role of
20 my colleague and mine as members of the team.
21 Q. During Mr. Cvijetic's cross-examination, you mentioned that there
22 was a period before the conflict broke out in the BiH that Mr. Radulovic
23 was not sending internal reports up the BiH MUP chain of command.
24 Can you tell us: During this period, was he still providing
25 intelligence information to his superiors at the CSB Banja Luka?
1 A. I'm afraid I didn't understand you completely. I don't remember
2 saying to Mr. Cvijetic that before the outbreak of war in
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mr. Radulovic hadn't been sending regular reports
4 within the service. I really don't remember saying that.
5 Q. Well, please correct me if I'm wrong. So prior to April 1992,
6 Mr. Radulovic was still sending intelligence information up the MUP chain
7 of command within the BiH. He was still sending intelligence information
8 both to Serbia as well as to the BiH in Sarajevo, BiH MUP in Sarajevo.
9 A. That is correct. He was sending reports to Serbia, as well as to
10 his superiors at the Banja Luka CSB.
11 Q. But was he also sending -- were his reports also going up the MUP
12 chain of command to Sarajevo during this period?
13 A. I spoke about this yesterday when I gave my answers, and I said
14 that I really didn't know whether those reports were being sent, as you
15 say, to the MUP in Sarajevo. That was 01 of -- line of our work. Once a
16 report is finalized and typed, it was sent to the head of 01 line, and he
17 was the one who had discretionary right to whom he was going to
18 distribute it, whether he was going to send it to the head of the sector,
19 and then this head of the sector would, within his responsibilities,
20 decide who would be the recipient. In other words, I really don't know
21 where their final destination was and where they ended up.
22 Q. Thank you for that clarification. Now, you testified that --
23 yesterday that often the same intelligence information that was contained
24 in the Milos group reports was also conveyed in reports sent to your
25 superiors within the state security sector. Can you tell us, in 1992,
1 for what kind of intelligence was this not the case? That you were not
2 sending it up -- this same information up the RS MUP chain of command.
3 A. Yes, that's what I said, and I am saying it once again. Those
4 people who were gathering intelligence information, it is only natural
5 that they obtain certain information in the process.
6 Now, since we have two ways of reporting, it often happened that
7 the intelligence contained in one report would be incorporated in another
8 report. But I am afraid I'm really not in a position to tell you which
9 ones were not sent to the first group of people and which one was not
10 sent to another.
11 Now what I can explain -- try to explain to you is that within
12 the State Security Service, there were certain areas and lines of work
13 that we discussed already, and there was the area covered by the National
14 Security Service Centre. As for this group, we were not subject to any
15 restricted area of the centre, nor were we tightly focussed on a specific
16 area of investigation. Whatever information was available and we could
17 get our hands on, we would send it to Belgrade.
18 Q. So in gathering intelligence, you didn't limit yourself to what
19 was in the jurisdiction of line 01. You would also report intelligence
20 information that you had with regard to issues that maybe fell within
21 other lines within the state security; is that correct?
22 A. Which reports are you referring now?
23 Q. Well, I was particularly referring to the Milos group reports
24 going to Serbia. But, as you've already testified, you said that very
25 often the same information was provided up the RS MUP chain of command.
1 So, in that way, I suppose I'm addressing both. But I was focussing
2 primarily on the Milos reports?
3 A. You're right. As far as these reports are concerned, this is
4 exactly what I said. The Milos group reports were sent to Belgrade from
5 a wider area. They were not so narrow. As far as regular reports were
6 concerned, intended for the service, it was done which the framework of
7 the line of work. As authorised officials of the MUP, it was our right
8 and obligation that in the event of our finding some security-related
9 information, it was our duty to translate it into intelligence report
10 even though it was beyond our line of work. So it was up to them later
11 on to decide on the distribution and the availability of this
13 Q. And what I'm get something at is that the purpose of this Milos
14 group, as far as it's reporting to the Serbian MUP, was that it was there
15 to share intelligence information with the Serbian MUP. It was not the
16 intention of the Milos group to exclude the RS MUP leadership from that
17 information. In other words, we are talking about a parallel reporting
18 system. Information was going to the Serbian MUP and information was
19 also going up the RS MUP chain of command?
20 A. I spoke about it a while ago. In principle, this kind of
21 information was sent solely to the MUP of Serbia. So that was it. None
22 of the executives within the State Security Service received this kind of
23 information in this same format as the Milos reports.
24 Q. And let me be clear: I'm not talking about format here. I know
25 there was a difference in format between the Milos group reports and
1 Official Notes that were internally sent up the chain of command. All
2 I'm talking about is the intelligence itself, the information that an
3 event occurred or event is about to occur, that information was shared
4 with both the Serbian MUP and probably, to a greater extent, to the RS
5 MUP because that was the regular reporting chain. In other words, we
6 have here a parallel reporting structure. Mr. Radulovic was both
7 informing the Serbian MUP at the same time informing his superiors up the
8 chain of command in the RS MUP; isn't that correct?
9 A. I just said that, as far as I know, some of this information was
10 sent in the form of Official Notes and dispatches through the line of
11 work. However, whether all the information was subject to the same
12 process, I am not sure. I cannot confirm that with any degree of
13 certainty. I said that in my view, or, rather, I think I can say it's a
14 fact, that we were present in the areas that were not covered by the
15 Banja Luka Security Services Centre of which we were part.
16 Q. And I believe you touched on this during your direct examination.
17 But the reason why Mr. Radulovic was sending reports both to the Serbian
18 MUP as well as reports internally to the RS MUP was because, at the time,
19 it was perceived that Serbia and the Republika Srpska had a common
20 interest; is that correct?
21 A. Well, I did touch upon the subject during examination-in-chief,
22 that's true. We were aware that the federal state was still in place,
23 and in our former state, it was quite normal that all reports from the
24 republics go to Belgrade. Then there came a time when those
25 communications, telephone communications, territorial communications,
1 were interrupted, both with Belgrade and with Sarajevo, the base of the
2 MUP, and that's, as Radulovic described to me, one of the main purposes
3 of the group: To keep in touch with the federal service, with Belgrade,
4 because we were still hoping that Yugoslavia, as Yugoslavia, will endure
5 and that the war would be avoided.
6 Now, whether Serbia and Republika Srpska had a common interest, I
7 really would not like to voice any opinions because from my position I
8 was not able to know the state interests of either entity. It would be
9 pure conjecture, and I would not like to make any conjectures about the
10 evidence I have given so far.
11 Q. And we would like you not to do so as well.
12 But you mentioned that you were hoping -- still hoping that
13 Yugoslavia, as Yugoslavia, will endure and that the war would be avoid.
14 Well, Milos group primarily reported on events after April 1992,
15 so when the conflict began. So at that stage the common interest was, of
16 course, maintaining a Serbian -- a unified Serbian state between the
17 Republika Srpska, Serbia, and the Serb portions of Croatia?
18 A. In my view, our interest was still in preserving the Federal
19 Republic of Yugoslavia, although in April 1992 the conflict in
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina already started, and that opinion - as I told you -
21 was shared by my colleague, Mr. Radulovic; namely, that the state of
22 Yugoslavia was still able to endure. And I really don't want to go into
23 any speculation about who else shared that interest.
24 We spoke yesterday about the month of March of the same year.
25 The Army of Republika Srpska had not been established yet and we didn't
1 know whether it would be. And we, at least the people I knew, viewed the
2 JNA as the saviour of our territories. An army that would save the
3 people in those areas and help them stay there. And the JNA, indeed,
4 acted that way. It kept its neutral position. And we knew that the JNA
5 command was part of the federal state in Belgrade.
6 Q. If I may have the help of the usher. I want to show you a couple
7 of documents.
8 And these are tab 46, which is P1381; and tab 47, which are 65
9 ter 1277. And let me just be corrected: On the tab 46, it should be
10 1381.1 because this one has protective measures.
11 Sir, if you can look at the one that I wrote in pencil, the top
12 "tab 46" first, and just take a quick -- a very quick read of it.
13 A. [In English] Okay.
14 Q. And you'll see at the end of it, it's signed "Milos."
15 A. [Interpretation] Yes, I see it.
16 Q. And this reports, among other things, that the SJB Prijedor chief
17 was involved in the murder of a large number of Muslim citizens in
18 Koricanske Stijene. And if we can now look at 65 ter 1277, which has the
19 same date as the -- the previous one. That's tab 47. Same date of
20 26 February 1993. This one is a SNB --
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment. I believe that the
22 accused don't see the document in Serbian in -- on the screen. Oh, it's
23 here now.
24 MR. OLMSTED:
25 Q. If you can look at tab 47, and this one -- in the heading it says
1 it's an "SNB Banja Luka Official Note." Same date of 26 February, 1993.
2 And, sir, you will agree that this is an identical report to the
3 Milos report we just looked at, other than the fact that there's a
4 newspaper article attached to it?
5 A. You're right. An identical report.
6 Q. You will agree, then, that this is an example of the parallel
7 reporting. The Milos report went to the Serbian MUP, while the SNB
8 Official Note would have gone up the RS MUP chain of command; correct?
9 A. No, that's not correct. I'm sorry I have to contradict you. But
10 I've noticed some illogical things here, and some very odd things, if I
11 may put it that way.
12 May I explain?
13 Q. Please do.
14 A. The first document you have shown me, tab 46, there's a date at
15 the top. I can't see from the stamp which date, but I can only see that
16 it's 1993 and it's called Official Note, and that's fine. However, at
17 the end, as you said, there is a handwritten addition, Milos. And
18 anybody who sees the document would think that it's one of the Milos
19 group reports, as you said.
20 However, I don't recognise this document as a Milos group report,
21 and I belonged to the group, certainly, at the time, because I see a
22 handwriting that is unfamiliar; Milos written in longhand, not
23 typewritten as we normally did. We did sometimes write it in longhand,
24 but it was the hand of the man we discussed yesterday. This handwriting,
25 however, is unfamiliar. And I don't know that we -- that -- that we ever
1 sent Official Notes in this format.
2 Q. Let me address that issue first.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Could we go into private session, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
5 [Private session]
11 Page 25226 redacted. Private session.
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I would like to tender this tab 47,
21 65 ter 1277 into evidence.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we object. Because
23 the witness has not provided a single relevant piece of information about
24 this document and even, to some extent, questioned the authenticity of
25 the document. So we do not reach even the minimum threshold for
2 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, we already have P1381.1 into
3 evidence. It contains the identical verbatim wording of this other
4 report. We already have evidence that P1381.1 was a Milos report, and
5 65 ter 1277 is in the format that we've now heard would the type that
6 would be sent up the internal chain of command.
7 So this is an example of dual reporting, or parallel reporting,
8 and the documents, in essence speak for themselves, and Your Honours can
9 make that decision or evaluate them when it comes time to do so.
10 JUDGE HALL: Isn't this, as -- sorry, Mr. Aleksic, you wanted to
11 add something.
12 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honours, I did not
13 quite understand.
14 Concerning this document that Mr. Olmsted is tendering, there's
15 no signature, there's no name. The document tendered is in no way
16 associated with this witness. There is no indication of his code-name or
17 his name. For the witness to confirm that it's his report or a report by
18 the group of operative officers to whom -- to which he belonged.
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And it's also outside the period
20 of the indictment. These are documents from 1993.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Well, as Your Honours will see upon reading the
22 document, it deals with events in 1992, and you also have the testimony
23 of the previous witness regarding this document.
24 But, again, the Prosecution is seeking to admit it as an example
25 of parallel reporting which is an issue that has been addressed by this
1 witness, and this is an example of it to take into consideration.
2 As far as the contents, of course the Prosecution is not
3 concerned about that because we have P1381.1. What I'm concerned about
4 is the fact that they are two different reports in two different formats
5 that most likely went to two different recipients.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just a question to clarify. Do I understand that
7 tab 46, the one that is already in evidence, is the Milos report as sent
8 to Belgrade?
9 MR. OLMSTED: That's correct, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: And 47 is the one sent up the normal chain of
11 command within the RS MUP?
12 MR. OLMSTED: That's correct, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. And it is, unless I'm wrong, 46, the one
14 sent to Belgrade, that the witness does not recognise, right?
15 MR. OLMSTED: That's correct, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: So I'm not really sure that I understand
17 Mr. Zecevic's [sic] objection about 47.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do have to
21 The essence of the Defence objection is what the -- what
22 Mr. Olmsted describes about this report is only his submission. It does
23 not say in the report that it was ever sent anywhere up the chain of
25 It's basically two copies of the same document. There is no
1 indication here -- perhaps the Prosecution can clarify this, where does
2 it say that it was sent to the MUP of the Republic of Serbia? What the
3 Prosecutor is trying to put to the witness is only his submission. It's
4 not confirmed by the document. And it says two copies. So it's possible
5 that one copy is the one we have here, and the other is the one provided
6 by the Prosecution.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm sorry, may I add
10 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The document under 46, I've already
12 said, and the Judge on the right-hand side noted correctly that I don't
13 recognise it as a Milos group, but the Prosecution and I did not discuss
14 at all the document 47. I don't recognise that one either as a document
15 written by me or my colleague, Mr. Radulovic. There is no name, no
16 code-name, no indication to whom it was delivered, so I couldn't really
17 claim that any of my colleagues drafted it.
18 That's all. Thank you.
19 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, it seems clear from the evidence that
20 we now have that there's no basis on which this document could be
21 admitted. Certainly not through this witness.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Well, may it be marked for -- for identification so
23 we can perhaps consider filing a bar table motion. Because, again, our
24 point is the documents speak for themselves. We've heard evidence on
25 formats and how they were -- different formats were sent up different
1 chains of command, and these are identical reports with different
3 JUDGE HALL: We hear you, Mr. Olmsted. And whereas I would be
4 the first to admit that I'm still being educated as to the breadth of bar
5 table motions, I would have thought that the same vice that infects the
6 inability to tender it at this stage, if nothing new is coming, would not
7 be cured by the time it comes for you to file a bar table motion.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, with regards to a bar table
9 motion, the issue is whether the Defence are prejudiced by it, whether
10 it's relevant to these proceedings, and we go from there.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE HALL: In the Chamber's view, this document would not be
13 admitted. First of all, the witness has testified about the parallel
14 system of reporting. And the -- the proposition, unless we
15 misunderstand, Mr. Olmsted, that it can be marked for identification
16 pending the -- its reception through a bar table motion is, in our view,
18 And with that interruption, we are just at the break, so this may
19 be a convenient time to rise.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.
23 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, if we might have a moment.
24 The -- counsel would have been alerted to the fact that the break
25 was extended and the reason for that will become obvious in a moment.
1 Mr. Krgovic, you would recall that in July when we set out the
2 plan for alternating this trial with the other trial in which
3 Judge Delvoie and I sat, that we reminded counsel that they should be on
4 the alert that the schedule would in all likelihood not run perfectly and
5 there would be gaps which would have to be met.
6 We have learned this morning that such a gap will occur next week
7 and on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, that is, the I think 26th --
8 anyway, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of next week, there will be no
9 witness available in the other case to which Judge Delvoie and I are
10 assigned. And therefore we are requiring you to make every effort to
11 have a witness available to -- that we can hear in this trial on those
12 three days.
13 Today is Tuesday. That gives you a little more than a week to
14 arrange it, and we would ask for a report, I suppose, on Thursday, that
15 is, the day after tomorrow, as to -- as to the result of your efforts in
16 being able to fill this gap.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will do my best,
18 and I will try to consult the Prosecutor in order to find the best
19 possible solution in order to avoid any objections coming from Ms. Korner
20 that they didn't have enough time for preparation for examining the
22 JUDGE HALL: Thank you for your cooperation, Mr. Krgovic.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Seeing Mr. Aleksic's facial expression to which
24 Ms. Korner objected in the previous session, I would think that it won't
25 be very obvious to do so.
1 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm only a co-counsel
2 here. I'm going to abide by what my learned friend Krgovic said.
3 However, in view of the fact that I am leading the witness and the fact
4 that I cannot be either in Serbia or Bosnia before the next Sunday, I
5 really don't know how I can prepare the next witness in the course of two
6 or three days. I appreciate what the Trial Chamber has said. I agree
7 that Mr. Krgovic said that we will do our best. However, I objectively
8 don't see how that would be feasible for me to prepare the next witness.
9 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Olmsted, you may resume your
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour. May we have 65 ter 287 on
13 the screen. It's tab 50.
14 Q. This is a 20 October 1993 memorandum from SDB Banja Luka Chief
15 Kesic to the RS MUP deputy secretary of -- I guess at this time it was
16 the SNB. And this is a proposal for promotion and decoration of
17 Mr. Radulovic.
18 And if we could just look at the second paragraph of this
19 memorandum it reads:
20 "In July 1991, he," referring to Mr. Radulovic, "was appointed
21 before the Banja Luka SNB sector as a liaison officer for the contact
22 with the MUP Serbia. In that function, apart from collecting ...
23 intelligence and counter-intelligence information about the enemy's armed
24 formations and intelligence service, he assisted in arming the Serb
25 people in the broader region of the then BH and Slavonia. The
1 cooperation with the MUP Serbia was professional and of mutual interest
2 at the time."
3 Sir, can you tell us, who appointed Mr. Radulovic to this liaison
5 A. I can't tell you.
6 Q. You will agree that the sharing of intelligence information
7 between the state security in Banja Luka and the Serbian MUP would
8 require a high level authorisation.
9 A. Frankly speaking, I cannot fully agree with you.
10 As far as I knew, and I knew from Mr. Radulovic that he had the
11 authorisation of the chief of the sector of the National Security Service
12 in Banja Luka, and if you think that this is the answer to your question,
13 then the answer is yes.
14 Q. In fact, we can see that from this -- this memorandum, can't we?
15 We can seen that Mr. Kesic not only knew about Mr. Radulovic's reports to
16 the Serbian MUP, but believed that such cooperation was important at the
18 A. Yes. What you just said can be seen from the letter which is
19 currently on our screens. In other words, I didn't see, actually, who
20 signed this letter. I can only surmise that it was Mr. Kesic because you
21 said so. I can only see page 1. It is true that in the heading we have
22 the National Security Service, but if I don't have a look at page 2, I
23 cannot tell you who the author is.
24 Q. Let's just turn to page 2.
25 A. Since I have seen this document for the first time now, it is
1 difficult for me to comment. But if you would allow me to read it,
2 maybe ...
3 Q. Well, I just read the relevant paragraph that I want to ask you
4 questions about, but I'm showing the second page just so that you can see
5 that, in fact, at the bottom it was from Nedeljko Kesic?
6 A. Yes, that's correct. I can see that and I recognise his
7 signature, and I can see that his name and his function has been typed in
8 block letters.
9 Q. In 1992, Mr. Radulovic and, in fact, you as -- as his driver
10 would on several occasions go to Belgrade to visit the Serbian MUP;
12 A. Yes, correct.
13 Q. And for Mr. Radulovic to do so, he had to get the authorisation
14 of Mr. Kesic. Mr. Kesic had to authorise that trip.
15 A. Yes. That would be my answer, yes.
16 If we were away for a day or two from our workplaces, so to
17 speak, we would typically travel in an official car. We had to have a
18 proper written order, and it had to be authorised by the head of the
19 National Security Service.
20 Q. And given the nature of the intelligence information contained in
21 Mr. Radulovic's reports to the Serbian MUP, Mr. Kesic had to be kept
22 informed about what information was going via that route; isn't it
24 A. That's what you say. I don't know myself that that is the case.
25 I repeatedly said that I know nothing about it. I do know how the
1 information was being forwarded and relayed to Belgrade, and that's all I
2 can tell. And I'm talking about the information that pertains to this
3 particular group.
4 Q. Isn't it the case that copies of the Milos reports were sent to
5 Mr. Kesic, just so that he would be informed about the contents of those
7 A. This is what I'm hearing from you. My answer would be that, as
8 far as I know, it's not correct. Yesterday, when I was examined by
9 Mr. Aleksic, I explained in very clear terms how those reports were
10 drafted, how their format was established, how they were typed, and then
11 re-typed to the encryption device in order for them to be sent to the MUP
12 of Serbia. After that, these reports ended up in the file and in the
13 safe that was in Mr. Radulovic's office on the fourth floor.
14 As far as I know, that was the end destination concerning the
15 Milos reports. Now whether Radulovic gave them to Kesic as you
16 indicated, I don't know. You would have to ask Mr. Radulovic about that.
17 It's not my place to suggest to you, though, what to do.
18 Q. Fair enough. And the third member of the team, the Milos team,
19 the one responsible for communications since he was one who was filing
20 the reports, he may also know whether, in fact, those reports were sent
21 up to Kesic as well. Would you agree with that?
22 A. I cannot agree with that either. You would have to ask him about
24 If you are seeking my opinion, I think he knew even less than I
25 did. But that's my opinion. Because his domain was to type the report
1 into the device, to send it, and then to store it into the safe. So I
2 wouldn't like, really, to speak on his behalf. You would have to take up
3 this matter with him.
4 Q. Now the safe in Mr. Radulovic's office, if Mr. Kesic wanted to
5 have access to that safe, would you agree that Mr. Kesic, being your
6 ultimate superior within the state security in Banja Luka, could access
7 that safe?
8 A. I cannot agree. As far as I know, he didn't have access to that
10 Q. You mean so say that if Mr. Kesic came into Mr. Radulovic's
11 office and said, "Please, may I see what's in that safe," Mr. Radulovic
12 could refuse to show him what's in that safe? Based upon chain of
13 command structure at the time.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I think that this line of
15 questioning is directed towards speculation. The witness is asked to
16 answer what would happen if something happened.
17 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, first of all, this is not a joint
18 witness. The person who should be objecting is Mr. Aleksic and not
19 Mr. Cvijetic.
20 Secondly, this is going to whether this individual, this witness,
21 knows who could access something and the proposition is that someone who
22 is above Mr. Radulovic, his superior, whether he could, if he wanted to,
23 access that information in the safe, and I think Mr. Sajinovic has worked
24 for state security long enough to provide an answer based upon what he
25 knows about procedures, chain of command within the state security.
1 JUDGE HALL: It is, as Mr. Cvijetic has said, and I'm ignoring
2 the point that you made about Mr. Cvijetic not being the person who can
3 properly make an objection, but I would myself have thought the answer is
4 self-evident, but if you wish to pursue it, please go ahead.
5 MR. OLMSTED:
6 Q. Sir, can you answer the question.
7 A. Yes, I can.
8 When you asked me whether Mr. Kesic had access, I told you that I
9 couldn't agree with that assertion. And what I had in mind was that
10 Mr. Kesic didn't have the key to the safe that was in Mr. Radulovic's
12 Now, whether Radulovic was willing to show to Mr. Kesic the
13 content of that safe had he been asked to do so, I really cannot tell. I
14 know what would have happened in Mr. Kesic asked me to show him the
15 contents of the safe.
16 Q. What would you have done?
17 A. It did not happen. I can only tell you hypothetically what I
18 would have done, had that happened.
19 Q. Well, if you keep a short answer, can you just tell us whether
20 you would grant him access. If you had access to the safe, would you
21 give him access?
22 A. Within the hierarchical structure and the relations that were in
23 place in the service at the time, regardless of the fact that Mr. Kesic
24 was the head of the sector, I would deny him access to the safe without
25 the consent and the presence of Mr. Radulovic. That would be my answer.
1 The department in which I worked before 01 was 04, and Mr. Kesic
2 was the head of that department as well, but he didn't have the key to
3 the offices where we worked, and he could only gain access to those
4 offices if the head of the sector gave him permission.
5 Q. Do you know how frequently Mr. Radulovic met with Kesic in 1992?
6 A. Well, to be honest, I cannot tell you precisely. You're asking
7 me how often they met. I even cannot confirm that they met at all. And,
8 of course, I can't even tell you if they did how often that happened.
9 Mr. Kesic was the chief of sector. We had senior staff meetings held at
10 this level attended by sector heads. And if we're talking about 1992,
11 Mr. Radulovic was not a section chief at the time, and he did not attend
12 those senior staff meetings. He may have had some contacts of the sort
13 on his trips, but I can't tell you how frequently.
14 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, I know you're trying to be very helpful by
15 providing evidence today, but if you could please answer the questions as
16 briefly as you can. If the answer is "I don't know," that's fine. I
17 have to ask these questions because I wasn't able to meet with you and
18 therefore I wasn't able to ask these questions to you before.
19 So please don't read anything into it otherwise -- other than I'm
20 just exploring some issues with you.
21 While we still have this document in front of us, what do you
22 know -- what do you know about Mr. Radulovic's role in arming the Serbian
23 population in the BH as mentioned in the second paragraph of this report,
24 or in memorandum?
25 A. I know nothing about that. It was my best intention when you
1 asked me to provide answers to you, but it's okay. As far as I'm
2 concerned, I'm going to comply with what you said. I would accept your
3 suggestion and had you told me earlier, I would have acted in the way
5 Q. Thank you. And I was not -- it wasn't a criticism. It was just
6 to move things along a little faster.
7 Now, Mr. Kesic also utilized the Milos group to communicate with
8 the Serbian MUP; isn't that correct?
9 A. Well, I wouldn't say that that's correct, no. I know nothing
10 about that.
11 Q. Let's bring up on the screen 65 ter 20293. That's tab 28.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, the document under tab number 50, I
13 take it you are not tendering it because you're going to another
14 document. I suppose you finished with this one?
15 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, I apologise. I move to have this tendered
16 into evidence, Your Honours.
17 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we object to this
18 document being admitted into evidence.
19 First of all, they had Mr. Radulovic here as a witness, and this
20 document should have been shown to him first.
21 Secondly, the document is dated the 30th of October, 1993, and it
22 says that in July of 1991, Mr. Radulovic had this contact. The witness
23 said that he is not familiar with some of the aspects of this letter and
24 the activities of Mr. Radulovic, and I don't think that there is
25 sufficient nexus between this witness and this document in addition to
1 what I already said. I would just like to reiterate that this document
2 should have been shown to Mr. Radulovic.
3 MR. OLMSTED: May I just say that, Your Honours, again, as I've
4 said I think two or three times already, these issues came up later in
5 our case, after that witness that was referred, which probably shouldn't
6 be referred to by name, testified in this Court, and we took actions to
7 try to bring a witness - in fact, this particular witness - to deal with
8 these issues at that time. And so now we're dealing with it at this
9 time, and this is the witness to bring it in. He could authenticate it
10 to a certain degree.
11 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
12 JUDGE HALL: The document is admitted and marked.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P2395, Your Honours.
14 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honours.
15 Q. We have in front of us 65 ter 20293. And as can you see, sir, a
16 Milos report dated 5 August 1992 with the number 286/92. If we look at
17 the first sentences, first couple of sentences, it says:
18 "We have been asked by the chief of the Banja Luka SNB to urge
19 through you that the agreed help in technical equipment be provided. In
20 this regard, a request by the Banja Luka CSB was sent to you, approved
21 also by the minister of the MUP of the SR, Serbian Republic of BiH."
22 Sir, do you recall this Milos report?
23 A. I recognise it as one of the Milos group reports, in terms of
24 format. But as far as the contents are concerned, I'm not sure I've seen
25 it before.
1 And if the text could be shown a little larger, I would
2 appreciate it.
3 Thank you. I can see now.
4 Yes, that's what it says, just as you read it.
5 Q. So this is an example of Mr. Kesic asking, presumably
6 Mr. Radulovic, to send a request through the MUP -- Milos group to the
7 Serbian MUP. Because obviously this was intended to be received by the
8 Serbian MUP. Would you agree with that?
9 A. I agree that the MUP of Serbia should have received this. You
10 are right about that. And in that sense, it's no different from other
11 Milos group reports. But I couldn't say from the text that Mr. Kesic
12 asked it from the MUP of Serbia. The way I read it, the chief of SNB
13 Banja Luka, that is to say, Mr. Kesic, asked Mr. Radulovic to try to
14 speed it up through the MUP of Serbia.
15 Q. I think we're in agreement that that's what the intention was.
16 MR. OLMSTED: I'm not going to tender this one into evidence. I
17 would like to bring up on the screen, however, 65 ter 20290.
18 Sir --
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Tab number, please.
20 MR. OLMSTED: I'm sorry. Tab 21.
21 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, Mr. Radulovic also had the support of
22 Mr. Zupljanin in sending information to the Serbian MUP; isn't that
24 A. That's news to me.
25 Q. Let's take a look at this document that's in front of you. It's
1 a 4 July 1992 --
2 A. I'm looking at it.
3 Q. It's a 4 July 1992 document. We see at the bottom there's
4 handwriting. In Serbian it says, "broz 252/92." Do you recognise that
6 A. Just a moment.
7 Q. You don't have to read the document yet. All I'm asking you is
8 you see handwriting at the bottom. Is that your -- the third member of
9 the Milos group who was in charge of communication. Is that his
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now if you could take a look at it.
13 A. I've read it.
14 Q. We see at the bottom it's typed: "Zupljanin." Will you agree
15 that this information is being sent to the Serbian MUP at the behest of
16 Mr. Zupljanin?
17 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I'm seeing this report in this form with this
18 signature for the first time. It wasn't shown to me by Mr. Aleksic
19 during proofing, and even in that interview with the investigators in
20 2004, when I was shown a couple of documents, this one I did not see.
21 This is the first time I see it on the screen, and it would be really
22 hard for me to say anything about what it means. In fact, I'm surprised
23 by this text and especially the signature. I really know nothing about
25 Q. But you'll agree that other than the signature, it is in the
1 format of a Milos group report; and, in fact, it has the handwriting of
2 your colleague from the Milos group on it.
3 A. Of course, I will agree, because that is so. This is the format
4 of our group's report. I recognise the handwriting, but until this
5 moment, looking at the signature, I didn't know until now that something
6 like this ever went out from our group. I -- I really can't imagine
7 which one of us could have sent it.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I would like to tender this document
9 into evidence.
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this document was not
12 on the Prosecution 65 ter list. And as far as I was able to see, and as
13 far as I know, it was not in the EDS either. And an additional argument,
14 I'll repeat, Mr. Radulovic completed his testimony in May last year. The
15 Prosecution completed their case in January this year. If they were not
16 able to put this document on the list when Mr. Radulovic was here, they
17 could have included it in a bar table motion at the end of their
18 Prosecution case and -- to tender it.
19 One more thing. We asked -- before the beginning of the Defence
20 case, we asked the Prosecution to disclose to us every document referring
21 to the names of any of our witnesses and Mr. Zupljanin. This document
22 has not been disclosed to us and Mr. Zupljanin's name is on it. And on
23 top of everything, the witness says he doesn't recognise it, and he sees
24 this type of document for the first time and he doesn't recognise the
1 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, as I explained before this witness
2 began his evidence or at least before I started my cross-examination,
3 these documents have been disclosed. They are available on EDS or we
4 represented they were, and we provided a list with ERN numbers so they
5 could look them up. And, in fact, the Defence came back to us and said a
6 few of them weren't -- they weren't able to access and we provided those
7 with them. So we know that they have this list, we know that they access
8 them through EDS, and those that they couldn't they notified us about
10 So this issue of disclosure with regard to these documents is not
11 an issue.
12 If Mr. Aleksic has a problem with this, during the break I will
13 show him the list and I will show him where on the list this particular
14 document is.
15 With regard to fresh evidence, I've already raised - I think now
16 this is the fourth time - the history of why we're presenting this
17 evidence at this time. We did try to elicit this evidence during our
18 case in-chief. We just weren't able to do so because we were unable to
19 get the witness we wanted to do it. And this witness in particular, we
20 sought to -- to call him in our case in-chief, in which case we would
21 have met him, shown him these documents, seen if he could -- to what
22 degree he can authenticate them, speak to them, and then we would have
23 sought to add them to our 65 ter list at that time to address these very
24 issues regarding access, access to these reports and to what the
25 Milos group was doing.
1 This witness was able to recognise the handwriting at the bottom.
2 The format is the same. It just simply has Zupljanin's name down at the
3 bottom, and the Trial Chamber will be able to look at this document and
4 determine for itself what it represents.
5 JUDGE HALL: I'm sorry, Mr. Olmsted, I don't understand your
6 response when you say that the reason why it wasn't on your 65 ter list,
7 and you give us one of the reasons, the fact that there wasn't a witness
8 available to authenticate it, but this witness's testimony doesn't so
9 authenticate it.
10 So how does that advance your position in terms of the status of
11 this document.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I believe he sufficiently
13 authenticates it. Yes, he said he didn't type it and he's never seen
14 this particular document before, but recognises the handwriting at the
15 bottom of it. He recognises the format to be that of the Milos group.
16 Just because he wasn't directly involved in typing up or -- this
17 particular document doesn't mean that it has enough authenticity be
18 admitted for this Trial Chamber's consideration.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may raise an
20 objection of principle. And a specific one as well.
21 We asked from the Prosecutor and we made a submission to this
22 Trial Chamber that all documents concerning Mr. Zupljanin and concerning
23 our witnesses be disclosed to us under Rule 66(B). This document fits
24 that description. It explicitly mentions Mr. Zupljanin. Whether that's
25 a mistake or not, that's another matter, but the Prosecution informed us
1 that they have complied with this and that they have given us all the
2 documents in that category. This document has not been disclosed so it
3 can't be tendered and it can't be admitted.
4 Second, the Prosecution had a witness, Mr. Radulovic, who
5 testified here, and they could have shown him that document.
6 You will remember at the end of Mr. Radulovic's testimony the
7 Prosecution made a list of Milos group documents that they did not show
8 him and that they still thought should be admitted through him. It was
9 some nine documents that were admitted in that way. Also, they had a bar
10 table motion through which they could have had it admitted.
11 On top of everything, the Prosecution had given up on this
12 witness and withdrew him from the list, especially because of the
13 wrong-doing by Mr. Koehler. This witness used to be on the Prosecution
14 witness list and during their interviews they showed him all sorts of
15 documents. They struck him off the list, and he told them, "You can
16 subpoena me. Just tell me, am I a witness or not?"
17 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I have to intervene here because that
18 last statement by Mr. Krgovic he knows is incorrect as regards the
19 procedure we went through with regard to calling this witness in our case
20 in-chief. I'm not going to say more, but Your Honours are aware of the
21 briefing on this matter, and -- we're not going to go any further on
22 that. But I would ask that he does not make such statements that say why
23 we did or did not call a witness --
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, just for my clarification, when we
25 are talking about this witness now, you and Mr. Krgovic, are you -- are
1 we referring to this witness or are we referring to the author of this
2 document? Are we referring to this witness -- the witness actually on
3 the stand or are we referring to the author of the document.
4 MR. OLMSTED: We're referring to this witness.
5 The reason this document wasn't shown to the earlier witness was
6 simply because this issue of reporting didn't even come up until late in
7 his cross-examination. The Prosecution needed to review the evidence to
8 how to respond to that and decided on a witness to call to rebut it. And
9 that was what we filed I think in September or October of last year, a
10 motion to call a witness to deal with these issues.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, I think the -- or one of the first
13 rules about fresh evidence in cross-examination, certainly after the end
14 of your case, would be that what you're trying to tender or -- or -- or
15 prove there, should come -- should have a link with the -- with the --
16 the examination-in-chief. Should come out of the examination-in-chief;
18 So my question is: Where is the link? Is this something that
19 came up in the direct? Do I miss something there?
20 MR. OLMSTED: Yes. I believe it did in the sense of who had
21 access to these Milos reports, who was usually using this Milos group
22 system of communication with the Serbian MUP, is all connected to the
23 issue as -- Your Honours, may the witness take his headphones off.
24 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
25 Could -- Mr. Sajinovic, could you please remove your headphones.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honours.
2 MR. OLMSTED: I should have made that request sooner because I
3 think a lot of what we're talking about is probably not properly argued
4 in the witness's presence.
5 This issue goes to the issue of access, access to Milos group
6 reports. Mr. Radulovic's access to Mr. Zupljanin. And this -- as we
7 know, we have a number of these reports in evidence relating to events
8 that are charged in the indictment, and so this is an issue with regard
9 to this witness, what this witness came to testify about it. It's
10 included in his 65 ter summary in the sense that he's going to talk about
11 the Milos group and its relationship within the state security, and it
12 came out in the questions asked by both Defences with regard to what
13 was -- were Milos group reports sent, where were they -- who had access
14 to them, who was within that chain of command.
15 JUDGE HALL: But within the -- your general approach to
16 dealing -- in terms of your approach of that general issue which would
17 have come up in -- been a part of the examination-in-chief, the question
18 which the Bench has just put to you is in terms of this specific
19 document. How does this document -- how do you link this document to the
20 cross-examination? It isn't, to my mind, to talk about your general
22 MR. OLMSTED: This document we purport shows that Mr. Zupljanin
23 had access and contact with the Milos group and, in fact, utilized that
24 group to convey information to the Serbian MUP. And this is an example
25 of that. With regard to a matter that -- I tell you, to be honest, I'm
1 not so concerned about the substance of it, just the fact that it was
2 sent on behalf of the Mr. Zupljanin. Because certainly you can draw the
3 conclusion that his name wouldn't appear at the bottom unless he somehow
4 authorised it.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Aleksic, you had something to add.
7 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, to all of this I
8 would add, what does the contents of this document have to do with the
9 evidence of this witness about the purpose and the sphere of interest of
10 the Milos group? This says that some TV equipment should be taken out of
11 some apartment. Even by that criterion alone, it could not fit -- it
12 doesn't meet the requirements of being recognised as a Milos group
14 JUDGE HALL: We're -- well, on that last small point, Mr. Olmsted
15 did say that he wasn't seeking to tender it for the contents. It was
16 just in terms of showing method or system. But in any event, the Chamber
17 is of the view that this document ought not to be admitted.
18 MR. OLMSTED: And just to clarify a point of law, are Your
19 Honours saying to us that we can only use or seek to tender fresh
20 evidence that directly relates to the examination-in-chief or are we --
21 because I always assumed that we would be allowed to show evidence that's
22 relevant that this witness may be able to provide evidence to or that
23 might go to the witness's basis for knowledge or his credibility. So we
24 can test the value of his evidence.
25 JUDGE HALL: With respect Mr. Olmsted I'm not going to be drawn
1 into attempting to make an extemporaneous ruling on the question as you
2 phrased it. This Chamber has given a considered ruling on the matter of
3 fresh evidence, and I would suggest that that should be your starting
5 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Sir, this reporting system that was established by the
7 Milos group, it was a two-way communication system, wasn't it? In other
8 words, the Serbian MUP used the Milos group to pass on information to
9 members of CSB Banja Luka, as well as RS MUP leadership; would you agree
10 with that?
11 A. I could not agree with that. That's not true, as far as I know.
12 And if you want me to explain, I will. Just say so.
13 Q. Well, just hold off on that.
14 MR. OLMSTED: Let's look at 65 ter 20286; tab 4.
15 Q. This is a report dated 3 April 1992. It has a document number
16 060/92. And it states:
17 "Urgently pass on to Mico Stanisic to tell Karadzic not to accept
18 at any cost Kovacevic for the position he is recommended. Convey this
19 message to the Stanisic in the most discreet way."
20 And the signature is typewritten: "Centre."
21 Can you tell us who was Centre?
22 A. Yes, I can tell you that. The Centre was the state security
23 sector centre in Belgrade. I know that.
24 Q. And were these kind of communications communicated through the
25 same encryption device? In other words, it was over the telephone using
1 the laptop device you described during your examination.
2 A. When you asked me a moment ago about two-way communication, I
3 don't know that there was communication from Belgrade towards the MUP, as
4 you've said. What I know was going on, what happened, although very
5 rarely, is that we, the Milos group, received a message from Belgrade.
6 That message could have been a reply to something we had written or a
7 suggestion. I have seen some of those, let's call them, reports from the
8 centre, and that's correct. And when I say "centre," I mean the Belgrade
9 centre, not the Banja Luka centre the State Security Centre or the
10 Security Services Centre. But the document I'm looking at now is one I
11 see for the first time. I did not see it at the time when the
12 Milos group existed, and I did not see it during proofing here in
13 The Hague. So I am seeing it for the first time. I'm not aware of the
14 contents, and anything I could say would be my assumptions, if you want
15 me to go into that.
16 But, for now, that would be all.
17 Q. But you agree that the format is that of a report received from
18 the Serbian MUP by the Milos group?
19 A. Yes, I agree with that. Because, as I said, it happened that the
20 MUP of Serbia would send us a report very rarely, I repeat, and in that
21 case, the signature would be Centre, that's true. But the one I see on
22 the screen now, as I said, is one I'm seeing for the first time, both as
23 a document, and I've never heard anything about what is said there. I
24 never heard from Mr. Radulovic anything about this.
25 Q. And -- and, again, you're relapsing into what I was asking you
1 not to do, which is just keep the answers short and you answered it with:
2 "Yes, I agree with that?"
3 We see at the bottom it's handwritten --
4 A. Well, I can't say I agree if I don't agree. Sorry.
5 Q. Then that's fine. We see at the bottom it says -- it's
6 handwritten 152/ -- I believe 73-4-128, and it says "copied." Do you
7 recognise that handwriting?
8 A. I see it says 52/79. I don't think it's 73, although it could
9 be. But I really don't know the handwriting. It's not the handwriting
10 of the colleague indicated at the top. It's not my handwriting. It's
11 not Radulovic's. I have no idea whose it could be.
12 Q. And can you tell us what those numbers signify? Yes or no is
14 A. Which numbers? 152?
15 Q. The numbers -- yes, that you just read out, yes. Do you know
16 what they signify?
17 A. My answer is no.
18 MR. OLMSTED: May we have on the screen 65 ter 20288. This is
19 tab 18.
20 Q. This is another report that's signed or type written "Centre."
21 And we see it's dated 3 July 1992.
22 I'm not interested in the content of this report, but if you look
23 under Roman numeral II the last sentence reads:
24 "If necessary, engage Zupljanin."
25 Will you agree that this is a communication between the Serbian
1 MUP to the Milos group asking them to contact Mr. Zupljanin on the
2 particular issue raised by this report?
3 A. I can't see this under Roman numeral I, the thing that you are
4 talking about.
5 Q. Roman numeral II, last sentence.
6 A. Okay.
7 All right. I've read it. Can you re-please repeat the question.
8 Q. Yes. My question is: Will you agree that this is a
9 communication between the Serbian MUP and the Milos group in which the
10 Serbian MUP is asking the Milos group to, if necessary, work with
11 Mr. Zupljanin, their chief, on a particular issue, as mentioned in this
13 A. Well, if I were to confirm that, that would be mere speculation.
14 All I can confirm is that I recognise the handwriting, I can see
15 the signature; whereas, I am not familiar with this document. What is
16 being requested herein is also something that I have no knowledge about.
17 I don't know that such things were being done, and what it says here "if
18 necessary, engage Zupljanin," I really cannot believe that this refers to
19 Mr. Stojan Zupljanin. That would be all in the realm of surmise. There
20 were a number of people named Zupljanin in the Banja Luka area. I'm not
21 familiar with the gentleman mentioned in line 1. And also, as far as
22 Zupljanin is concerned, had there been added the first name Stojan, I
23 would have been sure.
24 So I'm sorry to say, I'm not familiar with this document. And I
25 think that it would be best if you asked Mr. Radulovic to clarify this.
1 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, I know we're few minutes early, but
2 perhaps this would be a good time to take the break.
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes. And we resume in 20 minutes.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 --- Recess taken at 12.02 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 May we have P1371 on the -- hold on a second. Yes, P1371, tab 6,
10 on the screen.
11 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, Mr. Radulovic also used his links with Belgrade to
12 urge Mr. Kesic or Mr. Zupljanin to take certain actions. On occasions,
13 when he was trying to accomplish a task, he would sometimes contact
14 Belgrade and ask them to advocate his position; is that correct?
15 A. I'm really sorry, Mr. Prosecutor. Would be so kind as to repeat
16 the question because I'm not sure if I understood you correctly. So I am
17 afraid in that case I might give you a wrong answer. So if it's not a
18 problem for you, please do so.
19 Q. Perhaps it will be easier if I show you this document that's in
20 front of you. It is a 15 April 1992 Milos report numbered 082/92. Can
21 you take a quick look at this and tell us if this one you recall either
22 typing or reviewing?
23 A. You said the 14th of April; whereas, it says here the 15th of
24 April. I don't know if we're talking about the same document.
25 Q. Well, the transcript says 15th of April. I'll go with -- with
1 that. Yes, the 15th of April. That's the one that's in front of you
2 right now. Can confirm to us that you recall this particular report sent
3 to the Serbian MUP?
4 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I had seen this document before. I recognise it
5 as one being produced by the Milos group. But, as far as I can remember,
6 and also judging by some grammatical, let's say errors, or, rather,
7 judging by the style, it wasn't me who typed it. But I do recognise it
8 as being a document made by the Milos group.
9 Q. It says in the second paragraph: "We ask you for an urgent
10 contact with the Centre in purpose of clarifying and explaining the
11 certain circumstances, which are neither in your, nor in our favour, if
12 we want to succeed in executing the forthcoming tasks."
13 Could you tell us the Centre that Mr. Radulovic is referring to
14 here, would that be the CSB Banja Luka?
15 A. Of course, it couldn't be so. We discussed this many times, but
16 let me be as brief as possible. He is not referring to the Banja Luka
18 Q. So you're saying that the centre he is referring to is the
19 Serbian MUP?
20 A. Precisely so.
21 Q. So he is asking the Serbian MUP for an urgent contact with the
22 Serbian MUP to clarify and explain a certain circumstance. Is that what
23 you're saying that this is referring to?
24 A. Yes, yes.
25 Q. Do you recall what Nenad Stevandic connection with the CSB
1 Banja Luka security service. Do you recall?
2 A. No, Mr. Prosecutor, I don't.
3 Q. You testified that you had information that Colonel Stevilovic
4 and Bogojevic were involved in the organisation of the SOS in Banja Luka.
5 Were you also aware that Stevandic was also closely linked to the SOS?
6 A. So far as Mr. Stevandic is concerned, I know from that period,
7 that Mr. Stevandic studied medicine at the faculty in Banja Luka. I know
8 that he was the president of the athletic club in Banja Luka, but I don't
9 know that he had any links with the SOS and the events unfolding in
10 Banja Luka at the time.
11 To tell you the truth, I did hear stories circulating around the
12 town that he had links with them, but I myself had no direct knowledge
13 about that. If he had any ties with them, I wasn't aware of the nature
14 of those ties.
15 Q. Let's take a look at 65 ter --
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, before you do that, could you
17 clarify what you meant with your question, page 56, 14:
18 "So he is asking the Serbian MUP for an urgent contact with the
19 Serbian MUP to clarify," et cetera.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Well, yes, Your Honour, that's the way I
21 interpreted the witness's answer, and he agreed that this was sent to the
22 Serbian MUP asking for the Serbian MUP to clarify something with itself,
23 I suppose, because he said Centre referred to the Serbian MUP. I guess
24 it's open to whoever's interpretation they want to give it to.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: I think we should ask the witness whether that is
1 what he understands because your question could been understood quite
3 I won't suggest anything, but please clarify with the witness.
4 MR. OLMSTED: Certainly, Your Honour. Certainly.
5 Q. Sir I want to return to the question I asked you before. You
6 said with regard to this document that when they ask for -- when
7 Mr. Radulovic is asking for urgent contact with the centre, he is
8 referring to the Serbian MUP as the centre. The Serbian MUP in Belgrade.
9 And if that's the case, then the sentence as you interpret it should
10 read: "We are asking you --" which would be, of course, the Serbian MUP,
11 because this has been sent to the Serbian MUP, "We're asking you for an
12 urgent contact with the Centre," meaning Serbian MUP. So basically
13 they're -- he is urging them to contact themselves on this issue?
14 A. I -- I didn't understand eventually what you said. When the --
15 they are to contact themselves.
16 If I understand, it is Radulovic is seeking to establish contact
17 with the Centre in Belgrade. That's how I read it.
18 Q. Yes. But your prior testimony was the Centre was, in fact, who
19 was receiving the Milos reports. In other words, the Centre was the
20 Serbian MUP; isn't that correct?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. So wouldn't you agree that in this context, the Centre means
23 something other than the Serbian MUP?
24 A. I cannot agree because I already told you that the Centre
25 maintained communication with the Milos group, and the only centre that
1 was doing that was the State Security Department in Belgrade. It says
2 here: "We kindly ask for an urgent contact with the Centre," and so on,
3 and from this I understand that Radulovic is asking for him to go
4 personally to Belgrade and meet with someone there. And this is the only
5 conclusion that I can draw from what is written here. The mention of any
6 other centre would make no sense.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, I don't know if that clarifies matters
8 for you.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: I'm satisfied, yes.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour. Let's have 65 ter 20294 on
11 the screen. This is tab 29.
12 Q. This is a 5 August 1992 Milos report number 283/92. And if you
13 can just look at the final sentence, it reads:
14 "Could you please urgently intervene in that regard with the
15 chief of the CSB, as well as with regard to resolving the problem of
16 housing for myself and Miso?"
17 Would you agree that this is an example where Mr. Radulovic is
18 contacting Belgrade asking them to, in turn, contact Mr. Zupljanin on a
19 particular matter?
20 A. Yes, this one of the Milos reports; that's true.
21 Now one can see from the contents that Radulovic is asking the
22 State Security Department in Belgrade to intervene with the CSB chief.
23 That's what it reads. However, I didn't have an opportunity to see this
24 note or this report before, and I'm slightly surprised at its contents.
25 As you read it, it seems that there was a request for solving the
1 housing problems for two colleagues of ours, and speaking of 1992, when
2 all this was happening, I myself also didn't have my housing problem
3 resolved. Therefore, I find it really hard to comment this, given that I
4 am seeing it for the first time.
5 Q. Let's take a look at 65 ter 10101, tab 14.
6 And perhaps we can take a quick look at the second page of the
7 B -- oh there is only one page. If we can scroll down so we can see the
8 bottom of this B/C/S version. Oh, page 2. Yes. Great.
9 Sir, this is a 19 May 1992 Milos report, numbered 140/92. And if
10 we can return to the first page. In the second paragraph, this report
11 proposes arming the able-bodied inhabitants of - I'm going to
12 mispronounce it - of Vrbanjci and surrounding villages. If further
13 states that:
14 "We also propose that you use a special unit to render inactive
15 and neutralise the Green Berets in Vrbanjci."
16 And if look at the very bottom, so the second page of the B/C/S,
17 it states at the bottom:
18 "The proposals concerning a special unit and weapons refer to the
19 Banja Luka security services centre."
20 Mr. Sajinovic, can you tell us -- Mr. Sajinovic, can you tell us,
21 is Mr. Radulovic referring to the CSB Banja Luka Special Police
23 A. I can only suppose that he does refer to it. Yes, I think so.
24 Q. Let's take a look now at P76, which is tab 17.
25 A. I'm sorry, can we stay a little bit longer with this document?
1 On page 1, you haven't read the whole document, and I notice
2 something which strikes me as interesting, and I would like to comment,
3 if that is all right with you.
4 Q. Well the Defence will have the opportunity to re-examine of you.
5 For the purposes of my questioning, I think we can proceed. Unless
6 there's an objection with my line of questioning.
7 JUDGE HALL: Well, the witness has -- whereas I'm always very
8 reluctant when a witness is volunteering evidence, since it is something
9 that he is -- apparently wants to speak to in terms of making us
10 understand this document, It would be useful to deal with his.
11 Let's hear what he has to say now. Could we have the -- okay,
12 it's back on the screen. Okay.
13 Yes, Mr. Sajinovic, please go ahead.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
15 When Mr. Prosecutor was reading the second paragraph, where it
17 "Please help the inhabitants of Vrbanjci as much as you can,
18 especially by arming them ..."
19 But I see one sentence here added by Radulovic which says that:
20 "We propose that arming of the able-bodied inhabitants of
21 Vrbanjci and the surrounding villages be carried out within the framework
22 of regular mobilisation."
23 As far as I can understand this document I would like to
24 underline, especially having seen it before, that Radulovic is requesting
25 here for regular mobilization to be carried out of citizens and, at that
1 time, in charge of mobilization was the Secretariat for National Defence,
2 i.e., the army. I'm afraid if we leave out this second sentence, it
3 might appear that Radulovic was asking for some paramilitary formation to
4 be set up in that area.
5 I'm grateful to you for giving me this opportunity to clarify
6 this section of the document.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, sir.
8 MR. OLMSTED: May we have P76 on the screen. Tab 17.
9 This is a 9 June 1992 Milos report. And the first sentence
11 "Following our proposals and the proposals of others, the SDS is
12 due to start an operation soon with the aim of taking over power in the
13 Kotor Varos area ..."
14 And if you read further down, it states:
15 "This operation should be carried out in a synchronised manner
16 with the help of the Banja Luka CSB."
17 Sir, would you agree that the Milos group's proposal to use CSB
18 Banja Luka Special Police Detachment made its way not only through the
19 Serbian MUP but back to the CSB Banja Luka because here he is reporting
20 that the proposal was being followed.
21 A. I'm sorry, Mr. Prosecutor, but not for a moment can I conclude
22 based on anything that is read here that an intervention of the CSB
23 Banja Luka Special Police Detachment was requested. I might be wrong,
24 and I would be grateful if you would point me out in the direction where
25 it says that a certain request was complied with.
1 As far as I can remember, this was in the month of June, yes.
2 That's it.
3 Q. Yes, well, I was referring to the previous document that you
4 looked at. We read the sentence that says:
5 "We'd also propose that you use a special unit to render inactive
6 and neutralise the Green Berets in Vrbanjci."
7 And further it states that this proposal, concerning the use of
8 the special police unit, refers to the Banja Luka CSB. I'm just asking
9 you now whether this document we have in front of us shows that that
10 proposal in fact was received?
11 A. That's not the way I would put it, and I cannot establish a link
12 between these two documents. If you're asking me to comment anything
13 with relation to the previous document, I'd like to see it again. As it
14 is, I cannot establish any chronological order with regard to the
15 previous document. I'm really sorry I have to say that. I can't do it.
16 Q. Well, let's quickly look then back at 65 ter 10101. And what I
17 was focussing on was the second paragraph where states further down we
18 also propose that you use a special unit to render inactive and
19 neutralise the Green Berets in Vrbanjci?
20 Do you see that?
21 A. Yes, I do. I see that part of the next.
22 Q. And when we turn to the second page of the B/C/S, and you see the
23 note at the very last sentence that says:
24 "The proposals concerning the special unit refer to the CSB
25 Banja Luka."
1 And this is dated the 19th of May. The second document we looked
2 at was dated the 9th of June, so subsequent to this one. And I'm trying
3 to see whether in the second document when you referred to our proposals,
4 which were being followed, whether that is what's referred to in this
5 document here.
6 A. The second document was written 20 days later after the other
7 one. If the security situation was, indeed, as it was described in this
8 document, 20 days seems long to me for a reaction. Things were unfolding
9 very fast. So it can hardly be the case.
10 And as for your other remark, it is a Milos document. The date,
11 the signature, everything fits. And it was sent to the MUP of Serbia,
12 and this remark about me, the special units and weaponry, you can see it
13 says CSB Banja Luka. It can assume [as interpreted] that it was a
14 special unit from the CSB Banja Luka, but it was an explanation to the
15 recipients of this note. I already explained that mobilization was
16 normally carried by the army, and I suppose this suggestion was an
17 alternative. If the mobilization fails for some reason, he was
18 suggesting that a special unit of the police be used and that would be
19 all right.
20 Q. Let's return to P76. If you look at the first sentence, I will
21 repeat. It says:
22 "Following our proposals and the proposals of others, the SDS due
23 to start an operation soon with the aim of taking over power in the
24 Kotor Varos area ..."
25 Can you tell us what were your proposals?
1 A. But the sentence goes on:
2 "... as well as defusing the interethnic tensions in SJB and
3 other agencies."
4 Now, after all this time and in few of the position that I
5 occupied, I could hardly comment.
6 Q. So you don't recall what your proposals were? Or at least
7 Mr. Radulovic's proposals.
8 A. Right. I don't remember what Mr. Radulovic suggested.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, this witness could speak to the first
10 document, 65 ter 10101, so we would seek to tender that into evidence at
11 this time.
12 JUDGE HALL: Since we last canvassed this issue earlier today,
13 Mr. Olmsted, we've had the benefit of having to hand the views which the
14 Chamber distilled in Rule 15(A), of guide-line 15(A).
15 Could you tell us how your application falls within that?
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
18 JUDGE HALL: This -- I'm reminded this was on your 65 ter list,
19 so you needn't trouble yourself there.
20 Could I hear what the response is from the other side, in terms
21 of your application.
22 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will agree, of
23 course, that the document is on their list, but I can only repeat my
24 previous objections: Why did they not use it with Mr. Radulovic?
25 MR. OLMSTED: I don't want to go into this full discussion again,
1 but we've expressed our reasons why we didn't do it at that time and how
2 we had to proceed from that point forward.
3 JUDGE HALL: The document is admitted and marked.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P2396, Your Honours.
5 MR. OLMSTED: Let's look at P1384. That's tab 26.
6 Q. This is a Milos report dated 13 July 1992, numbered 272/92. We
7 see at the very top of it it states:
8 "Please forward this information to the chief of Banja Luka
9 CSB ... Stojan Zupljanin."
10 You'll agree that this request is requested to the Serbian MUP?
11 A. Of course. That's clear.
12 Q. So Mr. Radulovic is asking the Serbian MUP to provide this piece
13 of correspondence to Mr. Zupljanin?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. It then states: "In view of your absence from the Centre's area,
16 I'm obliged to address you in this way ..."
17 He's obviously there referring to Mr. Zupljanin. Mr. Zupljanin's
18 absence from the Centre's area?
19 A. Precisely.
20 Q. And you will agree with me, at least on this occasion, the Centre
21 they are referring to is the CSB Banja Luka.
22 A. Of course, I won't agree. I don't understand why you keep trying
23 to put in my mouth words that I have never said. Everything written by
24 Milos was addressed to the Centre in Belgrade. Not a single Milos report
25 was ever sent to the CSB centre in Banja Luka. I repeated that several
1 times. I'm aware that I'm under oath. I'm aware that I'm supposed to
2 speak the truth and I'm telling the truth. And I don't understand why
3 you keep insisting on something that is not true.
4 Q. Sir, I'm not trying to do that. I'm just trying to make sense of
5 what it says. It says:
6 "In view of your absence," and I assume he's referring to
7 Mr. Zupljanin, and you confirm that, "from our centre's area..."
8 And when referring "to our Centre's area," I assume that that
9 meant CSB Banja Luka. Are you telling me that's not the case?
10 A. No, that's what I'm trying to say. In that, you are right,
11 Mr. Prosecutor. But as you've read this communication is sent to the MUP
12 of Serbia, the state security sector, Radulovic. I know this text from
13 before. I know about the contents and the form.
14 Radulovic is asking the MUP of Serbia to pass this information on
15 to Mr. Zupljanin and then goes the text. Considering that you are away
16 from the territory of our Centre, and they mean the centre in Banja Luka.
17 Mr. Zupljanin is temporarily absent from that territory.
18 And I'm sorry if I misunderstood you a moment ago if that was
19 what you meant. But, otherwise, centre in all the conversations in the
20 Milos group denoted the Centre of state security in the MUP of Serbia.
21 Q. Now in this report Mr. Radulovic is asking Mr. Zupljanin to --
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Olmsted, are we to assume that then
23 Mr. Zupljanin was in Belgrade?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is that a question to me?
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. I'm sorry, Mr. Witness.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, your understanding is
2 correct. At the time when this report was written, Mr. Stojan Zupljanin
3 was in Belgrade. It is dated 13 July, and, as far as I know, and I did
4 have occasion also during proofing with Mr. Aleksic to see some other
5 reports, during those days in Belgrade there was a meeting. I can't say
6 exactly at which level, but it was attended by the senior staff of the
7 MUP of Republika Srpska, including Mr. Zupljanin. So he was away at that
8 time from the territory of our centre. He was in Belgrade.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
10 MR. OLMSTED:
11 Q. Just to look briefly at the contents of this report.
12 Mr. Radulovic is asking Mr. Zupljanin to allow him to replenish
13 the reserve police in Teslic with 80 soldiers. And it states that:
14 "Their engagement would be good for preventative reasons since
15 individuals from this company or the entire company have gotten out of
16 control and become a paramilitary formation."
17 Can you tell us, if you recall, how this group had gotten out of
19 A. Honestly I couldn't comment. I know which group Radulovic means.
20 I know who the commander of that unit was, and it was a military unit.
21 So it was in the purview of the military commander in the area of Teslic.
22 They were part of the military. And as you say here, their engagement --
23 it says for preventive reasons, so I can't conclude from this that they
24 had become renegades already and turned into a paramilitary formation.
25 It is said that there are some indications that that unit could go absent
1 without official leave from the regular military unit and turn into a
2 paramilitary one.
3 Q. But your answer is you don't -- don't recall?
4 A. Basically, yes. I'm saying I do remember.
5 Q. That's fine. We have your other answer so ...
6 We'll go from there. I want to show you 65 ter --
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one moment, Mr. Olmsted, please.
8 Mr. Witness, when commenting this document, this document is
9 about the reserve police and speaks about one company of 80 well-trained
10 and well-equipped soldiers. Just one moment.
11 I'm sorry, I misread.
12 Back to you Mr. Olmsted.
13 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 May we have 65 ter 10187, tab 19 on the screen, please. And I'm
15 particularly interested in the second report. It looks like there's two
16 reports on the same page. It's dated 3 July 1992. It's from again
17 Centre. And it is report number 250/92. I'm sorry, I probably read the
18 wrong number. Just a second. Let me check my notes.
19 Sorry, it's report number 249 /92.
20 Q. Now, the seconds report states:
21 "We confirm that Bozovic and his group are being active in a
22 coordinated fashion, linked up with the MUP of the Serbian Republic of
23 Bosnia and Herzegovina and ourselves."
24 So this is the Serbian MUP providing the Milos group with this
25 information; is that correct?
1 A. Yes, that's correct.
2 Q. And can you confirm with us that the Bozovic that is referred to
3 here is Radojica Bozovic, the leader of the Red Berets that you testified
4 about during examination-in-chief?
5 A. To be quite honest, I see the last name here. I don't see the
6 first name. I can only suppose that's the man.
7 And perhaps it's important to tell you this. I see both of these
8 reports for the first time. During proofing, or earlier, I don't
9 remember -- I'm sorry, I first read the first report, and now I'm reading
10 the second. I really couldn't say that I saw either of them earlier.
11 I'm not aware of the contents. The first report speaks about a convoy of
12 120 vehicles in July and that sounds a bit odd to me.
13 And to your question, the answer could be that I'm not sure
14 whether it's Mr. Bozovic, but it's true we discussed yesterday that
15 Radojica Bozovic did go to Doboj with a group and that they carried out
16 training of soldiers who had no military experience and were supposed to
17 go to war.
18 Q. When you testified yesterday, you stated that from what you've
19 recalled they -- they, meaning the Red Berets and Bozovic, acted
20 independently at the time. Now having looked at this Centre report, does
21 that refresh your recollection that, in fact, Bozovic's group was linked
22 to the Serbian MUP and here the RS MUP as well?
23 A. Look, Mr. Prosecutor, to be quite honest, I testified yesterday,
24 and I've said what I know and what I remember. This report not only does
25 not refresh my memory. It confuses me completely. And to be quite,
1 quite honest, during our time in Doboj, I saw Mr. Radojica Bozovic a
2 couple of times and his group, but from nothing, not from the uniforms
3 they were wearing or their conduct, could I conclude that they had
4 anything to do with the MUP of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And it would be
5 to be expected that if they were associated with the MUP of Bosnia and
6 Herzegovina, they would seek contact with us or perhaps assistance from
7 us or vice versa, but I'm not aware of any such thing.
8 Radulovic maybe knows different, but he was here. I'm sorry, I
9 can't confirm.
10 Q. You said that you saw Mr. Bozovic a couple of times in Doboj.
11 Can you tell us where you saw him?
12 A. If my memory serves me well, I encountered him and his group once
13 in town, on the outskirts; another time I saw him close to the front
14 line, where fighting was going on to open up a corridor; and from the
15 local residents and some acquaintances and some contacts of ours, we
16 received information that they were training soldiers who, as I said, had
17 no military experience and were about to go to the front line.
18 Nobody ever told me -- look, to be -- I mean, quite sincere I'm
19 sorry I'm taking up your time. But especially at that time, it was
20 normal that anybody who had anything to do with the MUP and had an
21 official ID would use it and sometimes even abuse it, but I never ever
22 heard that any of them were identified as members of the MUP. And I'm
23 seeing this report for the first time, and the one -- the one before.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, since this relates to his testimony in
25 examination-in-chief, I would seek to tender it into evidence.
1 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we object to the
2 admission of this document. I agree that Mr. Bozovic was discussed
3 during the examination-in-chief. But as for this specific document that
4 is being tendered, the witness did not confirm anything from it, and I
5 believe that the required nexus between the witness and the document does
6 not exist.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, if the witness may take off his
8 headphones, I'll respond.
9 Your Honours, that is precisely the point. The witness said
10 during examination-in-chief that this group was acting independently.
11 This document, which is not in dispute that it is from the Serbian MUP,
12 refutes that, so it goes to credibility on that issue.
13 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P2397, Your Honours.
15 MR. OLMSTED:
16 Q. And I apologise for keep making you to do that, but we sometime
17 have to resolve issues that are best reserved for the Trial Chamber
19 I want to return briefly to the organisation of the state
20 security in Banja Luka in 1992. We've already talked about section 01
21 which was headed by Vojin Bera. His ethnicity was Serb; is that correct?
22 A. Yes, correct.
23 Q. And the jurisdiction of section 01 was aimed at the collection of
24 intelligence on the enemy?
25 A. Intelligence and counter-intelligence, correct.
1 Q. And there was also a section, 02 which was enemy emigration, and
2 that was headed by Slobodan Sakan, who was a Serb; is that correct? And
3 we're talking about after April 1992.
4 A. Yes, correct. Slobodan Sakan not Sakan, but that's correct.
5 Q. Thank you. There's also a section 03 and that was internal
6 enemies, which included activities of the various ethnic groups, their
7 nationalist or extremist activities. And that was headed by
8 Dusko Milinkovic, who was also a Serb; is that correct?
9 A. Not sure if Dusko Milinkovic was still there, or was it Emir
10 Zahirovic because Emir Zahirovic was head of that section 03 for many
11 years. He was a Muslim and he's still a Muslim. He lives in Banja Luka
12 still. And Dusko Milinkovic succeeded him, that's true, but I don't know
13 when, and I seem to remember that after that Mr. Emir Zahirovic was
14 assistant head of sector of the state security sector in Banja Luka or
15 chief of operations or something like that.
16 Q. You said that Mr. Milanovic replaced Mr. Zahirovic. Do you
17 recall, was that in 1992?
18 A. Mr. Dusko Milinkovic, not Milinkovic and not Milanovic, it's
19 Milinkovic. So Dusko Milinkovic did come to that post after
20 Mr. Zahirovic, but I really can't be sure anymore. Look, it was such a
21 long time ago. If I'd only continued to work in that section, perhaps I
22 could be more precise, but, no.
23 Q. And section 04, that was the technical department that you first
24 worked for and after April 1992 that was headed by Mladenko Milanovic who
25 was a Serb; correct?
1 A. The head of section where I worked was Milan Baric, a Croat, from
2 Banja Luka.
3 Q. I'm referring to the -- after April 1992. So I know that by that
4 time you had moved to 01 section. So after April 1992, was Milanovic in
5 that position?
6 A. Mr. Mladenko Milanovic was acting chief after Milan Baric left
7 for a while, but he was an operative technical employee, and he was more
8 of a technical staff member. But I really can't say whether it was
9 before April or after April. All I know is that once I left, Milan Baric
10 was head of section 04.
11 Q. Was there also in 1992 an analysis department at state security
12 Banja Luka?
13 A. Yes, in 1992, there was -- not a section. There was one
14 analytical job. One person was an analyst. Independently of these
15 sections, there was analysis.
16 Q. And who did they report to? Who did that person report to?
17 A. As far as I remember, that person was directly responsible to the
18 head of sector. The state security on national security sector, we use
19 both terms because they alternated at various times. He was directly
20 responsible to the head of the state security sector.
21 Q. Now, can you tell us which of these sections was responsible for
22 gathering intelligence on crimes committed against non-Serb population,
23 against the non-Serb population?
24 A. Not sure. I'm really not sure. I don't know if that line of
25 work within the section or department or whatever had already been
1 established. I am not sure, so I really wouldn't like to speculate.
2 Q. You testified that Mr. Radulovic and the rest of his team would
3 report internally any crimes they learned about in which non-Serbs were
4 victims. You didn't withhold that information. You had a duty and would
5 carry out that duty to provide that information to your superiors.
6 A. Well, generally speaking, if we gathered information not about
7 crimes but about any security-related matters, as we did with all the
8 other information, we would translate that into Official Notes or report
9 along 01 line of work. However, if Radulovic decided or concluded that
10 it was necessary, this information would be sent to Belgrade, as we
11 discussed before.
12 I would like to note here that I cannot claim with any degree of
13 certainty that Radulovic invariably sent every -- information through the
14 line of work, that he sent it to Belgrade. But I think that there was
15 some overlapping.
16 Q. In particular, Mr. Radulovic was troubled in 1992 about the
17 crimes being committed by the Banja Luka Special Police Detachment
18 against non-Serbs.
19 Wasn't he concerned about that?
20 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this topic was not
21 broached during the examination-in-chief, and I don't know to which
22 particular part of the examination-in-chief it refers to.
23 MR. OLMSTED: Need I respond to that, Your Honours?
24 JUDGE HALL: Whereas, the -- as I understand the Rules of the
25 Tribunal, the ordinary rules about cross-examination being at large is
1 modified, in that it should closely reflect the examination-in-chief,
2 I -- I -- I don't understand that rule to require every specific question
3 in cross-examination to -- to have a -- a reference point in the
5 Please proceed, Mr. Olmsted.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. I'll ask my question again.
8 Do you recall in this 1992 time-period that Mr. Radulovic was
9 particularly troubled by crimes being committed by the Banja Luka Special
10 Police Detachment against non-Serbs?
11 A. No, I don't remember that, and I really couldn't comment on that.
12 I know that Mr. Radulovic, as well as the other members of the group, as
13 well as the executive staff in general of the Banja Luka CSB, had certain
14 problems and concerns in the aftermath of the operation in Teslic which
15 involved the bringing in and criminal processing of Serb criminals who
16 committed crimes against non-Serbs in Teslic. That much I know.
17 Now, as for the crimes committed, as you've said, by the special
18 unit from Banja Luka, believe me, I don't know anything about it. Nobody
19 had any problems in that area, given that I am not aware of those crimes,
20 I am equally not aware of any consequences that resulted from them. And
21 I also believe that I said something similar to your colleagues in the
22 interviews that we referred to.
23 Q. Well, in fact, that's what I'm looking at right now. And isn't
24 it, in fact, the case that in 2004 you told Inspector Sabir that when you
25 went around collecting intelligence information that you often heard
1 about the crimes being committed by this special police detachment?
2 A. No, that's not correct.
3 As I told you, the words that I uttered were typed on a laptop by
4 your colleague. I was never given an opportunity to read what he wrote,
5 to learn what the contents were, and to verify. I remember him asking me
6 about the crimes, whether I had heard of them. I said that I didn't. He
7 kept insisting on asking me whether I knew anything about the police
8 activity, and I told him that at that time one could hear all sorts of
9 things about the activity of the police from people being involved as
10 criminals to those who were acting as true heros.
11 And when asked where I told that, I told him I heard those
12 stories in the street, in bars, in discussions with my father, or on TV.
13 Believe me, I said that at the time - and I can repeat it here - that, in
14 my view, the majority of members of the special unit were honourable
15 people who joined it with respectable intentions. I did say that some
16 local criminals infiltrated these kind of units. I allowed for that
17 possibility, but my general opinion is the one that I have just expressed
18 to you.
19 Q. Yesterday you described for us the formal reporting line for
20 Mr. Radulovic and his team, up the RS MUP chain of command.
21 But isn't it the case that in 1992, in practice, Mr. Radulovic
22 could and did convey intelligence information directly to Mr. Kesic and
23 Mr. Zupljanin?
24 A. As far as I can remember, we discussed this formal exchange of
25 information yesterday and the hierarchy that existed at the time. I
1 personally don't know if Mr. Kesic had any direct contacts or whether he
2 directly passed on information. We discussed about the information
3 provided by Mr. Kesic to Mr. Zupljanin and Mr. Bulic, and I allow for a
4 possibility that that took place in the course of some informal context,
5 but I am not aware of Mr. Radulovic - how shall I put it? - having some
6 lateral contacts with the chiefs of the state security or the CSB chief.
7 Q. So you deny that you made that statement, that Radulovic conveyed
8 intelligence information directly to Mr. Kesic and Mr. Zupljanin. You
9 deny you made that statement during your 2010 interview?
10 A. Who conducted the interview? Which interview are you
11 specifically having in mind?
12 Q. I'm sorry, the interview with the OTP, with the investigator from
13 the OTP. In August 2010.
14 A. Of course, I deny it because I didn't say that for sure. I
15 couldn't have said it. Yesterday, Mr. Prosecutor, I explained that in
16 the telephone conversation with Ms. Jasmina she read out to me the
17 Prosecutor's report which contained lots of untruths, the majority of
18 what is contained there was not consistent with what I said. It might
19 have been an issue with the translation or whatever.
20 Now what you are trying to impute to me is really inappropriate.
21 This also refers to the report made in 1994. It wasn't recorded. I
22 remember Mr. Koehler just taking some brief notes. I read this report
23 and signed it [as interpreted], and we can talk about it in a relevant
24 fashion, but as for the other things, I don't think it's really
25 appropriate to discuss something that I am quite sure didn't happen in
1 that way. After all, your colleague told me that he didn't want to take
2 a statement off me, that I was not supposed to give a statement, that it
3 wasn't being recorded on the tape, that that was an informal
4 conversation, and that he wanted me just to clarify certain points that
5 you, as the Prosecution, had with regard to the testimony of my colleague
6 Predrag Radulovic. I agreed to that conversation, which I now regret
7 because, obviously, it was misinterpreted and was lied to or deceived by
8 your colleague on many occasions. I don't want to mention his name. And
9 I am really reluctant to go on commenting on this issue.
10 Q. And, sir, as a Prosecutor, I need to ask --
11 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Aleksic is on his feet.
12 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to my colleague
14 On page 77, line 18 in the transcript, in the second sentence
15 there is something that the witness didn't say and it reads: "I read and
16 signed the report," and the witness didn't say that.
17 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, I'll just clarify that. I think there is no
18 dispute about that.
19 Q. You did not sign a report or a statement in your 2010 interview
20 with the OTP inspector -- investigator?
21 A. Mr. Prosecutor, and Your Honours, several times so far, I said
22 that in 2010, I didn't give any statements. Therefore, it was not
23 possible for me to sign anything, nor was anything that the investigator
24 wrote on paper was shown to me. They told me that it wasn't being
25 recorded at all, that this was not a proper statement but just an attempt
1 to clarify certain things with my assistance of what my colleague said in
2 his testimony.
3 You can ask me the same question as many times as you wish, and
4 my answer will always be the same.
5 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Sajinovic, the last question that counsel asked
6 was to correct what was patent error in the transcript. He wasn't
7 badgering you.
8 Please continue, Mr. Olmsted.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. And the proceeding questions are also not intended to badger you
11 either, if that can be translated somehow into B/C/S. I'm simply asking
12 you questions to confirm whether you did say something or not, because
13 this is how I find out because, as you know, I haven't spoken to you
14 about these issues.
15 Can you tell us whether you told the OTP investigator in 2010
16 that there was an unofficial direct line from Radulovic, to Kesic, or
18 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I can only repeat my answer. I don't remember
19 saying something of that nature to the investigators. And I'm sure that
20 that was the case.
21 It was quite recently. Had it been a conversation that took
22 place eight or ten years ago, it is possible for me to err. But this was
23 recent, and I clearly remember that conversation. So I can confirm that
24 I really didn't say that. If I had been asked that, I would have
25 answered that I didn't know anything about that and that I was not part
1 of those informal contacts. And I'm telling you today again, that I
2 don't know whether Radulovic had this sort of contacts and with whom at
3 the level of the centre where we worked.
4 Q. Let's take a look at 65 ter 20287, tab 9.
5 This is a 30 April 1992 Milos report, number 103/92.
6 Can you confirm that this is one of your team's reports?
7 A. Yes, it is. This is the format of our report, and I can confirm
8 that this is one of the reports produced by our team.
9 Q. This report is transmitting the text of a statement to the
10 Bosanska Krajina public that was written by -- it says written by our
11 group. I presume that's the Milos group. And it says:
12 "At the request of the CSB Banja Luka chief."
13 Do you recall Mr. Radulovic, or perhaps yourself, drafting the
14 text of that statement for Mr. Zupljanin?
15 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I really don't remember that this kind of
16 announcement or text was written. No, I can't recall. No. Definitely
18 Now, judging by the date, and there's reference to the order of
19 the Ministry of the Interior, It means that this happened after the
20 declaration of war by the minister of the interior, National Defence of
21 the Republic of Serbia. I remember that towards the end of April, some
22 dispatches were received which we construed to be the declaration of war,
23 and this date indicates, to me, that this might have to do with that.
24 But I really don't know what kind of announcement or text would have been
25 written. If it was written at all, I, for sure, was not one of its
2 Q. Very well. Let's move to 65 ter 20296, tab 35.
3 This is a 30 September 1992 SNB Banja Luka Official Note,
4 numbered, I believe, if I read it correctly 428/92. And it was submitted
5 by operatives 28, 33, and 38.
6 And I believe the handwritten number on it, that is the
7 handwriting of the third member of the -- Mr. Radulovic's team.
8 A. Yes, you are right.
9 Q. And you may recall way back at the beginning of today, of -- we
10 talked about the various formats that Official Notes appeared in that
11 were sent up the internal chain of command in RS MUP. And we talked
12 about one format was where your names would be omitted but numbers would
13 be used instead. Having looked at these numbers, 28, 33, 38, does that
14 refresh your recollection that those were the numbers for the three
15 members of the Milos team back in 1992?
16 A. Well, Mr. Prosecutor, when we discussed this topic, I said, and I
17 can repeat once again, I really don't remember which numbers we used.
18 However, I can assume that these are, indeed, the numbers that we used.
19 As you said, this is the handwriting of the third member of our team.
20 And I have no reason to disbelieve that these are genuine numbers.
21 Q. If we could look at the second page.
22 We can see at the bottom who the -- to whom this report was sent
23 to. The first, it was sent to the CSB chief; second, it was sent to the
24 chief of state security; and, thirdly, it was sent to -- or a copy for
25 the operatives.
1 Who made the decision on your team as to who should receive their
2 reports? Because here we can see this one is being sent to the CSB
4 A. It's correct. One can see, as you said, who the addressees were,
5 and it was decided by Mr. Radulovic, as we already mentioned, because he
6 was the team leader.
7 Q. And in this case, Mr. Bera is not on this distribution list.
8 A. Mr. Prosecutor, as much as I would try to give you the shortest
9 possible answers, I really need to explain this for the benefit of the
10 Trial Chamber and yourself.
11 When we discuss this distribution system, it says here that one
12 copy was sent to the chief of the CSB, one copy to the chief of the SNB,
13 and one copy to the operatives. However, each and every single report of
14 this nature was given to the head of the department. In this particular
15 instance, as you said, to Mr. Bera.
16 The word "sent to" means that the authors of the document propose
17 for it to be distributed to the persons listed below. And that was based
18 on both our suggestions and Mr. Radulovic's suggestion as well for it to
19 be sent to the chief of the CSB and one to the chief of the SNB. The
20 first filter, so to speak, would be the chief of the department, in this
21 case, Mr. Bera. Then it would go on to Mr. Kesic, the chief of the SNB,
22 who would decide whether this kind of report should be forwarded to the
23 chief of the CSB and so on and so forth. Alongside Mr. Kesic, there was
24 this person in charge of analysis who would process such reports and
25 provide this aggregate information either to the CSB chief or to someone
1 else designated by the chief of the CSB.
2 You are right. This is what it says here. But I, as an
3 operative, cannot confirm to you at this point whether these reports
4 actually were received by the addressees listed there. Our position was
5 that it should have been done, but our hands were tied. We couldn't have
6 it done it without the chief's approval.
7 JUDGE HALL: Well that brings us to a convenient point, and we
8 take the break and return in an hour.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.55 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 3.03 p.m.
12 JUDGE HALL: While the witness is on his way in, continuing our
13 discussions this morning about where we go after today, when we rise this
14 afternoon, at the end of today's sitting, we would take the adjournment
15 to 2.30 tomorrow afternoon. And we will sit from 2.30 to 4.00, and then
16 4.30 to 6.00. And then at 6.00 we would take the adjournment to 1.45 on
17 Thursday. Sorry, thanks. 2.15, the usual starting time on Thursday.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 May we have 65 ter 20296 back on the screen. And if we can turn
22 to page 2.
23 Q. Before the break, we were looking at this document as an example
24 of an instance where Mr. Radulovic put on his distribution list both the
25 CSB chief, as well as the state security chief.
1 And I want to just confirm your testimony in that regard. If I
2 understood you correctly, the reason Mr. Radulovic did not include
3 Vojin Bera on this distribution list was because the report was going to
4 Mr. Bera regardless. It was going to go to him no matter what.
5 A. Precisely so. The report of the operatives within the RDB
7 Q. And can you explain to us, it says at the bottom, it says:
8 "One copy to operatives."
9 Who's that? Who is that referring to?
10 A. They are referring to operatives mentioned in the heading of this
11 document as the authors of the document.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. OLMSTED: Let's have 65 ter 765 on the screen. This is
14 tab 39.
15 Q. This is a 17 November -- I'm sorry, 17 October 1992 official
16 record with the handwritten log number, I believe it says 458/92. And we
17 can see at the top, along with Mr. Radulovic's name, is your name. Can
18 you confirm this is a report by your group?
19 A. Naturally.
20 Q. We can see in the -- we can see in the last paragraph that you're
21 reporting that a fairly large Croatian military unit has surrendered and
22 that you had information that Muslim armed forces in Kotor Varos, in
23 particular Vecici, want to surrender on the condition that they be
24 allowed to proceed without hindrance towards Travnik.
25 Do you recall participating in the preparation of this report?
1 A. Yes, I remember this.
2 Q. If we look at the bottom, it has another distribution list. And
3 the first one on it is 01. Who would that be?
4 A. That means the 01 line of work.
5 Q. Well, not the entire line. That would mean that this is to go to
6 Mr. Vojin Bera; is that correct?
7 A. Yes. To the chief of the 01 line.
8 Q. And we see below it, one copy was to be sent to the analysis
9 department. We talked about that earlier. That was the analyst who
10 reported to Mr. Kesic; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, that's right.
12 Q. And on this particular one, we don't see that Mr. Kesic is
13 included in the distribution list. Or Mr. Zupljanin.
14 A. That's correct. However, as I have said earlier, and this
15 applies in this case as well, at the end of each document, at the end of
16 each official record, it was customary to put the distribution list and
17 to put the -- among the proposed addressees, the author of the document.
18 Was it really necessary for this to be delivered to us who wrote the
19 document? It was natural for it to be sent to the chief of the
20 department, and then it was his decision whether he would send it to the
21 analysis department or not. And then one copy would be either sent to us
22 or not, if there was any need for us to be further engaged in that task.
23 We knew that automatically this official record would be sent back to us,
24 but it could have been also sent to somebody else, if our chief of the
25 department thought it was necessary to send it to somebody else as well.
1 I think I explained something similar a bit ago.
2 Q. Yes, I think I understand you. You're stating just because it
3 doesn't have CSB chief or state security chief written on here, doesn't
4 mean that they did not get. It is possible that they still got it,
5 depending on whether 01, Mr. Bera, decided to forward it further on; is
6 that correct?
7 A. Absolutely correct. Just like in the previous case. Even though
8 they were listed, that did not necessarily mean that they received it.
9 In this particular case, as you have correctly stated, if Mr. Bera
10 thought that it needed to happen, then that's how it was. You're quite
12 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I'd like to tender this one into
14 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] No objections, Your Honour. If my
15 learned friend refers to --
16 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ...
17 MR. OLMSTED: I was referring to 65 ter 765.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 MR. OLMSTED: I see the record doesn't reflect Judge Hall's
20 response. And I think that's why there is a silence.
21 JUDGE HALL: Yes. I said admitted and marked. Sorry.
22 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P2398, Your Honours. Thank you.
23 MR. OLMSTED: And I'd -- I think it's appropriate to admit as
24 well the last document I showed the witness which was 65 ter 20296.
25 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] May I, Your Honours?
1 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]
2 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are objecting to
3 this document being admitted, the main reason being that it's not on the
4 65 ter list. It's 29 -- 20296. The number is quite high.
5 And the second matter is that Mr. Olmsted is not interested in
6 the content of this document. This pertains to Western Slavonia, events
7 in Western Slavonia in late September of 1992. Therefore, the main
8 grounds for objection is that it's not on their list and the Prosecution
9 need to explain why, in this stage of proceedings, they want this
10 document. They had Radulovic here and why haven't they done this until
11 now? That's the main objection we have and the second objection
12 concerning the contents of this document is an additional one.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Aleksic, has the Prosecution asked for
14 admission of document 65 ter number 20296 in -- into evidence?
15 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] That's how I understood it. We had
16 nothing against the document which was listed as 765 on the 65 ter list.
17 That was the previous document. Yes, the previous document.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
20 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
21 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, obviously I was confused about which
22 document we were looking at, but what is the -- what is your response to
23 the objection?
24 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour. If the witness may take off his
25 headphones, I'll explain.
1 The reason I'm tendering this document, as Mr. Aleksic points
2 out, is not for its content. I'm not concerned about its content. I'm
3 concerned about the distribution list. This witness's testimony is that
4 this was just a wish list of persons that he hoped would -- they would
5 hope would get the documents. And the reason they did not include
6 Mr. Bera on that is because he would get it anyway.
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes, but do we need the document for that? We have
8 the witness's testimony.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Well, I suppose you have a point there,
10 Your Honour, but because the testimony is derived from an actual
11 document, to have the two documents side by side might assist the Trial
12 Chamber. But if Your Honours feel that that has come out sufficiently
13 through the oral testimony, I will defer on that issue, of course.
14 JUDGE HALL: Indeed. This trial is replete with documents and if
15 that were the only criteria -- yes.
16 So the order for admission is vacated.
17 MR. OLMSTED: Let's take a look at 65 ter 10199. That's tab 41.
18 Q. This is a 3 November 1992 Official Note with the handwritten
19 number 474/92. Can you -- oh, I'm sorry.
20 Yes, could you please put your headphones back on.
21 I apologise for leaving you stranded there.
22 What we have in front you right now is a 3 November 1992 report
23 by Mr. Radulovic and the other members of his team. Can you confirm this
24 is one of your reports that went up the RS MUP chain of command?
25 A. Yes, I can confirm.
1 Q. This note raises a concern about civilians, mainly old people,
2 women, and children, from Vecici. Do you see that? It's in the second
4 A. Yes, I've read the second paragraph.
5 Q. Can you tell us with regard to those civilians, mainly old
6 people, women, and children, what were their ethnicity?
7 A. As for this report, or, rather, this Official Note, I really
8 couldn't comment on it because I was not familiar with this. I think
9 that I saw this Official Note during proofing, but that was the first
10 time I've ever seen it, and I wasn't aware of this event and what is
11 stated here. As far as I can remember, the source listed here in the
12 first paragraph of this Official Note was a person who had direct contact
13 with Radulovic. Therefore, I couldn't really tell you anything more.
14 Q. And if we can scroll down on the English a little bit.
15 We see in this distribution list it first goes to the chief of
16 the CSB, and, secondly, it goes to 01, Vojin Bera, and then it goes to
17 the analytical department; is that correct?
18 A. That's correct. There was this operative, yes.
19 Q. Yes. And at the bottom it goes to the operative group which
20 would be Mr. Radulovic. He kept a copy for himself.
21 A. If he received it, then, yes, he kept it. We commented the
22 previous two documents, and my answer would be the same. I can repeat
23 it. This is the proposal of the author to have this delivered to the
24 people listed in the distribution list.
25 Now as to who actually received it, I really couldn't say
1 anything about that. I cannot confirm that all of the people listed
2 there, indeed, received it.
3 Q. At the beginning of today, back in the transcript page 17,
4 line 9, you told us with regard to state security documents, documents
5 that go up the RS MUP chain of command, you typed only a few of them.
6 Do you recall saying that?
7 A. Yes, I think that I remember.
8 Q. If you didn't type them, who was typing these Official Notes that
9 would go up the state security chain of command; if you know?
10 A. I've said that during today's hearing, namely, that, as far as
11 the Milos group report, everything was done within our three-member
13 As for these reports, for these Official Notes -- and they were
14 typed up in the same place where all other Official Notes were typed up.
15 That is to say, in the state security in Banja Luka, where the notes of
16 all authorised officials were typed up.
17 Q. And who would type up -- so there was a typists pool,
18 administrative pool, that would type up all the reports that were
19 submitted to them by the various SDB inspectors; is that correct?
20 A. I didn't quite understand your question. It was -- I don't
21 understand what a typists pool is.
22 Q. Yes, I'm sorry. That's an English word that's probably hard to
24 But essentially SDB inspectors would draft their reports, and
25 they would submit it to an administrative unit within the state security
1 who would actually type up the reports for the inspectors. Is that what
2 you're telling us?
3 A. Well, yes, in principle. Reports were written up. We did not
4 have any computers. We didn't have even have many typewriters. We did
5 have the typists bureau. They were occasionally typed up but mostly they
6 were handwritten, and on occasion people dictated to somebody their notes
7 and reports.
8 Q. And then, if I understand the process, the person who typed up
9 the report would then deliver it. Or would it go back to the inspector
10 for proofreading or something like that?
11 A. Yes, of course.
12 Q. I'm sorry, that was a bad question. After it was typed up, would
13 it return to the SDB inspector for him to make sure it was typed
14 properly; or would the person who typed it up simply distribute it?
15 A. Yes. It was supposed to come back to the author of the report so
16 that he would read it and check for any mistakes. And then I guess that
17 person would then forward it to the head of the department. Section
19 Q. So in these cases that would be Mr. Radulovic, since he was
20 primarily the author of these notes.
21 A. Yes. In most cases, he was the author. And he was the one who
22 would read and then forward it to the head of section, as I have just
24 Q. Let's have a look at P1353-12. This is tab 32. And I'd like to
25 turn to page 2.
1 This is a 24 September 1992 Official Note. And we see at the
2 bottom it has Mr. Radulovic's name and then your name and the other
3 member of your team.
4 Can you identify for us the handwriting at the bottom left side
5 of the page? And in English, it is written "we cannot do this." And
6 there's a signature and a date.
7 A. Yes, I can tell you this is the handwriting of
8 Mr. Milan Krnjajic.
9 Q. And if we could scroll to the top of the page, we see it's
10 written on the right side upper corner:
11 "Kesic, deliver a copy of Official Note to security organs."
12 And then there are some initials. Do you recognise the initial
13 underneath that note?
14 A. Kesic, the copy of the Official Note to be sent to the security
15 organ. As far as I remember, as far as I remember the handwriting, I
16 think that this is the handwriting of Mr. Zupljanin.
17 Q. All right. Let's move to 65 ter 20020, tab 34.
18 This is a 28 September 1992 Official Note. Can you confirm
19 whether this is one of your team's reports?
20 A. Not yet. Not until I see the entire document.
21 Q. Did you have a chance to look at it?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Is it not on your screen?
24 A. What I see on the screen is the first page of a document, but I
25 don't see the last part of the document.
1 Q. There's only one page, sir.
2 A. Do you wish to say that this the entire document, what I see on
3 my screen?
4 Q. This is the entire document as we have in our possession, yes.
5 If there's a second page, we don't have it.
6 A. I'm really sorry, but based on this, I cannot say with any
7 certainty that this is a document drawn up by us, by me and my
8 colleagues, because in the heading it only says that this is the sector
9 where I worked. And the date seems right, but there's no signature,
10 there's no name, there's no code. So it looks incomplete to me. It's
11 very hard to identify it, no matter how hard I try.
12 Q. You see in the first line it says:
13 "Through our collaborator, 'Div' ..."
14 Do you recall that Div was one of Mr. Radulovic's sources back in
16 A. I think so. I think that there was a person with this pseudonym.
17 Q. And it was a standard practice back in this time-period for SDB
18 inspectors not to share their sources. In other words, they would not
19 give one of their sources to another inspector to use, but they would
20 keep them secure for themselves; is that correct?
21 A. That's correct. That's how it was done during that time, before,
22 and after that time, as far as I know.
23 Q. Now this note reports that Predrag Kujundzic, a worker of CSB
24 Doboj and members of his group are involved in looting. In particular,
25 it mentions -- this was down during a cleansing operation in - and I'm
1 going to mispronounce it, I know - Civcije.
2 Can you tell us, was Civcije a Muslim village?
3 A. I can't really say because, as it happens, a relative of mine
4 comes from that village, and she's an ethnic Serb. Now whether there
5 were Muslims living there, I don't know. It's possible, but I don't
6 believe that was it a Muslim village because, as I have told you, as I've
7 explained a relative of mine is from that village. She currently lives
8 in Banja Luka and is a Serb.
9 Q. You will agree that Mr. Radulovic was concerned about crimes
10 committed by Kujundzic against non-Serbs in Doboj during this
11 time-period. You recall that that was an issue for him?
12 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I would readily agree with you, but, as I have
13 already said, I cannot claim with any certainty that this is a note
14 produced by Mr. Radulovic. I don't see any names or any other
15 distinctive marks based on which I could conclude that. I keep reading
16 and re-reading it, trying to identify the author, but I cannot confirm
17 that he was the author of this document, nor can I confirm that this
18 gentleman whom you have mentioned, that he was a member of police. The
19 gentleman mentioned in this note.
20 Yesterday we spoke in private session about some groups from
21 Doboj, and even yesterday, I never mentioned that I knew that he had been
22 a member of police.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Aleksic, your body language, while
24 Mr. Olmsted is asking questions and even when the witness is giving
25 answers, is extraordinary and remarkable, and remarkable means that it
1 can also be seen by the witness, and I don't think that's appropriate.
2 Thank you.
3 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. I will
4 agree with you. However, I was concerned because these names were
5 discussed in private session. I didn't want to interrupt my learned
6 friend, but what I wanted to bring to your attention is that all of these
7 matters were mentioned in private session. I apologise again.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Well, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't react on the first
9 time I see it, Mr. Aleksic. It's in your personality, but just make sure
10 that it is within certain limits.
11 Thank you.
12 MR. OLMSTED:
13 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, we've already established, however, that this
14 source, Div, was one of Mr. Radulovic's sources.
15 A. I have already said so. Yes. I said that I knew that the source
16 under this pseudonym was, indeed, used by Mr. Radulovic. I cannot claim
17 with certainty that there did not exist another source with the same
18 pseudonym or that some other of my colleagues also used the same source.
19 I said a bit earlier, and as Mr. Aleksic emphasised now, if you
20 intend to keep asking me questions about these persons and these names,
21 then we should go into private session because I do not want to mention
22 the names that yesterday were already discussed in private session. I
23 wouldn't want to do that.
24 Q. You see in the upper right-hand corner there's some handwriting
25 up there. The English translation says:
1 "To inform."
2 Then it says:
3 "CSB Doboj."
4 And then underneath that it says:
5 "MUP RS."
6 And underneath that there's initials.
7 Do you see that?
8 A. Yes I do. I see what it says there. I see 01. I see that it
9 says: "Inform the Doboj CSB." And then I see that it says MUP RS. And
10 then underneath is number 8, if I see it right.
11 Q. So you don't see that as a signature. Do you recognise the
13 A. The handwriting is familiar. It is familiar. But I'm not sure,
14 01 ...
15 Q. Was --
16 A. I'm not sure whether this is the handwriting of Mr. Zupljanin
17 or -- or Kesic. Or Bera. I'm not sure. Definitely a familiar
18 handwriting, but I cannot confirm with certainty whose it is. Because
19 the signature, if this is a signature, is not clear to me. You said it
20 was a signature.
21 Q. Let's go into private session.
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
23 [Private session]
11 Pages 25298-25300 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I'd like to tender this document into
8 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
9 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if this is 65 ter
10 20020, I believe that no nexus has been established between this witness
11 and this document that would warranting the admission of the document
12 into evidence. He hasn't recognised this document as being the one
13 prepared by his group, so he cannot confirm whether this was perhaps
14 authored by Mr. Radulovic. He explained, as far as the source was
15 concerned, that there could have been a few people with the same
16 pseudonym or that other operatives used the same source.
17 Therefore, I think there's insufficient nexus between the
18 document and this witness.
19 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, what is your purpose in seeking to have
20 this admitted.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Well, my purpose is it relates to the testimony of
22 MS-001 at T.21142, and with regard to Mr. Aleksic's arguments, those
23 would go to the weight of the document. You've heard some evidence that
24 provides some authenticity to this document. It's clear that the witness
25 could not say categorically it was or was not a report by Mr. Radulovic.
1 But we have evidence about the source of this information as well as the
2 possibility of the handwriting as well as the fact that it comes from the
3 state security sector in Banja Luka.
4 JUDGE HALL: You said going to weight. You're seeking to have
5 this admitted for the truth of the contents?
6 MR. OLMSTED: Well, I -- may -- yes, I'm sorry.
7 It's just going to a couple of things. Yes, we would like it to
8 come in for the truth of the contents. It also, because of the
9 distribution list in the upper hand-hand corner, indicates who it was to
10 go to which shows that these reports, regardless of who actually drafted
11 it, made it other regions and possibly up to the RS MUP itself. So
12 we're seeking to admit it for all those reasons. And also with regard to
13 the substance of it, we've heard about this individual mentioned in this
14 Official Note through several witnesses, and this corroborates some
15 witnesses and it challenges the evidence of others.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P2399, Your Honours.
19 MR. OLMSTED: May we have 65 ter 20030, tab 48, on the screen,
21 JUDGE HALL: While that is coming up, Mr. Olmsted, does the OTP
22 still require time to deal with a preliminary -- a procedural matter this
24 [Prosecution counsel confer]
25 MR. OLMSTED: The word I receive is, yes, we still need the, I
1 think, what, 10, 15 minutes at the end.
2 JUDGE HALL: So you will govern yourself accordingly.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour.
4 Q. Sir, what we have in front of us is a 9 April 1993 Official Note
5 from the CSB Banja Luka state security sector -- oh.
6 I don't know if I'll ever get the hang of that.
7 Sir, what you have in front of you is a 9 April 1993 Official
8 Note from the CSB state security sector Banja Luka. Can you take a look
9 at this one and tell us if you can confirm that this would have been
10 written by Mr. Radulovic and/or his team? And once you finish reading
11 the first page, you can have a look at the second.
12 A. Next page, please.
13 I have read it.
14 Q. Just for completeness, why don't we turn to the next page.
15 There's another page in the B/C/S.
16 MR. OLMSTED: And is there a fourth page?
17 Let's return to the first page.
18 Q. Looking, sir, at the two sources named here, Partner and Cuperak,
19 as well as the contents of this report, can you confirm that this report
20 would have come from Mr. Radulovic?
21 A. Concerning the sources that were named in paragraph 1, both of
22 them, Mr. Prosecutor, I can tell you that I am seeing these pseudonyms
23 for the first time. I really cannot establish any connection between
24 them and Mr. Radulovic or our group, for that matter. I don't remember
25 him using the sources with these pseudonyms.
1 I went through this note quickly, and I don't know what to tell
2 you. It seems that there is some kind of information contained in this
3 note that I find ridiculous, if I may take the liberty of saying so. It
4 seems that we have a person who has barely finished elementary school,
5 though he has a thousand and seven hundred [as interpreted] people at his
6 disposal, that he has dealings with the president of the Republic of
7 Serbia, and I really don't know where all this information has come from.
8 Ones again I would like to apologise if I'm being too harsh in my
9 comments, but I really find this surprising.
10 Q. Let's just turn to page 3.
11 Do you recognise that handwriting that you have before you? It
13 "Bera, modify it for the under-secretary."
14 And then I --
15 A. Yes, I recognise the handwriting. Both at the top and then
16 towards the bottom.
17 Q. Can you tell us who the handwriting's is?
18 A. First one, the upper line, is the handwriting of
19 Mr. Nedeljko Kesic, and I see that he is suggesting to Mr. Bera that
20 something be modified for the under-secretary.
21 And then Mr. Bera, below, because this is his handwriting, I
22 believe, says:
23 "Info to the under-secretary."
24 Which I understand to mean information to be given to the
1 Q. And I don't want you to speculate, but is it logical to presume
2 that the under-secretary is the under-secretary for state security at the
4 A. I didn't understand. What am I guessing at?
5 Q. No --
6 A. Speculating?
7 Q. I don't want you to speculate. But it mentions an
8 under-secretary here, and I was wondering if that would presumably
9 mean -- the under-secretary for state security at the RS MUP level.
10 A. Precisely. You got it right. If Mr. Kesic is writing
11 "under-secretary," that means it must be under-secretary for national
13 Q. And let's turn to the next page in the B/C/S.
14 And it states:
15 "For Zupljanin opinion."
16 And then number 1:
17 "I'm not sure whether there should be any mention of A.
19 And 2:
20 "Inform the under-secretary about the rest!"
21 Then we see some initials at the very end of it.
22 Can you confirm that this is Mr. Zupljanin's handwriting?
23 A. The upper handwriting?
24 Q. The lower handwriting. The dark handwriting, with the -- the
25 initials right to the bottom right of it.
1 A. Yes, I think that's the handwriting of Mr. Zupljanin.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I'd like to tender this into
5 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object to the
6 admission of this document.
7 First of all, the witness has not identified it either as the
8 Official Note made by Mr. Radulovic or by himself, nor can he identify
9 the sources. He has never heard of them. The date on the document is
10 9 April 1993. It has nothing to do with the incidents in the indictment.
11 The witness also said he found it unrealistic and illogical, these
12 references to Slobodan Milosevic and 1800 members, and I believe for all
13 these reasons it is not fit for admission.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Just one small suggestion. It was
15 not cleared with the witness whether this handwriting can be associated
16 with the typewritten text. I think it should have been asked.
17 MR. OLMSTED: Again, I don't think it's appropriate for the
18 Stanisic Defence to be raising objections to a document seeking to
19 tendered through a witness that's not their's.
20 But on top of that, the witness has said that he has not
21 personally not seen this document before, so obviously he is not going to
22 be able to -- we don't have the paper one in front of us, but this is the
23 complete document that I have.
24 Your Honours, can I address the concerns raised outside the
25 witness's presence? Because I think after that we're done with this
1 evidence today because my colleague Ms. Korner is here.
2 JUDGE HALL: Yes. So you're asking that the witness be excused
3 at this point.
4 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Sajinovic, again, as was the case yesterday, we
6 are going to ask the usher to escort you out a little ahead of us because
7 there are a certain procedural matters with which we are to deal.
8 We will be resuming your testimony at 2.30 tomorrow afternoon in
9 this courtroom. There are other matters that the -- in which the Chamber
10 is engaged before that time tomorrow.
11 So the usher would now escort you out, and we will continue
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm sorry. I've
14 heard the discussion between the Prosecutor and the gentleman from the
15 Defence. Concerning this document I saw, the first, the second, and the
16 third, those remarks here and the signatures I couldn't recognise because
17 it was never the practice to use a blank sheet of paper, and all I can
18 see here is a blank sheet of paper, to put suggestions for Mr. Zupljanin,
19 to Mr. Bera, et cetera. As we had occasion to see on previous documents,
20 the suggestion by the chief was written on the original note. As we saw
21 recently, Mr. Kljuic wrote it was not for us, Mr. Zupljanin, Mr. Kesic,
22 et cetera. I just wanted to give you this verification about this. And
23 thank you for allowing me to say it.
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, sir.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, apart from the evidence that we
2 previously heard plus the -- what the witness has just volunteered,
3 casting doubt on the authenticity of this, the substantive objections is
4 that this is a document which deals with matters outside the relevant
5 period. So apart from those, and could you tell us why you are seeking
6 to have this admitted into evidence.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Well, first of all, let me address what the witness
8 said, and this has obviously been my concern throughout his evidence and
9 why I've asked him, I think now a half-dozen times, to remove his
10 earphones is, whenever he hears an objection from the other side, he
11 voices in his opinion or view or evidence as to that issue, and I think
12 that this -- the weight that that's entitled to, of course, Your Honours
13 must decide, but I think that that has to be duly noted.
14 With regard to why we were tendering this document, this witness
15 was able to verify the handwriting. So we see that Vojin Bera is
16 involved in this document, Nedeljko Kesic, and the accused,
17 Stojan Zupljanin. They're all -- now, whether these handwritten notes
18 are part of the same document or not, that's a different issue.
19 Obviously this witness is not the one to deal with that. It also can go
20 to weight. We can also produce the original if anyone has any questions.
21 But unless there's any basis to contend that this document isn't what it
22 is, which is a complete document including the handwritten notes affixed
23 to it, I think that we're entitled to have that come in on that basis.
24 With regard to the time-period, it is dealing with a person that
25 has come up repeatedly in this case, Ljubisa Kitanovic. It mentions his
1 connection with the CSB Doboj. It's clear it's from 9 April 1993, but
2 it's clearly there is a connection between them and suggests that this
3 was in the past. And we submit that it goes, to a certain degree, to the
4 credibility of the evidence of MS-001, who distanced himself from this
5 individual. And for those reasons, we think that it meets all the
6 thresholds to be admitted into evidence.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 MR. OLMSTED: And Your Honours if I may just add, I apologise.
9 The primary purpose I'm bringing this into evidence having not
10 led -- or cross-examined MS-001 is it deals directly with the issue that
11 I'm dealing with which is state security reports starting at a lower
12 level and making it all the way up here, presumably, to the
13 under-secretary because they're saying forward this information on to the
14 under-secretary, and it's showing the flow of information. It's dated
15 1993, but these are the same individuals who were in power at CSB
16 Banja Luka in 1992. And so it does say something about their
17 interrelationship in the time-period relevant to this indictment.
18 So even if the substance of the document, the crime suggested in
19 it, do not apply to 1992, the form -- the process certainly does.
20 JUDGE HALL: Please remind me: Is this the first document,
21 confining ourselves to system and not the content of the document, is
22 this the first document that shows the flow up to the level of the
24 MR. OLMSTED: I think it's the first that shows it with
25 everybody's handwriting on it. I'm not aware of whether we have any
1 other in evidence. None come to mind, mine or Ms. Korner's.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE HALL: Judge Harhoff dissenting, the document admitted and
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P2400, Your Honours.
6 [Prosecution counsel confer]
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm sorry to keep appearing and
8 re-appearing like a jack-in-the-box, but I am a little concerned about
9 something that happened earlier today and the reason I'm here to deal
10 with it is because Mr. Olmsted hasn't been in court and hasn't been
11 dealing with these issues before.
12 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, it arose at page 46, line 3 of today's
14 transcript, again, there was an objection to the admission of a document
15 one of the Milos group, and Mr. Krgovic got up to say this:
16 "Your Honours, if I may raise an objection of principle. And a
17 specific one as well.
18 "We ask from the Prosecutor and we made a submission to this
19 Trial Chamber that all documents concerning Mr. Zupljanin and concerning
20 our witnesses be disclosed to us under Rule 66(B). This document fits
21 that description. It explicitly refers to Mr. Zupljanin. But the
22 Prosecution informed us that they have complied with this and that they
23 have given us in August the documents in that category. This document
24 has not been disclosed so it can't be tendered and can't be admitted."
25 Your Honours, that is misleading in two respects.
1 First of all, the request under Rule 66(B) which Your Honours
2 ruled upon was specific and limited and referred to, as yet, undisclosed
3 documents. That was the whole purpose of this, which we were proposing,
4 or might be, and the Defence realize that, to use in cross-examination,
5 and in light of Your Honours' ruling we complied with that.
6 This document, Your Honour, I repeat, for the third time, and I
7 invite Mr. Krgovic to tell us if what I am saying is wrong straight away,
8 we had a long list of documents from the Milos group. We provided the
9 Defence with the full list. We provided, as Mr. Olmsted said further,
10 the full ERN numbers. We told them all these documents were on EDS.
11 The Defence, in fact, as Mr. Olmsted has already said, came back
12 to us and said they were unable to trace certain of these documents, and
13 we, in fact, supplied copies of those they could not trace.
14 Additionally, they themselves, in cross-examination of Mr. Radulovic,
15 used some of the documents from the list that we had supplied. It is
16 wholly and utterly misleading to say that this document was not disclosed
17 and, in any event, fell under Rule 66(B).
18 Now, Your Honour, before I carry on, I invite Mr. Krgovic to tell
19 me if I am wrong in anything that I have said.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I will tell you, very briefly,
21 Ms. Korner, you are wrong. Because what you said about the document
22 being in EDS and having an ERN number, we do not consider as disclosure
23 under 66(B). The fact that you placed it in EDS and that you said that a
24 couple of weeks ago, is not considered proper disclosure. And when I
25 said that the document has not been disclosed in that sense, and I will
1 find the page of the transcript where you said that, I just didn't have
2 time, but I do remember exactly what you said.
3 What you said, namely, that a document with a certain number has
4 been placed in EDS doesn't mean disclosure. Anyone who deals with this
5 knows it's a nightmare and that's why we asked for certain documents that
6 we couldn't find that you give us their copies because we were unable to
7 find them in EDS. And that's the point. When I say that something has
8 not been disclosed, proper disclosure is to give something to the
9 Defence, the entirety of the document, rather than references or numbers.
10 So much about that.
11 And that's precisely the reason why we made our submission in
12 August, asking for specific documents concerning these witnesses. And
13 the document that I have mentioned falls under the order of the Trial
14 Chamber and belongs to the second category of documents that should have
15 been disclosed to the Defence, namely, and to quote from the ruling:
16 "All reports telegrams, letters and any other documents, drafted
17 or received by any of the Zupljanin witnesses."
18 And the document that I pointed out falls squarely into this
19 category because the Prosecution wanted to show that this document has
20 been drafted and that's why it was shown to the witness. So disclosure
21 should have been proper and clear, not in terms of a reference pertaining
22 to EDS. That is what I meant by talking about disclosure. If the
23 document was disclosed sometime when I was not on this case, I'm prepared
24 to apologise before the Trial Chamber and before the OTP, but during my
25 tenure and the entire time I've been keeping records, I have not found
1 this document among those disclosed, and that is my explanation in
2 response to Ms. Korner.
3 I believe this to be a -- a rather academic discussion more than
4 anything else, Your Honours. The document does not meet the requirements
5 from item 15(A) of the guide-lines given by this Trial Chamber, so what
6 Ms. Korner said also in no way responds to our second objection.
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, it is not an academic discussion. The
8 document was on the list attached to Mr. Radulovic's statement because
9 these were the documents that were identified by him. It clearly
10 indicates that it has Zupljanin's name on it. I have the list in front
11 of me. It was disclosed on the 31st of July, 2009, in which case -- at
12 which point, to my certain knowledge, Mr. Krgovic was in -- already in
13 the case. And, as I say, it is quite inconceivable that when
14 Mr. Radulovic gave evidence, when they asked us for specific copies, when
15 they used other documents, that they were not aware of this list.
16 And that is why, Your Honour, on the basis we're entitled to
17 assume that if that's what's happened, they've had this document, it did
18 not come under the Rule 66(B) request and never did which was to ask us
19 to disclose documents that had not yet been disclosed. All -- the whole
20 list, Your Honours -- and if Your Honours want to go and have a look at
21 it, it is attached to Mr. Radulovic's composite statement. So,
22 Your Honours, we say for the third time, and if Mr. Krgovic's
23 record-keeping is incomplete, incompetent, or whatever, then that is not
24 to be laid at the fault of the OTP.
25 Your Honour, the second matter that Mr. Krgovic went on to deal
1 with was that the Prosecution had a witness, Mr. Radulovic, who testified
2 here, and they could have shown him that document.
3 Your Honours, there are, as I say, over -- I think it's about 300
4 all together of these Milos documents. More I hear Mr. Olmsted saying.
5 He's more familiar with that part than I am. We had a limited amount of
6 time to deal with a very, very lengthy statement made by Mr. Radulovic.
7 Equally in the bar table motion we had to make a selection. The Defence
8 took the decision to call this witness - and I want to come onto the next
9 thing that Mr. Krgovic said - and therefore we say we're entitled to put
10 these documents to them, all of which have a been, as we say, disclosed,
11 notwithstanding Mr. Krgovic's assertion, which I note, and I'm sorry,
12 that he won't withdraw.
13 Your Honours, Mr. Krgovic then went on to say:
14 "On top of everything else -- on top of everything, the
15 Prosecution had given up on this witness and withdrew him from the list,
16 especially because of the wrong-doing by Mr. Koehler. This witness used
17 to be on the Prosecution witness list and during their interviews they
18 showed him all sorts of documents."
19 You will note, Your Honours, that Mr. Olmsted objected at that
20 stage. It is utterly improper to make that assertion about Mr. Koehler,
21 and I make no bones about it, Your Honours. We will be calling
22 Mr. Koehler to deal with these matters if these unfounded allegations
23 persist. Indeed, Your Honours, I should say we may well be calling him
24 in light of the allegations that are being made about him.
25 Your Honours, finally, on this matter, and I'm sorry it is
1 returning to what I hoped was a settled question now. When
2 Judge Delvoie, at page 48, line 10 --
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner may I interrupt you and say with a
4 phrase that is often used in this courtroom, I allow for the possibility
5 that I misspoke.
6 MS. KORNER: Well, then Your Honour, I won't take this any
8 Your Honours, I'm quite happy with that. We rely on the terms of
9 what is now the Rule 15(A), and we say that's absolutely clear.
10 Your Honours, I'm not taking that any further, but I -- thank you
11 very much.
12 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
13 So we take the adjournment to 2.30 tomorrow.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.30 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 19th day of
16 October, 2011, at 2.30 p.m.