Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 10841

1 Tuesday, 15 June 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Mr. Court Deputy.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number

7 IT-02-60-T, the Prosecutor versus Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic.

8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Now, if there is nothing else that the

9 parties would like to raise -- yes. Yes.

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm just wondering if there is any news on the

11 waiver issues, whether or not there is going to be a report back about

12 whether or not there were waivers for those witnesses.

13 MR. KARNAVAS: I can respond to that, Mr. President.

14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas.

15 MR. KARNAVAS: Last week we contacted the witnesses and informed

16 them to contact the commission. We also contacted the commission or the

17 secretary of the commission and demanded that they get back to us with

18 some concrete answers. I don't believe that we contacted them yesterday,

19 but today one of the things on the list was to actually contact the

20 witnesses again to ensure that they physically go down to the commission

21 and request something in writing so it would be faxed immediately over

22 here for the Court and for the Prosecution. So that's the update that I

23 have.

24 The only other thing I can say is getting answers, concrete

25 answers, has been rather difficult, so -- but we are working on it in

Page 10842

1 every possible way, and we -- I know that one of the witnesses for sure

2 went there last week and spoke with the secretary or the secretariat of

3 the commission. So -- but as soon as we get out today, or even during the

4 break, I will ask my case manager to -- Mr. Mominov to get on it and

5 follow up on this matter. So we are fully aware of the Prosecution's

6 position, and we fully intend to do everything that we possibly can to

7 expedite this matter.

8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. We believe that we are also

9 expecting an early answer as soon as possible.

10 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes. Yes, Mr. President.

11 JUDGE LIU: Well, could we have the witness, please.

12 [The witness entered court]

13 JUDGE LIU: Well, good morning, Witness. I can't hear you. Can

14 you hear me?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can hear you now. Before, I

16 didn't.

17 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration in

18 accordance with the paper the usher is showing to you.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I solemnly declare that I will

20 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may sit down, please.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.


24 [Witness answered through interpreter]

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas.

Page 10843

1 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.

2 Examined by Mr. Karnavas:

3 Q. Good morning, sir.

4 A. Good morning.

5 Q. Could you please tell us your name.

6 A. My name is Predrag Drinic.

7 Q. And could you please tell us your last name letter by letter.

8 A. D-r-i-n-i-c diacritic.

9 Q. Mr. Drinic, where are you from?

10 A. From Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is, from Bijeljina.

11 Q. Now, back in July 1995, what position did you hold? What was your

12 occupation?

13 A. I was the military prosecutor of the army of Republika Srpska in

14 Zvornik.

15 Q. And at what level were you the military prosecutor; at the basic

16 level or at the appellate level?

17 A. At the appellate level.

18 Q. All right. Now I want to go backwards. First of all, how long

19 had you been with the military prosecution office?

20 A. From 1992 to the year 2000.

21 Q. All right. And could you please tell us, when you started with

22 the military prosecution office, at what position did you start at?

23 A. I was in the first instance military prosecution office in

24 Bijeljina, I was a military prosecutor.

25 Q. And when did you advance to become the -- well, advance to the

Page 10844

1 appellate level, first of all?

2 A. In mid-1994. That was when I came to the military prosecutor's

3 office of the army of Republika Srpska as deputy military prosecutor, and

4 on the 9th of September, 1995, I became the military prosecutor -- no.

5 Excuse me. Excuse me. On the 9th of September -- yes, 1995. Yes, that's

6 right.

7 Q. All right. So just to make sure I understand, initially you were

8 the deputy prosecutor at the basic level; correct?

9 A. I was the chief prosecutor in Bijeljina at the court of first

10 instance.

11 Q. All right. And then at some point you became the chief prosecutor

12 at the second instance?

13 A. Yes, beginning on the 9th of September, 1995.

14 Q. All right. And if I understand your earlier testimony, you stayed

15 there in that position until sometime 2000; correct?

16 A. Yes, the 15th of March.

17 Q. Now, going even backwards, further back, prior to becoming a

18 military prosecutor, could you please tell us what your occupation was.

19 A. I was an attorney-at-law in Modrica from 1986 until 1992.

20 Q. Now, when you took your position as the military prosecutor at the

21 first instance, were you qualified?

22 A. Yes, I was.

23 Q. And briefly, could you please tell us whether the criminal

24 procedure as it existed back then for the civilian courts and for the

25 military courts, were there any differences?

Page 10845

1 A. No.

2 Q. Now, before we go into the specifics, I would like you to please

3 walk us through the process so we have a better understanding of the

4 procedure as it existed back then. First of all, would you please tell us

5 how a case would be initiated at the prosecution level.

6 A. The office of the prosecutor had to receive as an initial document

7 a criminal report. After this, the prosecutor who was in charge of this

8 would evaluate the criminal report and the supporting documents. If there

9 were grounds to suspect that a crime had been committed by a particular

10 individual, the prosecutor would submit to the first instance military

11 court, that is to the investigating judge of that court, a motion to

12 initiate an investigation.

13 Q. Let me stop you here. First of all, this criminal report, who

14 would prepare such a report?

15 A. The criminal report in the military was prepared by the military

16 police and the security organ in the units at a certain level.

17 Q. Was it possible for an individual to come directly to the -- to

18 the prosecutor of the first instance to file a report?

19 A. Yes. According to the Law on Criminal Procedure, this was

20 possible in principle.

21 Q. All right. And if such an individual did in fact come to the

22 prosecutor of the first instance, would the prosecutor be duty-bound to at

23 least look into the matter?

24 A. Yes, yes. Yes, he was.

25 Q. Now, what if you as the prosecutor deemed it necessary to gather

Page 10846

1 additional information in order to make a determination as to whether

2 there was a suspect and, therefore, forward the case or the file on to the

3 investigative judge? What would you -- who would you rely on to gather

4 that additional information?

5 A. I would rely on the military police and the security organ.

6 Q. Now, when you say the security organ, and I'm speaking now at the

7 first instance where you indicated you had served as the prosecutor there,

8 what part of the security organ are we speaking of, and where would that

9 security organ be located?

10 A. Criminal reports were submitted by units at the brigade level, and

11 it was their security organ who collected additional information to

12 support a criminal report. In that case, one had to keep in mind that it

13 also depended on the rank of the soldier. If the person in question was a

14 high-ranking soldier or belonged to a high-level unit, then information

15 would be requested from the security organ of his unit or a higher-level

16 unit.

17 Q. All right. And you indicated that you were in Bijeljina, as I

18 understand, when you became a -- when you were the prosecutor at the first

19 instance; is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Just for the record, how many first instances -- instance

22 prosecution offices were there, or courts were there, during that time in

23 Bosnia-Herzegovina or in the RS, I should say, to be more precise?

24 A. There were four first instance military courts.

25 Q. Now, the one for Bijeljina, what area did that cover?

Page 10847

1 A. Mostly the area that belonged to the East Bosnia Corps, as far as

2 territory goes.

3 Q. What about the Drina Corps? Do you know which court handled

4 matters related to the Drina Corps or that -- that area where the Drina

5 Corps was situated and responsible for?

6 A. The court and prosecutor's office in Sarajevo.

7 Q. Now, you indicated that if you needed additional information you

8 would go to either the military police or the security organ. Let's

9 assume that you had that additional information and the suspect was

10 identified. Could you then walk us further on to the procedure. What

11 would happen next when the matter went to the investigative judge?

12 A. A motion to initiate an investigation would be submitted to the

13 investigating judge, and the investigating judge, before opening an

14 investigation, would assess whether there was sufficient elements for a

15 crime or, that is, the crime mentioned in the motion to initiate

16 proceedings or an investigation. If in his view there were sufficient

17 elements, that is there were grounds to suspect that the crime had been

18 committed, he would issue a decision on initiating an investigation, and

19 he would carry out the investigation. This means that he would gather

20 evidence to support the fact that this crime had been committed, and he

21 would issue instructions that the evidence proposed by the prosecutor be

22 collected.

23 Q. Let me stop you here. Who would gather that evidence for the

24 investigative judge?

25 A. If the investigating judge felt it necessary to have other

Page 10848

1 evidence collected, material evidence for the most part, this would be

2 done by the military police and the security organ.

3 Q. All right. And please continue. What would happen -- go ahead.

4 A. After the evidence had been collected, the judge would assess

5 whether this was enough to prove the crime. That is, the investigating

6 judge was independent to a certain extent in collecting evidence for the

7 investigation because he could, on his own initiative, decide whether to

8 gather certain evidence or not. After deciding that he had gathered

9 enough evidence, he would submit the entire file with all the evidence to

10 the prosecutor in charge of the case for further proceedings, which means

11 that the prosecutor would decide whether there were grounds to suspect

12 that the crime had been committed, and he could either issue an

13 indictment, or if he felt that the investigation had not arrived at the

14 desired result, he would drop the proceedings.

15 Q. All right. Now, let me go back a little bit. When forwarding the

16 matter to the investigative judge, that is after you've gathered

17 additional information if the case required so, would it be possible to

18 keep the name of the complaining witness secret from the investigative

19 judge?

20 A. No.

21 Q. What about in gathering the additional information? You indicated

22 that you would need to rely on the military police and the security organ.

23 Could you keep the identity of the person who would be lodging this

24 complaint or this allegation for you to initiate the proceedings, could

25 you keep his identity a secret?

Page 10849

1 A. No.

2 Q. Now, could you please explain to us why not.

3 A. According to the Law on Criminal Procedure which was in force at

4 the time, the institute of a protected witness did not exist. Besides,

5 every criminal report, in view of the gravity of the crime, if there was a

6 false report this would lead to certain consequences for the person

7 submitting this report.

8 Q. All right. Was there a recording process of those who would be

9 submitting criminal complaints or filing criminal reports, however you

10 wish to characterise it?

11 A. Yes, yes. The military prosecutor's office, in its register, had

12 a column in which the name of the person or organ submitting the criminal

13 report was entered, and this was obligatory.

14 Q. All right. Well, would it have been possible to at least keep

15 this register a secret, or at least that portion of the register secret

16 where the name was recorded of the person filing the complaint? So in

17 other words, if the security organ wanted to know who it was that was

18 lodging the complaint, you could keep that information from them?

19 A. If someone asked for this information, such as the security organ,

20 no, this could not be concealed.

21 Q. Why not?

22 A. First of all, the law did not provide for this possibility. It

23 did not provide for secrecy. In the register, there was a column

24 indicating who had filed the report, and for the prosecutor to ask the

25 security organ to collect certain information pursuant to the criminal

Page 10850

1 report, the report itself or, rather, a copy of it was delivered, and this

2 would also contain the information as to who had filed it. And also, it

3 was the job of the security organ to know certain things.

4 Q. All right. Well, let's assume that this -- that the matter was

5 rather sensitive. Could you please explain to us what protective measures

6 you would have --

7 A. I didn't hear your entire question. There was an interruption in

8 the channel.

9 Q. All right. Let's assume -- can you hear me now?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Okay. Let's assume that the matter was rather sensitive in

12 nature, perhaps even dangerous to the person filing the complaint or

13 providing this information. Could you please explain to us what

14 protective measures you as the prosecutor could afford such an individual

15 or would afford such an individual.

16 A. No protective measures. There were no protective measures at all.

17 Q. And incidentally, so I don't have to ask you this question later,

18 what sort of protective measures were available to the prosecutors if they

19 wished to proceed with cases where there might be some danger involved?

20 A. No, no measures. I had no protective measures and no security at

21 any time.

22 Q. What about the judges? Did they have any? I mean, they're a

23 little bit higher than the prosecutor. Surely there must have been

24 something to protect them.

25 A. No. There was nothing for them either, no form of protection. I

Page 10851

1 do not know that any of the judges ever had any protection or security.

2 Q. All right. Now, if we could go through this guideline, I want to

3 show you what has been marked or has come into evidence as P380.

4 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may have the assistance of the -- Mr. Usher.

5 Q. First of all, if you could please look at this document.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And -- and tell us whether you recognise it.

8 A. Yes, I do.

9 Q. You've seen this document before?

10 A. Indeed I have.

11 Q. All right. And for the record, could you please tell us what P380

12 is.

13 A. This is a document that was submitted to us by the military

14 prosecutor's office attached to the Main Staff of the army of Republika

15 Srpska. This document provided certain guidelines for determining

16 criteria for criminal prosecution in cases of certain crimes that were

17 committed.

18 Q. All right. Now, I want to focus your attention to a particular

19 paragraph that has been discussed previously in this court. Perhaps you

20 can give us your opinion and shed some light. If I could refer you to

21 page -- I believe it would be 14, paragraph 2, and in our version, the

22 English version, it would be page 8. So for the English version the ERN

23 number would be 00814384.

24 Paragraph -- it's page number 14, sir, paragraph 2. And if you

25 could look at actually the first two paragraphs on page 14, and that would

Page 10852

1 be the first two paragraphs on page number 8 for us.

2 Actually, I'm told, sir, if you go back to page 13, the last

3 paragraph on the previous page. Mr. Drinic, if you went back to page 13,

4 the last paragraph, that's where your version begins.

5 A. Yes, I've looked through it.

6 Q. And I take it, having worked with these guidelines, you are

7 familiar with the guidelines?

8 A. Yes. Yes, I am.

9 Q. Now, could you please explain to us, what exactly are these

10 paragraphs referring to?

11 A. These paragraphs are about the responsibility of, for the most

12 part, military officers and all soldiers of the army of Republika Srpska

13 in relation to acts that might be committed against the population and

14 that would constitute war crimes.

15 Q. Okay. And from these paragraphs, are we to conclude that officers

16 have a responsibility to file complaints against their soldiers, or

17 anyone, for that matter?

18 A. Yes, yes. They have the duty to do so.

19 Q. All right. So -- and was that part of the law, as it were, back

20 then?

21 A. Yes, yes, it was part of the law. This is merely a comment on

22 some of the laws.

23 Q. All right. Now -- so it would appear that if an officer were to

24 become aware that one of the members of his unit had committed a crime,

25 that officer would be duty-bound to file a complaint or to -- to initiate

Page 10853

1 a proceeding; is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Now, concretely, perhaps you can help us out.

4 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. Usher, I don't believe we need this any more.

5 Well, right now we don't need your assistance. Thank you.

6 Q. Concretely, what if at the brigade level, we're speaking of a

7 brigade commander, and what if he were to learn - and this is merely a

8 hypothetical - but what if he were to learn that his chief of intelligence

9 and security, because that person holds both positions, but his chief of

10 intelligence and security had been involved in what would amount to war

11 crimes and he came to you? From your earlier testimony, I take it you

12 would have to record the officer's name, correct, the commander's name?

13 A. Yes, by all means.

14 Q. And specifically in this instance, to whom would you rely -- you

15 would go to in order to proceed with the -- with this case in order to

16 gather, perhaps, more additional information before you could refer the

17 case to the investigative judge?

18 A. If the officer in question was an intelligence and security

19 officer of the same brigade that the officer who came there to file a

20 criminal report belonged to, in order to gather such information as was

21 necessary on the crime, I would forward this to a security organ of a

22 higher level, in this case the corps level.

23 Q. And what would you expect them to do at that higher level, at the

24 corps level, that is the security organ?

25 A. To gather the necessary information. At any rate, to carry out

Page 10854

1 some of the pre-trial procedures, to collect statements and possibly hard

2 evidence found on the site.

3 Q. All right. What if the same commander who is reporting on his

4 chief of security were to also tell you, as the prosecutor of the first

5 instance, that the security organ at the corps level was in fact, or

6 suspected of, having been involved as well? Where would you refer the

7 matter then?

8 A. I would forward the file to the security organ of the Main Staff,

9 because the Main Staff in that case would be the superior unit.

10 Q. All right. And what if, in this instance, the hypothetical that

11 I'm working with, the commander were to say, "Well, not only is the chief

12 of security at the brigade level involved and the assistant commander of

13 security at the corps level is involved, but it would appear that the head

14 of security at the Main Staff level, in particular we're speaking of

15 Colonel Beara, was involved, what would you do then? To -- where would

16 you refer this matter to in order to gather additional information to

17 proceed against these individuals?

18 A. In principle, there is no superior unit to the security organ that

19 is attached to the Main Staff. However, for purely practical reasons, I

20 would forward the file to the commander of the Main Staff.

21 Q. All right. And the commander of the Main Staff would be Mladic

22 himself?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. But is there not in fact someone above Colonel Beara before you

25 get to General Mladic? I'm referring to General Tolimir. Were you aware

Page 10855

1 of that?

2 A. Yes. General Tolimir, establishment-wise, was indeed Colonel

3 Beara's superior, however, he did not have the sort of service at his

4 disposal that this required. What I needed at the time in order to

5 collect this sort of information was the sort of backing that Colonel

6 Beara had.

7 Q. Well, speaking of Beara, perhaps you could assist us a little bit.

8 His name has popped up a few times in this trial. First of all, did you

9 know Colonel Beara?

10 A. Yes. I was in touch with him several times.

11 Q. And so did you know of him as well, that is of his reputation, if

12 in fact he enjoyed one?

13 A. First of all, I must say that he liked me personally. However,

14 whenever I requested a document from his service, I never got any. As to

15 what I knew about the other soldiers and officers, knowing Beara's rank

16 and knowing the kind of department that he worked for, I know that he was

17 even more respected, or perhaps feared, than would have been usual.

18 Q. All right. What about the security organ itself? What sort of a

19 reputation did they have?

20 A. By their very nature the security organ - I assume this applies to

21 all armies of the world - the security organ is always an elite unit above

22 other units, with greater authority compared to all other units. To all

23 practical intents and purposes, the security organ had authority to

24 control, to monitor and supervise all the other units, and security organs

25 as a rule were respected by the other units.

Page 10856

1 Q. All right. Let's go back to my hypothetical and I want to put it

2 slightly in a more concrete fashion.

3 Keeping in mind the environment at the time - and we're going back

4 now to 1995 - July and onwards, but 1995, 1996, that period, could you

5 please tell us how realistic would it have been for anyone, let alone a

6 commander, to -- of a brigade, for instance, to initiate a criminal

7 complaint requesting the prosecution to gather information with respect to

8 atrocities that might have been committed or were committed by members of

9 the security organ that go as high as Beara himself?

10 A. In principle, de jure, that would have been possible. However, in

11 view of the kind of environment that we were surrounded by and the

12 atmosphere, the feelings of the citizens, the soldiers, the army officers,

13 this would not have been realistic, or at least such a person would have

14 had to be gravely concerned about the safety and lives of their families.

15 Q. Why is that?

16 A. These were serious crimes. These were officers or, rather,

17 persons of such a high rank of the Supreme Command body. In principle,

18 these people were, in a way, dangerous. This would have been very risky.

19 Q. All right. Well, wouldn't there be a possibility for an anonymous

20 complaint, in other words, for someone to file a complaint by writing

21 without disclosing their identity? Would you not then proceed, you the

22 prosecutor, based on that information?

23 A. There was indeed such a possibility for an anonymous tip-off, a

24 criminal report being filed by mail, for example. Of course this would

25 bear no signature if such a parcel ever arrived. Certainly the prosecutor

Page 10857

1 would evaluate the report, and based on that report, the prosecutor would

2 probably seek further information from one of the security organs. The

3 information requested, however, would be more in order to familiarise the

4 security organ with what the criminal report contained rather than seeking

5 particular information, because this kind of criminal report would always

6 have been viewed as incomplete.

7 Q. Well -- but we're speaking about some fairly serious crimes. Why

8 wouldn't you, for instance, had you been -- had this occurred, why

9 wouldn't you just go ahead and proceed with attempting to gather

10 information? In other words, asking the security organ to gather

11 information of crimes that the organ itself or members of the organ,

12 including their commander, had committed? What's wrong with that? It

13 seems fairly reasonable, doesn't it?

14 A. In principle, that's what this information would contain. If the

15 security organ were in possession of any such information as contained in

16 the criminal report, they'd be expected to submit it.

17 Q. How realistic is it under the circumstances during that

18 environment, in light of what we're talking about, the sort of crimes that

19 we're talking about, how realistic would it have been to expect members of

20 the security organ to gather information where they themselves and their

21 officers had been directly involved in? How realistic is that?

22 A. Well, we can look at any crime in the same way in terms of how

23 realistic this would be, not only this one. I don't believe that any

24 person who has committed a crime would be willing to denounce themselves

25 unless there was another kind of interest at stake. I simply can't

Page 10858

1 believe that.

2 Q. All right. Now, I just want to go back to this -- these

3 guidelines, just to tie up a couple of points based on what we have been

4 discussing right now.

5 If you could go to the last page. Actually -- yeah, the last

6 page. In the English version it would start at the last page of -- or the

7 bottom of the page 8 and go on to page 9. You would have to start, sir,

8 at page 15, page 15, and I believe it goes on to part of 16, and I just

9 want to make sure that what you've told us is consistent with these

10 guidelines.

11 The bottom of page 15, and you would have to go to the next page.

12 It would appear here, sir -- if I can read the appropriate

13 section, if I could focus your attention. It says here at the bottom of

14 page 8 in our version, in our version: "So that the command of the Main

15 Staff has a full understanding of types and number of these criminal

16 offences, all unit commands shall..." First of all, what does that mean,

17 "unit commands"? What are we talking about?

18 A. Unit commands would comprise the commander and his assistants who

19 are in charge of certain areas of activity. For example, assistant

20 commander for security would be a member of that team, assistant commander

21 for logistics, assistant commander for morale, and all other tasks and

22 issues.

23 Q. So when we're speaking about all unit commands, we're not just

24 speaking about the commandant, the commander himself?

25 A. Yes.

Page 10859

1 Q. But that -- that phrase "unit commands" encompasses his

2 commanders, his komandirs, or his assistant commanders; is that correct?

3 A. Yes. Yes.

4 Q. All right. So in other words, the commander himself would also be

5 relying on the chief of security in this instance if we're dealing at the

6 brigade level?

7 All right, you have to speak a little louder so we get that on the

8 record.

9 A. Yes. Yes.

10 Q. Okay. All right. Now, it goes down, it says -- it says: "They

11 shall work on uncovering all war crimes against humanity and international

12 law on territory in their area of responsibility."

13 And then if we go down this list, it says: "Inform the closest

14 military police, security and military judicial organs about any crimes

15 they discover."

16 If we go down this list, it continues to mention military police,

17 security, and military judicial organs. So if I understand you correctly,

18 these guidelines validate what you've told us, that it would be the

19 military police, the security organ, the security organ and the judicial

20 organ that would be involved in processing these sorts of cases; correct?

21 A. Yes, certainly.

22 Q. Well, could you as the military prosecutor, could you bypass the

23 security organ and perhaps go to the military police and have the military

24 police conduct an investigation against the security organ? Because if we

25 look at this document here, it would appear that the military police is

Page 10860

1 separate and not part of the security organ.

2 A. In principle, the military police are not separate from the

3 security organ. The security organ, for the most part, advises the

4 military police on certain tasks and gives them certain tasks or orders

5 them certain tasks. The lower MP units only have ordinary police officers

6 who do such things as providing security, providing escort, that kind of

7 lowly police work. However, at the corps level, there were military

8 police squads that dealt with prosecuting crimes and processing

9 information for possible prosecution. They were the ones who forwarded

10 information to the military prosecutor's office. Therefore, at brigade

11 level there was an MP unit that was dealing with these basic tasks.

12 Q. All right. You've told us that it would be rather unrealistic to

13 expect the security organ to be investigating itself or to be admitting to

14 crimes it had committed, could you then -- would the possibility exist for

15 you to go outside the military and, say, engage members of the civilian

16 organs, such as the Ministry of Interior, to assist you in gathering

17 information against members of the -- of the army, the security organ, for

18 instance?

19 A. According to the regulations that were in force, no, I did not

20 have such a possibility. All I could do was, excuse me, to explain that

21 the civilian police could perhaps have forwarded certain kind of

22 information, but information in relation to things that had nothing to do

23 with the military.

24 Q. But couldn't you get them engaged to assist you in investigating,

25 gathering information so that you could turn it over to the investigative

Page 10861

1 judge so he could conduct his independent investigation as you indicated?

2 A. As far as any involvement by the civilian police is concerned, if,

3 for example, the prosecutor obtains certain information, this would

4 possibly be within the competence of the civilian prosecutor because he

5 has authority over the civilian police but not over the military police.

6 This is something that the military prosecutor would not have the

7 authority to do; not under the law, and it wasn't customary.

8 Q. All right. And I failed to ask you earlier, could you on your own

9 initiate the gathering of information for a potential investigation based

10 on what you had heard? In other words, that there is no informant, there

11 is no person coming to your office, but from the media you've heard that

12 large-scale atrocities have occurred. Could you, on your own, initiate

13 the gathering of information?

14 A. If we're talking about me and my official position at the time, I

15 did not have authority to gather any kind of information myself. I told

16 you that back then I was working as the military prosecutor of the army of

17 Republika Srpska and my job was to pursue appellate proceedings.

18 Q. All right. So you as the chief prosecutor at that -- at the

19 second instance had no competence of initiating investigations?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. All right. But let's assume that you, at the time, were the

22 prosecutor at the first instance. You would have been able, surely based

23 on the laws that existed and applied then, to initiate the gathering of

24 information to see whether it should be forwarded -- suspects could be

25 identified so that information could be forwarded to the investigative

Page 10862

1 judge so he or she could conduct their investigation; correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. All right. Now, I know that you were not the prosecutor at the

4 first instance at that time, but can you tell us whether it would have

5 been realistic for a prosecutor to commence an investigation based on

6 information that he had learned against the security organ of the Main

7 Staff?

8 A. De jure he would have had the right, but bearing in mind the

9 situation that prevailed at the time, the seriousness of the crime, the

10 level of the officer suspected in your hypothetical case of having

11 committed the crime, I don't think he would have done it, bearing in mind

12 that there was danger. His life would have been in danger, the lives of

13 his family members, so I doubt that anyone would have done this.

14 Q. All right. But de facto, how realistic would it have been? You

15 told us de jure it was possible. I'm asking de facto.

16 A. Practically it would not have been realistic. As I've said,

17 Prosecutors and judges had no physical protection. At the time, the

18 prevailing mood in the country and in the army was such that anyone who

19 attempted to do anything would have been demonised. Also, the persons

20 suspected of having committed crimes were dangerous people, people who

21 were ready to do anything, to remove people even physically. People were

22 killed for other reasons and no criminals were ever discovered who had

23 done this.

24 Q. All right. Now, finally in these guidelines, if I can take you

25 back to P380 before we move on, I just want to make sure I have it

Page 10863

1 correct. When a report is filed, based on these guidelines, is it done by

2 the commander personally or is it on behalf of the command unit?

3 A. This was done on behalf of the command unit. Let me explain. I

4 said that the commander had his assistant for security matters and the

5 military police, and in the nature of things, they were supposed to

6 collect information for a criminal report on their own and then deliver

7 the document with the supporting materials to him for his signature. So

8 he merely signed the document on behalf of the unit.

9 Q. All right. So in other words, these guidelines that we're

10 speaking of, if they were to be applied, the commander of a brigade would

11 be relying on the investigative work of his chief of security to provide

12 him with the report, the evidence, and so forth in order to sign the

13 criminal report?

14 A. Yes, that's correct.

15 Q. I know it may sound silly, but how realistic would it have been

16 for a commander of a brigade to really expect his chief of security to

17 honestly and with integrity collect evidence if, in fact, that very same

18 chief of security had been involved in committing the very same crimes for

19 which the criminal report was being prepared, crimes that he had committed

20 or was involved in, other members of the security organ from the corps and

21 the Main Staff level? How realistic would that have been? And I don't

22 want to hear about de jure. I want to know de facto.

23 A. Impossible.

24 Q. All right. I think we can move on to the next area.

25 MR. KARNAVAS: And perhaps, Your Honour, because of the area I'm

Page 10864

1 moving on in or for other perhaps technical reasons, if we could take an

2 early break. I don't have that much more, but I would like to -- it would

3 be most helpful, let me put it that way, if we take an earlier break

4 today.

5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, of course. We are very flexible concerning the

6 break in time, and we will resume at twenty minutes to eleven.

7 --- Recess taken at 10.07 a.m.

8 --- On resuming at 10.42 a.m.

9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas, please continue.

10 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.

11 Q. Mr. Drinic, I want to switch now to another topic. Perhaps you

12 can assist us. First of all, do you know a Mr. Gajic who was with the

13 military police of the East Bosnian Corps in Bijeljina?

14 A. Yes, I do.

15 Q. All right. Now, yesterday he testified under oath that during the

16 period when he was with the military police, I believe it was the 3rd

17 Battalion of the East Bosnian Corps, that between the period of 1992 and

18 1994, the period that he was in that unit, specifically in the

19 investigative unit of the military police, that there had been cases, in

20 fact several, he indicated, or numerous, where Serbs were being

21 investigated for, and even tried and convicted, for crimes against

22 Muslims. My question to you, sir, is you having been in Bijeljina, having

23 been the prosecutor at the first instance level at least part of that

24 time, could you please tell us whether that was, in fact, the case.

25 A. Yes, it was. There were cases where proceedings were initiated

Page 10865

1 against Serbs where the victims were either Muslims or non-Serbs in

2 general.

3 Q. And are we specifically talking about war crimes or just crimes in

4 general?

5 A. Crimes in general. Many of them were cases of murder.

6 Q. All right. Now, do you know a Mr. Novak Kovacevic?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. All right. Now, I just want to read a portion of the transcript

9 from yesterday, verbatim, questions that were posed by the Prosecution to

10 Mr. Gajic, and perhaps you could assist us a little bit. And the question

11 was posed, and I'm reading from the unofficial transcript, it would be

12 page 28, line 22, and I apologise for not having a copy for the ELMO, I

13 marked it up before I could make a copy, hence --

14 JUDGE LIU: No, I think it's all right since you are going to read

15 it.

16 MR. KARNAVAS: Right. Right. But I just wanted to inform the

17 usher because he seemed ready to -- to come and assist us.

18 JUDGE LIU: The usher is always ready to help us.

19 MR. KARNAVAS: I know. Especially this particular usher.

20 Q. Now, it states here: "Okay. Now, you're referring to the years

21 between 1992 and 1994. I take it that those cases that you say took

22 place." Answer: "Yes." Question --

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Okay. Now the question is this: "Do you know, sir, who

25 Mr. Kovacevic is?" Mr. Gajic's answer is: "No, I'm not familiar with

Page 10866

1 that person." Question: "You're not aware, sir, that he was -- he worked

2 as a prosecutor in the Bijeljina district before 1992, subsequently became

3 the chief prosecutor there and was sitting as a judge in the Bijeljina

4 district?" And the answer is -- his answer, Mr. Gajic's answer is: "I

5 was in touch with Prosecutors from the Bijeljina district but not with

6 Mr. Kovacevic. Probably he had left the prosecutor's office by then."

7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Shin.

8 MR. SHIN: Mr. President, we would object on the basis that this

9 is improper to read from the transcript from yesterday. If Mr. Karnavas

10 has a question, he can just ask the question. If he has some predicates

11 to that question, he can ask them, but there is no need to read verbatim

12 from the transcript from yesterday. This is improper.

13 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour --

14 JUDGE LIU: I think the Defence counsel is laying the foundations

15 for his question. The question will be followed up, and we believe this

16 question concerns the credibility of the witnesses. You may proceed.


18 Q. Okay. Now, first of all, first and foremost, was Mr. Novak

19 Kovacevic working as a prosecutor in the Bijeljina district before 1992,

20 as Ms. Issa, the Prosecutor, would have us believe yesterday?

21 A. No. This is not correct.

22 Q. And incidentally, for the record, Mr. Kovacevic's response, which

23 is consistent with Mr. Drinic's, can be found on page 6819.

24 Can you please tell us where Mr. Kovacevic was working at the

25 time, if you know, prior to 1992.

Page 10867

1 A. He was working as a first instance civilian prosecutor, civil

2 prosecutor, in the basic prosecutor's office in Rogatica.

3 Q. And Rogatica is not the Bijeljina district, is it?

4 A. No. No. It's after Sarajevo.

5 Q. All right. Well, for those of us who don't know the terrain, just

6 to make sure.

7 Now, in the -- between the period of 1992 and 1994, did he work as

8 a prosecutor, as a military prosecutor, in Bijeljina?

9 A. No. No, he didn't.

10 Q. Did he work as a judge, a military judge, in Bijeljina from the

11 period of 1992 to 1994, the period which concerns us with respect to

12 Mr. Gajic's testimony?

13 A. No, he didn't. He didn't work as a military judge in Bijeljina

14 either.

15 Q. All right. Do you know by chance where Mr. Kovacevic did in fact

16 work during that period of time, 1992 to 1994?

17 A. In 1992, he worked for a time as a first instance judge at the

18 military court in Sarajevo. I don't know the exact date, but later on he

19 worked as a judge at the supreme military court with its seat in Han

20 Pijesak at the time. Later on it moved to Zvornik. That was when I

21 joined the prosecutor's office there.

22 Q. All right. Now, did Mr. Kovacevic eventually become the chief

23 prosecutor?

24 A. Yes, he did, in the year 2000, starting on the 15th of March. He

25 took my place when I went to civil prosecutor's office in the Bijeljina

Page 10868

1 district.

2 Q. All right. And again for the record, Mr. Kovacevic's work history

3 can be found in his statement that he gave -- or his testimony given on

4 the 28th January, 2004.

5 Now, let me ask -- let me ask the next question that was posed to

6 Mr. Gajic, and perhaps you can assist us with this one. The Prosecutor

7 says, this is the question: "According to Mr. Kovacevic, sir, all the

8 military records after the dissolution of the military court in 2000 were

9 sent to the Bijeljina district, were transferred there, and that according

10 to him" - that is Mr. Kovacevic - "there were no such records that

11 reflected that the VRS was -- members of the VRS were prosecuted for

12 committing crimes against Muslims. Are you aware of that?" That was the

13 question posed to Mr. Gajic. And of course Mr. Gajic says in his answer:

14 "I don't know what Mr. Kovacevic said, but I say this with full

15 responsibility: I had two persons detained and carried out investigations

16 with respect to Bijeljina municipality because they had committed the

17 murder of two young Muslims, Bosniaks, on the River Drina," and it goes

18 on.

19 So my question now is while you were a prosecutor there, were any

20 investigations, any trials carried out against Serbs for committing crimes

21 against Muslims during the period 1992 and 1994, as Mr. Gajic would have

22 us believe?

23 A. Yes, this is correct. Not only two cases. There were more than

24 two for the crime of murder where the victims were Muslims.

25 Q. All right. Now, I want to dissect this question posed by

Page 10869

1 Ms. Issa. She says that --


3 MR. SHIN: Objection, Mr. President. My colleague Ms. Issa is not

4 on trial here. If Defence counsel has an appropriate question, he can ask

5 the question. And we can see the danger here in reading extensively from

6 the transcript: It's clearly leading and then the question comes up

7 afterwards about the very subject that he's just been reading from the

8 transcript about.

9 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may respond, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

11 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may respond, because this has been sort of a

12 hot issue. I have repeatedly argued the importance of being truthful with

13 the -- and honest with the transcript. I have Mr. Kovacevic's statement

14 here -- or transcript here, and it has been taken, one, out of context;

15 and two, it has been misstated. Now, yesterday, because of the situation,

16 I chose not to be my energetic self in objecting. However, I do believe

17 that a prosecutor who stands up and quotes from a transcript or purports

18 to paraphrase from the transcript should do so honestly and with

19 integrity. Now, obviously she misspoke. I'm not suggesting anything evil

20 or nefarious, but nonetheless she misspoke and it left us with the

21 appearance that perhaps Mr. Gajic himself, the witness who testified under

22 oath, was in fact being less than candid. Here I'm giving this --

23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I'm going to object at this point.

24 MR. KARNAVAS: What's the problem? I don't understand the

25 problem. I really don't.

Page 10870

1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

2 MR. McCLOSKEY: This court is not a forum for Mr. Karnavas to make

3 personal attacks on the Prosecutor, especially the day afterward when the

4 Prosecutor is no longer in the courtroom, especially in front of a

5 witness.

6 MR. KARNAVAS: These are not personal attacks, Your Honour.

7 MR. McCLOSKEY: And if he has points to make that information was

8 brought out that was incorrect from yesterday, he can bring that out

9 through the witness and he can argue it, but to use this podium as a way

10 to personally attack someone like this repeatedly is wrong, especially

11 when the foundation for those attacks is flimsy, as we see it. So --

12 MR. KARNAVAS: We don't see that --

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- it's inappropriate, especially in front of a

14 witness that we're trying to, you know, get information out of.

15 MR. KARNAVAS: I will --

16 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas.

17 MR. KARNAVAS: I will pose a question, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, I want to say a few words on this issue.

19 First of all, I think yesterday you had plenty of opportunity to cross or

20 redirect the witness on any issues raised by the prosecutor yesterday.

21 Secondly, Mr. Karnavas, I don't know about the American legal system very

22 well, but at least in my jurisdiction we pay special respect to the women

23 colleagues. I think I have reminded many times that you should

24 concentrate on your question rather than attacking the other parties,

25 especially a woman colleague.

Page 10871

1 This is a warning to you, Mr. Karnavas. I hope in your question

2 you never mention the name of the Prosecutor, or use the commonly used

3 terminology as "my learned colleague."

4 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour --

5 JUDGE LIU: And lastly, Mr. Karnavas, I believe in this point

6 there is no need to read the transcript again, just to put your question

7 to this witness.

8 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well. Very well. For the record, though, I

9 do wish to file a formal complaint against the Prosecutor yesterday,

10 because if you go to page 6820 to 6823 you will see that there was a

11 mischaracterisation, a blatant mischaracterisation of the testimony of the

12 witness, and I'm entitled to make my record. Now, there is no other way

13 to challenge a Prosecutor who continually mischaracterises the record

14 other than to go to the record itself. That's what I was attempting to

15 do. I never made any personal attacks at all. An objection was raised.

16 I'm entitled to respond. I'm responding to that objection. Now, I'm

17 reading from the official transcript yesterday where she's saying certain

18 things and I'm asking this gentleman to comment on it. That's all I'm

19 doing. And then we can go to official transcript and you will see, Your

20 Honour, that what Mr. Kovacevic said is different from what the Prosecutor

21 alleges that he had said for the purposes of impeaching the witness.

22 That's all. This is classic impeachment and I don't see it being personal

23 in nature. And whether it's a woman or a man, Your Honour, it would be

24 the same for me, but I don't see the distinction. We're all colleagues in

25 court and all on equal footing, but I take your notice, and I will proceed

Page 10872

1 accordingly.

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. Karnavas has just in open court filed what I

4 believe is an ethical complaint against an attorney in this office. He

5 just said that, Your Honour. Now, you can -- you can read what's saying.

6 "However, I wish to file a formal complaint about the Prosecutor

7 yesterday, because if you go to page" such-and-such there was a

8 mischaracterisation.

9 This is a very, very serious allegation to be made in a court of

10 law against any lawyer. Their word is their soul, is their reputation, is

11 everything they are founded on, and to make what is a formal allegation,

12 it needs to be followed up. If needs to be reviewed. It needs to be

13 looked at. There are procedures and processes in this Tribunal to do such

14 a thing.

15 I think Mr. Karnavas was just talking and maybe he will withdraw

16 his formal complaint and it's just a matter of frustration because of his

17 view that she mischaracterised something, and if that's the case, we can

18 all relax and go forward. Lawyers sometimes make inadvertent

19 mischaracterisations or understand things differently, and I think we've

20 seen that over and over again, and -- but if we are at a stage where

21 formal complaints are being filed, we need to either start the process or

22 just acknowledge it was just, you know, adversarial talk, because

23 especially when we look at the subject matter that we're in today

24 regarding formal processes and the importance of identifying misconduct

25 and punishing it, this is something that is important. So if it's not

Page 10873

1 anything, if it's just frustration from yesterday's and the viewpoint that

2 she was mischaracterising, okay, let's go forward, but if it's more than

3 that, I think that needs to be dealt with.

4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas. I hope you could think it over,

5 and we might have an out of court meeting, say a 65 ter meeting or

6 whatever, to solve those issues.

7 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Mr. President. And let me assure the

8 Prosecution that I -- I made the comment in response to Your Honour's

9 rather, in my opinion, harsh characterisation that somehow I'm attacking

10 them personally. Lawyers do misspeak and do misquote the records on

11 occasion. However, there are times when I think after a very long trial

12 that lawyers particularly need to be careful, because sometimes they may

13 give the impression that the witness is being less than candid on the

14 stand. And so when pushed, I push back. So I certainly don't wish to --

15 to have anything proceeded against the Prosecutor, that particular

16 Prosecutor we're speaking of, my learned colleague, as the Court would

17 prefer me to address that person. But nonetheless, I would like to go

18 forward at this point in time and clarify certain portions of the record

19 so we have a clear understanding.

20 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Please move on.


22 Q. Now, Mr. Drinic, were all the military records of the military

23 courts in 2002 when the court was dismantled or dissolved, were they all

24 sent to Bijeljina district? In 2000. I'm sorry, not 2002 but 2000.

25 A. No, not all the military records of the military prosecutor's

Page 10874

1 office were sent to the district court or the district prosecutor's office

2 in Bijeljina.

3 Q. All right. Where were they sent, sir? Was there one -- first of

4 all, let me back up. Was there one collection point where all the records

5 were sent to if you are aware?

6 A. No. That's just what I was about to say. The records and files

7 were sent on to regional authorities and distributed according to the

8 respective competencies of the district courts and prosecutor's offices.

9 Q. All right. Now, for the Srebrenica, Bratunac, Zvornik area, where

10 were those records sent, if you know?

11 A. Some of those records were sent to the district court and district

12 prosecutor's office in Bijeljina. And some of those records were sent to

13 the district court and district prosecutor's office in Trebinje.

14 Q. Why -- why did -- were they not sent to one collection point?

15 A. After the military judicial bodies were dismantled pursuant to a

16 law, and I have in mind both the district courts and the district

17 prosecutor's office, the records were divided into two levels in terms of

18 their competence, who would be competent for them. The first instance

19 district courts and prosecutors forwarded their files to their respective

20 district courts and district prosecutors' offices. The district court

21 would send on the documents to the court in Banja Luka; the one in

22 Bijeljina sent their files to the district court in Bijeljina, and the

23 military court and the military prosecutor's office in Bilici sent their

24 files to the district court and district prosecutor's office in Trebinje.

25 At that time, or rather, by that time, the military prosecutor's office

Page 10875

1 and the military corps of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps had already been

2 dismantled, and the Zvornik Bratunac Srebrenica area had been under their

3 jurisdiction back in 1995. Bearing in mind the breakdown of units of the

4 Sarajevo Romanija Corps, pursuant to an order, they were sent towards

5 Herzegovina and the East Bosnia Corps, the breakdown of the respective

6 files and documents was done the same way; some went to Trebinje in

7 Herzegovina and some of the files ended up in Bijeljina.

8 Q. All right. Now, just one last matter with respect to Mr. Gajic.

9 He indicated that there should be some records with respect to those cases

10 that he had worked on where indeed there had been a prosecution and a

11 conviction. Could you please tell us if there were -- there was an

12 interest in getting those documents to verify Mr. Gajic's testimony under

13 oath, could you please tell us, where would one go to look for those

14 records?

15 A. These records could be obtained from the district court and

16 district prosecutor's office in Bijeljina. All the files are available.

17 I have personal knowledge of this, namely because investigators of The

18 Hague Tribunal inspected all the files that they were interested in, and

19 they even made copies of those.

20 Q. All right. And that was my next topic. Have you had an

21 opportunity to meet with the Office of the Prosecution, sir?

22 A. Yes. Yes.

23 Q. Could you please tell us when that would have been, what year.

24 A. Right now I can't remember specifically if it was back in 2001 or

25 possibly 2000. I really can't remember right now, but I know that I had

Page 10876

1 been summoned by Mr. Trivun Jovicic who told me that the investigators

2 would like to talk to me. So we agreed for me to give a statement, and I

3 gave my statement in Zvornik at the OHR office. The interview went on for

4 two days, and 12 audiotapes were recorded.

5 Q. All right. Now, could you please tell us what position you held

6 when the Prosecutors came or members of the Prosecution office came to

7 speak with you.

8 A. I was the deputy district civil prosecutor in Bijeljina.

9 Q. And that's where the records would -- would have been as well, or

10 some of the records for that period; correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, during this two-day interview where you tell us some 12

13 audiotapes were recorded, could you please tell us whether there were any

14 discussions about particular cases that had been investigated, perhaps

15 even prosecuted, during the war of -- that is Serbs being prosecuted for

16 crimes against Muslims.

17 A. Yes, we talked about that too.

18 Q. And --

19 A. The investigators even put some documents to me from specific

20 cases for me to comment on.

21 Q. So the Prosecutors themselves knew that there had been some cases

22 of Serbs being prosecuted at the time?

23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Shin.

24 MR. SHIN: Objection, Mr. President. It's inappropriate to

25 comment on what the Prosecutors knew. If there's a question, he can

Page 10877

1 simply ask it.

2 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, it goes --

3 JUDGE LIU: I think there is no problem with this question. It's

4 quite logical to ask this question. You may move on, Mr. Karnavas.

5 MR. KARNAVAS: All right.

6 Q. Would you like to answer that question, sir. It would appear if

7 the prosecutors presented you with documents regarding cases where

8 investigations against Serbs having committed crimes against Muslims, that

9 would appear that they were aware of such cases, would it not?

10 A. Yes. That's just what I said. I did not have a single document

11 in my possession to support my statement. They were the ones who put

12 certain documents to me.

13 Q. Did you meet with any members of the Prosecution later?

14 A. Yes, I did, in the building of the district court and prosecutor's

15 office. It was about 15 days or perhaps a month after I'd given my

16 original statement.

17 Q. What was the purpose for that second meeting, sir?

18 A. During the original interview, they showed me a document where the

19 OTP had initiated an investigation. However, in a strange way the

20 investigation -- the criminal proceedings were dropped. At the same time,

21 they showed me an indictment, which means that this specific person had

22 been indicted. And it was on account of that they asked me, How is it

23 possible that the prosecutor had dropped the charges and yet there is an

24 indictment at the same time? I told them this was impossible, because if

25 there was an indictment, there's no way any prosecutor could have dropped

Page 10878

1 the charges previously. And since I was not familiar with the content of

2 that specific document or file, I promised that I would do my best to

3 inspect the specific file at the district court in Bijeljina.

4 Sometime later, as I said, an investigator came back, and we

5 inspected the file jointly. We inspected the investigations registry of

6 the military court. There was not a single shred of paper that would have

7 indicated that the prosecutor had dropped the case. However, the file

8 contained this decision, this ruling by the judge that was being

9 challenged, however, without the judge's signature.

10 In actual fact, the accused was not, at the time, in detention

11 but, rather, had left the country. How it was possible for something like

12 this to happen, well, this is a question for the president of the military

13 court, I think.

14 Q. All right. And that was a concrete case; correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And where were you able to get the documents in order to sit down

17 with the investigator of the Office of the Prosecution of the Tribunal to

18 go over it to try to solve this conundrum?

19 A. Yes. The investigator came to see the president of the district

20 court and requested a file from the Bijeljina military court as well as

21 the file from the military prosecutor's office in Bijeljina. We were

22 there together in the office of the president of the district court, and

23 we went through those files. I wasn't there all the time, but the

24 investigator even asked the president of the district court to have some

25 of the files or portions of the files copied.

Page 10879

1 Q. All right. Now, let's move on to another topic, and I'm going to

2 ask you concretely: Are you aware of any prosecutions or the initiation

3 of any investigations as a result of incidents that occurred after the

4 fall of Srebrenica?

5 A. To the best of my knowledge, there was no concrete case that was

6 initiated over that. I personally had an opportunity to attend a meeting

7 at Zvornik, because a colleague of mine, my former boss from the Main

8 Staff, had asked me to come.

9 Q. All right. And we're going to -- we're going to speak about that

10 particular meeting, but aside from that, I just want to get a concrete

11 answer: Are you aware of any investigations or any cases being prosecuted

12 for crimes that occurred against Muslims after the fall of Srebrenica?

13 A. No.

14 Q. All right. Now, I want to hand you -- you said -- first of all,

15 before I -- we go through the document itself, you indicated that at one

16 point in time you attended a meeting. And could you please tell us a

17 little bit about how it was that you attended this meeting, who was there,

18 and what was the meeting about. I know it's a compound question, but it

19 will save us -- me from asking it three different ways.

20 A. I went to that meeting by accident. I had received a fax from my

21 former boss, who was the prosecutor of the army of Republika Srpska and

22 who at the time was a legal officer attached to the Main Staff, telling me

23 that pursuant to an order by President Karadzic, some data and information

24 was to be verified concerning the Pilica village area. The meeting was to

25 be attended by officials from the civilian police, civilian state

Page 10880

1 security, military security, and officials from the Zvornik command. He

2 in his capacity as a representative of the Main Staff could not attend the

3 meeting. Therefore, since he was unable to make it there, he asked me to

4 go and stand in for him at the meeting.

5 Q. Now, let's go step-by-step. First of all, where was --

6 specifically, where was this meeting held, in whose office?

7 A. The meeting was held in the office of the chief of the public

8 security centre, Dragomir Vasic, in Zvornik, since the centre was based

9 there at the time.

10 Q. Did you know Mr. Vasic?

11 A. Yes, I did. Yes.

12 Q. Did Mr. Vasic himself personally attend this meeting?

13 A. Yes, he did. He presided over the meeting, in fact.

14 Q. All right. Now, was a commission or -- established or was it

15 being established as a result of this particular meeting?

16 A. I looked at the order itself, the order of President Karadzic, and

17 as far as I could understand, he requested that a commission be set up to

18 investigate a specific case, and I believe that those present made up the

19 commission, or, rather, there was to be an agreement concerning a

20 commission being set up. As I had not been officially invited to that

21 meeting, I do not know what happened later.

22 Q. All right. But having attended that meeting, was it your

23 understanding that someone in particular was the -- the chairman of this

24 commission or was going to be appointed the chairman of the commission?

25 Do you know?

Page 10881

1 A. I don't know.

2 Q. After attending the meeting, did you by any chance generate any

3 memoranda or any documents that would reflect the minutes of the meeting,

4 at least as you understood them to be?

5 A. I didn't draw up any notes in the form of a memorandum, at least.

6 I was given a sheet of paper to make some notes during that meeting; where

7 the meeting was held, at what time, and who attended the meeting.

8 Q. All right. But after having attended the meeting, did you at

9 least make a report? Since you were standing in for someone, for your

10 superior, did you make a report and forward it onwards so at least one

11 would have a record of, one, your attendance; and two, what you believe

12 had transpired during that meeting in your presence?

13 A. Yes, I did.

14 Q. Thank you. Let me show you now what is P712, and you will be

15 looking at P712B.

16 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, I have to remind you that this

17 document is under seal.

18 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. I wasn't aware --

19 JUDGE LIU: So you could quote the paragraphs in this paragraph,

20 but it would be better not to put all the document on the ELMO.

21 MR. KARNAVAS: We don't need to put it on the ELMO, Your Honour.

22 I just wanted to go through some aspects of it, at least to get him to

23 comment without necessarily disclosing the full content.

24 Q. If you could just look at this document, these documents, sir.

25 Please look at them and go through them.

Page 10882

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. All right. And in these documents, I believe we have the one

3 document, the order from President Karadzic; is that correct? If you go

4 -- if you go backwards, forwards, looking at the last page, second last

5 page, that would be the order from President Karadzic; correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. All right. And in fact there's -- in that -- and the date on

8 that, incidentally, was the 23rd of March, 1996; correct?

9 A. Yes, that's correct.

10 Q. And then it would appear that there is a document dated 26 March

11 1996, and that bears your signature, does it not?

12 A. Yes, it does.

13 Q. It says here "Major Predrag Drinic," so I take it you had a rank

14 while you were a military prosecutor.

15 A. Yes, I did.

16 Q. And in this document, without going into the specifics, what -- if

17 you can just tell us, what are you -- what are you trying to do? What is

18 the purpose of this document?

19 A. As I said before, I was there by accident at this meeting. I had

20 been asked to attend by a colleague of mine. Therefore, I was not

21 invited. However, when I looked at the order by President Karadzic and

22 what it was about, I realised that there were certain indications there

23 that two bodies had been found that may have been the result of a crime.

24 I attended the meeting, and out of all those present - I'm making no

25 exception there - I found out that as for this information contained in

Page 10883

1 the order, that there were two bodies that had been found in the Pilica

2 area, that the people present knew nothing about that, which surprised me.

3 I had assumed that the order by President Karadzic had been given based

4 on reliable information. After all, he was at that time the state

5 president.

6 At the meeting, I obtained no information whatsoever. It was

7 based on this order and the results of what transpired at the meeting that

8 I wrote an official letter to the Main Staff of the army of Republika

9 Srpska intelligence and security sector in Han Pijesak.

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. Telling them to set up a commission and to verify the data on the

12 spot. And then the results of their own investigation should be forwarded

13 to the relevant military prosecutor or the relevant military court.

14 Q. All right. Well, would this be consistent with or similar to you

15 as a prosecutor, if, say, you were at the first instance, making a request

16 to the security organ for the collection of additional information?

17 A. Yes, yes. That's precisely what it means.

18 Q. So in essence, what you were doing is following the existing

19 procedure at the time?

20 A. Yes. In fact, I gave the initiative for the material collected by

21 the security organ be submitted to the first instance military prosecutor

22 and that the investigating judge of the military court be informed of this

23 in order to possibly carry out an on-site inspection.

24 Q. During that meeting that you attended, do you know whether

25 Mr. Vasic, who after all was the chief of the Zvornik security service

Page 10884

1 centre, as I understand it is part of the Ministry of the Interior, in

2 essence, he's the chief, he's the head of the police, for lack of a better

3 term, did anyone task him in particular to see what, if any, information

4 he could gather since, after all, Pilica was nearby Zvornik?

5 A. I must tell you right away that I am not aware of this

6 information. However, Zeljko Vasiljevic was from the Ministry of the

7 Interior in Sarajevo. I don't know what they agreed, but he could have

8 ordered Dragomir Vasic to look into this case because Pilica belonged to

9 the public security centre in Zvornik.

10 Q. Okay. All right. Now, you said that you were standing in but

11 nonetheless we see that you generated a report that you forwarded upwards

12 to the VRS Main Staff, the department of intelligence and security

13 affairs. I take it that was to General Tolimir; is that correct?

14 A. It would be better to say both to General Tolimir and to Colonel

15 Beara. It was, in fact, Colonel Beara who was supposed to deal with this

16 or, rather, his men.

17 Q. All right. And do you know what, if anything, happened as a

18 result of your initiative, your proposal?

19 A. I don't know what happened. I never received any direct

20 information as to whether anything had been done pursuant to this. For

21 this reason, on the back of my letter which I sent, I drew up an official

22 note, stating that I had received no reply.

23 Q. All right. And that's your handwriting there?

24 A. Yes, yes. Yes, it is. It is. It's my handwriting and my

25 signature.

Page 10885

1 Q. And there is no dilemma about that?

2 A. No dilemma at all.

3 Q. All right. Thank you.

4 Now, if we could move on to the next document, and I want to show

5 you Exhibit P713. You will be looking at 713B, which is in the original

6 version.

7 Now, do you recognise the signature at the bottom, sir?

8 A. Yes, I do.

9 Q. And whose signature is it?

10 A. This is the signature of Radovan Karadzic.

11 Q. All right. Now, this is dated 1 April 1996, and it would appear,

12 would it not, sir, that the military prosecutor of the Republika Srpska

13 army was served with this order; is that correct?

14 A. Yes. But this means only that the document was to have been sent

15 to the military prosecutor of the army of Republika Srpska. I assert with

16 full responsibility that at that time I did not receive this document. I

17 learned about this document because I saw a facsimile of this document in

18 an independent newspaper in February 2000.

19 Q. Okay. We're going to do step-by-step. I --

20 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. Usher, I believe we won't need your assistance

21 any longer.

22 Q. Now, you indicated that you did not see this document, yet we see

23 clearly that this was at least on the list of distribution of you -- your

24 office was on the list of distribution. Could you please explain to us

25 how it is that an order from the president himself, officially signed and

Page 10886

1 stamped, how is it possible that such an important document would not have

2 reached you? What is your explanation, if any?

3 A. Yes, I do have an explanation for it. At the time when this

4 document was to have been sent, the law on military courts and of course

5 the law on the military prosecutor's office provided for the de jure

6 headquarters to be in Banja Luka. However, de facto, we were in Zvornik.

7 I assume that the service which was supposed to deliver this document did

8 not know about this and that in fact this order went to Banja Luka rather

9 than to Zvornik. My assertion that we did not receive this I can support

10 by the fact that there is no register or protocol in the military

11 prosecutor's office of the army of Republika Srpska where this order has

12 been registered.

13 Q. All right. Now, you said that you became aware of this order at

14 some point when this document appeared, or a facsimile of it appeared, in

15 an independent newspaper in February 2000; correct? That was your

16 testimony earlier.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. All right. Now, work with me on this one: From April 1, 1996 to

19 February 2000, how is it that an order could be out there for such a long

20 period of time and though you were not served with the order, how is it

21 that you never became aware of its existence? Surely someone must have

22 brought this to your attention, or somehow you would have learned it - how

23 shall I put it? - at least through the grapevine or by rumour, somehow.

24 A. As regards these facts and circumstances, you can observe that on

25 this order, the prosecutor of the army of Republika Srpska is listed last.

Page 10887

1 This means that in front of the military prosecutor of the army of

2 Republika Srpska there were other people and other organs who had a

3 greater responsibility to act on this. As far as I know, none of these

4 acted on it, although in paragraph 3 of this order a request is made that

5 everyone should take certain steps within their area of responsibility,

6 and the coordination of all the organs listed here was requested.

7 However, if someone had really taken any steps in connection with this

8 order, I would have learned from one of these people listed here who were

9 more important than I was and who would have been in charge of leading

10 these activities, I would have been informed by them, but I wasn't.

11 Q. All right. I just want to clarify one point because it sounds a

12 little bit odd, shall I put it. You noted to us that you're listed at the

13 bottom of the list, military prosecutor of the Republika Srpska. And in

14 pointing that -- or bringing that to our attention, you would have us

15 believe that somehow you were at the bottom of the list and therefore the

16 least important organ within this list. How can you make such an

17 assertion?

18 A. I didn't mean to say literally that we were the least important

19 organ but that there were organs who were supposed to take action before

20 the prosecutor's office did. In a particular case, in the case of a

21 particular crime and a suspect, we would get information from the security

22 organ and the military police. When I say "we," I mean the military

23 prosecutor. However, from this order it is evident that, according to the

24 military structure, the Main Staff of the army of Republika Srpska is

25 listed here, the Ministry of Defence, the supreme military court, so that

Page 10888

1 according to this sequence, there were organs who were supposed to

2 undertake certain action and take certain steps before the prosecutor's

3 office did.

4 In connection with this, I did not receive any information, and

5 the information we have just been talking about regarding Pilica, well, I

6 acted in accordance with my competencies.

7 Q. Yes. I think that if we were to look at that particular document,

8 it would appear, at least from the date, that it was three days after

9 President Karadzic's order, and I'm referring to P712.

10 But getting back to this order, P713, I want to pose a

11 hypothetical. Maybe you can help us out on this one. Let's assume that

12 you had indeed received this order, that is it had been properly served on

13 your office at your location, and that you had read this. What would have

14 been the protocol? What would you have done under those circumstances?

15 A. I would have forwarded this order to two places. I would have

16 forwarded it to the basic prosecutor or first instance prosecutor in

17 Sarajevo, and I would have forwarded another copy of the order with a

18 letter from me asking that this information be investigated to the organ

19 for security and intelligence of the Main Staff, as I did in the previous

20 case.

21 Q. Very well. And perhaps I failed to ask you with respect in the

22 previous case, that is Exhibit P712, the earlier one. Do you know whether

23 your superior, the one that you had been standing in, whether he had

24 received any information from the intelligence and security organ pursuant

25 to your proposal?

Page 10889

1 A. I don't know that. But in view of the fact that they were in the

2 same place, it would be logical to conclude that their communication was

3 different.

4 Q. I'm not sure I follow that answer.

5 A. My precise answer is that I do not know whether my former superior

6 received any information from the Main Staff.

7 Q. Okay. All right. Now, I want to move on beyond this document,

8 713, and just ask you, since you learned of it in the press in February

9 2000, that is three and a half years later, approximately three and a half

10 years later, after learning of it, did you take any steps to come in -- to

11 implement the order, albeit belatedly?

12 A. No, I didn't. This was precisely at the time when I had already

13 been appointed deputy of the district public prosecutor, and I was no

14 longer competent to take action. The time would have been too short, and

15 the question would arise as to whether I was actually performing this duty

16 at the time.

17 Q. Well, once you became aware of this order, did you take any steps

18 at least to become aware of whether this order was being complied with by

19 any of the above-mentioned or listed organs; the Main Staff, the Ministry

20 of Interior, the Ministry of Justice, the Supreme Court, the supreme

21 military court, the republic public prosecutor?

22 A. No, I didn't take any action. But with hindsight, three years

23 later I assume I would have known had they taken any action.

24 Q. All right. Now, I want to ask you just a couple of general

25 questions that I think might be relevant to you in particular. At some

Page 10890

1 point in time after the fall of Srebrenica, more or less the entire world

2 knew that atrocities had been committed. A large number of Muslim males

3 were missing, their bodies unaccounted for. And then shortly thereafter,

4 even mass graves were found. So clearly living in Bosnia and Herzegovina

5 or the RS in particular, you would have become aware of what was being

6 talked about in the press; correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So certainly in light of your position, you would not have needed

9 an order from the president to coax you into looking into these matters.

10 So my question is: Did you or your colleagues at the military

11 prosecutions office ever engage in any investigation or any investigative

12 efforts to try to figure out who the suspects would be in order for a

13 proper investigation through an investigative judge could commence?

14 A. In the beginning, when I learned through the media that there was

15 a possibility that some of the persons responsible or someone had

16 committed a war crime, and with the names of high-ranking officers and

17 politicians being mentioned, I could not believe this to be true. Because

18 someone who issued orders that human rights conventions be respected, who

19 issued orders saying that proceedings had to be initiated, I could not

20 believe that these same people were perpetrators of war crimes.

21 That was in the initial stage. A little later, I was able to

22 learn, especially because I had information that in the area investigators

23 from The Hague Tribunal had been active, I was informed that we were not

24 to stand in their way or hinder them and that they would collect

25 information on their own, independently. However, I received no specific

Page 10891

1 information either about a person or about any specific war crime. So

2 that it was not my job as a prosecutor in second instance, or appellate

3 proceedings, to initiate an investigation.

4 Q. All right. Have you cooperated with the Office of the Prosecution

5 to the extent that you have been requested to do so?

6 A. Yes, I have. I received certain information about their

7 activities. I was told not to hinder them. I didn't. But when they

8 asked me to cooperate, to make a statement, I told you that I talked to

9 them for two days, I gave them all the information I knew, and I drew

10 their attention to certain documents I knew about. Besides this, we

11 mentioned documents just a while ago, and as far as I was able to, in

12 accordance with my information, I did start activities to collect

13 information.

14 Q. All right. And I take it you would have been willing to come and

15 testify on behalf of the Prosecution if they had called you as their

16 witness?

17 A. Yes, certainly, and I would have said the same.

18 Q. And I take it your testimony for them would have been the same as

19 it has been for the Defence?

20 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think the witness answered that question.

21 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.

22 Q. Mr. Drinic, I want to thank you very much for coming here and

23 giving us your testimony. I want to thank you for being frank and

24 forthright. I believe the Prosecutor may have some questions, as well as

25 the Judges. If you could be equally as forthright and candid with then as

Page 10892

1 you have been with me, I would be most grateful. Thank you very much.

2 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President and Your Honours, I have no further

3 questions on direct.

4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Mr. Karnavas.

5 Mr. Lukic, do you have any questions to put to this witness?

6 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour, our Defence does not have any

7 questions for this witness, thank you.

8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Well, it's almost time for the

9 break. We will break now and we will resume at 12.30.

10 --- Recess taken at 11.57 a.m.

11 --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.

12 JUDGE LIU: Any cross-examination, Mr. Shin?

13 MR. SHIN: Yes, Mr. President, Your Honours. Just a few

14 questions.

15 Cross-examined by Mr. Shin:

16 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Drinic.

17 A. Good afternoon.

18 Q. I just have a few questions for you here. Hopefully we won't keep

19 you very long. Now, you testified during the direct examination that with

20 regards to the crimes committed in the context of Srebrenica, July 1995,

21 that as far as you know, there were no cases and no investigations

22 conducted by any Republika Srpska authorities. Now, you were once the

23 military prosecutor. This is something you would know about if you say

24 something like that here; is that correct?

25 A. Yes. My assertion was about the military judicial organs. I

Page 10893

1 don't know about the civilian judicial organs.

2 Q. Now, we heard a fair amount about what happened to various VRS --

3 I'm sorry, various military court or military prosecutor offices' records

4 when they were transferred to civilian jurisdiction, but the result of

5 those transfers, that doesn't change your answer, does it, whether the

6 files went to Trebinje or Bijeljina, or wherever. Your answer would

7 remain the same, wouldn't it, that there were no concrete cases and no

8 investigations regarding the events in Srebrenica in July 1995?

9 A. Yes, that's correct.

10 Q. Thank you. We just wanted to clarify that. You mentioned that

11 you became aware through the media of allegations that there may have been

12 crimes committed following the takeover of the Srebrenica enclave. Do you

13 remember that and do you remember saying that?

14 A. Yes, I do remember.

15 Q. Do you remember when it was that you heard these media reports or

16 when it was that, through the media, you learned of the allegations that

17 criminal conduct had been involved?

18 A. Specifically, I learned that charges had been pressed before The

19 Hague Tribunal against certain persons.

20 Q. Could you tell us approximately what month or what year that was?

21 A. It was quite a long time ago. I didn't keep a diary.

22 Q. Do you know whether it was before or after the jurisdiction went

23 from the military courts to the civilian courts, the military courts being

24 dissolved?

25 A. That was before the military courts were dissolved.

Page 10894

1 Q. So was that before or after the end of the war?

2 A. After the end of the war, bearing in mind the fact that the war

3 ended in late 1995, once the Dayton Accords had been signed, and the

4 events in Srebrenica took place in 1995, but in the summer of 1995.

5 Q. And the transfer or dissolution of the military courts, that

6 happened in spring or early summer of -- I'm sorry, spring or early summer

7 of 2000; is that correct?

8 A. Yes, that's correct.

9 Q. Did you hear about these allegations of crimes having occurred in

10 Srebrenica July 1995, did you hear about that from any other sources apart

11 from the media; perhaps some of your colleagues?

12 A. No, I didn't, with the exception of those documents, if those

13 documents could be linked with the events in Srebrenica. I'm talking

14 about Karadzic's order and the document that I sent to the Main Staff.

15 However, at the time I couldn't be sure whether those bodies that had been

16 discovered in Pilica were a result of the misdeeds that had been committed

17 in Srebrenica.

18 Q. So apart from these specific documents that you're just talking

19 about now, the Karadzic order and a couple of the related documents,

20 including one that you prepared, you didn't hear any allegations about

21 crimes being committed in Srebrenica in July 1995? You didn't hear that

22 from anybody else, from any other source? Is that what you're telling us?

23 A. Yes. Officially I didn't hear it from any other source.

24 Q. Well, what about unofficially?

25 A. Well, I don't know. I told you I read about it in the papers or,

Page 10895

1 rather, in the public media.

2 Q. But apart from that, no one -- you didn't hear from anybody or

3 from any other source? You've explained the media. You've explained

4 these documents. You didn't hear from anyone else or any other source

5 allegations of criminal conduct Srebrenica July 1995?

6 A. No. I mean, I have to answer by asking a question: Who would

7 have been mad enough to familiarise a military prosecutor with a crime

8 that had been committed, unofficially?

9 Q. Mr. Drinic, could you tell us where you were living in July 1995.

10 A. In Bijeljina. My family lived in Bijeljina. Monday to Friday I

11 would stay in Zvornik, and over the weekend I would be with my family back

12 in Bijeljina.

13 Q. And you were staying Monday through Friday in Zvornik because

14 that's where your office was located; is that correct?

15 A. Yes, precisely. And that's where I slept also.

16 Q. Now, where -- where exactly in Zvornik was your office located?

17 A. The office was on a street near the police headquarters, near the

18 town hall municipality building, near the civilian first instance court or

19 just adjacent to it, but withdrawn from the street, a bit behind, because

20 there was another residential building just in front.

21 Q. Could you tell us what the address of that building where you

22 worked was, having worked there for --

23 A. I can't be sure about the address. I know that with the exception

24 of the main street, all other streets are called St. Sava's street. I'm

25 not sure about that one, though.

Page 10896

1 Q. Where -- so that's where your office was. Where -- what was the

2 address or where was it, if you could describe it to us, where you stayed

3 in the evenings during the week.

4 A. Yes. For a while I stayed at the Drina Hotel or, rather, I slept

5 there, and then as my job there was reaching -- coming to an end, I slept

6 in a room that was adjacent to the office in which I worked.

7 Q. So in July of 1995, does that mean, then, that you were staying at

8 the Drina Hotel at that time?

9 A. I think so.

10 Q. You say you think so. Was there anyone else -- anywhere else that

11 you stayed apart from the Drina Hotel up until the time shortly before, as

12 you say, you left your position?

13 A. No, no other place. No.

14 Q. Do you recall where you were during the days of the 10th, the

15 11th, the 12th of July?

16 A. These are very specific dates, and it's been a long time,

17 therefore, right now I can't remember. But if your reference is to the

18 events that preceded the Srebrenica operation, what happened during the

19 operation or just after the operation, I can give you my whereabouts, but

20 please don't try to pin me down on specific dates or days since, frankly,

21 I can't remember about specific dates, but I can give you my whereabouts

22 if that's what you want.

23 Q. Okay. Can we -- let's take the day that Srebrenica fell. Could

24 you tell us where you were on that day?

25 A. Yes. The news about the fall of Srebrenica reached me over the

Page 10897

1 TV, and I was in Ilidza, in the Serbia Hotel, because I had just arrived

2 from Zvornik to Ilidza that very day to go to the first instance military

3 court in Sarajevo and carry out a check there. When I say "Ilidza," I

4 mean Sarajevo since that section of Sarajevo was Serb controlled at the

5 time, Ilidza.

6 Q. When did you actually drive, if it's correct to say that you

7 drove, when did you go from Zvornik to Ilidza and Sarajevo? What day?

8 And if you can give us a day in relation to the fall of Srebrenica.

9 A. I wasn't the one who drove. There was a driver. But we left

10 Zvornik and headed in the direction of Drinjaca, which is a major

11 junction, and from there you go towards Vlasenica. If you look at a map,

12 it's to the south, next to the River Drina. However, in Sveti Stefan or

13 Divic, which is what the hamlet is called, the civilian police pulled us

14 over and they told us that we couldn't drive straight through. They

15 didn't give the reason. They said they had received orders not to let

16 anyone through.

17 The driver hailed from Zvornik, and he was familiar with a

18 different road that we could take. Therefore, we took a route north of

19 the village back towards Zvornik and then on to Bijeljina. We reached a

20 junction in the village of Karakaj near Zvornik, and we set out for Tuzla,

21 we took the road to Tuzla, because that was another road that you could

22 take to reach Vlasenica. It was a roundabout way, and I can't remember

23 the exact village -- exact villages that the road passes through. There

24 again, we were stopped by the police. They told us that there were combat

25 operations under way and that the road was not safe, but if we agreed to

Page 10898

1 go at our own risk, we would be allowed to drive through.

2 At the time, I didn't know what combat operations they were

3 talking about, truth to tell. Had I known, maybe I would have refused to

4 travel on, but I didn't know, and no one had informed me previously, not

5 even my superior officer, and that would have been his duty, to inform me.

6 I said that I wasn't afraid and that I felt perfectly fine travelling on

7 for Sarajevo.

8 Q. So just to clarify, this was on the day that Srebrenica fell that

9 you took this drive to Sarajevo?

10 A. No. I don't know about that. What I told you was that it was on

11 that day, rather, that evening, that I heard in the TV news when I was at

12 Ilidza that Srebrenica had fallen. I don't know exactly when Srebrenica

13 fell, not to this very day.

14 Q. What day did you drive back to Zvornik from Sarajevo? Just tell

15 us the day, please, and you can tell us in reference to the day that

16 Srebrenica fell.

17 A. I can tell you in relation to the day when I heard the news about

18 the fall of Srebrenica.

19 Q. That's all I'm asking.

20 A. So I reached Srebrenica on that day -- sorry. I reached Ilidza.

21 I heard the news. The next day - it was already late - I went out to

22 carry out the check with the military prosecutor, and the next day after

23 that, I headed back in the morning hours.

24 Q. Let me just ask you a very specific question. We actually don't

25 need to hear your entire itinerary or route on the way back on this one.

Page 10899

1 On your way back to Zvornik, did you pass through Konjevic Polje?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Did you see soldiers there along the road?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Two days after the Srebrenica -- two days after Srebrenica was

6 taken over, did you see any prisoners along the road?

7 A. Again, I don't know when it was that Srebrenica fell. It's been a

8 long time, and all I'm telling you is when I found out about the news that

9 Srebrenica had fallen. And if you will please repeat the other half of

10 your question.

11 Q. Mr. Drinic, I want to make this very clear if I haven't made it

12 already: I am not asking you the day on which Srebrenica fell. I'm

13 asking you when you went back in relation to the day Srebrenica fell. You

14 remember that day. You explained to us it was two days later. Now,

15 that's enough for us. I'm asking you whether you drove through Konjevic

16 Polje. You said yes. I'm asking you when you were driving through

17 Konjevic Polje, did you see any prisoners along the road or in the fields

18 or anywhere else?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. I'm sorry, your answer is yes, you did see prisoners along the

21 road?

22 A. [No translation]

23 Q. Where did you see them?

24 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Shin, you are too fast. You have to make a pause

25 and let the interpreter get across --

Page 10900

1 MR. SHIN: Absolutely. I'm happy to repeat that question, and I

2 will slow down, Your Honour.

3 MR. KARNAVAS: And I want the record to reflect that there was no

4 answer yes on that.

5 JUDGE LIU: As for this issue, I believe -- I believe Mr. Shin

6 will follow.


8 Q. Mr. Drinic, I apologise for that. I was speaking too quickly for

9 the interpreters to catch up, so I will repeat my question. On your way

10 through Konjevic Polje and on your way back to Zvornik, did you see any

11 Muslim prisoners along the road, in the fields, or anywhere else?

12 A. No, I didn't. I saw groups of soldiers of the army of Republika

13 Srpska but no prisoners.

14 Q. And you went -- you went back to Zvornik on that day, and the same

15 day you left Sarajevo you arrived in Zvornik; is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And you continued working at your office in Zvornik after that for

18 the next few days?

19 A. Yes, I did.

20 Q. During those days in Zvornik, those, let's say, two or three days

21 following your return, were you aware of any Muslim prisoners being bused

22 through Zvornik? There were thousands being bused through; we've had

23 evidence of that.

24 A. No. I was not aware of a single bus or truck, not that I could

25 notice any buses or trucks driving through, transporting those prisoners.

Page 10901

1 This is something that I didn't see.

2 Q. Okay. Let's move on to another topic here. I'm going to refer

3 now to a letter that you were shown earlier. This is Prosecution 713.

4 MR. SHIN: If that could be provided to the witness, please.

5 Q. And I just have just a simple question on this. Now, this is the

6 letter that I think -- I believe you testified that you saw in a newspaper

7 in February 2000 or thereabouts; is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And even though it's addressed to the military prosecutor, you

10 explained -- your explanation about why it didn't reach you was that the

11 Main Staff was de jure in Banja Luka but de facto in Zvornik.

12 A. I think you're making an error there. Not the Main Staff. The

13 supreme military court and military prosecutor's office of Republika

14 Srpska, which I was part of. That's this last portion. That's correct.

15 The Main Staff remained where it was, in Han Pijesak, both de facto and de

16 jure.

17 Q. Thank you. I misspoke there. Thank you for correcting that. So

18 it was the military court was de jure in Banja Luka but de facto in

19 Zvornik. And that's your explanation about how this letter didn't get to

20 you. Do you think this was a fact that wasn't known to the people

21 delivering mail from the president to the military court? Is that what

22 you're telling us?

23 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I don't believe he's saying --

24 JUDGE LIU: Your microphone, please.

25 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I believe first of all the gentleman

Page 10902

1 was shaking his head, so at least we need to get a record of what he was

2 stating; and number two, I believe we're jumping to some conclusions. He

3 is misstating the evidence. The gentleman never made that assumption nor

4 is he insinuating that. So I'm raising my objection on that.

5 JUDGE LIU: I think the witness could answer that question by

6 himself.

7 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour, but perhaps Mr. Shin could

8 repeat the previous question because the gentleman was shaking his head

9 and it wasn't picked up on the record.

10 MR. SHIN:

11 Q. Mr. Drinic, we just clarified that it was the military court that

12 was de jure in Banja Luka and de facto in Zvornik. During your direct

13 testimony, you explained that this -- that this difference between the de

14 jure and de facto location of the military court explains why the -- this

15 document did not get to you. Did I get that right?

16 A. What I said is that that was an assumption of mine. It is no

17 assertion, it is merely an assumption. It is a possible explanation that

18 I can provide.

19 Q. And in order for this assumption or possible explanation to

20 actually be the reason, it would have to be because people delivering mail

21 from the president of the Republika Srpska to the military court didn't

22 know about the difference between this de jure and de facto location; is

23 that right?

24 A. I don't know what they knew.

25 Q. All right.

Page 10903

1 A. In view of the fact that those are simple administrators, the

2 couriers, they were not necessarily aware of that. You don't get the

3 state president delivering -- well, the state president knows, of course,

4 but what his errand boys know or don't know I really have no idea. They

5 don't necessarily have to know.

6 Q. Let's turn to another one of these documents. This is a document

7 under seal, so if we could just have it personally provided to the witness

8 and not placed on the ELMO, please. This is Prosecution 712.

9 And I'm sorry, actually, before we move on to that, can I just ask

10 you one other question about the previous document. There was some

11 discussion during your direct examination about the addressees listed

12 there on the previous document - that's Prosecution 713 - and the fact

13 that the military prosecutor is listed last. My question for you is

14 simply: Isn't it true that all the addressees on that document in fact

15 have different responsibilities and different tasks, generally speaking,

16 and also in relation to that kind of letter?

17 A. Yes, that's correct. Everyone had different responsibilities and

18 tasks. You're quite right there.

19 Q. And you had said that if anyone -- if someone had taken a step or

20 taken some action in response to that letter, you would have been informed

21 of it. I believe those are your exact words, actually. Do you remember

22 that?

23 A. What I said is probably I would have been informed. I can't make

24 an assertion there. I can't know for sure what some other people may or

25 may not have done, Whether they would have informed me or not. What I

Page 10904

1 said was I assume I would have been informed.

2 Q. Okay. I would like to show you another document. This is

3 Prosecution Exhibit 714. This is a document of the Republika Srpska

4 Ministry of Internal Affairs. It says at the top of it in English, it

5 says "Reports." It's a two-page document, and in the B/C/S it's a

6 three-page document, and I'd like you to look at the second page, at the

7 top of which it says "Informacija." If you could please take a moment to

8 look at that. Have you seen this document before?

9 A. No, not before. This is the first time I see this document.

10 Q. If you could please just go ahead and take a minute to look

11 through that document, and you can signal when you've had a chance to read

12 it.

13 A. Frankly, as I said, I have never received this document through

14 any official channels, nor was I aware of its existence.

15 Q. I'm sorry, if I could please interrupt you for a moment.

16 MR. SHIN: If I could please have this document on the ELMO. This

17 one is not under seal.

18 Q. My apologies, Mr. Drinic. Okay, Mr. Drinic, if you could please

19 continue.

20 A. Yes. Well, the simple reason why I'm saying this, I can see the

21 name of the sender and I can see the recipient, the Republic, Ministry of

22 the Interior, the minister's cabinet is sending this to the Ministry of

23 Justice administration, Mr. Goran Neskovic. I don't know. Maybe there

24 was a document written in a different form. It's been a long time, but I

25 don't think I've ever seen a document like this before, and I don't know

Page 10905

1 what my relation would have been to a document like this. It wasn't

2 addressed to me. It wasn't even addressed to the prosecutor's office.

3 Not even to a first instance court. It says Ministry of Justice and

4 Administration. I really have no idea. Why do you think that I should

5 have seen this document earlier? What leads you to that conclusion?

6 Q. Mr. Drinic, I was simply asking you. Now you have explained that

7 you have not seen this earlier. That's fine.

8 Looking at this document now, doesn't it appear to you that this

9 document -- it appears that it's a response to a request to look into

10 crimes committed after the takeover of Srebrenica, does it not?

11 A. May I have a little time just to read it, please, because the text

12 is quite extensive. Thank you.

13 MR. SHIN: If the usher could please move the document up a little

14 bit so the entire document might be read by those viewing, and the Judges,

15 of course. Thank you.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I've managed to get the gist

17 of it. Go ahead, please.

18 MR. SHIN:

19 Q. This document is dated the 23rd of September, 1996; correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Would you agree that this document appears -- appears to be a

22 response to a request for more information about the events following the

23 takeover of Srebrenica in July 1995, and in particular, events relating to

24 the killings? And you'll see at the top there's a reference to mass

25 killings among the Muslims.

Page 10906

1 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I'm going to -- I will object to this

2 line of questioning unless the foundation can be established. We can all

3 read the document and draw our own conclusions. We don't need somebody

4 from Bijeljina to come over here, a former military prosecutor. Now, the

5 gentleman indicated that he hasn't seen this document, nor was the

6 document addressed to him. So if I could have some linkage as to why we

7 need to go into this particular document with this particular witness to

8 elicit this particular conclusion, then I'll sit down, but until then, I

9 have to raise my objection, because I don't believe the gentleman has

10 indicated that he has any basis from which he could offer an opinion other

11 than from reading, digesting, and interpreting, all of which we can do on

12 our own.

13 JUDGE LIU: Well, although the witness said that he did not see

14 this document before, some facts in that document could be denied or

15 confirmed by this witness. I don't know.

16 MR. KARNAVAS: That's my dilemma, too, Your Honour. I don't know.

17 So I would like to know what the foundation.

18 JUDGE LIU: Well, maybe the Prosecution in the cross-examination

19 could ask some questions on the basis of documents and the witness has the

20 total freedom, you know, to answer questions.

21 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE LIU: Whatever answers, we'll accept.

23 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well.

24 JUDGE LIU: Yes, you may proceed, Mr. Shin.

25 MR. SHIN: Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Page 10907

1 Q. Mr. Drinic, I'll repeat the question, but if you don't know, of

2 course, you can simply say that. Does this document not appear to be a

3 response to that order from President Karadzic that you had earlier seen?

4 A. Yes, one could say that.

5 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions on that document.

6 Mr. Drinic, I'd just like to take you back now to something you

7 said earlier today in the direct examination, and I'm going to read back

8 to you the question and the answer first so that we're clear on where

9 we're beginning with. You were asked by counsel for the Defence, and I'm

10 referring to a time line that says 9.28 on this transcript, although it

11 may be a little later. The question: "Keeping in mind the environment at

12 the time, and we're going back now to July 1995 and onwards, but 1995,

13 1996, that period, could you please tell us, how realistic would it have

14 been for anyone, let alone a commander of a brigade, for instance, to

15 initiate a criminal complaint requesting the Prosecution to gather

16 information with respect to atrocities that might have been committed or

17 were committed by members of the security organ that go as high Beara

18 himself?"

19 Your answer was: "In principle, de jure, that would have been

20 possible. However, in view of the kind of environment that we were

21 surrounded by and the atmosphere, the feelings of the citizens, the

22 soldiers, the army officers, this would not have been realistic."

23 I just wanted to ask you a few questions to follow up on your

24 answer there. Now, when you were explaining the kind of environment that

25 existed at that time, was part of the reason -- wasn't part of the reason

Page 10908

1 for this environment that there preceded some -- preceded the events in

2 July 1995 some three years of war in which many, many Serbs - civilians

3 and soldiers - had lost friends and families killed by Muslims? Wasn't

4 that part of what contributed to that environment that you speak of?

5 A. I don't know whether I can share your conclusion as it stands.

6 It's well known, though, that anyone engaged in a war is not impartial.

7 Why would they otherwise be waging war?

8 Q. Mr. Drinic, you were speaking of the kind of environment that you

9 said "we were surrounded by," and an atmosphere, and you were speaking

10 about the feelings of the citizens, not just the soldiers, but also the

11 feelings of the soldiers and the army officers. Wouldn't it be fair to

12 say that these feelings that you're speaking of was contributed in part by

13 the fact that there were people who had lost friends and family who had

14 been killed by Muslims? I mean, isn't that true?

15 A. Yes, there were cases where some soldiers, or better to say

16 citizens, had had family members killed. I am aware of that.

17 Q. That's why you mentioned the feelings of citizens when you were

18 talking about the environment and the atmosphere that existed in July

19 1995?

20 A. Among other things, that was one of the reasons.

21 Q. Of course, among other things as well. Now, you had explained

22 that in this environment, realistically one couldn't really prosecute

23 crimes committed by the security organs; correct?

24 A. I do apologise. I did not understand your question. Would you

25 repeat it, please.

Page 10909

1 Q. You were asked about the environment within which these crimes had

2 occurred, and you explained that it was -- it was the environment that you

3 explained, you described, that existed at that time that made it difficult

4 or nearly impossible, if not impossible, to properly investigate and

5 prosecute crimes committed by -- or the crimes that were committed in July

6 1995 following the takeover of Srebrenica. Do you recall explaining that?

7 A. In essence, yes.

8 Q. This contributed to the difficulty in prosecuting or investigating

9 crimes committed by, among others, the security organs, the military

10 police. You talked about that at some length; right?

11 A. I did, but your interpretation of my testimony is something I

12 cannot understand because it's so long. If you ask me a specific

13 question, I will be happy to reply.

14 Q. Well, let's just -- let's just move on to this question: Despite

15 this atmosphere that you described, this environment that made such

16 investigation and prosecution difficult, the Geneva Conventions were still

17 in force in the Republika Srpska in July 1995, weren't they?

18 A. Yes, yes, the Geneva Conventions were in force from the very

19 beginning of the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, because

20 regardless of any individual orders issued by President Karadzic, the Main

21 Staff, and the guidelines we had - I cannot recall the exact date but I

22 think it was in 1992 - a constitutional law was enacted. In other words,

23 the Assembly of Republika Srpska adopted a law adopting all the laws of

24 the former SFRY, including all the conventions that were not contrary to

25 the constitution of Republika Srpska.

Page 10910

1 Q. Just one final document I'd like to show you. This is -- has been

2 marked for identification Prosecution Exhibit 867. It's a document

3 entitled "Law on the Mandatory Reporting of Crimes Against Humanity and

4 International Law," and it comes from the Official Gazette of the

5 Republika Srpska dated 31st December 1994. Mr. Drinic, are you familiar

6 with this law, given the significance of its nature?

7 A. Yes. There's nothing in dispute about this.

8 Q. I'd just like to turn your attention to Article 3. If you could

9 please take a moment to locate that. And I'll read the entirety of that

10 Article, Article 3: "If a person acting in accordance with Article 1 of

11 this Law --" Article 1 refers to the reporting of violations of crimes --

12 I'm sorry, commission of crimes against humanity and international law,

13 if such a person "wishes to have the public excluded from the procedure of

14 making information or evidence mentioned in Article 1 paragraph 1 of this

15 law available for inspection or delivery or from the procedure of

16 testifying, the competent body entrusted with collecting information on

17 crimes against humanity and international law shall guarantee the

18 confidentiality of the procedure."

19 A. I do apologise. Where is this written down? Would you please

20 tell me, because I have it in Serbian.

21 Q. That would be on -- in Serbian it would be on the page marked with

22 the number at the top 00874061. In the right-hand column you have

23 paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 at the bottom.

24 So on the basis of that, there were -- it was possible to take

25 some measures to ensure the confidentiality of proceedings, was it not?

Page 10911

1 A. No. That's not correct. I have a different interpretation which

2 I'm sure is more correct than yours, and I can explain it.

3 Q. Please go ahead.

4 A. Yes. The Law on Criminal Procedure, and a part of this provision

5 can be found in the law on military courts, having in view their special

6 nature, the confidentiality of the procedure means that during the

7 proceedings before the Court if there is a military secret or a state

8 secret or a need to protect the morality of a person, the public can be

9 excluded. This does not mean that the organs engaged in investigating,

10 prosecuting, the military court or any other court would conceal certain

11 documents from each other or from themselves. It would only be concealed

12 from the general public. The public would not be able to follow the

13 proceedings. Or in the judgement, and this is characteristic of

14 proceedings against juveniles, the full name of the juvenile cannot be

15 mentioned but only their initials. That is the essence of this.

16 Because, to explain it further, how could a security organ or the

17 police or, generally speaking, the persons who are supposed to discover

18 the particulars of a crime, how could they be denied the information as to

19 what persons these are?

20 Q. I think that answers my questions. Thank you, Mr. Drinic.

21 MR. SHIN: No further questions, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE LIU: Any redirect?

23 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm afraid there is a little bit, Your Honour, but

24 not a whole lot.

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.

Page 10912

1 Re-examined by Mr. Karnavas:

2 Q. You were asked to focus on Article 3. If we could go to Article

3 1, and just keeping in mind the answer that you gave us, which was rather

4 comprehensive, it says here: "Anyone in possession of information," and

5 if we go down, it says, "is obliged to make such information or evidence

6 available for inspection and, if necessary, deliver it to the competent

7 body entrusted with collecting information on crimes against humanity and

8 international law."

9 Okay. Do you see that? I didn't read the entire first Article,

10 but in looking at this, does it not state that the person who has

11 possession of this information has to give it to you and -- correct? You

12 would be the competent body; correct?

13 A. I think the competent body would mainly be the police or the

14 security organ. Exceptionally it could be submitted directly to the

15 prosecutor's office.

16 Q. And then if we went down to Article 3, we would see again that

17 this -- if you read Article 3 correctly, it would appear, would it not,

18 that the competent body is not the one that is excluded from that

19 information but, rather, the public; correct?

20 A. Yes, yes, yes, exactly.

21 Q. Okay. And incidentally, just so there's no misunderstanding, this

22 -- this law that was shown to you, is it not, sir, in conformity with your

23 testimony on direct, the way you've described it to us?

24 A. Yes. I do not know why this law was enacted at all. When one

25 learns of a crime, there is a duty that is binding on all citizens. In

Page 10913

1 some cases, in case of very serious crimes, even the relatives of the

2 suspect are duty-bound to report the crime, not just the citizens at

3 large.

4 Q. All right. Now, I just want to touch on a couple of matters.

5 First of all, you were asked about the address of the -- where your

6 offices were in Zvornik when you were in the military prosecutor's office.

7 Now, first of all, as I understand your testimony on direct, when you were

8 questioned for over two days or -- two days, for a period of two days,

9 that questioning took place at the office of the High Representative in

10 Zvornik itself, did it not?

11 A. Yes. Yes. The office is located in the Drina Hotel, yes.

12 Q. Now, had the prosecutor, had they expressed an interest at that

13 point in time, or even after, that is prior to you coming here today, in

14 wanting to know the exact address of your office, would you have been

15 willing to show them where that office was located?

16 A. Yes, certainly. I would have shown them. I'm not sure, but I

17 think I even told them where it was.

18 Q. All right. So it wasn't sort of a military secret that you would

19 have to get clearance from some commission in order to disclose and point

20 out the building and say, "This is where my office was"?

21 A. No. No. No.

22 Q. All right.

23 A. It's not a secret.

24 Q. Okay. Now, you were asked about, and the testimony was, according

25 to the Prosecutor, that there was testimony in this court - and we'll have

Page 10914

1 to accept him at his word - that thousands of prisoners went through

2 Zvornik. Through Zvornik. Now, first of all, the town of Zvornik, is it

3 on the road or is it off the road? And the road I'm speaking about is the

4 one from Bijeljina towards Konjevic Polje, that stretch.

5 A. A part of Zvornik is on the road, and the road runs along the

6 Drina River itself. So there are buildings close to the road. The rest

7 of Zvornik is away from the road and the road cannot be seen from there.

8 Q. All right. Would somebody need to drive through Zvornik in order

9 to continue on to go to Bijeljina, or if they wanted to go in that

10 direction in Bijeljina, or could they just stay on the highway, such as it

11 is?

12 A. No. There was no need at all to enter Zvornik. That's why the

13 road was built as a highway.

14 Q. All right. And this road that I'm calling a highway, it's

15 actually one lane in one direction and one lane in another direction with

16 the Drina River on the one side and Zvornik being on the other; correct?

17 A. Yes. That's just how it is.

18 Q. All right. So somebody could drive all the way from Konjevic

19 Polje to Bijeljina, and if they wanted to stop in Pilica or Branjevo farm

20 without ever going through Zvornik?

21 A. They wouldn't have to go through Zvornik if they took the main

22 road.

23 Q. All right. One last question: You were asked a question about

24 the Geneva Conventions being in effect at the point in time. My question

25 to you is quite simple: A prosecutor at the basic level, the first

Page 10915

1 instance, do you think it would be possible for them to recite the Geneva

2 Conventions as a protection against members of the security organs whom

3 the prosecutor would be investigating for serious crimes? Do you think

4 that would be sufficient protection in light of the fact that no other

5 protection was being afforded to them, that is physical protection?

6 A. Whatever they had written, whichever authority they had referred

7 to, right there on the spot with no one there to protect them, with no one

8 else to back the proceedings, the opening of a case, there was nothing

9 they could do.

10 Q. Okay. Thank you very much, sir.

11 MR. KARNAVAS: I have no -- no further redirect, Your Honours.

12 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Mr. Karnavas. Well, at this stage are

13 there any documents to tender? Mr. Karnavas?

14 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Mr. President.

15 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Mr. Shin?

16 MR. SHIN: The law marked Prosecution Exhibit 867, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Any objections?

18 MR. KARNAVAS: None, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. This document P867 is admitted into

20 evidence.

21 Well, Witness, thank you very much for coming to The Hague to give

22 your evidence. The usher will show you out of the room, and we wish you a

23 pleasant journey back home.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

25 [The witness withdrew]

Page 10916

1 JUDGE LIU: Well, to my understanding, this is the last witness

2 for this week. Am I right?

3 MR. KARNAVAS: Potentially.

4 JUDGE LIU: "Potentially." What do you mean?

5 MR. KARNAVAS: There was that one witness, Your Honour, that we

6 had been trying to bring over here, and a subpoena was issued. It's my

7 understanding that there is a very, very slight possibility, although I

8 doubt it, we would have heard by now, that this gentleman could arrive as

9 early as, you know, Friday to testify, but that's why I say "potentially,"

10 because I always leave myself a little room. But I would suspect the

11 answer to that question is yes, that's it for this week. We do have two

12 other witnesses next week. And this gentleman, if he does indeed arrive,

13 we will try to squeeze him in-between. So we expect it would be Witness

14 42, for this witness to testify on or about Wednesday.

15 Now, since I'm on the floor, with respect to this issue of

16 witnesses next week, the last witness is a rather significant witness, and

17 try as I might to bring the witness earlier, and in light of the efforts

18 that had to be made by everyone, we -- a certain amount of flexibility had

19 to be shown, so we were locked into two particular days only, and I didn't

20 wish to push the matter and force the situation. So I would respectfully

21 request that if it is at all possible for the -- next week Thursday,

22 Friday, that we go full days, full days, if possible, at least on

23 Thursday, because then -- because I would certainly like to end on time,

24 on the targeted date, as we've indicated. So I believe my direct could be

25 -- I don't believe it's less than a day - probably more, in fact - and I

Page 10917

1 certainly want to give the Prosecution adequate time to ask their -- for

2 them to ask their questions, so I would like two full days next week.

3 JUDGE LIU: Well, on this matter I think I have to consult with

4 the Registrar to see the time schedule for the next week. And I don't

5 think this Bench will -- will complain about the delay of your case. I

6 believe that you conduct your case very smoothly, generally speaking,

7 according to the schedule, which means that you finished your case before

8 the deadline set by this Trial Chamber. But still, there are some

9 witnesses left over, especially, you know, this Bench has not made any

10 decisions concerning the 92 bis witnesses, and we might, we might call, if

11 necessary, some of those witnesses for the live testimony after the 25th

12 of this month.

13 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.

14 JUDGE LIU: As I understand that, Mr. Jokic's case will begin

15 officially on the 7th of July, and they also promised us that they could

16 finish their case before the summer recess.

17 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President. We would be delighted to

18 have any additional witnesses come. I did speak with Mr. McCloskey a

19 little bit on this issue, and I understand -- and I don't want to speak

20 for him, but I understand that he was going to also look at those lists of

21 witnesses and perhaps we might have some readjustment to their position,

22 and we certainly are willing to work with them to the extent that we can.

23 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

24 Any matters on your part, Mr. McCloskey?

25 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President, but I don't anticipate a very

Page 10918

1 long cross-examination of -- I believe we're talking about Colonel

2 Karremans, and so we can work that into the schedule. But I -- as you

3 know, it's hard to anticipate perfectly, but I don't see us having to

4 spend more than a session or so with him.

5 JUDGE LIU: Well -- but as for this Trial Chamber, we'll do our

6 best to accommodate the request from the Defence. We want them to have

7 enough time to do their direct examination. At the same time, I have to

8 remind the parties that this witness is somehow a little bit sensitive,

9 you know, in the Netherlands, and which may, you know, touch upon some

10 critical issues, local political, you know, matters. This is what we

11 don't want. So as a piece of advice, I would like to tell the parties to

12 not go into that deep which is outside the scope of our case. Secondly,

13 pay some respect to all the witnesses, especially this one. This is the

14 initial advice I would like to offer to the parties during their direct

15 examination and the cross-examination.

16 Well, having said that, I think the hearing for today is

17 adjourned.

18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

19 1.38 p.m. sine die