Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 46310

 1                           Monday, 3 February 2014

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, everyone.

 6             Today we continue to sit pursuant to Rule 15 bis, with

 7     Judge Morrison being away, due to his personal matters.

 8             Mr. Tieger, do you have a new member today?

 9             MR. TIEGER:  We do, Mr. President.  And Mr. Olmsted,

10     Matthew Olmsted, will be taking the next witness.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, Mr. Olmsted, welcome on board.

12             Before we continue, there are three matters I'd like to deal

13     with, which are directed to the Defence.

14             First, the Chamber would like to address an issue stemming from

15     the accused's motion to admit testimony of Pero Rendic pursuant to

16     Rule 92 bis, filed on the 8th of January, 2014.  In the motion, the

17     accused submits that he had planned to call this witness to testify on

18     the 16th of February [sic], 2014, but that the witness indicated that he

19     was unable and unwilling to testify due to a heart condition.  The

20     witness was listed as a 92 ter witness on the revised witness list and

21     the Rule 92 ter notification pertaining to him was filed on 17th

22     December, 2013, with reference to the transcript of his testimony from

23     the Kvocka et al case in 2001, and no reference to the fact that he was

24     unable to testify.  It is therefore unclear to the Chamber from the

25     information provided in the motion when the witness's condition came to

Page 46311

 1     be known to the accused and his Defence team.

 2             Mr. Robinson, could you look into this and get back to the

 3     Chamber either orally or in writing before the end of this week?

 4             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  For the next two matters, could the Chamber move

 6     into private session.

 7                           [Private session]

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 46312

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17                           [Open session]

18             THE REGISTRAR:  We're now in open session, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Unless there's further administrative matters to be

20     dealt with, we'll bring in the next witness.

21                           [The witness entered court]

22             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, Mr. Stanisic.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Would you make the solemn declaration.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good morning --

Page 46313

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

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

 3                           WITNESS:  MICO STANISIC

 4                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

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

 6     comfortable.

 7             For the record, would the counsel assisting Mr. Stanisic

 8     introduce himself, please.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.  Good morning, Your Honours.

10     My name is Slobodan Zecevic.  I'm counsel assisting Mr. Stanisic, and I'm

11     assisted, with the leave of the Trial Chamber, with

12     Ms. Ibna Catalina Fajardo Rodriguez at my side.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Good morning to you, Mr. Zecevic.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I would have a short submission

15     before we start, with the leave of the Court.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, by all means.  Please proceed.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

18             Your Honours, Mico Stanisic is here to testify not on his free

19     will, as you know, but as he was ordered by this Trial Chamber to --

20     which ordered him to testify by subpoena.  Defence recalls the

21     paragraph 15 of the decision to subpoena Mico Stanisic where the

22     Trial Chamber specifically stated that it maintains its discretion under

23     Rule 90(E) to compel or not compel a witness to answer certain questions.

24     In exercising this discretion it will be cognizant of the fact that

25     Stanisic is currently involved in appeal proceedings at the Tribunal and

Page 46314

 1     will ensure that his rights are safe-guarded.

 2             Defence understands this statement in light of the

 3     Appeals Chamber decision in relation to Tolimir subpoena, paragraphs 44

 4     and 45, where Appeals Chamber specifically emphasised that any

 5     self-incriminating testimony inadvertently provided during

 6     Mico Stanisic's testimony in Karadzic case could not be used directly or

 7     indirectly against him and that the Prosecution would be prohibited from

 8     attempting to tender into evidence on appeal any self-incriminating

 9     information derived from Stanisic testimony or any evidence derived

10     therefrom.

11             We, therefore, Your Honours, read it to mean that the Rule 90(E)

12     applies to all of Mico Stanisic testimony, questions and answers.

13             Your Honours, Mico Stanisic will obviously necessarily testify of

14     his acts and conduct and that is exactly what is the core of our appeal

15     where we are using his acts and conduct to establish that he was not a

16     member of the JCE as found in the Trial Chamber judgement.  As a

17     practical matter, the Defence respectfully proposes to the Trial Chamber

18     to compel Mr. Stanisic to testify in accordance with Rule 90(E) at this

19     point, whereupon Mr. Stanisic will testify, rather than to have Defence

20     object to each question and/or Mr. Stanisic refuse to answer each and

21     every question.  From the aspect of judicial economy and undisturbed

22     proceedings, we respectfully say our request is justified.  That was my

23     submission, Your Honours.  Thank you very much.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Before I turn to the parties, Mr. Zecevic, if you

25     could clarify this.  What's the distinction as you see them between the

Page 46315

 1     subpoena and the compulsion or compelling the witness to testify pursuant

 2     to Rule 90(E)?  Depending upon the nature of the question?

 3             Mr. Stanisic has been already ordered despite notwithstanding his

 4     refusal to come to the Court to testify by our decision that subpoena.

 5     So Chamber has already ordered him to testify against his will.

 6             But do you need additional order to compel him to testify,

 7     irrespective of the nature of his answers?

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honour, we believe in order to protect

 9     the rights of Mr. Stanisic on his appeal, that we would need the

10     Trial Chamber to compel him to testify in accordance with the 90(E) --

11     Rule 90(E).  The thing is, Your Honours, that we -- we assume that the --

12     that the vast majority of the testimony of Mr. Stanisic will be about his

13     acts and conduct, and as I explained, this is the -- the core issue on

14     our appeal.  And that is why we believe that -- that he should be

15     compelled to testify in accordance with 90(E).

16             Thank you.

17             JUDGE KWON:  One more question before I turn to the parties.

18             So, we received his statement given -- or tendered to the

19     Defence.  So -- so this will not be tendered unless the Chamber orders

20     him to -- to testify pursuant to Rule 90(E)?

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  That is correct, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

23             Yes, Mr. Robinson, do you like to make any observation?

24             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  We confirm Mr. Zecevic's

25     understanding with respect to the statement and that was the conditions

Page 46316

 1     under which the statement was given that it would not be tendered until

 2     or unless he was compelled to answer because the contents of the

 3     statement clearly could be -- come within Rule 90(E), and whether the

 4     Chamber wishes to compel him to answer on a question-by-question basis or

 5     on -- as far as the cross-examination is concerned, or whether it wishes

 6     to have a more general decision on that, we -- we leave to the discretion

 7     of the Chamber.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Could you address the issue whether the Chamber

 9     needs to order him in vacuum to testify pursuant to Rule 90(E)

10     irrespective of the nature of the question whether it -- whether the

11     answer of -- which incriminates or does not incriminate the accused --

12     the witness.

13             MR. ROBINSON:  Well, there's two -- if we can break that down

14     into two components:  First of all, the direct examination.  The first

15     sentence of Rule 90(E) says a witness may object to making any statement

16     which might tend to incriminate the witness.  So when Dr. Karadzic asks

17     him to confirm that this is his statement and that he would give the same

18     evidence, he has the right to object to making the statement, and I think

19     you would have the decision on -- on a global basis as to whether or not

20     to compel him to make this statement and therefore have it tendered as in

21     lieu of his direct testimony.

22             Moving -- even though there are some parts of that statements

23     such as paragraph 4, "I was born on the 30th of June, 1954," which would

24     not be incriminating but as a whole, the statement is being tendered, so

25     I think it's safe to do it that way, on a global basis for the direct

Page 46317

 1     examination.

 2             But turning to the cross-examination --

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Sorry, I didn't follow.

 4             So paragraph 4 cannot be used by the Prosecution because it is

 5     compelled pursuant to Rule 90(E).

 6             MR. ROBINSON:  That's correct.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Is that your submission?

 8             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, please continue.

10             MR. ROBINSON:  Turning to the cross-examination, I think the fair

11     reading of the Rule would require or suggest that a question-by-question

12     invocation of Rule 90(E) is the better practice.  That's our position on

13     that.

14             JUDGE KWON:  When we discussed as to whether Mr. Stanisic should

15     be led live instead of presenting his evidence pursuant to Rule 92 ter,

16     this was not addressed to the Chamber, wasn't it, Mr. Robinson?  You

17     didn't raise that this whole statement is -- is tendered pursuant to

18     Rule 90(E) with the understanding that this will be tendered only when he

19     is compelled to testify pursuant Rule 90(E).

20             MR. ROBINSON:  Well, Mr. President, I think that was the

21     intention of paragraph 3 of the statement.  But perhaps it's not so

22     explicit.  But we understood when Mr. Stanisic gave us this statement

23     that he was -- he was invoking Rule 90(E) that nothing in the statement

24     would be considered a waiver of his right pursuant to 90(E) and, as

25     indicated in paragraph 2, we were doing it this way for the purpose of

Page 46318

 1     judicial economy, so that we could present his evidence in the most

 2     efficient way possible.  So I'm sorry if it was not explicitly addressed,

 3     but we were of the opinion that this is how we would be doing it pursuant

 4     to this paragraph 3.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 6             Mr. Tieger or Mr. Olmsted.

 7             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Mr. Olmsted may have some

 8     matters to raise when I complete my submission based on his more intimate

 9     understanding of the facts and backdrop related to the specific instance.

10     But let me say a few matters quickly, having been caught a bit by

11     surprise as the Bench has been as well.

12             The first matter I intended to raise was the last one raised by

13     the Court.  This issue would have been appropriately raised at the time

14     of the discussion concerning whether or not Mr. Stanisic's testimony

15     should be led live or via the statement.  And in that respect, I would

16     also note Mr. Robinson's reference to paragraph 3.  I would -- of the

17     statement.  I would suggest that it indicates quite the opposite, that --

18     that Mr. Stanisic -- the indication there in paragraph 3 is that you now

19     have an entire statement but we reserve the right on a case-by-case basis

20     to object.  There's certainly no suggestion as we are experiencing now

21     that there's going to be an effort to -- to -- seek compulsion for the

22     submission before the submission of the entire statement.  I would also

23     note that we have the statement, a signed statement, and the -- it

24     exists, and there's now a signed statement by this witness that was

25     submitted voluntarily without compulsion that is in the -- physically

Page 46319

 1     exists.  Everybody knows the provenance.  We have that document,

 2     attempting to draw some kind of formalistic distinction between the

 3     preparation and submission of that statement to the parties and to the

 4     Court, and the tendering into evidence serves some purposes, but it

 5     doesn't appear to me to be a point for purposing of 90(E), at least with

 6     respect to this statement.  The statement now exists, has been provided

 7     without compulsion and that's one of the significant factors here,

 8     especially when Mr. Robinson tries to draw a distinction between the way

 9     we should handle cross-examination and the way we should handle

10     examination-in-chief.

11             The cross-examination arises, in our submission, from the issues

12     presented by this statement which was submitted to the parties without

13     invocation to 90(E) with only a reservation that during the course of the

14     proceeding, the witness may, nevertheless, attempt to invoke 90(E) as to

15     some matters unspecified.  That means that we have a -- a statement that

16     has been provided in one manner.  Now we'll move to cross, which should

17     be handled in exactly the same manner.  A witness cannot waive his right

18     to object to a particular item and then on -- on examination-in-chief and

19     provided it into evidence and then shield himself from cross-examination

20     by invoking the privilege against self-incrimination with respect to the

21     same item he's already testified about or provided information about.  So

22     that's another problem.

23             Mr. Robinson -- or Mr. Zecevic, I believe, raised the Tolimir

24     decision.  I believe he is referring to paragraph 43 or 44 of that

25     decision which referred to Mr. -- how the Court in that particular case

Page 46320

 1     would choose to deal with matters that might be elicited during his

 2     testimony even if there wasn't a specific invocation of the privilege

 3     against self-incrimination.  That was very case specific as we read it

 4     and had a great deal to do, as the Court seemed to emphasise with the

 5     fact that Mr. Tolimir was self-represented.  But, in any event, it wasn't

 6     a blanket position taken by the Appeals Chamber.  I think that much seems

 7     to be clear but it did -- it indicated that in certain circumstances the

 8     protections would apply not only to matters which were specifically

 9     invoked or matters for which there was a specific invocation made but

10     also perhaps to other matters in light, in that instances, in particular,

11     of Mr. Tolimir's self-represented status.  So suggesting to the Court

12     that it's a blanket rule I think is somewhat misleading.  That also seems

13     to militate in favour of the question-by-question approach that this

14     Court has adopted in related proceedings thus far, and it's -- it's --

15     while we can see kind of a form of economy in a sort of blanket approach,

16     that's not the cautious approach this Trial Chamber has employed in the

17     past.

18             And finally, I would note that the Court has made a distinction

19     between the subpoena process which brought -- which brings a witness

20     here, and the compulsion process which may take -- may or may not take

21     place after a witness is indeed here, and we saw that in a very recent

22     appearances as the Court is aware.  I'm also aware that that's the

23     practice in certain jurisdictions across the globe, not all to be sure

24     but in a number of them, where the jurisprudence makes a distinction

25     between compelling a witness to appear by way of subpoena and then

Page 46321

 1     independently addressing the issue of whether or not certain questions

 2     give rise to a privilege against self-incrimination.

 3             So many issues arise by way of what has just been raised, matters

 4     which I believe could have been raised before and contrary to the

 5     suggestion that we were somehow put on notice that this matter would be

 6     raised, Prosecution submits that a fair reading of the entirety of the

 7     circumstances, including the fact that it wasn't raised when it should

 8     have been, including the reasonable inference to be drawn from

 9     paragraph 3, would suggest the opposite, that this issue is not one that

10     could have been expected had we been properly notified that we would be

11     confronting this particular kind of problem.  I believe the Bench and the

12     Prosecution would have undertaken both some specific inquiries and some

13     specific additional research to address the issues raised now.

14             That's about all the assistance I can be at this point,

15     Mr. President.  I -- I don't -- I -- I certainly don't think that

16     treating, at this point, given the complexities that have arisen, that

17     treating the statement -- pretending to revert back to a situation that

18     existed prior to the time that this statement was drafted, signed,

19     memorialised, signed, and submitted to the parties is rather unrealistic.

20     And, in any event, I don't believe that dealing with it as a blanket

21     matter, that is failing to distinguish between the clearly

22     non-incriminatory matters that may arise and matters that may give rise

23     to a -- a potentially legitimate invocation of 90(E) will -- will be a

24     productive approach.

25             So I would urge the Court as I think the -- the Court was already

Page 46322

 1     leaning to reject the effort to treat this -- to approach this matter as

 2     suggested by Mr. Zecevic and Mr. Robinson.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Tieger, would the refusal -- I'm asking you,

 4     Mr. Tieger, would the refusal to testify after having been subpoenaed,

 5     whether or not the question would incriminate the witness, not constitute

 6     a contempt of Tribunal?  That's a refusal to testify.

 7             MR. TIEGER:  I would have to think about --

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Unless ordered pursuant to Rule 90(E), whether the

 9     question would be incriminating or not.

10             MR. TIEGER:  Yeah, I understood.  I -- I -- I -- that's a very

11     good point.  I -- I -- and I was focussing on the -- the issues raised by

12     subpoenaed witnesses who have already signalled an intention or concern

13     about 90(E).  So that was the nature of my response.

14             I -- I tend to think the Court is right.  It is simply a blanket

15     refusal to testify after being subpoenaed without resort to any

16     justification.  That's essentially -- the -- the Court would be -- would

17     be correct.

18             My focus was on the circumstances we've been facing of late,

19     where the -- we've been delving with potential 90(E) matters, and

20     although the relation -- although as the Court I think noted in one of

21     its decisions, the relationship between the subpoena and the invocation

22     of 90(E) is very close, they're not identical.  And, as I say, I'm aware

23     of jurisdictions where that distinction is made.

24             But setting that issue aside, if a witness decided to respond to

25     a subpoena and then showed up and said, Okay, I'm here but there is no

Page 46323

 1     way I'm going to co-operate with the Court.  I contumaciously refuse to

 2     participate in these proceedings without giving any reason, then I

 3     presume the Court would be correct.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  I turn to you, Mr. Zecevic.

 5             Rule 90(E), the first sentence of that provision reads like this:

 6             "A witness may object to making any statement which might tend to

 7     incriminate the witness."

 8             So, therefore, I ask you the same question that I asked

 9     Mr. Tieger:  Irrespective of the question, the nature of the question,

10     whether it incriminates the witness or not, the refusal to testify on the

11     part of the witness, if he is not to -- compelled pursuant to Rule 90(E)

12     would constitute a contempt of the Tribunal, wouldn't it?

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I would -- with all due respect, I

14     disagree.  The Rule 90(E) is -- is a provision of the Rules which --

15     which protects the right of the accused who is compelled to testify --

16     who is -- who is testifying in the -- in the -- or the witness who is

17     testifying in the proceedings.

18             As the Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber already established,

19     we are here faced with the very specific situation where the -- where

20     the -- where the -- whereas witnesses, we have the persons who are in the

21     process -- or, rather, different stages of the process before this

22     Tribunal.  In this case, is the appeal of Mico Stanisic.

23             And, therefore, his concerns are, I believe, legitimate.

24     Mr. Stanisic does not - and I repeat, does not - does not refuse to

25     testify.  He came here on the subpoena order of this Trial Chamber.  He

Page 46324

 1     provided the -- the statement.  So, therefore, obviously Mr. Stanisic

 2     would like to assist the Trial Chamber.

 3             The issue here is the protection of his right which we believe

 4     can only be protected by -- by the Rule 90(E).  The nature of the -- of

 5     his testimony, I -- I emphasise again, is such that it would -- it would

 6     necessarily in a majority or in the bigger part refer to his acts and

 7     conduct.  And, as I say, that is the core issue on his appeal.  And

 8     therefore we -- we suggested as a practical matter that the Trial Chamber

 9     compels him to testify and, therefore, we can -- we can continue with --

10     with the testimony of Mico Stanisic as -- as -- as planned.

11             Thank you very much.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE KWON:  Just one question for you, Mr. Zecevic.

14             By way of example, his background, paragraphs 4 to 12.  Take

15     paragraph 4, "I was born in 30th June, 1954, in Pale municipality."

16     Would he not testify unless compelled pursuant to Rule 90(E) about this?

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Of course, he would, Your Honours.  This is -- this

18     is just the preliminary -- his background information which is in no

19     dispute whatsoever.

20             JUDGE KWON:  So when you referred to his acts and conduct, what

21     did you have in mind?

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  I have in mind the -- the acts and conduct in the

23     relevant time of his indictment and the judgement which was -- which was

24     handed in his case on the 27 March of last year.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Unless there are any matters to address, the

Page 46325

 1     Chamber -- the Chamber will rise for about a half-hour to consider this

 2     issue.

 3                            --- Break taken at 9.40 a.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 10.16 a.m.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Having heard the submissions of the parties and

 6     counsel for Mr. Mico Stanisic, and also having reviewed the proposed

 7     Rule 92 ter statement, the Chamber is not satisfied that the protection

 8     of Rule 90(E) can apply for the entirety of the statement.

 9             The Chamber is, therefore, of the view that Mr. Stanisic should

10     be led live.  This will allow the witness to invoke the protection of

11     Rule 90(E) for each question posed that may tend to incriminate him.

12             That's the ruling.  And, Mr. Karadzic, you may proceed.  But

13     before that, I'd like to give Mr. Stanisic an advice as to his right

14     pursuant to Rule 90(E).

15             As you may know well, Mr. Stanisic, I must draw your attention to

16     that Rule.  That is, Rule 90(E).

17             Under this Rule, you may object to answering any question from

18     Mr. Karadzic, the Prosecutor, or even from the Judges, if you believe

19     that your answer might incriminate you in a criminal offence.

20             In this context, "incriminate" means saying something that might

21     amount to an admission of guilt for a criminal offence, or saying

22     something that might provide evidence that you might have committed a

23     criminal offence.  However, should you think that an answer might

24     incriminate and as a consequence you refuse to answer the question, I

25     must let you know that the Tribunal has the power to compel you to answer

Page 46326

 1     the question.  But, in that situation, the Tribunal would ensure that

 2     your testimony compelled under such circumstances would not be used in

 3     any case that might be laid against you for any offence, save and except

 4     the offence of giving false testimony.

 5             Do you understand that, Mr. Stanisic?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic, are you ready to proceed?

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Excellency.  Good

 9     morning, Excellencies.  Good morning to all.

10                           Examination by Mr. Karadzic

11        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Minister.

12        A.   Good morning.

13        Q.   Thank you.  I see that you already have experience with pausing,

14     and I kindly ask you to caution me as well.  There should be a pause

15     between questions and answers, and also we should speak slowly so that

16     everything could be recorded in the transcript.

17             Since the statement is not being admitted, I will have to put a

18     few general questions to you so that they could be recorded.

19             Could you give us your full name and surname and your place and

20     date of birth?

21        A.   My name is Mico Stanisic.  I was born on the 30th of June, 1954,

22     in the municipality of Pale, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please tell us briefly about your

24     education.

25        A.   I completed elementary school in my place of birth, secondary

Page 46327

 1     school in Sarajevo, and I graduated from the University of Sarajevo; I

 2     have a degree in law.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Could you also tell us about your professional career

 4     before 1990, because we will be dealing with that specifically.

 5             What did you do in which period of time?

 6        A.   From 1973 until the end of 1984, I worked at the city SUP, the

 7     SUP of the city of Sarajevo in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  From 1984 until 1991,

 8     I worked in business.  Again, from May 1991, I worked as the secretary of

 9     the city SUP.  And then from February 1992 until the beginning of the

10     war, I worked in the republican SUP as an advisor to the minister.  And

11     then from April 1994 -- or, actually, 1992, I worked as minister of the

12     MUP of the Serbia Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Is that your only involvement in the MUP of

14     Republika Srpska in 1992?

15        A.   No.  From January 1994 until the end of July 1994, again, I was

16     minister in the MUP of Republika Srpska, and thereby I concluded my

17     activities.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Can you please tell us whether you and I knew each

19     other before 1990, and also could you tell us how it was that you got

20     involved in the preparations for establishing a democratic party in

21     Bosnia?

22        A.   We did not know each other personally before 1990, although I

23     knew your name.  Actually, sometime in mid-1984, there were some

24     proceedings, I think it had to do with some misdemeanour in the economic

25     sector, and I was attached to my colleagues from the city SUP who were --

Page 46328

 1     who dealt with white-collar crime.  I just prepared in terms of preparing

 2     documents from a company which was called Gradinski Energoinvest from

 3     Pale.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Do you know?

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Sorry, I have a correction in the transcript.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  It said "misdemeanour in academic sector" and now

 8     it's changed to "economic sector."  I'm sorry.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please repeat your

11     question.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Do you know what the outcome was of these proceedings before this

14     court of law?

15        A.   Yes, I know the final judgement was one of acquittal.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Can you now tell us about your meetings with persons

17     who worked on the establishment of the party in 1990.

18        A.   In 1990, I think his name was Jovan Ilik [phoen].  He worked for

19     Neoplanta from Novi Sad.  So we had this co-operation in the business

20     sector and he told me that the democratic party was to be established and

21     he mentioned the names of certain professors, renowned professors, and he

22     said that the statute had to be worked out for that party, and since I

23     had a degree in law, I accepted.  I said I would help in terms of

24     preparing the statute for the democratic party of Bosnia-Herzegovina at

25     the time.

Page 46329

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Do you remember what our relations were with

 2     Micunovic's democratic party, and did you attend the founding assembly

 3     and was Micunovic present at the founding assembly?

 4        A.   I think his name was Galic - I cannot remember exactly - from

 5     Micunovic's democratic party.  He is the person who helped with the

 6     statute because the intention was to have these two parties be identical.

 7     And Micunovic was present at the promotion event.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  What was the position of Micunovic's party in Serbia

 9     at the time?  Was it in power?  Was it an opposition party?

10        A.   At that time there was just one party that was in power because

11     this was still the Communist system and that was the socialist party,

12     actually, the Communist party of Yugoslavia.  The democratic party that

13     was established then was an opposition party and, of course, the

14     Communist party viewed it not exactly with satisfaction.

15             Sorry, can I just add something.  The democratic party brought

16     together the high "inteligencija," intellectuals, in terms of its

17     activity and its very establishment.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Our adoption of the name the Serbian, et cetera, did

19     you see any reason for that in terms of the other political organisations

20     of the other two peoples in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

21        A.   Well, I cannot give a precise answer as to why -- well, I can

22     speculate but then why the name was changed in the Serb Democratic Party.

23     This was done just before the promotion event for establishing the party.

24     And I know that in Bosnia-Herzegovina two national parties has already

25     been established, the SDA and the HDZ.

Page 46330

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please tell us, after the elections, were

 2     you on some list of ours for the elections?

 3        A.   No.  No.  I was just on the initiative committee for the

 4     establishment of the democratic party.  At that time, as far as I was

 5     informed, it was supposed to be professor, Dr. Kecmanovic, who was

 6     supposed to be head of that party.  However, at the event itself there

 7     were certain changes.  I think that Professor Kecmanovic took over the

 8     reformist party of Ante Markovic in the area of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 9        Q.   So you were not on the election lists.  Can you tell us, after

10     the elections and after the election victory, how did your professional

11     career evolve?  What happened in 1991 after the joint government was

12     established of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

13        A.   After this promotion event which took place at Skenderija, since

14     I had enrolled in a graduate course at the University of Belgrade, my

15     realistic assessment was that I am not really one for politics, that I

16     should stick to my profession.  So that's why I left all of this together

17     and started working on scholarly matters, in addition to my professional

18     work in the city of Sarajevo.

19        Q.   At one point in time, were you asked to fill one of the positions

20     that the Serb community got in the joint organs?

21        A.   At the very outset, when posts were being filled, I was not

22     supposed to be involved in any way.  It was only later in May 1991, or

23     the beginning of 1991, I don't really want to engage in guess-work now,

24     there was a vacancy, the secretary of the SUP of Sarajevo, and the

25     then-officials of the republican MUP, Momcilo Mandic and Vitomir Zepinic,

Page 46331

 1     since they knew me as a person who had dedicated his entire life to his

 2     tasks and work at the Ministry of the Interior, and after all special

 3     schools are completed to that end, then he -- they came and asked me to

 4     become involved in this, and they said that they had consent to do this.

 5             This was the beginning of 1991, the month of May, and I accepted

 6     that, and Alija Delimustafic appointed me to that position.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please tell the Trial Chamber to the best

 8     of your knowledge whether these two top people in the MUP, on behalf of

 9     the Serbs, whether they were members of the SDS, and did the party give

10     full freedom to professionals to appoint their own people, or was it the

11     political party that made these appointments on the basis of party

12     membership and affiliation?

13        A.   This is what Momcilo Mandic and Vitomir Zepinic said to me:

14     These official positions were not allocated in terms of political

15     parties, the SDS or the HDZ or, rather, these people who represent the

16     people would choose personnel to work with them, so they chose people who

17     would work in their line of work.

18        Q.   Could you tell me what the situation was with other appointments

19     in the MUP, what your experience is, what you know, what was the guiding

20     principle there?  Party affiliations or professionalism?

21        A.   To the best of my knowledge, for the most part of --

22             JUDGE KWON:  Before you answer.

23             Yes, Mr. Olmsted.

24             MR. OLMSTED:  I could have raised this objection to the earlier

25     questions, but this is extremely leading on the issue of party membership

Page 46332

 1     and the MUP.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  If -- Mr. Stanisic, if you could answer the

 3     question whether these appointments in the MUP was operated under what

 4     principle.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that in the MUP the main

 6     principle was professionalism; that is to say, people who were of

 7     professional integrity for carrying out these tasks and duties.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us something about the other two

10     communities?  How did they relate to that principle?

11        A.   How should I put it?  I can speak in general terms rather than in

12     details because I didn't dwell much upon it.  I do know, however, that

13     many members of the Ministry of the Interior arrived without having ever

14     performed such tasks in the past.  And they had been sent by the SDA and

15     the HDZ.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Please tell us what was the nature of our contacts.

17     Did we have any private contact of any kind?

18        A.   We never had any kind of private contact.  We were in touch

19     regarding the party but seldom.  You worked together with the professors

20     on the various political matters and you did not deal with the statute.

21     There was a working group set up for that purpose.  I worked in it but

22     not for long because the statute was drafted by Mr. Gajic from Belgrade

23     and we simply adjusted it to the conditions in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

24        Q.   As regards such contacts, once you had assumed your duties in the

25     MUP what was the nature of our contact?  Did you call me?  Did I call

Page 46333

 1     you?  And what was the topic of our discussions?  What was the need which

 2     dictated that contact?

 3        A.   If we take into account the length of time I spent with the MUP

 4     and the number of our contacts, the number was minimal.  It mainly had to

 5     do with tasks related to security in the area of the city of Sarajevo,

 6     such as providing security for persons, facilities, yourself, et cetera.

 7     It -- this involved all such people who were supposed to be guarded by

 8     the SUP Sarajevo.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10        A.   Sorry, I haven't finished.  I only know that our contact was

11     infrequent but I don't remember who called who.

12        Q.   Thank you.  As for the appointment of Serb personnel in the MUP,

13     was this done according to a pre-arranged plan and did it go smoothly?

14     Was -- did I call the MUP in that regard, or did the MUP revert to me?

15        A.   It was mainly Momcilo Mandic and Vitomir Zepinic who dealt with

16     it.  I do know, however, that when we met, they stated such problems to

17     be existing.  The biggest problem was the position of deputy chief of

18     state security which was supposed to be someone from the SUP in Sarajevo.

19     According to the arrangement between the three parties, a Serb was

20     supposed to be appointed to that position but the process was never

21     completed.  Ultimately, pressure was exerted to fill that vacancy and for

22     that person to be Serb.  The solution applied was dealt by the SDA and

23     the HDZ --

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness kindly repeat the names of

25     the two people mentioned.

Page 46334

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And finally the post was abolished.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Stanisic, could you kindly repeat the names of

 3     two individuals.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The two people responsible for the

 5     abolishment of the post were the minister, Alija Delimustafic, and the

 6     chief State Security Service, Branislav Kvesic.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Kvesic.  Thank you.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   We are still in the pre-war period.

10             Minister, tell us what was your understanding of my position

11     vis-a-vis interethnic relations, and what was your position regarding the

12     same topic?  Did you notice anything regarding my position and my opinion

13     of the other ethnic communities that you would disapprove of?

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  I would need to object at this point and ask that

15     the witness be compelled to answer this question.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             MR. ROBINSON:  Excuse me, Mr. President.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Robinson.

19             MR. ROBINSON:  I think it would make it easier if the question

20     was -- there's quite a few questions in there.  But I think the real

21     question was the first one.  So it might be easier for the Chamber in

22     deciding on this issue if Dr. Karadzic just rephrased his question and

23     asked about his own -- about Dr. Karadzic's views on this topic without

24     asking about the witness's position.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Well, in that case, we'll hear Mr. Karadzic's

Page 46335

 1     revised question.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   I apologise.  I was trying to save time but it turned out I

 4     actually spent more of it this way.

 5             Minister, before the conflict broke out, were you familiar with

 6     my position regarding the ethnic communities in Bosnia-Herzegovina and,

 7     in your view, what was my position?

 8        A.   Mr. Karadzic, after such a long time, I can only speak in general

 9     terms.  I know what you generally stood for, and I believe, first and

10     foremost, you were in favour of preserving Yugoslavia.  Later on, you

11     proposed that the ethnic issue be dealt with on the level of

12     Bosnia-Herzegovina, as regards the Serbs, without infringing upon the

13     area or rights of the other two peoples.

14             I do know that there was an international commission tasked with

15     dealing with this issue, and I based my position on their views.

16     Politically speaking, there were different views on different sides, and

17     they did not agree ultimately on what might have been possible.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Could you observe any discrimination or intolerance

19     on my part regarding the other two ethnic communities?

20        A.   To the extent of my knowledge at the time, I could not conclude

21     that you were in favour of interethnic conflict but, rather, a political

22     solution.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Minister, before the war and during the war, were you

24     free to voice your position and did I or someone else try to impose

25     anything?  Did you have to come in conflict with people for putting your

Page 46336

 1     position fort?

 2        A.   Could you be more specific in terms of period?  You mentioned

 3     before and during the war ...

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Please put a pause between the question and answer.

 5             Do you understand that, Mr. Stanisic?

 6             On your part as well, Mr. Karadzic.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Perhaps I could go back.

 9             You said before the war, Zepinic and Mandic were in contact with

10     me more frequently than you.  In any case, during that period, as a

11     member of the collegium, were you free to speak and were you ever in

12     conflict with me for speaking your mind?

13        A.   I always spoke clearly and freely.  No one could put pressure on

14     me to say something I did not want.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Did I hold it against you?  Did you have any trouble

16     with me for speaking freely?  And did you have trouble with anyone else

17     for doing that?

18             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Olmsted.

19             MR. OLMSTED:  Again, Your Honour, it's leading.  Mr. Karadzic

20     should simply ask how he responded to this rather than suggesting answers

21     for the witness.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, probably you can reformulate your

24     question.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 46337

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   What was my position regarding your professional autonomy, when

 3     it came to speaking the truth?

 4        A.   Kindly be more precise.  When?

 5        Q.   Before the war, although you were in contact more with some other

 6     MUP personnel, as well as during the war.  Did I hold it against you?

 7     What was my position regarding your professional integrity?

 8        A.   During the war, we were only in official contact by way of my

 9     reports and if you asked for any clarification, but it happened seldom.

10     When I put forth requests to the Presidency, such as, for instance, the

11     issue of engaging the Presidency in dealing with problems which fell

12     outside the scope of authority of the Ministry of the Interior but had

13     consequences which had to be addressed simultaneously by the MUP and

14     other bodies, I would receive a positive response from you, but would

15     encounter obstacles from some other Presidency members, as well as the

16     prime minister.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Can you recall whether in early March 1992 -- well,

18     what position did you hold at the time?  And can you tell us something

19     more about the reasons why and the process of setting up barricades in

20     and around Sarajevo?

21        A.   As far as I can remember, I think it was on the 1st of March that

22     the barricades began being set up in Sarajevo as a reaction which

23     followed the killing of a wedding party member in front of the old church

24     in the old town of Sarajevo.  When the news was broadcast, barricades

25     were set up; on one side there were Serbs and on the other were Muslims.

Page 46338

 1     At the time I was minister's advisor in charge of national security.

 2        Q.   Were we in communication then and what were our respective

 3     positions in order to deal with the crisis?

 4        A.   I think we were in telephone contact.  Members of the BiH MUP who

 5     were Serbs and Muslim, received tasking from the minister to use their

 6     influence with their respective communities to have the barricades

 7     removed in order to secure normal functioning of the city.  It took place

 8     on the 2nd of March, because we were all taken by surprise when the

 9     barricades were set up on the 1st of March.  So the MUP engagements began

10     on March 2 in order to remove the barricades.  I think it was on the

11     2nd of March that we spoke by telephone.  You were interested in removing

12     the barricades.  But in order for us not to create any further problems,

13     we wanted to do it in a peaceful way.  The result of our engagement was

14     that, indeed, the barricades were removed.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we briefly see P5602.  It is an

17     intercept of our telephone conversation.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   First, I spoke to Jovo Jovanovic.  Can you remind the Chamber who

20     he was?

21        A.   Jovo Jovanovic was the president of the town board of the SDS, I

22     believe.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Towards the bottom, I asked him what was it like in

24     the town.

25             Do you know where I -- I was on the 1st and 2nd of March?

Page 46339

 1        A.   I really don't recall.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have page 5 in the Serbian

 4     and 6 in the English version.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   I'll read out my response and yours:

 7             "Radovan Karadzic:  How come they are not ashamed to kill someone

 8     at a wedding ceremony?  That's utterly insane.  It is probably because

 9     nobody could have stopped those Serbs.  Will you be able to persuade the

10     people to remove barricades?"

11             Your answer:

12             "Listen, now we are a little ... I mean, I have just commented it

13     here.  We have to do it gradually.  That's because their forces have

14     almost covered this check-point here in Pofalici."

15             Further down you say:

16             "They have it covered by snipers."

17             And then even further down you say:

18             "Conditions have been met for both to withdraw from the

19     barricades."

20             It was your response.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the next page in the

22     Serbian and page 7 in the English.  Yes, that's where we have this last

23     reply that the conditions have been met.

24             Now we need page 6 in Serbian and 8 in English.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 46340

 1        Q.   This is where I say:

 2             "The bilateral dismantling of barricades should be at midnight."

 3             You say:

 4             "Exactly."

 5             And so on and so forth.  Everybody can read this.

 6             What was the position?  Was there a concordance of opinion with

 7     this regard between you and me?

 8        A.   First of all, president, Mr. Karadzic as regards the first part,

 9     I'd like to say that I had received the task from Momcilo Mandic to talk

10     to Jovo Jovanovic, who was the president of the SDS in the town of

11     Sarajevo.  He was supposed to deal with the situation from his party

12     position.  Momcilo Mandic was supposed to talk to Rajko Djukic, who was

13     the president of the Executive Board of the party.  The Muslim side also

14     received the task to talk to their officials.

15             I did what I was supposed to do.  It is true that fire was opened

16     from sniper, and I believe that the Muslim side even... there was a casualty

17     at the Pofalici check-point.  One lad died.  He lived close to that

18     check-point.  His name was Strajo Pandurevic.  We carried out an on-site

19     investigation, hence we were aware of the details.  It is true that he

20     also insisted that everything should be done peacefully.  I carried out

21     my task as far as I could together with my other colleagues who were

22     engaged and that was done to the satisfaction of everybody in the town of

23     Sarajevo.  The barricades on both sides were dismantled.

24        Q.   What was the ethnic background of the casualty at the barricade?

25        A.   He was a Serb.

Page 46341

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Minister, were you aware of the negotiations

 2     about the transformation of Bosnia?  And in view of the fact that you

 3     were an advisor in the MUP, were you involved in the first Council of

 4     Ministers of the Serbian entity?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Did you have a portfolio at the time?

 7        A.   No, I did not.  My involvement was a result -- or, rather, this

 8     is when -- what I was told.  Vitomir Zepinic was appointed as the

 9     minister of the interior.  And at the time, information leaked about some

10     dodgy deals on his behalf and one of the MPs didn't want him to be

11     minister so somebody proposed a comprise and said, Let there be another

12     person from the MUP.  I believe the MP who reacted was from Doboj and he

13     was the one who proposed my name.  I was a minister without portfolio

14     therefore.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Were you among the most important people in the SDS?

16        A.   No.  I believe that there was nearly nobody from the SDS.  I

17     don't know how many members there were but over 60 per cent of them were

18     not SDS members.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please now tell us whether you were

20     familiar with our negotiations with Cutileiro.  What results did we

21     achieve, especially with regard to the existence of the police forces of

22     the future entities of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

23        A.   I believe that every single citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina was

24     familiar with the negotiations.  They followed in anticipation as to what

25     would happen because the federal state had disintegrated, the position of

Page 46342

 1     Bosnia-Herzegovina was not known at the time, so we were obviously all

 2     very interested in our lot.  The solutions offered by Cutileiro at that

 3     moment were accepted by a majority of the citizens of

 4     Bosnia and Herzegovina, me included.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  What led to the setting up of the Serbian MUP -- or,

 6     rather, the two MUPs?  How is that accepted on both sides initially and

 7     what happened later?  But let's take things one at a time.

 8        A.   Yes, can we take things one at a time.

 9        Q.   I'm not asking about our reasons for requesting that from

10     Cutileiro but, rather, what was the basis of the setting up of the two

11     MUPs?

12        A.   The constitutional solutions for Bosnia-Herzegovina were adopted

13     by all the three sides in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  It was envisaged that

14     Bosnia would remain an independent state, that it would consist of three

15     entities, the Serbian, Croat, and Muslim entities, and that the entities

16     should also have their own police forces.

17        Q.   Thank you.  And now can you tell us when was the MUP divided and

18     how you parted?

19        A.   That was after the signing of Cutileiro's plan.  There are

20     minutes from the collegium of the MUP, when it was agreed that the

21     transformation of MUP rather than the division of MUP should be carried

22     out in keeping with the constitutional provisions offered by Cutileiro's

23     plan and that this should be done peacefully; that all the members should

24     be protected; that it should be left to the will of all the members of

25     the MUP as to where they would go on working, in which body, and that the

Page 46343

 1     MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina should remain as the umbrella institution that

 2     would be above all the entity MUPS; that the communication system should

 3     remain the same because that was important.  Up to then, everything was

 4     located at the level of the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  And what about the Dayton Accords?  How did the

 6     Dayton deal with the issue of police forces?

 7        A.   I believe that the solutions were identical.  There may have been

 8     some aberrations, but more or less the situation was identical.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  What were you offered?  What position were you

10     offered after the transformation of the MUP into two different MUPs?

11        A.   I believe that Prime Minister Djeric defined it in the best

12     possible way.  He was the one who proposed me as a minister.  We had had

13     long talks about that.  At first I refused the position, obviously.  But

14     then he kept on persuading me and trying to convince me that a reasonable

15     man cannot understand that after the Cutileiro Plan and after the

16     solutions to the crisis in Croatia and the presence of the United Nations

17     in Sarajevo, i.e., in Bosnia-Herzegovina, that there could be conflicts

18     of any kind and that each of us individuals had their jobs to do, because

19     that was normal and our position.  And after all that, he convinced me to

20     accept the position.

21        Q.   Initial -- were you in a position to present your views as to how

22     you regarded the police of the Serbian entity?

23        A.   At the assembly meeting, I wanted the MPs to hear my views of

24     the MUP, so I told them very precisely in -- in no uncertain terms as

25     to what was my vision of the MUP of Republika Srpska was and what

Page 46344

 1     its obligations were supposed to be, and you can see it in the

 2     minutes because my speech was recorded.  It was supposed to be the MUP

 3     that would be professional, that would be engaged in the policing tasks

 4     envisaged by the law, which was the framework of it -- its work and

 5     nothing else but that.  And that should have been done without any

 6     discrimination and all the citizens in Republika Srpska should have

 7     enjoyed an equal treatment.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the witness now be shown

 9     1D9510.  We're going to display the transcript.  We can also listen to

10     the audio recording, if necessary.

11             The sound on the video is not very good.  That's why we are

12     actually offering the transcript.

13             Could we also be provided with the Serbian version of the same

14     document.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Mr. Minister, could you please tell us something about your

17     intervention in the last paragraph after you were given the floor.  Was

18     that your first address in the new position?

19        A.   Could you give me a moment to read the passage?

20             Yes, these are, indeed, my words.

21        Q.   When it comes to the police and the politics, did they accept

22     your professional attitude towards work?

23        A.   Well, they adopted President Djeric's proposal which means that

24     they accepted my views with regard to the makeup of the MUP.

25        Q.   Thank you.  You mentioned legality is based on the negotiations

Page 46345

 1     of the three ethnic entities under the auspices of the European

 2     community.  Is this what we referred to as Cutileiro Plan?

 3        A.   Yes, that was the only reason why I accepted the position.

 4     Without that I would never have accepted it.

 5        Q.   Thank you.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the document please be tendered

 7     into evidence.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll admit it.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D4271, Your Honours.

10                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

11             JUDGE KWON:  Do you have any difficulty with admitting the video

12     in -- together with this transcript, Mr. Olmsted?

13             MR. OLMSTED:  No, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll admit it in its entirety, as well as the

15     video.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Could you please tell us something about the 30th of March.  At

19     the beginning of April, did you still meet with your colleagues from the

20     Muslim and Croat MUP?

21        A.   After this collegium meeting, I did have talks with Jusuf Pusina.

22     It was at his own initiative.  I agreed very gladly because he had been

23     chosen by Alija Izetbegovic, who was the president of the SDA, to

24     negotiate with me in order to deal with the transformation process,

25     without any hiccups.

Page 46346

 1             We met on the 3rd of April, I believe.  It was in Grbavica in a

 2     bar or in a pizza parlor.  We discussed the matters there.

 3        Q.   What was agreed with regard to the headquarters of the Serbian

 4     MUP?  And the Croat and Muslim MUP, where were those supposed to be?

 5        A.   I have to be very precise and tell you what was agreed at that

 6     time.

 7             We agreed everything but the headquarters of the future MUPs.

 8     Jusuf Pusina told me during that meeting that he could not say anything

 9     without an additional consultation with President Izetbegovic.  We agreed

10     to meet again on the 5th of April, 1992.  However, in the meantime, there

11     were parallel talks about that between Momcilo Mandic and

12     Minister Alija Delimustafic.

13        Q.   Was an agreement reached with regard to the headquarters of the

14     Serbian special police?

15        A.   This is what I know:  Momcilo Mandic and Alija Delimustafic, who

16     was minister at the time, agreed that temporarily within the complex of

17     the school for policemen in Vrace, which was the previous headquarters of

18     the special brigade of Bosnia and Herzegovina which had moved to Krtelj

19     in Ilidza, the MUP of Croatia -- Croatia -- of Republika Srpska and its

20     special should be billeted there, that that should be their headquarters.

21        Q.   Did the MUP and the specials of Republika Srpska really occupy

22     that facility and what happened?

23        A.   I was not involved in that.  I didn't know much about that, to be

24     honest.  I didn't even know about the agreement which was reached between

25     Alija and Momcilo Mandic.  However, subsequently I learned that -- what

Page 46347

 1     Mandic and Alija had agreed and that as a result of that agreement,

 2     Momcilo Mandic invited that part of the special brigade to move to that

 3     facility in Vrace.

 4        Q.   What happened when the Serbian specials arrived in Vrace,

 5     according to what you subsequently learnt?

 6        A.   I learned what had happened, obviously.  To -- I can't give you

 7     any precise details.  However, the -- there was a training for police

 8     members who were armed in that same facility.  They carried dangerous

 9     weapons, and when that part of the brigade and members of the Serbian

10     ethnicity arrived in the facility, fire was opened on them, and two

11     members of the brigade were killed.

12        Q.   Thank you.  And how was that first conflict resolved?  Were there

13     any casualties on the Muslim side?

14        A.   No, there weren't.  That part of the special brigade reached the

15     facility, but there was heavy fighting that took them by surprise.  But

16     they had all been given orders not to open fire at anybody, despite the

17     fact that fire may have been opened on them.  The reason was to prevent

18     further escalation of the problem.  There were two casualties.  Nobody

19     was wounded on the their side, but they did capture those who had opened

20     fire on them.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             JUDGE KWON:  As noted, we'll take a short break for 15 minutes

23     and resume at 11.30.

24                            --- Break taken at 11.16 a.m.

25                           --- On resuming at 11.35 a.m.

Page 46348

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Minister, could you please tell us whether you remember how many

 5     persons did the members of the Serb special forces take prisoner on that

 6     day at Vrace, if you can remember?

 7        A.   I cannot really exactly.  I cannot remember the exact number.

 8     But I know that when they disarmed that group that had done this, they

 9     kept them within the school compound in Vrace.

10        Q.   And what happened to them soon after that?

11        A.   They went home.

12        Q.   What about the media in Sarajevo?  How did they portray this

13     thing that happened in Vrace?  "Incident" is not a word that would be

14     strong enough.

15        A.   Well, of course, I mean, the media were used for propaganda at

16     the time, rather than for conveying the truth.  I really cannot recall

17     any details now, but I do know that I reacted by way of a letter to this

18     propaganda.  The result of all this incorrect information could have been

19     causing fear among people, so I felt duty-bound to send this letter to

20     inform the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina about what had actually

21     happened, irrespective of whose fault it was.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Where did you ask to have this made public?

23        A.   Bosnia Radio Television.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

25     05287 in e-court; that's the 65 ter number.

Page 46349

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, could you please zoom in

 2     a bit.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Is that the letter that you spoke about, the 18th of April;

 5     right?

 6        A.   Could I just see the last page, the signature.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have the second page or,

 9     rather, third page?  Because there are some empty pages there.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is my signature.  Yes,

11     that's the letter.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we stay on page 2.  For the

13     participants, it's also page 2 in English.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Now I'd like to ask you the following --

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Actually, could you go back to that

17     page with the signature.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   One-sided and unverified information that are being put into the

20     public domain on the basis of reports by citizens from one source only,

21     only contribute to an escalation of the war conflict.

22             And further on, you say that that is not useful for anyone or

23     anything.  Also, you resolutely deny the news that the Serb forces fired

24     at the RTS building, et cetera.

25             Do you remember this letter?

Page 46350

 1        A.   Yes.  I didn't want to pour more oil on the fire, as they say.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could this letter please be

 4     admitted.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Any objections, Mr. Olmsted?

 6             MR. OLMSTED:  No, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  We'll receive it.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D4272, Your Honours.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Minister, I believe that you know that you are mentioned in the

12     indictment, in my indictment, as some kind of co-member, co-perpetrator

13     of mine in a joint criminal enterprise, aimed at removing Muslims and

14     Croats from the territories that we believed we had a right to, that we

15     had obtained that we believed that we were entitled to.

16             Could you tell me, first of all, from the point of view of the

17     MUP, the joint MUP and the transformed MUP, the Serb MUP and the Serb

18     police, did they have any plans that would confirm these assertions made

19     in the indictment?

20        A.   There are two questions.  First, the one up here, whether I had

21     this joint objective with you --

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I'm sorry.  I need to object because,

23     first of all, there are two questions.  And the first one --

24             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Shall we deal -- deal with it one by one.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, so --

Page 46351

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 2             Mr. Karadzic, put your question again.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Let me not ask you.  Your answer was that we had no personal

 6     relations, that we were not friends.  Formally, were you a member of some

 7     joint criminal enterprise together with me?  Anything illegal?

 8             JUDGE KWON:  I hear from you, Mr. Olmsted, first.

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  Just a very leading questions, Your Honours.  Of

10     course it goes to the legal conclusion as well, his membership in a joint

11     criminal enterprise.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  And --

13             JUDGE KWON:  Leading in light of his comment before that, or the

14     request itself is a leading question?

15             MR. OLMSTED:  I'm sorry.  I'm just reading the question before

16     it.

17             Yes, I mean, it's in conjunction with the question --  yes.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Please, I don't follow your question.  Formally,

19     unformally -- oh, yes.

20             Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honour, if you would allow that question, I

22     would object to it, and ask that you compel the witness to testify -- to

23     answer that question, sorry.  Thank you.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE KWON:  I wanted to check whether it's a translation issue.

Page 46352

 1             Line 17, did you ask whether witness was a member of some joint

 2     criminal enterprise formally?  Or ...

 3             MR. ROBINSON:  Mr. President, I think it's maybe better if he

 4     just puts his question with some more simple, less legal language.  I

 5     think if he can reformulate it, then it would solve most of these

 6     problems.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Minister, you and I, did we have some joint plan or some

11     understanding aimed at expelling Muslims and Croats -- and/or Croats,

12     from territories that we believed we were entitled to?

13        A.   No.

14        Q.   Can you tell us what the position was of your co-workers and your

15     subordinates in that respect?

16        A.   I know what my position was and I can present it.

17        Q.   Please do.

18        A.   I was just a man who held the post of minister, who did his job

19     exclusively within the framework that was allowed to him by the

20     ministry -- by the Law on the Ministry of the Interior and other laws of

21     the former SFRY because I was convinced that they were not discriminatory

22     in any way.  The former Yugoslavia was a signatory of all international

23     conventions and covenants and it had built all of that into its own

24     legislation, and that is how I behaved throughout.

25        Q.   Can that be seen from some documents?

Page 46353

 1        A.   That can be seen from my very first statement that I gave before

 2     the Assembly and then all the way up until the end of my tenure as

 3     minister at the end of 1992 and those six months in 1994.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

 6     P01096 in e-court.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Could you tell us about this?  This is information about some

 9     aspects of the work done to date and the tasks ahead; is that right?

10        A.   Yes, that's right.

11        Q.   Maybe -- actually, there's something handwritten here that it was

12     submitted to me and ...

13        A.   The prime minister.

14        Q.   Yes, the premier.  Thank you.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have page 4 in

16     Serbian now, and page 3 in English.  Could we have the next page in

17     Serbian, please.  English, 3; Serbian, 4.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   This paragraph here where it says:

20             "It was pointed out that the priority for both the national

21     service and the crime investigation service is to detect war crimes,

22     provide documentation (on-site investigations, photos, expert

23     testimonies, medical findings) and file criminal reports.  Documents are

24     also provided for war crimes committed by Serbs."

25             Can you tell us whether this was actually accepted, whether

Page 46354

 1     people worked on this basis, and what was done once a criminal report was

 2     filed?  What the role of the MUP was after that?

 3        A.   Our tasks - that is to say, the tasks of the members of the

 4     Ministry of the Interior - are clearly defined.  In accordance with that,

 5     I issued an order; namely, that everything that was done necessarily

 6     within the scope of our duties was to prevent war crimes, and if this

 7     kind of thing did happen, then very seriously all evidence should be

 8     collected and everything should be done, all the measures mentioned here.

 9     Because evidence is the basis for any kinds of indictment for

10     perpetrators of crimes, that's why I insisted on that.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Once a criminal report is filed and once it is

12     submitted to the judiciary, can the MUP or anyone else hush things up?

13        A.   Viewed very specifically, the powers of the prosecutor, the

14     judge, and the Ministry of the Interior, in more complex cases, robbery,

15     murder, war crimes, an investigating judge would have to carry out the

16     on-site investigation.  Whereas, the Ministry of the Interior provides

17     technical support and these people who are experts in carrying out all

18     the things that are involved.  The Ministry of the Interior can later

19     only act on the basis of the prosecutor, who then takes over.  And then

20     if the prosecutor or investigating judge decides to take further action,

21     then that is done.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, Your Honours.  I have the intervention

23     in the transcript.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe part of the answer was

Page 46355

 1     not entered.  Perhaps the witness and the -- Mr. Karadzic should be,

 2     again, notified to -- to -- to take it slowly because I understand that

 3     interpreters are not able to -- to translate all of it.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Could you tell us what is missing from the

 5     transcript.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  What is missing is that that -- that -- the part of

 7     the testimony where -- where witness talks about who is in charge of

 8     preparing the -- the document, the report of the on-site -- on-site

 9     investigation, and what is done after such a report is prepared.

10             That was the -- that was the part of the -- the sentence after

11     the sentence which was -- which ended on the -- on -- page 44, line 1.

12     Which ends that -- things that are involved.  After that, the part of the

13     answer was not recorded.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Did you follow Mr. Zecevic's intervention?  Could

15     you repeat that part of your answer, Mr. Stanisic.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

17             So, once it is established that a crime was carried out,

18     especially a serious crime, then no one can take any action without an

19     investigating judge.  An on-site investigation can only be carried out by

20     an investigative judge and he is in charge of the on-site investigation.

21     Assistance can be provided only by members of the

22     Ministry of the Interior from specialised services, the technical service

23     providing expertise in terms of evidence, and so on.  Once the on-site

24     investigation is over, then the investigating judge compiles a record of

25     the on-site investigation, a report, and submits it to the prosecutor.

Page 46356

 1     Then -- then they carry out an investigation, and the

 2     Ministry of the Interior can act only on the basis of their requests, if

 3     any, in terms of collecting additional evidence, bringing in a certain

 4     witness, and so on.  However, they cannot influence the course of the

 5     investigation because the judiciary is separate from the executive.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  I still don't follow what was missing from the

 7     transcript.  You referred -- it refers to a investigating judge's

 8     function.  But we'll continue, Mr. Zecevic.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, thank you, Your Honour.  This is precisely

10     what was not recorded.  Who prepares the -- the -- the on-site

11     investigation and report and whom it is delivered.  Thank you very much.

12             JUDGE KWON:  I would like you to take a look at lines 21 to 24 of

13     page 43.

14             We shall continue.

15             Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

16                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

17             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second, you do not have access to the

18     LiveNote?

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm afraid not.  I just have -- I have it on the --

20     on the -- on the monitor over here.  I cannot control or go back.  That

21     is the problem.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Sorry.

24                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 46357

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, thank you.  Let's continue.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  I wanted to tell you, Mr. Zecevic,

 4     if necessary, you may ask Mr. Harvey to show him the transcript page that

 5     has been already scrolled over, if necessary.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you.  I understand, Your Honours.  I -- I did

 7     apologise for that and ask Mr. Karadzic whether -- whether I'm confusing

 8     him by -- by -- by making comments on the transcript, but he -- he told

 9     me that it is completely okay, and that they, being very busy, are not

10     able to control the transcript.  So that is why I am doing this.  Thank

11     you very much.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Very much appreciated.  Thank you.  And I take it

13     that would not cause much difficulty on your part, Mr. Harvey.

14             MR. HARVEY:  Of course, not.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

16             Please continue.

17             THE ACCUSED:  I'm grateful to Mr. Zecevic for assistance with the

18     transcript.

19             [Interpretation] Please go to page 8 in the Serbian and 5 in the

20     English, please.

21             The next page in Serbian.  It's probably page eight in e-court.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Mr. Minister, please look at the last paragraph.  There, you

24     enumerate the tasks.  You insist on preventing and discovering the

25     perpetrators of serious crimes especially in terms of serious crime

Page 46358

 1     against life and limb, et cetera, irrespective of who the perpetrators

 2     are.

 3             Is that something that was carried out during your tenure and was

 4     it accepted by your subordinates in the MUP?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, does he confirm what is written here?  That's

 7     what I understood.

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honours.  My only concern here is rather

 9     than putting a question to the witness, Mr. Karadzic is simply reading

10     part of a document and asking him to confirm it.  And that is leading by

11     its very nature.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Another piece of advice from a new members,

13     Mr. Karadzic.  Bear that in mind.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  It was my impression

15     that I had laid a foundation with my first question about the position of

16     the ministry, and now I was just seeking to offer examples corroborating

17     it.  But in any case, I can put my question again.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   What was the position vis-a-vis and the treatment of war crimes

20     as part of the ministry strategy, the minister of the interior, that is?

21        A.   It was clear and unambiguous.  War crimes are the gravest crimes

22     which needed to be prevented and perpetrators identified.  One must

23     understand that the conditions under which the MUP operated were more

24     than the worse possible, and, if necessary, I can explain.  It was for

25     those reasons that we were aware that not all of the measures could be

Page 46359

 1     undertaken in such conditions.  However, we set apart and insisted that

 2     such measures be carried out at least to gather a minimum of evidence in

 3     case of such crimes which could serve as a good basis for further

 4     processing and in order to have such crimes sanctioned.

 5        Q.   I'd like to point out it is on page 6 in the English and 9 in the

 6     Serbian where that very point is discussed.

 7             You mentioned the conditions.  Once the war broke out, where was

 8     the seat of the ministry and what kind of equipment, personnel,

 9     communications did it have at its disposal as well as premises?

10        A.   I don't think that any ministry of the interior in the world ever

11     functioned under such conditions.  When I say that, I'm trying to say

12     that there wasn't even a minimum of preconditions required to carry out

13     the basic functions of the ministry.  Even under such conditions, me and

14     my associates, of whom there were very few, tried to deal with these

15     issues.  We put maximum effort humanly possible to tackle such issues.

16             If necessary, since you put the question of where the seat of the

17     ministry was, perhaps I can just tell the Chamber that for the seven

18     months in 1992, the seat of the ministry moved four times.  First, it was

19     at Vrace near Sarajevo, then on mount Jahorina, then in Pale, and

20     ultimately in Bijeljina, without water, electricity, communications

21     system.  You can just imagine how a ministry can operate under such

22     conditions, if there's only a single telephone line, which is also

23     controlled by the other side.  They could interrupt our communication

24     whenever they wanted.  We tried from one day to the next to improve it,

25     but there was an additional problem.  That being that, especially at

Page 46360

 1     first, there was combat interrupting communications and there was no

 2     physical contact with the Security Services Centres and security service

 3     stations.  As that was being dealt with, we tried to set up a better

 4     system so as to satisfy at least the minimum of our needs.

 5             You'll probably see there is a document where I request a fax

 6     machine to be installed in public security stations and centres so that

 7     we could have any kind of communication whatsoever.  Even that was very

 8     difficult to do.  I'm saying this only to illustrate what the conditions

 9     were like.  Also we lacked technical equipment, vehicles, fuel,

10     personnel, both quality-wise and in terms of numbers.  In the seat of the

11     ministry, we had a number of secretaries and drivers, and the entire

12     ministry logistics was carried out by less than 20 people.

13        Q.   As per establishment, how many people should a ministry have,

14     having all these administrations?

15        A.   You see, Mr. Karadzic, 15 people, so it's -- it's a team.  It

16     doesn't even suffice for a defence team, let alone a ministry, which

17     covers such a large area.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Concerning the police personnel and their profiles,

19     did you have sufficient numbers of personnel and was personnel also

20     engaged in combat?  If so, what was the legal basis for it?

21        A.   As we can see in the reports, clearly, that in 1992, over

22     50 per cent of MUP members, i.e., policemen, were engaged in combat

23     activities, based on the principle of resubordination to the military

24     units, which so required.  You were the Supreme Commander, and you are

25     far more knowledgeable in terms of which areas necessitated that.  The

Page 46361

 1     legal basis was the Law on All People's Defence.  Under the law of the

 2     former Yugoslavia, everyone once -- once there is a state of imminent

 3     threat of war, all men of certain age between 8 [as interpreted] and 65

 4     are duty-bound and expected to defend the country, if so required.  In

 5     the ministries, we performed our work obligations in the execution of our

 6     respective duties.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  How did that affect regular policing?  Were they

 8     engaged in combat all the time, or only in cases of offensives, when it

 9     comes to the policemen being sent to theatres of war?

10        A.   Well, to the most -- most extent, the answer is yes.  We also had

11     a problem with the number of security centres and police stations which

12     were established outside the scope of the Law on the Interior,

13     established by unauthorised personnel and bodies.

14             At that moment there were only war police stations functioning or

15     serving the interests of such organs which tried to provide security in

16     the -- their respective areas.

17             So, they were outside the scope and competence of the Ministry

18     and the Law on the Interior and they had personnel that had not been

19     trained.  There were no necessary conditions set in place in order for

20     someone to become a member of the MUP in the first place.  Ultimately,

21     these were the people we had many problems with, until we disbanded such

22     bodies.  I submitted requests to the -- to you to have such police force

23     disbanded as well as such police stations disbanded so as to enable the

24     ministry to establish some kind of control over them.  Orders were issued

25     there, personnel appointed, and financing provided for the functions of

Page 46362

 1     such stations.

 2        Q.   Minister, can you tell us how long one needs to be trained or

 3     educated to be a qualified policeman?

 4        A.   In keeping with the Law on Interior, one could be employed by the

 5     MUP in two ways when it comes to policemen.

 6             One way was to go through the centre in charge of training and

 7     educating personnel for the affairs of the Ministry of the Interior;

 8     i.e., once one has completed that kind of education which lasted for four

 9     years, there was a -- a period of internship and then the minister could

10     deploy such people, according to their profiles, to various duties in the

11     ministry.

12             The other way was if such training centres were insufficient in

13     terms of numbers of people they provided, separate courses, training

14     courses, were set up by the ministry.  Those who could apply had to have

15     a high school diploma and had to meet certain general and special

16     requirements to be employed by the ministry.  Those requirements were

17     well defined.  One had to undergo a medical check --

18        Q.   Kindly slow down.

19        A.   One had to undergo a medical check so that person had to be

20     healthy in every way.  Then one also had to come up with certificates

21     from registers of the Ministry of the Interior testifying that they had

22     not previously been prosecuted, convicted, and they had no criminal

23     record.  Once those conditions were met, they could be admitted to the

24     Ministry of the Interior and had to undergo a six-month course which had

25     to do with police affairs.  And then again, they had to undergo an

Page 46363

 1     internship in different organisational units of the

 2     Ministry of the Interior.  Only once that was done the minister issued

 3     decisions on their assignment to different tasks and units.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the transcript, page 51, line 24

 5     and 25, they had to provide testimony that they were not the subject of

 6     any criminal investigations.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  The certificate had to

 8     certify that no criminal proceedings were instituted against them.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Thank you, Minister.  Did you issue instructions to the personnel

11     of the stations and their chiefs, in order to monitor the conduct of

12     their policemen?

13        A.   Are we still discussing employing personnel or are we already

14     discussing their performance?

15        Q.   Both.

16        A.   The instructions of what I have discussed are contained in the

17     Law on the Interior and the by-laws and rules on the internal

18     organisation and structure of tasks and duties in the

19     Ministry of the Interior.  The rules were under the competence of the

20     government.  It was the government who effected them.  We applied the

21     rule on internal organisation as we had inherited it from the former

22     Bosnia-Herzegovina until such time when we drafted our own.

23             I cautioned via my orders because a minister can send orders and

24     instructions how they can employ someone to perform tasks and duties in

25     the Ministry of the Interior.

Page 46364

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we show the witness D01671.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   It is dated 17th of April, one of your earliest issuances.  Do

 5     you recall it?  And how does it fit in with what you have just described?

 6             Did you issue this so early in your office?

 7        A.   I'm looking at the question.  You either change your question --

 8     this is my document, but this is not about the hiring but, rather,

 9     dismissing from the MUP and what measures were supposed to be taken in

10     similar situations.

11        Q.   Yes, yes.  I apologise.  I said both the admission and the

12     regularity of their conduct.

13        A.   Well, you should be clear.

14        Q.   What is this document about, as a matter of fact?

15        A.   This document is both an instruction and an order as to how to

16     deal with members of the MUP who have committed some of the acts

17     contained herein.  They should be removed from the ministry and all the

18     legal measures should be undertaken and criminal proceedings should be

19     launched against them.

20        Q.   Were there cases when you had to remove people from the ministry

21     as a result of irregularities in their job performance?

22        A.   When we are talking about people being dismissed, we have to make

23     a distinction between reserve policemen and active-duty policemen working

24     in the MUP.

25             When it comes to active-duty policemen working in the MUP, their

Page 46365

 1     immediate superior had to file a report to the disciplinary commission

 2     and launch disciplinary proceedings before the first-instance

 3     disciplinary commission.  There were various kinds of measures.  The

 4     first one was transfer to a new job to dismissal from the MUP.  And

 5     obviously if there were elements of a crime, a criminal report was filed

 6     to the competent prosecutor's office.

 7             When it came to reserve police officers working for the MUP who

 8     were employed as military reservists who were recruited at the request of

 9     the MUP and by the Secretariat for National Defence deployed to work as

10     reserve policemen, together with active-duty police officers, and when

11     those people committed a certain breach of discipline, they would be

12     removed from our records as reserve police officers and the

13     Secretariat for National Defence would receive information about that,

14     and then such individuals would be engaged in military units either as

15     reservists or deployed elsewhere.

16             In case they committed a crime, in addition to being eliminated

17     or removed from the records, criminal proceedings were also instituted

18     against them.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Your staff members, did they implement that policy?

20        A.   Before I answer your question, I have to emphasise that the

21     problem with reservists arose even while they -- we were members of the

22     joint Ministry of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  The SDA and the HDZ did not allow

23     reserve military to respond to the call-ups of the JNA, but they, rather,

24     redeployed them as members of the MUP.  In doing that, they didn't take

25     to account whether they had criminal records, whether there were criminal

Page 46366

 1     proceedings instituted against them, or any similar thing.  And that was

 2     done in the entire territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which means that at

 3     the beginning during the time of division, and especially in the war,

 4     police stations which were set up by the Crisis Staff, they admitted

 5     people without applying any criteria whatsoever.  They would employ

 6     reservists as members of the MUP.  And that is why, in view of the fact

 7     in the state of emergency that was declared in Republika Srpska or a

 8     state of war, rather, the number of reservists and the -- and active-duty

 9     policemen was determined by the president of the state which is regulated

10     by the Law on the Army and All People's Defence.

11             That's why I sent you and the assembly a proposal to disband

12     reserve contingents and that they should be reduced to a reasonable

13     number that would be necessary only for the tasks performed by the

14     Ministry of the Interior.  Such decisions were issued by the Presidency

15     and by the Assembly, and then I could keep on insisting, and if my report

16     is precise, and I believe that it is close to precise, on 6.000 people

17     being removed from the records of the Ministry of Interior, those people

18     were reservists on our records up to then.

19        Q.   Thank you.  The question remains whether your members of staff

20     implemented your policy, and also can you tell us who Dobro Planojevic

21     was?

22        A.   Dobro Planojevic was my assistant for crime prevention.

23        Q.   Did he implement the policy that you drafted?  Did he implement

24     the policy that you drafted?

25        A.   All of my assistants implemented what I requested from them.

Page 46367

 1     However, they were not 100 per cent committed to that.  And after the

 2     first collegium that we held at the time when we could, because there

 3     hadn't been any physical contact among us, so we held it in Belgrade,

 4     that's where we met, and that's when certain information was shared.  I

 5     was not informed about that collegium and I invited my assistants to

 6     resign from their positions because I had not been very happy with their

 7     work in the past.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown

 9     D01527.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Please pay attention.  This was issued on the 5th of June.  It

12     says that the assistant for crime prevention -- and if I may remind you

13     that he points to the fact that there were members of the police who --

14     whose conduct was in inadmissible, and please pay attention to the last

15     sentence where it says:

16             "On this occasion, we would like to draw your attention that in

17     contact vis-a-vis the civilian population and prisoners of war, you

18     should strictly adhere to the rules of the international rules of war."

19             How is that in compliance with what you already told us about the

20     policy in the MUP?

21        A.   This is the result of our meeting -- of the meeting of an inner

22     circle, the under-secretary for public security and the assistant for

23     policing and crime prevention.  That's when we talked about this -- this

24     problem precisely and how to carry out an on-site investigation.

25     Dobro Planojevic, as one of the assistants, sent this as an instruction

Page 46368

 1     to the people on the ground to show them how they should behave.

 2        Q.   Did you receive anything from the Presidency -- president of the

 3     Presidency, i.e., from myself, with regard to the implementation of this

 4     policy?

 5        A.   I just stated what the reaction was to the dismantling of war

 6     police stations and special detachments that were set up by the

 7     Crisis Staffs.  They were paramilitary -- paramilitaries, not the police,

 8     in accordance with our regulations.  Let me not go any further than that.

 9     And that helped for my orders to be fully implemented.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown

12     65 ter 25454.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   We will also see a translation.  And you say here on the

15     27th of July:

16             "In accordance with the order by the president of the Presidency

17     of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina," dated 25th and

18     26th July.  Which means on the following day, you issued your own order?

19             My attention is drawn by paragraph 2 where it says that you are

20     invoking your previous order.  And you say:

21             "In accordance with my order, strictly confidential number,"

22     so-and-so, "of 23rd July, 1992, I hereby order immediately to remove from

23     the Ministry of the Interior individuals who have been held criminally

24     responsible for crimes that are prosecuted ex officio ..."

25             You made exception for political and verbal offences which were

Page 46369

 1     also prosecuted ex officio during the Communist reign; is that correct?

 2        A.   Yes.  And I can explain.

 3             [No interpretation]

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second, Mr. Stanisic.  We are not getting the

 5     interpretation.  Could you repeat.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here, you can see at -- a complete

 7     procedure.  On the 17th of July, I was in Belgrade at a collegium.  That

 8     was the first collegium that we could possibly hold.  So I drafted a

 9     report, and I sent it to the president of the state and the

10     prime minister.  Because what I learnt at that collegium made me believe

11     that there were problems that I, as a minister, and my members of staff

12     within the Ministry of Interior could deal with, and that's why I

13     immediately issued my own orders or, rather, conclusions that I wanted to

14     reach every individual on the ground and show them how they should deal

15     with certain matters.  What I couldn't deal with with my staff members I

16     thought that it was my obligation to inform the prime minister about

17     that, as well as the president of the state, and urge them to use their

18     authority to issue their own orders to other bodies which could deal with

19     certain problems that I emphasised in my report.

20             I wanted us to act simultaneously in order to prevent all those

21     negative matters that I had been informed about during the collegium

22     meeting.  And here, you can see that the president took my report under

23     advisement.  You can see that he also reached certain conclusions and

24     sent his orders to the Ministry of the Interior.  When it comes to

25     paragraph 2, you can see that already on the 23rd of July, I sent an

Page 46370

 1     order to deal with certain issues that pertained to my authorities, and

 2     then I again issued my orders after receiving your instruction and sent

 3     my information to the people on the grounds.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now I'd like to see paragraph 7 and

 5     8 on the following page, although the entire document is really worth or

 6     entire attention.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Here in paragraph 7 you say:

 9             "Make sure to remove from areas where they are active all groups

10     and individuals that are not under the control of the Army of the

11     Serbian Republic, and to collect information about anyone who commits any

12     kind of crime, hand them over to competent institutions and take measures

13     in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Criminal Procedure."

14             Paragraph 8, "I order once again ..."  You repeat your own order,

15     therefore.  When was that first orders issued?  On the 23rd?

16        A.   Yes, it was on it's 23rd, as you can see on page 1.

17        Q.   That all members of the Ministry of the Interior must perform the

18     duties, and so on and so forth?

19        A.   Not only that.  Please.  Since we're looking at this document, I

20     would like to draw your attention to paragraph 6.  Not only did I issue

21     my orders in writing but I also tasked particular assistants in various

22     regions to be in charge of implementing that order.

23        Q.   And in paragraph 6, are we talking about some very experienced

24     personnel?

25        A.   Yes, they were my assistants, people who -- who had most

Page 46371

 1     experience and who had highest positions in the Ministry of the Interior.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the document be admitted.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll admit it.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D4273, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, we'll have a break.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  Yes, Excellencies.  The

 8     document is the document that Minister Stanisic referred to.  That's for

 9     all the participants in these proceedings.  This is instruction and an

10     overview of the work of the Ministry of the Interior.  And after that,

11     all the other documents were sent to the Presidency and to the officials

12     on the ground.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We'll resume at --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  And the document number is D447.

15             JUDGE KWON:  -- 18 past 1.00.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was not recorded that the

17     document number is D477, which is the record of the meeting in Belgrade.

18     There is no need for me to show it because it has already been admitted.

19     And now it seems to be okay.

20             447, with a 7.

21                           --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.35 p.m.

22                           --- On resuming at 1.21 p.m.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, just for record -- for the record, we

24     would like to express our gratitude to the Registry and the AV booth for

25     providing us with the -- with the LiveNote transcript.  Thank you very

Page 46372

 1     much.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.  I'll thank them also.

 3             Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Minister, as for this removal of people who were not eligible or

 7     incapable, this cleansing of such people in the MUP, did you present this

 8     to the public?  So did people know that it cannot and should not be done

 9     that way?

10        A.   Of course.  All the measures that we took were made public, and

11     information could be obtained about all of that.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us what amount of time was needed -- or,

13     actually, what had we inherited in terms of the rule of law?

14             So how much time did we need to get into the saddle, or, rather,

15     if I can put it this way, to introduce the rule of law?

16        A.   Mr. Karadzic, the constitution of an institution largely depends

17     on the conditions involved.  The conditions that prevailed in

18     Republika Srpska -- or, rather, in all of Bosnia-Herzegovina, I think

19     that we in the Ministry of the Interior made a super-human effort to

20     organise ourselves in order to be able to function and to take measures

21     as envisaged by the law.

22        Q.   Thank you.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

24     65 ter 10838.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 46373

 1        Q.   Please help us with this.  Tell us what is it that we see here?

 2     Did you give this interview to "Javnost" on the 30th of October, 1992?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now see the middle of the

 5     second column.  Yes, that would be about it.  The upper part, please.

 6     Yes, that's right.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Now this is what I'd like that ask you:  You say here that I

 9     would like to point out that we have a highly responsible attitude

10     towards the members of our service.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We did not manage to find

12     the passage.

13             JUDGE KWON:  We didn't hear anything, Mr. Karadzic.  Please find

14     the passage first and then let them know where you are reading from.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The cursor was there right now in

16     the Serbian version.  Yes.  I would like to point out, yes.

17             But, in English -- in English, it should probably be the next

18     page.

19             [In English] I would also like to point out ...

20             [Interpretation] The cursor was there.  The lower half of the

21     page:  Unfortunately, the ministry and so on forth.  Yes, here it is:

22     "I would also like to point out ..."

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   So you say here that, and further on, you say:

25             "I think that nowadays we are the only ministry, some members of

Page 46374

 1     which have been expelled from our ranks not because they did anything

 2     against the Serbian interest because they committed individual acts

 3     succumbing to base instincts which really does not befit a member of our

 4     service."

 5             Tell me, what do you mean by this, "the only ministry"?  What do

 6     you mean, the only Ministry of the Interior in the former Yugoslavia?

 7        A.   No.  I wanted to say - and that was the truth - that the position

 8     of the ministry was to make a super-human effort to create something and

 9     to be among the first ministries of Republika Srpska.  In terms of

10     setting up this system of the Ministry of the Interior so that we could,

11     as adequately as possible, and as best possible, protect everything that

12     the police is supposed to protect in the area of Republika Srpska.

13        Q.   Thank you.  And then in the next paragraph, you say --

14        A.   Sorry, can I just add something to that.

15             I pointed this out to see that it was quite necessary, especially

16     for the Ministry of Justice and the military judiciary and the military

17     prosecutor's office, to work on this as energetically as possible so that

18     if we processed someone, we, within the Ministry of the Interior, up to

19     the point where as far as we can go, then we would want the other

20     ministries to do what is necessary in terms of their work.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now see line 4 underneath

23     the photograph.  That's in Serbian.  And we'll find the reference in

24     English.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 46375

 1        Q.   To what extent were crimes uncovered?

 2        A.   Well, in view of the conditions in which the ministry operated

 3     then, and taking into account all the problems that existed in one part,

 4     it was rather satisfactory in terms of uncovering crimes even if we look

 5     at the situation worldwide.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  And we say here --

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We cannot find this in the

 8     text.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Can you tell us, until October 1992, what was the number of

11     criminal reports involved?

12        A.   I really would not want to engage in guess-work now.  I don't

13     have any exact figures and it's been a long time, and I cannot remember

14     the number of criminal reports or the number of perpetrators.  After all,

15     this was done by the crime investigation service and, at the time, I

16     received information from them, and I presented this information that is

17     contained here.

18             Perhaps you can show me something else that I could comment upon.

19        Q.   D447.  There is a reference to September, perhaps even earlier

20     than that.  Several thousand criminal reports.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] D447.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Is that correct that there were several thousand immediately at

24     the very outset?

25        A.   Mr. Karadzic, irrespective of what figures say, I'm sorry that

Page 46376

 1     this percentage was not even higher.  Unfortunately, the situation was

 2     such that it is reflected in these indicators, regardless of the

 3     willingness to do things and everything that we did, indeed, do.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  On document P261, page 24 in Serbian, it says, that

 5     2500 forensic expertise projects were carried out only in the area of CSB

 6     Banja Luka --

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We could not follow the

 8     figures that are being read out very fast.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, we didn't hear anything.

10             Please read slowly.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] P2761 is the document that I'm

12     referring to.  We don't need to call it up.  The participants can see

13     this.  In Serbian, it's page 20, and English 24.  There's a reference to

14     thousands, 8.000 on-site investigations.  27.000 interviews in 1992 --

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We do not have the

16     document before us.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honours, I --

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Sorry, it's 23 in English.

19             JUDGE KWON:  I don't see this point.

20             Yes, I'll hear from Mr. Zecevic first.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.  I just thought that in

22     all fairness the document should be shown to the witness to comment it,

23     yes.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Olmsted.

25             MR. OLMSTED:  And I was just going to note that this document is

Page 46377

 1     not in the statement and not on their list of exhibits, so I was unaware

 2     that this document was going to be used by the Defence.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it's a document of his

 4     ministry.  Or, actually, he had already left, but it speaks about his

 5     work too, and there are no --

 6             JUDGE KWON:  That's a separate matter, Mr. Karadzic.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.  Can this document be

 8     admitted?

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Do you have any objection, Mr. Olmsted?

10             MR. OLMSTED:  No, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE KWON:  We'll receive it.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D4274, Your Honours.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Please, did you do anything, and, if so, what is it that you did

16     do, in relation to possibly credible information about paramilitary

17     elements and independent elements, persons who behaved in a criminal way?

18             Actually, let me narrow this down a bit.  Can you tell me what

19     happened in Brcko, Zvornik, Bijeljina, in the beginning of the war?

20        A.   As far as paramilitary groups are concerned and their crimes or,

21     rather, incriminations of any kind, there are two periods involved.  That

22     is to say, up until the collegium, and after the collegium in Belgrade.

23     That is to say, up until the 11th of July, and after the 11th of July.

24             What you mentioned, Brcko, Zvornik, and Bijeljina, this

25     information about possible crimes and their perpetrators, that was before

Page 46378

 1     the collegium.  Since during a considerable period of time we did not

 2     have any communication with this part, and as soon as communication was

 3     established, this first information came in about possible criminal

 4     behaviour on the part of these paramilitary groups.

 5             Since this information was incomplete, it was talk mostly, I

 6     specifically charged two persons.  I asked an inspector from public

 7     security and another inspector from state security to go out into the

 8     field and collect more information, which is what they did.  And then an

 9     assessment was made on the basis of this information, and the assessment

10     was that we did not have the potential to deal with these groups on our

11     own because there were quite a few of them and mostly these were criminal

12     groups that had come from Serbia.  And they were linked to criminal

13     groups in the territory of Republika Srpska.

14             I asked you, and you contacted the then-prime minister of - what

15     was it called then? - the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but along my

16     own line, I also informed the federal minister - I think his name was

17     Petar Gracanin - and I asked that they send us by way of assistance some

18     of their forces, precisely for that reason; namely, that most of these

19     criminal groups were from the territory of Serbia.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Can you remember the names of the persons that you

21     sent to carry out this additional investigation?

22        A.   Our request was met, and Petar Gracanin sent Mico Davidovic, who

23     held some position in the special brigade of the federal MUP.  And he

24     originally hailed from Bijeljina, and he was familiar with the area.  And

25     he arrived with a unit of the federal SUP of Yugoslavia.  He arrived in

Page 46379

 1     Bijeljina.

 2             I issued a clear and unequivocal order to him; that is to say,

 3     all paramilitary groups that are in that area are to be eliminated and

 4     arrested.

 5             As for those who had not been committed crimes, they should be

 6     expelled; and those who had committed crimes should be prosecuted.  And

 7     that's, indeed, what was done.

 8        Q.   Can you tell us where these arrests took place?  First of all,

 9     can you tell us whether the local authorities, the civilian authorities,

10     the police stations, were they capable of doing that without any kind of

11     external assistance?

12        A.   Not in this area.  Our assessment was that even viewed from all

13     of Republika Srpska, we could not handle that.

14             At that time, there was still no communication with the other

15     centres Banja Luka, Doboj, Herzegovina.  So there was only the potential

16     that was there in that area, and that is why we asked for this assistance

17     from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us where arrests took place during this

19     operation -- or, rather, first of all, was it only the federal MUP or did

20     you also provide something?  Who took part in these arrests?

21        A.   A unit of the federal MUP arrived and we also attached a number

22     of personnel, I think it was a platoon of MUP members.  Together they

23     were in Brcko, Bijeljina, and partially Zvornik.  They put in place

24     conditions for -- for the rule of law to be established in the area, more

25     or less.

Page 46380

 1        Q.   Do you know how many were arrested?

 2        A.   I really don't know.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  What happened with those who were arrested?

 4        A.   What followed was the next stage.

 5             After it was learned at the collegium meeting in Belgrade that in

 6     the municipality of Zvornik, there were two or three paramilitary groups

 7     which comprised over 100 men who were exceptionally well armed, I

 8     reissued my order to the chief, Dragan Andan, I believe his name was, as

 9     well as to Mico Davidovic and to the special brigade of the MUP of the RS

10     headed by Milenko Karisik.  However, since it was learned by way of

11     information from the field that the group included members of the VRS, or

12     at least they introduced themselves as such, using VRS IDs, I asked the

13     VRS to send a number of their military policemen to co-operate with us.

14     Unfortunately, under the then-law, the civilian police could not arrest

15     soldiers, and it was for that reason that such co-operation was required.

16             It was, indeed, done, and that is how the group was arrested.

17     There was even some engagement with a number of wounded.  In any case,

18     the group was arrested, eliminated, some of them fled during the arrest,

19     and the problem was dealt with.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Where did those who were arrested in Zvornik end up?

21        A.   The MUP submitted criminal reports and notified the competent

22     prosecutor's office and the competent court in Bijeljina, and together,

23     in co-operation with Serbia, or the former SFRY, since there were a

24     number of Serbian citizens, Serbian nationals, they took measures

25     together, which we did not take part in.

Page 46381

 1        Q.   Was there a specific reason why you handed it over to the Serbian

 2     judiciary?

 3        A.   The judicial system on our side was in its inception, and we did

 4     not have adequate courts which could try them.  I'd rather not go into

 5     speculating what was agreed upon between the two sides though.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Did you have any information on the paramilitaries

 7     and crimes in Podrinje, Visegrad and Rudo?  And according to the

 8     information you had, who was responsible for it?

 9        A.   I'm sorry, I just wanted to add something to the previous part.

10             In terms of what I know, and regarding that part of the country,

11     it was the military security took responsibility of the person who was at

12     the time suspected of having killed some 200 people in the environs of

13     Zvornik.  It fell under the competence of the military security service

14     and the military prosecutor's office.  As for the rest who were suspected

15     of having committed more simple crimes, such as theft, they were

16     transmitted to the Ministry of the Interior.  That is what I can

17     remember.

18        Q.   Now that we are back on that topic, do you know whether the state

19     of Serbia ever completed its proceedings against them?

20        A.   I know they processed some of them, although I have no further

21     information.

22        Q.   Let us now go back to the issue of Podrinje, Rudo and Visegrad.

23             Did you have any other information regarding it and did the

24     ministry do anything?

25        A.   After this operation, the next day, I arrived in Zvornik.  I

Page 46382

 1     called a meeting with the people who participated in the operations, and

 2     I ordered the following:  Similar operation against any paramilitary or

 3     parapolice groups were to be continued.  And I was very clear and

 4     unambiguous on that point.  I told them that it had to be done even at

 5     the risk of their own lives.  We had information that in parts of Rudo

 6     and Visegrad, there were also some paramilitary organisations which were

 7     active.  I ordered that a platoon be established immediately of some

 8     30 personnel, members of the MUP, in order to execute that task.

 9             We had a problem though.  Due to interrupted communications, the

10     only way for us to reach Visegrad was via the FRY.  A dispatch was sent

11     to the FRY, asking that a -- transport be allowed for the unit with the

12     necessary weapons and equipment they needed through their territory in

13     order to reach Rudo and Visegrad.

14             Of course, since the FRY also had UN observers in its territory,

15     they did not allow the unit to move in that way.  Therefore, there was

16     some time lost.  In any case, ultimately, the unit was transferred and

17     continued its work.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Before I move on, can you tell us which category of

19     the population, ethnically and socially speaking, was exposed the most to

20     the activity of those groups in Rudo, Zvornik, and Visegrad?  Which was

21     the most vulnerable group that you were trying to protect?

22        A.   Well, you see, whoever seen as an obstacle to a criminal group

23     becomes their target, but in this case they particularly targeted

24     non-Serbs.  They wanted to gain -- to achieve material gain.

25             I apologise.  They did not shy from committing mass crimes in

Page 46383

 1     order to achieve that.

 2        Q.   To achieve what?

 3        A.   Their goals of gaining material benefit, to steal.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  That something prompted you particularly to have the

 5     unit sent to Visegrad and Rudo?

 6        A.   I told you that we had information that some 20 people were

 7     kidnapped in a certain location, and the presence of paramilitary

 8     organisations and volunteers was established.  They did so in conjunction

 9     with domestic criminals all over the territory of Rudo and Visegrad.

10     Thus, the unit was sent to engage them and to secure normal living

11     conditions in the area, to the extent possible.  You know that throughout

12     the war Visegrad itself or its environs were subjected to combat.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown 1D09511.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Can you tell us what this is.

17        A.   This represents the implementation of my order.  You see that my

18     name is in the signature block.  It was drafted by Milos Duban [phoen],

19     the chief of police working for the MUP of Republika Srpska.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could it be reflected in the

21     transcript that the document concerns Minister Mico Stanisic.  I don't

22     see the name on the first page, but I believe -- yes, in the English

23     translation we have it on page 2.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Is this the unit you referred to a moment ago?

Page 46384

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I seek to tender it.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we will receive it.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D4275, Your Honours.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Mr. Minister, you said you did not make any distinction.  Can you

 9     tell us what happened when Serbs committed crimes against non-Serbs,

10     i.e., Muslims and Croats?  What kind of procedure followed?

11        A.   I don't understand your question.  Can you reformulate,

12     Mr. Karadzic?

13        Q.   What was the conduct of the law enforcement agencies, including

14     the ministry, because you can certainly speak on its behalf?

15        A.   The Ministry of the Interior acted in accordance with the

16     instructions and orders.  It treated equally all perpetrators, especially

17     when it came to serious crime.  If I may, I'd like to clarify something.

18             What was the problem for the Ministry of the Interior in terms of

19     arresting the perpetrators when crimes were committed against Muslims?

20     Such crimes usually took place at demarcation lines where there was

21     combat.  In that case, the victims and witnesses went to the Muslim side,

22     and we were in no position to interview them, to gather the necessary

23     information about the perpetrators.  You know well what kind of

24     solidarity exists among such perpetrators who commit such crimes.

25             So we were unable to reach the witnesses, and there was much

Page 46385

 1     problem in gathering information.  That is why we issued the order from

 2     June, that at least the necessary evidence be gathered.  I was the

 3     minister of the interior.  My colleagues, at the time we were discussing

 4     it, told me, if we arrest anyone without proof we would have to release

 5     them immediately.  So the precondition was to gather evidence, and only

 6     then suspects could be brought in and procedure initiated.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the witness briefly be shown

 9     D449.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Do you recall this letter of yours sent to the prime minister?

12        A.   Yes.  Can I see the signature block?  Is this the original letter

13     by me?

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we both -- can we have both

15     versions, the last page.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Let's a stay on this page.

18             You said something a moment ago.  I will read it out:  We are

19     working on gathering and documenting the crimes of murder -- of war

20     crimes of murder and genocide irrespective of the ethnicity of the

21     perpetrators.  The date of this letter is the 18th of July, 1992.  Does

22     it tally with what the ministry was doing at the time?

23        A.   You know we had the problem with the paramilitary groups and the

24     problem was caused by Ms. Plavsic.  She even sent letters to the Cossacks, to

25     Draskovic, and Arkan to sort of send their volunteers to help the defence of

Page 46386

 1     the Serbian people in Republika Srpska.  All those who came, for the most

 2     part, were people prone to committing crimes with prior convictions, for

 3     similar crimes.  This is why when I returned from the collegium meeting

 4     in Belgrade, since I had insisted from the start to dealing lawfully with

 5     the issue of volunteer and until when a person can be a volunteer,

 6     because it happened that such groups, which she invited, reported to

 7     certain units, they were issued with arms, they would introduce

 8     themselves as some kind of special forces, and they would get the best

 9     weapons, and then they would take off and commit crimes.

10             Having obtained their initial status as part of the military,

11     they excluded the competence of the minister of the interior because,

12     then they fell under the jurisdiction of the military security service,

13     the military prosecutor, and the military courts; whereas, as a matter of

14     fact, there were not with the army.  They were simply committing crimes

15     in the rear.  It was probably due to the pressure put by Ms. Plavsic to

16     presenting them as her forces, and in order not to have them prosecuted

17     such things never found its way on any agenda.  Thus, I was forced to act

18     the way I did.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's correct line 7, page 75, the

21     witness said they joined the military.  They actually excluded themselves

22     from the competency of the ministry, of the Ministry of the Interior.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Do you agree with it, Mr. Stanisic?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  The affiliation with the

25     military actually excluded them from the competence of the

Page 46387

 1     Ministry of the Interior.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   We can see that as early as July you issued documents to that

 6     effect.  When you had witnesses and victims to perform investigation,

 7     what happened?

 8        A.   It depended.  There was such cases in our territory during the

 9     war where witnesses could be obtained, but most of them were absent.

10     They were interviewed in the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the Muslim

11     part, but those statements were never made available to us.  On the other

12     hand, we were not members of the Interpol so we did not have any ways to

13     seek that documentation or information about the crimes.  We were still

14     not recognised as a state.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

16     1D09505.  This should not be broadcast because it contains victim names.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Mr. Minister, don't mention any names, but can you please tell us

19     what this document is about?  And also can you tell us whether there was

20     a trial and when could it have taken place?

21        A.   I can only tell you what I read.  This was not within my

22     jurisdiction.  I didn't have anything whatsoever to do with individual

23     reports.

24             However, you can read in the document that the crime was

25     committed on the 25th of May, 1992, that a criminal report was filed

Page 46388

 1     subsequently.

 2        Q.   On the 26th; right?

 3        A.   There is a number here, 25th of May, this is what I'm reading.

 4        Q.   However, the date of the document is 26 May.

 5        A.   Yes, I'm talking about the incident, however.  And there's also

 6     the date of 26th of May, 1993, when the file was reported.

 7        Q.   The crime was rape.  What is the rapist's ethnic background?  We

 8     don't have to mention his name.

 9        A.   Judging by the name, he was a Serb.

10        Q.   Where from?  Where did he reside?

11        A.   He was from Pancevo, in Serbia.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Olmsted.

13             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, the witness has already said that

14     this was not within his jurisdiction.  He didn't have anything whatsoever

15     to do with this individual report, and now Mr. Karadzic is simply reading

16     parts of it and having the witness confirm that that's what the document

17     says.

18             This is of no value to this case, and therefore we object.

19             JUDGE KWON:  I tend to agree with Mr. Olmsted's observation.

20             What is your question, Mr. Karadzic, with respect this document,

21     after having heard witness's answer?

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Mr. Minister, how did this end up with the district court in

24     Zvornik?

25        A.   Could you please show me the page where -- with the signature

Page 46389

 1     block?  I would like to see who it is who filed the criminal report,

 2     whether it was the Ministry of the Interior.  Maybe then I would be able

 3     to tell you something more about this.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Let us see how it goes.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   We have the name of the prosecutor here, the deputy public

 7     prosecutor that is.  As a rule, who is it who is in charge of

 8     investigations and handing the matter over to the prosecutor's office?

 9        A.   I've already described in great detail about the procedure, the

10     investigation, and on-site inspections, and so on and so forth.  However,

11     that doesn't mean that if the Ministry of the Interior cannot collect

12     evidence on -- on a crime, and if they do so, they can file a criminal

13     report to the prosecutor's office irrespective of any on-site inspection.

14     This could have been sent from the Ministry of the Interior to the

15     prosecutor's office at that time because the perpetrator was a civilian

16     and the civilian prosecutor's office would have been in charge.

17        Q.   And now could you please tell us where it says in paragraph 4

18     that an official of the SJB Bratunac should be heard because they

19     prevented the perpetrators from raping the women.  So it was just

20     attempted ripe; right?

21        A.   Yes, that's what I'm reading.  This is what I can read under

22     paragraph 4.

23        Q.   Was that member of the SJB an employee of your ministry?

24        A.   If he was a policeman in a police station then he was also a

25     member of the Ministry of the Interior; right?

Page 46390

 1        Q.   Thank you.  And now can we go back to page 1.  Let's not mention

 2     any names.

 3             Who was the victim, in terms of her ethnic background?  What was

 4     her ethnic background?  And I'm still talking about this attempted rape.

 5        A.   Can we go back one page.

 6             Judging by her name, the victim was a Muslim.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the document be admitted?  It

 9     obviously points to the fact that the document reached the prosecutor's

10     office via the Ministry of the Interior.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Olmsted.

12             MR. OLMSTED:  Regardless of what the document says, Mr. Karadzic

13     has not shown a nexus between this document and this witness.  This

14     witness is simply reiterating what the document itself says.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Robinson.

16             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.

17             I would submit that this document is admissible because it is

18     consistent with his testimony of how these matters were handled and that

19     prosecutions and investigations were carried out for crimes against

20     non-Serbs committed by Serbs.  And following our practice, that's

21     sufficient for the document to be admitted.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may add to that,

23     your Excellencies, none of us high officials are charged with anything

24     that they may have done.  We are all charged with the conduct of our

25     subordinates.  And here you can see that Mr. Stanisic's subordinates

Page 46391

 1     actually did everything by the book.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  You are not a minister at this time, Mr. Stanisic?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was a minister when the crime was

 4     committed and when the criminal report was submitted to the competent

 5     public prosecutor's office.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  I'm sorry, are you saying you are aware that a

 7     criminal report was sent to the public prosecutor's office?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in view of my

 9     position and the scope of my tasks, I can only state that a member of the

10     Ministry of the Interior, i.e., of the Bratunac police station, submitted

11     this criminal report to the public prosecutor and that the prosecutor's

12     office took the matter over.  I did not look at all the individual

13     reports because it was not my duty.  So I really can't remember this

14     particular report.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The incident happened on the

16     25th of May, 1992.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  And at that time, I was a

18     minister.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE KWON:  The Chamber will admit this.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D4276, under seal.

22             JUDGE KWON:  I don't think we need to put it under seal.  Just

23     for the -- out of abundance of caution, Mr. Karadzic didn't want to read

24     out the name of the victim and sexual harassment.  But I don't think we

25     should admit it under seal.

Page 46392

 1             Do you have any observation, Mr. Olmsted?

 2             MR. ROBINSON:  Actually, Mr. President, I think we can provide a

 3     redacted version of this so that the name of the victim doesn't appear in

 4     the public record.  Since it is not an essential part of this testimony,

 5     I think it would be a more prudent way to do that.  Even though the

 6     exhibit's not broadcast, members of the public have access to the

 7     exhibits, and I don't see the need to identify a victim of a sexual crime

 8     without some good reason.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Does it mean that you are tendering two versions of

10     this document?

11             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we have no difficulty with it.

13             Shall we assign numbers for those.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  The public redacted version

15     will be Exhibit D4277.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  And now I'd like to

18     show 1D09506.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   You have just told us that at the time of the commission of this

21     crime, documents were gathered, evidence was collected, but that it was

22     not always possible to carry out trials during the war?

23             Now look at this judgement.  It was passed in 1993.  I would like

24     to look at page 4.  Please look at the ethnic background of the victim

25     and also the ethnic background of the perpetrator.  Karadzic is the

Page 46393

 1     perpetrator and the victim is Ramic.

 2        A.   Judging by the names, the perpetrator was a Serb and the victim

 3     was a Muslim.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at Serbian 4 and

 5     English 2, and then we will move onto page 3 in English.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Pay attention to the lower part of this page where it says in the

 8     evidentiary procedure, on the consensual recommendation of the parties,

 9     the court read out the following:  The statements given by the

10     interviewed, and the witness, Husein Ramic, Emina Ramic, Enver Ramic and

11     Selim Cajic, and the psychiatric expert report by neuropsychiatrist

12     Dr. Bojan Stojakovic of 30 July, 2001, excerpts from the Sipovo SJB

13     criminal records for the accused, the medical documentation, the report

14     and external examination of the body.

15             Okay, what did the MUP do when the crime was committed?  They

16     examined the body.  They did the expert analysis of the weapons.  Did

17     they do everything that was in their power for a trial to be conducted at

18     some point?

19        A.   Yes, there was an on-site inspection by the

20     Ministry of the Interior.  There was a crime technician who was involved.

21     All the evidence was gathered.  And eventually the Trial Judgement was

22     founded on the evidence gathered at the time when the crime was

23     committed.  And the evidence was irrefutable and it was the grounds for

24     the judgement.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness said irrefutable

Page 46394

 1     evidence on which the judgement was founded.  Can the document be

 2     admitted.

 3             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, we would object on several grounds.

 4     First of all, this is a judgement not from 1993 but from 2003.  It

 5     involves -- well, purportedly involves a crime that occurred in Sipovo,

 6     which, as I understand it, is not part of the indictment in this case.

 7     And although it appears that some work was done on this case, it doesn't

 8     say when that work was done by the police.  It just says that there was

 9     some examination of a fire-arm, et cetera.  And once again, this witness

10     has no personal knowledge of this case.  He's simply reciting what the

11     document itself states.

12             JUDGE KWON:  The last page, which we are seeing now, refers to

13     the criminal records of 2nd of February, 1993, as well as on-site

14     investigation on 10th of September, 1992.  As such, we have a basis to

15     admit it, don't we?

16             I will consult my colleagues.

17             Yes, we'll admit it.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D4278, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Do we not have to --

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you --

21             JUDGE KWON:  -- have a redacted version or not?  I'm not sure

22     about that.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This was a homicide and the first

24     was a failed rape attempt.  Both judgements are in the public domain

25     already.

Page 46395

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  Please continue.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Another document please, 09507.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   This is another judgement.  Could you please tell us about the

 5     ethnicity of the perpetrators of those crimes.

 6        A.   Judging by the names, one could conclude that they are Serbs.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  And in the preamble, it says the district court in

 8     Banja Luka in chamber composed of so-and-so, in the criminal case against

 9     the accused so-and-so, for war crimes against civilians under

10     article so-and-so, and so on and so forth.  Further down there is

11     reference to everything that had been done.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now can we go to English 4 and

13     Serbian 3.  English 3; Serbian 4.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Let's see what the MUP did at the time.

16             It says when it comes to the physical evidence, the public

17     prosecutor's office presented to the Trial Chamber the following

18     evidence:  The record of the external examination of the body; an

19     Official Note drafted by the Bosanski Novi public security station, dated

20     22nd, which was also the on-site investigation report; the minutes, and

21     so on and so forth.

22             Did the MUP undertake all the actions that eventually led to this

23     judgement?

24        A.   It is obvious it is evident that the judgement was passed based

25     on the evidence that was collected in 1992.

Page 46396

 1        Q.   Let's go to the following pages in both languages.

 2             At the very top, the following says that defence also presented

 3     evidence by presenting the schematic of the house in Novi Grad that was

 4     drafted by Mirko Karlica.  Now, when it comes to forensic technician, who

 5     do they belong to?

 6        A.   They belong to the crime prevention services of the Ministry

 7     of the Interior.

 8        Q.   Thank you.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Maybe it be noted that the interpreters cannot

10     find these passages.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Dated 22nd in respect of the aforementioned schematic where it is

13     recorded that charred bodies and their remains were found on site.  On

14     the 21st of October with -- Muslim witnesses were interviewed as you can

15     see in the last sentence of the paragraph.  The Bosanski Novi CS -- CJB

16     took statements by Bakira, Kasim, and Djulka; right?

17        A.   This is precisely what I was talking about.  Whenever we had

18     occasion to locate witnesses, obviously crime prevention inspector and

19     members of the Novi Grad police station acted extremely professionally

20     and when they carried out on-site inspection and when they interviewed

21     witnesses, the procedure was the same.  However, the problem was that by

22     and large we could not get access to any of the witnesses.

23        Q.   Can you tell us what the ethnicity of these witnesses is?

24        A.   It is obviously on the basis of their names and surnames that

25     they are Muslims.

Page 46397

 1             You see, she gave quite a bit of information.  She knows them as

 2     neighbours.  That is what was missing, in order for more light to be shed

 3     on the perpetrators.  Information was collected about each and every

 4     crime.  I don't know of any omissions there.  But as for perpetrators, it

 5     was hard to collect information.  It was hard to be in this situation as

 6     stated here.  Namely that witnesses were on the spot, or rather, that

 7     they were accessible to the Ministry of the Interior and since that is

 8     what the situation was, I believe that they acted quite properly here.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could this please be admitted, this

11     document.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we will receive it for the same reason.

13                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

14             JUDGE KWON:  Could you identify the relevant pages -- pages, that

15     is, matching with English translation.  We'll admit only those part.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D4279, Your Honours.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that it's the first and

18     second and third and fourth, fifth, and sixth -- no.  Fifth, in Serbian,

19     and up to page 4 in English.  The first four in English ; and the first

20     five in Serbian.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Minister, when you were explaining why perpetrators who hailed

23     from Serbia were handed over to Serbia, you said that there weren't

24     enough courts of law.

25             Can you tell us how the civilian and military judiciary was

Page 46398

 1     established?  Actually, the result of the work of the

 2     Ministry of the Interior depended on the civilian judiciary.  So what did

 3     this look like, and when could one count on expeditiousness?

 4        A.   I think it was only in mid-June that decisions were made to

 5     establish courts of law, and then people were actually being appointed.

 6     There was really a shortage of people, people who were trained and

 7     capable of being prosecutors and judges.

 8             Also, for example, a prosecutor's office would be established,

 9     but there wouldn't be a prosecutor there.  There would be only be a

10     secretary who would be receiving documents; for instance, they would

11     write 1992 and the prosecutor would actually start operating in 1993 and

12     even later.  So those were the problems involved.  It was hard to

13     constitute this kind of institution overnight.  These problems were of a

14     substantive nature.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16        A.   And that was the main problem in terms of passing judgements and

17     finally bring before justice at least those perpetrators that we had

18     arrested.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell me whether I or somebody relevant from

20     the leadership of Republika Srpska asked you at any point in time not to

21     have crimes investigated, crimes committed by Serbs, especially against

22     non-Serbs, Croats and Muslims?

23        A.   You did not ask me.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Now, we have a language problem here with prisoners

25     and captives.  Tell me, prisoners of war, under whose authority did they

Page 46399

 1     fall and what is the difference between a prisoner of war and a prisoner?

 2        A.   Mr. Karadzic, we have three concepts:  Prisoners of war is solely

 3     under the military and has to do with the military.  Detainees can be

 4     persons who are detained in military prisons and in civilian prisons.

 5     And there is yet another category, whereby the Ministry of the Interior

 6     can keep a person in custody for up to three days when there are reasons

 7     for that.  However, a decision has to be made to that effect.  And the

 8     public prosecutor has to be informed or an investigating judge.

 9        Q.   And how could a detainee be kept longer?  On which basis?

10        A.   What do you mean "longer"?  I don't understand.  You have to be

11     very specific there.  Which category?

12        Q.   Longer than what you said about police custody.

13        A.   Regardless of whether it's a civilian or military prison, a

14     detainee can be in prison only within the sentence passed.  That is as

15     far as prisoners are concerned.

16             Now, as for detainees, that decision is made by a judge up to six

17     months, according to the law that was in force then.  It was for shorter

18     terms but then these shorter terms could be extended, as far as I can

19     remember.  It wasn't really my line of work.  So I'm speaking on the

20     basis of memory now.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Was it allowed and did you take any measures against

22     the abuse of the institute of detention that was not based on

23     regulations?

24        A.   Whenever I heard any such thing, I said that measures should be

25     taken.  And that was unequivocal.  And you can see that for my orders.

Page 46400

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] D467.  Could that please be shown

 2     to the witness.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Do you remember, Minister, this order of yours?  It says in the

 5     second line, "I hereby order ...,"  the 10th of August, 1992.

 6             Tell us what is prescribed in this order?

 7        A.   Number 1:  "Detention and holding measures shall be applied

 8     exclusively within existing regulations."

 9             That's what I talked about a moment ago.  You should be

10     personally responsible for the lives of people who are being held and

11     detained and for preventing any form of abuse in that area.

12             The premises where people are being held or detained must fulfil

13     basic hygiene and health requirements."

14             Now 2:

15             "The security of collection centres shall be directly responsible

16     of the Serbian army and, if they do not have enough personnel for these

17     duties, it shall therefore be necessary to engage members of the reserve

18     police for these tasks and to place them at the army's disposition."

19             My understanding was that a member of the

20     Ministry of the Interior cannot carry out such duties because this is

21     detention that is under the military, and we cannot exercise control and

22     it is for that reason that I issued this kind of order.

23        Q.   So a reservist of the police, is such a person at the same time a

24     military reservist and if this person does something for the military,

25     does such a person has to be under its command?

Page 46401

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We did not hear the

 2     beginning of the answer.  There was no pause.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  If you could repeat your answer.  Because of the

 4     overlap, interpreters were not able to hear you, Mr. Stanisic.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Members of the military reserve are

 6     part of the records of the Secretary for National Defence.  As for the

 7     work done by the Ministry of the Interior, if they need reenforcements at

 8     the proposal of authorised officials from the ministry, persons who are

 9     reserve soldiers can be sent but this is the Secretary for National

10     Defence that decides.  The Ministry of the Interior has to train such a

11     person, if this does happen, so that such a person could try to do a good

12     job when engaged as a reservist in the work of the Ministry of the

13     Interior.

14             When this is no longer necessary within the Ministry of the

15     Interior, then such a person would be returned to the Secretariat of

16     National Defence, again, to be -- in their records and to be used for the

17     needs of the military.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Thank you.  We see here in the first paragraph that you underline

20     the question of hygiene; isn't that right?

21        A.   That's right.

22        Q.   Thank you.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we briefly take look at

24     269 -- sorry, D469.  A week later.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 46402

 1        Q.   This is also yours.  "I hereby order yet again," that's what you

 2     say.  And then also you are referring to informal prisons, unofficial

 3     prisons, also to have improper behaviour sanctioned.  And you also say in

 4     paragraph 3:

 5             "As for persons who violate valid regulations and act in

 6     contravention of our laws and international provisions, in this area,

 7     regardless of whether they are civilians or members of the MUP or the

 8     military, it is necessary to collect information and documentation for

 9     submitting criminal reports to the appropriate prosecutor's office?"

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  This was the end of the

11     sight translation and we did not hear the question or the answer.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

13             The witness -- the interpreters did not hear your question and

14     answer.  Repeat your question, Mr. Karadzic.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   The question was:  Who this was sent to, this order, a week

17     later.

18        A.   To all chiefs of centres in Republika Srpska.

19             However, Your Honours, may I just explain this term "unofficial"

20     or "informal" so there's no misunderstanding.

21             I meant any kind of detention apart from detention that is

22     regulated on the basis of legal provisions.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   I must say that I omitted to say that in the Serbian version the

25     word "divlji" is under quotation marks.

Page 46403

 1        A.   Precisely.

 2        Q.   As for myself, as president to the Presidency, did you get any

 3     written communication from me?  And how did they fit into your own

 4     efforts and the positions that you took?

 5        A.   They were complementary to the orders that I sent, whatever I

 6     received.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 16257.  Could that please be shown

 9     to the witness.  That's the 65 ter number.  16257.  That's the 65 ter

10     number.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Do you remember this letter, and can you tell us who it is that

13     is sending it, and to who, and what such a person is asking for?  You

14     don't have to read it out.

15        A.   I have to read it to myself.  How could I remember all of this?

16             Yes, I did receive this, just like all the other addressees.

17             You say here, in terms of the authority that everyone had, we

18     should all do our best to allow access to the International Red Cross and

19     you sent this to the Ministry of Justice and to the MUP and to the army.

20     And we acted on that basis, since the prisons are under the

21     Ministry of Justice, the camps are under the military, and our obligation

22     was to secure transit to the facility that the -- the representatives of

23     the International Red Cross wanted to go to.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] D103.  That is the number under

25     which this was already admitted.

Page 46404

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Did you know on the whole and in detail what my position was in

 3     terms of humane treatment, an observance of international humanitarian

 4     law?

 5        A.   Mr. Karadzic, on the basis of what I knew, on the basis of your

 6     communication to me and also it was translated into my own orders, that

 7     is what I know.  What I know is translated into these orders.  As for

 8     more than that, well, after all, you were the president.  It was not

 9     within my domain to know everything about you.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Minister, could you please tell us now what it was

11     that you knew and when you found out and how about a crime that was

12     committed at Koricanske Stijene on the 21st of August, 1992 --

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, Your Honours.  I will have to object at

14     this point and ask the Trial Chamber if it insists on the answer and to

15     compel the witness to answer on that.  Thank you.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Just -- if the parties like to make any observation

17     as to this.

18             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.

19             We would ask the Trial Chamber to compel him to answer this

20     question.  I understand that it could fall within Rule 90(E) and I think

21     it's a legitimate invocation of that objection, but we would ask the

22     Chamber to proceed to order him to answer with the provision that it

23     would not be used again him.

24                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

25             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Olmsted.

Page 46405

 1             MR. OLMSTED:  We don't take a position on this, Your Honours.

 2             MR. TIEGER:  Let me just make two quick points, Mr. President, in

 3     line with the practice that seems to have developed around these issues.

 4             Number one, I -- I don't know whether the Court considers that

 5     it's necessary for the witness himself to invoke.  I will say I have seen

 6     at least one proceeding in which a chamber permitted counsel to invoke on

 7     behalf of the witness who acquiesced.  On the other hand, I have seen

 8     proceedings where the witness himself was required to invoke.  I simply

 9     raise that.

10             Secondly, if the Court does proceed in that direction, I would

11     simply note that it has been our practice thus far to go into

12     private session for responses to questions for which -- to which the

13     witness has been compelled, and I simply wanted to remind the Chamber of

14     that.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Zecevic, do you like to add anything to

16     Mr. Tieger's observation that we need to go into private session if the

17     Chamber is to compel the witness to answer the question?

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, if I understood correctly, my learned

19     friend, Mr. Tieger, from the -- from the Prosecution, it is the practice,

20     I believe he said, of the Trial Chamber to move in -- in private session

21     when it compels the witness to -- to answer the question.

22             To my knowledge, there is no reason for us to go into -- into

23     private session on this particular question.  But if that is the -- the

24     practice of the Trial Chamber, I would take no position on that, in that

25     respect.

Page 46406

 1             JUDGE KWON:  The ground or the reason for going into

 2     private session may be the protection in order that -- that is, in order

 3     to protect the witness for any potential use by any court.

 4             But, Mr. Tieger, do you like that add anything, having heard

 5     Mr. Zecevic's observation?

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  If I may say, Your Honours, I believe the

 7     protection which is guaranteed by the 90(E) and by the Chamber's decision

 8     is more than enough.  I -- I don't think that -- that giving the -- the

 9     testimony in the private session will -- will necessarily help

10     considerably the -- the -- that situation.

11             Thank you very much.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE BAIRD:  Mr. Zecevic, can you assist with us Mr. Tieger's

14     first point that the objection should come from the witness.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, I believe, since I'm

16     representing the witness at this proceedings, I believe that I'm entitled

17     to -- to -- to raise objection at -- at the point where the Defence finds

18     that -- that the -- that the potential question is -- is perhaps the

19     question which might intimidate the witness.  It doesn't -- normally it

20     wouldn't be expected of a witness to be that sophisticated in a legal

21     sense to be able to distinguish whether a certain question might or might

22     not intimidate him, especially knowing that each and every witness is

23     under certain duress when he is taking the stand.

24             Therefore, in my sincere opinion, I respectively say that it is

25     quite appropriate for the Defence to take the objection on this point.

Page 46407

 1             Thank you.

 2             MR. ROBINSON:  Excuse me, Mr. President, I have been quiet about

 3     the publish session because I have -- sensing the way the wind is

 4     blowing, but if you are thinking of going into private session, we would

 5     like to be heard on that before you do so.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Why don't you proceed now, Mr. Robinson.

 7             MR. ROBINSON:  Just to clarify, as I think you well know,

 8     Mr. Tieger's reference to "our practice" is only limited to one instance

 9     in which Colonel Beara -- we initially went into private session and then

10     afterward we unsealed all of that testimony finding that it was not

11     necessary, so I think any reference to the practice is probably more in

12     favour of the open session than a private session.  But in any event,

13     given the information in the statement, we can anticipate what the

14     answers to these questions are going to be and I don't think there is any

15     realistic prospect of him being prosecuted by some authority in some

16     country where the Court's Rule 90(E) might not apply which would be

17     really the only reason for going into private session.

18             So I think in balance, the Chamber should maintain this evidence

19     which is of public interest in the public session.

20             JUDGE KWON:  I also note, Mr. Robinson, in case of Mr. Beara,

21     counsel for Mr. Beara wanted to hear his evidence, answer to the question

22     in private session.

23             Yes, Mr. Tieger.

24             MR. TIEGER:  Just two quick points.

25             First of all, Mr. Robinson is -- is correct in one sense, we

Page 46408

 1     don't have a long-standing practice with respect to this.  These issues

 2     have arisen fairly recently.  But I would submit that the practice with

 3     respect to the precisely relevant circumstances outweighs any practice

 4     we've had with regard to totally inapposite circumstances in the past.

 5     However having said that, I was about to mention something along the

 6     lines that the Court did, and that was that when this issue came up about

 7     rendering the Beara testimony public, of course, one of the primary

 8     considerations in our acquiescence in that was the Defence position on

 9     that subject.  And the view that if the witness and his counsel

10     considered that that is the way they wanted to go, that any additional

11     potential protections didn't need to be forced on them.  They had chosen

12     their path.  And we would certainly acquiesce in that.  If that is the

13     circumstances that we have here obviously we would consider that a

14     relevant consideration along the same lines, as we did in the Beara

15     situation.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE KWON:  Given the time, the Court is minded to adjourn for

18     today and will give its ruling first things tomorrow.

19             Mr. Stanisic, while you can consult your counsel as to just

20     general legal matters, but I'd like to advise you not to discuss about

21     your testimony with anybody else, with anyone, including your counsel.

22             Do you understand that, sir?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, if I may just for the sake of the

25     record, I misspoke in my last -- last submission and instead of saying

Page 46409

 1     "incriminate," I used "intimidate."  And it's on pages 94, line 18

 2     and 21.

 3             I'm sorry.  So it should be redacted.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  It will be corrected, Mr. Zecevic.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Hearing is adjourned.

 7                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.51, p.m.,

 8                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 4th day of

 9                           February, 2014, at 9.00 a.m.