Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 47254

 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.

Page 47255

 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

 7     evidence?

 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.

Page 47256

 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.

Page 47257

 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 --

Page 47258

 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

11     accurate.

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

Page 47259

 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

Page 47260

 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.

Page 47261

 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

Page 47262

 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

17     Prijedor?

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

21     Prijedor.

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

Page 47263

 1     the area covered by your station?  What was the course of events in that

 2     respect?

 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

 5     forces?

 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?

Page 47264

 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

19     e-court.

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

Page 47265

 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.

Page 47266

 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

 8     army."

 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

19     versions.

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

Page 47267

 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

 4     period.

 5        Q.   Thank you.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I tender the document into

 7     evidence.

 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

Page 47268

 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

Page 47269

 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

19     station.

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.

Page 47270

 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

Page 47271

 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

Page 47272

 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

Page 47273

 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

25     happened?

Page 47274

 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

16     people.

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

Page 47275

 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,

 5     please.

 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

23     English:

24             [In English] "Dusan Jankovic, commander of the Prijedor police

25     station, supervised the implementation of Simo Drljaca's order of

Page 47276

 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.

Page 47277

 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

Page 47278

 1     Omarska and everything that was going on there and they gave him progress

 2     reports.

 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

14     11.00.

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

Page 47279

 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

 5     Omarska?

 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

Page 47280

 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

16     paper.

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.

Page 47281

 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

11     incorrect.

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

Page 47282

 1     police station had its own commander, assistant commander, and deputy

 2     commander.

 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

 9     stations.

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

Page 47283

 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

 4     assumption.

 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

22     SUP?

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?

Page 47284

 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.

Page 47285

 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."

Page 47286

 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

20     station.

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

23     outbursts."

24             JUDGE KWON:  Did you say:  "I cannot possibly know about this"?

25     I will read out the sentence:

Page 47287

 1             "Now, if somebody hit somebody else, I cannot possibly know about

 2     this."

 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

20     that.

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

Page 47288

 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

 7     perpetrators.

 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

13     people?

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

17     destroyed.

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

22     clear.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Did you say at the start of your answer that there were such

25     cases?

Page 47289

 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

 7     mean?

 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

18     conducted.

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

Page 47290

 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,

Page 47291

 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

Page 47292

 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

14     forth.

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;

24     right?

25        A.   Yes, this was issued by the prosecutor's office.  The document

Page 47293

 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

18     number.

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.

Page 47294

 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.

12             Yes.

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

25     number.

Page 47295

 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.

Page 47296

 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.

Page 47297

 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

Page 47298

 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

 7     there.

 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

Page 47299

 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

Page 47300

 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

Page 47301

 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

 3     purposes.

 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,

Page 47302

 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

Page 47303

 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

Page 47304

 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.

Page 47305

 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.

Page 47306

 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

Page 47307

 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

15     transcript.

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

21     fact."

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

Page 47308

 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

25     judgement.

Page 47309

 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;

19     correct?

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

23     out?

24             MS. GUSTAFSON:

25        Q.   First, Mr. Jankovic, do you agree or disagree that the court

Page 47310

 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

Page 47311

 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."

Page 47312

 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

Page 47313

 1     place, but the location of where he made the stop was in dispute in his

 2     trial.

 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?

Page 47314

 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.

Page 47315

 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?

Page 47316

 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

Page 47317

 1     stations.

 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

21     time?

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

Page 47318

 1     stations.

 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

 7     here.

 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

15     employment.

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?

Page 47319

 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.

Page 47320

 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?

Page 47321

 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.

Page 47322

 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 --

Page 47323

 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

Page 47324

 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

24     units.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue, Ms. Gustafson.

Page 47325

 1             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I.  Transcript, translation,

 3     interpretation.

 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

 9     forth."

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

15     continued.

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

Page 47326

 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

 5     action.

 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,

22     though.

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,

Page 47327

 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

24     states:

25             "In addition to traffic control and in co-operation with the

Page 47328

 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:

Page 47329

 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

19     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

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

Page 47330

 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

14     answer.

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.

Page 47331

 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

Page 47332

 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:

Page 47333

 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

 7     companies.

 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;

12     correct?

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

15     that.

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

Page 47334

 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

18     fast.

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.

Page 47335

 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

Page 47336

 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

 8     station?

 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

14     deputy.

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

24     take-over.

25             Witnesses can say here that I was deputy or this or that, but at

Page 47337

 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

20     things:

21             "At the commencement of the war, he was the police chief in

22     Prijedor."

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

Page 47338

 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

11     Prijedor."

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

Page 47339

 1     he was not chief of police; line 17?

 2             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I think that's a mischaracterisation of my

 3     question.

 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;

13     correct?

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

Page 47340

 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

Page 47341

 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

Page 47342

 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

Page 47343

 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

Page 47344

 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

 3     station.

 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

24     conclusions.

25             After the meeting we continued sitting and talking when

Page 47345

 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

 9     happened.

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

Page 47346

 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?

Page 47347

 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

Page 47348

 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

Page 47349

 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

Page 47350

 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

10     happening.

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.

Page 47351

 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

 6     destruction.

 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

Page 47352

 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

21     that.

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

Page 47353

 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

12     with?

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

19     question.

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.

Page 47354

 1     That was the organisation they worked for.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at 66 -- sorry, 5 --

 3     P6678.

 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.

Page 47355

 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

12     transcript.

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)

17   (redacted)

18   (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.

Page 47356

 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

 8     much.

 9             Before we adjourn, Mr. Robinson, coming back to the intercept

10     issue, I presume that you'll be withdrawing the subpoena motion for

11     KDZ145.

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.