120307IT

Page 27031

1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good morning, Mr. Kovac.

2 A. Good morning.

3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can I begin to ask you to state for the record

4 your full name and date and place of birth, please.

5 A. My name is Tomislav Kovac. I was born on the 4th of December,

6 1959, in Sarajevo.

7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Before we proceed any further, I am

8 informed that you have present here with you Mr. Lazarevic as counsellor

9 for the purposes of your testimony in this case and that's pursuant to

10 our order of 16 February 2012. Can you confirm that?

11 A. Yes, I can.

12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Mr. Kovac, what is your ethnicity?

13 A. I am a Serb.

14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Is this the first time you testify before this

15 Tribunal or have you ever testified before?

16 A. This is my first testimony before this Tribunal. I hadn't

17 testified before.

18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Did you testify before any of the courts in the

19 region about the matters relating to the war?

20 A. Yes, I gave evidence before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina

21 on two occasions.

22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Let me explain very briefly to you

23 the proceedings before this Court. You have been called as a Chamber

24 witness, and the Chamber thinks that it will -- it can finish your

25 examination-in-chief within two hours. After that, there will be

Page 27032

1 cross-examination by OTP, by the Defence of Mr. Stanisic and by the

2 Defence of Mr. Zupljanin. And we hope to be able to finish your

3 testimony by tomorrow, end of the hearing.

4 We sit in the morning from 9.00 to a quarter to 2.00, and we have

5 breaks every one hour and a half. That's for technical reasons, the

6 tapes have to be changed and so on. But if there is for any personal

7 convenience you need another break or you need whatever, please let us

8 know and we will accommodate you.

9 I would also like to inform you that the questions the Chamber

10 has of you today pertain to the two accused in this case, Mr. Stanisic

11 and Mr. Zupljanin. It is not the intent of this Chamber to compel you to

12 answer questions that may affect your rights. The appointment of

13 Mr. Lazarevic was made for exactly that purpose. However, the Chamber

14 does expect you to be candid and forthcoming with your answers here

15 today. Is that understood?

16 Did you understand what I tried to explain to you?

17 A. Yes, I did.

18 JUDGE DELVOIE: I would also like to mention to you that we are

19 at the final phase of this case, and we heard already quite some

20 evidence, practically all evidence that will be in this case. So the

21 Trial Chamber has good knowledge of the context, and that is to allow you

22 to focus very much on the precise questions we ask you without wandering

23 off in contextual explanations. Okay?

24 With that settled, could you please briefly tell us about your

25 relevant educational background, very brief, please.

Page 27033

1 A. I finished elementary and secondary schools in Sarajevo, the

2 secondary school of engineering. I graduated from the Belgrade

3 university in criminology. At the time it was called the Higher School

4 for the Interior. At the faculty of security in Skopje, I acquired

5 another degree. And also in Skopje, I was nearing my post-graduate

6 studies; however, I did not manage to do my magisterial thesis because

7 the war broke out. I finished the School of State Security in Belgrade

8 and at the time I was also involved in sports. I finished all the

9 available training courses in martial arts and special units training

10 that were available at the time while the former Yugoslavia was still

11 functioning.

12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. And your professional background

13 until 1991, please? Very briefly, again.

14 A. Following the completion of the studies of criminology, I had a

15 scholarship, and therefore I started working for the State Security

16 Service at the covert operations department. After a series of

17 successful tasks in 1984, I was appointed chief inspector for state

18 security of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In 1986, I was transferred to the public

19 security service as the chief of police in Novi Grad in Sarajevo. Up

20 until the first multi-party elections is the period when I was dismissed

21 from that position and I was put on stand-by. After that, I became the

22 chief of the police station at Ilidza and that is where I was when the

23 war started.

24 Well, that would be as far as my career prior to the war is

25 concerned. As I said, in 1992 I became the chief of police station in

Page 27034

1 Ilidza until August; and then in August I was appointed assistant

2 minister of the interior in charge of police. In September of 1993 until

3 31st December 1994, I was an acting minister. And then in 1994 I became

4 the chief of the public security service. In January 1995 - I can't give

5 you the exact date - I became deputy minister of the interior, and in

6 that same year, September 1995, I was appointed minister of the interior,

7 which is the office that I held until December of that same year, which

8 is when I was dismissed and when my service in the MUP of

9 Republika Srpska was terminated, although pro forma I remained there in

10 the capacity of an advisor.

11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.

12 Can the Registrar please pull up P599.

13 Witness, Mr. Kovac, in your binder, that is tab 4. Can you

14 please look at this document and confirm, if you can, that this is your

15 letter of appointment as an assistant minister.

16 A. Yes, I can confirm that this is the decision based on which I was

17 appointed assistant minister.

18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.

19 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Kovac, is it correct that in October 1992

21 also you were designated the acting minister of interior by Mr. Stanisic

22 in order to act on his behalf in his absence?

23 A. As far as I remember, I was authorised by Mr. Stanisic. Since

24 the post of deputy minister did not exist, he said that I could stand-in

25 for him; and for that purpose he gave me certain authorities. Given the

Page 27035

1 specific role of the minister during the war, I was entitled that in

2 certain areas and certain lines of duty, I would act on his behalf

3 inasmuch as he was able to delegate his authorities upon me.

4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Can you look at tab 5 in your binder

5 and tell us whether this document is to confirm that assignment.

6 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

7 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may be of assistance, there is a

8 binder if you would like to use it. I have two --

9 JUDGE DELVOIE: You have two?

10 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.

11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.

12 So the witness has the binder now?

13 It's tab 5. And the document number so that we can put it up on

14 the screen is 0670-5858.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can confirm that I have seen this

16 and that it is correct that Stanisic authorised me --

17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.

18 A. -- to act on his behalf and to discharge the duties of minister.

19 But I would like to add that I was not de facto deputy minister. The

20 only body that could appoint deputy minister was the government. But, in

21 fact, we had this kind of mutual relationship, in that he delegated some

22 of his powers upon me so that I can perform the duties of the minister of

23 the interior.

24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Kovac. That's why I used the term

25 "designation" and not the term "appointment."

Page 27036

1 Can you tell us for how long this order was in force, for how

2 long did you act on behalf of this designation?

3 A. Only for as long as Mr. Stanisic was the minister. After he was

4 replaced by Ratko Adzic, I didn't have any decision, either factual or

5 formal, one similar to this one.

6 JUDGE DELVOIE: And that was when exactly?

7 A. That was towards the end, or rather, on the 1st of January, 1993,

8 when the ministers were replaced. So, in other words, that would mean up

9 until the end of 1992 I had this authority, that is, while the government

10 in which Mr. Stanisic was the minister was in office.

11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. And did you ever use this authority?

12 Did you ever act as minister on behalf of Mr. Stanisic?

13 A. Well, certainly that was in operational sense and by the nature

14 of things that were inevitably happening, there were times when I had to

15 submit reports to the Government of Republika Srpska or intervened in

16 some personnel affairs or get involved in some operational tasks. So I

17 used these powers at certain times, and it was only normal. In such

18 institutions there's always someone who can always stand-in for someone

19 who is number one, although that person is not appointed by the

20 government. I think that Mr. Stanisic needed to have such an individual

21 because the ministry was scattered around during the war. That's what

22 the circumstances were at the time.

23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you. And a last question or it's,

24 rather, a request about this document. Could you read it aloud, please,

25 so that it can be translated for the record. Just read it aloud.

Page 27037

1 A. "Republika Srpska, Ministry of the Interior, Bijeljina.

2 "Number 10-2-75/92.

3 "Date: 21st October 1992.

4 "Authorisation.

5 "Whereby Mico Stanisic, the minister of the interior, authorises

6 the assistant minister for the jobs and duties of the police Tomo Kovac

7 to perform all the ministerial duties in his absence.

8 "Minister of the Interior, Mico Stanisic."

9 And then you see beneath the date, 21st of October, 1992.

10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you very much, Mr. Kovac.

11 Mr. Kovac, during your meeting with the Chamber's Legal Officers,

12 you indicated that you can speak to several aspects of activities of

13 RS MUP leaders during 1992. The Chamber is interested in a very discrete

14 issue, that of the leadership of the MUP as you may have gathered.

15 Please bear that in mind when answering the following questions. You

16 obviously have knowledge of far more than we intend to elicit from you

17 today and you will have to be as brief as possible. When we need further

18 detail, we will ask follow-up questions. And if you think there is need

19 for further clarification, you will be provided with an opportunity to do

20 so.

21 Now, I want you to look at your interview of October 2003, that

22 would be tab 1, page 28 in the English and -- well, there is again --

23 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honour --

24 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- a problem -- yeah.

25 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry to interrupt but the interviews of the

Page 27038

1 witness are not in that binder, I'm afraid --

2 JUDGE DELVOIE: The --

3 MR. ZECEVIC: Because I have highlighted them --

4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yeah.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: -- and it's in a separate binder. I'm really sorry

6 for that.

7 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. It's on the screen, Mr. Kovac, and you

9 received a copy in B/C/S; is that right? That's your interview of

10 October 2003. And --

11 A. Yes.

12 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- you refer in that interview to inappropriate

13 staff within the RS MUP in the time Mico Stanisic was the minister. Now,

14 my question is: Can you name a few of the individuals who you are

15 referring to here and give me the names of the individuals with the

16 municipalities or the areas of their responsibility.

17 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'm sorry to intervene. Even with my

18 rudimentary B/C/S, it appears that the B/C/S page on the screen doesn't

19 match up with the English page. Even though I see it's number --

20 page number 1 on the B/C/S, it appears to be referring to starting with

21 tape 3 as opposed to the introduction.

22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Kovac seems to -- do you know what I'm

23 referring to, Mr. Kovac?

24 A. No. This isn't it. I believe that there has been a mix-up.

25 What I see now is not the first part of my interview and doesn't refer to

Page 27039

1 Mr. Stanisic, but actually has to do with quite a different topic.

2 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may be of assistance.

3 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

4 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, yes, it is just that the pages on the monitor

5 do not correspond and we're trying to locate the one. If this is a

6 correct page in English that is needed, we are trying to locate it right

7 now.

8 JUDGE DELVOIE: It's at line 13 of page 28 in the English and it

9 is -- it says:

10 "And we," so that's Mr. Kovac speaking. "We also tried to finish

11 up what -- to finish up squaring it out or clearing out the inappropriate

12 staff within the police stations and centres, which had begun back in

13 times of Mico Stanisic." So ...

14 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, maybe it's now my turn to assist.

15 What we now have before us in front of -- on the screen, on the

16 right-hand side is the right page in English which Your Honour has just

17 quoted; however, on the left side in B/C/S, this page does not correspond

18 to what is on the right side. And now it seems that we have inversion of

19 pages. What we have previously were both also these two pages, however,

20 the right one was correct in B/C/S, but the English was the wrong one.

21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Kovac, can you remember telling the people

22 that interviewed you that at the time that Mr. Stanisic was the minister

23 of the interior there was inappropriate staff within the MUP, within the

24 police stations and the centres?

25 A. I really would like to see my exact words in the Serbian

Page 27040

1 language, so as to avoid any ambiguity.

2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. We'll have to put it up and find it.

3 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I think what has happened, based on

4 what I saw, it appears on these large interviews they're often --

5 interpretations are done by three or four different interpreters. So if

6 someone does tape one, someone will do tape two, et cetera. I think

7 they've been assembled out of order because that first page seemed to be

8 the beginning of tape 3. Perhaps if we could take a short break of

9 ten minutes or so, with my colleagues or a language assistant in my

10 office we might be able to more quickly find it than trying to do it

11 ad hoc here in the courtroom. Or if you wanted to continue on to another

12 topic and come back --

13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Unless Mr. Zecevic has found it?

14 MR. ZECEVIC: I have found it, yes.

15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.

16 MR. ZECEVIC: I think it is page 18 in the -- it has number 18

17 out of 233 on it. It should be either 18 or 19 in the e-court --

18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay --

19 MR. ZECEVIC: -- in the B/C/S.

20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can we see then or show the witness page 18. And

21 are the lines numbered in B/C/S as well? Then, Mr. Zecevic, you could

22 perhaps --

23 MR. ZECEVIC: It starts on page 18, line 19, and then continues

24 on the next page.

25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.

Page 27041

1 Can you see that, Mr. Kovac?

2 A. Yes, but we should now see whether that is what you have in mind.

3 The question was:

4 "What was your relationship with Mr. Rakic?"

5 This is what I see on the screen. And then my answer follows

6 after that question. If that's what you wanted to deal with, then we

7 have it.

8 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's where I'm referring to, yes. And then at

9 a certain moment you say in the English translation:

10 "And we also tried to finish up what -- to finish up squaring it

11 out or clearing out the inappropriate staff within the police station and

12 centres which we had begun back in times of Mica Stanisic."

13 Do you see that or do -- do we have to turn over to the next

14 page?

15 A. Yes, I can see it.

16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Now, the question is: Inappropriate

17 staff, can you be a little bit more precise? Name individuals you were

18 referring to, individuals and eventually the municipality they were

19 working in or the responsibilities they had?

20 A. As far as our professional approach was concerned, the approach

21 that we had at the time, and my interview, when I said "unfit staff" or

22 "inappropriate" as it was translated here, I was referring to people who

23 without the necessary ethical or professional qualities came to positions

24 at public security stations. They were able to do so after the

25 multi-party elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the then authorities,

Page 27042

1 the tripartite authorities that consisted of the SDA, the SDS, and the

2 HDZ, they at the time did not heed any professional qualities. They

3 selected people from the ranks of the local political parties, and those

4 were people - maybe not all of them - but certainly many of them, people

5 that they could handle. And those were the people that they used when

6 the war began. And these were the people at the public security stations

7 that we inherited, as it were. People like me, who were not like them,

8 were given the task by Mr. Stanisic to get rid of them, that is, get rid

9 of such staff who did not act in accordance with the police codex.

10 I initiated measures against all those who were not from the --

11 from the police, who didn't have the required professional or ethical

12 mind-set.

13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Did you have particular people in mind when you

14 said this or when you are explaining this now?

15 A. Certainly, I did have some specific people in mind.

16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Could you tell us?

17 A. Some of them were station chiefs. Well, talking about station

18 chiefs, I can start from Samac, Steve. Then Bijeljina, the chief of the

19 station there --

20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Samac, who are you talking about precisely, which

21 individual?

22 A. I'm talking about - what was his name? - Steve or

23 Stevan Todorovic, he's the one I'm talking about. And then the public

24 security station of Prijedor, I think the one who was there was

25 Simo Drljaca.

Page 27043

1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.

2 You mentioned --

3 A. I think that at Pale itself - although I didn't mention

4 that - there were also dismissals. That was at the time when I came

5 there. There were a number of public security stations such as Zvornik,

6 I can't remember the name of the man there, but there were a number of

7 stations where people had to be replaced. And all those who didn't

8 really have control of the police in their stations but tolerated or were

9 in practice replaced by para-police units there.

10 We also wanted to replace --

11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Kovac, you mentioned Bijeljina. Any

12 individual in particular there?

13 A. Unfortunately there was some people who had come from Sarajevo,

14 such as Dragan Andan. There were also local staff there, the local

15 police station commander who was not capable of coping with -- but I

16 can't remember his name now. The first centre chief there, he was also a

17 local at the time, but I can't recall his name at the moment.

18 JUDGE DELVOIE: And --

19 A. Anyway, I'm talking about --

20 JUDGE DELVOIE: And for Pale, you have a name for Pale?

21 A. I know that we spoke about that. I don't know whether Stanisic

22 had already replaced him. That was the MUP headquarters there. I

23 believe that in order to honour the legality of work that the public

24 security station chief had to be replaced, but not because of war crimes

25 or anything like that but in order to make sure that the station

Page 27044

1 functioned properly. I don't remember when exactly it happened, but

2 there were also activities for the purpose of replacing the station chief

3 at Pale and in other stations too. There was a process, in the framework

4 of which where I'm sure we replaced at least 50 of the per cent of the

5 staff or at least we had rotated them, because there is this procedure of

6 rotating staff from one function or position to another.

7 JUDGE DELVOIE: The names you mention are all people from police

8 stations. Any people from CSBs? Any people in particular from CSBs?

9 A. Certainly. Yes, certainly from CSBs. I mentioned the Bijeljina

10 centre. I can't remember the name of the man, but there were acting

11 officers. I don't know whether there was Dragan Andan, but the situation

12 in Bijeljina was unclear. The same applies to Banja Luka, the Banja Luka

13 CSB where there was Stojan Zupljanin, and I had this opinion of him too

14 because my assessment was that he was unable to control the situation and

15 cope with the chiefs of public security stations in Krajina. And there

16 was also the need for more integration between the centres and the

17 stations. The process had already been well under way and I believe that

18 it also concerned the centre chief in Sarajevo. A centre in Zvornik was

19 being established, there was reorganisation, so that there was this broad

20 process, the purpose of which was to set up the full jurisdiction of the

21 Ministry of the Interior and make sure the proper functioning of the

22 ministry.

23 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated]

24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge, please.

25 JUDGE DELVOIE: I'm sorry.

Page 27045

1 Mr. Kovac, the people who in your view or in the minister's view

2 were not only incompetent but were also misbehaving, how did -- well, let

3 me, first of all, ask you when did you learn about the activities of

4 these people?

5 A. I would like to correct you. There was not only the category of

6 unfit people. There was also the category of those who were unable to

7 cope and have the centres, public security centres, under their control,

8 who didn't have the power. In the ministry especially at times of war

9 you cannot --

10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Kovac, I'm -- I do make that distinction, but

11 I wanted to focus now on those who were not only incompetent and could

12 not control their organisation, but I want to focus on the ones who

13 misbehaved and who were -- towards whom you were taking action because of

14 that. So my question is for those people, how -- when did you learn

15 about their misbehaviour?

16 A. I couldn't pin-point a date. It was a process. When I was

17 appointed to my position, Stanisic stated the reasons to me. He knew my

18 profile as a police officer. He knew that right before the war I was a

19 chairman of the disciplinary board for the Sarajevo region, and he made

20 it clear to me that he wanted me to set up a CSB in Bijeljina and that we

21 monitored the legality of work through the administrations and check all

22 staff - what they did and how they went about it - and replace some staff

23 by more competent people so that the ministry could carry out its tasks

24 at those difficult times when there was intense combat in that civil war,

25 when all the values of the previous states and societies had been

Page 27046

1 destroyed and law and order had to be established, and that was up to us.

2 That's why we needed strong people and strong institutions. And from

3 that aspect and from that level that we assessed the -- whether somebody

4 was fit or unfit.

5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Kovac, what I want to make clear here about

6 when you learned about this, in your answer you say this was in the

7 process when I was the assistant minister, so not before that period that

8 you learned about this; right?

9 A. Before that I was at Ilidza where there was intensive combat

10 activity, and I didn't have specific information about events elsewhere.

11 When Stanisic --

12 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's a clear answer. My follow-up question is

13 then so now we're talking again about the time you were in the position

14 of assistant minister. How did you learn about these activities of

15 the -- or this misbehaviour? What was the reporting chain, I suppose,

16 that went up the reporting chain and then -- and reach you in your

17 capacity as assistant minister; is that right? So what was the reporting

18 chain?

19 A. What I found out officially about the problems that I faced in

20 the ministry, I found out at the collegium of the Ministry of the

21 Interior in Trebinje, I believe it was held in August. That is when the

22 centre chiefs and their deputies outlined the situation and the problems

23 in the territory of the then-Republika Srpska as well as within the

24 ministry itself. When I moved on, or rather, when I went to Bijeljina at

25 the same time I set up a group of co-workers, inspectors, who were the

Page 27047

1 embryo of the institution of public security. And we launched the

2 process of reporting to the organisational unit of the ministry in

3 Bijeljina. We received information about whether or not public security

4 stations worked in accordance with the law, both from the inspectors and

5 from the public security or security services centres.

6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Kovac, can you please look at tab number 6,

7 which is P160, at page 7, please. And my question is: Is this the kind

8 of meeting where you and the minister would be briefed at?

9 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, probably yes, although I

11 haven't had the opportunity to deal with this. I don't remember this

12 specific document, but this is a way of reporting -- actually, these are

13 more analyses and presentation of the directions of activity. This is

14 not the kind of document where daily reporting or reporting about daily

15 activities was made. Could we -- could I see it until the end?

16 JUDGE DELVOIE: You're completely right, Mr. Kovac. It's -- the

17 document is called "Brief analysis of the work to date and basic

18 guide-lines for the future work of the MUP." It's a summary from the

19 meeting of the MUP senior officials of the 11 of July, 1992.

20 Now, could you please look at page 8 and then 14 of that

21 document. There is reference -- reference is made there to crimes being

22 committed by men in uniforms, and both Mr. Zupljanin at page 8 and

23 Mr. Stanisic at page 14 say that the courts are not properly functioning.

24 Was this a concern throughout 1992?

25 A. Certainly. This was a great problem, but we continued our

Page 27048

1 activities. As far as all such events are concerned, we already had an

2 analysis in Bijeljina. I don't think I was present at this meeting,

3 though, because I don't remember it. Probably I couldn't attend. But I

4 know that we, or rather, that I sent a document to the president of the

5 republic and the cabinet about this very topic so that some things that

6 have to do with the functioning of the courts be dealt with.

7 JUDGE DELVOIE: We'll come to that, Mr. Kovac.

8 Just to be complete and for the record, the document and the

9 meeting you were referring to before we got into this one is in your

10 binder at tab 22 and it is Exhibit Number P163. Can we pull that up.

11 And then, Mr. Kovac, could you confirm that that's the document and the

12 meeting you were referring to before we got to this one?

13 A. Yes, this is a document from the meeting in Trebinje, and I

14 officially started attending executive meetings as of that date because

15 before I wasn't in attendance.

16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.

17 Now then, when you came into the top MUP administration, what did

18 you find was the policy of the -- or the attitude towards individuals

19 such as those we are now talking about and who were unfit for their task

20 and, more specifically, who were misbehaving? What was the policy or the

21 attitude within the MUP towards those people?

22 A. Well, starting from this senior officials' meeting in Trebinje, I

23 clearly remember that all the participants were aware that the process

24 was already launched in order to eradicate all the flaws within the MUP

25 as well as in other institutions and the society in general

Page 27049

1 Republika Srpska. Therefore, my feeling was that I already became part

2 of that process. And the second part of my involvement was my suggestion

3 to Mr. Stanisic to tackle the matter of decision-makers because the

4 existing personnel were unable to do that, that we needed a more

5 efficient and more decisive people from the level of the ministry all the

6 way down to police stations. So there was no doubt as to what to do with

7 these people. The only problematic thing was whether there was a will or

8 whether there was enough strength to deal and to bring into light all the

9 personnel problems and to resolve all the personnel issues which required

10 some radical moves on the part of the police in order to make it fully

11 operational in the area of public law and order, the protection of

12 property, the protection of other ethnicities, et cetera.

13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Now, before the break we can perhaps

14 deal with one other document issue. One of the first things you did when

15 you took up your position in August 1992 was to make a recommendation

16 directly to the president and prime minister with -- on how to deal with

17 prisoners. Is that correct?

18 A. Yes, that is correct, but I only signed it. This recommendation

19 was actually put together by the ministry, so I didn't have any

20 significant contribution in it. It was just the outcome of an analysis.

21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Let's perhaps look at a document, please. It's

22 P192 and it's tab 7 in your binder, Mr. Kovac. Is that the letter we're

23 talking about?

24 A. Yes, that's the letter.

25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. How would you describe your relationship

Page 27050

1 with Mico Stanisic in 1992?

2 A. Well, we had a decent relationship in the course of 1992, which

3 was reflected in his providing support to me with regard to all the

4 activities that we became involved as the public security service in

5 order to redress all these problems. He never made any obstacles. He

6 let us go all through to the end. Unfortunately, we didn't have enough

7 strength and also he didn't have enough political strength to see this

8 through.

9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Kovac, in your October 2003 interview you

10 said about your relationship with Mico Stanisic, if I'm not mistaken,

11 that you were always - you and him - you were always on good terms. You

12 confirm that? We're talking about your relationship in 1992. Is that

13 correct, you were on good terms, is that --

14 A. Well, given that we are different personalities, I wouldn't say

15 that we were on exactly good terms. We were professionally on good

16 terms, so in -- during his second term of office there appeared some

17 disagreements, but before that we saw eye to eye in the professional

18 sense when it became -- when it came to how the service should be run.

19 And I can say that in that I had his full support.

20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Now, my follow-up question on your, let's say,

21 good professional relationship with Mr. Stanisic is: Why did you send

22 the letter we still have on the screen, I think, directly to the

23 president and the prime minister instead of addressing it to

24 Mr. Stanisic, who was your hierarchical superior, he was your boss?

25 A. Well, first of all, there was no need for me to communicate with

Page 27051

1 Stanisic in this manner because we managed to agree on many things. As

2 far as this letter is concerned, I saw it as a reflection of the tasks

3 that we had in Trebinje and as a reflection of the entire set of

4 activities that needed to be carried out. So the motive for sending this

5 letter was not to circumvent Stanisic - it wasn't possible after

6 all - but I was convinced that what we were doing and the letter that I

7 sent is the outcome of our overall activities.

8 In the ministry, Stanisic set up things in such a manner that

9 quite a lot of tasks he delegated and allowed me to do on his behalf. So

10 by sending this letter - and we never had any dispute over it - was

11 the -- not so the product of my conviction as to what I should do or

12 shouldn't do, but rather, it had to do with the circumstances that were

13 in place at the time and the place where Stanisic was. Therefore, the

14 content of this letter and the proposals that were made at the senior

15 executive staff meeting in Trebinje contain no differences.

16 My sole wish was to do things as quickly as possible, and this is

17 in line with Mr. Trbojevic, the vice prime minister, and I was often in

18 communication with him. There was a need to introduce speedy measures,

19 and this is the purpose of this letter.

20 So the time was like this and I was such a person who thought

21 that one should act rapidly and speedily and that certain measures needed

22 to be done immediately. After all, the government adopted this into its

23 document and introduced certain measures. So nothing was done by

24 bypassing anyone --

25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. We'll have to discuss a little bit more

Page 27052

1 this document, but perhaps we should do that after the break.

2 JUDGE HALL: We resume in 20 minutes.

3 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.

4 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. This is supposed to work now and it does,

6 obviously.

7 Mr. Kovac, before the break you seemed to indicate that this

8 document, that you signed it but it was not really your initiative, your

9 decision. It was something the administration prepared for you. Was

10 that what you're saying? Because it seems a little bit -- I don't read

11 that in your interviews. You seem to say in your interviews that it's

12 something you thought would be a good idea and that you did take the

13 decision and present it as a good solution. Can you clarify on that?

14 A. I think there's a slight misunderstanding. What I meant to say

15 was that the final version of this information is the product of the

16 activities of the entire ministry. It was me, indeed, who established

17 this in this form and sent this letter as it is to the government and the

18 Presidency. In other words, I stand by it 100 per cent. But this is not

19 a simple letter. This is analysis of all our activities and our

20 intentions --

21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. I just wanted to clarify this little

22 point, but you did it perfectly.

23 Now, could you please explain what you meant when you recommended

24 that the status of members of other ethnicities be legally altered in

25 accordance with international conventions. What did you have in mind

Page 27053

1 exactly?

2 A. Look, I think that this question that you asked me and the

3 proposals that we made are actually a key element and a key moment in

4 this civil war. And if you allow me to clarify, I would like just to be

5 given a little bit more time on this specific issue.

6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Please go ahead.

7 A. The essence of this - and I'm going to input my professional

8 knowledge into this - the essence of the behaviour of people in a civil

9 war where you have a mixture of civilians of various ethnicities and in

10 addition to that you have armed people fighting each other, and in

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina there was not a third power, a central government, a

12 central army that would separate or reconcile the warring parties. So

13 each and every ethnic group - and I'm talking now about the Serbian

14 side - had to establish or reinstate the values that had been lost. We

15 had to establish an army and we had to reintroduce a set of values that

16 have to be respected by warring parties. And I think these were the most

17 difficult tasks, that is, to reinforce our institutions and our decisions

18 and the awareness that among the warring parties in a civil war there was

19 enough strength to distinguish between the civilians, the people who

20 didn't have any uniforms, and of course also to distinguish a third

21 group, which is criminals who were committing criminal offences.

22 In a civil war, everybody thinks that it is only the opposing

23 side who committed all the crimes and that it attacked the civilians.

24 And I think that this is a phenomenon that is present in every civil war.

25 I believe that these were exactly the stages in a war that required our

Page 27054

1 efforts to strengthen the Ministry of the Interior, the judiciary, and

2 all other institutions in order for them to be able to wrestle with this

3 problem. So as a result of these negative processes and these awful

4 things that were happening in Bosnia when you had a mixed population,

5 ethnically mixed populations, where you had people armed among different

6 ethnic communities, the issue of the laws that govern the relation and

7 the treatment of prisoners of war and the criminal offenders, et cetera,

8 is something that is extremely difficult. And I think it was nearly

9 impossible to resolve that and eventually this necessitated the creation

10 of this Tribunal, among other things.

11 So this realisation contributed to us trying to go a step forward

12 and to try to solve these problems. As you can see, this document is

13 officially registered and it is officially being sent to both the

14 government and all other relevant representatives. So if you look at

15 this document and look at its purpose, by making it official it means

16 that at those times we had lengthy discussions about what was to be done,

17 but that was done outside the institutions. In this instance, the MUP as

18 an institution is sending an official document to the president of the

19 republic and the prime minister. And of course, in this document we had

20 to highlight exactly everything that was happening.

21 In my subsequent talks with Mr. Trbojevic, the vice-president of

22 the republic, the government acted quickly and adopted a series of very

23 specific measures aimed at eradicating these behaviours and to ensure

24 that the institutions, such as judiciary, correctional and prisoner

25 facilities and other institutions, have a clear vision as to how they

Page 27055

1 should act in accordance with these three guide-lines. After analysing

2 what needs to be done, I concluded that we need to construe the basic

3 provisions contained in the law with regard to categorisation of people

4 into the category who cannot be responsible for being member of a certain

5 ethnic group. Then you have prisoners of war, and everybody knows how

6 they should be treated; and a third category of those who may have

7 committed criminal offences.

8 JUDGE DELVOIE: So --

9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness for the

10 benefit of the interpreters and the court reporter kindly be asked to

11 speak more slowly. Thank you.

12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Kovac, the interpreters ask whether you could

13 speak slower so that they can -- they have the better possibility of

14 making correct translations.

15 Now -- so I take it from your answer that what you are doing here

16 is you try to work something out for people detained that were not

17 combatants and that did not commit any crimes, who were detained because

18 they committed any crimes. And your solution was to categorise them as

19 refugees; is that right? Is that a fair summary?

20 A. Well, our proposal was that they be afforded the status of

21 civilians. Now, depending on whether they remained in their homes and

22 their native places, those were civilian populations. However, if they

23 were moved as a result of war operations and found themselves elsewhere,

24 they should definitely be given the status either of displaced persons or

25 refugees, depending on how they were treated and perceived. So this was

Page 27056

1 the option given to free people who should be taken care of by the

2 Red Cross and not government organs. But at any rate, they shouldn't be

3 treated in such a manner as to restrict their freedom of movement and to

4 judge them as possible perpetrators of crimes. So that was the main

5 direction that we took.

6 Now, as to the actual organisation and the accommodation and

7 other facilities, it was decided on the spot. So as for the civilians,

8 there are two subgroups: Those who remained home in their houses and

9 residential places and those who moved elsewhere. So this is something

10 that came out through our co-operation with international organisations,

11 humanitarian organisations; and in view of that, we made such a proposal.

12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one small clarification. When you say --

13 when you made a difference between depending on whether they remained in

14 their homes and their native places and you qualified them as civilian

15 population; however, you said if they were moved as a result of war

16 operations and found themselves elsewhere - and that's the second

17 category - if they were moved as a result of war operations and found

18 themselves elsewhere, that's a description of people being -- of the

19 people being detained. We are talking about detained people; right?

20 A. No, no, no. It is precisely why we provided this information

21 that the people who left the area can in no way be treated as detainees.

22 They can only be treated as civilians and that the Red Cross should

23 become involved and provide them support in terms of accommodation and

24 other forms of assistance, food, et cetera. And then, depending on what

25 their future decisions would be, they would remain in the area where they

Page 27057

1 came or they would move to third countries. So the civilian population

2 was treated in such a way that it should be exclusively in the care of

3 the government and authorities and humanitarian organisations.

4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Kovac, that is the goal you had, the purpose

5 for which you wrote this letter and made this suggestion. But it is -- I

6 understand it is about people who, before you made this suggestion, are

7 not in their homes anymore but are detained in camps; right? And you

8 tried to - that's what you say and what you explain about this

9 letter - you tried to give a solution to that problem. Is that correctly

10 understood?

11 A. In this letter we requested the government authorities to take a

12 clear position regarding the categorisation of individuals, and then if

13 we saw on the ground that there were categories that did not comply with

14 international conventions, this proposal and the request by the

15 government to undertake urgent measures and to apply a proper legal

16 treatment of these people, so if they were put in certain correctional

17 penal facilities, that should have been taken care of. We received

18 information that there were instances in which civilians were not treated

19 in an appropriate manner. And as the MUP, who is the first port of call

20 when we receive this kind of information, we thought it necessary to

21 inform the president and the prime minister immediately and that measures

22 should be taken at once.

23 I think that this was one of the crucial institutional moves that

24 would put a stop to all these negative aspects and misconduct, which

25 undoubtedly did happen, but depending on how powerful an individual or an

Page 27058

1 institution was, we did our best to eliminate all these negative aspects

2 which were definitely an outcome of civil war and conduct of individuals.

3 Whether that can be attributed to their ignorance or whether you can

4 attribute it to their mental constitution, that's a different matter.

5 I remember that after the government took its decision for

6 certain correctional and penal facilities --

7 JUDGE DELVOIE: I'll come to that, Mr. Kovac. I was just trying

8 to figure out whether we now agree or not on my question, and my question

9 pertained to not what your request was to the government, what your

10 proposed solution was, but what the problem was you tried to tackle. And

11 the problem was, as you've said, that people from the civilian population

12 were not treated correctly and that that should stop. And in clear,

13 being not treated correctly meant being detained although civilians with

14 no combatant status and no crimes committed. That's a summary of the

15 reason why you requested this to the government. Do we agree on that?

16 That's the problem you tried to solve.

17 A. Yes, partly. The basic problem was during all those operations

18 that were going on, there was no fast and adequate separation between the

19 civilian population and the members of fighting units or prisoners of war

20 who had committed crimes. There was no efficient and adequate approach

21 to that, and I explained to you how those processes went. Due to that

22 inadequate separation, there was also inadequate treatment sometimes of

23 those persons. If we hadn't -- or, rather, the fact that we didn't

24 notice the problem back then was the reason for the proposal made to the

25 state structures in order to bring about treatment that was in accordance

Page 27059

1 with the law and the circumstances of civil war. But there were not

2 enough trained people in the state bodies, or especially in the political

3 structures, trained for acting in civil war. I don't mean combat now,

4 but I mean -- I'm referring to internal structures under specific

5 circumstances where ethnicities are in conflict although they live maybe

6 in the same village.

7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Now, Mr. Kovac, now I would like to take the next

8 step and ask you what was done precisely to implement your suggestion, if

9 it was implemented? What was the follow-up on it? What measures were

10 taken?

11 A. I think that the most important measure that was taken was the

12 following. The deputy prime minister for the interior whose remit

13 included the MUP and the judiciary - and I'm talking about

14 Mr. Trbojevic - he called a cabinet session. I don't want to go into the

15 way the government functioned, but I know that he called that session.

16 And there was an item on the agenda about this very report of the MUP,

17 including proposed measures. That's -- that was the follow-up. I

18 noticed that you have these decisions at your disposal. It followed very

19 soon. I don't think it took more than ten days when this item was dealt

20 with by the government, namely, the report of the MUP.

21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Can we please look at P193, which is tab 8

22 in your binder. It's an order issued by Trbojevic on behalf of

23 Prime Minister Djeric. Is that the follow-up you're talking about or

24 part of the follow-up you're talking about? Is that the response to your

25 letter?

Page 27060

1 A. I cannot state with certainty that this was part of the response

2 to my letter, but I know that this was part of the activities that we

3 carried out. I know that there was this cabinet session. This is about

4 part of the activities we were engaged in, but I cannot be specific as to

5 your question. Maybe this followed the letter or preceded it or went

6 parallel to it. I know that this inspector carried out audits. I know

7 of these activities, but I cannot be specific as to the chronology.

8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Can we then look at tab 8A, which is

9 Exhibit Number P601. Was this the commission that we saw in the

10 decision, the decision tab 8, was this commission effectively formed?

11 Was it established?

12 A. This is a commission of the security centre. I think that the

13 government commission had a different composition. I believe that it was

14 set up later, the government commission. I see that this is a commission

15 of the security services centre and it consists of inspectors from that

16 centre, and they were touring the stations.

17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay --

18 A. This is the process of establishing the situation on the ground.

19 They went there and informed us what --

20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can we --

21 A. The government issued a special decision about the setting up of

22 their commission --

23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can we now --

24 A. This is a decision of the security services centre --

25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Kovac, can we turn to tab 9, the next tab,

Page 27061

1 Exhibit Number 2D90, and can I ask you: Have you seen this before?

2 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot read the document well --

4 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, if I may be of some assistance. I

5 mean, I have just noticed that Mr. Kovac is looking at the screen right

6 in front of him and I believe it would be much easier for him to have a

7 hard copy. He does have it, this binder. So maybe if he can turn to

8 what Your Honour just said, the document which is under number 9 in his

9 tab.

10 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one moment, Mr. Kovac. We might have a

12 problem with the numbers.

13 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Could we try to turn to page 26 of this

15 document, 2D90.

16 [Microphone not activated]

17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge, please.

18 JUDGE DELVOIE: I'm sorry.

19 So we turn to page 26 of 2D90, and it states that the

20 Prijedor SJB provides to the commission the information it requires for

21 its investigation and it is signed by Simo Drljaca.

22 We don't see that here but we can show that at the end of the

23 document, the last page.

24 [Microphone not activated]

25 There it is with Simo Drljaca's handwritten signature. So my

Page 27062

1 question would be, if you know: Was Mr. Drljaca assisting that

2 commission? Was he assisting with the commission's work at -- in

3 Prijedor?

4 A. Well, you see, I cannot comment on that, but since I have this

5 hard copy before me from my first report all the way to the government

6 decision - and it's in neat chronological order - and therefore it can

7 clearly be seen how the process went through these commissions and all.

8 So we launched a process which was clearly painful and we pointed out

9 everything that was bad, all the shortcomings in the work. And it can

10 clearly be seen how much they deviated from the attitude of the ministry

11 with regard to the treatment of civilians and prisoners and so on.

12 It is clear from all these reports what the situation was on the

13 ground and the chronology is clear. From the 8th of August, the proposal

14 of the MUP to the government, after which there was the decision, the

15 government decision. After that, there was the decision of the centre

16 chiefs about the setting up of the commissions, and the commission

17 reports. It is clear that we launched a process and it is clear that not

18 everything was impeccable. We are not shying away from that fact. But

19 still, we did something to rectify all that wasn't all right.

20 There were professionals involved, inspectors - after the war

21 they became inspectors and before the war they must also have been in

22 positions, whether you worked responsibly. It is clear that they

23 mustered all their strength to come up with reports pin-pointing

24 everything that was bad and showing that there were many shortcomings in

25 the work. There was -- there were the Crisis Staffs, there was the

Page 27063

1 conduct of some people, and everything else.

2 As for Simo Drljaca, I didn't receive any information about his

3 relations with the commission. If I never got reports about him, then I

4 couldn't know how he acted in any given situation. I don't know whether

5 he obstructed or not. But irrespective of that, the commissions did

6 their work, which is clear from the report.

7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can we have page 25, please, where it says that

8 the -- the commission's report is based on the reports received from the

9 SJB of Bosanski Novi as well. So that seems to be part of the process;

10 right?

11 A. Certainly, it's part of the process.

12 JUDGE DELVOIE: So this was how the commission obtained its

13 information and conducted its investigation. What comes in mind, isn't

14 that not the report then written by the people who were supposed to be

15 investigated upon?

16 A. Yes. Well, you see, let me explain. With regard to many

17 territories of the RS, we had no influence over them, either physical or

18 through government structures. If we take the Krajina, if you look at a

19 number of these documents, then you will see a government decision, then

20 a decision of the centre chief, then -- and there's little mention of the

21 Ministry of the Interior. So much lay with the security services centre,

22 and the units on the ground were so independent that rarely did anybody

23 dare to go there and conduct an audit, let alone deal with these matters

24 which were the most sensitive and which could incriminate the people in

25 those stations.

Page 27064

1 We did launch this process, though, and the most important thing

2 regarding this is that after that process this sort of conduct was

3 eliminated. And we certainly identified through this process what had

4 happened and what the attitude of some individuals toward these matters

5 was. And I'm now referring to the most serious problem in this territory

6 during that civil war. I mean it can clearly be seen that since

7 launching the process or by launching the process we forced the station

8 chiefs to co-operate and give information about the events in their

9 territory. And in their reports, they drew a picture of themselves.

10 They do their own profile and showed their attitude toward the ministry

11 and everything else. There's not much to add to these reports. I really

12 don't have anything to add to them.

13 JUDGE DELVOIE: One clarification question. This commission, was

14 it only appointed for the area under CSB Banja Luka or in other

15 municipalities as well?

16 A. I think that this commission covered the territory of the

17 Banja Luka CSB, as far as I can tell from this. It was set up for that

18 CSB. And objectively speaking, at that time the most problems with

19 treatment of civilian population were to be found there, because that's

20 where most people who are of other ethnicities lived, in the area around

21 Banja Luka and all the way to Doboj, and that was the greatest portion,

22 almost 80 per cent of the territory.

23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay, then. Are you aware of what precise action

24 was taken following the submission of the report of -- the report of this

25 commission?

Page 27065

1 A. Well, first of all, the Ministry of the Interior and the public

2 security stations distanced themselves very soon from such an unnecessary

3 treatment of the population. They distanced themselves from all sorts of

4 centres and correctional facilities and the like. Wherever we

5 went -- and the process was basically finished at the time. Anyway, at

6 that point in time, we had no more information that such activity was no

7 longer possible there and those centres were disappearing. Pursuant to

8 some measures taken by the government these centres were being closed.

9 They were no longer there as institutions or para-institutions.

10 This process involved a number of activities and the commissions

11 themselves acted in a preventive manner. The police officers came to

12 their senses and it was no longer possible to induct the professional

13 police into -- or maybe in exceptional cases where we -- about which we

14 didn't know anything. So it was no longer possible for them to be

15 involved in such activities.

16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Kovac, apart from all that, was there any

17 specific action taken against people who were responsible for the

18 conditions in these circumstances, in these detention camps and centres?

19 Was there any action taken against responsible people?

20 A. All centre chiefs were given the task, because it comes under the

21 remit of the first-instance body, to take measures, disciplinary

22 measures, that is, and possibly also launch criminal proceedings. That

23 was the duty of every centre chief, and they were able to take a stance

24 or -- by their activities and by possibly filing criminal complaints.

25 They had the documents at their disposal about all these persons. I

Page 27066

1 cannot now go into specific cases.

2 We sometimes directly intervened and arrested individuals - we

3 from the ministry headquarters I mean - when there was some illegal

4 activities. So we did some things directly. Where an assessment already

5 existed and when there was a situation that could no longer be tolerated,

6 then we took immediate action. I'm referring to the specific case of

7 Todorovic in Bijeljina. We were directly involved in that during that

8 initial period. Although, when we set up the administrations, we got

9 more involved in audits of the centres and personnel-related processes

10 were underway there, people were being replaced. I believe that this was

11 stopped in 1993, unfortunately, when Ratko Adzic became minister --

12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Kovac, please don't wander off too far. You

13 said that the chiefs -- the centre chiefs were given the task to take

14 disciplinary measures and so on, launch criminal proceedings. Did you on

15 the level of the ministry do any follow-up on whether the centre chiefs

16 executed these tasks? Do you know of disciplinary measures taken by the

17 centre chiefs or criminal proceedings launched?

18 A. I can say that as the process established in the administrations

19 progressed, we monitored them more and more. However, at the very CSBs

20 there wasn't enough power or strength to carry the burden of these

21 problems and to solve them finally - due to the war or maybe to some

22 other circumstances - but nevertheless, they were unable to carry out the

23 process through. That is to say, to hold people accountable, to

24 institute criminal proceedings, et cetera. This is my personal view,

25 that they were not strong enough and they didn't have acumen enough to do

Page 27067

1 that.

2 In January 1993 this process lost its edge and it was eventually

3 stopped. At the time I was a pro forma assistant minister, and for the

4 following nine months, we faced a total blockade of the operation of the

5 Ministry of the Interior while Mr. Adzic, the -- Mr. Stanisic's successor

6 was in his office.

7 I don't know if you understood my answer.

8 So in August and September we launched a series of activities,

9 but only a few months later - that is to say, on the 1st of January - a

10 political decision was made to install a new minister who didn't have

11 professional credibility to do the job or any other mental capabilities

12 to do that as far as my department is concerned; and as a result, he put

13 all the activities to a halt and he put the ministry in such a difficult

14 position that there was confrontation between administrations on the one

15 hand and the CSBs on the other hand. And it reached its peak at one of

16 the meetings of the executive staff and the ministry almost totally

17 disintegrated during his term of office. So that was the reason why we

18 were forced to stop all these activities.

19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. I would like to go back a little bit. If

20 you would like to, please, look at tape -- at tab 9A, which is P679.

21 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Have you seen this document before?

23 A. I cannot remember seeing it. I see that this document was

24 drafted on behalf of Simo Drljaca, but I can't remember exactly whether I

25 have seen this document or not. And I don't see any link or any

Page 27068

1 communication here with the MUP. This is a letter coming from the public

2 security station of Prijedor.

3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can you tell us whether this was something that

4 resulted from the report of that commission? And I'm referring to --

5 A. Yes, I think that it did result. Yes, of course, this is a

6 result and it depicts certain activities as ordered by the minister of

7 the interior.

8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you. Now, at pages 151 and 201 of

9 your October 2003 interview, you said that Simo Drljaca was beyond the

10 control of the MUP in 1992. What did you mean by saying he ran Prijedor

11 on his own and that you had to breakthrough the CSB Banja Luka --

12 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we can go back to the previous

14 document to look at the signature, you can see that it wasn't signed by

15 Simo Drljaca but somebody did that instead of him. This demonstrates his

16 overall attitude towards all these activities. Maybe the CSB of

17 Banja Luka should be asked as a whole to tell whether he was capable of

18 carrying out their duties.

19 On the other hand, we were completely physically separated from

20 the Banja Luka centre until the corridor was open. So, in fact, we did

21 not have any physical access to the Banja Luka centre and Prijedor in

22 particular. For that reason, it was impossible to impose the

23 jurisdiction of the MUP over them, let alone engage some more repressive

24 forces such as special units that we had already been using in eastern

25 part of Republika Srpska in order to control the conduct of para groups

Page 27069

1 and individuals out of control.

2 So this is my interpretation why it was impossible for us to

3 reach the public security station of Prijedor.

4 There was a physical barrier; but on the other hand, we also had

5 a barrier which was erected in general with regard to the jurisdiction of

6 the MUP. I thought it to be, at least at the beginning, of more

7 declaratory than factual nature. Having in view the previous system and

8 regime, I perceived this subordination to be more solid and something

9 that demanded the undertaking of much faster measures. Now we had quite

10 a lot of correspondence going to and fro between the chiefs because they

11 had some -- probably some hunch that they were each and every one of them

12 a government per se. And our intention and our efforts were to place the

13 whole area under our jurisdiction.

14 I also think that the Banja Luka centre either did not have a

15 proper position. Maybe they'd not share my opinion, but it's up to them

16 to prove that.

17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Let's try to get a little bit more precise about

18 this, Mr. Kovac.

19 Can we have 151 in the English version and 173 in the B/C/S

20 version on the screen, the October 2003 interview. Because my question

21 was two-fold, Mr. Kovac. It was: What did you mean by saying

22 Simo Drljaca ran Prijedor on his own? And on the other hand, what did

23 you mean by saying that you had to breakthrough the CSB Banja Luka? And

24 if I remember correctly - let me just have a look --

25 A. As --

Page 27070

1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one moment, please.

2 A. May I?

3 JUDGE DELVOIE: No, not yet.

4 Here it is. I'm having in mind -- you said on page 2 -- on

5 page 150:

6 "I'm having in mind Banja Luka and Prijedor, until we literally

7 got into the Banja Luka centre or actually breakthrough the Banja Luka

8 centre and until we had Stojan Zupljanin and his associates dismissed as

9 the MUP centre. We had no jurisdiction over there."

10 So my question is: What did you mean by that in relation to

11 Simo Drljaca and in relation to Stojan Zupljanin?

12 A. Well, when I said that we virtually broke into it refers to

13 September 1993. As you know, in September 1993 there was a rebellion

14 among the army in Banja Luka. And one of the offences that they

15 committed was that these military units took complete hold of the CSB

16 Banja Luka in a manner that they entered all the premises of both the

17 state and public security services. They misappropriated all the

18 equipment and all the assets that were there on the premises. So what we

19 had there was a total militarisation and the total deprivation of the MUP

20 to carry out these duties. Any official of the MUP was not allowed to

21 even approach close to that centre.

22 Now, in order to quell this rebellion and this uprising against

23 the state with some ten people from the state security and some

24 30 special forces from the centre of MUP, we managed to arrest the

25 ring-leaders of the rebellion and that is when we physically entered --

Page 27071

1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Kovac, excuse me, excuse me, but unless I'm

2 very wrong, this would not be the reason or this would not justify your

3 opinion that you had to dismiss Stojan Zupljanin and his associates.

4 Isn't that right? That has nothing to do with a military rebellion. So

5 my question was about this opinion of yours, that before you could do

6 something you had to dismiss Stojan Zupljanin and his associates.

7 A. Maybe I was giving you a much too lengthy answer. At the time

8 when the CSB Banja Luka was completely thrown out of the system as a

9 result of the rebellion, we physically entered the centre. And since the

10 centre had no function at all and there were no executives there, we left

11 it all to the commissions. At the time, Stojan Zupljanin was unable to

12 run the centre, so that was the sequence of events. A few months later

13 his dismissal was only confirmed and we restored the functioning of the

14 centre by employing such personnel that would establish good links

15 between the MUP and the CSB, because I always believed that to be the

16 best option and it proved to be correct before and after. Because

17 without proper connections with the MUP, no CSB can be sustainable and

18 cannot operate under the law.

19 So at the time, Stojan Zupljanin lost his position at the time

20 and he eventually had to be removed. This was later confirmed by

21 Stanisic and Rakic and they said that Zupljanin could not have stayed in

22 position because of the issue of jurisdiction vis-a-vis the MUP, and

23 because I personally believe him unable to govern such a big and complex

24 area covered by the CSB Banja Luka.

25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.

Page 27072

1 I think this is a convenient point, yes, indeed.

2 JUDGE HALL: So we take our second break to resume in 20 minutes.

3 --- Recess taken at 12.08 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 12.34 p.m.

5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay, Mr. Kovac, we -- I think you did a very

6 good job in the beginning of your testimony by giving short answers, but

7 probably due to the fact that this is a tiring exercise you lost a little

8 bit of focus. I'm afraid we are having a little bit of a time problem.

9 So if I could ask you to focus again on the precise questions and, as far

10 as possible, give short answers.

11 I want to go back for a minute to Simo Drljaca of whom you said

12 that in 1992 he was beyond the control of the MUP. My question is:

13 According to you, who had the authority to discipline him? In 1992, I

14 mean.

15 A. The authority to discipline him according to the Law on the

16 Interior, it was the chief of the Banja Luka CSB because he belonged to

17 that centre.

18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. And have you any explanation as to why

19 that did not happen, why he was not disciplined, while obviously -- yeah,

20 go ahead.

21 A. I think that the then chief of the centre didn't have either

22 personal or political power to settle the scores with Simo Drljaca and

23 everybody else because that would imply having political power and the

24 power to deal with the entire Crisis Staff. And in my view, the chief of

25 the centre didn't have such capacity, either in political terms or

Page 27073

1 otherwise, and I also have doubts about how courageous he was to become

2 involved in such a conflict. As I said, that was what was required in

3 order to deal with him and the entire Crisis Staff. One had to really

4 have proper political power and all other capacities required.

5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. In your interview of October 2003,

6 page 28 - and I'm looking for the B/C/S page number, I don't seem to have

7 it on the my list -- no.

8 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

9 JUDGE DELVOIE: It's page 18 in the B/C/S version. Thank you.

10 You said that you, along with others, dismissed those responsible for

11 crimes in 1992, including Simo Drljaca. Can you please clarify when you

12 took this action?

13 A. I can't understand which part of my interview are you referring

14 to or are you just asking me a question that stems from my interview?

15 JUDGE DELVOIE: It stems from your interview. You said in your

16 interview that you dismissed those responsible for crimes in 1992 and

17 that was including Simo Drljaca. And the rather simple question is, if

18 you remember, is a question to clarify when you dismissed the people

19 responsible for crimes in 1992.

20 A. As I already said, this happened both in the latter part of 1992

21 and then in the first half of 1993 and then again in 1994 when Stanisic

22 and Rakic as his deputy came. Now speaking about Simo Drljaca

23 specifically, we managed to neutralise his powers and influence in the

24 area; however, under enormous political pressure he managed again to

25 resurrect. I don't know exactly when. So we had this wrangling with

Page 27074

1 Drljaca the whole time, but he was politically much too strong to be

2 completely eliminated politically.

3 Concerning Todorovic of Samac, I know that we arrested him I

4 think in 1993, yes, he was arrested in 1993, and we removed him. There

5 were other chiefs as well. In 1992 I think that we removed Dragan Andan,

6 the chief from Visegrad, and quite a few others. So this is as specific

7 as I can be by giving you these names.

8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. In -- you say "we." You also say

9 "we" in the interview. The first question is: In what capacity did you

10 take this action, and who are you referring to when you say "we"?

11 A. All the steps that I took I firmly stand behind that and I would

12 always tell you that it was me personally who did this. However, I

13 always have the need to mention the institution because our intention and

14 the intention of MUP was always to have a proper institution. But as I

15 said, I stand by each and every action that I myself did, especially when

16 I took the decision or signed the decision because the responsibility

17 lies with the decision-maker under the law. I didn't want to emphasise

18 "I." That's why I used the pronoun "we" because I preferred to speak on

19 the behalf of the institution, but I would like to underline that the

20 decisions I took were mine.

21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Then my question is: In what capacity did

22 you take this decision, as assistant minister? As acting minister? Is

23 there a difference to be made?

24 A. Only in two capacities, when I was assistant minister in 1992 and

25 I had the authorisation by Minister Stanisic; and in the other capacity

Page 27075

1 when I was acting minister from September 1993 till January 1994. Of

2 course also at the time when I was the minister in 1995, that was in the

3 latter half of 1995.

4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Let's take the very precise example of

5 Simo Drljaca. The formal authority to discipline him, who would that be?

6 A. Under the -- or given the organisation that existed then, it

7 would have been the chief of the Banja Luka centre. That was in place

8 until 1994.

9 JUDGE DELVOIE: And the formal authority --

10 A. Let me explain. The proposal to launch disciplinary proceedings

11 under the laws and regulations that existed then - and I was chairman of

12 the disciplinary board before the war - could come from any staff member

13 of the administration that controlled the work of the Prijedor CSB. So

14 the initiative didn't have to come from the centre chief. It could also

15 come from others, inspectors and so on. And the centre chief was

16 duty-bound to implement the first-instance disciplinary proceedings.

17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. The formal authority to dismiss

18 Simo Drljaca, who would that be? Or -- no, let me just stay there for

19 the moment. Who was the formal authority who could dismiss Drljaca, as

20 happened?

21 A. Drljaca could be dismissed by the minister of the interior as the

22 result of second-instance proceedings. If such proceedings were

23 implemented and the decision confirmed, that had to come from the

24 minister himself. If that went through disciplinary proceedings. If

25 some other proceedings were in place or consensual termination, for

Page 27076

1 example. But then again it was -- it came under the remit of the

2 minister of the interior according to the then law. The minister who was

3 the head of a state body - in this case the minister of the

4 interior - was the one person who had to make the decisions on both

5 accepting people into service and dismissing them from service. That was

6 prescribed by the Law on Internal Affairs.

7 JUDGE DELVOIE: So then your decision to dismiss Simo Drljaca was

8 taken either acting as a minister or minister as such, not as an

9 assistant minister. You couldn't do that as an assistant minister. You

10 could do that as an assistant minister acting on behalf of the minister;

11 right?

12 A. That is right, but I think I could elaborate only based on a

13 specific document. Certainly the transfer of authority was

14 sufficient - I mean the authority of the minister of the interior - was

15 sufficient to dismiss somebody from the service formally speaking, if

16 that's what you mean. If you are referring to the process of dismissing

17 somebody, then the interpretation is different.

18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Let's move to some of the other persons

19 you mentioned earlier. On the 1st of December, 2005, at page 19 of your

20 interview, that is 77-78 of the B/C/S version, you once again said that:

21 "Bosanski Samac was an area where the central authority had no

22 control."

23 What did you mean by that?

24 A. Well, I wanted to say that at Samac - and now I'm talking about

25 or from the vantage point of the analysis that was carried out - there

Page 27077

1 was a renegade group and the chief of the public security station was

2 head of it. They were acting like a criminal organisation almost. No

3 disciplinary proceedings were initiated. We took the decision - and I'm

4 saying "we" again, although it was me personally at that time - we

5 decided to directly arrest Todorovic. I believe that we arrested him in

6 the Brcko municipality and we used a special unit to do that because that

7 was the way or the -- that we had to resort to in dealing with such

8 persons. The conduct of the number one man was totally criminal and even

9 the group of persons around him, they weren't even our citizens. It was

10 basically a criminal organisation using the public security station as a

11 storefront.

12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can you tell us when Todorovic was arrested?

13 A. I think he was arrested -- but I'm afraid I can't give you a

14 precise answer. I remember all the elements and how we arrested him, but

15 I'm afraid of saying something wrong if you want to hear a date.

16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can we perhaps look at tab 14, that is P406 at

17 page 4.

18 It says that at 9.00 a.m. on 15 November 1992, you were informed

19 of the arrest of Todorovic by a military group. Does that refresh your

20 memory?

21 A. Can I see the following page because this is the report of the

22 centre chief.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE DELVOIE: You see -- do you see your name in the -- on that

25 page?

Page 27078

1 A. Yes, yes.

2 JUDGE DELVOIE: So can you confirm that that happened and ...

3 A. I cannot fully confirm this because the sequence of events

4 doesn't seem to -- I also had other information about the processing of

5 this Steve and I believe that we met him again. This was his military

6 arrest, but there was another arrest carried out by the police and it was

7 during one of my terms in office, but I can't tell when.

8 JUDGE DELVOIE: So do I understand --

9 A. This doesn't refer to --

10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Do I understand you correctly, Mr. Kovac, that

11 your order to arrest him was followed by an arrest which was made by the

12 police? Then my question would be this -- and you say this is another

13 arrest. Can you tell us on the order of whom this other arrest had been

14 made, if you know?

15 A. No, no, I can't. He was never arrested by the police except

16 pursuant to my orders. I don't believe there was another instance. But

17 he also had a conflict with the army. He was also arrested by the army

18 at one point, and it's that part that ... at that time we were settling

19 accounts with him and his activities in Samac in 1992. Bjelosevic, the

20 centre chief, was involved on the one hand, and there was also an overlap

21 with regard to the Samac station because the Bijeljina centre also had

22 some jurisdiction over them.

23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one moment, please.

24 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that this is how it went.

Page 27079

1 We started squaring our accounts with the whole station, but the very

2 arrest is something about which I can't really seem to make up my mind.

3 I think that there were two, first with the army and then with us, the

4 police, that is. The police also had some activities directed at him.

5 But I believe you do have all this information.

6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Would --

7 A. I'm clear about the first encounter with him and his arrest by

8 the army, but there were also some other measures of which he was the

9 target, and I mean measures launched by the Ministry of the Interior.

10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Kovac, are you saying now that the RS MUP

11 authorities were not aware of this arrest, the military arrest, the

12 arrest by the military?

13 A. No, no, we were aware. Of course we knew about the arrest

14 effected by the military.

15 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mean, let's explain this. As far

17 as this whole process of resolving the situation in Samac is concerned.

18 By that time we had completely -- we had -- we were completely clear

19 about how things stood there, in Samac. It's just this section of the

20 report about the arrest, there's some elements that somehow don't fit in,

21 they don't seem to. But never mind.

22 JUDGE DELVOIE: I had a little trouble finding the right

23 document, Mr. Kovac, sorry about that. Can we now turn to page 1, it

24 should be page 1 in the B/C/S as well, where it says that you ordered an

25 investigation into the circumstances of the arrest of Todorovic.

Page 27080

1 A. Yes, yes.

2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can you now turn to page 2, at the bottom. I

3 hope it's at the bottom of the B/C/S as well. It says that:

4 "The team that interviewed Todorovic after his arrest heard of

5 two crimes, looting and theft of weapons."

6 And at page 3 and 4, it describes the circumstances of general

7 lack of discipline and control.

8 Is -- does this document point to the reasons of Todorovic's

9 arrest like this? Are these the reasons of Todorovic's arrest?

10 A. Well, amongst others, Todorovic's activity and his attitude, as

11 well as the overall situation at the Samac public security station, and

12 his conflicts with the army which also had detrimental consequences on

13 the relations between the army and the MUP, clearly all these were the

14 reasons that brought about his arrest. Only it doesn't -- it isn't

15 presented that way in this report from the Bijeljina centre.

16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Now then can you look at tab 12A, that's 1D518.

17 Is this the MUP decision suspending Todorovic after his arrest?

18 A. Yes. We can see from this the request made to centre chief

19 Bjelosevic to remove this person from his position and to appoint at the

20 same time Savo Cancarevic and there is a reasoning. He states his

21 reasons, namely, that Todorovic never received a decision on the

22 appointment to these duties, but I know that the motive was that he

23 should be removed due to the numerous illegalities in his work.

24 JUDGE DELVOIE: But the fact that he was arrested before this

25 decision is not mentioned in it; right? Isn't that odd?

Page 27081

1 A. No, it isn't odd because the manner of his arrest was not in

2 accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure. It was a result of a

3 number of other circumstances. That was probably the reason why his

4 arrest is not mentioned here, among others, that he was arrested and all

5 that, formally speaking I mean.

6 You may have noticed that the Bijeljina centre reported on his

7 arrest and the proposal came from the chief of the Doboj centre. Andrija

8 Bjelosevic was chief of the Doboj centre. There was some personnel

9 reshuffling, and it's difficult for me to reconstruct who was in which

10 position at what point in time. I know that Bjelosevic was in Doboj,

11 though. And then he had also some activities regarding Bijeljina and

12 then it was Doboj again. I know that in some periods Doboj was

13 mentioned, at others Bijeljina, and Andrija Bjelosevic features as chief

14 of the Doboj centre, but before that there is a report from the Bijeljina

15 centre.

16 So there was this territorial overlap, but it doesn't matter for

17 this -- for these proceedings.

18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can you --

19 A. Anyway, the situation was very difficult.

20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can you look then at P2 -- at tab 11, P2438.

21 A. Yes. Are you referring to this decision to appoint

22 Stevan Todorovic?

23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one moment.

24 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

25 JUDGE DELVOIE: So now obviously we have the same in B/C/S and in

Page 27082

1 English; right? And there it says - and that's what's troubling me a

2 little bit, Mr. Kovac - is here it's -- the decision is that the

3 employment of Todorovic was terminated by agreement. Have you an

4 explanation for that? Do you know?

5 A. This is a decision issued by Minister Kijac which is after my

6 time, and what I'm looking at is a decision of Minister Adzic. And this

7 is 1996, a year after I had left the Ministry of the Interior, and it's

8 one year after the war. It was issued by Dragan Kijac.

9 JUDGE DELVOIE: And you don't know about this?

10 A. Well, I don't know. It was one year later. It speaks here about

11 consensual termination of employment, but before that there is a decision

12 issued by Ratko Adzic in 1993 on his appointment. I'm not aware of this

13 document dated 1996. It was not the time when I was at the ministry. It

14 was a year after I had left. Minister Kijac was my successor and this

15 happened one year after my departure, this consensual or termination of

16 employment.

17 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

18 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated]

19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

20 JUDGE DELVOIE: I'm sorry.

21 Can we have page 6 of the same document. My question here is

22 whether you could -- whether you can explain the retroactive appointment

23 starting 28 March 1992 issued for Stevan Todorovic as SJB chief in Samac

24 and the decision taken on the 3rd of June, 1993.

25 A. I can explain that.

Page 27083

1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Please do.

2 A. This could only have been issued by an incompetent person who

3 doesn't know anything about the law. This is totally illegal and

4 unprofessional, and I think that for a good part it was done

5 intentionally. This decision for Stevan Todorovic was issued by

6 Mr. Adzic, who during his term of office annihilated and halted a lot of

7 activities that we conducted against persons such as this one. So while

8 he was minister, for example, in June 1993 I witnessed him issuing a

9 retroactive decision for Stevan Todorovic on his appointment in 1992.

10 So clearly if you look at the previous information and the

11 proposal made by Andrija Bjelosevic for Todorovic to be removed from his

12 position because he didn't have the letter of appointment in the first

13 place, this was a simple cover-up. So in addition to it being an

14 unprofessional, it is a criminal act as well. And one of the conflicts

15 that I had with this minister was exactly because of this unprofessional

16 conduct, because he destroyed and obliterated lots of things that we did.

17 And this document is proof which policy he pursued because that's why he

18 came to the ministry and not to run the ministry.

19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.

20 Can we move now to the proceedings against Dragan Andan. In your

21 interview of December 2005, page 21 and 22 in English, which are 80 --

22 page 80 in B/C/S, you say that the police in Bijeljina were rebelling

23 against Andan. Can you put a time-frame to that? When were the police

24 requesting his removal, if you know?

25 A. I think that it was sometime in late August --

Page 27084

1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.

2 A. -- or early September --

3 JUDGE DELVOIE: 1992?

4 A. -- when I came there at around 20th of August.

5 JUDGE DELVOIE: 1992?

6 A. Yes, 1992.

7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Do you recall --

8 A. -- yes, 1992.

9 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- what it was that they were protesting against?

10 A. They were protesting against the bad conditions and bad equipment

11 issued to them, and they were also criticising misconduct by a number of

12 employees who came to this area from the MUP. This included members of

13 the federal Ministry of the Interior, and they specifically named

14 Dragan Andan --

15 JUDGE DELVOIE: What was done about it?

16 A. Well, when they were describing their difficult material

17 situation and lack of equipment, they were pointing out the behaviour of

18 certain employees or executives who were involved in certain activities,

19 which would provide them with certain material gains --

20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Kovac, can we try to stick with Dragan Andan.

21 What was done about this situation?

22 A. As far as he's concerned, I said at one local meeting that I was

23 going to institute proceedings in order to establish all the illegal

24 activities that Dragan Andan was involved in. I initiated disciplinary

25 proceedings and a decision, or rather, the proposals already made to

Page 27085

1 suspend him pending the completion of the proceedings. The minister set

2 up a disciplinary commission whose task was to investigate these illicit

3 activities, or rather, allegations about the illicit activities relating

4 to Dragan Andan.

5 JUDGE DELVOIE: And what was the result?

6 A. It was a standard procedure, and the result was that the minister

7 issued a decision on temporary suspension from the MUP. The disciplinary

8 proceedings were conducted, but I think that during the proceedings he

9 himself left the MUP and he joined the Army of Republika Srpska. And

10 that's what happened with Dragan Andan.

11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Could you -- you say the minister issued a

12 decision. Was it the minister or was it you yourself? Or were you the

13 minister at the time?

14 A. No, no, I wasn't minister at the time. I was assistant minister

15 of Mico Stanisic at the time. The minister issued a decision on

16 suspension --

17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay --

18 A. -- and he set up a commission. So that's it. So that's it, what

19 happened.

20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can you look at P2349, tab 14. Have you seen

21 this document before?

22 A. Yes.

23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Is that the decision, Mico Stanisic's

24 decision, you were talking about?

25 A. This is a request to initiate disciplinary proceedings, and this

Page 27086

1 is a document issued by Minister Stanisic, but I know that I was involved

2 in drafting this. I was fully involved in all the preparations for this

3 document and it was the office of Minister Stanisic who issued this and

4 it was signed by the minister himself.

5 JUDGE DELVOIE: And was this the reasons, the reasons stated

6 here, that -- for which he was suspended?

7 A. Yes, these were precisely the reasons such as misappropriation of

8 property and taking property from depots and using it for private

9 purposes.

10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Can we move now to Malko Koroman. I

11 understand that you never mentioned Koroman in any of your prior

12 interviews, but at the meeting with the Chamber's Legal Officers you

13 confirmed that you were aware of his activities at the moment you became

14 assistant minister. Is that right?

15 A. Well, I was aware of his official duty, that's what I meant. Of

16 course when I assumed the duties of assistant minister and since one of

17 our headquarters was at Pale, I was aware of professional career of

18 Koroman in that period. I mainly knew the things that pertained to his

19 professional duties and I'm referring to the period starting from August

20 when I went to the MUP HQ. And if you wish, I can give you some details

21 regarding some situations. Please feel free to ask me.

22 JUDGE DELVOIE: My next question would be: Are you aware of any

23 measures that were taken against him for his role in the events of Pale

24 in 1992?

25 A. I can't remember. I think that these activities took place prior

Page 27087

1 to my arrival. Therefore, I cannot think of and I cannot remember any

2 specific activities.

3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.

4 A. I wasn't involved in that at the time.

5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Shall we have a look then at tab 17, which is

6 P1461. The first question is whether you've ever seen this document

7 before?

8 A. I can't remember. I don't think I have seen it before.

9 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Having read part of it I can

11 say that I wasn't aware of this document.

12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Without going into the details, Mr. Kovac, are

13 you aware of any proceedings initiated as a result of the complaints that

14 are made in this document?

15 A. I can't remember any proceedings in relation to this document.

16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Are you aware whether Mr. Koroman was

17 dismissed or removed from service in 1992 or in 1993? Do you know? If

18 not, just say so.

19 A. I don't know that he was removed from this service. There was a

20 dismissal of the chief of the public security station, and later on he

21 was issued a decision appointing him an inspector at the police

22 administration or the security services centre. I know that at one point

23 he was dismissed as the chief of the police station, but I don't think

24 that he was entirely removed from the MUP. I'm not aware of that.

25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Can you look at tab 18 now, that is

Page 27088

1 P1457.

2 [Microphone not activated]

3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge, please.

4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Sorry.

5 Are you familiar with this document? Have you seen it before?

6 A. I don't know if I've seen it before. I know of the dismissal of

7 Malko, but this very document didn't reach me at all because in 1993 I

8 was at the administration for police, and I didn't have any other

9 specific duties that would entail my being fully informed about such

10 operative things. But I was aware of the dismissals.

11 JUDGE DELVOIE: So you would say that this is not a hand-over

12 pursuant to a regular change in personnel, but rather, the result of some

13 actions against Koroman?

14 A. Well, as I said, I had no part in this and I can see that this

15 hand-over or this record on hand-over is completely - how shall I put

16 it? - it's not even signed by either the receiving or the handing over

17 party. So it is obvious that this record doesn't reflect the factual or

18 the legal situation which would make it a proper document on hand-over

19 between two executives.

20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay --

21 A. So in my view, this is a completely and utterly incomplete

22 document. And as I said, I did not participate in this.

23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Just one moment,

24 please.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]