1 Thursday, 25 November 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. I think I said yesterday
6 that we'd sit in the same courtroom, but you all found your way to the
7 right one. So even without the guidance of the Chamber, you get where
8 you have to be.
9 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus
11 Momcilo Krajisnik.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
13 Mr. Tieger, are you ready to resume the examination-in-chief?
14 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Usher, could I ask you to escort the
16 witness and his counsel into the courtroom.
17 [The witness entered court]
18 [Witness's counsel entered court]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Counsel.
20 Does counsel have earphones over there? Could we ask perhaps
21 counsel to sit at the other side, because there's an extra set of
22 earphones. I think if we would move Mr. Tomic to the other side.
23 There's another set nearby, I think, Madam Usher. I see one on the table
24 which gives a bit more room. Oh, that's just same distance.
25 Mr. Tomic, you have no microphone, but you're so nearby that if
1 there would be any need to intervene, then just draw my attention to that
3 Good morning, Mr. Mandic.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mandic, I'd like to remind you that you're still
6 bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your
7 testimony last Tuesday.
8 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
9 WITNESS: MOMCILO MANDIC [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 Examined by Mr. Tieger [Continued]
12 Q. Good morning, Mr. Mandic.
13 A. Good morning, Mr. Prosecutor.
14 Q. Before we adjourned yesterday, if I recall correctly, we were
15 discussing that period of time during which you served as deputy minister
16 for the Bosnian Serb MUP in 1992. I'd like to move ahead this morning to
17 your work with the Ministry of Justice as minister of justice. And in
18 that connection, I'd like you to take a look at Prosecution's next
19 exhibit in order, which is 03025687.
20 THE REGISTRAR: P430.
21 MR. TIEGER:
22 Q. Mr. Mandic, P430, which is now before you, is a document dated
23 the 1st of May, 1992, directed to the president of district assemblies
24 for the Banja Luka, Sarajevo, Sokolac, Trebinje, Bijeljina, and Doboj
25 regions. The subject is decisions in legislation and prosecution, and
1 that document bears your name as minister of justice and apparently was
2 signed for you. Let me give you a moment to look at that document, and
3 then I'd like to ask you some questions about it.
4 Do you need more time with that document, Mr. Mandic?
5 A. No, I don't. You may ask a question.
6 Q. Now, was the distribution of this document essentially an attempt
7 to begin the establishment of the organs of the Ministry of Justice?
8 A. Yes, it was.
9 Q. And is it, therefore, addressed to the various organs under the
10 jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 Q. So in the paragraph marked -- or identified as number 1, you seek
13 the commencement of establishing regular courts in various locales; is
14 that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And number 2 addresses public prosecutors' offices and identifies
17 the steps by which you seek the establishment of those offices and the
18 beginning of their function.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And similarly, for the remaining portions of the document, in
21 number 3, it focuses on the establishment of penal and correctional
22 institutions on the territory of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and
23 Herzegovina. Number 4, the misdemeanour courts, and number 5, the
24 channelling of fines for misdemeanours and implementing misdemeanour
25 procedures during war and the imminent threat of war.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And by this document, if I understand the first paragraph
3 correctly, you were instructing the presidents of district assemblies
4 that they were required to undertake the implementation of the steps
5 necessary to establish those organs in conditions of war and imminent
6 threat of war?
7 A. If you allow me to explain. Before the war, in the Socialist
8 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, there were five district courts in
9 five districts. Those were Bihac, Banja Luka, Doboj, Sarajevo, Zenica.
10 Under the constitution of the Republic of Srpska, Serbian
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina, five districts were established, at the head of which
12 there should have been five district or higher courts which under the law
13 on the courts should have detention units for these districts; that is,
14 Banja Luka, Sarajevo, Trebinje, Banja Luka, and Doboj. That means that
15 Banja Luka, Sarajevo, and Doboj were districts from the Socialist
16 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina that had had their detention units
17 attached to the district or high courts, as they were called at the time.
18 Q. And that identifies the areas in which those courts were intended
19 to be established under the new Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
20 and under the Ministry of Justice?
21 A. That means that in the area of the Republic of Srpska, in
22 addition to the old three districts and the old high or district courts,
23 which dealt with certain serious crimes as first instance and then second
24 instance in misdemeanours, Bijeljina and Trebinje were added to them.
25 During the war, remand prisons were formed for those who were under the
1 prosecution, or rather, correction -- under the investigation.
2 Q. And those also fell within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of
3 Justice; is that right?
4 A. Yes. The establishment of the courts, my assistant, Slobodan
5 Velasevic signed this document and he was my assistant for judiciary
7 Q. Mr. Mandic, let me ask you to next take a look at Prosecution's
8 next in order. That's ET 0345-5967.
9 THE REGISTRAR: P431.
10 MR. TIEGER:
11 Q. Mr. Mandic, P431 is a document dated 20 May 1992, directed to the
12 Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Justice, attention to
13 the SJB under-secretary in the case of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
14 and attention to the minister in the case of the Ministry of Justice.
15 And it was sent by the chief of the SJB Novi Grad, Milenko Tepavcevic.
16 A. Tepavcevic was his name.
17 Q. Thank you. The subject of Mr. Tepavcevic's memo is information
18 regarding accommodation, food, hygiene, and other problems of persons
19 detained at KP Butmir.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Was Butmir, KP Dom Butmir, one of the facilities that was
22 established during the course of beginning the Ministry of Justice in the
23 Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
24 A. No. The KP Dom Butmir had been existing for 50 years in the
25 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was a semi-close type of
1 prison for lighter sentences and for misdemeanours.
2 Q. So when the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was
3 established and the Ministry of Justice was established, it was one of
4 those facilities that then came -- pre-established facilities that then
5 fell under its jurisdiction?
6 A. This facility at the time was under the jurisdiction of the
7 minister of the interior of Republika Srpska, and there was also the SJB
8 Ilidza there, and they addressed the under-secretary of the public
9 service, security service. The man who was in charge of the public
10 security in Republika Srpska, which could be described as third man from
11 the top in this particular area in Republika Srpska.
12 Q. And do you know who that was in particular at that time?
13 A. Yes.
14 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry. I didn't understand the witness.
15 MR. TIEGER:
16 Q. Sorry. The interpreter didn't quite understand your response.
17 A. I cannot remember, but I think his name was Cedo Kljajic.
18 Q. Thank you. Mr. Tepavcevic's memo is directed to the
19 under-secretary for the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It's also directed
20 to the minister of justice. For what reason was it directed to your
22 A. The ministry of justice in 1992 was supposed to take over this
23 facility and turn it into a remand prison of the Sarajevo district court
24 that was established in May 1992. Probably the reason that this was a
25 facility under the jurisdiction of the judiciary, it should have remained
1 after the takeover which took place in August 1992. And there's minutes
2 of the hand-over between MUP and the judiciary, and probably this is why
3 it was directed to the Ministry of Justice, describing the situation in
4 the facility at the time.
5 Q. In the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, under the
6 jurisdiction of which department or ministry did KP Dom Butmir fall?
7 A. The Ministry of Justice and Administration.
8 Q. And was the reason, at least according to you, that KP Dom Butmir
9 was temporarily under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal
10 Affairs because you were beginning the process of setting up the Ministry
11 of Justice and it was intended that this facility would fall within the
12 Ministry of Justice, just as it had done in the Serbian Republic of
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina?
14 A. That is exactly what I said a while ago. We were in the process
15 of establishing institutions of the Ministry of Justice. That means
16 creating regular courts, high courts, lower courts, first-instance, and
17 second-instance courts, and supreme courts.
18 Under the law on judiciary, each district court was bound to have
19 a remand prison and a detention unit for investigation purposes. It was
20 agreed that this facility in 1992 should be taken over from the police
21 and converted into an investigating unit of the district court of
22 Sarajevo, one of the five district courts that existed in the Serbian
23 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That was both under the constitution
24 and according to the law on judiciary.
25 Q. Was there a warden or equivalent at KP Dom Butmir at the time, on
1 May 20th, 1992?
2 A. I think that at that time there was no warden. I'm not quite
3 sure. However, full jurisdiction of the administration of the premises
4 and the guards around the prison was regulated by Milenko Tepavcevic, as
5 the head, the chief of police -- the chief of the police force under
6 whose control the premises was. And he was in charge of that particular
7 facility on the 25th of May, 1992. And you can see that from this
8 document and the date as it stands there.
9 Q. Now, item 3 of the memo of May 1st that you directed to the
10 presidents of district assemblies requires the immediate submission of
11 nominees for warden and deputy wardens of penal and correctional
12 institutions. Were wardens appointed for KP Dom Butmir, or was a warden
13 and a deputy warden appointed?
14 A. I can't remember exactly, but I don't think so, and here's why.
15 Because I was elected as minister of justice on the 19th of May, that is
16 to say, one day prior to this document. And I cannot believe that
17 wardens would have been appointed before my own appointment. That would
18 be contrary to the law. And all these documents, just as the one you
19 showed me a moment ago, were actually preparations for the creation of
20 the Serb system of justice in Republika Srpska. They were all for the
21 judiciary, et cetera. They were all preparatory to this, and I was the
22 deputy minister of MUP, and it was my job to look at the cadres, materiel
23 preparations, and so on, for a Serbian judiciary to be set up, a civilian
24 Serbian judiciary.
25 Q. Who was the first warden who you appointed for KP Dom Butmir?
1 A. I think it was Ratko Lalovic.
2 Q. And did you also appoint a deputy warden?
3 A. I don't remember. But it was Soniboj Skiljevic, if there was
4 one, but I can't remember exactly.
5 Q. Now, on the document in front of you right now, Prosecution's
6 431, at the top of the memo we see the handwritten name "Ratko L." Do
7 you know whether or not that refers to Ratko Lalovic?
8 A. Possibly, yes.
9 Q. Also, we can see at the top of the page, where the heading is,
10 "SJB Ilidza SJB Novi Grad, SM" and then in parentheses, Kula. Was KP Dom
11 Butmir also known as Kula?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, after you assumed the position of minister of justice, Mr.
14 Mandic, where was your office located?
15 A. For a time, my office was at Vrace, and when I was appointed
16 minister of justice, the offices of the Ministry of Justice were at the
17 Bistrica Hotel on Mount Jahorina.
18 Q. And how long did the offices or headquarters of the Ministry of
19 Justice remain at the hotel?
20 A. Up until I was replaced and left for Belgrade.
21 Q. And were there other offices of the Ministry of Justice, judicial
22 centres, for example?
23 A. The higher court was located in the Kula facilities, where the
24 police centre of Kula was located as well. The first-instance court was
25 there and the second-instance court was there, throughout the time I was
1 minister. I had an office, as minister, in one of the buildings in that
2 general area, when I communicated with Sarajevo and when I had business
3 to attend to in the city of Sarajevo itself.
4 Q. And just looking quickly at the content of Mr. Tepavcevic's memo
5 regarding accommodation, food, hygiene, and other problems at Kula, in
6 the first paragraph he identifies the number of persons who were detained
7 between 12 May 1992 and 20 May 1992 on, as he puts it, various grounds.
8 He then says that "preliminary operative interviews were conducted with
9 these persons and lists containing all necessary personal data were
10 delivered on time to the MUP."
11 What was the nature of the preliminary operative interviews that
12 were conducted of persons detained on various grounds at Kula?
13 A. I really can't say, because I wasn't informed about that. I
14 didn't conduct those interviews. I didn't work in the MUP. I just
15 prepared the road for the Serbian judiciary. This was conducted by the
16 competent authorities, that is to say, the head of the public security
17 service, down the line, down the chain of command, to Tepavcevic. So
18 this was something that the public and State Security Services did,
19 probably. And I say that on the basis of my experience. But as I say, I
20 wasn't kept abreast of things like that.
21 Q. And do you know the purpose of those preliminary operative
23 A. I don't know. I wasn't informed about that, nor did I take part
24 in any of those interviews or receive reports about the interviews. And
25 it says here that all the facts were sent on time to the MUP headquarters
1 and the public security services and the top man there. I think it was
2 Cedo Kljajic at the time, but I'm not quite sure.
3 Q. And in the last paragraph, Mr. Tepavcevic emphasises the
4 inadequate conditions of accommodation, food, hygiene, and the state of
5 health of the detainees, and emphasises the urgency in resolving their
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Beyond this memo, did he communicate to you in any other way
9 about the inadequate conditions at Kula?
10 A. The care and attention of these people was under the MUP. That
11 was the police station, and providing exclusive security for these
12 people, their exchange and everything else. That was all conducted by
13 the MUP of Republika Srpska, led by this chief of police, Mr. Tepavcevic.
14 I think the commander's name was Vujicic.
15 Q. And finally, because -- well, let me ask you quickly: Did Mr.
16 Tepavcevic have a nickname?
17 A. I think it was Limun, or lemon.
18 Q. All right. Mr. Mandic, let me ask you to turn next to
19 Prosecution's next exhibit in order. That's --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, if you're done with this document, I
21 would have a few questions for the witness.
22 Mr. Mandic, where this document says that these persons were
23 taken into custody on various grounds, what did you understand what
24 variety would be there?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really can't answer that and
1 explain it, Your Honour, but I can just assume that it was from general
2 crimes to prisoners of war or due to the effects of war where people were
3 taken in for exchange later on. But that is my assumption.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. To take people in for exchange, what would be
5 the legal basis for such custody?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really can't say, because I
7 wasn't the responsible individual at that period of time for things like
9 JUDGE ORIE: You also said that they were taken -- perhaps taken
10 into custody for crimes. Would crime investigations and prosecution fall
11 within the area of responsibility of the minister of justice or any other
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If it was from the area of general
14 crime, yes, it would come under the Ministry of Justice.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, you say that this was not -- you said
16 you were not the responsible individual. At the same time, you say that
17 they might have been taken into custody for general crimes. Why, then,
18 were you not responsible, at least for that part of the detentions?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At this point in time, we were
20 creating the justice system, the judiciary, and I was appointed minister
21 of justice the day before, which did not exist up until then, and it was
22 my role to set up the courts and the judiciary institutions attendant to
23 the courts of the first instance, second instance, and third instance.
24 So nothing existed at all in the region, no courts, nothing like that. I
25 was a minister without a ministry, in fact.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me draw your attention to another part of
2 this document. It says 31 persons from Dobrinja I settlement were taken
3 in during the cleansing by TO Kasindol forces on the 14th of May, 1992."
4 What do you understand to be the cleansing by TO Kasindol forces?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it says quite clearly here
6 that the TO, which is the Territorial Defence, were the Crisis Staff,
7 local ones, of the local communes, who, in armed conflicts -- if you want
8 me to explain this to Your Honours - they took into custody or disarmed
9 the opposite side and put the people in the -- on the premises of the KP
10 Dom Butmir, which means the army and the police, or rather, the Crisis
11 Staff of the Territorial Defence, as it was called. The armed forces, in
12 fact, of the Serbs from Ilidza.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now a little bit higher up, it says: "38
14 persons were brought in by TO Ilidza Kasindol street. They were in
15 possession of automatic weapons, were disarmed, and brought to KP Dom
17 That's different language that describes what happens, whereas a
18 few lines further down, the word "cleansing" is used. Did that mean
19 anything to you? Because the way you describe what cleansing is, is more
20 or less what is described a few lines higher up, but then not by the word
22 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I observe that it would perhaps,
23 we suggest, be a good idea, with respect, to establish first of all
24 whether this witness does in fact know anything at all about what the TO
25 Kasindol forces did on the 14th of May. So that we are clear whether he
1 is being invited to express some opinion on what the meaning of the word
2 is or whether he's giving evidence about something that he actually knows
3 about the events in question.
4 JUDGE ORIE: What I asked the witness is how he understood this
5 part of the letter that was addressed to him, and it's up to the witness
6 to explain that, based on his personal knowledge of what happened.
7 That's the explication of how he understood it.
8 I'm asking you how you understood that and whether you have
9 any -- whether it makes any difference to you, whether the word
10 "cleansing" was used, on whatever basis you would have this
11 interpretation. If you compare the word "cleansing" with the language
12 used a couple of lines prior to that, the use of that word.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I know nothing about
14 this event, neither did I take part in it. All I can say on the basis of
15 my experience is to explain what I think this paper says, and I'm looking
16 at this document for the first time now. I assume it was sent to the
17 minister, to my assistant for the prisons, and his name was Slobodan
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
20 Mr. Stewart, you're invited not to intervene the way you did it a
21 minute ago.
22 MR. STEWART: May I know why not, Your Honour? Because I do --
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'll tell you, not in the presence of the witness.
24 MR. STEWART: Would Your Honour please tell me not in the
25 presence of the witness, then, because I would like to know.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I'll ask you: Could you please leave the courtroom
2 for a second.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, what I wanted to elicit from this
5 witness is how he interpreted this letter, either at that time, and my
6 next question would have been on the basis of what he would have
7 interpreted it this way, whether he had any personal knowledge or not.
8 You intervened. You've drawn the attention of the witness to the
9 possibilities that he might not have known or that he would have known.
10 I wanted to elicit that from the witness even without your help. And
11 that's the reason why I ask you not to intervene in a similar way next
13 The witness may be brought into the courtroom again.
14 MR. STEWART: In future, then, I will undertake to be more
15 careful that if I have such an intervention that might be unsatisfactory
16 to present to the Court in the presence the witness I would make a
17 request for the witness to leave court before I do it. I understand Your
18 Honour's point.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, you may proceed.
22 MR. TIEGER:
23 Q. Mr. Mandic, were civilians held and detained at Kula from the
24 very beginning of its -- well, from the beginning of combat activities in
1 A. I don't know that. I really don't.
2 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, can I ask the witness to look next at
3 Prosecution's next in order, L0103023.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think that Madam Registrar has a different
5 document provided to her.
6 THE REGISTRAR: P432.
7 MR. TIEGER:
8 Q. Mr. Mandic, P432 is a document dated 28 October 1994. It's a
9 memo to Mr. Ljubica Vladusevic and Mr. Dusan Kozic, sent by the Central
10 Commission to the exchange of prisoners and civilians of Republika
11 Srpska. And the subject is accommodation for Muslim civilians in KP Dom
13 The first line of the memo reads: "Since the beginning of combat
14 activities in the former Bosnia-Herzegovina, along with its basic
15 purpose, Butmir KP Dom has also been used as location for accommodation
16 of Muslim civilians passing through this facility in transit to the
17 Muslim part of Sarajevo." The memo goes on to say that the facility was
18 used for Muslim civilians in the process of "family reunification" or
19 "freedom of movement" and it states that at the bottom of that page,
20 according to rough estimates, about 10.000 Muslim civilians of all ages
21 passed through this facility during the war, spending between several
22 days and a few months in this facility.
23 Mr. Mandic, do you have any reason to doubt either the accuracy
24 of the estimate of the number of Muslim civilians of all ages who passed
25 through the facility or the fact that that was taking place from the very
1 beginning of the war?
2 A. Mr. Prosecutor, this document dates back to 1994. At the time, I
3 was not in Bosnia-Herzegovina, neither was I the minister of justice. On
4 the 16th of November, I left Bosnia-Herzegovina, I was replaced as
5 minister of justice, and I went to Belgrade. On the 8th of that -- in
6 August of that same year, the Ministry of Justice took over this Kula
7 facility as a remand prison and the hand-over and takeover was conducted.
8 Ratko Lalovic and Slobodan Avlijas, that is to say, the warden of the
9 prison and the assistant warden, were -- are the proper people to explain
10 the way in which the prison functioned during the time I was minister and
11 later on and the types of exchange that took place: how many people
12 passed through the prison, whether they were civilians, whether they had
13 been combatants or whatever.
14 Q. There was no suggestion, Mr. Mandic, that this document had been
15 prepared at a time when you were minister or prepared at a time when Kula
16 fell under your jurisdiction. I simply wanted to know if, based on your
17 own experience, you had any reason to doubt the accuracy of the figures
18 in here or the accuracy of the assertion that from the commencement of
19 the war, civilians were detained in Butmir.
20 A. This document was signed by Dragan Bulajic, who was president of
21 the Commission for Exchange, and I have no reason to doubt the contents
22 of this document. And it was written towards the end of 1994.
23 Q. Mr. Mandic, can I ask you to turn next, then, to Prosecution's
24 next in order, which is -- which will be the minutes of a meeting of the
25 National Security Council on April 24th.
1 THE REGISTRAR: P433.
2 MR. TIEGER:
3 Q. Mr. Mandic, P433, the document before you now, are the minutes of
4 the meeting of the council for national security and the government held
5 on 24 April 1992. Before I ask you about the contents of the document
6 itself, let me ask you a couple of brief questions about the council for
7 national security. First of all, did you yourself attend any meetings of
8 the National Security Council?
9 A. Yes, I did, at the beginning of the war.
10 Q. And who were the members of the National Security Council? Who
11 comprised the council?
12 A. I think it was a body that was composed of ad hoc members, led by
13 the president of Republika Srpska, Dr. Radovan Karadzic. Members of the
14 council were probably the prime minister, the ministers of the interior
15 and defence, and the president of the Assembly, I believe.
16 Q. Who presided over meetings of the council?
17 A. Dr. Radovan Karadzic.
18 Q. Now, Mr. Mandic, if I could direct your attention to a portion of
19 the meeting held on 24 April 1992. Under the heading "Decisions," about
20 the ninth decision down, the minutes indicate that the council adopted
21 the decision that the Ministry of Justice shall take over the exchange of
22 prisoners once the organs of the interior have completed their work.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. First of all, were you present at the meeting at which that
25 decision was adopted?
1 A. I don't remember, but probably I was, although I don't remember.
2 Q. And what work was the Ministry of Interior to complete before the
3 Ministry of Justice would take over the exchange?
4 A. I think that the Ministry of the Interior was supposed to conduct
5 interviews and send the prisoners on elsewhere. Sorry, investigate the
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Send them on
8 elsewhere, investigate the prisoners.
9 A. That means to conduct the investigation and to collect as much
10 information about the war and security and information that those
11 prisoners could give them.
12 MR. TIEGER:
13 Q. Once the Ministry of Justice indicated it had completed its
14 investigative efforts, what was the role of the -- sorry. Excuse me.
15 [Prosecution counsel confer]
16 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry. Let me begin that again.
17 Q. Once the Ministry of Interior had completed its investigative
18 efforts, what was the role of the Ministry of Justice then to be? What
19 was the Ministry of Justice then to do?
20 A. At the level of the government, a state Commission for Exchange
21 was formed, involving one or two officials from the Ministry of Justice.
22 They exchanged prisoners and held meetings with the other warring party
23 for the purpose of exchange of POWs at various locations. I think that
24 on behalf of the Ministry of Justice was present there assistant minister
25 for prisoners and KP Dom. His name was Slobodan Avlijas. The government
1 established this commission at the state level of the Socialist Republic
2 of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
3 Q. And is that what was -- I understand that a state Commission for
4 Exchange was formed, and we'll be directing our attention to that in a
5 moment. But was the exchange of those persons who had been the subject
6 of the Ministry of Interior's investigative efforts what was contemplated
7 in the decision that was adopted on April 24th? In other words, on April
8 24th, 1992, when the National Security Council said that the Ministry of
9 Justice would take over the exchange once the Ministry of Interior
10 finished, what was contemplated at that time that the Ministry of Justice
11 would do?
12 A. Based on the council decision and the government decision, a
13 rather long period elapsed between this decision and the war, and it
14 wasn't possible to communicate with certain areas in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
15 It was a very laborious task of creating the ministry and a state. In
16 certain areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina, various groups were active, and
17 there was a spillover of war from Croatia. Therefore, these conclusions
18 were not easy to be implemented. It took a long time to establish power;
19 to find out where the prisoners were, how they were held, and where;
20 whether they were held by the army and the police; and only then could we
21 establish the commission in order to take over the prisoners, inform the
22 other party, most often that was Muslim party, and to effect the exchange
23 of the people that were under their respective jurisdictions.
24 You know, it was not possible to just adopt a conclusion and then
25 implement it on the spot. We couldn't normally travel down the roads,
1 because there was shooting, there was snipers shooting between Jahorina
2 and Trebinje. It took us several hours to travel from Pale to Lukavica
3 or from Pale to other parts of Sarajevo, which were criss-crossed and
4 certain areas of Sarajevo were held by different warring parties. So we
5 had a general problem of communication.
6 Q. And I understand that in your response, you've directed your
7 attention to the -- to alleged difficulties of implementation. What I
8 had wanted to know was precisely what was contemplated by the decision of
9 April 24th, rather than how difficult it may or may not have been to
10 implement it. So let me ask you this, if I may. It may be quicker.
11 Was the decision adopted on April 24th that the organs of the
12 interior would investigate the captured or detained people, and then,
13 once the Ministry of Interior was completed, the Ministry of Justice
14 would conduct the exchange of those people?
15 A. After this meeting, the government passed a decision to establish
16 a state commission. This commission was to be at the state level, not
17 just under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice, but rather to be
18 more efficient. In addition to people from the Ministry of Justice,
19 other people were appointed, and I think the people were from MUP and
20 from the Ministry of Defence, members of this commission. It was not
21 solely the Ministry of Justice that was given the power to conduct
22 exchanges, because we had tremendous problems on the ground.
23 Q. Let me turn next to Prosecution's next in order. That's
25 THE REGISTRAR: P434.
1 MR. TIEGER:
2 Q. Mr. Mandic, P434 is a report on the activities of the Ministry of
3 Justice and administration in the May through October 1992 period. And
4 it bears the date 16 November 1992.
5 A. Correct. That is the time when I was the minister in the
6 government of Republika Srpska.
7 Q. Can I then direct your attention to certain parts of the
8 document. First of all, can you turn to the third paragraph of the
9 document. It appears on page 2 of the English translation, which states
10 as follows: "Keeping in mind the demands for the successful
11 establishment of the legal state and legal security of citizens, the
12 ministry was forced to take a number of steps, primarily regarding the
13 organisation of penal correctional organisation, mainly the Butmir KP
14 Dom. Considering the increased influx of incarcerated persons and the
15 need for this penal correctional organisation to be put to use, the
16 ministry, therefore, urged the Presidency to establish a central
17 commission for the exchange of prisoners of war, incarcerated and wounded
18 persons, and dead bodies."
19 First, Mr. --
20 A. That is correct, Mr. Prosecutor.
21 Q. And I take it that refers to the -- a Commission for Exchange
22 that you mentioned earlier.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, the document mentions the increased influx of incarcerated
25 persons and the need for the penal correctional organisation. Let me ask
1 you a couple of questions about that.
2 First of all, what was the extent of that increased influx of
3 persons who were incarcerated?
4 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I wonder if it would be useful. It's
5 not a particularly tendentious point, but just to establish first what
6 involvement, if any, the witness had in relation to this report, whether
7 it was to him, from him, et cetera, et cetera. He said he was the
8 minister of justice. It's just on the face of it a Ministry of Justice
9 report. It's -- I don't believe my point here goes in one party's
10 direction rather than another. It just seems to be an appropriate
11 practical step to take.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
13 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, with respect, I do find it to be a
14 tendentious point in precisely the way it was pointed out earlier in this
15 day. I believe that in every jurisdiction it would be completely
16 appropriate to ask the head of an organisation of this type about a
17 document that reported on the activities of that organisation during a
18 period of time --
19 MR. STEWART: I'm not suggesting it's not, Your Honour. My point
20 -- I'm completely puzzled. My submission is intended to be a totally
21 harmless one. It's just a housekeeping kind of point. I don't disagree
22 with what Mr. Tieger has just said.
23 MR. TIEGER: And some interventions should be reserved for
24 cross-examination, Your Honour.
25 MR. STEWART: How can I cross-examine on that? That's just
1 ridiculous, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger [sic], the Chamber considers your
3 intervention not as neutral as you suggested. Mr. Tieger, you may
4 proceed in the way --
5 MR. STEWART: Sorry. Did you mean Mr. Stewart there, Your
6 Honour. I don't understand, Your Honour. That's my problem. I don't
7 understand why it's not neutral. I assure Your Honour, it's entirely --
8 I don't understand how a similarity exists between that intervention and
9 the previous one where Your Honour drew my attention to the point.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, you have to live for a while without
11 understanding this. At a later stage we can clarify that.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
13 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Mr. Mandic, returning to the question. That was simply if you
15 could provide any information on the extent of the increased influx of
16 incarcerated persons, and I think you were about to do so.
17 A. Let me just explain to you. In August, when the Ministry of
18 Justice took over the jurisdiction over the KP Dom, a large number of
19 prisoners passed through and the guards and other employees of the
20 Ministry of Justice just provided technical services, just, for instance,
21 guarding and providing food for the detainees. However, the army had
22 jurisdiction over these people, as well as the police did. They both
23 came, conducted exchanges, and trials. As civilian ministries who had
24 taken over the facility, just provided technical services, in absence of
25 any possibility for us to effect in any way the exchanges. That is why
1 we asked for this commission to become a state commission and that both
2 members of the judiciary, the MUP, and the army be rendered responsible
3 for the exchanges.
4 In that way, we wanted to share the responsibility among
5 everybody involved over these people detained there. I gave you
6 precisely what the reasons were for establishing the Central Commission.
7 We wanted to have some influence in creating the rule of law and legal
8 security for those people who were mainly civilians from the war torn
9 zones, and in a way they were provided shelter there.
10 Mr. Prosecutor, if you allow me to explain further. The Ministry
11 of Justice did not have military power. The guards there were unarmed,
12 or rather, they did not go and visit the prisoners with weapons. We
13 couldn't defend our principles of justice and fairness, either faced by
14 the army or by the police. And in a way, we felt helpless in our attempt
15 to put everything within a legal framework and legal norms. That is why
16 we requested the Central Commission to be established and that everyone
17 took their parts or their share of the responsibility for everything that
18 was going on there.
19 Q. I'd like to turn next to Prosecution's next in order, ET
21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, do you have the right document?
22 MR. TIEGER: The next exhibit in order is a document dated 6 June
24 THE REGISTRAR: P435.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's not the number you just mentioned,
1 Mr. Tieger. Is that correct? And then it's a document dated the 6th of
2 June. What I have in front of me at this moment are the minutes of a
3 meeting held on the 9th of June. So I would be a bit surprised if that
4 -- we'll then have now -- yes. Now I have a number in front of me -- a
5 document in front of me which bears the number L0101953, dated the 6th of
6 June. Please proceed. And that, then, would be P435.
7 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, there is a bit of confusion, I think.
8 The Court has the right document, but it's an erroneous
9 translation and we
10 Have the correct translation is here. We'd like to substitute
11 that, please.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. TIEGER: So, in other words, the ERN number I recited
14 earlier, the ET 0124, would be the correct exhibit.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although that's at the bottom of the page. So
16 that's -- yes. The original bears that ERN number, and we now have a
17 better translation.
18 MR. TIEGER: So perhaps to avoid confusion we can return the
19 erroneous translation and replace it with ET 0124.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What was presented to us as a draft
21 translation now turns out to be a real draft and not ... So P435 now is
22 the B/C/S original of an order dated the 6th of June, and P435 is the
23 translation, not a draft translation. And that's P435.1.
24 Mr. Tieger, I think we have sorted out the ...
25 The witness now has in front of me P435? Yes. Then please
1 proceed, Mr. Tieger.
2 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Mr. Mandic, the logistics of the courtroom have certainly given
4 you a full opportunity to look at this document. It is an order, as the
5 Court noted, of 6 June 1992, and it's from the Central Commission of
6 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina for exchange of prisoners of
7 war, detainees, and bodies of the killed that are in the territory of the
8 opposite side, and is signed by the president of the commission, Rajko
10 Did you know Mr. Colovic?
11 A. Yes, I do. I knew him before the war and also during the war.
12 Q. And what was Mr. Colovic's position before he became president of
13 the Central Commission of Exchange?
14 A. Before the war, Mr. Colovic was assistant minister of the
15 government for the prisons and KP, or rather, correctional and penal
16 facilities of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the prime
17 minister at the time was Jure Pelivan.
18 Q. And do you know the date on which he became -- the approximate
19 date on which he became president of the Commission for Exchange?
20 A. No, I don't. If I may, I would like to try and help you.
21 After this meeting of the National Security Council of the
22 government, where the decision was taken that the Ministry of Justice
23 would establish the Exchange Commission, after that, at a government
24 session, a state commission was formed involving various ministries, in
25 order to fulfil the request posed by Mr. Colovic, referring both to the
1 civilians and prisoners of war that were held by the armed forces of
2 Republika Srpska.
3 Q. And when you say involving various ministries, does that mean
4 that representatives of -- or employees of various ministries comprised
5 the membership of the Exchange Commission?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And Mr. Colovic, for example, had been a member of or was a
8 member of what ministry?
9 A. I cannot remember. Either the Ministry of Justice or Defence. I
10 know that he went from one to another, but I cannot say for sure at that
11 particular time where he was.
12 Q. We can look at certain portions of the order that was issued by
13 Mr. Colovic. The first paragraph of the order states that: "All the
14 services of public security whose employees are engaged in safeguarding
15 of facilities where prisoners of war or detainees are located shall keep
16 evidence of all the persons who have been brought in. In addition to
17 personal identifying information, this evidence must contain the
18 information on the date and time when the person was detained, by whom
19 the person was brought in, whether the person is wounded, and the time
20 when the person was released or exchanged and upon whose order."
21 So is it correct, Mr. Mandic, that that first part of Mr.
22 Colovic's order is directed to members of the ministry of the interior
23 who were involved in guarding or safeguarding facilities where detainees
24 were held?
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 Q. Now, the third paragraph makes reference to municipal commissions
2 for exchange and regional commissions for exchange, if any. So is it
3 correct that the --
4 A. Yes, it's correct.
5 Q. -- exchange system contemplated various bodies throughout
6 Republika Srpska that would report to or provide information to the
7 Central Commission?
8 A. That means that the government took a decision to establish a
9 state commission, headed by Mr. Colovic. The task of his and his closest
10 associates was to establish at all levels, from the top to the lowest
11 level, that would create a pyramid of commissions and to be accountable
12 to the Central Commission.
13 Q. The fourth paragraph of the order states that "not any detainee
14 or person deprived of liberty shall be either released or exchanged
15 without prior order of the Commission for Exchange."
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. And if I could ask you to turn to a paragraph about six
18 paragraphs past the one we just focused upon. That states that "any case
19 of injury or death of the detainees or persons deprived of liberty on the
20 premises shall be registered and either official note or report shall be
21 made thereof by a judge of the basic court in charge, in the presence of
22 public prosecutor and a duly qualified staff member."
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. That, I take it, is another reflection of the involvement of --
25 we've already spoken about the involvement of the Ministry of the
1 Interior. I take it that's a reflection of the involvement of the
2 Ministry of Justice.
3 A. That involved investigation, where the Ministry of the Interior
4 cannot conduct an investigation without the prosecutor, whether civilian
5 or an army prosecutor or investigating judge. If it involves a member of
6 the military personnel, then the investigation is done by the military
7 judge and the military prosecutor. So these were two different
8 jurisdictions, the civilian and the military, ones that were established
9 at the time.
10 Q. And finally, before we --
11 MR. STEWART: Excuse me, Your Honour. I understand from Ms.
12 Cmeric that the two references to investigation in that answer actually
13 included the description on the spot, or that's what Ms. Cmeric suggests
14 is the English translation, that -- there were two references where it
15 was a compound phrase "on-the-spot investigations," the first and the
16 second uses of the word "investigation."
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: Correct. The witness said
18 on-site investigation.
19 MR. STEWART: Thank you. Yes, on-site. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stewart, for your assistance.
21 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
22 MR. TIEGER:
23 Q. And finally, Mr. Mandic, before we recess, let me ask you to turn
24 your attention to a short paragraph about three paragraphs past the one
25 we just looked at which states all complaints -- Your Honours, that's
1 found on page 3 of the English translation. "All complaints relating to
2 conduct and work of officials in charge towards detainees and persons
3 deprived of liberty are subject to authority of an official of Ministry
4 of Justice or the president of the higher or basic court.
5 A. That means that the district court is in charge of that, whether
6 it is a military court, a civilian court will depend on the person in
7 question. The Ministry of Justice -- there is a civilian Ministry of
8 Justice and a military ministry of justice. So depending on the person
9 in question, whether it is a civilian or military person, then that will
10 depend. So that's what I wanted to explain. And can you tell me what
11 you mean?
12 But in all areas, there were parallel courts, military and
13 civilian. And their sphere of activity was separated, clearly
14 differentiated. If an on-site investigation is conducted by a civilian
15 court and then they find that it belongs to the realm of a military
16 court, then an on-site investigation is conducted and a report sent in.
17 If the military court goes out on an on-site investigation and
18 establishes that it is -- involves a civilian, then it sends the report
19 on to the competent authorities, the prosecuting offices or the court.
20 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, we're past time for the break, I
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Have you dealt with this document?
23 MR. TIEGER: Not -- I think not entirely.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll wait.
25 Mr. Mandic, we'll have a break until 11.00. I would like to see
1 you back after the break. We adjourn until 11.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: May the witness be brought into the courtroom.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated, Mr. Mandic.
7 Mr. Tieger, you may proceed.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, as soon as I encouraged the Court to
10 retain the document, in fact I realised that I was moving on to the next
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Mandic, then, I would have a few questions
13 for you. In this document, there is a consistent use of language, making
14 a distinction between detainees or persons deprived of liberty. Could
15 you explain to us what the difference is, in your view.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think there is any
17 difference. Prisoners, or detainees, and persons deprived of liberty, I
18 think it means the same. I can't explain the difference.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although it's consistently used, the language
20 is different.
21 Would you consider -- do you think that civilians who have not
22 been suspected of any -- of committing any offence would be included in
23 what you consider to be one category?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if I can give a free
25 interpretation, persons that have been detained, detainees, might have
1 been people taken into custody as combatants and so on, whereas the
2 others might be civilians or whatever. I don't know what Mr. Colovic
3 thought of persons deprived of liberty, detainees or persons deprived of
4 liberty. I think that the two are equated, that there's an equal sign
6 JUDGE ORIE: If you say "civilians," what civilians do you have
7 in mind? Civilians under suspicion of having committed offences, or just
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Both. As long as they weren't
10 involved in any armed conflict, in armed combat, and so on, in the war;
11 that they weren't apprehended with weapons, that they hadn't taken part
12 in armed conflicts, in fighting, or anything like that.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And they were deprived of their liberty on the basis
14 of what?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really can't say, Your Honour,
16 because this was done by the security services employees, and the army.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But it was part of the exchange, I think, as
18 far as I understood; representatives of your ministry were involved in
19 the exchange of prisoners -- of the exchange of detained persons.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Detained civilians.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So civilians were detained; they were deprived of
22 their liberty.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And again my question --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's probably what they meant.
1 JUDGE ORIE: If there was no suspicion of any offence committed
2 by them, what would be the legal basis for deprivation of liberty?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say for sure. All I can
4 give you is my own explanation. Probably these people were on the
5 territory where the war was going on. The civilians were taken into
6 shelter so that the people shouldn't be killed, and then they were
7 exchanged. But this was conducted by the members of MUP.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But would you then say: We evacuated them?
9 Or would you say: We deprived them of their liberty? Is that the same,
10 in your view?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, who do you have in
12 mind when you say "evacuate"? Which people? From which side?
13 JUDGE ORIE: What you say is that among the civilians that were
14 deprived of their liberty, they might be persons that needed shelter
15 because they were in the -- well, perhaps in the operational zones.
16 That's at least how I understood your answer. You said the territory
17 where the war was going on. I can imagine that you say it's dangerous
18 here, so we should evacuate you, but the next step would then be to
19 deprive them of their liberty. Is that the same in your view?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't think it's the same.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, again the question: What was the
22 basis for the detention or deprivation of liberty of ordinary civilians,
23 not under suspicion?
24 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I'd like to make an observation in the
25 absence of the witness in relation to this line of questioning.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll ask the witness to leave the courtroom
2 for a second.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it's only this: That at page 33, line
5 15, Your Honour put a hypothetical question to the witness, and my
6 submission is only this, Your Honour: That --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just, since my system didn't function for a
8 while, could you please read the part so that --
9 MR. STEWART: It's just disappeared off the screen of the I'll
10 get it back. Ms. Cmeric will bring it back for me, Your Honour.
11 Yes. Your Honour said, "If there was no suspicion of any offence
12 committed by them, what would be the legal basis for deprivation of
13 liberty." And Your Honour, my observation is a very short one. I submit
14 it's very important that we bear in mind that in this line of questioning
15 now of the witness stems from Your Honour's hypothetical question to the
16 witness. He did not actually say that himself in evidence, so that the
17 question Your Honour just asked at page 34, line 10, line -- so therefore
18 again the question, "What was the basis for the detention or deprivation
19 of liberty of ordinary civilians not under suspicion?" He didn't say
20 that, Your Honour. That was the hypothesis in Your Honour's question.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I can tell you what the basis for this
22 assumption is. If you look at the whole of the document, you'll find
23 "women whose detention or deprivation of liberty is not related to the
24 war or war activities" on page 2. All the children and the minors up to
25 16 years of age."
1 So I found it -- I found a sufficient basis for not only on the
2 -- in the answer of the witness, but then -- perhaps I should not say
3 again the question, but I'll come to that in a later case.
4 MR. STEWART: In that case, if Your Honour was wishing it put it
5 on the basis it wasn't a hypothetical question but on the basis of
6 material which is considered to be sufficiently sound to put it to him as
7 a fact, then we suggest that Your Honour should, with respect, move from
8 hypothesis and put it very plainly to the witness so he understands the
10 JUDGE ORIE: I'll do that, Mr. Stewart.
11 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: May the witness be brought in again.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mandic, from this document, it appears that
15 included in the category "detained persons or persons deprived of their
16 liberty" that are included "women, where the deprivation of liberty is
17 not related to the war or war activity, children, minors up to 16 years
18 of age, old and helpless persons. Therefore -- because that's what the
19 document says on page 3. I therefore again ask you the question: What
20 was the legal basis for deprivation of liberty of those persons?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, on the territory of
22 Republika Srpska, or rather, where the Serbs were in control, you had the
23 crisis staffs of the army and the police. In certain municipalities or
24 areas, what you had were the collection camps or prisoners. And among
25 those collection centres, as we can see from this document, there were
1 women and children there, and everybody who did not take part in the war.
2 The purpose of setting up the commission was to differentiate between the
3 prisoners of war who took part in the war and civilians who did not have
4 anything to do with the war. So they were supposed to have -- the latter
5 was supposed to have a different treatment and be returned to where they
6 wished to go.
7 So it was along these lines that Mr. Rajko Colovic, the president
8 of the state commission issued this order and said that when the public
9 security services -- that is to say within the MUP -- established who
10 took part in the war and who did not took part in the war, that these two
11 categories of persons should be differentiated and people should be
12 deprived of their liberty on that basis.
13 So that's how I understand this document, and it is a document
14 that applies to the entire Serbian Republic or Republika Srpska.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would all male persons between 16 and old age,
16 in your view, be necessarily related to the war or war activities? I
17 mean, could you imagine persons detained of 35, 40 years, 25 years, not
18 related to war or war activities?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I personally think, Your Honour,
20 that not all men took part in the war, not all males took part in the
21 war. And it was up to the public security services to establish whether
22 somebody did take part or did not take part. And of course, this order
23 goes along those lines, to have people who did not take part in the war
24 be released, or rather, sent to territories where they wished to take up
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I then take -- ask your attention for, in
2 the English version, page 3, but in the B/C/S version, I take it that it
3 is -- let me just -- did you find the paragraph? It's approximately
4 eight paragraphs from the bottom, where it says "all women whose
5 detention, deprivation of liberty" -- you found that? It's approximately
6 eight, linear, from the bottom. You found it? Yes.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I found it, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: This paragraph seems to instruct to release women
9 whose detention or deprivation of liberty is not related to the war or
10 war activities, all children and minors up to 16 years, old and helpless
11 persons, to be released.
12 What about men being detained or deprived of their liberty, where
13 this detention is not related to the war or war activities? Should they
14 also be released or should they be kept or ...?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, if you look
16 further down the page where it says people who have been deprived of
17 liberty, who are then prosecuted, this does not apply. So all males for
18 whom it is established that they are not being prosecuted must have the
19 treatment of free individuals and be placed at liberty. And it was
20 precisely because of issues of this kind that a Central Commission was
21 set up so that individual crisis staffs and para units or para-formations
22 should not perform crimes against civilians and other people and that the
23 rule of law and a legal state should be established on the Socialist
24 Republic -- territory of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or
25 Republika Srpska. And I think this illustrates the efforts made by the
1 Serbian government by the state commission to do this.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll put to you how I read this document at
3 this moment and invite you to comment on that.
4 The part you just referred to says that: "Detainees and persons
5 deprived liberty against whom criminal proceedings have been started are
6 not subject to this order, but to provisions of Criminal Code instead."
7 I understand this to be that the mechanisms described in this document do
8 not apply to them, which means that they are not under the competence of
9 the Commission for Exchange and therefore, it shall be dealt with in a
10 different way.
11 I also read it that those against whom criminal proceedings have
12 not been started are subject to this order; which means, and I'm drawing
13 your attention to the fourth linear under the word "order," that they
14 should not -- that they should be either released or exchanged, without
15 prior order of the Commission for Exchange. Therefore, they should, up
16 to that moment, remain detained or deprived of their liberty.
17 I also read it in the contextual way, that the instruction to
18 release women whose detention or deprivation of liberty is not related to
19 the war or war activities, the instruction to release children and minors
20 up to 16 years of age, and the instruction to release old and helpless
21 persons, that this does not apply for males whose detention or
22 deprivation of liberty is not related to the war or war activities and
23 who are not minors or under 16 years of age and who are not old and
25 That's how I read it in this context. But I'm inviting you to
1 comment on that and to tell me what needs to be said about this way of
2 reading the several parts of the document.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you're quite right,
4 and your understanding of the document is correct. Now, how and in what
5 way, I think that Rajko Colovic would be the person to explain that,
6 because he was the person that issued, compiled this document on behalf
7 of the state commission. It is my personal opinion that the possibility
8 did exist on the Muslim side, that is to say, on the opposite warring
9 side, that there were Serb males who had been arrested, captured, and
10 that an exchange would take place between all parties on one side and all
11 parties on the other side. And I think that's what it says in the
12 penultimate paragraph of the document. And all-for-all exchange.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let me give confront you with the fact that this
14 order was addressed or at least sent, as I take it from the bottom, to
15 the minister of justice. Would you agree with that? Ministry of
16 Justice, I should say.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As you can see, Your Honour, it
18 says "delivered to eight institutions." And I assume that the government
19 discussed this issue; whether there were any comments or not, this was
20 discussed by the government. So this is the first initial version of
21 Rajko Colovic's order, who wanted to issue instructions about conduct
22 with detained persons. On behalf of the Ministry of Justice, Slobodan
23 Avlijas was in charge of that portion of the work. He probably received
24 this document and he looked into it and collected all the proposals for
25 any amendments that might be included.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, second part of your answer, you said the
2 same happened on the other side. Would that, in your view as the
3 minister of justice, justify the detention of civilians, even for
4 purposes of exchange, who were not suspected of having --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- committed any offence.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No, I don't think that would
8 be justified, to detain civilians and hold them in custody. In the
9 course of the war in 1992, I intervened on several occasions and
10 prevailed upon the authorities to release some people, to have them go
12 JUDGE ORIE: Did you respond to the implications of this order
13 when it was received at your ministry?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't answer that just now, but
15 I'm sure that Slobodan Avlijas, my assistant for prisons, in charge of
16 the prisons and prison institutions, did undertake to analyse the whole
17 matter and that an answer was supplied at the government level, because
18 this was a state commission, after all.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You have no remembrance on the content of the answer
20 given on behalf of your ministry?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, because it was 12
22 or 13 years ago, and I really can't remember at this point.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But I do know that the conditions
25 were improved from one day to the next and that the relationships was
1 better between the Federation's commission and Republika Srpska's
2 commission, that the way in which prisoners were exchanged was improved.
3 So the standards were improved, and I think that the international
4 community helped us, the CSE or whatever it was called, the ICRC or Red
5 Cross, and we had very good cooperation with them.
6 JUDGE ORIE: But I'd like you to focus your recollection on the
7 detention of males of - well, let's say anything between 16 and 60 - who
8 were not suspected of any crime. Did you protest again, as it says here,
9 detention or deprivation of liberty of that category of persons?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not only myself, but the entire
11 government, led by Mr. Djeric, asked that -- requested that people not be
12 detained, that civilians not be detained or deprived of liberty who had
13 been incorporated into the war. And this is evidenced by the minutes
14 that the Prosecution has, and this was discussed at the Republika Srpska
15 meetings, when it discussed the issue of conduct towards persons found on
16 a territory who were not of Serb ethnicity.
17 JUDGE ORIE: May I then draw your attention to another part of
18 this order, where it reads: "Detainees and persons deprived of liberty
19 may be used to work only in agriculture, industry, and mining industry;
20 craftsmanship, except metalworks; mechanical and chemical industry; in
21 transportation for loading and unloading, unless these have military
22 loads or armament for trading."
23 What was the basis for using detainees or persons deprived of
24 liberty to work?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't answer that question, Your
1 Honour. This is the first time I hear of such a thing.
2 JUDGE ORIE: How do you interpret this line? How do you
3 understand it, with your knowledge of the circumstances in that period of
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think that this is a
6 violation of human rights and the rights enjoyed by persons deprived of
7 liberty, detainees. I do not consider that people who have been deprived
8 of their liberty can be forced to do manual, physical labour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore, I do understand that you interpret
10 this paragraph as related to forced labour and not because they applied
11 to work in mines or in agriculture.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that people deprived of
13 liberty cannot be forced, or even if legal proceedings have been
14 undertaken against them, they cannot be forced to engage in manual,
15 physical labour if they do not wish to do so themselves. That is against
16 international humanitarian law.
17 JUDGE ORIE: If you would have been aware at that moment, since
18 you say I hear it for the first time, although it's part of an order
19 which is, among other addresses, also addressed to the Ministry of
20 Justice and to the government. Would you have protested if you had been
21 aware at that time as something that should not happen? I'm asking now
22 for a judgement. I'm aware of that.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was informed that on several
24 occasions, the army, or rather the crisis staffs, were looking for
25 detainees and that was true on both sides, or rather, that they made them
1 engage in manual labour, trench-digging and so on. And that is a problem
2 faced by the government. And Mr. Djeric insisted upon the fact that
3 prisoners of war of any kind should not be used for physical labour and
4 should not be used for trench-digging, manual labour of this kind. And I
5 think the Prosecution has a document to that effect. So I repeat: That
6 was -- came up before parliament and was discussed by parliament.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but perhaps we'll see that, but at this moment,
8 we have a document in front of us signed by the president of the
9 Commission for Exchange, which seems to accept the situation where
10 detained persons or persons deprived of their liberty are involved in
11 work, although only in limited sections of economic activity.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
14 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
15 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. If we turn next to Prosecution's next in order, which I believe
17 will be marked as P436. That's a document bearing the ERN Y001-0886
18 through 887, at least the English translation bears that.
19 Mr. Mandic, I believe you referred earlier in your testimony to a
20 decision by the government to form the Central Commission for Exchange.
21 Looking at P436, I ask you whether that is the decision to which you
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And that is a document dated 8 May 1992, signed by Professor
25 Branko Djeric as prime minister, and entitled "Decision to form a Central
1 Commission." And among other things, it announces that the commission
2 will consist of a number of members, including the first named member of
3 whom as the president - although there's a question mark by that in the
4 English translation - is Rajko, last name illegible. Would that be Rajko
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And as you indicated earlier, the membership of the commission,
8 as I specifically identified in the decision, includes representatives of
9 the Ministry of Justice of the Ministry of Interior, and the
10 representative of the National Defence Ministry?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Mandic.
13 MR. TIEGER: I'm pausing, Your Honour, because I see the Court
14 looking at the document. I don't want to rush.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No. Mr. Tieger, my ears and my eyes are different
16 organs. Please proceed.
17 MR. TIEGER: Then I'd like to turn next to Prosecution's next in
18 order. Those are the minutes from the government meeting on 9 June 1992,
19 bearing the ERN ET 0124-5356.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Would that be 5358, Mr. Tieger?
21 MR. TIEGER: 5356 to 5358.
22 THE REGISTRAR: P437.
23 MR. TIEGER:
24 Q. Mr. Mandic, P437, the document now before you, as I indicated
25 earlier, is the minutes from the government session of the Serbian
1 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina held on the 9th of June, 1992. The
2 heading indicates those -- indicates who chaired the meeting, some of
3 those who were present, and also indicates those not present, including
5 If I could direct your attention to a portion of the document
6 found under what appears to be agenda item 1, or regarding 1, and that's
7 1B. That states: "The government acknowledged the letter of
8 correspondence from the president of the central committee for the
9 exchange of prisoners. It has been concluded that the minister of
10 justice should talk to Rajko Colovic, the committee president, so as to
11 determine what are the motives for requesting the change and to, if the
12 reasons are justified, do the work of the committee president until a new
13 president can be appointed."
14 Now, Mr. Mandic, I understand from the minutes of the meeting
15 that you were not present at that meeting, but were you made aware of the
16 fact that Mr. Colovic had sent a letter to the government that apparently
17 indicated his desire to leave the position of committee president, or
18 commission president?
19 A. As far as I know - I talked with Mr. Colovic - he had personal
20 reasons for that decision, to resign, because thereafter he was appointed
21 the president of the court in Vlasenica. And after that, he became the
22 judge of the supreme military court in Han Pijesak. I think that he
23 cited personal reasons, marriage problems or things like that.
24 Q. So I take it, then, that you responded to the conclusion of the
25 government that you should speak with Mr. Colovic about the letter he had
1 sent and his desire to leave the commission.
2 A. As far as I can remember, I did have this conversation with Mr.
3 Colovic. And on that occasion, he explained to me that he was living in
4 Han Pijesak, that he was to marry there, that he just had become a
5 father, that he had become the president of the court in Vlasenica, and
6 after that, the judge of the supreme military court in Han Pijesak. And
7 I'm quite sure that his reasons were of personal nature, if I remember
9 Q. And after making -- I take it, then, that you made a
10 determination that his reasons were justified? Let me ask you: Did you
11 make a determination that his reasons were justified and therefore
12 undertake the work of the committee president until a new president was
13 found, in keeping with the conclusion of the government on June 9th?
14 A. I cannot remember exactly, but surely this whole work was on the
15 voluntary basis. No one could have been forced to do something that they
16 didn't want to do. And I believe that his replacement would have been
17 found very soon, whether it would be Slobodan Avlijas or anyone else.
18 But I'm quite sure that his replacement, or rather, replacement for Mr.
19 Colovic, was found very soon.
20 Q. And until that point, did you undertake the work of the
21 commission president?
22 A. I never discharged the duty of the chairman of this Exchange
24 Q. Did you understand that it had been the conclusion of the
25 government on June 9th that you should do so?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Do you know who functioned as president of the commission between
3 the time of Mr. Colovic's departure and the time that a replacement was
5 A. I apologise, Mr. Prosecutor, but it says here that Colovic would
6 discharge the duties of the commission president pending the replacement
7 is found. In other words, it was concluded that the minister of justice
8 should talk to Rajko Colovic, the commission president, so as to
9 determine what his motives were for requesting a replacement, and if the
10 reasons were justified, the above name - which means Rajko Colovic -
11 would remain the president of the commission pending the appointment of a
12 new president. So I was requested that he remains an outgoing president
13 pending the appointment of his replacement.
14 Q. In the portion of the document immediately above that, that is,
15 1A, it indicates that the government has supported the order of the
16 Central Commission for the exchange of the prisoners.
17 MR. STEWART: I'm sorry, Your Honour. Just before we leave the
18 previous point, it probably is just as well to clarify whether Mr. Tieger
19 accepts what is in effect the witness saying that perhaps the English
20 translation is potentially a tiny bit misleading, if one doesn't read it
21 sufficiently carefully. Because --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if there's any translation problem, I'd like
23 to invite Ms. Cmeric to read that specific part, have it translated by
24 the interpreters, so that we can see whether there's any problem.
25 MR. STEWART: Yes. My point is, Your Honour, that we suggest
1 that the question of Mr. Tieger put at page 47, line 10, which is just
2 disappearing off the screen in a moment, "did you understand it had been
3 the conclusion of the government on the June 9th that you should do so?"
4 In other words, you should continue to act. We suggest it's now clear
5 from the evidence that that is actually not a correct reading of that
6 document. We just want it to be clear for the record.
7 Certainly Ms. Cmeric can do exactly what Your Honour suggests and
8 then we invite Mr. Tieger just to indicate whether he accepts that it --
9 well, I'll leave it neutrally, Your Honour, what he accepts as the
10 meaning. Perhaps Ms. Cmeric could just read that bit of the B/C/S
11 version, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so, Ms. Cmeric.
13 MS. CMERIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 [Interpretation] "It has been concluded that the minister of
15 justice should talk to Rajko Colovic, the president of the commission, in
16 order to determine what the motives for requesting the replacement were,
17 and if the reasons were justified -- the reasons for dismissal or -- were
18 justified, the above named would discharge the duties of the president of
19 the commission pending the appointment of a new president of the
21 [In English] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Tieger, I take it that there are no
23 problems now any more with whatever translation. If you feel need to
24 reformulate your question, do so. If not, please proceed.
25 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour. Can we just be clear that Mr.
2 Tieger is accepting "the above named" is in fact a reference to Mr.
3 Colovic and not the minister? That's the point.
4 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, I don't think it's incumbent on
5 the Prosecution to announce its position on each and every point,
6 particularly before the conclusion of an examination on -- related to
7 that particular area.
8 MR. STEWART: Well, of course it is, Your Honour, because Mr.
9 Tieger put a question on the other interpretation of this document,
10 which, if that interpretation is correct, as we suggest it is, "the above
11 named "means Mr. Colovic, then Mr. Tieger's question which he asked at
12 that line reference I gave has to be withdrawn, because the question was
13 based on a misunderstanding, a misreading. And of course it's incumbent
14 on any counsel to withdraw a question if it's acknowledged and recognised
15 that it's proceeding on the basis of a misunderstanding. That must be
16 made clear on the record.
17 MR. TIEGER: A couple of points, Your Honour, first of all, if I
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let me first read. One second.
20 Yes, Mr. Tieger.
21 MR. TIEGER: First of all, as a minor matter, and I'm sure Mr.
22 Stewart did not intend it, but this is not the first time that he's
23 interrupted me in the course of a response. I just would like to ask
24 that that not happen in future.
25 I'd like to pursue this area. There are additional questions and
1 additional documents related to that. I have no intention of pursuing a
2 line of questioning based on a misunderstanding. Whether that
3 misunderstanding can be clarified or not remains to be seen. Whether
4 that area will remain somewhat ambiguous remains to be seen. I fully
5 agree with the intention of anyone in this courtroom of clarifying the
6 issues before the court insofar as possible, but taking a position with
7 relation to this particular segment of the document at this time is
9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it can't be left in the air. We must
10 have this resolved. It's a simple point.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, what Mr. Stewart seeks is a correction,
12 I take it, of the following part of your question: "Did you make a
13 determination that his reasons were justified, and therefore, undertake
14 the work of the committee president until a new president was found, in
15 keeping with the conclusion of the government on June 9th?"
16 Mr. Stewart, let me just ask you: Do you read that part as
17 "therefore undertake," you understood that to be that you make a
18 determination that his reasons were justified and that therefore you
19 undertook the work? Is that how we have to read that?
20 MR. STEWART: Well, I'm sorry, Your Honour. I need to go back to
21 the original question. The point is this: Mr. Tieger put a question to
22 the witness on the clear basis that that document was saying that it was
23 the witness who was to undertake the functions of president of commission
24 in the interim period. It now appears, Your Honour - it's not an
25 unrealistic interpretation of what's happened -- it now appears that's
1 completely false. We can't leave it in the air.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's how you understood the question. I'm just
3 trying to seek clarification Mr. Tieger in your question I think you
4 suggest, the wording of your question, especially the words "and
5 therefore undertake the work of the committee president" and you added to
6 that "in keeping with the conclusion of the government on June 9th,"
7 which seems to indicate that you have interpreted the last couple of
8 lines on the first page to charge the minister of justice with taking
9 over temporarily the duties of the committee president. Is that how you
10 read that, or -- I mean otherwise the reference --
11 MR. TIEGER: That interpretation -- right. That is a correct
12 reading of the interpretation, and I'm not withdrawing that
13 interpretation. And now I'd like to move on.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes: You may move on.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I say just one
16 sentence, please?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says here that the minister of
19 justice should talk to Rajko Colovic and that Colovic was supposed to
20 explain his reasons. And if you use the term "the above named," and the
21 only above named person in his paragraph was Rajko Colovic, should be
22 nominated pending the appointment of a new president, provided his
23 reasons were justified; if they were not justified, he must remain in
24 this position. In no way whatsoever does this phrase refer to me,
25 because Rajko Colovic was the only above named person in this paragraph
1 that deals with his resignation.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The matter has been sufficiently clarified at
3 this moment. You may proceed, Mr. Tieger.
4 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, could I be clear. May I remind, with
5 respect, remind the Trial Chamber and Mr. Tieger, this is Mr. Tieger's
6 witness. Does Mr. Tieger now accept that last answer and interpretation
7 of the witness? Because if he doesn't, then he's rejecting the answer of
8 his own witness, and I really am entitled to know right now whether he's
9 rejecting the answer of his own witness rather than leave it up in the
10 air for me to come back to at some future point in cross-examination.
11 It's a simple point. What is Mr. Tieger -- what is the Prosecution's
12 position, having had that clear answer from their own witness?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, the question is whether you accept the
14 answer of the witness or that you take it that it's inconsistent with the
15 text of the document in front of him.
16 MR. TIEGER: Let me answer that with three points, Your Honour.
17 First of all, I think I've made it clear there's additional evidence that
18 I intend to adduce that may shed light on this very issue for the Court,
19 for counsel, and for the witness himself, number one.
20 Number two, Mr. Stewart may come from a jurisdiction where, when
21 a witness is called - and I don't know that to be the case - the
22 Prosecution becomes -- that witness becomes, in effect, the Prosecution's
23 witness. But as the Court is aware, the Prosecution will call before
24 this court individuals from various -- from both sides of the conflict,
25 from various parts of the government involved in the conflict, in an
1 effort to bring to the Court as much information that may assist the
2 Court as possible. And it's not a matter of putting the Prosecution's
3 assertions to the Court through individual witnesses; it's a matter of
4 bringing those witnesses in and adducing as much truthful information as
5 possible through those witnesses.
6 And finally, I thought I had made clear my current interpretation
7 of that portion of the document. If it will assist counsel's
8 cross-examination before he begins it, with respect to that particular
9 document, after all the evidence has been adduced in direct examination,
10 that's another story. But to spend more time on this at this point seems
11 to me unproductive.
12 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, there's a general point of
13 importance here. I don't come from a jurisdiction where anybody --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart. I am going to stop not
15 you, but the parties, this debate at this moment doesn't assist the
16 Chamber. Where there's any issue that would need clarification as to the
17 position of the Prosecution in relation to answers given by a witness and
18 the consistency with documents, which I fully acknowledge could be of
19 importance for you to cross-examine the witness, unless there's any need
20 to have them immediately resolved, where I do not see that need at this
21 very moment, they could be dealt with at the end of a hearing. So I do
22 agree with you that it's useful to have these matters clarified. At the
23 same time, it should disrupt at a minimal level the flow of evidence.
24 And therefore, the question stands. Let's wait whether it still stands.
25 Because Mr. Tieger has indicated that we'll hear additional evidence
1 which may cast a different light on that, and then at the end we'll see
2 whether you need an exact clarification of the position of the
3 Prosecution in order to prepare for cross-examination.
4 You may proceed.
5 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
6 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
7 Q. Two questions before we leave this document, Mr. Mandic. First
8 of all, with respect to 1A, that is, the portion of the document that
9 reads: "The government has supported order of the central committee for
10 the exchange of the prisoners," does that refer to the order of June 6th
11 that we looked at previously that was Prosecution's Exhibit P435, the
12 order of June 6th?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Second question, Mr. Mandic: Can you recall if at some point
15 between Mr. -- between the time Mr. Colovic indicated he wished to resign
16 and the time that a replacement was found, that you effectively undertook
17 responsibility to be the -- to head the Exchange Commission or be the
18 point position for the Exchange Commission?
19 A. No, I don't think so.
20 Q. Might it help if you were able to listen to an intercepted
21 telephone conversation that occurred during that period of time?
22 A. [No interpretation]
23 MR. TIEGER: I'd like then, Your Honour, to turn to Prosecution's
24 exhibit next in order. That's a telephone conversation between Nenad
25 Vanovac and Mr. Mandic, held on the 23rd of June, 1992.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P438, for the audio, and P438A for
3 the transcript.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, although the text is scrolling, I do not
5 hear neither the original language nor any translation.
6 MR. TIEGER: We may need some assistance from the booth. Would
7 it be -- and I'm directing this to the booth, I guess. Is it of
8 assistance if we begin the intercept once again?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's restart it and see whether we get sound.
10 [Intercept played]
11 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover]
12 Unidentified Woman: Good afternoon. Is that Kula?
13 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes.
14 Unidentified Woman: This is Ilidza. Just a moment. Nenad
15 Vanovac would like to speak to you.
16 Nenad VANOVAC: Hello.
17 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes.
18 Nenad VANOVAC: Good afternoon.
19 Momcilo MANDIC: Good afternoon. This is Vanovac.
20 Nenad VANOVAC: Well, who I'm going to talk to in the future? I
21 can't find this Elez anywhere.
22 Momcilo MANDIC: Forget Elez. Everything is here with me
23 directly until I find and the right men. He's a fool. Don't talk to him
24 any more.
25 Nenad VANOVAC: Well I did tell Rajko Colovic something along the
1 same lines.
2 Momcilo MANDIC: But Rajko's betrayed us, fuck him, everything is
3 ruined there and ... the idiot. And today -- I will ... no, I can't
4 today, tomorrow I'll find the right man, the day after tomorrow. I won't
5 run [as interpreted] until a suitable one is found and that will directly
6 ... I'll be the point of contact, of assistance.
7 Nenad VANOVAC: Well, you know what, that man should be based
8 either at Kula or here.
9 Momcilo MANDIC: He'll be here at Kula with us or in Ilidza, it
10 doesn't matter. We'll figure it out.
11 Nenad VANOVAC: Okay, This is the problem. They called me about
12 the eight you approved for the exchange with Hrasnica and Kolonija.
13 Momcilo MANDIC: All right.
14 Nenad VANOVAC: Nijaz Sukric... of the eight, there are, they
15 told me that only two remain, Nijaz Sukric and Ibrahim Dzenanovic.
16 Momcilo MANDIC: All right.
17 Nenad VANOVAC: And now they want them. And they would free Vaso
18 Rajak's brother, our priest here from Bijelo Polje and his
19 brother-in-law, what's his name, I have them written down here. They
20 would also free Pero Rajac from the Zenica KPD.
21 Momcilo MANDIC: And where are those two men now?
22 Nenad VANOVAC: At the Zenica KPD.
23 Momcilo MANDIC: Right. Right. And where are the ones on the
24 other side?
25 Nenad VANOVAC: The ones on their side? Well, I wanted to ask if
1 they're at Kula or ...
2 Momcilo MANDIC: Can you please call our police station down
3 here. They have the list, so they'll tell if you they're in Kula or in
5 Nenad VANOVAC: I'll do that.
6 Momcilo MANDIC: Please do.
7 Nenad VANOVAC: I will. I'll talk to you later.
8 Momcilo MANDIC: Yeah. Tepo has the list. Have him check it.
9 Nenad VANOVAC: OK.
10 Momcilo MANDIC: Talk to you later.
11 Nenad VANOVAC: Bye.
12 Momcilo MANDIC: Bye.
13 JUDGE ORIE: According to our unusual procedure, I have to
14 inquire whether there are any inconsistencies in the words spoken. If
15 not, please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
16 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Mr. Mandic, I asked you before the intercept was played whether
18 it might be of assistance in recalling whether or not at some point you
19 assumed a position as point of contact for exchanges to listen to a
20 conversation that occurred at that time. Was it of assistance to hear
21 this intercept?
22 A. There's no need.
23 Q. I'm sorry. I didn't understand your answer.
24 A. There's no need for me to listen to the conversation again.
25 Q. Okay. And as I understand your conversation with Vanovac, you
1 indicated to him that Rajko had betrayed, you say "betrayed us" there,
2 that you will find the right person and that until a suitable one is
3 found, then -- you said I'll be the point of contact of assistance.
4 A. I think Rajko went to Vlasenica and that he left an empty space.
5 Now, as I happened to be down there when Mr. Vanovac called and there was
6 the exchange of these people couldn't be put off, I stepped in and talked
7 to Vanovac and it was urgent. The exchange had been urgently agreed
8 upon. And I did my best and said that I could assist in these exchanges,
9 that is to say, to have people go to one side and the other for the
10 problem to be solved.
11 As minister of justice, it was my goodwill. I wanted to speed up
12 the whole business and complete the operation. So I did that of my own
13 free will, not to have to wait until the new president of the state
14 commission to be elected.
15 Q. Now, you refer, or in the conversation, you and Mr. Vanovac speak
16 about Mr. Sukric and Mr. Dzenanovic, two of the eight who remained. Who
17 were Mr. Sukric and Dzenanovic?
18 A. Well, I don't really know where those people were, because in
19 Lukavica you had the military prison in Lukavica and at Kula was the
20 other prison that came under the jurisdiction of the MUP, the security
21 service. And at a certain point, I said: Well, Tepo has the list. And
22 Tepo is Tepavcevic who we discussed a moment ago. He was the chief at
23 Ilidza who had control of Kula. So I didn't know who was where, who had
24 civilians, who had military personnel and so on.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mandic, the question was whether you knew who
1 they were, not where they were.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
3 MR. TIEGER:
4 Q. Mr. Vanovac indicated that you had previously approved their
5 exchange as part of an exchange with, as you said it, "this is the
6 problem. They called me about the eight you approved for the exchange
7 with Hrasnica and Kolonija." So is it correct that before Mr. Vanovac's
8 call on June 23, you had already approved an exchange with Hrasnica and
10 A. Well, I don't think he meant me personally, but the state
11 commission. Because I was not in charge or I did not conduct the
12 exchanges. People from the state commission did, the commission set up
13 at government level, in fact.
14 Q. Why would Mr. Vanovac have specifically identified those
15 individuals by name to you?
16 A. Well, I can't remember how this actually evolved, but as for the
17 municipal commissions, they thought the state commission was the same as
18 the government, the Ministry of Justice, and they interpreted it this
19 way: You gave your agreement at commission level and they conducted the
20 exchange. I think they meant the Central Commission that decided, based
21 on Mr. Colovic, et cetera, and the decisions decided upon by the previous
22 government. So it wasn't personal. It wasn't me personally. It was the
23 state commission and government, and they personified me as embodying
25 Q. Can we move to Prosecution's next in order. That is the document
1 that bears the ERN ET 2097-7173.
2 THE REGISTRAR: P439.
3 MR. TIEGER:
4 Q. Mr. Mandic, P439 is a document which bears the heading "Republic
5 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ministry of Defence, Commission for the Exchange
6 of Prisoners and Detainees," and is signed by the state commission
7 chairman, Filip Vukovic, and is directed to the Central Commission for
8 the Exchange of Persons. Is that a document regarding the exchange which
9 was sent by the commission for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to
10 its equivalent commission on the Bosnian Serb side?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And are you able to date that document through the fax on the --
13 the fax title on the first or second page -- or third page, for that
14 matter? It appears to be a document that was faxed on the 26th of June.
15 I think you can find those fax designations at the top of each page.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And we see on the first page of the original document, that is,
18 the B/C/S, the handwritten name Ratko. Do you know who that refers to?
19 A. It must be Ratko Lalovic, who was the first head of the KP Dom.
20 Actually, I'm not quite certain who that is.
21 Q. Now, the document bears a list of names. The first list is 35,
22 the second list is 10, the third list is 15, the fourth list is 14, and
23 then we see some names listed in the paragraph after that. That's at the
24 bottom of the second -- the bottom of the second page of the document in
25 B/C/S. Do you see the names Nijaz Sukric and Ibrahim Dzenanovic?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And are those the same gentlemen referred to in the June 23rd,
3 1992 conversation between you and Mr. Vanovac?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, can we next move to Prosecution's next
6 in order. That bears the ERN 03091644.
7 THE REGISTRAR: P440.
8 MR. TIEGER:
9 Q. Mr. Mandic, P440, now before you, is a document from the
10 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina Ministry of Justice, dated 4
11 July 1992, bearing your name and the indication that -- and a signature,
12 but signed for you, it appears. Was this the appointment of Mr. Vanovac
13 as president of the Central Commission to replace Mr. Colovic?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, the Prosecution's next exhibit is
16 marked ETR 002-9604.
17 THE REGISTRAR: P441.
18 MR. TIEGER:
19 Q. Mr. Mandic, P441 is a document entitled "Agreement on Mutual
20 Release of the Prisoners along the Line 'All-for-all'," and indicates it
21 is based on agreement concluded on the 5th of July, 1992, signed -- and
22 it's signed by Nenad Vanovac, B. Kelly, and Mr. Vukovic. And it consists
23 of the agreement which is indicated generally on the first page of the
24 English translation and then more details that follow and that are
25 enumerated and that bear the names Radovan Karadzic and Alija
1 Izetbegovic. On that document we see a signature -- signature lines for
2 Mr. Karadzic and -- we see signature lines for Mr. Karadzic, Mr.
3 Izetbegovic, Mr. Vanovac, and Mr. Vukovic, and we see signatures for Mr.
4 Karadzic and Mr. Vanovac.
5 Are you familiar with this document, sir, or at least the
6 agreement that it reflects?
7 A. This is the first time that I see this document.
8 Q. Were you aware that an agreement was concluded on July 5th of
9 this general nature and whether or not any exchange of prisoners
11 A. No. I'm not aware of this document or the agreement, and I've
12 never seen it before. This is the first time that I see it.
13 Q. Have you had an opportunity to look at this -- have you had a
14 sufficient opportunity to look at this document since it's been placed in
15 front of you? I'd like to at least give you an opportunity to look it
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. The document states in part, in number 2, that: "In the presence
19 of UNPROFOR representatives on 11 July 1992, at 12.00, both commissions
20 will exchange the lists of prisoners requested by each side."
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. First of all, let me ask you if generally you're aware of the
23 participation of UNPROFOR representatives in efforts to facilitate or
24 assist in agreements to release prisoners or detainees.
25 A. No. All the work was done by Slobodan Avlijas on behalf of the
1 Ministry of Justice. He was my assistant and he kept the records and was
2 in charge of everything with respect to prisoners and prisoner exchange.
3 Q. Now, you indicated earlier, I think, that in reviewing some of
4 the documents related to the Exchange Commission, that lists were
5 prepared and you referred to lists in your conversation with Mr. Vanovac.
6 Are those generally the lists that appear to be referred to in item 2 of
7 this document? That is, lists prepared to be exchanged so that detainees
8 and prisoners would be released and exchanged?
9 A. I have to clarify something here. I talked to Mr. Vanovac when
10 he asked that the people -- that the exchange of these people be
11 continued, people at Kula or Lukavica. I did not know about the subject
12 matter, what it was about. I asked where the people were and how the
13 exchange was being conducted. So I didn't compile any lists, nor was I
14 aware of any lists. All the lists were kept by the people that were in
15 charge of the Kula and Lukavica facilities. Lukavica was held by the
16 army, Kula was held by the police. And in talking to Vanovac, I told him
18 Q. You were aware of the -- or were you aware of the existence of an
19 Exchange Commission or some kind of commission that had -- that was
20 engaged in the process of exchange on the part of the Republic of Bosnia
21 and Herzegovina? That is, did you know there were equivalent commissions
22 on both sides?
23 A. I learnt about that during the war and I was even a member of a
24 commission myself in 1994, for example. It was commission for
25 cooperation with UNPROFOR, and that's when I got to know those people at
1 Butmir airport, the people who were members of the state commission of
3 Q. And were you aware of how the exchanges were generally to take
4 place and generally to be arranged? Did that involve the exchange of
5 lists by both sides, the submission of a list by the commission for -- on
6 behalf of Republika Srpska, and the submission of a list by the
7 representatives from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
8 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I never took an active part in the work of the
9 Commission for Exchange, on either side, which means that everybody else
10 from the regional and municipal commissions sent lists to the Central
11 Commission, which already numbered several members. So this conversation
12 with Vanovac is something that happened to me at Kula. I happened to be
13 there and I gave my agreement not to have to wait for anybody else and to
14 slow up the process of the exchange. So I don't remember that I myself
15 compiled lists in any way. I was the minister of justice. I had other
16 affairs to see to.
17 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I see it's 12.30. I can pursue this,
18 but we may be discussing it for at least a few minutes, so it might be an
19 appropriate time to break.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's first have a break.
21 We'll adjourn until 10 minutes to 1.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 12.54 p.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: May the witness be brought into the courtroom.
25 May I take the opportunity to draw the attention of the parties
1 to the fact that the Chamber is still waiting on whether the parties
2 would agree on how to -- what witness to hear on the 6th of December. I
3 was informed that the question on whether Mr. Bjelobrk would have to
4 reappear for further cross-examination, that that was a -- that that
5 question was in view of the parties waiting for an answer by the Chamber.
6 But I think the Chamber invited the parties to see to what extent they
7 could agree on any of the paragraphs that were mentioned by the Defence
8 as relevant for further cross-examination.
9 So the Chamber would like to receive that information as soon as
10 possible, and, of course, finally we'll decide whether or not it's
11 necessary to have Mr. Bjelobrk recalled for cross-examination.
12 MR. STEWART: Can I say, Your Honour, I'm quite sure - I would
13 probably just need to check outside court, I'm sure we can give Your
14 Honour a very quick answer on the first point, which is what witnesses --
15 JUDGE ORIE: I just want to invite you -- the witness is now in.
16 I used the opportunity.
17 MR. STEWART: Very quickly, Your Honour, I'm sure we can give
18 Your Honour an answer on the first point. The second is likely to take
19 longer. That's all.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. I'd rather now first give an
21 opportunity to Mr. Tieger to resume his examination-in-chief.
22 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
23 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Can Exhibit P39 [sic] be presented to the witness again. Leave
25 P41 with the witness for the time being as well. Sorry. P439. Sorry.
1 Q. Mr. Mandic, unless my numbering is incorrect, P439 is the
2 document sent by Mr. Vukovic, as state commission chairman for the
3 Exchange Commission for the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And that's the -- he's on the -- that's the document bearing the
7 heading "Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ministry of Defence, Commission
8 for the Exchange of Prisoners and Detainees"?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, on the bottom of the second page, as we discussed before, we
11 see that Mr. Vukovic provided the names of, among others, Nijaz Sukric
12 and Ibrahim Dzenanovic.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And as we discussed before, those were two persons in detention
15 in Republika Srpska who the commission, the Republic of
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina commission, wanted to have exchanged; correct? In
17 other words, Vukovic was seeking the release of, among others, Sukric and
18 Dzenanovic and that's why their names were provided.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And in addition, Mr. Vukovic provided lists of names of other
21 persons believed to be held in detention in Republika Srpska and whose
22 release he sought.
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. TIEGER: If I could have marked next in order, Your Honour, a
25 document entitled "List of people who were captured," and bearing the ERN
1 ET 0031-7099.
2 THE REGISTRAR: P442.
3 MR. TIEGER: And again, if the witness could keep the other
4 exhibits with him, meanwhile.
5 Q. Mr. Mandic, if I could ask you to look quickly -- first of all,
6 yeah, let me ask you to look quickly at Prosecution's 441. That's the
7 agreement that was based on an agreement concluded on July 5th, 1992.
8 That's the document you were looking at just before the recess. Do you
9 have that in front of you, sir?
10 A. No.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please take care that the
12 witness has P441 in front of him.
13 The request has been by Mr. Tieger to leave these exhibits with
14 the witness for a second. Yes.
15 MR. TIEGER:
16 Q. And we had looked previously at item 2 on that agreement, Mr.
17 Mandic, that stated: "In the presence of the UNPROFOR representatives on
18 11 July 1992, both commissions will exchange a list of prisoners
19 requested by each side."
20 So that would be, I take it, lists similar to those presented by
21 Mr. Vukovic in the document you just looked at, that is, lists of persons
22 believed to be held in detention by the other side and whose release was
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And looking at P442, which is entitled "List of people who were
1 captured," and bearing on the last page the signature of the president of
2 the commission, Mr. Brkic, and what appears to be the seal of the
3 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, would that be the kind of list
4 submitted by the Muslim side indicating the names of the people whose
5 release they sought, pursuant to these agreements and exchanges?
6 A. It would.
7 Q. And if I could turn your attention back to P439. That's the
8 document sent by Mr. Vukovic. In addition to the individuals whose names
9 appear in the body of the document, the lists that we discussed earlier,
10 after Mr. Vukovic's signature there appears the indication "attachment,
11 list of prisoners from 1 through 3.441." And earlier in the document,
12 Mr. Vukovic indicates that the attachment contains the list of imprisoned
13 persons and detainees according to our records. And again, Mr. Mandic,
14 is that a reference to and the same kind of list we've been referring to,
15 that is, the lists of persons believed to be held in detention by, in
16 this case, the Muslim side and whose release was sought? Essentially the
17 same kind of --
18 A. Could you be more specific?
19 Q. Sure. I don't mean to make this a difficult question. I'm
20 looking at this -- at the indication of a list of -- attachment, list of
21 prisoners from 1 through 3.441. We've looked at earlier lists. Is this
22 essentially the same kind of list?
23 A. I have a list here which says 1.931, and not 3.500.
24 Q. No. I understand that, and that's -- I'm not suggesting that
25 that was the precise list. I'm simply asking whether Mr. Vukovic's
1 reference here to the attachment is a reference to essentially the same
2 kind of list that is Prosecution's 441 and that is submitted for the
3 purpose seeking the release of those people who were believed to be in
5 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, can we just say, we believe the
6 Prosecution is a bit mixed up, but in the light of earlier observations,
7 I say no more than that.
8 MR. TIEGER: Okay. I'm sorry. Well, certainly that appears to
9 be an improper reference to the exhibit.
10 Q. So again, I'll repeat that question. We discussed the names that
11 appeared in the body of Mr. Vukovic's list. We discussed the list of
12 names that appear in P442. I'm simply asking you if the attachment in
13 Mr. Vukovic's document is essentially the same thing. Not identifying
14 the identical people, not the identical list, but a list submitted for
15 the same purpose and pursuant to the same understandings.
16 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, perhaps I could a bit helpful. Page
17 68, lines 5 to 9 we believe contains a complete misapprehension about the
18 documents in question.
19 Your Honour, it's the reference to the Muslim side in line 8. We
20 believe that this list is people held by the Serb side.
21 MR. TIEGER: Correct. And I think the line -- I think what I
22 asked the witness is, and maybe that is the source of the confusion, Mr.
23 Mandic, and I apologise --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mandic, let me just ask you: You see that in
25 the bottom of P439 there is a reference to an attachment, "List of
1 prisoners from 1 through 3.441." In P442, we have a list of prisoners,
2 lists, as far as I understand, the Prosecution puts it to you that they
3 are instrumental for exchange of prisoners. Would you consider the
4 attachment list of prisoners from 1 through 3441 to be a similar list as
5 the one in front of you under number P442?
6 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, we haven't got that list, I think, 1
7 through 3441, have we?
8 JUDGE ORIE: No. Therefore, I'm a bit surprised. I mean, if the
9 witness doesn't know about that list -- but of course, Mr. Tieger, if we
10 have a list of prisoners 1.900 and another one says list of prisoners
11 3.400, is there -- would the parties disagree that that would be also a
12 list with names of prisoners which are presented in the framework and the
13 context of prisoner exchange or --
14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I haven't seen the list, but the point
15 is that when Mr. Tieger, at lines 5 to 9, I think it was line 8
16 specifically, when he said "by in this case the Muslim side, "which was
17 an assertion included in the question -- we understand this list to be a
18 list of people asserted to have been held by the Serb side. So it's
19 potentially extremely confusing for the witness, and I've got to say,
20 everybody else.
21 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I understand counsel's point. There's
22 no disagreement. It's only a matter of the way in which the question was
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Try to phrase your question.
25 MR. TIEGER: By the Muslim side --
1 JUDGE ORIE: In such a way -- Mr. Tieger, please proceed.
2 MR. TIEGER: All right.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from -- of course, I leave it to you how
4 relevant this specific question was.
5 MR. TIEGER: I'll try it once more and then we'll move on, Your
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
8 MR. TIEGER: And just to clarify any ambiguities, let me recap it
10 Q. Mr. Mandic, Mr. Vukovic, as you indicated to us earlier, asked
11 for the release of numbers of people who were held on the Serb side,
12 including, as you indicated, Mr. Sukric and Mr. Dzenanovic, isn't that
14 A. I must try and clarify my position, or rather, the fact that this
15 is the first time that I'm seeing these documents. And the fact that I
16 never engaged in exchange of POWs in 1992. This telephone conversation
17 was my ad hoc assistance to this man to exchange two individuals, each
18 from the Muslim and the Serbian side. And I charged Tepavcevic with
19 this, who was the chief of the police station in Kula, to see to that
20 matter. I never had any insight in those problems, nor was I in any way
21 actively involved in compiling these lists in exchanges and things like
22 that. So I don't believe I can be very helpful, I'm afraid. But I am at
23 your disposal to tell you whatever I know. So I am a little bit
24 perplexed. I don't know who this person Vukovic is, after all.
25 Q. Okay. And I don't believe I'll be asking you at this point for
1 any details about those lists that will take us beyond the answers you've
2 already been able to provide. So if I ask you this question, it's only
3 to provide the backdrop to my last question about -- to clarify the
4 document. And as I say, you've already indicated to us that Mr. Vukovic
5 submitted names of people held by the Bosnian Serbs and whose release he
6 was requesting. That we agree to; right?
7 A. That is right, as this document reads.
8 Q. Okay. And then you also indicated to us that this document with
9 the list of many names, signed by Mr. Brkic, and that's Prosecution's
10 442, is a similar list; correct? That is, it's a list of persons held on
11 the Bosnian Serb side?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And so to avoid any further confusion, all I was asking was
14 whether Mr. Vukovic's reference to an attachment with list of prisoners
15 that appears after his signature is essentially the same thing.
16 A. I can't answer that question. Do you think that this is part of
17 this list of 3.000-plus people?
18 Q. No. It's essentially the same type of document, that is,
19 requesting -- compiled by the Muslim side, of persons who are held in
20 detention on the Bosnian Serb side and whose release they are requesting.
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I should indicate for the booth that
23 the Prosecution's next exhibit in order is an intercept. It appears in
24 Sanction. I think they need to know that in order to avoid any technical
25 difficulties of the type we encountered before. And that would be
1 ET 0322-0954 through 0959, at least the English transcript of that. And
2 it's a conversation between Mr. Mandic and Mr. Krajisnik, on the 6th --
3 on the 25th of June, 1992.
4 THE REGISTRAR: The audio will be Prosecution Exhibit P443, and
5 the transcript, P443A.
6 MR. TIEGER: I apologise, Your Honour. I should have alerted the
7 registry to this earlier. This is an intercept that already has an
8 exhibit number; that's P292, KID 3146G [sic]. I'm sorry. My apologies.
9 Let's try it again. P292, KID 31469.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The audio can be played.
11 [Intercept played]
12 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover]
13 Milijana: Hello.
14 Unidentified female: Yes.
15 Milijana: Hi.
16 Unidentified female: Hi. Hi. We've been waiting.
17 Milijana: Has he arrived?
18 Unidentified female: Yes. Just a minute.
19 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes?
20 Milijana: Hello. Good morning, Momo. Milijana speaking.
21 Momcilo MANDIC: Hello, Milijana.
22 Milijana: How are you.
23 Momcilo MANDIC: Well ...
24 Milijana: President Krajisnik wants to talk to you. Just a
1 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Hello.
2 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes.
3 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: What's new, Mandic?
4 Momcilo MANDIC: Mr. President, how are things?
5 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: I must tell you, did you have the hiccups
6 just now?
7 Momcilo MANDIC: [Laughing]
8 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: I just said that you are a real hero. All
9 the others are just useless.
10 Momcilo MANDIC: You are right in that one and for the rest we
11 will see.
12 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Useless, I must tell you. There are just few
13 Serbs with such name and that reminds me of Vojvoda Momcilo.
14 Momcilo MANDIC: [Laughing]
15 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Listen Momo...
16 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes, tell me.
17 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Milos Savic's brother has been arrested.
18 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes.
19 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: And now, listen to this.
20 Momcilo MANDIC: Mr. President.
21 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Yes.
22 Momcilo MANDIC: The first part has been mopped up. It was done
24 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Did they leave?
25 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes. It's been mopped up.
1 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Huh?
2 Momcilo MANDIC: The first part has been mopped up.
3 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Which part.
4 Momcilo MANDIC: That one, the one that was uncertain.
5 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: I don't know which one. Oh, the one up
7 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes.
8 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: On the top, is it?
9 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes, yes.
10 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: No kidding?
11 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes, and the men, they've already been
12 transferred there.
13 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Is that right?
14 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes, they're working.
15 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Oh, good, excellent. I have to tell you,
16 this is for your ears only. This, that I am giving you compliments, just
17 to know that the bill for the commercials is on its way to you.
18 Momcilo MANDIC: [Laughing]
19 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Listen, please. Milos Savic has been
21 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes.
22 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Since are in that commission, Savic Dusan ...
23 Momcilo MANDIC: Okay.
24 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: And now ...
25 Momcilo MANDIC: Savic Dusan; is that right?
1 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: He is up there in that Knezevica potok, but
2 his wife, sister-in-law, and his sister are there with him too.
3 Momcilo MANDIC: In which "potok"?
4 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: You know, that is the Knezevica potok.
5 Momcilo MANDIC: Where is that settlement?
6 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: It is up there higher than Boljakov potok.
7 Momcilo MANDIC: And Boljakov potok?
8 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Between Buca potok and Boljakova potok.
9 Momcilo MANDIC: Uh-huh.
10 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: But let me tell you, Savic Dusan has been
12 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes.
13 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: But please if you can, when you have time to
14 contact them, you are in that commission, you know...
15 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes.
16 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Make a contact because his wife and all the
17 other here are going insane.
18 Momcilo MANDIC: Okay okay we will put him on a list for
19 tomorrow. Done.
20 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: And what, tell me is it in a that part?
21 Yesterday when we were looking at that portion that was not clear, is
22 that it?
23 Momcilo MANDIC: Oh yes, that past closest to me.
24 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Okay, good.
25 Momcilo MANDIC: That has been done.
1 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: And tell me that, that stronghold, has it
2 been put together?
3 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes. Yes.
4 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: I must tell you that you will be decorated,
5 when the circumstances are right, you'll get a medal...
6 Momcilo MANDIC: It's the people that did it.
7 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Oh, yes.
8 Momcilo MANDIC: These, these specialists of mine.
9 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: They are not many like that.
10 Momcilo MANDIC: And if they are ...
11 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Just go ahead.
12 Momcilo MANDIC: Agreed, Mr. President.
13 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: I have seen this and you -- just a moment.
14 Milos is telling me something.
15 Momcilo MANDIC: Okay.
16 Momcilo KRAJISNIK: Have a good time.
17 Momcilo MANDIC: Cheers.
18 Milos: Momo.
19 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes.
20 Milos: Please, will you write down this house number.
21 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes. OK. And what is the last name? Okay give
22 me just the house number.
23 Milos: Babic Dusan, 81, Dolacka Street.
24 Momcilo MANDIC: 81, Dolacka Street?
25 Milos: Yes, he was captured yesterday on the 24th of June, 1992.
1 Momcilo MANDIC: 21 Dolacka Street?
2 Milos: 81.
3 Momcilo MANDIC: 81.
4 Milos: Yes.
5 Momcilo MANDIC: When was he captured?
6 Milos: Yesterday, on the 24th of June, 1992.
7 Momcilo MANDIC: 24 of June, 1992, captured?
8 Milos: About 7.00 p.m.
9 Momcilo MANDIC: Okay.
10 Milos: Apparently the MUP men some three cars, my house, his
11 house ... his house was searched and he was captured and so on.
12 Momcilo MANDIC: Okay.
13 Milos: I ask you kindly.
14 Momcilo MANDIC: Okay.
15 Milos: Please do something. He is my brother.
16 Momcilo MANDIC: Okay, okay.
17 Milos: And then is he for exchange.
18 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes.
19 Milos: I want to take everyone from there, my sisters-in-law,
20 sister, brother-in-law and then let them set things on fire, loot there
21 and do whatever they want.
22 Momcilo MANDIC: Okay. Okay. I will put them on a list and we
23 will finish that.
24 Milos: Here are the names of the others.
25 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes, give me their names.
1 Milos: Savic Zorka.
2 Momcilo MANDIC: Savic Zorka.
3 Milos: Savic Dunja.
4 Momcilo MANDIC: Savic Zorka, Dunja.
5 Milos: Yes. Cucilo Nedjeljko.
6 Momcilo MANDIC: Cucilo Nedjeljko?
7 Milos: No, yes, and Cucilo Slavojka, that is my sister.
8 Momcilo MANDIC: Cucilo Slavojka.
9 Milos: Yes. There are also Dolacka street, these two, Dolacka
11 Momcilo MANDIC: Okay.
12 Milos: Oh, sorry, 63.
13 Momcilo MANDIC: All 63, Dolacka Street?
14 Milos: These two last on the list, they are all in Dolacka
16 Momcilo MANDIC: Okay.
17 Milos: Please do something.
18 Momcilo MANDIC: We'll be in touch.
19 Milos: Long live!
20 JUDGE ORIE: No inconsistencies identified by the interpreters.
21 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, we're concerned just about one item.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. STEWART: Which is -- I appreciate Your Honour's question
24 initially to the interpreters, but we're concerned about the item which
25 in the English is at page 2 of 5.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. STEWART: About three-quarters of the way down, does Your
3 Honour see Mr. Mandic "yes, and the men they've already been transferred
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. STEWART: In the B/C/S it's the penultimate item on the
7 second page of the B/C/S.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. STEWART: But we're simply concerned to ensure -- perhaps we
10 might test that and see what interpretation we receive.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You put a marker here. Are there any specific
12 questions on that portion, Mr. Tieger? If not ...
13 MR. TIEGER: There may be, Your Honour. I'm not entirely sure I
14 understand the nature of Mr. Stewart's concern.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that you noted the translators are
16 not able to follow the speaker, because of the speech. So the
17 translation is done on the basis of the transcript. And then the other
18 interpreter would listen to the voice and see whether there's any
19 inconsistency, because it's an indirect translation of the text. So if
20 you would have any questions about that specific part, then I'd like it
21 to be replayed, that specific portion.
22 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, our concern was just we're not happy
23 with the English translation of the B/C/S that appears in the written
24 exhibit. It's that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: In the written exhibit.
1 MR. STEWART: In the written exhibit.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'd like -- yes. Then I'd like to invite Ms.
3 Cmeric -- that's not an inconsistency, but a translation issue. Ms.
4 Cmeric would you please read the line just referred to by Mr. Stewart,
5 and could I ask the interpreters then to translate that line.
6 MS. CMERIC: Certainly, Your Honour. The line is:
7 [Interpretation] Yes, and the people are, already crossing over
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do I understand that the major difference is
10 that they are already crossing rather than being transferred.
11 MR. STEWART: Yes. It's quite a difference, in fact. Your
12 Honour sees exactly the point.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, would you please keep in mind that the
14 translation we now receive is a bit different from --
15 MR. TIEGER: I will, Your Honour. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
17 MR. TIEGER:
18 Q. Mr. Mandic, this is a conversation between you and Mr. Krajisnik;
19 is that right?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. Now, Mr. Krajisnik brings your attention to Milos Savic's
22 brother. First of all, who is Milos Savic?
23 A. Milos Savic is, I think, or rather, was President Krajisnik's
24 secretary or member of his staff. I don't remember exactly which post he
25 held. So he was an aide to Mr. Krajisnik in the Assembly.
1 Q. And Mr. Savic understood that his brother and members of his
2 brother's family had been arrested and were being held on the Muslim
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And apparently Mr. Savic sought Mr. Krajisnik's assistance in
6 getting them released and Mr. Krajisnik contacted you. Why did Mr.
7 Krajisnik contact you to obtain Mr. Savic's release?
8 A. You'd better ask Mr. Krajisnik that. But I think that Mr.
9 Krajisnik had known that the president of the commission, or rather, that
10 the state commission was carrying out the exchange and that one of the
11 members was from the Ministry of Justice. Since I was one of his close
12 associates and he trusted me, I believe that was the reason why he
13 addressed me, and I had channels at my disposal to arrange for the
14 release of the family of Mr. Savic.
15 Q. Did Mr. Krajisnik understand that at that time you were
16 functioning as a member of the commission or functioning as president of
17 that commission?
18 A. I don't believe that as the president of the Assembly he was
19 informed about that, but he knew that he should ask someone from the
20 government or from the Ministry of Justice should do him his favour.
21 Probably as someone close to him, he appealed to me. I don't believe
22 that Mr. Krajisnik thought very much about who was the member of the
23 commission or who was not the member of the commission. That was not on
24 his mind at the time when he made this call to me.
25 Q. I'd like to address that in just a moment, but first, Mr. Mandic,
1 I'd like to ask you: What were the channels at your disposal to arrange
2 for the release of persons held in detention by Muslims, by the Muslim
4 A. Quite simply, through the state commission, through Vanovac or
5 Jusuf Pusina, or my former colleagues who remained in Sarajevo and with
6 whom I maintained contacts through the war. I could have arranged for
7 many things, such as exchange or to help people who were imprisoned at
8 that problem [as interpreted] or encountering any other kinds of
10 You know, Mr. Prosecutor, for many years I was a policeman in
11 Sarajevo or rather an official with the police and that I maintained
12 contacts with all the people who remained in Sarajevo, on both sides.
13 Q. And in this case, you indicated that you would attempt to effect
14 the release of Mr. Savic's family by placing them on a list.
15 A. Most probably, among other things, I said that, that I will take
16 that with the people who were in charge, and I think that was Vanovac,
17 from the Ilidza commission, that he was the one who compiled the lists.
18 Q. And that would go through the exchange process we've discussed?
19 A. That was one of the ways and possibilities to release those
20 people from custody. However, I think that it was done in agreement with
21 someone - I cannot remember exactly who - from the federal part of
22 Sarajevo. Probably I called some of my former colleagues, acquaintances,
23 or friends who were ready to do me a favour and to send those people over
24 to the Serbian side. I think that's how the exchange was carried out, or
25 rather, the release of the Savic family. But I cannot remember all the
2 Similarly, on several occasions, and you have the documents and
3 the transcripts of conversations, Mr. Krajisnik requested us to find a
4 friendly -- a Muslim who was a friend of Mr. Krajisnik, and he asked for
5 his release in Sarajevo. So these were a kind of shortcut use by former
6 friends to help each other, and you have all these transcripts, I
8 Q. In any event, in this case your first reaction was to indicate to
9 Mr. Krajisnik that you would put Mr. Savic's brother on a list for
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You indicated that it was not on Mr. Krajisnik's mind whether you
13 were part of the Exchange Commission. Can you tell me, then, what he's
14 referring to when he says during the conversation - and that's on page 3
15 of the English transcript, after a discussion about Boljakov potok?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I find on the top of page 3, the first
17 line, I find language which is difficult for me to understand. I would
18 first like to check whether that is a correct translation of -- it could
19 well be, but we find that in the B/C/S original box, the sixth box on the
20 third page, where it reads -- my pronunciation will be wrong [B/C/S
21 spoken] That's the line. Have the interpreters found that?
22 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please translate that line.
24 THE INTERPRETER: "Since you are on this commission, Savic
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's what my recollection is, that I heard,
2 and that's not exactly the same as what's written in English on the first
3 line of page 3. Mr. Tieger, it reads in my translation "since are in
4 that commission," which makes it unclear who are on that commission, and
5 now in English it says "since you are in that commission."
6 THE INTERPRETER: The word ti being you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
8 Is it clear to you, Mr. Tieger, what --
9 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
11 MR. TIEGER: And since the Court has just drawn our attention to
12 that part of the conversation, Mr. Mandic:
13 Q. Was Mr. Krajisnik making a reference to the Exchange Commission?
14 A. Probably, yes. But Mr. Krajisnik is the person who will be able
15 to tell you that.
16 Q. And you understood -- or did you understand, Mr. Mandic, that Mr.
17 Krajisnik was contacting you because he understood that you were a member
18 of or part of that commission and could therefore effect that release?
19 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I'm not wishing to object to that
20 question at all, but before the question is answered, we observe that a
21 similar point is touched on in the English on page 3 of the transcript of
22 the intercept, just below halfway down. And since this particular point
23 is now specifically the focus of questioning, Ms. Cmeric suggests,
24 because obviously we weren't focusing specifically on that, that if we
25 could possibly hear that bit of the intercept, so we can see exactly
1 what's said there.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would it be possible to do that during the
3 next break? We might not finish with the witness anyhow today, and if
4 there would be anything else -- we have clarified the question.
5 MR. STEWART: We need it to be done before the question is
6 answered, Your Honour. Otherwise I would accept Your Honour's suggestion
7 completely, but that's the point.
8 MR. TIEGER: Is there any -- Your Honour, we've played it. I
9 understand from the interpreters' booth there are no significant
10 problems. Unless there's understood to be some problem with this
11 portion, I suggest we move on.
12 MR. STEWART: We don't know whether there is, is the answer and
13 we'd like to clarify. We think there may be.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The question was about the first time -- I mean I
15 perhaps disturbed a bit the course of the evidence because I was pointing
16 at, well, some 15 lines higher up, a similar reference, which was not
17 clear to me. Your question was about that first reference, isn't it?
18 MR. TIEGER: Either reference will do, Your Honour. But it is
19 correct that my question was initially directed to the reference that
20 counsel is pointing to.
21 MR. STEWART: I understood that. The question -- the I'm trying
22 to say as little as possible since everybody including the witness is in
23 court, Your Honour, that we wish to clarify what exactly the second
24 reference says, so that the two references together in the document can
25 be understood, before the question is, well, put, as it has been, and
2 JUDGE ORIE: Would it be possible to play that part. Could you
3 find it? Is that very difficult? So that there's no question about any
4 ... From what I -- I don't know who is playing. Are the technicians
5 involved or ...?
6 Let me do it in a different way. You can do it during the break.
7 I'm not asking it to be played at this moment.
8 Mr. Mandic, part of the transcript says that the first time that
9 Mr. Krajisnik raises the issue of the arrest of Milos Savic and then I
10 take it that he wants to refer to family members of him, your answer was
11 yes. And then the next part was: "Since you are in that commission ..."
12 How did you understand that?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Krajisnik wasn't interested
14 personally in who the people were in the Exchange Commission. He knew
15 that I was minister of justice and that it was up to me to propose the
16 members of the commission and that I was doing that job. So he -- what
17 he instructed me to do was along those lines, that I should do what
18 needed to be done, and that is, to save the Savic family and pull them
19 out the of imprisonment. So Mr. Krajisnik wasn't saying this to me as a
20 member of the commission, but as minister of justice. And he saw me as
21 being the embodiment of the whole commission. Because as president of
22 the Assembly, he wasn't interested in what the individuals did. I was
23 the first man in the ministry, Ministry of Justice, so it was up to me to
24 do what he told me. Whether I was going to do it by looking at some
25 lists or effecting the change in some other way, he wasn't interested in
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stoup, Mr. Mandic. So you say that where he
3 makes reference to the commission, he, in your understanding, had on his
4 mind the commission of exchange, and you understood it not to be a
5 reference to you being a member of the commission? Yes? You were --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: You were not a member of the commission, were you?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
9 JUDGE ORIE: But to your involvement with the work of that
10 commission as minister.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mandic, for these answers. If
13 there's any -- we have now clarified the first entry where the commission
14 appears. If there's any need, the parties can check through the
15 videotape and assist each other to see whether the second reference to
16 the commission brings any new light or brings any further -- whether it
17 would raise any need for further questions in that respect.
18 Yes, Mr. Stewart. It's a quarter to 2.00, so I'm about to
19 adjourn. Nothing special?
20 MR. STEWART: No, Your Honour. I was standing up acknowledging
21 and hearing what Your Honour was saying on that point. So I'll quietly
22 sit down again.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Mandic, we'll adjourn for the day.
24 Tomorrow we'll not sit in the morning. We'll sit in the afternoon.
25 We'll start at a quarter past 2.00 and we'll be in Courtroom III.
1 We adjourn until tomorrow, quarter past 2.00, Courtroom III.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.
3 to be reconvened on Friday, the 26th day of
4 November, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.