Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 34763

 1                           Tuesday, 5 March 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, everyone.  I think we are hearing

 7     French translation.  Is it only I or -- yes, everybody.  I think it has

 8     been sorted out.  Today we will be sitting pursuant to Rule 15 bis with

 9     Judge Morrison being aware due to his official functions.

10             Good morning, Mr. Markovic.  Would you make the solemn

11     declaration.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.  I solemnly declare

13     that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Please be seated and make yourself

15     comfortable.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17                           WITNESS:  OBREN MARKOVIC

18                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

19             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Markovic, before you commence your evidence, I

20     must draw your attention to a certain Rule of Rules of Evidence that we

21     have here at the Tribunal, that is Rule 90(E) of the Rules of Procedure

22     and Evidence.  Under this Rule, you may object to answering questions

23     from Mr. Karadzic, the Prosecution, or even from the Judges if you

24     believe that your answer might incriminate you in a criminal offence.  In

25     this context, "incriminate" means saying something that might amount to

Page 34764

 1     an admission of guilt for a criminal offence or saying something that

 2     provides evidence that you might have committed a criminal offence.

 3     However, should you think that an answer might incriminate you and as a

 4     consequence you refuse to answer the question, I must let you know that

 5     the Tribunal has the power to compel you to answer the question, but in

 6     that situation, the Tribunal will ensure that your testimony compelled in

 7     such circumstances would not be used in any case that might be laid

 8     against you for any offence save and except the offence of giving false

 9     testimony.

10             Do you understand what I have just told you, sir?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Fully.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please proceed.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Excellencies.

14     Good morning to everyone.

15                           Examination by Mr. Karadzic:

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Markovic.

17        A.   Good morning.

18        Q.   I have to remind both of us to speak slowly and pause between our

19     interventions so as to have everything recorded in the transcript.

20             Mr. Markovic, did you provide a statement to my Defence team?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Thank you.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 1D7823 in e-court.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Do you see that statement before you on the screen?

Page 34765

 1        A.   I do.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Have you read it and signed it?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go to the last page for the

 6     witness to see whether it is his signature.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Is this your signature?

 9        A.   Yes, it is.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Does the statement accurately reflect what you told

11     my Defence team?

12        A.   It does.

13        Q.   Thank you.  If I were to put the same questions to you here in

14     the courtroom today, would your answers be basically the same?

15        A.   Yes.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Your Excellencies, I

17     seek to tender the 92 ter package.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Ms. McKenna, any objections -- yes, I'll hear from

19     you first, Mr. Robinson.

20             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, thank you, Mr. President.  We're actually

21     offering three documents as associated exhibits - that's 1D15062,

22     1D15098, and 1D15101 - and we would ask that they be added to our

23     65 ter list as we hadn't interviewed this witness at the time of our list

24     being filed.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Any objection, Ms. McKenna.

Page 34766

 1             MS. McKENNA:  Your Honour, we have no objection to -- excuse

 2     me -- to 1D15062.  As regards 1D15098, the description -- the discussion

 3     of the document in paragraphs 11 and 16 of Mr. Markovic's statement are

 4     unclear, and it's unclear how the document supports the proposition in

 5     those statements, so we request that this be clarified live.  And as

 6     regards 1D15101, the source and the date of this document are unclear, at

 7     least from the English translation, so we would request that this also be

 8     clarified live with the witness.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  The Chamber shares the view of Ms. McKenna as

10     regards 1D15098, and her comments is also fair enough as to the source

11     and date of this document so they can be clarified with the witness by

12     Mr. Karadzic directly.  So we'll admit the Rule 92 ter statement as well

13     as 1D15062.  Shall we give the number now.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  The statement will be

15     Exhibit D3073, and 1D15062 will be Exhibit D3074.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I will read out summary

18     of Mr. Obren Markovic's statement in the English language, and then we

19     will go back to the document that needs some shedding light on.

20             [In English] Mr. Obren Markovic was a member of the

21     War Presidency of Brcko municipality and secretary of the Municipal

22     Secretariat for National Defence.

23             He noticed that with the emergence of the multi-party system in

24     BH, nationalist parties appeared and the SDA and the HDZ focused all of

25     their political activities on the secession of BH.  At pre-election

Page 34767

 1     rallies, the HDZ and SDA publicly declared unity by tying their party

 2     flags together.  Obren Markovic considers that these activities were

 3     aimed at thwarting the Serbs' interests and these actions aroused fear

 4     and concern for their personal safety and that of their families.  The

 5     armed conflict in Croatia also had a great impact on the overall

 6     political situation and security of all people in Brcko as many Serbs

 7     feared a repeat of the Second World War events.

 8             By mid-1991, some members of the National Guard Corps from

 9     Croatia appeared publicly wearing paramilitary uniforms, significantly

10     worsening the security situation in the town and exacerbating the

11     inter-ethnic tensions.  At the same time, the Croats and the SDA

12     organised check-points on the roads leading to Croatian and Muslim

13     villages.  Armed paramilitaries manned these check-points.  As a result,

14     the Serbs could not pass through on these roads and would be sent back.

15     Mr. Obren Markovic later learned that the Muslims were also illegally

16     arming themselves, receiving weapons from Sarajevo, and one from the

17     Republic of Croatia.  It was general knowledge that in 1991-1992 the

18     Croatian leadership aimed to spread the armed conflict and war from the

19     Republic of Croatia to BH as this would make their fight with the JNA

20     easier.

21             Obren Markovic is aware that the secretary of the Republican

22     Secretariat of All People's Defence of BH issued an order to all

23     municipal secretariats to obstruct the mobilisation of JNA units and to

24     stop sending soldiers for military service, quickly followed by the SDA

25     and HDZ leadership.  This was to assist in the creation of conditions for

Page 34768

 1     secession as well as changes of personnel that were made, initiated from

 2     the top.  This meant that mostly SDA and HDZ members were assigned to the

 3     key positions and the newly appointed national defence immediately began

 4     to violate the constitutions -- constitution and laws which were in force

 5     prohibiting the JNA mobilisation.

 6             The SDA and HDZ decided to impose further obstructions by

 7     blocking off the JNA units and commands in Brcko.  When the Serbian

 8     people heard that the JNA could not carry out their basic tasks, they

 9     began organising themselves into guards in the parts of the town mostly

10     populated by Serbs.  In March and April 1992, the JNA, with a view of

11     preserving peace in the territory of the municipality command in Brcko,

12     tried to establish a unit that would be equally made up of the Muslims,

13     Serbs, and Croats.  However, the Muslims and Croats widely rejected this

14     initiative.

15             Obren Markovic is aware that the Croatian military formations

16     blew up the bridge across the River Sava on the eve of the

17     Catholic Easter in 1992, and many who had visited Brcko for a holiday

18     could not go back home.  On the 1st of May, 1992, there was a further

19     explosion which caused the bridge to collapse.  This incident was falsely

20     represented by the HDZ and SDA leaders.  Because the Croatian military

21     formations had damaged the bridge a month before, there were no vehicles

22     on the bridge when the incident occurred.  This incident was manipulated

23     by the SDA and HDZ to place blame on the SDS and JNA.

24             In some villages, the Muslims and Croats set up their

25     paramilitary units as early as spring 1992.  In villages that were

Page 34769

 1     surrounded by Muslim and Croat villages -- in the Serbian village that

 2     were surrounded by Muslim and Croat villages, mass crimes were

 3     perpetrated against the Serbs in all of them.  Those Serbs who were not

 4     killed were either expelled or sent to camps.  In three days, 63 Serbs

 5     were killed and all the others were expelled.

 6             In the afternoon of the 1st of May, 1992, an all-out attack was

 7     launched by the Muslims on Grcica, an area of the town populated by the

 8     Serbs only.  This incident was well planned as all military facilities

 9     were targeted simultaneously and incidents began the war in Brcko.

10             The Muslim-Croatian paramilitary formations in Brcko were so well

11     organised and powerful that they managed to paralyse life and work in the

12     municipality.  The local authorities ceased to play any role whatsoever.

13     Access to the hospital and the health centre were obstructed, so the

14     Serbian people set up a makeshift medical station in Stanovi village

15     where they provided medical care for the injured.

16             On 3rd of May, 1992, a unit from the 22nd Light Partisan Brigade

17     was mobilised to lift the blockade of the town, which was successful.  A

18     front line was established along the outer edge of the outlying suburbs.

19     This remained same until the end of the war.  The VRS had to defend this

20     area, whereas the BH Army sought each day to penetrate the town.

21             Throughout the war, the BH Army and HVO members aimed their

22     artillery fire at the very centre of the town in an indiscriminate manner

23     causing large-scale destruction of civilian facilities and killing or

24     wounding a great number of civilians in the town.  Cannons, tanks,

25     howitzers and multiple-barrel rocket launchers were used to fire upon the

Page 34770

 1     town.  Mr. Obren Markovic is aware that Serbs, Muslims and Croats lost

 2     their lives in equal numbers and women and children were also killed.

 3     Due to these attacks, civilians of all ethnicities tried to leave the

 4     territory.  No one was expelled against their wishes.

 5             From the beginning of the armed conflict, the police station was

 6     split along ethnic lines, and the local authorities were in a state of

 7     general disarray.  Criminals and paramilitaries -- paramilitary units

 8     took advantage of this period of anarchy and quickly gained control over

 9     the central urban zone.  As the local authorities were unable to control

10     the situation, the assistance of the republican organs and policemen

11     arrived in the area and began to establish order.  On 15th of May, many

12     Serbs watched the death of JNA soldiers broadcast and television - that

13     happened in Tuzla - which greatly aroused the fear around the Brcko

14     inhabitants, in addition to the suffering of Serbs in the municipalities

15     located upstream.

16             Obren Markovic is aware that VRS 1st Posavina Motorised Brigade

17     were informed about the positive humanitarian law and the Geneva

18     Conventions and did not commit crimes against BH Army soldiers who were

19     taken prisoners.  However, he is aware that members of the BH Army

20     committed crimes against captured Serbian soldiers.

21             [Interpretation] That was the summary.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, since now you're going to deal with

23     two associated exhibits, I'd like to deal with the one that we admitted

24     already at the same time since it is referred to in the same paragraph,

25     and given that it is an excerpt from a magazine article, it was not clear

Page 34771

 1     enough in what context it was referred to in that paragraph.  Please

 2     continue.

 3             Yes, I meant 1D15062.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have in e-court 1D10562 --

 5     1D15062.  Can we enlarge it?  The Serbian version.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Do you know what magazine this is, Mr. Markovic?  Can we go to

 8     the top of the page?  There's probably a name there.  I think it is the

 9     "Javnost."

10        A.   No.  It's called "Brcanski Pogledi."

11        Q.   So it was a newspaper; right?

12        A.   Yes, during the war.

13        Q.   Did you know this Semso?  Let me find his full name.  What is the

14     article -- well, let's see -- sorry.

15             Can we see the left-hand side where it says by order of

16     Jerko Doko, and can you explain to us what it is about?

17        A.   Mr. President, at the time I was employed in the Municipal

18     Secretariat for National Defence on mobilisation calls of the then JNA.

19        Q.   Could you please slow down just a little bit.

20        A.   When we received an order from our superior command, that is to

21     say, the Tuzla Corps, to mobilise units of employees, workers' units, a

22     small number of Croats and Muslims only responded to such call-ups.

23             The then secretary of the Municipal Secretariat for National

24     Defence, Mr. Dzevdet Kehonjic told us that he had received from Jerko

25     Doko, the republican secretary for national defence, a letter by which

Page 34772

 1     mobilisation and military exercises are being prohibited.  However,

 2     pursuant to an order of our superior military commands, military training

 3     continued irrespectively, but by which time most of the Croats and

 4     Muslims no longer responded.

 5        Q.   Thank you.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, does this

 7     suffice?

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Please carry on.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at 1D07848.

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Mr. Karadzic repeat the second number.

11     Apparently the two documents are related.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   I would kindly ask you to tell us what it says on the

14     certificate.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So 1D07848.  By mistake it was not

16     attached to the document that was already admitted.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Can you explain to us what this is, because we still do not have

19     a translation.

20        A.   Mr. President, this is a summons to serve in the armed forces.

21     Such summons or call-ups were sent to all those who had war deployment

22     before the war.  Ivica Perikic, father's name Mate, is a Croat and he was

23     summoned to respond to the assembly point 4128 on the 20th of September,

24     1991.  Perhaps we can scroll down to see the note by our courier who

25     returned from the field.  The father of this person, Mato, refused to

Page 34773

 1     receive the summons and stated that he would throw a hand grenade at the

 2     barracks, which is something that actually repeated itself during

 3     demonstrations.  And there is no record of anyone responding to the

 4     call-up, which was an obligation under the then Laws on Social

 5     Self-Protection and National Defence.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can this be marked for

 7     identification?

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 9             MS. McKENNA:  No objection.

10             JUDGE KWON:  We will mark it for identification pending English

11     translation.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  As MFI D3075, Your Honours.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we have 1D150 --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction, 1D15101.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D15101.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Can you tell us what this is?

18        A.   Mr. President, these are excerpts from the Muslim newspaper which

19     was published during the war.  I don't know what it's called, but this is

20     what we got hold of.

21        Q.   Did you know this Semso Sakovic, and can you tell us what his

22     position was and importance?

23        A.   Mr. Semso Sakovic is engineer.  Before the war he had worked in

24     Brcko in a company, a construction company, I believe.  When he received

25     summons or draft papers, he showed up in the barracks once, but the next

Page 34774

 1     time around he did not.  He was a member of the SDA leadership.

 2        Q.   What is he discussing in this interview?

 3        A.   Well, during briefings at the brigade command, we knew that the

 4     Muslim-Croat forces were being armed, and we were told such information

 5     every time.  This document speaks to the fact that he himself confirmed

 6     our knowledge about the routes they received arms from Croatia and how

 7     weapons and equipment were being transported across the Sava River.  And

 8     there's also mention here of the Brcko police which had documents to the

 9     effect that some boys were being discovered transporting weapons by

10     policemen.  Six rifles were found as well as 2.000 rounds and a

11     machine-gun, I believe.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, you said this was an interview.  Why

13     don't you put such questions to the witness?  We know nothing about this

14     document.  I'm not sure if it is clear from the document itself.  And

15     Ms. McKenna's point was also related to the same point, what this

16     document is about and when it was published.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It seems we cannot establish that,

18     Your Excellency, but it's called "Dossier, Brcko residents prepare to

19     resist aggression."

20             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, if we cannot establish such

21     provenance, how can we admit it at all?

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Mr. Markovic, how did you get a hold of this?  It's a dossier

24     rather than an interview, but he is being cited.  How did you receive

25     this article?

Page 34775

 1        A.   Right after the war, as Bosniaks, Muslims, and Croats were

 2     returning to Brcko town, communication began developing again, and thus

 3     we received their newspapers and they received ours.  It was immediately

 4     after the war.

 5        Q.   And how did you receive this personally?

 6        A.   I received it from the vice-president of the Inmates Association

 7     of Republika Srpska, Mr. Nikola Ristic.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Is this the 10th of June, 1991?  Is that what we see

 9     in the first column?  Is that when the war preparations started?  Is that

10     what it says?

11        A.   Yes.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Your Excellencies, I

13     cannot ensure more than this, more information than this.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Ms. McKenna?

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It seems that we do have a

16     translation of the entire document.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we do have the English translation, but still

18     we are not sure about the provenance of the document.

19             Have you formed your position, Ms. McKenna?

20             MS. McKENNA:  Your Honour, we'll maintain our objection to the

21     provenance of the document.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Can you assist us, Mr. Robinson?

23             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  I think given that the

24     witness has confirmed the contents are consistent with what happened in

25     Brcko, that even though the -- even though the author of the document and

Page 34776

 1     when it was published is not known, that can be something that can go to

 2     weight, but since the witness has -- at least those parts that the

 3     witness has confirmed, it seems it should be admissible.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE KWON:  At this time the Chamber is not minded to admit this

 6     document since the provenance of the document is not clear.  If the

 7     witness is able to confirm the content of the document, the accused still

 8     can put those questions to the witness.  We'll not admit this.  Let's

 9     proceed, Mr. Karadzic.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Mr. Markovic, now I'm going to read this out to you, this

13     position that is presented, and let's see what you know about that.  It

14     says:

15             "In the area of the municipality of Brcko the first decision to

16     start preparations for war" --

17             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, that's another way of putting a

18     leading question.  Why don't you put it in a more direct way.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Mr. Markovic, is what is written here correct?  Did you know at

22     the time that Muslims in Brcko had started preparations for war the very

23     moment when the SDA asked local committees to start preparing on the

24     10th of June, 1991?

25        A.   We were partly informed.  We didn't know about all of this, but

Page 34777

 1     we did know about part of it.

 2        Q.   All right.  Irrespective of the text, can you tell us --

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, please bear in mind that if you start

 4     your question "Did you know," that that's a leading question.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   What did you know about the preparations of Muslims for war in

 7     Brcko?  When did they start, if they started at all, and how did they

 8     take place?

 9        A.   Mr. President, the first information we received after the

10     multi-party elections was that when they refused to respond to call-up

11     into the only legitimate armed force at the time, that was the JNA, we

12     started receiving information that through Sarajevo -- or, rather,

13     through Croatia, special groups were being armed.  Later on we found out

14     that this was -- this was the Patriotic League and the Green Berets.

15             From the then multi-ethnic SUP, MUP, information was coming in

16     about weapons that were being found, weapons that were illegal.

17        Q.   Thank you.  A moment ago you mentioned children, taking advantage

18     of children, of using children for transporting weapons.  Can you tell

19     the Trial Chamber what you mean?

20        A.   From the police of Brcko district and the security organs,

21     information was received that on the bridge between Croatia and Brcko

22     weapons were found on children who were transporting weapons, and the

23     bridge was damaged on the Croatian side at that point in time, and then

24     the multi-ethnic police on the bridge found on these boys, as I've

25     already said, six rifles, 2.000 bullets, and a machine-gun.  This

Page 34778

 1     document that I proffered just shows what the police told us about before

 2     that.  Mr. Semso Sakovic confirmed what this document says.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us whose interest was to destroy the

 4     bridge the first time and the second time?

 5        A.   Well, I think that the destruction of the bridge from the

 6     Croatian side was aimed at preventing the JNA from getting into the

 7     Republic of Croatia because there used to be a garrison in Brcko.  That

 8     was the aim of the Croatian side.  As for the destruction of the bridge

 9     on this side, I really I don't know whose objective that was and who did

10     that.

11        Q.   Thank you.  You mentioned that many victims that were being

12     referred to, cars that were blown up on the bridge, et cetera.  Can you

13     tell us more about that?

14        A.   Again, according to the information that we had at the brigade

15     command, after the bridge was destroyed, this multi-ethnic commission

16     from the SUP went out to the scene, a Muslim and a Serb, and from the

17     military police there was a representative, too, and they identified the

18     fact that there were corpses there, but I think that there was a very,

19     very small number there.  And the buses could not cross over because the

20     bridge was already destroyed on the Croatian side.  Or, rather, the MPs

21     in the Brcko parliament discussed this topic after the war and an answer

22     was never provided as the Bosniak or, rather, Muslim side always claims

23     in terms of the number of casualties on the bridge.  However, the reports

24     say that there were people who were killed but a very small number, two

25     or three, but nobody's established that for sure yet.

Page 34779

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Just tell us something else.  You mentioned in your

 2     statement that that's when the war started, on the 1st, 2nd, and

 3     3rd of May.  Before that, were there any conflicts and incidents?

 4        A.   After the bridge was destroyed, people were fleeing.  The town

 5     was destroyed, and Croats were fleeing to Croatia, Serbs were fleeing

 6     towards Bijeljina, Serbia, and Muslims were fleeing in yet another

 7     direction so the city was practically abandoned.  There was no fighting

 8     in town then.  People had fled.  On the morning of the 1st of May, at

 9     2.00 in the afternoon, from the Muslim part of Dizdarusa facing the Serb

10     part Grcica, the first mortar shell was fired.  Of course the Serbs did

11     respond from this other side, and then the attack was launched against

12     the barracks where I was.  Soon afterwards, the attack was repelled and

13     there was no more fighting on that day in town.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Could you just tell us whether the Serb side in Brcko

15     had a paramilitary formation?  I'm not talking about groups that came in

16     after the war broke out, but at that point in time did you have any

17     paramilitaries?

18        A.   I claim with full responsibility that we did not.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excellencies, I have no questions

21     at this point in time.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Could you deal with 1D15098 as requested by

23     Ms. McKenna.  If you're not tendering it, we're fine with it.

24             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, we decided not to tender it.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

Page 34780

 1             Yes.  Mr. Markovic, as you have noted, your evidence in chief in

 2     this case has been admitted in most part in writing in lieu of your oral

 3     testimony.  Now you'll be cross-examined by the representative of the

 4     Office of the Prosecutor, Ms. McKenna.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.

 6             MS. McKENNA:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 7                           Cross-examination by Ms. McKenna:

 8        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Markovic.

 9        A.   They're not interpreting this to me.  Good morning.

10        Q.   Can you hear me clearly?

11        A.   Yes.  Now I do.

12        Q.   Good.  Mr. Markovic, I'd like to start with the issue that

13     Mr. Karadzic finished with.  Well, firstly, you'll confirm that you

14     worked for the Municipal Secretariat for People's Defence in Brcko

15     municipality from 1980, and then, as you said this morning, from 1991,

16     you performed duties relating to recruitment and mobilisation; is that

17     correct?

18        A.   Your Honours, from 1980 as I was working at the Secretariat for

19     National Defence, I worked on mobilisation issues and as I -- and also I

20     worked as an inspector.

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  The pace is too fast for

22     interpretation.  The witness will have to repeat the last two sentences.

23     Thank you.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Could you speak a bit more slowly for the benefit of

25     interpreters and us all so that we can understand you better.  The

Page 34781

 1     interpreters couldn't hear your last two sentences.  Could you repeat it.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From 1980 I worked in the Municipal

 3     Secretariat for National Defence on mobilisation issues and also as an

 4     inspector, and in 1991, as I've already said, I worked on mobilisation

 5     issues in terms of the JNA or, rather, the armed forces of the former

 6     SFRY.

 7             MS. McKENNA:

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Now I'd like to talk about the troops that were

 9     present in Brcko.  You've just told the Court that there were no

10     paramilitaries present prior to the conflict breaking out.  And in

11     paragraph 23 of your statement, you discuss the Muslim-Croatian

12     paramilitary formations in Brcko that were so well organised and powerful

13     that they managed to paralyse life and work in the Brcko municipality.

14             I just -- and then you explain at paragraph 29 that once the

15     armed conflict broke out, the local authorities were in a state of

16     disarray, the police were totally disorganised, and the JNA left and so

17     criminals and paramilitaries took advantage of this period and gained

18     control -- quickly gained control of the central urban zone.

19             So I'd first like to clarify the chronology on this.

20             Mr. Markovic, Serb paramilitaries came to Brcko even prior to the

21     war breaking out, didn't they?

22        A.   Your Honours, I'm unaware of that.

23             MS. McKENNA:  Could we please have P2888.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Ms. McKenna kindly speak into the other

25     microphone, please.  Thank you.

Page 34782

 1             MS. McKENNA:

 2        Q.   Mr. Markovic, the Court is familiar with this document.  This is

 3     a summary of the events and situations in Brcko with an assessment of the

 4     degree of achievement, and it's by -- it's authored by the --

 5     Djordje Ristanic of the Brcko Crisis Staff.

 6             MS. McKENNA:  I'm interested in page 3 of the English and page 7

 7     of the B/C/S, please.

 8        Q.   And I'm just going to put a passage from this to you.  This

 9     document states that:

10             "When the war started, various military formations started to

11     arrive in Brcko to help out."

12             MS. McKENNA:  Sorry, if we could skip down to -- if we could

13     scroll down slightly.

14             It states:

15             "The first to arrive in Brcko was the group of instructors of

16     Captain Dragan and that was about four to six months before the war.

17     They formed a special unit including a large number of Brcko residents

18     who went through training."

19             And in the next paragraph it states:

20             "The special unit was supposed to be under the command of

21     Lieutenant-Colonel Pavle Milinkovic, but it slowly became independent and

22     evaded command."

23             And it continues:

24             "This contrasted with the early days, lasting about a month, when

25     its activity was directed solely at the war and it made significant

Page 34783

 1     contribution.  It had the support from a group of people from Brcko and

 2     this will be discussed later."

 3        Q.   So, Mr. Markovic, this document shows that for the first month of

 4     the war, prior to the special unit getting out of hand, Captain Dragan's

 5     unit contributed to the war operations in Brcko.  Isn't that correct?

 6        A.   Your Honours, I shall try to explain.  I, or, rather, the

 7     military department of the National Defence Secretariat carried out full

 8     mobilisation into the Yugoslav People's Army.  As for what is referred to

 9     here, we, or, rather, the then military department did not send a single

10     military conscript into the units that are mentioned here.

11        Q.   Mr. Markovic, is it your position that you did not know of a

12     special unit which was originally under the command of the -- of the JNA

13     commander Pavle Milinkovic of 70 people?  Is it your position that you

14     did not know of the existence of this unit?

15        A.   I knew that these units existed, but at the time we did not send

16     military conscripts, soldiers, to these units.  We heard of the existence

17     of these units, but we as the military department did not send any

18     conscripts there.

19        Q.   So just to clarify your testimony on this, you were, in fact,

20     aware of paramilitary units present in Brcko prior to the conflict

21     breaking out; is that correct?

22        A.   No.  No, that is not correct.  I've been trying to explain.  Not

23     a single paramilitary unit was in Brcko legally, because we did not send

24     people to these units.  That's why I say that we don't know about that,

25     that I don't know about that.  We heard of their existence, but we did

Page 34784

 1     not do that.

 2        Q.   Mr. Markovic, yesterday Mr. Pero Markovic, a War Presidency

 3     member, testified - this is at T 34734 - that the War Presidency asked

 4     for assistance from Bijeljina and that Serb troops came to Brcko in

 5     response to that request.

 6             Now, do you agree that when the conflict broke out, a large

 7     number of troops came to Brcko from Bijeljina to assist the Brcko

 8     authorities?

 9        A.   Your Honours, on the 3rd of May, 1992, one unit, the so-called

10     22nd Light Partisan Brigade, was manned, because it had existed already

11     in terms of establishment, but some people from Bijeljina whose wartime

12     assignment was Brcko, even beforehand, came there.  These persons, these

13     soldiers, came half dressed in military terms.  They had very few

14     weapons, and they were lined up at the barracks where I was, and I saw

15     this column of men.  This was on the 3rd of May, as far as I can

16     remember.

17        Q.   Thank you.  And let's talk about who the men from Bijeljina were.

18     These men that came included both paramilitaries and police, didn't they?

19        A.   These people that I'm speaking of are not the people that you're

20     speaking of.  These are people who were deployed to the so-called

21     22nd Light Partisan Brigade, and they were deployed for the defence of

22     the town of Brcko.

23        Q.   Well, yesterday Mr. Markovic confirmed at T 34735 that

24     paramilitaries, including -- that Serbian guards under the command of

25     Ljubisa Savic, also known as Mauzer, and a unit of radicals under the

Page 34785

 1     command of Mirko Blagojevic were present in Brcko.  Is it your position

 2     that you do not know -- did not know that these paramilitaries were

 3     present in Brcko?

 4        A.   Your Honours, I knew they were in Brcko, those units, Mauzer.  I

 5     did know them personally but I knew that they were there.  However, we

 6     had nothing to do with these forces.  We were manning the 22nd -- or,

 7     rather, the 395th Motorised Brigade or, rather, the 1st Posavina Infantry

 8     Brigade.

 9        Q.   The paramilitaries, Mr. Markovic, came to Brcko at the request

10     and with the support of the Serb authorities, didn't they?

11        A.   I don't know about that.

12             MS. McKENNA:  Could we see P2889, please.

13        Q.   Now if we look at the first long paragraph in this -- sorry, this

14     is an Eastern Bosnia Corps command intelligence report to the

15     VRS Main Staff from the chief of intelligence -- or sorry, to the chief

16     of intelligence and security administration dated 29th of September,

17     1992, and it's discussing the events in Brcko.  And in the middle of the

18     first large paragraph it states -- and it's discussing the groups that

19     came to Brcko, it states:

20             "We also believe that there were groups who came as ordered,

21     i.e., who had the support of the then military and civilian authorities.

22     Here we mean the leadership in Bijeljina, which in fact had brought

23     550 gathered fighters at the very beginning the war.  The most notorious

24     of all were Mauzer and Major Gavrilovic with Arkan's escort led by Peja

25     and the civilian authorities in Bijeljina."

Page 34786

 1             So, Mr. Markovic, this document shows that paramilitaries,

 2     including Mauzer and Gavrilovic, came to Brcko with the support of the

 3     Bijeljina authorities, doesn't it?

 4        A.   I'm unaware of any of that.  I wish to explain this.  Mauzer and

 5     Blagojevic, they were in Brcko, but who asked them to come, who gave them

 6     orders or directives, that is something I really don't know.

 7        Q.   Well, let's look at Mirko Blagojevic and his troops?

 8             MS. McKENNA:  And that's P901, please.  I'm sorry, I must -- my

 9     apologies.  It's P2901.

10        Q.   This, Mr. Markovic, is an interview with Mirko Blagojevic on the

11     Serbian TV programme "My Guest, My Truth."

12             MS. McKENNA:  If we can have page 9 of the English and page 12 of

13     the B/C/S, please.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The transcript should reflect that

15     it is his truth, the guest's truth.

16             MS. McKENNA:

17        Q.   If we could focus on the large paragraph of text, statement by

18     Mr. Blagojevic.  And he's -- he's discussing the importance of winning

19     the battle for Brcko and he states halfway down through that text:

20             "Fortunately, we arrived at that war theatre at the right moment,

21     put ourselves at the disposal of the then Crisis Staff of the

22     Municipal Assembly of Brcko, of Serbian Brcko, of Mr. Bosko Maricic, and

23     said that we were at their disposal and to tell us what needed to be done

24     and where."

25             And he continues in his next response -- or he continues at the

Page 34787

 1     end:

 2             "We had good co-operation with the officers who were at the

 3     barracks in Brcko at that time."

 4             He goes on:

 5             "I must praise Mr. Manojlovic, who I believe was the barracks'

 6     commander then, and must praise Mr. Peja Milinkovic, Captain Sehovac, for

 7     receiving us well.  We co-operated well.  We took control of the city

 8     very quickly."

 9             So, Mr. Markovic, in fact, rather than filling the void after the

10     JNA left as you suggest at paragraph 29 of your statement, the

11     paramilitaries worked together with the Brcko Crisis Staff and the JNA to

12     take control of the city, didn't they?

13        A.   I don't know about that.

14        Q.   Well, let's talk about the police then.  At paragraph 29, you

15     state:

16             "The police station split along ethnic lines, and as far as I

17     know, there were around eight Serbian policemen who remained in town and

18     were totally disorganised."

19             In fact, Mr. Markovic, there were many policemen present in Brcko

20     from the start of the war, including many police troops from Bijeljina,

21     weren't there?

22        A.   When I stated that, that was the 1st of May, that is to say, when

23     the bridges were destroyed.  That's when the police station -- well, the

24     Muslims went to the Muslim part of town and the Croats went to the

25     Croatian part of town of the municipality of Brcko, that is, and only a

Page 34788

 1     very small number of Serbs who were policemen stayed on.  What you are

 2     referring to, I assume, pertains to the reserve police force that was

 3     later mobilised in the police station.

 4        Q.   The Trial Chamber has heard evidence, Mr. Markovic, that the

 5     Serbian public security station was established on the 2nd or 3rd of May.

 6             MS. McKENNA:  And that, for the parties' reference, is Djordje

 7     Ristanic's statement, P3023 at paragraph 164.

 8             And if I can call up P2763, please.

 9        Q.   This, Mr. Markovic, is a letter from the president of the

10     Bijeljina Security Services Centre to the minister of the interior dated

11     7th of May, 1992.  And it states in the third paragraph down:

12             "Pursuant to the decision of the Presidency of the Semberija and

13     Majevica SAO, TO units and some troops from the active and reserve police

14     from Bijeljina, Ugljevik and Lopare were sent to Brcko exclusively in

15     order to protect public and private property by securing buildings and

16     trying to normalise life in the war outside -- the area outside the war

17     operations.  According to reports from Brcko, the police are carrying out

18     that role."

19             And it continues:

20             "About 150 policemen have been there since the beginning.

21     According to recent reports, the public security station is now

22     operational."

23             So, in fact, Mr. Markovic, from the very beginning of the war

24     there were multiple policemen present in Brcko, weren't there?

25        A.   That is not correct.  After the destruction of the bridges on the

Page 34789

 1     1st of May, 1992, the police station in Brcko was practically disbanded.

 2     It fell apart.  There were to policemen, save the ones I mentioned, save

 3     for the ones I mentioned.  On the 7th of May and later on, there began a

 4     mobilisation wave of the reserve police force in order to establish law

 5     and order, because by that time paramilitary formations had already

 6     started looting.

 7        Q.   Mr. Markovic, Brcko police SJB employee Petar Kaurinovic

 8     confirmed to this Trial Chamber that on his arrival at Brcko SJB on the

 9     3rd of May, 1992, there were lots of police officers there, and that's at

10     T 34124.  So again, I put it to you that there were many police officers

11     present in Brcko Public Security Station from the outbreak of the

12     conflict, from at least the 3rd of May, 1992.

13        A.   Your Honours, the service of the then military department where I

14     worked, which was in charge of mobilisation of military conscripts into

15     the reserve force of the police station and the armed forces units as

16     well as the civilian protection, was not engaged in this.  Now, who said

17     that they came upon a large number of policemen is something I don't

18     know, but there are documents in existence as to when we carried out the

19     mobilisation of the police reserve force for the police station in Brcko.

20        Q.   Well, Mr. Markovic, in your statement you said that the police

21     station was totally disorganised.  So let's look at how effectively they

22     functioned at the start of the war.

23             MS. McKENNA:  Could we please have P3003.

24             Now, these are minutes of the meeting of the specialist board of

25     the Serb SJB held on 2nd June 1992, and if we can go to the last page

Page 34790

 1     briefly, the last page of both the -- the English and B/C/S.  Sorry, that

 2     would be the -- thank you.

 3             You'll see that they -- these minutes were agreed on the 2nd of

 4     June, 1992, by Brcko SJB head Dragan Veselic.

 5             Now, I'd like to go back to the first page of the document,

 6     please.  I'm sorry, page 3 of the English and page B/C/S -- or page 7 of

 7     the B/C/S.  And if we focus on the section heading "Crime."

 8        Q.   So this is the Brcko SJB discussion of events in the public

 9     security station, and it says:

10             "The affairs and tasks in the field of crime have been

11     functioning from the very division, i.e., the establishing of the Brcko

12     SJB.

13             "Considering that the function of the head is being filled by a

14     man who is directly engaged in affairs from the jurisdiction of the state

15     security, it was agreed that his deputy be named as soon as possible.  It

16     was also agreed that all detention measures, rulings on the detention of

17     certain people be recommended and submitted in writing to the Brcko SJB

18     head by the head of crime department."

19             So, Mr. Markovic, on the 2nd of June, 1992, rather than

20     describing a situation where the police are not functioning, this

21     document states that affairs and tasks in the field of crime have been

22     functioning from when the Brcko SJB was taken over at the start of the

23     war.

24             Now, this is a more accurate reflection of the situation in Brcko

25     at that time, isn't it?

Page 34791

 1        A.   Your Honours, this information comes from the police station, and

 2     it is dated the 2nd of June, 1992.  On the 7th of May, 1992, as it says

 3     here, the mobilisation of the reserve force began in order to establish

 4     the police station which had literally not existed before.  This part

 5     probably, although I don't know because it's a police report, I don't

 6     know how it functioned, but I do know that paramilitary formations in

 7     Brcko were robbing people, breaking into apartments, stealing vehicles,

 8     et cetera.  As for what is contained in the report, it is a police

 9     station report and I'd rather not comment on it.

10        Q.   Well, let's talk about the paramilitaries then.  At paragraph 29

11     you describe the criminals and paramilitary formations who took advantage

12     of this period of anarchy and quickly gained control of the central urban

13     zone.

14             Now, this central urban zone included the Luka camp, didn't it?

15        A.   As for Luka, I heard about it in the barracks, and I was never in

16     the Luka camp.  It is some 300 metres away from the barracks only.

17        Q.   Mr. Markovic, there's evidence before the Trial Chamber that from

18     the 4th of May, 1992, through July 1992, non-Serbs were detained in Luka

19     camp during which period they were beaten, abused, including sexual abuse

20     and rape, and many were killed.  So let's discuss -- or do you agree that

21     these events occurred in Luka camp?

22        A.   We heard about it and only heard about it because that was the

23     story that went around town.  Everyone talked about it, talked about the

24     existence of the Luka camp, but officially we weren't aware of it.

25        Q.    Well, let's talk about one of the people -- one of the people

Page 34792

 1     who were committing crimes at Luka camp, that's Ranko Cesic.  Were you

 2     aware that Ranko Cesic had committed crimes in Brcko generally, including

 3     at Luka camp?

 4        A.   I heard about it.  I heard that Branko Cesic committed certain

 5     crimes in the Luka camp.

 6        Q.   Now, Mr. Cesic was first indicted by the ICTY on the 21st of

 7     July, 1995, for crimes committed in Brcko, including at Luka camp and --

 8     including at Luka camp in May and June 1992.  Were you aware that this

 9     indictment had been issued?

10        A.   I learned of it later on.  I didn't know about it at the time.

11        Q.   Well, Mr. Cesic was arrested in Belgrade by the FRY authorities

12     on the 25th of May, 2002, and transferred to The Hague on the

13     17th of June, 2002.  Were you aware that he had been arrested and

14     transferred to The Hague?

15        A.   I heard about it from the media.

16        Q.   Now, Mr. Cesic was a member of the Brcko SJB during the period he

17     committed crimes for which he was indicted, wasn't he?

18        A.   As far as I recall, Mr. Cesic was a member of both the police and

19     army.  However, he was a member of the police, although some policemen

20     and some members of the military infiltrated into the paramilitary

21     formations which committed crimes around Brcko.  It is true, although I

22     don't know when exactly, that Cesic was a member of the police at first,

23     and later on, due to the criminal activities, he was fired from the

24     police.  I assigned him -- or we, the military department, assigned him

25     to the army.  Even today I'm in charge of the military records, and I

Page 34793

 1     have that information, although I don't know it by heart.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Well, let's refresh your recollection.

 3             MS. McKENNA:  Could we please have 65 ter number 23191.

 4        Q.   This is a certificate dated the 5th of July, 2002, from the Brcko

 5     department of the Republika Srpska Ministry of Defence signed by you as

 6     the head of the department.  And in the final paragraph -- or I'm sorry,

 7     the certificate certifies that Ranko Cesic was a member of the Army of

 8     the Republika Srpska, that is, a member of the armed forces of the former

 9     SFRY, during the period from 15th May 1992 until 26 June 1992, as a

10     member of SJB Brcko.  And it shows that he continued to serve in the VRS

11     in military post Brcko from July to October 1992.

12             So in this document you certified that Cesic was a member of the

13     Brcko SJB during the period in which he was committing crimes at Luka

14     camp, and you did so just a few weeks after Mr. Cesic had been

15     transferred to the ICTY to answer for those crimes.  Isn't that correct?

16        A.   I don't recall the date, but this document before us, even today

17     if a member of Ranko Cesic's family came to ask for it would receive it,

18     if authorised.  This is an official record of war participation that is

19     kept for every conscript.  There's nothing in dispute.  As for your

20     suggestion that it was issued before his arrival here, that's something

21     that I'm unaware of.

22        Q.   Thank you.

23             MS. McKENNA:  I'd like to tender this document, please.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll receive it.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P6176, Your Honours.

Page 34794

 1             MS. McKENNA:

 2        Q.   Now, after leaving the Ministry of Defence, you went to work for

 3     the service of -- for the protection of war veterans and invalids; is

 4     that correct?

 5        A.   That is not correct.

 6        Q.   Can you explain where you -- where you worked after 2007?

 7        A.   In 2007, when Brcko district was established, all military

 8     records that I worked on in Brcko as well as all of the staff, the six of

 9     us, were moved to Pelagicevo, the neighbouring municipality, alongside

10     all of the military records.

11             In 2007, the ministries of -- the Ministry of Defence of

12     Republika Srpska is shut down and the unified Ministry of Defence for

13     Bosnia-Herzegovina was established.

14             In 2008, I returned together with all of the military files to

15     Brcko.  Nowadays I work for the service of -- for benefits for veterans

16     and war invalids with three constituent parts, Bosniak, Croat, and Serb.

17     I'm in charge of the Serb component, and that is my job today.

18        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Markovic.

19             MS. McKENNA:  Could we please see 65 ter number 24658.  I'm

20     afraid -- I don't think that we have received a translation for this

21     document yet.

22             But you'll see this document is a letter dated

23     11th September 2009, from the Service for the Protection of War Veterans

24     and Individuals, Military Records Unit.  If we could go to the second

25     page of the document, please.

Page 34795

 1        Q.   And you'll agree, Mr. Markovic, that it's signed under your -- on

 2     your authority; is that correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4             MS. McKENNA:  And if we could return to page 1, please.

 5        Q.   You'll see -- can you identify the individual at the first entry?

 6     Just his name.

 7        A.   This is about Ranko Cesic.

 8        Q.   Thank you.

 9             MS. McKENNA:  And could we scroll down, please, to the bottom of

10     the page.

11        Q.   And if you could identify the two individuals at the bottom of

12     the page, please.

13        A.   Branko Pudic and Konstantin Simonovic.

14        Q.   So in this document, Mr. Markovic, you are confirming that these

15     individuals were members of the police for the relevant dates; is that

16     correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Now, these and other police officers from the -- from Brcko were

19     placed by Witness Izet Gasi at Luka camp, and that's at T 16612 to 16615.

20             So, Mr. Markovic, I put it to you that in fact rather than the

21     organs of local authorities ceasing to play any role whatsoever as you

22     stated at paragraph 29 of your statement, the police were actively

23     involved in the crimes at Luka camp.  Isn't that correct?

24        A.   I think that the claim that the police committed crimes at the

25     Luka camp is not correct.  Maybe some members of the police, as

Page 34796

 1     Ranko Cesic, but not the police generally as you said.  I don't think

 2     that the police committed crimes at the Luka camp.

 3        Q.   I'd like to move to a different topic.  At paragraph 33 of your

 4     statement you say that both Muslims and Croats lived in the Brcko area

 5     for the duration of the war.  Now you'll agree, Mr. Markovic, that Brcko

 6     went from a town where the Serbs were a minority to a town where Serbs

 7     were a majority.  Isn't that correct?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And it -- I'm sorry.  And I'm going to read a statement from

10     Mr. Karadzic to you at the National Assembly session of the 11th of May,

11     1994, where he states:

12             "We have never been a majority in Brcko, but we were always the

13     third, but we have to solve that with a combination.  We cannot call upon

14     one principle that is ethnic and historical.  We have to call upon the

15     principle of new 'fakticitet.'  That is the vital interest for the

16     Serbian people and there is no discussion.  This is not important town

17     for the Muslims, but it is important to us."

18             MS. McKENNA:  For the party's reference, that's at page 40 of the

19     English and page 35 of the B/C/S of P1390.

20        Q.   Now, Mr. Markovic, Mr. Karadzic's statements -- statement

21     reflects the reality of what happened in Brcko in that it was a town of

22     great strategic interest to the Serbs which Serbs were determined to gain

23     and retain control over.  Isn't that correct?

24        A.   If you mean the Brcko municipality, the one from before the war,

25     the Muslims are even now the majority population in Brcko, and they used

Page 34797

 1     to be the majority.  If we are talking just about the town of Brcko,

 2     there were many people who moved in who were refugees from other towns in

 3     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  They have become the inhabitants of Brcko as they

 4     cannot go back to their own homes, but -- and the majority of Croats and

 5     Muslims have moved back into their old homes in Brcko.  In spite of that,

 6     in the Brcko municipality as a whole, there are more Muslims than Serbs

 7     even now.

 8             MS. McKENNA:  Could we please have P1490.  And I'm interested in

 9     pages -- page 44 of the English and page 42 of the B/C/S transcript.

10        Q.   Mr. Markovic, this is a meeting -- or this is an excerpt from

11     Ratko Mladic's notebooks, and it details a meeting on the 20th of March,

12     1996, with a delegation from Brcko Municipal Assembly, and you are listed

13     as present at this meeting, and I'd like to focus on what president --

14     the municipality president, Pajic, states.  He tells Mladic:

15             "We wanted to visit you to give you support, to thank you and

16     acquaint you with what we're doing.  Brcko has 32.500 inhabitants now and

17     about 26.000 inhabitants have arrived.  We need to settle about

18     7.000 inhabitants if the town is to be protected."

19             And then towards the bottom of the page he states:

20             "There has been an influx of Muslims in Brcko."

21             Now, by the town being protected, Mr. Pajic meant ensuring that

22     Brcko remained Serbian, didn't he?

23        A.   I don't know what Mr. Pajic meant by that.

24             MS. McKENNA:  Well, I'd like to play a video.  That is

25     65 ter number 40606A.

Page 34798

 1                           [Video-clip played]

 2             THE INTERPRETER: "[Voiceover] Regarding us who live in Brcko and

 3     Posavina, I think the situation is the same over here.  If you remember,

 4     Brcko was divided up to the railroad, up to Brka, this way, that way.  We

 5     are sure that Brcko will not and must not be divided, that Brcko will

 6     remain Serbian, and that it will serve as a connection between Krajinas

 7     and motherland Serbia.  And that in future in the Serbian lands,

 8     Interplet socks, Bimal oil, Bimeks ham, et cetera, will continue to be

 9     sold.  That is to say that we will serve as the connection between all

10     Serbian lands in proportion to their future size.  And I sincerely hope

11     that they will become as big as we all want them to be."

12             MS. McKENNA:

13        Q.   So, Mr. Markovic, they were the views of Pero Markovic, a member

14     of the Brcko municipality authorities, on this issue.  Do you accept

15     that, as both Mr. Markovic and Mr. Karadzic stated, Brcko was of key

16     strategic interest to the Serbs and Serbs were determined that it remain

17     Serbian?

18        A.   These are political statements, and the interest of the Serbian

19     people in Brcko was to connect the Krajina in Serbia because of the

20     corridor, because of medications, the problems with treating people in

21     the western part of Republika Srpska.

22             MS. McKENNA:  Your Honours, I'd like to tender this video,

23     please.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President.  The

25     witness hasn't confirmed anything about the video.  I'm wondering why it

Page 34799

 1     wasn't tendered with the other witness who could have spoken more

 2     directly to it.

 3             MS. McKENNA:  Unfortunately, the Prosecution didn't receive the

 4     video until during the witness's testimony yesterday, and it was

 5     disclosed to the Defence shortly thereafter.  Mr. Zec didn't have an

 6     opportunity to review it until after the witness's testimony.  But as to

 7     the connection with this witness, Mr. Markovic was present at a video

 8     where -- excuse me, was present at an interview where the interest in

 9     protecting the Serbian nature of Brcko was discussed, and he stated that

10     he didn't know what that was meant by it.  So this goes to impeachment.

11             And in fact, his -- just if I may add, Mr. Markovic's -- what

12     Mr. Markovic has stated about the video does confirm the content, in that

13     he stated that it was in the interest of people -- Serbian people in

14     Brcko to connect the Krajina in Serbia.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE KWON:  The Chamber will not accept it.

17             MS. McKENNA:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I have no further

18     questions for the witness.  I would just seek to tender 65 ter number

19     24658, which is -- was the letter --

20             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

21             MS. McKENNA:  -- which I omitted to tender.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Did we have the interpretation?

23             MS. McKENNA:  Sorry.  If we could tender it MFI, please.

24             JUDGE KWON:  I take it there would be no objection.

25             MR. ROBINSON:  That's correct.

Page 34800

 1             JUDGE KWON:  I was told that we had translations.

 2             MS. McKENNA:  Your information is obviously more up-to-date than

 3     mine, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  From the Registry.  Yes, we will accept it.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P6177, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we have your re-examination after the recess?

 7     We will take a break for half an hour and resume at 3 past 11.00.

 8                           --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

 9                           --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please proceed.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

12                           Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:

13        Q.   [Interpretation] I will have several questions, Mr. Markovic,

14     just to clarify something so that we will dispel a confusion.  When I

15     asked you about Serbian paramilitary formations and also Muslim and

16     Croatian paramilitary formations, I asked you whether before the war you

17     had prepared the paramilitary formation composed of the local Serbs.

18        A.   Mr. President, no, we didn't have it.  I have already said that.

19        Q.   Thank you.  And did the Muslims and the Croats have paramilitary

20     formations composed of the local people?

21        A.   They had barricades.  They had armed paramilitary formations.

22        Q.   Thank you.  On page 21, you were asked about the instructors and

23     their students who were under Milinkovic's command for a while, and then

24     later on they became independent.  While they were under Milinkovic's

25     command, could they be considered a paramilitary formation?

Page 34801

 1        A.   All those who were under the command of the 1st Posavina Infantry

 2     Brigade and under the command of Pavle Milinkovic could not have been in

 3     paramilitary formations.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Could your service conduct investigations if it

 5     learned that someone had a doubtful past or had a criminal record?  Were

 6     you allowed to conduct investigation?

 7        A.   No, we were not allowed to conduct investigations.  We had a

 8     different role.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  What did you do about people who you learned were in

10     the position of authorised officials but they also had criminal records?

11        A.   If they were not convicted but they were conscripts, they were

12     assigned to military units, and they were, as is normal, under the

13     control of the unit commanders.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Was that something new that you received as

15     instructions from us or what sort of procedure was it?  When did it date

16     from?

17        A.   It dated from the beginning the war when we received instructions

18     from you, that is to say, from the Main Staff of the Army of

19     Republika Srpska.

20        Q.   I know that you were not in the police, but during the

21     cross-examination you were asked whether you were aware of the possible

22     number of those who were stripped by the police of their status of

23     authorised officials and who were made to be ordinary soldiers.

24        A.   I don't know the numbers, but whoever violated the rules of the

25     police were dismissed from the police.  We received reports.  We called

Page 34802

 1     such people, and we assigned them to the Army of Republika Srpska until

 2     the time when they had to go and serve their sentence.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  You were also asked about Ranko Cesic and some

 4     records were shown to you.  It was said that you confirmed that it was

 5     so.  Is it you who confirmed or is it evidence that cannot be changed?

 6        A.   It's evidence that cannot be changed.  It's confirmation from the

 7     MUP.  In the procedure of registering documents, we would receive

 8     feedback for each person, that is to say, either from the police or from

 9     the MUP, about the dates during which this person was on police or

10     military duty, and this would be included in the personnel files.  And

11     according to the laws of Republika Srpska, this is to be kept for

12     70 years.

13        Q.   Thank you.  And for Cesic himself, do you know what was the

14     attitude of the police chief to him; that is to say, was Cesic staying in

15     Luka and acting in Luka on the orders or with the approval of the police

16     chief?

17        A.   I suppose that the police chief, Dragan Veselic -- or, rather,

18     the chief of the CSB, did not know that Cesic was doing what he was doing

19     and especially not that he issued him orders to commit any sort of

20     crimes.

21        Q.   Thank you.  You were asked about the majority.  In the town, were

22     there settlements where one of the three ethnicities was the majority?

23        A.   Yes.  There were settlements in Brcko where one ethnicity was the

24     majority.  For example, Klanac was with the majority Muslim population

25     and Stari Varos with the majority Serbian population.

Page 34803

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction, Srpska Varos.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   From when does that name date, Srpska Varos?

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Can the witness please repeat his answer

 5     because the exchange is way too fast for interpretation.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Please take a look at the transcript,

 7     Mr. Karadzic.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Can you please repeat the last answer, because it has not been

10     recorded.  You said that you were born 60 years ago.

11        A.   I suppose that it dates from more than 100 years back.

12        Q.   All right.  And in the parts that remained under Serbian control,

13     were there also Muslims and Croats living there as a relative minority,

14     and did they continue to live there during the war?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   What was the attitude of the authorities, the authorised

17     officials, towards these people?

18        A.   I tried to explain.  After the bridges were blown up - we talked

19     about the destruction of the bridges - all of those who remained in

20     Brcko, whether they were Serbs, Croats, or Muslims, and there were many

21     of them, were involved in one of the Defence structures and they had all

22     the rights and obligations in accordance with the Law on Defence and the

23     Law on the Army.  Likewise after the war, when the war finished, many

24     people, and I'm familiar with the records, many Muslims and Croats

25     exercised their rights according to the law on the rights of fighters and

Page 34804

 1     veterans of Republika Srpska.  They entered their apartments, they

 2     received money and so on.  So there was no difference at all between the

 3     ethnicities, the Serbs, the Croats, and the Muslims, if they participated

 4     in the armed conflict.

 5        Q.   All right.  Can you now please tell us what was the difference

 6     between the Muslims who stayed with you and the Muslims who did not stay

 7     with you, who left, and who shot around in Brcko?

 8        A.   Those who stayed on live there to this day, and those who left

 9     again came back and they tried to continue living in Brcko as such.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Markovic, I have no further questions.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  That concludes your evidence,

12     Mr. Markovic.  On behalf of the Chamber, I thank you for your coming to

13     The Hague to give it.  You are free to go.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too.

15                           [The witness withdrew]

16             MS. McKENNA:  Your Honour -- excuse me.  While --

17             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Ms. McKenna.

18             MS. McKENNA:  While the next witness is brought in, may I just

19     make a brief request to amend P6147, which is an exhibit tendered through

20     Petar Kaurinovic.  The exhibit is excerpted pages from Mr. Kaurinovic's

21     previous OTP interview which includes quotes that the witness didn't

22     confirm when he testified before you.  And I noticed yesterday that --

23     well, at T 34139, I quoted from -- to Mr. Kaurinovic from page 62 of his

24     OTP interview and tendered that page.  However, yesterday I noted that

25     the quote started on page 62 but went on to page 63, so I should have

Page 34805

 1     actually also tendered that.  So I request that that page 63 of his

 2     interview be added, subject, of course, to any comments Mr. Robinson has.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Fair enough.  I take it you have no objection.

 4             MR. ROBINSON:  That's correct.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  That will be done.  Thank you, Ms. McKenna.

 6             MS. McKENNA:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Tieger.

 8             MR TIEGER:  A good opportunity, perhaps, for me, Mr. President,

 9     to note that with respect to what we foreshadowed yesterday, the addition

10     of one or two pages to P6164, in fact I discussed that with Mr. Robinson

11     and there was just one additional page that was omitted and that would be

12     page 61 of the English and page 60 of the B/C/S, which is just one page

13     immediately before the -- one of the series began.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, that will be done.  You confirm that,

15     Mr. Robinson?

16             MR. ROBINSON:  I do.

17                           [The witness entered court]

18             JUDGE KWON:  Would the witness make the solemn declaration.

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

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

21             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, Mr. Bojanovic.  Please make yourself

22     comfortable.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.

24                           WITNESS:  SAVO BOJANOVIC

25                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

Page 34806

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please proceed.

 2                           Examination by Mr. Karadzic:

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Bojanovic.

 4        A.   Good day.

 5        Q.   Please let us pause between questions and answers and also let us

 6     speak slowly so that it can all be reflected in the transcript.

 7        A.   Very well.

 8        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, did you give a statement to the Defence team?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   If you see the transcript before you, once my question is typed

11     out and when you see the letter A, which is supposed to signify "answer,"

12     then it would be a good thing if you started answering only then.  Do you

13     see the transcript?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D7824.  Could we please see that

17     in e-court.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Do you see the statement that you gave to the Defence team on the

20     screen in front of you?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   That was quite fast.  Please do pause.

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Have you read this statement?  Have you signed it?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 34807

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

 2     the last page so that he could identify his signature.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Is this your signature?

 5        A.   Yes, it's my signature.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Did this statement faithfully reflect everything you

 7     said to the Defence team?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   If I were to put the same questions to you today in this

10     courtroom, would your answers basically be the same as the ones you gave

11     in this statement?

12        A.   Basically they would be the same.  Perhaps something could be

13     added, but the essence is the same as what is written up here.

14        Q.   Thank you.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, I'd like to

16     tender this package.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Before that, Mr. Bojanovic, you were kind enough to bring us some

19     court documents.  I don't have the translations yet, so I will have to

20     ask you viva voce about those documents.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But in the meantime, I would like

22     to tender the package.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Could you tell us about the associated

24     exhibits Mr. Karadzic is also tendering, Mr. Robinson?

25             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  We're tendering three

Page 34808

 1     associated exhibits.  The first is 1D07240, and we would ask that that be

 2     added to our 65 ter list as we didn't have it at the time that list was

 3     filed.  The second is 1D25456, and the third is 1D08664.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  As regards the two exhibits, 1D07240 and 1D25456,

 5     the Chamber finds it a bit difficult to figure out how they are relevant

 6     and what in context they are referred to in each paragraph.  So I would

 7     like the accused to deal with those two judgements as well.

 8             Otherwise, any objection, Ms. Sutherland?

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Good morning, Your Honour.  And I seek leave to

10     remain seated again still.

11             Your Honour, 1D25456 is 33 pages in length, and five of those

12     pages have been translated but not the actual document that is cited in

13     support of the sentence in the statement so --

14             JUDGE KWON:  So that was one of the reasons I asked Mr. Karadzic

15     to lead live to see the relevance.  So we'll see.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I?

17             JUDGE KWON:  You're done, Ms. Sutherland?

18             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you very much.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Yes.  Then we'll admit the 92 ter statement as

20     well as 1D8664.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibits D3076 and D3077 respectively,

22     Your Honours.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Now I'm going to read

25     out in the English language the summary of Judge Savo Bojanovic's

Page 34809

 1     testimony.

 2             [In English] Savo Bojanovic was a judge of the Military Court in

 3     Bijeljina.

 4             When the inter-ethnic tensions escalated in mid-1991, along with

 5     the aspirations of the leadership of Croatia and Slovenia and eventually

 6     BH to secede from Yugoslavia, Savo Bojanovic was mobilised into the JNA.

 7     He was engaged for about 15 days before being discharged and returning

 8     home.

 9             In around June-July 1992, after the formation of the Army of

10     Republika Srpska, VRS, it was shown to be necessary to establish

11     Military Courts.  An appeal was made for professionally trained judges to

12     sit in these courts, and a number of people responded, including

13     Savo Bojanovic.  The candidates were interviewed and tested.  They were

14     selected solely on the basis of moral and professional qualifications.

15     They were not selected on the basis of connections or political

16     affiliation, and to his knowledge, none of the judges in the court were a

17     member of the SDS or any other party.  Savo Bojanovic later discovered

18     that mandatory security checks conducted by VRS security organs were

19     carried out on the candidates, ensuring no political interference in the

20     selection of the judges.  The Military Courts were then established in

21     mid-July 1992.

22             The work of the Military Courts was independent and no

23     interference from the outside was allowed by anyone, including military

24     and civilian authorities.  The work of the court and all of the judges

25     was based solely on compliance with the enforcement -- with an

Page 34810

 1     enforcement of the law taken from the former SFRY.  All suspected

 2     perpetrators of criminal offences enjoyed equal treatment by the court

 3     regardless of their religion or ethnic background.

 4             Mr. Savo Bojanovic sat on trials of Serbs who had committed

 5     offences against non-Serbs.  On one occasion, he conducted an

 6     investigation of two Serbian perpetrators who had allegedly raped two

 7     Muslim women.  Interviews were conducted with the victims who were very

 8     grateful that the investigation was being carried out and that a trial

 9     would begin.  The investigations were continued and the suspects were

10     remanded into custody.  However, it was established that the perpetrators

11     were not members of the army and the case was handed over to the civilian

12     judicial authorities.

13             Mr. Savo Bojanovic is aware that the relationship between the

14     Bijeljina Military Court and the regular courts was correct and was based

15     on the valid regulations.  The relationship of the Military Court and the

16     competent command of the East Bosnia Corps was mutually respectful and

17     was based on legality and respect of procedure.  Savo Bojanovic was never

18     ordered by anyone as to how to judge his cases, and he was not aware that

19     any of these -- his colleagues had been given any suggestions either.

20             In February 1993, Savo Bojanovic was on call when the military

21     police called because there was a double homicide in the yard of

22     Vanekov Mlin prison.  An investigation team including Savo Bojanovic went

23     out the same evening and conducted an on-site investigation.  It was

24     established that during the afternoon, a unit of the 2nd Krajina Brigade

25     stopped to refuel at this barracks very close to the prison.  The

Page 34811

 1     soldiers asked the prison guards if they could phone their relatives.

 2     During this, a soldier noticed a prisoner who had previously murdered the

 3     soldier's relatives.  When the man's name was shouted, he began to run.

 4     He was caught and his head cut off.  Another prisoner was also killed.

 5     The Military Court reported all this to the International Committee of

 6     the Red Cross.

 7             Mr. Savo Bojanovic is not aware of the murder of 40 to

 8     80 civilians by the MUP of RS.  He considers this to be a fabricated

 9     story.

10             Savo Bojanovic declares with full responsibility that the work of

11     the Bijeljina Military Court was not discriminatory at all in terms of

12     religion or ethnic background or of either the defendants or victims.  He

13     also declares that the Military Court and judges were not pressured by

14     military or civilian authorities.  The work of the court was based solely

15     on the application of and respect for the regulations and laws valid at

16     that time.  Having had contact members of the military police and VRS

17     security organs, Savo Bojanovic stated that they were professionally

18     trained for their work, which assisted in finding the perpetrators of

19     criminal offences.

20             [Interpretation] 1D7240.  Could we please see that document now

21     and we'd like to ask the witness to provide an explanation.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   It has to do with paragraph 11 of your statement.

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Could you please tell us what this document is.

Page 34812

 1        A.   As I've already stated in my written statement that is attached

 2     here, on that day, in the late evening hours, the military police --

 3        Q.   Excuse me, Judge.  Do you see the document on the screen?  That's

 4     the document that I'm asking you about.

 5        A.   Yes, I see that.

 6        Q.   Could you please explain to us what this document represents.

 7        A.   This is a ruling on releasing Jurosevic and Cvetkovic from

 8     custody.

 9        Q.   Could you explain the essence of this document.  You signed this

10     as investigating judge, didn't you?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Can you explain to us now why they were released from custody,

13     what the detention policy was, and how it was regulated.

14        A.   We applied the Law on Criminal Procedure of the SFRY clearly

15     stating the reasons for remanding persons into custody.  As you can see

16     here, on the 22nd of January, 1993, by applying that law, we passed this

17     decision.  They had been in custody for two months and even more than

18     that.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Now, what is the procedure after that when a person

20     is released from custody?

21        A.   That does not mean relief from criminal responsibility.  It just

22     means that the suspect has been released from custody, that the legally

23     prescribed requirements have been met for releasing such a person from

24     custody.  However, criminal proceedings continue.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can this be admitted?

Page 34813

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Could you assist us how this is relevant,

 2     Mr. Robinson?

 3             MR. ROBINSON:  I think Dr. Karadzic is best placed to --

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Excellencies, the Prosecution

 6     often suggests that someone was released from custody, and then we have

 7     brought here a completely independent very prominent judge who explains

 8     his own decision on releasing a person from custody when there was no

 9     reasons to keep these persons into custody any longer.  It states that

10     this does not have anything to do with his own free will but, rather,

11     there have to be formal reasons for doing that.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  Any objection, Ms. Sutherland?

13             MS. SUTHERLAND:  No, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We'll receive it.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D3078, Your Honours.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  1D25456.  Could we

17     please see that document now.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   It has to do with paragraph 14 of your statement.  However,

20     please look at the document that is on the screen.  Can you tell us what

21     this judgement shows?  Who is the perpetrator, who is the victim,

22     especially in relation to ethnic background?

23        A.   Rade Mihajlovic is the convicted person here, and he was

24     convicted on the basis of Article 36 of the relevant law.  Very well.  I

25     shall speak slower.  And the crime was committed against Tabakovic Enes.

Page 34814

 1     I cannot see it very well.  I think the first name is Enes, an ethnic

 2     Muslim.  The killing was committed in the barracks in Bijeljina in 1992.

 3     This is a decision, a judgement of the regular District Court in

 4     Bijeljina.  However, the investigation in this case was conducted by the

 5     Military Court in Bijeljina.

 6             When the military prosecutor's office brought charges against

 7     Rade Mihajlovic, I was in charge of this indictment, and I carried out

 8     certain procedural matters.  However, the person was a fugitive.  He

 9     [Realtime transcript read in error "I"] had been in custody but had been

10     unlawfully [as interpreted] released.  So then I asked for an APB to be

11     issued against this person.  I did not become aware of the outcome of

12     this case.  I see that in 2001, it was the regular District Court in

13     Bijeljina that passed this judgement, because after the war the

14     Military Courts were disbanded.

15        Q.   Again, I ask you kindly to speak a bit slower.  Could you please

16     tell us what the sentence was in the case of this accused person and what

17     the maximum sentence was at the time for such a crime?

18        A.   He was convicted -- he was sentenced to ten years, and the

19     maximum sentence at the time for that kind of crime was 20 years.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  I probably need your assistance.

22     Line 4.  It should read:  "He had been in custody," not the witness.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  The accused person was in

24     custody.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Let's continue.

Page 34815

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].

 2        Q.   At the time what was the maximum sentence for murder?

 3        A.   Twenty years.

 4        Q.   In 2001 or in 1992?

 5        A.   Believe me, I left the judiciary, but I think that the maximum

 6     sentence hasn't changed.  I think that the maximum sentence was 20 years

 7     in prison at that point in time as well.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can this document be

 9     admitted.

10             JUDGE KWON:  So you are tendering only this page, first page?

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I think it's not a very long

12     judgement.  It's three or four pages, I think.  Well, not necessarily the

13     entire case file, but it's sufficient to see that Judge Bojanovic was

14     involved in the investigation and also to see the judgement.

15             JUDGE KWON:  You relied on --

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] An objection, please, Your Honours.

17     I was not in charge of the investigation.  I was in charge of issuing the

18     indictment because I was president of the chamber at that point in time.

19     Since the accused person was a fugitive and he probably returned after

20     the war when the military courts were abolished, so then the case was

21     deferred to a regular court, and then it was the District Court that

22     passed the judgement in 2001 with regard to this particular case.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   What does that mean in terms of such fugitives?  What happens to

25     the case?

Page 34816

 1        A.   Well, when the person is a fugitive, then an APB is issued.  The

 2     person becomes a wanted person.  I don't know whether he was extradited

 3     or not.  I know that this person was in Switzerland.  I don't know

 4     whether he himself surrendered, but this is a detail I'm not familiar

 5     with.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The judgement is the first five

 8     pages.  This is a case that was started by Judge Bojanovic, and as soon

 9     as the accused person was present again, the proceedings were brought to

10     an end.

11             JUDGE KWON:  I think that's sufficient for this witness's

12     evidence, and given -- and given that the B/C/S is a document of

13     33 pages, I think it's fair enough to admit only the first page, which

14     was shown to the witness.

15             Yes, Ms. Sutherland.

16             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, in fact that's D01479.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Oh, really.  We admitted this.  Thank you.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, you were so kind as to bring us personally a few

21     court decisions.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D07830.  Could we please have a

23     look at that now.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Unfortunately, they haven't been translated yet, so I'm going to

Page 34817

 1     ask you to give us an exhaustive explanation as to what all of this is

 2     about.

 3        A.   I still have the document on the monitor.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D07830.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   We have an order on detention for two people -- three people.

 8        A.   Four.

 9        Q.   Can you tell us what it's about?

10        A.   Yes.  It concerns the proceedings against four accused who, in

11     March 1993, committed the crime of robbery by having gained entry to a

12     family home.

13        Q.   Thank you.  If there's sensitive information contained, either

14     skip that or ask to go into private session.  I leave it up to you as a

15     judge.

16        A.   Am I allowed to refer to the names of the victims?

17        Q.   Depending on the nature of crime.

18        A.   Well, it concerns rape.

19        Q.   Explain to us who the perpetrators were, especially in terms of

20     their ethnicity, who the victims were, and what was the conclusion of the

21     proceedings?

22        A.   Yes, it concerns four members of the VRS, four young men from a

23     village near Bijeljina.  On the date referred to, having broken into the

24     house, stole some property, gold and money, and then the first accused

25     raped a person, Petar Trifunovic.  The second accused was involved in the

Page 34818

 1     basic form of sexual assault.  On this occasion, the investigating judge

 2     decided to issue the decision on detention, and they were caught the same

 3     day.  Since they were members of the VRS and they were in uniform, the

 4     case was transferred to the Military Court in Bijeljina.  I continued

 5     being in charge of investigations in this case, and the accused were in

 6     custody.  They were held for 30 days as decided by the Basic Court in

 7     Bijeljina.  Following the dead-line of one month since the investigation

 8     was still ongoing, I proposed -- and I handed over that document to the

 9     Defence, I proposed to the chamber of the court to act in accordance with

10     the Law on Criminal Procedure to extend their custody for another

11     60 days.  Which is what was done by virtue of this decision.

12        Q.   Can you tell us how the proceedings concluded?

13        A.   Well, the case was closed by the handing down of a judgement.

14     The first accused was proclaimed guilty for robbery and rape and received

15     a sentence for three years.  The second accused was charged with robbery,

16     indecent acts, and received a sentence of two and a half years.  The

17     third accused, Milenko Stojanovic, was pronounced guilty for the crime of

18     robbery and received a year and a half years.  And the fourth accused

19     received a sentence of one year and three months.  Although I may be

20     wrong on the exact length of sentences, but it's around that period.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we have 1D07831.

22     It can form part of the same exhibit if we wish.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   As for the range of sentences, did they fall within the legal

25     regulations as prescribed by law?

Page 34819

 1        A.   Yes.  Based on the jurisprudence we applied in such cases, given

 2     the fact that the Military Court was in charge of the most serious crimes

 3     such as murder, rape, and theft, we followed a uniformed sentencing

 4     policy which was decided on during joint meetings of the judges of the

 5     court in contact with the Supreme Military Court.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Can we go down to the bottom of the page.  It is your

 7     document of the 24th of April, 1993, extending their custody.

 8        A.   Yes.  In keeping with the Law on Criminal Procedure, I proposed

 9     to the trial chamber to extend their custody following the initial period

10     of 30 days given the fact that there were still reasons in existence

11     which dictated that they should be held in custody as prescribed by the

12     Law on Criminal Procedure.  Following my proposal, they issued the

13     decision we saw a moment ago on the screen.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we have the two

15     documents admitted, be it separately or as a single exhibit, and marked

16     for identification.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll mark them for identification.

18     Separately.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  As MFI D3079 and MFI D3080 respectively,

20     Your Honours.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we next have

22     1D07832 in e-court.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Can you tell us what this is, and does it originate from your

25     court, and are you familiar with the people sitting on -- on this

Page 34820

 1     chamber?

 2        A.   I'm familiar with this case, and Obrad Tasovac was the person

 3     accused, and he was pronounced guilty for the crime of murder from

 4     Article 36, paragraph 1.  The victim was Anto Kamenjasevic.  I was in

 5     charge of investigation in this case.  It concerned murder, as we can

 6     see, which took place in September 1992.  The person who was killed was

 7     Anto Kamenjasevic, a Croat.  Following the murder, the same day,

 8     Obrad Tasovac was detained and I pronounced his custody.  After the

 9     appropriate procedure was conducted by the Military Court, this judgement

10     was handed down, although I can't see what the sentence was?

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we scroll up?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do know that the first instance

13     court of the Military Court in Bijeljina sentenced him to four years and

14     six months' imprisonment.  After the military prosecution appealed, the

15     prosecution with the command of the East Bosnia Corps, the

16     Supreme Military Court acknowledge the Prosecution appeal and changed the

17     sentence.  It reversed their decision and sentenced the accused to

18     nine years of imprisonment, which is twice as much than was decided by

19     the first instance Military Court.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us what was the ethnicity of the

21     perpetrator?

22        A.   Obrad Tasovac is a Serb.  The Tasovac family hail from Priboj,

23     near Ugljevik or Lopare.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we mark this for

25     identification?

Page 34821

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We'll do that.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  As MFI D3081, Your Honour.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we have 07833 next.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Are you familiar with this case and the chamber that you probably

 6     presided over?

 7        A.   Yes, I am familiar with both.

 8        Q.   Tell us, briefly, who the perpetrator is, what did he do, and who

 9     the victim was, as well as to what the judgement was.

10        A.   Boro Zigic was accused for the crime of theft of the vehicle.  In

11     May 1992, he stole a passenger vehicle from a Muslim.  I don't know what

12     his name is, but it should be in the judgement.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we scroll up?

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   I think it's Mirsad Topalovic.

16        A.   Yes.  Yes.  A criminal report was submitted, an investigation was

17     conducted, and the Military Court, that is to say, the trial chamber I

18     presided over, pronounced the accused guilty and issued a probationary

19     sentence of three months with a suspended sentence of one year.

20     Actually, suspended sentence of four months with a probationary period of

21     one year.

22        Q.   And the vehicle was returned to the victim?

23        A.   Yes.  When the sentence was being decided upon, the trial chamber

24     took into account some mitigating circumstances.  It seems that the

25     perpetrator had been wounded and repented following the crime, and that

Page 34822

 1     is why he was only sentenced to -- received a suspended sentence.

 2        Q.   The perpetrator was a Serb, and the victim Muslim?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have this marked for

 5     identification?

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  As MFI D3082, Your Honours.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we next have

 9     1D07834.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Please tell us something about the document.  You also presided

12     in this case.

13        A.   Yes.  It is another case of the Military Court in Bijeljina where

14     I acted as the presiding judge, and I issued this judgement for two

15     accused, Dragan Stojanovic and Brano Ilic.  They stole certain immovable

16     and movable property from unknown owners in the village of Srednja Trnova

17     which was populated by Muslims and was abandoned at the time.  On a

18     certain day although I can't see it exactly when --

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go down the page to see it.

20     Thank you.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So in mid-November 1992, they stole

22     certain property from unknown owners such as agricultural machinery.  It

23     amounted to theft, and they were also -- also received a suspended

24     sentence.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go to the next page?

Page 34823

 1     [In English] Next page, please.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  They were sentenced to

 3     two years with a probationary period of one year.  It was a rather

 4     stringent sentence.  It was our practice to apply a particular policy

 5     when it comes to the crimes such as this one, which is not as serious as

 6     murder or rape, and given the fact that they were members of the VRS, it

 7     was our position that even a suspended sentence had sufficient effect.

 8     And if the probation was violated in any way, it -- the suspended

 9     sentence would be activated on the spot and they would have to go to

10     gaol.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Can you slow down a bit.  The interpreters will be grateful.

13        A.   Certainly.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this MFI'd.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  As MFI D3083, Your Honours.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we next have 1D07835.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Does this originate from your court, and did you know the

20     presiding judge, Radisa Bojicic?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Are you familiar with the case?

23        A.   Yes.  It is a judgement handed down by the aforementioned judge

24     as a presiding judge in the first instance court.  The accused was

25     Petrovic -- Bozidar Petrovic, who was convicted for theft.  He also

Page 34824

 1     received a suspended sentence.  If we go to the next page, I'll be able

 2     to tell you how long.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go down the page?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So he received a suspended sentence

 5     in the duration of three months for the probationary period of one year.

 6     For the same reasons I mentioned a moment ago, the first instance court

 7     was of the opinion that, by virtue of this decision, the point of

 8     sentencing was reached.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Can I read out the first line.  It is stated he is guilty, that

11     on the 26th of February, 1993, around 10.00, in Brcko, in the settlement

12     of Klanac, he stole some shelves from an abandoned house and courtyard.

13     So in this case, too, the owners were unknown.

14        A.   Yes, but the settlement was -- or used to be inhabited by

15     Muslims.  So the victims were Muslim.

16        Q.   Thank you.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have this MFI'd.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  MFI D3084, Your Honours.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we next have

21     1D07836.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Are you familiar with this case, and do you know the presiding

24     judge and the chamber?

25        A.   Yes, it is a judgement of the first instance court in Bijeljina.

Page 34825

 1     The presiding judge was Bojanic Radisa, and he pronounced Branko Lukic

 2     guilty for the crime of theft.  He visited an abandoned house in Gorica,

 3     which was a Croatian village, whereby he stole some property that is

 4     enumerated in the explanation or reasons of the judgement.  He's

 5     pronounced guilty and received a suspended sentence.

 6             If we go down the page, I'll be able to tell you how long.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go down the page, please?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So the suspended sentence of four

 9     months with a probation of one year.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   So he stole a stove, two tables, lawn-mowers, and a trailer for a

12     passenger vehicle?

13        A.   Yes.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have this MFI'd?

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  MFI D3085, Your Honours.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  1D07837, please.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Did you know this trial chamber?  Are you familiar with this

20     case?

21        A.   Yes.  Also it is the Military Court in Bijeljina.  Kitic Ljubomir

22     is the presiding judge, and the accused person is Dusan Arsenic from

23     Vucilovac, near Brcko.  He stole some goods from an abandoned house or

24     abandoned houses, a sewing machine, a table, that is to say, movable

25     property, from abandoned Muslim houses, thereby committing the crime of

Page 34826

 1     theft.  Again he received a suspended sentence.

 2        Q.   It seems that it's not a suspended sentence.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we scroll down a bit?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Possibly.  Yes.  Yes.  He was

 5     sentenced to prison in -- to one year and three months in prison,

 6     actually.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Because he looted abandoned houses; right?

 9        A.   Yes, that's right.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We'll mark it for identification.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  As MFI D3086, Your Honours.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  1D07838, please.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Are you familiar with this case?

17        A.   Yes.  Again this is a judgement of the Military Court in

18     Bijeljina.  Ljubomir Kitic is the presiding judge, and the accused

19     person, Milan Peric, was found guilty, because in the month of May, 1992,

20     he stole from the company of Usor in Brcko, which was in a combat zone.

21     He stole a PC and also a monitor, and we do not -- and we do not see the

22     rest.

23        Q.   Could you please speak slower, because I think you also said that

24     it was a state-owned firm.  It's not reflected in the transcript.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 34827

 1        Q.   So he stole this and he was found guilty.

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be marked for

 5     identification?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In any case of theft, the goods are

 7     returned to the owner if the owner is known.  Also, if you look at the

 8     bottom of the page, you will see that he received a suspended sentence,

 9     and I'll tell you exactly what that was.  If we can see the bottom of the

10     page.  Five months' suspended sentence with a probation period of

11     two years.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  We'll mark it for identification.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  As MFI D3087, Your Honours.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D07839.  So there's just one more

15     left.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Are you familiar with this case?

18        A.   Yes.  Again, it is a judgement of the Military Court in

19     Bijeljina.  Spasojevic Jezdimir was the presiding judge.  Radovanovic

20     Cviko, Radovanovic Milorad are the accused persons.  They are from the

21     village of Gornja Krcina, municipality of Ugljevik.  They committed the

22     crime of theft.

23             And could we now again see the bottom of the page, please.

24             In the village of Trsunovo Brdo, that was a Muslim-populated

25     village, there were several abandoned houses there, and they stole boards

Page 34828

 1     from those houses, a couch, two armchairs, a stove, also some wire and so

 2     on.  So the crime was theft.  Again I think that they received a

 3     suspended sentence.

 4             Could we look at the next page so that we see what the time

 5     period involved was?

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The next page, please?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   What is the ethnic background of the perpetrators?

10        A.   Serbs.  They're Serbs.  And it is the inhabitants of

11     Trsunovo Brdo, a Muslim-populated village, that were the victims.

12        Q.   However, the property had been abandoned at the point when these

13     goods were stolen?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be MFI'd?

17             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  MFI D3088, Your Honours.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, did you have contacts and consultations within the

21     military judiciary?  Did you have insight into the doctrine, positions,

22     views taken by the other military courts?

23        A.   Yes.  Since there was a war going on, the military courts that

24     were established attached to corps, and they were quite far away, so

25     there were first instance courts.  The Supreme Military Court had the

Page 34829

 1     following practice:  That the chamber of the second instance court, the

 2     Supreme Military Court, would visit the lower-ranking courts including

 3     the one in Bijeljina.  When the criminal chamber was in session and then

 4     together with the criminal chamber of the Supreme Military Court, we

 5     would accommodate our views and have a joint position with regard to

 6     sentencing policy and all other matters that were important for the work

 7     of the military judiciary.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Do you know whether in any court at any instance any

 9     crime had been hushed up, especially on ethnic grounds, or that there was

10     any kind of discrimination on ethnic grounds?

11        A.   As far as the Military Court in Bijeljina is concerned, where I

12     worked, there was no hushing up in any single case or there weren't even

13     any attempts to that effect.  No pressure was brought to bear from any

14     quarters to protect a perpetrators -- a perpetrator regardless of

15     background, ethnic or religious background.  No one ever asked me to do

16     any such thing.  We never did any such thing.  I cannot speak about other

17     military courts now, but I am really not aware of any such thing.  I have

18     not heard of any such thing, that there was any hushing up or

19     discrimination in any Military Court.

20        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Bojanovic.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] At this point in time, I have no

22     further questions of this witness, Your Excellency.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

24             Mr. Bojanovic, your evidence in chief has been admitted in most

25     part in writing, and you'll be now cross-examined by the representative

Page 34830

 1     of the Office of the Prosecutor, Ms. Sutherland.

 2                           Cross-examination by Ms. Sutherland:

 3        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Bojanovic.  Do you hear me in a language you

 4     understand?

 5        A.   Yes, good day.

 6        Q.   You stated in paragraph 11 of your statement, and you've

 7     testified about it a little bit this morning, that you conducted an

 8     investigation against Cvetkovic and Jurosevic; is that right?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   You said you took statements from two rape victims and that one

11     of the victims expressed disbelief that a trial would be conducted.

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   You, in fact, reinforced to her that a trial would indeed take

14     place.

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   But you released both suspects six days before you completed your

17     investigation, didn't you?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And in fact that was the document that we looked at earlier dated

20     the 22nd of January, 1993, which is now D3078.  But you were also

21     conducting an investigation in relation to these two accused for the

22     murder under Article 36 of -- of a Muslim man who you named this morning.

23        A.   Yes, but I explained that to you as I was answering the questions

24     that were put to me.

25        Q.   But instead of releasing him, you could have gone to the Military

Page 34831

 1     Supreme Court --

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Please make a pause between questions and

 3     answers.

 4             MS. SUTHERLAND:

 5        Q.   -- to extend the custody for another three months [overlapping

 6     speakers] ...

 7             JUDGE KWON:  No, no.  Ms. Sutherland, you need to repeat your

 8     question because you overlapped.

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:  My apologies, Your Honour.

10        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, you could have gone to the Supreme Court to extend

11     the custody for another three months as you were legally entitled to do

12     under Article 197 of the criminal procedure law, couldn't you?

13        A.   Yes, but since the reasons prescribed by the Law on Criminal

14     Procedure were no longer there, they were released from custody, but that

15     doesn't mean that they were pardoned in any way.  Criminal proceedings

16     continued against them.  I found that at that point in time there was no

17     reason for them to remain in custody, and all of that is in line with the

18     Law on Criminal Procedure.  All the reasons that were mentioned when

19     remanding them in custody were no longer there, and therefore the court

20     decided on releasing them from custody.  I repeat that they were not

21     freed of any kind of criminal responsibility.  It is simply that they

22     were released from custody.

23             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If we could have 65 ter number 24664, please.

24     And if we can look at Article 191 of the law.

25        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, what we have in front of us is Articles 190 to

Page 34832

 1     Article 201 of the Law of Criminal Procedure.  Article 191 of the law

 2     sets out when pre-trial custody shall and may be ordered.  It talks about

 3     a person being a danger of -- of flight, interfering with witnesses, and

 4     it's mandatory to detain until trial persons that are charged with a

 5     criminal act for which the law prescribes a death penalty.

 6             Now, Article -- under Article 36 of the Criminal Code, and that's

 7     Exhibit P06144, you know, don't you, that a person sentenced -- that the

 8     penalty for a person who kills another while behaving in a wantonly

 9     violent manner is able to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at

10     least ten years or the death penalty.  You know that, don't you?

11        A.   I don't think that we are understanding each other.  What is the

12     case that you are referring to?  I'm still talking about the

13     Jurosevic-Cvetkovic case, and it is the crime of rape that is involved.

14     I don't think that we're understanding each other.

15        Q.   These two accused were also charged with murder, were they not?

16        A.   I'm not aware of that.  Believe me.  That was 20 years ago.  I

17     remember full well that I carried out an investigation with regard to the

18     crime of rape.

19             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Could we have D01481, please.

20        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, we can see here that this is a request from the

21     military prosecutor to the Military Court to expand the investigation.

22        A.   Yes.  Yes, I see that.

23        Q.   Sorry.  This is for the -- from -- from prosecutor Drinic to

24     request the investigation for murder, I'm sorry.  Now you know

25     subsequently, the next day, the following day -- in fact, on that day, on

Page 34833

 1     the 29th of October, you interviewed Cvetkovic?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And then the following day, on the 30th of -- and -- sorry, the

 4     record of interview is D01482.  The following day, on the 30th of

 5     October, the military prosecutor then wrote to the Military Court and

 6     requested to expand the investigation to include the rapes, and that's

 7     Exhibit D01483.  So instead of releasing these accused, you could have

 8     gone under Article 197 of the Law of Criminal Procedure before the

 9     Military Supreme Court and extended their custody for another

10     three months.

11        A.   Well, my assessment was probably that there was -- that it wasn't

12     proper to do that.  It did not mean automatically that a person would

13     have to remain in custody until the trial started even when the crime of

14     murder is involved.  It was customary to release accused persons from

15     custody even in such situations, and that is probably what I assessed

16     then.  There was custody for 30 days, and then after that, in the

17     decision extending custody for another 60 days, the reasons are stated.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In line 23, the witness said it was

19     not uncustomary.  So it basically means the same thing that is reflected

20     in the transcript, that it was customary?

21             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We can continue.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:

23        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, what more did you need to complete the

24     investigation?  You had the circumstances of the murder.  You had the

25     statements of the rape victims.  You had the records of interview of the

Page 34834

 1     accused.  You had an eyewitness to the rapes.  You had information from

 2     the military that they were members of the military.  The only

 3     requirement that you needed was the observations of the doctor.  Why

 4     would you release someone who's being -- on suspicion of murder and two

 5     rapes?

 6        A.   I repeat to you what I said to you a moment ago and that is that

 7     probably I assessed the reasons why he was kept in custody, and when

 8     those reasons were no longer there and when the 90th day of custody

 9     expired, then I reached a decision releasing him from custody, because

10     the reasons for which he was sent to custody was no longer there.  That

11     did not mean at all that they were freed of criminal responsibility.  As

12     far as I know, they were prosecuted and tried before the court in Brcko

13     and ultimately convicted.

14        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, you stated at transcript page 49 to 50 this

15     morning that they were convicted by the Bijeljina District Court.  In

16     fact, they were convicted in absentia.  No.  I'm sorry, I take that back.

17     I take that back.  They in fact -- they, in fact, according to -- to

18     other court records, Jurosevic was acquitted in 2006 and Cvetkovic was

19     transferred to a war crimes court in 2009.  The case that you referred to

20     a moment ago about the Bijeljina District Court was Mihajlovic, not

21     Cvetkovic and Jurosevic.

22             Okay.  In paragraph 14 of your statement, where you talk about

23     the Mihajlovic case, basically the only thing you did in this case was to

24     issue a wanted notice because he was a fugitive; correct?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 34835

 1             MS. SUTHERLAND:  AND that wanted notice is D01478.

 2        Q.   In fact, he shouldn't have been released and as you stated at

 3     transcript page 50 earlier this morning, that he had been unlawfully

 4     released.  Now, the investigation wasn't completed at the time that he

 5     was released.  In fact, Exhibit D0147 -- sorry, 65 ter 24711 --

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Ms. Sutherland, why don't you wait for some time to

 7     hear the witness's answer.  Given that it is being translated, you have

 8     to wait a bit.  I'm not sure the witness had the opportunity to answer

 9     the previous question about the acquittal of Jurosevic.

10             Did you want to say something in response to that, Mr. Bojanovic?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as Jurosevic is concerned,

12     no, because I expressed what it was that I knew and obviously my

13     knowledge had been incomplete.  I really did not know that that's the way

14     the case ended, believe me.  It was a long time ago.

15             JUDGE KWON:  And this one.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  I would like to say that

17     Madam Prosecutor is not right when she says - I mean, speaking of

18     Mihajlovic Rado - that he was unlawfully released, because a decision had

19     been taken on the basis of the Law on Criminal Procedure to release him

20     from custody and this was done with the knowledge of the prosecutor's

21     office.  As I already said this morning, I was in charge of the

22     indictment as the president of the chamber and once I found out that this

23     person was a fugitive, I ordered the MUP to issue a wanted notice.  But

24     I'm still saying that the prosecutor is not right when she says that the

25     decision on the release from custody is unlawful.  It is based on the

Page 34836

 1     law.  And in my decision there is certainly a reference to the reasons

 2     that I took into account, and as far as I know, the prosecutor did not

 3     complain at that point in time either.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Probably there was a mistake in translation.  At

 6     transcript page 50, lines 3 to 4, in answering the question about

 7     Rade Mihajlovic, you said this:

 8             "However, the person was a fugitive.  And I had been in custody."

 9             That's the point I clarified that, not you, the accused.

10     Mihajlovic had been in custody.

11             And the transcript goes on like this:

12             "And had unlawfully released."

13             So it sounded like you confirmed that Mihajlovic's release was

14     unlawful.  That's the point of the question.  So could you clarify what

15     you said there?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that when the indictment was

17     issued against Rado Mihajlovic, he had already been released from

18     custody.  I do not agree with what the Prosecutor is saying, that he was

19     unlawfully released.  I repeat that once again that it is clearly stated

20     in the decision on releasing him from custody what the reasons were for

21     making that kind of decision.  Even the military prosecutor's office that

22     started the investigation against him did not appeal that decision.  So

23     it is wrong to state that he was unlawfully released from custody.  I

24     repeat for the umpteenth time today that releasing a person from custody

25     does not mean that the person who is being released from custody is being

Page 34837

 1     freed of criminal responsibility.  Quite simply, he's being released from

 2     custody and he can defend himself not being in detention, and that is a

 3     system that exists in all legal systems and that is something that we

 4     applied at that point in time as well.

 5             MS. SUTHERLAND:

 6        Q.   Mr. Mihajlovic [sic], if we look at 65 ter number 24709, which is

 7     the order releasing the accused dated the 30th of December, 1992, we can

 8     see simply that it says because his detention -- one-month detention has

 9     been extended for two months and that period is up, then he shall be

10     released right away.  Do you see that there?

11        A.   Yes.  And I don't see anything unlawful here.  On the basis of

12     what did you conclude that this was --

13        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic --

14        A.   -- an unlawful decision?

15        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, as the Presiding Judge has already advised you,

16     that was what is -- was in the transcript that you said this morning on

17     transcript page 50, and then you were given an opportunity to clarify

18     that.  So my question was based on what you -- what is in the transcript

19     of what you had said earlier today.  We're agreed on that?  My point --

20        A.   Then I must have been misinterpreted.  That is not what I said,

21     that is not what I think.

22        Q.   My point being Mr. Mihajlovic should never have been released

23     because, again, under Article 197, the investigative judge could have and

24     should have gone to the Supreme Court and sought an additional three

25     months because at that time the investigation hadn't been completed.  It

Page 34838

 1     was a murder under Article 36, so it was a serious crime, and in fact

 2     we -- we know that where -- where a murder is -- is done in a wanton way

 3     and that is, this accused Mihajlovic fired 25 rounds from an automatic

 4     rifle from a distance of about 50 centimetres at the head, the neck and

 5     the chest of the injured party, Enes Tabakovic, while he was in bed in a

 6     military barracks while he was detained.  So isn't that something that

 7     should have happened and didn't, but instead, the Serb accused gets

 8     released?

 9        A.   Well, you said yourself that the judge could have, but it wasn't

10     that he had to do it.  The law allows the possibility for extending

11     custody by an order of the Supreme Court, but probably he determined that

12     there was no reason to extend detention.  And I don't see why you insist

13     on that.  As far as I know and you know that Rade Mihajlovic was

14     convicted for that crime --

15        Q.   Again, Mr. Bojanovic --

16        A.   -- so there was no influence on --

17        Q.   You said that he was convicted by the Bijeljina District Court.

18     He was convicted in absentia in 2001, was he not?

19        A.   Yes.  But the judge who made the decision to release him from

20     custody pending trial didn't know that he would flee.

21        Q.   And -- and you said that you took on the case after -- after the

22     indictment had been issued and you said that you issued the indictment.

23     In fact, Mr. Blagojevic from the district prosecutor -- from the military

24     prosecutor's office issued the indictment against Rade Mihajlovic, didn't

25     he?  Not yourself.  And that was on the 5th of January, 1993.  That's

Page 34839

 1     Exhibit D01476.

 2        A.   I never said that I issued the indictment.  I think it's your

 3     mistake, madam.  The prosecutor's office issued it, and it was issued to

 4     me as the president of the chamber, as the presiding judge.  We know very

 5     well who issues the indictments and who is obliged to act in accordance

 6     with them.

 7             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, I note -- I note the time.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We'll have a break for 45 minutes and resume

 9     at 18 past 1.00.

10                           --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.

11                           --- On resuming at 1.19 p.m.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue, Ms. Sutherland.

13             MS. SUTHERLAND:

14        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, just before the break we were talking about the

15     accused Mihajlovic, and we had looked at the decision to release him on

16     the 30th of December, 1992, which was seven days before the decision to

17     discontinue the investigation.

18             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If we could have 65 ter number 24711.

19        Q.   Do you see that there?

20        A.   I do.

21        Q.   So the accused was released a week later -- sorry, so he was

22     released prior to the investigation being completed.  Then a week later,

23     the decision comes out to discontinue the investigation.  And then you

24     say that you came into the picture and you issued a wanted notice because

25     he was a fugitive.  It's right, isn't it, that you'd summoned him a

Page 34840

 1     couple of times to appear but, of course, surprise, surprise, charged

 2     with murder and he's been released, he's not going to turn up, is he?

 3        A.   Did you want me to declare -- to say anything about this decision

 4     to discontinue investigation, or -- it seems to me you put two questions.

 5     In this decision to discontinue investigation that I see on the

 6     monitor ...

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, please continue, Mr. Bojanovic.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the statement of reasons, it

 9     reads that the military prosecutor, on the 4th of January, 1993, decided

10     to discontinue investigation, and the judge acted completely in

11     accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure given the fact that the

12     person in charge of conducting criminal procedure dropped it.  I do know,

13     however, that following this, the prosecution decided to reinstate the

14     investigation against the accused Mihajlovic.  I think we also scheduled

15     a search, but we had information that he was unavailable.  He was a

16     fugitive.  And then we ordered an order to the -- we ordered the MUP to

17     issue a wanted notice.

18        Q.   And then, as we know, he was then tried in absentia some months

19     later by the Bijeljina court.  Mr. Bojanovic, just quickly I want to take

20     you back --

21             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Sorry, Mr. Robinson.

22             MR. ROBINSON:  Excuse me, Mr. President.  I think we're having a

23     habit of a lot of comments by the Prosecution without putting questions

24     to the witness.  If she wants to make a comment, she should ask the

25     witness to comment on it not -- she's not giving evidence.

Page 34841

 1             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Point taken.

 2        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, would you like to see the Bijeljina indictment

 3     again?

 4        A.   Yes, please, show it to me.

 5             MS. SUTHERLAND:  D01479, please.

 6        Q.   Do you see the first paragraph, "in the absence of the accused

 7     whom has been tried while absent"?

 8        A.   Yes.  I see it.

 9        Q.   If I can just take you quickly back to the accused Cvetkovic and

10     Jurosevic.  You said today earlier at transcript page 61 that you didn't

11     know that they were charged with murder.  I just want to take you quickly

12     to your decision that released them.

13             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And that's D3078, please.  Exhibit D3078.

14             MR. ROBINSON:  Excuse me, Mr. President.  With respect to

15     65 ter number 24711, the decision ending the investigation, is that being

16     tendered?

17             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE KWON:  How about the previous one?  24709 --

19             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And 24709, yes, Your Honour.

20             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, we don't have any objections to either of

21     them.

22             JUDGE KWON:  And also I'd like to admit the Law on Criminal

23     Proceedings, 24664.

24             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Thank you, yes, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We'll admit them all shall we give the number

Page 34842

 1     it turn one by one.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  65 ter number 24664 will be

 3     Exhibit P6178.  65 ter number 24709 will be Exhibit P6179.  And 65 ter

 4     number 24711 will be Exhibit P6180.

 5             MS. SUTHERLAND:

 6        Q.   Now, Mr. Bojanovic, this is the decision of the 22nd of January,

 7     1993, releasing Cvetkovic and Jurosevic.  And in the statement of reasons

 8     it says they had committed the crime of murder.

 9        A.   Yes, I can see that.

10        Q.   Okay.

11             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And if we could quickly go to exhibit -- sorry,

12     65 ter 1D07241.

13        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, this is a document dated the 28th of January,

14     1993.  Now, we do have an English translation of this document.  It says

15     that the court has completed -- and this is signed by you.  Were you --

16     it's typed signed your name.  This court has completed an investigation

17     on Cvetkovic and Jurosevic suspected of committing a crime under

18     Article 36.  And Article 36 is murder, isn't it?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] ...

21        A.   This is a standard letter accompanying the case file after an

22     investigation has been closed, and it goes back to the prosecution for

23     further action.  It contains my order which says that the investigation

24     was discontinued and that the case file should be forwarded to the

25     prosecutor's office for further action in keeping with Article 174 of the

Page 34843

 1     Law on Criminal Procedure.  The date, the 26th of January, 1993.  Perhaps

 2     the 28th.

 3        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic?

 4        A.   And it went to --

 5        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, I'm not going to go back over the event relating

 6     to that case.  We dealt with that earlier today.  I was simply showing

 7     you these documents to remind you that these gentlemen were charged with

 8     murder which is contained in documents that are signed by you.  So I want

 9     to move now to paragraph 16 of your statement, and there you say that in

10     the second half of 1992, the position was taken that Military Courts

11     should try perpetrators who committed criminal offences while on duty,

12     and that regular courts should have jurisdiction for all other criminal

13     offences.  Was this the Bijeljina Military Court or -- and/or all

14     military courts in the Republika Srpska?  Who are you referring to there?

15        A.   I discussed matters in general for the entire military judiciary.

16     There was this dilemma at the beginning when the military courts began

17     working as to their real competence.

18        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, it's right, though, that that didn't happen in

19     1992 or, in fact, at least right the way through 1993.

20        A.   I'm afraid I didn't understand.

21        Q.   Okay.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Let's look at exhibit -- sorry, 65 ter 24713.

23        Q.   We can see that this is some documents relating to an accused,

24     Miladin Djuric, who is charged under Article 36, and this is a case that

25     you dealt with, where you sentenced Miladin Djuric of Serb ethnicity to

Page 34844

 1     two years and eight months for the manslaughter of another Serb.

 2             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If we can go to the verdict which is on English

 3     page 5 of the document, dated the 1st of February, 1993, we can see

 4     there -- if we can have page 5 of the English translation.  I don't know

 5     why it's not appearing.

 6        Q.   The circumstances of this case -- do you recall this case,

 7     Mr. Bojanovic, Miladin Djuric?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And the circumstances --

10        A.   Reading the document, it does ring a bell.

11        Q.   Well, we can see on the first page of the B/C/S the

12     circumstances.  And it says on -- on the 15th of November, 1992, he

13     fired --

14        A.   [No interpretation]

15        Q.   -- in a place in Batkovic, when he was under the influence of

16     alcohol, he fired from a sniper rifle and hit someone who was sitting on

17     the chair.  So this is something that's -- that's off duty, and it's

18     being dealt with you.

19             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If we can go if we can scroll through the B/C/S,

20     then, if we can't get the English on the screen.

21        Q.   And we can see that you were in the trial chamber.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If we can go to the next page, please.  And the

23     next page.  Until we get to the document the 1st of February, 1993.  And

24     the following.  There.

25        Q.   Do you see there you're in the trial chamber?  So this is an

Page 34845

 1     offence that's occurring in -- in November 1992.  The trial's on the

 2     1st of February, 1993.  Do you agree that this is something that's off

 3     duty and it's being dealt with by the Military Court?

 4        A.   Well, you see that's what I said in my statement.  At first we

 5     were going back and forth on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction,

 6     and only later on did we take the position that the military courts were

 7     competent to try for crimes committed by military personnel on duty.  At

 8     first we tried all of them --

 9        Q.   Excuse me, Mr. Bojanovic, if I can interrupt.  Your statement

10     says in paragraph 16:

11             "In the second half of 1992, the position was taken that military

12     courts should try perpetrators who committed criminal offences while on

13     duty and that regular courts should have jurisdiction for all other

14     criminal offences."

15             Now I've just given you one example where we have an off-duty

16     military person who is tried before the court, in fact tried by you, for

17     an offence that happens off duty.  If I can take you to another example.

18             MS. SUTHERLAND:  65 ter 247 --

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may --

20             MS. SUTHERLAND:

21        Q.   Yes?

22        A.   -- I'd like to intervene.  In paragraph 16 there seems to be a

23     mistake.  It's about 1993, given the fact that the military courts began

24     work in August and September 1992.  So this is a mistake.  And I seem to

25     have missed it when reading it.  As well as the Defence team, they didn't

Page 34846

 1     pick up on it either.  The Military Court in Bijeljina only initiated

 2     initial investigations in August 1992, in the second half of 1992, when

 3     there was no position yet on the issue regarding cases as this one.

 4             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Okay.  If we could have 65 ter number 24714.

 5        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, this is another case that you dealt with,

 6     Vojko Prodanovic.  And again, his offence occurred on the 17th of

 7     November, 1992.  He was -- he threw a hand grenade on the terrace of a

 8     house and, as a result, another Serb was killed, and he was sentenced by

 9     you in the chamber, trial chamber, which included yourself, to

10     13 years' imprisonment for murder of another Serb, and that trial took

11     place in June 1993.  So again we have an off-duty incident being tried by

12     the Military Court.  Do you agree?

13        A.   I've told you already that in this paragraph 16, 1993 is a

14     mistake.  Actually, instead of 1992, it should be 1993.  By 1993, we

15     tried all such cases that were referred to by the military prosecutor.

16     In the situation when we had an immediate threat of war in

17     Republika Srpska, all able-bodied men were considered to be soldiers.  In

18     keeping with that, all crimes they committed were tried by military

19     courts.  Only in 1993 did we take the position that only such crimes

20     committed by persons on duty in their units should be tried and heard by

21     the --

22        Q.   Okay.  Mr. -- Mr. --

23        A.   -- the Military Court.

24        Q.   -- Bojanovic, you mentioned that you weren't restricting this to

25     the Bijeljina Military Court, so I'll show you another document.

Page 34847

 1             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And that's P06146.  And this is a Banja Luka

 2     Military Court document.  It's a judgement dated the 21st of October,

 3     1993, where again we have a military person who commits a crime off duty

 4     and he is tried by the Military Court.

 5        Q.   That's another example, isn't it?

 6        A.   It seems that the crime was committed on the 7th of August, 1992.

 7     A murder was carried out that day, that is to say, the beginning of the

 8     period when the military courts became operational.

 9        Q.   And he's being tried --

10        A.   All cases initiated --

11        Q.   And he's being tried in October 1993, isn't he?

12        A.   It was the position that all cases which were initiated by

13     regular courts to be concluded there.  Once we took the position that as

14     of that moment on criminal procedure should be undertaken by regular

15     courts --

16        Q.   Okay --

17        A.   -- well, that later on was transferred to the military courts.

18        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, I have two brief matters I want to deal with.  One

19     is in paragraph 18 of -- sorry, three brief matters.  One is in

20     paragraph 18 of your statement.  You say that in February 1993, you were

21     called to a double homicide in the Vanekov Mlin prison and that allegedly

22     a soldier of a unit of the 2nd Krajina Brigade had killed two Muslim

23     detainees.  And as a result of your investigation and the fact that you

24     knew that one of the victims was from Kljuc and one of the soldiers was

25     also from Kljuc, you issued an arrest warrant -- sorry, given that you

Page 34848

 1     only issued an arrest warrant for an unidentified perpetrator.  That's

 2     what you said in paragraph 18, didn't you?

 3        A.   First of all, I didn't know any of the victims.  That is your

 4     mistake in interpretation.  There is another small intervention in this

 5     respect.  The murder took place in the yard of a building belonging to

 6     the Zitopromet company, and the persons who were victims were

 7     accommodated in Batkovic in the -- on the military farm.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's intervention, could the witness

 9     kindly slow down.

10             MS. SUTHERLAND:

11        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, you've been asked to slow down by the

12     interpreters.  And we'll get to --

13             JUDGE KWON:  Could you -- could you repeat your answer starting

14     from the part where you mentioned Batkovic on the military farm.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Vanekov Mlin, it belonged to

16     the Zitopromet company from Bijeljina.  The persons who were victims were

17     accommodated in the collection centre at Ekonomija, the military farm in

18     Batkovic.  And on that day, they were on work duty in Zitopromet, in

19     Vanekov Mlin.

20             MS. SUTHERLAND:

21        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, it wouldn't have taken much further investigation

22     to work out who the perpetrator was, would it?  You knew that a unit had

23     stopped at the barracks.  You knew that that unit was from Kljuc.  You

24     knew that the perpetrator had a family member who had been killed in a

25     place near Kljuc.  With just a little bit of further investigation, you

Page 34849

 1     could have found out the perpetrator, could you not?

 2        A.   Listen, it's not the court that looks for the perpetrator of a

 3     crime but it's, rather, the police.  In accordance with the Law on

 4     Criminal Proceedings, on the following day we drew up an order to issue a

 5     wanted notice for an unidentified person.  I suppose you have this

 6     document.  And we or, rather, I as the judge on duty made a report with

 7     it with a photo file and I gave it to the prosecutor's office which was

 8     in charge.  A further investigation of the perpetrators is in the

 9     jurisdiction of the police and I issued them the order to issue a wanted

10     notice.  I didn't know who these persons were and -- except, as I said in

11     my report, that these were the members of the 2nd Krajina Brigade.

12        Q.   You're an investigating judge, aren't you?  The investigating

13     judge conducts the investigation?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, you mentioned in these additional paragraphs that

16     were added on Sunday to your statement robbery and rape, which was one

17     case, and a murder of a Croat victim was another.  All the other cases

18     that you mention in your statement were all to do with theft.  Now you

19     would agree with me, would you not, that there was not one Article 142

20     crime - and that's war crimes against the civilian population - that was

21     ever heard before the Bijeljina Military Court during the war, was there?

22        A.   Yes, that's right, but as you are well aware, the criminal

23     proceedings --

24        Q.   And -- and --

25        A.   Please don't interrupt me.  The criminal proceedings are not

Page 34850

 1     initiated by the court but, rather, by the prosecutor's office which is

 2     in charge.  And probably if the prosecutor's office had addressed us with

 3     such a request, the court would have acted accordingly.

 4        Q.   The fact is very few Serbs were tried and convicted for crimes

 5     against non-Serb persons; isn't that right?

 6        A.   Well, you are not right.  Believe me, we didn't count how many

 7     members of which ethnicity were indicted.  We simply tried all cases

 8     where there was an indictment and where evidence was available.  Believe

 9     me, none of us ever made any differences about the damaged party in any

10     case being a Serb, Croat, or Muslim, which we proved in the sentences

11     which we have enclosed and I suppose that you have some of them.

12        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, I want to deal very, very quickly now with the

13     Batkovic detention facility which you mentioned a moment ago.  Was this a

14     remand prison?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   What was it, then?

17        A.   It was a collection centre, as far as I know.  We as the

18     Military Court were not in charge of this facility.  We had a military

19     detention [Realtime transcript read in error "defence"] or military

20     remand prison which was part of the Military Court, and there -- the

21     persons who were held there were those whose custody was ordered by the

22     Military Court.  And the army was in jurisdiction of Batkovic and we had

23     no contact whatsoever with this facility.

24        Q.   Interestingly, the president of the Supreme Court -- Military

25     Supreme Court said a few days ago that it was a remand prison, and that's

Page 34851

 1     at transcript 34094.  You say that it was --

 2             MR. ROBINSON:  Excuse me, Mr. President.  I think we -- it's not

 3     proper for Ms. Sutherland to give evidence or to make a statement without

 4     putting a question to the witness.  Dr. Karadzic was constantly being

 5     upbraided for that during his case.  So if she has --

 6             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Mr. --

 7             MR. ROBINSON:  -- something to ask the witness, she should.

 8     Otherwise she shouldn't be making those comments.

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:

10        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, you say that it wasn't a remand prison and that it

11     was a facility where persons were held whose custody was ordered by the

12     Military Court.  Where -- where would we find all of the -- all of the

13     orders in relation to keeping these detainees for months and months on

14     end?  Where we would find those?

15        A.   Believe me, I don't know.  But I repeat, the Military Court

16     didn't have any jurisdiction over this facility so I think you would have

17     to look for it in the army, which secured and protected this facility.

18        Q.   I'm sorry, I understood your last answer to be that -- that

19     Batkovic was under the jurisdiction of the army and therefore the

20     Military Court.

21        A.   No.  You are changing my words and my statement.  I didn't say

22     that a single time today.  The Military Court had its own detention

23     facility which was in part of the building where the Military Court was,

24     and all the persons who were in custody by the order of the Military

25     Court were held there.  The Military Court did not have any jurisdiction

Page 34852

 1     over the facility in Batkovic.  So if it's a provocation, it's

 2     inappropriate.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Page -- just a second.  Page 83, line 22, the

 4     transcript is -- noted as like this:  "We had a military defence" -- or I

 5     will begin from -- start from the beginning.  It was a question about

 6     Batkovic.  This is your answer:

 7             "It was a collection centre, as far as I know.  We as the

 8     Military Court were not in charge of this facility.  We had a military

 9     defence or military remand prison which was part of the Military Court."

10             What did you say, "We had a military defence"?  Is this what you

11     said?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't say "defence."  No,

13     there's a mistake probably because I talk so fast.  We had a detention

14     facility which was part of the building where the Military Court worked

15     and this was the only facility in which we held detainees who were

16     detained on our orders.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, I understood to that effect, but in the future

18     please speak very slowly.  Yes, Ms. Sutherland, please continue.

19             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Thank you, Your Honour.

20        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, the Eastern Bosnia Corps command -- the Batkovic

21     military camp came under the Eastern Bosnia Corps, did it not?

22        A.   I suppose so.

23        Q.   And the Eastern Bosnia and -- and the Bijeljina Military Court

24     dealt with crimes committed in the area of responsibility of the

25     Eastern Bosnia Corps, did they not?

Page 34853

 1        A.   That's right.

 2        Q.   Did you ever visit the Batkovic camp?

 3        A.   Not as a judge of the Military Court.  A couple of times I went

 4     to this facility as I had Muslim friends from Bijeljina.  Specifically, a

 5     close family friend of mine, my kum, is from Bijeljina.  Some

 6     acquaintances who were mostly living abroad asked if cigarettes, food or

 7     a letter could be taken to him.  And a couple of times I went to this

 8     facility as a private person and I brought to these people accommodated

 9     there cigarettes or food or letters, but I never visited it officially as

10     a captain of the army of Republika Srpska or a judge on duty.  I never

11     visited the facility in such capacity, but I certainly went to the

12     facility five or six times.

13        Q.   And these people that you went to visit were Muslim civilians who

14     had been detained there?

15        A.   Yes.  Yes.

16        Q.   And in fact there were a large number of civilians who were

17     brought there by the Serb authorities, wasn't there?

18        A.   There weren't so many of them there when I went there.  The last

19     time I went was in 1995, perhaps in August or September, I wouldn't say

20     that there were more than perhaps a few hundred people.  I didn't see

21     them because the guards would take out the people to whom I was supposed

22     to deliver the cigarettes or food or letters.

23        Q.   Did you -- did you go to the Batkovic camp in 1992?

24        A.   I think not during that year.  I believe that it could have been

25     in 1993 that I went there for the first time.

Page 34854

 1        Q.   Do you know the commander of the -- he was the commander of the

 2     East Bosnia Corps, Novica Simic?

 3        A.   I knew him.  He was the second commander.  The first one before

 4     him was -- I believe his name was Colonel Mile Ilic, unless I'm mistaken,

 5     when the Military Court was established.  It was only then, but very soon

 6     afterwards, I think after the setting up of the Military Court, that

 7     Novica Simic, General, was the corps commander.  Yes, I did know him.

 8        Q.   He testified at a trial here about the Batkovic prison camp.

 9     When he -- where he said that he took over duties and formed a commission

10     to establish a real state of affairs in the Batkovic camp because he had

11     heard some contradictory reports on his arrival.  He goes on to say that

12     the report that he received from this commission that he set up was

13     alarming and unbelievable for him because there were persons in the camp

14     who could not under any circumstances be considered prisoners of war.  He

15     said there were about 80 persons, civilians, amongst them a few were

16     underage.  They were simply picked up from their homes in Zvornik and

17     Kozluk and brought there.

18             He also said when he testified that he ordered that these persons

19     were to be released.  And when he asked them where they wanted to go,

20     some said they wanted to go back to their homes because some of the local

21     authorities had collected them from their homes, rounded them up, and put

22     them in a military camp.  And he said that this was inappropriate because

23     it was a -- it was a prisoner of war camp and there were no grounds for

24     these people to be here.

25             He said:

Page 34855

 1             "I knew that the civilian authorities would attack me for this

 2     reason, and that's why I rang up General Gvero and told him what I'd

 3     decided."

 4             Is this what I've just described to you by -- that General

 5     Novica Simic said, is this something that you had heard about the

 6     Batkovic camp when you went there, when you said that you went there on

 7     six other occasions?

 8        A.   What I knew, and that was the opinion at the time, was that these

 9     were prisoners of war.  Whether there were any civilians there as well

10     and how they had been brought there, this is something I really don't

11     know.  I know that the last time when I visited the place, I think I was

12     bringing cigarettes to some young men.  I believe that they were from

13     somewhere in the vicinity of Srebrenica or Bratunac.  I think they told

14     me that they were taken prisoner somewhere around Zvornik.  This is what

15     I know and that's all.  Believe me.

16             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Thank you, Mr. Bojanovic.  I have no further

17     questions, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Do you have any re-examination,

19     Mr. Karadzic?

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, but only

21     clarifications.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Before you do so.  Are you not tendering any of the

23     documents you showed?

24             MS. SUTHERLAND:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  I omitted to do that.

25     Yes, I seek to tender them.

Page 34856

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we deal with one by one.  Are you also

 2     tendering 1D7421, dispatch?

 3             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour.

 4             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  We don't mind it being

 5     admitted at all, but I just want to point out that there's a translation

 6     now and this was an associated exhibit, and Ms. Sutherland sent me an

 7     e-mail saying that they object to it being used as an associated exhibit

 8     because it wasn't translated.  And they have a translation and now they

 9     want to offer it as a Prosecution exhibit.  So we don't mind it being

10     admitted, but we think it ought to be admitted as a Defence exhibit.

11             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, if I may.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

13             MS. SUTHERLAND:  The translation was done this morning while we

14     were sitting in court, so at the time that I made my objection we had to

15     translation.

16             JUDGE KWON:  I don't think it matters in which form we should

17     admit the evidence.  We'll admit it as Prosecution Exhibit.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  P6181, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Next, 2471 -- 713 and 24714.  You do not object.

20             MR. ROBINSON:  That's correct.

21             JUDGE KWON:  We'll admit them all.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibits P6182 and P6183 respectively.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

25                           Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:

Page 34857

 1        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Bojanovic, can you please help us to

 2     understand whether prisoners of war who did not commit any crime were

 3     someone to be tried by the military courts?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Why are they then held in detention?

 6        A.   Believe me, I wouldn't know that.

 7        Q.   Excuse me.  Is the purpose for them to be punished or to be tried

 8     or to be exchanged?

 9        A.   I suppose this had to do with exchange.  This was what people

10     said, if you mean specifically Batkovic, that the inmates of the camp

11     were used to be exchanged for Serbian soldiers who had been taken

12     prisoners at other fronts.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Could the Red Cross visit this prison?  I mean the

14     International Red Cross.

15        A.   Yes.  And I omitted to say, though it's included in my written

16     statement, that after the double murder within the Vanekov Mlin compound,

17     on the following morning a delegation the International Red Cross which

18     controlled Batkovic heard about the incident and that a double murder had

19     occurred.  The delegation consisting of five men and myself as the

20     investigating judge who was doing the on-site investigation and the

21     presiding judge of the Military Court, perhaps the deputy prosecutor

22     also --

23             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters haven't heard the name.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- came along and asked me to show

25     them everything that I had done, even though this was not in our

Page 34858

 1     jurisdiction, but there was no reason for me not to show it them.  So I

 2     showed them the on-site investigation report and the photo file and also

 3     the issue -- the order to issue the wanted notice which I had forwarded

 4     to the MUP on that morning.  So we handed over all the documents for

 5     inspection to the representatives of the ICRC, and I think there was a

 6     Swiss lady in the delegation who was heading this team.

 7             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, sorry, I'm very late in my

 8     objection, but how does the Red Cross visiting Batkovic camp arise out of

 9     cross-examination.

10             JUDGE KWON:  You asked whether that's a detention facility or a

11     camp, so I think he can touch upon this issue.  Please continue in any

12     event, Mr. Karadzic.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Mr. Bojanovic, as a military judge and as a lawyer, can you just

16     remind us of the names of perpetrators?  What was the case in which the

17     ICRC came to visit you the follow morning which you just described to us?

18        A.   This was the murder of two Muslims on the premises of

19     Vanekov Mlin.  The head of one was cut off and the other person was

20     killed from a firearm.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22        A.   I don't remember the names, really, but we have the on-site

23     investigation report.  That's available and it contains the names.

24        Q.   Thank you.  As a lawyer, can you tell us if there are situations

25     in which both -- in which the civilians are also treated as prisoners of

Page 34859

 1     war?  Is there some kind of activity that civilians may engage in which

 2     represents a basis for them to be taken prisoners?

 3        A.   Certainly.  If they were supporting an armed force or associates

 4     of it, then there is a basis for them to be treated as prisoners of war.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  All right.  Let me not pursue this any further.  On

 6     page 82 you were asked about being investigating judge and therefore

 7     being able to arrest someone and so on and so forth.  I have to tell you

 8     that the differences in court systems are great so can you tell the

 9     Trial Chamber to whom does an investigating judge issue orders and who is

10     then trying to arrest someone on behalf of the investigating judge?

11        A.   The police.  A court does not make the arrest.  The police does

12     that.  The only thing that the court does is makes the decision

13     requesting somebody's detention.  A judge does not have the authority to

14     arrest anyone.  He can just issue the order on detention if the

15     conditions as set by law have been met and if the reasons which are all

16     enumerated in the law also exist.

17        Q.   Thank you.  On page 77 and 78, you were asked about the murder of

18     a Serb by a sniper and the two and a half years' sentence.  The

19     Prosecution suggests that our military courts would sentence harshly

20     those who murdered Serbs as opposed to those who murdered the Muslims who

21     were not sentenced so harshly.  In this case, both the killer and the

22     killed were Serbs.  Why was this perpetrator sentenced to only two and a

23     half years' sentence?

24        A.   This was manslaughter and this is why this person was only

25     sentenced to two and a half years.  It was manslaughter.  However, if I

Page 34860

 1     may add, once the -- we decided on the sentence, we did not -- we were

 2     not guided by the ethnicity of the perpetrator or the victim.  If there

 3     were aggravating circumstances, then the sentence was adequate, it was

 4     appropriate, regardless of the fact whether it was a Serb or a Muslim or

 5     anyone else.

 6        Q.   P6182 is the case that I was talking about.

 7        A.   Yes.  I think it was the murder of Djuric in which I was

 8     responsible for the sentence.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now please see D1756,

11     please.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   You were asked about the jurisdiction, the subject matter

14     jurisdiction, I'm not sure whether about the territorial jurisdiction as

15     well, but the subject matter and the distinction between the military and

16     civilian judiciary.  So I would ask you to look at this document together

17     with me.

18             You made a correction and said that this was in 1993.  This was

19     in paragraph 16.  Please have a look at this Official Gazette dated the

20     31st of December, 1993, and tell us whether these are the Laws on the

21     Military Judiciary and the Military Prosecutor's Office?

22        A.   Yes.  I can see that it's the Law on the Military Prosecutor's

23     Office.  Yes, the date is the 31st of December, 1993.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Are you familiar with the change in the laws which

25     took place in 1993?

Page 34861

 1        A.   Yes, even though at the time I was already out of the

 2     Military Court.  But I know that the consequence of the attitude about

 3     the subject matter jurisdiction between the regular and Military Court

 4     was the adoption of the Law on the Military Prosecutor's Office where it

 5     was specified in which cases the military prosecutor's office was to act.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have a look at page 4

 8     now, and in English we can keep the page that we can see now, but we need

 9     page 4 in Serbian, and the title, how it begins, and then we shall move

10     on to page 5.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Is this my decree on the proclamation of the Law on Military

13     Courts on the 30th of December, 1993?

14        A.   Yes, that's what it says.  I can see it on the screen.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now please look at

16     Article 10.  Both in Serbian and in English, we shall need the following

17     page.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Can you please tell us what Article 10, paragraph 2, says?

20        A.   The military courts shall try military personnel and other

21     persons for the following crimes and then the crimes are listed.

22        Q.   What does it say here?  What crimes are these?

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please zoom in Article 10?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are mostly military crimes.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 34862

 1        Q.   Paragraph 2, please, paragraph 2.

 2        A.   You mean item 2.

 3        Q.   I mean after the numbers.  Military courts --

 4        A.   "Shall try military and other personnel for criminal acts

 5     committed against military installations, criminal acts committed while

 6     on duty or concerning the performance of duty, as well as those committed

 7     in the army if the targets are combat equipment, weapons, ammunition or

 8     explosives which serve the country's defence."

 9             MR TIEGER:  Sorry, Mr. President.  I'm here listening to

10     court reporter who cannot possibly keep up.  She's been polite enough not

11     to scream but I think she'd like to.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Mm-hmm.  Yes, your reading was far too

13     fast.

14             Yes, what is your question, Mr. Karadzic?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   The question was whether this is the law or, rather, the

18     amendment that you mentioned during the cross-examination and which was

19     introduced in 1993.

20        A.   Yes.  It was the consequence of an attitude taken in view of the

21     distinction of subject matter jurisdiction between civilian and military

22     courts.  The consequence was the adoption of the Law on Military Courts

23     and Military Prosecutor's Office which occurred, as we can see from this

24     document, in late 1993.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Thank you.  Now you spoke a bit slower.  What does

Page 34863

 1     that mean that an attitude is taken and then a law is amended?  How much

 2     time is necessary to adopt a law after a change of position?

 3        A.   Well, probably two or three months pass between the two.  I left

 4     the Military Court in late September 1993 and the position had already

 5     been defined.  It was known exactly in which case the Military Court was

 6     to do something and in which case it was the civilian court.  The

 7     position was that all the cases in which the proceedings had begun should

 8     be completed by the Military Court, and it so happened that the law that

 9     regulated and legalised all this was adopted in late 1993, towards the

10     end of the year.

11        Q.   Thank you.  You were asked today on pages 75 -- actually, 75 to

12     76, about release from pre-trial custody.  Could you please tell us what

13     all the reasons are for that?  Can there be a procedural reason for that?

14     Does the Prosecution have to meet certain dead-lines?

15        A.   Well, look, the first reason why persons are released from

16     custody is if the period involved had expired.  The investigating judge

17     could send a person into custody for 30 days and then the chamber could

18     extend it for another 30 days.

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Or 60 days, interpreter's correction.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then the Supreme Military Court

21     could decide on an extension of another 90 days.  Now what are the

22     reasons except for the expiry of dead-lines.  They are in the Law on

23     Criminal Procedure.  Custody can be ordered in order to prevent

24     influencing witnesses.  If all the witnesses had been heard in the

25     pre-trial stage, then there is no reason to continue custody.  If there

Page 34864

 1     is a threat of flight, also if a passport is taken from the accused, then

 2     that reason is no longer there, so there's no need for me to go into all

 3     the reasons that are listed in the Law on Criminal Procedure.  It is up

 4     to the investigating judge to see whether the reasons are still there,

 5     and if the military prosecutor's office does not oppose this release from

 6     custody, then such a release is legal and legitimate.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  And if the term involved expires and if there is no

 8     further request for extension, what happens?

 9        A.   If there are no further reasons for the custody to continue, then

10     the judge decides to end custody as I did in the case that we mentioned.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note, we did not catch the names

12     of all the cases that were listed now.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Thank you.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In my question, although I spoke

16     slowly, there is something missing.  I asked what happens if there is no

17     indictment, and if there is no request for extension and custody is over?

18     Actually, it's the part concerning indictment that was missing.

19             2464 is the 65 ter number I'd like to see now.

20             JUDGE KWON:  24464?  24664?

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  65 ter.  664.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Law on Criminal Proceedings.  24664.

23             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, that was admitted earlier today.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  As Exhibit 6178.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise.  Page 3, please, in

Page 34865

 1     Serbian.  In English we can keep this page.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Please, Mr. Bojanovic, could you present Article 190 to us.  What

 4     does it prescribe?

 5        A.   Number 1, Article 190, custody may be ordered only under the

 6     conditions envisaged in this law.  That means that custody may be ordered

 7     only under the conditions envisaged in this law.  And then number 2 says

 8     the duration of custody, the duration of custody must be kept to the

 9     shortest necessary time.  It is the duty of all bodies and agencies

10     participating in criminal proceedings and of agencies extending them

11     legal aid to proceed with particular urgency if the accused is in

12     custody.  That means that custody means depriving a person of its

13     freedom.  It is proceedings that have to establish whether somebody had

14     indeed committed a crime.  That is why custody is a sensitive matter

15     invariably.  And that is why the legislator says that in such cases one

16     should act with urgency so that people are not detained without any

17     reason.  Number 3, throughout proceedings custody shall be terminated as

18     soon as the grounds on which it was ordered cease to exist.  This is

19     precisely what I spoke of a moment ago as I responded to your previous

20     question.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have page 4 in English,

23     Article 197, and we can find it in Serbian too.  In Serbian it's page 5

24     and in English it's page 4.  197, paragraph 3, that means that we need

25     the next page in English.  Could we please zoom in the Serbian version.

Page 34866

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Please, can you read paragraph 3 only.

 3        A.   Paragraph 3.  If the -- if the indictment is not brought before

 4     the expiration of the periods referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article,

 5     the accused shall be released.  That is precisely what we discussed

 6     already.  Mihajlovic Rade, the indictment had not been issued and all the

 7     time periods had expired, 30 days, 60 days, so it was proper and lawful

 8     to abolish the decision on custody.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] D1476.  Could we please have a look

11     at that now.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Do you remember when that man Mihajlovic was released?  That was

14     the 5th of January, wasn't it?

15        A.   I think it was the 31st of December, 1992, if I'm not mistaken.

16     The indictment was issued on the 5th of January, 1993.

17        Q.   So at the time when he was released, there was no indictment;

18     right?  That's what you said a moment ago?

19        A.   Yes.  It was issued on the 5th of January, 1993.  I cannot

20     guarantee but I think that the previous decision was made on the

21     31st of December, 1992, which shows that all of this was legal.

22     Actually, I do apologise, Mr. Karadzic.  Madam Prosecutor, when she

23     spoke, she said that Rade Mihajlovic killed --

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note, could the witness please

25     start his answer again.  The interpreters --

Page 34867

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Interpreters were not able to catch

 2     up with your speed, Mr. Bojanovic.  Could you repeat your answer.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Enes Tabakovic was killed.  That

 4     was this case.  He was not detained.  This was a person who was killed in

 5     a dormitory where there were other soldiers, so this was not a person who

 6     was in custody.  This person was a member of the Army of Republika

 7     Srpska.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please take a look at 1475

11     briefly.

12             JUDGE KWON:  While we have this Article, shall we take a look at

13     Article 197 again.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The previous one, 197.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  244 -- 24664.  Section 3 of that Article

16     referred to the release when there has been no indictment before the

17     expiration of period, but section 2 deals with the extension by the

18     Supreme Court of the republic by three months, which was referred to by

19     Ms. Sutherland.  What's the relation between the two?  If there was no

20     indictment between the first initial one or three months of custody, then

21     the investigating judge had the option to go to the Supreme Court to get

22     another three-month extension before releasing the accused.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  The judge could, but did not

24     necessarily have to address them.  The assumption is that he could have.

25     That's what the legislator says too, but it's up to the judge and his own

Page 34868

 1     assessment whether there are reasons to ask for an extension of another

 2     90 days.  In this case, I assume that the judge thought that it was

 3     unnecessary to ask for a further extension of 90 days, which would be in

 4     accordance with the law, in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article.

 5     Since 30 days and then another 60 days had expired, there was no

 6     indictment, and quite simply he reached a decision to end custody.

 7             Let me just draw your attention to another important detail.  In

 8     my practice there has been -- there hasn't been a single case of us

 9     addressing the Supreme Military Court for asking for an extension,

10     because while the proceedings are on, then there is an automatic renewal

11     of the custody decision.  As soon as the indictment is issued.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Did -- did we not see a decision where you asked for

13     extension of custody?  What did you talk about 1D7831?  Can you upload

14     that Exhibit MFI D3080.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  This is an extension of

16     custody of 30 days that was about to be over.  It's Trivkovic et al.

17     That's the case.  I continued the investigation, since not the entire

18     investigation had been completed, not all the witnesses had been

19     interviewed, and then I turned to the first instance Military Court, the

20     chamber that was dealing with the case, I asked them for a 60-day

21     extension.  And you see on the next page, I think, the ruling of the

22     criminal chamber of that court that ruled on this further extension of

23     60 days.  So that is the first instance court.  I hope that you

24     understood me.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Yes, please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

Page 34869

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellencies.  If you

 2     just trusted me a bit more, you would see that I would come to the point.

 3             D1475, could we briefly take a look at that.  The moment when --

 4             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Excuse me.  65 ter number 24711, which was

 5     recently just admitted earlier this afternoon, is the correct number.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It can be put that way, too, but I

 7     think it's been admitted as a D document as well.  Can we just

 8     establish --

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Excuse me --

10             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

11             MS. SUTHERLAND:  That document is P06180.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   So it was on the 5th of January, 1993, that the investigating

14     judge deemed that there was no indictment issued.

15        A.   No.  I think it was earlier.  In December, I think.  December.

16     The 31st of December the previous year.  That's when the decision was

17     made to discontinue custody.  If you can find that document, please.

18        Q.   Thank you.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then P06010.  That might be the

20     number.  We found it.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   The 30th of December, as you said.  We don't have to look at --

23     for it any further.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now could we please take a look

25     at D1476, the 5th of January.

Page 34870

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   So one investigation discontinues on the 5th of January, and an

 3     indictment is being issued.  So until the 30th of December there was no

 4     indictment and then one investigation is continued and then another

 5     decision is being reached.  Can you explain this order to the

 6     Trial Chamber.

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note, could the witness start his

 8     answer again.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Could you repeat.  Could you start again.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Slowly.

13        A.   All right.  Since the Military Court and the military

14     prosecutor's office were two buildings in the same compound, we were in

15     contact with the prosecutor's office every day and there was a precedent

16     there, and it's the fault of the prosecutor in that case.  On the same

17     day, he informed the court that he's dropping criminal charges, and the

18     consequence of that was that decision to discontinue investigation.  And

19     then the same day he issued an indictment against that person, but that

20     is an answer that Drinic, the prosecutor acting in that case, should

21     provide to you, really.  All of us were very surprised.  I don't know why

22     the military prosecutor did that, that the same day he discontinued the

23     investigation, dropped criminal charges, and on the very same day he

24     brought the indictment that we see before us now.  However, that's a

25     question that you would have to put to him.

Page 34871

 1        Q.   Thank you.  What does this indictment imply and did you act in

 2     accordance with it?

 3        A.   Yes.  As I've already said, I think I scheduled a hearing and the

 4     accused did not respond -- or, rather, the post office informed us that

 5     he was not accessible and the subpoena could not be issued to him.  He

 6     was in Switzerland.  And then in accordance with the Law on

 7     Criminal Procedure, I sent an order to the MUP asking for a wanted notice

 8     to be issued for that person.  That case remained.  I left the court in

 9     that year and, as you know, the entire case was finally completed by the

10     District Military Court -- by the regular District Court in Bijeljina.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Your question was not recorded.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I asked for another document.

13     D1478, please.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Do you recognise this document?

16        A.   Yes.  It is an order which I signed on the 21st of February, and

17     it's probable that a hearing on the basis of the indictment of the

18     5th of January was scheduled for this day and when I had received

19     information from the post office, I suppose, if the post office was the

20     one that was supposed to serve the subpoena or if we used delivery

21     through military police, when I was informed as a presiding judge that

22     the accused was at large, acting in accordance with the Law on Criminal

23     Procedure, according to Article 551, items 1 and 2, on the Law on

24     Criminal Proceedings which we had adopted.

25        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Bojanovic.  Thank you.  I respect your work which

Page 34872

 1     was to our honour.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no further questions,

 3     Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  That concludes your evidence,

 5     Mr. Bojanovic.  On behalf of the Chamber, I thank you for your coming to

 6     The Hague to give it.  Now you are free to go.  Please have a safe

 7     journey back home.

 8             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9                           [The witness withdrew]

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, has this law,

11     65 ter 24644, has it been admitted?

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We have admitted it.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P6178, Your Honours.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then I have nothing else to tender.

15             JUDGE KWON:  But only those parts, 190 to 99 or something like

16     that.

17             Well, we have seven minutes.  Is the next witness ready?

18             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Why don't we bring him in, then.

20                           [The witness entered court]

21             JUDGE KWON:  Good afternoon, Mr. Kicanovic.

22             THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

23             JUDGE KWON:  Would you make the solemn declaration.

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

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

Page 34873

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Please be seated and make yourself

 2     comfortable.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4                           WITNESS:  MILIVOJE KICANOVIC

 5                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

 8                           Examination by Mr. Karadzic:

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Dr. Kicanovic.

10        A.   Good afternoon, President.

11        Q.   I will ask you to speak slowly and to make pauses between what

12     you and I say so that everything would be recorded.

13        A.   All right.

14        Q.   Doctor, did you give my Defence team a statement?

15        A.   Yes, President.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Please look on the screen and when you see the cursor

17     stop, that means you may begin to speak.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have 1D7825.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Can you see your statement on the screen in front of you?

21        A.   Yes, I do.

22        Q.   Have you read and signed this statement?

23        A.   Yes, I have, President.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let us please have a look at the

25     last page so that the witness could identify his signature.

Page 34874

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Is this your signature?

 3        A.   Yes, that's my signature.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Dr. Kicanovic, is this statement truthful as regards

 5     the words you told the Defence team?

 6        A.   Yes, it is.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  If I were to ask you the same questions today as the

 8     ones that you were asked by the Defence team, would your answers

 9     substantially the same as the ones contained in this statement?

10        A.   Yes, they would be the same.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I tender this statement

12     in accordance with 92 ter.

13             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  We have one associated

14     exhibit which we would tender and ask that it be added to our 65 ter list

15     as we hadn't interviewed Dr. Kicanovic at the time we filed that list.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Any objection, Ms. Gustafson?

17             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  No, there's no

18     objection.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE KWON:  We'll admit them.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  The 92 ter statement will be Exhibit D3089, and

21     1D15011 will be Exhibit D3090.

22             THE ACCUSED:  Two and a half pages, Excellency.  If you want me

23     now, I can do it.

24                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

25             JUDGE KWON:  I received a kind "go" from the Registrar so why

Page 34875

 1     don't we do that for today.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I will now read the

 3     summary of Dr. Milivoje Kicanovic's statement in the English language.

 4             [In English] Dr. Milivoje Kicanovic was born on 15th of May,

 5     1938, in the village of Raca, Bijeljina municipality, where he still

 6     currently resides.  He was a member of the Municipal Board of the SDS,

 7     and in 1992, he was appointed director of the Bijeljina hospital.

 8             After the SDA Muslim party was founded in Bijeljina, a reaction

 9     of the Serbs from the region was to form the Party of Democratic Accord

10     since there was not any Serb party yet.  In July 1990,

11     Dr. Milivoje Kicanovic joined the SDS newly constituted in response the

12     formation of SDA and HDZ.  As a matter of fact, all of the members of

13     formed Party of Democratic Accord joined the SDS collectively.  In

14     November that year, the SDS clearly won elections -- local elections in

15     Bijeljina, but the government was constituted together with the SDA in

16     order to improve inter-ethnic relations in the municipality.

17             By the second half of 1990, divisions between Serbs and Muslims

18     were clearly visible in the Bijeljina municipality.  Muslims, politically

19     initiated by the SDA leadership, openly approved of acts of terrorism by

20     paramilitary units against the JNA in Croatia.  While Serbs responded to

21     call-up orders of the JNA commands and units, SDA leadership disseminated

22     propaganda calling on Muslim people to ignore the call-ups.  Meanwhile,

23     the SDA planned and implemented the illegal arming of Muslims through

24     party organs.  Protests like that held at the Elvako factory instigated

25     to ensure the appointment of the only Muslim -- Muslims were a basis for

Page 34876

 1     implementing the separatist policy of the SDA in Bijeljina.  During this

 2     period, Dr. Kicanovic felt it was his duty to attempt to ease these

 3     tensions among the population.

 4             Dr. Milivoje Kicanovic attended meetings with the local public

 5     police station and the JNA garrison in Bijeljina regarding the security

 6     situation.  He heard reports that the safety of the Serbs in the

 7     municipality was severely jeopardised by the activities of a large number

 8     of Muslims who harassed and mistreated Serbs in public places.  Muslim

 9     authorities continued to illegally import weapons and distribute them to

10     Muslim citizens.

11             On 31st of March, 1992, Dr. Milivoje Kicanovic was openly fired

12     at in the street.  He escaped, contacted his neighbours who evacuated

13     their families the next day.  The main street -- streets were blocked by

14     groups of the well-armed Muslims who were also randomly firing at people

15     on the streets.  Milivoje Kicanovic stayed in the village of Dvorovi to

16     establish a dispensary to help those wounded in the fighting.  Street

17     fighting had broken out in Bijeljina, and the hospital in the town was

18     under the control of Muslim extremists.  On 3rd of April, the blockade

19     was lifted and Dr. Milivoje Kicanovic visited the hospital, which was in

20     a state of chaos, and Serbian patients had been severely mistreated.  The

21     media in Sarajevo reported that a massacre was committed against the

22     Muslims, with casualties in -- in thousands.  This was absolutely false.

23             During this period, Dr. Milivoje Kicanovic and his colleagues

24     provided medical assistance to everybody regardless of their ethnicity or

25     religion.  This included Muslims who were wounded while fighting Serbs or

Page 34877

 1     the JNA.

 2             Dr. Milivoje Kicanovic had direct contact with President Karadzic

 3     on several occasions.  President Karadzic urged everyone to do their

 4     utmost to defuse the tensions between Serbs and Muslims in Bijeljina and

 5     to do everything possible for the welfare of all citizens.  He genuinely

 6     wished to prevent what was in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  When

 7     President Karadzic visited the hospital in Bijeljina, he insisted on

 8     seeing all the patients and remarked publicly that patients' ethnicity

 9     was irrelevant to him as they were foremost human beings.

10             From Dr. Milivoje Kicanovic's family house, he could see columns

11     of Serbian refugees travelling to take refuge in Serbia.  Following the

12     fall of Serbian Krajina in the Republic of Croatia, columns of refugees

13     passed by continuously for four full days and nights.  The local

14     authorities provided assistance in food and medicine for those people.

15             And that would be the summary.  At that moment I do not have

16     questions for Dr. Kicanovic.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  So your evidence, Dr. Kicanovic, in this

19     case has been admitted in writing, and tomorrow we'll continue and you'll

20     be cross-examined by the representative of the Office of the Prosecutor.

21             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Sorry, Your Honour.  I assume you'll give the

22     witness the normal reminder not to speak about his evidence.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Of course.  Yes.  Dr. Kicanovic, I'd like to advise

24     you not to discuss with anybody else about your testimony.  Do you

25     understand that, sir?

Page 34878

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely, and this is what

 2     is written here.  If I may just say that there are two typos here, I

 3     think.  It's the Party of Democratic Concord, and that's under 3, the

 4     Party of Democratic Concord.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Doctor, if you mean my summary, it

 6     is not in evidence, so that it doesn't really matter.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right.  There is something else

 8     as well, but if it's as you say, then it doesn't really matter.  All

 9     right.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  We will continue tomorrow morning at

11     9.00.  The hearing is adjourned.

12                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.52 p.m.,

13                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 6th day

14                           of March, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.