1 Thursday, 23 February 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
6 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
7 Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Good morning to everyone.
9 May we have the appearances, please.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Good morning, Your Honours. Matthew Olmsted,
11 Tom Hannis, and Case Manager Sebastiaan van Hooydonk, for the
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
14 Slobodan Cvijetic, Denis Stoychev, Simon Levett, and appearing for
15 Stanisic Defence this morning.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic,
17 Aleksandar Aleksic, Miroslav Cuskic, and Elayne Hannon, appearing for
18 Zupljanin Defence.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Mr. Jovicinac, would you please confirm
20 that you are seeing and hearing us from your facilities in Belgrade.
21 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Good morning, Your Honours. This
22 is the Registrar from the field office in Belgrade. I hope you can hear
24 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Registrar, could you try again, please.
25 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Good morning, Your Honours. This
1 is the Registrar from the field office in Belgrade. I hope can you hear
2 me now. Can you hear me?
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Thank you.
4 Would the Court Officer please, first of all, invite
5 Mr. Jovicinac to take the solemn declaration.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
7 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
8 WITNESS: SRBOLJUB JOVICINAC
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 [Witness testified via videolink]
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, sir. That solemn declaration imposes
12 upon you an obligation to speak the truth and should you fail to do so,
13 there are penalties which attach to your giving false or misleading
15 On behalf of the Tribunal, I thank you for coming to agree to
16 testify to the Tribunal, and we are receiving you, of course, by way of
17 videolink from Belgrade. The -- it is expected that your testimony would
18 be completed within the course of today, and the procedure of the
19 Tribunal is that there are breaks to allow the -- for technical reasons
20 but should you for any reasons need to take a break, if you would
21 indicate that to us, we would, of course, accommodate you.
22 The questioning on behalf of the Chamber at whose instances you
23 are called, will be led by Judge Harhoff, who -- to whom the camera will
24 soon switch and he sits at my left. He will begin the questioning, and I
25 will now pass over to him so that he will ask the preliminary questions
1 of you and then we would launch in your testimony.
2 Judge Harhoff.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
4 Examination by the Court:
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Jovicinac, could you please state your full
7 A. My name is Srboljub Jovicinac.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. And what is the date and place of
10 A. 24 January 1949. I was born in the village of Vrucinic in the
11 Novi Pazar municipality, in the Republic of Serbia.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir. And what is your ethnicity?
13 A. I'm a Serb.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
15 Mr. Jovicinac, what was your professional education?
16 A. I finished primary school in the village of Vrucinic, and, after
17 that, I went to secondary textile technology school at Novi Pazar. Then
18 I went to Banja Luka -- secondary military school in Banja Luka. After
19 secondary school, I enrolled in law school and graduated in Banja Luka.
20 I'm a lawyer, and I passed my bar exam, and I have some modest experience
21 in the judiciary.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Please tell us, when did you graduate
23 from law school?
24 A. I graduated in 1986.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
1 Now, what was your occupation in 1992? And what is it today?
2 A. In 1992, from August on, I was employed by the basic military
3 prosecutor's office in Banja Luka. And some two months or so later, I
4 was appointed deputy military prosecutor.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: And what did you do before August 1992?
6 A. Before August 1992, I worked in Sarajevo for a while at the
7 7th Army Command as a desk clerk in the military ombudsman's office.
8 After that, I returned to Banja Luka. I was appointed secretary
9 of the second-instance housing commission of the 5th Banja Luka Corps.
10 From there, I went on to the training centre, but I couldn't give you the
11 exact date. I forgot it. There, I was a desk clerk for legal affairs at
12 the armoured units training centre, and I was also a teacher.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Right. So, if I understand you correctly, you
14 began to work in August 1992 at the military prosecutor's office in
15 Banja Luka. And then, a couple of months later, which would have been in
16 October perhaps, you were then appointed deputy military prosecutor in
17 Banja Luka.
18 That is correctly understood?
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. Mr. Jovicinac, have you ever
21 testified before this Tribunal or before any other domestic court in
22 relation to the events that took place during the war?
23 A. I have never testified before this Tribunal, but I was summoned
24 as a witness to the District Court of Banja Luka to give evidence in a
25 trial which, I suppose, is finished by now.
1 I don't know how important it is to inform you that I had
2 frequent contacts with the investigators of the OTP when they stayed in
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Or, more precisely, in the region where I had
4 responsibility or jurisdiction as a prosecutor.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir.
6 Now, let me tell you, then, a bit about the procedures that will
7 take place for -- during your testimony here today.
8 First of all, as the Presiding Judge just told you, you have been
9 called to testify by the Trial Chamber. That is to say, that you are not
10 a witness of the Prosecution, nor of the Defence. The reason why we have
11 called you is that we have heard almost all of the evidence in this trial
12 against Mr. Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin. I don't know if can you
13 see the courtroom, but they would be seated to your left.
14 And the reason we have called you is that we are sitting back
15 with a few questions regarding the authority to --
16 A. Yes, I see.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- investigate and prosecute reserve and
18 active-duty members of the police force for crimes committed during
19 resubordination to the army. So this is main purpose of your testimony
20 today, to clarify a few of these questions.
21 We have assigned about one hour to the Chamber itself to put its
22 questions to you, after which you will be cross-examined first by the
23 Prosecution - and, again, if can you see the courtroom, they would be
24 sitting to the right - and, thereafter, the two Defence parties have been
25 given, all together, also one and a half hours. This runs up to, all
1 together, four hours for today. And we hope that we can finish your
2 testimony here before the end of the morning session, at a quarter to
4 The proceedings run for 90 minutes at a time, after which we have
5 to have a break because the tapes, the videotapes that record these
6 hearings, have to be changed. And during and after the cross-examination
7 of the parties, the Judges may, at all times, also put questions to you.
8 As you know, you have been accorded video testimony from Belgrade
9 for good reasons, and -- but I just wanted to add to this that if at any
10 point you need to have a break, or you have questions to us, or to the
11 parties, then please do not hesitate to indicate this to the Registrar,
12 who is sitting next to you, and we will accommodate you accordingly.
13 And, lastly, Mr. Jovicinac, you must speak slowly and distinctly.
14 Please listen carefully to the questions and try and answer them as
15 concisely as you can. And especially when the Defence counsels will be
16 cross-examining you, there's a risk of overlap because you both speak the
17 same language. So, if you can, please observe a little pause between the
18 questions asked to you by the counsel and your response to them.
19 So that's all. Do you have a question -- any question at this
20 point, Mr. Jovicinac?
21 A. No.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. Let's get on with it then.
23 My first question to you, Mr. Jovicinac, is about the military
24 court in Banja Luka.
25 When was the military court established? And can you tell us
1 about the personal jurisdiction that the military court had; that is to
2 say, over whom could it exercise its authority?
3 A. The military court in Banja Luka and the military prosecutor's
4 office, too, were established pursuant to an Assembly decision that was
5 taken in August 2002 [as interpreted]. Neither the military court, nor
6 the military prosecutor's office starting working immediately because
7 much time was required to find personnel and I can state with almost full
8 certainty that the first activities began only in late September.
9 As for the jurisdiction of the military court, under the laws
10 that were in force then, the military court had jurisdiction over all
11 criminal offences, the perpetrators of which were members of the
12 military. It also had jurisdiction over criminal offences involving
13 prisoner of war as perpetrators of crimes. It had exclusive
14 jurisdiction - I mean the military court in Banja Luka but also other
15 military courts - over criminal offences against the armed forces, as
16 well as criminal offences from chapter 15 which are -- is about the
17 security of the country and defence.
18 There was also a criminal offence from Article 136, if my memory
19 serves me well, and that was in chapter 16, about conspiracy to commit
20 criminal offences from chapter 15, as well as criminal offences against
21 the armed forces, that would be chapter 20.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. We'll get into more detail about that
23 in just a second.
24 Can I, just for the accuracy of your testimony, mention that on
25 page 7 of the testimony at line 4, you were quoted to say that the
1 military court in Banja Luka was established pursuant to an Assembly
2 decision taken in August 2002.
3 I assume that the answer was that it was taken in August 1992.
4 Can you confirm?
5 A. 1992, yes.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well.
7 Sir, do you remember when the military court heard its first
9 A. I don't think I can give you a reliable answer now.
10 The military court is an independent institution, as everybody
11 knows. As a prosecutor, I didn't interfere with their business. But, as
12 far as I remember, the first on-site investigations and the first actions
13 were taken in September after manning, after issuing decisions on
14 appointments. But I believe that even these decisions date from
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir. This is very helpful.
17 Mr. Jovicinac, as we are going to dwell a bit on the law, I
18 suggest that we have a look at some of the relevant provisions. And
19 could ask the Registrar to call up Exhibit P1284.07, which, I hope, is
20 the Law on Military Courts from December 1976.
21 And if we could go to Article 13. I think that would be on
22 page 2 of the English version.
23 Sir, do you have before you Article 13 of the Law on the
24 Courts -- on Military Courts in -- in a language that you can understand?
25 I see you're nodding, so I take it that you answer in the
2 Let's have a look at Article 13 or maybe even before. Let's
3 start with Article 12, which is the preceding article. And Article 12
4 reads that military courts can try cases involving criminal acts
5 committed by military personnel, and also cases involving criminal acts
6 committed by other persons, and those other persons are then further
7 specified in Article 13.
8 If we go to Article 13, we see that military courts can try
9 civilians as well for a particular number of crimes. And those crimes
10 are then listed up in the criminal law, which is Exhibit L11, I believe,
11 in the law library.
12 If we could call up that document and find Article 114.
13 Very well. Mr. Jovicinac, do you have the criminal law in front
14 of you, and can you see Article 114?
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well.
17 If the Registrar would assist us in going through these articles
18 rapidly, then the first thing we see is that Article 114 deals with
19 attack on the constitutional order.
20 And Article 115 deals with acceptance of capitulation and
22 And if we turn to the next page, we see that Article 116 deals
23 with attack on the territorial integrity.
24 Article 117 deals with attacks on the independence of the states.
25 Article 118 is about prevention of the struggle against the
2 Article 119 is about service in the enemy armed forces.
3 Article 120 is providing assistance to the enemy.
4 Article 121 is about weakening the military and defence strength.
5 Article 122 deals with assassination of representatives of the
6 highest state organs.
7 And so on and so forth. This goes on right until Article 156.
8 Now this would imply that military courts can try these crimes
9 even if they were committed by civilians. But, sir --
10 A. Yes.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- could you tell us if there is any legal basis
12 in these instruments for the military prosecutors to investigate crimes
13 allegedly committed by civilians other than these crimes which are
14 directed against the security and integrity of the state?
15 Could you, as military prosecutor, investigate and prosecute a
16 civilian who had committed, say, a war crime against a prisoner of war?
17 A. A military prosecutor could launch an investigation against a
18 civilian who committed war crimes but if he did it in complicity with a
19 member of the military. These crimes are explicitly listed as being
20 under the jurisdiction of military courts, and the prosecutor's office is
21 linked to the jurisdiction of military courts.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: I see. Maybe we could go back to the
23 Law on Military Court and have a look at that provision again.
24 If the Registrar could find Exhibit P1284.07 for us again.
25 A. That's 12 and 13.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. And we will proceed to Article 14 and 15 as
2 well. Very well. Mr. Jovicinac, do you have it in front of you?
3 A. 14 and 15.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. And if we could have the English version up
5 on the screen as well of the rest of Article 13 and Article 14 and 15.
6 Now, sir, you told us just now that the military courts could
7 also prosecute a civilian who committed a war crime if that war crime was
8 committed together with a member of the armed forces.
9 Where do you find that provision; can you remember?
10 A. Yes. That's the case of connection.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. And in which provision do you find the
13 A. I -- I can't find my bearings in this particular section.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. Look at Article 13 in the penultimate
15 paragraph. Is that the provision that we're looking for?
16 A. Yes, that's the provision.
17 However, in the first part of the paragraph, it speaks about the
18 civilians employed by the army. And then it says crimes committing
19 during service or in relation with the service as well as for any other
20 criminal acts that may be committed as -- by them as co-perpetrators or
21 accomplices to servicemen.
22 If I may be of assistance, if military courts have exclusive
23 jurisdiction over military personnel, then other perpetrators who act as
24 co-perpetrators, then the military court also has the jurisdiction to act
25 in such instances as well.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, I believe you're right.
2 Now, what if a civilian who was -- let's take the example of a
3 policeman, for instance. We know from the evidence in this trial that
4 quite frequently police forces would be resubordinated for a certain
5 period of time to the army, to assist the army in combat operations.
6 If a resubordinated policeman commits a war crime while he is
7 taking part in the operation together with soldiers of the army, who
8 would then be authorised and competent to try this policeman?
9 A. Your Honours, this is a very delicate question. I would like to
10 refer you to the provision of the Law on the Service in the Military - I
11 don't know exactly which provision that is - in which the command is
12 based on the principle of unity of command, or singleness of command, as
13 well as on the principles of subordination and singleness of command.
14 To simplify it, that would mean that all subordinates are obliged
15 to carry out all the orders issued by superiors.
16 The Law on Courts is always an explicit one. Military courts try
17 military personnel for the crimes committed by them. There is no
18 provision in the law, nor did I have an opportunity to encounter that in
19 practice. The case law or the law have managed to draw a line between
20 these two issues. On the one hand, you have a norm which says that the
21 military court can only try military personnel who committed criminal
22 offences. On the other hand, you have a policeman who does not have the
23 status of a member of the military. So I cannot give you an explicit
24 answer that it would be the military court who would have the
25 jurisdiction to try a policeman who committed a crime.
1 However, if he did that as an accomplice of a member of the
2 military, I can tell you, without hesitation, that it would be under the
3 jurisdiction of the military court. However, if we are talking solely
4 about a civilian policeman, I really wonder whether the military court
5 can act. And I think that in such instances, a military prosecutor would
6 declare himself disqualified because for any other structures other than
7 the military the civilian courts have jurisdiction.
8 Now, we have a situation that we have policemen who have been
9 resubordinated. Its duty is to carry out the orders from the superior
10 command in compliance with all the provisions governing the use of units
11 raises a question which, in my view, hasn't been resolved either in the
12 case law or in the legislature.
13 What I see as an important thing in such situation where you have
14 a combination of police and armed forces, if a crime is committed and
15 detected immediately and reported immediately, and if you have a civilian
16 mechanism initiated in terms of investigation or placing people in
17 custody, then that's a mechanism that cannot be stopped anymore.
18 However, as I said, I have some reservations whether this could be
19 processed by a military court. To tell you the truth, I, as a military
20 prosecutor, would prefer to defer this kind of cases to the prosecutors
21 who have jurisdiction over the crimes committed by other individuals than
22 those --
23 MR. KRGOVIC: I apologise. There is an error in transcript.
24 It's page 13, line 6, because witness says something else. He said --
25 [Interpretation] In Serbian he said -- and if he can repeat. He said
1 that: Even if I, as a military prosecutor, would submit a request, the
2 military court would declare itself not to have the jurisdiction.
3 So if you could please clarify this with the witness.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, unfortunately, you interrupted the
5 translation of what the witness was saying. I think you should try to
6 avoid that. Now we have an incomplete translation there.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Jovicinac, I'm sorry for this interruption.
8 But interpretation is a difficult thing, and if the parties or the
9 witnesses speak too fast, overlap, then it is very difficult for the
10 interpreters to catch up.
11 Now, Mr. Jovicinac, could you please repeat what you said about
12 your inclination in case you were put before a -- a instance in which a
13 civilian policeman who had been resubordinated to the army would come
14 under your jurisdiction or not.
15 A. If we are to go now into more details, let me tell you that if I
16 receive a criminal report, and if I am to carry out a serious check of
17 the allegations contained therein, pursuant to the Law on Criminal
18 Procedure, I have to find out whether this police unit was really
19 resubordinated to the army, whether it was placed under the military
20 command, and if the criminal report undoubtedly shows that he had
21 committed a crime, as a prosecutor, in view of the explicit norm from the
22 Law on Military Courts and their jurisdiction, I would defer it to the
23 jurisdiction of civilian courts.
24 If I made a mistake and launched investigation before a military
25 court, my view is -- and I'm quite sure that in that instance the
1 military court would declare itself to have no jurisdiction and would
2 defer the case to civilian courts because it involved a civilian
3 policeman, and this is in line with the law governing the jurisdiction of
4 military courts.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you for this clarification.
6 But please tell us the logic in this because it would perhaps
7 seem logic that if a civilian policeman is resubordinated to the army,
8 then, for the sake of the unity of the command, he is under the authority
9 of the commanding officer of the army for the purpose of the military
11 Would it then not be logical to assume that this policeman would
12 also fall under the jurisdiction of the military prosecutor, if he
13 committed a crime during the time in which he was resubordinated to the
14 army? Do you understand my question?
15 A. Yes, I do. The military prosecutor would have jurisdiction to
16 act against a civilian policeman for crimes that are exclusively within
17 the jurisdiction of military courts. War crime does not fall into the
18 category of exclusive jurisdiction of military courts.
19 Now, what I see as an obstacle here, and I might have different
20 views or maybe I can agree with your line of thinking, but the law is
21 very clear here because every resubordination lasts for a limited
22 duration of time. It's not a permanent status because status here is the
23 decisive factor in determining the jurisdiction.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: That seems logical, indeed. But if a civilian
25 policeman is resubordinated to the army, even for a limited duration of
1 time, then why wouldn't he have the same status as his brother in the
3 A. You know, that would mean that I would then embark on an area
4 that I'm not very familiar with. It was never a case that individuals
5 were resubordinated but, rather, units as a whole, and every unit had its
6 own superior commander who reported to a military commander.
7 There is logic in affording this status to such personnel, but
8 this is not provided in the law. And you know that we must act in
9 compliance with the law.
10 I am quite sure that if such a person would appeal such a
11 proceedings, that these appeals would be accepted on the basis of
12 wrongful jurisdiction.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Do you mean to say that appeals were made to
14 the -- to the military court or to the civilian courts?
15 A. To the military court, of course. But the decision would be made
16 by the supreme military court, not the one who conducted the proceedings.
17 If I requested an investigation with the basic military court,
18 the accused has a right to appeal such a decision taken by an
19 investigating judge, and then the chamber would decide upon them. And if
20 we strictly adhere to the provision from Article 13 from the Law on
21 Military Courts, then this appeal, in my view, would be granted.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: And the results of that appeal, in your opinion,
23 would be that the military supreme court would defer the case to the
24 civilian judiciary.
25 Is that correctly understood?
1 A. No. The military court who conducted the proceedings would be --
2 would proceed it to the supreme military court. And then if we have a
3 clash of jurisdictions, then it would be the supreme court who would
4 render a final decision. That is stipulated by the Law on
5 Criminal Procedure.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. Thanks for this clarification.
7 Let me move to some --
8 A. Excuse me, if I may add just one more thing?
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Please go ahead.
10 A. Errors may occur in the course of the proceedings, but there is
11 always a higher instance that can remedy these mistakes in the previous
13 So, as far as I can remember, we had not had such a situation in
14 our practice, at all.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. Speaking about practice --
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Olmsted.
18 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour. I just noticed that his
19 answer to your last question was a little bit ambiguous.
20 You put the proposition to him on appeal would the case be
21 determined by -- I assume the supreme military court to defer a case
22 against a civilian police officer and then he, I think, was confused
23 about the issue of whether you meant the basic military court or the
24 supreme court.
25 So his answer "no," is, in that context, a bit ambiguous, at
1 least the way I read it.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: I thought I understood it correctly. But let's
3 go back to the question again.
4 Mr. Jovicinac, there's some uncertainty about the answer that you
5 just gave to me.
6 The question was this: If a civilian policeman who is
7 resubordinated to the army for a limited period of time, and during his
8 resubordination he commits a war crime, and for that war crime he is
9 prosecuted by the military prosecutor but he appeals - he is unhappy with
10 the decision of the military court - and he claims he should have been
11 tried by the civilian court and he therefore appeals the jurisdiction of
12 the military court to the supreme military court, then what, in your
13 view, would the response for the decision made by the military supreme
15 A. If the supreme military court upholds the -- the appeal of the
16 accused, it would annul the decision of the first-instance investigative
17 magistrate and return the case to the first-instance military court for
18 it to defer it to the civilian court that has jurisdiction.
19 Furthermore, if that case -- sorry, that court that was seized
20 with the case did not agree with that, then -- that is, in case of a
21 clash of jurisdiction, then a higher court would have to be the one that
22 decides in such a case.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. I hope it has become clearer now.
24 Let's move to some of the practice. Did you ever have the
25 opportunity to prosecute active-duty or reserve policemen who had been
1 resubordinated to the army for any crimes committed during their
2 resubordination? Was such a case ever put to you?
3 A. As far as I remember, there was one such case, or two. I'm not
4 fully certain. But we were not aware of their resubordination. It has
5 been a long time, but if I remember correctly, an offence was committed
6 outside the unit; that is, when the perpetrator was not with the unit.
7 I cannot be more price now. But there was one such case, or
8 maybe two.
9 I remember that I -- I did not agree with the legal qualification
10 of the offences and deferred it to the prosecutor's office that had
11 jurisdiction. They accepted to investigate the case and acted upon my
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm not sure I fully understood your example.
14 Were you talking about an incident in which a person who turned
15 out to be a civilian policeman had committed a crime just outside the
16 premises, and the case was then put before you, but you deferred the case
17 back to the civilian prosecutor? Was that what the example was about?
18 A. Yes.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well --
20 A. The offence was committed outside the context of combat. It was
21 not a combat context.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: I see.
23 Let's have a look at a few incidents in which, I believe, that
24 you were involved.
25 If the Registrar would be good enough to call up Exhibit 2D42 on
1 the screen, please.
2 Mr. Jovicinac, do you have the document in front of you?
3 A. Yes, yes.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: This is a dispatch issued by the deputy military
5 prosecutor in Banja Luka, one Mr. Zoran Babic, dated 8th of March, 1993,
6 concerning a case in which 12 suspects had been detained regarding a
7 massacre of 80 civilians in the school of Velagici near Kljuc.
8 Do you recall the incident?
9 A. Yes.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Do you know if any of the 12 suspects who are
11 listed here were policemen who had been resubordinated to the army?
12 A. No.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: What is your answer? You don't know; or do you
14 know that they were not?
15 A. I have no such information. Judging by their personal
16 information, they were all military conscripts serving with the
17 Military Post number 4630, Kljuc.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Right.
19 Now, a military conscript or, as the English translation goes, a
20 military recruit, could that be a policeman who had been resubordinated?
21 Is that how you would list a resubordinated policeman?
22 A. A military prosecutor can give a description in such a document
23 based on the description that he received in the criminal complaint. He
24 merely relates the information contained therein.
25 If the criminal report had qualified somebody as a civilian
1 police officer, it would have been mentioned here. And that person would
2 certainly have been tried, together with everybody else, because he, in
3 that case, would be a co-perpetrator.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Right. My interest was, rather, to be able to
5 determine whether, by the description of these gentlemen, one could
6 determine their -- their -- their provenance. If you take, for instance,
7 the suspect number two, Mr. Krcmar, he is listed as a military recruit,
8 and then his father and mother's name are mentioned.
9 Could Mr. Krcmar be a resubordinated policeman, judging by the
10 description of him here?
11 A. If I may read it all out, all the details.
12 It says:
13 "Ilija Krcmar, military recruit, father Gojko, mother Mila, born
14 in Jajce, on 3 March 1967, permanently residing in Kljuc at
15 92 Josipa Broza Street, student by occupation, currently military
16 conscript with Military Post 4630, Kljuc."
17 This does not allow for the conclusion that he is a police
18 officer, and it explicitly states that he was a student by occupation.
19 He was also a member of a military unit. And the accused would certainly
20 complain in the course of the proceedings, and the investigative judge
21 would change this information.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
23 Let's have a look at another incident.
24 If the Registrar could pull up for us a document which has the
25 English ERN number 03056945 and the following two pages. In B/C/S, it is
1 ERN number 02063512 and also with the next two pages up until -3514.
2 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Sorry, Your Honours. Please
3 repeat the B/C/S ERN number.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm not sure that this is document that I was
5 looking for. What we have on the screen is 65 ter 2069. That would be
6 the next document. So let's just stay with what the document -- with the
7 document we have on the screen.
8 And, Mr. Jovicinac, do you have it in B/C/S in front of you? You
9 do. Have you seen the document, sir?
10 A. Yes.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. Do you recall this incident?
12 The document is a decision issued on 6 December 1992 by the
13 investigating judge at the Banja Luka Military Court to remand in custody
14 for one month four persons who all seem to be related - they all carry
15 the name Gvozden - regarding an incident of the murder of eight Croat men
16 and women that took place on the previous day in the village of Sasina.
17 Do you remember the incident?
18 A. I remember this incident. This was the first serious case that
19 the military prosecutor's office received, although I wasn't a prosecutor
20 at the time, I was deputy. But I think I was present during the
21 interrogation of one or two of these accused.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes.
23 A. They --
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Could you tell us, Mr. Jovicinac, if, to your
25 recollection, any of the four accused, or suspects as they were at this
1 time, were active-duty or reserve members of the civilian police who had
2 been resubordinated to the army when they killed the eight Croat men and
3 women in Sasina?
4 A. Well, to be completely honest, I don't remember that detail. I
5 think that all of them or somebody was a member of the military. But the
6 investigative judge didn't include this information. There is no
7 criminal report because we could tell then, so we don't know their
9 If possibly one of them was a police officer, then, due to the
10 status of the others, if they were members of the military, then this
11 police officer would also be included in the investigation.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. We just have time enough to see if
13 we, once again, could try and pull up the other incident that I was
14 talking about.
15 Mr. Registrar, can you find ...
16 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Jovicinac, there's a problem relating to the
18 translation of this document. So what I would do instead is just to
19 remind you of the incidents and ask you if you can recall it.
20 It was about the killing of a Croat priest from November 1992
21 where three persons kidnapped and killed a Croat priest in a mine outside
22 the village of Donja Ravska.
23 Do you recall the incident?
24 A. If it has to do with Priest Matanovic [phoen], I really don't
25 know much about the case, but there were some government organisations
1 and international organisations that came to see me.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sir, this incident from November 1992 was the
3 killing of a Croat priest called Ivan Grgic.
4 If you cannot recall, then please just tell us.
5 A. No, I cannot remember. Our prosecutor's office may have
6 investigated, but I really cannot be sure.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well.
10 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. I was just contacted by the our
12 Legal Officer to determine whether we should enter document 65 ter 2069
13 into evidence, but I don't see the use of it. We have the witness's
14 testimony on record, and I would not seek to tender or to have this
15 document admitted into evidence.
16 Mr. Jovicinac, I thank you very much. At ...
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Judge Delvoie has an additional question to you.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Jovicinac, you told us that you -- you
20 would -- or the military prosecution would refer cases about crimes
21 committed by resubordinated policemen to the civil authorities because -
22 and I -- it was about a particular case. Because the offence, you said,
23 was committed outside the context of combat.
24 You remember saying that?
25 A. Yes.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: That raises the question whether the answer
2 would -- would have been different, whether, in other words, the military
3 jurisdiction would be competent if crimes would have been committed in
4 the context of combat.
5 Let's take a hypothetical example of members of a resubordinated
6 police unit, while in combat on the front line, kill a group of elderly
7 women and young children who were seeking shelter in the basement of a
8 village house. So clearly in the context of combat.
9 Would you say that this would be something that would stay within
10 the military jurisdiction?
11 A. Well, you see, initially I provided an answer to such a question,
12 a similar question, actually.
13 If the offence was committed in co-perpetration with members of
14 the military, then the military court would have exclusive jurisdiction.
15 However, if they committed the offence, and if they were
16 exclusively police officers, then I see no possibility for the military
17 court to -- to deal with the case simply because the perpetrators did not
18 have the status of members of the military.
19 There is some logic to it, but, of course, the law has precedence
20 over logic.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Jovicinac, we've reached the point where we
24 would take our first break.
25 We will resume in 20 minutes, when the Prosecution - thanks -
1 would be invited to put any questions to you arising out of the questions
2 that the Tribunal has.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
6 JUDGE HALL: Do I take it from what I see on the screen that the
7 witness has not yet resumed his seat?
8 Could the Court Officer please confirm this.
9 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] I was ...
10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So we will deal with the -- this
11 procedure by the -- very briefly, and then you can have the witness back
12 before the camera. Thank you.
13 MR. OLMSTED: And, Your Honour, just for the record, Mr. Hannis
14 has now been replaced by Ms. Korner.
15 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Olmsted.
16 The Chamber has been notified of the joint request by the parties
17 for additional time for the examination of the Chamber witnesses Lisica
18 and Kovac. The Chamber has considered this matter and decided that the
19 times for Lisica will remain the same as determined in the
20 Trial Chamber's scheduling order of the 15th of February.
21 With regard to Witness Kovac, the Trial Chamber has decided to
22 schedule an additional hearing on Friday, the 9th of March. The
23 Prosecution will have one extra court session for the examination of this
24 witness, and the Defence will jointly have another session for the
25 examination of Kovac. The Friday's session will end at 12.05.
1 Thank you.
2 So, Mr. Court Officer, you can have the witness back before the
3 camera. Thank you.
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Jovicinac, welcome back. I would now invite
6 Mr. Olmsted, counsel for the Prosecution, to put such questions as he has
7 to you.
8 Yes, Mr. Olmsted.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Olmsted:
11 Q. Good morning, Mr. Jovicinac.
12 A. Good morning. Greetings to you.
13 Q. I first just want to ask you a question about your background.
14 Can you confirm that you were appointed military prosecutor for
15 the 1st Krajina Corps in May of 1993 and that you held that position
16 until 1996?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. May we have P1284.6 on the screen. This is tab number 7,
19 Mr. Jovicinac, in your binder. And I'm interested in decision
20 number 169, which is a RS Presidency decision on the establishment, seat
21 and jurisdiction of the military courts and military prosecutors'
23 Can you confirm that it's this -- this is the decision that
24 established the military courts and military prosecutors' offices?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, when you arrived in the military prosecutor's office in
2 August 1992, there was already a military prosecutor in that office;
3 isn't that correct? There was a Spasoje Pisarevic.
4 A. Mr. Spasoje Pisarevic.
5 Q. And just to confirm, he was already functioning as the military
6 prosecutor when you arrived in the office; is that correct?
7 A. Well, let me tell you, in August and September, we had the
8 process of establishing the prosecutor's office, procuring equipment,
9 recruiting staff, appointing staff, et cetera. Real serious work started
10 sometime toward the end of September, if I remember correctly, after such
11 a long time. And I believe that first investigations were conducted in
12 late September or early October. But I'm just relying on my memory. I
13 cannot give you a decisive answer after such a long time.
14 Q. Thank you for that. But that's not my question. My question
15 simply was that the military prosecutor, Mr. Pisarevic, he was already at
16 the office when you joined the office; isn't that correct?
17 A. I cannot confirm fully because I don't remember a decree issued
18 to that effect. But everybody knew that he was going to be appointed to
19 that post because the decision was made in that month. However, one
20 cannot say whether the whole procedure can be conducted within the months
21 starting from the decree and his essential assumption of duties. I
22 cannot confirm that.
23 Q. Let's have on the screen L51.
24 Mr. Jovicinac, this will be tab 12 in your binder. And this is
25 the RS Law on the Army, from June 1992.
1 Sir, during your testimony, you mentioned that the military
2 courts had jurisdiction over persons who were members of the army, as
3 defined by law. And I want to draw your attention to Article 3 of this
4 law which appears to define who are members of the military; is that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And can you confirm: If a person does not fall within this
8 definition, then the military did not have criminal jurisdiction over
9 that person, unless, of course, that person committed one of the crimes
10 enumerated in Article 13?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And can you confirm that this definition does not include
13 civilian police who have been resubordinated to the military?
14 A. No. This definition does not include civilian police because the
15 establishment of civilian police is regulated by the Law on the Interior.
16 Q. In other words, resubordination does not change the status of a
17 civilian police officer from that of a civilian to that of a military
18 personnel; is that correct?
19 A. I said in my previous response that those police officers who
20 were resubordinated, either for a short or a longer period of time,
21 resubordinated to the army, have to carry out the orders of the military
22 commander in line with the principle of singleness of command and
24 However, Article 13 of the Law on Military Court is explicit, and
25 it said that the military court has exclusive jurisdiction over military
1 personnel. Therefore, it is the status that determines the jurisdiction.
2 And I would like to reiterate that, in practice, this issue hasn't been
3 clarified either at the time of the former Yugoslavia, although I can't
4 say that we had the same situation as we had in 1992 onwards.
5 If I remember correctly, due to the fact that this question
6 raises a whole set of delicate issues -- for example, if an investigation
7 is launched and is conducted by military organs, would they be allowed to
8 interview the police officers or not? That is, for example, one of the
10 Another question which is, in my view, also a delicate one, deals
11 with interconnectivity --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down due to the
13 complexity of his answers. Thank you.
14 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Jovicinac, the interpreters are having a little
15 bit of difficulty in keeping up with you. So I would ask you to bear in
16 mind that what you say has to be interpreted and having regard to the
17 technical nature of the answers that you are giving. Yes, thank you.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 MR. OLMSTED:
20 Q. Now we see in this definition of military --
21 A. I understand. Thank you.
22 Q. Thank you. We see that this definition under Article 3 includes
23 reserve personnel while on military duty.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm really sorry, Your Honours. Perhaps the
25 witness should be allowed to -- I'm sorry. I interposed with the
2 Perhaps the witness should be allowed to finish the answer to his
3 question which wasn't recorded because he was asked to slow down.
4 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, perhaps can you rephrase the question
5 that -- where the witness was interrupted and asked to -- where the
6 interpreters refer to the complexity of his answer. The -- because as
7 you would note from the transcript, the -- the answer that is recorded is
8 incomplete. I think that is the point that Mr. Zecevic is making.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Okay.
10 Q. Let me then just reiterate my previous question which was: Under
11 this law under Article 3, this tells us, as you've testified, under this
12 definition, subordinated police officer, resubordinated police officers
13 would not be military personnel. And my question was: That
14 resubordination does not change the legal status of police officers from
15 that of civilians to that of military personnel.
16 And part of your answer got cut off.
17 A. In my understanding, they do not change their status. The
18 provisions of Article 13 of the Law on Military Court, is the military
19 courts who have exclusive jurisdiction over military personnel who have
20 committed criminal offence.
21 If it happens that both a member of the military and a civilian
22 policeman commit a crime as accomplices, regardless of the policeman's
23 state being a civilian one, then the jurisdiction would be with the
24 military court.
25 Q. Now, we see under this Article 3 definition that it includes
1 reserve personnel while on military duty.
2 So until a reservist begins performing his military duties, he
3 was considered a civilian for purposes of criminal jurisdiction; isn't
4 that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. If you could take now a look at Article 9, which is on the same
7 page for you, Mr. Jovicinac; but if we can turn to page 2 of the English.
8 We see that this provision permits the army to be replenished by
9 volunteers which are defined as persons joining the army at their own
10 request without war-time assignment.
11 Who would fall under this definition?
12 A. This definition encompasses only those individuals who have no
13 war assignment but they expressed a desire to make their contribution to
14 combat. Such individuals are requested to report with units, they are
15 registered, and upon arrival at the unit, they become members of the
16 military and are entitled to enjoy all the rights and benefits, as
17 prescribed by the law.
18 Q. So this article would not apply to resubordinated police
20 A. No.
21 Q. I now want to look at chapter 7, which is page 8 in your copy of
22 the document; page 9 in the English version. And I want to focus your
23 attention to section 2 which is disciplinary liability.
24 And can you confirm that these were the disciplinary provisions
25 that applied to the military in 1992?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And if you can look at Article 63, it states:
3 "Military personnel who, during their service or in connection
4 with their service, violate military discipline in an act of
5 premeditation or negligence, shall be responsible for a breach of
6 discipline or disciplinary offence."
7 So by its terms, these disciplinary provisions only apply to
8 members of the military; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. These disciplinary provisions did not apply to members of the
11 civilian police who were resubordinated temporarily to the military;
13 A. Correct. They were not applied to police officers. Disciplinary
14 responsibility of policemen is governed by the Law on Interior.
15 Q. May we have on the screen P1284.7.
16 Mr. Jovicinac, this is tab 1; and this is, again, the Law on
17 Military Courts that you reviewed with Judge Harhoff. And I would like
18 you to first take a look at Article 9 under this law. And Article 9
19 which is page 2, I believe, both the B/C/S and the English version. This
20 article defines who is military personnel or a military serviceman for
21 purposes of the military courts' jurisdiction.
22 And if you can look at items number 1 through 4 of the first
23 paragraph, these essentially contain the same definition as we found in
24 Article 3 of the Law on the Military; isn't that correct?
25 A. It is correct.
1 Q. Now, item number 5 includes:
2 "A civilian performing specific military duties."
3 Can you tell us to whom that relates?
4 A. This relates to civilians performing certain duties connected
5 with the defence. They work at the Ministry of Defence and are involved
6 in mobilisation and -- this is what this refers to.
7 So if a civilian is carrying out a military duty, then this
8 provision pertains to them.
9 Q. That provision would not apply to a civilian police officer
10 resubordinated to the military; correct?
11 A. No.
12 Q. And just to clarify, it would not apply; is that correct?
13 A. If you allow me.
14 Q. My question was I just wanted to verify your last answer.
15 This item number 5, that would not include civilian police
16 officers resubordinated to the military?
17 A. No, it wouldn't. As I see it, no.
18 Q. Now, if you look at the second paragraph under this Article 9, it
19 states a civilian within the meaning of this law shall be considered a
20 person who, under the first paragraph, is not a serviceman or a prisoner
21 of war. So a civilian police officer resubordinated to the military
22 would fall under this catch-all definition of a civilian; isn't that
24 A. First of all, a police officer is not a civilian. He has a
25 status of a policeman. They have uniforms. They have weapons. They
1 have their authority. Therefore, they cannot be considered civilians.
2 Q. And I understand that, sir. But will you agree that for purposes
3 of this law, they would be -- they would fall under the category of
4 civilians because they're neither a member of the military, nor are they
5 prisoner of war?
6 A. I wouldn't agree with that.
7 Q. Well, then I'm going to have to ask you to clarify that because
8 as you were testifying previously, when Judge Harhoff was asking you
9 questions, you stated that if a police officer, I believe, committed a
10 crime under Article 13, they would be classified as a civilian and they
11 would be prosecuted by the military court based upon that.
12 Now you're telling us that they do not fall under the definition
13 or the definition of civilian for purposes of this particular law. And
14 so could you please clarify.
15 A. Please, a policeman can, in no way, be a civilian. If he commits
16 a crime in complicity with a member of the military, he would be
17 processed by the military court as a policeman, not as a civilian. He is
18 an official, and you cannot define an official in that way.
19 Now, this could lead us into a wide debate about how the law
20 defines the term "civilian." It does not relate to policemen, but,
21 rather, to individuals who perform certain duties for the defence system.
22 Q. Very well. Let's move on and maybe we can clarify this issue as
23 we go along.
24 If you can look at Article 13. And you went over this with
25 Judge Harhoff so I won't go over it completely with you at this point,
1 but the first paragraph deals with instances where civilians commit
2 particular crimes under the SFRY Criminal Code.
3 Will you agree that if a civilian police officer committed one of
4 these crimes that under this first paragraph, the military court would
5 have jurisdiction?
6 A. If the offence comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
7 military court and the police officer has committed such an offence, to
8 my mind, he would be tried by a military court. Because, otherwise --
9 otherwise I don't know how it could be done.
10 Q. Now, after the first paragraph, we have three additional
11 paragraphs under Article 13 dealing with other instances in which the
12 military court had jurisdiction over persons who did not fall within the
13 definition of a military personnel.
14 And if we can look at the second paragraph, this concerns
15 civilians committing property and misconduct crimes against military
16 equipment or weapons; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So, in this instance, under this paragraph, the crimes are not
19 limited to those enumerated in the first paragraph, under the
20 SFRY Criminal Code?
21 A. I do not understand the question.
22 Q. And perhaps it is obvious from the provision itself. But unlike
23 the first paragraph, this paragraph is not limited to certain provisions
24 in the SFRY Criminal Code, so it could also include crimes that were
25 perhaps covered by the Criminal Codes within the independent --or the
1 individual republics?
2 A. Yes. And provinces.
3 Q. Thank you. If we can look at the third paragraph, this
4 paragraph concerns civilians employed by the armed forces. So who would
5 that cover, civilians employed by the armed forces?
6 A. Those were civilians serving in the armed forces. Furthermore,
7 persons in the staffs of the Territorial Defence while they are carrying
8 out military exercises.
9 Q. That would not include civilian police officers, whether or not
10 they had been resubordinated?
11 A. No.
12 Q. And, finally, in the fourth paragraph, this gives military courts
13 jurisdiction over prisoners of war for any ordinary crimes that they may
14 commit, as well as international war crimes; correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. And by way of an example, if we can turn to P2377. This is under
17 tab 5 [sic] of your binder.
18 A. 5 to?
19 Q. This is tab 25. P2377. This is a decision by the deputy
20 military prosecutor for the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, dated
21 14 February 1993. And we see in the first paragraph that the deputy
22 prosecutor states that the military has no subject matter jurisdiction
23 against this accused for the crime under Article 144 of the SFRY
24 Criminal Code, war crime against prisoners of war.
25 Then in the third paragraph, he gives his reasons. The
1 prosecutor explains that this case concerns a civilian person over whom
2 the jurisdiction of the military court is not provided for under the
3 Law of the Military Courts, Article 13.
4 So, Mr. Jovicinac, here is a decision that is applying Article 13
5 of the Law on Military Courts; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I want to return now to P1284.7. This is the Law on the
8 Military Courts. And I want us to look at Article 15, which is on
9 page 3. And we can see that Article 15 concerns the situation where a
10 civilian and a member of the military co-perpetrated a crime.
11 Can you tell us what was the effect of this provision?
12 A. This provision had the following effect: It obliges the military
13 court to try perpetrators of crimes because a member of the military was
14 a co-perpetrator. It follows from Article 13 that the military court had
15 exclusive jurisdiction over trying members of the military.
16 Q. Well, let's take a look at this first paragraph under Article 15.
17 It states:
18 "If a serviceman and a civilian, exclusive of persons under
19 Article 13, paragraph 4, which is relating to POWs, had committed a crime
20 as accomplices, and if the trial of the civilian falls within the
21 jurisdiction of another regular court, this court will also try the
23 Doesn't this paragraph have the effect of giving the civilian
24 courts jurisdiction over crimes committed or co-perpetrated by members of
25 the military?
1 A. I don't think this is what it says.
2 Q. Okay. Can you please interpret that paragraph then for us. What
3 do they mean by regular courts would have jurisdiction over the
5 A. Another regular court would be -- in plain language would be the
6 civilian court that has jurisdiction.
7 Q. So as I read this provision in this plain language, the civilian
8 court would have jurisdiction in this instance?
9 A. No. Do read the last sentence here. It says in this
10 paragraph that:
11 "This court will also try the serviceman."
12 That means the serviceman and the civilian.
13 Q. And --
14 A. It I'm referring to paragraph 3 of Article 15, the last sentence.
15 Q. So if I understand you correctly, you are saying when they refer
16 to "this court," they're not referring to the regular court, but they're
17 referring to the military court, under your interpretation?
18 A. No. No. Please. We should read the entire paragraph. As an
19 exception to paragraph 1 of this article, if a serviceman has committed a
20 crime of official misconduct and a civilian appears as a co-perpetrator
21 or an accomplice, a military court will try both the serviceman and the
22 civilian, if we are referring to paragraph 2.
23 If we read paragraph 3, then we see the following:
24 "If in connection with the commitment of a crime by servicemen or
25 by a person under Article 13 of this law and a civilian, and if one of
1 them has aided or abetted the perpetrator after the commission of the
2 crime, or if he did not report the preparation of the crime, the
3 commission of the crime or the perpetrator, the trial shall fall within
4 the jurisdiction of the court having jurisdiction over the perpetrator."
5 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, I'm interested -- I'm sorry. I'm interested in
6 paragraph 1, not the second or third paragraph. The first paragraph.
7 And this -- that paragraph, the first paragraph --
8 A. All right.
9 Q. -- states that where you have a serviceman and a civilian, and
10 the civilian would ordinarily fall under the regular courts, the regular
11 court will also try the military serviceman; isn't that correct?
12 A. No. In such a case, the military court has exclusive
13 jurisdiction. We read that in the last line of paragraph 1.
14 Q. I would ask you to look at -- well, let me just read this to you.
15 This is from your interview --
16 A. I'm sorry, excuse me. No, no. It was my mistake. If a
17 serviceman and a civilian, exclusive of persons under Article 13,
18 paragraph 4 of this law, committed a crime as an accomplices or
19 co-perpetrators and if the trial of the civilian falls within the
20 jurisdiction of another regular court, this court will also try the
22 So, in such a case, the serviceman will be then held responsible
23 before a regular court rather than a military court.
24 I apologise. I made a mistake.
25 Q. No problem. I just wanted to make sure we were clear on that.
1 Now, if we could turn to Article 16, can you confirm that I
2 interpreted this provision correctly. This Article 16 addresses a
3 situation where a member of the military commits a crime but then leaves
4 the army before he is indicted by the military court.
5 Can you tell us what the effect of this provision was?
6 A. If it's a criminal offence that falls under the exclusive
7 jurisdiction of military courts, then he will be tried by a military
8 court. If not, and the indictment has not legal force yet, then he will
9 be tried by a regular court, that is, a civilian court.
10 Q. I just want to return to Article 15 one last time.
11 If we can have 65 ter 2069 on the screen. This is the document
12 that Judge Harhoff had shown you.
13 And we can see from the first paragraph that the perpetrators are
14 suspected of committing murder under Article 36 of the BiH Criminal Code.
15 In your answer to Judge Harhoff, you mention that if one of these
16 perpetrators was determined to be a civilian, that the case would be
17 heard by the military court.
18 Now we've looked at Article 15 which deals with co-perpetrators
19 where there's servicemen and civilians co-perpetrating a crime. Under
20 the -- Article 15, in fact, this case, if it involved both civilian and
21 military persons, would fall under the civilian court's jurisdiction,
22 under Article 15 of the Law on Military Courts; is that correct?
23 A. No. For this offence, since these persons are members of the
24 military and they can be tried exclusively by a military court, we're not
25 talking about aiding and abetting or anything. We are talking about
1 perpetrators. Although the information isn't complete, it still follows
2 from the preamble, that is, the first paragraph, that they are military
3 conscripts, members of the 6th Krajina Brigade, which means that they are
4 members of the military. And they are suspected of having committed the
5 crime of murder under Article 36, and so on. So that the military court
6 has jurisdiction even if, amongst them, there was a civilian or a police
7 officer because under Article 13 of the Law on Military Courts, it is
8 clearly stipulated that the -- that a military court has exclusive
9 jurisdiction over crimes committed by members of the military.
10 Q. Well, we understand that. But we were talking about Article 15
11 of that law, which deals with co-perpetration. And in those instances,
12 if it is an ordinary crime that doesn't fall under Article 13, the
13 civilian court has jurisdiction over it. We could look back at
14 Article 15 which is P1284.7, tab 1.
15 Sir, do you need me to repeat the question?
16 A. I understand your question. Article 13, military courts try
17 civilians for the following criminal offences contained in the
18 Criminal Code of the SFRY.
19 Q. Yes. But I want to focus your attention on Article 15, which
20 deals with the issue of co-perpetration. And I want to understand: Does
21 this article apply to the case we look -- just looked at, if the crime of
22 murder was committed by both military personnel, as well as civilian
24 A. There are no civilians here. It follows from the preamble that
25 they are all members of the 6th Krajina Brigade, military conscripts.
1 But I said a civilian would be tried by a military if one had been
2 amongst them because an offence, and that falls under Article 36, is in
3 the exclusive jurisdiction of military courts.
4 Q. Sir, I don't want to spend much more time on this, but Article 36
5 is referring to the BiH Criminal Code and that does not fall under
6 Article 13; isn't that correct? Article 13 outlines the provisions of
7 the SFRY Criminal Code. Article 36 is from the BiH Criminal Code. And
8 it's ordinary murder.
9 A. Yes, Bosnia-Herzegovina. This is qualified murder.
10 In this case, since the co-perpetrators were members of the
11 military and civilians, if a civilian court had jurisdiction over these
12 matters, then the members of the military would also be tried by the
13 court that has jurisdiction. Although there's no logic in that, but what
14 can you do?
15 Q. Now, I want to talk -- we've spoken about the Article 16 and its
16 effect on a member of the military who commits a crime and then leaves
17 the military service.
18 I want to talk about the reverse situation. If a civilian police
19 officer commits a crime but then is transferred to the army, not
20 resubordinated but transferred to the army, did the civilian courts
21 maintain jurisdiction over that old crime that was committed by the
22 police officer when he was a civilian?
23 A. A member of the military is tried by a military court for the
24 offences that he committed when he was a member of the military. He
25 couldn't be tried for such offences by a military court, though, but by a
1 civilian court where the proceedings were instigated.
2 Q. I now want to discuss with you the procedural process of becoming
3 a member of the military.
4 Can you tell us: For a member of the police to become a member
5 of the military, what had to happen? What kind of process had to happen?
6 A. Under the laws and regulations in force, that person had to be
7 discharged from his service, and that's under the Law on
8 Internal Affairs.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I object to this line of
10 questioning. I object to this line of questioning by the Prosecutor
11 because this goes beyond the matters that the Trial Chamber dealt with.
12 We're talking about courts' jurisdiction and possibility the integrity of
13 this witness. But this is clearly beyond the scope of these -- of this
14 subject matter.
15 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour --
16 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, perhaps it is necessary for you to
17 narrow your question to conform to the purposes limited -- limited
18 purposes for which this witness was called.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, perhaps I could explain why I'm
20 asking this question.
21 We've established now through this witness that the military
22 courts prosecutor's office had jurisdiction over military personnel and
23 now I'm exploring at what point would a police officer become military
24 personnel. What kind of -- I need to establish what the process is, and
25 then I can ask the witness at what point would that police officer become
1 military personnel for purposes of the Law on the Army and the Law on
2 Military Courts.
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Jovicinac, I take it you understand what
4 Mr. Olmsted has just explained. So within that narrow compass, you may
5 answer the question.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, the police officer had
7 to be discharged from the force, then he must be registered as a military
8 conscript by the draft office, and then sent to serve with a military
9 unit. On the day when he reports to that unit, he, effectively, becomes
10 a member of the military. That would be it, in a nutshell.
11 MR. OLMSTED:
12 Q. And it is at that point in time that if he committed a crime that
13 the military courts would exercise jurisdiction over him?
14 A. Could you please explain to me whether you're referring to a
15 point in time before that person has reported to the unit or after that?
16 Q. I'm referring to the point where they reported to the unit. At
17 that point in time, when they've shown up to the unit to carry on
18 military duties, that is when the military courts and prosecutor's
19 offices had jurisdiction over that individual; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You've mentioned that once a person joins the military, that's
22 registered somewhere.
23 Can you confirm that that would be registered in the Vob 8 form,
24 as well as that individual's military booklet?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And these documents, the Vob 8 form, as well as the military
2 booklet, were the documents that the military police - and, if necessary,
3 the military's prosecutor's office - would consult to determine whether
4 they had jurisdiction over that individual; correct?
5 A. Yes. If there is any suspicion or if any need arises for
6 conducting a check, whether this individual is, indeed, a member of the
7 military or not.
8 Q. May we take a look at tab 8 of your binder.
9 This is 65 ter 30001.
10 Mr. Jovicinac, could you confirm with us this is what a Vob 8
11 register looked like back in 1992? And perhaps we can turn to page 3 --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Can you tell us at what level in the military hierarchy this
14 register was maintained?
15 A. Each basic unit maintained such records. And I mean by that an
16 independent battalion, regiment, and brigade.
17 Q. And for each unit, this register would record all military
18 personnel for that unit, from the commander, all the way to the last
19 soldier, and included reserve soldiers as well; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. A civilian police officer who was resubordinated to the military
22 would not appear in this register; correct?
23 A. No, he wouldn't, at least that's what I think.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may this be admitted into evidence.
25 It's not only relevant to the issue of determining a status of a person
1 but also it's relevant to a pending rebuttal motion that the Prosecution
2 has filed.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, we object because the pending rebuttal
4 motion deals with ABiH Vob forms and this has nothing to do with the --
5 with the -- with the JNA or VRS Vob forms. And this is not relevant at
7 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, I find it strange that you would
8 anticipate a document becoming relevant by the determination on a motion
9 that has yet to be decided upon, so I would disregard that arm of your
10 argument. But in terms of this document itself, having regard to this
11 witness's testimony, isn't the evidence that the -- what we are concerned
12 about, that this is -- this establishes the negative? So how is this
14 MR. OLMSTED: You're absolutely correct, Your Honour. It does
15 establish the negative. However, the Prosecution feels that it would be
16 good to have an example of one of these registers on the record.
17 JUDGE HALL: For what purpose? We have -- you showed it to the
18 witness. The witness has given an answer. I see no utility at all to
19 this document as an exhibit.
20 [Prosecution counsel confer]
21 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the document will show that there are
22 no police officers listed in this register. And, therefore, it
23 corroborates what the witness has been saying: That civilian police
24 resubordinated would not appear in this particular register.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Olmsted, if you were to prove that there were
2 no policemen registered by way of the Vob 8 formulas, then you would have
3 to show us all the Vob 8 formulas that would apply to the entire VRS and
4 then show to us that in none of these any policeman was registered.
5 But showing us one example wouldn't make the point. I think we
6 have the witness's testimony and that would suffice, would it not?
7 [Prosecution counsel confer]
8 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, point taken. I'll retract the motion
9 to tender this document.
10 Q. If we can please look at P2344. This is tab 3, Mr. Jovicinac, in
11 your binder. And, sir, can you confirm that this is an example of a
12 military booklet, how it existed back in 1992.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And if you can please turn to page 7 of your copy, and page 15 of
15 the English.
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. OLMSTED: I'm sorry, if we can go back two pages in the
18 English version. I see the page numbers at the bottom don't correspond
19 with the pages in e-court. That's right.
20 Q. Now, according to this military booklet, this person's war-time
21 assignment was with the RS Ministry of Interior from the
22 4th of April, 1992, until the 30th of June, 1996. Based upon this
23 booklet, Mr. Jovicinac, if this person was arrested during this period
24 for committing a crime which did not fall under Article 13, the military
25 authorities would have turned this person over to the civilian
1 authorities - isn't that correct? - because, according to this booklet,
2 he was a member of the civilian police?
3 A. Look, if we are talking about perpetrators and their arrests, if
4 the military police or any other member of the military caught someone in
5 flagrante, they would have been obliged to report this to the nearest
6 police station so that they would come over and take over this
7 individual, and there is reciprocity in that as well.
8 If the police caught a military personnel committing a crime, it
9 is their duty to call the military police to come over and arrest the
10 perpetrator for further interrogation.
11 Q. Until a perpetrator of a crime was identified as a member of the
12 military, the civilian authorities maintained jurisdiction over that
13 case; correct?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. So if an unknown perpetrator case was brought to you, you would
16 send it to the civilian authorities?
17 A. If it is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of military
19 Q. May we have 65 ter 1358 on the screen. This is tab 16.
20 And we can see this is a report on crime trends for
21 September 1992 from the 1st Krajina Corps military prosecutor's office.
22 Can you confirm for us that this is one of your office's reports for the
23 month of September 1992?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I would like you to turn to page 19 in your version, and we could
1 turn to page 20 in the English. The first paragraph, under
2 Roman numeral IV, preventative activities, states that the military
3 prosecutor's office consulted with the civilian courts, prosecutor's
4 offices, Security Services Centres on the demarcation of jurisdiction.
5 Do you see that in the first paragraph?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. To your knowledge, in the course of these consultations, did the
8 issue of jurisdiction over crimes committed by the civilian police ever
9 come up?
10 A. I did not personally take part in this. This was this initial
11 period that I mentioned before, but I think that if you arrive at certain
12 conclusions, I think that something is missing here. Although, in spite
13 of that, I wouldn't be able to give you a more precise answer than this.
14 Q. Well, let's look at the third paragraph then. It states that
15 seminars were held on the subject of disciplinary responsibility of
16 military personnel with the most responsible officers of the
17 2nd Krajina Corps, air force, PVO, and with secretaries, judges and
18 military disciplinary prosecutors.
19 So can you confirm that the military prosecutor's office, as part
20 of its responsibilities, provided training on military disciplinary
22 A. Look, this is what we call general prevention. These seminars
23 were organised by units. According to what I know, the military
24 prosecutor's office offered professional assistance. These seminars were
25 even used at an opportunity to train the people collecting evidence about
1 the perpetrators of crimes, about the detection of crimes, and that it
2 was a useful exercise that the commands, in co-operation with the
3 military prosecutor office, conducted.
4 After such seminars, criminal reports became much better. They
5 contained more information and more compelling evidence which facilitated
6 the whole process of prosecution.
7 Now, let me go back to chapter 6. No, this is chapter 4. Where
8 were we a minute ago?
9 Q. Yes. We were looking at chapter Roman numeral IV.
10 A. Yes, chapter IV. Chapter IV. I can't speak about the
11 intricacies, but I suppose that the then-prosecutor thought it
12 appropriate to maintain contacts with civilian prosecutors, as well as
13 representatives of the MUP so that, in a way, work and co-operation can
14 be improved. And I'm talking about co-ordination between military and
15 civilian organ, specifically military police, military security,
16 civilian's police and civilian security services, because there are some
17 provisions that are common for all these entities in the
18 Law on Criminal Procedure.
19 As for the rest of it, I cannot give you any more of my opinion
20 because I wasn't involved in this. But, nonetheless, I thought this was
21 a useful approach.
22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, is this a convenient point?
23 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE HALL: When we resume, you would have 22 minutes left.
25 Mr. Jovicinac, we are about to take our second break. We will
1 resume in another 20 minutes. Thank you.
2 --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.
4 JUDGE HALL: I don't know why I was waiting for the witness to be
5 escorted inside.
6 Mr. Jovicinac, we are back, and Mr. Olmsted is about to wind up
7 his cross-examination.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour --
9 JUDGE HALL: Sorry. Before you begin ...
10 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
11 JUDGE HALL: In terms of the -- thank you.
12 In terms of the time left with this witness, when Mr. Olmsted
13 would have completed his cross-examination -- and, Mr. Witness, we have
14 already alerted you that we may -- that we would take a break at 1.45 and
15 continue for some time after that, so the -- we would -- when Mr. Olmsted
16 has completed his -- his cross-examination, we would then move to the
17 Defence, and we would then take a break at 1.45 at which time, and I say
18 this for those of us here, we would reconvene in Courtroom II, at -- in
19 an hour? At 2.45. Yes. Thank you.
20 Please, continue, Mr. Olmsted.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 May we have 65 ter 1358 back on the screen.
23 Q. This is tab 16, Mr. Jovicinac, in your binder. And if we can
24 turn back to page 19 in your version; page 20 of the English version.
25 Sir, before the break, I was asking you some questions with
1 regard to paragraph 3 under this preventative activities section of this
2 document. And paragraph 3 raises the issue of disciplinary measures and
3 seminars and other consultations that the military prosecutor's office
4 had on this particular issue.
5 My question for is: To your knowledge, did the issue of
6 disciplinary measures against police officers resubordinated to the
7 military ever come up in any of these discussions or consultations or
9 A. I attended some of these seminars, but there was no discussion
10 about initiating disciplinary procedures against members of the police,
11 for the simple reason that the police have their own rules governing
12 disciplinary responsibilities and the measures prescribed as sanctions
13 which are somewhat different from the measures and proceedings conducted
14 by military disciplinary court. They are different from the police
15 disciplinary courts.
16 So, as far as I can remember, this issue was not debated, nor
17 ever tackled at all. These seminars were organised by the commands, and
18 the prosecutor's office only rendered professional help. As far as I can
19 remember, even some of the judges took part in those seminars in order to
20 offer their professional help, because the majority of the units was made
21 up of reservists which was not exactly -- category who were well versed
22 in rules and regulations. All of this was done with a view to
23 strengthening the discipline and enhancing the military organisation, in
24 order to make it able of carrying out the tasks that it had to do.
25 Q. One of the reasons that subordinated or resubordinated police
1 units were commanded by a senior member of the police was for this very
2 reason, to address any disciplinary measures against the police; isn't
3 that correct?
4 A. No. Please. There is a by-law in the army which regulates
5 military discipline. It prescribes in very detailed terms the
6 disciplinary measures that can be imposed on members of the military for
7 disciplinary offences. Let me be more clear. Disciplinary measures can
8 be pronounced either directly by a direct superior officer in line with
9 his powers, and for disciplinary violations, proceedings have to be
10 instituted, which is followed by an indictment, because there is also a
11 military disciplinary prosecutor who presents his case before the
12 military disciplinary panel made up of three judges and a registrar who
13 is a professional organ, and --
14 Q. Sir --
15 A. -- this is described in great detail in the rules governing the
16 military discipline.
17 Q. Thank you. What I was after was not a description of the
18 military disciplinary procedures. Unfortunately, we don't have time to
19 go into those details.
20 My question was fairly simple: A resubordinated police unit had
21 a senior police commander at the head of that unit; isn't that correct?
22 A. I cannot give you an answer to that question because I am not
23 familiar with the chain of command in the police force.
24 Q. All right. This document also mentions that Kamenica and Manjaca
25 prisoner of war camps were visited. These were the two VRS POW camps
1 under the 1st Krajina Corps' jurisdiction in 1992; isn't that correct?
2 A. As far as I know, that is correct.
3 Q. Were there any others?
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters didn't understand the witness.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] How do you mean?
6 MR. OLMSTED:
7 Q. Other than these two POW camps, were you aware of any other that
8 were -- fell under the 1st Krajina Corps' jurisdiction?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Did you visit either of these camps in 1992?
11 A. No.
12 Q. When you were asked about Manjaca camp back during your 2002
13 interview, you stated you that you had no information about Manjaca camp,
14 it was not in your jurisdiction, and you were never consulted about it.
15 Do you maintain that position today?
16 A. That is correct, yes.
17 Q. May we have 1D411 on the screen. This is tab 17, Mr. Jovicinac,
18 in your binder.
19 Mr. Jovicinac, this is a letter from the
20 1st Krajina Corps Command, General Talic, to CSB Banja Luka and the
21 43rd Motorised Brigade of the 1st Krajina Corps, dated the
22 16th of October, 1992. And General Talic is forwarding a telegram he
23 received from the VRS Main Staff informing them that Prijedor police unit
24 members have abandoned their positions and fled back to their towns.
25 This was a pretty significant event in 1992 in which a large
1 number of soldiers and police officers abandoned the front lines in
2 Han Pijesak. Do you recall this incident?
3 A. No, I don't recall that because that was not within the area of
4 responsibility or within the area of jurisdiction of Banja Luka.
5 Han Pijesak lies within the jurisdiction of the military prosecutor's
6 office in Sarajevo.
7 Q. This telegram is sent to the CSB Banja Luka. Was that because
8 the civilian police had responsibility to investigate this matter, at
9 least to the extent it applied to civilian police officers?
10 A. That is something that undoubtedly arises from this telegram,
11 because they are their superiors.
12 [Prosecution counsel confer]
13 Q. Now, if --
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. If -- if the crime that is determined that they committed in the
16 end was that of desertion under Article 217 of the SFRY Criminal Code,
17 then the CSB should file the criminal reports with the military
18 prosecutor's office; is that correct?
19 A. Well, you see, we are going back to when I said that this was a
20 very delicate or sensitive issue. It may amount to this crime alone.
21 However, if you look at the nature of the crime and those who may be its
22 perpetrators, as well as the decision governing military courts, the
23 question arises as to whether, based on the legal provisions in place,
24 the police can be held answerable under that law.
25 If they cannot held responsible, then such a crime does not
1 exist. It would be logical for that responsibility to exist. However,
2 truth to tell, this is the first time I'm seeing this and I'm hearing of
3 this. The military prosecutor's office had never received a case such as
4 this one.
5 Q. Than was my next question. You were not aware of receiving any
6 criminal reports with regard to this incident?
7 A. Please. Excuse me. There is something I didn't pay attention to
8 over here, if I am allowed to proceed? Can I continue?
9 Q. Yes, please?
10 A. Annexed here is a list of military conscripts; that's to say,
11 reserve policemen who had abandoned their positions. In my
12 understanding, this would have had to be prosecuted before a military
13 court. It reads, "A list of conscripts, reserve policemen."
14 This is the crucial line that can lean towards either side but it
15 is a -- an offence that comes under Article 217. That is without doubt.
16 Q. But it's clear that Talic, General Talic is seeking the CSB to
17 take action against these police officers.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: I object to that. Where is that? Can you quote
19 it? Where is this? He asked CSB for that, or is it your
21 MR. OLMSTED: Well, my question, and I will repeat it because I
22 believe I'm entitled to ask it.
23 Q. Is that General Talic is expecting the CSB to take some action
24 with regard to these police officers; isn't that correct?
25 MR. KRGOVIC: It's calling for speculation. Where is that in
1 this letter? Can you quote it?
2 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, Mr. Cvijetic, could you assist -- I'm
3 not sure I follow your objection because the document on its face would
4 seem to bear no other logical meaning than the proposition that is being
5 put by Mr. Olmsted. What am I missing?
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE HALL: After all, it is address -- it is from
8 General Talic, addressed to CSB Banja Luka. So what -- what am I not
10 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, before the Defence get into this, I
11 think it's better that the witness not participate in this discussion.
12 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
13 Mr. Jovicinac, could you remove your headphones for a second,
14 please. Thank you.
15 [Prosecution counsel confer]
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I, Your Honour?
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] You were not able to understand my
19 objection because I haven't made one.
20 Your Honours, the document clearly indicates that the Main Staff
21 orders the command of the 1st Krajina Corps to issue criminal reports
22 against the perpetrators of this crime. We discussed this issue with a
23 previous witness and pointed to these quotation marks, because this is a
24 quote from a letter sent by the Main Staff.
25 So the Main Staff orders the command of the 1st Krajina Corps to
1 file criminal charges against individuals, that names be published,
2 et cetera.
3 Now, the command of the 1st Krajina Corps proceeds only to send
4 this for information to the CSB and the 43rd Mechanised Brigade, or what
5 it's called.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, I understand that's the position of
7 the Defence and that's the position that was taken by the Defence expert
8 who, of course, never saw this document either. But that is not the
9 position of the Prosecution. And as Your Honour has pointed out, it can
10 be open to that interpretation, and I'm -- the Prosecution's position on
11 its interpretation and that's what I'm exploring with this witness.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. -- it seems to me that you can explore
14 that -- the question as phrased is unobjectionable.
15 The -- could the Court Officer have the witness replace his
16 headphones, please.
17 MR. OLMSTED:
18 Q. I apologise for that, Mr. Jovicinac --
19 JUDGE HALL: But, Mr. Olmsted, would you bear in mind, having
20 regard to what Mr. Cvijetic explains and as you reminded us about the
21 position that they have taken, that the document is capable of other
22 meaning. So you would -- the -- those nuances should be apparent in the
23 question that you put to the witness.
24 MR. OLMSTED:
25 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, as you testified earlier, it is clear that
1 General Talic is sending this telegram he received from the VRS
2 Main Staff to the CSB because he expected the CSB to take some actions on
3 this; isn't that correct?
4 A. Well, to tell you the truth, I don't remember.
5 Q. Well, you would agree that it would be standard practice for
6 General Talic to involve the MUP in any criminal investigation involving
7 civilian police officers.
8 A. Yes. You said that I testified about it earlier, and I don't
9 recall testifying on this issue at all.
10 Q. That's fine. But my question is: You would agree that it would
11 be standard practice for General Talic to involve the MUP in any criminal
12 investigation of civilian police officers. That would be normal, under
13 the principle of reciprocity that you described earlier.
14 A. Yes. In situations such as this one, General Talic would --
15 well, now that I looked at page 2 of this document, there is a list of
16 soldiers who left their positions between 13 September and 19 October, 71
17 of them, without a list of civilian policemen. So this was a mixed group
18 abandoning positions.
19 Under those circumstances, if there were civilian policemen among
20 them who deserted their positions, as well as the army, as well as
21 soldiers, then it was only natural that the MUP should be informed about
22 it and that co-ordinated measures should be taken as envisaged under the
23 Law on Criminal Procedure.
24 Q. And, of course, the police hierarchy, the MUP, would still
25 maintain disciplinary authority over any of these 71 individuals who
1 happened to be members of the police.
2 A. I disassociated myself from such a statement. I distance myself
3 from it.
4 If you look at page 2 of this telegram, the list appended, it
5 says the list of soldier who abandoned positions, who went AWOL. Is this
6 an error or not? That I don't know. But the annex says the list of
7 conscripts, reserve policemen. So there must be a link in between that
8 is missing here. Based on this list, I don't know if they are policemen
9 or soldiers. It says here, undoubtedly, quite clearly that these were
10 soldiers who abandoned their positions. If they were soldiers, then they
11 fell within the sole jurisdiction of the military justice administration,
12 and it was the security organs or the military policemen who were
13 duty-bound to gather all the relevant information and evidence to compile
14 a criminal report and send it to the prosecutor's -- military
15 prosecutor's office with jurisdiction. Evidently, there were policemen
16 among them who abandoned positions too, and since this act was committed
17 simultaneously, they were supposed to be criminally investigated by the
18 MUP. And since they perpetrated this crime together with soldiers, it
19 would have been within the jurisdiction of a military court to prosecute
20 this case further, if this unit was resubordinated to the army.
21 Q. And just to go back to my original question. The MUP would
22 still, no matter what, maintain disciplinary authority over these police
23 officers, if this list, in fact, includes civilian police officers?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. OLMSTED: I think we can perhaps clarify this issue of who is
1 on this list, Your Honours, if I show this witness a couple of documents
2 that we uncovered in preparation for this witness's testimony. And if I
3 can have leave to do that. I would like to show -- first of all, I would
4 like to have the witness take note.
5 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, can you please turn to page 3 of your document
6 with the list of 71 names, and if you could just take notes of the names
7 under entries 2 --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. If you please take a look at the names under entries 2, 4, 6, 7,
10 11, 12, 15, 16 and 18.
11 And now if you could take a look at tab 19. This is
12 65 ter 30004.
13 And, sir, this is a list of military conscripts in the
14 Military Police Company securing the city and it's signed by military
15 police commander in Prijedor and it is dated the 30th of October, 1992,
16 so around the time of the document that we just looked at.
17 And if you look under entries 12 to 14, 16, 18, 19, 21 and 23,
18 those are, in fact, the names that we looked at in the previous document.
19 A. Yes. Yes, I suppose so.
20 Q. So those individuals were members of the military. They were
21 members of the military police, in fact?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, if can you please go back to tab 17 --
24 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, your time has expired.
25 MR. OLMSTED: Yes. And that's why I sought leave of this
1 Trial Chamber just to explore this confusion over who is on this list. I
2 just have this last document to show him, and then I'm through.
3 Your Honours, I wonder if we should tender that last document
4 into evidence, however, because it does contain the names of certain
5 individuals on this 1D411 and therefore provides some clarity to the
6 issue of who these 71 individuals were.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours. I do object. Because
8 whatever Mr. Olmsted is trying to establish here, he is not establishing
9 that because we cannot possibly identify by the names persons on two
10 lists. First of all, this witness does not know anything about it. The
11 second thing is there might be at least two -- two persons with the same
12 name, so we don't know whether this is the -- this one list refers to
13 another individual or the first list to another individual.
14 Therefore, I don't really see the -- the point of -- of admitting
15 this document, because it is inconclusive evidence all together. Thank
17 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, that goes to weight and, of
18 course, argument. With regard to whether they're the same individuals,
19 we would submit that they are.
20 JUDGE HALL: But on what basis? Taken at its highest, is it
21 possible to, just by comparing the two documents, arrive at the
22 conclusion that you would invite us to arrive at?
23 MR. OLMSTED: Well, the documents are close in time. They both
24 involve Prijedor, and the entries I just went through, there are nine.
25 So at least nine names are similar on the two lists. And, therefore, we
1 would submit -- and the military police platoon in Prijedor would have
2 been under the 43rd Motorised Brigade.
3 So we would say that that evidence collectively would establish
4 that these are the same people.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 [Prosecution counsel confer]
7 [Defence counsel confer]
8 JUDGE HALL: So the previous document is admitted and marked,
9 Mr. Olmsted.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, if we can please look at tab 17 again --
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P2453, Your Honours. Thank you.
13 MR. OLMSTED: I apologise for that.
14 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, if you can look again at tab 17, again at the list
15 of 71 names. And please take note of these particular names on that
17 Entries 29, Mladen Timarac; 30, Nenad Ecim; 34, Radenko Lukic;
18 44, Dragan Jeftic; 66, Branko Knezevic; and, 67, Lazar Matijis.
19 And now if you can turn to tab 26 in your binder. This is it
20 65 ter 30007. What we have is a list of special police unit members
21 under the command of Miroslav Paras, who are sent to the Orasje front and
22 it's signed by the SJB Prijedor chief, Simo Drljaca, and it's dated the
23 25th of February, 1993.
24 And if you look at the names I just mentioned, if you look under
25 4, 5, 12, 13, 14 and 16, those individuals from the previous list were,
1 in fact, members of SJB Prijedor; correct?
2 A. Yes. I don't know if they were members or not. In my view, the
3 lists are incomplete because they should contain full name, first and
4 family name, and father's name. The fact of the matter is that these
5 individuals can be found on both these lists and that goes to show that
6 these individuals abandoned their positions with those other members of
7 that military police company. That is my understanding of it.
8 Q. And just to confirm, you have no recollection of any criminal
9 reports filed against these members of SJB Prijedor for abandoning their
10 position. You don't recall receiving any criminal reports?
11 A. Neither from the military nor the civilian police. No, I don't
13 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, we would like to tender this document
14 for the same reason as it provides clarity to the exhibit 1D411.
15 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P2454, Your Honours.
17 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, that concludes my questions. I
18 forgot to seek to tender the document I showed the witness before and
19 immediately after the break which was 65 ter 1358, the report from the
20 military prosecutor's office from September 1992 that we talked about at
21 some length. I would move to admit that into evidence as well.
22 JUDGE HALL: We had noted that you hadn't so moved and we thought
23 you had wisely chosen not to tender it because it adds nothing.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, we would disagree as it
25 establishes that the military prosecutor and military courts were
1 involved in addressing issues of disciplinary -- discipline of military
2 personnel, and -- in 1992, as well as visited the POW camps, as well as
3 discussed jurisdictional issues with civilian and military authorities.
4 And so in that way it corroborates what this witness has been saying
5 about what he understood were the issues back in 1992 with regard to
6 jurisdiction, disciplinary matters, and such.
7 JUDGE HALL: But that's all a part of the record, isn't it,
8 Mr. Olmsted?
9 MR. OLMSTED: But the document itself is further evidence of that
10 and it corroborates the witness. Obviously this witness -- this document
11 has been in the hands of the Defence for many years now, three or four
12 years, and therefore, there's no prejudice to the Defence and the
13 Prosecution would seek to tender it.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, may our objection be recorded as
15 well. It's not the point whether this document has been in possession of
16 the -- of the Defence so how many years or something. The point of the
17 matter is at which stage of the proceedings the trial -- the Office of
18 the Prosecutor is trying to tender it. And what is the actual relevance
19 of this document?
20 Thank you.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours I could not -- I didn't have time to
22 explore the entire document with this witness, but the witness did
23 authenticate it as a report from his office, and, therefore, we would
24 tender it in for other purposes for what the document states. But in
25 particular for this witness, I explained the relevance for -- with regard
1 to his evidence.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE HALL: The Chamber is not persuaded the document should be
5 I assume that Defence counsel have -- has decided how to divide
6 up their work and the time.
7 So, Mr. Krgovic, I see you on your feet. I infer from that that
8 you are beginning. And I would remind you that you have 90 minutes to
9 share between you.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Hello, Mr. Jovicinac.
14 A. Hello.
15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that we can barely hear
16 Mr. Krgovic. He needs to come closer to the microphone.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Can you hear me, Mr. Jovicinac?
19 A. Yes, I can.
20 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, I will follow up on the last answer you gave to my
21 learned friend, Mr. Olmsted, when you said that you had no occasion to
22 see any of such criminal reports, either filed by the civilian police or
23 military police in relation to this event. And the reason for that is
24 that, since this had happened in Han Pijesak, this incident did not fall
25 under the jurisdiction of your prosecutor's office; is that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Based on the answers you gave to the Prosecutor, and also based
3 on the interview you gave previously, in the area of responsibility of
4 the 1st Krajina Corps covered by your prosecutor's office at the time
5 when you started working, expect for Jajce, there were no other combat
6 activities in 1992; right?
7 A. As far as I remember, there weren't any.
8 Q. And, as a result, you, through your daily work, had no occasion
9 to come across this phenomenon of resubordination of the military -- of
10 the police to the military in combat activities because at the time it
11 simply didn't come across your daily activities. It didn't happen.
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Consequently, the answers given by you to the Prosecutor and the
14 Chamber were based on your logic and on your previous experience, and
15 also it was based on the documents shown to you by the Chamber and the
16 OTP; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. The answers you gave did not stem from a particular specific case
19 that you dealt with in your career, or they did not come as a result of
20 your participation in some legal work-shop or seminar where such topics
21 were discussed; right?
22 A. Could you please repeat this.
23 Q. Well, what I said was that the answers you gave -- perhaps my
24 question was simply too long. You're right. But the answers that you
25 gave to the Prosecutor and the Chamber did not come as a result of you
1 personally dealing with a case, with a relevant case, or did not come as
2 a result of your participation in the legal seminar where such topics
3 were discussed. You simply answered based on logic; right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, let us now go back to what the Prosecutor explored
6 in the beginning of his examination, the notion of a conscript which is
7 mentioned in a number of documents in the law and is also something that
8 you came across in your practice.
9 You will agree with me that policemen also constitute military
10 conscripts. They also fall in that category of conscripts; right?
11 A. Those policemen who are mobilised for combat, they also fall
12 under the category of military conscript; whereas, other policemen, who
13 are not mobilised, do not fall into that category.
14 Q. So the reserve policemen do come under the category of military
15 conscripts; right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. In --
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Excuse me, Mr. Krgovic. How is it that from the
19 answer to the previous question you're able to conclude that reserve
20 policemen do come under the category of military conscripts? Something
21 I'm missing there, obviously.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there's a mistake in
23 interpretation. My question was: Reserve policemen fall in the category
24 of military conscripts.
25 [Defence counsel confer]
1 [Prosecution counsel confer]
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. I
3 didn't see this.
4 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, can you please repeat your answer to my question
5 whether policemen are also military conscripts.
6 A. A policeman is a military conscript as long as his name is in the
7 military records in the Ministry of Defence. Following --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the answer.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Witness. Witness. The interpreters ask you to
10 repeat the question, please -- to repeat the answer, please.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The witness needs to speak
12 slower because the sound is blurred and we cannot tell whether he says
13 mobilisation or demobilisation.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All individuals who are in reserve
15 forces and who are in the military records of the
16 Secretariat for National Defence are considered as military conscripts.
17 Once the mobilisation is carried out, those who are mobilised for the
18 purposes of the military go into military units. They become military
19 personnel with the same rights and duties as all other military
21 As for military conscripts who were mobilised, or whose war-time
22 assignment is in the police, they acquire the status of a policeman, and
23 they have the same rights and obligations as other policemen.
24 A military conscript for as long as he is in the military records
25 of the Secretariat of the National Defence are considered as military
1 personnel. Secretariat does not mobilise only for the purposes of the
2 military or police. Secretariat also mobilises people for civilian
3 defence and all other structures, and all military conscripts who are
4 assigned to those structures fall under the rules and regulations that
5 exist for those structures. I hope I was able to clarify this now.
6 JUDGE HALL: Again, I would remind you that the interpreters have
7 to keep up with you, so please slow down when answering the questions,
9 Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. In the times of immediate threat of war, for somebody to become a
12 military conscript that person does not need to be in the military
13 records. At military conscript is a person who is fit for military
14 service in the time of an imminent threat of war. Therefore, that person
15 does not even need to be in the military records with the
16 Secretariat of National Defence. He needs -- he will have automatically
17 the status of a military conscripts if it is in the immediate -- period
18 of the immediate threat of war?
19 A. I do not agree with you. Anybody who is fit for military
20 service, according to the Law on National Defence, is recorded in the
21 records of the Secretariat for National Defence. And the secretariat, at
22 the request of military units or police, assigns such persons, issues
23 call-up papers and gives them their assignment.
24 This is my opinion.
25 Q. I put it to you that you are not right and that what I said is
1 the position taken by the supreme military prosecutor's office, and I
2 will put documents to you showing this. I'm also putting to you that
3 given that you do not have any practical experience -- or, rather, you
4 did not have experience with such cases back in 1992, you, as a result of
5 that, did not give me the correct answer.
6 Further on, Mr. Jovicinac, a policeman, once he is resubordinated
7 and once he takes part in combat activities, is carrying out a military
8 duty; right? He is discharging a military duty.
9 A. In my answer, I said that this does have the characteristics of a
10 military duty. However, when it comes to the jurisdiction of military
11 courts that revolves around the status, neither the case law nor the
12 theory, legal theory, ever dealt with this issue, even though what these
13 persons are doing has all the hallmarks of a military duty.
14 Q. Sir, you will agree with me that when a policeman takes part in
15 combat activities and when he is attacked by an enemy soldier and killed,
16 he is considered a legitimate target. He can fire, he can attack, and
17 the opposing side can treat him as a legitimate target without being
18 responsible for injuring somebody in the line of his official duties.
19 This is considered combat; right?
20 A. Yes, that's absolutely right. Not only as a policeman but also
21 as a member of the military. He uses weapons in accordance with the
22 rules on the use of weapons within that military unit.
23 Q. And when he is resubordinated to a military command, he has the
24 same rights and duties as all other soldiers of the unit, of his unit;
1 A. I'm not sure what rights and duties you're referring to, but I am
2 concerned that due to insufficient knowledge of that topic I could give
3 you a wrong answer.
4 What I know and what I was able to understand, such
5 resubordinations do not fall under my jurisdiction. That is considered
6 command and control and the use of units. And these are the topics that
7 should best be directed by -- to somebody who deals with command and
8 control and the command tactics. I understood it that I was supposed to
9 testify about the jurisdiction of military courts and military
10 prosecutor's office, and I did it to the best of my abilities.
11 Now, as to these rights and duties that you're referring to, I
12 would rather not deal with that.
13 Q. Sir, when I put this question to you, what I meant to ask was
14 this: If a policeman taking part in combat activities is wounded, he
15 would be entitled to the status of a war veteran and disabilities that
16 come with that; right?
17 A. Absolutely.
18 Q. If such a policeman were to be killed, his family would enjoy all
19 benefits as the families of a fallen soldier; right?
20 A. Yes. Not only in the cases where he is resubordinated and takes
21 part in combat with the unit, also if he is acting separate from the
23 Q. Sir, you just mentioned a minute ago their status, whether they
24 had the status of a military conscript, their rights and duties, and so
25 on. Those who lead the combat would have more experience, more knowledge
1 about this than you; right?
2 A. Listen, I really don't want to put either you or myself in a
3 delicate situation. I said that the use of units and command and control
4 is not something that a military prosecutor deals with, neither military
5 courts deal with that.
6 At any rate, what I know about resubordination is not sufficient.
7 Resubordination could be put in place for a short period of time, for a
8 long period of time. It can also involve co-ordinated action, but I
9 simply don't know enough about these matters.
10 Q. Sir, let me show you a document. Please look at my tab 19 in the
11 Zupljanin binder, which is P421 -- 411 shown to you by the Prosecutor.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 1D411. I apologise.
13 [In English] Tab 15.
14 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Could the counsel please say the
15 tab number.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Tab 15 in my binder.
17 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Thank you.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. You have just seen this document.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. This is a letter from the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps
22 entitled: "Abandonment of positions by police members, information";
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. In this letter, they speak of cases when police members abandoned
1 their positions. So this is the title of this document and this is what
2 this document deals with; right?
3 A. Well, logically analysing it, yes.
4 Q. If you look at paragraph 2 -- rather, if you look at paragraph 1,
5 Mr. Talic here quotes the document received by him from the Main Staff;
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And in accordance with the title, he says here:
9 "We are hereby informing you that the Prijedor police unit
10 members have abandoned their positions ..."
11 He speaks exclusively of them; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And, here in the attachment, General Talic says: List of
14 conscripts, reserve policemen. And he treats these reserve policemen as
15 military conscripts; right?
16 A. I wouldn't agree with that because this list which is attached to
17 this letter as an entitled list of soldiers who had left their positions
18 from the 13th of September until the 10th of October, 1992, well, for me,
19 this document is simply incomplete. And it is very difficult for me here
20 to give any solid explanation because the list was sent to the CSB
21 Banja Luka and to the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps and the
22 43rd Motorised Brigade; therefore, this document is incomplete.
23 It gives me some information, but I, as a prosecutor, would go to
24 great lengths to verify this.
25 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, Mr. Talic considered these policemen from the list
1 to be soldiers. And they were, indeed, soldiers during the time that
2 they were resubordinated; right?
3 A. I'm telling you're again putting me in a position not -- in which
4 I'm not able to comment this document. It is contradictory. The first
5 page contradicts the second page. And Mr. Prosecutor also showed me that
6 in another list we saw members of the military police as well. I can
7 only give you an answer in principle.
8 Q. Sir, you cannot give me any answer at all because you have never
9 encountered such an example in your work, nor did you have any contact,
10 either theoretically or practically, with the issue of the status and the
11 jurisdictions of military and civilian organs in the particular instance
12 when we talk about resubordination. Am I right?
13 A. I wouldn't comment on that.
14 Q. You will agree with me that when we speak about the status of
15 resubordinated policemen, General Talic is more competent to explain
16 that, and we can see from this document how he described their status;
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat his answer.
19 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, Mr. Olmsted is on his feet. I think I
20 anticipate [overlapping speakers] I think I anticipate what his objection
21 is going to be.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, well, perhaps.
23 The term status is ambiguous. I mean, this witness is talking
24 about status of the -- for purposes of the military court's jurisdiction.
25 And there's ambiguity in what Mr. Krgovic means -- if status for purposes
1 of resubordination or what have you, so I think there needs to be clarity
2 on that issue. Plus I'm not sure that this witness is in a position to
3 comment on General Talic's knowledge on a particular issue.
4 JUDGE HALL: That was the observation that I was about to make.
5 It seems that the point that -- if I understand it correctly, that you
6 wish to make by that question is really something that should be reserved
7 for argument, Mr. Krgovic.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in my opinion,
9 whether the status of a member of any formation cannot be construed on a
10 case by case basis. He is either a conscript - i.e., a soldier - or not
11 a conscript. If someone is a conscript and enjoys some benefits as a
12 result of that, that's a debatable issue. This is my response to the
14 Q. Now, Mr. Jovicinac, can we go back to this question. If someone
15 enjoys the status of a military conscript and if such person performs
16 military duties, and in the course of that commits a crime, would then
17 the military prosecutor and the military court be competent to prosecute
18 such a perpetrator?
19 A. Provided he is a member of the military, yes. That means that if
20 this person was mobilised for the purposes of military service and as of
21 the day of his reporting at the unit this is when his status of a member
22 of the military commences and consequently it is the military court that
23 has the exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute them, this is --
24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
25 A. Excuse me. This is in accordance with the Law on Military Courts
1 and I base my answers on that. And also it is in line with the provision
2 of the Law on the Army which also defines who members of the armed forces
3 are. I don't have the copy of this law in front of me. I can't tell you
4 exactly which provision is that, but I think that there is even some
5 mention of the status of military personnel in the criminal law.
6 Q. All I'm asking you -- I'm sorry to interrupt you, I am asking you
7 if a person is a military conscript and if he performs military duties,
8 so both criteria are satisfied, does he fall under the jurisdictions of
9 military organs --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please not overlap.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, wasn't that question asked and
12 answered, answered by the witness by adding another criteria?
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honours, my
14 LiveNote is dead; therefore, I cannot see.
15 Q. Sir, can you repeat the answer that you gave because it hasn't
16 been recorded.
17 A. To your last question? Yes.
18 Q. What I asked you about the two criteria. If someone is, (A) a
19 conscript, and (B) if he performs military duty according to these two
20 criteria, would he fall under the jurisdiction of military judiciary
21 organs, i.e., prosecutor's offices and courts?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You said absolutely?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, this is really a confusing issue. I
1 rose also at the same time that Judge Delvoie raised the issue. This
2 witness has a great length, both during Judge Harhoff's evidence, the
3 Prosecution's questions explained this, and it has been asked and
4 answered now at least on three occasions, and at that point, I think,
5 Your Honours, we object. I know this is not a typical objection in this
6 Tribunal, but we object that these questions should not be continued to
7 be asked of this witness.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, in addition to these two that I mentioned, is
10 there any other requirement necessary? I asked you only about the
11 category of those who are either conscripts and those who performed
12 military duties. I'm sorry, did you understand my question?
13 A. I really don't know. You asked me this question at least four
15 Q. Yes, I see that you answered me.
16 A. And I gave you at least four answers. And I also answered the
17 same question to the Presiding Judge and to the Prosecutor.
18 So if you analyse what the performance of military duties
19 involves, I don't know what else can I add. A military duty is a broad
20 notion, a very broad notion. A military duty is the person who serves
21 the call-up papers.
22 Q. Now, I'm going to suggest to you a number of military duties so
23 that we can check whether we think along the same lines. So a military
24 duty is to take part in combat?
25 A. Yes, under the command. Organised combat under the command.
1 Because according to the Law on the Army, the command implies that it is
2 organised on the principle of unity of command, subordination, and
3 singleness of command. Everything beyond that scope cannot be considered
4 a military duty. And this goes from the commander at the top up to the
5 last private.
6 Q. Guarding prisoners of war. That's another military duty under
7 the command; right?
8 A. I don't know. If the camp was under the command of the army,
9 then, of course, that's another military duty, and that's called guard
11 Q. Standing guard or guarding a camp where the troops are billeted
12 in combat area.
13 A. The guard and patrol duties is considered a military duty, even
14 if it happens in peacetime. It is considered in the same way, no matter
15 whether we have peacetime or war time, and there is a criminal offence of
16 infringement of guard duty. And it is punishable by law.
17 Q. On the basis of your answers, sir, I put it to you that once the
18 police force is resubordinated to the army, number 1, it enjoys the
19 status of military conscripts; number 2, it carries out military duties;
20 and number 3, it falls under the jurisdiction of military judicial organs
21 and not civilian ones. Do you agree with me?
22 A. I cannot give you a decisive answer to that question.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Jovicinac, when we speak about the competence to try
24 criminal offences, I'm sure that your office used the rules that were
25 used by the JNA and that were in force in the former Yugoslavia.
1 A. Article 12 of the Law on the Implementation of the Constitution
2 of Republika Srpska stipulates that all the laws and by-laws and other
3 enactments of the former SFRY and the former BH shall be implemented,
4 pending the adoption of the Law of Republika Srpska. Among other things,
5 we applied the rules of engagement, the Law on Military Courts, the Law
6 on Military Prosecutor Offices, and so on and so forth. The
7 Criminal Code of the SFRY was amongst them as well.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown
9 Exhibit L12. That's tab 3 in the Zupljanin binder. Although,
10 Your Honour, I think this is time for adjournment.
11 JUDGE HALL: I was just going to suggest that because this is
12 going -- probably take a little time, and we must vacate this courtroom
13 for -- to be prepared for the trial to come up.
14 Mr. Jovicinac, we're about to take the break, as we indicated.
15 We will resume in an hour. You will be escorted, conducted back to the
16 offices in Belgrade, but we will take a break, and Mr. Krgovic will
17 continue when we resume.
18 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.45 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 2.49 p.m.
20 JUDGE HALL: So, Mr. Jovicinac, we return. And I invite
21 Mr. Krgovic to continue his cross-examination.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, can you hear me?
24 A. Yes, I can hear you well.
25 Q. The documents you have are application of the international laws
1 of war and Geneva Conventions.
2 Can you look at Article 36? I said that it was L12. Page 21 in
3 e-court, in English.
4 And, for you, it's page 35. And it's tab 3 of the Zupljanin
5 Defence material.
6 Page 21 in Serbian in e-court.
7 Mr. Jovicinac, 36, paragraph 3, it reads:
8 "If it is established that a member of the armed forces of the
9 SFRY," it has got to do with the SFRY, "the collected information and
10 evidence shall be submitted to the military prosecutor directly or
11 through the superior officer ..."
12 So, Mr. Jovicinac, this applies to any member of the armed
13 forces; is that right?
14 A. Well, according to the text, it does.
15 Q. Look at Article 38. The composition of the armed forces. And
16 that's page 36 and page 21 in e-court. So it's the same page. Or, I'm
17 sorry. It is - give me a moment, please - Article 48. Page 24 in
18 English and Serbian in e-court.
19 Under 1, where it speaks of the membership of the army, they
20 enumerate various branches, and you'll see that they mention police units
21 as well. According to these regulations, the commander of a military
22 unit who is within his own AOR has the power to act upon all these
23 various violations of international laws of war; is that right?
24 A. Yes. But, you see, this area is prescribed by the
25 Law on Military Courts.
1 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, you will most certainly know that the supreme
2 military prosecutor's office, precisely in order to avoid any confusion,
3 laid down guide-lines for the work of military prosecutors' offices in
4 1992; is that right?
5 A. I am not aware of that.
6 Q. Let me show you, behind tab 19, document 2D10197.
7 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, Mr. Jovicinac, again I would remind you
8 to slow down and allow a gap between question and answer so the
9 interpreters can keep up.
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 2D10197 doc ID for e-court.
11 Q. And it is tab 19 -- or number 19 behind your tab. Let me read it
12 out again. 2D10197. Doc ID.
13 Sir, these are the guide-lines, issued by -- or, rather,
14 forwarded by the VRS Main Staff to, among others, your military post in
15 Banja Luka. As you see, it says that it's been received in Banja Luka on
16 the 16th of October, 1992.
17 Did you have an opportunity to see this?
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can you turn the page, please.
19 [In English] Next page, please.
20 Q. [Interpretation] There, Mr. Jovicinac, in the course of your work
21 in 1992, did you come across this document?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Let us discuss some of the dilemmas we had and the differences of
25 Let us now look at -- or, rather --
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have to first give
2 an explanation.
3 The document that I showed to the witness consists of, to all
4 extents and purposes, the cover letter and guide-lines which have already
5 been admitted so I would like to go back to Stanisic's document, 1D368.
6 So that's the document I'll be referring to, and that's behind tab 7 of
7 the Stanisic Defence.
8 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, have a look, please, the relevant page is 15 in
9 your binder; and for Their Honours, it's the English page 8 of the
10 document. 1D368.
11 Sir, have you found page 15?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The penultimate paragraph. The instructions from your superior
14 organ read:
15 "To all the commands of units which are duty-bound to investigate
16 into all cases," and I say "all cases of war crime and within the area of
17 their responsibility."
18 Can you turn the page now, please.
19 A. I haven't found the portion you're reading. Sorry.
20 Q. Number 15. Oh, that's the number that is on that relevant page
21 it's the typewritten number.
22 Have you found it?
23 A. Yes, I have found the page. But the relevant text, I can't find
25 Q. Look at the bottom of the page.
1 A. In order for the staff command to have -- to be fully apprised of
2 the type and number of these crimes, all the commands of various units
3 are duty-bound to engage in uncovering all sorts of war crimes, crimes
4 against humanity and international laws of war.
5 Q. Yes, in the various territories that are within their area of
7 MR. KRGOVIC: Next page, I think, is English 8.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Eight is on the screen, but ...
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may of
10 assistance, in English it's page 8; and in Serbian, page 31 in e-court.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 33.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: It is on the screen, Mr. Cvijetic. But could you
13 point us to the relevant part of it? I don't see it.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: Can you scroll down.
15 [Interpretation] Can we scroll down a bit, please.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It starts at the bottom of the
17 page and continues on the next page.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] So that's the page starting -- the
19 paragraph starting with the words, "So that the command ..."
20 Can we have the next page in English, please. We need page 9 in
21 English. It reads -- well, it mentions all the various competencies of
22 unit commanders, that they should inform the closest military police
23 security and military judicial organs about any crimes they discover.
24 Further down, Mr. Jovicinac, the penultimate paragraph which
25 reads that the organs of the military police security organs and military
1 judiciary organs will give priority in their work to these particular
2 criminal offences so that the Main Staff and other relevant institutions
3 would be notified as soon as possible and would be able to take measures
4 within their competence, or within their jurisdiction.
5 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, it follows from these guide-lines that I've just
6 read out that in a unit's area of responsibility of a given brigade
7 commander, it is the commander and the military judiciary organs of that
8 territory that are -- that have jurisdiction to be seized of all the
9 various cases of war crimes; right?
10 A. Well, let me just tell you this: Just by glancing at these
11 pages, I can tell you that this is nothing new when it comes to the work
12 of the military police and security organs and commanders. This
13 procedure was used in all the different circumstances, and to tell you
14 the truth, I wasn't aware of these instructions. That's number one.
15 Number two: This does not release other organs from their
16 obligation to work on the various war crimes and to bring charges for war
17 crimes. When it comes to the army, of course, it is within the
18 jurisdiction of the army.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, I, too, am slightly confused about
20 this, because I'm not sure that I read out of this document the -- the --
21 the implications that you are mentioning to the witness.
22 Isn't this about information, about providing information to the
23 military authorities, including the military police, and the military
24 courts about crimes? But from there, it doesn't follow necessarily that
25 the military courts have to assume jurisdiction and try these cases, does
2 Isn't this only about information?
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. These are
4 instructions. And if you look at the first couple of lines that I read
5 out, you will see that it says there that they are duty-bound to work to
6 uncover all manner of war crimes. And these are their work guide-lines.
7 That's what the title says, after all.
8 Moreover, the penultimate paragraph also states that judiciary
9 organs and military police have to give priority to this sort of crime.
10 This is an official document. There is only one other part that I will
11 show to Mr. Jovicinac --
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: But --
13 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, that --
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Please. Mr. Krgovic, if you read on in that
15 paragraph, the text goes to say that the Main Staff and other competent
16 institutions are notified as soon as possible. Which, again, suggest, at
17 least to me, that the main purpose here is that no crime is left
18 uncovered and -- but I'm not sure that this will necessarily imply that
19 the military judicial organs automatically have jurisdiction over all
20 crimes. I mean, that would literally sink the military courts, wouldn't
21 it, if they would be seized of all crimes?
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you look at the
23 paragraph in the middle, the third from the top, the last line makes it
24 an obligation upon the military police to forward through the superior
25 command of the military police the documentation they have gathered to
1 the nearest military prosecutor's office as soon as may be, and from that
2 point on, the military prosecutor would be seized of the case; of course,
3 in application of the law.
4 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, my difficulty is that whereas, for your
5 purposes, you may wish to engage the witness in a discussion on the
6 effect of this document, the witness has said is he [indiscernible] so
7 how --
8 MR. KRGOVIC: I agree.
9 JUDGE HALL: How far --
10 MR. KRGOVIC: I agree. I leave the topic. I just have a couple
11 of questions.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Jovicinac, please revert to page 6 of these
13 instructions, which would be page 4 in English in e-court, and page 13 in
14 Serbian in e-court.
15 The paragraph in the middle, Mr. Jovicinac, which is the third
16 from the top in English.
17 I will read only the relevant part of it:
18 "The fact that a military recruit has not been listed in the
19 military records is not something that matters. What matters is whether
20 he has the military duty and failed to respond to a general call-up ..."
21 So it isn't really necessary for a conscript to be listed in any
22 of the military records, right? That's what arises from what I just
24 A. Please. Well, you see, the Law on Defence in the chapter
25 regulating the work of the Secretariat of the Defence is duty-bound to
1 provide information to all the conscripts -- on all the conscripts. Of
2 course, it is possible that some of them would fall through the cracks
3 but they would not be relieved or released from their military
5 What is stated here is a reflection of the supreme military
6 court's decision II K 676/66, which clarifies certain issues. But you
7 see picking out a sentence here and there from the entire document is not
8 going to lead us anywhere. If you look at the title of this document,
9 they are guide-lines for defining the criteria of prosecution. For me,
10 the criterion cannot be any sort of guide-lines, only the law. One can
11 be held accountable for a crime only where this crime is envisaged under
12 the law.
13 So this does not involve the war crime; rather, it applies to a
14 number of criminal offences that the army was burdened with in that
15 period of time. This is what I can tell you after having glanced, like
16 avoiding military service, Article 214. And for your information, there
17 were many such criminal reports based on this article.
18 Q. Sir, I don't have much time. My time is limited. I'm sorry to
19 interrupt you and I see Mr. Olmsted is on his feet.
20 So you, sir, when it comes to this document and to the case law
21 of the supreme military court about people in the military records and
22 the need for them to be in the military records, you don't know about
23 this and you haven't seen that; right?
24 A. No. I speak on the basis of the fact that it is the duty of all
25 citizens --
1 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, to be fair to the witness and to
2 be -- not to mislead this Trial Chamber, the paragraph you were referring
3 to starts out saying where certain documents aren't available, that they
4 haven't been kept properly. In those circumstances, then you can resort
5 to this situation where perhaps you don't need to have Vob 8 or some
6 other form of registry.
7 So I think it is misleading to this witness to suggest that there
8 doesn't have to be documentation of a person's military service.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Sir, when it comes to that, when it comes to the records, it is
11 debatable --
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, would you allow me a follow-up
13 question to that.
14 Mr. Jovicinac, can you explain to me what a general call-up
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] General call-up or general
17 mobilisation means that the competent state organ who is authorised to
18 announce the general mobilisation due to the urgency and the threat posed
19 to the country -- means that all those who are fit for military service
20 and who have their war-time assignment, be it in the police or be it in
21 the civilian defence, have to respond. And those who do not have their
22 war-time assignments and are fit for military service, also have to
23 respond. Those who are not fit for military service are entitled to
24 respond as well, but they need to undergo certain procedure; medical
25 examinations, et cetera.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: So general call-up is a mobilisation of people
2 who, due to that mobilisation, become soldiers. Simply said. Is that
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: And when I say "people," I could, as well, have
6 said conscripts. Conscripts become effective soldiers by a mobilisation
7 order; is that right?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By responding and going to their
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Of course. Now, if a police unit consisting of
13 people that are not in the military at that moment, that are not
14 mobilised, if such a unit is resubordinated, would you call that a
15 mobilisation or a general call-up, due to a general call-up?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm afraid I haven't quite
17 understood your question.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Let me put it in another way. This
19 paragraph that was read to you about the fact that the -- I read the last
21 "What is important is the fact that he has a military obligation
22 and that he has failed to respond to general call-up."
23 Okay. My question is: The situation of resubordination of a
24 unit of policemen, does that correspond to what is called a mobilisation
25 or general call-up, or is that something different?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All persons who have their war-time
2 assignment in the police, when there is a general mobilisation call-up,
3 they have to report to the unit to which they have been assigned.
4 They're duty-bound to respond in accordance with their war-time
5 assignment. They cannot simply say, I will remain in police and go and
6 report to police. They can only go to police if they had previously been
7 given a war-time assignment in police.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: But that's what I mean. People who have been
9 given a war-time assignment within the police. And being within the
10 police, being within a certain police unit, this unit, at a certain point
11 in time, for a short time, is resubordinated to the military for combat
12 reasons. Would you then say that those policemen were in the military
13 due to mobilisation or due to a general call-up? Or would you say they
14 were temporarily there due to a resubordination order?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is my belief that, pursuant to a
16 competent organ's order, they are resubordinated to the superior command.
17 They -- there must be an order stating that a civilian police unit is
18 being resubordinated to a military command. It doesn't happen just on
19 its own.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 [Prosecution counsel confer]
22 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] yes, please continue.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, at the moment when the general mobilisation is
25 being declared in the period of immediate threat of war, all citizens fit
1 for military service become conscripts; right?
2 A. I don't know. You keep insisting on one thing all the time. I
3 have already responded to this. I've already replied to that question.
4 In an orderly society, all military conscripts are aware of their
5 war-time assignment, and you know this full well. They have to report to
6 their commands, to their units. They cannot pick and choose where they
7 will report. They have to report to where their war-time assignment is.
8 Those who do not have such an assignment, they have to report to the
9 Secretariat for National Defence to get their assignment.
10 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt you. You did not reply to my question.
11 My question was very clear. When an immediate threat of war is declared,
12 when the general mobilisation is declared, all citizens fit for military
13 service become conscripts and are duty-bound to report in accordance with
14 their war-time assignments; right?
15 A. Yes. And in accordance with the law, of course.
16 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, I would remind you that collectively
17 you have 37 minutes left. Between the two of you, you have 37 minutes
19 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, I have just one topic in relation to
20 the document tendered to Mr. Olmsted, so I would kindly ask for
21 additional five minutes to deal with that -- these two documents, the
22 list of police and soldiers. Whatever it is.
23 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, when the Prosecutor showed you the lists with
24 persons who were first put on the police lists, and then later on, a
25 month or so later, they were put on the military police unit's lists, if
1 somebody were to leave their position, then the competent command would
2 initiate proceedings to change their war-time assignment so that instead
3 of being assigned to the police units, they would be sent to the military
4 units of the VRS; right?
5 A. Well, I can't really answer that question. I don't know whether
6 you're referring to the military police or civilian police.
7 Q. To the civilian police.
8 A. Removing civilian police from the war-time assignment, according
9 to what I know, would mean that only the competent MUP organisation could
10 remove them from a war-time assignment. It is a very complicated
12 Q. Let me just interrupt you. Would you agree with me that the
13 command of the brigade to which that unit belongs would propose and
14 initiate the proceedings to remove them?
15 A. That doesn't need to be necessarily the case.
16 Q. Let me show you a document.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown
18 2D07-1154 doc ID.
19 Q. Which is tab 16 in your binder, Zupljanin Defence binder.
20 Here, Mr. Jovicinac, this is a police brigade that was in
21 Orasija [phoen], and they sent their regular combat report to the command
22 of the East Bosnia Corps?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Please look at the text. After the introductory part it will be
25 the middle paragraph, the underlined paragraph. Do you see that where it
2 "During the day, the 3rd Battalion and the 4th Company of the
3 3rd Battalion abandoned their positions. It was proposed that reserve
4 policemen be taken off the war-time assignment of the police and be put
5 at the disposal of the Secretariats of National Defence of their home
6 municipalities, with a request that they be immediately made available to
7 the VRS war-time units."
8 A. Sir, I have already replied to this. This a police brigade not a
9 military brigade, and they are entitled to initiate something of this
11 Q. Why don't you turn to the second page and see who the commander
12 of this brigade is?
13 A. You know what? I can't really go into who signed what. I can
14 just see what it says at the top. It says the police brigade, general
15 security services.
16 Q. Well, it says here that it was signed by Bosko Peulic, a colonel.
17 A. Well, I don't know who Bosko Peulic is and whether he commanded
18 that brigade. If this was indeed a police brigade, then they had their
19 own commander.
20 Q. And this is precisely the commander who is proposing -- I
21 apologise. Please look at whom the police brigade is proposing this.
22 They are proposing this to the Command of the East Bosnia Corps.
23 A. You know what? I'm now going into issues that I'm not fully
24 familiar with, and they could make matters more complicated. I would
25 rather not comment on this. I think that this is yet another example of
1 many things that I have seen here that were not done in accordance with
2 the law. This command is not competent to make such proposals to the
3 commander of the corps. Since this is a police brigade based on what I
4 believe, they are only competent --
5 Q. Sir, if you cannot give us a clear answer then please do not
6 speculate, so if you cannot give a precise answer --
7 A. Well, I can tell you what the law says, what the law provisions
8 say. I'm not speculating. I apologise. My answer was that the police
9 cannot be removed from war-time assignment by whoever wanted to do so.
10 There was a procedure that regulated that. I apologise for going fast.
11 The proposal had to be sent to the competent organ with a list of
12 persons, and then an order had to be issued for these people to be sent
13 to the Secretariat of National Defence who would then, in turn, reassign
14 them to other units. That was the law specified procedure.
15 Q. Now that we have touched upon this, the law also said that if
16 somebody was accused for a war crime carrying with it a prison sentence
17 of more than five years, such a person had to be put in detention; right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And the military prosecutor's office, in all such cases, agreed
20 that detention be -- that these people be released from detention; right?
21 A. I don't know.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown
24 Q. Which is your tab 9.
25 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may I inquire whether this is
1 relevant to one of the topics? This is --
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Credibility.
3 MR. OLMSTED: I don't see how this deals with resubordinated
4 police officers.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, have you found the document?
7 You personally here violated this law that you're invoking now by
8 releasing from detention people who had committed heinous crimes in
10 A. Listen, a military prosecutor can give a proposal, and if it is
11 relevant to explain why I did what I did here, then I will do that. It
12 is only an investigative judge or a criminal court chamber who can
13 release somebody from detention. In this particular case, there was an
14 extraordinary situation where a unit out of protest had abandoned their
15 positions because their fellows had been detained. And let me tell you,
16 that these persons had already been in detention previously. And I don't
17 know based on whose proposal they had been released.
18 I, as a military prosecutor, at that point in time made an
19 assessment that this was a grave crime, a serious crime that was not
20 subject to the statute of limitations, and that it was much wiser to give
21 this kind of a proposal rather than accept that the entire brigade would
22 abandon their positions. Somebody else can judge me for that, and I
23 personally think that you abused your position as Defence counsel by
24 putting this document to me.
25 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, this is your interpretation of the law; namely,
1 that this is in accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure and the
2 Law on Military Prosecutor's Office.
3 A. I haven't understood you.
4 Q. What you did here, the actions that you took in this particular
5 case, do you think that this was in accordance with the Law on Criminal
6 Procedure and the Law on Military Prosecutor's Office?
7 A. Are you implying that I violated the law?
8 Q. I'm asking you that.
9 A. No, I'm asking you. And I don't have to reply to that.
10 Q. If I am being accused here, then --
11 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Jovicinac, just give me a moment, please.
12 Mr. Krgovic, whereas, of course, it goes without saying that you
13 may ask questions to challenge the witness's credibility, the -- the --
14 the overriding issue of relevance is not unimportant even in terms of
15 questions of this nature. Having regard to the witness's general
16 responsibility, whatever view you may have of this document, I don't know
17 how that assists the Chamber in terms of the issues with which we have to
18 deal. You and the witness may be able to argue about this from now until
19 doom's day but nothing turns on this particular document and his views on
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise. I only
22 wanted to ask the witness -- since he had been giving us his
23 interpretation of regulations and laws, I wanted to ask him to give us an
24 interpretation of this particular case just as he had been interpreting
25 the powers that there were over the police.
1 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, is this document you produced in keeping with the
2 Law on Criminal Procedure and the Law on Military Prosecutor's Office?
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. And the way you went about interpreting the law here is the same
5 way you went about when you were interpreting the powers of the military
6 police and the military prosecutor's offices; is that right?
7 A. No.
8 Q. That's the same line of interpreting that you have been using in
9 this particular instance?
10 A. No.
11 Q. So your interpretation of various regulations governing military
12 prosecutor's offices and military police in a way that they did not have
13 certain powers is something that goes to show that you were not applying
14 the law the way you were supposed to?
15 A. I don't know how far you can get with what you are pursuing here
16 but I was quite clear.
17 Q. Can you answer my question?
18 A. Well, I will not give you a yes or no answer.
19 Q. Tell me, were you right here or were you not right in proceeding
20 the way you did?
21 A. No, no, no. I gave you a clear answer. Performing a duty, the
22 duty of the police in combat, has all the hallmarks of military duty, and
23 it is only logical that it be treated that way.
24 However, the Law on Military Courts does not regulate issues in
25 this way. It is up to you, of course, to introduce new case law and go
1 about changing things.
2 Q. Please. I'm here to put questions to you. Your answer where you
3 wanted to avoid the jurisdiction of a military prosecutor's offices over
4 serious war crimes is -- was a way in which you as a military prosecutor
5 wanted to protect yourself and your fellow judges from getting involved
6 in these difficult crimes in -- in -- in times of war in
8 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the witness's
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Can you just tell me whether you agree with me on this score or
13 A. I do not.
14 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions of you.
15 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, you have 25 minutes and the guillotine
16 will come down when that time has expired.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will do my best to
18 complete my examination within the 25 minutes. But I do appeal to you
19 not to be too tight in that respect, since I do need 45 minutes to
20 examine the witness properly and, of course, you will be the judge of
21 that as well.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Jovicinac, can you hear me well?
24 A. Yes, I can hear you very well.
25 Q. My name is Slobodan Cvijetic, and I am the Defence counsel for
1 the first accused, Mico Stanisic.
2 Let me put several questions to you by telling you what the case
3 of the Defence is, and I will take it piecemeal, and then you will tell
4 me if you agree with me or not.
5 Mr. Jovicinac, in times of an imminent threat of war and other
6 emergencies, the police can be used also for combat missions as part of
7 the armed forces in keeping with the law. Are you aware of this, and do
8 you agree with this statement of mine?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Very well. For the duration of these combat activities by the
11 armed forces, the police will be subordinated to the senior officer in
12 command of these operations, both the police unit and the police senior
13 officer who was subordinated or resubordinated together with them.
14 Do you agree with this statement of mine?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. During their participation in combat, they - and I mean these
17 policemen - no longer have the status of an authorised police official or
18 of policemen in general, and for the duration of their participation in
19 combat, they take part in these activities as military personnel.
20 A. That I'm not aware of. I'm not aware of that.
21 Q. Sir, if you are not aware of that, then we have to discuss it.
22 A. I'm not aware of the fact that their status as policemen, as
23 officials, ceased at that point because I simply haven't read it
24 anywhere. So how can I agree with it if I haven't read it?
25 Q. Wait for my question. A traffic policeman who is a member of a
1 police units and has been resubordinated to a military command, thus,
2 joining, say, an action for breaking open the corridor, and in that
3 action, he participates as military personnel, as a combatant, rather
4 than a traffic policeman.
5 Do you agree with me on that score?
6 A. Yes, I agree with what you say. But he is still a policeman.
7 Q. Sir, while he takes part in combat, military regulations and
8 rules apply to his participation in combat, do they not?
9 A. Well, believe me when I tell you that I'm not sure about it. I
10 can't answer with a yes or no. Now, can a brigade commander punish a
11 policeman by sending him to spend 30 days in prison at the front line?
12 That's not something I'm certain of.
13 Q. Very well. Wait for my question and an example.
14 If that same traffic policeman were to be issued with a hand-held
15 launcher by his military command and then ends up in front of a tank, he
16 has to obey the orders of his commander and destroy the tank; right?
17 A. Well, of course.
18 Q. If he should refuse to obey his commander's order, he will be
19 charged with insubordination and prosecuted by the military justice
20 organs with jurisdiction.
21 So am I right in saying that?
22 A. Well, this is a crime that will fall within -- strictly within
23 the jurisdiction of military courts. This is regulated by the
24 Criminal Code of the SFRY which has been adopted and taken on;
25 specifically chapter 20.
1 Q. In other words, you answered in the affirmative. It will be the
2 military justice organs having jurisdiction who will be prosecuting him.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Let us have a quick look at chapter 20.
5 In your binder containing my material, under 3, you will have the
6 Criminal Code of the SFRY.
7 For Their Honours, it is a document that is indicated as L11 in
8 the legal -- in the law library. Page 93 in English; and page 88 in
9 English -- in Serbian. We start off with Article 201.
10 Mr. Jovicinac, have you found Article 201?
11 A. Give me a moment.
12 Q. Have you found it, 201?
13 A. Yes, yes.
14 Q. So this is the crime we're discussing which will be prosecuted by
15 the military court having jurisdiction in case of insubordination,
16 refusal to obey an order; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I think there's 27 criminal offences in all, but we won't be
19 looking at them all.
20 If the competent military commander orders a policemen or several
21 policemen that they should stand guard next to a military facility, say,
22 the POW collection centre or a military depot, and they violate their
23 duty as guards by abandoning their post, which resulted in aggressive
24 consequences, yet again, it will be the competent military organs that
25 will be prosecuting them; right?
1 A. Well, you see, when it comes to collection centres, I'm not that
3 Q. No, very well. No need for that.
4 A. What did you mean exactly? If we're talking about the guard and
5 patrol duty, and this is something that is protected under the law --
6 Q. Article 209.
7 A. Yes. There, violation of guard and patrol duty.
8 Q. Just tell us, will they be prosecuted by a military court if they
9 violate these rules?
10 A. If they are under the command of the army, then I think, yes.
11 They will prosecute them.
12 Q. Please, wait for my question --
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Cvijetic, the examples that you intend to
14 give -- that you gave and that you intend to give fall under this chapter
15 20, criminal offences against the armed forces in the SFRY? Well, then
16 I --
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No. No, Your Honour. These are
18 criminal offences against the armed forces. Yes, chapter 20.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And they are within the sole
21 jurisdiction of --
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: But the witness agreed to that this morning,
23 didn't he? So what's -- what's the purpose of going through all those
24 examples? He will answer yes every time.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It is important because of the
1 criminal offence that is to come. We had a document whereby the
2 Main Staff informed the 1st Krajina Corps of policemen having abandoned
3 their positions wilfully.
4 Q. Can I ask the witness to look at Article 217 now. Mr. Jovicinac,
5 this criminal offence is also a crime against the armed forces, and if
6 committed by policemen who are resubordinated to a military unit, then
7 these policemen will be held responsible for a military court; right?
8 A. Let me accommodate you with one answer. All the crimes against
9 the armed forces fall within the sole jurisdiction of the military court,
10 regardless of who committed these criminal offences. This is something
11 that I stated this morning.
12 As far as the report or notification that I read here, which is
13 incomplete, which does not clearly state whether this was resubordination
14 or not, well, you can't expect me to wave my magic wand and give you an
15 answer. I can give you an answer -- as good an answer as good a document
16 that it was.
17 Q. Please, witness, focus on my question. Mr. Jovicinac, at the end
18 of this chapter, you have Article 238. There, you have laid down the
19 requirements that have to be met in order for a disciplinary punishment
20 to be rendered.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. If some of the criminal offences under this chapter for which you
23 say the sole jurisdiction lies within the military courts, if their
24 violation had insignificant consequences, then a disciplinary punishment
25 or measure will be rendered by the appropriate relevant commander or
1 disciplinary authority.
2 A. Yes. However, in that other case, you had a police brigade and
3 the brigade -- the police brigade commander had the authority to impose
4 disciplinary sanctions.
5 Q. Sir, you answered my question, but this was my question: A
6 disciplinary sanction which had to do with the performance of duty of
7 a -- of a military commander, this is something that would lie within the
8 jurisdiction of the military commander and the -- the -- the disciplinary
9 authority, as indicated here. Am I right?
10 A. Yes. Well, yes based on what is stated here.
11 Q. Thank you. I don't need anything further.
12 A. If I may be allowed. I don't want to -- I feel like I'm being
13 quizzed here. What I said this morning I will repeat again. The
14 disciplinary responsibility of policemen is different from the
15 disciplinary responsibility in the army only in the slightest of details.
16 Q. Can you be disciplined yourself? I will be putting questions to
17 you and you will have an opportunity to talk about it. In fact, have you
18 broached my next question but please be patient.
19 The Ministry of Interior and their hierarchy, and the police as
20 part of the ministry, have their own regulations governing disciplinary
21 responsibility. I suppose you do know about it, don't you?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Sir, I suppose you know that the Ministry of the Interior is an
24 organ of administration. It is a state administration body. Is that
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The work of that organ is governed by the
3 Law on State Administration, and where it comes to disciplinary
4 responsibility, the minister has powers to issue rules governing
5 disciplinary and material responsibility of MUP members. I suppose
6 you're aware of that as well.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You see, in your binder, I have prepared for you the Law on
9 State Administration, which is behind tab 19, and behind tab 18, you have
10 the very rules governing disciplinary responsibility.
11 Now, if you can listen to my question, and just tell me if what
12 I'm stating is true. The Law on State Administration and the rule-book
13 on disciplinary responsibility do not contain a single disciplinary
14 infraction, either grave or light, that has to do with military duty and
15 performance of it. They all have to do with their regular duties when
16 they're performing their regular, routine jobs as members who work
17 with -- for an administrative organ. Do you agree with me?
18 A. Yes, I believe you.
19 Q. Sir, then it is obvious --
20 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours. Your Honours, I don't see how he can
21 answer a question like that without reviewing the law and reviewing the
22 disciplinary rules. I mean, he is putting a proposition to him and the
23 witness obviously doesn't deal with these laws or these rules --
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, but the witness has
25 answered my question.
1 Q. Let me briefly state right away that you will not find a single
2 case of violating guard duty or anything else that has to do with
3 performing military duty.
4 A. In the disciplinary rules, there is -- there are provisions
5 dealing with violation of guard duty.
6 Q. Mr. Jovicinac --
7 A. It is there. Just take a look.
8 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, policemen perform guard duty even in the course of
9 their regular police duties. When performing their regular police work,
10 they stand guard in front of their police buildings, facilities,
11 et cetera.
12 Mr. Jovicinac, please look at tab 22 in your binder. Have you
13 found the order --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- which is document 2D118. Tab 22. The Stanisic Defence
16 binder. Would you please read this order?
17 A. I've read it.
18 Q. Do you agree that it stems from the text that, pursuant to the
19 order of the commander --
20 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, we have been reminded by the
21 Court Officer that this is a confidential document so you must phrase
22 your questions carefully.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well.
24 Should we go into private session, because I will need to mention
25 some names?
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May we resume, Your Honour?
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes, yes.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Sir, is it clear now --
6 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, you had asked for us to go into private
7 session. Yes, we may move into private session.
8 [Private session]
11 Page 26835 redacted. Private session.
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. You have commented quite a lot with the Chamber, OTP, and
8 Mr. Krgovic, the Law on Military Courts.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You mostly commented on provisions of Article 13, and, to a
11 lesser extent, provisions of Article 9. Would you please turn to tab 12
12 in the binder before you. The Law on Military Courts can be found there.
13 For the sake of the Chamber and the e-court, this is P1284.07.
14 We need page 2 in both versions, the English and the Serbian one.
15 Have you found these two provisions, 9 and 13?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. In Article 13, it says that the military court shall try
18 civilians if they commit the crimes listed below; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You will agree with me that these crimes fall under chapter 15 of
21 the Criminal Code, which is undermining constitutional order, and so on?
22 A. Yes, yes, I know about this.
23 Q. However, you will agree with me that the basic jurisdiction of
24 the military court stems from the basic characteristics of the
25 perpetrator of the crime, the capacity of the perpetrator.
1 A. Yes. But in some cases, the nature of the offence also is
2 relevant, and in some cases it is the two combined.
3 Q. Yes, I agree. But you will agree with me that the main
4 jurisdiction is the one that deals with the capacity, is the personal
5 jurisdiction from Article 9?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Sir, this law was adopted in 1977 during peacetime.
8 A. Yes, correct.
9 Q. However, once the imminent threat of war was declared and the
10 general mobilisation declared, the circle of persons who became members
11 of the armed forces was significantly enlarged; right?
12 A. You're more than right.
13 Q. So when the general public mobilisation was declared, all persons
14 fit for military service in the age group 18 to 55 became members of
15 armed forces by responding to mobilisation and to call-up; right?
16 A. Yes. I've already explained that.
17 Q. You said that in an orderly country there are accurate records,
18 and that all of these persons should have already been entered into
19 records as conscripts.
20 A. Yes, right. However, I said that the -- didn't absolve of
21 responsibility those who were not recorded because it was the mistake of
22 the organs, the fact that they were not recorded. The citizens had to be
23 recorded, and the secretariats issued annual calls for all those who were
24 not recorded to make themselves known in order to be recorded.
25 Q. Would you please open now tab 7.
1 And, for the Chamber, let me indicate that this is it P1284.10.
2 These are the guide-lines mentioned by Mr. Krgovic. Would we -- could we
3 go to page 3 in the English.
4 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic [sic], would it be convenient to take a
5 break at this point? And I'm pretty sure you're near the end of your
6 time, in any event. But the Chamber would itself have some questions and
7 counsel may have questions arising out of what the Chamber puts to the
9 So we would take a break now --
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honours. And if the
11 witness could go over this document in the meantime, it will speed up my
12 examination, and I won't need more than 15 minutes bringing it all
13 together to the 45 that I mentioned earlier.
14 JUDGE HALL: Of course you had mentioned 45, but the Chamber
15 hadn't agreed to that, but we will deal with that when we return.
16 Sorry, Mr. Jovicinac, you -- we aren't quite through with you
17 yet, and we have been sitting for an hour and 25 minutes, so we need to
18 take a break.
19 We will resume in 20 minutes, at which point Mr. Cvijetic will
20 wind up, and then the Chamber may have a few questions for you.
21 But he is inviting you, during the break, to glance -- to -- to
22 look at the document that he has just referred you to, so that that will
23 facilitate the questions he has when we return.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 --- Recess taken at 4.13 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 4.37 p.m.
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before I put a
3 question to the witness, I have a favour to ask you. I have four
4 questions and some documents, a total of ten minutes, not longer than
5 that. Would you please allow me that?
6 JUDGE HALL: Starting now.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, you have heard under what time constraints I have
9 to work, so please turn to page 7 of the document. It's page 5 in
10 e-court. And in the English, and in the Serbian version, it's page 15.
11 So the English text, page 5; the Serbian text, page 15. These are the
12 guide-lines. If necessary I can repeat the number of the document.
13 Mr. Jovicinac, it's page 7 in your binder. Do you see that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The middle paragraph, starting with the words:
16 "The issue of responsibility for failure to respond ..."
17 A. Yes, I've read it.
18 Q. In e-court, we need page 8 in the Serbian version. Page 5 in the
19 English. I think we've got it right now.
20 In that paragraph, you have a sentence which reads:
21 "It must be stressed that even persons who have a status of
22 refugees ...," da, da, da. Would you please read it.
23 A. I've read it.
24 Q. Let us just make sure that the English version is right. Page 5
25 in the English version. Paragraph 2. Yes, that's right. We have it.
1 Now, Mr. Jovicinac, this partially fits with what you have said;
2 namely, that even the refugees who were not entered into military records
3 as conscripts also become members of armed forces immediately as soon as
4 the imminent threat of war is declared. Do you agree with that?
5 A. I do agree. But let me add something, by your leave.
6 Q. Please do not because you've heard how little time I have. I
7 have a right to put three more questions. Please don't use up my time.
8 Mr. Jovicinac, now we've reached the last topic, where I wish to
9 establish with you exactly who falls under the term of a member of armed
10 forces and who is it that in the period of an imminent threat of war and
11 general mobilisation falls under the jurisdiction of the military justice
12 organs. Therefore, in your binder, would you please turn to tab 43. And
13 for us here, this is OTP 65 ter 10295.
14 Mr. Jovicinac, have you taken a look at the document?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Please tell me, have you heard of this group led by
17 Dragan Djordjevic, aka Crni, which committed some crimes in the territory
18 of which municipality? I think it's Samac. Yes.
19 A. To tell you the truth, I know very little about this group.
20 Q. All right. I'm asking you this because your office of the
21 military prosecutor indicted them for crimes from 1992.
22 Would you please look at their personal data listed here. Can
23 you confirm that all of them are from the Republic of Serbia?
24 A. Based on this, it would seem that, yes, they are.
25 Q. Sir, now this group of persons from Serbia were not recorded in
1 the military records as conscripts. They could not be found in the
2 Secretariat for National Defence in the municipality of Bosanski Samac
3 nor elsewhere in Republika Srpska, and it is obviously a group of
4 volunteers who had come from Serbia to the territory of Samac
6 A. I suppose so.
7 Q. Now tell me, please --
8 MR. OLMSTED: Sorry, I have to object, Your Honours.
9 First of all, the witness's answer is probably correct. He is
10 supposing so because he's not familiar with this case nor is he getting
11 an opportunity to review this document. In fact, in this document, it
12 states that these accused were members of the 2nd Krajina Corps.
13 So I'm not sure where the Defence is leading with this. And I
14 don't want to see the witness misled on assuming that these persons were
15 not somehow members of the 2nd Krajina Corps, or basically the VRS. And
16 I can give the references if Defence counsel would like. On page 4 and
17 page 9 is stated --
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] My apologies. You are running
19 ahead of my questions. Why don't you wait for me to put these questions.
20 This is precisely what I'm about to deal with, what you have been
21 addressing here.
22 MR. OLMSTED: My concern was you were putting, Your Honours --
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for your assistance, but
24 I will be dealing with these issues. You don't need to assist me. You
25 know how the saying goes in Greece, that you should be aware of the
1 Danaans, even as they bring gifts.
2 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, the -- what was the basis on which the Banja Luka
3 prosecutor's office, that's to say, your office, on which this group was
5 A. In order to answer this question, I have to first have a look at
6 the criminal report and see what it says. Were they members of the army
7 or not?
8 I don't have that, and I can't answer the question. I suppose
9 that they were placed under the command. I was able to answer the
10 question when it came to volunteers.
11 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, please wait for my question.
12 You didn't give an answer in the courtroom. Rather, it was
13 during your interview with the Prosecution. I apologise if you did, then
14 I overheard it.
15 A. I answered that question when I was speaking to the Prosecutors.
16 Q. Is -- if they placed themselves under the command of a military
17 unit as volunteers, then they came under the jurisdiction of your
18 military prosecutor's office; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Please have a quick look at tab 45 in your binder, which is on
21 the OTP list, 65 ter 10296.
22 Mr. Jovicinac, it transpires from this the military court assumed
23 jurisdiction and even convicted this group of people, did it not?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in view of the
1 context of the examination and the importance of this issue, I wish to
2 tender this two documents into evidence.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, we would object. As I mentioned
4 before, the perpetrators in this case were military. The victims were
5 military, in fact, as well. So it has nothing to do with the topics that
6 are before this Trial Chamber with this particular witness.
7 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic - we're inclined to agree,
8 Mr. Olmsted - but before we rule what -- do you have anything to in
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, these are no
11 ordinary soldiers. It is precisely this issue that we were discussing.
12 Not only those who are referred to in the Law on the Army and the Law on
13 the Military Courts are soldiers but all those who respond to the call-up
14 and participate in combat after an imminent threat of war and general
15 mobilisation were declared. And this relates to the crimes committed in
16 1992, in a municipality which is mentioned in the indictment.
17 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, the witness's testimony is quite
18 clear. That if this involved members of the military --
19 JUDGE HALL: We don't need to hear from you further, Mr. Olmsted.
20 No, Mr. Cvijetic, the documents are not admitted.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well.
22 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, have you heard of a group led by
23 Veljko Milankovic? I believe that it was called the Wolves from Vucjak.
24 Do you recall that unit?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Do you know what sort of unit was it?
2 A. Based on what I know of it, it was a regular unit subordinated to
3 the corps command. It was under the command of the army.
4 Q. Very well. Mr. Jovicinac, in order for us to arrive at the
5 definition of a member of the armed forces, would you agree with me that
6 a member of the armed forces is considered to be everyone who reports
7 with a weapon and participates in resistance against the enemy?
8 A. I can agree with you, in part, because, at the outset, I did say
9 that the definition of a member of the armed forces is regulated under
10 the Law on the Army and the Law on Defence. I cannot take up any sort of
11 views outside of that, and I cannot either confirm or deny anything.
12 When it comes to volunteers, that, too, is something I clarified.
13 Q. We will look at the a document, sir. Look at tab 2 of your
14 binder, where you have the Law on All People's Defence.
15 A. Which number is that?
16 Q. Tab number 2.
17 For those in the courtroom, it is L1 in the law library.
18 A. No, no. This is the Law on All People's Defence of the SFRY.
19 Q. That is precisely what we need, sir.
20 A. No. We can't go by this one. There is the Law on the Defence of
21 the Army of the Republika Srpska, which was adopted on either -- in
22 either June or July of 1992, and I was basing my statements on that law.
23 Q. Sir, would you please look at this law.
24 A. No. It was adopted before the military courts and military
25 prosecutors' offices were set up.
1 Q. Sir, we will discuss that issue. But would you please consult
2 this law, and I will tell you that this law was in application in
3 Republika Srpska as well, precisely based on what you mentioned,
4 Article 12 of the constitutional law on the application of the
6 Please look at Article 91.
7 For those in the courtroom, it is page 61 in English and 16 in
9 In para 2, you have the definition of who it is who makes up the
10 armed forces. Do you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Am I right -- in fact I quoted the provision. And do you see
13 that, indeed, all those who take up arms and join combat are considered
14 to be a member of the armed forces. Is that clear now?
15 A. It's not clear to me because, I repeat, this law could be applied
16 up until the point when the Law on the Defence of Republika Srpska was
18 Q. Listen --
19 A. It was in June or July of 1992. The Law on the Defence of
20 Republika Srpska does not know the construct of the Territorial Defence.
21 Q. Sir, listen here. You are not right. Look at tab 60. I have
22 prepared for you precisely the law you have been invoking, and it was not
23 passed in June.
24 So the first Law on National Defence was adopted by
25 Republika Srpska as early as in March of 1992, and apparently,
1 Mr. Jovicinac, you're not aware of this.
2 A. Well, I can't know all these things by heart.
3 Q. Well, in that case, do not draw conclusions if you don't know
4 about these things. So please look at Article 104.
5 A. Please. I am appealing to you, just as you are to me.
6 Q. Please look at Article 104. It's L33.
7 JUDGE HALL: The time has come.
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let me finish this off. This is
9 the last document, Your Honour. The last document.
10 Q. Please look at tab 60. That's the Law on the National Defence.
11 It's under -- it's behind tab 61, I'm told. Have you found it?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Look at the transitional and final provisions. You will find
14 them at the end. It's L33 for the courtroom. And it's page 18 in
15 English. In Serbian, it's page 15.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we zoom in on Article 104.
17 Q. Sir, is it clear now on the basis of what it is that the federal
18 law is applied?
19 A. Why would this piece of legislation be applied if there is a
20 Law on Defence?
21 Q. You are not clear on this issue. That's for you to deal with.
22 A. No. We have a law in place which is in application. Otherwise
23 we have some sort of a conflict in place.
24 Q. Mr. Jovicinac, let me put to you what the Defence case is.
25 A policeman who is resubordinated as part of a -- of a police
1 unit to the competent military commander within a given area of
2 responsibility becomes a member of the armed forces, and his
3 participation in that military unit is subject to military regulations
4 where a crime or a disciplinary violation is committed by him, then, for
5 as long as that person is resubordinated, he will be subject to the
6 jurisdiction of military justice organs; is that right? Do you agree
7 with me?
8 A. For crimes that fall within the sole jurisdiction of military
9 courts, yes. However -- and that's article -- sorry, that's chapter 20.
10 That's the chapter that falls under the sole jurisdiction of the military
11 courts, and that's something that I have been stating at the outset.
12 Q. Mr. Jovicinac --
13 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, that's as far as we go.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] My last question --
15 JUDGE HALL: No, no. You have had your last question,
16 Mr. Cvijetic.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well.
18 Your Honour, then I have completed my examination.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Sorry, Your Honours, just before
20 His Honour Judge Harhoff starts his examination, I wanted to tendered two
21 documents that I showed to the witness; namely, 2D07 --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Can Mr. Krgovic repeat the number slowly,
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And that's the document that is
25 directly connected with the document that was tendered by the
1 Prosecution. 2D071154.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Tab numbers, please.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Tab 16.
4 This is a document connected with the two documents showed by the
5 Prosecution. It indicates how the two individuals who were listed there
6 as members of the civilian police ended up a couple of months later in a
7 military assignment.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, there hasn't been an established
9 connection between this 29 December 1992 document and the October 1992
10 document. And as I recall, this witness simply could not even comment on
11 this document. He said that he has no background on command and control
12 within military units. His expertise is on military prosecution and
13 court jurisdiction. So he had really nothing to add on this, and I
14 believe there may be other witnesses that maybe the Defence can try to
15 tender this through.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness also
17 didn't know anything about the two documents shown to him by the
18 Prosecution. And the Prosecutor wanted to show how these two individuals
19 who were on this list ended up on the other. And this document goes to
20 show that these very soldiers who were deserters were transferred to a
21 military unit. And the document outlines a procedure.
22 JUDGE HALL: Your Honour --
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic just to be clear on this, when you
24 say tab 16, you mean tab 16 of your binder or --
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, my binder.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay, and the other one is what? So tab 16
2 and -- you're talking about two documents.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The other document is,
4 Your Honour -- it's the cover page of the guide-lines, in fact, which is
5 2D101917. It is the cover letter.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Tab?
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Tab 19.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] 17.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. 19, 17.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. I see.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] This -- because the guide-lines are
12 already admitted, and this is a cover letter, which shows that the
13 guide-lines were delivered to the prosecutor's office where the witness
15 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, dealing with the guide-lines first,
16 as Defence counsel mentioned, the guide-lines themselves are in evidence
17 already. And this witness said he never seen them before. They were
18 never in his hands. He really didn't feel he was in a position to even
19 comment on them, so I'm not sure how they've established a basis to admit
20 it through this witness.
21 JUDGE HALL: Inasmuch as dealing with the guide-lines, inasmuch
22 as the guide-lines are in, for completion, no difficulty with the cover
23 page. I just need the assistance of the Court Officer. Together it
24 needs to be separately exhibited from the guide-lines of which it is a
25 constituent part.
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 JUDGE HALL: So it is admitted as a separate document. I
3 understand that for technical reasons -- [Microphone not activated] cover
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Number 19.
6 JUDGE HALL: Cover page.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As exhibit 2D192 Your Honours.
8 MR. OLMSTED: And, Your Honours, with regard to the other
9 document, I will reiterate that looking at it, and perhaps Mr. Krgovic
10 can point me to the place where it's -- even suggested that this has
11 anything to do with the police officers that are involved in that
12 October 16th document. There's no mention of any police officer names or
13 where they were, whether they were at Han Pijesak or anything to do with
14 other issues. So I don't see the connection between this document and
15 the document that has already been admitted as 1D411.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] May I respond briefly,
17 Your Honours?
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE HALL: So the first document is admitted and marked.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 2D193, Your Honours.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Jovicinac, we have one final question for
23 you, and then your testimony will be completed.
24 Re-examination by the Court:
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: But before I put my question, I should perhaps
1 give you a bit of background for what I have in mind.
2 The -- the topic that I wish to address with you is this issue of
3 conscripts. If I understand your testimony correctly, you told us that
4 when a young man becomes -- reaches the age of 18, he is then enrolled on
5 a list for potential military service, either immediately or at a later
6 point. This is in peacetime. And, as of that moment, he is, in effect,
7 a conscript. He is on the list of conscripts. Then in peacetime at a
8 certain point, he will be called to serve his military duties, and then,
9 after that, he will still remain -- remain on the list for the purpose of
10 a call-up in case of a war. And on the lists of conscripts, he is
11 immediately given an assignment. Let me stop here and just ask you if
12 that is correct correctly understood?
13 A. Yes.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: So if we are in peacetime, and we open the list
15 of conscripts, we will see that a whole number of young men will be
16 assigned to the army, some to the air force and so on, and then probably
17 a smaller number will be assigned to police duties; is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Then we proceed in time, and we go into a time
20 when, actually, there is a war, and so there's a call-up. And for the
21 young man who was given police duty as his war assignment, he will
22 respond to the call-up and report to the police; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Now, if this young man reports to the police and
25 becomes a member of the police force, and then during the war, at some
1 point he and his unit are resubordinated to the army for the purpose of
2 assistance in a combat operation, if this happens, he will do as he is
3 told, and he will report to the army, together with his unit. And he
4 will there be under the instructions and the control and the command of
5 the military commander; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: And here comes my question: During the time when
8 this young man is actually resubordinated to the army, is his original
9 war assignment changed? In other words, does he remain listed with his
10 war-time assignment to the police in the list; or, in the alternative, is
11 the list of conscripts changed, amended for this young man for the time
12 when he is resubordinated to the police?
13 Do you understand my question; and, if so, can you answer it?
14 A. I understand the question. In my opinion, his war-time
15 assignment does not change. He is a member of the police which is
16 resubordinated to a military unit.
17 When there is no longer the need for resubordination, he shall,
18 together with his unit, return, again, to the jurisdiction of the MUP.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. And let me just clarify just to be
20 absolutely sure that I did understand you correctly: The war-time
21 assignment given to the conscripts remains unchanged even if a person, as
22 we have discussed here, a young man whose war-time assignment was for the
23 police, even if at any point in time he is resubordinated to the army, he
24 still remains listed with his war-time assignment to the police; is that
1 A. That is correct.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. I have no further questions.
3 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Mr. Olmsted, you have an
5 MR. OLMSTED: No, Your Honour, just to correct the record.
6 Page 128 - where am I looking? - line 3, I'm pretty sure I heard
7 Judge Harhoff say "resubordinated to the military." It says in the
8 record "resubordinated to the police," and this -- I think that needs to
9 be corrected.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: I may have misspoken, in which case I apologise.
11 Of course, I meant resubordination to the army. Otherwise the sentence
12 doesn't make sense.
13 MR. OLMSTED: Doesn't make sense. Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Olmsted.
15 Mr. Jovicinac -- yes, Mr. Cvijetic.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] In connection with the question
17 His Honour Judge Harhoff put to the witness, I would have one follow-up
18 question, precisely on this issue dealt with by Judge Harhoff.
19 JUDGE HALL: No, Mr. Cvijetic, we're not going to go down that
20 road. We're -- the witness has been co-operating with us the whole day.
21 What we have obtained by way of question and answer, we must be content
23 Mr. Jovicinac, I thank you for you're agreeing to testify and for
24 being with us for what has been an extended sitting, and I apologise for
25 the many times that I mispronounced your name in the course of the day.
1 We wish you well. You are now released as a witness.
2 Thank you, sir.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 And we take the adjournment to, I believe, it's next --
5 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] just mention one matter
6 and this is a joint Defence and Prosecution application and that is to
7 reconsider your Ruling in respect of the time allowed for the next
8 witness. Your Honours will have seen how much longer today's witness
9 took. Let me assure you from personal experience next week's witness is
10 very difficult to stop, so I wonder if you would possibly build in -- the
11 possibility, can I put it that way, of an extra session on the second
13 JUDGE HALL: If I remember what we said this morning, I think we
14 made allowances for that. And I am -- indeed we would have commented out
15 of court that today's experience, if that's an indication of what is to
16 come next week, that we -- we could see the -- thank you.
17 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE HALL: So we're not unmindful of those practical
19 considerations, Ms. Korner.
20 So we take the adjournment, to reconvene in -- I expect we would
21 be in Courtroom III on the 1st of March, at 9.00 in the morning.
22 But before we rise, I thank the support staff, the interpreters,
23 the court reporters, and the security staff for their assistance in
24 facilitating this extended session, and, of course, the accused
25 themselves for their co-operation in agreeing to this.
1 So we rise. Thank you.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.17 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 1st of March,
4 2012, at 9.00 a.m.