1 Friday, 11 November 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 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 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. On Armistice Day,
12 11.11.11., it's Joanna Korner and Sebastiaan van Hooydonk for the
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
15 Slobodan Cvijetic, and Ms. Deirdre Montgomery, appearing for Stanisic
16 Defence this morning. Thank you.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and
18 Miroslav Cuskic, appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
20 Yes, Ms. Korner.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honour --
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can --
23 I would like to raise a matter concerning the witness, the
24 witness list for next week, Ms. Korner, if -- if I may.
25 We noticed that 007 is not on the list anymore and we were
1 wondering why that was.
2 Is there a problem with 007, or is it only because 002 and 008
3 will take up the -- the entire week?
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is exactly why.
5 There are no problems at all with Witness 007, but due to the policy of
6 the Victims and Witnesses Unit, which is the same in all cases, we put
7 this witness on the waiting-list as a reserve, as it were. He can appear
8 if there's a chance of him beginning to testify on Tuesday. But, in my
9 estimate, if the trial proceeds at this pace, he may begin to testify
10 only on Friday so that there's no chance that he may end his testimony on
11 that day.
12 The alternative would be that he can begin to testify and finish
13 the examination-in-chief and then re-appear in December, but I would -- I
14 would be reluctant to do that. Of course, everything depends on the
15 development of the situation, but we will make sure that the witness be
16 here in time for his testimony. However, only if it's possible to hear
17 him at once, in one day.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: But let's see, then, where we realistically go
19 with the further cross and re-direct of 002 and 008, because, I think
20 there is matter for discussion there.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I say, I -- obviously yesterday
22 and overnight I've had a look at the matters I have for this witness. I
23 anticipate that I will do today nearly all of the areas I want to deal
24 with him with the exception of Kotor Varos, which I would like to deal
25 with as a discreet topic on Monday, because it is effectively the
1 longest, but I can deal with all the other aspects of his evidence today.
2 I anticipate, therefore, that my cross will certainly finish on
3 Monday, and I would hope, but as I say, it's -- when I'm always saying
4 this it's always wrong and of course it does depend to a certain extent
5 to whether the witness can confine himself to answering my question.
6 But, in any event, one way or the other, I will finish on Monday with the
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Which -- which, in reality, means the first
9 session of Tuesday included, which we take on the Monday.
10 MS. KORNER: Yes. Well, I --
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: But that wouldn't -- so that -- that -- that
12 leaves very -- very little time for -- for 008.
13 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, as I said, we're at a moment at
14 a loss, really, to know what it is 008 is going to cover. We accept
15 the -- the killing of Colonel Stevilovic and the CSB guy, Markovic. And
16 as we understand it, that's the bulk of his evidence. So I'm not at all
17 clear what else. All we've got is he's going to talk about the Croats
18 and Muslims in Kotor Varos. Again, we accept in Kotor Varos there was
19 resistance from both the Croats and the Muslims. In fact, they held out
20 until November when Vrcici [phoen] felt -- fell. And so at the moment
21 we're not clear what evidence he's going to give that in any way we
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes. But we still face estimates of -- in total,
24 procedural matters, included, four court days for 008.
25 MS. KORNER: I don't -- that cannot, under any circumstances, be
1 right. The Stanisic Defence, as we've seen, don't have any matters to
2 put. We were told by Mr. Cvijetic that he would take up to an hour and
3 he took, I think, something like seven minutes in all. I don't know what
4 their cross-examination estimate is for 008, but I -- I -- I have doubts
5 they'll be of any length.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: In the four court days it's one hour and a half
7 for the Stanisic Defence. So that's not the bulk of it.
8 Mr. Krgovic, how about the chief?
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, our estimate for the
11 examination-in-chief is that it would certainly take more than one trial
12 day. We had envisaged originally six hours and we'll try to make it less
13 than five, but I always leave a margin of one hour. So it would amount
14 to a day and a half all in all, because apart from this incident which is
15 important for the understanding of the event in Kotor Varos, and as well
16 as the knowledge what happened before and after the incident, and bearing
17 in mind that these two witnesses are linked, it's very important to
18 correlate what happened to Stevilovic and the events around the special
19 detachment. That's why we believe it's such an important topic that we
20 can't deal with so easily.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm sorry, and I think that perhaps,
22 not today but at a later stage, and then we can see where it goes, I'm
23 not at all clear how it can be relevant to call a mass of evidence about
24 the killing of Colonel Stevilovic and Mr. Markovic, which is not the
25 subject of any count on the indictment, nor the subject of any dispute.
1 And it will be for counsel taking that witness, of course, to deal with
2 it. But I merely put down, as somebody in my chambers is always saying,
3 a marker about this aspect of the evidence.
4 But, Your Honours, I take the view, as I expressed obviously in
5 the e-mail which I sent when I received the Defence e-mail about the
6 witnesses, that we've already wasted a number of days when we could have
7 been sitting, because we haven't got the witnesses, and it is better, I
8 would respectively suggest, that a witness is available, if there is time
9 available. And that the highest I put it.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: We'll consider what -- what has to be done 007.
11 But one last question to you, Ms. Korner. Is there any particular reason
12 why we should not stick to the rule that time for cross-examination is
13 100 percent of the time for chief?
14 MS. KORNER: In this case?
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: In this case, I mean. In 002 --
16 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... this witness.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: In 002, I mean.
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, yes, as I've explained on a number of
19 different occasions. This is -- you can't time cross to do with chief.
20 It gives the -- the side calling the witness the advantage, particularly
21 of defending, to deal with it very quickly, skipping over areas which
22 they don't like, but, which Your Honours will see I'm going to be putting
23 to this witness. There are a number of documents relevant to this case
24 which are on my list, not all of which I'm going to be putting either,
25 but which the Defence just haven't dealt with but they're all relevant to
1 the issue. And this is probably the second-most important witness that
2 the Defence have called in their case.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Could we ask the parties, both of you, and
5 Mr. Zecevic as well, if there is a chance that we can add to the list of
6 agreed facts the circumstances surrounding the killing of Colonel
7 Stevilovic and Mr. Markovic.
8 MS. KORNER: Almost certainly yes, Your Honour. As far as we're
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thanks.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, look, if Ms. Korner will
12 accept, because this witness should respond why this incident is
13 important, that Croatian and Muslim forces were very well equipped and
14 organised, that they had over 2.000 well-armed men who were attacking
15 Kotor Varos and that that was the reason why the conflict in Kotor Varos
16 started, that these conflicts added fuel to inter-ethnic mistrust and
17 that it was not, as Mr. Brown said, that Serb forces caused the conflict,
18 all these facts, because the very fact of Stevilovic and Markovic's
19 deaths should be viewed in the context of all these events. Their deaths
20 are just one segment that speaks to the movements of this witness. We
21 need to know what preceded the incident. He will be saying where he was
22 going. His captivity in Muslim and Croat hands, and what happened after
23 he was exchanged, so it's a perhaps -- I mean, the incident is perhaps
24 just one half-hour in the whole of the witness's testimony, but it -- we
25 need to know the context, just as with the witnesses who spoke about
1 adjudicated facts. They spent very little time speaking about the fact
2 itself but explained at length the context. I mean, the evidence of the
3 witness about the attack is perhaps half an hour, but explaining what
4 happened before and after will take much more time.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic.
6 MS. KORNER: Of course, Mr. Krgovic knows -- oh, sorry.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Could we hear Mr. Zecevic first.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, I will have to join with
9 Mr. Krgovic because I never spoke to the witness so I'm not privy to the
10 information he is going to testify about. Therefore, I can only join
11 with Mr. Krgovic's because I believe that his explanation is basically
12 correct and the Defence should be given the opportunity to challenge the
13 evidence which we heard in court from the -- from the Office of the
14 Prosecutor witnesses.
15 Thank you very much.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner.
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, of course, Mr. Krgovic knows perfectly
18 well that we're not prepared to agree to that. But that's got absolutely
19 nothing to do with the simple fact of whether on the 6th of July, I
20 believe it was, of 1992, the car in which Colonel Stevilovic,
21 Mr. Markovic, and the witness were travelling was ambushed. And the two
22 people in the car died and the witness survived. And that's the simple
24 JUDGE HALL: I was going to ask the, perhaps a naive question, as
25 to whether it was impossible to separate the fact --
1 MS. KORNER: Exactly.
2 JUDGE HALL: -- of the killing from the why, but I think
3 Mr. Krgovic has already answered that when -- if I'm understanding
4 correctly what he's saying is that this would save at the most only a
5 half-hour because the why, in terms of the context, and of course I would
6 remind him that even with context that the matter of relevance still
7 is -- is a criterion which would be -- which -- which would be opposed.
8 But the -- is a half-hour worth it?
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I -- as I say, at the moment, all of
10 this is news to us that this is what this witness can say, and knowing
11 what we know of his position, we're very surprised he can give the sort
12 of evidence that Mr. Krgovic thinks he can with any knowledge. But
13 that's, you know, all we can say.
14 But all we can say is that we do not believe, unless it's
15 deliberately spun out, that that witness can take five hours in-chief.
16 And our estimate in cross-examination, based on only what we know -- and
17 as I say all we have is a statement that he made to his own side about
18 what happened to him during the ambush and thereafter, we have no idea
19 how he comings by any knowledge of the other events because we've got no
20 statement from him nor a proofing note, as I keep explaining, and that's
21 why our estimates of cross are so difficult to give as to how all this
22 other information is going to be adduced.
23 But, in any event, as I say, our estimate on what we know at
24 present is that cross-examination is not going to take more than --
25 that's an estimate, as I hasten to add, and I'm not going to be the
1 lawyer cross-examining, about three hours, max.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE HALL: In addition to everything else that has been said so
4 far, coming back to the present witness, it is our intention that he be
5 completed with the extended session on Monday. That is,
6 cross-examination, plus re-examination is finished so the witness is
7 released on Monday.
8 MS. KORNER: Yes. Well -- Your Honours, I understand. I -- I
9 wanted to -- to add one further thing about this business of equal time
10 for examination-in-chief and cross-examination, and that's, as I say, one
11 of the problems you may have noticed is these witnesses answer very, very
12 shortly the questions in-chief, and either deliberately or because they
13 find cross-examination difficult, their answers are nothing like that in
14 cross-examination. They run on forever and go off on a side track and
15 that's why I say it's not really a fair proposition.
16 JUDGE HALL: Well, we've heard what you have said on that,
17 Ms. Korner, and it seems that the -- what we have done up to this point
18 and what we'll probably continue to do is that our starting point would
19 be hour for hour, but, bearing in mind the -- what is produced in the
20 course of the exercise, we would, of course, be open to any application
21 for further time that any -- any reasonable application for further time
22 that is advanced. But we appreciate the handicap under which you may be
24 MS. KORNER: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Your Honour, then, very quickly. Unfortunately, this has taken
1 up a bit of my valuable time. What we did yesterday afternoon until
2 quite late was we have got someone to listen and transcribe part -- parts
3 of the interview from the actual tape in B/C/S. We've loaded them up
4 into e-court. I am going to ask him about those specific entries. I
5 picked the ones, I hope, fairly, which show where he could have given the
6 answers I say that he didn't properly.
7 We've got available, if anybody wants it, the CD of the whole
8 interview which, of course, is questions in English, translated, answers
9 in B/C/S, translated. And so that's what I propose to do this morning,
10 take him through those parts.
11 I will then ask because I think it's fair -- in fairness that the
12 whole interview be admitted. Because I think that's -- it's really only
13 fair to him because if I am making a bad point and the Defence want to
14 deal with other parts of the interview, then, of course, the only way of
15 dealing with it is if the whole interview is admitted. And if it is
16 admitted, Your Honours, we'll say we'll MFI it -- I'm sorry, if Your
17 Honours do admit it, we'll ask for it to be admitted MFI and we'll
18 produce a full transcript. We just couldn't do it overnight but we can
19 do that at a later stage.
20 JUDGE HALL: Subject to be persuaded to the contrary by the other
21 side, that seems to be a reasonable way forward.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I absolutely wish
23 that this witness, when questions are put to him, has before him all the
24 relevant passages. If the purpose of examination by the Prosecution, as
25 they said, was to show that he never he mentioned he was a member of that
1 unit, he should be shown all the relevant passages where he referred to
2 his membership, all together, not taken out of context, and that's what
3 the witness wanted to have. And let them provide a CD over the weekend
4 so that he can familiarise himself with all the passages that have been
5 translated and that the Prosecution would be using. If he agrees, of
7 And before that, I should like Ms. Korner to indicate to us,
8 because of our clients, all the passages that she would be using with the
9 witness, or perhaps these passages should be played to the witness here
10 in the courtroom to avoid any ambush to the witness.
11 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, that's why I said, in fairness.
12 Certainly I offered and the witness deadlined. I think he said why
13 should he spend eight hours listening to it, which is a perfectly fair
14 point of view to take. In fact, it isn't eight hours. There are breaks
15 and -- and all the rest of it.
16 Your Honours, I will indicate now the passages where -- which
17 we've had translated which will come up on the screen for the witness to
18 read. And, as I said, I'm perfectly prepared to admit I made a mistake.
19 I've picked out all the passages, I hope, where either he had the
20 opportunity or when he did say, and Your Honours will see he said -- he
21 was asked directly about this, he then, as it were, backtracked, and I
22 hope I've picked them out. But, of course, Mr. Krgovic has the whole
23 interview in English. He has the opportunity to re-examine on any parts
24 that I do not use.
25 JUDGE HALL: Yes. I think we're clear as to where we're going.
1 So having spent more than a third of today's first session on these
2 preliminary matters, could we go into closed session so that the witness
3 can be escorted back into court.
4 [Closed session]
3 [Open session]
4 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE HALL: Good morning, sir. Before Ms. Korner continues her
6 cross-examination, I remind you of your solemn declaration.
7 Yes, Ms. Korner.
8 WITNESS: SZ-002 [Resumed]
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 Cross-examination by Ms. Korner: [Continued]
11 Q. Sir, yesterday we ended when we were trying to deal with the
12 problem of your interview of which there was only an English version.
13 We've had certain portions of it -- not translated, transcribed from the
14 original tape and what was actually said in your language and I'm going
15 to ask you about those parts now.
16 You will be given the opportunity, and it's a matter for you
17 whether you want to, to listen to the whole tape over the weekend, and I
18 emphasise that Mr. Krgovic has the opportunity to re-examine you on any
19 other parts that we don't deal with.
20 So can we have up on the screen but not displayed to the public,
21 please, Your Honour, first of all, page 16 of the transcript, which is --
22 that's the B/C/S. Yeah, we need the English as well.
23 The B/C/S is 23333, 65 ter number 23333. And -- what? Both the
24 English and the B/C/S apparently.
25 I want in the English, please, page 16.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, did you intend to give the number
3 MS. KORNER: I'm told -- yes. 20333. That's the B/C/S has been
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. It's just that the transcript says
6 23333. Because they thought that you said 23.
7 MS. KORNER: Oh, no. Sorry. Thank you, Your Honour. 20333.
8 It should be the first -- there's only five pages in B/C/S so it
9 should be the first. Yes, thank you very much. That's it.
10 Q. Now, sir this is where you were asked:
11 "Okay in 1992 are you aware that any special ... units that
12 Stojan Zupljanin formed, to deal with the security situation that was
13 developing in those early months, January, February, March, April? It
14 was about the time when the check-points were being erected around the
15 villages. Soldiers were returning from Croatia, ... causing
16 disturbances. Are aware about Stojan Zupljanin dealing with the problem
17 by creating any special police units or task forces?"
18 Your reply was:
19 "I think the dates are too early."
20 And then the -- don't worry about the document. The next
21 sentence. You then went on to say:
22 "Because at the initial period there were joint or officially
23 called mixed patrols. Two inspectors from Sarajevo. Direct connection,
24 direct link between Banja Luka and Sarajevo still existed. I don't
25 really know which department the two inspectors came from but they were
1 two republican ones [sic]."
2 Then you were asked about check-points.
3 So we need to go to the next page, I think. Oh, no, yes. Sorry,
4 still the same page, sorry.
5 You were asked where the mixed check-points were, and you said
6 you didn't know.
7 And you then said:
8 "Because at that time as liaison officer I was very frequently
10 "Q. Are you aware if Stojan Zupljanin," I think that should be
11 "formed," not "informed," "any special police units or task forces to
12 deal with specific problems in the early months of 1992. Say about
13 April of 1992 to be more specific?
14 "I don't know whether this was April 1992, but I do know that
15 there was a special police unit that was formed. There was a ... review,
16 you weren't personally present --"
17 And I'm summarising your long answer there, which you can see,
18 I -- I think you need to go to the next -- no, no, stay on the same
19 page -- yes, and the next page in B/C/S, I think.
20 There is your long answer.
21 It was:
22 I heard you said this unit was assigned four helicopters, a
23 number of APCs, et cetera. I know the equipment was provided by the
24 military they insisted that the commander of that unit was supposed to
25 come from the military ranks.
1 Now, can I ask you, sir, why if you had nothing to be ashamed of
2 about your membership of the special police you didn't say there and
3 then, because you were being asked an open question, what you knew about
4 the special police, why you didn't say you were a member of the special
6 A. I believe that you have attentively read the beginning of this
7 interview, and you will have noticed that all the questions were of a
8 leading nature. To all questions, I provided answers according to my
9 knowledge. This question implied that at the beginning of the year
10 something was done. They were always trying to put things into my mouth
11 that weren't correct, and I always had to correct what they were saying.
12 And, here, the interpretation was actually wrong. I didn't say that the
13 unit had four helicopters but that it was planned to have that number of
15 So it is important to put things in context because this is
17 During the interview, it -- it was also said that the helicopters
18 were never received.
19 Q. Look, please, sir, just concentrate on the question.
20 You're saying, are you, that the question, as it was phrased by
21 Ms. Taylor, who was the investigator, "Okay, are you aware of any special
22 police units that Stojan Zupljanin formed," was a leading question?
23 A. It was leading because, even before that -- you're now focussing
24 on only one question. Before that, another question was asked whether in
25 January, February, March, special units had been formed, and I gave a
1 very precise answer that it was impossible because at the time there was
2 still contacts with Sarajevo.
3 I personally went to Sarajevo and brought back special equipment.
4 Q. Don't -- I'm sorry, sir. Can I remind you we have limited time.
5 I just want you to focus on the one question.
6 Are you saying -- I accept entirely she got the dates wrong in
7 the first question but then she changed it, and the question that was
8 read to you -- said to you, and to which you gave a long answer, was:
9 Are you aware if Stojan Zupljanin formed any special police units,
10 et cetera, say, about April 1992.
11 And then you gave an answer which suggested, I put -- I -- sir,
12 that this was something entirely outside you. You had nothing to do with
14 A. That is correct. I didn't have anything.
15 But could we go into private session?
16 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
17 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, with respect, and why -- before
18 we do that --
19 Q. Sir, why should we go into private session? What is it you want
20 to say that requires private session? You don't have to say what it is,
21 but what's the topic?
22 A. The answer I'm about to give can easily serve to identify me.
23 Very few people had anything to do with this.
24 Q. Very well.
25 [Private session]
23 [Open session]
9 [Private session]
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
2 MS. KORNER:
3 Q. Going go back to where we were, sir.
4 "Do you know who the commander of the unit was?
5 "Its commander was Captain Lukic, whose first name I cannot
7 "Do you know of any other members or commanders,
8 deputy commanders on that special unit?
9 "I think it happened later that the deputy commander was Ecim.
10 "Do you know who this unit reported to?
11 "I suppose it was the military and the police."
12 Why did you add the words "I suppose"? You just spent the best
13 part of two days explaining the reporting chain.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness must be
15 enabled to read his entire answer from the transcript.
16 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, his --
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] What's the problem with this kind
18 of examination when the witness does not have the whole transcript in
19 front of him.
20 MS. KORNER: It's there. I'm sorry, I just hadn't moved it on.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Whatever Ms. Korner is asking
22 him --
23 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Krgovic.
24 But, in fact, we can get -- that is translated. I just hadn't realised
25 because I can't -- I think it is translated. I think it's there. It's
1 on the screen.
2 JUDGE HALL: I'm not sure I follow your objection, Mr. Krgovic.
3 [Defence counsel confer]
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the -- this witness's
5 answer continues, and he goes on to explain what he said. He explains
6 why they reported both to the military and partly to the police too.
7 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] So we should let the witness read
9 his entire answer before reading -- before answering Ms. Korner's
10 question. Because it isn't as simple as that.
11 One question actually contains a number of questions, and the
12 witness then answers some of them.
13 JUDGE HALL: But we're dealing with a transcript of an interview.
14 Is there any other practical way of dealing with it but by, as -- counsel
15 who happens to be on her feet in this case, Ms. Korner, dealing with the
16 passages to which she wishes to draw the witness's attention?
17 You have the benefit of having the remainder of the transcript,
18 and if, in your view, she has taken something out of context, as we said
19 sometime ago, you would have the opportunity to deal with that in
21 I see no alternative to proceeding in that manner because the --
22 if I understand you were right, you would expect the witness to have
23 before him the entirety of the transcript and before he attempts to
24 answer any question that is put, he goes through I don't know how many
25 pages and come back to set a context for the answer. I don't know that
1 that's a practical way of approaching it.
2 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... I see Mr. Zecevic
3 constantly interfering. Apart from the fact these interruptions, which
4 are without foundation are cutting through my time, this is not
5 Mr. Zecevic's witness, nor is it -- and for him to constantly be egging
6 Mr. Krgovic on, Your Honour, it is quite wrong.
7 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, I have -- Mr. Zecevic, you may take your
9 I have refrained from responding to the observations - I would
10 use that word that you have made - on several occasions about counsel for
11 the co-accused in the -- it seems to me that in a joint trial, which this
12 is, it is inevitable that counsel for the co-accused would seek to
13 assist. And unless it is something that is blatantly and totally
14 unwarranted, it is not something with which the Bench would intervene.
15 But could we get on with it, please.
16 MS. KORNER:
17 Q. Now, sir --
18 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, may we have a moment.
19 MS. KORNER: Yes.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, could you enlighten us, please, from
22 yesterday, this witness has been challenged by you, in terms of things
23 that, as you would have put to him, he failed to say when he had the
24 opportunity to do it.
25 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Yes.
1 JUDGE HALL: He's a witness. He isn't the accused who is on the
2 stand. How much utility is there in pursuing this line of -- of -- of
3 questions, particularly, as you have indicated, that you propose to
4 tender the entire transcript, which, as I said yesterday, would form the
5 foundation of such submissions that you would make at the end of the day.
6 We are at a loss as to why so much time is being spent on these
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I -- I tried to do that yesterday. I
9 put my -- my challenge was simply and truthfully -- straightforward that
10 he had not -- the trouble is, Your Honour, that the witness is -- is --
11 is here ...
12 JUDGE HALL: You noticed before I -- I did pause I was
13 considering --
14 MS. KORNER: Yes.
15 JUDGE HALL: Whether he should be --
16 MS. KORNER: Yes.
17 JUDGE HALL: -- escorted out before we [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I don't have to go any further. I
19 think it's fairly clear why I'm making the challenge. I set it up
21 I didn't want to go through this exercise at all. If
22 Your Honours will recall, I, merely having put the challenge, wanted to
23 make the interview an exhibit and for Your Honours then to decide, having
24 read through the whole thing, and - as I say - we'll now get it fully
25 transcribed, to see whether the challenge I was making was justified.
1 I didn't want to do this exercise. There was an objection.
2 That's why I did it this way.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE HALL: So are you -- yes, Mr. Krgovic.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I understood
6 correctly the intention of Ms. Korner, without mentioning it before the
7 witness, Ms. Korner can go through this very quickly. She can show the
8 witness the relevant paragraphs where he was directly asked about his
9 membership and where he avoided answering. That's only two or three
10 places. And his answers will clearly show what happened.
11 Ms. Korner is deliberately avoiding this.
12 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ...
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I suggested already yesterday --
14 MS. KORNER: This is -- this is what happens. And then
15 Mr. Krgovic puts forward the Defence theory in front of the witness who
16 then adopts it.
17 If there is going to be further argument, then the witness must
18 leave court.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE HALL: As we indicated yesterday, Ms. Korner, the -- your
21 application, when it is formulated to admit the transcript, will be
22 favourably viewed by the -- by the Chamber.
23 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers]
24 JUDGE HALL: So you if you make the application now.
25 MS. KORNER: I do.
1 JUDGE HALL: Order as prayed.
2 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much.
3 Your Honours, I wouldn't have done this exercise if it hadn't
4 been for the objections.
5 Your Honours, what I will say is would you MFI it until such time
6 as we get a full transcript.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let's me try to
8 explain what the problem is.
9 It was not my intention to object to the admission of this
10 transcript through this witness, with certain reservations, of course,
11 but this document should also be accompanied by a translation, that it
12 should be available to the accused, and that the witness, too, should
13 have a written version and comment on it.
14 So if the Prosecution wants this document admitted, they should
15 provide the translation of the transcript before the end of this
16 witness's testimony so that he has an opportunity to review all of it.
17 Because this way of examining, where Ms. Korner puts passages taken out
18 of context, without allowing the witness to look at the entirety of the
19 interview, does not really mean anything to us. We'll have had a witness
20 who did not have a chance to look at all of the interview. We'll have
21 evidence on -- on just separate passages.
22 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
23 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, your point is taken about the
24 interpretation for the benefit of the accused. But in terms of making
25 the transcript available to the -- in terms of -- of -- of also having
1 the entire document for the benefit of the witness, it seems to me that
2 the flaw in that proposition is that witnesses don't volunteer evidence,
3 they answer questions that are put. You as counsel, you have the
4 document, and if there is anything in re-examination that you wish to put
5 to the witness, he will be given an opportunity to answer it. But I
6 don't know that any useful purpose will be served by him looking --
7 having the document and then volunteering evidence.
8 So as Ms. Korner says, the document would be marked for
9 identification, pending the necessary translations that have to be made
10 so that it conforms to the rules of evidence and is admitted.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P2405, marked for identification, Your
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may I make it quite clear that I would
14 be quite happy to go through all the passages and deal with them with
15 him, but it seems to me that he has already explained, as Your Honours
16 have pointed out, I have put my challenge, and it's a matter for
17 Your Honours, who are the deciders of fact, to weigh up the whole
18 interview at the end.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, I wasn't invited to, but
20 we should have record our objection to the proposal of Ms. Korner and
21 the -- and the -- and the -- basically the order was already made by
22 Your Honours.
23 But, Your Honours, the problem is the following --
24 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... Ms. Korner, first of
1 all, you owe me an apology for the previous --
2 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... We would hear
3 Mr. Krgovic.
4 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
5 JUDGE HALL: Oh, I'm sorry.
6 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
7 JUDGE HALL: My apologies, Ms. Korner.
8 Could we go into closed session so that the witness could be
9 escorted from court while we consider this --
10 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, I'm not going to talk
11 about the witness at all or his testimony.
12 [Closed session]
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: May I, Your Honours?
24 JUDGE HALL: If I might assist you before you begin, Mr. Zecevic,
25 the reason why we arrived at the point where we are is that, as
1 Ms. Korner admitted yesterday, she was seeking with this whole business
2 about the previous statement to prove the negative, that the witness,
3 having had the opportunity to volunteer this information, didn't. And
4 the -- that discussion began yesterday, took up quite a bit of time, and,
5 again, you would have been present this morning as it continued. And
6 that is why -- and she did yesterday indicate that she may have been
7 applying to so admit the rest of the transcript because, as we said
8 today, the -- since we're dealing with what was not said, it is -- we
9 have the -- the -- the Chamber would see the whole transcript and would
10 then be in a position to understand the arguments which counsel on both
11 sides would make.
12 Now your objection would be what? What have been what?
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, thank you, Your Honours. I understand fully,
14 and I appreciate Your Honours' position.
15 But with all due respect, I think by this decision we are
16 departing from the rules that we have had in this trial since the very
17 beginning; namely, what I have -- what I feel is a problem is that the
18 transcript of the interview of the witness who is present is admitted
19 without the opportunity given to the witness to explain the reasons why,
20 for example, he didn't say this or didn't say that. And I think that --
21 that is a departure from the previous -- previous situations that we had,
22 because we always had -- your -- Your Honours always gave the opportunity
23 to the witness to explain himself, and it's -- in my view, it's a correct
24 approach because we have to be correct to the witness because there might
25 be reasons why this -- this part was not -- this answer was not given as
1 such or was given in this way or the other way.
2 That is the only principle objection that I have, Your Honours.
3 Thank you very much.
4 JUDGE HALL: But short of taking two weeks to go line by line
5 through what -- through an eight-hour transcript, is there any -- what is
6 wrong with counsel for the -- who called him in the same way that counsel
7 challenging the witness says that, At point A, B, X, and Y, you had an
8 opportunity to volunteer this information, you didn't. Counsel calling
9 him says, But at C, D, G, and H he did. I mean, is there any other
10 practical way of dealing with it rather than, as I said, sitting here for
11 two weeks having the witness go through line by line to say why he
12 didn't, at these different points, say what he could have said what in
13 counsel -- in the opposition's -- sorry, in the Prosecution's view he
14 could have said.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Again, I fully understand, I fully appreciate
16 Your Honours, and you are right. But the problem that creates is that
17 then the -- the -- the calling party will have -- will have to go through
18 the -- through the whole document again, in order to establish in the
19 re-examination that there is a reason why -- why the witness gave the
20 answer as he did during his interview. And the only -- the only cause
21 for all this is incorrect - incorrect - question put by the Office of the
22 Prosecutor to the witness because the Office of the Prosecutor should put
23 to the witness the whole -- the whole answer on a particular subject. If
24 it does -- if it does go in four lines or four different questions, all
25 of that should be put to the witness, not just one. And that is -- that
1 is what is causing the problem, nothing else, Your Honours. And we would
2 go very smoothly if we wouldn't have that situation.
3 That is my view.
4 Thank you very much.
5 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, you have something to add?
6 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] No.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just one thing that
8 we may have forgotten.
9 Does the witness need to authorise his interview, sign it, and
10 confirm that it is indeed his interview before you?
11 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner? No, I wasn't inviting a response to
12 Mr. Cvijetic's intervention --
13 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ...
14 JUDGE HALL: No, I thought you had something to say in reply to
15 Mr. Zecevic.
16 MS. KORNER: I see. I'm sorry. As opposed to last. First of
17 all, Mr. Zecevic feels I owe him an apology. I'm perfectly prepared to
18 apologise for the fact that -- that I said on the record, from what I
19 could see he was intervening. And as has been pointed out to me before,
20 what happens between counsel and, indeed, on the Bench, it's perhaps not
21 as well mentioned in court and I appreciate that and I apologise for
23 Your Honours, as regards -- I see Mr. Zecevic's point to this
24 extent, except I dispute that I'm taking it out of context. We've
25 translated the rest of it. Where he deals with the specific descriptions
1 it, that it's all on the translation, and I was merely pausing to ask
2 before going on. I -- I appreciate that the accusation, maybe you're
3 taking it out of context, which is why I was careful to put the whole
4 thing that was said on a particular topic.
5 But as Your Honours pointed out, it -- it would take -- it's an
6 exercise that will take a long time and it's unnecessary because it's
7 there to make one point. I've asked him already for an explanation.
8 He's given the explanation. I imagine his explanation will be the same
9 at each point, and, as Your Honours have pointed out, and I have pointed
10 out, Mr. Krgovic has the opportunity to ask him for further explanations
11 of what he -- why he said what he did in the interview.
12 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE HALL: Could we ...
15 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] I was going to suggest,
16 if we may, rather than going to closed session, that if we take a break
17 now, slightly early, and come back in 20 minutes. Otherwise we'll have
18 to wait while we do all this to-ing and fro-ing.
19 JUDGE HALL: That is exactly -- you have answered the question
20 that I was about to ask.
21 So we would take the break now and resume in 20 minutes.
22 --- Recess taken at 10.18 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 10.47 a.m.
24 JUDGE HALL: We reconvene and will sit for the remainder of today
25 under Rule 15 bis; Judge Harhoff being absent.
1 Could we go into closed session so the witness may be escorted
2 into court.
3 [Closed session]
21 [Private session]
11 Pages 25635-25648 redacted. Private session.
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
18 MS. KORNER:
19 Q. Now, one of the first documents that you were asked about when
20 you gave your evidence in-chief was the document 2D184, which is at tab 2
21 of the Defence bundle. And perhaps you can be given that back by the
22 Defence to make it easier for you.
23 MS. KORNER: No, that's not the right. Maybe I've got the wrong
24 number. I thought it was 2D184; Defence tab 2. Yeah, that's the right
25 document. Thank you.
1 Q. Now, you dealt with this at pages 25413 and 25414. Because you
2 were asked about various people on the list and their ethnicity.
3 Now, I want to deal, first of all, with the first non-Serb that
4 you identified, Mr. Sead Besic, who you said was a Muslim.
5 Mr. Besic was, in fact, was he not, an ex-chief of the CSB before
6 the multi-party elections?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And he had been, had he not --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- in Prijedor.
11 A. Yes. [In English] I have problem with the ...
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. [Interpretation] This left monitor, could I switch the image so
14 that I can see what the Prosecutor is saying?
15 Q. You've got the document in front of you, sir. You don't need
16 anything to look at the screen.
17 A. No, I don't have the document yet.
18 Q. You have the document I am asking you about in front of you, sir.
19 I'm asking you about that list of names for the 17th of June, 1992.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, could -- could you maybe
21 explain to the witness what you mean when you say "you have before you"?
22 Just tell him once again which document he is supposed to look
24 MS. KORNER: I can see he has got it open in front of him.
25 Q. Sorry, sir. You've been given -- what you're looking at on the
1 screen on the right-hand side is exactly the same as you have in the
2 folder before you.
3 A. Yes. But first you said it's not the right document.
4 Q. Right. Let me start this again, sir --
5 A. All right. Speaking of ... I can. I can. I have looked at it.
6 Regarding Sead Besic, his fate was the same as that of the chief
7 of public security from Banja Luka who was a Muslim but not a member of
8 the SDA, and he was replaced by Bajazit Jahic. In the multi-party
9 elections many people lost their positions --
10 Q. Yes, I'm -- sir, in fact he wasn't replaced. He was replaced by
11 the chief of the CSB Stojan Zupljanin which, I agree, was as a result of
12 the carve-up of the multi-party elections. But that's not what I'm
13 asking you about.
14 He was removed, was he not, from his position in Prijedor which
15 he went to after he lost his position as head of the CSB?
16 A. Well, I don't know about his further career, but I know that he
17 received this subsidy at the state security sector which means that he
18 remained there it.
19 Q. Yes --
20 A. And he worked in the state security earlier, so I suppose that
21 after the multi-party elections and the changes, he returned to his
22 original organisation in Prijedor. And while he worked here, he
23 travelled -- he commuted everyday from Prijedor because he was based
24 there, and I know he was given a driver and a service car.
25 Q. Well, no. I'm going to suggest to you, sir -- I'm going to show
1 you that he was actually removed from his position in Prijedor in a
2 moment but I want to stick to this document.
3 Sir, are you suggesting to the Court that Mr. Besic was allowed
4 to work properly throughout the whole of 1992 as a member of state
6 A. You're asking me something I really don't know. I was not there
7 in the building all the time. I was in the field all the time on my own
8 duties. Mr. Besic outranked me, and I never even had coffee about him.
9 If you want to know about his career, Chief Kesic or some men from the
10 top leadership of the service could tell you more.
11 Q. All right.
12 A. It is beyond my knowledge.
13 Q. That's fine. Let's go on to Mr. Baric, who you told the Court
14 was a department chief. He wasn't, in fact, was he, at that stage?
15 After the outbreak of the conflict, no non-Serb remained as chief of a
16 department, did they, in your organisation?
17 A. I don't know that. I believe he remained chief of section, just
18 as Emir Zahirlic [phoen] at the time when these payments were made. If
19 some changes did take place, they should be in some documents.
20 Q. Yes. Well, I'm going to come onto some documents in a moment.
21 Mr. Zahirovic, again, I suggest, although he remained for a
22 little bit longer, until 1993, he was not, as you said, chief of a line
23 of work.
24 Do you agree with that suggestion that I make to you?
25 A. I cannot affirm that. I know he was a chief for a while, but was
1 he replaced or wasn't he? I don't know. All I can see from this list is
2 that these people were, for a time, employees of the state security and
3 that they received payments due to them. That's all I know about --
4 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ...
5 A. -- this period. Most of this time I spent out in the field. I
6 really can't speak of these things.
7 Q. Right. Well, sir, we can cut this short then, because my
8 understanding was the whole purpose of showing you this document and
9 having it admitted into the evidence was to show that non-Serbs continued
10 to work for the CSB effectively in the same positions as they had before
11 and for some time.
12 Is that -- are you -- is that what you are asserting or not?
13 If the simple answer is you don't know and all you can say is
14 that they were in June of 1992 on this list, then say so.
15 A. I'm saying these people were on the list, and, as far as I know,
16 Emir Zahirlic remained in his senior position, but I don't know how long.
17 He may have retired at some point because he is older than I am. But I
18 know for sure that he was chief of a line, as I know about the chief.
19 What's his name? Milan Baric.
20 Q. Let's deal with, shall we, with Nokto -- Suvad Nokto. Were you
21 aware that on the 9th of June, so before this list was prepared because
22 it's dated the 17th of June, together with man called Dean Brzovic, who
23 we see next at number 27.
24 MS. KORNER: Can we go to the next page in B/C/S.
25 Q. Had both, in fact, as we'll by the document, what's called
1 consensually terminated their employment. Did you know that?
2 A. I didn't know that.
3 Q. What about Muharem Zjajo? I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly.
4 He didn't stay much longer, did he, either?
5 A. Muharem Zjajo --
6 Q. He didn't stay much longer, did he?
7 A. I don't know. Because communications were down at the time and
8 Muharem Zjajo remained in Jajce. He was chief of the office in Jajce
9 which was no longer under our control, so I don't know what became of
11 Q. Well, let's go back to the next page again, please. Well, no,
12 see where we are. Mira Ibrahimovic, number 29. Blanko Komosar, and Mara
13 Vignjevic. I'll give them -- I'll give the names afterwards to the
14 shorthand writer. They were all secretaries, were they not, as was
15 Nisveta Dervisic?
16 A. No, no.
17 Q. No?
18 A. No, they were not secretaries.
19 Q. You told us that Nisveta Dervisic was --
20 A. Just a moment. Nisveta Dervisic was but that's the problem with
21 the Prosecution. They constantly try to put in my mouth something
22 additional that I didn't say. It just detracts from your credibility. I
23 only said that Nisveta Dervisic was a secretary, whereas
24 Mrs. Blanka and -- could you repeat the third name? Who else did you
25 mention? I can't find it here.
1 Q. If you look at numbers 29, 30, and 31.
2 A. Mara Vignjevic and Blanka Komosar and Mira Ibrahimbegovic did
3 certain specific jobs in operations technology. They were not
5 Q. All right. And what were those specific jobs?
6 A. And I know for a fact -- sorry. Are we in open session?
7 Q. Yes, we are. No, we're not going into private. If you want to
8 add -- all right.
9 You want to go into private session, do you? Do you want to go
10 into private session?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 MS. KORNER: Private session, if Your Honours agree. I'm sorry,
13 I say all right.
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes, yes.
15 MS. KORNER: As you know, I prefer the whole thing to be in open
16 in any event.
17 [Private session]
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
13 MS. KORNER:
14 Q. And, in fact, you said that you thought Mira Ibrahimbegovic was
15 from a mixed marriage. She was, in fact, a Serb, was she not, married to
16 a Muslim?
17 A. I don't know. I was looking at the last name and thinking that
18 she might have been from a mixed marriage. That's what usually happened
19 in mixed marriages. One child would be given a Serb name; another child
20 a Muslim name. I just said it because of her surname. I really don't
21 know her CV, so I can't say anything for certain. I just said it was
22 possible she was from a mixed marriage because of her name, although she
23 could have been a pure Muslim, too, because there are Muslims with that
24 first name, too.
25 Q. All right. Let's just have a look, then, from the documents as
1 you say you don't know one way or the other what actually happened to
2 some of these people.
3 MS. KORNER: Can we have a look, please, at... sorry.
4 Yes, it's P805, tab 46A. Deal, first of all, with Mr. Besic.
5 This is a report which I'm not suggesting you would have seen
6 before. Well, you may have, I don't know. Because it's an SNB report,
7 dated 20th January 1993. It's a report on the work of the Prijedor SNB.
8 And then, in the paragraph that we can see, second paragraph, "The
9 Prijedor SNB had 12 employees at the beginning because of combat
10 operations in the Prijedor area ... four members of the section," and do
11 you see Sead Besic were removed from the list of persons with war-time
13 He was removed because he was a Muslim, wasn't he?
14 A. No. He was removed because he moved to Banja Luka, as far as I
15 know. I think he spent the entire war in Banja Luka from what I know,
16 but I think it's verifiable in the section that deals with transfers.
17 Q. All right. Let's move onto the next name.
18 MS. KORNER: Can we have a look, please, now at a document which
19 is 20324, at tab 39. No, that's not it.
20 20324. It's the book. Right.
21 Q. This is -- the letter doesn't matter so much. It's 22nd of
22 September, from Stojan Zupljanin to the bank about salaries. At the same
23 time, we hereby inform you that of the 18 of our employees on the list,
24 seven have left this service.
25 And if we look at this list, next page, please, in English and
2 The seven who have gone, there we see Mr. Brzovic, and Mr.
3 Josip Ladan, who was number 24 on the list of names that you looked at.
4 Do you agree?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. All right. Now let's look, please, at document, which is -- oh,
7 sorry. An error there.
8 MS. KORNER: Okay. Can we look at document number ... 03102.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before that, may I say something
10 about this list?
11 MS. KORNER:
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. There's Mustafa Maglic [phoen], among others, on the list, a
14 Muslim from the area of Travnik or Vlasic. I know that he left the
15 service because, when he was out in the field, in that village - what's
16 its name? - Turbe he had been beaten up by his own countrymen, Muslims,
17 because he was a native of that area. And he left the service after
18 that. He was beaten up when he was going out into the field or returning
19 from the field. And Stipe Djukic, he left the service because he found a
20 job in Austria and emigrated.
21 Not all of them were laid-off. And this write-off of interest
22 was done for everyone who made an application.
23 Q. No, no, [Overlapping speakers] --
24 A. If somebody applied for it, the chief would right for this paper
25 for them.
1 Q. Yes. Sir, you know perfectly well the point I'm making. Just a
2 minute, sir. We didn't need your story about -- just a moment, sir, then
3 you can finish.
4 All I am asking you about is that the names you identified on the
5 list that you were shown by Mr. Krgovic. Now it may be very interesting
6 to hear about a Muslim who was beaten up by other Muslims, but I just
7 want to deal with those people who are on your list.
8 Do you understand that?
9 A. I only wanted to let you know that the list is not necessarily
10 true. That somebody is on the list does not mean that they were removed.
11 There may be other reasons at that time. We did not receive our salaries
12 regularly and that's why this problem occurred. Some people who had
13 difficulty making ends meet, people who lived in town and had no village
14 relatives to help them out had to look for a different job, and there was
15 a time when we didn't receive our wages for six months.
16 Q. Sir, you know that you made a gross error when you said to
17 Mr. Krgovic what you said and gave the impression that all these people
18 continued to work in the CSB?
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object.
20 The Prosecutor should tell us where I asked that question and
21 where the witness made that answer. I showed him the list and asked him
22 how many people continued in their jobs. And he did mention some people,
23 but he didn't mention any of the names that the Prosecutor asked him
24 about, and he didn't say they continued in their jobs. I would
25 appreciate it if the Prosecutor would stop misleading the Court and
1 misrepresenting the evidence.
2 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, this is just time-wasting. Each and
3 every one of the names that I have gone through may be found mentioned by
4 the witness at pages - what did I say? - 25415. I have specifically
5 limited myself to those names.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm just asking for a transcript
7 reference where I told -- put it to the witness that all these remained
8 in their jobs all the time.
9 If you can provide me such a reference, that be would fine.
10 MS. KORNER: Well, that's two -- again, Mr. Krgovic, he accuses
11 me of asking two things rolled up into one. This is bluff and bluster.
12 I am continuing to answer -- to ask these questions.
13 Q. Now, can we look, please, at the document, as you won't accept
14 that that letter shows, for example, that Mr. Brzovic was no longer
15 working by September. Can we have a look, please, at the document that
16 the number I mentioned earlier, which was 3 -- 03102. Thank you.
17 Now, before we go any further, do you recognise this book?
18 Because, in fact, sir, your name appears in it.
19 A. No, I cannot remember this.
20 Q. By the way, are we back in -- are we in open or private session?
21 Open. Thank you.
22 I want to just deal with two entries, then, please. The first
23 is -- in the English, it's at page 19. In the B/C/S, I'm not sure what
24 page it is in B/C/S. Oh, sorry. English is page 9 in e-court - thank
25 you - and the B/C/S is -- no, sorry. Page 29 in e-court, and 19 in
2 29, B/C/S; 19, English.
3 Do you see there the names Suvad Nokto and Dean Brzovic
4 consensual termination of employment? There's an error, I think, in the
5 date because if you go on it says -- it appears to say the 19th June but
6 it's actually obviously the 9th.
7 MS. KORNER: We need to go -- sorry, we haven't got -- could you
8 go, sorry, down to the in B/C/S I'm not sure -- no, I'm sorry.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
10 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ...
11 A. Here, I can only see, although you don't like to hear that, that
12 Sead Besic got some sort of certificate.
13 Q. Can you look, please. I appreciate --
14 A. Oh, yes, that's coming up now, down there. Consensual
15 termination of employment, Dean Brzovic. I know that began to -- that he
16 actually opened a private business involving electrical appliances. I
17 don't know about Suvad Nokto.
18 Q. Yes.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I see the time.
20 JUDGE HALL: So we go into closed session.
21 [Closed session]
13 [Open session]
14 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
15 MS. KORNER: Yes, could we have P1373 on the screen.
16 Q. This is Mr. Kesic submitting a payment, the June list, in fact,
17 the one we looked at earlier, for the SNB, and do we see there that
18 Mr. Ladan has been removed from the salary list? Mr. Ladan, who was 24
19 on the original list.
20 Do you agree?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And, finally, on this one, the last document, the August payroll,
23 please, which is 65 ter number 20335, at tab 37A.
24 This is the submission of the August 1992 payroll. And do we see
25 there that Muharem Zjajo and Nisveta Dervis, respectively numbers 25 and
1 36 on the June list, are removed?
2 A. Yes. At that time, I think that there were no more
3 communications with Jajce and that the State Security Department had
4 already been separated. Muharem Zjajo was chief of the detached unit, as
5 far as I know. We had no contacts anymore because Jajce was already
6 separated from the municipalities that joined -- I'm not sure what it was
7 called at the time, the AR Krajina or something.
8 Q. I agree. I accept entirely that there was fighting, although
9 Jajce fell eventually. But that doesn't effect, does it, Ms. Nisveta
11 A. Dervis? Well, we had one Nisveta Dervisic. But I don't know
12 this one.
13 Q. Well, this is one of the people that you identified on the list
14 of people --
15 A. The list reads Nisveta Dervisic. And here, I see Nisveta Dervis.
16 Dervis is a man's first name, and I believe that it originally means the
17 member of a religious order in the Muslim religion.
18 Q. Do you know, honestly, we don't need that sort of remark. It's
19 clearly, isn't it, an error in spelling. That's all.
20 A. Maybe you can enlarge it. I can't make it out here. Or if you
21 have the original that you can show me.
22 Q. Have a look -- okay. We'll enlarge that part in B/C/S, please.
23 It's in line --
24 A. Just enlarge it. Let me just see.
25 Ah, this reads Dervisi. Dervisi sounds like Albanian. But it
1 may be a typographical error.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 A. It's a fact, though, that we had no jurisdiction over Jajce at
4 the time, so it was normal to adopt such a decision. I really don't know
5 about Nisveta when this happened.
6 Q. All right. And, in fact, if we went through the whole list, that
7 we haven't got time to do, we'd see that all the people I'd mentioned no
8 longer appear on that list.
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may I ask that this list be marked and
10 admitted? This payroll, rather.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I have an objection for reasons of
12 principle. This is a totally new exhibit that doesn't live up to the
13 criteria from the instructions issued by the Trial Chamber for leading
15 Ms. Korner chose one way of examining the witness. Instead of
16 asking him the way I did which of these people worked and which he saw
17 after a certain date, and this could have been done very easily, and now
18 we heard the answer of this witness, and, to my mind, there's no need to
19 tender these documents.
20 If it's about the credibility of the witness, he, at no time,
21 said that Ladan and Zjajo are -- remained on the job after the cut-off
23 MS. KORNER: Your Honour --
24 JUDGE HALL: Of course, the disadvantage that we have is that we
25 only have the cover and not the list.
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, it carries on. I don't want to waste
2 time going through it. But you -- you'll see that none of the people
3 I've just gone through with him figure on this payroll in August.
4 Your Honour, I'm dealing with what could only be, otherwise there
5 was no point in taking this witness through it. The implied assertion
6 was, look, effectively, the CSB wasn't prejudiced against non-Serbs or
7 whatever. They just went on working, and what we're doing is dealing
8 with that assertion. And this is one document out of the many I've put
9 to him. I've not sought to admit the others, but this is the one
10 document that shows that all the people with whom I dealt and with whom
11 he dealt in his evidence in-chief on the list no longer appear on the
12 payroll by August.
13 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
14 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P2407, Your Honours.
16 MS. KORNER:
17 Q. Now, let's move, please, to the special police.
18 Now, let me see if I understand your evidence, and I'm going to
19 break it up, the general tenor of your evidence?
20 The bulk of the special police was made up not of police officers
21 or reserve police officers but military personnel. Is that what you're
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Are you saying that there was only one platoon that contained
25 police officers and the rest all contained military personnel?
1 A. I think that it was mostly that way. There was one police
2 platoon, then there may have been some personnel changes, but in
3 principle there were three platoons of soldiers and one platoon, even
4 less than that, of police.
5 I only know that one of the commander's names was
6 Tuskasic [phoen].
7 Q. Are you saying that there was -- the platoons were kept
8 completely separate? In other words, those made up of military personnel
9 all served with other military personnel in a platoon, and those made up
10 of police officers all served in separate platoons? In other words,
11 there were not mixed personnel within the platoons.
12 Is that what you're saying?
13 A. Well, I know that they were all billeted at Rakovacke Bare; that
14 is, in one place. And I think that the police platoon mostly comprised
15 police officers. And the other platoons, at least as far as I know,
16 because after 20 years I cannot be fully concern, but as far as I know,
17 in the remaining three platoons there were only soldiers, military
18 personnel, and the commanders of the platoons were also military
20 Q. I'm sorry. Answer my question: Is it your assertion that the
21 platoons were not mixed; in other words, ex or military personnel
22 together with police? Are you saying that there was a complete
24 A. No. They were together. All four platoons belonged to the same
25 unit. They were billeted together, and I forgot to say that food was
1 also provided by the military. There was a field kitchen, and we got a
2 certain quantity of food. And we had food cards for that.
3 Q. No, forget --
4 A. And --
5 Q. No, no, stop.
6 A. That's possible. But in principle we only manned one platoon.
7 Q. I think it's a mistranslation. It's not what I'm asking.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] But he also -- he was also
9 answering your question when you interrupted him.
10 MS. KORNER: Yes, but that's not the question I'm asking. That's
11 only -- I think there's been a mistranslation.
12 Q. What I'm asking you is not whether you all ate together or all
13 stayed together or what you did, but whether the personnel assigned to
14 the platoons were mixed in each platoon. In other words, each platoon
15 had some police officers or reserve, and some military.
16 A. I really don't know. I was told that one of the platoons was a
17 police platoon and that it was attached. And that they were looking for
18 people belonging to SJBs to man that platoon. Now how that went, but
19 the -- one of the commanders was a police officer and probably the
20 platoon was also manned by police officers. That seems logical to me.
21 But it can be verified against the list, and it can be established who
22 was a police officer and who wasn't. Possibly --
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. -- they were also members of other platoons. But one of them was
25 a police platoon. It was called that.
1 Q. Stop, please. I mean, you know, sir, if you're doing this
2 deliberately so that we don't get all the questions in, then please stop.
3 I told you twice now: Just answer the question I ask. It does not need a
4 long explanation.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the problem is that
6 Ms. Korner is interrupting the witness. The witness had begun to answer
7 her question when I intervened. The police platoon didn't have enough
8 personnel and there were also soldiers. That was --
9 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers]
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] That was the beginning of his
11 answer and she interrupted him, and that's the problem.
12 You should let the man finish his answer.
13 MS. KORNER: All right.
14 Q. The question I asked was a simple one and I'll continue.
15 It is not, therefore, your case, it is not what you assert, is
16 it, sir --
17 MS. KORNER: By the way, are we in open session? Yes. Thank
19 Q. Are you saying -- you're not say, rather, that there were two
20 types of special unit. One which was -- no, don't bother about the
21 documents. We're coming onto the documents later. Just listen to the
22 question, please.
23 You are not asserting there were two types of special unit; one
24 which was police and one which was military?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Thank you. You are not suggesting, sir, are you, that one part
2 of the special police was reporting through the police chain of command
3 and another part of the special unit was reporting through the military
4 chain of command?
5 A. When a unit is headed by a military officer, they all report to
6 the military officer. The unit commander, if he's a soldier, certainly,
7 he -- certainly there's a relationship of subordination with regard to
8 the military leadership. I mean, that's what I said.
9 Q. Let's not -- I tell you what, let's not, for the moment, just
10 deal with the principle. As you say, and I accept, there is a command
11 structure. The member of the platoon will report to his superior
12 officer; is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. His superior officer, the head of the platoon, will report, in
15 turn, to his superior. The head of the unit, or the deputy head, if he's
16 not there?
17 A. To Lukic.
18 Q. Yes. And if Mr. Lukic wasn't there, to whom would the head of a
19 platoon report?
20 A. To his deputy.
21 Q. Right. And let's say, for example, unavoidably, both the head of
22 the unit, Captain Lukic, and Mr. Ecim, who was next in line, they were
23 not there, to whom would the head of the platoon report?
24 A. To whoever was on duty. Somebody had to be on duty at any given
25 time, and then they would report to him. That's normal.
9 [Private session]
11 Pages 25671-25677 redacted. Private session.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
24 MS. KORNER:
25 Q. It is inconceivable, sir, isn't it, that the police, whether the
1 minister or Stojan Zupljanin, would have agreed to pay people who were
2 military carrying out military function as policemen in those
4 A. I don't know where the problem is, if that's -- if that was a
5 decision of the political leadership as it was, it had to be obeyed. It
6 was not up to us. Allocations were made in the budget and they were used
7 for it. The money could not just be sucked out of thin air. It's a
8 large sum of money. I paid out salaries myself, so I know that a
9 decision had to back that up along with a fund for special purposes.
10 Q. Yes. No, no, no -- yes.
11 A. You can see that from --
12 Q. You've made your point. And what I'm putting to you is that
13 you're actually not telling the truth about this, sir.
14 Do you understand that? This is nonsense what you're saying.
15 A. Well, I think your claim is nonsense, if I may say so. You don't
16 understand our financial system and our financial transactions. Because
17 if, at a certain level a decision is made to pay 100.000 or a million
18 Deutschemark, that money has to be paid to that beneficiary, not a
19 different one.
20 Q. Yes, I'm sorry, sir --
21 A. It's logical, and please don't take offence.
22 Q. No, I'm sorry, sir. Again, I am afraid it's --
23 What I'm suggesting to you is: What you're saying about the
24 special police, in fact, not being police at all but military and not
25 even reporting through the police chain of command, is untrue.
1 That's the suggestion I'm making.
2 A. And I affirm that I've told you the truth, that effectively and
3 factually that unit was controlled by the army. And you could see that
4 from the very activities of that unit.
5 Q. Right. Now, sir, what you're saying -- it also follows logically
6 from what you're saying that members of the military become policemen
7 only to be resubordinated back to the military. That's right, isn't it?
8 A. That's precisely how it was. Because that unit was set up and
9 automatically resubordinated because the man number one in the unit was a
10 military man, and all its activities were identified by the military
11 intelligence officer, and we only received an information about it only
12 inasmuch as we asked for some funding or equipment.
13 Q. It's just nonsense, isn't it, sir. Absolute nonsense. That --
14 that somebody goes to the -- the -- the -- the -- the ... I'm trying to
15 find the right word. Just let me finish and then you can answer.
16 To say that somebody would bother to get members who were under
17 military control to, on the face of it, become policemen and then give
18 them back to the military. It's complete nonsense, isn't it?
19 A. I can't agree with you. It's not nonsense. It was the political
20 decision then. For certain structures to be established as police units;
21 whereas, in effect, they were sent to accomplish typically military
22 assignments. And you can see that clearly from their activities. Anyone
23 who knows anything about military tactics and operation will understand
24 that. Now why somebody decided to call it a special police unit, I don't
25 know. People plan and envisage things in many ways that do not come out
1 as they thought. It was originally planned for the unit to have
2 helicopters as well, but we never got them. And we were never really a
3 police unit. We were -- we were fed by the military.
4 Q. All right. And it follows, doesn't it, from the evidence the
5 Court has heard, that if these special police were, in fact, members of
6 the military, then it would be the military police who would investigate
7 them, and it would be the military courts who would try them.
8 Do you agree with that?
9 A. Well, in principle, I -- I think at the time there were no
10 military courts, but, generally speaking, military courts should have
11 dealt with that.
12 In the early days, everything was improvised, and all
13 misdemeanours were dealt with by regular courts. As far as I remember.
14 Of course, I can't really remember.
15 Q. Do you accept that if these people in the so-called special
16 police were, in fact, members of the military, it would be the military
17 police who would investigate?
18 A. Well, let me tell you, things were not clearly defined at the
19 time. In the area of the town, if you looked at reports, there were
20 arrests of military and non-military offenders. It was hard to
21 distinguish between civilians and the military if everybody was wearing
22 uniforms. How do you explain that?
23 Q. No, I accept entirely that arrests of military personnel could be
24 made by civilian police and that investigations would be -- begun if the
25 civilian police had done the arrests or it had been reported to them by
1 them. But once it was established that the perpetrator was a member of
2 the military, it would then, would it not, be handed over to the military
3 to deal with it?
4 A. That's what happened in peacetime, but the real situation at that
5 time was very different. Anybody who was responsible for an offence in
6 town were dealt with by some intervention unit that was set up precisely
7 for things like that. At least 90 per cent of the cases were dealt with
8 by them.
9 Q. Let's move now to actual specifics.
10 You dealt with the decision that was made by the -- in fact, the
11 Assembly of the Autonomous Region of Krajina on the 17th of April but
12 published on the 27th. So let's look at what happened next.
13 MS. KORNER: Could we have, please, Exhibit 20269 -- sorry, not
14 exhibit. 65 ter. Tab 4.
15 Q. On the 21st of April, a dispatch goes out, does it not, from
16 Stojan Zupljanin to the chiefs of all public security stations saying:
17 "We hereby request that you submit your proposal of volunteer candidates
18 for the special police unit..."
19 Pausing there, sir, it does not say, does it, special police
20 platoon or police platoon of the special unit, does it?
21 A. Well, you see it's written former members of special units, in
22 the plural. The strength of the unit is not clearly defined. It could
23 be from 30 men up. That's nothing special. But this is a dispatch
24 listing standard requirements that they should be younger men familiar
25 with martial arts, have skills.
1 Q. Yes, I'm sorry --
2 A. I don't know. I've never seen this before.
3 Q. I'm sorry, sir, what I'm putting to you is that in the first
4 sentence Mr. Zupljanin, before he sets out the requirements, talks about
5 the special -- that he wants volunteers for the special police unit. He
6 doesn't say -- well, I mean, it's obvious. I'll wait for his comment.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm really sorry, I think it will be helpful
8 because it says proposal of volunteer candidates. It doesn't say so in
9 the original. So [Overlapping speakers] ...
10 MS. KORNER: I'll ask him to read it.
11 Q. Can you read out, sir, please, the first sentence after the
12 words: "To the chiefs."
13 Just read out, please. The sentence beginning: "Molimo ..."
14 A. "We kindly request that you submit your nominations of candidates
15 for the special unit of the police that is being established in CSB
16 Banja Luka. Men who wish to join and have special skills. Namely" --
17 Q. That's fine.
18 So it -- it doesn't -- the word "volunteer" is wrong.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm going to ask that this be marked
20 and admitted, but we'll send it back for retranslation.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I want to repeat my
22 principled objection.
23 This document is not on the 65 ter list of the Prosecution, and
24 the Prosecution did not submit an adequate written proposal to put it on
25 the list subsequently. This is typical fresh evidence that the
1 Prosecutor is trying to introduce now.
2 JUDGE HALL: Your objection is noted Mr. Krgovic.
3 So this document is marked for identification, pending
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P2408, marked for identification,
6 Your Honours.
7 JUDGE HALL: The -- I -- I take the point about retranslation
8 having regard to Mr. Zecevic's observation. But having regard to the
9 interpretation from the witness's reading of the original, the -- the --
10 the effect is the same, isn't it? Does this really need to be
12 The sentence when the witness said he added men who wish to join
13 and have special skills, et cetera. So that the men who wish to join,
14 isn't that, in effect, the same thing as volunteer in the translation
15 that we have.
16 MS. KORNER: Actually, I suppose that's right, Your Honours. I
17 was looking at the word "nomination" which doesn't appear, but I agree on
18 reflection. And thank you very much for that assistance.
19 May I ask, then, that it just be a full exhibit?
20 MR. ZECEVIC: I agree also, and I'm sorry, Your Honours.
21 MS. KORNER: Yes, it's your fault.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Because I missed that part of the second -- in the
23 second sentence. I'm sorry.
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
25 So the document is admitted and marked.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, could you remind me the tab number
3 MS. KORNER: Tab 4, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
5 MS. KORNER:
6 Q. Now, can we move, please, to the next document, which is
7 Mr. Zupljanin talking about the special police.
8 MS. KORNER: Could we look, please, at document -- no, I'm sorry,
9 it's the wrong one. I beg your pardon. Yes, dated the 12th of May,
10 which is document P560.
11 Q. Now this is an article that appeared in Glas the day before the
12 parade. Did you read it? An interview with Mr. Zupljanin.
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you read Glas?
15 A. Rarely. I don't read much. And when I read newspapers, I read
16 mainly human interest stories. I never read political articles. I'm
17 just not interested. I've always by apolitical. You really can't expect
18 me to have read Glas. I don't even listen to the news bulletins on the
20 The newspapers, I always turn to the back pages first.
21 Q. You know, just the -- the answer was rarely. That's all you
22 needed to have said. I didn't need -- we don't need the rest.
23 Right. I want to go, please, in English translation to page 2.
24 I believe it's the second column where Glas asks him about the special
25 detachment. Yes. That's it. Thank you.
1 By a decision of the Assembly a special detachment of the centre
2 has been formed. What's its real area of competence and in what
3 circumstances it will be used.
4 Then Mr. Zupljanin said:
5 "In the general we are faced with the obligation to keep peace.
6 In the earlier organisation it was envisaged that in reserve composition
7 we should have a small unit the size of a platoon that we call special.
8 The needs and the situation tell us that we have to expand this unit. It
9 now numbers about 150 men and it can still be expanded. During choice
10 for the unit, strict criteria are envisaged. The most important criteria
11 are those of health, age, experience. It also envisages a certain number
12 of soldiers --"
13 A. I can't see the continuation.
14 Q. "We have also envisaged that a certain number of soldiers should
15 go into the unit, people who have war experience and who know how to
16 fight with up-to-date weapons at this time, for the detachment will be
17 equipped with them. This will be an elite unit, equipped with combat
18 vehicles, helicopters," you say you didn't get them, "and other
19 contemporary equipment and weaponry. The detachment will be given
20 everything it needs. It will be led by the most expert personnel, and
21 the detachment will certainly be under total control and will be ready to
22 carry out the most complex assignments. If it is necessary for the
23 detachment to find together with the army, it will be made available."
24 Now, sir, do you accept that what Mr. Zupljanin was telling the
25 public was this was a police unit, that certain members -- well, firstly,
1 do you accept that he was telling the public that this was a police unit?
2 A. We can see from this text that this is an interview Mr. Zupljanin
3 gave. As in any interview, there is a lot of boasting here, and I also
4 said in my interview that it was being said that this or that would
5 happen but never happened. We saw here that he says "if necessary, it
6 will be made available to fight together with the army."
7 Q. Repeat the question, sir.
8 Do you agree that Mr. Zupljanin, through the medium of the Glas
9 reporter, is saying to the public, This is a police unit?
10 A. He was making public that this was a police unit, but at the same
11 time he was saying that it would operate within the army, if you're
12 reading it correctly. It will be available means that it will be
13 available to the army.
14 Q. Yes. That's a completely different scenario, isn't it, though,
15 to the one that you have outlined; namely, that this was, to all intents
16 and purposes, an army unit reporting to the army.
17 A. I was speaking about the real situation. The way it was in the
18 field. In practice, it reported to the army. And whoever funded it is
19 irrelevant. I was speaking about what was happening out there in the
20 field, and I wasn't commenting on anybody's statement. Although it
21 follows from this statement, too, that what I said about our being
22 resubordinated to the army is, in fact, correct.
23 Q. Well, it's a matter for the Judges to decide whether what is
24 being said here even remotely squares with what you asserted.
25 I want to continue a little bit about further down the page in
1 English, Glas -- now I think we need to go to -- yes, the top. Thank
2 you. That question by Glas. I'm sorry, no. Don't move. I can't find
3 it. Now I've lost it again. Yes, there, just above that. Yes. Stop
5 Glas says -- I hope that's the right place. No. It's a question
6 about the SOS. Yes, thank you very much. Stay there. That's fine.
7 Question from the reporter. He's been talking about explosions
8 in Banja Luka.
9 Some link these explosions with the Serbian defence forces, the
10 SOS. Two questions follow: Who are the SOS and what are their relations
11 with the centre, or the centre with the SOS?
13 SOS no longer exists. I think there is no need for them to
14 exist. Some of the members of the SOS who were exceptionally effective
15 in their work have been received into the special detachment. They are
16 really quality people. Above all, in terms of character, and then --
17 Next page, please, thank you.
18 -- they are people with combat experience. Such men we have no
20 And then he says:
21 The problem is with those who claim to be members of the SOS,
22 individuals who wear those red berets, et cetera. The SOS have done
23 their job, some of the forces has been taken over by the CSB and others
24 have been told in public that the SOS no longer exist.
25 Were you in Banja Luka when the SOS staged their takeover, I
1 suppose, temporary takeover, at the beginning of April?
2 A. I don't remember that event. I probably wasn't present in the
3 building at the time. I must have been in the field somewhere.
4 But we can see from this text that a number of these people, and
5 I also spoke about the fact that among the SOS members there were a
6 number of Red Berets under Colonel Stevilovic. But you see that it's
7 asserted here that some people illegally infiltrated them and did illegal
8 things. But then the SOS was disbanded and some of them were received by
9 this unit, as I said.
10 Q. [Overlapping speakers]
11 A. Colonel Stevilovic was the coordinator. And some people were --
12 some people infiltrated that unit.
13 Q. Right. Well, let's take one or two questions.
14 A. But this is more political rhetoric.
15 Q. No. All right. The first question is you -- you confirm you
16 were aware that in the special police unit were former members of the
18 A. I didn't know them personally, but that's the information I
19 heard, and I suppose that it is correct.
20 I was not a member of the SOS. I didn't take part in their
21 activities. Actually, I don't really even know what they did. It was
22 not in my line of work.
23 Q. I'm sorry, are you saying that you were unaware that the SOS set
24 up barricades in Banja Luka on the 3rd of April?
25 A. I know that barricades had been set up, but I didn't know the
1 specifics. I know that one of my colleagues, an active duty police
2 officer, was killed at one of these barricades, one of those uncontrolled
3 members of these formations that manned the barricade. I don't know what
4 they were called officially.
5 Q. Were you told by any of your colleagues in the CSB or anybody
6 from the SJB that the SOS contained well-known Banja Luka criminals?
7 A. I saw some comments of that kind, but I really no longer remember
8 whether -- what anybody told me about it at that time because we are
9 talking about events of 20 years ago.
10 Q. I'm sorry --
11 A. Probably there were stories out there. I suppose that this
12 man -- or can we go into private session?
13 Q. No, because we're nearly finished.
14 And what I'm going to ask you now is: Were -- do you know
15 whether any checks were carried out to see whether the people accepted
16 into the special police were people with criminal records? People
17 accepted from the SOS into the special police.
18 A. I cannot guarantee that checks were, indeed, made. It would have
19 been in line with the rules of service, but I don't remember how it was.
20 Based on the text that I saw, I can conclude that checks were conducted.
21 But maybe there was no time. I really don't remember anymore.
22 Q. Finally, in the last five minutes, can I show you a couple of
23 documents to deal with the army and the special unit.
24 MS. KORNER: Could we have a look, please, at document P548. At
25 tab 5. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, I may have got... yes. No, it is the
1 right one.
2 Q. Were you aware that a request had been made by the -- in fact,
3 Stojan Zupljanin. If we look at the last page but one. It's the - one,
4 two, three, four - fourth page in B/C/S, and fifth page in English.
5 By Stojan Zupljanin to the commander of the 2nd Military District
6 for the -- all the equipment.
7 A. This is a text written by Bozo Novakovic.
8 Q. No, above of that.
9 Do you see head of centre: Stojan Zupljanin. This is a dispatch,
10 isn't it?
11 A. Oh, yes, it is above that.
12 Q. Go back to the first page: Request for handing over material
14 Now you've said the army supplied the material and the equipment.
15 Were you aware that was because Stojan Zupljanin had asked them to?
16 A. This is the usual procedure. When a unit is equipped, the desk
17 clerk for materiel and technical equipment draws up such a list.
18 Bozo Novakovic did it and took it to Mr. Zupljanin.
19 I have not seen this before but this corroborates my version that
20 they requested helicopters, APCs, and so on, but never got any. So
21 everything stayed the way it was, and the unit was basically taken over
22 by the army, and we were available to them for combat activities.
23 I wasn't there when this was drafted, and I cannot comment
24 because I only arrived after the parade.
25 Q. I'm sorry. The point that I'm trying to make is, sir, is that
1 it's not that the army was equipping one of its own units. It's that
2 Stojan Zupljanin was requesting the army. Which is very different, isn't
4 A. Not really. He's asking for -- he is requesting equipment for
5 the unit that's being established. That's normal.
6 And the CSB was to provide salaries, and the army food and
7 accommodation, and what's the problem with that? It's normal for a
8 request to be submitted by the body whose part the unit officially is.
9 Q. All right. Final question: Were you aware, however, that the
10 army had to go right up to the top to get authorisation to supply what
11 they described as a special purpose police unit.
12 Did you know that?
13 A. No.
14 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, then that's ...
15 JUDGE HALL: So we take the adjournment, to reconvene on Monday.
16 I don't know if anybody needs a reminder that the first session on
17 Tuesday is transferred to Monday afternoon.
18 Sorry, sir, please go ahead.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have a request.
20 During the break, I was given a device for listening the
21 recordings, listening to the recordings. I would like -- also like the
22 translation of the material from Mr. Krgovic. It would be much easier
23 for me to compare the two versions and find possible interpretation
24 errors. Because I was able to identify some instances of
25 misinterpretation even though I'm a layman. Nobody noticed that there
1 was some interventions because of Serb houses that were burnt down in
2 Kotor, and possibly the Prosecution should also put such questions and
3 not only questions as further their case.
4 I wrote on this that I would request the translation of the
5 document, lest I forget, because I'm a man of a certain age.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I understand that to mean -- sorry,
8 I understand that to mean that he wants a full translation of
9 the -- a full version of his interview in his own language. We've
10 already said we don't have that. We can -- I suggest the Court provides
11 him, and neither side because neither side can communicate with him,
12 which he should be remind of, over the weekend, a copy of the transcript.
13 In English. But I understood he count read English. That's what he
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You misunderstood me. I'm usually
17 I'm asking for the translation that was used. What I wrote
18 there, the transcript in the Serbian language of all questions and
19 answers. And I believe that Mr. Krgovic or somebody from his team has
20 it. I would like to compare that to the audio recording. Because I
21 think that during the interview not everything was recorded the way I
22 said it.
23 I think that the written translation differs from what I really
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Maybe part of this mixup is due to
2 I only have the English version. I was actually reading the
3 English version, translating it at sight, so I have nothing but the
4 English version of the document for the witness.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That won't be of much use to me.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Maybe the witness means what was
7 shown to him. Only those sections.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mean what was shown to me, but
9 the integral text because I'll listen to the entire audio, and I would
10 like to see, to identify the sections where my answers were
11 misinterpreted. Even now, there was some objections to the
13 JUDGE HALL: Well, I would request that VWS make available to you
14 what they are able to, because you would have gathered from what passed
15 between counsel and the Bench in the course of this exercise earlier that
16 the -- not everything is necessarily available in B/C/S, but we would see
17 where -- what we have on -- to the extent to which they can assist you.
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, the only thing that's in B/C/S are the
19 short passages that we have done for today's purposes, unless, as the
20 witness seems to think, Mr. Krgovic has a full transcription, but it
21 doesn't seem has either. So he can certainly have, as far as we're
22 concerned, the English transcript.
23 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
24 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think that only these parts
1 are sufficient, because they go beyond the context of my answers.
2 JUDGE HALL: We're advised by the Court Officer that the witness
3 has what is -- what VWS has available and more than that, we -- is
4 practically -- cannot practically can be met at this point.
5 MS. KORNER: But, Your Honours, my understanding is what he wants
6 is he wants the full transcript in B/C/S but we haven't got one.
7 JUDGE HALL: It doesn't exist.
8 MS. KORNER: It does not exist, from either side.
9 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
10 So Mr. Witness, as -- thanks.
11 This being the weekend I remind you of what I said when we took
12 the adjournment on the first day about not communicating with counsel
13 from either side and in such conversations as you would have, not
14 discussing your testimony.
15 So we would reconvene in this courtroom on Monday morning
16 at 9.00.
17 And I think we have to go into closed session for you to be
18 escorted out ahead of us.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I also ask you to consider,
20 sympathetically, that I lost an hour this morning over the arguments and
21 maybe I should be allowed that extra hour tomorrow -- on Monday.
22 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] ... to quote a famous
23 movie line.
24 [Closed session]
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 JUDGE HALL: So I trust everyone has a safe weekend.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.56 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Monday, the 14th day of
10 November, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.