Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 1

1 Monday, 28 February 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

6 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Court Deputy.

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

8 IT-01-48-T, the Prosecutor versus Sefer Halilovic.

9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

10 Good morning, witness. Would you please stand up and make your

11 solemn declaration in accordance with the paper Madam Usher is showing to

12 you.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

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

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


17 [Witness answered through interpreter]

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Chana.

19 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honours.

20 Examined by Ms. Chana:

21 Q. Good morning, Mr. Jasarevic. Could you please give your name for

22 the record, please.

23 A. I am a retired general of the BiH army, and my name is Jusuf

24 Jasarevic.

25 MS. CHANA: With the leave of the Court, I will lead this witness

Page 2

1 on his non-contentious background particulars.

2 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, would you just confirm the following information

3 about yourself: You were born in a place called Guvanista in the

4 municipality of Foca?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. From 1965 to 1966, you were a student in the military college in

7 Bileca for reserve officers where you were rewarded the rank of reserve

8 infantry second lieutenant. Would you confirm that, please.

9 A. A reserve second lieutenant.

10 Q. That's right. And in 1979, you graduated from the faculty of

11 political science at the University of Sarajevo. Would you confirm that

12 for the Court, please?

13 A. In 1979.

14 Q. That's right. And in 1971 you started to work in the Kakanj

15 municipality TO staff as a civilian assistant for operative issues and

16 training. And there you were rewarded the rank of first lieutenant in

17 reserve. Would you confirm that, please.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. In 1977, you took a course for assistance of military security in

20 TO staffs. The training was in a military school in Pancevo - I'm sorry

21 about my pronunciation - in Serbia. And this course lasted for three

22 months. Would you confirm that, please?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. In 1977, you were transferred to the Municipal TO Staff in

25 Zenica. You were the assistant to the TO staff commander for military

Page 3

1 security issues. Would that be correct?

2 A. [No interpretation].

3 Q. In 1979, you were transferred from the Zenica Municipal TO

4 Staff -- sorry, Your Honour. There's no answer to my last question.

5 Would you, Mr. Jasarevic, be so kind as to -- because there's a

6 transcript, we need you to say yes or no quite audibly. So would you

7 confirm the last one. That in 1977 --

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Yes.

10 MS. CHANA: If the interpreter would get that. Thank you.

11 Q. In 1979, you were transferred to the Zenica Municipal TO Staff to

12 the -- the zonal TO Staff in Zenica. You were the assistant for military

13 security in that TO Staff. Would that be correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. In November 1984, you became deputy assistant for morale in the

16 republican staff TO. You were the deputy for information and propaganda

17 but you held this position for a very short time, three to four months.

18 Would you confirm that, please.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. After this stint, you were transferred to the Intelligence

21 Department to the position of assistant to the chief of the intelligence

22 department in the BiH republican TO staff. You were still a civilian

23 serviceman in military terms and your position was equal to that of major

24 or lieutenant colonel. Would you confirm that, please.

25 A. Yes.

Page 4

1 Q. At the end of 1984 until 1986 while the TO was evolving,

2 intelligence and reconnaissance, you had two more training courses again

3 in Pancevo . Each course lasted for about one month.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. On 1st November 1988, you were transferred to the Sarajevo

6 District Staff TO where you became the chief of military security

7 department in that TO staff.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. You then became the chief of military security of the District TO

10 Staff and your headquarters were in Ciglani where the joint command of the

11 army of the Federation of BH is now; is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. In December 1991, you were awarded the rank of lieutenant colonel

14 in reserve.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. You worked in this military security of the Sarajevo District TO

17 Staff until April 1992.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. On 15th April 1992, a new TO was formed, and this TO was renamed

20 the TO Regional Staff, and you worked there until the end of July 1992.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. At the beginning of August 1992, you came to the Main Staff. The

23 chief of the Main Staff was then Sefer Halilovic. The Main Staff was in

24 the Presidency building.

25 A. Yes.

Page 5

1 Q. So until February 1993, you became the chief of the

2 counter-intelligence section of the military security department and at

3 the same time you were Kerim Lucarevic's deputy.

4 A. Lucarevic.

5 Q. Yes, that's right. Thank you for pronouncing that to me.

6 At the same time, you were appointed to the position of chief of

7 military security of the Supreme Command Staff and you became the deputy

8 of Fikret Muslimovic. Would you confirm that, please.

9 A. I was the chief of department or section for counter-intelligence

10 in the administration for security, which was headed from February 1993 by

11 Mr. Fikret Muslimovic, and in that capacity I was his deputy.

12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jasarevic.

13 On July 7th -- on about the 17th of July, you were appointed to

14 the position of chief of military security of the Supreme Command Staff;

15 is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Your current occupation is chief of regional department for

18 de-mining in Sarajevo of the Ministry for Civil Work, and you're a retired

19 brigadier general; is that correct?

20 A. Yes, but now it is not chief but head. However, the position has

21 remained the same.

22 Q. Thank you, witness.

23 I would like to now show you MFI202, Your Honour. That will be

24 the new number. And it's 00554725.

25 MS. CHANA: May we refer to Sanction, please, Your Honour.

Page 6

1 MR. MORRISSEY: Could I just ask --


3 MR. MORRISSEY: -- that that be identified by reference to the

4 65 ter number.

5 MS. CHANA: 23.


7 MS. CHANA: I will be giving the witness a B/C/S version, Your

8 Honour.

9 Q. Would you look at that, Mr. Jasarevic, and tell us where did your

10 particular department, the military security, fit in in the overall

11 military and political structure of -- of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

12 A. It is in this part which is marked by Roman numeral VII, where it

13 says "the administration for security."

14 Q. And under who were you? Can you tell us under which entity you

15 were under, your military security administration.

16 A. My security administration that I headed was all the time linked

17 with the main commander of the armed forces. Up to the month of June, the

18 chief of Main Staff occupied that position. And when as the function of

19 the commander developed, my superior commander was my immediate superior.

20 MS. CHANA: Could you wait a minute. I think Your Honours are --

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes.

22 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, could I just intervene briefly. I'm

23 not going to object to this document at all, but the accused man hasn't

24 got a copy. Because we're using Sanction -- this problem was raised in

25 the past. And what I'd ask is that the accused, Mr. Halilovic, be given a

Page 7

1 copy of this document in B/C/S so that he can follow what's being put.

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, I think that's a reasonable request.

3 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, all of this has been disclosed, and this

4 is the same concern that Mr. Morrissey expressed last time, and I'm going

5 to say the same thing. All of these documents have been disclosed to them

6 in B/C/S.

7 JUDGE LIU: But now we are using the e-court system. The Defence

8 is expecting the B/C/S appear on the screen. But when we are using

9 Sanction, I think, you know, we have some disadvantage by providing the

10 B/C/S versions.

11 MS. CHANA: [Microphone not activated].

12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Prosecution.

13 MS. CHANA: If you bear with me for a minute, the case manager

14 has got a wizard solution to this problem.

15 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

16 MS. CHANA: Our case manager -- sorry, Your Honour, our case

17 manager informs me that what she can do is put it both onto the screen.

18 It may not be as big, but nevertheless she can put the B/C/S version on

19 the screen for the benefit of the accused.

20 Would that be agreeable, counsel?

21 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, perhaps we could try that as a

22 practical solution. I just want to ensure that it's big enough for

23 Mr. Halilovic to see. But let's try it and we'll see.

24 Might Ms. Delalic approach, please, to relay what Mr. Halilovic

25 can see and can't see back to counsel?

Page 8

1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, you may proceed.

2 MS. CHANA: Yes. Just the last word on that, Your Honours.

3 Since the counsel have always been given a list of the exhibits in advance

4 and they do have the B/C/S, they should be able to print it out in future

5 or, if they want, they could ask me and I could print out an extra copy

6 for them.

7 MR. MORRISSEY: If -- may I then put it on the record I do now

8 ask that it be printed out each time that Sanction is being used, because

9 we don't have Sanction.

10 MS. CHANA: Yes. Always --

11 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

12 MS. CHANA: Always happy to oblige the Defence, Your Honour.

13 [Prosecution counsel confer]


15 Q. All right. Now, under what law and regulations did the military

16 security operate?

17 A. The military security was regulated by the decree law that was

18 adopted by the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in

19 April 1992. Pursuant to this law and based on the law on the national

20 security which was adopted by the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, this

21 regulation was adopted in February 1992. We drafted a book of rules for

22 the work of security in the armed forces, and this was done in the -- on

23 the 11th September 1992. This book of rules provides for the organisation

24 and tasks of the military security services in the armed forces.

25 Q. Were these based on any other rules of any other army? This --

Page 9

1 did you adopt this from any other army?

2 A. Part of these solutions were mostly adopted to -- adapted to the

3 former JNA, and they were then adapted to the conditions that the Republic

4 of Bosnia and Herzegovina found itself in.

5 Q. Can I ask you to go back to this document. I believe everybody

6 now has it on -- on the screen. And could you tell me: Can you explain

7 this, please. How many -- you have at the top a commander; right? At the

8 top of this chain.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And how many deputy commanders are there? If you look at the

11 document, sir.

12 A. There were two deputy commanders of the Chief of Staff of the

13 Supreme Staff until the man in the position of commander was introduced.

14 At that moment, the Chief of Staff became the deputy commander. So for a

15 while we have a situation in which three deputy commanders co-existed.

16 Q. And what was your chain of authority, the military security? By

17 this, who did you answer to?

18 A. The chief of military security administration was answerable to

19 the commander; before him, to the Chief of Staff. Exceptionally, if the

20 commander was absent, it was the deputy commander who took his role, and

21 in that case I was reporting to him.

22 Q. Would it be any one of these three deputy commanders? In the --

23 in the event that a commander was not available.

24 A. It would be the Chief of Staff, because he was more involved in

25 all the other activities. However, since during this period of time the

Page 10

1 situation was what it was, I was never in a position to have to answer

2 directly to the Chief of Staff or any of his deputies.

3 Q. Did your administration, security administration, have a command

4 function?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Who gave you orders which you had to obey?

7 A. It was the commander. It could be the president of the state,

8 the president of the Presidency, but that happened rarely or better say

9 never. It was done through the commander or the first person in the

10 command chain of the BiH army.

11 Q. So who was the military security subordinated to?

12 A. The commander.

13 Q. Did President Izetbegovic give you any direct orders? Did he

14 have the ability to give you orders which you had to obey?

15 A. No. He did not give me any tasks directly.

16 Q. Did he have the ability to if he wanted to?

17 A. I suppose so. He was the president of state. I'm not sure.

18 Q. So you would get your orders from the commander of the army; is

19 that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Now, who could you give orders to?

22 A. I could give orders to members of the security administration

23 that consisted of some 30 men. And as for the other tasks, I would send

24 them in the form of instructions, as a professional guidance.

25 Q. And did you have to inform anyone of the -- of the activities?

Page 11

1 The security administration officer, would he have to advise anyone in

2 their field of activity? Who would they keep informed on a regular basis?

3 A. Yes. The military security service was in charge of state

4 security in the armed forces. It was part of the command staffs and

5 institutions of the armed forces. It is immediately subordinate to the

6 commander. And whatever information it obtained through its professional

7 work, it was duty-bound, and this was done as much as it could be done --

8 it was duty-bound to inform its superiors.

9 In more specific terms, we provided our information in two forms:

10 One was the form of a bulletin on a daily basis, and special information

11 if we had some particular task. We submitted those regularly to the

12 commander, to the president of the Presidency, to the Ministry of Defence,

13 to the Prime Minister of the government, to the Minister of the Interior,

14 and for the most part to Mr. Ejup Ganic. I'm not sure why we sent these

15 to Ejup Ganic, in the light of the fact that he did not have any specific

16 position, unlike the ones that I mentioned previously. However, he was a

17 very important member of the Presidency, and he very often stood in for

18 the president and he wanted him to have this information. Whatever the

19 security services obtained in the form of information, they didn't keep

20 for themselves but they forwarded this information to the five or six

21 places that I've just mentioned.

22 Q. And you yourself, before you forwarded this information, would

23 get it from the military security officer subordinated to various units,

24 corps, battalions; is that right? I'll come in a minute about the

25 structure.

Page 12

1 A. The principle based on which the security services worked was the

2 same as that applied in command. You didn't skip any levels. What I'm

3 trying to say is we obtained information in principle from the security

4 service of the corps and indirectly from the state security service.

5 Q. Now, can you tell us the -- the military intelligence department,

6 was this a separate department?

7 A. Yes. That's how these two services were organised in our army.

8 In a certain way this was something that was copied from the former JNA;

9 namely, the intelligence service gathered intelligence on the enemy. The

10 counter-intelligence service, which is how we referred to it, which was to

11 all practical intents the military intelligence service, was mostly into

12 counter-intelligence as regarded its own armed forces.

13 The work of the military security service of the armed forces was

14 organised based on three functions: The first and primary function was

15 counter-intelligence; the second function was staff security; and the

16 third function was the military police. So it was these three functions

17 that the service was in charge of according to the book of rules, and

18 these were the tasks they had to perform to the extent that they were able

19 to under the prevailing circumstances, wartime circumstances, the

20 drawing-up of reports that I've mentioned and forwarding these reports to

21 their superiors.

22 Vital issues were relayed in special reports and not in orders or

23 in expert instructions, as we called them, according to the rules of

24 service. Underneath there were the brigade security services. In the

25 brigades, you had the battalion-level security services. So in actual

Page 13

1 fact, we have four levels of organisation in our security service.

2 It is important to point out, Your Honours, that on all of these

3 different levels the security service was subordinated exclusively to the

4 commander as concerned control and command. Within the service, there was

5 the possibility of professional guidance, but this did not empower anyone

6 to give orders.

7 Q. Now, you said there were four levels. Can you please tell the

8 Court what these four levels are, starting from the top.

9 A. The first was the security administration. This was a body

10 attached to the staff of the Supreme Command or the staff of the Main

11 Staff, the Supreme Staff, as it was called later. It had a number of

12 departments or sections. One was for counter-intelligence, and this was

13 the strongest section -- or rather, department, which had five

14 subsections. It had a section for staff security and a section for the

15 military police. All the while, there were -- there was a section for

16 legal affairs and analysis sector. There was a lawyer who worked

17 throughout the war in the security administration, and he was the best

18 qualified person to review information from a legal point of view. As for

19 the analysis section, this section was in charge of processing such

20 information as was obtained, and then based on any such information,

21 drawing up reports to be sent to the superior positions that I've

22 mentioned. This is how the administration worked.

23 This administration had between 30 and 40 persons working there.

24 We were never fully staffed. We were always short of staff. Corps level,

25 there were different --

Page 14

1 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... now you're talking about --

2 if you can just name them. This is level 2, corps level.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. That's the next level from the top down, the corps level. At

6 this level, there were security departments which in principle comprised

7 all these functions that I referred to while talking about the previous

8 one. These departments had 15, 16, or 17 staff, depending.

9 Professionally subordinate to them, on the third level were

10 security services of the brigades. These were sections comprising six or

11 seven persons. Their departments were not as evolved as those at corps

12 level, but in principle they, too, carried out the three functions that I

13 mentioned: Counter-intelligence, staff security, and military police.

14 The fourth level of the security services was that of the

15 battalions. In terms of number of executors, this was the lowest level.

16 They had an assistant commander for security-related affairs, and there's

17 an interesting detail in relation to this. At this level, the function of

18 security and intelligence was merged. This officer usually had an

19 assistant, so there were usually two of them. If there was an independent

20 battalion, this required three persons to do the job.

21 Your Honours, I deem it important to point out that at all these

22 various levels there was a military police presence, except at battalion

23 level. I'm not sure about the presence of military police in any

24 independent battalions, but as a matter of principle the military police

25 were not present at battalion level.

Page 15

1 If I may be allowed to say something about the strength of the

2 military police at all these various levels.

3 At brigade level, there was a military police platoon comprising

4 about 30 persons. When I say a platoon, that means 30 men. At corps

5 level, there was a military police battalion, which as a matter of

6 principle contained three companies, between 200 and 300 strong, depending

7 on the needs. And there was a unit attached to the platoon comprising

8 between 10 and 15 men who were specially trained for analysis and

9 inspection. These were professional persons working within the military

10 police who had a certain level of authority.

11 At the level of the Main Staff, there was a military police

12 battalion. At the beginning, they had some difficulties setting up this

13 battalion as a qualified competent military police unit. This was because

14 throughout 1992 and early 1993 there -- there were difficulties in Sarajevo

15 in getting people organised and setting up the military police. As early

16 as in 1992, the military police battalion that was established did not

17 really work properly. It went on like that until maybe April or May 1993

18 I emphasise, Your Honours, that all these military police units,

19 wherever they existed as I pointed out, were exclusively under the

20 jurisdiction, under the command of the commander of the unit which

21 they formed part of. At the level of the Main Staff, they were

22 under the command of the Chief of the Main Staff, later the Commander,

23 at the corps level, under the command of the corps commander, at the

24 brigade level under the command of the brigade commander. Only the person

25 who held that position the commander - could issue orders to them.

Page 16

1 Q. Now, what about operating groups and tactical groups?

2 A. Those were provisional formations. They did not have a permanent

3 structure, in terms of organisation and establishment, unlike the units

4 that I have so far been talking about. These formations would be

5 organised whenever necessary in order to carry out certain tasks in

6 certain areas. By setting up an operations or tactical group -- an order

7 to set up one of these would indicate how it should be organised and what

8 structure it should have, indicating also the strength of the members of

9 military security to be included. So this was a provisional structure, or

10 these were provisional formations.

11 Q. Yes. Now, Mr. Jasarevic, I'd like to show you a document, and

12 that is MFI203, number 02131159.

13 MS. CHANA: We'll refer to Sanction, please, Your Honour.

14 MR. MORRISSEY: Can I please be told what 65 ter number that is.

15 [Prosecution counsel confer]

16 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, if I may remind counsel, that this is

17 actually a Defence document. It's -- which they agreed that I may use.

18 It's the rules of service on military security.

19 Q. Now, was this the document under which and these are the rules

20 under which the military administration operated?

21 A. Yes. These are the rules under which the military administration

22 operated in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the last page of

23 this book of rules, you will see that it was adopted on the 11th of

24 September, 1992 by the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and signed by

25 the state president, Alija Izetbegovic, personally.

Page 17

1 Q. Yes. Now, if I could take you to Chapter 6, paragraphs 45

2 and 46. If you could please have a look at that.

3 A. Chapter 6 speaks about the competencies and the work of the

4 security administration. Please can you give me the paragraphs again?

5 Q. Yes, 45 and 46. Basically all of them, but -- but if you could

6 just sort of tell us when you said that they're all under a commander -

7 and that would be 46 - would that be the correct position? 46. If you'd

8 look at 46. What it says there: "Security administration shall be headed

9 by a commander who shall be responsible to the commander of the Main Staff

10 of the armed forces for the organisation of work and a legal, correct

11 execution of assignments within the competency of the security

12 administration or Minister of Defence on questions pertaining to the role

13 of jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence for security of the armed

14 forces of the republic. "

15 A. Yes, which leaves nothing unclear. Chapter 6 talks about the

16 security administration, and items 8 and 9 from the same book of rules,

17 paragraph 8 and 9, talk about the overall structure of the service.

18 Paragraph 46 speaks about the fact that the security administration is in

19 charge of the -- of professional guidance and organising tasks from its

20 own purview of activity, and this regulation too was created for that

21 reason.

22 Q. Yes. So Chapter 2 is the tasks of the military security service.

23 Could you look at those, please.

24 You just told the Court about the various tasks, and tap ter 2,

25 section 5, it talks about the various tasks. And there are six tasks

Page 18

1 listed there.

2 A. Excuse me. You said Chapter 2?

3 Q. Chapter 2, yes, the tasks of the military security service. It's

4 on my page 5.

5 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I think the witness has still got in

6 front of him in the B/C/S version parts 45 and 46.

7 MS. CHANA: He actually has a -- a printed ...

8 MR. MORRISSEY: Certainly Mr. Halilovic would have in front of

9 him parts 45 and 46.

10 MS. CHANA: Yes. I'm finished with 45 and 46. Now I'm looking

11 at Chapter 2, "The tasks of the military security service." Page 4 in the

12 B/C/S. Number 5.

13 If the witness can perhaps refer to Sanction himself. I can't

14 for the life of me understand what's happened to the document.

15 A. Can I continue now?

16 Q. Yes, please do. Look at number 2, section 5. And then you

17 have (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), which are six specific tasks. Can

18 you perhaps sum up for us what the essential aspects of these tasks are,

19 in your own terms, as to what you saw your responsibilities as.

20 A. A while ago, when I spoke about three primary fundamental

21 functions of the military security service, I spoke about the task under

22 Chapter 5, "Tasks of the military security service." Chapter 5, "Tasks

23 within the ambit of its counter-intelligence functions, the military

24 security service," I mentioned that this was the primary task that the

25 military security service faced, and that is precisely why it's referred

Page 19

1 to as a counter-intelligence service.

2 Under (a), we see: "Detect, stalk, document and prevent the

3 activity of foreign intelligence and more particularly military

4 intelligence services against the armed forces."

5 Under (b): "Service creates conditions for the fullest possible

6 documentation of the committed war crimes." This is about documentation

7 of the war crimes committed and other criminal offences in the aggression

8 against the republic, particularly in regard to the identification of

9 individuals, groups, and aggressor units which carried out preparations

10 for the aggression and in the course of this aggression. This implies a

11 peculiar kind of activity because these activities are usually carried out

12 in secrecy by the enemy, in terms of how they are organised. And that is

13 why the military security service in -- in jargon internally is usually

14 referred to as the secret service, because the methods of work that it

15 applies in its work are those usually applied by the secret services.

16 Under (c), we see: "Procure, update, systemise, and verify data

17 concerning members of the aggressor formations and citizens who aided and

18 abetted the aggressor," from their own ranks is the implication.

19 Under (d): "Detect, monitor documents, and create conditions for

20 intercepting terrorist activity planned and carried out against one's own

21 armed forces."

22 Under (e): "Detect, monitor, and prevent activity by

23 individuals, groups, and organisations whose activities take the form of

24 sabotage, subversion against one's own units."

25 And under (f), I think the protection of intelligence. This

Page 20

1 refers to reports on combat activities and other important actions.

2 Q. Yes. Thank you.

3 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Could I interrupt for just one moment,

4 please, Your Honours.


6 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, there's just something I want to

7 raise about this. It's no criticism of the witness's evidence but it

8 concerns the way this is being presented on the screen here.

9 There's two objections, and they both relate to the Sanction

10 procedure that's being used. This document is in an authorised

11 translation in the e-court system. What I notice here, if -- if my eyes

12 are correct, on the screen is that this in Sanction is a draft

13 translation. And in my -- it seems at least on what I've got in front of

14 me here that that's the case.

15 It would be desirable that the -- that the official translation

16 be used and not the draft translation

17 And secondly, I must say that speaking for myself, I find this

18 incredibly distracting, that -- the way it's presented here, because here

19 you are considering rules, particular legal rules which the witness is

20 quite perfectly entitled to go through carefully and -- and we make no

21 criticism of Mr. Jasarevic for doing that. That should be done. But to

22 have it jumping around in what frankly is a Hollywood presentation tool of

23 Sanction, rather than in a form which you as professional Judges would be

24 fully familiar with and happy with in its cold format as a book of rules,

25 I'd submit the ideal -- this is an ideal opportunity to use the e-court

Page 21

1 system, not the Sanction system, not where selected highlights are

2 presented before trained lawyers frankly who would well be able to sift

3 through this material and to work out just exactly what the relevance of

4 this part is as compared to the other parts. That Your Honours ought to

5 be in that position.

6 So for that reason, my submission is that this part of the

7 evidence ought not to be done using the Sanction presentation tool but

8 just using the normal e-court, where there's an official translation and

9 there's an ability for you, the Judges, to look from section to section

10 and to see precisely what the position is.

11 Now, this document, as was indicated by my friend, is marked for

12 exhibit 203 [sic]. I'm also -- well, that's -- there's a confusion about

13 this. I'm told by my learned friend Ms. Chana that it was MFI203, but I'm

14 instructed it's D137.

15 In any event, it is the -- it is -- we agree that it's the --

16 that it's the military -- the rule on military security, but we'd ask that

17 the proper translation be put there, the official translation, and that

18 this tool, bearing in mind that it's legal documents, be available to you

19 and, frankly, to me as well and to Mr. Halilovic in the normal way.

20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. I think the counsel raised two

21 issues: The first one is that is this the official translation or is this

22 the draft of the translation you are using, Ms. Chana?

23 The second issue is that is it possible for you to use the

24 e-court system in those proceedings.

25 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, the -- the answer to the first question

Page 22

1 is it is indeed a draft translation, as it is a Defence document, but we

2 had our own OTP draft translation since it was not our own exhibit. We

3 are very happy for the e-court to be used, for the -- for the translation

4 as the Defence has put it in, because it is their document. It's just

5 that the English, of course, is the -- is the draft, but the B/C/S is

6 exactly the same document, and that's what the witness is looking at.

7 And secondly, this Hollywood style of Sanction, Your Honour,

8 is -- is -- basically that's the tools we have and that's what we use. So

9 counsel kind of lost me on that particular objection. And all that was

10 put on Sanction was each individual section as the witness was going --

11 going through it. I thought that was an extremely efficient way of doing

12 it so that the part that the witness is looking at is highlighted for Your

13 Honours to see, as the Defence and the accused himself.

14 JUDGE LIU: Well, as for the first issue, I think we -- we'd

15 better use the official translations. That is a basic point for the

16 parties to reach some agreement and try to avoid any disputes in the

17 future concerning of the translations.

18 As the second issue: I believe that all the parties should rely

19 on the e-court system, especially when one party raises this issue in the

20 courtroom, and the -- and, of course, you know, at the beginning there

21 will be some inconvenience, but I'm afraid that we have to be used to it.

22 MS. CHANA: Your Honours, we believe everything is in e-court.

23 We were trying to do a more efficient presentation because these documents

24 are -- the case manager and I have the B/C/S in -- in the thing. I mean,

25 this is a learning curve, Your Honour, as we can see. And I would like

Page 23

1 to -- to elicit the testimony of this witness in the shortest and the

2 quickest and the most efficient way, and this is what we thought would be

3 a -- we are very grateful to Your Honours' guidance, and we will of course

4 use e-court if that's what Your Honour wishes.


6 MS. CHANA: With all the intended delays, Your Honour.

7 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

8 JUDGE LIU: Well, since we have already started the testimony

9 concerning with this document, we will finish it in the Sanction form, and

10 later on, you know, we'll refer to the e-court system for the future

11 documents.

12 And in the past we allowed you to use the Sanction system

13 because, you know, there's no objections from Defence, it's convenient and

14 efficient in a way, but now here we'll come across larger amount of the

15 documents and the Defence raised some objections. So after this document,

16 we'll refer to the -- we'll refer to the e-court system.

17 If there's any problems for the preparation, we might have a

18 break. I hope all the issues could be solved during the break.

19 But let's continue to finish this document.

20 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour.

21 Q. I think -- witness, sorry about that. We were just -- if -- you

22 have just, I believe, gone through (a) to (f). Would you -- you have,

23 haven't you? Would you confirm that, that you -- you've gone through all

24 of the sections? Did you comment on all of the sections that --

25 A. Yes, I believe so. I've tried to be as succinct as possible, but

Page 24

1 I -- I couldn't do it in -- in a shorter time.

2 Q. No, that's -- that's fine.

3 MS. CHANA: For now I'll not deal with this document anymore, but

4 perhaps a little later I'll have to show you a few more sections of it.

5 Q. So could you very, very briefly tell us: What then would be the

6 chain of command in the field of military security? I know you have

7 stated it before, but just very briefly the chain of command between the

8 various battalion, brigade, corps, and the Supreme Command. Would it go

9 up the levels?

10 A. The specific feature of command in the military security is the

11 fact that it has dual command. And when I say "dual," I mean that control

12 and command implies the unity of command in any military structure and

13 there's no two ways about it. What we mean by "dual" is when we talk

14 about the professional guidance in the military security bodies at all

15 levels, and this specific nature is the result of the fact that part of

16 the security is also counter-intelligence. The military security service

17 would often obtain information that were just -- that was just indications

18 that had to be verified from various sources using various sources, and

19 whenever possible they had -- that information had to be corroborated by

20 documents in order to give them the quality as required by the command and

21 control function. If this had not been done, they could have been

22 misconstrued, and that is why the military security service had to have a

23 professional influence going down the ladder.

24 What do I mean by that? The security administration had

25 influence on the security of the corps. The security corps had the

Page 25

1 influence on the security of the brigade. And the security of the brigade

2 had influence on the security of the battalion. When temporary groups are

3 formed, that is, operations group and tactical groups, then special orders

4 are issued in order to deal with the issue of this relationship. What one

5 has to bear in mind is the fact that everything started and finished with

6 the commander of the unit at which the security as a service was

7 developed, and this is when it comes to the function of reporting.

8 Q. What about seniority within this? Would a security assigned to a

9 corps be more senior than a security assigned to a brigade and to a

10 battalion and so on and so forth? The seniority amongst the security,

11 those assigned to corps and those assigned to brigades and battalions.

12 A. Your Honours, I believe that I've already explained that. Yes,

13 in professional terms, in terms of professional guidance, that is. For

14 example, this is the professional part. This has nothing to do with

15 order-issuing.

16 Q. Yeah, professional. I mean professionally, not order-giving, in

17 terms of seniority. Professionally.

18 A. When it comes to the first function, which is

19 counter-intelligence, this part was the most prominent obligation within

20 the vertical functioning, and that is for the information to be forwarded

21 to the highest possible level where there was enough professional

22 expertise to analyse and verify this information, and if it was at all

23 possible, this information was sent from the very bottom to the very top.

24 When it comes to the staff security function where the situation

25 was assessed at the level of the command, where the service was assigned,

Page 26

1 where there was training, where -- this remained at the same level. There

2 was no need whatsoever to -- to go up the ladder to the very top;

3 although, even in this part the superior bodies of the security services

4 did have an influence on their superiors, demanding them to maintain a

5 certain level of quality whenever that was possible.

6 Q. Yes. Thank you. Now, you said one of the tasks --

7 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry, just one moment please.


9 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I just have an objection to raise

10 at the moment. And it's no attack on the witness at all, who is answering

11 the questions responsibly as he's being asked them. But this line of

12 questioning in my submission is absolutely irrelevant to any issue in the

13 case.

14 My learned friend has now for a considerable period of time asked

15 Mr. Jasarevic questions about the counter-intelligence function of the

16 military security service. Now, my friend took Mr. Jasarevic to part 2 of

17 the rules, section 5 of the rules, and you'll see the heading of that

18 was "The military security service shall carry out the following tasks as

19 part of its counter-intelligence functions." Then my friend asked for

20 what the functions were under counter-intelligence. And now in the

21 following line of questions Mr. Jasarevic is quite appropriately

22 responding to the questions in terms of counter-intelligence.

23 Now, counter-intelligence has nothing whatsoever to do with this

24 case, unless I have missed something. And I'd ask my friend to clarify

25 why counter-intelligence, rather than other functions, are being pursued

Page 27

1 in this line of questioning.

2 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think, first of all, we came to the first

3 function of the security organ, and maybe later on we'll come to the

4 second. I'm not sure, you know.

5 Let me hear Ms. Chana's explanation on that.

6 MS. CHANA: You're quite right, Your Honour. The other thing is

7 the witness is -- is answering the questions as he himself views the

8 tasks -- the various tasks. And as you can see, that the witness has been

9 pretty much talking and explaining in his own way, and at this initial

10 stages I'm allowing him to -- to give the Court the overview of all the

11 functions of the military security, which I think will assist Your

12 Honours. And quite frankly, I do not see the objection of learned counsel

13 on this. This is my examination-in-chief. I think it's entirely relevant

14 what the witness is saying to the issues at hand, and the -- and the tasks

15 of the military security, and I should be allowed to pursue my

16 examination-in-chief uninterrupted, Your Honours.

17 JUDGE LIU: Well, let's come to the most relevant part of the

18 functions of the security organ.


20 Q. Yes. Before I leave that, Mr. Jasarevic, can you tell us: You

21 said that one of the other functions was to supervise the activities of

22 the military police.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. What kind of activities --

25 A. This is the third function of the military security services. It

Page 28

1 is their task to see to the existence of the military police, to see that

2 it is up to the strength, that it has enough equipment, and that it is

3 used in keeping with the tasks regulated by the law on the work of the

4 military police in the armed forces.

5 This was important because during the war and especially at its

6 beginning, there were cases when the military police was used by certain

7 commanders in an unprofessional way, and this -- hence this task of the

8 security, and this is provided for by the chapter describing the tasks of

9 the military security in the military forces.

10 Q. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Jasarevic.

11 Now I would like to take you to another aspect of your duty. And

12 can you tell me: Who was responsible for investigating crimes committed

13 by military personnel?

14 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, before we come to that -- now, I

15 maintain the objection I made before. You got half an hour on something

16 totally irrelevant and then this small section on the relevant part,

17 without reference to the relevant rule.

18 Now, I maintain my objection. What was the relevance of that

19 counter-intelligence material? It -- it really -- my friend can't now say

20 that it was giving an overview, because we've now moved out of that and

21 you didn't get an overview. You got a big view of an irrelevant part, no

22 view of the second part. And Your Honours will see that's why I didn't

23 want the Sanction tool to be used. That's why I wanted the rules to be in

24 front of the Court, because now you can see exactly what's happening here.

25 The relevant rules are before the Court. And my friend ought to now

Page 29

1 justify -- well, perhaps it's too late to justify.

2 But, Your Honours, you see what the objection was now. It's --

3 it's not a proper way to lead evidence in chief, in my submission, to

4 assist the Court. And I object to it as lopsided and distracting, the use

5 of the Sanction tool now combined by what I'd submit is a lopsided

6 presentation of the rules themselves. And I'd submit that what should be

7 put before the Court is Rule 7 and in particular part (e) of those rules.

8 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think this is the Prosecution's case. They

9 could choose their materials at their will. And -- but anyway, I found

10 that, you know, the function of the security organ is not well presented

11 because you are talking about the first function and the third function,

12 but I don't know what is the overall picture of the functions of the

13 security organ. So as the basis, you know, I believe that we have to know

14 overall about the functions of the security organ in the army, Ms. Chana.

15 MS. CHANA: [Microphone not activated],

16 JUDGE LIU: Your microphone, please.

17 MS. CHANA: Sorry. Yes, Your Honours. I'm taking Your Honours

18 through each one in turn, Your Honour. He said there were three main

19 tasks. He's gone through one. There's the second, and there will be the

20 third. And I'm presenting them in the order -- different orders.

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Let's hear it one by one, and then we'll come

22 to the specific, which is more relevant to our case.

23 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour.

24 Q. Now, Mr. Jasarevic, can you tell us very briefly what are the

25 main functions of the military security. And if you could leave it brief,

Page 30

1 please, the three or the four functions of the military security.

2 A. Your Honours, I have already mentioned and described two. I've

3 mentioned three actually. We have been talking in somewhat great detail

4 about the first and the most important function, which was

5 counter-intelligence. We haven't spoken about the second, which is the

6 staff security, of which I can have -- can say the following: This

7 function is the function of the staff nature, and it reflects in the

8 assessment of the situation in terms of security when preparations are

9 being made for a certain combat situation. Within this function, the

10 commanders deal with the organisation of the service, at different levels,

11 the strength, the quality, and so on and so forth,. Within this function,

12 the issues are dealt in -- with in terms of equipment, cooperation with

13 other bodies of the service - I apologise - the command, rather than the

14 service - and assisting other organs of the command in order to protect

15 certain important elements within the scope of the functioning of the

16 command as a military body. This is the essence of it.

17 Q. Yes. Perhaps if you would -- I'd like to refer you back to this

18 military manual. And if you'd look at Chapter 1, section 2(b) of the

19 Rules of Service.

20 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, I don't know whether we can now ask for

21 the e-court, for it to be brought up on e-court. We have it in Sanction,

22 Your Honour, but as Your Honour directed, we can only use e-court.

23 JUDGE LIU: Let us try the e-court first.

24 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, could I -- pardon me. Could I just

25 indicate to the Court that this document is admitted into the evidence.

Page 31

1 It's not an MFI. It's D137. It's actually admitted.

2 MS. CHANA: Oh, thank you. Then we'll use that.

3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

4 Well, my suggestion is that we'll take a break so that, you know,

5 during the break your case manager could get in touch with the court

6 deputy --

7 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE LIU: -- to arrange the e-court system, to get familiar

9 with it.

10 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE LIU: Yes. So we'll take 30 minutes' break and we'll

12 resume at ten minutes to 11.00.

13 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 --- Recess taken at 10.20 a.m.

15 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

16 JUDGE LIU: I believe that the e-court system is in place.

17 Ms. Chana, please continue.

18 MS. CHANA: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

19 I just would like to bring to the Court's attention this matter

20 of Sanction again, if I may, with your permission, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

22 MS. CHANA: We did have a discussion over the break, and it

23 appears to me that - and the Defence will no doubt reconfirm this - they

24 do not have a blanket objection to Sanction being used for all other

25 documents and they will object on a document-by-document basis. I'd be

Page 32

1 very grateful for Your Honours' view on this matter, is whether we may

2 continue to use Sanction as our advocacy tool on certain documents,

3 subject, of course, to the Defence's position and Your Honours' ruling on

4 the matter.

5 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Morrissey.

6 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, Your Honour. I confirm that I did have the

7 discussion with my learned friend about this. The use of Sanction is --

8 is an advocacy device, and it's done in a professional and -- and skilful

9 way to persuade the Court. But nevertheless, we can't object on the

10 Defence side to the Prosecution presenting its case as well as it can, and

11 they should be given that chance, so that there are cases when they may

12 seek to use Sanction, when we do not object and it may be particularly

13 with respect to shorter documents that that is appropriate. If the

14 Defence has disputes about the way it's beings -- disputes about the way

15 it's being put, of course well can respond in cross-examination. Your

16 Honour may recall -- and this was a large legal document.

17 So I'm content if the Prosecution wants to use Sanction on a

18 case-by-case basis, we have no objection of a blanket kind, but we'll

19 reserve our right to take objection from time to time if we think it's

20 creating some unfairness. It is an advocacy tool, but then again my

21 friend is a capable advocate. So we can't object to her. We can object

22 to the item as such. And so I confirm what my friend says and that in

23 future the Defence doesn't object to the Prosecution seeking to use

24 Sanction from time to time with appropriate documents.

25 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

Page 33

1 Well, as for the e-court system, I believe that we should apply

2 to this new system in our proceedings. Of course if there's no objections

3 from the Defence team concerning with certain documents, especially very

4 short documents, there's some possibility for the Prosecution to use the

5 Sanction system.

6 MS. CHANA: We're obliged to Your Honours for that direction.

7 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. You may proceed, Ms. Chana.

8 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Q. Now, witness, before the break you were telling us about the --

10 the tasks of the military security. Now, the second task you talked about

11 was breaches of military discipline, and to that end I was referring you

12 to section 2(b) of this document, which I believe now will come up in

13 e-court.

14 MS. CHANA: It's D137, Your Honours.

15 Your Honours, I do have a B/C/S version for the -- the witness,

16 which I've given to the court orderly, which is -- the case manager was

17 kind enough to print out over the break. It's a larger version, larger

18 print, and the witness perhaps will find it easier to navigate his way

19 through that. Could it --

20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, you may furnish it to the witness --

21 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE LIU: -- through the court usher.

23 MS. CHANA: I believe the Defence have no objection. I've

24 already raised the matter with them.

25 Q. Now, witness, I've given you a new document, and it's larger

Page 34

1 print, and hopefully that will assist you.

2 I now take you to 2, and if you'd look at (b)?

3 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry, Your Honour. The Defence at the moment has

4 a 90-degrees B/C/S version in front. We now have a correctly oriented

5 B/C/S version front of us, but we would like the English version if that's

6 possible.

7 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.


9 Q. It's page 4 of the B/C/S version, witness. Have you read it?

10 A. Yes, I did.

11 Q. Could you tell us about this particular task of the military

12 security.

13 A. Under Chapter 2, "Tasks of the service," 5(b) talks about the

14 counter-intelligence tasks within the service in order to document war

15 crimes that were committed as part of the aggression.

16 What I notice here in the third line from the top down, it

17 says: "Particularly with regard to identification of individuals, groups,

18 and aggressor units which carried out preparations," and so on and so

19 forth. The provision here obviously assumes that war crimes were

20 committed against our own structures by the aggressor. I do believe,

21 however, that this can also apply -- can also apply to cases where members

22 of our units have committed a crime.

23 At the beginning of paragraph (b), it says that: "Conditions

24 must be created for the fullest possible documentation," which means that

25 all steps are taken to create the relevant documents, this being one of

Page 35

1 the crucial tasks of the security service.

2 Q. Yes. And when these security officers detected some of this

3 activity, who would they report it to, which is envisioned in (b), 5(b).

4 Who would they inform?

5 A. They must inform their own commander, their first superior. They

6 must. Since we are talking about activities from

7 Chapter 5, "Counter-intelligence," this sort of information should also be

8 forwarded to the superior security service. If this information is

9 obtained, if such actions are committed, if information is obtained by the

10 security service of the brigade, they would inform the brigade commander

11 and then up the chain of command, also their superior, at corps level.

12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jasarevic.

13 I'd like to now come to another topic altogether with you, and I

14 would like to ask you: Who would be responsible for investigating crimes

15 committed by the military personnel within the various levels of corps,

16 brigade, battalions, et cetera? I'll be coming into more detail into this

17 a little later, this particular other tasking.

18 A. It would always be the unit commanders. They are the authority

19 responsible within their own units, and the same applies to this.

20 Professionally speaking, military security bodies and military police

21 bodies would also be responsible. Chapter 40 of the book of rules in

22 front of us says that: "If there is a suspicion that a crime has been

23 committed, the security service should take appropriate steps."

24 Chapter 41 says that: "At brigade level or a higher level of

25 authority, their own services should prosecute any such cases as may have

Page 36

1 occurred."

2 Q. And can we look at Chapter 40 now, which -- can you read 40

3 and 41 and tell us in your own words what exactly that means. Let's look

4 at 40 first.

5 A. As I've just said about paragraph 40, when a reasonable suspicion

6 exists that a criminal offence has been committed, that must be prosecuted

7 by military courts, and war crimes would fall under this definition.

8 Officers of the military security service are the ones who are responsible

9 for taking necessary measures to find the perpetrator, to prevent the

10 perpetrator or his accomplice from going into hiding or escaping, to

11 uncover and protect any evidence, and to gather any information useful for

12 the prosecution of this crime."

13 And then paragraph 41 proceeds to explain about the respective

14 levels. I'm sure that the author of this document bore in mind the fact

15 that at brigade level there was a body comprising five or six persons who

16 can deal with the job at battalion level and press charges eventually,

17 charges brought before a military prosecutor, needless to say.

18 Q. Yes. Thank you. And did the commander of these units have to

19 approve any investigations which were initiated by the military security

20 detail?

21 A. Yes. Yes. Yes. As I've already said, the commander holds a

22 position of authority. He's someone who would approve a proposal like

23 this coming from a military police body. If no such proposal arrives for

24 a variety of different reasons - they had no knowledge, no will, or no

25 ability, for example - then there was no approval. So if there is no

Page 37

1 approval and a commander is aware of an act like this having been

2 perpetrated, it's his duty to order -- to issue the appropriate orders.

3 By this definition, the commander is responsible for everything that

4 happens within his unit.

5 Q. And what if the military police had initiated some

6 investigations? Would they have to inform the military security and the

7 commander?

8 A. In principle, yes, they would. But this would not stop them from

9 taking certain steps once having found out about the crime. They'd start

10 collecting evidence and intelligence, but they could not launch an

11 investigation, a full-scale investigation, before consulting with the

12 military prosecutor.

13 We had an investigative military judge at the time. I think this

14 position no longer exists. The incumbents had to be authorised members of

15 the security service or the military police. Not just any police officer

16 would have qualified for that position. Only those who had proper

17 authorisation.

18 Q. Now, would the security officer have to alert the commander about

19 a crime which had been committed by military personnel? And in what

20 format would this happen?

21 A. As long as he knew, yes. But the security officer could not take

22 certain kinds of steps in the brigade, such as, for example, carry out

23 investigations, summon witnesses, have interviews, and gather

24 intelligence. If there were on-site investigations or inspections to be

25 carried out, that would have constituted a serious case of meddling with

Page 38

1 the control and command system. A commander must know about these things,

2 because these steps might interfere with other activities.

3 Under certain conditions, the commander must approval this or even

4 order this, if no such orders were issued by these lower-level organs to

5 begin with.

6 Q. Now, how was this information relayed to the commander? Was it

7 in writing? Was it orally?

8 A. This always depended on the objective circumstances. If the

9 objective conditions allowed, this would be done in writing or by

10 communications equipment, which means orally or through direct contact.

11 Bearing in mind the sort of thing that happened during the war in our

12 area, it was very difficult and only rarely that this was done in writing

13 for the brigade to address their commander in writing about any of these

14 steps. In fact, I don't know of a single case like that. Usually it was

15 done orally, in direct contact, or through communications equipment, if no

16 physical contact was possible.

17 Q. Now, in the event the commander did nothing with this

18 information, what would the military security officer do next?

19 A. I'm not familiar with cases like that. But if we speak about a

20 war crime, for example, which falls under paragraph 5 that I have referred

21 to, there is a line of communication leading to the superior security

22 organ, and this kind of information would eventually reach this officer.

23 Any security officer who was in possession of this sort of information,

24 not having been allowed by the commander to do anything about it, would

25 have been duty-bound to report to his superior security organ. Again, the

Page 39

1 example of brigade and corps levels. The brigade-level officer would have

2 to inform the corps-level officer if at all possible, practicable.

3 Q. And then it would continue going up that chain.

4 A. Yes. Yes, this -- this was always the principle that had to be

5 applied.

6 Q. Now, who actually supervised these investigations?

7 A. Once an investigation is under way, the only qualified body that

8 could be in charge is the military prosecutor. The military prosecutor

9 would file requests asking the military police and the security organs at

10 the appropriate level to send him additional information, clarifications,

11 any case material that might be relevant for taking appropriate steps.

12 Q. So how many ways were there to initiate an investigation? Can

13 you just tell us each way this could be done, please.

14 A. Can you please clarify the question. I'm not sure if I

15 understand you correctly.

16 Q. If you can tell us which ways were they within the -- the -- the

17 army to initiate a particular criminal investigation. You've said one is

18 that the military security officer, the police. If you can give us the --

19 the various ways how an investigation would be initiated. How would it

20 come about? A crime has been committed.

21 A. It is essential for a crime to be reported, for people to know

22 that a crime occurred. Whoever received word of this in any of the

23 military structures would have been duty-bound pursuant to the general

24 rules to inform their superior. If they were in no position to inform a

25 security officer, it would have sufficed for them to inform their

Page 40

1 superior. This applied to private as well as to high-ranking officers.

2 When word was received of something like this, there had to be a -- a

3 lightning-quick reaction. The best thing would be if this information

4 reached the security organ at the respective command, the military police,

5 or the commander in person. These are the three levels, the three

6 institutions in a manner of speaking, that knew what steps were then to be

7 taken. The essential thing, if at all possible, was to identify the vital

8 issues as soon as possible, issues that may be of relevance to a future

9 investigation, which means, if possible identifying the perpetrator, the

10 crime itself, the time, and any evidence. This is what usually

11 constitutes an inspection, which leads to charges being pressed. It's not

12 important who takes these steps. The important thing is that these steps

13 are taken, that no shroud of silence falls over the act so that the crime

14 is eventually forgotten.

15 Q. And then the military prosecutor's office, what would that --

16 what would their role be? Would that -- was that another way?

17 A. As far as I know, as far as my familiarity with the law goes,

18 there was a possibility for the military prosecutor - I'm not sure if I

19 should say "duty" - as soon as a military prosecutor in any way finds out

20 about a crime like that, must react quickly and send a request to one of

21 the military institutions or bodies. Usually the body addressed would be

22 the military police. The prosecutor should request that information be

23 forwarded on the crime. That's how communication between the military

24 police and the military prosecutor usually came about, that is, a body of

25 military security, on the one hand, and military security, on the other.

Page 41

1 Both of these were duty-bound to comply with the military prosecutor's

2 request.

3 Q. And would he ask other agencies to assist him in these

4 investigations, the investigative judge?

5 A. Probably, especially we speak about the Ministry of the Interior

6 and their bodies present in the area, professionally qualified bodies. In

7 our circumstances in the first two years of war and even later, we trained

8 our security bodies and our military police all the time. We had to do

9 things in our stride and we had to train people in our stride to perform

10 certain tasks. But our internal affairs bodies were well qualified to

11 come to grips with these tasks. The military service could also, of

12 course, request -- request information from the Ministry of the Interior.

13 Q. What was the powers of the commander in respect of initiation and

14 terminating investigations?

15 A. A commander is always the person responsible for anything that

16 happens in his own unit. He had the authority, the power, to order an

17 investigation to be carried out by his own bodies, military security

18 bodies or military police bodies. By doing that, he exercised a right

19 that was within his power. Being what he was, a commander, he would later

20 be informed about the course of the investigation but he would no longer

21 deal with the nuts and bolts of the matter. He would appoint other bodies

22 to -- to deal with these tasks.

23 Q. Could he terminate any investigations which had been started by

24 either the security service or the military police?

25 A. As a rule, not. There were, unfortunately, cases. I can't think

Page 42

1 of any specific ones in terms of where they occurred or who was involved,

2 but there were cases, especially at the lower levels, without sufficient

3 military experience, where commanders failed to identify their own duties

4 and instead prioritised certain combat assignments, which means that they

5 failed to identify the crime as quickly as the situation required;

6 although, this was no general rule.

7 Q. So therefore what's your view on the matter as to whose primary

8 responsibility was it to control his subordinates and to react if there

9 was information about crimes committed by these subordinates?

10 A. In terms of orders, the commander would bear this responsibility.

11 Professionally speaking, the security service and the military police.

12 Q. What -- what in the event the commander did not have military

13 police to assist him? What -- what would he -- could he do then?

14 A. He could ask his superior to borrow in a manner of speaking a

15 military police unit from the adjacent, neighbouring unit in order to have

16 this task carried out. If there was an order or a directive, depending on

17 the level on which a certain activity was carried out, saying that

18 commanders of the same level had a duty to coordinate on these matters,

19 then the situation could be dealt with swiftly and in a direct manner, not

20 through his superior. But this was not so often the case.

21 Q. So a commander, in other words, could request other units and

22 other corps to assist him in any matter concerning his own corps or area

23 of responsibility or whatever.

24 A. I am not sure if this applied to all issues across the board, but

25 when speaking about the military police what I told you is certainly the

Page 43

1 case.

2 Q. Could you tell us, what was the system of keeping records on the

3 activities of the security services? How did you keep your records? Was

4 there any standard format?

5 A. Yes. As for the operative part that I talked about at the

6 beginning, under item 5 of the Rules of Service, this was done with

7 register books and the sort of information entered would be intelligence

8 issues, counter-intelligence, and other sensitive issues. These files

9 could not be inspected by anyone save for the security bodies. As for all

10 other issues at corps level, the security service would be in charge of a

11 counter-intelligence plan. Everything else that falls under paragraphs 2

12 and 3 would be done on a monthly basis and take the form of plans and

13 drafts for command activity. This was part of work planning in every

14 command and in every staff.

15 Q. And these reports would go up to the military security of the

16 Supreme Command Staff eventually?

17 A. As we said, there are four different military security levels.

18 The counter-intelligence level went up the chain of command. If a

19 security counter-intelligence organ in the battalion was in possession of

20 a piece of information that they failed to forward to the corps or the

21 administration but, rather, only sent it to their own superior, in

22 professional terms the brigade, this would complete the extent of their

23 duty. The brigade-level man would assess the information and either deal

24 with it immediately at the battalion brigade level or, if it was a more

25 complex matter, it would be forwarded to the corps security. So much

Page 44

1 about that level.

2 All other information from the police area and military security

3 area would form part of the so-called regular reports that were submitted

4 to the command.

5 Q. Now, what kind of training were these -- these security officers

6 given to do their job?

7 A. Very early on we realised that the -- the education and training

8 levels of our members and especially specialists - and this includes

9 military security services and the military police - we realised that this

10 was a problem and this was something that we had to deal with. In

11 practical situations, we encountered that problem quite a lot, especially

12 in Sarajevo in 1992, as I have already said, and in 1993. We had a

13 problem. All members of the army wanted to be military policemen because

14 they, I suppose, thought that they would have more authority. They didn't

15 know what that was. And as much as this was possible, we tried to

16 organise and implement certain training schemes. Obviously those training

17 courses were very short, very basic. We didn't have the time to organise

18 more extensive, better organised seminars and courses.

19 And the same was true of the security organs. As a country, as a

20 state, we were being created during the war and we did not have

21 well-trained people who would work in the security. A lot of people in

22 the security did not want to work in the security. It is a very

23 responsible -- a very demanding job which called for certain professional

24 skills, starting with the -- being abreast of the regulations, being a

25 moral person, being able to apply certain methods of work, especially

Page 45

1 in -- within the counter-intelligence. Counter-intelligence is a

2 profession that calls for a very high level of professionalism.

3 In 1992, I organised in the then-Hotel Belgrade a training course

4 for certain officers of the military police who had already shown certain

5 elements of non-military behaviour, which at the time I couldn't qualify

6 as a particular breach of discipline. I had to explain to them what the

7 military police was, what their tasks would be. I told them that the

8 military police should not be so numerous. It was a very painstaking job.

9 As we grew as the army and as we created certain conditions, we

10 organised training at various levels, at the corps level. Later on in

11 Zenica a school was organised - the name was Ros - the war officer's

12 school. This was where education could be planned and organised in a

13 better way than at the beginning. We cooperated with the -- the organs of

14 the interior, especially in terms of the education of the authorised

15 members of the military police that I've already mentioned. Several

16 officers underwent such courses, at the Ministry of the Interior with some

17 results. Not enough, not as much as we needed. But all this time there

18 was a continuity of education to a certain extent.

19 Q. What about investigation techniques? Would you use any other

20 agencies to teach them that?

21 A. Whatever I have said so far, and particularly what was organised

22 in the MUP, had to do with investigation. To be more specific, from the

23 military police battalion, from the General Staff, several people were

24 sent to those courses in order to learn about the investigative

25 techniques. However, we lacked equipment for investigation. We didn't

Page 46

1 have a camera. We did not have the equipment to fix evidence, not even --

2 let alone to the investigation of a more complex criminal case such as

3 murder. We had to refer cases to the MUP because we did not have our own

4 means and our own personnel who would be able to do that.

5 Q. Was any training given on the international humanitarian law, law

6 of warfare, protection of civilians, and so forth?

7 A. Our military and state leadership very early on issued certain

8 regulations and directives. I can't quote them because I can't remember

9 them. However, they did channel those activities. I can say that all the

10 courses and seminars contained those things. Allow me to say that at all

11 levels of command a lot of warning has been -- had been given and it was

12 insisted that the international humanitarian law should be observed to the

13 extent we knew and could do at the time.

14 Q. Can I -- can I show you a document, MFI107. The court deputy

15 will show this.

16 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour.

17 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

18 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm sorry, this is -- I just wanted to confirm

19 whether this has already been tendered has --

20 MS. CHANA: Yes, it's an exhibit, 113. It's the Rules on

21 Military Discipline, MFI107.

22 Q. Can I take you to Chapter 5, please, Article 67, 68, 69.

23 Can you see it, witness, on the screen before you? Do you see it

24 on the screen before you?

25 A. I don't see these particular articles; however, I can say this

Page 47

1 about the rules. Those rules were passed in August 1992, as far as I can

2 remember, and I would also like to say that the military discipline is the

3 subject that all the command organs deal with. This is not within the

4 scope of the authority of the military security unless it becomes so

5 intense that it turns into something else and borders on crime.

6 I know that certain articles -- and I don't have them before me.

7 However, the ones that you mentioned, 67, 68, and 69, speak of the certain

8 conditions under which problems from the disciplinary field are dealt

9 with.

10 MS. CHANA: Sorry to interrupt you.

11 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, and I'm sorry too. Your Honours and --

12 MS. CHANA: Yeah, I think we have the same --

13 MR. MORRISSEY: The Prosecutor and I may be sharing the same

14 affliction.

15 MS. CHANA: Yes.

16 MR. MORRISSEY: That Mr. Jasarevic has a Bosnian version before

17 him, but so do we. I think we need to have, if possible, the English

18 version.


20 Q. And can you see Article 67, 68, and 69 on your monitor,

21 Mr. Jasarevic?

22 A. I apologise. Could you please repeat the numbers of these

23 articles.

24 Q. 67, 68, 69.

25 A. Yes, I can see them now.

Page 48

1 MS. CHANA: I believe now we've got the Bosnian version on the

2 monitors. I don't think there's -- do Your Honours have the English

3 version on the monitor?

4 JUDGE LIU: No, I don't think so.

5 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, may I give the -- the witness the

6 Bosnian version of my printed ...

7 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, please.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can see it here. Thank you very

9 much. It won't be necessary.

10 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry, Your Honour. I don't know if my learned

11 friend's situation has improved, but I'm still in Bosnian at the moment.

12 JUDGE LIU: Well, me too.

13 MS. CHANA: If my learned friend wants to resort to Sanction, I'm

14 sure we can assist.

15 Your Honour, are we all e-courted?

16 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe so.


18 Q. Witness, before I ask you to look at these particular sections --

19 MR. MORRISSEY: No, I'm sorry. Pardon me. I still have B/C/S in

20 front of me.

21 I'm sorry, Your Honour, it might always have --

22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

23 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, we'll try an emergency procedure.

24 We have it.

25 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

Page 49

1 Yes, I have it. Yeah.

2 Shall we proceed?

3 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honours.

4 Q. Now, Mr. Jasarevic, before I ask you about these particular

5 sections that we've had now before our screen, was there a difference

6 between military discipline procedures in peacetime and in wartime?

7 A. Yes. Especially when it comes to the urgency of reaction, the

8 speed of reaction.

9 Q. And I believe Article 19 talks about the conduct of proceedings

10 in -- in peacetime. You have the document before you, Mr. Jasarevic. And

11 the time limit for instituting and conducting proceedings is -- is 30 days

12 in peacetime.

13 And now when we come to the sections 67, 68, 69, that would be

14 accountability in a state of war. Now, can you tell us what the

15 difference is in respect of that, please.

16 A. Your Honours, let me just repeat what I said a little while ago.

17 The issue of military discipline is within the authority of other organs

18 of the command as well, and it is not primarily one of the tasks of the

19 military security services. Obviously the military security services will

20 also monitor the -- the discipline situation because at the end of the day

21 it may fall under the scope of the interests of the military security

22 services when military discipline breaches start containing elements of

23 crime. All the organs, and especially the organs for morale, guidance in

24 the army, dealt with these issues. Later on military disciplinary courts

25 were organised, and they were the ones that assessed the military

Page 50

1 discipline.

2 I can only point out in this case that dealing with disciplinary

3 issues from the simplest to the most complex ones in the times of war,

4 which is also corroborated by the articles that we have mentioned, that

5 is, 67, 68, and 69. In 69, the time period of 24 hours is mentioned. In

6 other words, it was important to deal with disciplinary issues very

7 urgently, and this is the specific nature when we compare this situation

8 with the times of peace.

9 Q. Now, can you look at Article 74, please. Would you tell us

10 according to that article who shall supervise the implementation of these

11 particular rules.

12 A. Here it says that: "The chief of the Main Staff of the armed

13 forces" -- and if you'll allow me to draw a parallel with the Article 66

14 of the rules on the military security, the Article 76 of rules for the

15 work of the military police, this is the first person in the army. When

16 these documents were passed, this was the Chief of the Main Staff of the

17 armed forces. And later on when the function of the commander was

18 developed, it was the commander, and this is implied in the interpretation

19 of these functions.

20 Q. Yes. Thank you. Could you tell me: When you wrote your -- your

21 report, who would you send them to? Who were your addressees?

22 A. I could send my reports in two aspects: One would be the results

23 of the operative counter-intelligence work, and this kind of report would

24 be sent to the five or six addressees that I mentioned earlier on. All

25 the other reports were within the sphere of command and control of the

Page 51

1 unit to which the service was assigned, and these reports would be sent to

2 operative organs. For example, the operative centre existed at the level

3 of the General Staff, and it was -- this was the organ that collected all

4 the operative reports from the subordinate units and from the units at the

5 level of that command and based on these reports, they would draft a

6 summary report that would then be sent to the commander at that particular

7 level where this particular summary report was drafted.

8 Q. Yes. Now, who would appoint military security officers? How

9 were they allocated? Who appointed them to the various levels?

10 A. Military security officers were appointed by commanders; however,

11 the organs of the security services played a very important role in the

12 selection process. At the beginning of the war, these officers, security

13 officers, were created so to speak at the will of the commanders of many

14 units, especially the units at the level of battalions and brigades.

15 Later on we succeeded in the majority of the units to secure the principle

16 according to which the military security services did have an impact on

17 the selection of these officers. However, in all of these units -- in

18 many of these units, we for a long time we were not successful at that.

19 To answer your question, it was the commanders who appointed these

20 officers.

21 Q. Yes. Now, Mr. Jasarevic, can you tell me that -- I'm sorry, I'll

22 go back again with my question.

23 You were in July of 1993 the chief of the counter-intelligence

24 section, you informed the Court earlier on. Did you hear of any crimes

25 committed by the ABiH army at that time?

Page 52

1 A. During that period of time, I was an officer within the

2 administration. I did not receive all the information from the corps

3 level, and so on and so forth. However, I did receive information and I

4 was aware of some cases. I had heard the details of these cases. That's

5 why I knew that there were such breaches of discipline that could

6 constitute crimes. In one case, a possibility was mentioned that a crime

7 had been committed in the area of responsibility of the 10th Mountain

8 Brigade.

9 Q. Okay. Let's now go to the time when you've been appointed as the

10 chief of the military security department. Can you tell us: At that

11 time, what did you hear about any crimes committed by any units? Can you

12 tell me about that, please.

13 A. I can't provide you with many details; however, it was a known

14 fact that in some units, especially in the units of the 1st Corps in

15 Sarajevo, there was a lack of discipline, particularly in the

16 9th Motorised Brigade and in the 10th Mountain Brigade.

17 On this occasion, I would like to point out as follows, Your

18 Honours: Usually in our jargon we say that it was the 10th and the

19 9th Brigades. However, to be very precise, one has to say that only a

20 small number of members of these brigades committed those crimes. Each of

21 these brigades had five to 6.000 people. They defended a very large part

22 of the town of Sarajevo. And most of the members of these brigades were

23 honest people. A very small number of people were involved in the

24 breaches of discipline, and at that time we were dealing with the problem

25 of this lack of discipline, which escalated gradually and contained

Page 53

1 elements of serious crimes, especially when we came by indicia that war

2 crimes were committed in the area of responsibility of that particular

3 brigade, of the 10th Brigade.

4 Q. Can you tell us what happened in July 1993 in respect of these

5 two brigades. Did something happen?

6 A. The 9th Brigade -- and again, when I -- when I'm talking about

7 brigades, bear in mind that I am referring to just one small number of

8 their members. Members of the 9th Brigade were involved in an incident.

9 They committed a breach of discipline by having attacked the operative

10 centre of the General Staff in the town of Sarajevo. This was a very

11 serious incident. All the officers considered this a serious incident;

12 however, there were no serious consequences. This happened at the

13 beginning of July. I -- at the time, I was not the chief of security, and

14 this incident happened during the night between the 2nd and the 3rd of

15 July, 1993.

16 Q. I'd like to show you a document now, please, which is -- 65 ter

17 list is 164. It's 04036179, MFI204.

18 MS. CHANA: Can the witness be shown the B/C/S, please. Thank

19 you.

20 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry, Your Honour. There's just a procedural

21 hiccup here. Before the witness is shown that document, could we just

22 wait a moment, please. Sorry.

23 I've been provided kindly by the Prosecutor with some useful

24 proofing notes, which I presume have also been provided to the -- to the

25 Court. And on this list -- these are document by document, and they're an

Page 54

1 attempt by the Prosecutor to explain what -- what is -- what each document

2 in brief relates to and any comment that the witness may have made on it.

3 I have a three-page document. I just can't see this -- this 164

4 on it, although it could well be that I'm not looking in the right spot.

5 But I don't see 164 on it.

6 MS. CHANA: It's -- it's there, counsel, 164.

7 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm sorry. Yes, I have it. I'm sorry.

8 MS. CHANA: Yes.

9 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, that's right. It's marked and I object to

10 it.

11 Okay. The objection here -- perhaps I'll just pursue the basis

12 here. Your Honour ruled in a general sense last week on these matters.

13 But I have to register the objections now on particular grounds.

14 Before the witness is shown this document, it has to be

15 established that he saw it or had something to do with it or can comment

16 in a professional line upon it. Frankly I'm not going to object

17 unrealistically to anything that passed through his hands of course. And

18 depending on the circumstances, I might not object to a document which

19 although he didn't see it is a part of his professional line as to which

20 he'd be entitled to comment. And I think it's realistic to allow him to

21 do that because of an expertise or quasi-expertise in that field. As I

22 understand the description of this, it's a MUP document, an interior

23 ministry document has nothing to do with him, and I object to him having

24 to look at it.

25 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe Ms. Chana will ask some questions to

Page 55

1 clarify this issue at the very beginning. And we'll see how familiar this

2 witness is with this document.

3 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. Can you see this document -- could you tell us what this document

5 is, please.

6 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, that's not the sort of question that

7 has to be asked -- answered at first. For the -- the question is: Has he

8 seen it before? And by before I don't mean in proofing. I mean has he

9 seen it before in his capacity as a -- as an officer.

10 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think Ms. Chana will lead us step by step to

11 that direction. I --

12 MS. CHANA: Yes.

13 JUDGE LIU: I believe that you have to be a little bit patient on

14 that.

15 MS. CHANA: I'm obliged to Your Honours. And I have provided the

16 proofing notes where it exactly states this. And I do not, because the

17 witness is here, intend to go into some of the things. And as your -- if

18 counsel would be patient.

19 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honour, I'm sorry, it's not -- it's

20 not a question of being impatient. Since my friend has been good enough

21 to refer to the proofing notes, it's quite plain what the answer to this

22 question is going to be, and that is he hasn't seen it.

23 JUDGE LIU: Well --

24 MR. MORRISSEY: We've got a proofing note to this effect, so I

25 don't know what --

Page 56

1 JUDGE LIU: I know. I know. But we have to have it in the

2 record.

3 MR. MORRISSEY: Well --

4 JUDGE LIU: And --

5 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I understand -- and I'm certainly

6 not attempting to be obstructive here. But if I don't take the objection

7 now, then it will be objected later that I didn't.

8 And so it has to be pointed out now that what's being put to the

9 witness is a document which the witness has already told the Prosecutor

10 that -- that he didn't see.

11 As I understand -- I might be wrong about that. I might be

12 misunderstanding what's in the heading "Comments made by witness during

13 proofing," but it looks very much to me has if this witness has told the

14 Prosecutor already in the past.

15 JUDGE LIU: I know. I know that. But we have to put this in the

16 record, so we -- we'll allow the Prosecution to ask some questions to this

17 witness.

18 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I abide by Your Honour's ruling.

19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

20 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 The reason I'm putting this document to the witness is because he

22 says although he's not seen it before, he knows this information and in

23 fact used this very information to write his own reports. And that is the

24 reason I'm showing the witness.

25 JUDGE LIU: You may proceed.

Page 57

1 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, can you tell us what kind of a document this is,

3 please.

4 A. At the time this document was produced, I was not chief of the

5 security administration. I have never seen this document before, but I

6 realise that it talks about a breach of discipline by Mr. Ramiz Delalic.

7 That's the only thing I can tell you about this document.

8 Q. And if you look at the -- the substance of this document,

9 Mr. Jasarevic.

10 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I object to this procedure.

11 Now, the -- the document has now entered into the record, and the

12 fact is the witness has been crystal clear about his status. And I don't

13 understand the need to proceed this way, but it's not within the

14 procedures of this Tribunal or any court that I'm aware of to -- to

15 proceed any further.

16 Now that the witness has said he didn't see it, Your Honours,

17 it's a -- there's an appropriate way for the Prosecutor to elicit this

18 evidence, and that's to ask the witness what he knows. He can -- that's

19 admissible. It's relevant. It may possibly help this Tribunal to

20 determine certain matters, such as the notice that Mr. Halilovic had,

21 might have had, or could have had. But to put this document now when he

22 says explicitly that he hasn't looked at it is just leading because it's

23 leading in the sense that he's -- it's putting information before the

24 witness and asking him to comment, which is just another form of a leading

25 question.

Page 58

1 If the Prosecutor was to say to -- was to put a proposition to

2 this witness and say, "I put the proposition that Mr. Delalic did A, B,

3 and C, and D, do you agree," then there would be an objection as to

4 leading. By doing what the Prosecutor is now doing, my learned friend is

5 doing precisely that, putting an answer before the witness and asking him

6 to comment.

7 There's no objection Mr. Jasarevic is an experienced officer and

8 doubtless he can comment on what he saw and what he knew. But this

9 procedure now is, in my submission, once it's stripped back to its

10 essentials, is leading because he says he's never seen this document and

11 it's not his. So for that reason, it shouldn't be persisted with and

12 that's my objection.

13 JUDGE LIU: Well, Ms. Chana, I think the witness said it very

14 clear that he's never seen this document and this is the only thing he

15 could tell us about this document.

16 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour. The witness is quite clear he's

17 not seen the document.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

19 MS. CHANA: But he knows about the incident. And I'm talking

20 about this particular incident, Your Honour, which is reflected in the

21 information. And I wanted to put the information and ask the witness is

22 this the information that he himself was told, although not the document

23 itself.

24 Your Honour, this is -- we have to proceed in this manner, Your

25 Honour, because there are many other documents, and I understand my

Page 59

1 learned counsel's -- Defence counsel's objections because there are going

2 to be other documents in the same strain. And this was allowed by Your

3 Honours when we took the witness Gusic. And these are documents. It is

4 his area. He's talking about this very incident. And during proofing he

5 actually did say, Your Honour, that he can confirm the information,

6 because that was the very information he did have.

7 JUDGE LIU: Well, maybe you could ask some questions about the

8 incidents that happened there. Then after that we'll see if there's any

9 necessity to refer to this document.


11 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, could you tell us about this particular incident

12 of the -- the police station.

13 A. Your Honours, I've been very clear about it. This document was

14 produced on the 2nd of June. At the time, I was in no position to be

15 aware of this sort of information. Given my position at the time, I heard

16 that Ramiz Delalic, the person referred to in this document, had committed

17 certain breaches of discipline. As for the description of his actions

18 here, this is something that I was not familiar with in great detail at

19 the time, in view of my position at the time as a counter-intelligence

20 officer. Whereas, what's happening here in this document would fall under

21 the second or third area that we talked about earlier. I'm sorry, but I'm

22 afraid this is all I can say about this document.

23 Q. Do you know what led to this particular incident, this taking --

24 attacking the police station?

25 A. No.

Page 60

1 Q. This is the public security station in Sarajevo.

2 A. Yes, forwarded to the intelligence service of Sarajevo. This is

3 the town centre at the period under consideration.

4 Q. And the question, Mr. Jasarevic, was: What led to the 9th and

5 10th Brigade laying siege on that particular security station?

6 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I don't have any objection to

7 Mr. Jasarevic answering from his own knowledge, but I don't know that he

8 needs to have that document before him anymore. And --

9 MS. CHANA: I'm going to show the witness another document, Your

10 Honour.

11 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

12 MR. MORRISSEY: Oh, I'm sorry. Well, if there's another

13 document, I'll wait.

14 JUDGE LIU: Well, at this moment, we have some problem with the

15 e-court system, so the document is not available on our screen at this

16 moment.

17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

18 JUDGE LIU: And I heard it's coming, but it's time for a break.

19 Could we take a break first?

20 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll have 30 minutes' break. We'll resume at

22 20 minutes to 1.00.

23 --- Recess taken at 12.09 p.m.

24 --- On resuming at 12.41 p.m.

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, you may proceed, Ms. Chana.

Page 61

1 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honours.

2 I was going to show the witness on our 65 ter list, it's 161,

3 04035834, and that would be MFI205.

4 Your Honour, before counsel rises to his feet, it is another one

5 of these documents with the -- where the witness had not seen it before,

6 but I would nevertheless show it to the witness.

7 MR. MORRISSEY: Now, there is an objection. There's -- even

8 though it was said before I rose to my feet, I still rose to my feet.

9 Your Honours, because the objection -- Your Honour permitted my

10 learned friend to ask some preliminary questions of the last -- on the

11 last occasion. But you can see from item 161 that it's not necessary for

12 those questions to be asked, because if you look in the right-hand column,

13 Mr. Jasarevic has indicated very clearly what his position is: "I do not

14 know this document."

15 Now, to show him the document, therefore, is just an

16 impermissible leading question and a waste of time. If there's an

17 incident about which my friend wishes to ask, then surely the issue is ask

18 both that incident. If it's relevant to the Prosecution case, there can

19 be no objection to it. But it's really relevance. At the moment showing

20 him a document about something which he knows nothing about is irrelevant,

21 leading, and offends on all sorts of bases, so I do rise and I object to

22 it.

23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, that's quite understandable, but we should have

24 that answer in the transcript, you know. So still I'll allow Ms. Chana to

25 ask some preliminary questions on this document as well as the incidents.

Page 62

1 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour. I would say before I show the

2 document to this witness, Your Honour, I will refer Your Honours to your

3 own practice directions on the admissibility of evidence. Your Honour,

4 the other thing is the function of us cutting down on our witness list

5 quite dramatically whereupon we have to show documents and this witness

6 has already said he knows the information and it has been done before, and

7 there is barring any -- any objection on authenticity and genuineness of

8 the document, Your Honour, I would still maintain our position that the

9 witness may -- I may refer the witness to the contents of the documents.

10 JUDGE LIU: Well, you could have a try, but -- but we'll see, you

11 know, what's the results.

12 MS. CHANA: Okay.

13 JUDGE LIU: What's the answer of this witness.

14 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Q. Now, Mr. Jasarevic, do you have that document?

16 MS. CHANA: I'll give the B/C/S version to the witness, if I may.

17 A. Yes, I do.

18 Q. And where is this document from? Who's the author?

19 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honours, the preliminary question has

20 got to be asked first: Has he seen this document before apart from the

21 proofing session?

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, I agree.


24 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, have you seen this document before other than at

25 the proofing session?

Page 63

1 A. Your Honours, I don't remember having seen this document before.

2 The Prosecutor asked who the author was. It's the public security station

3 of Stari Grad. More specifically, Mr. Enes Bezdrop [phoen], whom I know,

4 but I have never seen this document before nor do I remember what the

5 document is about.

6 Q. If you look at the first paragraph --

7 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honour, I think at that point, I

8 submit that there's just no point asking this witness about that document

9 any further. An incident can be asked about.

10 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes. Yes, I agree with you that -- maybe you

11 could ask about that incident directly without referring to this document.


13 Q. On 2nd July 1993 --

14 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, could the document be returned to

15 the Prosecutor, please.

16 JUDGE LIU: Well, since the witness has already had this document

17 at his hands, maybe we could proceed

18 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, as -- it's -- the witness has to be, in my

19 submission, advised that he's being asked to deal with his own memory and

20 not from that document, and of course in those circumstances he doesn't

21 need to refer to the document. And I've got no objection to him referring

22 to his memory at all. He should. But the utility of having the document

23 sitting there in front of him, in my submission, is negligible or zero.

24 And although it may not confuse the witness, it may. Because if he's got

25 a document there, he may think or believe he's being asked to comment on

Page 64

1 it. And so I submit that once the document has been proved to be

2 absolutely unrelated to him, then there is no need for it to sit there.

3 And it's not an insult in the witness in any way. In fact, I'm sure that

4 he would deal with it in perfect good faith. But there's just no utility

5 in it, so therefore I ask that it just simply be returned to the

6 Prosecutor, where it came from, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, please.


9 Q. Would you just not look at the document as you reply to my

10 questions, please, Mr. Jasarevic, in this respect.

11 On 2nd July, 1993, what happened and what do you know about it

12 and was this information passed around?

13 A. As I've already said, between the 2nd and the 3rd July some of

14 the members of the 9th Motorised Brigade attacked in a manner of speaking

15 the operations centre of the Main Staff of the Army of Bosnia and

16 Herzegovina. I had an opportunity to discuss this with people who were

17 there at the time, such as, for example, General Zicro Suljevic, General

18 Rifat Bilajac, and so on and so forth. This was an attack, an unusual act

19 perpetrated by some of the members of the 9th Brigade. I am not familiar

20 with any details, such as how long it lasted, but I know that the incident

21 did not result in any injuries to the officials of the centre.

22 In view of my position at the time as a counter-intelligence

23 officer, I really have no further details on that incident.

24 Q. And you don't know what it was that led to this particular

25 attack?

Page 65

1 A. No.

2 Q. Well, I will now show you another document, which is -- 65 ter is

3 159. It's 04036215, and it's MFI206.

4 MS. CHANA: Can I have the Bosnian version given to the witness,

5 please.

6 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, could you please tell us where does this come from

7 and who is it to.

8 A. Your Honours, I have seen this document before. This is a

9 proposal being made to me, addressing me by my name, and it was written by

10 the chief of the military security service at the time. By looking at the

11 handwriting and signature, I recognise that this was in the hands of

12 General Fikret Muslimovic. The top left-hand side, where it says "Ivica,"

13 that's my own handwriting. I received this proposal or this task from the

14 person who was my superior at the time, and I tasked an operations officer

15 from my own department, Ivica Pinjuh. That was the gentleman's name.

16 Q. What does --

17 A. With checking, in accordance with this proposal, what needed to

18 be checked and to act accordingly, to take a statement from this source of

19 information. Now, what happened later in connection with this particular

20 assignment is not something that I can remember at this time.

21 Q. And what does the figure "0023" mean? At the bottom right-hand

22 corner.

23 A. At that time, we had to protect ourselves in a way, those of us

24 who worked in the field of military security, especially with operative

25 assignments. In order to protect ourselves, we used these codes and

Page 66

1 marks. I can't remember now whose name this was or who the code was in

2 reference to, which operations officer, but the code stands for an

3 operative signature. That means you knew exactly at the time who produced

4 this official note and forwarded it to the chief of administration,

5 General Simovic.

6 Q. Now, can you look at the first paragraph of this document,

7 please. And can you tell us in your own words what that is about.

8 A. The text says: "Operative" -- "Operational source." I've spoken

9 a great deal about operative work today -- this is an operational source

10 who provided the operations officer with this information. It is stated

11 here that there has been new information related to Ramiz Delalic.

12 Further, it says that on the 4th of July, around 2200 hours, he turned up

13 at the 9th Brigade police base, his own brigade, therefore accompanied by

14 his assault company and so on and so forth, saying what is stated here:

15 "I have been to Sefer's. He said the Laste would attack us tonight."

16 The Laste, or swallows, is a police unit, an MUP unit. Delalic then told the

17 combatants to take positions around the kindergarten in Svetozar Markovic

18 Street and be ready to strike back. This is obviously a rumour, but it was

19 not to be underestimated, and Your Honours, we were not in a position to

20 verify what the source had said. However, given what was at stake, we had to

21 react as fast as possible, and that's why this operations officer, Ivica

22 Pinjuh was tasked with this. And I think it is very likely that the code

23 number that we can see here is in reference to this operations officer.

24 Q. And now, let's look at the second paragraph of this document.

25 Can you tell us what -- what's said there.

Page 67

1 A. Here you can see that the source of this information, on the

2 3rd of July, Saturday, at Dom Ljiljana, the army centre. According to the

3 source, Ismet Bajramovic, nicknamed Celo, brought the munition from Musan

4 Topalovic, nicknamed Caco, the commander of the 10th Mountain Brigade who

5 had taken up positions at the Djuro Djakovic cinema and on top of the

6 Upija building, on the roof. This is a spot in the centre of town between

7 the army centre and the Presidency headquarters, which at the time was

8 also the Supreme Command headquarters.

9 Nearby is the Upija building. There's nothing I can ascertain

10 about this document that it doesn't already state in no uncertain terms.

11 I never verified this information following this proposal. It was taken

12 to have come from a serious source and the operations officer was sent

13 back to the source to elaborate on this, which is a form of monitoring and

14 verifying whether something would actually happen or not.

15 Q. Yes. Now, I'll take you now to the third paragraph, and I will

16 read it to you and then I'll ask you a question. It says: "I will

17 contact the operational source in relation to taking a statement regarding

18 the above-mentioned problems because I find that Sefer Halilovic's direct

19 command over the coup can be documented from these claims as well as the

20 involvement of Ismet Bajramovic, aka Celo, who was impartial and elitist

21 [indiscernible] and in the BiH army."

22 Now, can you tell me what do they mean when they use these

23 words "over the coup"? What's your understanding?

24 A. That is how an operations officer saw the problem or, rather, his

25 source.

Page 68

1 In relation to the incident between the 2nd and 3rd of July, the

2 so-called attack against the operations centre of the army, whether

3 someone actually used the term "coup," I wouldn't be inclined as a serious

4 person and a serious officer to describe that incident as a coup, which is

5 a very grave thing indeed. It was wartime, and this is what the situation

6 was. I never disregarded or ignored any bit of information, and I would

7 not have been inclined to disregard this either; however, describing it as

8 a coup, I think that's something that we have to chalk down to that

9 particular operations officer and I don't think I would agree with this

10 qualification.

11 Q. Nevertheless, which incident would they be referring to?

12 A. We can see that here the operations officer links this form of

13 behaviour as described in paragraphs 2 and 3 in reference to Mr. Delalic

14 and Mr. Bajramovic to what is described in the last paragraph, namely,

15 Mr. Sefer Halilovic. And probably, although I can't be certain, if he

16 referred to a coup, he was probably referring to the incident that

17 occurred between the 2nd and 3rd. But as I said, I can certainly offer no

18 guarantees about this.

19 Q. And this incident which occurred on the 2nd and the 3rd, which

20 incident would that be, Mr. Jasarevic?

21 A. I'm talking about when members of the 9th Motorised Brigade

22 attacked in a manner of speaking - I'm using the word "conditionally" here

23 because it doesn't tally with my military definition of the term - anyway,

24 they attacked the operations staff of the Main Staff of the Army of

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Page 69

1 Q. I will now show you another document, if I may. And that is --

2 the 65 ter is 169, 04036166, is MFI207.

3 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, I have already cleared this with the

4 Defence. This is our exhibit list, but the -- the B/C/S version that we

5 had in the Office of the Prosecutor was one without this particular

6 witness's notations, personal notations on the document. But we -- we

7 found that the Defence document, the same document, has indeed got the --

8 the witness's personal notations, and the Defence have no objection for me

9 to show them the Defence translation of this particular document.

10 Thank you, Your Honours.

11 [Prosecution counsel confer]

12 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, may I take that back. That is in

13 respect to the next document, the -- the Defence -- whatever.

14 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, sorry, can I just confirm what it is

15 that we have on the screen. Is it the ...

16 MS. CHANA: It's the -- the one I've just read out. The 65 ter

17 is 169.

18 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, I understand. Okay.


20 Q. Can you tell us about this document, Mr. Jasarevic? Who is it

21 from? Who is it to?

22 A. Yes. This document was in my hands. The handwritten part in the

23 upper right-hand corner is my handwriting. I did that while I was the

24 chief of the security administration. The signature is by Jozo Jozic, who

25 was then the under-secretary of the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina in charge of

Page 70

1 the State Security Services, and it points to the fact that -- that the

2 police station in Hadzici had been attacked on the 8th of September during

3 the night.

4 He indicates in this document that the unit whose officer was

5 Ramiz Delalic, Celo, was involved. When I received documents from various

6 institutions, from the Ministry of the Interior, from the State Security

7 Services most often, or when I received documents from the security

8 services of the corps, I took all of these documents seriously because

9 they arrived from serious institutions. I could not ignore such

10 documents. I could not keep them to myself. That's why I tasked the

11 section for analysis, which was an integral part of the administration

12 that I headed at the time, to carry out two tasks: One of them was to

13 summarise this information and publish it in the Bulletin. The Bulletin

14 was the publication that was published by the administration for security

15 almost every day and delivered it to the five or six institutions or

16 persons that I have already mentioned.

17 The second task I gave to this section was to write a letter to

18 the military security services of the 1st Corps asking them to issue a

19 criminal report, and this would serve for the military police of the

20 1st Corps to collect additional information in addition to the initial

21 one. And this was how it was done, I believe. Although I can't remember

22 all the details as I sit here.

23 Q. This Bulletin, who did it go to? Who were the addressees that

24 you said you gave this task about [sic]?

25 A. The Bulletin was sent regularly together with special information

Page 71

1 to the commander, Mr. Rasim Delic, to the president of the Presidency,

2 Mr. Alija Izetbegovic, to the Minister of Defence, to the Prime Minister

3 in the government, and to the Ministry of the Interior as well. Although

4 sometimes the information that we received came from his people, from his

5 bodies. However, this showed our position and -- towards the information

6 that we received from them. And as I've already said, we often sent this

7 information to Mr. Ejup Ganic, a member of the Presidency of the Republic

8 of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

9 Q. And this information -- and if you look at the body of the

10 document -- was about an armed attack on 8 September at 0430 hours at a

11 checkpoint near Pazaric. It says here: "Armed attacks were carried out

12 by units of Ramiz Delalic, aka Celo, in which Delalic also took part. The

13 attack was proceeded by the regular halt of the vehicle in which

14 Mr. Delalic and his fellow passengers were" --

15 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, before that goes any further, I'm

16 sorry, we don't have the English version of this at this stage. The

17 document that we had on our screen was very much briefer than that. It

18 was a one-paragraph document.

19 JUDGE LIU: Yes. This is only page 1. Maybe you could turn to

20 page 2.

21 MR. MORRISSEY: I believe we have it now. Would Your Honours

22 excuse me a moment.

23 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

24 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I should indicate to the Court, and

25 I -- I'm -- there's been no objection to this document up to this point.

Page 72

1 But as I understood the position, this evidence is admissible because it

2 goes to evidence that Mr. Jasarevic is giving concerning matters within

3 his knowledge, within his domain. Ultimately, of course, this is all

4 relevant to one thing only, and that's the notice of Mr. Halilovic. It

5 could never be led as evidence of what actually is supposed to have

6 happened at Pazaric. So I call on the Prosecutor to make it quite clear

7 what the reason for leading this evidence is, bearing in mind that Your

8 Honours refused to entertain the admission of this evidence when it was

9 tried by two other counsel on the Prosecution team through members of the

10 9th Brigade on different occasions to prove that such an incident took

11 place, a new rule that that was irrelevant.

12 Now, it may be relevant because this witness has put some

13 instructions on it. And that's why I haven't objected thus far. But if

14 it's being led as to the truth of the contents, well, it's at least triple

15 hearsay right now, and I'm going to object to it on that basis.

16 Perhaps my learned friend could say what the relevance of showing

17 this document is right now.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

19 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, the relevance is absolutely obvious.

20 The time frame is 8 September. It's about the units. It's about where

21 they were at any particular time. It's about their conduct. And all of

22 this is directly relevant to our charges. And therefore I really cannot

23 see the Defence objection, Your Honour, in respect of the relevance and

24 the units involved, which is Celo's units.

25 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honour, so that my friend can see it

Page 73

1 and so it's quite clear, Your Honour will recall the objection I made last

2 time perhaps. There is no issue as to timing. It's all been agreed

3 blissfully between the parties that these units set off on the 7th. And

4 Your Honour put me to the question when I -- when this was raised last

5 time as to timing. Mr. Re, who appeared at the time, said, "Your Honour,

6 this matter goes only to one thing, and that's timing." And I made the

7 concession in court that well, we -- we concede that timing and there's no

8 issue between the parties about it.

9 But this couldn't be admitted in a tribunal of law as to the

10 truth of its contents. It's third-hand or fourth-hand material. It can

11 be admitted in -- on the basis that I -- as I understood this other

12 material is being led, to show perhaps that it was that some incidents

13 were known about and perhaps people should have drawn conclusions from

14 those incidents, if they knew, if my friend is actually prepared to ask

15 that question. But it's not admissible on the basis my friend seeks to

16 lead it, so since she's indicated it, I object to it being admitted into

17 evidence.

18 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Morrissey, I think I made myself very clear that

19 we'll deal with the admission of this document at a later stage. At the

20 same time, I'll allow the Prosecution to use this document -- I mean, to

21 show it to the witnesses to see what we could get from this witness. And

22 later on we'll decide whether this document is relevant to this case or

23 not. That's another matter.

24 So, Ms. Chana, you may proceed.

25 MS. CHANA: Well, thank you, Your Honours.

Page 74

1 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, I was just reading to you the content of this

2 particular information that you said you passed to -- to all these

3 individuals that you listed earlier on, which is the highest-ranking

4 command and political leadership in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And -- and I was

5 reading through it, and it says how he -- "Delalic" - and I'll carry on

6 reading - "refused to show identification to the members of the police

7 while insulting them with offensive words and firing a couple of shots in

8 the air above the heads of the policemen Ejub Hadzic and Enes Sabic. When

9 the police confronted Delalic, around 50 members of his units arrived in

10 to the site in two trucks from Igman Mountain. Celo's soldiers then

11 disarmed policemen and were shouting and swearing after which they

12 physically attacked Hidajet Selimovic, Enes Sabic and Ejub Hadzic and beat

13 them up with rifle butts. As a result of serious injuries, the head, the

14 body, and the dislocation of the hand, Hadzic was transported to the

15 hospital near Tarcin," et cetera, et cetera.

16 Now, this was indeed the information that you passed on to your

17 superiors; is that correct?

18 A. It is. And also to the security services of the 1st Corps asking

19 them to take measures because Mr. Delalic was their subordinate. Both him

20 and his units were subordinated to the 1st Corps.

21 Q. And one of the people who was given this was the Main Staff of

22 the armed forces. It's on the front of the document. Is that correct?

23 A. I am not sure that I understood your question properly. I

24 apologise.

25 Q. If you'd look at the front of the document. If you'd go to

Page 75

1 page 1 of the document.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. There are people to whom it has gone. And one is Main Staff of

4 the armed forces, the security administration, Main Staff of the armed

5 forces, security administration. Are these -- on the right-hand side, the

6 front of the document.

7 A. I apologise. I can't find it. Either I don't see it or it

8 doesn't exist in the document that I have.

9 Q. I'm seeing it in the English.

10 [Prosecution counsel confer]

11 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, it may be that my friend is

12 referring to the SVB's own stamp.

13 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes.

14 MS. CHANA: All right. I'll -- yes, obviously from the English

15 version, Your Honour, there's a -- all right.

16 MR. MORRISSEY: So, Your Honour, could I just be -- it had better

17 be cleared up from where this was sent and to whom it was sent.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Chana.


20 Q. Can you please, once again for the record, say who sent this

21 document and who received it.

22 I'm sorry, Mr. Jasarevic, the question was -- the one last

23 question on that document: Just to make it clear and for the record who

24 was the document sent to and who was it from? The addressor and the

25 addressee. Very briefly.

Page 76

1 A. The document was sent to the staff of the Supreme Command, to the

2 administration for security, and it was sent by the under-secretary of the

3 Ministry of the Interior, Mr. Jozo Jozic.

4 Q. Thank you. I'd like to now show you another document, which

5 is -- the 65 ter is 170. It's 04036165, and it's MFI208.

6 MS. CHANA: May I give the -- the Bosnian version, please.

7 Q. This document is by you, isn't it, Mr. Jasarevic?

8 A. Yes, this is my signature.

9 Q. Yes. And can you tell us about this particular document. What

10 are you doing in this?

11 A. This is the implementation of what I wrote in my own hand. One

12 of my subordinates issued this task to the 1st Corps on my instructions,

13 and that's why I signed this document. This was a follow-up on my

14 instructions.

15 Q. And what are you asking to be done, and to who are you asking

16 this from?

17 A. From the security services of the 1st Corps, in paragraph 1 of

18 this document, I am first informing them of what we had received in the

19 previous document, describing what had happened, and I am giving them a

20 task. This is not an order. These are tasks: To collect evidence,

21 material, and initiate criminal procedure against the perpetrator, and

22 inform the Supreme Command Staff security administration about it.

23 Q. And who was the perpetrator?

24 A. In the document that we received from the MUP, we found the name

25 of Mr. Ramiz Delalic. And this is the only comment I can give you, and it

Page 77

1 stems from that document.

2 Q. And you asked for investigations to be conducted and for material

3 to be collected against Ramiz Delalic, aka Celo, by this particular

4 document.

5 A. Yes. And you can see this in the last paragraph of this

6 document.

7 Q. Now, who was the military security officer of the 10th Brigade

8 and under whose command was he?

9 A. The security officer of the 10th Brigade was Mr. Senad Hasic. He

10 was subordinated to the brigade commander, Mr. Musan Topalovic, Caco. And

11 within the scope of professional security issues, he was under the

12 jurisdiction of the security department of the 1st Corps headed at the

13 time by Mr. Sacir Arnautovic.

14 Q. Did you ever ask him for information about the 10th Brigade?

15 MR. MORRISSEY: I object to this.

16 Your Honours, we've now been through the witnesses from the

17 Grabovica crime base. And the Prosecution have led and the Prosecution

18 have culled witnesses here on the basis that they were economical with the

19 truth and they left standing other witnesses who presumably they rely on

20 as truthful, those including Witness D, the other Arnautovic, Erdin

21 Arnautovic, and also a number of others, including those who were the

22 civilians there. Now, not one of those witnesses were asked nor did they

23 give the evidence that the 10th Brigade were present or took part in this

24 tragedy at Grabovica. There's no evidence at all of the 10th Brigade

25 being involved.

Page 78

1 Now, it will be apparent from the materials that the Prosecution

2 had hopes of the 10th Brigade being established to be there, but the

3 evidence on that score did not materialise. And in my submission, it is

4 just irrelevant to ask questions now about the 10th Brigade. It is just

5 irrelevant to the matters before the Court. No one is suggesting that the

6 10th Brigade were involved in the murders. Not one witness has. For that

7 reason, I object to questions relating to the reputation, doings, or other

8 performances by the 10th Brigade at any stage, frankly, because history

9 has passed the 10th Brigade by in this trial, as far as I can adjudge the

10 evidence. And I object therefore to that question and I indicate an

11 objection to others to come.

12 JUDGE LIU: At this stage, I think we are still in the

13 proceedings. The Prosecution is going to present her case step by step.

14 So at this moment, we are not sure whether the 10th Brigade is involved or

15 not. Maybe in the future they will be involved.

16 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Could I just indicate this, Your Honour,

17 that the Prosecution really would in those circumstances have an

18 obligation to try to elicit such evidence from the witnesses who were at

19 the crime scene at the time. Now, we've had 9th Brigade people, and none

20 of them were asked and indeed none of them give that evidence.

21 I understand what Your Honour says, and, you know, the case is

22 not over yet. But at a certain point material becomes less probative than

23 it is prejudicial, and Your Honours have a discretion to exclude evidence

24 like that.

25 Now, I understand it may be that you need to hear more before you

Page 79

1 can make that decision. But again, it would be hollow for me to make the

2 objection later when it's all in. And for that reason, I do make the

3 objection now. I understand Your Honour's ruling of course. I'm not

4 going to seek to traverse the ruling. But I can indicate what I indicate

5 now, to show that I do wish to maintain this objection in relation to any

6 such document that concerns 10th.

7 Yes, but that's what I have to say about it at this moment, Your

8 Honour.

9 JUDGE LIU: Well, maybe at this time we could ask a question to

10 the Prosecution, whether the 10th Brigade is involved in that incident.

11 Is that your case or not?

12 MS. CHANA: [Microphone not activated].

13 Sorry, Your Honour. There are two levels to this. Part of the

14 Prosecution theory is that knowing the criminality of both the 9th and

15 10th Brigade, they were asked to participate at the operation. So to that

16 extent, it's relevant to the Prosecution theory that the reputation of

17 these two brigades becomes very important for the Prosecution to

18 establish. The criminal reputation of these two brigades. That is the

19 basis upon which we are leading evidence in respect of both the 9th and

20 the 10th, and that has been the position, Your Honour, in the pre-trial

21 brief and in the indictment.

22 JUDGE LIU: Well, if you don't have the evidence to show that the

23 10th Brigade is involved in the tragedies in the Grabovica, that village,

24 so what's the relevance for their, you know, so-called bad reputations

25 before?

Page 80

1 MS. CHANA: It's very -- with respect, Your Honour, it's

2 extremely relevant, and as Your Honour very well said, the case is built

3 step by step. It is a step in the Prosecution case. It will come all

4 together. And the Prosecution should not be precluded at this stage, Your

5 Honour, from not leading evidence on what they think -- what they feel is

6 an essential aspect of the Prosecution theory, that the -- the accused in

7 fact asked for these brigades to participate. That is one of the

8 Prosecution theories. And the import of this will become very obvious,

9 Your Honour, as the case unfolds.

10 JUDGE LIU: Yes. So at this stage --

11 Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

12 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, you don't have an answer to your

13 question. Does the Prosecution say that the 10th Brigade were involved in

14 the killings or not? That ought to be answered right now.

15 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that the Prosecution said she will

16 lead those evidence step by step. At a later stage we'll see the whole

17 picture of the theory of the Prosecution's case.

18 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Your Honour, she does say so. That's

19 right. But that wasn't the answer to Your Honour's question. Your

20 Honour, the Prosecution really has an obligation to say whether or not

21 they're proposing to lead evidence that the 10th Brigade were involved in

22 the killings. It's a very simple question. It's not one that requires a

23 conference. The Defence has the right to know the case we're meeting. We

24 need to know that. And frankly the Tribunal needs to know it as well.

25 Why can't it be answered? It's not a question of all will become clear in

Page 81

1 the future. We're now halfway through -- and although we may not be

2 halfway through the witness numbers. We're proceeding swiftly. We've

3 dealt with many witnesses. It's getting a bit late, Your Honour. And, to

4 be honest, this is a simple question. It really ought to have been

5 contained at an early stage. But anyway, now the question has been asked.

6 I've asked it. Your Honour has asked it. And the one component that's

7 missing is an answer. And that's what we now seek.

8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Chana. Do you have answer to my question?

9 MS. CHANA: No, I don't have you know answer to that question.

10 And with respect to this particular piece of evidence and this witness,

11 Your Honour, I don't think it's even, I would submit, proper for a witness

12 to be sitting and hearing all of this. Perhaps some of these issues can

13 be brought up at a later stage.

14 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

15 MS. CHANA: Once Your Honour has ruled that I can admit this

16 evidence, or I can ask about it, any other question and answers, I think

17 this should be brought up at a later stage and not with the witness in the

18 room, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Since we still have 15 minutes to go, I will

20 let you continue with other proceedings. Maybe we could find some other

21 time to discuss that issue.

22 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I will add one thing, Your Honour.

23 Could we take 60 seconds at the end of today's proceedings to get an

24 answer to that question? The Defence is very keen to know. Your Honour

25 has asked it. If my friend is concerned about the witness, I will sit

Page 82

1 down and be quiet. But an answer should come today, in my submission.

2 MS. CHANA: Can I continue, Your Honour?


4 MS. CHANA: Thank you.

5 Q. The question, Mr. Jasarevic, was - and I apologise for all of

6 this - did you ask the security officer of the 10th Brigade for any

7 information concerning these matters?

8 MR. MORRISSEY: There was an objection --


10 MR. MORRISSEY: -- based on an answer. My objection was raised,

11 Your Honour, and pending an answer to that question. My friend wants to

12 persist with it. There's an initial barrier to jump over, and that is to

13 answer Your Honour's question. And frankly, I can't see why that can't be

14 asked in front of the witness. That seems to me to be a -- an attempt --

15 well, I won't say it's an attempt to do it. It's not an attempt to do

16 anything. But why don't we just have an answer to that question, Your

17 Honour. And then that this is may not be objected to. It's just such an

18 easy basic question in the case, and it really reveals a problem, in my

19 submission, but it's -- anyway, I do object to this question because we

20 haven't had an answer to the question I originally asked.

21 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think we have already decided that we'll take

22 a few minutes to discuss this issue at the end, and at this stage we'll

23 let Ms. Chana to continue no matter what it is, the question is, to finish

24 this part of the proceedings.

25 You may proceed, Ms. Chana.

Page 83

1 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, you must know the question by now. Can you please

2 answer it? Did you ask any information from the military security officer

3 of the 10th Brigade about this information?

4 A. Your Honours, it wasn't usual, especially for the head of the

5 security administration, to communicate with a brigade's head of security

6 because you have the corps level in between also. But simply because we

7 had information that in the area of responsibility of the 10th Brigade

8 there were certain incidents occurring, the security service of the

9 1st Corps failed in their communication with us to secure a normal

10 functioning and normal reporting back to the security officer of the

11 10th Brigade. I used my position and authority, even my experience, to

12 get involved on two or three occasions by getting in touch with this

13 security officer, Mr. Senad Hasic.

14 Q. And what happened when you used this initiative?

15 A. The results of my conversation with Mr. Hasic, there were none to

16 speak of. Although I tried in a number of different ways, I failed. I

17 tried to get him in the right mood. I tried to tell him about his duties

18 and obligations. I tried in the most humane way possible, bearing in mind

19 the fact that he had not been trained as a security officer to, to talk

20 him into cooperating, to talk him into treating the security organ of the

21 1st Corps in a fair manner. I failed, however, and I was greatly

22 dissatisfied with this contact that I made with him.

23 Q. So what was his demeanour? What would he say to you? Did he

24 give you a response?

25 A. I can't quite remember specifically. He was well behaved in a

Page 84

1 way during that conversation. But the conversation yielded no results.

2 He refused to accept my proposals and suggestions, the purely professional

3 ones.

4 Q. And who was the military security officer of the 9th Brigade?

5 A. The security officer of the 9th Brigade was Mr. Tomo Juric, an

6 experienced security officer who had worked for the state security service

7 in Zenica for a long time, a mature and experienced officer and someone

8 who really knows the ins and outs of the job, unlike this person that I

9 have just referred to, the rather young fellow, who did not have any of

10 the professional and technical knowledge.

11 Q. Did you ask him for information?

12 A. From time to time I had more or less the same reason as with the

13 security officer of the 10th Brigade, to get in touch with Mr. Tomo Juric.

14 His cooperation with the security service of the 1st Corps was very good.

15 In actual fact, Your Honours, I tried using my own position to approach

16 those people, the brigade commanders, or anyone who was responsible in

17 order to help in a way the security service of the 1st Corps in exercising

18 their overall command. I tried to talk sense into them. I tried to

19 persuade them not to commit these disciplinary errors. It was probably

20 thanks to Mr. Tomislav Juric who very skilfully, I assume, backed me in

21 front of Mr. Delalic that I managed to get certain results, even with

22 Mr. Delalic. I managed to return an all-terrain vehicle that he had

23 picked up somewhere or rather -- or rather, his people, from a French

24 UNPROFOR unit. There was some communication.

25 The result achieved were not those that was required, of course,

Page 85

1 but it was becoming more effective than the communication that we had with

2 the 10th Brigade.

3 Q. But what was the general relationship between the 9th,

4 10th Brigade, and the military security?

5 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, that question really ought to be

6 divided into two parts: What was the relationship between the 9th Brigade

7 and the military security; and what was the relationship between the

8 10th Brigade and the military security.

9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, it's a kind of compound question. You may break

10 it up.

11 Q. Yes. Can you take each brigade at the time. The attitude of the

12 9th first, and then the 10th, to the military security generally.

13 A. As I have already said, based on the information that I had, the

14 security service of the 9th Brigade and the security service of the

15 1st Corps had some communication. That communication probably did not

16 yield the required results whereas the communication between the security

17 service of the 10th Brigade and the security service of the 1st Corps was

18 significantly poorer.

19 Q. Do you know a chap called Amir Delkic?

20 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, before we move to Mr. Amir Delkic, I

21 wonder if the time, being what it is, it might be an appropriate moment to

22 finish the cross-examination of this witness for today and deal with the

23 other matter.

24 JUDGE LIU: Well, Ms. Chana, do you agree that we stop here?

25 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour. I was just going through my notes.

Page 86

1 Yes, perhaps this is a good, convenient point to stop, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Thank you.

3 Well, witness, I'm afraid that you have to stay in The Hague for

4 another day, so you have to remember that you are still under the oath, so

5 do not speak to anybody about your testimony and do not let anybody speak

6 to you about it. Do you understand that?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand that, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

9 Madam Usher will show you out of the room. We'll see you

10 tomorrow afternoon.

11 [The witness stands down]

12 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Chana, are you ready to disclose your case

13 to us or your theory to us?

14 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour.

15 As I said, there are two aspects to this, Your Honour: One is

16 the actual criminality; the other is who we have evidence of who committed

17 the crimes.

18 Your Honours will -- whether the -- the 10th Brigade - and now we

19 talk about the 10th Brigade only, Your Honour - whether they actually

20 committed any crimes on the ground in Grabovica is one issue, and the

21 other issue is whether they had a criminal reputation and they were asked

22 to come onto the -- onto the scene of the crime, which is they were asked

23 to come to Grabovica.

24 I'd like to separate these two issues.

25 Now, in respect of the known criminal behaviour of the

Page 87

1 10th Brigade, that is extremely relevant to show that having known the

2 criminal reputation of this brigade, the accused nevertheless asked them

3 to come into combat in an area and be billeted with civilians.

4 Whether there's any evidence to show whether they in fact

5 committed these crimes or whether members of the 10th Brigade were also

6 part and parcel of the soldiers who committed some of the crimes, yes, we

7 are prepared to say that as of now we do not have any evidence which we've

8 produced to show that members of the 10th Brigade killed any one of the

9 civilians, Croat civilians, in Grabovica.

10 Your Honour, that is as far as I'm prepared, and if I'm allowed,

11 to go by Your Honours in respect of answering this.

12 So far, Your Honour, the -- the -- there is no evidence, but we

13 also know, Your Honours, that we do not know who killed all of the

14 civilians. We do not have all of the perpetrators' names. We have some.

15 We do not have all of them. So the implication is still wide open as to

16 who committed these crimes and who was brought onto the ground.

17 Your Honour is smiling.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

19 Any response from the Defence?

20 MR. MORRISSEY: We're grateful to the Prosecutor for clarifying

21 the situation in the way which they have, and we'll proceed on the basis

22 of that clarification from this point onwards in the case. And I'm very

23 grateful to my friend for dealing with it as she has.

24 Could I indicate therefore that my submission will be that there

25 really is no basis for leading evidence of the criminal reputation of the

Page 88

1 10th Brigade from now on. It's just plain irrelevant.

2 Given what my friend says about the multiplicity of possible

3 killers at Grabovica, one wonders what limit could ever be put. You could

4 lead evidence that the whole Bosnian army was guilty of committing

5 offences from time to time and that therefore they should never have been

6 used in combat where civilians were living because there was a -- a real

7 likelihood that they would or might commit such offences. But it's just

8 so speculative it's not permissible for the Prosecutor to lead that

9 evidence. To lead evidence that the 10th are devils when they have no

10 evidence that the 10th did anything is an unsustainable proposition.

11 The Prosecutor have clear evidence that members of the

12 9th Brigade committed killings. They are permitted to lead evidence

13 concerning that reputation and to attempt to link it as best they can to

14 the case against Mr. Halilovic and the only limit upon them there is a

15 limit of relevance. But the 10th Brigade's reputation is now, in my

16 submission, irrelevant and therefore no evidence should be led of it.

17 Now, rather than deal with this as a global matter on the run, we

18 would be prepared to -- to deal with it by way of a brief motion or we can

19 deal with it document by document, as the Prosecution proceeds in the

20 normal way. I don't wish to turn this into a public inquiry into the

21 Prosecution's way of presenting the case. What I'd say though is it's

22 quite clear now they just can't be leading evidence about the 10th when

23 they themselves admit they have no idea whether any members of the 10th

24 committed any murders. That's their concession, it's -- it's a realistic

25 concession based on the evidence frankly. They've seen the evidence. It

Page 89

1 wasn't appropriate for me to raise that up until now, but now it is, and

2 they've given it a fair answer, which we accept, so that that's the basis

3 on which my original objection was raised and I can indicate it's going to

4 be the basis for the future objections to the 10th Brigade material but

5 not to the 9th Brigade material.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE LIU: Well, after the consultations with my colleagues and

8 after hearing the parties on that very issue, we believe that the

9 principle of hearing the evidence is the relevance to this case. Any case

10 so long as it's relevant to this case, it is admissible or usable at least

11 in the courtroom.

12 And now we are in the stage of the Prosecution's case and we are

13 still in the very beginning of her case. We could not quite appreciate

14 the whole picture of the Prosecution's case. Generally speaking the Trial

15 Chamber could not interfere or give any instructions to either party on

16 how to conduct their case and how to pursue their theory of the evidence

17 in any cases. So at this stage we will allow the Prosecution to continue

18 to present any evidence concerning of the 10th Brigade and we will see at

19 a later stage if there's any need to alter our positions on that aspect.

20 Of course, the Defence team has the full right to challenge the

21 relevance of any piece of the evidence presented by the Prosecution in the

22 future proceedings.

23 It is so decided.

24 So the hearing for today is adjourned, and we will meet tomorrow

25 afternoon in the same courtroom.

Page 90

1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,

2 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 1st day of

3 March, 2005, at 2.15 p.m.