1 Tuesday, 18 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 Yes, Mr. Harvey.
7 MR. HARVEY: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours. May I
8 introduce Sofia Nordengren, who has an LLB from the -- I see the
9 court reporter is waiving his hand in distress and shaking his head.
10 He's not hearing me.
11 JUDGE KWON: All right. Shall we rise for a moment?
12 MR. HARVEY: Testing, testing. Okay. We seem to be fine again.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Harvey.
14 MR. HARVEY: Yes, good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.
15 May I introduce Sofia Nordengren, who has an LLB from the
16 University of Hong Kong, is originally from Sweden, and is now doing an
17 advanced masters here in the Netherlands. Thank you.
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
19 Last week the Chamber informed the parties that the testimony of
20 Mr. Karadzic should start on the 4th of March, 2014. In so ruling, the
21 Chamber had expected to sit four days that week. Unfortunately, due to
22 unforeseen circumstances the Chamber cannot sit on either the 6th or the
23 7th March.
24 In order not to delay the proceedings, the Chamber has therefore
25 decided to sit on Monday, the 3rd of March, from 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
1 with the necessary breaks. The Chamber will then sit regular hours on
2 the 4th and 5th of March before adjourning until Tuesday, the
3 11th of March, as scheduled.
4 The Chamber trusts that with the notice provided, this revision
5 to the schedule will not cause too much inconvenience to the parties.
6 Are there any matters to raise before we continue with the
8 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. Somewhat in connection with
9 that. We have been expecting to have the testimony of an official from
10 the Croatian government today to authenticate certain intercepts that
11 were to be offered by the Defence.
12 Last night I received an e-mail, which I forwarded to your staff,
13 indicating that they were expecting that the testimony would take place
14 in March and they didn't plan -- weren't ready to produce the witness for
15 today. So we can file a motion to order the Croatian government to have
16 him here on the 3rd of March, if that's what the Chamber would like.
17 Alternatively, the Prosecution has agreed that the intercepts
18 that we are intending to offer are authentic. As they have taken that
19 same position with respect to our motion to subpoena Witness KDZ145 and
20 with the pending witness who is here in The Hague to testify, KDZ126.
21 So it would be useful for the parties to know whether or not the
22 Chamber would be satisfied to accept the agreement by the parties as to
23 the authentication of these intercepts or whether it still wishes to call
24 the witnesses.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
1 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Just one modification to Mr. Robinson's remarks. He's quite
3 correct that with respect to the intercept issues that have arisen up
4 until this point, we have taken the same position we did previously with
5 respect to those intercepts and their authentication and for which, I
6 think Mr. Robinson expressed some appreciation the other day since we did
7 so on -- and simply by looking at the material, looking at the previous
8 information available, looking at our previous positions, and taking a
9 consistent position.
10 With respect, however, to the intercepts coming up, we still
11 reserve our position, we're still looking at the specific intercepts and
12 the information we have about that. I'm not suggesting that there will
13 be a different position, but we were looking at that last -- yesterday,
14 we got this material late and this morning. And I hope to get back to
15 Mr. Robinson on that as soon as possible. So I just simply didn't want
16 to preempt our position on the basis of our previous acquiescence, that
17 may well be the case, but we wanted to run through the same process that
18 we engaged in before -- before staking out a particular position. Other
19 than that, Mr. Robinson's submissions are accurate, and I presume it
20 would be helpful for the parties to know where we stood.
21 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Tieger, could you expand on the position,
22 Prosecution's consistent position you referred to? What I heard through
23 the legal officer of the Chamber is that the Prosecution would agree to
24 the authenticity in case it can establish the authenticity based on its
25 evidence collection.
1 MR. TIEGER: And with -- yes, Mr. President. And with respect to
2 the -- the intercepts that have been tendered up to now, up to the --
3 JUDGE KWON: I'm not referring to those intercepts which are the
4 subjects of testimony for the forthcoming witnesses.
5 MR. TIEGER: Correct. And I -- maybe it will be clearer if I
6 simply separate the Croatian intercepts that were the subject of
7 Mr. Robinson's remarks with all of the other tendered intercepts. With
8 respect to that latter category, we -- the Prosecution agrees that
9 authenticity is not an issue.
10 I say that was consistent because my recollection is that when
11 there was an effort to tender similar documents from the same sources
12 early in the Defence case, I think that's the position the Prosecution
13 took, that by that time both parties accepted the authenticity of
14 intercepts coming from that same source.
15 So -- however, I think the Prosecution has reserved, again, with
16 respect to that particular category, has reserved its position on the
17 relevance of particular intercepts in contrast to the authenticity.
18 JUDGE KWON: What about the eight intercepts that are -- that is
19 the topic of testimony who is coming tomorrow? Am I correct in terms of
20 number of witnesses?
21 MR. ROBINSON: Yes.
22 JUDGE KWON: I mean, intercepts.
23 MR. ROBINSON: Yes.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yeah, 145.
25 MR. TIEGER: I'm simply --
1 JUDGE KWON: Or 126, I'm sorry. Yes.
2 MR. ROBINSON: The Prosecution in an e-mail agreed that for those
3 eight intercepts that they were authentic, so I think he can check his
4 e-mails but I'm confident that that's the case.
5 MR. TIEGER: I'm -- I'm simply double-checking to make sure that
6 I don't confuse dates and numbers. I try to make the distinction in
7 terms of the broader categories, and particularly in terms of the witness
8 that Mr. Robinson was talking about potentially being here on the 3rd.
9 But I have no doubt if he is making the correspondence between our
10 expressed e-mail and that particular witness that his representation is
12 And I can confirm that now. We have no objection regarding the
13 authenticity of those eight.
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber will rise for ten minutes.
17 --- Break taken at 9.15 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 9.30 a.m.
19 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson and Mr. Tieger, coming back to the
20 issue of authenticity of those intercepts in question, the Chamber is of
21 the view that in the circumstances, in light of the facts that the
22 Chamber has so far admitted a number of intercepts pursuant to the
23 evidence of intercept operators as well as a number of interlocutors and
24 that Prosecution can authenticate those intercepts based upon its
25 evidence collection and that there is a genuine agreement between the
1 parties as to their authenticity, the Chamber has a basis to establish
2 the authenticity of those intercepts.
3 I will leave it to the Defence whether to proceed with the
4 evidence of KDZ126 scheduled tomorrow or to resort to bar table motion.
5 MR. ROBINSON: Thank you very much, Mr. President. We won't be
6 calling that witness.
7 JUDGE KWON: Unless there are other matters, we'll bring in the
8 next witness.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, for the record, if the counsel assisting
11 Mr. Jankovic could introduce himself for the record.
12 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours, my name
13 is Aleksandar Aleksic, attorney at law, and I have been assigned as
14 counsel for Mr. Jankovic by the Registry at his own request. He
15 requested that I represent him here.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Good morning to you, Mr. Aleksic.
17 Yes, Mr. Jankovic, would you make the solemn declaration.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
19 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
20 WITNESS: DUSAN JANKOVIC
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 JUDGE KWON: Please make yourself comfortable.
25 Before you commence your evidence, Mr. Jankovic, I must draw your
1 attention to a certain rule of evidence that we have here at the
2 Tribunal; that is, Rule 90(E). Under this rule, you may object to
3 answering any question from Mr. Karadzic, the Prosecutor, or even from
4 the Judges if you believe that your answer might incriminate you in a
5 criminal offence. In this context, "incriminate" means saying something
6 that might amount an admission of guilt for a criminal offence or saying
7 something that might provide evidence that you might have committed a
8 criminal offence. However, should you think that an answer might
9 incriminate you and as a consequence you refuse to answer the question, I
10 must let you know that the Tribunal has the power to compel you to answer
11 the question. But in that situation, the Tribunal would ensure that your
12 testimony compelled under such circumstances would not be used in any
13 case that might be laid against you for any offence save and except the
14 offence of giving false testimony. Do you understand that, Mr. Jankovic?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
17 Please proceed, Mr. Karadzic.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Excellencies. Good
19 morning to everyone.
20 Examination by Mr. Karadzic:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Jankovic.
22 A. Good morning, Mr. President.
23 Q. Can I kindly ask you to be mindful of the way we speak and make a
24 pause between question and answers so that the interpretation may be
25 recorded in the transcript.
1 Can you state your full name, father's name, date and place of
2 birth. But slowly, please.
3 A. My name is Dusan Jankovic. My father, Dragoja, and mother,
4 Andja. I was born on the 8th of March, 1950, in Prijedor.
5 Q. Thank you. Equally briefly, can you give us your educational
6 background and profession.
7 A. I completed the mechanic school and then went on to the traffic
8 faculty in Zagreb. I went on to take my masters degree in technical
9 sciences in Belgrade.
10 Q. Thank you for being as brief as that. Can you also tell us
11 something about your career.
12 A. I got a job on the 1st of November, 1970, in the -- in an organ
13 of internal affairs. I worked in the Prijedor police station as a
14 policeman until 1975, when I transferred to the traffic police department
15 in Prijedor. I was then sent on for schooling. And having completed my
16 schooling, I got the post of traffic policeman. Thereafter, I was the
17 head of the patrolling sector, then assistant commander of the Prijedor
18 police station in charge of the traffic department.
19 On the 19th of August, 1991, I was appointed by the SRBiH MUP as
20 commander of the Prijedor police station. I stayed in that job until the
21 20th of September, 1991, when the reserve police force was mobilised. On
22 that date, the Prijedor police station ceased to operate in its active
23 force, and the policemen were assigned to eight substations in the
24 municipality of Prijedor.
25 As of the 20th of September, 1991, I was tasked with logistics
1 for the reserve police stations, so I was dealing with supplies. And my
2 concern was to make sure that these reserve police stations in Prijedor
3 were able to operate. This situation prevailed until March of 1993, when
4 I was appointed chief of the public security station in Prijedor upon the
5 removal of the then-chief, Simo Drljaca. However, because my policies
6 clashed, I was removed from that post and was then assistant chief of the
7 police station in Prijedor.
8 In April of 1994, the Republika Srpska MUP appointed me assistant
9 chief of public security -- of the CSB, security services centre. After
10 the Dayton Agreements were signed, I was appointed the deputy chief CSB.
11 And then in 1997 I was appointed chief of CSB. I stayed in that position
12 up until April of 1998 when I was appointed to the post of inspector in
13 the MUP police administration of Republika Srpska. I stayed in that job
14 until 2001 when I had enough years of service to be retired.
15 Q. Thank you very much. Is my understanding correct: From
16 September 1991 to March 1993 you were the logistics chief in the MUP in
18 A. No. When I was referring to the MUP, I was referring to the
19 republican level, but it is true that I was logistics chief -- yes,
20 that's -- that's all right. And that was the public security station in
22 Q. Thank you.
23 A. So that was the public security station.
24 Q. Thank you. Thank you. Can you tell us the extent of your
25 knowledge about paramilitaries getting organised and illegally armed in
1 the area covered by your station? What was the course of events in that
3 A. I have very little knowledge about it. I'm not sure what sort of
4 arming you're referring to, the Muslim forces; I mean, the Bosniak
6 Q. Outside of the legal process of arming which the JNA was in
7 charge of when it came to its reserve units in the TO, was there any
8 other arming process going on?
9 A. I'm not aware of that.
10 Q. Thank you. Were you in a position to see what the level of
11 quality of the communications equipment and the communication itself was
12 between Prijedor and Banja Luka and Prijedor and Pale during the war?
13 A. Well, let me tell you that between Prijedor and Pale there was no
14 communication whatsoever. No dispatches could be sent. However, between
15 Prijedor and the Pale CSB, there was communication whenever there was
16 power. When there was no power, when there was no electricity, there was
17 no communication.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In line 9, it says "during the
20 war." The question was when the war broke out.
21 In line 12, it was Prijedor and the Banja Luka CSB; not Pale CSB.
22 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter confirms that was the case.
23 Indeed, it was a mistake.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Is that what you said?
1 A. Yes, yes. Between Prijedor and Banja Luka CSB. There was no
2 communication with Pale either through telegrams or telephone lines.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown
5 65 ter 5560.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Are you familiar with the document and what is it about? Are you
8 familiar with this visit?
9 A. I haven't seen this before. I can't see the heading. Can we
10 show the heading, please?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we scroll up. Yes.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. It's a telefax sent to the Bircan security services on the 5th of
14 August. And that was after the visit which took place on the 27th of
15 July; right?
16 A. I haven't seen the document before. I don't remember.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown page 4 in
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. In paragraph 2, it reads --
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the previous page in
23 English, paragraph 2.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. [As read] "Due to the enormous and vast territory, a high number
1 of inhabitants, poor communication and telephone lines, the ongoing
2 combat, and other elements impacting the formation of the Centre, the
3 objective possibility needs to be looked into," et cetera.
4 How does this fit with your knowledge?
5 A. Well, I did already say that we had very poor contacts with the
6 Banja Luka CSB on account of the war and power cuts. We didn't have any
7 contact whatsoever with the Ministry of the Interior. For the most part,
8 the contact went through the CSB Banja Luka inspectors who had the
9 supervisory role in respect of the reserve police stations. And
10 specifically, I'm referring to the ones in Prijedor.
11 Q. Thank you. What was the communication like between Prijedor and
12 the ministry?
13 A. It went through the Banja Luka CSB. The Prijedor station was in
14 fact a substation of the CSB, as it were, CSB Banja Luka.
15 Q. How did the police treat those of its own police officers who
16 committed criminal offences?
17 A. Do you mean in the area of the SJB?
18 Q. Yes, that and the centre that is referred to here.
19 A. Well, as for the SJB, under the Law Governing Internal Affairs,
20 it had its duties including the prosecution of such misdemeanors and
21 offenders. Of course, the SJB was charged with detecting and prosecuting
22 such offences.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have page 2. In English
25 it's paragraph 2.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. It reads:
3 [As read] "In discussions held at these meetings, competent
4 employees indicated that in addition to cautioning and constant
5 monitoring to ensure a lawful implementation of assignments, they had
6 also suspended several employees, initiated appropriate procedures
7 against them, and placed under wartime assignment some of them within the
9 How does this tally with what you know?
10 A. Well, any police officer who was suspected of misconduct would be
11 taken before a disciplinary court which could render certain decisions.
12 I'm talking about the active police personnel. When it came to the
13 reserve police force, if they were suspected of misconduct, they would be
14 stripped of their status of the reserve policeman and then referred to
15 the secretariat for national defence who would then probably send them on
16 to military units.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the next page in both
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Are you familiar with the individuals who appeared to have
22 carried out the inspection and submitted the report; namely, Sreto Gajic
23 and Tomislav Mirosavic?
24 A. I know Gajic. He was the head of the police department at the
25 level of the CSB. These police departments existed only at the level of
1 the CSB. The Prijedor SJB did not have a police department.
2 The Banja Luka police department was the one which would and
3 which did supervise the conduct of the police personnel in this reporting
5 Q. Thank you.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I tender the document into
8 MS. GUSTAFSON: Good morning, Your Honours. No objection.
9 JUDGE KWON: We'll receive it.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D4380, Your Honours.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Mr. Jankovic, when it comes to the police in Prijedor, an
14 unavoidable topic is Mr. Simo Drljaca. We often talk about him. First
15 of all, what was his position at that time? Who was in a position to
16 sign documents on his behalf? What was his attitude towards the
17 commission of crimes?
18 A. Simo Drljaca was appointed as the chief of the public security
19 station at the proposal of the assembly of Prijedor, and that happened on
20 the 16th of April, 1992. He assumed his duties on the
21 30th of April, 1992. He was the one who had the exclusive right to sign
22 documents on behalf of the public security station.
23 However, I would like to say that on the order of the Prijedor
24 CSB duty service was introduced and that was carried out by inspectors
25 who were on duty 24/7. Chief Drljaca authorised inspectors to sign
1 documents on his behalf when he was absent from the public security
2 station. Those documents were usually dispatches that were sent to the
3 security services centre. Those people were not authors of those
4 dispatches, they just signed them in order to facilitate the dispatch of
5 dispatch of another document to the CSB, if those documents were urgent
6 and couldn't wait for Mr. Simo Drljaca to be present.
7 Q. It was not recorded who the author of those documents was. Let's
8 try and speak more slowly.
9 A. I said that Chief Simo Drljaca authorised inspectors who were on
10 duty to sign certain dispatches or other written documents that were sent
11 to the CSB. Those inspectors were not the authors of those documents and
12 dispatches. Their role was only to sign them, to facilitate the sending
13 of such documents to the CSB. Likewise, when a document arrived from the
14 Banja Luka CSB, a dispatch or some other document, the inspectors would
15 distribute the act. They would make sure that those who needed to know,
16 be aware of the document, were put in the picture. But it was the
17 exclusive task of the chief of the public security station to sign such
18 documents, but when he wasn't there, the inspectors were authorised to
19 sign documents on his behalf.
20 Q. Can you speak a bit more slowly. Did I understand you properly?
21 Was Mr. Drljaca appointed in mid-April? Was there joint power in the
22 municipality of Prijedor?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And then you said that he assumed his duties on the
25 30th of April. Could you please tell us why it took so much time between
1 the appointment and the moment when he assumed duties?
2 A. On the 30th of April, there was a take-over of power in the
3 municipality. And before the 30th of April, the public security chief
4 was a candidate of the SDA, Hasan Talundzic. On the 30th of April when
5 the power was taken over, the Serbian Democratic Party installed their
6 candidate pursuant to a previous decision of the assembly which was
7 issued on the 16th of April and Simo Drljaca was thus installed on the
8 30th of April.
9 Q. Did you have an occasion to find out about the reasons and
10 circumstances of the take-over of power on the 30th of April? Could you
11 please tell us what you saw, what you heard at that time?
12 A. On the 29th of April at 1400 hours, a meeting was held at the
13 public security station. It was chaired by Chief Hasan Talundzic, and it
14 was attended by all the employees. At the meeting, there was the
15 president of the municipality, the president of the Executive Board,
16 representatives of the parties that were in power and that had their
17 representatives in the Municipal Assembly. The discussion was about
18 finding a compromise for a joint functioning of the public security
20 However, towards the end of the meeting when conclusions had to
21 be made about joint functioning and compromise, from the communications
22 centre of the public security station a dispatch arrived in which
23 Chief Delimustafic ordered to stop the columns of the military, to block
24 the barracks, and to start preparations for combat actions in the entire
25 area of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
1 That dispatch -- or, rather that dispatch was a consequence of a
2 similar dispatch which was sent by Colonel Efendic, the commander of the
3 Territorial Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Those people who attended the
4 meeting saw that as a declaration of war against the Serbian people and
5 that was also the motive for the take-over of power in the territory of
6 the municipality of Prijedor.
7 Q. Thank you. What can you tell us about Mr. Drljaca? How did he
8 treat crimes and what was his attitude towards co-operation?
9 A. Mr. Drljaca, before he --
10 JUDGE KWON: I take it you understand the question, is it?
11 What did you mean, Mr. Karadzic, when you asked how Mr. Drljaca
12 treated crimes? Is it not too general? Could you be more specific?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, your Excellency. I'll
14 try and be more specific.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Did Mr. Drljaca order people to commit crimes? Did he himself
17 commit crimes or did he try to cover up crimes comitted against anybody;
18 and particularly, Muslims and Croats?
19 A. No, he never ordered crimes to be committed. He never committed
20 crimes himself. I believe that a large number of the public security
21 station employees were very professional in their work and that they
22 would have never been involved in carrying out an order by any chief
23 which ordered them to commit a crime. And it was their duty to -- not to
24 carry out an order of that kind.
25 Q. Thank you. Did he order people to cover up the commission of
1 crimes and to conceal their perpetrators?
2 A. No, he never ordered any such thing. Or at least I don't know
3 about that. All the crimes that were committed in the territory of
4 Prijedor were processed. An on-site investigation was carried out by the
5 PS Prijedor or if the crime was under the authority of a higher court,
6 then inspectors from the CSB would arrive and carry out an on-site
7 investigation because they were in charge of detecting such crimes and
8 investigating them.
9 Q. Thank you. What about subordination? Who was he subordinated to
10 and how did he co-operate with people?
11 A. Chief Drljaca was subordinated to the CSB, i.e., to the chief of
12 the CSB in Banja Luka and the minister. He was arrogant. That was his
13 attitude. Sometimes he found himself in situations when he didn't carry
14 out orders, when he objected to orders that he received from the CSB
15 Banja Luka. However, ultimately he was coerced by his superiors to carry
16 out orders and to obey the law.
17 Q. Thank you. Did you learn anything about war activities, when
18 they started and how they started in Prijedor?
19 A. After the take-over of power, and we're talking about war
20 activities, ethnically based parties in Prijedor tried to reach an
21 agreement in order to find a solution to the situation that arose after
22 the take-over of power. The situation persisted as sometime after
23 22nd May, 1992. And then in the village of Hambarine there was an attack
24 on a group of military conscripts who were moving in the direction of
25 Ljubija. That happened in the village of Hambarine. They were attacked
1 by Muslim forces and three military conscripts were killed and two were
2 wounded. After that, on the 24th of April -- or rather,
3 24th of May, 1992, on the main road leading from Prijedor to Banja Luka
4 in a village called Jakupovici, a military column was stopped -- or
5 rather, it was attacked. There were also casualties on that occasion.
6 They were all military conscripts or army members.
7 On the 30th of May, 1992, there was an attack on the building of
8 the municipality of Prijedor by Muslim paramilitaries. I believe about
9 500 members of paramilitary units participated in that attack. There was
10 a skirmish between the military and the police of Republika Srpska on the
11 one side and those paramilitaries on the other. There were a lot of
12 casualties on both sides, both killed and wounded.
13 Q. Thank you. Did you know and can you tell us about --
14 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. -- the sanitisation operations. After that, who was authorised
17 to do that and what happened?
18 JUDGE KWON: Because you moved away from the topic, it's about
19 Mr. Drljaca, Mr. Jankovic. You said earlier on that Mr. Drljaca never
20 committed crimes himself nor ordered crimes to be committed.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.
22 JUDGE KWON: Then my question for you is this: Did he do
23 everything in order to prevent crimes?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was the public security station
25 chief. He reported to both the CSB and crimes services. I know that he
1 never ordered anybody to commit crimes. The police and the crime
2 prevention services worked on the detection and prevention of crimes. He
3 himself never told them not to do that.
4 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
5 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On line 21, it says -- and the
7 witness said he was superior to the public security station and the crime
8 prevention services. He was their boss. That's what the witness said.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Do you confirm that? Is that what you said?
11 A. Yes, he was their boss. He was the chief of the police and the
12 crime prevention services in the Prijedor public security station.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Do you know what happened with so many killed? Who buried the
16 bodies and where? Did the police bury their own? Who buried those who
17 were killed on the side of the Green Berets?
18 A. On the side of the Green Berets, there were the
19 Civilian Protection and the military. I don't know where they buried
20 them. I heard on TV that they were buried in Tomasica, but previously I
21 didn't know where they were buried.
22 Q. Thank you. What happened next, according to what you knew? What
23 happened with the enemy, with the opponents of the military and the
24 police? Was anybody imprisoned, captured? Did anybody run away? What
1 A. During the combat in Prijedor which lasted for nearly the whole
2 year - to be more precise, until the end of that summer, until the end of
3 August - a lot of those members were captured, and especially on the 31st
4 during the attack. When they were captured, members of the Green Berets,
5 they were detained in the Keraterm and Omarska collection centres. They
6 were investigated because they had been involved in the attack. And
7 those who were found to be guilty of the attack on the municipality of
8 Prijedor, measures were taken against them; and those who were not found
9 guilty were released and allowed to go home.
10 Q. Thank you. Why were the detainees put in Omarska and Keraterm?
11 Did the public security station have its own prison?
12 A. No, the public security station didn't have a prison. They could
13 keep only five, six, up to ten people. However, we are talking about a
14 large number of people, and the Crisis Staff of the municipality of
15 Prijedor found Keraterm and Omarska as the most suitable places for those
17 Q. Can you tell us, did the public security station in Prijedor
18 expect to have so many detainees? Was it expecting a conflict? And in
19 your view, how come the conflict in Prijedor started seven weeks after
20 the conflict in Sarajevo?
21 A. Well, after the dispatch sent by Delimustafic and the information
22 that came through the State Security Service, there was an awareness that
23 an attack by Green Berets and the Patriotic League might occur in
24 Prijedor municipality. However, nobody expected the attack to be so
25 fierce, so brutal, or the clash between the Serbian forces and the
1 Green Berets to last for several weeks. However, I didn't understand
2 what you said about Sarajevo.
3 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, please refrain from asking a compound
4 question. You are asking so many topics at a time. One at a time,
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Do you know when the conflict, the war began in Sarajevo itself?
9 A. I believe it was in the beginning of April in Sarajevo, in Brod,
10 and in Kupres, and all these actions indicated that the situation might
11 escalate in our municipality too.
12 Q. How come the peace in Prijedor was kept for seven weeks after the
13 war broke out in many places in Bosnia?
14 A. In Prijedor there were constant negotiations and talks and
15 efforts to avoid the war and to resolve the national issue peacefully.
16 However, it turned out later that these talks between the Serbian side
17 and the Muslim side were just taken advantage of by the Muslims to gain
18 time to prepare for the attack. They never had the intention to resolve
19 things peacefully.
20 Q. Thank you. In this case -- or rather, in a different case before
21 this Tribunal, there is an adjudicated fact relating to your role in
22 Omarska; that is adjudicated fact 1130. And I will read it out now in
24 [In English] "Dusan Jankovic, commander of the Prijedor police
25 station, supervised the implementation of Simo Drljaca's order of
1 31st of May, 1992. Dusan Jankovic's duties in this regard were to be
2 carried out in collaboration with the Banja Luka security service centre.
3 His work required the approval of the regional superiors of each branch
4 involved in the operation of the camp."
5 [Interpretation] Is this correct?
6 A. This is a wrongly adjudicated fact. The truth is that the chief
7 of the public security station drafted an order that was not in
8 accordance with the regulations of internal affairs agencies or in
9 accordance with any law. Under this order, the chief of the public
10 security station in Prijedor places himself above the state security and
11 orders both the state security and the army, which he had no right to do.
12 Second, in this instance the chief of the public security station
13 says that in Omarska the security of the collection centre would be
14 provided by the police station in Omarska. There was no police station
15 in Omarska. There was a reserve police station which had its own
16 commander, assistant commander, and other personnel. Also, in this order
17 the chief of the public security station orders the administration of the
18 mine, which he had no right to do. Everybody knows that the
19 administration of the mine could only receive orders from the
20 Crisis Staff or somebody else higher up in Republika Srpska.
21 This order was never really put into practice, and I had no
22 obligations under this order because as the order itself says, every day
23 the chief of the public security station was briefed by leaders of the
24 groups that conducted interrogation of the detained members of Muslim
25 forces in Omarska.
1 I have never been to Omarska personally, nor did I do anything in
2 connection with that order. And as I said, that order was not really put
3 into practice with the proviso that the security personnel who conducted
4 interrogations briefed the chief of public security stations,
5 Simo Drljaca, every day at a given time.
6 Q. Was anybody duty-bound to inform you and did you receive any
7 reports about the operation of Omarska or possible violations or crimes
8 committed there?
9 A. No, I received no reports whatsoever. The people who worked
10 there reported directly to the chief of the public security station --
11 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- Simo Drljaca, exclusively.
13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Jankovic, the passage read out to you as
14 adjudicated fact, you testified they were wrongly adjudicated. But one
15 of the sentence reads like this:
16 "Dusan Jankovic, commander of the Prijedor police station,
17 supervised the implementation of Simo Drljaca's order of
18 31st of May, 1992."
19 Is it wrong as well? Do you remember what that order was?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for the content of the order,
21 that fact was adjudicated based on the order as it was written. And in
22 my testimony, I've said that that order was never really put into
23 practice, and I had no need to do anything written in that order because
24 the representatives of the state security, the public security, and the
25 army reported to Simo Drljaca every day on the situation on the ground in
1 Omarska and everything that was going on there and they gave him progress
3 I've also said that Simo Drljaca, with this order, placed himself
4 above the army, the state security, and the administration of the mine
5 which he had no right to do.
6 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
7 Please continue. But the Chamber needs to rise now before 10.30.
8 Is it a convenient moment, Mr. Karadzic?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, your Excellency. We can and
10 then we can start again whenever you say.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Fifteen to 11.00?
13 JUDGE KWON: We will break for half an hour and resume at 5 to
15 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic. Please continue.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Jankovic, let's wrap up the Drljaca topic. Do you know if
23 there was any relationship between me and Drljaca and who would Drljaca
24 be likely to listen to or obey?
25 A. From what I know, he had no contact with you. He was in contact
1 with the Crisis Staff in the territory of Prijedor municipality and with
2 the CSB, the security services centre, in Banja Luka.
3 Q. Thank you. Did you ever hear that the public security station in
4 Prijedor kept the centre in Banja Luka or Pale informed about events in
6 A. I don't know anything of the sort.
7 Q. There is also an adjudicated fact -- but first let me see if I
8 understood you correctly. You said that in September 1991 something had
9 happened with police stations -- or rather, the public security station.
10 Can you repeat this. What exactly happened?
11 A. The presidency of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia Herzegovina on
12 19 September, 1991, issued a decision at its 33rd Session to the effect
13 that the reserve police force should be mobilised in the entire territory
14 of Bosnia-Herzegovina. On the 20th of September, 1991, the minister of
15 the interior of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
16 Alija Delimustafic, issued his own order to mobilise the reserve police
17 force in the entire territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
18 According to the plan that prevailed then, at the police station
19 in Prijedor eight reserve police units were formed. The active duty
20 police station in Prijedor that was active all the way until
21 20th September, 1991, was disbanded and the personnel was assigned to
22 reserve police stations all over Prijedor.
23 There were eight such reserve police stations and there was the
24 ninth for traffic control. So from that date until the signing of the
25 Dayton Accords, the reserve police stations and the reserve police force
1 remain in place, and each of these reserve police stations had its own
2 commander, deputy commander, and assistant commanders.
3 Q. Now I'd like to read to you the adjudicated fact
4 1131 [as interpreted] in English:
5 [In English] "Simo Drljaca was the head of the SJB in Prijedor
6 during the duration of Omarska camp's existence. The uniformed police
7 department of this station was headed by Dusan Jankovic, who was
8 immediately subordinated to Simo Drljaca."
9 [Interpretation] Was there a unified command of the uniformed
10 police after September 1991 and until the Dayton Accords? Is this
11 adjudicated fact 1132 correct?
12 A. No, it's not correct. I tried to prove that with a lot of
13 evidence and witnesses, but for reasons unknown to me the Trial Chamber
14 chose to believe the Prosecution who alleged that there was a police
15 station in Prijedor in wartime conditions. It did not exist except on
17 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was able to start operating --
19 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure which part is challenged, which is
20 correct and which is not correct. So one of the sentence says: "Drljaca
21 was the head of the SJB ..." Is it correct or not?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
23 JUDGE KWON: And the second sentence is that the uniformed police
24 department of this SJB was headed by you. Is it correct or not?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not correct.
1 JUDGE KWON: And is it correct that you were immediately
2 subordinated to Simo Drljaca?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the employees of the public
4 security station were subordinated to Simo Drljaca.
5 JUDGE KWON: So is it correct to say that you were immediately
6 subordinated to Drljaca?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To Drljaca, the chief of the
8 security services centre, and to the minister.
9 JUDGE KWON: So you say it is incorrect to say you headed the
10 uniformed police department of the Prijedor SJB. Then explain why is it
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already said here that I was a
13 commander of the peacetime police station in Prijedor. When the reserve
14 police force was mobilised, reserve police stations were also mobilised.
15 And in Prijedor, there were eight of them plus the ninth for traffic
16 control. On the date of mobilisation, 20th September, 1991, the
17 personnel of the peacetime police station were reassigned to various
18 reserve police stations according to their place of residence.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Can you slow down a little.
21 A. Can I continue? Which means that the police station of Prijedor
22 did not begin operating again until the signing of the Dayton Accords and
23 the reserve force of the police was disbanded. I'm trying to emphasise
24 that the peacetime police station did not operate during the war. Its
25 employees were reassigned to reserve police stations and every reserve
1 police station had its own commander, assistant commander, and deputy
3 The deputy commander, assistant commanders, and commanders of
4 reserve police stations were answerable to Simo Drljaca. At Omarska
5 there was a reserve police station of Omarska and they provided the
6 security to the collection centre of Omarska. It was their area of
7 responsibility. I said that I was engage in logistical affairs and I had
8 no responsibility or authority to issue orders to the reserve police
10 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. In whose area of responsibility from among these eight
14 territorial stations lay Keraterm?
15 A. Keraterm was in the area of responsibility of the reserve police
16 station number 2.
17 Q. Thank you. Did you have any powers or any dealings in respect of
18 that station?
19 A. No, it had its own commander, deputy commander, and assistant
20 commander. I didn't have any role to play save for the logistical part.
21 Q. Thank you. Did you hear of any unusual event in the Keraterm
22 station, as you put it?
23 A. I heard that there was a mutiny on the part of the detainees
24 there and that in the process the mutineers were killed.
25 Q. Thank you. Do you know -- did you ever hear that the Prijedor
1 police station ever informed the CSB or the ministry at Pale of it?
2 A. I don't know that it informed anybody about it. It could have
3 informed the Banja Luka CSB about it and -- well, that would be my
5 Q. Thank you. You said that the detention unit in the public
6 security station was small.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And, I'm sorry, the previous
8 adjudicated fact was 1132, not 1131.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. On the issue of Keraterm and all the events related to it, do you
11 know was Banja Luka or Pale ever informed about it?
12 A. I don't know that. It was beyond my line of duty at the time.
13 It may have come from the chief of the public security station, but I
14 don't know and can't speak about it.
15 Q. Thank you. I will read out the adjudicated fact which has to do
16 with the detention cell in the public security station.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And it's the adjudicated fact 1109.
18 MR. KARADZIC:
19 Q. "Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Croats were detained at the Prijedor
20 SUP including women and an underage boy."
21 [Interpretation] Were women and minors detained at the Prijedor
23 A. No, never.
24 Q. Thank you. If among those who surrendered on the 30th, there
25 would have been women and children, where would they have ended up?
1 Would they have ended up in detention?
2 A. There was a reception centre or collection centre at Trnopolje
3 where everyone was held, including the able-bodied men, women, children,
4 and the elderly.
5 Q. Thank you. Also on the issue of the detention cell, I will read
6 out the adjudicated fact 1110:
7 [In English] "Detainees at the Prijedor SUP were beaten with
8 metal --"
9 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Let's be clear. You said there was
10 never a woman or minors at Prijedor SUP. Does it mean there was none or
11 you don't know -- you didn't know at the time?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know for a fact that women and
13 children were not taken into custody at the Prijedor SUP. They could
14 only have come to the station asking for help, but there was no case of
15 them being detained.
16 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
17 Please continue.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Now that we are with this issue, were Muslim civilians confident
20 enough to come to the station? Did they feel safe enough?
21 A. Well, of course. All the citizens were free to come to the
22 police station that was active in their neighbourhood.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will now read out the adjudicated
25 fact 1110.
1 MR. KARADZIC:
2 Q. "Detainees at the Prijedor SUP were beaten with metal objects by
3 members of the intervention squad including Dado Mrdja. The detainees
4 were beaten during interrogation and humiliated. The detainees were
5 subjected to ethnic slurs."
6 [Interpretation] Did this --
7 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. I'm not sure it was correctly
8 translated. First sentence should read:
9 "Detainees at the Prijedor SUP were beaten ..."
10 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Correct. That's how I read it out
12 but I see it wasn't recorded. Detainees at the Prijedor SUP.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Is this correct?
15 A. First of all, there were no detainees at the Prijedor SUP. It
16 was a holding cell. And a very small one. I said that people who were
17 under investigation or interrogation were at Keraterm and Omarska. The
18 others who were seeking a safe place to stay or refuge were at the
19 Trnopolje reception centre. When somebody was taken in for an interview
20 or some other processing, perhaps, but I am not aware of there having
21 been beatings from any side. I don't know what this adjudicated fact is
22 based on. To the best of my knowledge, this was not the case.
23 Q. Thank you. The adjudicated fact 1113 reads:
24 [In English] "Prior to their transfer, the detainees were forced
25 to run a gauntlet of policemen."
1 [Interpretation] Is that correct?
2 A. There was no gauntlet of policemen there. As far as I know,
3 that's how it was. I have no other knowledge that would disprove this,
4 what I'm saying.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Adjudicated fact 1281 -- 82.
7 1282 --
8 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Right?
11 JUDGE KWON: What did you mean by saying: "I have no other
12 knowledge that would disprove this"? So it sounds as if you do not
13 exclude there might have been such a gauntlet.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am claiming that there was no
15 gauntlet whatsoever. It could not have happened at the public police
16 station. Now, if somebody hit somebody else, I cannot possibly know
17 about this. But had there been knowledge of such a police officer
18 behaving this way, there would most certainly have been some sort of a
19 response or repercussions coming from the chief of the public security
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In lines 6 and 7 it should read
22 that: "If there had been such cases, then they would have been isolated
24 JUDGE KWON: Did you say: "I cannot possibly know about this"?
25 I will read out the sentence:
1 "Now, if somebody hit somebody else, I cannot possibly know about
3 You said that?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
6 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Adjudicated fact 1282 reads:
10 [In English] "In May 1992, the Carsijska mosque was destroyed. A
11 group of men, including a body-guard of Simo Drljaca, Milorad Vokic, set
12 the main mosque in Prijedor alight."
13 [Interpretation] Is this adjudicated fact correct?
14 A. Milorad Vokic did not exist. This name is not among those listed
15 in the public security station. There was Radovan Vokic. He was
16 Simo Drljaca's driver. And given that I know the man, he could not have
17 possibly done something of this sort. He was a professional and would
18 never do anything like this. I'm speaking from my knowledge of him.
19 Perhaps if he was mentally deranged he would have done something like
21 Q. Were there cases where religious facilities were torched and how
22 did the authorities treat such cases?
23 A. Well, I can tell you what the attitude of the members of the
24 Prijedor SJB was in respect of incidents such as this one. Any incidents
25 which would happen in the area within the purview of the SJB would be
1 followed up by a team of police officers attending the scene. In some of
2 these cases, which I didn't see for myself, I know that this is how it
3 was done and this is how the Law on Internal Affairs envisaged it:
4 Members of the crime service would attend the scene, examine the scene,
5 and then file a criminal report against the unidentified perpetrator.
6 The activities that would follow would be ones to detect or identify the
8 Q. In the beginning --
9 JUDGE KWON: But do you agree that the Carsijska mosque was
10 destroyed in 1992.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 JUDGE KWON: Do you also agree it was set alight by a group of
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know in what way it was
15 done, but I know that this bulb was used --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: That this mosque was
18 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
19 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In line 13 it wasn't interpreted
21 when the witness said that there were such cases. And then the rest is
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Did you say at the start of your answer that there were such
1 A. Yes.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown 1D49102.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. We don't have a translation yet, but I'll kindly ask you to speak
5 slowly and introduce the document to us. The 28th of August, 1992. Can
6 you tell us what this is, who issues the document, and what does this
8 A. This is about the basic court in Prijedor, record of on-site
9 investigation, compiled on the 29th of August, 1992, by the duty
10 investigating judge of the basic court in Prijedor, as a follow-up to the
11 destruction of religious buildings; namely, the Catholic church and
12 mosque, where two people were killed.
13 Q. Slowly, please.
14 A. So this is a record made as a result of an on-site investigation
15 into the destruction of a Catholic church and mosque which was compiled
16 on the 29th of August, 1992, by the basic court in Prijedor or its
17 investigating judge. And as I said, an on-site investigation was
19 Q. Yes. It is stated that Dragosavljevic, Zivko, the duty
20 investigating judge, conducted the on-site investigation along with crime
21 inspectors; Rade Knezevic, a forensic officer; et cetera. And it reads
22 below that the on-site investigation team found at the scene the
23 physician, Dr. Ivic, and a lieutenant from the military security. Do you
24 know these people?
25 A. Well, I do know the doctor and this is the first time I see that
1 a physician was found at the scene where an on-site investigation was
2 conducted. So this is a report compiled by the investigating judge.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the next page.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. At the top it says that the locals were interviewed, that
6 Milan Prastalo, an explosives expert, examined the scene. And further
7 down, it reads, the third paragraph from the top, that: Many residential
8 and office buildings in the immediate vicinity were damaged. What does
9 this high extent of damage indicate to your mind?
10 A. All these were observations made by the on-site investigation
11 team. As for the destructive force of the explosion, it indicates that
12 those who were behind the explosion were not professional. This was not
13 done professionally. Had it been done so, there would not have been such
14 a high degree of damage inflicted to the surrounding buildings. In a
15 word, it was a group that wasn't apt in handling explosives that were
16 used to commit this incident.
17 Q. And when it comes to Tombor, Slobodan [phoen], who was a member
18 of the military security organs, why was he involved? Why do you think?
19 A. I suppose that the military security sent their own man because
20 it was the area of responsibility of the 43rd Brigade in Prijedor.
21 Q. And what about the mine, were there any explosives there? Did
22 the army have explosives? What could have been the origin of the
23 explosives that were used?
24 A. I don't know. I know that the mine did have explosives, that the
25 army also had them, the public security station didn't have explosives,
1 nor did it ever handle explosive devices. When explosive devices were
2 detected, then they reported such cases and then professionals were sent.
3 Sappers were sent to the site to remove those explosives. I don't know
4 the origin of the explosives in this case.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted into evidence
7 and marked for identification.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: That will be MFI D4381, Your Honours.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown 1D49406.
11 Perhaps it's 106. I apologise. 1D49106.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Again, just briefly, could you just tell us about the nature of
14 this document, again in light of the previous document, that previous
15 document was issued by the Court. And what this is this?
16 A. This is a record of an on-site investigation compiled by the SJB,
17 i.e., the on-site investigation team which was involved in the
18 investigation on the 29th of October, 1992. After a fire had broken out
19 during the night between the 28th of October and 29th of October and when
20 the mosque in Gornja Puharska near Prijedor was involved in that fire.
21 Q. Thank you. And it says here that the on-site investigation was
22 attended by Mrs. Dusanica Gavranovic, who was the person in charge of
23 the -- of the shop nearby. In what cases were citizens requested to
24 attend on-site investigations?
25 A. I don't know why she was called. Maybe she was a witness, maybe
1 she knew something, which is why the investigation team wanted to talk to
2 her in order to obtain evidence as to who might have been the perpetrator
3 of the act.
4 Q. Who were usually perpetrators of such crimes according to what
5 you know and what you experienced?
6 A. Some renegades who were neither members of the army nor the
7 police, but they thought that they had the right to commit such crimes.
8 Q. Thank you. This on-site investigation was carried out by the
9 public security station of Prijedor. What happened next? When such a
10 document was issued, what happened to it?
11 A. When a document of this kind was issued, it was forwarded to the
12 investigating judge, accompanied by all the necessary documents, and then
13 it was forwarded to the public prosecutor's office, and so on and so
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted and also
16 marked for identification.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
18 THE REGISTRAR: MFI D4382, Your Honours.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now could the witness please be
20 shown 1D49103.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. We had a document issued by the court, another by the police
23 station, and this one was issued by the prosecutor's office in Prijedor;
25 A. Yes, this was issued by the prosecutor's office. The document
1 was issued on the 14th September, 1993. It was sent to the chief of the
2 public security station in Prijedor, requesting the necessary documents
3 to be sent to them, meaning all the evidence collected in the pre-trial
4 procedure. This is consistent what I said about the judge and the
5 prosecutors office. Mr. Knezevic was the person who collected the
6 evidence and he personally is hereby requested to submit all the data to
7 the public prosecutors office.
8 Q. Thank you. So is this in connection with the document that we
9 showed you first about the destruction of the mosque? And now we can see
10 that the prosecutor is already in touch with the police requesting that
11 the police undertake further activities with this regard?
12 A. Yes.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll mark it for the identification.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As MFI D4383, Your Honours.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now can we look at 1D149101 --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Karadzic please repeat the document
19 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat the number.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D49101. This is the document.
21 It's not very legible but maybe you will be able to help us with it.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. What is this? This is a criminal report; right?
24 A. Yes. This is a criminal report which was issued in 1993. It was
25 signed by Bogdan Delic, who was chief at the time.
1 Q. And what were the crimes? Damage to the road is subject; right?
2 The mosque?
3 A. It's not very legible, but I can see it is about the mosque which
4 was destroyed and there were casualties. A married couple was killed.
5 It's a criminal report which was sent to the prosecutor's office in
6 Prijedor. And it was in 1993.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted.
9 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Gustafson.
10 MS. GUSTAFSON: I have no objection to it being MFI'd.
11 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
13 THE REGISTRAR: MFI D4384, Your Honours.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. And what about the Catholic church in Surkovac, did you hear
16 about that? What happened to that church? What was done thereafter
17 according to what you know?
18 A. I know that the church was damaged. I know from people's
19 stories. There were talks about that in the public security station. I
20 don't know what happened thereafter. I suppose that there was an on-site
21 investigation. In the position that I occupied, I was not aware of all
22 those things.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Can Mr. Karadzic please repeat the document
1 JUDGE KWON: Please repeat the number.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We've got the document on the
3 screen. The number is 1D49105.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Please tell us what the document is.
6 A. This is information about the destruction of the Roman Catholic
7 church in Surkovac. I don't see who the author of the document was. In
8 any case, the Roman Catholic church in Surkovac fell within the zone of
9 responsibility of the public security station in Ljubija, which was about
10 20 kilometres from the town of Prijedor itself.
11 Q. In the penultimate paragraph it says that from interviews with
12 the villagers and the parish priest, we could not learn anything about
13 the perpetrators.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can you please scroll up a little?
15 Yes, this is it.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Regardless of the fact that no information was obtained about
18 possible perpetrators, what happened next? Here an investigating judge
19 is mentioned. His name was Trivan Jovicic. Do you know Mr. Jovicic?
20 A. Yes, he was the investigating judge of the basic court in
21 Prijedor, and he was together with the authored officials of the public
22 security station. When the on-site investigation was carried out, the
23 complete documents were compiled, and certain conclusions can be drawn
24 from the documents about the explosion and its consequences, which means
25 that there will be further actions in order to detect the perpetrators.
1 Q. Is this the same Trivan Jovicic, who is the liaison officer with
2 the Tribunal?
3 A. I believe it's the one and the same person.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll mark it for identification.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As MFI D4385, Your Honours.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And the last document in this
9 series is 1D49104.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Could you help us with this? The basic court in Prijedor made
12 its own record on the on-site investigation.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Who was the investigating judge?
15 A. Trivan Jovicic. It's not very legible, so I can't see which
16 members of the crime service of the public security station in Prijedor
17 were present.
18 Q. Is this the same incident in Surkovac?
19 A. Yes, I believe that this is a record of the on-site investigation
20 in Surkovac.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see the last page, please.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. In the last paragraph it says the place of the incident was
24 photographed and a sketch was made. And the photos and the sketch are an
25 integral part of the record.
1 A. That was part of the customary procedure. An on-site
2 investigation was carried out, the record of the investigation was signed
3 by Jovan -- Trivan Jovicic, who was the investigating judge in this case.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll mark it for identification.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As MFI D4386, Your Honour.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Jankovic, can you tell us, please, in addition to the places
10 where there was combat and casualties on both sides, were there villages
11 in Prijedor, and I mean Muslim and Croatian villages, which did not
12 engage in fighting and which did not suffer any consequences or damage?
13 A. There was Muslim villages like Gornja and Donja Puharska,
14 Rakovac, Gomjenica, Tukovi, Zecovi, Donja Ljubija, and some other
15 villages. I know that there were no war activities in those villages.
16 The Patriotic League or the Green Berets were not organised in those
17 villages. Wherever the Green Berets or the Patriotic League were
18 organised and where there were preparations for war, there were
19 skirmishes between the Serbian army and Muslim units.
20 Q. Thank you. What about the village of Cerici? What was the
21 majority population there? Was there any combat going there?
22 A. No. It was a Muslim village. Brezicani, the same, no combat
23 there. Donja and Gornja Puharska. Over 95 per cent of the villages were
24 Muslims. No fighting ever happened there.
25 Q. And what about the village of Cela? What was the majority
1 population there? How many of them were there?
2 A. I don't know how many but there were a majority Muslim
3 population. There no fighting.
4 Q. And what about Gornji Volari and Ravska? What was the majority
5 population? Was there any fighting?
6 A. The majority population were Croats. There was no fighting
8 Q. Thank you. And now I would like to talk about the crimes which
9 happened in Koricanske Stijene. Can you briefly tell us about that
10 crime? How was it portrayed in the court of Bosnia-Herzegovina in your
11 case? In very short outlines, please.
12 A. I was charged with that crime before the court of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina, although I didn't know that that convoy had been
14 planned. However, before the court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, there were
15 two types of witnesses; or, rather, two categories of witnesses. One
16 category of the witnesses were those who were escorting the convoy. I
17 don't know whether they also participated in the crime itself. They were
18 never processed and the prosecutor tasked them with providing false
19 evidence in order for the others to be charged with the crime and
20 convicted of it.
21 The other category of the witnesses were those who had been
22 processed, who had participated in that crime, who plea bargained with
23 the prosecutor in order to have their sentences reduced. However, their
24 task was to provide false testimony before the trial chamber. I would
25 like to say here that I had worked in the police for 30 years. I was not
1 familiar with any case like I witnessed in front of the court in
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina where the prosecutor had a list of witnesses -- a list
3 of questions that they gave to the witnesses to learn by heart and to
4 testify by those who needed to be convicted.
5 I believe that in the proceedings before the court of
6 Bosnia and Herzegovina, when it came to Koricanske Stijene, those who
7 really perpetrated that crime were not convicted of the crime. They
8 still walk freely through the streets of Prijedor and some other towns.
9 Those who were found guilty were those that false witnesses accused on
10 the instructions of the prosecutor.
11 Here it is considered an adjudicated fact that I was up there.
12 It says in my final decision: "He did not commit crime. It was not
13 proven that he issued any orders. He was there." So the fact was
14 established based on what the false witnesses said, that I was there, and
15 that's why I was convicted. However, there were legally remedies, and I
16 believe that if justice needs to be satisfied when it comes to
17 Koricanske Stijene, there will have to be a retrial in order to establish
18 who the perpetrators were and to bring those people to justice, not only
19 because of me who was falsely accused and unjustly convicted but also
20 because of all the people who had been killed there.
21 To try and to convict innocent people for what had happened up
22 there is no -- is not comforting for the families of the victims of that
23 crime. So this is what I have to say in response to your question.
24 Q. When were you on that day?
25 A. That was 21 August, 1992. I was on duty at the police station
1 from 0700 hours until the 21st at 0000 hours. There is a lot of evidence
2 and a lot of witnesses that I called to prove this. After 0700 hours on
3 the 21st, I took the service car, Volkswagon Golf, went home, had
4 breakfast, had coffee, took some cheese, and went to Bosanska Dubica,
5 which is now called Kozarska Dubica municipality, a place called
6 Sereflije [phoen], to a celebration, a family celebration. I called a
7 number of witnesses to prove this and wanted to call as many more but the
8 trial chamber refused to hear them.
9 After that in the evening I brought back the service car to the
10 police station and went home. That is the truth, but unfortunately the
11 court in Bosnia-Herzegovina did not accept it. We will continue trying
12 to prove the real truth and that is my purpose, to come to the real truth
13 and prove it in the case of Koricanske Stijene.
14 Q. What was the role of the police in that convoy and in similar
15 convoys? Did they organise it and what was their task?
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could they, both, please,
17 observe a pause.
18 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Please put a pause between the
19 question and answers.
20 Could you repeat your answer.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is not the police, the milicija,
22 that organised the convoy. The convoy was organised by the Crisis Staff
23 and the Red Cross of Prijedor municipality; the latter, headed by
24 Srdo Srdic, deputy. The public security station's task, at the request
25 of the Crisis Staff and the Red Cross, was to provide an escort to this
1 convoy. And it was mainly members of the intervention platoon who were
2 on this escort detail. The intervention platoon was established for such
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Before and after the 21st of August, were there other similar
6 convoys travelling to Croatia or to central or western Bosnia?
7 A. Yes, before that there were convoys, I don't know how many, and
8 after the 21st of August, 1992, there were other convoys travelling to
9 Croatia. I think, in fact, after that date there was one convoy that
10 went from the collection centre of Trnopolje some time in September or
11 October the same year, and that one travelled to Croatia, Bosanski Novi,
12 Dvor na Uni, and so on.
13 Q. Before or after, did anything similar happen that could help
14 predict this event, this incident?
15 A. No, there was no such thing before or after. That was the only
16 time when such a crime was committed.
17 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
18 Mr. Jankovic, earlier on, it's transcript page, end of page 45,
19 you said that:
20 "Those who really perpetrated that crime were not convicted of
21 the crime. They still walk freely through the streets of Prijedor and
22 some other towns."
23 So it sounds as if you knew who perpetrated that crime. Am I
24 correct in so understanding?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no proof for my assertion,
1 but I want to say the following: As far as the perpetrator or
2 perpetrators of this crime are concerned, we should look for them among
3 the protected witnesses who have never been prosecuted, people who
4 escorted this convoy, because it's not possible for people who were not
5 there to be guilty, whereas those who actually escorted the convoy are --
6 JUDGE KWON: My question --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- walking free.
8 JUDGE KWON: Simply my question is: Do you know or do you not
9 know the perpetrators?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know and I have no proof,
11 but I have my assumptions. I have my ideas.
12 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. In line 10, your Excellency -- his Excellency, Judge Kwon, asked
15 "it sounds as if you knew," and now it's been misinterpreted again. Not
16 "as if you know" but "as if you knew" was the question. Tell me, did you
17 know something at that time? And if not at that time, then when did you
18 exactly learn something that made you suspect?
19 A. I learned about the event on the next day, on the 21st of August
20 from the head of the public sector of the police station, Mr. Bulic.
21 When I came on the 22nd to the public security station, the secretary of
22 the commander of the reserve police station, Milutin Cadjo, told me that
23 somebody called from Banja Luka, from the CSB, and said that Milutin
24 Cadjo and I should report to Banja Luka, to the chief. When we came to
25 his office, he was not there. We waited for 15, 20 minutes, and then he
1 showed up. He said he was at a meeting with the chief, Djuro Bulic, and
2 that Simo Drljaca had been there too, and he showed us a dispatch from
3 the commander of the 22nd Light Brigade, Colonel Peulic, and he read out
4 that dispatch to us.
5 And when he finished reading, Cadjo and I were astounded that
6 something like that could have happened. And all the three of us were
7 very hard hit by that crime, especially because the assumption was the
8 police had committed it; more precisely, the intervention platoon. That
9 is how I found out that a crime had been committed.
10 Then followed the investigation, and I don't know how far it
11 went, but I know there was an inquiry into the Koricanske Stijene
12 incident, both by the security services centre and the investigating
13 judge and the public prosecutor in Banja Luka. I believe members of the
14 army were also involved in the investigation or inquiry.
15 Q. Tell us what happened with the perpetrators after that?
16 A. I've said here that I have my ideas about who could have
17 committed this crime, but I have no certainty. I can only suppose.
18 There were proposals that people from the escort detail be arrested and
19 prosecuted. However, the members of the intervention platoon who were on
20 the escort detail, along with other members who were not on the escort
21 detail, escaped to Kozara when they realised they could be arrested.
22 They resisted arrest and then followed negotiations with the chief of the
23 public security station.
24 But the chief of the public security station was not able to
25 carry out the order of the CSB Banja Luka, so the intervention platoon
1 was disbanded and placed at the disposal of the army and its members were
2 sent to the front.
3 Q. How big was that platoon? How big was each of its squads? And
4 tell the Chamber, what is Kozara?
5 A. It's Mount Kozara, actually, a mountain that stretches above the
6 Prijedor municipality and connects it to Banja Luka on the right-hand
7 side and Bosanski Novi, or, rather, Novi Grad, on the left-hand side.
8 It's Mount Kozara.
9 Q. Thank you. How large was the intervention platoon? How many
10 squads did it have, what was the number of men, and how many weapons did
11 they have?
12 A. The intervention platoon had two squads of reserve police,
13 20 members each. That's 40 total, plus the commander, which makes it 41.
14 They were armed with infantry weapons. Each squad had a combat vehicle,
15 a so-called BRD, an armoured combat vehicle.
16 Q. Why was Simo Drljaca unable to have them all arrested?
17 A. There would have been bloodshed. Later on we listened to him a
18 lot on the subject, and he said a compromise had been made to send them
19 to the front line where it was a big question whether they would survive.
20 And if any came back, then they would be prosecuted. I believe
21 disbanding this unit and sending them to the front line was a compromise,
22 which in the opinion of the chief of the public security station and the
23 chief of the CSB Banja Luka, was the most acceptable solution, because
24 they certainly would have resisted arrest and it could not be done
25 without bloodshed.
1 Q. You say that one squad was on the escort detail and the other
2 squad, which wasn't on the escort detail, also escaped to Mount Kozara.
3 A. Yes. They went to Kozara all together and they wanted to show in
4 that way that they were intent on resisting arrest.
5 Q. Was any action taken to suspend the judicial proceedings?
6 A. No. I've already said that both the public security station and
7 the public prosecutors office and the high court in Banja Luka and also
8 the military security service were involved in shedding light on this
9 incident. I don't know whether it was suspended or how far it went.
10 I've told you all I know.
11 Q. When you say that those were reserve policemen, what kind of
12 police training did they have?
13 A. Before the war, to be inducted into the reserve police force one
14 had to be vetted, just like active duty policemen. After that, they went
15 through a preparation course learning about the rules and procedures in
16 internal affairs organs. However, when the war began, as far as this
17 intervention platoon is concerned, there was no vetting and the regular
18 procedure was not observed. Everything was done on the run, so there was
19 no vetting, no education, no training.
20 Q. Why was there no vetting?
21 A. It was wartime. There was no time for that. Units such as the
22 intervention platoon recruited men who were fearless, who were willing to
23 go to war, whereas active duty policemen tried to avoid going to the
24 front line and getting involved in the war.
25 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jankovic. I have nothing further at this time.
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
2 Yes, Ms. Gustafson.
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honours.
4 Cross-examination by Ms. Gustafson:
5 Q. And good afternoon, Mr. Jankovic.
6 A. Good afternoon.
7 Q. You alluded several times to your own trial. I just want to get
8 some facts straight about that. You were recently tried by the Bosnian
9 state court together with three former members of the Prijedor police
10 intervention platoon for the Koricanske Stijene massacre. And in
11 February of 2013, you were convicted and you are currently serving a
12 sentence of 21 years; correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And the state court rejected your claim that you repeated several
15 times in your testimony today, that you had no command position in the
16 Prijedor SJB at the time but that you were merely carrying out logistics
17 tasks. The court concluded that you were discharging the function of
18 commander of the Prijedor police station, which it found continued to
19 function during the war, and that you de facto had the status of deputy
20 chief of the Prijedor SJB. That's what the court found; correct?
21 A. It was found but that's wrong.
22 Q. And the court also rejected your alibi defence, which you also
23 repeated today, that you were in Bosanska Dubica on the day of the
24 massacre. The court concluded, based on the testimony of multiple
25 eye-witnesses, that you met the convoy at Tukovi on the day of the
1 massacre in an official police vehicle, and you led the convoy dictating
2 its stops and its movements. That's what the court concluded; correct?
3 A. That's what the court concluded. However, they relied on the
4 witnesses that I mentioned a moment ago. There was a number of
5 witnesses, two or three I believe, who said they had seen me when the
6 convoy was leaving Tukovi from the direction of Prijedor. And there was
7 only one witness in the entire proceedings who said he had seen me
8 onboard on vehicle. I challenge the testimony of that witness and I
9 believe that witness had entered into a deal with the prosecution and
10 received a lesser sentence than the sentence the others received. The
11 others received 30 years imprisonment and he got 13. I challenge his
12 testimony, I believe it was a lie, and I will resort to legal remedies in
13 further proceedings to prove that he perjured himself.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We have a problem with the
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, line 25, it says: "I
18 believe it was a lie." The witness didn't say he believed. He claimed
19 it was a lie. And also in line 9, we read "it was found," but that's
20 wrong. The correction translation would be "it was a wrongly established
22 JUDGE KWON: We can understand that. Thank you.
23 Please continue.
24 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
25 Q. And the court -- in respect of your own liability, the court
1 concluded that although after the convoy stopped at the execution site,
2 you continued to escort the remainder of the convoy to its final
3 destination. They held that you must have known about and intended the
4 killing of the separated men given your position and role in the police,
5 your presence at the execution site where the preparations for the
6 massacre were carried out, and the fact that you spoke with members of
7 the intervention platoon at the execution site. That's what the court
8 concluded; correct?
9 A. There was not one witness of the prosecution in my trial who said
10 I followed them or escorted them to the execution site. If that was
11 written as a finding, then it's not true. There was this one witness who
12 entered into a deal who said he had seen me, but he said he had seen me
13 onboard a vehicle at the place where some of them were separated. The
14 other witnesses didn't speak of seeing me up there. That's one thing.
15 Second, I was born in Prijedor. I finished high school there. I
16 worked on the police force for 20 years until that date, the 21st. If
17 there were, as the prosecution claims, 1200 Muslims in that convoy, is it
18 possible that not a single Bosniak who had seen me there? They didn't
19 find one single Bosniak who had seen me. They found one person who said
20 that he had seen me in order to get a lesser sentence.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could go to 65 ter 26029, please.
22 THE REGISTRAR: It hasn't been released, Ms. Gustafson.
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: If you can try again, please.
24 Q. As you can see, Mr. Jankovic, this is the cover page of the
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: And I'd like to go to page 115 of the B/C/S and
2 page 22 of the partial translation.
3 Q. And I'd like to direct your attention to paragraph 499. And this
4 is where the court discusses the witnesses who testified as to your
5 presence that day in escorting the convoy. And it starts out by saying:
6 "The fact that the accused Jankovic came to Tukovi in a police
7 Golf together with witness K-2, is stressed consistently by
8 Damir Ivankovic, Gordan Djuric, and Ljubisa Cetic ..."
9 And then about halfway down the page -- halfway down the
10 paragraph, and this is on the next page in the B/C/S, the court says:
11 "As K-2 points out, Jankovic and another police officer were in
12 this vehicle," referring to the official Golf vehicle.
13 And the last sentence:
14 "Witness K-A1 also stresses that in Tukovi the accused Jankovic,
15 along with some other active policemen, got into a police Golf."
16 So you've been stressing that it was just one witness that the
17 court relied on, but here in this paragraph you can see there were five
18 or six people who testified as to your presence in the -- at the convoy;
20 JUDGE KWON: Can we show him the 499 paragraph, the first part of
21 the 499.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. May I start? May I read this
24 MS. GUSTAFSON:
25 Q. First, Mr. Jankovic, do you agree or disagree that the court
1 relied on six witnesses to confirm your presence that day in Tukovi and
2 leading the convoy?
3 A. Here it goes: I challenge the witness statements and the
4 adjudicated fact. It states here that together with Witness K-2, I --
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please don't state the name.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will not.
7 Witness K-2 gave a statement to the members of the SIPA --
8 MS. GUSTAFSON:
9 Q. Mr. Jankovic --
10 A. May I? Please, may I just say why I disagree with this.
11 Q. Mr. Jankovic -- I'm sorry, Mr. Jankovic, but that wasn't my
12 question. I understand that you disagree with it. My question was very
13 simple as to whether or not you agree what -- that the court relied on
14 six witnesses who said they saw you in Tukovi leading the convoy.
15 A. First, I would like to tell you something about K-2. He never
16 said this. Further, Damir Ivankovic did say it, Gordan Djuric never said
17 it, and Ljubisa Cetic did say it. So we're not discussing six witnesses
18 here, we're discussing Damir Ivankovic and Ljubisa Cetic who concluded a
19 plea bargain in order to get lesser sentences. K-2 was part of the
20 escort in the Golf. His statement to the SIPA members was that he,
21 Vladimir Sobot, and Miroslav Paras were in the car. Vladimir Sobot gave
22 the same statement. He was on the escort. It was only Ljubisa Cetic who
23 said that I was on the escort for that stretch of the road. We are
24 discussing the location called Tukovi where the column started its
25 journey. The place where the crime was committed was between 250 and
1 300 kilometres away from this spot. I don't see any other witnesses
2 here. I can only find Damir Ivankovic and Ljubisa Cetic. The others
3 didn't state that. And the two are witnesses that entered into a plea
4 bargain with the prosecution in order to get more lenient sentences. And
5 they were on the escort of the convoy and they confessed to the crime.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go to page 23 in the English and
7 page 116 in the B/C/S. Paragraph 502 and 503.
8 Q. Mr. Jankovic, this is where the court drew its conclusions as to
9 your responsibility. And in paragraph 502 the court concludes that given
10 your -- given its finding that you were dictating the tempo of the
11 column's movements and its stops and having in mind your position and
12 role, you had to have been aware of what was going to happen. And in
13 paragraph 503, it refers to its finding that you got out of the -- your
14 vehicle at the execution site, spoke with Paras and Mrdja, and concluded
15 that you must have known, again, about the intent. And at the bottom of
16 the paragraph --
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: This is on the next page in the B/C/S.
18 Q. -- the court says:
19 "However, the very presence of the accused Jankovic there, at the
20 location where all the preparations for the planned massacre that
21 followed were carried out, also his contacts and conversations with
22 persons who are the director perpetrators of that killing."
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: And the next page in the English.
24 Q. "And finally, the testimony on the act itself of the separation
25 of the men that took place at the location."
1 The chamber says:
2 "This points to only one conclusion: That this accused was aware
3 and that he wanted the onset of the consequence prohibited by law and
4 shared the intent of those accused of the crime that followed."
5 Now that, in a nutshell, is -- are the court's findings on your
6 criminal responsibility for the executions; right?
7 A. The chamber established this fact on the basis of a single
8 witness statement. The only witness who, besides, entered into a plea
9 bargain and had to say something in exchange for a more lenient sentence,
10 and this is what he said. There were no other witnesses and I said there
11 were over a thousand Muslims. At least one of them should have seen me
12 there and would have been able to confirm my presence there. I challenge
13 this fact and I assert that the statement made by this witness is false.
14 MS. GUSTAFSON: I tender the pages that we have referred to in
15 this judgement.
16 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure how it would assist the Chamber.
17 Mr. Robinson.
18 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. I thought it had been our
19 practice to simply read out those portions and then have it not admitted.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, relevant portions was put to the witness and we
21 heard the evidence. I don't see the need to admit this part.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: If I could have 65 ter 26038, please.
23 Q. And while that's coming up, Mr. Jankovic, you --
24 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
25 Witness said in his answer that, I don't remember the name of the
1 place, but the location of where he made the stop was in dispute in his
3 Do you confirm that, Ms. Gustafson?
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: No, I don't believe there was -- he -- he denied
5 being a part of the convoy whatsoever.
6 JUDGE KWON: He said it's 200 kilometres away, but in that
7 paragraph it's in the very proximity from the execution site. Was it one
8 of the issues?
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'm not sure I follow, Your Honours. The witness
10 denied being any part of the convoy. That's all I know.
11 JUDGE KWON: Can I see paragraph 501.
12 THE ACCUSED: Serbian version, please.
13 JUDGE KWON: Next page, 502 probably. In the middle, 502 says:
14 "The location where the last stop was made, which is a location
15 in the immediate proximity of the execution site ..."
16 And shall we go back to 501. Yes. I see in 499 "Tukovi," so are
17 we referring to the same place? Tukovi and the --
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: Tukovi was the --
19 JUDGE KWON: -- last stop?
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: No, Tukovi was where the convoy commenced which
21 is quite some distance from the execution site. That's my understanding.
22 The findings were did --
23 JUDGE KWON: So where did the witnesses --
24 MS. GUSTAFSON: The findings --
25 JUDGE KWON: -- see Mr. Jankovic? At Tukovi or the last stop?
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: Both.
2 JUDGE KWON: Both.
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: But not all witnesses. Some witnesses saw him in
4 Tukovi and others saw him at the --
5 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Please continue.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you. Do you Your Honours -- I've finished
7 with this topic if Your Honours wish to take the --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not some but one.
9 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Shall we take a break? We resume at
10 quarter past 1.00.
11 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 --- On resuming at 1.17 p.m.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Please continue.
16 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 If I could have 65 ter 26038, please.
18 Q. And while that's coming up, Mr. Jankovic, you stated in your
19 testimony several times that you did not have the position of commander
20 of the Prijedor police station in 1992. And, in fact, the police station
21 ceased to operate in September of 1991 and that persisted for the
22 duration of the war. And you can see here this document is a list of
23 Prijedor police station staff to receive a salary for the period 16 April
24 to 15 May 1992.
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we go to the next page in the B/C/S.
1 Q. That is your signature. You signed under the title,
2 "Station Commander"; correct?
3 A. That's right. May I explain?
4 Q. You signed this payroll list for April and May 1990 for Prijedor
5 police station staff as Prijedor police station commander; correct?
6 A. Can I have the first page again, please?
7 Q. Certainly.
8 A. This is a list of the police employees of the SJB Prijedor for
9 the period between 16 April and 15 May 1992. It's a payroll list, which
10 I signed as commander of this police station. However, as I said, when
11 mobilisation took place and the reserve police stations were set up, this
12 station ceased to operate and the police officers who worked here were
13 assigned to the eight reserve police stations as of the
14 20th of September, 1991.
15 Why was this list drawn up? Well, because members of the active
16 police force who were permanently employed with the MUP, unlike the
17 reserve police force, received their salary differently, from a different
18 source. Here, the Banja Luka CSB chief wanted a list of the police
19 employees in the Prijedor SJB in peacetime. And this is a list of the
20 members of the police who were reassigned to the reserve police stations.
21 Q. So it is your position that even though this list states that it
22 is a list of Prijedor police station staff to receive a salary and it is
23 signed by you as station commander, that in fact none of these people
24 worked for the Prijedor police station and the station did not exist and
25 you were not the commander. Is that a correct understanding?
1 A. I didn't say that I wasn't commander of the police station. I
2 was the commander of the Prijedor police station in peacetime between the
3 19th of August, 1991, and March 1993. The only difference being that I
4 did not command over this police station because its members were
5 reassigned to reserve police stations and the work of this station
6 ceased. It was only reactivated after the demobilisation following the
7 signing of the Dayton Accords, but it did not operate in the period
8 indicated here. It was an organisational unit operational in peacetime
9 within the MUP and within the Banja Luka CSB. However, it stopped
10 working the day mobilisation took place and the day its workers or
11 members were reassigned to police -- reserve police stations.
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could I have 65 ter 26040.
13 And I tender this document.
14 MR. ROBINSON: No objection.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Sorry, 2603 --
16 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. I don't think I understood the
17 witness at all.
18 Could you tell us in a nutshell why you signed this document?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The request was made for a list of
20 active members of the police to be drawn up for payroll purposes. These
21 were people who were in permanent employment with the MUP; specifically,
22 the Banja Luka CSB. In peacetime, they came under the Prijedor police
23 station. At the time this list was drawn up, this peacetime Prijedor
24 police station was not operational because as of the
25 20th of September, 1991, its members were reassigned to reserve police
2 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. When did you sign this document?
3 It's sometime May 1992?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Why did you sign this document at that time in
6 May 1992?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because information was requested
8 concerning the members of the Prijedor police station. These people,
9 although they were reassigned to reserve police stations, nevertheless
10 continued receiving their salaries from a different source than those who
11 were reserve police members. You had several categories. You had the
12 category of those unemployed, employed, and retirees. All these
13 different categories received their benefits differently and thus the
14 active police members received their salary differently than the ones who
15 were reserve members. And I said that this list concerned those who, up
16 to -- who from the 20th of September, 1991, up until the Dayton Accords
17 were actually active police members of SJB Prijedor. So this is a list
18 of active members of the police station.
19 JUDGE KWON: So let's forget in what capacity they worked at the
20 time, but it's true they worked at the Prijedor police station at the
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were members of the Prijedor
23 police station in peacetime. At the time when this list was drawn up,
24 they were members of the reserve police stations within the area of
25 Prijedor. And I said that there were eight of these reserve police
2 JUDGE KWON: Then --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did adduce several pieces of
4 evidence before the court in the BiH attesting to this.
5 JUDGE KWON: [Overlapping speakers]
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The list of members that you see
8 JUDGE KWON: I can understand so far. But I am not sure I heard
9 your answer why you signed this document as a commander?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, because I was asked to
11 produce a list of members of what was in peacetime the Prijedor police
12 station, simply because they were paid differently than were those who
13 were members of the reserve police force. The reserve police force
14 present in these reserve police stations were not staff in permanent
16 JUDGE KWON: Were those policemen who were members of the police
17 in peacetime called as uniformed policemen?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. There were members of the
19 reserve police stations as well, eight of them, between
20 20 September, 1991, and the signing of the Dayton Accords. Only when the
21 Dayton Accords were signed and the reserve police force was disbanded did
22 this station start to operate again, of course with a different
23 commander, not me.
24 JUDGE KWON: So can you say that you headed the uniformed
25 policemen at the time?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Each reserve police station
2 had its own commander, deputy commander, and assistant commander. They
3 were answerable directly to the SJB chief, Drljaca. This station was not
4 operational at the time. It was dormant because it was active only in
5 peacetime. So I was its commander in peacetime. And that was the state
6 of play [as interpreted] pursuant to decisions that had been taken before
7 the war and concerned this particular police station.
8 JUDGE KWON: But still I can't understand then why you signed
9 this as a commander.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, why did I sign? I just said
11 why. They were asking me to produce a list of the SJB Prijedor members
12 for the purposes of payroll for this particular period, between 16 April
13 and 15 May. I had been commander of the Prijedor police station and
14 therefore I produced this list. But this station itself was not
15 operational within the organisational scheme. Rather, its activities
16 were transferred on to the reserve police stations, and this was the
17 situation that applied not only to Prijedor but to all the municipalities
18 in Bosnia-Herzegovina in wartime circumstances. Mobilisation plans were
19 activated and this particular station was disbanded or its members were
20 reassigned to reserve police stations.
21 Similarly, workers in a company which in peacetime had their
22 wartime assignments, these wartime assignments would re-assign them
23 either to the military or the police.
24 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, Ms. Gustafson.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On line 15, it says:
3 [In English] "And that was the state of play...," and the witness
4 said "that was the way people were paid before the war," not "the state
5 of play before the war."
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. That seems to be the case.
7 Do you confirm that, Mr. Jankovic?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't understand.
9 JUDGE KWON: I take it Mr. Karadzic's correction is correct.
10 Shall we continue.
11 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
12 Could I have 65 ter 26039. And I don't think we got a number yet
13 for this document.
14 JUDGE KWON: We'll admit it.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6674, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE KWON: We don't need the translation of other parts? Yes,
17 we'll admit it.
18 MS. GUSTAFSON:
19 Q. Mr. Jankovic, you can see this is a report from the Prijedor SJB
20 on duties and assignments carried out for April 1992, and it's dated
21 May 1992.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go to the last page of both
23 languages, please.
24 Q. And again, that is your signature. You signed this document as
25 station commander; correct?
1 A. Could I please see the first page or the heading of the document?
2 JUDGE KWON: First page.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says the Ministry of the
4 Interior of Sarajevo, CSB Banja Luka, public security station Prijedor,
5 report on duties and assignments carried out in the month of April 1992.
6 That's what I read on this page.
7 MS. GUSTAFSON:
8 Q. Yes, and I'd like you to recognise your signature on the last
9 page of this document.
10 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could go back to the last page.
11 Q. That is your signature under the title: "Station Commander,
12 Dusan Jankovic," isn't it?
13 A. This should not have been signed by station commander but the
14 chief, Simo Drljaca. This is not one and the same document. This is my
15 signature and I was the station commander, but this does not refer to the
16 public security station but to the police station. I really don't know.
17 It should have read "police station Prijedor," not the public security
18 station. On the first page, that is.
19 Q. Sorry, I'm not sure what your claim is here. Is it your claim
20 that this document is somehow not authentic or is it your claim that this
21 is a mistake that you signed under the title station commander, Dusan --
22 wait, wait --
23 A. [Overlapping speakers]
24 Q. Wait, please, for the question.
25 A. Yes, yes, okay.
1 Q. Is it your claim that this document is not authentic or is it
2 your claim that it is a mistake that you signed this document under the
3 title: "Station Commander, Dusan Jankovic."
4 A. I never said that I was not the commander of the peacetime police
5 station. I've repeated that often. There is nothing in dispute there.
6 But this should have been signed by somebody else, not the station
7 commander. I don't understand this. I never saw that the commander of
8 the police station signed the document that belonged to the public
9 security station. The police station is one part of the public security
10 station, one part of its organisational scheme. This is my signature.
11 It hasn't been forged. But I can't say that the document is authentic.
12 This is something that should be investigated.
13 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could go to page 2 of both languages.
14 Q. You can see that the first paragraph states the Prijedor police
15 station continued to work on maintaining and improving the favourable law
16 and order situation.
17 And in the fourth paragraph, it says that the station filed a
18 total of six reports.
19 You have emphasised numerous times that the Prijedor police
20 station did not operate during this period of time. This document makes
21 clear that the Prijedor police station was in fact functioning in
22 April 1992, doesn't it?
23 A. No, it didn't function and I claim that. And I dispute your
24 claim. The truth is that the police station existed. It is possible
25 that it filed reports to the CSB. As reports --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down.
2 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Could you speak very slowly so that
3 we can follow.
4 Could you repeat from where you said: "The truth is that the
5 police station existed."
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not say that it exists. The
7 police station existed in peacetime. At that time the police station did
8 not function. It -- only the reserve police stations functioned. This
9 could only be a report -- as a collective report on the work of the
10 police, a collective report on the activities of all the employees of the
11 reserve police stations, and it was sent to the CSB Banja Luka. I never
12 said that the police did not submit reports. I have never disputed that
13 a report went to Banja Luka. What I dispute here the fact that the
14 commander of the police should sign reports by the public security
15 stations, because a public security station is an institution of a
16 hierarchy rank.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down and repeat
18 the last part of his answer.
19 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat the last sentence of your answer.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm saying that this report was
21 sent by the public security station in Prijedor, and it should have been
22 signed by chief of the public security station, not the commander.
23 That's why I don't understand that a report of this kind, issued by the
24 public security station, could have signed by somebody whose title is
25 station commander. I was, indeed, authorised to sign reports and so were
1 90 inspectors in the public security station, but I was not authorised to
2 sign as the police station commander but as a person who was authorised
3 by the chief of the public security station in Prijedor to sign documents
4 on his behalf when he was absent so that they could be dispatched to the
5 CSB in Banja Luka.
6 JUDGE KWON: Forget the first passage, Mr. Jankovic. Please take
7 a look at the first paragraph of this page. Does this refer to Prijedor
8 public security station or Prijedor police station?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this report?
10 JUDGE KWON: The first paragraph of this page, the first
11 paragraph you are seeing now.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this report, which was compiled,
13 there are also activities of the police station, the crime service, the
14 communications services centre. This report follows the organisation --
15 JUDGE KWON: No, no --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- as it existed in peacetime.
17 JUDGE KWON: Could you read the first paragraph. Just two
18 lines -- or three lines.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can see the first paragraph. All
20 right. And it is true that there are references to the active duty
21 police station in Prijedor, but I'm saying that in addition to the police
22 there are also activities of crime prevention services, the communication
23 services centre, the legal affairs, and all the other organisational
25 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, Ms. Gustafson.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I. Transcript, translation,
4 Transcript line 9, page 70, the witness didn't say "90
5 inspectors" but "10 inspectors."
6 And as for the first line on this page, where it says:
7 "The activities of the police station in Prijedor has been slated
8 as the Prijedor police station continued to work, and so on and so
10 [In English] I would rather translated:
11 "The activity of police station on the maintenance and
12 improvement of favorable law and order."
13 A little bit different translated.
14 JUDGE KWON: So activities of the Prijedor police station
16 Why don't you read the first line in B/C/S so that we can hear
17 the translation.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] "When it comes to maintaining and
19 improving the favourable law and order situation on the territory of the
20 municipality in April 1992, continued in April 1992."
21 JUDGE KWON: No, I don't think we heard the correct translation.
22 I didn't hear any Prijedor police or something.
23 Could you read again.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will read slowly.
25 "When it comes to the activities of the police station in
1 Prijedor ..."
2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
3 THE ACCUSED: I would also translate it differently.
4 JUDGE KWON: Well, we'll deal with that in a separate course of
6 Shall we continue, Ms. Gustafson.
7 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, please. I'd tender this document, and I'd
8 like 65 ter 26040, please.
9 JUDGE KWON: We'll receive it.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6675, Your Honours.
11 MS. GUSTAFSON:
12 Q. Mr. Jankovic, you can see this is a document of a very similar
13 format to the previous document, also dated May 1992, but it is the
14 work-plan for the month of May 1992 of the Prijedor SJB.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: And again, if we could go to the last page in
16 both languages.
17 Q. Again, that is your signature under the title:
18 "Station Commander Dusan Jankovic"; right?
19 A. Yes. The same mistake --
20 JUDGE KWON: I --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- as in the previous document,
23 JUDGE KWON: I would also like to see the second page to which it
24 refers to.
25 To which organisation does this first paragraph refer to,
1 Mr. Jankovic?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "The public order situation in the
3 precinct of the Prijedor police station is as favorable as in March 1992,
4 which can be seen from the fact that 6 misdemeanor reports were filed
5 against 9 individuals for 8 offences."
6 The data relative to this period is only the work-plan for this
7 police, which means that the collective information or the collective
8 plan for the work of reserve police stations, which means that each and
9 every reserve police station should have submitted their report to the
10 chief of the public security station.
11 JUDGE KWON: [Overlapping speakers]
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] However here --
13 JUDGE KWON: Probably you didn't understand my question. I'll
14 just leave it as it is.
15 Please, Ms. Gustafson.
16 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 If we could go to the next page in both languages and the
18 paragraph right at the bottom of the page.
19 Q. It states:
20 "On the basis of the dispersion of traffic accidents in terms of
21 place and time, the Prijedor police station will develop definite daily
22 traffic control plans."
23 And turning the page, the first full paragraph on the next page
25 "In addition to traffic control and in co-operation with the
1 Prijedor traffic safety police station, the Prijedor police station will
2 monitor the work of vehicle inspection station, driving schools, and
3 certain organisations."
4 Again, these are references to the fact that the Prijedor police
5 station was functioning at this time, May of 1992; correct?
6 A. The employees functioned. The station didn't. This report was
7 sent according to the peacetime plan and organisational work, because it
8 was requested by the centre. I repeat: It stopped functioning on the
9 10th of September, 1991, and it didn't function up to the moment when the
10 Dayton Accords were signed. Only the reserve police stations functioned.
11 I keep on repeating that. There is physical evidence that proves it.
12 The truth is I don't have that here; however, I showed the evidence to
13 the court in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is ample piece of physical
14 evidence that prove that the police station in Prijedor didn't function
15 because people were assigned to the reserve police stations.
16 One of the pieces of physical evidence were lists that were
17 maintained daily and show that active duty officers had been assigned to
18 the reserve police stations.
19 Q. I'd appreciate if you could try to keep your answers focused on
20 the specific question that I ask.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: I tender this document.
22 And I would like 65 ter 26043, please.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive it.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6676, Your Honours.
25 MS. GUSTAFSON:
1 Q. Mr. Jankovic, this document is quite faint. However, I believe
2 you have seen it before in your own trial. You're probably familiar with
3 it. It is a decision of the Banja Luka CSB, dated 17 June, 1992. And it
4 is assigning you to carry out the duties and tasks of commander of the
5 Prijedor police station. And it is retroactive as of the
6 1st of April, 1992.
7 Now, in this decision, Mr. Zupljanin is assigning you to carry
8 out the duties and tasks of Prijedor police station commander,
9 effective -- in the RS MUP, effect 1 April, 1992; correct?
10 A. Let me put it this way: I said that I was commander from
11 19 August and those were peacetime police stations that I commanded.
12 This decision, dated 17 June, 1992, which was issued by the CSB, is a
13 decision on the take -- taking me out from the organs of the Ministry of
14 the Interior of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and
15 assigning me to work in the Ministry of the Interior of the
16 Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina starting as of the 1st of April,
17 1992. I was temporarily assigned to the same job I previously held in
18 the Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist Republic of
20 It says here that the public security stations in the CSB
21 would continue working as the organisational units of the MUP of the
22 Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in keeping with this law. And
23 then there is a reference to me. Since on the 1st of April, 1992, I was
24 still working in a body which had been abolished pursuant to Article 127
25 of the Law on Internal Affairs, he was engaged on the said date as an
1 employee of the Banja Luka security services centre.
2 So this is nothing else but a decision to transfer me from the
3 non-existing Ministry of the Interior of the
4 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina to the newly established Serbian MUP of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina to occupy the same position that I had previously had.
6 This is a very important decision because it ties over the period of my
7 working in the previous institution to a different institution. It was
8 important for my pension plan. It was --
9 THE ACCUSED: [Overlapping speakers] Transcript and possible --
10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpretation hasn't finished.
11 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, you interrupted the translation.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise.
13 JUDGE KWON: It means we didn't hear the last part of witness's
15 THE ACCUSED: I think we did.
16 JUDGE KWON: We missed after you said:
17 "It was important for my pension plan ..."
18 Did you have something further?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The pension plan and other benefits
20 and my rights as an employee of the Ministry of the Interior.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps it would be clear if
23 instead of the word "engaged" the word "retaken" were used. So he was
24 not engaged. He was retaken from one institution that had been
25 abolished, and he was reassigned to work in a newly established ministry.
1 In order for that to become possible, a new decision had to be issued.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may be heard on that.
3 JUDGE KWON: I think you said there that, to the same effect.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to say that it was not
5 just me who was reassigned. All the employees from the abolished organs
6 and public security stations and CSBs who lived in the territory of the
7 Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina were reassigned to another new
8 institution. I submitted a piece of physical evidence showing that I was
9 issued with a document showing that my work engagement was abolished on
10 the 1st of April, and it was only logical that from that time on we were
11 taken on by the newly established Ministry of the Interior.
12 JUDGE KWON: Let me try this for the last time.
13 So according to this document you were reassigned to Prijedor
14 police station; correct?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was taken over. I was the
16 commander of that police station, but I was taken over. And as of the
17 1st of April, 1992, I continued working in a -- and --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down.
19 JUDGE KWON: Can you not make your answer simpler.
20 So according to this document, you were reassigned or retaken or
21 reappointed as Prijedor police station, commander of Prijedor police
22 station? That's what this document says.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Taken over from the
24 Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
25 by the Ministry of the Interior of the Serbian Republic, which started
1 operating at that time. And I had the same position as before. And the
2 decision refers to the peacetime public security station in Prijedor. I
3 was the peacetime commander all the time up to March 1992.
4 JUDGE KWON: What about on the 17th of June, 1992? So is it your
5 evidence in June 1992 this Prijedor police station did not operate?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was abolished. However, it was
7 still an organisational unit of the Ministry of the Interior in
8 peacetime. It was an organisational unit of the public security station
9 in peacetime, but it did not function. All that functioned were reserve
10 police stations because people had been mobilised to reserve police
11 stations because of the state of war. Peacetime organisation was
12 suspended. It was abolished. It didn't exist at that moment.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
14 Shall we admit this document? Are you tendering this? Yes.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, please.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6677, Your Honours.
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if I could have 65 ter 25906, please.
18 Q. And, Mr. Jankovic, this is a Prijedor SJB document dated the
19 2nd of August, 1992, establishing a police battalion. It's signed by
20 Simo Drljaca.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go to the next page in English
22 and at the bottom of the first page in B/C/S.
23 Q. It states the battalion command is composed as follows:
24 Staff commander: Simo Drljaca, chief of the Prijedor SJB.
25 And under number 3:
1 Chief of staff: Dusan Jankovic, head of the police department.
2 Earlier in your testimony, you denied being head of the uniformed
3 police department. In this contemporaneous document, Simo Drljaca is
4 identifying you as head of the police department, yes?
5 A. Let me see. Based on the dispatches from the CSB Banja Luka, the
6 public security station establishes a battalion made up of seven
8 Q. Mr. Jankovic --
9 A. And these companies are listed.
10 Q. My question was very simple. In this contemporaneous document,
11 Simo Drljaca is identifying you as head of the police department;
13 A. That's right. But I want to explain why that is so.
14 Q. Well, I'll leave it up to the Chamber whether we should hear
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I explain?
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This battalion, these seven
20 companies that Simo Drljaca set up in the area of Prijedor municipality,
21 never actually operated in reality. This battalion was formed in the
22 event they would need to go to the front line and place themselves at the
23 disposal of the army. But the first mistake is that the commander of the
24 battalion staff is Simo Drljaca; the deputy commander, Marko Djenadija;
25 the Chief of Staff, Dusan Jankovic, who is chief of the police
1 department. According to all the laws and military regulations and the
2 regulations of internal affairs, in the battalion there is no chief of
3 staff. The chief of staff exists only in a brigade that is made up of
4 several battalions.
5 Second, here where it says chief of or head of the police
6 department, in order to have a head there should be a police department
7 in Prijedor; however, not a single public security station in any
8 municipality, not only in Prijedor, did not have a police department or a
9 head of police department. Police departments existed only in CSBs. In
10 order for a police department to exist at a level of a public security
11 station - and in the staffing system it did not - there would have to be
12 inspectors who go out and conduct inspections, et cetera. And we had no
13 such people in the public security station of Prijedor.
14 Mr. Drljaca, before becoming head of the -- or, rather, chief of
15 the public security station, was some sort of senior executive in the
16 education -- on the education board.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat and stop speaking so
19 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Jankovic, interpreters couldn't follow you.
20 But I would like Ms. Gustafson to continue.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
22 If we could just go to the last page.
23 Q. And I'll have you recognise Mr. Drljaca's signature,
24 Mr. Jankovic.
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: And then I would tender this.
1 Q. That is Mr. Drljaca's signature?
2 A. Right.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive this.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6678, Your Honours.
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could with have 65 ter 26045, please.
6 Q. And, Mr. Jankovic, you can see this is a report conducted by
7 police -- three police inspectors of the Prijedor SJB in February 1993.
8 And the first part of the report listings the people who participated in
9 the review of the Prijedor SJB's activities. And under number 3 it says:
10 Dusan Jankovic, Chief, Prijedor, SJB, police department. And this is
11 another contemporaneous reflection of your position as chief of the SJB
12 police department, this time by three police inspectors; correct?
13 A. This is again a mistake. I was not a head of department. I was
14 commander of the public security station in Prijedor, and Cadjo was not
15 what it says here. He was commander of the reserve police station 1 and
16 that's what he said before the court of Bosnia-Herzegovina in his
17 testimony. There are several mistakes here. As I said, I was not head
18 of the police department because in our staffing system, the public
19 security station did not have a police department in any municipality.
20 Not only Prijedor.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: I tender this document.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6679, Your Honours.
24 MS. GUSTAFSON:
25 Q. Now, Mr. Jankovic, we've seen now five or six contemporaneous
1 documents identifying you as police station commander or head of the
2 police department of the SJB. I could go on, but I think the point has
3 been made. But it is not just these documents that identify you in this
4 manner. Your senior role in the SJB has also been confirmed by Prijedor
5 SJB officials who have testified for the Defence; in particular,
6 Miroslav Kvocka testified that when Fikret Kadiric was arrested in April
7 or May 1992, you replaced him as commander of the Prijedor police
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: And that's D4219, paragraph 39.
10 Q. And he identified you as second in command of the SJB after
11 Simo Drljaca.
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: And that was at paragraph 9.
13 Q. And a protected witness, KW609, identified you as Simo Drljaca's
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: D4246, paragraph 23.
16 Q. So this is not just a technical administrative function that you
17 had or coincidental series of mistakes in the documents. This is how
18 police officials operating in Prijedor at the time understood your role,
19 isn't it?
20 A. No, that's not correct. Fikret Kadiric was not arrested when I
21 became commander of the police station in Prijedor. Fikret Kadiric from
22 the post of commander of the police station was reassigned to be
23 commander in the traffic control station, and he remained there until the
25 Witnesses can say here that I was deputy or this or that, but at
1 the public security station there was no deputy or assistant chief. The
2 assistant chief position only started from 1993 when the
3 Ministry of the Interior of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
4 was reorganised. I was assistant chief of the public security station
5 and I was also assistant chief of the CSB, and I was also deputy chief of
6 the public security station -- or, rather, CSB, and chief of public
7 security in Prijedor. But all that was in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,
8 1998. In 1992, the position of chief of police department or head of
9 police department or assistant chief of the public security station did
10 not exist.
11 I don't know what the witnesses here say, but I know that I did
12 not have such a position in the time that you allege in 1992.
13 Q. In November of last year, the Karadzic Defence --
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript. The meaning is
15 completely changed. The witness said:
16 "I was in those positions but not in the alleged time."
17 MS. GUSTAFSON:
18 Q. Mr. Jankovic, the Karadzic Defence on November 7th of last year
19 filed a summary of your expected evidence, which says, among other
21 "At the commencement of the war, he was the police chief in
23 Now, are you aware that the party that is now putting you forward
24 to say that you were not the chief of police at this time, and you worked
25 in logistics, a few months ago actually expected you to testify that you
1 were chief of police?
2 A. I can't hear very well. Somebody turned down the volume. I
3 didn't hear the question.
4 THE ACCUSED: I think microphone.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can you start again?
6 MS. GUSTAFSON:
7 Q. Yes. The Karadzic Defence in November of last year filed a
8 summary of your expected evidence in this case. And it states, among
9 other things:
10 "At the commencement of the war, he was the police chief in
12 Are you aware that the party that is now putting you forward to
13 state that you were not the chief of police in Prijedor at this time -
14 and, in fact, you just worked in logistics - a few months ago actually
15 expected you to testify that you were the police chief in Prijedor?
16 A. I don't know about Mr. Karadzic's Defence team and why they
17 stated that. You'd better ask them. I can tell you that the head of the
18 police department in public security stations in the time you allege did
19 not exist as a position. Not before, not during the war, not later. The
20 public police department or a head of police department did not exist at
21 public security station level. That position existed only in security
22 services centres such as in Banja Luka. That is my answer and that is
23 the way it is.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I get an explanation. The
25 reference that we asked the witness not to say -- or, rather, to say that
1 he was not chief of police; line 17?
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think that's a mischaracterisation of my
4 Q. Mr. Jankovic, you -- the contemporaneous documents identify you
5 as police station commander and/or chief of the police department. Your
6 colleagues in SJB at the time identified you similarly. The Defence a
7 few months ago identified you similarly. And that's what the judgement
8 that convicted you found. And that's because that is, in fact, the role
9 you had in the SJB at the time. This story about being involved in
10 logistics is a fiction that you identified in order to attempt to
11 minimise your culpability for the Koricanske Stijene massacre for which
12 you were convicted and you're continuing that fiction in this courtroom;
14 A. No, not correct. I made a solemn declaration here to speak the
15 truth. I wish to assist the Court to get at the truth in the case of
16 Koricanske Stijene. And as for what you say, I've told you several times
17 here and explained: I was commander of police station in peacetime, but
18 nowhere in the world can you find one person who would be commander of
19 police station and chief of police, et cetera. I was not chief, ever. I
20 was assistant chief of the public security station. I was assistant
21 chief of CSB and chief of CSB, et cetera, but not in that period in which
22 you want to place me. I keep repeating that all the time. Take the rule
23 book on staffing that prevailed at the time, and you will see that that
24 position did not exist.
25 As for what you assert, that I wish to deny a crime to which a
1 court has linked me, that is not true either. I want to get at the truth
2 because I have nothing to do with that crime. I wish I were the only one
3 innocently, wrongly convicted, but I'm not and I'm interested in getting
4 at the truth. The truth will out. It cannot be hidden forever.
5 Q. Now, Mr. Jankovic, earlier in your testimony you were asked about
6 communication between the Prijedor SJB and the ministry, and you said
7 that there were no dispatches between the Prijedor SJB and the republican
8 MUP, but you also said at page 12 that the communication between Prijedor
9 and the ministry went through the CSB. And that is correct, isn't it?
10 The normal communication chain was from the Prijedor SJB to the
11 Banja Luka CSB to the republican MUP; right?
12 A. Right. I didn't say there was no communication between CSBs. I
13 said there were communications and quite a few periods when that
14 communication was broken down because there were power cuts and various
15 things caused by the war in Prijedor. I know what I've said and I can
16 repeat it any time you ask.
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: If I could have P2744, please.
18 Q. Mr. Jankovic, this is the log-book of dispatches received by SJB
19 Prijedor for 1992.
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: And I'd like to go to page 16 in both languages.
21 Q. And you can see the first date refers to -- or states the
22 30th of April, 1992. And as you look down the page, you can see in --
23 through columns 2 and columns 8 that the Prijedor SJB is receiving
24 numerous dispatches from CSB Banja Luka for the beginning of May.
25 And if we could just -- if I could just have you look at the
1 following two pages, pages 17 and 18, which show dispatches received
2 throughout the month of May. And we can see they are all or virtually
3 all from the CSB Banja Luka.
4 A. [Overlapping speakers]
5 Q. And it shows the SJB receiving dispatches from the CSB Banja Luka
6 on virtually a daily basis throughout May of 1992. And I can tell you
7 that the log-book continues this way throughout 1992, with virtually
8 daily communications from the CSB. In your testimony you said that there
9 was only communication between the SJB and CSB when there was
10 electricity. Now, do you accept that this document shows that, in fact,
11 the SJB was able to receive communications from the CSB on basically a
12 daily basis in 1992?
13 A. There were times when there was no electricity, but they probably
14 turned on the power generator when they needed to receive a dispatch. I
15 don't see that this is communication on a daily basis. 28th May, for
16 instance, is one entry, and then 2nd of June, then 4th of June. There
17 were times when they could receive and times when they couldn't receive.
18 I can't tell you when they could and when they couldn't. This document
19 probably reflects the real situation with dispatch communications between
20 the SJB Prijedor and the CSB Banja Luka. And this was handled by the
21 communication centre at the SJB. They received and sent out dispatches.
22 Q. Thank you. Earlier today you were asked about Keraterm and
23 whether you heard of any unusual event at Keraterm, and you testified
24 that you heard there was a mutiny on the part of the detainees there.
25 And in that process, the mutineers were killed. Now, you heard about
1 this killing of Keraterm detainees the very same day it happened; right?
2 A. Right. Everybody in Prijedor heard about that.
3 Q. Right. Everyone in Prijedor heard about that. And the Prijedor
4 police did not carry out any formal investigation into this killing, did
5 it, at the time?
6 A. I don't know whether they did or didn't, but it was a serious
7 crime so the CSB Banja Luka and the higher court in Banja Luka had
8 jurisdiction. The lower court in Banja Luka dealt with less serious
9 crimes that fell within its purview, whereas the CSB was in charge of
10 crimes that fell under the jurisdiction of the higher court, and they
11 helped conduct on-site investigation within their jurisdiction.
12 Q. You said you didn't know whether an investigation was carried out
13 or not. The evidence the Trial Chamber has received about this incident
14 is that this was a huge massacre of prisoners in their cells in cold
15 blood. The army came in, set up a machine-gun on a table outside one of
16 the detention rooms, lit it with a floodlight, and massacred roughly 150
17 detainees. Now, if there had been a proper investigation reflecting the
18 scale and severity of this crime at the time, you would have heard about
19 it, wouldn't you?
20 A. If it's about the army, if the army was involved, then the
21 on-site investigation would be done by military organs. If not, if this
22 was not done by the civilian authorities, it was done by the army, and
23 military organs had the jurisdiction in all matters concerning the army.
24 We had nothing to do with it.
25 Q. Well, as you know, because you testified this detention facility
1 was secured by police officers, so it was -- obviously involved both army
2 and police. But in any event, Mr. Jankovic, if this extremely serious
3 crime had actually been properly investigated at the time, you would have
4 heard about it, no?
5 A. Possibly an investigation was carried out without me hearing
6 about it. It's possible. I just don't know and I can't say anything
7 about things I don't know.
8 Q. I'm going to ask you about Koricanske Stijene now. You explained
9 in your testimony that the day after the massacre, the 22nd of August,
10 you and Mr. Cadjo were summoned by the chief of the public security
11 department of the CSB Banja Luka, Djuro Bulic, to Banja Luka and
12 questioned about what had happened the previous day.
13 Now, first of all, you agree that if you were in fact just a
14 police officer carrying out logistic tasks, as you claim, it wouldn't
15 make any sense for Mr. Bulic to summon you along with Mr. Cadjo to
16 Banja Luka to answer questions about this crime, would it?
17 A. I have also said before the court in Bosnia-Herzegovina that I
18 never quite understood why he summoned me. But probably Djuro Bulic was
19 chief of sector of public security at the level of the CSB Banja Luka.
20 As far as I understood, when we were summoned it was not about any
21 questioning. He just informed us of the newly arisen situation in
22 connection with a crime that had been committed, and he probably thought
23 that he would find out more about the crime, who ordered it, who
24 organised it, who executed it. But Simo Drljaca came to that meeting and
25 so he threw out me and Cadjo. And the chief told him, anyway, that he
1 should not have summoned us without his knowledge, that he should only
2 have summoned us if the chief -- through the chief of the public security
4 Q. And later that day, the 22nd of August, you returned to the
5 Prijedor SJB. And again, you saw Simo Drljaca there who was visibly
6 annoyed and upset because both Mr. Zupljanin and Mico Stanisic had been
7 informed about the crime and the perpetrators; right?
8 A. I didn't see Simo Drljaca when I returned to the SJB. When we
9 were returning from the CSB on the way from Banja Luka to Prijedor,
10 Cadjo, the commander of the reserve police station, Prijedor centre,
11 called the duty service, of whom he was commander, and told them to wait
12 for him in his office. When we arrived at the SJB we went to his office
13 and we found there five assistant commanders. If you want me to, I can
14 give you the names of those people. Do you need the names?
15 Q. No.
16 A. Cadjo informed them that we had been summoned to Banja Luka, he
17 told them what had happened in Banja Luka, and these men said they had
18 been informed already because they had read the dispatch from
19 Colonel Peulic, commander of the 22nd Brigade, which brigade in the
20 meantime had arrived in Prijedor, and then we sat down to agree how to
21 act in that situation because all of us at that meeting were professional
22 policemen. And some conclusions were agreed upon, and the chief of the
23 SJB -- sorry, chief of the CSB Banja Luka was informed of these
25 After the meeting we continued sitting and talking when
1 Simo Drljaca arrived, obviously upset, and he said he had informed CSB
2 Banja Luka and Chief Zupljanin about who had escorted the convoy and who
3 the possible perpetrators of the crime were. And then you know the rest,
4 how it went on, how the investigation or inquiry was conducted,
5 et cetera.
6 That crime was not something that anybody wanted to cover up, if
7 that's what you are insinuating. On the same date, 22nd August,
8 everybody already knew who escorted the convoy and how the thing had
10 Q. When I first asked you about Simo Drljaca at the Prijedor SJB on
11 the 22nd of August after you returned from Banja Luka, you said:
12 "I didn't see Simo Drljaca when I returned to the SJB."
13 But your answer makes clear that you did actually see him that
14 day, visibly annoyed and upset, at the Prijedor SJB, didn't you?
15 A. That's not what you said. You said when we came to the SJB, we
16 saw Simo Drljaca. We came to the SJB, had a meeting there where we
17 adopted certain conclusions, and it was only later on that Simo Drljaca
18 joined us from Banja Luka and came to the conference room where we had
19 our meeting. That's why I said what I said, because Simo Drljaca wasn't
20 there in the SJB as we got there. He only joined us later after having
21 come from Banja Luka.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: If I could have 65 ter 26028, please. Page 20 of
23 the English, page 19 in the B/C/S.
24 Q. Now, earlier today you testified that after this massacre there
25 were proposals that those who escorted the convoy be arrested and
1 prosecuted but that the platoon escaped to Kozara. And then they
2 resisted arrest and then there were negotiations with the SJB chief.
3 I'd like to direct your attention to your previous testimony in
4 your own trial on this point, which is towards the bottom of the page in
5 the B/C/S and right near the middle in the English. And you're asked:
6 "Tell us about the behaviour of the convoy escorts immediately
7 after the crime was committed?"
8 And you said:
9 "The entire intervention platoon beat a hasty retreat to
10 Mount Kozara. Not only those who took part in the convoy escort but the
11 entire intervention platoon."
12 You said:
13 "Later on they returned and cleared up the terrain, and after
14 that they went to Han Pijesak, theater of operations, as a unit of the
15 Army of Republika Srpska."
16 Now, that reference to the platoon returning to clear up the
17 terrain refers to the fact that the intervention platoon was ordered to
18 go back to the massacre site to clear up the bodies; correct?
19 A. Today I said that the entire intervention platoon went to
20 Mount Kozara as renegades. I didn't say anything else. Before the
21 negotiations in which Commander Paras and the SJB in Prijedor were
22 involved in, I don't know how the negotiations ran and what was their
23 course. I only know that following these negotiations, they went out on
24 the ground to clear up the terrain and that is all I know of it.
25 Q. Clear up the terrain at the execution site; right?
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. Now, you would agree as a career police professional that no
3 proper investigation would involve sending the alleged perpetrators back
4 to the crime scene to clean it up, would you it?
5 A. I don't know who sent them there or what their assignment up
6 there was. This is something that the person who sent them up there and
7 who was there would know. I didn't attend the meetings either in
8 Prijedor or in Banja Luka which dealt with this problem, so I don't know
9 anything about it.
10 Q. Now, it's -- you testified that it was impossible to arrest this
11 unit. It is your position, then, that this unit obeyed an order to go
12 back to the execution site to clear up the bodies, yet it was impossible
13 to detain these 40 men. Is that your position?
14 A. I don't know what you mean. You want me to answer this. I said
15 that it was impossible to arrest them. Perhaps this was the result of an
16 agreement between Commander Paras and the chief of the SJB. I don't know
17 what compromise or agreement was reached, what was agreed. This is
18 unknown to me.
19 Q. The evidence in this case in the form of Simo Drljaca's annual
20 report states that at this time the manpower of the Prijedor SJB was over
21 1500 men. Again, Mr. Jankovic, is it your position that 1500 men were
22 unable to arrest the 40 intervention platoon members?
23 A. Those 1500 men were assigned to the reserve police stations,
24 including the active police force. The only organisation which could
25 have intervened and was prepared and ready for combat was the
1 intervention platoon. They were people who were ready for combat. The
2 rest were patrolling police officers, duty police officers. It would
3 have been completely senseless to send these people there because it
4 would have resulted in bloodshed. This was the only way to see the
5 matter through to the end.
6 Q. Mr. Jankovic, you're, again, a career police professional. It is
7 the job of the police to arrest suspected perpetrators, particularly of
8 extremely serious crimes, even if that might involve some bloodshed, is
9 it not?
10 A. Well, yes, it was a serious crime, so perhaps it should have been
11 done by a special police unit coming from outside the territory of the
12 Prijedor police station. However, those who were involved in the
13 decision-making about this issue took the decision that they did. I
14 don't know why. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to give my
15 opinion now. Perhaps if I had been in the shoes of the person deciding
16 about it, I would have taken a different position. But I was not
17 competent -- called upon to make this decision.
18 Q. Now, in your testimony you talked about reaching a compromise and
19 the compromise was that this unit would be sent to the front instead of
20 arrested. And then you said: "And if they came back, they would be
21 prosecuted." And that was at page 51. But, in fact, the members of this
22 platoon who came back from the Han Pijesak front were never arrested or
23 prosecuted by the RS authorities, were they?
24 A. As you can see, they were not. I said here that an investigation
25 was carried out, that an investigation judge, prosecutor, and the CSB, as
1 well as the military security service were involved. The whole matter
2 ended the way it did. I am not privy to the details of this process, and
3 I cannot tell you anything more than I already did.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: If I could have P3852, please.
5 Q. Now, Mr. Jankovic, you can see this is a security assessment for
6 Prijedor municipality by the SMB of the Banja Luka CSB, dated the
7 23rd of October, 1992.
8 MS. GUSTAFSON: And I would like to go to the next page.
9 Q. In your testimony today, you were asked about Muslim and Croat
10 villages which did not engage in fighting and which did not suffer any
11 consequences or damage, and you identified a number of villages including
12 Zecovi, Gornja and Donja Ravska, and Cela. Now, you can see in the third
13 paragraph towards the top of the page, it says that dozens of villages
14 have been almost completely destroyed and left uninhabited. And there is
15 a list which includes Zecovi, and then it lists villages that have been
16 partly destroyed, including Cela and Gornja and Donja Ravska. And it
17 says this destruction saw the beginnings of the mass exodus of both
18 Muslims and Croats. Now, you said these were villages that did not
19 engage in fighting and which did not suffer any consequences or damage.
20 That's not true, is it? These villages, Zecovi, Cela, and Gornja and
21 Donja Ravska were either completely or partly destroyed; right?
22 A. From what I can see, it's a report by the State Security Service.
23 It was drafted by one Dusko Jelesic. I don't know who he received
24 information from on this score. I know that in the area of what was
25 formerly the municipality of Kozarac, there had been fighting and
1 destruction. Let me just see. These are Croat villages. I don't think
2 that there were such instances up there because a large portion of the
3 Croat population was involved in the army -- was engaged in the
4 Army of Republika Srpska. This may have been the case in part. However,
5 I did not tour these villages and I cannot state for a fact if there were
6 cases of suffering committed by individuals. I know that the area of
7 Kozarac was destroyed in combat because there was war waged over there.
8 It was impossible to tour these villages because there was a war on. It
9 was impossible to find out exactly what was happening and what was not
11 Q. So is it correct, then, all those villages that you named in
12 answer to Dr. Karadzic's questions, you didn't actually go to those
13 villages to see what had happened there; is that right? I'm not talking
14 about the ones in the document. I'm talking about the ones you
15 identified in answer to Dr. Karadzic's questions.
16 A. I didn't visit there, but I know from stories from when these
17 events were happening that, for instance Gornja Puharska and Donja
18 Puharska did not experience combat. Cerska, for instance, it did have, I
19 can see here, but not Donja Puharska, except for the mosque which was
20 destroyed. And if Jelisic thought that this was the case then it must
21 have been the case. But there was no mass destruction in the villages
22 that I mentioned. I didn't visit there but I know from stories that
23 circulated that there was major destruction in the area of Kozarac, but
24 I'm not familiar with these other places.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In line 22 and 23, the witness
3 said: "For instance, Donja Puharska, Gornja Puharska," he didn't mention
4 "Cerska," and that only a mosque was destroyed. And if Jelisic had but
5 this in mind, the mosque, then that was it. But there was no other
7 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Jankovic, do you confirm that?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
10 I have nothing further.
11 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, probably we need to continue tomorrow.
12 If you can finish in 15 minutes, we can --
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will try, Your Honours. I
14 believe that I will.
15 JUDGE KWON: Please proceed.
16 Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Jankovic, let's deal first with what was
18 dealt with last. In this assessment made by the DB, it was said that
19 there were departures of people. How did this come about? Did the
20 authorities put pressure on the people to leave?
21 A. Well, no --
22 JUDGE KWON: [Overlapping speakers]
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- as far as I know in the area of
24 Prijedor municipality --
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: Given that the witness said he never went to any
1 of these places, I think a foundational question should be asked first.
2 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure that departures or evacuation of people
3 were discussed, even.
4 Did you raise that issue, Ms. Gustafson?
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: I didn't. It's stated in the document. But I
6 didn't address that.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. At page 93, you were asked as a professional if you would let the
10 perpetrators carry out sanitisation. Were all the members of these two
11 platoons perpetrators?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did perpetrators return to participate in sanitisation?
14 A. Yes. And other members of the intervention platoon, so the
15 entire platoon went up there.
16 Q. Thank you. Is sanitisation something that is carried out before
17 or after an on-site investigation?
18 A. After an on-site investigation. We had the representatives of
19 the CSB Banja Luka there, the investigating judge, the prosecutor. I
20 heard about it. I came into the whole process later, but I'm aware of
22 Q. Thank you. Out of 1500 policemen who were mentioned to you at
23 pages 93 and 94, how come only 50 or even less found their way on that
24 payroll list of yours?
25 A. Because those were members of the active police force, and they
1 were financed differently. There was a separate list drawn up for
2 reserve policemen, which fell into three categories: The first category
3 was retired policemen --
4 Q. Thank you. I'll have questions for you on that score. Where did
5 those who were mobilised into the reserve police force receive their
6 salary from? And they had their regular jobs.
7 A. I'm not sure, but it must have been the same companies where they
8 were employed.
9 Q. Thank you. We should make a pause, really. The active policemen
10 who were assigned to the wartime reserve police stations, where did they
11 receive their salaries from and where were they administratively listed
13 A. With the SJB Prijedor.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness please slow down and repeat
15 what he's saying.
16 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Jankovic, please repeat your question -- repeat
17 your answer. Very, very slowly this time.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Will you please repeat your
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Where were they administratively listed for the purposes of their
22 salaries, their work records, those who were assigned to other stations?
23 A. Are you referring to active policemen?
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. Well, the public security station. That was their work-place.
1 That was the organisation they worked for.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at 66 -- sorry, 5 --
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Can you tell us on page 1, Company 1 would be provided by some
6 Prijedor police station, and then the 2nd Company would be provided by
7 Prijedor police station 2. What does it mean?
8 A. Well, there was no Prijedor police station 2. Again, this is an
9 error that was committed by the chief of the SJB who didn't know how the
10 police worked. There was the reserve police station 1, reserve police
11 station 2, reserve police station Brezicani, reserve police station
12 Cikote, reserve police station Omarska, reserve police station Namovita
13 [phoen], reserve police station Rakelici and Gomjenica, the reserve
14 police station Tukovi, et cetera, and the reserve police station for
15 traffic control.
16 Q. Thank you. Please speak slowly.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at P6675.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Now, for that report you said that was a compilation.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] P6675. Can we look at page 6.
21 Page 6 in Serbian. [In English] Next in Serbian. Next in English, too.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Paragraph 3, I'll read it out:
24 "According to police precincts, the greatest number of offences
25 were committed in the areas...," et cetera.
1 What does this mean, the areas of departments?
2 A. Well, when we were submitting a report, we were referring to the
3 peacetime organisation in wartime circumstances because in Ljubija and
4 Omarska we had police departments which were actually substations, and
5 then elsewhere we had reserve police stations. So it was all based on
6 the peacetime organisation or scheme because the wartime one wasn't
7 referred to. I suppose that when reports were to be drawn up, they were
8 to be drawn up on the basis of what was the organisation, like in
9 peacetime, as defined in the rules governing the work of the MUP.
10 Q. At page --
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the page of the
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. -- you were shown a document from the BH court stating that you
15 disembarked at the site where the crime was committed and talked to Paras
16 and Mrdja. (redacted)
19 (redacted) He never said that I had any order
20 issuing powers. He said what I said, that I was charged with material
21 and technical equipment or, in other words, as we call it, the logistics.
22 JUDGE KWON: We will take care of it.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jankovic. No further questions. The Defence is
25 grateful for the fact that you appeared as a witness.
1 A. Thank you.
2 JUDGE KWON: Well, that concludes your evidence, Mr. Jankovic.
3 On behalf of the Chamber, I would like to thank you for your coming to
4 The Hague to give it.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 JUDGE KWON: You may be excused.
7 The Chamber's thanks also go to Mr. Aleksic. Thank you very
9 Before we adjourn, Mr. Robinson, coming back to the intercept
10 issue, I presume that you'll be withdrawing the subpoena motion for
12 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President, that's mentioned in one of the
13 MFI conversion motions that we filed today, so you'll have a chance to
14 rule on that.
15 JUDGE KWON: So you are or you're not withdrawing that motion?
16 MR. ROBINSON: We are.
17 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We'll continue tomorrow.
18 Next Witness Mudrinic.
19 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct.
20 JUDGE KWON: To be followed by Mr. Gruban.
21 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct, yes.
22 [The witness withdrew]
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.00 p.m.,
24 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 19th day
25 of February, 2014, at 9.00 a.m.