Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 12479

1 Monday, 29 November 2004

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call

6 the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Case number IT-01-47-T, the

8 Prosecutor versus Enver Hadzihasanovic Amir Kubura.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Could

10 we have the appearances for the Prosecution, please.

11 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon,

12 Your Honours, counsel and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the

13 Prosecution, Stefan Waespi, Daryl Mundis, and our case manager, Mr. Andres

14 Vatter.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you could we have the

16 appearances for the Defence.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. President; good day,

18 Your Honours. On behalf of General Hadzihasanovic, Edina Residovic,

19 counsel, Stefan Bourgon, co-counsel, and Muriel Cauvin, our legal

20 assistant. Thank you.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. And the other

22 Defence team, please.

23 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Good day, Your Honours. On

24 behalf of Mr. Kubura, Rodney Dixon, Fahrudin Ibrisimovic, and Nermin

25 Mulalic, our legal assistant.

Page 12480

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. The Trial Chamber

2 would like to greet every one present, the Prosecution, Defence counsel,

3 the accused, and everyone else either in or around the courtroom.

4 We have a witness scheduled for today, but before we call the

5 witness into the courtroom, could the Defence counsel tell me whether I've

6 understood you correctly. The witness scheduled for tomorrow was not

7 initially included in the official list, as you know, for witnesses, and

8 on official list, as a rule it's necessary to ask for leave to amend the

9 list in order to introduce a new witness. So could you clarify this

10 subject, please.

11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I do apologise. We

12 made an error when we told you that the witness wasn't on the list on

13 Friday. He was on the list, but we hadn't obtained confirmation from him

14 that he would be appearing, that is to say that he would be testifying.

15 He confirmed he would be testifying on Saturday. We the informed

16 Prosecution of this. We informed them that the witness would be appearing

17 before the Trial Chamber tomorrow. He comes from a European country, one

18 of the European countries, and since he has requested certain protective

19 measures, we'll inform the Trial Chamber of the measures requested

20 tomorrow. But for the moment, I wouldn't like to mention his name.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. As far

22 as the witness who will be testifying is concerned, how much time do you

23 think you will need to examine this witness?

24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Our examination should take an

25 hour and a half, but I think the examination-in-chief will last between an

Page 12481

1 hour and an hour and a half, no longer than that.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Very well. Let's go

3 into private session now.

4 [Private session]

5 (Redacted)

6 (Redacted)

7 (Redacted)

8 (Redacted)

9 (Redacted)

10 (Redacted)

11 (Redacted)

12 (Redacted)

13 (Redacted)

14 [Open session]

15 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're back in open session,

16 Mr. President.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now that we are back in open

18 session, let's call the witness into the courtroom. Could the usher bring

19 the witness into the courtroom, please.

20 [The witness entered court]

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good day, sir. I would first

22 like to make sure you're receiving the interpretation of what I'm saying.

23 So please say so.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear you.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have been called here as a

Page 12482

1 witness for the Defence. Before you take the solemn declaration, I would

2 be grateful if you could tell me your first and last names, your date of

3 birth and your place of birth.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Redzib Begic. I was born

5 on the 23rd of February, 1956, in Zenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are you currently employed, and

7 if so, what is your profession? What is your current profession?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a lawyer, and I work in a

9 company at the moment, a trade company.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In 1992 and 1993, did you hold a

11 position of any kind, and if so, what position did you hold and where.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I was the chief of the

13 security services centre in Zenica as part of the Ministry of the Interior

14 in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In 1992 and in 1993?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the beginning of 1993, up until

17 February, I held that position.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And after February?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was appointed as a Judge of the

20 high court in Zenica.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And you were a Judge until when

22 exactly?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Until January of this year.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] January 2004?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

Page 12483

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Have you already

2 testified before an international or national court with regard to the

3 events that occurred in your country between 1992 and 1993 or is this the

4 first time?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please read out the

7 solemn declaration.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

9 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may sit down.


12 [Witness answered through interpreter]

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to the

14 Defence, I would like to provide you with some information about the

15 procedure that we'll be following here. As you were a Judge for over ten

16 years, you will not be surprised by what I tell you.

17 According to the procedure we follow here, you will first have to

18 answer the questions put to you by Defence counsel. You must have met

19 them this weekend. You must have seen them this weekend. They're to your

20 left. Their examination should take between an hour and an hour and a

21 half. They will be conducting what we call their examination-in-chief.

22 After they have concluded their examination-in-chief, the

23 Prosecution, who are to your right, will conduct their cross-examination.

24 This is a very common law procedure.

25 You will soon notice that the questions put to you by Defence

Page 12484












12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond













Page 12485

1 counsel and the questions put to you by the Prosecution are not quite the

2 same.

3 After this stage has been completed, Defence counsel may

4 re-examine you. Then the three Judges who are sitting before you may also

5 ask you questions. The Rules allow the Judges to ask witnesses questions

6 at any point in time, but we prefer to ask witnesses questions after both

7 parties have finished asking witnesses their questions.

8 You will see that our questions will be somewhat different than

9 the questions put to you by the parties. As a rule, we ask witnesses

10 questions to obtain certain clarifications and to fill in any gaps in your

11 testimony.

12 We will also have two breaks that will last between 25 and 30

13 minutes. We have these breaks for technical reasons and allow the

14 witnesses to have a rest. As a Judge, you're aware of the fact that it is

15 tiring for witnesses to answer questions, and this is why it is necessary

16 for the witnesses to have a rest.

17 As the procedure followed here is almost entirely oral, the

18 witness's answers are very important, because your answers will be

19 transcribed, and the transcription of your answers will be our evidence.

20 We don't have any documents, any written documents. When a question is

21 put to you, you may be shown a document and you may be asked to comment on

22 the document. The Judges might also show you the documents that they

23 have, since it these documents have already been admitted into evidence.

24 I would also like to draw your attention to other important

25 points. This won't surprise you, as you have taken the solemn

Page 12486

1 declaration, this means you should not give false testimony. False

2 testimony is an offence, and it is punishable. You could be given a fine

3 or a sentence of up to five -- seven years in prison.

4 Secondly, and this is characteristic of the common law system,

5 when a witness is answering a question, if the witness believes that the

6 information he provides might subsequently be used against him, the

7 witness can refuse to answer the question. These are rules that exist in

8 certain countries that follow the continental system. Nevertheless, the

9 Trial Chamber may obliged a witness to answer such a question, but the

10 witness is granted a form of immunity. In common law countries, it's the

11 Prosecution that grants this form of immunity. In this Tribunal, it's the

12 Chamber that grants this form of immunity.

13 If you fail to understand a question, ask the person putting it to

14 you to rephrase it. Sometimes the questions are complicated, and if

15 that's the case, you should ask the person putting the question to you to

16 rephrase it.

17 I'll now give the floor to the Defence, who will provide you with

18 additional information.

19 Examined by Ms. Residovic:

20 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Begic. As the Presiding Judge has

21 already said, I would like to ask you to try and pause before you answer

22 the questions I put to you, as we speak the same language. It is

23 important for my questions and your answers to be interpreted so that

24 everyone in the courtroom can follow our exchange. So please pause after

25 I have put a question to you so my question can be interpreted, and then

Page 12487

1 answer the question. Have you understood me?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Mr. Begic, can you tell me where you live now?

4 A. I live in Zenica in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

5 Q. In response to a question from the Chamber, you said that you were

6 a lawyer by profession. Could you tell me a little about your

7 professional background?

8 A. After I completed secondary school, I studied at the school of law

9 in Sarajevo, at the department in Zenica. I graduated in 1979. I then

10 took the bar examine. That was in 1982. I took the exam in Sarajevo, in

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

12 Q. In response to a question put to you by the Presiding Judge, you

13 said what position you held in 1992 and afterwards. Could you please tell

14 me what you did before the war.

15 A. Before the war, as soon as I graduated, I was a trainee in the

16 district court in Zenica, and I was preparing to take the bar exam. In

17 1982, I was elected as a Judge of what was then called the basic court in

18 Zenica, and I was there until 1989. I was then appointed as a Judge at

19 the high court in Zenica, and I worked as a Judge until July 1991, when I

20 was appointed as the chief of the security services centre in Zenica.

21 As I have already said, I held that position until the end of

22 February 1993, and then I returned to the court. I was appointed as a

23 Judge of the high court in Zenica again. And at the same time, I was a

24 Judge at the Supreme Court in Sarajevo. I was replacing someone, and that

25 was within the framework of the high court in Zenica.

Page 12488

1 Q. Mr. Begic, before the war did you serve in an army, and if so,

2 which army and when?

3 A. Yes. I served in the former JNA. That was in 1981, if I'm not

4 mistaken.

5 Q. After you served in the army, did you obtain a rank of any kind?

6 A. No.

7 Q. When telling us about the duties you performed, you said that in

8 April 1992, when the JNA and Serbian forces attacked the --

9 Bosnia-Herzegovina, you said you were in the Zenica Security Services

10 Centre; is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Within the framework of the duties that you had, were you also a

13 member of the armed forces?

14 A. The law on the armed forces or, rather, the decree law that

15 regulated those matters, well, as a member of the Ministry of the

16 Interior, I was considered a member of the armed forces as well, but this

17 was only at a time of war.

18 Q. Mr. Begic, since the army was also -- also represented the armed

19 forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, could you tell me: What is the joint

20 command for the security services centre and the army?

21 A. The Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

22 Q. Tell me, who was your superior organ, and who was your superior?

23 A. The Ministry of the Interior in Bosnia and Herzegovina or, rather,

24 the Minister of the interior.

25 Q. As head of the security services centre, tell me, what area did

Page 12489

1 this centre cover?

2 A. It covered the Zenica region, as it was known then. That is the

3 region to the north, is a Vidovici, Zepca, Zenica, Kakanj, Vitez,

4 Busovaca, Travnik, Novi Travnik, Donji and Gornji Vakuf, and Bugojno.

5 Q. Which organisational unit of the Ministry of the Interior

6 insisted -- existed in those municipalities, and who were you superior to?

7 A. In each of these municipalities, there were public security

8 stations, and I was superior to the heads of those police stations.

9 Q. To be able to follow your answers as we go along, could you tell

10 us, as head of the security services centre, which aspect of security was

11 your centre responsible for?

12 A. The competencies of the Ministry of the Interior were regulated by

13 law on the organisation of the republican administration, and more

14 specifically, by the Law on Internal Affairs. This law stipulated that

15 the competencies of the Ministry of the Interior were primarily to protect

16 public law and order, personal and property safety of citizens, and also,

17 very importantly, to detect the perpetrators of crimes and submit criminal

18 reports.

19 This administrative/legal competence also included question of

20 citizenship, issuance of travel documents, keeping records and controlling

21 the movement of aliens, et cetera.

22 Q. Tell me, within the framework of the security services centre in

23 Zenica, were there separate security sectors or departments which

24 specialised in a particular aspect of security?

25 A. Within the framework of the Ministry of Interior, there was the

Page 12490












12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond













Page 12491

1 administration for state security, and similarly within the centre for

2 security services there was a sector for state security which was directly

3 subordinated to the under-secretary for state security or the deputy

4 minister of internal affairs. So in addition to that sector, there was a

5 public security sector which covered the areas that I listed a moment ago.

6 Q. In answering my previous question, you said that organs of the

7 Ministry of the Interior or the civilian police, to put it briefly, and

8 the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina had a joint superior command which was, in

9 fact, the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Tell me, while you were head of the security services centre, and

12 later on when you worked as a Judge in a higher court of Zenica, was the

13 army of Bosnia-Herzegovina or, rather, the 3rd Corps superior to the

14 security services centre?

15 A. No, never.

16 Q. Can you tell me, please, Mr. Begic, whether in addition to the

17 regular police force that you had in peacetime, during the war were

18 additional forces organised and, if so, tell us which and how.

19 A. Even before the war, a unit or units of the reserve police force

20 were mobilised. This was not just during the war, but even before the war

21 these units had been mobilised, which means before April 1992.

22 Q. Mr. Begic, you said that the centre of the security services was

23 never subordinated or resubordinated to the 3rd Corps Bosnia-Herzegovina

24 or the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole. Tell me, did the law

25 envisage the possibility for certain parts of the security centre to be

Page 12492

1 placed under the command of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina and, if so,

2 will you please explain?

3 A. This referred to reserve units of the police who, by decision of

4 the Minister of the Interior, could be resubordinated to the army command.

5 Q. Tell me, please, was this on a permanent basis, a temporary basis,

6 or some other basis that these forces were resubordinated? And when the

7 requirement ceased what happened to those reserve forces?

8 A. These were occasionally resubordinated. And as soon as the need

9 for them ceased, they would go back to their regular duties within the

10 Ministry of Internal Affairs.

11 Q. Speaking about some duties within the terms of reference of the

12 Ministry of the Interior or, rather, the security services centre, you

13 said that some of its competencies were linked to the detection of

14 criminal offences and their perpetrators.

15 Tell me: In addition to the law you referred to a moment ago

16 regulating the competence of bodies of the Ministry of Interior, were

17 there any other laws regulating the conduct of the civilian police?

18 A. Yes. There was the law on criminal proceedings which specified

19 more clearly the position and the role of the Ministry of the Interior in

20 discovering perpetrators, in investigating and collecting information upon

21 the request of the court or, rather, the prosecutor's office.

22 Q. You also mentioned that one of the competencies of the Ministry of

23 the Interior bodies had to do with the movement of aliens and registration

24 of aliens. Tell me, was there an organisational unit within the security

25 services centre in Zenica specially dealing with these issues?

Page 12493

1 A. Yes. This was the so-called department for foreigners.

2 Q. Are you aware of any legal provision or practice on the basis of

3 which some other state or military bodies might take over this

4 responsibility from the organs of internal affairs or, rather, are you

5 aware that that competence was ever taken away from bodies of internal

6 affairs before or during or after the war?

7 A. As far as I know, that never occurred.

8 Q. In view of the fact that you held an important position, that is

9 head of the security services centre at the beginning of the war, tell me,

10 did you encounter any problems when it -- when we're talking about

11 relations with foreigners, and of what kind?

12 A. Yes, there were problems, and it was very difficult for the

13 department or foreigners to fulfil its role in that area. This was

14 primarily due to the fact that at the very outset of the war, the borders

15 of Bosnia and Herzegovina could not be controlled by legal bodies so that

16 when foreigners entered, and that is the most important moment when you

17 want to monitor their movement, we didn't have information that a

18 foreigner had entered Bosnia and Herzegovina.

19 Q. But let me ask you, who controlled the borders of

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992 and 1993?

21 A. The borders were controlled by bodies within Republika Srpska or

22 bodies of the HVO.

23 Q. Did any entry into Bosnia-Herzegovina or frontier crossing -- was

24 any frontier crossing controlled by the legal MUP of Bosnia and

25 Herzegovina at any point along the border?

Page 12494

1 A. I think not.

2 Q. I'm sorry for interrupting you. You said that there were many

3 problems, the first being the inability to control the entry and

4 registration of foreigners coming into the country. Could you mention the

5 others? I think you said there were several.

6 A. Yes. It was the duty of all entities, both legal and physical

7 entities, to report the arrival and sojourn of foreigners. Such reports

8 never reached us. Now, whether this was due to the fact that those

9 foreigners were not staying in hotels and information was most frequently

10 passed on from hotels, now, whether it was due to that or to some other

11 reason, I don't know.

12 Q. Mr. Begic, in 1992, when Bosnia and Herzegovina was confronted

13 with the war and the horrific consequences of that war, did foreigners

14 come, and who were those foreigners?

15 A. As a citizen, I am aware that there were foreigners. Later on, it

16 emerged that some of those foreigners were registered by humanitarian

17 organisations such as the association of citizens, Al Husamen [phoen] or

18 others. According to the law on the association of citizens, the

19 registration of associations was within the competence of courts. After

20 registration, within the framework of those associations, those foreigners

21 were free to act, too, quite legally.

22 Q. During that period of time, did foreign journalists come to the

23 area controlled by the security centre -- security services centre? Were

24 they registered with you?

25 A. Unfortunately, I have to tell you that no one registered with us,

Page 12495

1 so none the foreigners.

2 Q. Tell me, could one notice foreigners coming on an individual

3 basis, or was this a period when large numbers of foreigners arrived of

4 various origins?

5 A. In that period was a period of major fluctuation of people,

6 including people in uniform. In 1992, there would be times when hundreds

7 of people would come to Zenica. Among them were those in uniform who were

8 deserting their lines, fleeing from the war operations, and accompanying

9 their families. To what extent foreigners were present is something I'm

10 unable to say.

11 Q. You mentioned some humanitarian organisations. Could you tell us

12 approximately how many various international or national humanitarian

13 organisations were registered in Zenica at that year?

14 A. I'm really unable to tell you that, because I never had any such

15 information or data. There are data about that in the registers of

16 courts, but I know as a citizen that they were quite numerous.

17 Q. Speaking about the competencies of the security services centres,

18 you said that one of your competencies was linked to the identification,

19 personal documents, and the rest of the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

20 Tell me, in 1992 and 1993, did the composition of the population change,

21 and did people come to Zenica from various parts of Bosnia and

22 Herzegovina?

23 A. Certainly. One might say that it became the rule to move around

24 without any ID papers. There were so many persons who may not even have

25 had any such ID documents that we simply stopped checking people in that

Page 12496












12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond













Page 12497

1 sense.

2 Q. In addition to the problems you have referred to that you had to

3 deal with, tell me: Did the security services centre at some point in

4 time have to deal with the collapse of a part of the system or, rather,

5 tell me, were you able to control the whole territory that you described

6 for us a moment ago?

7 A. Very soon after the beginning of the war, with the formation of

8 the Croatian Defence council, public security stations that were located

9 in areas where Croats had -- were in power even before the war, they in a

10 sense eschewed control of the security centre in Zenica.

11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness now be shown a

12 set of documents so that I can move on to my next question linked to one

13 of those documents. We have a sufficient number of copies for

14 Their Honours, the Prosecution, and our colleagues.

15 Q. Mr. Begic, could you please have a look at document number one.

16 The Defence number which you can see at the top of the document is 0449.

17 The date of the document is the 24th of August, 1992.

18 Mr. Begic, I assume that you haven't seen this document before,

19 but please tell me: Does this document show that areas under HVO control

20 prevented the civilian police of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina from

21 carrying out their work, and they started doing this very early? Is this

22 something that you are familiar with? Was this the case in 1992 or 1993?

23 A. Well, this is the first time I've seen this order, but I knew that

24 members of the Ministry of the Interior or, rather, I knew that men who

25 were under me were not able to go to these areas, to areas under HVO

Page 12498

1 control, because very soon the legal authorities in the public security

2 stations soon merged with the HVO organisation. I could provide you with

3 an example, Busovaca. I could mention Vitez as well. And the building of

4 the public security station there was taken over by members either of the

5 HVO or of the HOS.

6 And then the same occurred in Zepca. Members of the MUP could not

7 go to those areas without taking risks.

8 Q. As of that time, Mr. Begic, did your inspectors and policemen --

9 were your inspectors and policemen able to perform their duties in those

10 areas? Could they carry out controls, conduct investigations, interview

11 individuals, and carry out other police work?

12 A. No. No, they doesn't.

13 Q. Mr. Begic, in other municipalities such as Travnik and Bugojno,

14 which were within the framework of your security services centre, were

15 parallel organs, parallel police organs established, and did this make it

16 difficult for the civilian police to perform all their duties?

17 A. Yes. As far as I know, there was such a problem in Bugojno.

18 Q. Mr. Begic, could you now tell me whether you know that at some

19 point in time in the territory where your civilian police operated the 3rd

20 Corps was formed and BH army units?

21 A. Yes. As far as I can remember, the 3rd Corps was formed towards

22 the end of 1992. It included units -- it was composed of units that

23 already existed at the time. In other words, it linked up units of BH

24 army -- from the BH army.

25 Q. As the 3rd Corps was founded and developed, do you know whether

Page 12499

1 certain police organs were formed within the corps?

2 A. Yes. As soon as the 3rd Corps was formed, as far as I can

3 remember, a military police battalion was formed too. It was part of the

4 3rd Corps.

5 Q. Mr. Begic, could you tell me what sort of staff your security

6 services centre had before the war and at the beginning of the war?

7 A. Well, I can claim with full responsibility that we had staff who

8 were capable of performing the duties they were supposed to perform in the

9 Zenica security services centre.

10 Q. Did the centre have the technical equipment they needed in order

11 to carry out their work?

12 A. Yes. There was the department for crime technology, and they had

13 the staff, and they had the equipment. They had sufficient equipment at

14 the beginning of war to carry out investigations that had to be done in

15 accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure, although a lot of this

16 equipment was damaged in the wartime.

17 Q. You said that after the formation of the 3rd Corps, a military

18 police battalion was formed within the 3rd Corps. Tell me, do you know

19 what sort of equipment and men the military police battalion had at the

20 time?

21 A. The military police battalion wasn't adequately equipped, and it

22 didn't have an adequate staff to carry out its duties, and that's why

23 cooperation was established between the Ministry of the Interior and the

24 security -- or, rather, the security services centre in Zenica and the 3rd

25 Corps. And quite frequently, in addition to the training that our members

Page 12500

1 provided to members of the military police, our members would also become

2 directly engaged and perform tasks for military security.

3 Investigating judges from the district military court often

4 requested assistance or, rather, from the district military prosecutor's

5 office. So what the military police couldn't do would be done by members

6 of our centre.

7 Q. Mr. Begic, can you remember whether at any point in time, at the

8 beginning of 1993, a request was made by the 3rd Corps and by an

9 investigating judge for your organs to carry out some of the

10 investigations that concerned bringing in people who had been killed in

11 the village of Dusina?

12 A. Yes. I believe that was in January 1993 at the request of the

13 investigating judge from the district military court. We carried out

14 certain investigations that involved examining corpses and performing a

15 paraffin test on the bodies that were brought to the Zenica morgue.

16 Q. Mr. Begic, to the best of your recollection was the military

17 police battalion in a position to carry out those tasks since you said at

18 that time they lacked the necessary equipment and they didn't have

19 adequate staff?

20 A. Well, since the investigating judge from the military court

21 requested that we carry out these activities, you can see that the members

22 of the military police weren't in a position to do so.

23 Q. Have a look at documents five, six, and seven now, and document

24 number eight. Let's have a look at document number five first. The

25 document is P332, document number P332. And could you first tell me

Page 12501

1 whether this is a document from the security services centre of which you

2 were the chief.

3 A. Yes. This is a document that I signed as the chief of the

4 security services centre. And certain notes were attached to this

5 document, and certain findings. The findings from the paraffin test was

6 attached to the document, and a photo record was attached, a photo record

7 of unidentified bodies.

8 Q. Please have a look at document number six now, document P333.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Tell me, is this a document from your security services centre,

11 and do you know who drafted this document?

12 A. Yes. This is an official note. It's a document from the Zenica

13 security services centre and it was drafted by an employee of the crime

14 technology department. His name is Redzo Hadzic.

15 Q. Please have a look at document number seven. The number of the

16 document is P334. Tell me, is this a document from the security services

17 centre, and do you know the person who compiled this document?

18 A. Yes, I do. This document also comes from the security services

19 centre, and the note was compiled by Enes Saric, who also worked in the

20 department for crime technology.

21 Q. Have a look at document eight, document number P341, and tell me

22 whether this is a document compiled by the security services centre, and

23 do you know who signed this document?

24 A. Yes. This is a document from the Zenica Security Services Centre.

25 It is the paraffin test expert analysis. It was signed by Hadzic Redzo,

Page 12502












12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond













Page 12503

1 an employee in the department for crime technology, and I also signed the

2 document.

3 Q. Mr. Begic, could you tell me who actually carried out these

4 investigations in the security services centre? The men who carried these

5 investigations out, were they professionals? Were they ordinary

6 policemen? Could you tell us who carried out the investigations, and

7 could you tell us what sort of equipment was used to carry out such an

8 analysis?

9 A. Well, I can say that the people who did this were competent, and

10 they had the adequate professional level and experience to carry out such

11 work. And in particular, as far as the paraffin test is concerned, this

12 test was done by someone who was a biologist by profession, and he had

13 done such work for a long time before making this analysis.

14 Q. Mr. Begic, in the document which you have examined, document

15 number P33 [as interpreted], it's document number six among the document

16 that you have before you. In this document it says that Turkic Faruk, a

17 pathologist, the Judges and the prosecutor of the Zenica military court

18 and the Zenica CSB forensic officer were members of the identification

19 team. Before I put my following question to you, could you tell me the

20 following: On the basis your answer -- well, you said that you worked as

21 a judge for most of your professional life. Which fields were you

22 involved in as a judge? What sort of cases did you work on as a judge?

23 What sort of cases did you try?

24 A. Well, on the whole, these cases were criminal cases, and for the

25 best part of my career as a Judge, I was involved in criminal cases. Only

Page 12504

1 for a short period of time was I involved in other kinds of cases. That

2 was while I was a Judge in the low court in Zenica.

3 Q. I apologise. On page 21, line 17, the Prosecution number hasn't

4 been correctly recorded. The number is 333 and not 33.

5 I'll now go back to this document. Given your experience as a

6 judge in criminal cases, could you tell me, when a judge is involved in an

7 investigation who is in charge of the investigation? Who issues orders to

8 carry out certain investigative actions? Who is, in fact, in charge of

9 the entire situation?

10 A. Well, this is the exclusive responsibility of the investigative

11 judge.

12 Q. At the time the judge takes over that work, so to speak, either in

13 a pre-trial stage or either in an investigative stage, as the civilian

14 police and as the military police, were you able to establish certain

15 conditions? Were you able to conduct the investigation as you saw fit,

16 apart from the way in which the court said the investigations should be

17 conducted?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Mr. Begic, after you -- after security services centre provided

20 all the documents on the investigations carried out, the investigations

21 that you were ordered to carry out by the court, and these were cases

22 which involved the pre-trial phase, what was the investigative judge

23 supposed to do with all the documents that were gathered at that point in

24 time?

25 A. Well, all -- all the documents, all the evidence had to be

Page 12505

1 provided by the judge to the Prosecutor. It was necessary to assess

2 whether it was a crime. It was necessary to decide whose responsibility

3 the crime was. And then the results should be provided to the prosecutor.

4 Generally speaking, the investigative judge from the district

5 military court forwarded all the results of investigations to the district

6 military prosecutor.

7 Q. In this note signed by your employee Redzo Hadzic, the number of

8 which is P333, you can see that in addition to the judge, the prosecutor

9 of the district military court in Zenica was also present.

10 On the basis of your experience as a -- as a judge, could you tell

11 us to whom this document was provided by the judge who was involved in the

12 investigation?

13 A. He would with only provide this to the district military

14 prosecutor.

15 Q. Mr. Begic, once the prosecutor's office receives all the documents

16 established by the investigating judge, either by procuring them himself

17 or from the police and other bodies, who is then in charge of the

18 pre-trial and trial stages?

19 A. Once the preliminary results of the investigations are passed on

20 to the prosecutor, he is the only one who will decide whether he will file

21 a request for an investigation or whether he might request the necessary

22 information to be collected by the police, or if he finds that there's no

23 reasonable grounds to suspect a crime having been committed, then the case

24 will be filed.

25 Q. Thank you. Tell me, Mr. Begic, if the police, be it the military

Page 12506

1 or the civilian police, if in addition to the documents they were to file

2 a criminal report describing a particular act, was that prosecutor bound

3 by the legal assessment made by the police?

4 A. Of course not. The police, as a rule, would provide a legal

5 qualification of the act without consulting the prosecutor. And according

6 to the law, such a legal qualification, and even the description of the

7 act contained in that document, were not binding for the prosecutor.

8 Q. Mr. Begic, could you tell us whether all the documents and

9 information about an event were the only basis for the action of the

10 competent prosecutor, or did he have to consult the police before

11 proceeding?

12 A. As I have already said, the prosecutor, in line with the law, has

13 the right to request additional information to be collected by the police,

14 and all this with a view to check out in greater detail whether there is

15 any grounds to suspect that a criminal act had been committed.

16 Q. The decision of the prosecutor, should he find that there was no

17 act committed or if he asked for additional information or to continue

18 with the investigations, were these decisions his exclusive right or could

19 anyone else make that decision on his behalf?

20 A. No. That was something that only he could decide.

21 Q. When, at the request of the prosecutor, criminal proceedings are

22 instituted, tell me, was the court bound by the legal assessment given by

23 the prosecutor, and who establishes definitely how certain acts will be

24 qualified for which a person is charged?

25 A. There is specific provision in the Law on Criminal Procedure which

Page 12507

1 stipulated that the court was not bound in any sense by the qualifications

2 contained in the indictment. He was only bound by the acts and also by

3 the personal information about the accused.

4 Q. Let me ask you now about the situation that you confronted as

5 chief of the security services centre and also as a judge in Zenica in

6 1993. Tell me, please, this large fluctuation of refugees and others

7 passing through Zenica, was this a cause of problems and difficulties when

8 it came to finding suspects of offences? Was it difficult to identify

9 people? Did you encounter people providing false identification and so

10 on? Did you have this kind of problem, and to what extent was it -- did

11 it make your work more difficult?

12 A. Yes, there were such problems, and they did aggravate the

13 conditions for the work of the police. As I have already said, certain

14 parts of the region which formally and legally were the area of

15 responsibility of the security services centre were areas that we

16 physically could not go to.

17 Also, until the 3rd Corps was established, in particular, people

18 in town would move around town in uniform and carrying arms. And it was

19 very difficult to establish the identity of people because they didn't

20 have ID documents. And in view of these circumstances, it was very

21 difficult to file reports of offences as well as crimes under those

22 circumstances.

23 Q. Mr. Begic, you just mentioned certain other reports of offences.

24 Could you explain to Their Honours what forms of responsibility existed

25 within the legal system of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Page 12508












12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond













Page 12509

1 A. Within the legal system of Bosnia-Herzegovina before the war - and

2 this applied during the war as well - there were three forms of

3 accountability for certain illegal acts. The first was a disciplinary

4 offence. The second was an infraction, and the third was criminal

5 liability.

6 Q. Tell me, please, which of these liabilities was established by the

7 courts or, rather, which court was responsible for which of those

8 offences? And more particularly, which were established before courts as

9 independent judicial bodies?

10 A. Disciplinary liability was established by disciplinary bodies

11 within organisations of associated labour or within state institutions or

12 administrative bodies. These would be violations of duties at work. Then

13 infractions were established before magistrates' courts, which were not

14 really courts in the proper sense of the word but more like administrative

15 bodies which would establish people's responsibilities at that level. And

16 finally, criminal liability was established before regular independent

17 courts, and this was regulated by the laws on regular courts.

18 Q. Mr. Begic, you said that offences were established by magistrates'

19 courts. Tell me ask you first: In which areas would such offences occur,

20 or, rather, which was the main responsibility of these magistrates'

21 courts?

22 A. The most frequent offences were disturbances of public law and

23 order, then traffic safety. And within the overall number of such

24 reports, these were the dominant ones.

25 Q. Tell me, where were these magistrate courts for misdemeanors

Page 12510

1 active? In which areas were they established?

2 A. They were established to cover a municipality, which meant that

3 every municipality had a magistrate's court. And then upon appeal there

4 was a council for misdemeanors which existed before the war at the level

5 of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

6 Q. Mr. Begic, are you aware whether these magistrate courts were

7 operating in Zenica in 1992 and 1993, and did they process or, rather, try

8 people for violations of public law and order and for other misdemeanors

9 as stipulated by the law?

10 A. Yes. In Zenica municipality, the magistrate court was operating

11 throughout. It never stopped working. There were no interruptions.

12 Q. You said that criminal acts and criminal liability were debated

13 and established before regular courts as independent judicial bodies.

14 Tell me, which courts existed in Zenica or, rather, what were the

15 competencies of those courts that existed in Zenica while you were a

16 judge?

17 A. Within the framework of regular courts before the war, there was a

18 basic court in Zenica and a higher court. The basic court in the areas of

19 crimes had to try criminal offences for which punishment of up to ten

20 years was envisaged. The higher court dealt with proceedings and charges

21 for which the sanction was more than ten years or even the death penalty.

22 At the beginning of the war, district military courts were also

23 formed, and in Zenica there was one such court, a district military court

24 and also the district military prosecutor's office.

25 Q. You were a judge of the higher court in Zenica, which means a

Page 12511

1 court which was part of the system of regular courts or, rather, it

2 continued acting in the way it did before the war. Did your courts try

3 individuals including members of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

4 A. Yes, as a rule, the court tried civilians. But should there be

5 co-perpetrators, if there were co-perpetrators, that is a civilian and a

6 military person, then we would also try the military persons.

7 Q. Tell me, finally, Mr. Begic, on the basis your own personal

8 experience as a judge and chief of the security services centre, are you

9 aware that members of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in 1993, were

10 charged in magistrate courts, district courts, and higher courts? Are you

11 aware of members of the army being tried in all these courts for various

12 acts which allegedly they had committed?

13 A. Yes. I know that they were taken to magistrate courts and regular

14 courts, and I personally tried certain members of the army and found them

15 guilty, in fact.

16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Begic.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, that brings to an

18 end my examination-in-chief of this witness.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It is half past

20 three. We will now have the so-called technical break, and we will resume

21 at five to four.

22 --- Recess taken at 3.30 p.m.

23 --- On resuming at 3.57 p.m.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Do the Defence counsel of the

25 other team, do they have any questions?

Page 12512

1 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Just

2 now we have no questions for this witness.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Would the

4 Prosecution be kind enough to begin with their cross-examination.

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

6 Cross-examined by Mr. Mundis:

7 Q. Good afternoon, sir.

8 A. [In English] Good afternoon.

9 Q. My name is Daryl Mundis, and along with my colleagues here today

10 we represent the Prosecution in this case, and I have some questions that

11 we'd like to ask you. And as the Presiding Judge told you earlier, if any

12 of my questions are incomprehensible or you don't understand them, just

13 tell me that and I will be more than happy to rephrase the question. My

14 purpose here, as you're probably aware, is not in any way to confuse you

15 but simply to put some additional questions to you.

16 Let me turn first to the investigation, if you will, into the

17 events in Dusina. My learned colleague showed you four documents

18 including some that related to paraffin testing. I believe you actually

19 still have those documents in front of you.

20 Let me ask you this, sir: How was it that CSB Zenica became

21 involved in the events in Dusina or looking at the events in Dusina?

22 A. [Interpretation] As I said, this happened at the request of the

23 investigating judge of the district military court in Zenica. This was

24 also the result of the fact that military security bodies were not

25 properly equipped nor did they have the necessary manpower to perform

Page 12513

1 certain acts, certain tests.

2 Q. At the time, sir, when the investigating judge from the district

3 military court in Zenica -- I guess, did he approach you or phone you?

4 How did -- how was he first in contact with you?

5 A. Not with me in person as the chief of the centre, but I know that

6 the normal way to communicate was through the duty Operations Officer of

7 the security services centre. Now, if the duty officer was directly

8 called up by the judge of the military court or whether the call came from

9 a member of the military police is something I don't know.

10 Q. Sir, do you first recall approximately when you became aware of

11 these events in Dusina?

12 A. I learnt about them on the date of the funeral of these people.

13 As far as I can remember, this happened in the area of Zenica, that is a

14 locality called Cajdras. And this was a very specific event in the

15 security sense?

16 Q. Let me ask you, sir, other than the documents that you've looked

17 at which indicate paraffin tests being done, what other type of assistance

18 did CSB Zenica provide to the investigating judge of the district military

19 court of Zenica with respect to the events that occurred in Dusina?

20 A. Apart from this, I am not aware of any other kind of assistance.

21 Q. So you're not aware of or you don't recall any witness statements

22 being taken or any steps being taken to identify or interview eyewitnesses

23 to these events?

24 A. I really don't know. If this did happen, then it should have been

25 at the request of the investigating judge of the military court or at the

Page 12514

1 request of the military prosecutor.

2 Q. Let me ask you this, sir, based on your experience as a judge in

3 Zenica: Can you describe for us a little bit about any procedures that

4 your aware of with respect to amnesties or pardons for individuals

5 convicted of crimes who had served in the ABiH from 1992 through 1995?

6 A. I am aware that a law on amnesty was passed. I'm not able to tell

7 you when exactly this law was passed. And it generally amnestied all

8 perpetrators of crimes that were members of the army of Bosnia and

9 Herzegovina. I think that there were exceptions. The pardon could not

10 apply to all criminal acts, I don't think. Certainly not in the case of

11 war crimes.

12 Q. Can you perhaps enlighten us as to the legal effect of this type

13 of pardon in the sense of, did it eliminate the conviction? What was the

14 status of the pardon? What did it mean in practical terms?

15 A. If the criminal proceedings were undergoing and no effective

16 sentence had been passed, the proceedings would be stopped. If it was in

17 the sentencing stage, then a sentence would be passed whereby the charges

18 are rejected. If there was a sentence and a prison term was ruled, then

19 that would be withheld. The prison term would be stopped.

20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in view of the fact

21 that my learned friend is asking certain questions from an area that I did

22 not discuss with the witness during the examination-in-chief, in

23 accordance with the Rules of the cross-examination, the Prosecutor should

24 lay the grounds for embarking upon these questions and to indicate to what

25 extent that would be in contradiction with what the witness has said. I

Page 12515

1 am referring to the Rule 90(ii). The Rule is Rule 90(ii), paragraph (ii).


3 MR. MUNDIS: With all due respect to my colleague, the last set of

4 questions or question she put to the witness concerned whether or not any

5 soldiers had in fact been tried before the civilian courts, and his

6 testimony was there were cases where soldiers were tried and there were

7 cases where civilian and soldier co-perpetrators were tried, and of course

8 that is clearly, if you will, clearly opens the door for us to ask him

9 questions about this.

10 I should also alert the Trial Chamber or seek leave from the Trial

11 Chamber that we are planning on cross-examining this witness on a number

12 of issues relating to the use of the courts that he was familiar with for

13 the prosecution of such persons and such individuals, and it's

14 our view that although this specific question might not fall within the

15 Rule 90(ii), certainly the Defence asked him questions about whether

16 soldiers were in fact prosecuted before the courts, of which this witness

17 sat as a judge, and so and we believe that this line of questioning we're

18 about to embark on clearly fits within the proper scope of Prosecution

19 examination.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. It appears that the

21 Defence asked the witness questions as a jurist whether soldiers were

22 prosecuted and judged, and the witness said "yes." So the Prosecution is

23 quite right to ask whether all persons were put on trial, and if not, why.

24 And they referred to the law on amnesty.

25 So, Mr. Mundis, please continue.

Page 12516

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

2 Q. Now, sir, you did tell us that there were cases where soldiers

3 were, in fact -- or ABiH members were in fact tried before the high court

4 in Zenica; is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Are you aware, sir, of instances where soldiers had been tried by

7 that court but those judgements were subsequently quashed because the case

8 should have been before the district military court?

9 A. Yes, there was such cases.

10 Q. And I take it, sir, that those would have been cases where there

11 weren't civilian co-perpetrators involved? It was solely ABiH member or

12 members who were involved in the crimes?

13 A. Yes. The status of a military person could have been debatable,

14 and then the court that would rule on appeal, in our case the Supreme

15 Court, would rule that the status of the person had not been proven or,

16 rather, that he is a military man and that he should be tried by the

17 district military court.

18 Q. Now, sir, in the instance that you've just been telling us about

19 where we're -- where an issue is -- concerns the status of the person who

20 is accused or in cases where soldiers were granted some kind of pardon or

21 amnesty, how was the status of the individual established before the

22 courts in Zenica?

23 A. On the basis of evidence regarding that fact. And the evidence

24 could be and was, as a rule, a certificate from the administrative body,

25 the Secretariat of Defence, indicating that the man was a military person.

Page 12517

1 So all members of the army needed to be registered with those bodies, and

2 those bodies would issue such certificates. And they would inform the

3 court, at its request, about that if there was any dispute about it.

4 Q. Sir, do you know a person named Zajko Kozlic?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Could you tell us who Mr. Kozlic is?

7 A. Zajko Kozlic is also a law graduate who, before the war was

8 employed as a military man, as an officer in the Yugoslav People's Army,

9 and he had a degree in law. Sometime during the war, I don't know exactly

10 when, he was elected to the position of judge of the basic court in

11 Zenica, and he remained in that position until this year, as far as I

12 know.

13 Q. Do you know an individual by the name of Adil Smailagic?

14 A. Yes, I do. He's my colleague. He was a judge of the cantonal

15 court in Zenica. He's now retired, or, rather, he's now an attorney.

16 Q. Do you know an individual by the name of Safit Adrovic?

17 A. Yes. He was also a judge in the cantonal court. He's now

18 retired.

19 Q. Sir, at any time in the period 1992 through 1995, were you aware

20 of any cases involving an individual by the name of Ramo Durmis?

21 A. Yes. I knew that the case was tried at the higher court in

22 Zenica. It was against him and some other persons as co-perpetrators.

23 Q. Can you recall any of the specific instances or the specific facts

24 of that case that you have just mentioned?

25 A. I just know that the case was tried in court. I was not involved

Page 12518

1 in any sense as a judge in that case.

2 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, we have some documents which fall into

3 the category of new documents which I would like to show to this witness.

4 We are in a position to answer the questions which the Trial Chamber

5 previously has directed us to answer with respect to any new documents.

6 In the event that this will lead to argumentation, we would respectfully

7 request that the witness be temporarily removed from the courtroom. These

8 documents were provided to the Defence prior to the commencement of

9 today's session and were disclosed previously, so the Defence was aware

10 that these documents would be shown to the witness. I don't know what the

11 position of the Defence is, but, again, if this will require

12 argumentation, I would respectfully ask that the witness be taken out the

13 courtroom, but perhaps the Defence can tell us what their position is, and

14 I'm, of course, in a position to answer the questions that the Trial

15 Chamber has with respect to these documents.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We will ask the

17 witness to be escorted out the courtroom.

18 [Witness stands down]

19 MR. MUNDIS: Perhaps while that's being done, Mr. President, for

20 the sake of Your Honours and of course for the Defence, at the time the

21 Chamber rendered its provisional decision with respect to the use of new

22 documents, we were directed to answer a few questions and allow me to do

23 that now. What we have, Mr. President, are four documents which come from

24 the high court in Zenica or the district military court in Zenica. The

25 source of these documents was, actually, what is now known as the Cantonal

Page 12519

1 Court in Zenica. The Office of the Prosecution submitted a request for

2 assistance to the Bosnian authorities on 9 September, 2004, which was

3 after the close of the Prosecution case requesting all court files and

4 materials relating to Mr. Ramo Durmis. We received two batches of such

5 material from the Bosnian authorities. The first batch on 13 October

6 2004, and the second batch on 11 November 2004.

7 The four documents in question were part of the material that was

8 received in the first batch, that is the Prosecution received it on 13

9 October 2004. That material was then processed internally. The original

10 Bosnian-language documents from the first batch were disclosed on the 15th

11 of November, 2004. The English translations of the four documents that we

12 are proposing to show to the witness was received from the translation

13 section on the 26th of November, 2004, and immediately disclosed to the

14 Defence on the 26th of November, 2004.

15 As I previously informed the Chamber a few moments ago, we

16 informed the Defence of our intention to show these documents to the

17 witness depending upon the answers to the questions put to him in

18 cross-examination prior to today's -- immediately prior to today's

19 session, and we did provide, again, copies of the four documents that we

20 are proposing to show to two Defence teams shortly before today's session

21 commenced, but we're talking here the four documents in total are

22 approximately 12 to 15 pages of material that is contained within this.

23 I should also alert the Chamber to the fact that of the material

24 in the two batches that we did receive, there is additional material which

25 is being -- currently being translated, and of course the English

Page 12520

1 translations will be disclosed to the Defence as soon as possible. These

2 four documents relate to -- one is a request for the commencement of an

3 investigation, two of them are judgements, and one of them is a ruling

4 terminating detention, and they all relate to Mr. Ramo Durmis.

5 Thank you, Mr. President.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. To summarise, there

7 are four documents that have to do with Mr. Ramo Durmis. One document is

8 a decision on terminating detention. There is one judgement, and there

9 are two requests. The Prosecution says that they requested they be

10 provided with these documents in September 2004, and the Prosecution

11 disclosed or has disclosed some of the documents to the Defence. This was

12 done on the 15th of November, 2004. And today, the Prosecution informed

13 Defence counsel of their intention to show this witness the documents

14 referred to.

15 The Chamber rendered a provisional decision. Tomorrow we will be

16 rendering our oral decision.

17 Mr. Bourgon, I'll give you the floor now.

18 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I will

19 give the floor to my colleague, and if necessary, I may add some comments.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Dixon.

21 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours. Your Honours, the position

22 of both Defence teams is that these documents should not be permitted to

23 be shown to the witness at this stage. As Your Honour has indicated,

24 Your Honour's decision on this matter is being rendered tomorrow, and we

25 would suggest that the proper course would be to consider the documents in

Page 12521

1 light of your decision and for us then to be able to, in light of that

2 decision, present what our objections might be to these very late

3 documents, and I underline that, very late documents being shown to the

4 witness at this stage.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I said that we

6 should be rendering our decision tomorrow, but we could do so immediately.

7 Mr. Bourgon -- yes, Mr. Dixon.

8 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours. Your Honours, I do think

9 that the proper course would be for that decision to be rendered first,

10 and I would ask that Your Honours then hear the Defence in relation to

11 these particular documents once Your Honours have rendered that decision.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bourgon, is there anything

13 you would like to add?

14 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Not at

15 this point in time, if the Trial Chamber is about to render its decision.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We will withdraw

17 now.

18 --- Break taken at 4.23 p.m.

19 --- On resuming at 4.36 p.m.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Given the issue

21 raised by the fact that the Prosecution presented four new documents,

22 given this fact, the Trial Chamber will now render its oral decision. We

23 were going to render a decision tomorrow, but we have to deal with the

24 issue immediately. I have provided the oral decision to the interpreters

25 who will interpret it. We could also provide a written copy to those who

Page 12522

1 want a copy after it has been read out. I'll read the decision out slowly

2 so that everyone can follow.

3 On the 9th of November, 2004, Defence counsel made an oral motion

4 and requested that the Trial Chamber forbid the Prosecution to use new

5 documents in the course of its cross-examination after the presentation of

6 its case. See pages 11467 to 11474 of the transcript.

7 Having heard this motion, the Trial Chamber, on the 10th of

8 November, 2004, granted the Prosecution 15 days to respond. See page

9 11484 of the transcript.

10 On the 10th of November, 2004, the Trial Chamber also requested

11 that the Prosecution inform it of the source of the documents, the date on

12 which the documents were obtained, and the circumstances under which the

13 Prosecution obtained these documents after the presentation of its case.

14 See page 11517 of the transcript.

15 On the 24th of November, 2004, the Prosecution responded orally to

16 the motion made by the Defence on the 9th of November, 2004, and the

17 Prosecution provided the information requested by the Trial Chamber on the

18 10th of November, 2004. See pages 12208 to 12218.

19 The Defence responded orally to the Prosecution's response on the

20 very same day. See pages 12218 to 12232.

21 The reason for this debate between the parties is that the

22 Prosecution produced documents that they hadn't requested to be tendered

23 into evidence when presenting their case, and they did this in the course

24 of examining witnesses for the Defence. Thus the Prosecution presented

25 new documents at hearings on the 26th of October, the 28th of October, the

Page 12523

1 5th of November, and the 9th of November, 2004. See pages 10616 to 10629,

2 10918 to 10923, 11235 to 11238, and 11466 to 11467 of the transcript.

3 First of all, the Trial Chamber would like to summarise the main

4 issues raised by the parties. The Prosecution claims that they provided

5 to the Defence the relevant documents that supported the allegations made

6 in the indictment. The Prosecution also says, or claims, that when the

7 Defence was presenting its evidence, the Defence raised certain issues

8 that hadn't been covered by the Prosecution. For example, there were

9 crimes committed by the HVO referred to. As a result, the Prosecution may

10 present documents that relate to questions put to witnesses by the Defence

11 that the Prosecution had not planned to present.

12 The Prosecution also adds that in the course of the trial, it is

13 continuing with investigations and thus it can add new documents that

14 might be admitted after the presentation of its case.

15 The Prosecution also referred to a decision rendered in the

16 Kupreskic case, IT-95-16-T on the 25th of June, 1999. The Defence

17 responded that the Prosecution had the burden of proof and that it should

18 not produce new documents in order to protect itself in the light of

19 arguments presented by the Defence.

20 Defence counsel admits that the Rules do not specifically refer to

21 the rules that would govern cross-examination, and the Defence believes

22 that the rights of the accused mean that one should not interpret these

23 rules in a manner that would be advantageous to the Prosecution. And the

24 Prosecution, pursuant to Rule 65 ter (iii), must disclose to the Defence

25 all the documents that it has. The Defence believes that if the

Page 12524

1 Prosecution has certain documents in its possession, it may only present

2 these documents in the course of its rebuttal. It is at this stage that

3 the Prosecution has the right to present new evidence. The Defence adds

4 that there are exceptions to this rule. Firstly, one is exempt from this

5 Rule if the Prosecution believes that the credibility of the witness could

6 be brought into question. And secondly -- the second exception concerns

7 cases where the Prosecution wants to present a document in order to

8 refresh the witness's memory.

9 The way in which evidence is presented pursuant to the Rule 89 of

10 the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Chamber would also like to point

11 out that admitting a document into evidence does not amount to attaching

12 certain weight to this document. It does not amount to attaching a

13 definitive weight to the document at the end of the trial.

14 The Trial Chamber would like to indicate that there is a principle

15 which is fundamental and which must be respected by the Prosecution, and

16 that is that the Prosecution must present all its evidence in the course

17 of its case. This is a rule that is present in the jurisprudence of the

18 Tribunal. See, for example, paragraph 14 of the decision rendered on the

19 31st of October, 2000 by the Trial Chamber in the Kunarac case, and

20 paragraph 5 of the decision dated the 10th of September, 2004, rendered by

21 the Trial Chamber in the Strugar case.

22 As a result of this principle, the Prosecution can only present in

23 the course of its cross-examination of a witness new documents that have

24 not been admitted -- it may present new documents only if it wants to

25 reinforce evidence that it has presented already or if it wants to

Page 12525

1 introduce new elements that concern the criminal responsibility of the

2 accused.

3 In particular, the Trial Chamber rejects the arguments of the

4 Prosecution, according to which the Prosecution should be granted more

5 freedom to produce documents that have not already been admitted into

6 evidence because the Prosecution claims that they could not wait for the

7 Defence to present its evidence that concerns the interpretation of the

8 historical context, the political and the military context, for example,

9 the crimes committed by the HVO.

10 The Trial Chamber would like to draw the Prosecution's attention

11 to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the pre-trial brief for Mr. Amir Kubura, dated

12 the 3rd of November, 2003, and also to paragraph 17 and 24 of the

13 pre-trial brief of Mr. Enver Hadzihasanovic, dated the 3rd of November,

14 2003. Reference in these pre-trial briefs is made to the military and

15 political context of this specific case.

16 In addition, the Trial Chamber would like to point out that the

17 documents mentioned above produced by the Prosecution on the 26th of

18 October, the 28th of October, and the 5th of November, and the 9th of

19 November, 2004, do not relate to the general context of the case.

20 Nevertheless, there are two matters in which the Prosecution may request

21 that new evidence be admitted after the presentation of its case.

22 Firstly, the Prosecution may make such request in the rebuttal

23 stage, and pursuant to Rule 85(A)(iii) of the Rules of Procedure and

24 Evidence, and also in accordance with the manner for tendering such

25 documents into evidence described in paragraph 273 of the Celebici

Page 12526

1 judgement dated the 20th of February, 2001.

2 Secondly, it may request that its case be reopened under the

3 conditions provided for in paragraph 283 of the Celebici judgement, and

4 paragraph 12 of the decision of the 4th of May, 2001, rendered by the

5 Trial Chamber in the Krstic case.

6 The Trial Chamber would like to point out that the scope of

7 cross-examination is limited by Rule 90(H)(i) of the Rules of Procedure

8 and Evidence. According to this Rule, cross-examination should be limited

9 to the following points unless otherwise decided by the Chamber. It must

10 be limited to issues raised in the course of the examination-in-chief, or

11 it must be limited to issues that have to do with the credibility of the

12 witness, or it must be limited to points that are part of the case of the

13 party that is conducting the cross-examination.

14 In addition, Article 90(H)(ii) says that in the cross-examination

15 a witness who is able to give evidence for the cross-examining party,

16 counsel shall put to that witness the nature of the case for the party for

17 whom that counsel appears.

18 The scope of cross-examination of a witness by the Prosecution is

19 thus limited to the points referred to in Rule 90(H) of the Rules. In the

20 course of such cross-examination, the Prosecution may naturally confront

21 the witness or may present to the witness any documents that have already

22 been admitted into evidence. The Prosecution may present and request that

23 certain documents be tendered into evidence, if these documents have not

24 already been admitted into evidence, in the course of cross-examination,

25 but the conditions will be much more restricted and will be governed by

Page 12527

1 the principles that have already been referred to.

2 In the opinion of the Trial Chamber, the Prosecution may present,

3 in the course of its cross-examination, any documents that have not

4 already been admitted in order to test the credibility of a witness or to

5 refresh such a witness's memory. In each of these two cases, the

6 Prosecution may present a document that has not already been admitted and

7 which it had in its possession before or after the presentation of its

8 case.

9 The Trial Chamber is of the opinion that when the Prosecution

10 plans to present such a document in the course of its preparatory work,

11 that it must disclose such a document to the Defence, and it must inform

12 the Defence of its intention to present such a document at least 24 hours

13 before a Defence witness appears, unless the Defence has provided the

14 Prosecution with the information they need to prepare their

15 cross-examination a little too late.

16 The Prosecution may request the admission into evidence of a

17 document that it has disclosed provided that it is in order to establish

18 the credibility of a witness or to refresh a witness's memory. And such a

19 document can only be admitted in a limited manner and can only be used to

20 establish the credibility of the oral testimony of the witness or to

21 refresh the witness's memory.

22 The Trial Chamber would like to draw the parties' attention to

23 documents P103 and P106, which admitted in this limited manner following a

24 decision rendered on the 16th of July, 2004. With regard to this matter,

25 the Trial Chamber would like to point out that document P931 was tendered

Page 12528

1 into evidence on the 27th of October, 2004, at the request of the

2 Prosecution when cross-examining the Defence witness Siljak Remzija. This

3 is what is stated on page 10618 of the transcript. The Prosecution

4 present this had document to establish the credibility of the witness

5 Siljak. As a result, the Trial Chamber confirms the admission of this

6 document but would like to point out that this document is being admitted

7 only in order to determine the credibility of the oral testimony of

8 Witness Siljak.

9 The Trial Chamber would also like to point out that document

10 P935 -- P935 was presented on the 5th of November, 2004, at the request of

11 the Prosecution when cross-examining the Defence witness Haris Jusic. As

12 we can see on pages 11235 and 11238 of the transcript, the Prosecution

13 presented this document in order to refresh the witness's memory. As a

14 result, the Trial Chamber would like to confirm that this document is

15 being admitted into evidence, but we would like to point out that it is

16 being admitted in order to refresh the memory of the witness Jusic.

17 So that's our four-page decision, and having read the decision

18 out, in the light of this decision is there anything the Prosecution would

19 like to say? Would the Prosecution like to show its documents to the

20 witness? Mr. Mundis, if you have understood the decision, if not, you may

21 take the time to examine it.

22 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I believe we have understood the

23 decision, although certainly some additional time to read and reflect on

24 the full extent of the Chamber's order might be helpful. In light of,

25 however, what the witness has said with respect to -- what he's testified

Page 12529

1 here concerning Mr. Ramo Durmis and the case involving him, it would

2 certainly be our position that the documents which we were proposing to

3 show to him would certainly be of assistance in refreshing his

4 recollection with respect to these events in question. And our

5 preliminary view, again without having time to reflect and re-read the

6 transcript with respect to the Trial Chamber's decision, our position

7 would be that the four documents we were planning on showing to this

8 witness would certainly fall within the scope of refreshing recollection

9 with respect to his testimony and the fact that he said he was aware that

10 Mr. Durmis had been prosecuted but didn't recall the specifics.

11 So that would be our preliminary position with respect to showing

12 this witness these four documents. Thank you.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Bourgon.

14 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Contrary

15 to what my learned friend from the Prosecution says, we oppose this

16 position in conformity with the decision of the Chamber. The decision of

17 the Chamber does not allow the Prosecution to show a document to the

18 witness to refresh his memory, but the witness has already answered

19 questions and said what he knows about the event. He said he was not

20 implicated in it, so there's no other subject remaining in doubt regarding

21 the memory of this witness regarding this event.

22 For these reasons, Mr. President, I think that these four

23 documents cannot be shown to this witness. The question posed by the

24 Prosecution within the framework of these documents, in my view, the

25 subject is closed.

Page 12530

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dixon.

2 MR. DIXON: I agree with my learned friend Mr. Bourgon that these

3 documents come nowhere near falling into the category of memory refreshing

4 and it would be pushing Your Honours' judgement to the limit to try to

5 introduce them on that basis. I refer Your Honours to page 34, line 25,

6 of the transcript where the witness said quite clearly that all he knows

7 is that there was this case tried in court, and he says, "I was not

8 involved in any sense as a judge in that case."

9 So in our submission, there would be no point showing these

10 documents to the witness to refresh his memory as he have not involved in

11 the case. There is nothing to refresh, Your Honours.

12 If one of the persons who he mentioned, namely the investigating

13 judge or the prosecutor were here as a witness, well, that might be a

14 different matter altogether, that those persons might remember the matter.

15 They might need to have their memories refreshed. But this particular

16 judge was not involved and is not somebody who could comment on these

17 documents in any way whatsoever.

18 Thank you, Your Honours.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber is going to withdraw

20 to deliberate. The question is quite simple, and it is as follows: The

21 Prosecution, pursuant to our ruling, believes that it can produce these

22 four documents to refresh the witness's memory. The Defence tells us

23 there's no reason to refresh the witness's memory as the case referred to

24 by the documents was not a case that was addressed by this witness, and

25 consequently, there's no -- nothing to refresh his memory about, because

Page 12531

1 the witness on page 34, line 24, said that he was not aware of this case.

2 So we will withdraw. It will not take long. We will be back in a

3 few minutes.

4 --- Break taken at 5.04 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 5.05 p.m.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber is rendering another

7 oral decision in answer to the question whether the Prosecution is allowed

8 to produce four new documents and to show them to the witness to refresh

9 his memory.

10 In view of the observations made by the Defence, it is the opinion

11 of the Chamber that in view of the fact that this witness was not familiar

12 with the case of Mr. Ramo Durmis, he cannot -- his memory cannot be

13 refreshed. Otherwise, this would have been possible if he was involved.

14 So there's no possibility of refreshing his memory and, therefore, the

15 Prosecution cannot show him these documents.

16 We're going to bring the witness back in to continue with the

17 cross-examination. If we don't finish today, we can continue tomorrow.

18 [The witness takes the stand]

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, the hearing continues. We

20 had to have an interruption, and we had to ask you to leave the courtroom

21 because we had to address a procedural matter, and we rendered two oral

22 decisions, and now I will give the floor again to the Prosecution to

23 continue their cross-examination.

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

25 Q. Sir, in response to some questions put to you by the Defence, you

Page 12532

1 told us about foreigners who were in the area of Zenica in 1992 and 1993,

2 and you told us about the difficulties because these persons weren't

3 registered with CSB. Do you recall talking about that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. To the best of your recollection in the period of 1992 up until

6 the time in February 1993 when you left CSB Zenica to become a high court

7 judge, do you recall any instances in which CSB Zenica was involved in

8 investigating any crimes committed by such foreigners?

9 A. Just now I do not recollect any such cases.

10 Q. Let's go back, then, sir, to the subject or -- or let's turn now

11 to the subject of the cooperation between CSB Zenica and the 3rd Corps.

12 You told us that due to the lack of proper equipment and some of the lack

13 of training of military police within the 3rd Corps, CSB actively

14 cooperated with units of the 3rd Corps. Is that a fair summary of your

15 testimony?

16 A. Cooperation with a view to carrying out our duties. If you mean

17 that, then that is my answer, yes.

18 Q. That's what I mean, sir. The cooperation, as you put it, with a

19 view to carrying out your duties.

20 Can you tell us a little bit about how this cooperation worked in

21 practice, what types of crimes or what types of investigative work you

22 would be doing in cooperation with the 3rd Corps?

23 A. It was mostly or exclusively engaging our department for crime

24 technology. If an act came under the competence of the military court,

25 the operative procedures were carried out by the military security body.

Page 12533

1 Q. When you say this cooperation was mostly or exclusively engaging

2 your department for crime technology, I take it then from that that you

3 weren't providing the type of assistance such as interviewing witnesses or

4 interviewing victims or anything like that? It was more related to

5 technical assistance?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Do you recall, sir, any of the specific units of the 3rd Corps

8 that you provided this type of technical assistance to?

9 A. I've already said that we cooperated with the military police

10 battalion, which was operating within the framework of the 3rd Corps.

11 Q. Other than the 3rd Corps military police battalion, did you have

12 any involvement with 3rd Corps security department or with any other units

13 of the 3rd Corps?

14 A. I think not.

15 Q. Do you recall the types -- or first of all, approximately on how

16 many instances of the formation of the 3rd Corps until you departed CSB

17 Zenica in February 1993, on how many occasions do you recall providing the

18 3rd Corps military police battalion with technical assistance?

19 A. I really don't know. I would sign certain documents coming from

20 the CSB and going towards other bodies, because I represented that centre

21 of security service. As for the contents of those documents, I didn't go

22 into that.

23 Q. So, sir, I take it, then, from your last answer that you can't

24 help us with respect to any specific crimes or alleged crimes that CSB

25 Zenica provided assistance to 3rd Corps other than Dusina, which we've

Page 12534

1 spoken about?

2 A. In concrete terms, no.

3 Q. Can you tell us a little bit about any problems that CSB Zenica

4 might have encountered in its relations or cooperation with the 3rd Corps?

5 Do you recall any instances where there was difficulties or where the

6 cooperation wasn't operating smoothly?

7 A. I don't recollect any particular case or any particular instance.

8 Q. Do you recall receiving any documents from the Ministry of the

9 Interior concerning cooperation or attempts to improve cooperation between

10 CSB Zenica and the 3rd Corps?

11 A. I think there were documents that spoke in general terms about the

12 relationship between the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Ministry

13 of the Interior, but something specific about the Zenica CSB and the 3rd

14 Corps, I don't recollect that.

15 Q. Now, sir, earlier in response to a question from my learned

16 colleague from the Defence, you told us a little bit about how the reserve

17 police could be resubordinated to the army during wartime on certain

18 occasions. Can you describe for us the -- whether it was possible for the

19 Ministry of the Interior as a whole to be subordinated to the military

20 during wartime?

21 A. According to the law on defence or, rather, on service of the

22 armed forces, the Presidency was the Supreme Commander. Now, whether the

23 Presidency could have passed such a decision is something I cannot tell

24 you.

25 Q. But you're not aware of any specific order of the Presidency doing

Page 12535

1 such a thing during the war in 1993?

2 A. I don't know.

3 Q. Do you recall any specific instances where you had -- you

4 experienced any difficulties concerning issues that might be considered

5 jurisdictional issues between CSB Zenica and the 3rd Corps or any of its

6 subordinates units?

7 A. At this point in time, I cannot recollect any particular instance.

8 MR. MUNDIS: Just a moment, please, Mr. President.

9 [Prosecution counsel confer]


11 Q. Sir, you told us earlier, again in response to a question from my

12 learned colleague from the Defence, that there were certain areas within

13 the region that CSB Zenica covered to which you did not have access. Can

14 you be more specific in terms of what area or areas that fell within the

15 jurisdiction of CSB Zenica that you did not have access to?

16 A. I have already listed some areas, and I will repeat. That was the

17 case with respect to Busovaca, in the first place, also Vitez, Zepca. I

18 think also Donji Vakuf, Gornji -- no, Donji, Donji Vakuf, from the

19 beginning, yes. From the very beginning of the war. And some other

20 places.

21 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, with the leave of the Trial Chamber,

22 the Prosecution would respectfully ask to be permitted to address a couple

23 of questions to the witness that fall outside the scope of the direct

24 examination concerning the Islamic centre in Zenica.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 12536

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before the Chamber renders its

2 decision, the Prosecution wishes to ask the witness questions about the

3 Islamic centre of Zenica. This centre has cropped up on a number of

4 occasions.

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, first of all, we

6 would like to know why the Prosecutor wishes to put these questions to the

7 witness, because he said himself that this was not covered by the

8 examination-in-chief. And secondly, according to the personal data of

9 this witness, I see no link between then witness and such questions. So

10 we have to know why he wishes to put these questions to the witness.

11 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we fully support

12 what Mrs. Residovic has said, and we have nothing more to add. We don't

13 understand why our learned friend wishes to ask those questions at all.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Chamber can

15 always allow all questions if they feel that these questions are of

16 interest. So tell us, what is the interest of this question, noting that

17 the Defence has said that nothing in the CV or the answers or the status

18 of this witness allows us to suppose that he can produce any useful

19 answers about this Islamic centre. Perhaps the Prosecutor, however, can

20 enlighten us.

21 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, during the course of the searches that

22 we do on the witnesses, there is a document that we have from a later

23 period in time which contains a reference to a person with the same name

24 as this witness, and I don't know if it is in fact the same person or

25 perhaps someone with the same name. And again, the document is dated

Page 12537

1 from, I believe, 1996, and we would simply like to ask the witness a

2 couple of questions to determine if, in fact, there is any link

3 whatsoever.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are going to retreat again

5 for a few minutes.

6 --- Break taken at 5.20 p.m.

7 --- On resuming at 5.21 p.m.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber is going to render

9 another oral decision regarding allowing the Prosecution to put a question

10 to the witness that was not within the scope of the examination-in-chief.

11 The Prosecution tells us that they have a document in their

12 possession bearing the first and last name of the witness, a document

13 about this Islamic centre. The Chamber notes that this Islamic centre has

14 already been referred to during several testimonies, and in view of that,

15 it is in the interest of justice to check the correspondence between the

16 Islamic centre and the witness.

17 So, Mr. Mundis, you have the floor to ask your question.

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

19 Q. Sir, during the period from 1992 through 1993, were you affiliated

20 in any way with the Islamic centre in Zenica in terms of being an

21 official, on the board of directors, or in any way affiliated with the

22 Islamic centre?

23 A. As far as I can remember, I was not.

24 Q. Thank you, sir.

25 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the Prosecution has no further

Page 12538

1 questions for the witness at this time.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Mundis.

3 Re-examination, please. I'm looking at the Defence.

4 Re-Examined by Ms. Residovic:

5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Begic, relating to the questions put you by

6 my learned friend in connection with the question of amnesty or pardon,

7 tell me, please, is an amnesty an act of the court or is it something

8 regulated by law?

9 A. Amnesty is granted exclusively on the basis of a law adopted by

10 the Assembly. Or in wartime, this was done by the Presidency with the

11 force of law.

12 Q. Mr. Begic, is an amnesty an act of mercy or does it annul court

13 decisions that had previously established responsibility of a certain

14 accused who was properly tried and sentenced?

15 A. Without entering into the reasons for an amnesty, generally

16 speaking it can be described as an act of mercy.

17 Q. Thank you. Speaking about cooperation with the military police

18 battalion and the CSB, you can speak about that cooperation for the time

19 period when you were in the CSB, or do you know anything about it also as

20 a judge of the high court in Zenica?

21 A. I can speak about it while I performed both those duties.

22 Q. Referring to the period when you were in the CSB, tell us, what

23 kinds of crimes did you come across as the security services centre as

24 well as the military police, and were those acts that required the kind of

25 cooperation that you have described?

Page 12539

1 A. Of course. That cooperation through the involvement of the

2 criminal technology department mainly -- was mainly developed in the case

3 of manslaughter, when certain technologies were required. Also in

4 forensic studies of fingerprints in the case of thefts and burglaries.

5 Q. If you can remember that time period, can you tell us what was the

6 name of those crimes? What types of crimes did you cooperate on with the

7 military police?

8 A. In the case of manslaughter, murder, then in the case of serious

9 burglaries, theft. In the case of the crime of rape our assistance again

10 was indispensable for forensic examination of traces that are required in

11 such instances.

12 Q. You also said that you could recall such cooperation while you

13 were a judge of the high court. Tell me, were you ever in a situation

14 when a military police battalion -- when the military battalion of the 3rd

15 Corps rejected a request that you or any colleague of yours may have made

16 with respect to the military police?

17 A. I don't remember any such instance.

18 Q. Mr. Begic, can you recall the number of members of the army that

19 appeared before the relevant courts in the course of 1993?

20 A. I am not -- I don't know the number.

21 Q. My learned friend asked you about various types of crimes. You

22 have just now mentioned murder, rape, burglaries, thefts, et cetera.

23 Earlier on, you said that the legal qualification depended on the court.

24 Tell me, as a judge confronting such crimes, did you give thought

25 to whether those crimes contained any elements of a war crime against the

Page 12540

1 civilian population? And if you did not, tell me, on what grounds would

2 you decide that an act was one of the crimes you have listed?

3 A. I can tell you that in my experience, there were no cases when I

4 had any such dilemmas. These were mostly individual instances of

5 violence, so that I never had any thoughts that this might be a war crime.

6 My answer is a very general one without referring to any particular case.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Just a moment, please.

8 Mr. Mundis.

9 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the last question, in our respectful

10 view, is beyond the scope of the cross-examination, but the witness has

11 since answered the question, so I'll withdraw any objection that we may

12 have had.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Let me ask you just one more question. In answer to a question

16 from my learned friend, you said that a judge could have some hesitation

17 as to the status of a suspect. Tell me, in such a situation, would the

18 judge produce evidence in support of this?

19 A. I think I have already answered that question when I said that the

20 court would seek additional information from the defence secretariat who

21 had information about members of the army.

22 Q. And my last question --

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. If it's the last.

24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Begic, let me ask you this: As chief of the CSB and later as

Page 12541

1 a judge, you did cooperate with the military police battalion. Do you

2 know whether that battalion investigated and filed criminal reports for

3 all these various crimes, also with regard to other units of the 3rd

4 Corps?

5 A. I do know that it did, because I acted in certain cases when the

6 military police battalion submitted a report. These were cases on appeal

7 with respect to rulings of the district military court, and this belonged

8 to the Supreme Court.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I have no

10 further questions.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We're now going to

12 have the break, and when we resume at 6.00 p.m., I will ask the other

13 Defence team whether they have any additional questions, after which the

14 Judges will have their questions.

15 --- Recess taken at 5.33 p.m.

16 --- On resuming at 5.57 p.m.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Does the other Defence team have

18 any questions?

19 Cross-examined by Mr. Ibrisimovic:

20 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] We have only two questions in

21 order to clarify something.

22 Q. Mr. Begic, when you mentioned the crimes covered by the amnesty,

23 you said that not all crimes were covered by this amnesty, and you said

24 that crimes of war were not covered by the amnesty.

25 A. Yes.

Page 12542

1 Q. And murder, rape, and aggravated theft were also not covered by

2 the amnesty?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And my second question is: When you mentioned crimes in which

5 there was an amnesty, you said that in cases when there was a sentence,

6 you said in such a case the accused was not to serve the sentence. The

7 sentence remained, though. It wasn't amended; is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I have a few

10 questions and then the other Judges will also ask you some questions.

11 Questioned by the Court:

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You told us that you were the

13 chief of the police, of the civilian police, in Zenica. Can you confirm

14 that up until February, at least, you were in charge of the civilian

15 police that was under the Ministry of the Interior.

16 A. Yes.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: How many policemen did you have? You were in

18 charge of how many policemen in Zenica?

19 A. Only in Zenica or in all the public security stations.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In Zenica and in the entire

21 region.

22 A. I don't know the exact number, but perhaps there were up to 5.000

23 men. These were staff members who were authorised and who didn't have

24 authority [as interpreted].

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you had 5.000 men. And what

Page 12543

1 about the men who were capable of carrying out judicial investigations?

2 Out of the 5.000 men, how many such men were there?

3 A. Let me clarify something. Not all the policemen could carry out

4 judicial investigations. Only those who were assigned to certain

5 departments for crime detection could get involved in such investigations.

6 Most of the policemen were in uniform and, in fact, their task was to

7 maintain public law and order. They didn't have the authority to carry

8 out investigations into crimes that had been perpetrated.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, sir. The department

10 are responsibility for identifying crimes and misdemeanors, how many men

11 were there in that department?

12 A. Well, I don't know the exact number, but perhaps there were up to

13 about ten of them. Up to about ten men.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So there were ten of them who

15 covered the entire region. Let's take a simple example. A crime is

16 committed. Someone is found dead in their house. Someone was killed in

17 their house. Who carries out the investigation? Are you informed of the

18 crime as the chief? And who will go to carry out the initial on-site

19 investigation?

20 A. Well, the operations officer in the CSB is informed of the crime.

21 He then forms a team to carry out an on-site investigation if this is

22 necessary. And the operations officer informs the investigating judge and

23 the prosecutor. It is the investigating judge who is in charge of the

24 investigation. The investigating judge is in charge of it.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's imagine that a number of

Page 12544

1 individuals who have been killed are found. The duty officer -- does the

2 duty officer submit a report to you as the chief of the civilian police?

3 Aren't you informed of the fact that at a certain site a certain number of

4 bodies were found? Were you not personally informed of such cases?

5 A. Well, I was informed of such cases by means of bulletins that I as

6 the chief of the centre received on a daily basis, but I wasn't

7 immediately informed of the crimes committed. I wasn't informed of the

8 fact in order to decide how a team to carry out an on-site investigation

9 would be formed.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But when the

11 investigating judge carries out the investigation, he is not able to do

12 everything himself. He has to ask the police to help him to identify the

13 individuals, carry out paraffin tests, autopsies, et cetera.

14 When the phase of the department for carry investigation of crimes

15 is completed and the documents are forwarded to judges, do you sign

16 documents, do you submit anything to the judges stating that in the course

17 of the investigation such-and-such things were done?

18 A. Well, there's the chief of the CSB. I signed all of the documents

19 that were forwarded to other individuals, other bodies.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I will now show you

21 a document -- a document shown to you by the Defence. We will have a look

22 at P332. It's dated the 1st of February, and it's a document that you

23 signed.

24 A. Yes.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This document was sent to the

Page 12545

1 district military court. Why doesn't it contain the name of the

2 prosecutor or the judge? Why does the document only refer to the district

3 military court? Why are the judge and prosecutor not mentioned? Why did

4 you just note down "District military court" in the heading?

5 A. Well, this is a letter from the CSB to the military court.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But when signing

7 this document, you didn't know who would read the document, who would

8 receive it.

9 A. Well, the president of the court decides about this. He knows

10 which judges will be assigned to a particular case.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You were a judge; you are a

12 lawyer. When one has a look at this document, does this document contain

13 reference to an investigation of any kind? Because this document has to

14 do with identification. It's a note on identification. But a body may be

15 identified without there being a crime. Somebody may die of natural

16 causes, and this will not result in an investigation. So how would you

17 describe this document, the letter that you sent to the military court?

18 Did this concern an investigation or is it just an administrative document

19 that was forwarded at your level? When you signed such a document what

20 did you have in mind at the time of signing the document? What did you

21 think about it?

22 A. Well, I wanted the document to be forwarded that referred to the

23 work carried out by CSB members, and this was at the request of the

24 authorised investigating judge, the chief of the centre. If was not

25 necessary for me to know which investigating judge had made such a

Page 12546

1 request.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said at the request of the

3 authorise the investigating judge. A minute ago you said that a judge had

4 made the request. But how is it that in this document no reference is

5 made to an investigating judge? I can't see the reference to someone's

6 request or someone's instructions. There's no such reference in the

7 document.

8 A. Well, I think you can see this in the documents that were attached

9 to this document. This is an additional document. But the annexes listed

10 here are attached to the document.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Have a look at as

12 annex P341, which is the paraffin test, dated the 29th of January. The

13 document number is 19102233.

14 When you signed such a document -- or when you sign such a

15 document, do you first read the document on the paraffin test? This

16 paraffin test document was signed by the expert Adzic and by yourself.

17 You signed the document. Did you read the document on the paraffin test?

18 Did you read the entire document? If you didn't read it, you can read it

19 now.

20 A. No, I didn't read the document, nor did I read such documents. I

21 didn't concern myself with the contents of the documents that were

22 presented to me. As a rule, I did not read them.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you would sign such documents

24 without reading them.

25 A. Yes, because the expert report, the analysis was carried out by an

Page 12547

1 authorised worker.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. When we read through

3 the paraffin analysis, we won't go into all the details, you're a

4 professional, we the Judges are aware of the fact. We could discuss the

5 matter, but I don't want to go into the technical details.

6 But in this document and with regard to the bodies that were

7 identified, for most of the bodies the test was positive. So particles

8 were found either on the left land -- on their left hand or their right

9 hands. But there is someone calls Pero Ljubicic, and apparently his left

10 hand and his right hand were both negative.

11 As chief of the police, you weren't familiar with this problem?

12 Because if the test was negative, one can conclude that he didn't shoot.

13 If he didn't shoot, why was he dead? Didn't this idea occur to you?

14 A. Well, I said I didn't read the contents of the document.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you are telling us that you

16 didn't read the documents you signed without reading the document.

17 A. Yes.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Because in your opinion, it's

19 the investigating judge or the prosecutor who should take action on the

20 basis of the document, and as far as you were concerned, it wasn't for you

21 to express your particular opinion.

22 A. Yes, exactly.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As chief of the police, did you

24 ever go to the hospital? Did you ever go to the morgue in the hospital to

25 see the corpses there? Did you ever go to see the corpses, you as the

Page 12548

1 chief of the police?

2 A. No. I never went there as the chief of police. My duties were

3 such that I couldn't get involved in such operations. There were

4 authorised officials who were responsible for such things.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In document P333 -- P334 -- have

6 a look at it. It's signed by Enes Saric. The date is the 29th of

7 January. And he describes the body identified. We can see there is Faruk

8 Turkic, a pathologist. There's the HVO, who were also present,

9 represented by Mr. Enver Nesirovic. There's a security officer from the

10 hospital, Mr. Bektas. There are family members. Some names are listed

11 there.

12 When you read such a document, didn't you wonder how it -- why the

13 HVO was interested in this case? Wouldn't you have reacted in this way as

14 chief of the police? Because this document states that the HVO was

15 present in an official capacity. Didn't this show that there might have

16 been a slight problem.

17 A. If I had paid attention to the document, if I had read through it,

18 perhaps that would have occurred it me.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But you didn't read

20 the document.

21 Similarly, document P333, dated the 29th of January, which

22 concerns the identification of certain individuals. Well, we can see who

23 was in the identification team. There was Dr. Turkic, and there was --

24 there were the judges and the prosecutor.

25 When the prosecutor goes to the morgue, it means it's an important

Page 12549

1 case, unless the prosecutor of the district military court went to the

2 morgue whenever someone died. How would you explain the fact that he was

3 present at the morgue, especially since your subordinate was present?

4 Because it says that an officer from your centre was present.

5 If the prosecutor is there, how come the chief of the police is

6 not there too? Could you explain this fact?

7 A. No, I couldn't explain that, but all I can say is that I was never

8 present in such cases as the chief of the CSB.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We know that there

10 was a war, and naturally there were a lot of people who had been killed,

11 but was it customary to have in the Zenica hospital's morgue, well, eight

12 bodies listed here. Eight persons were killed. Were there that many

13 people who were killed every day as a result of the conflict or was this

14 an exceptional case? You who were present in the era, what is your

15 opinion of that? Were about ten people killed every day in Zenica or was

16 this an exceptional case?

17 A. Well, at the time as a result of the fighting, there would be far

18 more individuals killed. They would then be transported -- transferred to

19 the hospital before they prepared -- before their funerals were prepared.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In response to a question awhile

21 ago, you said that you found out that the individuals who were buried at

22 Fafalas [phoen], you said that you found out that an interrogation was

23 carried out into the cause of death. Could you confirm that when you

24 found out about this, you felt that perhaps there was something that

25 should be investigated, that is to say that the circumstances in which

Page 12550

1 these people died should be investigated.

2 Do you remember how this case was presented to you, and did you

3 think, "Well, I signed a document about these individuals." Do you

4 remember when this issue was raised with you again?

5 A. Well, I don't know this exact period. I don't know when I found

6 out about the exact burial, and I can't say when these things were signed.

7 I can't say exactly. But I found out about the burial -- I remember that

8 because I was informed by the chief of the public security station that

9 this would be taking place and that certain preparations had been made for

10 security to ensure that the funeral ran smoothly.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you found out that there was

12 this burial and that it was necessary to take measures to ensure that

13 there were no problems when these people were buried. But when there is a

14 burial, does the police always take measures? Why in the case of this

15 particular burial was it necessary to take certain measures?

16 A. Well, whenever there is a burial, certain measures must be taken.

17 You have to control the traffic if it's necessary to transport the

18 deceased to the cemetery. But in this case, tension had already risen.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you're saying that tension

20 had risen. Since you are aware of this fact, didn't you personally have

21 the power to ask the department responsible for identifying crimes and

22 misdemeanors to re-examine the entire case? Wasn't it your responsibility

23 to ask this department to examine all the elements and to try and

24 determine the conditions in which these individuals died? Didn't it occur

25 to you that you should proceed in this manner?

Page 12551

1 A. All I can say is that I didn't think along those lines. If I had,

2 I would have remembered. Now, why I didn't have such thoughts, I can't

3 tell you now. Maybe this was already the period of time when I was

4 leaving the CSB. I would like to mention that as of the 20th of February

5 already I was on annual leave, and I was waiting for a decision to be made

6 regarding the election to the post of judge. I had been proposed by the

7 high court of Zenica.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see. You took your position

9 as judge. But the month that followed, and the years that followed, in

10 fact, there wasn't a commission of inquiry? You were never interviewed?

11 No questions were put to you as to the way in which you managed this case?

12 A. I was not.

13 JUDGE SWART: Good afternoon, Witness. I also have a few

14 questions on the four documents that have been shown to you. You told us

15 that you were found by an investigating judge from the military court, and

16 that was the beginning of your involvement as a service with this matter.

17 You said also that you could not remember the name of that judge. And

18 you, therefore, directed a letter to the military Tribunal, military

19 court.

20 I have a similar question. In one of these documents, that is

21 P333, 333, there is mention of judges and a prosecutor that has "already

22 been sent by my colleague, who are doing together with a pathologist,

23 Faruk Turkic, in the Zenica CSB forensic office an identification

24 procedure." Please have a look at that document, P333.

25 My question would be -- this would be the first question I would

Page 12552

1 like to put to you: Do you recall or do you not recall who were these

2 judges and who was this prosecutor? Are you still looking for the

3 document?

4 A. This is what I can say: I said that I was not informed directly

5 but that the communication, I assume, went between the investigating judge

6 and the operations duty officer in the CSB who was there to receive

7 requests and forward them on to persons who had to carry out certain

8 activities.

9 JUDGE SWART: And then we have --

10 A. So that I needn't have had the name of the judge.

11 JUDGE SWART: I was interrupting you. Sorry. So this has been

12 received via your operations officer. It comes on your desk, or you give

13 the organisation the -- you ask your organisation to cooperate with this

14 judge.

15 Now we see on P333 if you have it -- do you have it now, the

16 document, before you?

17 A. Yes.

18 JUDGE SWART: Well, if you see -- if you look at that document,

19 P333, on the second linea, you can see that an identification team is

20 working there. One is a pathologist. That may be someone of your

21 department. There are judges, and there is a prosecutor and a Zenica CSB

22 forensic officer.

23 My question is: Do you remember who these judges were and who the

24 prosecutor was, or don't you remember?

25 A. I don't. It is the person who signed this note who should be able

Page 12553

1 to remember.

2 JUDGE SWART: All right. Continue with the next linea. We read

3 that, "During the identification procedure, a description of the body was

4 taken, the body photographed, and a print of the right index finger

5 taken."

6 In an identification procedure, the whole thing is turning about a

7 question, who is this person that we have found, or who is this person

8 whose body is in here. You take a print of the right index finger. You

9 may do a description of the body. You may also photograph the body.

10 My question to you is: What is the normal standard procedure in

11 such a case? There is a body of an unknown person somewhere in some

12 hospital, and everybody wants to determine who he or she is. You take an

13 index finger. You invite the family if you have an idea who whose family

14 it might be. You take a description of the body. Is photographing a body

15 also part of a standard procedure in your organisation?

16 A. Yes. If -- unless a family member recognises the dead person.

17 And in this case, photographs were taken to provide documentary evidence

18 of the external appearance of the body.

19 JUDGE SWART: But most of the ten have been recognised by other

20 people. That is evident from the other document, P334. So in that sense

21 there would be no necessity to take a picture, I think, or do the two go

22 together sometimes?

23 A. I said that taking a photograph was done to document the external

24 appearance of the body, and this was done by the pathologist, Dr. Faruk.

25 JUDGE SWART: [Previous translation continues] ... pathologist. I

Page 12554

1 take it he is from the hospital probably. Is he or --

2 A. Yes, yes.

3 JUDGE SWART: He is from the hospital? How would he do that as a

4 pathologist? How would he take photos?

5 A. He makes a report regarding the examination of the body, and our

6 employees were present to prepare the photos, because they had the

7 equipment to be able to do that. So as a rule, the pathologist does not

8 prepare the photo documents. At least that is our practice.

9 JUDGE SWART: So your employees take these photographs at the

10 request of this pathologist. Is that the situation?

11 A. Now, whether it was at the request of the pathologist or the

12 judge -- I assume it would have been at the request of the judge, and to

13 complement the report on the external appearance of the body.

14 JUDGE SWART: And the whole setting suggests within -- in the

15 presence of a pathologist that these are photographs of people who are

16 naked, so to speak, who have no clothes on the body; is that right?

17 A. The examination is done when bodies are in that condition, that

18 is, without clothes. The bodies are turned around in various positions,

19 and then photographs are taken so as that this should provide evidence as

20 to the cause of death.

21 JUDGE SWART: So that the photographs would show the wounds of the

22 other things that are present on the exterior of the body. The state of

23 the body would be visible from the photographs. That is my question. Is

24 that a correct conclusion?

25 A. Yes.

Page 12555

1 JUDGE SWART: You said already before that you did not read the

2 reports. I take it that you did not look at the photographs in this case

3 either. Is that correct also, or are you seen these pictures of these ten

4 persons?

5 A. As a rule, I didn't look at the photographs. I didn't have time

6 for that as chief of the CSB. I would simply forward the material to the

7 competent official and who was meant to take steps following this stage of

8 the proceedings.

9 JUDGE SWART: Has there ever been, and maybe you don't know any

10 more because you left the service, but has there been a follow-up request

11 to perform an autopsy? Is this also something you do in your service?

12 A. I don't know with respect to this case. However, as a rule, an

13 autopsy is done if there is suspicion that a crime has been committed.

14 Now, whether an autopsy should be done or not, this is a decision made by

15 the investigating judge.

16 JUDGE SWART: I understand that, but you said at the beginning

17 that the investigating judge asks you for an investigation, and since this

18 is an investigation judge, a military investigation judge in this case, I

19 take it that he has reasons to do that and that reason is that he sees the

20 possibility of a crime, and he wants to elucidate the matter further.

21 So --

22 A. The investigating judge does not undertake such steps only when

23 crimes are committed. The investigating judge will do this also to remove

24 any suspicion of the possibility of a crime, simply to establish the cause

25 of death, and then on that basis to deduce whether it was caused by

Page 12556

1 violence or how it was caused, under which circumstances. These are all

2 things that the investigating judge has to look into.

3 JUDGE SWART: And to what conclusion would that lead in this case?

4 Would you say these are -- have been requests of an investigating judge

5 who thought of the possibility that a crime had been committed or would it

6 be an investigating judge who just wanted to make sure what the cause of

7 the death was?

8 A. I am really unable to comment on that, as to what the

9 investigating judge wanted in this particular case.

10 JUDGE SWART: I note that he has requested a paraffin test, which

11 is already important, of course.

12 So as far as you remember, there has been no further request for

13 an autopsy. Have you -- have other requests from a military investigating

14 judge at that time or don't you remember?

15 A. While I was chief of the CSB, there were no such requests.

16 Afterwards, I don't know.

17 JUDGE SWART: Okay. Thank you very much.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have another question for you,

19 which is linked to what has just been said.

20 In your country at the time, when someone dies, before the burial

21 would it be done as in most -- or several European countries, would there

22 be authorisation for burial but with a medical certificate stating death?

23 Is there someone who comes, according to your laws, to establish death

24 today or before? When someone dies, does the administrative authority

25 issue a death certificate? How does this happen in practice?

Page 12557

1 A. Yes. These are so -- coroners, doctors who examine the person and

2 sign a certificate approving, permitting burial. This is not the case

3 when somebody dies surrounded by family members. Even today, and

4 especially not then did the doctor come to establish death.

5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So in this case, the doctor who

7 needs to issue this certificate, would it not be Dr. Faruk Turkic? He

8 should have issued that, such a certificate?

9 A. Faruk Turkic was employed and still is in the cantonal hospital in

10 Zenica, in the pathology department. And if Faruk Turkic examined the

11 bodies, after his examination, he was authorised to issue permission for

12 burial.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And as far as you know, did he

14 do that or not?

15 A. I don't know.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Following the

17 Judges' questions, Mr. Mundis, any additional questions?

18 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. The Prosecution does have

19 a few questions in light of those put to the witness by the Chamber.

20 Further cross-examined by Mr. Mundis:

21 Q. Could I ask you to look at Prosecution Exhibit P332 which, I

22 believe, is still before you. This is the official note that you signed

23 on the 1st of February, 1993. 1993. Do you have it?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Now, sir, to the best of your recollection, had there been an

Page 12558

1 autopsy, would you have attached it as one of the annexes to this document

2 that you forwarded to the district military court?

3 A. A report on the autopsy in those days was not drafted by the

4 investigating judge who should do that according to the law on criminal

5 proceedings but, rather, the forensic pathologist would do that. If there

6 was an autopsy, then there should be a record of that autopsy prepared by

7 the forensic pathologist. And if such a report was made, it should have

8 been forwarded to the investigating judge directly by the forensic expert.

9 Q. Thank you. Let me ask you about the photographs or photo records

10 documenting the appearance of the unidentified persons. You told us that

11 the photos were taken to provide documentary evidence of the external

12 appearance of the body, and my question is: Was that a routine practice

13 or was that done for some particular reason in this specific case?

14 A. In all cases when an external description of the body was done,

15 then there had to be photo documents as well.

16 Q. Okay. Sir, you told us, with respect to the funeral of these

17 persons, that CSB was involved in terms of providing police and security

18 for the funerals because, as you put it, tensions had risen. I'm

19 wondering if you can elaborate on what you mean by "tensions had risen."

20 A. One has to bear in mind the period when this was happening, that

21 conflicts between the army and the HVO had already started and that these

22 persons, as far as I know, had lost their lives in such conflicts. The

23 events on the front would be reflected in the town of Zenica itself, and

24 an event of that kind naturally required heightened security measures.

25 Q. Sir, can you be a little more specific, or do you recall -- you

Page 12559

1 just told us, "As far as I know, they had lost their lives in such

2 conflicts." Do you recall any specifics of this incident?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Finally, sir, in response to one of the first questions put to you

5 by the Presiding Judge, you told us that there were 5.000 men within the

6 public security stations in the region covered by CSB Zenica. Is that

7 correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. How many of those 5.000 persons within CSB Zenica were what one

10 might consider to be armed police officers compared with persons doing

11 other types of work for CSB?

12 A. I would say at least about 70 per cent.

13 Q. 70 per cent would be armed police officers?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And those police officers would be deployed throughout the

16 municipalities that was covered by CSB Zenica?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Thank you, sir.

19 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution has no further questions,

20 Mr. President.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Defence counsel.

22 Further Re-Examined by Ms. Residovic:

23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Begic, in response to a question put to you

24 by the Presiding Judge, you said that among those 5.000 men some of them

25 had authority and others did not. Some were authorised and some were not.

Page 12560

1 Could you tell me what the ratio was among all those employed in the area

2 covered by the CSB? What was the ratio between the authorised men and the

3 unauthorised men?

4 A. I think there was 70 per cent of the men who were in uniform, that

5 is to say who had authority, who were authorised.

6 Q. In response to a question put to you by the Chamber, you said that

7 you drafted the letter from the CS -- that was sent from the CSB to the

8 district military court. Tell me, were there any rules for those who were

9 to carry out certain professional tasks in the CSB? Was there a

10 department or were there any authorised officials who were responsible for

11 such tasks?

12 A. Well, naturally. As I have already said, we had a department

13 within the CSB, and there was this department for crime technology, or,

14 rather, the forensic department. It was subordinated to the chief of the

15 public security sector.

16 Q. In response to a question about confirming the death of

17 individuals in order to bury these individuals, you said that this was

18 done by coroners, corners would issue certificates, death certificates if

19 a coroner or anyone else believed for any reason that death wasn't caused

20 by natural causes, in such cases was the coroner obliged to inform the

21 police or some other organs?

22 A. Yes. It was his duty to inform the police, and the police would

23 then inform the investigating judge.

24 Q. If you did not inform the judge of a military court or, rather,

25 the investigating judge of the military court and the prosecutor, and

Page 12561

1 awhile ago you said that you thought these individuals who died in

2 combat -- you mentioned these individuals who died in combat, do you

3 remember the prosecutor receiving such information from the military

4 police?

5 A. I don't know for sure, but I assume that that was the case.

6 Q. In response to a number of questions from the Judges, you told us

7 how you carried out certain tasks. To clarify what you said, could you

8 tell us whether the police ever carried out investigations or was it some

9 other body that carried out investigations and, if so, which body?

10 A. Officially speaking -- formally speaking, the police never carries

11 out investigations. This is the responsibility of the investigating

12 judge. But the policeman at the request of an investigating judge could

13 carry out certain investigations.

14 Q. If I have understood you correctly, the investigating judge is the

15 person who orders a certain body to carry out some of the necessary tasks;

16 is that correct?

17 A. Yes, exactly.

18 Q. In this particular case, and since it wasn't possible for the

19 military police to do this, he requested -- the investigating judge

20 requested that you carry out certain investigations because he could not

21 transfer his duties to other organs, according to the law.

22 A. Well, yes. He could transfer those duties to the military police,

23 but as I have said, at the time the military police did not have the

24 equipment necessary to carry out these tasks.

25 Q. Similarly in response to certain questions, you said that you

Page 12562

1 carried out the actions referred to in the letter or, rather, the

2 documents attached to the letter. Did the investigating judge at the time

3 request that you carry out investigations and take statements from certain

4 individuals?

5 A. While I was the CSB chief, as far as I can remember I never

6 received any such request.

7 Q. Without having received a request from an investigating judge,

8 could you, in that particular case, carry out such tasks on your own or

9 was it necessary for the investigating judge to make such a request or

10 request a certain organ, you or the military police, to carry out such

11 action?

12 A. The investigating judge had to make such a request.

13 Q. As far as the doctor's examination is concerned and as far as the

14 request issued to the pathologist is concerned, which body instructs a

15 doctor to provide a detailed description of a corpse or to perform an

16 autopsy or to assist the judge in any other way? Who is in a position to

17 issue or to make such a request?

18 A. Only the investigating judge.

19 Q. The Chamber also asked you about the assessment of the material.

20 Where is all the material -- from whom is all the material collected that

21 various agents collected at the request of the investigating judge?

22 A. Well, it's obtained from the prosecutor.

23 Q. Which organ on the basis of all of the material collected assesses

24 whether the event in question is, in fact, a crime, and assesses whether

25 it is necessary to carry out further checks or, rather, whether it's

Page 12563

1 necessary to terminate the case because there's no suspicion of a crime

2 having been perpetrated?

3 A. The prosecutor decides about this.

4 Q. Given these legal provisions, on the basis of the documents or,

5 rather, your involvement in that part of the case, would the investigating

6 judge, or did the investigating judge act in accordance with the law and

7 in accordance with the authority he has?

8 A. Yes. The investigating judge did act in accordance with the law.

9 As to whether he did everything that was necessary to be done -- to be

10 done, this is something that one should assess.

11 Q. You said that towards the end of February you went on holiday

12 because the president of the high court in Zenica suggested that you be

13 appointed as a judge. Could you tell me who the president of the Zenica

14 high court was at the time?

15 A. It was Mr. Djuro Globlek.

16 Q. Tell me whether he was president throughout 1993.

17 A. Not only through the 1993, but right up until 1995, when he left

18 to work as an assistant in the Ombudsman office in Zenica.

19 Q. And finally, could you tell me the nationality of the presiding

20 judge?

21 A. He was a Croat.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Does the Defence

23 team have any other questions?

24 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] No questions, Mr. President.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this concludes your

Page 12564

1 testimony. You've answered all the questions put to you by both the

2 parties and by the Judges. We would like to thank you for your

3 contribution to the truth, and we wish you a good trip home, and we wish

4 you all the best in your new professional career.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I will now ask the usher to

7 escort you out of the courtroom.

8 [The witness withdrew]

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have a few more minutes. I

10 have had a look at the list of documents. Apparently there are two that

11 may be the subject of a request that you may -- that you might be

12 requesting to be admitted into evidence.

13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, document

14 number 1, 0449, and document number 2, 0544, we would like these documents

15 to be admitted into evidence.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis. Mr. Registrar.

17 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] These documents will be admitted

18 into evidence under the following numbers: DH449, the English version

19 will be DH449/E, and the second document, DH544, the English version will

20 be DH544/E.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'd like to thank

22 Defence counsel who adhered to the time allocated to them. This enabled

23 us to finish in time. Let's hope that things will proceed similarly

24 tomorrow. Tomorrow we have a witness who will be available for the

25 Chamber, as you know. We'll be sitting in the morning on Tuesday,

Page 12565

1 Wednesday, and Thursday. Unfortunately, on Friday the hearing will be in

2 the afternoon. So on Friday, we will be sitting in the afternoon. If

3 there are any changes, you will be informed of them.

4 Thank you, and I will see everyone tomorrow at the hearing at

5 9.00.

6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.56 p.m., to

7 be reconvened on Tuesday, the 30th day of November,

8 2004, at 9.00 a.m.