1 Tuesday, 27 November 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, everybody.

7 Mr. Registrar, can you please call the case.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good morning, Your Honours. Case

9 number IT-04-83-T, the Prosecutor versus Rasim Delic.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Could we have the appearances

11 for today, starting with the Prosecution.

12 [Technical difficulty]

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're welcome.

14 Could we have the appearances, please, starting with the

15 Prosecution.

16 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.

17 Good morning, Your Honours, counsel and everyone in and around the

18 courtroom. For the Prosecution, Daryl Mundis and Kyle Wood, assisted by

19 our case manager, Alma Imamovic.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

21 And for the Defence.

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good

23 morning to my learned friends. Good morning to everyone in and around the

24 courtroom. Vasvija Vidovic and Nicholas Robson on behalf of General Rasim

25 Delic. Our case manager is Lejla Gluhic.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

2 WITNESS: MURIS HADZISELIMOVIC [Resumed]

3 [Witness answered through interpreter]

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, sir. Just to remind you that you

5 made a declaration at the beginning of your testimony last week to tell

6 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth. You remember

7 that?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good

9 morning to the Defence and everyone else. Of course, I remember that. I

10 abide by that sworn statement that I made.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed. So just to remind you that you are still

12 bound by that declaration.

13 Yes, Mr. Wood.

14 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Mr. President.

15 Examination by Mr. Wood: [Continued]

16 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hadziselimovic.

17 A. Good morning.

18 Q. Just before we took the weekend recess, you had mentioned, at page

19 86, starting at line 19:

20 "I think that there was a decision by the Presidency of the

21 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina where it was stated that all the Geneva

22 Conventions were to be applied."

23 Do you remember that?

24 A. Of course.

25 MR. WOOD: If we could have document P04050 displayed, please.

1 Q. Do you see that document in front of you, sir?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And can you tell the Trial Chamber what this is?

4 A. As far as I can tell, this is a decree of the BH Presidency

5 relating to the implementation of the International Laws of War within the

6 Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

7 Q. Is this the law you were speaking of on Friday before the recess?

8 A. I don't think we looked at this decree on Friday. We spoke about

9 the decision of the Presidency to apply the Geneva Conventions and about

10 the criminal laws that were applied in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time.

11 This is a special decree in relation to the armed forces.

12 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers this into evidence, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.

14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, our apologies. First

15 of all, this document was tendered when Witness Delic testified and

16 admitted. I think it might be a good idea to check, because we are

17 duplicating a lot of our documents. I remember this document clearly.

18 Secondly, we have a monitor problem here, Your Honours. We don't

19 have the transcript. This should be 427, Exhibit 427, if the OTP could

20 please check that.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you say you don't have a transcript on your

22 screen, ma'am?

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that's right, Your

24 Honours. We have a technical glitch over here, it seems, but the court

25 deputy seems to be suffering from that same problem too.

1 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Trial Chamber's been advised that 427 is a

3 signed version in a slightly different format and with a little more text

4 on top. I'm not quite sure whether it's exactly identical to this. No

5 text?

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's have a look at 427. Let's have a look at it.

8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's identical, but

9 the document that the OTP are now tendering is a copy.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Wood, there's 427 on the screen now.

11 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour. Our case manager has also checked

12 into this. It does appear to be slightly different copies. The

13 Prosecution is persuaded that the text is the same. It would be easier, I

14 think, in this regard -- they have different ERN numbers as well. But if

15 427 could be shown to the witness, that would make things much easier.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: 427 is on the screen now.

17 MR. WOOD: And I'll put that question to the witness now, then, as

18 well.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you withdraw P04050 now?

20 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

22 MR. WOOD:

23 Q. Now, Mr. Hadziselimovic, does this appear to be the same as what

24 you previously looked at, the document that was just on the screen in

25 front of you?

1 A. I think so.

2 MR. WOOD: We can move on then. This document can be put away,

3 Your Honour.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. The document may be put away.

5 MR. WOOD:

6 Q. Now, Mr. Hadziselimovic, I want to take you into more specifics

7 about the military -- District Military Prosecutor's Office. Can you tell

8 me, sir, about how many cases did you handle during the war as a deputy

9 District Military Court prosecutor?

10 A. Throughout my time with the Prosecution, once a year.

11 Q. Let me ask you the question again, sir. If you could remember,

12 you told us you were a military prosecutor from 1993 to 1996. During that

13 time, if you could tell the Court generally as a rough estimate, how many

14 cases you handled, how many criminal cases you handled.

15 A. It is difficult to say exactly what the figure was, but between

16 1.000 and 1.500 cases.

17 Q. And if you can tell the Trial Chamber generally, what was the

18 majority of these cases about?

19 A. These were cases where crimes against the armed forces were

20 handled. That was in Articles 201 through 239 of the Criminal Code of the

21 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Those were adopted, and that accounted

22 for 60 per cent of the cases that we dealt with. The remaining cases had

23 to do with what we termed "general crime," covering all the other crimes

24 defined under the criminal law of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

25 Q. What were the most common criminal offences that you prosecuted

1 during the war?

2 A. The most common criminal offences had to do with crimes against

3 property. That's what the chapter was called in the Criminal Code. Also,

4 there was unauthorised departure from the armed forces or desertion,

5 failure to obey orders, that sort of thing. It's difficult to remember

6 now all of the crimes that were handled, but for the most part it was this

7 type of crime that we dealt with.

8 Q. Criminal reports that you received, did they come from -- only

9 from military police or did they also come from civilian police?

10 A. It was possible for both the military police and the civilian

11 police to file criminal reports.

12 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber, if a case was sent to the District

13 Military Prosecutor's Office involving a person over which the district

14 military prosecutor did not have jurisdiction, what would the Military

15 Prosecutor's Office have done with that criminal case?

16 A. If this was something that the district military prosecutor did

17 not have jurisdiction over but, rather, a civilian prosecutor, for

18 example, we would forward any such case to the appropriate prosecutor.

19 Q. If the police, when they went to the scene of a crime, after a

20 preliminary investigation decided that the district military prosecutor

21 did not have jurisdiction over the case, what would the police be

22 obligated to do in that situation?

23 A. You mean civilian or military police?

24 Q. Thank you for that clarification. I mean the military police.

25 A. Their responsibility was to file a criminal report. However, in

1 practice, what I think was most often the case was that civilian police

2 was contacted as soon as possible, especially if the investigation had

3 been a joint one. So if at one moment it was decided that this was

4 something for the civilian police, they would take over straightaway.

5 Q. When you say, sir, that their responsibility was to file a

6 criminal report, what do you mean by that? Is that a legal

7 responsibility?

8 A. That's right. The law dictates that authorised officials had the

9 responsibility of filing a criminal report whenever they came across

10 evidence of a crime that was committed. It was the responsibility of each

11 and every citizen, after all, to file a criminal report if there was

12 anything to suggest that a crime was committed. This was a responsibility

13 enshrined in the country's laws.

14 MR. WOOD: If document P02943 could be put on the screen, please.

15 I see that document is coming up. Before we get to this, I do

16 have one further question about the District Military Prosecutor's Office.

17 Q. You said in your testimony that you worked in that office until

18 1996. What happened in 1996 to the District Military Prosecutor's Office?

19 A. At the time, there was a decision to abolish the military courts

20 and military prosecutors. The same decision said that deputy military

21 prosecutors and military prosecutor would be absorbed by the Higher Public

22 Prosecutor Offices, and that's what happened to me. I was absorbed by the

23 higher public prosecutor in Zenica, soon after which I was appointed

24 deputy municipal public prosecutor in Zenica.

25 Q. What happened to all the archives and records of the District

1 Military Prosecutor's Office when -- after 1996?

2 A. The district military prosecutor -- I'm speaking about Zenica

3 now. That applied to all district military prosecutors throughout the

4 country. I'm sorry.

5 So in the decision abolishing military prosecutors, it was clearly

6 envisaged what would happen to the files or, rather, to the cases being

7 processed by district military prosecutors. The decision was made that the

8 archives should be handed over to the appropriate public prosecutors

9 throughout the country, meaning some of the cases might have been taken up

10 by the higher public prosecutor in Zenica. Some of the cases might have

11 been taken up by the municipal public prosecutors from throughout the

12 country. As far as I remember, some of the cases were taken up by the

13 Sarajevo higher public prosecutor. We were to hand over cases according

14 to both real and territorial -- subject matter and territorial

15 jurisdiction.

16 Q. What happened specifically to the archives and records of the

17 Zenica District Military Prosecutor's Office after 1996?

18 A. Most of the archives was taken over by the civil prosecutor and

19 the municipal prosecutor in Zenica, amounting to about between 60 and 70

20 per cent of the case-load.

21 Q. And what office has jurisdiction or has supervisory authority or

22 custodian possession of those archives from the Zenica District Military

23 Prosecutor's Office right now?

24 A. The cantonal prosecutor of the Zenica-Doboj Canton, and I happened

25 to be head of that office.

1 Q. If we could turn to the document now. Do you recognise this

2 document, Mr. Hadziselimovic?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. We can see on the bottom of the version in Bosnian that there

5 is --

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Counsel, can somebody scroll down, please, in the

7 English.

8 MR. WOOD: And only to advance this second page to see the

9 signature line, if that's what you have in mind, Mr. President.

10 We can see, on the bottom of the Bosnian page and in the bottom of

11 page 2 in the English version, there's a name, "Muris Hadziselimovic," and

12 there's a signature.

13 Q. Is that your signature, sir?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber, please, how did you go about

16 producing this letter, sir?

17 A. The Hague Prosecutor requested that we hand over this

18 information. If you look at the introduction from 1 to 2, Arabic 1

19 through 3, you will see that this was in fact the case. It was about the

20 period between 1993 and 1996. I, as the chief prosecutor, ordered our

21 archives to verify this information. A check was carried out, and based

22 on that, this document was eventually produced. I endorsed this document

23 with my signature. I confirm this document's authenticity.

24 Q. Now, you say in your answer: "A check was carried out and our

25 archives -- and based on that, this document was eventually produced."

1 What archives or what records were checked in order for you to

2 produce this letter?

3 A. I'm talking about our archives, which comprised the archives of

4 the former district military prosecutor in Zenica and the former higher

5 public prosecutor in Zenica, as well as 10 municipal public prosecutors

6 covered by this particular canton.

7 Q. You say "archives." What role did the registers that we talked

8 about on Friday have in your search?

9 A. Well, what we mean by "archives" is, above all, registers. All of

10 those were inspected. Whenever we found a case, we would formally inspect

11 it, so this included registers, logbooks, as well as individual case

12 files, the check that I talked about.

13 Q. And why would it be important to look at the registers when

14 determining whether a particular criminal case had been received by the

15 District Military Prosecutor's Office?

16 A. If you're talking about the registers, this is something that's

17 really important, because as I said on Friday, each case was registered in

18 this kind of book. So, first of all, we would go through the registers.

19 Whenever we found a case that was registered, it would always prove easy

20 to track down. It never happened that we had a case that was not

21 registered. That is why how the search took place is very important.

22 First you look at the register and then you look at the logbook and then

23 you look at individual case files.

24 MR. WOOD: If we could turn to the number 1 on that document,

25 which is on page 1 in both versions.

1 Q. Under number 1, Mr. Hadziselimovic, we see that there are certain

2 articles listed. Those are 36, 37, 38, 42, 52, 172 and 177 of the

3 Criminal Code of BiH, as well as 142 to 146 of the Criminal Code of

4 Yugoslavia. Can you tell the Trial Chamber generally what Article 36

5 would have covered?

6 A. Article 36 was murder.

7 Q. And if you recall -- we can bring up these pages of the Code as

8 well to assist if you don't recall, but if you recall generally, what did

9 Article 37 cover?

10 A. Article 37 covered manslaughter.

11 Q. If you could just take the Trial Chamber through the rest of

12 those, 38, 42, 52 and the others. What did those articles cover,

13 Mr. Hadziselimovic?

14 A. As far as I remember, 38, reckless endangerment. 42 was grievous

15 bodily harm. 52 was unlawful detention. 172 was causing public danger,

16 and 177 covered serious cases of causing public danger. I forget the name

17 because there were three later amendments to these laws.

18 Q. In any event, though, the document that we saw on Friday does

19 explain what these laws are? That was the law that was in effect at the

20 time; is that correct, sir?

21 A. Yes, that's right, but 140 through 146 covered war crimes. This

22 is something that was adopted from the Criminal Code of the Federal

23 Republic of Yugoslavia. All these applied from 1993 to 1996, as the

24 document reflects. 142 to 146.

25 MR. WOOD: Now, Mr. President, there are more pages of this, as we

1 MIF'd it. There's a table, specifically. I see there at the top of the

2 Bosnian version, it says "1 of 1". I don't know if there's any further

3 pages beyond that. There are.

4 If we could go to page 2 of the Bosnian version and just the final

5 page. That would be, I'm sorry, page 3 of the English version.

6 Q. Do you see that in front of you now, Mr. Hadziselimovic?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber, is this an accurate reflection of

9 a portion of the registers that you kept during the war?

10 A. Yes, the entire table reflects our records. I believe that each

11 page has my initials.

12 Q. If we could just go through one particular entry just to get an

13 idea of how things were recorded. Let's stick with the first one, for

14 example, which appears to be under the first column. Could you please

15 tell the Trial Chamber, first of all, what "KT" means?

16 A. It is simply the name of a register. This is where we kept cases

17 with identified adult perpetrators of criminal offences.

18 Q. In the first column there, there's a number. It says "33596".

19 What is that number, sir?

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which number are you talking about, Mr. Wood?

21 MR. WOOD: Immediately beneath where it says "KP Vojno." I see

22 that it's been highlighted now.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].

24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, Interpreter. Yeah, okay, I see it now.

1 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Mr. President.

2 Q. So specifically, Mr. Hadziselimovic, what does this "/96" indicate

3 about this particular criminal report?

4 A. Registers were kept for each year individually. We would start

5 with a new register with a new number at the beginning of the year, and we

6 would conclude the register with the end of the year. Therefore -- excuse

7 me. There should be "KT" just in front of the number and then "335/96".

8 That would mean that within the KT register, this case was registered as

9 case 335 in that year, that is, 1996.

10 Q. And is that the same -- the same practice followed throughout the

11 war and is it still followed today in your own registers, that a case

12 would have a slash and then the year in which it was filed after it?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Moving to the second column immediately to the right, we see that

15 it says: "CSB Zenica." Can you tell the Trial Chamber, what is CSB

16 Zenica?

17 A. Centre of Security Services, Zenica, one of the organisational

18 units of the civilian police. This should mean that they were the ones

19 submitting the criminal report.

20 Q. And the third column labelled "Suspects," I believe that speaks

21 for itself. If you look to the fourth column, there's a "36/2". Can you

22 tell the Trial Chamber what that means?

23 A. That means that the crime in question is murder, Article 36(2) of

24 the Criminal Code of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

25 Q. The column immediately after that, we have a translation here. It

1 says "The injured party" or "victim." I want to draw your attention to

2 the next column over. The heading in B/C/S, I believe it says "Ishod."

3 Can you tell the Trial Chamber what that is?

4 A. It says here that 150890 -- well, it seems the case was

5 transferred to the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Zenica perhaps in

6 1996. I cannot see it clearly. Yes, I can see it better. The 15th of

7 August, 1996, the case was turned over to the Higher Public Prosecutor's

8 Office in Zenica.

9 Q. So in that entry, we see a "VJT." Immediately below that, we

10 see "OJT." Can you tell the Trial Chamber what those initials stand for?

11 A. It stands for -- well, "VJT" is Higher Public Prosecutor's Office

12 in Zenica. "OJT" means Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office in Zenica.

13 Q. And the next -- if we -- the next table down, if we could stay

14 where we were, we see that there's an entry -- if we count six down, it

15 says "KTM 1993". Can you tell the Trial Chamber what "KTM" stands for?

16 A. "KTM" is the register for criminal offences committed by minors.

17 MR. WOOD: If we could go to the next page in B/C/S, and I will

18 explain, Mr. President, that each individual entry has not been translated

19 in this, but the headings have, so this amounts to the final page or one

20 of the last final pages in the English. But I will take him through some

21 of the entries in B/C/S at this point.

22 And I apologise. If we could actually go to the next page in the

23 B/C/S version.

24 Now, we see -- if we could scroll up a little bit.

25 Q. That entry at the top, that says "BVP Zenica." Can you tell the

1 Trial Chamber, sir, what does "BVP Zenica" stand for?

2 A. It is another acronym for the Battalion of the Military Police,

3 Zenica.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You know, let me just interject here, Mr. Wood. I

5 notice that these things that you are asking the witness to go through

6 have not been translated on the English side. What are you expecting is

7 going to happen at the time judgement is written? We're going to have to

8 look at the B/C/S document to try and figure out what we have been told by

9 the witness today?

10 MR. WOOD: I'm told, Mr. President, that is the practice with

11 respect to tables. One thing that can be done, I see that it wasn't with

12 this document, but I know it has in others, and in particular the document

13 that I'll be showing next, it does have a list of abbreviations that

14 explains what those things stand for. We can have that produced for this

15 one. I believe Mr. President is right, that it would be certainly helpful

16 to have that done with this document.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hear you say this is the practice that is done.

18 You know, if the practice doesn't answer to the problems -- address the

19 problems, then maybe it's about time the practice was revisited.

20 What's the point of giving us a translation if the translation is

21 not identical to what is being translated?

22 MR. WOOD: I take your point, Your Honour, and we can have these

23 particular acronyms translated. I believe you're right, that would be

24 helpful.

25 As I said, the next document that I show him, the witness will

1 have those -- a list of acronyms and what they mean, the abbreviations and

2 their translations. We can have that done with this document as well.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: So are you saying we've got to refer to the list of

4 acronyms and come back to the table when we arrive at judgement, or are

5 you saying that the translations are going to be in the table?

6 MR. WOOD: What's been done, as you'll see in the next document,

7 is that there's a list of acronyms at the back of the English translation

8 of a cover letter that are the acronyms that are referred to throughout

9 the table. This is typically how we get them back. They wouldn't --

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, your answer is the former of my two

11 questions?

12 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just say so, then.

14 MR. WOOD: Okay. Yes. We will request a full translation of this

15 document, Your Honour, that includes the tables and all the abbreviations

16 and so on.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

18 Finally, where are we going with this examination?

19 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour. This is to show the Trial Chamber a

20 little bit of exactly how the records were kept, what records were

21 indicated, and ultimately as we get to number 1 and then ultimately to

22 number 2, this is to show exactly what criminal reports were filed with

23 regard to the particular crimes at issue here.

24 I'm taking the witness through this portion to explain the table

25 to Mr. President and Your Honours and so that the Trial Chamber can get an

1 idea of exactly what sort of search was done and can feel confident that

2 the search was proper and --

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: What sort of search was done or what kind of

4 archiving was done?

5 MR. WOOD: Both, Your Honour, the records that were kept and how

6 those records were searched.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Wood.

8 MR. WOOD:

9 Q. And in the fourth row, Mr. Hadziselimovic, we see that there's

10 a "KTN." Can you tell the Trial Chamber what "KTN" stands for?

11 A. It is the name of the register with criminal offences committed by

12 unknown or unidentified perpetrators.

13 MR. WOOD: Thank you, sir.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: All those abbreviations, the witness explained last

15 week, KT, KTM, KTN. You're taking him through the same things again,

16 Mr. Wood.

17 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour, I'm taking him through these again so

18 that Your Honours have an indication of how it looks and to remind Your

19 Honours what these abbreviations stand for as they see them in the tables.

20 I will move on, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.

22 MR. WOOD: If we could look at page 1 of the Bosnian version. And

23 I believe we'll probably be looking at page 2 of the English version.

24 This is at Roman numeral II. Yes, that's perfect.

25 Q. Mr. Hadziselimovic, you indicate in your letter here that there

1 are no charges that were filed with regard to the following events. When

2 you signed this letter, were you confident that this is an accurate

3 reflection of what appeared in your archives?

4 A. Yes, certainly. My clerks ran detailed checks, and since I trust

5 them fully, I signed the document.

6 Q. And what criteria did you use in searching your archives to

7 determine whether any crimes with regards to Arabic 1, 2 and 3 were

8 referred to your office?

9 A. I believe we were given a list of names of those killed.

10 According to their names, we ran those checks in the appropriate

11 registers. We didn't find a single case that was opened against known or

12 unidentified perpetrators with any of the names from the list appearing in

13 them.

14 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers this document into evidence,

15 Your Honour.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

17 please be given an exhibit number.

18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 881.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

20 MR. WOOD: If we could have document P06211. If we could advance

21 to the page that's marked ERN 0613-2621. I believe it's a couple more.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is this document dated at all?

23 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour, it's dated 22 August 2007.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where is the date?

25 MR. WOOD: What you see before you now, Your Honours, is the

1 request from the prosecutor's office.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand. I just want to see the date of the

3 request.

4 MR. WOOD: If we could advance to the next page. The way this

5 document was submitted, it's the -- first is the request from the

6 prosecutor, and following that is the response from Mr. Hadziselimovic's

7 office. It's the response that I'm most interested in. I believe that is

8 page 3 of the Bosnian.

9 It's beyond that even further. Perhaps page 4.

10 Again, what we're seeing here is the --

11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Page 6.

12 MR. WOOD: Page 6, thank you. Yes.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Vidovic.

14 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Madam Vidovic.

15 Q. Do you recognise this document, sir?

16 A. Could we please zoom out? Can I see the following page, please?

17 Yes, I recognise it now. This document was a reply to the prosecutor's

18 request. It was signed by my deputy, since I was on annual leave at the

19 time, and I authorised him to sign the document.

20 Q. And these letters are similar, this letter and the last letter we

21 saw. Can you please tell the Trial Chamber what is the primary difference

22 between them? That is to say, what is the different search of the

23 archives you did to produce this letter than the search you did to produce

24 the letter we saw just before?

25 A. The period is important. The first document referred to 1993 to

1 1996, whereas this one pertains to the entire period up until end 2000.

2 Q. And did you use the same search criteria, Mr. Hadziselimovic, in

3 both searches of the archives?

4 A. Yes, and that was the instruction I gave to my deputy.

5 Q. One notice -- one thing I noticed that's different,

6 Mr. Hadziselimovic, that I wonder if you might be able to comment on.

7 If we could go back to page 1 on the B/C/S again, and if we could

8 stick with that page in the English, actually, the page we were on before

9 it disappeared just then. And if we could scroll down in the Bosnian, I

10 want to draw your attention, in particular, to the second bullet point

11 that reads:

12 "The killing and cruel treatment of three RS prisoners of war

13 [Realtime transcript read in error "62 prisoners of war"] in the village

14 of Livade [Realtime transcript read in error "Kesten"] or Kamenica camp,

15 in the period 21 to 23 July 1993." [Realtime transcript read in error "11

16 to 19 September 1995"].

17 I believe if we looked at the request of the prosecutor, that date

18 was actually 21 to 23 [Realtime transcript read in error "23 to 21"] July

19 1995, and I believe if we looked at the other letter, the search criteria

20 was again 21 to 23 July 1995.

21 Can you tell the Trial Chamber, sir, what period was searched for

22 this particular letter to be produced?

23 A. We ran our searches pertaining to the period between 1993 and

24 2000, including this period, as per request.

25 MR. WOOD: If we could go back to the prosecutor's request. That

1 would be the first page --

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before we do that, can I just intervene here?

3 At page 20, line 21, you said, Mr. Prosecutor -- actually, 21 to 23 "July

4 1995". It's printed here "23 to 21". Just make sure that is corrected.

5 MR. WOOD: Yes, Mr. President.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah. And, Mr. Wood, while you said "1995", I see

8 the document there says "21 to 23 July 1993", so I'm not quite sure

9 whether you're talking about 1995 or 1993. Do you see it?

10 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour. I'll clarify this.

11 If we could go to the first page of this document in both

12 versions. And if we could actually go to the second page. The part of

13 the request that's important is on the second page of both documents. And

14 I want to draw your attention particularly to number 2.

15 Q. Mr. Hadziselimovic, did you carry out the search as requested by

16 the Prosecutor in this case?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. We can see that the Prosecutor requested, under number two:

19 "Murder and cruel treatment of three war prisoners, members of the

20 Army of Republika Srpska in the village of Livade or on the Camp Kamenica

21 in the territory of Zavidovici Municipality in the period from 21 to 23

22 July 1995 ..."?

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Can we now explain why the

24 other one says "1993"?

25 MR. WOOD: Yes, Mr. President.

1 Q. Could you please explain to the Trial Chamber, sir, why the

2 response from the prosecutor's office, from your office, indicates "21 to

3 23 July 1993", whereas the request from the Prosecutor from the OTP was

4 from 21 to 23 July 1995?

5 A. I cannot explain that with any degree of certainty, but what I can

6 tell you is that the entire period between 1993 and 2000 was checked. I

7 suppose that this was merely a typographical error. It reads "1993" by

8 mistake.

9 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers this document into evidence,

10 Your Honour.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

12 please be given an exhibit number.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 882.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

15 MR. WOOD:

16 Q. Mr. Hadziselimovic, during your time as a deputy District Military

17 Court prosecutor, do you remember there being any criminal reports or

18 prosecutions involving any crimes coming out of the Kamenica Camp, what is

19 called "the Kamenica Camp"?

20 A. I can tell you with certainty that I did not handle such cases. As

21 you said, yourself, I was deputy district military prosecutor. The

22 district prosecutor -- district military prosecutor would know for sure

23 whether there were any such cases, if he were here. I cannot tell you

24 anything as to whether there was such a case received by the District

25 Military Prosecutor's Office at the time, since I was not the head of the

1 office at the time.

2 If we go back to the document we've just seen, I can tell you that

3 we did not receive any such cases, that is, it wasn't received by our

4 military prosecutor's office.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, there's something that I don't understand

6 from the answer that comes. I thought, when you took us through the

7 exercise of your registers here, you were trying to show to us that you

8 searched, using your registers during that time, the time covered by the

9 time when you were a deputy prosecutor, military prosecutor, and that

10 therefore, according to the records of that office, you give an answer.

11 Now, when you say you were merely a deputy, "the prosecutor, if he were

12 here, could answer better," I got a bit lost. I thought you've told us

13 what the prosecutor would have told us. Did I miss something?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As deputy district military

15 prosecutor, I was not responsible for the registers and what was being

16 entered. That is why, personally, I cannot tell you whether anything was

17 entered or not. But from the point of view of the chief prosecutor of the

18 cantonal office in Zenica, where I was also responsible for the archives

19 of the former District Military Prosecutor's Office, I can tell you that

20 what we were asked to carry out searches on was not found. However, I

21 cannot tell you the same thing pertaining to Zavidovici.

22 MR. WOOD: If I could ask a follow-up question, Mr. President.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, you may proceed, sir.

24 MR. WOOD:

25 Q. Now, the question I asked you was about whether you personally

1 remembered. Can you tell the Trial Chamber, are you confident, sir, that

2 if a case had been filed with -- under the criteria that are listed in

3 your responses to the requests of the prosecutor, would it appear in the

4 registers?

5 A. Had a criminal report been submitted, it would have been entered

6 into the register, and as such, there would be a case.

7 Q. The other question I have is: On page 24, line 4, you say:

8 "However, I cannot tell you the same thing pertaining to

9 Zavidovici."

10 Can you tell the Trial Chamber what you meant by that?

11 A. I don't understand your question.

12 Q. What District Military Prosecutor's Office had territorial

13 jurisdiction over Zavidovici Municipality in 1993 and 1995?

14 A. The District Military Prosecutor's Office in Zenica.

15 Q. So it follows, then, if a criminal report had been filed for an

16 event occurring in Zavidovici Municipality involving military personnel,

17 it would have been filed into the Zenica District Military Prosecutor's

18 Office; is that correct?

19 A. It is.

20 Q. And it follows from that, then, that if such a report had been

21 filed, it would appear in the registers and in the archives that your

22 staff had searched when you produced these letters; is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 MR. WOOD: Thank you, sir.

25 The Prosecution has no further questions at this time.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

2 Madam Vidovic. Sorry.

3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Excuse me, Madam Vidovic, but I thought that we

4 should conclude the Prosecution's examination-in-chief by asking the

5 witness about the possible reasons why no official record was ever made of

6 the incidents that are mentioned in the Prosecution's letter. I realise

7 one option is that the witness never heard of these incidents before they

8 were introduced to him in the Prosecution's letters, and another option

9 would be that these incidents never took place. So my question to the

10 witness is if you ever heard of these incidents while you were serving as

11 a prosecutor in Zenica.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Concerning the murders referred to

13 here, I had never heard of them before I was contacted by the Prosecutor's

14 Office.

15 JUDGE HARHOFF: I guess that settles my questions. Thank you very

16 much, sir.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.

18 Cross-examination by Ms. Vidovic:

19 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hadziselimovic. My name is Vasvija Vidovic, and

20 I will cross-examine you today on behalf of General Rasim Delic.

21 I would kindly ask you that you pause before answering, and I will

22 do the same with my questions, so that the transcript could accurately

23 reflect our discussion.

24 Most of my questions can be answered by saying "yes" or "no," and

25 I'm sure you're familiar with the nature of cross-examination, for that

1 matter.

2 You gave us some information on your career. I will not go

3 through those questions again, but I wanted to ask you this: It is

4 correct, is it not, that you were a member of the War Presidency of the

5 former municipality of Kotor Varos or, rather, the Municipality of Kotor

6 Varos in exile, until March 1993?

7 A. It is not correct. In March 1993, I was appointed a member of the

8 War Presidency.

9 Q. In any case, you were a member of the War Presidency, of this War

10 Presidency in exile. The thrust of my question is this, actually: You

11 know how war presidencies in exile functioned; don't you?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. You told us you were deputy district military prosecutor in Zenica

14 from the 1st of April, 1993, until July 1996, when District Military

15 Courts ceased their work; is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Can you tell us who was your boss, his first and last name? Who

18 was the chief district military prosecutor at the time?

19 A. As of 1992 until, I believe, 1995, the middle of that year, it was

20 Kemal Mularifovic, succeeded by Sefedin Suljevic until District Military

21 Prosecutor's Offices were abolished.

22 Q. Those two people are alive, aren't they?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. There was a regulation in place by which the cases of the District

25 Military Prosecutor's Office were taken over by the Higher Public

1 Prosecutor's Office in Zenica; is that correct?

2 A. Yes, inter alia, or among others.

3 Q. The same process was conducted when it came to the issue of

4 District Military Courts, was it not?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. I wanted to ask you about the status of cases of the District

7 Military Prosecutor's Office and the Court in Travnik. When the District

8 Military Court in Travnik was closed down, the cases of the District

9 Military Prosecutor's Office and the Court were taken over by the Higher

10 Court in Zenica, were they not?

11 A. Yes, that is correct.

12 Q. Therefore, even today the Court in Travnik, as well as the

13 prosecutor's office there, functioned as departments of the Cantonal Court

14 in Zenica; is that correct?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Very well. In any case, these cases which existed during the war,

17 including any potential criminal reports, investigations, indictments

18 issued by the District Military Prosecutor's Office in Zenica were taken

19 over by the Travnik institutions; isn't that so? I believe that is clear.

20 A. Not completely. I need to explain, I believe.

21 Q. Please do so.

22 A. It is as follows: The District Military Prosecutor's Office in

23 Zenica had territorial jurisdiction. The Municipalities of Travnik and

24 the other ones I mentioned on Friday, that situation existed until the

25 Military District Prosecutor's Office in Travnik was founded.

1 Q. Mr. Hadziselimovic, I would like to stop you here. Tell us when

2 exactly the District Military Prosecutor's Office in Travnik was formed.

3 A. I cannot tell you what year exactly, unfortunately, as I said on

4 Friday. I believe it was 1993, though.

5 Q. Very well. I will go back to the Travnik cases again, but I want

6 to move on to something else right now.

7 During the war, anyone could submit a criminal report, even an

8 ordinary citizen. However, I'm interested in any potential activities of

9 the relevant bodies in that regard. As you said, criminal reports could

10 also be submitted by security organs, civilian and military ones; is that

11 correct?

12 A. The civilian and military police, to be more precise.

13 Q. That certainly included the Military Security Service, did it not?

14 A. I don't know that for certain.

15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I note the time.

16 Perhaps this is a good time for the break.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.

18 We will take a break and come back at quarter to 11.00.

19 Court adjourned.

20 --- Recess taken at 10.16 a.m.

21 --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Unfortunately we have to sit pursuant to Rule 15

23 bis again because again Judge Harhoff has had to go to the Milosevic case.

24 Yes, Mr. Wood.

25 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution had concluded its questions. I believe

1 Madam Vidovic had the floor when we took the break.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic. I'm so sorry.

3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. We talked about those filing criminal reports. After whoever is

5 filing a criminal report has filed that criminal report, this person no

6 longer wields any influence over the proceedings, do they?

7 A. Yes, that's right.

8 Q. So from that moment on, it's down to the appropriate prosecutor

9 and court to see what measures need taking, in terms of prosecuting

10 whoever is suspected of having committed a crime; is that right?

11 A. Yes, that's right, but this was the responsibility of whoever the

12 appropriate prosecutor happened to be.

13 Q. Yes. You mean the chief prosecutor or -- I didn't quite get your

14 answer, sir.

15 A. The chief prosecutor was responsible for prosecuting, yes. And

16 needless to say, in certain trials he would have his own deputies who

17 would press on with the proceedings.

18 Q. All right. So a prosecutor could start proceedings having

19 received a criminal complaint, but they could also throw out any criminal

20 complaints that they received, or maybe there was an investigation, after

21 which charges were dropped; those were possibilities, weren't they?

22 A. Yes, precisely.

23 Q. It was down to the prosecutor to legally define any possible

24 crimes? Whoever filed the complaint did not have the authority to

25 categorise or classify crimes into legal terms?

1 A. Yes, that's right.

2 Q. Even just learning of a possible crime, without the criminal

3 complaint being filed, meant that a prosecutor was responsible to take

4 measures to see who the perpetrator might have been and what the crime

5 might have been that was committed or possibly committed; is that right?

6 A. Well, that is not entirely true.

7 Q. Can you please elaborate on that, sir?

8 A. I'll do my best.

9 The law contains, indeed, the provision that you allude to in your

10 question. The prosecutor, however, did not technically have the authority

11 to carry out an order or perhaps order an investigation to anyone, so that

12 knowledge of a crime that was committed did not, in practical terms, allow

13 for the possibility to immediately launch proceedings. Why? Because the

14 basic jurisdiction of any prosecutor is to prosecute possible

15 perpetrators, but it didn't have anything to do with discovering that a

16 crime was committed.

17 Q. Would I be right if I stated this: Only if any rumour reached the

18 prosecutor that a crime had been committed would he have been under an

19 obligation to order the appropriate authorities to start pre-trial

20 proceedings; right?

21 A. Yes, but that's not what was done.

22 Q. Maybe that was not the done thing in the Zenica area, but you will

23 agree with me, surely, that this was a provision, a legal provision, and

24 the provision itself is crystal clear about what it says; right?

25 A. I can't quite agree, because the provision, the way you interpret

1 it, did not exist. It wasn't consistently phrased like that. There was a

2 possibility that existed, but this was by no means a commitment or an

3 obligation. It is said should any rumours reach the prosecutor, they may

4 or may not choose to start proceedings. That, at least, is my

5 recollection of the wording.

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could the witness

7 please be shown D713.

8 Your Honours, could we please look at page 4 of the document, the

9 Bosnian. Page 3 in the English. Could we please focus on the right-hand

10 page. That's right, thank you.

11 Q. Witness, could you please look at paragraph 2. You will agree

12 that this is what it says:

13 "If the public prosecutor is unable to determine on the face of a

14 criminal report whether the allegations in the report are probable, or if

15 the information in the report does not provide a sufficient basis needed

16 to decide whether to request an investigation, or if --"

17 And now this is the bit that is relevant for our purposes:

18 " ... Or if the public prosecutor has only heard that a crime may

19 have been committed, and particularly the perpetrator is unknown, the

20 public prosecutor, the public prosecutor, if unable to do so himself or

21 through other organs, shall request the internal affairs organs to gather

22 the necessary information and take other measures toward uncovering the

23 criminal act and the perpetrator."

24 You will therefore agree that this is an obligation enshrined in

25 the law on criminal prosecutors?

1 A. I can't agree. It says "may," and that is a possibility or an

2 option, but no obligation or commitment. When talking about the

3 prosecutor, obviously the reference here is to the chief prosecutor.

4 Q. That is not a dilemma for us. I'm talking about the chief

5 prosecutor, but I don't see the word "may." It reads: "The prosecutor

6 shall request ...," does it not?

7 A. Yes, but the very last sentence: "The public prosecutor can or

8 may always request the internal affairs to inform him ..."

9 Q. To inform him of any measures taken. That's a different thing,

10 but I'm talking about launching an investigation; right?

11 A. The matter at stake is really this: How does one prove that a

12 prosecutor has heard rumours of a crime being committed? This always

13 needs to be in writing, does it not?

14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you very much,

15 Witness.

16 Your Honours, can this document please be assigned a number.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

18 please be given an exhibit number.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 883.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] We can put this document away for

22 the time being. Thank you.

23 I want the witness to look at Exhibit 882 now, please. It was

24 shown to the witness today by the OTP.

25 Q. Before we see that document, let me ask you a number of questions

1 to do with the reports that you forwarded to the Prosecutor about crimes

2 that you enumerated, 36, 37, 38, Article 42, 52, 172, 177, of the Criminal

3 Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina, crimes, 142 through 146 of the Criminal Law

4 of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that was adopted. That relates to

5 war crimes; right? You remember looking at this document today, don't

6 you?

7 A. Yes, indeed I do.

8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] All right. Go back to page 1,

9 please, and then I'll be asking you to go to page 2.

10 Your Honours, I wish to ask a number of questions about both of

11 these documents, the documents used by the Prosecutor today, and at times

12 this might require that the witness go through the documents. That's why

13 we have hard copies available to the witness, whereas we ourselves can

14 follow what is going on on our screens, by your leave.

15 Q. The Prosecutor specifically asked you, as he explained, to go

16 through certain documents - registers, case files - in order to see

17 whether any reports, investigations or indictments were received or were

18 recorded that have to do with trials here before this Tribunal.

19 On the 28th of October -- of August, you wrote a letter to the OTP

20 about that.

21 I want the witness to look at page 6 now of that letter in both

22 the Bosnian and the English. The reference is page 6.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Was the letter on the 28th or on the 22nd?

24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The 22nd of August, Your Honour.

25 That's what I said.

1 Q. You explained that in your letter dated the 13th of October, 2006,

2 you forwarded information about these crimes in the period between 1993

3 and 1996; is that right?

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, Madam Vidovic. Now the transcript talks

5 of 13th of October, 2006.

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a different

7 letter that I'm talking about dated the 13th of October, which I will be

8 invoking later on. I'm just trying to create a link between these two

9 documents. It's a shortcut that I'm taking, really.

10 Q. So you said "yes," did you not? All right, we'll get to that.

11 You confirmed the authenticity of the information, for the most

12 part, contained in both these documents that you were shown by the OTP

13 today?

14 A. Yes, indeed.

15 Q. You explained that you forwarded to them a table or a chart about

16 criminal complaints received between the 1st of January, 1996, and the

17 31st of December, 2000; is that right?

18 A. That's in the letter that is dated the 22nd of August, 2007.

19 Q. Yes, that's precisely what I'm talking about. I'll be going back

20 to that document, but right now we can leave this one aside.

21 And I want the witness to look at Exhibit 881, please.

22 So this is a letter, the letter that we talked about a while ago,

23 the 24th of October, 2006. Please look at Roman II on the first page.

24 You said that:

25 "In the aforementioned archives there were no files or other

1 documents which would indicate that the following was carried out:

2 Submission of criminal reports, investigation of pressing of charges,

3 related to the following events."

4 And then there's a list. We see, back in 1993, something that

5 occurred in Maline/Bikosi, the village of Maline/Bikosi the 8th of June,

6 1993. There is murder and mistreatment of POWs, members of the Army of

7 Republika Srpska. So this is all in relation to 1995 under "2"; right?

8 Can you please now go to page 2 of the Bosnian, and this is page 3

9 in the English.

10 The Prosecutor showed you these tables or boxes. I won't be

11 spending a lot of time with this, but what I'm putting to you is this:

12 I've gone through this document, the document which you now have in front

13 of you, so you can just leaf through it, for your benefit. There is some

14 information there, and aside from some exceptions, this is information

15 from the register, the register which lists known perpetrators of crimes;

16 right?

17 A. Yes, that's right, but there's also the KTN register and there's a

18 special register for known crimes.

19 Q. All right. Can you please go to page 4 of the document in the

20 Bosnian. The same in English. Page 3 in the English, as a matter of

21 fact. It's the one with the boxes and columns.

22 Can you please focus on "KTN Military," "KTN Military."

23 You say that you went through this record; right? This relates to

24 unknown perpetrators or unidentified perpetrators. If one goes through

25 this report that you wrote, the inference one can draw is as follows:

1 Between the 8th of June, 1992, and the 1st of January, 1996, according to

2 this information, at least, a mere 12 criminal reports were received

3 against unidentified perpetrators in relation to these crimes, all forms

4 of murder, endangering another person's safety, unlawful detention, that

5 sort of thing. Is it your evidence that you went through the KTN

6 registers relating to unknown perpetrators for this period of time and

7 this is all you found? You found no other criminal reports in relation to

8 unknown perpetrators, other than these listed here? That's what I mean.

9 A. The table states "KTN Military." The cases that were recorded in

10 the KTN register of the district military prosecutor. "Unknown

11 perpetrators," that is stated in each of the boxes.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].

13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hear you and the witness talk of "KTN Military,"

15 and I do see on the B/C/S "KTN Vojno" or something like that. But on the

16 English, we see "KT," "KTN" and "KT", so it doesn't look like we're on the

17 same page.

18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we please look at

19 the first box? It says "KTN" -- or the first column on the left, "KTN,

20 Unknown Military." Did you see that? The first column, the first table,

21 and it reads "KT" -- yes, Your Honour, you're quite right. There's an

22 error in the English. You're right, and thank you for that. It should

23 read "KTN." There's an "N" missing there. That's what I have been

24 discussing with the witness.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's my problem, because I don't have the "N" on

1 the English. That's why I couldn't follow you. Okay. Anyway, now this

2 is "KT" on the first box on top is supposed to be "KTN Military," "Unknown

3 perpetrators in the military"?

4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour, that's

5 right.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then I'm with you.

7 Do you know that, Mr. Wood? Mr. Wood? Mr. Wood?

8 MR. WOOD: Just a moment, Your Honour.

9 Yes, Your Honour. This document, the English translation will be

10 revised, and we'll produce a final version.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's do that. Thank you very much.

12 You may proceed. I'm sorry, Madam Vidovic. You may proceed.

13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No problem at all.

14 Q. Witness, it is your evidence that in those registers, between the

15 8th of June, 1993, and the 1st of January, 1996, there were a mere 12

16 criminal complaints relating to unknown perpetrators for these crimes; is

17 my understanding correct, sir?

18 A. Unfortunately, it's not.

19 Q. Can you explain, please?

20 A. These are KTN cases that were recorded in the KTN register.

21 Therefore, perpetrators of these crimes remain unidentified. Every time a

22 perpetrator was identified, the case would be transferred to the KT

23 register, the register for known perpetrators. What this means is that

24 these particular perpetrators remained unidentified. That's all it means.

25 Q. Thank you very much for that particular clarification.

1 Let's assume this: I go to the Zenica archive and I find a case

2 file from 1993 which is recorded as "Unknown perpetrator, KTN," I'll

3 always be able to find it there, right, regardless of whether it's still

4 on the unknown list, unidentified, or whether a name has been assigned to

5 it because a perpetrator has been found; is that what you're saying, sir?

6 A. Yes, that is my evidence.

7 Q. Is it your evidence that over this two-and-a-half-year period, you

8 did not receive a single criminal report against any unknown or

9 unidentified perpetrator for a war crime?

10 A. Known or unknown?

11 Q. Unknown.

12 A. I see that it's not stated on this list. What this means is that

13 perhaps there was something like that, but then it became KT over time,

14 which means that the perpetrator was found. Unknown perpetrator for a war

15 crime, yes, that would have been on a list like this, so it is likely that

16 a criminal report was filed, but then the perpetrator was found, and in

17 the meantime the case file became KT, known perpetrator. That's the only

18 possibility.

19 Q. In which case we would be able to find it on one of your lists?

20 A. Yes, marked as "KT, known perpetrator."

21 Q. Thank you very much. Okay, talking about war crimes, there's one

22 thing I want you to clarify, your letter of the 24th of October, 2006.

23 You write in your reply to the OTP there are no case files or other

24 documents that would indicate that criminal reports were received or any

25 requests for investigation or any charges brought for the killings at

1 Maline. You were quite clear about that.

2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please go to page 3 of

3 this document, the Bosnian version of this document.

4 Your Honour, it seems that this page was not translated at all. It

5 seems that this document had only two pages translated. I apologise. It

6 wasn't what I would expect to find. It was not a large document, and I

7 thought the whole of it would be translated. However, I will ask the

8 witness to clarify, as I believe it needs some clarification.

9 Q. On page 3, the seventh row from below, we can see that there was

10 an investigation, the number of which was K33/01 or 014/2000, against

11 Besim Spahic concerning the events in the villages of Maline and Bikosi.

12 Do you see that?

13 At this moment, it is the third line from the bottom on the

14 screen. Your Honours I will read out so that you can follow, or perhaps

15 the witness can do that.

16 Can you see that? The third column, Besim Spahic, Articles 141

17 and 142, that is war crimes; correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Can you read what follows, "Zenica Municipality" and then the

20 rest?

21 A. "Zenica Municipality, the 26th of January to the 31st of December,

22 1993." I believe it says "Dusina, Miletici, Susanj, Ovnak, Maline and

23 Bikosi."

24 Q. Please read out the next column.

25 A. The next one?

1 Q. Yes. Now you can see it better. It's towards the middle of the

2 screen. It says "Return from The Hague ..."?

3 A. Yes, "Return from The Hague, forwarded to" --

4 Q. "BH"?

5 A. "Bosnia-Herzegovina, the 5th of January 2006." It should actually

6 read: "Forwarded to the prosecutor's office in B and H," I believe,

7 since the date is the 5th of January, 2006.

8 Q. Very well. Did you have this piece of information in mind when

9 answering the Prosecutor's questions yesterday and today?

10 A. I couldn't recall the whole table, but I believe I had that piece

11 of information in mind.

12 Q. Under that, we have "Ki 37/01, Enver Hadzihasanovic, Article 141",

13 and then it reads: "Returned from The Hague."

14 A. According to the Roman rules of the road, that case was forwarded

15 to The Hague and then returned. I believe it was forwarded to the

16 Prosecutor's Office of B and H, since they handle all communication

17 between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Hague Tribunal, and it could be the

18 case was transferred.

19 Q. Just so that everyone would understand, when it says "according to

20 the rules of the road according to the Treaty of Rome," it means that the

21 organs of Bosnia and Herzegovina forwarded certain case files to The Hague

22 Prosecutor so that it would be assessed there in keeping with the

23 agreement, that is, to see whether certain people could be processed

24 according to international standards; am I correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please go to page 4 now.

2 Q. Have a look at the bottom part of the table. That's the right

3 one. Four cases are mentioned of war crimes. That was the separate

4 register you had for war crimes; is that correct?

5 A. There was a separate register with the Higher Public Prosecutor's

6 Office in Zenica.

7 Q. Thank you. We have four case files concerning war crimes, and I

8 will ask you some questions about it somewhat later, but let us please

9 move on to the next page now, or perhaps Their Honours can leaf through

10 it, through their hard copy.

11 Witness, would you agree with me that there are no war crimes case

12 files on the next page?

13 A. That is correct.

14 Q. That is Article 142, for Their Honours.

15 Could we please go to the next page. And then page 9.

16 On this page, look at -- well, look at the first name, "Vinko

17 Vidovic," a person suspected of having committed a war crime, and you

18 would agree with me he is not a Bosniak, judging by his first and last

19 name?

20 A. That is correct, he is Croatian.

21 Q. We can see that the MP Battalion submitted a criminal report

22 against that person, and now let us go down towards the middle of the

23 page, "383/93". We can also see that there is mention of the MP

24 Battalion. They submitted a criminal report against Mirko Vlajic for a

25 war crime. That person is not a Bosniak, either, would you agree, since

1 his first and last name are not Bosniak?

2 A. That is correct.

3 Q. There are two names that follow pertaining to war crimes from the

4 Higher Court in Zenica. We have Dzemal Zahirovic, Article 142. This

5 person is a Bosniak, is he not? And please remember this name.

6 A. I suppose he is a Bosniak, judging by the first and last name.

7 Q. The things we've been through so far, according to the report, one

8 would say that the District Prosecutor's Office, for the relevant period

9 specified in the letter, received six reports on war crimes committed,

10 with the exception of those mentioned on page 1. That is what one would

11 conclude, is that correct?

12 A. I cannot tell you precisely whether this is actually the district

13 public prosecutors or the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office, since it is

14 the same archives. These two prosecutor's offices were the only ones

15 competent to process war crimes.

16 Q. Meaning both prosecutors' offices in total received six cases,

17 this is the way we should read it, they received six criminal reports in

18 both offices?

19 A. That is so, pertaining to this period.

20 Q. Let us go to page 6, please.

21 There is an Arabic name. I believe it will be easy for you to

22 spot it.

23 Please go down. It's 236/95.

24 There is Rasid Alsudarji, Sead Alubeidi, Article 50, that is

25 kidnapping. Do you know what this refers to?

1 A. I don't, not exactly.

2 Q. Very well. In relation to the whole of the report, I wanted to

3 ask you this: Again, did you go through all of the registers concerning

4 unknown perpetrators of crimes in 1993, 1994 and 1995?

5 A. As I said, my service did that on my behalf.

6 Q. Did your service go through the KTA registers concerning specific

7 events during those years which, for example, could contain Maline and

8 Bikosi?

9 A. I believe they did.

10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. We can put this document

11 away, and I'd like to show PT2962 to the witness. This is correspondence

12 between The Hague Prosecutor's Office and -- let us go to page 3, please,

13 and it will be clear. The Hague Prosecutor requested certain information.

14 Your Honours, there is another problem here, because the

15 translation is not organised in the right way, and it is difficult to

16 follow it. However, I'm interested in one detail only.

17 Q. Witness, this is a letter of the Travnik Prosecutor's Office --

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you proceed, Madam Vidovic, the documents on

19 the screen don't look alike. I'm not quite sure -- the one side is a

20 letter. The other side is a table.

21 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Thank you

23 for your effort. I'm interested in this page only.

24 Q. Witness, we can see here that the Cantonal Office, Prosecutor's

25 Office in Travnik, is informing the prosecutor that -- you can see it

1 under Roman numeral II, that they do have a case file for Enver

2 Hadzihasanovic and 32 other persons. The number is KT 56/99, war crimes.

3 It has to do with people killed in the villages of Maline and Bikosi.

4 I wanted to ask you this: We saw that on your list, there was

5 also a case against -- a case file for Enver Hadzihasanovic. However, we

6 see here that reference is made of the Cantonal Travnik Prosecutor's

7 Office. We can see that there -- there was a mention of the same case on

8 two occasions, but however, one cannot have two different proceedings in

9 the same case; am I correct?

10 A. Yes, you are.

11 Q. Can you tell us, is this the same case or did the Travnik

12 Prosecutor's Office have an investigation of their own and you had one on

13 your part pertaining to these events, another case file, another case?

14 Perhaps you can explain.

15 A. I cannot tell you anything for certain. At the time, and this is

16 1999 or perhaps 1998, I was not with the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office

17 in Zenica, and they had jurisdiction over cases such as this. Therefore,

18 without reviewing the case file, I cannot tell you anything.

19 Q. But you will agree with me that you did not study this case file

20 or the other two case files you saw on the list for Enver Hadzihasanovic

21 or for Besim Spahic; is that correct?

22 A. This case file from the Travnik Cantonal Office, well, I couldn't

23 have any insight into that, and I couldn't study the material pertaining

24 to the other Prosecutor's Office. In the other case, before the Higher

25 Public Prosecutor's Office in Zenica, I also had no insight into that,

1 since we did not have that case file. It was with The Hague Tribunal.

2 Q. Thank you. But the BH organs forwarded it to The Hague Tribunal;

3 is that correct?

4 A. I suppose so. At that time, I didn't occupy that position.

5 However, I presumed that it was so.

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 Could we assign an exhibit number to this document, please.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is given an exhibit number -- I beg

9 your pardon, is admitted into evidence. May it please be given an exhibit

10 number.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 884.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] We can put the document away.

14 I'd like to show 2919 to the witness, P2919. This is

15 correspondence between the federal Minister of Justice of the Federation

16 of B and H and the Cantonal Court in Zenica. I just wanted you to see

17 that.

18 Please go to page 4 of the document in the Bosnian. I believe

19 we'll have the same problem as before again. This page has not been

20 translated, but what I am interested in has, and it is also on page 4 in

21 the English. No, sorry, on the first page of the English. This is fine.

22 The English is fine. Please let us go to page 4 in the Bosnian.

23 Actually, the fifth page in the Bosnian.

24 Q. Mr. Hadziselimovic, we can see here that the president of the

25 Cantonal Court in Zenica, on the 10th of May, 2002, is forwarding

1 information pursuant to the request of the 28th of March, 2002. The

2 president enumerates the judges that worked during that period. I believe

3 you're familiar with the names. Do you know that these judges indeed

4 worked at that time?

5 A. That is correct.

6 Q. Very well. She's also mentioning data on any proceedings for war

7 crimes. Look at the last two paragraphs.

8 The last paragraph in English, Your Honours.

9 You can see the names we just saw in your report, Mirko Vlajic, we

10 saw that one, member of the HVO. Then -- is that so?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Let us go to the next page, please, in the English.

13 And in Bosnian, Witness, you can see that there's also Dzemal

14 Zahirovic mentioned?

15 A. That's correct.

16 Q. These two case files are mentioned. We've seen these two names in

17 your report. You see here "Dzemal Zahirovic." He's a Bosniak, you said,

18 isn't that so, and he was accused of having committed war crimes in the

19 Batkovic camp. When it comes to war crimes, so as to have no

20 misunderstanding, when answering the Prosecutor's questions concerning

21 Article 142, which has to do with war crimes against civilians, you've

22 explained that there was also an offence called a war crime committed

23 against prisoners. Is it true that such crimes have their bases in the

24 violations of the International Humanitarian Law; is that so?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. What was specific and particular concerning the Criminal Code of

2 the SFRY when these offences are concerned, anyone could be held

3 responsible for having committed a war crime, provided that person either

4 ordered or perpetrated, committed a violation of the International

5 Humanitarian Law and the people who are protected by such legislation?

6 A. That is what I said on Friday.

7 Q. You will agree with me that the Criminal Code of the SFRY did not

8 foresee any responsibility on the part of the commander in order to

9 prevent and punish the perpetrators of such crimes?

10 A. As far as I know, the Criminal Code of the SFRY that was taken

11 over by Bosnia-Herzegovina did not mention the issue of command

12 responsibility.

13 Q. In other words, the Criminal Code of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as

14 applied in the war, had no mention of superior command responsibility in

15 failing to act following certain crimes committed by their subordinates?

16 A. Command responsibility, as is understood and treated by The Hague

17 Tribunal, well, no, the Code did not contain that.

18 Q. That type of responsibility was put into the Criminal Code of

19 Bosnia-Herzegovina only after the war, when the State Court of

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina was founded; am I correct?

21 A. I don't know that, since that law is only applied by the

22 Prosecutor's Office and the State Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

23 Q. Yes, but I wanted to ask you this: Commanders responsibility, in

24 terms of failing to act, it was made part of the Criminal Code of

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina only after the war? That is what I was asking you.

1 A. I repeat my answer. I don't know. I am not the one who applies

2 that law in practice. That law from 2003 is only applied by the Court of

3 Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don't have to be familiar with that law.

4 Q. Mr. Prosecutor, in that -- or, rather, in the year of 2006, your

5 Prosecutor's Office submitted a criminal report against Sabahudin Opert,

6 et al based on that particular provision, based on the issue of command

7 responsibility?

8 A. I wouldn't quite agree.

9 Q. Partially, you would, I presume. What is it that you wouldn't

10 agree with?

11 A. The institution of command responsibility, as such, is only

12 applied by The Hague Tribunal. Therefore, we used only that part of the

13 article in which there is mention of someone ordering that things be

14 carried out. Therefore, a superior can order something and then be held

15 responsible. He -- also, the perpetrator is responsible.

16 Q. Mr. Prosecutor, if you receive a case file, if a report was filed

17 to you for a war crime in terms of command responsibility, how would you

18 determine whether your office is competent or not if you are not familiar

19 with the law? That's what I want to know.

20 A. I have to say that it was actually not being familiar with the

21 organisation of the judiciary in Bosnia-Herzegovina made you ask me such a

22 question.

23 The exclusive competence to institute proceedings for war crimes

24 lies with the Prosecutor's Office of B and H.

25 Q. Witness, I will tell you that at the level of Cantonal

1 Prosecutor's Offices there are countless investigations into such crimes.

2 However, I don't want to dwell on this issue any further. I wanted to ask

3 you something about your testimony today. However, I am telling you that

4 it is precisely at this moment there are criminal reports about such

5 crimes with all Cantonal Prosecutor's Offices.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Wood.

7 MR. WOOD: I don't see a question here. What I see is, "I want to

8 tell you something." This sounds as if -- I object to the form of the

9 question, Your Honour. It sounds as if Madam Vidovic is actually

10 testifying here and badgering the witness, and on these grounds I would

11 object to this question being asked.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic.

13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wanted to suggest to

14 the witness that at this moment there are numerous investigations into

15 such crimes. However, I don't want to dwell on this anymore. I believe I

16 would lose much time. I want to go back to this document, and of course I

17 withdraw my question so as not to waste any additional time.

18 Could we please turn the next page of the document in the Bosnian.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: In case we turn the English page as well, can I

20 just get confirmation, did I hear that Mr. Vinko Vidovic is not Bosniak?

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just wanted to confirm.

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. On this same page, please look at paragraph 3, from the bottom

25 up. I quote -- it is the same paragraph in the English. It reads:

1 "With regard to BH Army members, according to the records of this

2 court, not a single case was tried in the period in question, nor during

3 the court's existence."

4 So, Witness, in other words, according to this report, for as long

5 as the Zenica District Military Court existed, based on these reports by

6 you and the president of that Court, it would seem that a single Bosniak

7 was prosecuted, a Muslim, as we find stated there, and even that Bosniak

8 was not even a member of the army. That's the conclusion that we might

9 reach, having read your reports. Would you say that that's true?

10 A. My signature is there, which means I confirm that it is true. I

11 assume it to be consistent with what the president of the Court stated as

12 well.

13 Q. And that was Ms. Alihodzic, right, Zijada Alihodzic?

14 A. She is now.

15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.

16 Can we please have a number for this document, Your Honours.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

18 please be given an exhibit number.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 885.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Right now, Your Honours, I want to

22 show the witness D705.

23 Q. Witness, this is a document produced by the district military

24 prosecutor in Travnik. The date is the 29th of August, 1995. It was sent

25 to the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It

1 reads: "Military District Prosecutor Sead Zeric." Based on what you know,

2 is this a person who late in 1995 worked as a military prosecutor in

3 Travnik?

4 A. I don't know whether he was or not.

5 Q. Mr. Prosecutor, my understanding was the Zenica prosecutor took

6 over the cases previously handled by the Travnik military prosecutor.

7 Right?

8 A. When you asked me that before the break, I told you you weren't

9 entirely right in that respect. The cases handled by the Travnik district

10 military prosecutor were taken over by the cantonal prosecutor of the

11 Central Bosnia Canton.

12 Q. Yes, and what you're trying to say is these cases have nothing

13 whatsoever to do with your Prosecutor's Office; right?

14 A. Yes, that's right.

15 Q. Be that as it may, is it your evidence that you don't know who the

16 district military prosecutor in Travnik was in 1995? You probably worked

17 together in one way or another, did you not?

18 A. Worked together, sure, but let me remind you that I was a deputy

19 military prosecutor, and that being my role, I was not supposed to know

20 who it was. And, indeed, at the time I did not know who the district

21 military prosecutor was.

22 Q. All right. Let me ask you this: It was quite usual for a

23 prosecutor to inform the Ministry of Justice on certain issues; right?

24 You accept that, don't you?

25 A. Written reports or annual reports were normally submitted.

1 Q. Yes, either one of those; right?

2 A. Yes, that's right.

3 Q. All right. So what's important here and the reason I'm showing

4 you the report is this: If you can read it, you can see that the district

5 military prosecutor in Travnik was requested to provide information on how

6 many proceedings were underway against Muslims or Bosniaks for genocide or

7 war crimes, and this district military prosecutor from Travnik replies:

8 "Please note that in the preceding period, we received three

9 criminal reports against such persons ..."

10 Bosniaks and Muslims, that is what he means.

11 " ... And these were referred to the Zenica Senior Prosecutor's

12 Office as the court having subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction."

13 Okay. Now, what I wish to ask you is this: This document

14 obviously says that three criminal reports against Muslims or Bosniaks

15 were forwarded to Zenica on the 29th of December, 1995. Did you bear in

16 mind those three criminal reports against Muslims or Bosniaks when you put

17 together that report, the report -- the two reports that you submitted to

18 the prosecutor?

19 A. In order to be able to answer accurately, I would have to explain

20 a little about the situation concerning the hand-over of archives or case

21 files. This is how it works: The military district prosecutor in Zenica

22 and the military district -- district military prosecutor in Travnik were

23 functioning for a while until they were abolished. They had territorial

24 jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction was the same exactly, but

25 territorial depended on their territory. It roughly covers what today we

1 know as cantons in B and H. At the same time, the authority of the

2 civilian bodies, that is, the senior public prosecutor in this case, is to

3 cover the entire territory covered by these two district prosecutors.

4 In this situation, it is possible that the three criminal reports

5 were submitted to the senior public prosecutor in Zenica, but it is far

6 more likely or even certain that the three reports were, I assume, in

7 relation to the territorial jurisdiction of the Travnik Canton. When the

8 Cantonal Prosecutor's Office was first set up in Travnik, these cases, I

9 assume, were submitted to that prosecutor, the civilian prosecutor. So

10 the way this is organised, this is a bit complicated, but I assume that

11 that's what happened.

12 Q. Be that as it may, be that as it may, Mr. Hadziselimovic, do you

13 agree that these three criminal reports were not something that we saw in

14 your chart, in your report? No way that report, the two documents that

15 you were shown by the OTP today?

16 A. I don't know what this is about. I don't know what criminal

17 reports these are, specifically, but if it's confirmed in the report, in

18 the letter, that these were submitted to the senior public prosecutor,

19 well, then they might as well have been registered. If we came across

20 such a case file in the archive of the senior public prosecutor, we would

21 know. Now, how did this happen? If we had the names contained in these

22 reports, we could check; right?

23 Q. Yes, but you agree that these are three Muslims, Bosniaks, and

24 having gone through your report in its entirety, we tracked down no more

25 than a single Muslim; right? So what I'm trying to say is that these

1 three criminal reports were never submitted, although according to this

2 document, they reached Zenica. Would you accept that? Would you accept

3 at least the possibility that this happened, that they simply weren't

4 registered, for God knows what reason?

5 A. I very much doubt that they were simply not registered. We looked

6 at that table and we saw that there was the report against Besim Spahic,

7 so that might have been one of those.

8 Q. Well, that precisely is what I'm talking about.

9 A. But I don't know. I don't have names, therefore --

10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter didn't hear the last part of the

11 answer.

12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Prosecutor, you do agree that --

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: The interpreter didn't hear the last part of the

15 answer.

16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The witness said this might have

17 been the report against Besim Spahic.

18 Q. Is that what the witness said? Yes.

19 A. Yes, it may have been the report against Besim Spahic or against

20 Enver Hadzihasanovic, because those were the two that we found in the

21 report. However, I don't have the names and I can't say for sure.

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

23 Your Honours, could we please have a number for this document.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

25 please be given an exhibit number.

1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 886.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Before the break, D610, please.

4 Q. As we're waiting for this document, Besim Spahic was the head of

5 the Zenica Municipality, the wartime head; right?

6 A. Well, I think so. It's not exactly what the position was called,

7 but --

8 Q. But it was someone from the civilian structures; right?

9 A. Yes, yes.

10 Q. All right. Can you please look at this document, sir. This is a

11 criminal report by the Security Services Centre in Zenica. This was

12 submitted to the senior public prosecutor in Zenica on the 1st of

13 February, 1994. You will agree, if you look at the names here, if you

14 look at the information, you will see that these are three Arabs, based on

15 the information contained in this criminal report. Two of them were

16 actually members of the El Mujahedin Detachment. And the criminal report

17 was submitted to the senior public prosecutor in Zenica.

18 Can we just lower the document slightly so we can see the date,

19 please. Right, thank you.

20 It was submitted on the 31st of February, 1994 -- I'm sorry, the

21 1st of February, 1994. I'm sorry. These persons were suspected of having

22 committed the crime of murder under Article 35 or, rather, 36, paragraph

23 2, of the Criminal Code of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The number is not really

24 all that legible, is it?

25 So these are members of the El Mujahedin Detachment. You will

1 agree that this criminal report was never submitted to the district

2 military prosecutor, rather it was submitted to the senior prosecutor,

3 right, civilian prosecutor?

4 A. That's what the document shows.

5 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Fine. I will provide a page

6 reference, Your Honour. 6129 of the transcript, lines 20 through 25, and

7 page 6130, lines 1 through 7. That's the reference in the transcript.

8 Q. You said the military courts was responsible for prosecuting and

9 trying members of the BH Army, unless there were civilian co-perpetrators

10 who committed certain crimes with some of the soldiers; right?

11 A. Yes, that's right.

12 Q. All right. What we see stated here is two members of the El

13 Mujahid Detachment and a third person who appears to be a civilian, an

14 ethnic Arab. We see that the criminal report was submitted.

15 If we could please lower the document so we can see the header.

16 By the Security Services Centre. If we could please just lower

17 slightly. All right. The Bosnian, too, yes please. Thank you.

18 Okay, Security Services Centre submitted this report to a civilian

19 prosecutor. I believe you know about this particular case, which is the

20 murder of Paul Godal, a member of the ODA Humanitarian Organisation. You

21 ever heard of anything like that, sir?

22 A. Well, it does ring a bell, but I wasn't with the senior public

23 prosecutor at the time. Therefore, I'm not familiar with the detail of

24 this case. It does ring a bell, though. I did hear of it at the time, or

25 something like that.

1 Q. Okay. So this was taken to the senior public prosecutor. You are

2 aware of this, aren't you?

3 A. I'd much sooner say that I heard about this somewhere off the

4 record, but I didn't know anything more than that.

5 Q. All right. There was a scandal that erupted over this case

6 because these persons escaped at one stage during their trial; right?

7 Does that ring a bell?

8 A. Yes, it does ring a bell. I heard of it at the time.

9 Q. All right. So what I think is relevant, in terms of your

10 evidence, relevant for our purposes, is this: I looked carefully through

11 your letters. You were asked about the crime of murder. You were asked

12 to go through the registers of the senior prosecutor and the military

13 prosecutor. Do you agree with me that this is not a report that you

14 recorded, although it quite certainly was tried and you know it? It was

15 tried, wasn't it?

16 A. If you don't find these persons or this case in the table, then I

17 didn't state that, did I? However, I do see this criminal report in front

18 of me right now. It should have been recorded in the register of the

19 senior public prosecutor.

20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we might want to have

21 our break now, and I'll just ask the witness -- he has both these reports

22 that the Prosecutor was showing him today. I'll ask him to go carefully,

23 through the break, through both of these documents so we may be able to

24 ascertain whether this report is in fact mentioned in any of his reports

25 or not.

1 Could we please have a number assigned to this document for the

2 time being.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

4 please be given an exhibit number.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 887.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

7 Would that then be a convenient time, Madam Vidovic?

8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Indeed, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll take a break until half past 12.00.

10 Court adjourned.

11 --- Recess taken at 12.04 p.m.

12 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.

14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

15 We were talking about the criminal report against those three

16 persons, Security Services Centre of Zenica, senior public prosecutor

17 Abdullah Abtani [phoen] and others. We asked the witness to go through

18 his own reports during the break.

19 Q. Witness, have you had a look at the two letters that we discussed,

20 your reports to the Prosecutor?

21 A. Indeed I have, and I can explain as follows: I had two minutes

22 to -- I had ten minutes to look at them, and I didn't find the names from

23 that criminal report, as stated previously. I think the reason is as

24 follows: As the Defence stated at the beginning of this cross, the OT --

25 the prosecutor was never bound by the legal qualification of a crime by

1 the police. I think what happened in this particular case was this: The

2 senior public prosecutor received this criminal report, and their legal

3 view of the matter was probably different from that stated in the original

4 criminal report. It may have been categorised as abduction under Article

5 50, the crime itself, but no requests were made to check anything in

6 relation to that article, and that is why the names are missing from the

7 table that was attached to the letter.

8 Q. What you just said, that's merely an assumption on your part,

9 isn't it? You did not see the case file, did you?

10 A. That's right.

11 Q. We cannot avoid drawing the following inference, based on your

12 response: If the body in charge of pre-trial -- in charge of an

13 investigation, be it a military body or a civilian body, filed a certain

14 criminal report containing the description of a crime, and the crime was

15 described, and if found differently, and this is not something that the

16 prosecutor originally had brought up, in such cases we would not find

17 these cases listed on your list; right?

18 A. I think you're right, because requests were raised in relation to

19 specific crimes that were defined in a specific way.

20 Q. But would it not be true, in fact, if I suggested this: As soon

21 as a criminal report reaches a prosecutor, it is entered into the register

22 with all the original descriptions contained in the original report. For

23 example, Security Services Centre reports Abdullah Abtani and others for

24 the crime of murder, as soon as it is registered the prosecutor is still

25 in no position to change the legal description and definition of a crime

1 contained therein; am I right?

2 A. You're not entirely right, because the chief prosecutor marks

3 whatever articles are to be entered or registered. At the top of that

4 criminal report, he marks the article under which a certain criminal

5 report is to be subsumed.

6 Q. All right, I see. So somebody says "war crime," but they might as

7 well end up writing just "murder"; right?

8 A. The Defence is suggesting something that is not quite right;

9 therefore I can't answer the question.

10 Q. Witness, you just said that he is the person in charge of actually

11 amending something. This is a serious crime, the crime of murder being

12 reported here, and according to what you are saying, it was later defined

13 as abduction, which is a much less serious crime, is it not?

14 A. I can't say anything about any assessments that someone may have

15 made back in 1994. All I'm trying to explain is how it could have

16 happened that these persons were not listed on that list.

17 Q. Fair enough.

18 A. I can't tell you how this really happened, because I don't know.

19 Q. All right. I want to ask you a different question now.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you do, can we just scroll up the English in

21 the -- thank you very much.

22 You may proceed, Madam Vidovic.

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. In relation to this, suppose a security organ, civilian police,

25 let's assume that for the time being, believed that the perpetrator was a

1 member of a paramilitary unit, a paramilitary unit, this kind of criminal

2 report would not have been submitted to the district military prosecutor,

3 would it?

4 A. I can't possibly know such a thing. They could have submitted

5 their criminal report to whoever they liked. It was up to them to assess

6 that sort of thing. It wasn't up to the prosecutor, and the prosecutor

7 would not have been responsible for affecting this process in any way.

8 Q. Yes, that's precisely the reasoning behind my question. We have

9 someone who submits a report, in this case the Security Services Centre,

10 civilian police. Now, it depended on them alone who they would be filing

11 this report with, right, the senior prosecutor or the district military

12 prosecutor?

13 A. Yes, and here it says clearly "The senior public prosecutor,

14 Zenica."

15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] All right. Your Honours, can we

16 please.

17 I want to refer him briefly to Exhibit 882. I think the witness

18 actually has a copy of this document.

19 Q. Witness, can you please go to page 16. I believe it's page 16.

20 The larger one. This is page 1, and you need to go to page 16 in the

21 B/C/S.

22 Your Honours, it appears there is no translation. Fine.

23 If we could please show this document in the Bosnian, right, okay,

24 so that the witness can see the information there.

25 Witness, this is your report dated the 22nd of August, 2007. I

1 want you to look at this portion here with the blank or empty boxes, about

2 midway down the page, "232/96, district military prosecutor, Travnik."

3 And then we have four boxes in a row like that. You agree, right, all

4 these four cases are in relation to the crime of murder, aren't they?

5 A. Yes, this is Article 36.

6 Q. We have the names stated there, names of persons, but we don't

7 know what particular event this is in relation to or who the victims are;

8 we don't see that, do we?

9 A. That's right, we don't.

10 Q. All right. Let me ask you this one thing, Witness. How could you

11 then have written in your report, since obviously you had portions of the

12 report that were incomplete, that there were no criminal reports that had

13 to do with what had occurred in the village of Maline/Bikosi? You see

14 that these are from Travnik, these cases, don't you?

15 A. These, I assume, came from the Travnik district military

16 prosecutor. The date they were received, the next box, the 10th of

17 November, 1996. That's right. There is the name of the suspect, but all

18 the other information is missing. Therefore, it's possible that these

19 cases were suspended or they may have been sent back to Travnik, according

20 to this information. Date and place of crime, we don't have that.

21 There's probably no information concerning that in the original record.

22 Name of victim, we don't have that either. As long as it's not recorded,

23 to me that suggests that the information was not contained in the original

24 record. Why that is the case is not something that I can explain right

25 now.

1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Witness.

2 Could we please put this document away for the time being.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do that, Madam Vidovic, I just want to be

4 reminded. There are two dates here, one on the third column and on the

5 fifth column. The date on the third column, what does it signify?

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, is this a question for

7 me or for the witness?

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: For the witness.

9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Can you please have a look? The columns are right there for you.

11 A. I assume -- well, I must say --

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Go to the head of the table.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the head, it says "Date," and I

14 think this is date of receipt, the date a certain case file was received.

15 Senior public prosecutor, 1996, late 1995. Be that as it may, it's the

16 date of receipt.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: The date on the fifth column with the name of the

18 town?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the date and place of crime,

20 the date on which a crime occurred and the place where it occurred.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

22 Could we please put this one away for the time being, and I want

23 the witness to look at D709.

24 Q. What you see here is a report by the Military Police Battalion,

25 dated the 20th of March, 1994, submitted to the Security Sector of the 3rd

1 Corps. It was produced in Zenica, report on criminal reports filed.

2 Could you please just have a look briefly under "C," the groups of persons

3 that this comprises. You see that a total of 377 reports were filed, and

4 under "B," 804 identified and 20 unidentified perpetrators.

5 And now, under "D": "The structure of the crimes."

6 You see that in relation to the crime of murder, there were 16

7 reports.

8 And now please go to page 2 of the document. That is material for

9 our purposes. In the English, it's page 2 as well.

10 Could you please find where it says "War crimes." That's in the

11 lower third of the page. You see it's the last thing we can see in the

12 B/C/S page.

13 If we could please lower the document so we can see the bottom of

14 the page in the Bosnian.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] I repeat my question.

16 Where is the war crimes in English?

17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm looking for it, Your Honour.

18 Your Honour, I'm trying to see if we're on the right page.

19 My apologies, Your Honour. We are trying to track it down in the

20 English.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine, take your time.

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is page 3, three

23 lines from the top, the third bullet point. You can see it, I believe.

24 Q. Witness, you could read to yourself that this period pertains to

25 the period of about one and a half year of activities of the Battalion of

1 the Military Police. Have a look at this part concerning crimes against

2 civilians, Article 142 of the SFRY Criminal Code. You can see that four

3 criminal reports were submitted; is that correct?

4 A. That's what the document says.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The English says "3".

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe I said "3", Your Honour.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: The interpreter said "4".

8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I did say "3."

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Vidovic.

10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Will you agree with me -- well, we went through your document a

12 few moments ago, and we found only two criminal reports submitted by the

13 MP battalion in the whole of your report.

14 A. It concerns the following. I have to clarify something.

15 Q. Please do.

16 A. During the break, I reviewed the tables, and I realised that in

17 the table, when war crimes are concerned, there are separate case files of

18 the former District Military Prosecutor's Office or the former Higher

19 Military Prosecutor's Office. The tables that are part of the document

20 dated the 24th of October, 2006, at page 2, the whole page contains the

21 case files concerning war crimes.

22 I also wanted to say that out of all of the suspects -- well,

23 there were many more, in actual fact. For example, in table 3 -- sorry,

24 in line 3, where the suspect is Opert, Azmahudin [phoen], well, there were

25 more people involved and their names are not mentioned. All of the people

1 in the table on this page are Bosniaks, Muslims, except for the last

2 person mentioned in the last line. I wanted to offer that clarification

3 concerning the questions so far.

4 Then criminal reports, together with all of the evidence, if

5 charges were pressed, all that should be contained in the court file. In

6 that case, it could happen in the table that there are pieces of

7 information missing, as was the case a minute ago, or, as in this specific

8 case, if the criminal report submitted is specified as such in the

9 register, the person submitting that request should be mentioned in the

10 table.

11 However, we can also see that in the tables we have, for

12 example, "OBT Travnik" or "OVS Zenica," which means that that is the

13 District Military Prosecutor's Office and the District Military Court, and

14 in no case could they have submitted the criminal report. It is rather

15 that the person who made the entry merely noted down who the case was

16 received from or, rather, what institution it was transferred from. That

17 would in turn mean that in the register, in the column the person or body

18 who submitted the criminal report, we do not have that specific

19 information. That is why there may be discrepancies or the issues such as

20 the one you raise raised.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I thank you for your detailed

22 explanation.

23 Your Honour, I wish to tender this document.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

25 please be given an exhibit number.

1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 888.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Witness, could you please have a look at D710.

5 Witness, before you, you have a letter from the District Military

6 Court in Travnik to the 3rd Corps Command of the Army of

7 Bosnia-Herzegovina in Zenica. It has to do with the fact that the

8 commander of the OG Bosanska Krajina believed that the cause for the

9 increase of crime on the part of army members is the ineffectiveness of

10 the Military Court, and the president of the Court is now explaining why.

11 I would like you to have a look at the last page of the document, which

12 has to do with your area.

13 Could we please show the witness that part. It is page 4 in the

14 English, page 4 in the English, the last paragraph.

15 I wanted to ask you something about an important issue concerning

16 the work of the judiciary at the time. It is stated here:

17 "In closing down, we should like to mention in connection with the

18 criminal reports, which as has been established, have not been received by

19 this court, it may be asserted that the same are received by either the

20 District Military Court in Zenica or by the District Military Court in

21 Banja Luka."

22 You can see here that Kemal Poricanin was the president of the

23 Court. Do you know that person?

24 A. No, but I have heard of that person.

25 Q. You heard of him as being president of the Court?

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Wood?

2 MR. WOOD: I'm going to object to this entire line of questioning,

3 and the relevance of this document -- because of the relevance of this

4 document, Your Honour.

5 This is not a document that this witness would have any knowledge

6 about. It did not include a court that he was involved with. I believe

7 any answers he might give in this regard are outside his purview and would

8 be irrelevant. I just want to put an end to this at this point, Your

9 Honour, especially considering I see that perhaps my learned colleague

10 might wish to enter this into evidence.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.

12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [No interpretation].

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I got no interpretation, Judge. I didn't hear what

14 Judge Lattanzi said. I didn't understand, at least. There was no

15 interpretation.

16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I was just noting when I finished

17 listening to the French translation. I think it was several minutes after

18 Mr. Wood completed the presentation of his objection, and I needed to

19 understand it.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge.

21 I guess the moral or the lesson is that we should slow down.

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Understood, Your Honour.

23 I would like to address the objection. The witness worked at the

24 District Military Prosecutor's Office in Zenica, and mention is made of

25 the criminal reports forwarded to Zenica. This is something that has to

1 do with the operation of the Zenica Court and Prosecutor's Office, and the

2 witness may certainly answer that.

3 You will also remember that at the beginning of my

4 cross-examination, I was asking questions about what he knows about the

5 work of the war presidencies in exile. You will see that the court

6 mentioned here is the District Court in Banja Luka. I just wanted to have

7 all those facts straight to see how relevant it was for the whole matter,

8 since I wanted to discuss with the witness whether criminal reports were

9 sent not only to Zenica and Travnik, but also to such prosecutor's offices

10 as shown here of the District Military Courts. That is the relevance.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before maybe Mr. Wood stands up, if he is going to,

12 do I understand, Madam Vidovic, that Banja Luka is in exile?

13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That's not quite what I meant, Your

14 Honour. I said that the War Presidency and the District Military Court of

15 Banja Luka were in exile, and that is what I wanted to ask the witness.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I see the first page of the English, please.

17 Okay. I must confess I just don't know how to rule on this

18 objection, simply because I'm not following what is happening here. Do

19 you follow, Judge?

20 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I also find it difficult to

21 understand, so I think it is worthwhile spending a bit of time on all of

22 these questions. So it might be better to carry on.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: My only problem is that there is an objection

24 raised, and I've heard the objection, I've heard Madam Vidovic's

25 explanation. I'm still in the dark. Maybe you will cast some light.

1 Just say what you want to say.

2 MR. WOOD: Well, first of all, Your Honour, the second page of the

3 document speaks of the writer of the document speculating that perhaps

4 some files went to a place where they shouldn't have gone. Putting a

5 question like that to this witness only invites him to speculate even

6 further, first. And, secondly, this is 20 May 1993. It's the District

7 Military Court in Travnik. This witness was not involved with that Court

8 at any time, and 20 May 1993 is when he was in a different court.

9 Additionally, Your Honour, this is -- as we know, the indictment

10 period begins on 8 June 1993. For these reasons, this document can't

11 conceivably be considered to be relevant, and any questions put to this

12 witness will only lead to irrelevant answers. And that is the

13 Prosecution's submission on this document, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic, let me --

15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I may be of

16 assistance.

17 I don't need this document at all. We can put it away and I can

18 put this question without it. I merely wanted Their Honours to have an

19 example before them.

20 First of all, I don't know how the Prosecutor can anticipate what

21 my question would be. I only want the witness to clarify the issue of war

22 presidencies and military prosecutors' offices in exile, and I can do that

23 without the document. We can put it away now.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: If we can do that, if we have the document, that

25 would be very helpful, because I'm just a bit lost. Okay.

1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Q. Witness, you said that you worked in the so-called "War Presidency

3 in exile." I would like to ask you this: It is true, is it not, that in

4 Central Bosnia there were also military prosecutors' offices and war

5 presidencies in exile active?

6 A. I cannot confirm that. I'm not familiar with that.

7 Q. You never heard of a district military court in exile in Banja

8 Luka; is that your testimony?

9 A. That's the first time I hear of it.

10 Q. Thank you. In any case, since this is the first time you've heard

11 of it, you haven't gone through the archives of such prosecutors' offices

12 and courts, in case there are such archives in existence and since you had

13 no knowledge of such cases?

14 A. It seems I've been asked a question I cannot answer. I already

15 answered in -- during the examination-in-chief, what was contained in the

16 archives of the Cantonal Prosecutor's Office in Zenica that I headed. The

17 organs you mentioned, the District Military Prosecutor's Office or Court

18 of Banja Luka, well, we had no such documentation within the Cantonal

19 Prosecutor's Office in Zenica, where I am the chief prosecutor.

20 Q. I wanted to ask you something concerning criminal reports that

21 were submitted by the Ministry of the Interior.

22 Do you agree that before the war, during the war and after the war

23 in Bosnia-Herzegovina, it was common practice that the Minister of the

24 Interior actually filed criminal reports in the first instance; am I

25 correct?

1 A. I can only tell you about the period pertaining to the war and

2 after that, since before the war, I was not at the same position. In

3 essence, citizens submit reports in most of the cases, and they submit

4 them to the Minister of the Interior. During the war, perhaps they were

5 also submitting reports to the military police as well, and then they

6 would initiate pre-trial proceedings.

7 Q. Perhaps we should clarify something. Did I understand you

8 correctly that you said that the military police could also submit

9 criminal reports to the Ministry -- sorry, to the Centre of Security

10 Services? I didn't understand you.

11 A. I didn't say that. I said that the citizens could inform or

12 submit criminal reports to the Ministry of the Interior, that is, the

13 civilian police, or to the military police.

14 Q. I'm just waiting for the interpreters. If a perpetrator is

15 unknown, in that situation wasn't there cooperation between the military

16 and civilian police, if you know, or, rather, civilian and military

17 bodies, to the extent that reports would be sent to the Minister of the

18 Interior in order to try and establish who the perpetrator is?

19 A. I cannot answer that question. I am not familiar with that part.

20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well. I would like to show an

21 official note of the District Military Court in Zenica. It's Exhibit

22 number 252.

23 Q. Witness, you can see the official note created in Zenica on the

24 12th of June, 1993. It concerns the bringing of corpses to the

25 Prosecutor's Office from the lines held by the units of the 3rd Corps. It

1 has to do with people from Ovnak and Susanj, as you can see. It seems

2 that you were present during the on-site investigation. Is this your

3 name, Muris Hadziselimovic?

4 A. Yes, it is my name and I remember the event.

5 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at the last page in both

6 versions so as to be able to see the signature.

7 Q. You can see that it was signed by Investigating Judge of the

8 District Military Court, Vlado Adamovic. You said you remember the

9 event. Did the Investigating Judge Adamovic consult the on-site

10 investigation?

11 A. I have to correct you. It's not an on-site investigation. Rather

12 it is identification of the dead bodies that were brought to the Pathology

13 Department of the Cantonal Hospital in Zenica. However, this judge headed

14 the whole investigation.

15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we go back to page 1, please.

16 Q. You obviously are familiar with this case. I would be correct,

17 would I not, if I said that concerning these events in June 1993, in

18 Susanj and Ovnak, there was an investigation by your Prosecutor's Office?

19 A. I'm not sure there was an investigation. This is one of the

20 investigative measures that was conducted and that was headed by Judge

21 Adamovic. Whether there was a full investigation on the events, I cannot

22 tell you. I don't remember anyone being prosecuted.

23 Q. If I put to you that even a sentence was handed down, would that

24 refresh your memory?

25 A. Only if I was in charge of the case, not in any other case. It

1 would be difficult for me to say that.

2 Q. You're trying to tell me that you were not in charge of the case.

3 However, in principle, would you agree with me that when the organs of the

4 judiciary learn of such events, they are duty-bound to establish what had

5 happened? They didn't merely attend the scene and made a list and leave?

6 A. As I said, it was an investigative measure of identifying the

7 persons brought in. We don't know where they were found, how they were

8 killed, or anything else, for that matter. The only thing important at

9 that point was to identify them, and an external examination of the

10 corpses was made. That was it.

11 Q. Witness, I don't think I can press this any further. I would like

12 to ask you something about your witness statement.

13 In paragraph 15 of your statement to the investigators of the OTP,

14 you described the discovery of 22 unlogged cases. These were not

15 registered in the registers. You subsequently found that at a later

16 stage?

17 A. If we are on the same page, it is about the cases found in the

18 archives. As far as I recall, it was an archives of the one of the former

19 Municipal Prosecutors' Offices where -- I can't recall the exact figure,

20 but between 10 and 20 cases which had not been entered into any of the

21 registers.

22 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 17 of your statement, you say that a

23 damaged party gave you a call recently, inquiring about their case, and

24 you also stated that that case was something you did not find at all in

25 your registers; is that so?

1 A. I have to say I don't remember specifically, but if that's what I

2 said, then it must be that way. It's possible that I made a suggestion to

3 that party to file a criminal report with us so that we may have reason to

4 investigate the case. If that's what this is about, then it must be that

5 way.

6 Q. That's right. How can you say, then -- you have all those boxes

7 of cases that when filed, people were calling you on the phone, "What's

8 going on with my file," and then you simply say, "Well, it's not there.

9 Can you resubmit that, please." And then how can you be telling us that

10 you have accurate registers containing all the criminal reports that were

11 filed?

12 A. The registers are accurate, and these two facts confirm that.

13 When the archives were tidied up, and this is something that I had

14 requested -- this was just before the request was made by the OTP to me --

15 this particular box was found along with all the other items lying about.

16 Everything save for that one box was fully recorded. So this box is an

17 exception confirming the rule. Everything that ever reached the

18 Prosecutor's Office was recorded. Of course, I can't be expected to

19 answer for something that someone, whoever was responsible in that

20 particular Prosecutor's Office, failed to do, something they didn't record

21 in the register. Everything that was taken over, all the documents from

22 all the Prosecutors' Offices that I mentioned, was recorded in these

23 registers, with the exception of this one box.

24 And as for the criminal report that you asked me about, I have to

25 say that that occurrence was never recorded by any of the prosecutors. I

1 checked the books, first of all, and then we had not a single fact to go

2 on in relation to that case.

3 I made a suggestion to the party in question to file a criminal

4 report -- to submit a criminal report so that we might finally find

5 ourselves in possession of some facts, and then for the prosecutor to

6 launch an investigation. I requested that so that we might be able to

7 record that and then press on with it.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry. It looks like this is not my day today.

9 There's a concept of boxes that's being introduced in the

10 discussion. I'm not quite sure -- and both of you seem to be

11 understanding each other. How do these boxes come in?

12 The first answer had been:

13 "I have to say I don't remember specifically, but if that's what I

14 said, then it must be that way. It's possible that I made a suggestion to

15 the party to file a criminal report with us so that we may have reason to

16 investigate the case. If that's what this is about, then it must be that

17 way."

18 Then the next question says:

19 "That's right. How can you say, then, have all those boxes of

20 cases that, when filed, people were calling on the phone, 'What's going on

21 with my file' ..."

22 That's the first time I hear of a box.

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may clarify, the

24 witness made a statement to the OTP, to the investigators of the OTP in

25 March -- or, rather, in May 2007. In that statement, he describes, and I

1 can quote if you like me to, the discovery of these 22 unlogged cases in a

2 box somewhere in the archives of the Prosecutor's Office. That's

3 paragraph 15 of the statement. You can check if you have a copy.

4 And then next, paragraph 17, the witness says:

5 "Three days ago, we received a criminal report for a crime

6 committed against a civilian in Zavidovici in 1992."

7 And then the witness goes on to say:

8 "The brother of the victim contacted us."

9 So it's in that portion of the statement that the witness talks

10 about that.

11 This is an event that was never recorded in any of the registers,

12 and that's why I'm asking the witness these questions, my objective being

13 to ascertain this: There were obviously certain cases that were not

14 recorded, not registered by the Prosecutor's Office. They had them right

15 there, the case files, but the case files were never registered. So that

16 is the purpose behind my question.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm with you, it's just that paragraph 15 and 17 do

18 not talk about boxes. They talk of unlogged cases, but I -- and the

19 logging there is not even -- but that's fine. Now I'm with you, at least,

20 whether there is a box or not, no boxes.

21 MR. WOOD: Your Honour.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I see the word "box" in paragraph 14.

23 MR. WOOD: Yes, I was just about to point that out.

24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Box, box, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm with you.

1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't know how it was

2 interpreted. I said "a box containing 22 case files."

3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, the reference here is

4 probably to boxes in which these case files were physically kept.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, ma'am.

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

7 questions for this witness. Thank you.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.

9 Just before you re-examine, Mr. Wood, I know that you answered to

10 this question, but I just want to ask you the question I'm going to ask

11 you because of the answer you gave at the beginning of your

12 cross-examination.

13 What are war presidencies in exile, if you know?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were civilian authorities for

15 those municipalities from which they were expelled. For example, the

16 Kotor Varos Municipality, which is my municipality, I hail from that

17 municipality, I was elected to the War Presidency by the Presidency of the

18 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina on roughly the same date I was appointed

19 deputy military prosecutor. These war presidencies, in theory, at least,

20 had certain powers, but in practice they had no particular role, other

21 than to organise people who were expelled from a certain area, to list

22 those people, the citizens, and, in any way they could, to help these

23 people survive in their new areas.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, okay, I hear you now and I understand better

25 now.

1 Now, when you said, in answer to a question by Madam Vidovic, that

2 it is the first time you hear about this War Presidency, were you talking

3 specifically about the Banja Luka War Presidency? Is that the one that

4 you were hearing about for the first time, or what were you saying when

5 you said: "This is the first time I hear about that," and Madam Vidovic

6 didn't pursue that point, she just left it there? Do you remember saying

7 that?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, the question

9 was about the District Military Court of Banja Luka, and that was the

10 first time I'd heard of it. It wasn't about the War Presidency. I think

11 that's the way it was.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

13 Yes, Mr. Wood.

14 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Mr. President.

15 If Exhibit 881 could be shown, please. And this is in regard to

16 the table. So if we go to page 6 in the Bosnian version.

17 Re-examination by Mr. Wood:

18 Q. Mr. Hadziselimovic, the Defence attorney asked you about 236/95,

19 which is almost exactly in the middle of that page. Could you please tell

20 the Trial Chamber, what is the referring agency for 236/95? I see that

21 it's being highlighted.

22 A. You can see that it was Security Services Centre, Zenica, which

23 means civilian police.

24 MR. WOOD: If we could go to page 9 in the Bosnian, and I want to

25 ask you about entries alluded to by the Defence attorney regarding Enver

1 Hadzihasanovic and Besim Spahic. That's 014/2001. If you could scroll

2 down to where those names are listed.

3 I don't see them on this page, actually.

4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] If I may be of assistance, it's

5 actually page 3.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Vidovic.

7 MR. WOOD:

8 Q. So, Mr. Hadziselimovic, do you see the file 014/2001?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And 015/2001? I'm sorry, I misspoke. 015/01.

11 Mr. Hadziselimovic, what does "2001" indicate at the end of "014"?

12 A. This means that this was recorded in the register in the year

13 2001, number 14 and number 15.

14 Q. And if you could look to the second cell in the row, where it

15 says "Ki 33/01", what does that indicate, Mr. Hadziselimovic?

16 A. This is the way the Court categorises this file, and the numbers

17 are 33/01 and 37/01. This is a court reference number.

18 Q. And what, specifically, does "Ki" indicate?

19 A. "Criminal investigation," which is as good as a case file.

20 MR. WOOD: If we could go back to page 1 in the English and the

21 Bosnian of this document.

22 Q. And I want to draw your attention in particular to Roman numeral

23 I.

24 Now, that reads:

25 "That data that we have submitted in attachment, relating to files

1 found in the Archives of the Zenica District Military Prosecution ..."

2 And it continues, as you can see there. Does this indicate,

3 Mr. Hadziselimovic, that the documents listed in the table attached here

4 or the files are only files that are found in the Zenica Military District

5 Prosecution register?

6 A. The documents that were shown, the two case files, should be cases

7 for the senior public prosecutor in Zenica, because this comprises the

8 entire archives, the district military prosecutor in Zenica and the senior

9 public prosecutor in Zenica.

10 Q. My question is more specific, though, Mr. Hadziselimovic. As to

11 the table attached to this document, are these excerpts taken from, as is

12 written here, the Zenica District Military Prosecution archive -- or

13 logbook?

14 A. That's what it says, but I am not certain that this is 100 per

15 cent accurate. It may as well be that this comprises the archives of the

16 senior public prosecutor as well.

17 Q. If I could draw your attention to page 2 in the Bosnian, page 2 in

18 the English.

19 If you could scroll to the top.

20 Could you read that sentence out, sir, the very top sentence, the

21 only sentence on the page above the table?

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which sentence in the English, Mr. Wood?

23 MR. WOOD: I believe we'll have to go to the next page in the

24 English to see that sentence, Mr. President. Yes, there it is.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It reads:

1 "List of selected files from the Archives of the Zenica District

2 Military Prosecutor," illegible, "21 to 24 August 2006. Mission. Mission

3 from the 21st to 24th of August."

4 MR. WOOD:

5 Q. We saw a document earlier introduced by the Defence that

6 indicated -- that referred to the murder of Paul Godal and some others.

7 Perhaps we could just bring that up. That's Exhibit 887.

8 Now, we see at the top of that page, it says "Senior Public

9 Prosecutor's Office." Does that indicate where this was sent,

10 Mr. Hadziselimovic?

11 A. This is the address to which it was supposed to be sent. I have

12 nothing indicating that it ever got there, though.

13 Q. So if we put these two documents together, if, as is written, the

14 table at the end of 881 is only excerpts of a list of selected files from

15 the archives of the Zenica District Military Prosecution, would there be

16 any reason that a criminal report sent to the Senior Public Prosecutor's

17 Office in Zenica would appear in the table at the end of 881?

18 A. Can you please clarify that for me?

19 Q. Well, we saw, Mr. Hadziselimovic, that a certain sentence was

20 written at the end of Exhibit 881, right before the table, and that

21 sentence indicated that the criminal reports listed in the table were

22 taken from the archives of the Zenica District Military Prosecution

23 registers. We see, on this document, that a criminal report was sent to

24 the Senior Public Prosecutor's Office in Zenica. So if the table at the

25 end of 881 only lists documents or criminal reports from the Zenica

1 District Military Prosecutor's Office, would there be any reason that

2 these criminal reports would appear in the table at the end of 881 if what

3 is written is true and they were sent to the Public Prosecutor's Office?

4 A. If it is stated that the list of files is from the Zenica

5 prosecutor, district military prosecutor, then it should be right, but

6 there could have been a change in the jurisdiction, so I have to assume

7 that the senior public prosecutor, for example, said, "This is not within

8 our jurisdiction. We are forwarding the case to the district military

9 prosecutor." And then this file would be transferred to the district

10 military prosecutor and it could turn up in this table. That is the only

11 explanation that I think is possible in this case.

12 Q. And generally speaking, sir, on Roman II of 881 and 882, and we

13 could bring those up, but we need not, Your Honour, you assert that you

14 did a search of the archives and the registers and found that there were

15 no criminal reports filed for the events that were specified by the OTP;

16 is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. In carrying out that search, sir, did you and your staff rely only

19 on the registers or did you also check the individual files for these

20 individual cases?

21 A. We relied primarily on our records, because if a case was tried,

22 then all the documents should be in the Court for us to be able to inspect

23 a certain case file.

24 Q. So, for example, if there are -- if there was a case of Article 36

25 murder that was found in the register, what did your staff do to make sure

1 that that Article 36 case for murder did not include, as in 2(1), the

2 murder of 25 civilians or the murder of the VRS prisoners at -- in

3 Kamenica?

4 A. Well, one runs a check by using the names of those killed, the

5 injured parties, and then we're 100 per cent certain about our records.

6 But it's not just the names of suspects that are looked at here.

7 Q. What else is looked at?

8 A. One looks at the names of the suspects involved, the names of the

9 injured parties, the time of submission, the relevant prosecutor's office

10 that was in charge of a certain case. It was mostly cases from that other

11 kind of register, unidentified perpetrator, or the juvenile perpetrator,

12 under-age perpetrator. For example, when you have a KT record and you

13 don't have a perpetrator, and in that case what you use to run this search

14 is the names of the persons who are the actual victims. There is no other

15 way to conduct a search than that.

16 Q. And are those the criteria that were used in asserting, as you

17 did, in Roman II of both letters that there were no criminal reports filed

18 for these particular events?

19 A. That's right.

20 Q. And, finally, I want to ask you some questions about the box of 22

21 files that was referenced in your witness statement.

22 Was this the only set of files you found that had not actually

23 been logged in any logbook?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And in the process of going through these files, how many files

1 did you find that were actually logged in the various logbooks?

2 A. That's a little difficult to say off-the-cuff like that. If you

3 look at "unidentified perpetrator," there may be about 40.000 files, all

4 the rest, between 30.000 and 40.000 [Realtime transcript read in

5 error "13.000 and 14.000"] case files.

6 Q. So we're talking about, then -- I'm sorry, I want to clarify

7 here. Did you say 13.000 and 14.000?

8 A. 30.000 to 40.000.

9 Q. So we're talking about 22 case files out of 30 to 40.000, then; is

10 that correct?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. And finally, Mr. Hadziselimovic, if you recall, what did these

13 particular cases, these 22, deal with?

14 A. These were criminal reports concerning unidentified perpetrators,

15 about the shelling of Tesanj Municipality and parts of Doboj Municipality

16 by the Serb aggressor.

17 Q. And one final question. You referred, in page 46, line 1, when we

18 were speaking of the case file involving Enver Hadzihasanovic, you said

19 the BH organs forwarded it to The Hague Tribunal. Do you know,

20 Mr. Hadziselimovic, from where the "rules of the road" case file against

21 Enver Hadzihasanovic originated?

22 A. I think it was sent by the senior public prosecutor in Zenica, but

23 I'm not certain.

24 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution has no further questions at this time,

25 Your Honour.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

2 Judge.

3 Questioned by the Court:

4 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question to put to you.

5 This relates to those 22 cases which had not been recorded.

6 Have I understood you correctly that this pertained to the period

7 running from 1992, when you were not yet working for the military tribunal

8 of Zenica?

9 A. This pertained to the period between 1992 and 1995, and I don't

10 know the exact date when those events occurred.

11 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] We're talking about the cases,

12 those cases that were not recorded, pertain to that period running from

13 1992 and 1995. Is that what you're saying? In other words, during this

14 period you cannot confirm either that your office was running efficiently

15 and, therefore, that all cases were registered, all criminal reports were

16 being recorded; is that what you're saying?

17 A. Maybe the explanation was not sufficiently clear. That particular

18 box was found in the same place where other documents were being kept,

19 too, and this is something that the prosecutor in Zenica had taken over

20 from the former municipal prosecutor in Tesanj. When the Cantonal

21 Prosecutor's Office in Zenica was set up, all the Municipal Public

22 Prosecutors' Offices were abolished. That was when we took over all the

23 documentation from all the municipal prosecutors. All the cases were

24 recorded in the register, where receipt was recorded. And when the

25 archives were searched, when we wanted to tidy up the archives so we might

1 know what exactly we had there, it was then that the box was found

2 containing these 22 case files. These case files were not recorded in the

3 register of the Tesanj municipal prosecutor.

4 When we ascertained that, we duly recorded them and pursued those

5 case files. When I say "we," I mean the cantonal prosecutor of Zenica.

6 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes, but what we are interested

7 in is as follows: If this period running from 1993 to 1995, you are able

8 to confirm to us that your office was being run efficiently and that you

9 were able to record anything coming in, whenever there were any criminal

10 reports, that you were actually able to record all of this?

11 A. Yes.

12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] One other point. During her

13 cross-examination, Mrs. Vidovic put a question to you that concerned

14 reports. She was making an assumption, if I remember correctly, and she

15 mentioned reports that might have reached you which would have involved

16 paramilitaries. And if I remember correctly, you said, "I cannot answer

17 that question because I don't know anything about these reports, and I

18 don't know whom these reports were sent to." Have I remembered all of

19 this correctly?

20 A. Yes.

21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Now, I would like to know

22 something else.

23 As far as you're concerned, if you yourself, working for the

24 military tribunal, if you had received reports which had to do with the

25 involvement of paramilitary forces, would you have felt that these reports

1 fell within your jurisdiction or not, or came under your jurisdiction or

2 not?

3 A. Under the law, the jurisdiction was determined in such a way that

4 the military prosecutors, military courts, had jurisdiction over anyone

5 who was a member of the armed forces. There was no mention there of any

6 paramilitary units.

7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness. That's all.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you going to have any other questions,

9 Mr. Wood, arising from those questions by the Judge?

10 MR. WOOD: No, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: And Madam Vidovic?

12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a brief question.

13 Further cross-examination by Ms. Vidovic:

14 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, I'm sure you'll agree, the 22 case files

15 that remained in that box, under the law they had to be recorded in the

16 registers; right?

17 A. Precisely, and that follows from my answer. These had to be

18 recorded or registered, but they were not. It wasn't until 12 years later

19 that we recorded them and entered them into all the logs. Since these are

20 apparently cases involving war crimes, we shall do our best to investigate

21 these cases.

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Your

23 Honour.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.

25 Sir, this brings us to the conclusion of your testimony. Thank

1 you very much for coming to testify. You are now excused and you may

2 stand down. And travel back home safely. Thank you once more.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to thank you, the

4 Prosecutor and the Defence.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, sir.

6 [The witness withdrew]

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry to have to keep you waiting, but -- thank

9 you, thank you so much.

10 The Trial Chamber hereby now renders its decision on the

11 Prosecution's fifth motion for leave to amend its exhibit list which was

12 filed on the 7th of November, 2007.

13 In its motion, the Prosecution requests leave to amend its Rule 65

14 ter exhibit list by the addition of 13 documents which are attached as

15 Annex B to the motion. The Prosecution argues that it is in the interests

16 of justice to allow the addition of these 13 proposed exhibits, as

17 they "negate the validity of document MFI 651 that was used by the defence

18 during the cross-examination of a key witness," namely, the witness Goran

19 Krcmar.

20 The Prosecution argues that it should be permitted to add the

21 proposed exhibits to its list, as MFI 651 is directly contradictory to a

22 fact which the Prosecution seeks to prove, and that it will be unable to

23 add these proposed exhibits to its 65 ter exhibit list at a later stage

24 should the Defence tender this document for admission into evidence during

25 the Defence case.

1 The Defence, in its response of the 21st of November, 2007, argues

2 that it is not in the interests of justice to allow the addition of the

3 proposed exhibits, as the correct stage at which to deal with this matter

4 is if the Defence bring a witness to deal with this document during the

5 Defence case, and that the key document among the proposed exhibits

6 carries little or no probative value in the absence of a witness called by

7 the Prosecution to testify as to the error which may have been made in MFI

8 651.

9 The Trial Chamber recalls that it may grant a motion requesting

10 amendment of a 65 ter exhibit list where it is in the interests of justice

11 and in balancing the Prosecution's duty to present the available evidence

12 to prove its case with the right of the accused to have adequate time and

13 facilities to prepare a defence. The Trial Chamber may also take into

14 account additional criteria, including whether the proposed evidence is

15 prima facie relevant and of probative to the issues in the indictment and

16 where a good cause for amending the 65 ter exhibit list has been shown.

17 Furthermore, the Trial Chamber recalls that there is a difference

18 between the admission of a document into evidence as an exhibit and the

19 inclusion of the document on the 65 ter exhibit list, as in the latter

20 case the Trial Chamber does not need to assess the relevance and probative

21 value of such documents, provided it is satisfied that the party does not

22 submit documents that are obviously irrelevant.

23 Having considered the arguments advanced by the Prosecution in its

24 motion and by the Defence in its response, the Trial Chamber finds that

25 the proposed exhibits are prima facie relevant to the Prosecution case and

1 that the Prosecution has shown good cause for the amendment of its 65 ter

2 exhibit list.

3 Therefore, the Trial Chamber finds that it is in the interests of

4 justice to allow the addition of the 13 proposed exhibits to the

5 Prosecution's 65 ter exhibit list and pursuant to Rule 54 of the Rules of

6 Procedure and Evidence, hereby grants the evidence.

7 I'm sorry to have kept the parties for too long.

8 Court adjourned.

9 We have a problem. We don't know whether we're sitting in the

10 morning tomorrow or in the afternoon. We are told that we will be

11 notified sometime perhaps later in the day. I want to suspect that we

12 will sit in the morning.

13 Court adjourned on that uncertain note.

14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.58 p.m.,

15 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 28th day of

16 November, 2007, sine die.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25