1 Tuesday, 15 November 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 10.33 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
6 everyone in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
8 Stojan Zupljanin.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Good morning to everyone. May we have the appearances today,
12 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner and
13 Sebastiaan van Hooydonk for the Prosecution.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. It
15 seems I'm not wide awake yet.
16 For the Stanisic Defence team, Slobodan Cvijetic and
17 Deirdre Montgomery.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and
19 Miroslav Cuskic, appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
20 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
21 May we go into closed session so the witness could be escorted
22 back to the stand, please.
23 [Closed session]
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE HALL: Before I invite Ms. Korner to wind up her
7 cross-examination, I remind you, sir, of the solemn declaration that you
8 made when you first began.
9 WITNESS: SZ-002 [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Ms. Korner
12 Cross-examination by Ms. Korner: [Continued]
13 Q. Sir, I want to go back to the video we are looking at yesterday
14 of the men we suggest were being led towards the sawmill by a special
15 police officer. You've identified him as a special police officer.
16 MS. KORNER: But I think what we've done now is print off a still
17 from the video which, Your Honours, we've arranged for hard copies to be
18 given to everybody and one for the witness. But it's got the ERN number
19 0704-7618. So it can come up in e-court as well.
20 I'm also going to ask that Your Honours be given and the witness
21 have back the hard copy version of the photo-board of the special police
22 which -- I've forgotten what the exhibit number was. P2417.
23 And if Your Honours go in that, because it's easier to do this,
24 to page with the ERN number 06785416, together with the still.
25 Right. If I could ask the witness be handed that -- the two
2 Q. Now, sir, it wasn't -- and I accept entirely it wasn't that easy
3 when you were watching the video to identify the man, but are you now
4 able to confirm that that special policeman leading those men is, in
5 fact, the man you knew as Tomislav Miljkovic?
6 A. I remember him as a fat man. This may be due to technical
7 reasons, but he looks much slimmer here. So I cannot be certain that
8 this is him.
9 Q. Forget about the size of him. The face. Looking at his face.
10 It's a -- it's a fairly good, I would suggest, depiction of face.
11 Is that him, as he was in June of 1992?
12 A. It's hard for me to remember what he looked like in 1992. I
13 remember him from the time when he was prosecuted for some crime. And I
14 know that he was -- well, chubby.
15 Q. All right.
16 A. But if he looked like this in 1992, as I said, he wasn't anything
17 like slim at the time when I -- from which I remember him, and he was
18 being prosecuted for some criminal offence.
19 Q. Was that criminal offence rape?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Or murder?
22 A. No.
23 Q. All right. Well I --
24 A. It was a robbery. The robbery of a gas station or something, as
25 far as I know.
1 Q. Overall, as a proportion of the police population, would you say
2 there were a greater collection of criminals within the special police?
3 A. Well, I think that there weren't many. We're talking about
4 individual cases. And, funnily, this one was discovered and ended up in
5 jail. Most people, most members of the unit, were conscientious men and
6 didn't commit offences.
7 Q. All right. Let's move on because I have just got three other
8 matters I'd like to deal with you.
9 I'd like to go back to the video, please, P2014, and just play
10 you a part of Mr. Ecim talking.
11 MS. KORNER: All right. If we can -- on the screen, sorry.
13 We seem to have lost... sorry.
14 Do we have any sound?
15 [Video-clip played]
16 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Another Ustasha stronghold in
17 Kotor Varos municipality has fallen and the commander of the special
18 detachment of the CSB Banja Luka, Ljuban Ecim, will tell us how the
19 action went.
20 "This was certainly one of the most organised and best
21 synchronised actions in the area of Kotor Varos. In six hours, excellent
22 results were achieved. I would especially like to point out the
23 assistance of the active-duty members of the CSB and they really lived up
24 to the name of Krajisnik. We were able to destroy the core forces of the
25 HVO with only one casualty on our side and three wounded."
1 MS. KORNER: All right. Can we stop. I don't think the
2 interpreter is keeping up. There is a transcript of is because certain
3 words have been missed out. The transcript is at P -- tab 60. So I'd
4 like to go back and start again.
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 JUDGE HALL: I understand that the interpreters don't have a hard
7 copy of the transcript, which is part of the problem.
8 MS. KORNER: Okay. In which case, let me hand -- I see, it's
9 already gone to them. Where -- apparently, it was given -- it was handed
10 in this morning. Yesterday. So they should have it. This is what
11 causes delay.
12 JUDGE HALL: But is the transcript an exhibit?
13 MS. KORNER: Yes, it's, Your Honours. But you can't put it up at
14 the same time as playing the video.
15 In any event, already. Let's just play it through.
16 [Video-clip played]
17 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] [As read] "Finally, another Ustasha
18 stronghold in the Kotor Varos municipality has fallen. We're talking
19 about the Kotor local commune. Ljuban Ecim will tell us more.
20 "Ljuban Ecim: This was certainly one of the best organised and
21 best synchronised actions in Kotor Varos municipality. In only six
22 hours, excellent results were achieved. We have received excellent
23 assistance from the reserve forces and the active forces of the
24 Security Services Centre, many of whose members took part in combat for
25 the first time today but truly up to the name of Krajisnik in battle. We
1 were assisted by a certain segment of units of Serbian forces, Serbian
2 troops of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. With only one victim and
3 three wounded on our side, we managed to destroy the core of the HVO and
4 kill the self-proclaimed HVO commander, Stipo Maric, also known as Sprzo,
5 who has up until now inflicted heavy losses on us from many treacherous
6 ambushes. His victims include Colonel Milan Stevilovic and head of our
7 police department, Stevan Markovic ... came to collect its dues, and
8 today we destroyed the entire group and liberated a larger portion of the
9 town so that now it can be said that the entire city of Kotor Varos is
10 finally free."
11 MS. KORNER: That's all I need. Your Honours, in the transcript
12 it wasn't translated, but I heard the word, and I would be grateful if
13 the witness could confirm it, or not I heard the words, I read the words:
14 Excellent results were achieved in some six hours of action under the
15 guidance of the special unit.
16 Q. Did you hear those word, sir, said by Mr. Ecim?
17 A. I heard it in the video-clip, but we need a complete translation
18 to understand what this is about. This is a confirmation of the
19 statement that the special detachment was outside the CSB because their
20 staff were included for the first time. The complete translation will
21 tell you all about it, and that's what I have been saying all along.
22 Q. All right. But what it doesn't say -- what Mr. Ecim is not
23 saying is that this unit was part and parcel of the military, because he
24 specifically, as you say, says that there was assistance from the Serbian
25 troops of the republic. Didn't he?
1 A. He was speaking about the action itself. It was one action of
2 many. And we can see who took part. Everybody participated. And he
3 distinguishes between the participation of people from the CSB, on the
4 one hand, and the special unit on the other hand.
5 Q. The whole thrust of your evidence, sir - this is the last time I
6 want to deal with this - is this special police unit was nothing more nor
7 less than a unit of the military under military command.
8 Do you agree?
9 A. I agree that it was subordinate all the time, that they were
10 under the military in terms of command.
11 Q. Right. Now, two other matters.
12 First of all, you talked about the Doboj component of the special
13 police, and you said that they were seconded to Doboj CSB and therefore
14 the CSB Banja Luka had nothing to do with them.
15 Is that -- is that what you're saying?
16 A. Yes. They were seconded.
17 Q. So do you have any explanation as to why the -- the request for
18 payment of their salaries should be sent to the Banja Luka CSB?
19 A. It was because the headquarters of the unit was there, and, thus,
20 they could be paid. They weren't in one place all the time. They were
21 moving in groups of five. They took shifts.
22 Q. All right. Yes, you explained to us.
23 So, in other words, the unit that went to Doboj also went to
24 other places and was also being paid by the CSB Banja Luka; is that
1 A. I don't think that the Banja Luka CSB paid the ones who were in
3 Q. Well --
4 A. I think it was the other way around. The Doboj paid.
5 Q. Well, sir, I'm not going to trouble to show you the actual
6 document. But there's a document that shows that a request for payment
7 was sent to the Banja Luka CSB.
8 Now -- and what you're saying they would have no responsibility
9 for paying them, would they?
10 A. Well, in principle, if somebody is seconded, then the one to whom
11 they are seconded should pay and everything.
12 Q. Right --
13 A. I remember that I drafted a request for somebody to be paid
14 because, by mistake, he wasn't on the list.
15 Q. Yes. You did; Mr. Kalamanda. However, that's the point, sir,
16 that I'm making. They're not seconded at all, are they? They still come
17 under the authority of the Banja Luka CSB, and they were merely sent off
18 to do an operation in Doboj. That's the reality, isn't it?
19 A. No. They were transferred there for use.
20 Q. All right. I want, then, to finally deal with one last document,
21 on whether or not the CSB -- whether or not the special police were, in
22 reality, disbanded on the 10th of August and sent to the military.
23 Could you have a look, please, at P1666.
24 MS. KORNER: I'm going to remind myself what the tab number is.
25 It's tab 38.
1 Now, Your Honours, our markings say this is under seal. But I --
2 it's one of the documents that I think needn't certainly be under seal.
3 I don't know whether ... so I don't know what the situation is at the
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 JUDGE HALL: The -- we'll proceed if there is -- if there's
7 anything that would comprise the witness then we'd not publish the
9 MS. KORNER: No. It has got nothing to do with the witness at
10 all, sir.
11 JUDGE HALL: I -- I see.
12 MS. KORNER: It was under seal. It must have come in, I can't
13 remember now, through another witness who was in closed session. But
14 there is no reason, on the face of the document --
15 JUDGE HALL: So the status still is as under seal.
16 MS. KORNER: Until, yes, Your Honours have lifted the --
17 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... so we'd lift it.
18 MS. KORNER: Right.
19 JUDGE HALL: We'd lift it.
20 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much.
21 Q. Now, sir, there is a 1st Krajina Corps report dated the 29th of
22 August 1992. And let's go to -- in English, over the page, this is under
23 paragraph 4. And it will be over the page in B/C/S:
24 "The Banja Luka CSB special detachment located in Kotor Varos
25 area has still not joined the 22nd Light Brigade and is causing serious
1 problems on the ground."
2 Now, earlier, yesterday, I showed you the Kotor Varos Crisis
3 Staff report for, I think it was the 23rd of August [indiscernible] and
4 now this one. It's right, isn't it?
5 A. [No interpretation]
6 Q. Can I just finish the question. It's right isn't it, sir --
7 A. [No interpretation]
8 Q. Just let me finish, please. It's right, isn't it, sir, that the
9 special police brigade were not disbanded on the 10th of August and
10 continued to commit crimes in Kotor Varos until the end of August, at
12 A. Could you please put up this document because you're showing
13 something wrong to me. And what you're saying is not correct. This is
14 not the document you're talking about.
15 Q. I'm sorry? This is -- we'll go back to the front -- I'll give
16 you the actual B/C/S copy and you can have a look at it.
17 The part I'm just referring you to is the last part of
18 paragraph 4.
19 A. Mm-hm. This is obviously a military problem. We completed all
20 payments on the 31st of August and had no more authority over them.
21 It's a fact that at the time a number of people went to other
22 units on their own and regulated their status. It can be verified that
23 they received -- that they found positions in some other light units and
24 had no more ties with the unit.
25 Q. Yes, sorry, sir. You misunderstand, whether deliberately or not,
1 I don't know, but you've been asserting that, certainly from the 10th of
2 August and, indeed, before the special police were no longer in operation
3 as a unit. I am saying to you from the evidence of the documents that
4 the special police actually continued to operate certainly until the end
5 of August.
6 Now, there's a simple answer, either you say yes or no, you don't
7 agree with that.
8 A. No.
9 Q. All right.
10 MS. KORNER: Could I have that back, please.
11 Q. Finally, sir, this: You said at page 25539 of the transcript,
12 which was on the -- Thursday of last week, that:
13 "I know in that period," this is at line 9, "there were many
14 fighters who got killed or were wounded in both our ranks and theirs.
15 There was sniper activity on a daily basis from the opposite side."
16 Do you accept, sir, that in Kotor Varos, in which you were, the
17 casualties on the other side, of civilians, in particular, were far, far
18 greater than anything suffered by either the troops or, indeed, your
19 special police?
20 A. I have already stated once that only on one occasion I saw dead
21 bodies and that was when I was called to identify our fallen soldiers in
22 the morgue. I didn't see anybody killed up there.
23 Q. No.
24 A. I worked there on several occasions --
25 Q. Not what I'm asking you, sir. I'm not asking you what dead
1 bodies you saw. I appreciate you're going back and back to that video
2 that you're so keen on. But what I'm asking you is, as a matter of
3 record, and at the time, were you aware of the hundreds of killed in
4 attacks on villages and other areas?
5 A. No.
6 Q. You see, let's just look --
7 A. There were stories about war going on. But, really, I am not
8 aware of any mass murders of civilians. I really don't know anything
9 about that. Because there were stories about fighting between our units
10 of and units under the command of a person called Sprzo. They were also
11 armed. Those are military activities, fighting between equals on both
12 sides, as far as I know.
13 Q. You know perfectly well, sir, don't you, this wasn't even
14 remotely a fight of equals. This was the might of the VRS aided by armed
15 police in an attack on villages and other places where the defenders, if
16 armed at all, were only armed with rifles.
17 That's the reality, isn't it?
18 A. No. I went to Vrbanci to agree negotiations, and when I came
19 there, I saw that people had a Zolja, which is an anti-tank weapon, and
20 some automatic rifle, which means that they were not unarmed. I went
21 through their barricade. I saw that they were equipped. They were
23 I spoke to Sprzo himself, the one who was subsequently killed.
24 Q. Before I show you a document to show just how unequal all of this
25 was, were you aware of the killing of over 200 unarmed men in the
1 Grabovica school in November of 1992?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Never heard that?
4 A. No. I never heard of that. I don't even know where Grabovica
5 is, to be honest.
6 Q. So between 1992 and today, that is the first time you're telling
7 this Court that you ever heard of that massacre?
8 A. This is not what I'm saying. A lot of times later I heard about
9 reports and investigations that were taking place about certain events on
10 both sides. However, when that was going on, I didn't even know where
11 Grabovica was. I never went to Grabovica. Not then, not later. So
12 that's why I'm saying that I don't know where Grabovica is.
13 Q. All right. Let's just look finally then at the casualties.
14 MS. KORNER: Could we go back, please, to the document, which is
15 at tab 31, and the number is P865. This was the report done by the
16 inspectors on the formational activities of the Banja Luka CSB. Can we
17 get in August of 1992. Can we go in English to page 2; and it's the -- I
18 think it's the -- the -- the penultimate paragraph in B/C/S. So if we
19 can highlight that, please.
20 Q. "In co-operation with the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and
21 Herzegovina army units, the detachment" -- mark the words "in
23 "The detachment participated in combat on the territory of the
24 municipalities of the Bosanski Novi, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Kupres,
25 Kljuc, Donji Vakuf, Mrkonjic Grad, Sipovo, Derventa, Doboj, Modrica,
1 Kotor Varos. Nine members were killed during the fighting and 25
3 Hardly, would you say, sir, a large casualty number?
4 A. Of those nine, I believe that eight victims hailed from
5 Kotor Varos. And that would be a lot for one unit.
6 And for the rest, this is the standard version, as it were. I
7 don't know that the detachment participated in those other positions. I
8 believe that that was all before -- then things were promoted in that
10 Q. So I was about to come on to point out to you that of that eight
11 or nine -- sorry, nine members killed something like six or seven were
12 killed in that one ambush that so much publicity was made about at the
14 Would you agree that if they participated in that number of
15 actions it was hardly a strong force on the other side?
16 A. In principle, if people behave properly in conduct losses should
17 be smaller. Because if a unit has up to 60 people and if they loss eight
18 men, that is over 10 per cent of its entire strength. That means that
19 something went wrong.
20 Q. Finally, sir, I go back to where I started with my questions some
21 days ago now. Do you consider that you have any responsibility, at all,
22 for what happened to it the non-Serbs in Kotor Varos?
23 A. No.
24 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic.
25 Re-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, sir.
2 Let's keep the document on the screen. It's P10394
3 [as interpreted].
4 Sir, please look at the last paragraph, or, rather, the
5 penultimate paragraph that Ms. Korner showed you.
6 You just told us that you didn't know that the unit participated
7 in the areas mentioned in here and that that was before the detachment
8 was established. Do you remember that you answered to that effect?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You spoke about that in the interview. I believe that the
11 document was shown to you during the interview.
12 Could you please tell me which units participated in those events
13 and were they attached to Colonel Stevilovic?
14 A. The Red Berets participated in those events; i.e., units that
15 were under the direct control of Colonel Stevilovic.
16 Q. Did some of the elements of those units later join the special
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Since we're talking about that, could you please look at the
20 document and tell us whether, among the municipalities where those units
21 were active, you can see Petrovac as well?
22 A. No, I can't see Petrovac. No.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. Please
24 bear with me for a moment.
25 Q. Sir, a little while ago, you were shown a video. And the
1 Prosecutor suggested that the person whom you were asked to identify was
2 escorting a group of prisoners.
3 Can you tell us how prisoners are escorted? How does the escort
4 walk? Does he walk in front of the prisoners, behind the prisoners? In
5 what manner are prisoners escorted?
6 A. Well, usually when a person is arrested or detained their hands
7 are bound and the escort goes behind that person at a certain distance,
8 for security reasons, the security of the person whom he is escorting,
9 that is.
10 Q. The person that was shown to you a little while ago, was he
11 walking in front of those persons or behind them?
12 A. He was in front of the group. I believe that he was first in
13 line or maybe one step ahead of the group.
14 Q. Sir, the Prosecutor showed you a concern number of documents in
15 her examination. I would show the witness P11097, under tab 23.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can I give this to
17 the witness, please. 11091 is the document number. I apologise. 11091.
18 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. Just a moment,
20 please. The document number is P1091; I misread the number yet once
21 again. Tab 23.
22 Q. I apologise, I don't know what you're looking at, sir. Can you
23 look under 23, tab 23, please.
24 Maybe you would be better off looking at the screen instead of
25 the hard copy.
1 A. No. This is not 23, whatever.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the document please be zoomed
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was already shown to me.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. You were suggested by the Prosecutor that this is about a request
7 for setting these individuals free.
8 Could you please read the document carefully. It says here:
9 "It is necessary that you release the individuals from detention
10 and inform them to report to the Banja Luka SJB tomorrow, 21 July, for
11 future operative steps, if necessary. In other words" --
12 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] [Previous translation
13 continues] ... sorry, you ask him what he says, not what you say it says.
14 Can't lead.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I am reading Your Honours. I am
16 reading word for word what it says in the document.
17 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] I apologise, it may be
18 translation because you were being translating as saying: "In other
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Microphone not activated]
21 Q. [Interpretation] "In other words, escort them to the Banja Luka
22 basic court investigative judge."
23 MS. KORNER: That is exactly the complaint I was making. It is
24 not what the document reads.
25 JUDGE HALL: It is.
1 MS. KORNER: The bit that he was reading: "It is necessary to
2 release these individuals and inform them to report to the Banja Luka
3 public security station." That's the bit that was being read.
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm reading the whole sentence. I
5 am continuing to read -- to read the entire sentence.
6 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] I'm sorry, Your Honours,
7 I see where he's -- I -- I thought he was reading that sentence and
8 it's -- yeah.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] "In other words, escort them to the
10 Banja Luka basic court investigative judge."
11 Q. Sir, are these people requested by this document? What are they
12 requested to do? Is this a request to liberate them or to speed up the
14 A. I already said that this was a request to speed up the procedure.
15 Then I went to Mr. Tutus to personally check what that was all about.
16 When I arrived in his office and when he told me what that about, I
17 accepted that they should be detained because there were serious
18 accusations which were not conveyed to us properly by certain members.
19 They thought that since they already had certain skirmishes with the
20 police that they thought was some sort of an ploy or a set-up. And that
21 was prosecuted, that's for sure.
22 Q. And after that, did you tell Mr. Zupljanin that the procedure
23 against them was justified?
24 A. Yes, I did. We had contact with Tutus and he told us what the
25 situation was and they were remanded in custody. Nothing was changed in
1 their status.
2 Q. And now can the witness please be shown 2D76, tab 37.
3 MS. KORNER: Right. Both those questions were leading, which is
4 why I got up originally too early, I accept.
5 Is this is request to liberate them or speed up the procedure is
6 a leading question. Did you tell Mr. Zupljanin that the procedure
7 against them was justified is a leading question.
8 In both case, the answer he got was the one that he wanted.
9 The proper way, even in re-examination, of asking questions is in
10 a non-leading form.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't see my questions as being
12 leading. It was just an open-ended question. The question was whether
13 something was done.
14 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ...
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And whether he considered --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already answered questions
17 about that. I was interrupted when I tried to elaborate. But I said
18 that after the conversation with Mr. Zupljanin, I went to Mr. Tutus on
19 that occasion. So my statement does not differ from what I testified
20 about today and that I accepted that factual situation. However, you did
21 not want to hear the rest of my answer.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. And now look at tab 37 in your binder.
24 The Prosecutor had a lot of questions about this man Boskan.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The ERN number in the Serbian
1 version is 1D006407. I apologise; this is in e-court. 6047 are the last
2 digits. It's page 15.
3 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, is this tab 37 in your binder?
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Prosecutor -- Prosecutor's binder.
6 The same document but it should be page 15 in e-court.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Could the counsel please repeat the document
8 number. Thank you.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 2D72, page 15.
10 Q. In the corner, you will find a set up of digits 1D006047. It's
11 the same document but several pages. Look at the bottom right-hand side
13 A. What number did you say?
14 Q. 6047.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the document be zoomed in on
16 the screen.
17 Q. It will be easier for you to look at the document on the screen.
18 A. Please bear with me. 6472.
19 Q. It's on the screen. Maybe the hard copy is not that legible.
20 A. Can you zoom in a bit more.
21 Q. Yes.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Please zoom in for the benefit of
23 the witness.
24 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] What page is it in
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see the document.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Who signed the document?
4 A. Djuro Bulic.
5 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can we have the page in English,
7 MR. KRGOVIC: Yeah, I'm just ...
8 [Interpretation] Page 19.
9 Q. It says in paragraph 1:
10 "The Banja Luka SJB informed you in a dispatch that a criminal
11 report had been filed against several members of the Banja Luka SJB
12 special police detachment."
13 Two persons are mentioned: Radomir Boskan and --
14 A. Yes. The security organ of the Banja Luka Corps was also
15 informed about that.
16 Q. And then could you please look at the last paragraph in the same
17 document where it -- Mr. Bulic says: "A wanted notice has been issued
18 for Dusan Dragojevic and Radomir Boskan. If they are found --"
19 A. "They should be arrested and taken to the Banja Luka SJB where
20 operatives will investigate them in co-operation with the personnel of
21 the CSB crime prevention department. Take care when making the arrest as
22 both men are armed and they may resist the arrest."
23 Q. Sir --
24 A. "Chief of sector."
25 Q. First of all, let me ask you: Boskan and Dragojevic, were they
1 involved in the incident?
2 A. Yes, precisely.
3 Q. What was customary practice when somebody escapes?
4 A. A wanted notice is issued, and anybody who finds that person is
5 duty-bound to arrest them and escort them to the police station.
6 Q. Djuro Bulic, who was he?
7 A. He was chief -- or, rather, deputy to Mr. Zupljanin. It says
8 here: "Chief of sector."
9 And that's the police sector.
10 Q. And now, sir, let me show you one more document.
11 In answering the Prosecutor's question about 2D0072, and the
12 number on the document is 6041.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Page 9 in e-court.
15 In answering the Prosecutor's questions yesterday or the day
16 before, you spoke about official IDs, and you said that they were pure
18 Tell me, the name of the person on this ID, can you please read
20 A. It says Radomir Boskov.
21 Q. And what's the name of the person that we just spoke about? Go
22 back to the first page of the document, page 37.
23 A. His name is Radomir Boskan.
24 Q. When it comes to regular police ID documents, aren't such
25 mistakes possible, i.e., that somebody's family name is misspelled?
1 A. No, that is impossible. Because that person would react to such
2 a mistake.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown
4 Exhibit P567. That's tab 11; another document in the Prosecutor's
6 Q. The Prosecutor -- tab 11.
7 The Prosecutor showed you this document. Could you please look
8 at the first paragraph here. The date is 11th of May, and then the
9 events that were described took place on the 15th of May.
10 You have told us that you joined the unit after the parade. What
11 was the date of the parade?
12 A. The 13th of May. That's when the Day of the Police is
14 Q. On the 11th, 14th, or 15th of May, were you with the unit?
15 A. No, I only joined later. If I'd been there, I would have taken
16 part in the parade.
17 Q. Please take a look at exhibit -- I have a 65 ter number; 2733.
18 It's 15A. I think you doesn't find it last time. Take a look at the
19 end. There may be an annex, 15A. But it will also appear on the screen.
20 I've -- I asked you a short while ago whether this unit was in
21 the area of Petrovac. When somebody is admitted to the police, any part
22 of the police, what is the practice when such a document is received?
23 A. I can tell you right away this document obviously didn't go
24 through the entire procedure because once a document is received, it is
25 stamped. It gets an entry stamp. And either the chief or some senior
1 officer makes a note as to who it should be handed to. That's standard
2 procedure. Alternatively, he invites one of the senior officers to talk
3 about it. That's how it went.
4 So if it was received regularly, it must have received an entry
5 stamp and -- or reception stamp, and then it would have been forwarded,
6 according to the lines of work.
7 Q. Can we tell from this document whether it was received anywhere?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Please take a look at document, the document at tab 12 in the
10 Prosecution binder; P2409.
11 You were answering the Prosecutor's questions about this
12 document. Please read the subject line.
13 A. Proposal for permanent employment.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Please zoom in on the handwritten
15 remarks that's beside the names. And the same in the English translation
16 too, please.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is an instruction. Request
18 applications with biography and the required documentation.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. What is the purpose of this document? What is it about?
21 A. The purpose of this document is to put forward some public
22 security employees from other areas to be received as permanent employees
23 of the CSB.
24 Q. Was it required for them to submit applications, CVs, and other
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The person who's proposing that on the left, who is that?
3 A. It's Dusan Rokvic who worked on defence preparations at the CSB.
4 He was able to draft such a proposal, but he couldn't decide himself. A
5 procedure was required for that.
6 Q. Does this procedure differ from the regular procedure to receive
7 people into employment?
8 A. This is the standard procedure. [Indiscernible] application, a
9 CV and other documents are always required, then the person is vetted and
10 then a decision is taken. This is merely a proposal. This is nothing
11 final. He got some sort of approval for this proposal, but there're also
12 instructions what needs -- what still needs to be done.
13 Q. Take a look at Exhibit P659. It's in the Prosecution binder at
14 tab 13.
15 Do you have a problem with the chair?
16 A. The back of the chair is ... isn't right.
17 Q. Do you need assistance?
18 A. I've a problem with my neck so maybe this can be fixed.
19 Q. The same question as before. Does this document show that it was
20 received by anybody?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Please take a look at document P1096. I don't have a tab number.
23 I don't think I have one. But it will appear on the screen. It may be
24 tab 45.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The next page, please.
1 Q. When the Prosecutor showed you this document, she put it to you
2 that this is Stojan Zupljanin's signature.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we zoom in on the signature,
5 Q. Now take a look at it. Is this Mr. Zupljanin's signature?
6 A. No. It begins with an A, but I don't know whose it is. It
7 certainly isn't Stojan's. Or maybe the first letter is Dz. But Stojan's
8 signature begins with an S.
9 Q. Please take a look at another document, P20323; tab 54 in the
10 Prosecution binder.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I read out the 65 ter
12 number. It's 20323.
13 I need the last page.
14 Q. It says here: "Deleted from the special detachment."
15 And we see a list of 16 persons.
16 Under that, there are a few more names.
17 What does this mean, "deleted"?
18 A. It means that he was -- or that they were thrown out of the
19 detachment. It was mostly due to something they -- something they did,
20 something wrong, or due to death. But in 90 per cent of the case, it
21 meant that the person in question was thrown out. All of these were
22 probably thrown out of the detachment.
23 Q. Take a look at tab 17, please. It's P2401.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. It is actually 2410.
25 I need page -- the page with the ERN 0077432. It's the last but
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Please wait a second for it to appear on the screen.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The 65 ter number is 20317. The
6 last-but-one page. The ERN in e-court is 0077432.
7 Please enlarge this.
8 Q. The last person you talked about with Ms. Korner,
9 Novak Zeljkovic, who was paid out pursuant to a special approval. Do you
10 know what happened to this man, Zeljkovic? Is he still alive?
11 A. Novak Zeljkovic died of leukemia.
12 Q. Was he wounded?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did his injury have anything to do with his death?
15 A. Yes. He was hit by a bullet with a contaminated jacket, and he
16 developed leukemia.
17 MS. KORNER: I'm so sorry, could perhaps Mr. Krgovic tell me
18 where I discussed this gentleman with the witness.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. If you look at the following page of this document, the special
21 payment for Mr. Zeljkovic. It says here:
22 "Novak Zeljkovic was paid based on the approval given by the
23 chief of the centre."
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. If you remember, you discussed the chief's approval and asked the
1 witness whether he spoke to Mr. Zupljanin about this case.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
3 Exhibit P81. That's at tab 16 in the Prosecution binder.
4 Q. The Prosecutor asked you a series of questions about this
5 document, and she then put to you that the number of killed persons was
6 about 18. You began to answer but were interrupted.
7 Does this document mention 18 shot people anywhere?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Please look where it says Nedjo Djekanovic said that:
10 "... last night he had told Dubocanin about everything going on
11 at the health centre and in the town and had been assured by him that it
12 would be prevented."
13 There any complaints or did you complain to -- to
14 Captain Dubocanin about the conduct of his men?
15 A. While his men were a bit more relaxed when it comes to their
16 conduct but he always shifted the blame to the Burcani. I can see from
17 this that this may have been the reason of some reactions. We see here
18 that Serb houses were set on fire.
19 And talking about Dubocanin, I have already said that he a lot of
21 Q. What about his men? How were they dressed?
22 A. They had the same kind of equipment as the special police. It
23 wasn't possible to distinguish. He was able to provide stuff for them by
24 his own connections, and most of his men had similar equipment. I've
25 said that already.
1 Q. We can see below that Zarko Mikic asked Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic
2 to intervene on this occasion.
3 Could you please comment.
4 A. Probably there were some problems between the units. Otherwise,
5 he wouldn't have turned to Peulic. There was some friction between
6 members of different structures. That's nothing unusual. Everybody
7 boasts about themselves and slights others, and then there would also be
8 fights among the members. That was rather widespread in military units.
9 Q. Were there mutual accusations for offences?
10 A. Yes, that was a common occurrence. I was able to hear several
11 times that what I had heard before was wrong, and sometimes I was able to
12 check and found out that it was, indeed, wrong. Other times, it was
13 right. And when it was right, we would take people off the war-time
15 But there was -- there were mutual accusations. You know, like
16 children pointing fingers at each other.
17 Q. Talking about Kotor Varos, did you ever receive a report or any
18 information about some serious offence allegedly committed by members of
19 the special detachment?
20 A. No.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not sure when the
22 break is due. I only want to deal with the interview with this witness,
23 which will talk about ten minutes, so we might as well take the break
25 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
1 JUDGE HALL: The -- if this would be convenient, Mr. Krgovic,
2 we -- we -- I was going to -- we started a little early so I was going to
3 take the break a little early but not quite as early as this. But this
4 would be fine.
5 So we rise now and come back in 20, 25 minutes.
6 Could we go in closed session.
7 Ms. Korner.
8 MS. KORNER: Is it then Your Honours's intention to go straight
9 on into the next witness [overlapping speakers]?
10 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
11 MS. KORNER: Right. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you.
12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
13 [Closed session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Let's go back to an issue that you discussed with the Prosecutor.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
17 Exhibit P1502 under Prosecutor's tab 33.
18 Q. Sir, please look at the last paragraph on the page. This
19 document is actually a report and it says that the special detachment of
20 the police is composed of 100 members and the detachment is placed at the
21 disposal of the 1st Krajina Corps under the command of General Talic.
22 Can you tell me about this document? Whether, when you were in
23 Kotor Varos during the hand-over of the unit, was it ever discussed that
24 they should actually be transferred to the 22nd Light Assault Brigade?
25 A. I don't know that anyone ever mentioned that. It was said that
1 they would be put under the command of General Talic. That's all.
2 Q. The military police, in general terms, and special units, under
3 whose command are they in the corps, in general terms. Do you know that?
4 Who is their professional commander?
5 A. It was the military security that played the co-ordinating role
6 in that. The very top, in other words.
7 Q. And when it comes to the assignment of the unit, whether it will
8 be assigned to the command or the brigade, was that issue ever raised?
9 Does it have anything to do with the centre? Who decided on that?
10 A. It was the military command, more specifically, General Talic who
11 could decide on that if he thought that it was necessary -- necessary to
12 issue an order for them to be sent into a unit, as far as I know. As far
13 as I know, that was agreed, and they were transferred onto the command of
14 General Talic.
15 Q. Sir, on the first day of the cross-examination, the Prosecutor
16 asked you a lot about your interview.
17 Could you please tell me something about the course of that
18 interview. Did you ask questions? How did it evolve?
19 A. As I've already told you, the questions were answered in advance.
20 The questions were always leading. For example, did you finish that
21 school; you were in that position at the time, weren't you, and so on and
22 so forth. Whenever I wanted to correct something, rectify something,
23 they would ask me something else, something different. And now that
24 I'm -- look at the interview, I can see that the interpretation was
25 always a bit tendentious because it turned out that the Serbs attacked
1 the Serbs. Doesn't make too much sense, does it?
2 Q. Sir, did you ask any questions? Did you put any questions to
4 A. It was them all the time, that they -- that put questions to me.
5 And effectively they tried to put answers into my mouth. I didn't accept
6 a lot of their answers, because they did not have anything to do with
8 Q. The Prosecutor also told you that you didn't volunteer
9 information about your affiliation to the detachment. Please look at one
10 part of your interview, page 48. It is P2405.
11 The page will appear in front of you on the screen. It's at
12 tab ...
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] ...
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 53.
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 [Private session]
11 Page 25860 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
9 Questioned by the Court:
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness, on the first day of your testimony,
11 you described an ARK decision to the formation of a special police
12 detachment within the Banja Luka Security Services Centre when you said
13 that the special-purpose police detachment was organised into platoons:
14 Three military and one police platoon. I just wanted to clarify this.
15 In distinguishing between military platoons and a police platoon, do you
16 refer to where these men came from; or do you refer to functionality of
17 the platoon?
18 A. Well, I meant the personnel. The personnel came from all the
19 different public security stations. Those were volunteers. They
20 volunteered to join the special detachment. According to plans, the unit
21 should have become a platoon, but I don't think that there was ever a
22 sufficient number of men to make up a platoon, because --
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: That sort of police platoon -- you're talking now
24 about the police platoon; right?
25 A. Yes, yes. That was a platoon which was attached to --
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay, and a military platoon, you call it a
2 military platoon because the members of those platoons came from the
4 Did I understand that right?
5 A. Yes. This is a numerical indicator. Approximately three
6 platoons or a bit more came from the military.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
8 A. And somewhat less than one platoon came from the police.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: But, no doubt, wherever they came from, they were
10 all part of a police detachment, were they not?
11 A. They were all members of the special detachment of the CSB, the
12 Security Services Centre.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: So even the platoons that you call military
14 platoons were, in fact, police platoons; right?
15 A. I have already stated that they were considered a special unit,
16 de jure. De facto, it was a military unit that performed military tasks.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
18 I'm a little bit unsure about the command structure in and around
19 the detachment. You said -- and I'm sorry, I don't have -- I don't have
20 the exact transcript reference. I think it was on the first day of your
21 testimony. Stevilovic was basically in charge of the operation. I think
22 it was Vihor 92. That would be the name of the -- of the operation. The
23 commander would be Colonel Peulic.
24 Can you clarify for me, was Stevilovic the commander of the
25 police detachment, or was Peulic the commander of the police detachment?
1 A. Well, as far as I knew, Peulic was on the ground, de jure.
2 However, de facto, the complete operation was commanded by the security
3 officer which -- who had more authority than General Peulic. That's how
4 things are in the army. If somebody is a security officer, even if at a
5 lower grade, his position is considered higher. At least that's how
6 things were where I come from.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: So if I understand you well, Peulic had the title
8 of commander of the special police detachment at a certain point in time;
9 but Stevilovic never had that title, never that that -- well, I don't
10 call it a rank, I call it title, he was never --
11 A. No, you didn't understand me well.
12 I'm talking about General Peulic. He was the commander of that
13 Military District. Whereas, Colonel Stevilovic was, I believe, even more
14 than that, in -- in terms of security. He had more responsibility. And
15 all plans or activities were planned pursuant to his instructions, which
16 means that Peulic was in a position to implement Stevilovic's
17 instructions and nothing else. He may have had some general plans
18 co-ordinated with the Army of Yugoslavia. I don't know any details.
19 However, I know that there was a big problem when he killed
20 [as interpreted] because he had all those documents and secret codes and
21 everything of the sort with him.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: So now I understand that Stevilovic, as well as
23 Peulic, had broader commands than only the special detachment -- they had
24 a special detachment under them but they were higher in the hierarchy
25 than only commander of that special police detachment; right?
1 A. Yes.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you for that.
3 Then you said about the beating of detained persons, that they
4 were being beaten by either the TO or the local force.
5 What did you mean by "the local force"? The "local forces"
7 A. Well, during that period of time, there were also men who were
8 outside of the military composition. However, they were involved in all
9 those activities.
10 I know that there were men who wore civilian clothes but still
11 carried weapons, and they participated in those activities, to bring in
12 people. I really could not distinguish them from others. I didn't know
13 who they belonged to. There were also those who wore all sorts of
14 uniforms. The times were not well defined which is why practically
15 everybody participated in those activities. When I say "everybody," I
16 mean everybody who were in town at the time, as well as those who were
17 not even members of any units.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Do you include in "local forces" local police
19 officers, local policemen?
20 A. Yes, yes. Local policemen, reserve policemen, TO members,
21 members of the army, members of the detachment, members who were under
22 the command of Captain Dubocanin. Everybody who was there in town, they
23 were all included and involved.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: So when -- when you said that detained persons
25 were being beaten by either TO or local forces and you included
1 policemen, then my question would be: Did you inform anybody within the
2 police hierarchy; and I just -- I -- I noticed that Mr. Krgovic only
3 asked you whether you informed anybody with regard to the TO. So now I'm
4 asking you: Did you inform anybody with regard to members of the police?
5 A. At that moment, in that building, in addition to the police,
6 there was also the TO centre. That's where Captain Dubocanin's office
7 was and he had a team there --
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. -- Mr. Witness. Mr. Witness, will you please
9 answer my question. It's a simple one. Did you inform anybody within
10 the police hierarchy about policemen participating in beating detainees?
11 Did you or did you not?
12 A. I said that I could not distinguish those men from each other. I
13 didn't know who they belonged to. I'm -- I was not from that town.
14 Second of all, I spoke about that with Captain Dubocanin. I
15 believe that some other of his men were there. And I was told that the
16 so-called Burcani, that was the popular name of the Territorial Defence,
17 I was told that they simply could not be controlled - in the
18 interpretation I heard the word "prisoners" - however, those were people
19 who were brought into the SUP building. They were not prisoners. They
20 were just brought in. A prisoner is somebody who is --
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness no need to go into that.
22 Just one more clarification, please. Captain Dubocanin, you
23 mentioned, he is not within the police hierarchy, is he?
24 A. No.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
1 When asked by Ms. Korner about Mr. Zupljanin's request for
2 helicopters and other equipment, your answer was: I have not seen this -
3 the document Ms. Korner showed you - I have not seen this before, but
4 this corroborates my version that they requested helicopters, APCs and so
5 on, but never got any. So everything stayed the way it was, and the unit
6 was basically taken over by the army and we were available to them for
7 combat activities.
8 Do you remember that answer?
9 A. Yes.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Do I understand you saying there that, initially,
11 the special detachment was created by the CSB as a CSB detachment and was
12 taken over by the army only later on, after the helicopters and the other
13 equipment initially asked for by Mr. Zupljanin were not delivered; is
14 that right?
15 A. No. This was misunderstood, I'm afraid.
16 I said that from the very beginning, we were, de jure, in the
17 police, but, de facto, we were under the control of the army.
18 And I wanted to say that this only corroborated my claim that
19 that unit for which it was claimed previously that it had four
20 helicopters, that that unit never had -- received four helicopters.
21 Those stories were used only for propaganda purpose, nothing else.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
23 In the beginning of your testimony, you told us that there were
24 members of the state security centre that joined the special police
1 Could you give a few names of -- of people from state security
2 that were members, let's say, in August 1992?
3 A. From the state security?
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes. That's what you said in the beginning of
5 your testimony, the first day.
6 A. That people from the state security? In the month of August?
8 In the month of August, that unit was already disbanded.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. In July then.
10 A. I said that in the area where we were, employees of the state
11 security were involved in some operative tasks. They were under the
12 command of the war department, i.e., Chief of Kotor Varos State Security
13 Department, Zdravko Mijic.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can we go into private session for a moment,
16 [Private session]
11 Page 25868 redacted. Private session.
13 [Open session]
14 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
15 MS. KORNER: The composition of the platoons and the three
16 military and one police. I actually asked him a number of questions
17 about that with some interruptions on the Friday, starting at page 25668.
18 And it may well be that there's a slight contradiction now because what
19 he said then was that although one was said to be a police platoon and
20 the others military, because I put to him in terms, at page 25669,
21 line 1:
22 "You're not suggesting, sir, are you, that one part of the
23 special police was reporting through the police chain of command and
24 another part of the special unit was reporting through the military chain
25 of command?"
1 And he said:
2 "No, they were all reporting to the military.
3 And earlier on he said that he thought there might have been
4 police in what is called the military platoons. So I simply put that at
5 the moment there may be a slight contradiction. I don't know whether
6 it's worth clarifying.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
8 Mr. Witness, I have just one clarifying question regarding a
9 topic that we have already touched upon at several occasions during your
10 testimony. Namely, the issue of the uniforms that were worn by the
11 special police detachment. Because I think you testified early on that
12 the members of the special police detachment were wearing camouflage
13 uniforms and had blue berets. Yet all the photos that we have seen of
14 them seem to show that they were actually wearing red berets.
15 Are you able to clarify this or is it still the fact that
16 sometimes they were wearing one sort of berets, and at other times,
17 different berets.
18 But the appearance that we have seen suggests that they were
19 wearing red berets. Can you confirm that?
20 A. The standard headwear should have been blue berets. But some of
21 them, by private means, procured red berets. And at that time, nobody
22 heeded official regulations much. Some people would wear berets, other,
23 other types of hats, and different colours. Not even military units
24 always wore helmets in theatre of war or regular hats when they were on
25 other assignments.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
2 JUDGE HALL: Is there anything arising from the Judges'
4 If not, Mr. Witness, we thank you for your testimony before the
5 Tribunal. You are released, and we wish you a safe journey home.
6 We aren't going to adjourn before the next witness comes, but we
7 do have to go into closed session to permit the witness to be escorted
9 [Closed session]
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes, and can the new -- can the next witness be --
18 please be escorted to -- yes, Mr. Demirdjian.
19 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours, before the next witness is brought
20 in, we do have a small application to make. So perhaps it is better for
21 the witness to be kept out.
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
23 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: First of all, good afternoon Your Honours.
24 As Ms. Korner announced before conclusion of the testimony of --
25 last witness, we do have an objection with relation to the next witness.
1 Now, on Sunday, at 6.59 p.m., about seven hours after the
2 deadline you had set for the transmission of the proofing note, we
3 received an additional proofing note with relation to the next witness.
4 Now, this proofing note was received following objections we
5 raised that same afternoon about the vagueness of the -- of the first
6 proofing note we had received.
7 Now, the seconds proofing note includes some details but it also
8 includes new topics. One of the new topics being the killing of
9 prominent Serbs on the 12th of June, including Mr. Djekanovic, and a
10 number of other named prominent Serbs.
11 Now, first we say this is a new topic which was not included in
12 the 65 ter summary which was filed on 28th of March, earlier this year.
13 Secondly, we say that this is it a violation of Rule 90(H)(ii)
14 Mr. Djekanovic was a Prosecution witness. You will remember that he
15 testified in early 2009. And this matter was not put to him at all on a
16 topic that we would say is quite an important topic. Following that, we
17 had two witnesses who testified from Kotor Varos who could have dealt
18 with this issue because the proofing note indicates that this was -- this
19 killing reached or spread across the town of Kotor Varos generally. We
20 had Witness ST-197 and we also had a member of the police force, ST-167.
21 These matters could have been put to these witnesses as well.
22 On the 12th of May, 2010, you issued a decision in relation to
23 Rule 90(H)(ii), and at paragraph 20 you indicated there would be
24 consequences should there be a violation of Rule 90(H)(ii).
25 Now, you said that there will be consequences to a decision of
1 the Defence not to put the nature of its case to a Prosecution witness.
2 Now, at this stage, we would say that this is, as you quoted -- as you
3 cited in the decision, a sufficiently egregious violation of the Rule. I
4 leave it to Your Honours as to what should be done about this violation
5 but I believe that this comes at quite a late date and this matter should
6 have been put directly to the witness.
7 You have two alternatives. One would be to give no value to --
8 to this contradiction evidence. You may also preclude the Defence from
9 adducing this evidence. That's also part of paragraph 21 of your
11 That would be our application.
12 JUDGE HALL: I do understand, Mr. Demirdjian, that you say that
13 in our earlier decision to which you referred we went to far as to
14 suggesting that we would preclude the side calling the witness from
15 leading the evidence and not -- and the consequences being something
16 other than, of course, giving little or no weight to evidence which could
17 have been -- well, adumbrated beforehand.
18 I appreciate that we have given a decision, but you would
19 appreciate that sitting here several months later we can't remember the
20 details of what we would have said, although presumably, we all have it
21 at our breast.
22 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Yes, Your Honours. We do have a copy, although
23 it is marked, of the decision. I mean, I could read the paragraph of the
24 decision itself if that would assist Your Honours about what was said
1 JUDGE HALL: That would be helpful while we are getting -- thank
3 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Right. Now, if I begin at paragraph 20,
4 Your Honours say that the Trial Chamber -- I don't know if Your Honours
5 already have a copy.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. But, unfortunately, we don't. So, please, if
7 we can have it on the record, please.
8 JUDGE HALL: Please continue reading.
9 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Yes. Yes.
10 Your Honours said the Trial Chamber does not consider
11 Rule 90(H)(ii) as requiring to compel the Defence to present the nature
12 of its case in contradiction of the evidence of Prosecution witnesses.
13 So at that stage you decided you were not going to compel the Defence.
14 However, you continue, the Trial Chamber holds that there will be
15 consequences to a decision by the Defence to not put the nature of its
16 case in contradictory to the evidence of the witness on the stand.
17 That is paragraph 20.
18 Now, paragraph 21, you develop also a number of matters. And you
19 also said you will take into account the fact that the Prosecution
20 witness was not given the opportunity to comment on the contradictory
21 evidence. Now, again, we're talking about a witness who was here, I
22 believe, in October or November 2009, and two years later another witness
23 will come and testify about the fact that this person was a subject of a
24 threat or may have been killed on the 12th of June.
25 And you continue saying that the Trial Chamber could ascribe no
1 probative value to contradictory Defence evidence, the nature of which
2 was not put to the Prosecution witness while on the stand. Moreover, if
3 the circumstances are sufficiently egregious, the Trial Chamber may
4 preclude the Defence from adducing such contradictory evidence and avoid
5 recalling witnesses.
6 So this is what you decided on the 12th of May, 2010.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you for reminding us, Mr. Demirdjian.
8 Are you suggesting -- is it your submission that the situation
9 with which we are faced today, that is, the, quote/unquote, sufficiently
10 egregious set of circumstances that we anticipated?
11 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honour, yes. I mean, this is an issue that
12 is very important because we are dealing with, essentially, the president
13 of the Crisis Staff himself who gave evidence before Your Honours. And
14 we say this is sufficiently important in the context of the takeover.
15 This is alleged to have happened the day after the takeover. And with
16 respect to, again, what the Defence allege, the presence of Muslim and
17 Croat armed forces in the municipality. This is something that should
18 have been put to the witness while he was on the stand.
19 JUDGE HALL: And if I may link this to the first part of your
20 objection, is it your position that you are so caught by surprise that
21 you are practically wholly unable to deal with this in cross-examination?
22 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours, yes. Had we had notice of this
23 matter, at least when the 65 ter summary was filed on the 28th of March,
24 we would have had sufficient time to investigate, to look into the
25 matter. We were given this proofing note pretty much at the eleventh
1 hour at 7.00 on Sunday night after we requested additional information.
2 This was not even included in the first proofing note we received at 1.00
3 in the afternoon. So not only -- I mean, this is a brand new topic out
4 of an additional proofing note.
5 So, as I say, had we had enough notice, we would have been able
6 to investigate the matter and look into it.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
8 Mr. Krgovic, what -- why should the -- this wholly new evidence,
9 why should you not be precluded from being able to lead this, having
10 regard to the circumstances that Mr. Demirdjian has highlighted? That's
11 a short question.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Prosecution was
13 informed as soon as we received the information in question.
14 The Defence was unaware of it when it called the witness to
15 testify and when it drafted its 65 ter summary. Only when the witness
16 arrived in The Hague, he volunteered this information to us.
17 At the same moment, around 1.00 on Sunday, this information was
18 given to the OTP. The OTP requested details, and we also gave them the
19 details a few hours later.
20 As Ms. Korner has said several times, what the witnesses will say
21 is a living thing. It can change and we cannot anticipate what they will
22 say. It has happened before when -- during the OTP case, when ST-241
23 from Kotor Varos testified. And then we were faced with new information
24 which was not in the 65 ter summary of the OTP; namely, that
25 Mr. Zupljanin was at a prison somewhere.
1 The OTP then admitted that that was new information but the --
2 this evidence was still allowed. The OTP can re-call the witness and
3 request him about the circumstances. This way, the prejudice to the OTP
4 could be remedied.
5 JUDGE HALL: Well, the -- in the earlier ruling of which
6 Mr. Demirdjian reminded us, one of the practical things that we're trying
7 to avoid is going through the expense and inconvenience of having to
8 re-call a witness.
9 But faced with the situation and I -- I fully appreciate what you
10 say about the nature of evidence and nature of witnesses is that
11 things -- you discover things for the first time at a very late stage.
12 But, for example, and I'm not reducing what you are saying to the absurd,
13 if a witness -- if a witness was only on the stand and he volunteered
14 this, he probably would have been prevented from leading that evidence.
15 Today is Tuesday. What we are dealing with -- a situation is that just
16 two days ago you learn of this for the first time. So my question is
17 whether we should not simply forget about it in the same way that we
18 would have -- had he attempted to volunteer it on the stand. Or is it
19 your submission that this evidence is so relevant and necessary for the
20 Trial Chamber to arrive at a just decision, that, despite the very late
21 arrival, for want of a better expression, of this evidence you should be
22 permitted to lead it and then we will hear what the Prosecution has to
23 say as to how they can put themselves in a position to cross-examine?
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is my duty as
25 Defence counsel to represent the interests of my client to the best of my
1 ability. To my mind, this information is essential for the understanding
2 of the events in Kotor Varos and for the Defence of my client, as well as
3 the whole context of the events in question.
4 Although I learned it very late, I still must request the
5 Trial Chamber to allow the leading of this evidence; otherwise, my
6 client's right to a good Defence would be prejudiced. It is my duty to
7 try to present this information which I got before this Trial Chamber.
8 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours --
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry, if I may be heard on the matter as well,
10 Your Honours.
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I fully agree with the words of my
13 learned colleague, Mr. Krgovic.
14 I would like to remind the Trial Chamber of at least three
15 situations during the -- the -- the case in-chief, where the Office of
16 the Prosecutor produced some documents which were never given to us
17 prior -- during the testimony of the witnesses. And then the -- the
18 testimony of the witness was -- was heard in the court, and we were
19 supposed to -- to prepare our cross-examination within -- overnight. And
20 on numerous occasions, we accepted to do so, understanding that these
21 situations are possible in cases like this.
22 In this case, Mr. Demirdjian received the information on Sunday.
23 He is likely to start his cross-examination probably at the end of
24 tomorrow and continue on Thursday. So basically he will have four days
25 to prepare his cross-examination and, therefore, it cannot be considered
1 as -- as a totally new matter and he will have enough time to prepare
2 with the -- prepare his cross-examination on this matter.
3 And this is just, Your Honour -- I wanted to remind Your Honours
4 of the standard that we had during the case in-chief, and I believe that,
5 with all due respect, we will have to have the same standard for the
6 Defence case as well.
7 Thank you very much.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
9 Yes, Mr. Demirdjian.
10 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Yes, Your Honour.
11 Just one final thing on this matter. I think what Mr. Zecevic
12 just referred to is quite a different matter in relation to adding
13 documents to the 65 ter list or receiving them a few days in advance.
14 This is an issue of violation of Rule 90(H)(ii) that we're referring to,
15 having a brand new topic of their summary. Now, the problem that we're
16 having, Your Honours, as you've -- you've noticed over and again is that
17 we are not able to have any notice of what the witness is going to say.
18 The first proofing note, if you've seen, it says little about the
19 witness's evidence. It announces topics, and it is only when we request
20 additional details that we're able to receive something, little detail
21 here and there, but nothing that would actually put us on notice of what
22 the witness is actually going to say.
23 Now, it may just be that we have to call additional witnesses in
24 rebuttal to deal with this matter if Your Honours let the witness testify
25 to these events effectively, but effectively as Mr. Zecevic is saying
1 that I have four days to prepare, we're talking about actually
2 investigating this matter, not just looking in our filings or the
3 existing evidence. If that was the case, I wouldn't rise on my feet if
4 we already had that information. We're saying we're at a disadvantage
6 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
9 JUDGE HALL: We thank counsel for their indulgence.
10 Having considered the explanation which has been proffered by
11 counsel on behalf of Mr. Stanisic, we are not satisfied that we could, in
12 fairness, preclude the Defence from leading this evidence but we are
13 alive to the disadvantage which is occasioned to the Prosecution by the
14 very late notice which they would have had of this evidence. And we
15 intend to have the witness begin his evidence in-chief, and following
16 that, the cross-examination will begin, and, at that point, counsel for
17 the Prosecution would be in a better position to assess his ability to
18 continue to explore and test these areas, these new areas with the
19 Defence, and we would see what application he feels compelled to make
20 when we reach that point.
21 So we would ask the witness -- we -- we're going to be able to do
22 precious little other than formally have the witness take the
23 declaration, but we would call him in now to use the ten minutes
24 remaining before we adjourn for the day.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HALL: I'm grateful to my brother, Judge Delvoie, for
2 pointing out that where we say at line 20 of page 53 having considered
3 the explanation that we should expand on that, that the -- an important
4 factor in our decision was this was something that was only newly
5 disclosed to counsel for Mr. Stanisic.
6 Sorry, for Mr. Zupljanin. And -- which means that I should
7 correct myself at line 21, when I said "on behalf of Mr. Stanisic," it's
8 Mr. Zupljanin.
9 Thank you.
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE HALL: Good afternoon to you, sir.
12 Could you please make the solemn declaration --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
14 JUDGE HALL: -- on the card that the usher is handing to you.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I?
16 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
18 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 WITNESS: OBRAD BUBIC
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, sir. You may be seated.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 JUDGE HALL: Your responses to what I have said so far, confirm
24 that you are hearing me in a language that you understand.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE HALL: Well, I would begin by apologising for the delay in
2 having you escorted into the courtroom. I know that you would have been
3 on notice that your testimony would have begun early this morning, but
4 the nature of court proceedings, not only here but universally, are that
5 it is not always possible to determine how long the witness preceding you
6 would be on the stand, and in addition to that there are procedural
7 matters which arise from time to time which have to be resolved and that
8 is one of the reasons why you are coming on a time just before we take
9 the adjournment for the day. We are going to be able to do little more
10 than formally have you identified as a witness before we take the
11 adjournment because the -- and the -- the ordinary sittings of the Court
12 are that morning sessions end at 1.45 so that usually the courtrooms have
13 to be made available for other trials, so in five minutes we will taking
14 the adjournment for the day and resume with your testimony proper
15 tomorrow morning at 9.00 in this courtroom.
16 The solemn declaration which you made when you came in imposes
17 upon you an obligation to speak the truth, under the pain of the penalty
18 for perjury which this Tribunal is empowered by its statute and rules to
19 impose should you give false or misleading testimony, and that is a
20 factor that I would -- I'm obliged to remind you of at the beginning of
21 each day's sitting.
22 Would you, for the record, please, sir, tell us your name.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Obrad Bubic.
24 JUDGE HALL: What is your date of birth, what is your profession
25 or former profession, and what is your ethnicity?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was born on the
2 14th of May, 1949. Should I tell you where?
3 JUDGE HALL: If you wish.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the village of Maslovare,
5 Kotor Varos municipality, in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
6 I graduated from the secondary military school, and I'm currently
7 employed as the general secretary of the alliance of former inmates in
8 the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
9 JUDGE HALL: And your ethnicity is ...
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a Serb.
11 JUDGE HALL: Thanks.
12 Have you testified previously before this Tribunal or before any
13 of the courts in the countries that make up the former Yugoslavia?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
15 JUDGE HALL: The -- I -- I would briefly explain to you the
16 procedure that is followed.
17 You have been called by counsel for Mr. Zupljanin, who would
18 begin by questioning you, and following that, counsel for his co-accused,
19 Mr. Stanisic, would have the opportunity to cross-examine you, followed
20 by counsel for the Prosecution.
21 When -- and then counsel calling you can re-examine you and, at
22 that stage, usually, but, indeed, at any earlier stage, the members of
23 the Bench may have questions of you.
24 The -- it is estimated that your testimony would extend into
25 Friday of this week, because counsel calling you has indicated that they
1 would be -- their examination-in-chief would last for about six hours.
2 Counsel for Mr. Stanisic has indicated an hour and a half, and counsel
3 for the Prosecution has indicated six hours. The day's sitting is broken
4 up into sessions of not more than an hour and a half. It is it usually
5 an hour and 20 minutes for technical reasons having to do with the system
6 that records these proceedings, and the breaks that that allows
7 facilitates the convenience of counsel, witnesses and everybody else.
8 But if at any point before a scheduled break you need us to break, you
9 would indicate that to us and we would accommodate you.
10 The -- there is -- as I said, we are at the time for the
11 adjournment, and the -- you, having taken the solemn declaration, you
12 cannot, until you are released, have any communication with counsel from
13 either side in these proceedings, and in such conversations as you may
14 have with persons outside of the court, you cannot discuss your
16 Do you have any questions as to the preliminary observations that
17 I have made?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I have understood you quite
19 well. There's no need for me to put any questions to you at this point.
20 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
21 The -- when I indicated to the witness the length of time it is
22 expected that he would be in examination-in-chief, do I understand that
23 there may be a revision by counsel calling him?
24 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
25 I believe that my examination-in-chief will not be longer than
1 two sessions tomorrow. Maybe that estimate is not good enough. It will
2 all depend on the speed at which the witness proceeds to answer. But I
3 believe that in three hours' time I will be able to bring my
4 examination-in-chief to an end.
5 I have already informed my learned friends from the Prosecution
6 about that.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
8 Mr. Cvijetic.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I feel the
10 obligation towards the Trial Chamber and my learned friend from the
11 Prosecution that, after I've had brief conversation with the witness, I
12 have concluded that he is not that relevant for Mico Stanisic's Defence,
13 so I will most probably have no questions for him unless something arises
14 from Mr. Aleksic's examination-in-chief. In that case, I will ask your
15 permission to put one, two, or three questions at the most. That's why I
16 reserve a slot of 30 minutes, just in case I need the time, but I don't
17 expect I will.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
19 So, Mr. Witness you will be relieved to hear from what has passed
20 between counsel and the Bench, that you would be -- it is anticipated
21 that you will be released much earlier than I indicated to you earlier.
22 And although I didn't invite Mr. Demirdjian as to whether he was reducing
23 his estimates, no doubt there will be a consequential reduction in the
24 time that he would spend with you. So your time with us will be much
25 shorter than we first thought.
1 So we take the adjournment, to reconvene in this courtroom
2 tomorrow morning at 9.00 in this courtroom. Thank you.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 16th day of
6 November, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.