1 Monday, 14 May 2001

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 9.25 a.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning. Please be seated.

6 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, to the technical booth, the

7 interpreters, registry staff, counsel for the Prosecution and for the

8 Defence.

9 Good morning, Mr. Jovan Simic. We will continue your case today.

10 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. The

11 Defence calls witness Mirko Jesic.

12 [The witness entered court]

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Jesic. Can

14 you hear me?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can.

16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please read the solemn

17 declaration given you by the usher.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

19 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

20 WITNESS: MIRKO JESIC

21 [Witness answered through interpreter]

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated. Thank you

23 very much for coming. For now, you will be answering questions from

24 Mr. Jovan Simic.

25 Mr. Jovan Simic, your witness.

1 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Examined by Mr. J. Simic:

3 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning. For the record, please tell us

4 your name.

5 A. Mirko Jesic.

6 Q. When and where were you born?

7 A. Born in Bosanski Novi on the 12th of December, 1945.

8 Q. Are you married and do you have children?

9 A. I am married and I have three children.

10 Q. When did you retire?

11 A. I retired on the 31st of December, 1990.

12 Q. Mr. Jesic, tell us, please, where did you work until you retired?

13 A. I worked in the Ministry of the Interior, the department for state

14 security.

15 Q. When the conflict broke out in the territory of Prijedor

16 municipality, were you mobilised and, if so, when?

17 A. Yes. I was mobilised on the 26th of May, 1992, by orders of Vojin

18 Bera, the executive in charge of the centre, of the security centre in

19 Banja Luka, public -- sorry, state security department.

20 Q. Where actually were your premises when you were drafted and when

21 you reported to work in the state security department?

22 A. The official premises of the state security department were in the

23 building of the Public Security Station in Prijedor.

24 Q. Were you there all the time, or did you change your premises?

25 A. I worked there throughout. Actually, no, that is where we just

1 started the work for which I was mobilised, and two days later we moved to

2 Keraterm, and after that, to the Omarska Investigation Centre.

3 Q. When you were mobilised, what was to have been your assignment,

4 and tell us in general terms how it all went.

5 A. Upon my arrival at the building, Mr. Bera informed me, as he did

6 the other authorised officials, that the security situation in Prijedor

7 municipality had become complicated and that the reserve force had also

8 been called in with the aim of collecting and -- collecting information

9 and documents showing that the situation could worsen and that an armed

10 uprising could occur. He also said that there was information, according

11 to which in the territory of Prijedor municipality, sabotage groups were

12 being trained in the aim of attacking Prijedor municipality.

13 At that point in time, the public Security Service had taken into

14 custody a certain number of people with whom we started interviews, and as

15 we obtained information that the persons taken into custody were not

16 equally culpable, we decided to organise our work in such a way as to

17 categorise the information given and thereby also assess the degree of

18 guilt of the persons involved. Accordingly, we decided to form three

19 groups of persons.

20 The first group or category included the organisers, the people

21 who provided funds and illegally organised non-Serbs.

22 The second category consisted of persons who illegally procured

23 weapons for themselves without having the legal licences, or were

24 connected to the former group, that is the organisers.

25 And the third category was a category for which we did not

1 discover any information of interest for security, and we felt that, after

2 interviewing these people, they should be released home.

3 Q. Let us clear up a point. You mentioned the public security and

4 the state security departments. What you have just told us were

5 agreements you reached in principle, but among whom and where? This was

6 an investigation, and how was it conceived?

7 A. The idea was that both the state and the public and the military

8 Security Services should take part. In view of the fact that the

9 situation was what it was, and that so many people were involved, we felt

10 that we would be able to carry out the job more effectively in that way by

11 forming teams consisting of an inspector of the public security, an

12 inspector of the state security, and an inspector of the military Security

13 Service. On behalf of the state security, I was designated as the person

14 responsible. On behalf of the public Security Service, Mr. Mijic Ranko,

15 and on behalf of the military Security Service Lieutenant Colonel Miroslav

16 Majstorovic.

17 Q. How did these three services function?

18 A. These three services by law were organisationally quite separate

19 but also, pursuant to the law, under certain complex and crisis

20 situations, were expected to carry out tasks of general interest. My

21 service was completely separate from the public Security Service and I was

22 accountable to Vojin Bera, who actually mobilised me. Lieutenant Colonel

23 Majstorovic had his own superior and Ranko Mijic had his superior, that is

24 Mr. Drljaca, in the Public Security Station of Prijedor.

25 Q. Those three services, which were obviously independent before,

1 under these conditions, that is in those days, did they start to

2 coordinate their activities? Did anyone give you appropriate instructions

3 to that effect?

4 A. Yes. Actually, we started to work together and the coordinator of

5 the three of us that I have mentioned as the persons responsible for these

6 three services was Mr. Dule Jankovic, and the chief of all was Mr. Simo

7 Drljaca.

8 Q. Were you obliged to report to the coordinator and to your chief,

9 and if so, when and how did you do that?

10 A. Yes, at the end of every working day, I and Mr. Mijic would go to

11 Prijedor. Actually, the whole team of inspectors would leave after

12 working hours, but it was our obligation that the next morning, to report

13 to Mr. Drljaca about what we had done the previous day and to briefly

14 inform him of what we planned to do that day. These were brief working

15 meetings, their aim being to come to an agreement as to what should be

16 done.

17 Q. You mentioned, Mr. Jesic, that three categories were formed. As

18 far as you know or from what you heard, what was to happen to the persons

19 in the first and second category? As for the third, you said that they

20 were to be released. What about the persons in the first two categories?

21 A. The persons in the first and second categories should have been

22 legally processed, that is legal proceedings should have been -- criminal

23 proceedings should have been instituted against them commensurate to the

24 offence they had committed.

25 Q. You said that the third group was to have been released home. Was

1 it your right to actually release them and did you do that?

2 A. At first, we did release a few persons, because the three of us

3 who headed these inspectors teams had agreed to do so. However, a few

4 days later, Chief Drljaca called us up on the phone, and I answered the

5 phone as I was closest to the telephone, and he said that he had heard

6 that a person, a certain person, had been released, and he ordered that

7 not a single person from that day on could be released without his

8 approval and permission.

9 Q. Did a written order to that effect follow?

10 A. Yes. Actually, colleague Mijic, as he was directly linked to

11 Mr. Drljaca, he did show us an order issued by Simo regulating this.

12 Q. I see. So we said that there were three services, they worked

13 together, and they reported to Drljaca. Who was your superior in the

14 Omarska Investigation Centre? Who was your boss?

15 A. As far as the Omarska camp is concerned, representatives of all

16 three services were accountable to Mr. Simo Drljaca.

17 Q. Could you decide independently of Simo Drljaca regarding the

18 investigation, the arrest, the release of persons?

19 A. No, we could just make proposals. So our decisions were in the

20 form of proposals and suggestions, and it was Mr. Drljaca who made the

21 final decision.

22 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Could I ask the usher, please, to

23 distribute some documents.

24 Q. This is a list which I will ask you to look at and tell me whether

25 it is one of the things that you did, and an illustration of the way in

1 which you reported to Mr. Drljaca.

2 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, I'm afraid I'm not sure exactly what it

3 is counsel is referring to. Is there a --

4 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will distribute the

5 exhibit just now. I found it yesterday, but I didn't have time to mark

6 it, and I will distribute it to everyone as soon as I do that.

7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, so we'll wait.

8 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, there may be a protective measure

9 surrounding this particular document, and if we could just take one

10 minute, and if so, if we could perhaps do this in private session. If

11 that is the case, I'll inform the Chamber, but I believe this was a

12 protected document.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Why protective measures,

14 Ms. Susan Somers? This document just mentions names, that's all.

15 MS. SOMERS: If I may take a moment in private session. Mr. Saxon

16 has informed me that this is subject to protection, and I'll need to go

17 into private session, though, for it.

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic.

19 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I trust my learned friend. I don't

20 have any such information. If she so suggests, let us go into private

21 session briefly.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, we'll see. Let's go into

23 private session.

24 [Private session]

25 [redacted]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Pages 11708-11712 redacted private session.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 [redacted]

2 [Open session]

3 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Please continue. I apologise for interrupting you.

5 A. Every day, after completing our working hours, or rather, the next

6 day in the morning, we would go to Mr. Drljaca's and brief him on what we

7 had done the previous day. Also, we would make proposals regarding the

8 taking into custody of a certain number of persons on the grounds that I

9 have just described. Simo would accept those proposals, take note of

10 those names in his diary, and then subsequently that list would be drawn

11 up in the Public Security Station in Prijedor.

12 Q. Let me ask you, who could have released a detainee from the

13 investigation Omarska [as interpreted]? Who had the authority?

14 A. Of the team responsible for the informative talk, nobody could,

15 because we had received an order from Mr. Drljaca that nobody must -- was

16 allowed to be released without written permission from him.

17 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I should like to call upon the

18 usher to distribute Exhibit D40/5 A and B, please, and to give the witness

19 a copy, too.

20 Q. Mr. Jesic, do you know of this decision? Are you acquainted with

21 this decision of the 2nd of June, 1992, made by the Crisis Staff?

22 A. I see this decision for the first time here and now, but Simo

23 telephoned us on several occasions and told us, by way of an example,

24 about this category of soldiers. This is a category of soldiers of the

25 Bosniak and Croatian, Bosniak and Croatian ethnicity who were in the army,

1 the Yugoslav army and later on in the army of Republika Srpska. So that

2 is that decision.

3 Q. Mr. Jesic, let me ask you another thing: Apart from the

4 investigation team belonging to these three sections, there was the camp

5 security?

6 A. Yes, that's right.

7 Q. Were there any other formations that had a function in the

8 investigation centre?

9 A. When the investigation centre was established, there was another

10 unit called the intervention platoon which was present, and that platoon

11 was from Banja Luka. It stayed there a brief period of time because some

12 problems occurred; that is to say, Mr. Meakic informed me that the members

13 of that particular unit violated their competencies and went beyond what

14 they were authorised to do and went to the Muslim detainees and Croatian

15 detainees of their own free will, against the law, and took from them

16 their valuables, such as items of gold, watches, money, and other

17 valuables.

18 On that occasion, I asked the head of that unit to go to his men,

19 policemen, and to caution them, to tell them not to behave in that way

20 because they have overstepped their authorities, but he told me that I had

21 nothing to do with that and that he had his own commander in Banja Luka.

22 And we informed, upon arrival in Prijedor, Mr. Simo Drljaca about that

23 situation, and that particular unit was sent back to Banja Luka

24 subsequently.

25 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher now distribute

1 another document. It is Prosecution Exhibit 2/3.16.

2 Your Honours, not to waste time, I have photocopies of the

3 document, and perhaps later on we can have it.

4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Well, I think that all we need

5 to do is to place it on the -- well, it seems to be found.

6 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Mr. Jesic, have you taken a look at the document?

8 A. Yes, I have.

9 Q. Is that the document?

10 A. Yes, it is.

11 Q. It is the document which in the upper left-hand corner is numbered

12 11/12/16, and the date is the 13th of June, 1992, signed by Simo Drljaca

13 in the bottom right-hand corner.

14 A. Yes, it is Simo Drljaca's handwriting.

15 Q. Thank you. Mr. Jesic, can you tell me something with respect to

16 the composition of the investigators themselves. I want to know two

17 things; within your service, were they all active-duty members of the

18 State Security Service? That's the first point; and second, were they all

19 from Prijedor?

20 A. I understand your question, yes. First of all, they were not all

21 active duty. Some were mobilised from the reserve composition. Secondly,

22 as my own service belonged to Banja Luka, organisationally speaking, we

23 had colleagues from the state security department of Banja Luka as well.

24 Q. Thank you. Do you know who received and took in the detainees and

25 distributed them in the different rooms that existed in the Omarska

1 Investigation Centre?

2 A. That came under the competence of leader Zeljko Meakic and the

3 guards who were under his control.

4 Q. You cooperated with the Security Service, did you not? You as the

5 investigators service, if I can term it that, you cooperated with the

6 security of the centre?

7 A. Yes, in certain situations, we did.

8 Q. Could you explain to us at the beginning how that cooperation

9 started; that is to say, as two services, what did you do together? How

10 did you contact and coordinate your efforts?

11 A. Because of the large number of detainees that had been brought to

12 the investigation centre, I had -- we had an agreement with leader Meakic

13 that the first phase of interviews be conducted as a triage, to sort out

14 the different detainees and to call individuals based on their place of

15 residence, where they lived, the districts and villages.

16 And so let us take an example. One day we would interview people

17 who were from Puharska, second time from Cerici, the third day from

18 another locality. And then the third stage, once we had drawn up the

19 lists, we would work in the following manner: We would call the

20 individuals, the detainees, up for an interview, and the group within the

21 composition that provided the physical security of the centre would escort

22 the detainees to the interviews. And all this was under Zeljko Meakic's

23 control.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Jovan Simic.

25 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. If I understood you correctly -- or let me rephrase that. Let me

2 ask you the following question: How long did the Security Service bring

3 in detainees to the investigators who were in a district, region, or

4 village?

5 A. Well, this went on for a day or two.

6 Q. And then it was you yourselves who determined who would come in

7 for an interview?

8 A. Yes. According to the information we obtained, we would then go

9 on to stage two and call in the detainees for an interview, and sometimes

10 we would call in a detainee two or three times or more times because we

11 had learnt that the person was not telling the truth in the course of his

12 first interview, so we could go on to interview him again several times.

13 Q. Your service, that is to say all three services, did you have a

14 list or a schedule, that is to say a plan, to know where the detainees

15 were located in the centre?

16 A. Well, that was the duty of the guard service. They would go to

17 the different rooms where the detainees were located and draw up lists of

18 who was where.

19 Q. So the Security Service itself would distribute the detainees and

20 inform you where each detainee was?

21 A. Yes, that's right. And they would send us up lists to the office

22 where we worked.

23 Q. Was there a separate group of guards who catered to the

24 inspectors, if I can put it that way, and escorted the detainees to their

25 interviews?

1 A. I think there was, because I saw the same people bringing up the

2 detainees. They didn't -- the people didn't change every day. There

3 seemed to be one particular group who was in charge of doing that work.

4 Q. Do you know who set up the group? Who formed this group?

5 A. I assume that it was the commander, Zeljko Meakic.

6 Q. And what were their working times, working hours?

7 A. For a time, we kept to the standard customary working hours, but

8 later on, as Chief Drljaca on certain days insisted we work longer, then

9 we did do so and we worked until as late as 8.00 p.m. on certain days.

10 Q. That is as far as the detainees is concerned, but I'm asking you

11 about the guards. Did the guards have the same working hours as you or

12 did they work differently?

13 A. They left when we left.

14 Q. That means they had the same working hours as the investigators;

15 is that right?

16 A. Yes, that's right.

17 Q. We mentioned lists a moment ago and you said that, based on

18 recommendations of the service, that people were listed and grouped into

19 three categories.

20 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I should now like the usher to

21 distribute another document, it is Exhibit 47/5 A and B, to give a copy to

22 the witness.

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think that the document should

24 be 41/5 and not 47/5, I think.

25 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what I said. 41 is the

1 number. D41/5.

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic, does this

3 document have anything to do with the other documents? Is it linked to

4 them or not? Or shall we ask Ms. Susan Somers? Is it the same case?

5 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I don't think so, Your Honour. It

6 shouldn't do.

7 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, thank you for giving me the chance to

8 explain. No. This document is a Prosecution exhibit that has already

9 been admitted into evidence. It is Prosecution 3/204, admitted the 19th

10 of February, 2000 -- 2001, excuse me.

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So we don't have to give it

12 another number, do we?

13 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] No. I apologise. I asked Madam

14 Registrar, she provided me with the list, but it is my mistake. I stand

15 corrected. I couldn't find it. And I assume the following document also

16 has a number of its own, but I will be referring to it the best way I can.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. We will see that later

18 on, but for the moment, that is a document already admitted. It is

19 Prosecution Exhibit 3/204. Please proceed, Mr. Jovan Simic.

20 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Q. Mr. Jesic, have you had a chance to look through the document?

22 A. Yes, I have.

23 Q. Could you tell me what this document is about? And do you know

24 who compiled it and why?

25 A. This is a document -- it is a list of first-category persons. It

1 was typed out in Omarska at the request of Mr. Drljaca, because he

2 informed us over the phone that the first and second category of persons

3 would be transferred to Manjaca. I assume that there ought to be a

4 similar document, a list of the second category of persons, which was

5 completed later on in the Public Security Station, and on the basis of

6 that complete list, those individuals on the list were transferred to

7 Manjaca.

8 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I should like the usher to hand the

9 witness another exhibit, which I was going to tender as D42/5, but I'm

10 afraid that this might be another document that was already tendered into

11 evidence by the Prosecution and admitted.

12 Q. Mr. Jesic, is that the list of persons sent from Omarska to

13 Manjaca which you were talking about, a list of persons of the first and

14 second category?

15 A. No. This list -- the list should have been longer because the

16 person about -- 1.000, more than 1.000 people were transferred to Manjaca.

17 Q. Well, this isn't a complete list. This is just one part of the

18 list because we don't have the whole list.

19 A. Well, let me have a look, then. Judging by the names, one could

20 conclude that it is indeed a list of persons who were transferred to

21 Manjaca.

22 Q. Very well. Thank you. You said in your testimony that at the

23 request of Simo Drljaca, lists of persons belonging to the first and

24 second category were compiled and they were sent to the Prijedor Police

25 Station and that these were people who were to be transferred to Manjaca;

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

14 and the English transcripts.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 is that right?

2 A. Yes, it is.

3 Q. Do you know whether there were lists of persons to be transferred

4 to Trnopolje?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Do you know which cases those were?

7 A. We compiled one list with female detainees on it, female detainees

8 who were later transferred to Trnopolje. And we also drew up a list of

9 persons, elderly persons and persons whose health was poor, and they, too,

10 were transferred to Trnopolje. And finally, we drew up a list of over a

11 thousand persons who were also transferred to Trnopolje.

12 Q. So that means that the lists were compiled by your service at a

13 request made. The list of women transferred to Trnopolje, where was that

14 list compiled?

15 A. Simo ordered us by telephone to draw up a list like that, and

16 after we received that order, the list was typed out in the investigation

17 centre and those persons were transferred to Trnopolje.

18 Q. Do you know Drago Prcac, Mr. Jesic?

19 A. Yes, I do. I have known Drago Prcac since about 1978 when I

20 started working in the service, and we worked in the same building, in

21 fact, up until Drago Prcac retired. He worked as a crime technician, and

22 in his work he did his work professionally. He was always serious. And

23 as a man, as a human being, he was always honest, and I never heard

24 anything bad about Drago.

25 Q. According to what you know, did Drago Prcac in any way take part

1 in compiling lists of any kind in the investigation centre of Omarska?

2 A. No. No, that was not his job. The only thing that he did was to

3 read out the list of female detainees when they -- the time came for them

4 to be transferred by minibus to Trnopolje. But we gave him the list to go

5 downstairs and read it out, read the names from the list out.

6 Q. And this brings me to my last question. Mr. Jesic, did -- could

7 Mr. Meakic order you to do anything?

8 A. No. My service, he was not able to order my service anything,

9 issue any orders to my service, nor could I issue him orders or his

10 workers orders of any kind. All we could do, quite simply, was to make

11 suggestions and propose things, but we couldn't order each other to do

12 anything.

13 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. We have

14 no further questions for this witness at this point.

15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Jovan Simic.

16 What about the other Defence counsel; are there any questions for the

17 witness? I see that there are none.

18 Ms. Susan Somers, you have the floor.

19 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Cross-examined by Ms. Somers:

21 Q. Mr. Jesic, you were a member of the Crisis Staff in Prijedor, were

22 you not, municipality?

23 A. No. No, never. I was never a member. I couldn't be, anyway,

24 because I'm not a member of any party.

25 Q. You were never a member of the SDS; is that your testimony?

1 A. I was not.

2 Q. A couple of questions. You just mentioned lists of female

3 detainees at Omarska. Does that mean that you were present at Omarska on

4 the day when that list was acted upon, where female detainees were either

5 released -- were either released or kept at Omarska?

6 A. I was present when they were released. I was not present when

7 they were brought in, nor did I have any influence over their being

8 brought there.

9 Q. You were present when Drago Prcac read out names of female

10 detainees who would stay or who would go, and then by implication those

11 not called out would stay; is that correct? You were at Omarska in August

12 1992 when that happened, yes or no, please.

13 A. I was not present by the buses, but I was present in the building.

14 Q. In other words, that's a yes, you were at Omarska when all this

15 occurred?

16 A. Yes, I was.

17 Q. When you mentioned that Simo Drljaca called and gave orders by

18 telephone to Omarska, which telephone did he call to and where was that

19 telephone located, please?

20 A. A direct telephone line existed in the office where I, Mijic, and

21 for a time Majstorovic worked. But also in another room there was a radio

22 communication and a telephone.

23 Q. So there were -- excuse me, Mr. Jesic. There were two telephones

24 with outside lines in Omarska camp; is that correct? There was one where

25 you would sit and one where the radio room was?

1 A. I'm sure that there was a direct telephone line in our office, but

2 I am not so sure that in the other office there was a direct outside line.

3 There may have been an extension. In the other office there was a radio

4 and a telephone, but I never used that telephone as I had a telephone in

5 my own office and an outside line. And Simo would usually call up on that

6 line, that is, he would call up our office.

7 Q. What was the room number in Omarska camp, please, where you

8 claimed to have had your office? Which building and what room number,

9 please.

10 A. The room was in the administration building of the iron ore mine

11 Omarska, and it was at the end of the corridor. You entered straight from

12 the corridor, and to the left was a conference room. It was also the last

13 door at the end of the corridor.

14 Q. And which floor would that have been on, please, Mr. Jesic?

15 A. The first floor. It's a building that only has one floor

16 upstairs; ground floor and one floor.

17 Q. Please tell us, from the time Omarska camp opened until the time

18 it closed, how much time you spent, daily, weekly, monthly, at Omarska.

19 A. Daily, I would spend at least eight hours there and sometimes even

20 longer, and I was present every day from its establishment until the end.

21 Q. Were you bound to sit in your office or did you walk around the

22 camp?

23 A. I didn't have time to walk around, and I spent most of the time in

24 the office, reading official notes and statements, and other documents

25 which we had at our disposal, but occasionally, I would go to the typists'

1 office where these official notes were being typed and statements.

2 Q. Is that the office that contained the radio and communication

3 equipment as well?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Is that the office where you would see Drago Prcac or Miroslav

6 Kvocka or perhaps Mladjo Radic sitting from time to time?

7 A. I didn't go out often and, when I did, I can't recall ever seeing

8 either of those people in that office.

9 Q. What was the telephone number of the --

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Jovan Simic?

11 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I didn't object to the

12 previous question a moment ago. The witness never said that. I waited

13 for the answer. And if my learned friend wants to quote the witness, then

14 she should refer us to what she is quoting from rather than putting in the

15 witness's mouth something he didn't say.

16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers?

17 MS. SOMERS: I will rephrase it.

18 Q. Mr. Jesic, this Chamber has heard repeated testimony about the

19 presence in that communication office, the office where the typists were

20 of Mr. Kvocka, Mr. Prcac, Mr. Radic. There was testimony, I believe, that

21 other accused were also in that office. Did you happen to see, if you

22 were daily in that camp, did you see any of those persons in that office?

23 A. I cannot claim I saw them. I really -- I went to that office but

24 only rarely. Sometimes Mijic would carry the documents for typing,

25 sometimes Majstorovic. I do not exclude the possibility but I personally

1 cannot say I did.

2 Q. How did you get to Omarska camp every day, please? Tell us what

3 means of transportation you took and the path you took to your office from

4 the moment you arrived at that camp up to your office. Walk us through,

5 please.

6 A. We came by minibus which was the property of the Autoservice of

7 the Ljubija mines, and for a time we took the main road, the

8 Prijedor-to-Banja Luka road, and entered through the main gates. However,

9 after the attack on Prijedor, for security reasons, we had to make a

10 detour via Cela, Tomasica, and that is how we entered the mine. There

11 were cases when we entered through the main gate and also the gate next to

12 the restaurant building.

13 Q. Did you have to pass through an area referred to or known to this

14 Chamber as the pista?

15 A. Yes, when we came -- when we came through the main gate.

16 Q. And during the almost three months, or from May until August that

17 you were, as you claimed, daily present in Omarska, did you witness a

18 number of detainees kept on the pista during what may be described as

19 extreme weather conditions, under extremely difficult circumstances? Did

20 you happen to see that, being there daily?

21 A. Yes, yes. For a while, there was a large group of detainees on

22 that pista, but when the weather was unfavourable, they would enter the

23 restaurant, which was within that building.

24 Q. Did you ever pass on to anyone, either above you or take it upon

25 yourself, to alleviate the conditions under which these persons were kept

1 on the pista if the weather were hot, uncomfortable, people looked like

2 they were suffering?

3 A. We could not do anything in that regard in Omarska in those days

4 but we did inform Simo Drljaca what the situation was.

5 Q. And did you do so with a requirement that there be immediate

6 response and some result?

7 A. Certainly, I suggested changes but then there were also objective

8 circumstances which prevented certain things from being resolved.

9 Q. Such as what? Examples of objective circumstances that would have

10 prevented your assisting someone from suffering.

11 A. As an example, in such a short time we were unable to carry out

12 the triage and carry out a sufficient number of interviews to release some

13 people home, which would alleviate the situation. That is why some days

14 we worked for 12 hours, so as to permit those who, according to the

15 information we obtained, needed to be detained would enjoy better

16 conditions in the camp. That is as much as we could do.

17 Q. Well, surely, you as a person who had been in retirement for a

18 period of time and were called back to a very high position -- would you

19 consider yourself higher than the average reserve police position? Surely

20 that suggests a measure of confidence indicative of a rank. Did you not

21 use your rank to make things better at Omarska or Keraterm or any other

22 facility you knew about?

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic?

24 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my learned friend is

25 making foregone conclusions, whether he was of a high rank and had a

1 superior position. I think she -- the questions should be rephrased to

2 ask the witness --

3 MS. SOMERS: Happy to do so, Your Honour.

4 Q. Mr. Jesic, this Chamber has on many occasions looked at a document

5 in evidence which is Prosecutor's 2/4.11. It is the order signed by Simo

6 Drljaca dated 31 May, 1992, which effectively sets out how the camp was

7 structured, and without taking the Chamber's time to go back, paragraph 3

8 says -- and it's signed by Drljaca, which says: "A mixed group," it says

9 here, "of national public and military security investigators shall be

10 responsible for the work with and categorisation of detainees. They shall

11 organise themselves respecting the parity principle. Mirko Jesic, Ranko

12 Mijic, and Lieutenant Colonel Majstorovic shall be responsible for their

13 work." The order is signed by Simo Drljaca. Does that suggest to you

14 that you were given a certain amount of authority over the camp? Or have

15 we misread the import of the order?

16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic?

17 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this document, which

18 has been referred to many times, I think a copy should be given to the

19 witness. That would only be fair for him to actually see the document

20 rather than it being paraphrased to him. The least we can do is give him

21 a copy to see. I can provide my own copy, if necessary.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Jovan Simic. Ms.

23 Susan Somers, please continue.

24 MS. SOMERS:

25 Q. If the witness would like to take a look in both languages, it is

1 paragraph 3 of the document. You may have on top the English, Mr. Jesic.

2 Perhaps you look at your own language. Is it -- do you see it, Mr. Jesic,

3 paragraph 3?

4 A. Yes, I do.

5 Q. Now, that is you to whom Mr. Drljaca is referring, is it not,

6 Mirko Jesic, the same person?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Now, that appears to give you a fairly responsible position with

9 regard to Omarska camp. Given that position, was there nothing that you

10 could do to alleviate the suffering of the persons you saw at Omarska?

11 A. By this document, I am defined as a person responsible for the

12 work of the State Security Service, that is, for the work and conduct of

13 state security inspectors.

14 As regards conditions of life in the camp, my service had

15 absolutely no legal responsibilities. That was entirely within the field

16 of competence of the public Security Service because it was, in fact, in

17 charge of the overall activities. As a human being, I understand and

18 realise that the conditions in the camp were very bad and below human

19 dignity, but what -- all I could do was to inform the competent

20 individuals, those responsible for those things.

21 Q. And then continue with your business and not follow up on it,

22 would that be correct? You didn't follow up on your complaints to see

23 that they were answered.

24 A. No. I drew attention to the problem repeatedly with Mr. Drljaca

25 because he was the only one we were responsible to and the only one we

1 contacted. Myself and Mijic had no right nor ability to get in touch with

2 any other institution with a view to improving those conditions. All we

3 could do was inform Simo Drljaca, and then it was his responsibility to

4 see what he could do in addressing the problems.

5 Q. Who were the chiefs --

6 A. The same applied -- that is how it is defined through his order.

7 Q. You were in charge of the interrogators, the inspectors, however

8 you want to call them, investigators, who questioned the detainees

9 according to categorisation; is that correct? That was your job, is that

10 correct? Yes or no, please. The microphone does not pick up a head nod.

11 Yes? No?

12 A. Yes. I was responsible for the group of inspectors of the state

13 security, for their activities, their conduct and treatment of detainees.

14 And in that respect, on several occasions I cautioned my colleagues,

15 inspectors, that they had to behave within the rules of the law, and they

16 had to observe the code of conduct of members of the State Security

17 Service.

18 Q. You indicated you had witnessed conditions of persons on the

19 pista. Did you also take note, and the Chamber has heard considerable

20 testimony about hearing cries, moans, the physically debilitated

21 conditions of detainees, did yourself take note of the physically

22 debilitated detainees and the conditions which may have contributed to

23 that, to their physical debilitation?

24 A. Yes, there were such cases. In the office that was adjacent to

25 ours, on one occasion I did hear cries of the person that was being

1 interrogated. I went outside and opened the door, and I saw in the office

2 inspector Rade Knezevic who belonged to the Prijedor Public Security

3 Station. I wish to underline that: He was not an inspector of the State

4 Security Service. And the person that had been brought to the office was

5 mistreated and physically abused because at the moment I opened the door,

6 I saw him lying on the floor.

7 Q. Now, the Prijedor public security is subordinate to the offices in

8 Banja Luka, is it not? And you are out of Banja Luka or are you out of

9 Prijedor? Were you, rather.

10 A. I belong to the Banja Luka public -- sorry, State Security

11 Service. That is a completely different service. Organisationally, we

12 are not linked. Public security which was involved in the Omarska camp

13 came from Prijedor. It belonged to the Public Security Station in

14 Prijedor.

15 Q. Maybe clarify, please, for this Chamber, the difference in when an

16 interrogator under your competence or jurisdiction will conduct an

17 interrogation and when an interrogator under the Prijedor Public Security

18 Station would conduct? What was the distinguishing line between who would

19 interrogate whom, please?

20 A. The difference is that if an inspector of state security violates

21 the authority given to him by the law, I can intervene by reporting my

22 superior -- reporting to my superior officer that he did not observe the

23 rules of service, and in that case, disciplinary and other measures may be

24 taken against that inspector.

25 As for a public security inspector, I have no such authority. I

1 can only inform Ranko Mijic, which I did, as the immediate superior, and

2 Simo Drljaca as the next superior to him.

3 Q. The persons whose condition you observed who were debilitated,

4 perhaps, did you nonetheless permit their interrogation despite the

5 overall horrific conditions that you described in the camp? Did you allow

6 them to be interrogated, knowing the conditions in which they found

7 themselves?

8 A. You mean this particular person that I just mentioned in the other

9 office, or generally?

10 Q. Generally.

11 A. There were cases when persons were -- had their health impaired,

12 in which case we didn't call them in for interviews, but we arranged with

13 Meakic for medical treatment of such persons.

14 Q. Do you know if medical treatment was given to such persons, and

15 can you give us an approximate number of instances where you made such a

16 request?

17 A. I really cannot give you a concrete example just now because I

18 spent most of my time in the office. But when this, when this happened

19 and when I was present, that is how I would react.

20 Q. And as to the concrete instance of a person whose cries you heard

21 who was being abused by Knezevic, I think you said, what did you do to

22 make sure that either Knezevic was punished or that the individual --

23 and/or that the individual was given some treatment and some relief?

24 A. What I could do as far as my competences allowed, I did. I

25 informed Ranko Mijic, the chief of the group of inspectors of the public

1 Security Service, and later in Prijedor, when we were in Prijedor, we also

2 informed Simo Drljaca of such instances.

3 Q. When did you actually stop working for the public or the State

4 Security Services? When did you completely leave the police after your

5 reactivation during the conflict?

6 A. I worked for the state security until 1996. As for the camp

7 itself, I stopped working when the camp was dismantled, or rather, when

8 the detainees were moved to Manjaca.

9 Q. Do you recall working in either Manjaca or Mali Logor, other camps

10 I believe in Banja Luka municipality, being present there?

11 A. No, no.

12 Q. Do you know an individual, individuals by the name of Zmijanac,

13 perhaps, and Rodic who may have been working in 1995 in various

14 institutions of the police, conducting interrogations?

15 A. I personally do not know those people.

16 Q. Do you remember a woman [redacted]who in 1995 claims to have

17 had contact with you, in February 1995 to be exact?

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Jovan Simic.

19 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, again we have the same

20 situation: "she claimed," "she said"; no document, no nothing. I think

21 the witness should be shown what was said, when it was said, and so on.

22 MS. SOMERS: May I respond, Your Honour?

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers.

24 MS. SOMERS: To test the witness's credibility, I am able to read

25 from either statements or other documents, and if the witness is able to

1 respond, he can. If he can't, I'm sure he'll tell us. But it's a test of

2 credibility, and I'm asking from statements that -- of which the

3 Prosecution is aware by the woman whose name I just read. May I continue?

4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, you may proceed.

5 MS. SOMERS: Thank you.

6 Q. This particular individual indicated that in the offices of the

7 SDB in Prijedor, she and two other individuals, or several individuals,

8 were interrogated and mistreated, mentioning a man named Rodic, Mirko

9 Jesic, aged 53 or 54, described as chief of the SDB in Prijedor, and a man

10 called Zmijanac, around 40 years old, and another called Krneta, around 25

11 or 26, as investigating and maltreating her. Do you recall that incident?

12 A. Yes, I do recall [redacted], but I claim that what she said

13 about me is not true. I will tell the truth, and that is what I have come

14 to do.

15 Never did I mistreat [redacted]. She was taken into custody into

16 the premises upon instructions of the chief of the centre of the state

17 security in Banja Luka. In those days, I was not the chief. She took

18 upon herself the right to designate posts and functions in a state body

19 for which she is not competent.

20 Q. And they were -- she was arrested in 1995, allegedly because of

21 cooperation with the enemy, whatever that means, between February 1992 and

22 February 1995. Do you remember that as the basis for arresting her and

23 questioning her?

24 A. She was taken into custody, into the official premises, and later

25 that case, together with some others from Banja Luka, was processed

1 through the Prosecutor's office and the courts, and it was completed, and

2 her guilt was in -- up to a point established.

3 Q. Please tell us who the enemy was in your eyes at that time.

4 Describe the enemy.

5 A. I could not make any such judgements. In those days, it was only

6 the head of the body that I worked for could give such judgements.

7 Q. MS. SOMERS: Would the usher be kind enough to distribute two

8 documents; Prosecution's 3/299 and 3/300.

9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers, we need a

10 break. Shall we analyse those documents now or after the break?

11 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, if I could just identify [Realtime

12 transcript read in error "justify"] them now perhaps, and then after the

13 break, I have this and several other documents, and I should try to get

14 through them.

15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well then. I think we will

16 have a break now. I'm going to ask the usher to accompany the witness

17 out.

18 JUDGE RIAD: Excuse me, did you say "justify" or "identify"?

19 MS. SOMERS: I said "identify," Your Honour.

20 JUDGE RIAD: They wrote "justify."

21 MS. SOMERS: I'm sorry. Thank you for bringing that to my

22 attention. I did say "identify."

23 JUDGE RIAD: Sometimes they don't hear you carefully when you

24 speak so quickly.

25 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We are going to take a 30-minute

2 break. Let me tell you something before we adjourn. We are going to work

3 until 12.45, and then we will resume at 2.00 and prolong a little until

4 3.30. So just to let you know about the timetable for today. Let's have

5 a half-hour break now.

6 --- Recess taken at 11.02 a.m.

7 --- On resuming at 11.34 a.m.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated. Yes, Ms.

9 Susan Somers, you may continue, please.

10 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 Q. Mr. Jesic, I had left off with giving out two documents, but prior

12 to that I had a question of you about whom you might describe as the

13 enemy, and my question is premised on volume of testimony before this

14 Chamber that the enemy in the eyes of those in control of the territory of

15 Prijedor after 30th of April, 1992, was the group who resisted that

16 takeover. Do you -- was that your view as well, that persons resisting

17 the Serb takeover would be deemed the enemy?

18 A. No. I did not consider that group an exclusive enemy, but the

19 fact remains that it is they who, in the attack, also killed a number of

20 civilians and members of the police force and army members too. That was

21 the situation. There was a general disturbance and relations between

22 people were upset and it was very difficult to talk along the lines of the

23 law, law and order and legal provisions. That kind of thing.

24 Q. If, however, there were random incidents of killing, that would be

25 simply a police matter, would it not? It would not call for the joint

1 forces of the army, the State Security Services and the public Security

2 Services? Those services were united in order to fight resistance to the

3 Serb takeover; is that correct? That appears to have been the essence of

4 the testimony given.

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic?

6 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my learned colleague

7 is making her own conclusions and answering instead of the witness. She

8 is testifying here. Could she please ask direct questions and not draw

9 conclusions herself. Thank you.

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam Susan Somers?

11 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, I'm summarising what has been given to

12 this Chamber as reasons, and my question is, is this the position of the

13 witness?

14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic?

15 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that was not what was

16 stated here.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Could you rephrase the

18 question. Ask the question again and ask a clear question, please. If

19 what you're saying, Ms. Susan Somers, is a synthesis of what the witness

20 said, or whether it was a precis of what other witnesses said, that was

21 not quite clear. Could you rephrase it, please.

22 MS. SOMERS:

23 Q. Mr. Jesic, I apologise if there has been confusion. Let me ask

24 you this: If there were several murders or an unspecified number of

25 murders following the takeover by the Serbs of Prijedor municipality on

1 the 30th of April, 1992, under normal circumstances would that have called

2 for a mixed police, SJB and SDB reaction, or would it have been, under

3 normal circumstances, merely a police reaction?

4 A. This assessment was made by the people who at the time had power,

5 wielded power and authority by virtue of their position, and the

6 information we had and our operational processing of data was that an

7 organised attack was being planned and organised on institutions, on the

8 municipality institutions, and that's what happened. The municipality

9 building, the PPT building, the police building, the Kozarski Vjesnik

10 newspaper building, those were all institutions vital to the functioning

11 of power and authority.

12 Q. And the authority would be the newly implemented Serb authority.

13 Is that the authority you're referring to?

14 A. No, I didn't say that. What I meant was, no, I couldn't have

15 taken part in that part. I was mobilised as a policeman, and I was told

16 to work, do my work as a policeman. Political assessments, that was

17 somebody else's business. It was not mine to interfere or meddle in

18 things of that kind. There were those whose job that was.

19 Q. In the interests of time, I'd like you to -- I'd like to ask you,

20 please, to take a quick look at Exhibit 3/299, which is a decision of the

21 constitutional court of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1991, signed by the

22 president of that court, Dr. Kasim Trnka, dated November 1st, 1991,

23 rendering null and void a number of agreements which constituted the basis

24 for what is referred to as the ARK, Autonomous Region of Krajina, which

25 incorporated a number of municipalities. In your position --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

14 and the English transcripts.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Jovan Simic.

2 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, these are two highly

3 professional documents, and testimony is required here in the field of

4 constitutional law, and this witness is not qualified to do that. He is

5 not an expert in constitutional law, which this document would require.

6 Could my colleague ask the witness whether he is aware of the documents

7 and not to ask him to explain the documents. He is not an expert

8 witness. Thank you.

9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers.

10 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, I didn't ask this witness to explain

11 anything. At this point, I'm identifying the document for the witness,

12 and we do not need a constitutional law scholar to ask the Chamber to take

13 judicial notice of official pronouncements of the constitutional court of

14 Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1991. My question to the witness is:

15 Q. Were you aware and were those persons with whom you -- to whom you

16 were subordinate aware and did they follow the provisions of this ruling

17 of the constitutional court of Bosnia-Herzegovina of which your

18 municipality Prijedor was a part? Did you follow this and were you aware

19 of it?

20 A. I did not know about this decision, and therefore I could not act

21 in accordance with it. Nor did anybody inform me, either orally or in

22 writing, about that ruling. That's the truth. I'm being quite frank.

23 Q. Those persons who resisted the mono-ethnic banding together of

24 municipalities, in other words, Croat and Muslim populations, would you

25 agree may have read --

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic.

2 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this once again is

3 drawing conclusions on the part of the learned colleague. I really do

4 apologise for having to jump up and down all the time, but my learned

5 colleague is constantly making conclusions as to what was happening in

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the territory.

7 MS. SOMERS: I'll rephrase, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers.

9 MS. SOMERS: I'll rephrase, Your Honour.

10 Q. In November of 1991, as a matter of fact throughout all of 1991,

11 were the municipalities of Banja Luka, Bosanska Dubica, Glamoc, were they

12 part of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time? Were they?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And the central government for Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time was

15 in Sarajevo, was it not?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And there was one constitutional court of the central government

18 -- I'm sorry, there was one constitutional court of Bosnia-Herzegovina at

19 the time, was there not, only one?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Thank you. Looking at exhibit -- I'm sorry, and all citizens of

22 Bosnia-Herzegovina, irrespective of ethnicity, were bound by the laws and

23 pronouncements of the government and the constitutional court of

24 Bosnia-Herzegovina; would that be a fair statement? Just yes or no.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Looking at - thank you - 3/300, is yet another decision, another

2 ruling by the constitutional court of Bosnia-Herzegovina, this time dated

3 October 8th, 1992, and this decision, in its opening, rules null and void

4 the declaration of the proclamation of the Republic of the Serbian people

5 in BH, constitution of the Serbian republic of BH with dates, and general

6 documents listed.

7 It is signed by then president of the constitutional court of

8 Bosnia-Herzegovina, Dr. Ismet Dautbasic, and also by Dr. Nedjo Milicevic,

9 a judge of the constitutional court of Bosnia-Herzegovina. This is the

10 same court, is it not, that you just discussed a moment ago as being the

11 sole supreme court over the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And pronouncements of that court would be equally binding on all

14 citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, irrespective of ethnicity; is that

15 correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Did you happen to know, perhaps, that Dr. Nedjo Milicevic is a

18 Serb who sat on the constitutional court in Sarajevo? Were you aware of

19 that fact, his ethnicity is Serb?

20 A. Judging by his first and last name, one could conclude that, but I

21 didn't give it any authority. I didn't think about it along those lines.

22 Q. And as I understand your understanding, despite the -- that all

23 persons were bound by these decisions, is that correct? Sorry, could you

24 answer into the microphone, please. Is that correct, that all persons

25 were bound by the decisions who were on the territory of --

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers, I apologise,

2 but would you allow the interpreters to be able to do their work and to

3 get through the interpretation before the witness is asked to answer.

4 MS. SOMERS:

5 Q. Mr. Jesic, was it clear to you? Did you hear the question? I'm

6 sorry for interruptions.

7 A. Could you repeat your question, please? I didn't quite get it.

8 Q. Yes. You indicated earlier, this court, being the sole

9 constitutional court, all persons of all ethnicities who were citizens of

10 the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina were bound to conduct themselves

11 in accordance with decisions of that court; is that correct?

12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Objection, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. O'Sullivan.

14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: In the previous Exhibit 3/299, my learned friend

15 established that this man was not aware of that ruling. There's no

16 foundation to put the question based on 3/300 unless there's a foundation

17 to know whether or not he's aware of this ruling.

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers, are there any

19 specific features with respect to document 3/300 which were not brought up

20 in the other document? And that is why I'm asking you about the specifics

21 here.

22 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, this second ruling indicates the

23 progression of the activity that was --

24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but you are fully aware of

25 the fact that the witness said that he was not aware of that decision.

1 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, then I -- having that in mind, I took a

2 step back and asked if the, if the witness was aware of the role and the

3 existence of the constitutional court, to which he answered yes, and

4 therefore decisions of that court became my question.

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But you're repeating the same

6 questions that you did with respect to the other document. Why?

7 MS. SOMERS: Because I wanted to make sure that we were speaking

8 of the same court and the impact of the rulings of that court. Perhaps he

9 has answered the question, and if that's the case, I think that it was

10 sufficient.

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think that we are losing time

12 now.

13 MS. SOMERS: I wanted to make sure, Your Honour, that the Chamber

14 and that the witness were able to indicate that there were documents that

15 took issue with the establishment of the governments -- the government on

16 which behalf the witness was serving. I think it's a very critical set of

17 documents for the Chamber to have for its deliberations, and I wanted to

18 make sure that the witness understood the structure of laws coming out of

19 Sarajevo, to which government these municipalities belonged.

20 JUDGE WALD: Ms. Somers, I understand your purpose, but I do think

21 -- you're a lawyer and I'm a lawyer and several other people are

22 lawyers. This is pretty kind of complicated legal assumption under this

23 second question, because the first document was in 1991, this document is

24 1992, after most of these events that we are talking about in this entire

25 trial has taken place. You certainly have the right to make the argument

1 that the same constitutional framework results, but I'm not sure this man

2 is in a position to give away the store, as it were.

3 MS. SOMERS: I understand, Your Honour, the point -- the answers

4 which he gave were, I think, satisfactory as to acknowledgement of the

5 institution and I would not go beyond that, if the Chamber would permit me

6 just to leave it at that. I think that's something a man of his stature

7 and the responsibility given would have knowledge of. It's not an

8 unreasonable assumption. He's a law man and these concern laws. Going no

9 further than that.

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. I think that we

11 should progress more speedily anyway, Ms. Susan Somers. Go ahead.

12 MS. SOMERS: If the usher would distribute, please, Prosecution

13 Exhibit 3/292.

14 Q. Mr. Jesic, while the document is being put in front of you --

15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please take care of the time,

16 Ms. Susan Somers.

17 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Judge.

18 Q. Mr. Jesic, you indicated your direct superior was Vojin Bera; is

19 that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. This document dated -- well, there are several documents that are

22 attached to it, but it is a report that was compiled by a commission on

23 which Vojin Bera sat. And just turning the Chamber's attention to the

24 signature page which would be -- it would have the ERN, because this has

25 multiple sections, given -- because of translation, the ERN would say

1 01108901. That is a signature page. It would have page 11 at the bottom,

2 it would be in the first section. Vojin Bera appeared as the chairman of

3 a commission that reported on the reception centres in the municipality,

4 and the municipalities covered were Prijedor, Bosanski Novi and Sanski

5 Most. Did you participate in providing any of the information to Mr. Bera

6 that may have gone into this report? Mijic's name is on there, one of

7 your colleagues, Bera, your superior. What if any role did you play in

8 the information that went into this document?

9 A. All the documents linked to the investigation centres were

10 compiled in the Public Security Station of Prijedor, because public

11 security was the protagonist of that undertaking. I personally did not

12 take part in the preparation and compilation of these documents, and I

13 think that we can see from the composition of the commission that Ranko

14 Mijic was a member and present and that he informed the commission about

15 the situation.

16 Q. You were not consulted, or was it that Bera, as a representative

17 of the SDB, was the person who would have been the likely representative?

18 A. He did spend time in Prijedor at that time and contact Mr. Simo

19 Drljaca, and probably he had contacts with other individuals who decided

20 on matters of this kind as well. So I think that --

21 Q. Are you aware that a document of this nature was compiled?

22 A. I'm -- I see this document for the first time now. I haven't seen

23 it before. I really haven't. I'm looking at it for the first time.

24 Q. Just to point out to the Chamber as well that the very last

25 section - because there are sections that go into the overall document,

1 and Mr. Jesic, I may ask you to comment on it as well - is the section by

2 Simo Drljaca where he describes the activities in various receptions in

3 Prijedor municipality. I would like to ask you, in the part that

4 Mr. Bera, your boss, compiled, it is on the English page 5, we are at

5 English page 5, and it is the paragraph which reads: "Other authorised

6 employees of the Prijedor Public Security Station, in addition to their

7 regular tasks, carried out investigation and selection of captured persons

8 alongside the employees of the national and military Security Services and

9 members of the Banja Luka SJB and CSB, Security Services Centre."

10 Mr. Bera seems to be suggesting - and I'm asking you to help me understand

11 this; perhaps you can - that the Prijedor officers or investigators in

12 fact shared in almost a task-force way the responsibilities that your

13 people did. Is that correct?

14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic?

15 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Two points, Your Honour. As far as

16 I could see, the witness hasn't found the page number yet, and secondly,

17 the witness said that he does not know anything about the document.

18 Thirdly, my learned colleague is once again testifying and says that there

19 was a common responsibility in some way. I don't see that this is written

20 anywhere in the document and I'm reading through it. We can't make our

21 own conclusions and lead the witness. The witness has already said that

22 he knows nothing of this document so there is no point in our questioning

23 him on it.

24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers?

25 MS. SOMERS: At least one document was put to the witness by

1 Mr. Simic that the witness said, "It is the first time I have seen it,"

2 and the fact that the document is not seen does not mean that the content

3 is unfamiliar. So I think that is perhaps not the crux of it.

4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] That's not the issue that

5 Mr. Jovan Simic brought up. It is the interpretation that you are making

6 for your part on the one hand. And I think you have the document. The

7 witness has not yet had a chance to find the section that you were quoting

8 from.

9 MS. SOMERS: In that case, I will apologise.

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So what I think, Ms. Susan

11 Somers, at this point is that the witness has already said that he hasn't

12 seen the document ever. If you give him the information, then ask

13 concrete questions and don't make your own interpretations and then say,

14 "Do you agree?" Ask a simple, concrete question; clear, concrete and

15 concise. Let me repeat: Clear, concrete and concise.

16 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I see Mr. Jovan Simic on his

18 feet.

19 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just one point, if I

20 may. I did present documents that the witness saw for the first time, but

21 he identified them as having signed them. I didn't show him documents

22 that he was not aware of and had no knowledge of and was asked to comment

23 on them. This is an extremely lengthy document and it is very difficult

24 to ask him to comment.

25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Susan Somers. I too am

1 unable to understand what you're trying to say because the witness has

2 said he has nothing to do with the document and you are trying to tender

3 it into evidence. I don't know how many pages you wish to tender into

4 evidence. Why?

5 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, the witness has indicated throughout his

6 testimony that he was intricately involved in the processes at Omarska

7 camp. Omarska camp is the subject of this report. His boss, Vojin Bera,

8 authored -- is one of the persons who authored the report, and the subject

9 matter may well be familiar and therefore the relevance is there.

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Fine. Ms. Susan Somers, please

11 put your question to the witness but in a concrete way. Otherwise, we

12 will never finish with this.

13 Mr. Jovan Simic?

14 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just one more minor

15 comment. This document contains reports from other municipalities and is

16 an integral whole regarding the security situation in the whole region.

17 It is not a report on the Omarska Investigation Centre or Prijedor. It

18 also includes Sanski Most and other places.

19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Put your question to the

20 witness. And your time has already run out.

21 MS. SOMERS: If the Chamber would indulge me in just a couple of

22 questions from this document, I would be very grateful.

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Go ahead, but quickly.

24 MS. SOMERS:

25 Q. [Previous translation continues]... agree with a passage in the

1 document that is signed by your chief, concerning the camps. "Other

2 authorised employees of the Prijedor Public Security Station, in addition

3 to their regular tasks, carried out investigation and selection of

4 captured persons alongside the employees of the national and military

5 services and members of the Banja Luka SJB and CSB, Security Services

6 Centre." Do you agree with what Mr. Bera has included in this report?

7 A. Yes, that is correct.

8 Q. There is one aspect to the report that I want to bring to your

9 attention and ask if you have direct knowledge -- or knowledge of by

10 having worked there. It does confirm on page 3 in the English of the

11 categories that you spoke of, but there are some demographic statistics

12 that I wondered if you might be able to just help us understand, being on,

13 in the Simo Drljaca section, at the back of the report, it would be in the

14 English, the last page of it, page 4 -- I'm sorry, not the last page, page

15 4. "According to available documents and files kept in Omarska from 27

16 May to 16 August --"

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers, Ms. Susan

18 Somers, you know that the witness is still trying to find his way in the

19 document. Do you realise that?

20 MS. SOMERS: [Previous translation continues]... because it would

21 be because time is pushing, if I may read it to him and ask if he agrees

22 with the statistics, if that's fair.

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but then you must tell the

24 witness, "It's not necessary to read the document now, listen to me."

25 Otherwise, he's not listening to you but he's looking for the relevant

1 paragraph in the document. You're wasting your time, as you see.

2 MS. SOMERS:

3 Q. I would just ask you if you would be able to comment on some of

4 the numbers rather than leafing through, because it is a big document.

5 Again: "According to available documents and files kept in Omarska from

6 27 May to 16 August, 1992, total number of 3.334 persons were brought to

7 the investigative centre, of which there were 3.197 Muslims, 125 Croats,

8 11 Serbs." And then there are other breakdowns by age, but 3.297 males

9 and 37 women of the total amount.

10 Do you agree with generally the number of Muslims, 3.197? Would

11 this sound more or less, plus or minus, something that you would agree

12 with, having been there regularly?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Do you think the number of Croats is approximately 125?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. The number of Serbs as 11?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. The 37 number for women, is that, plus or minus, accurate in your

19 mind?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. You had been asked earlier about a list - it was shown to you, I

22 think it was originally Prosecution's 3/204 - which had the names of

23 certain category 1 persons on that list. The question was, are you aware

24 of connections between the fate of persons on that list and whether or not

25 they survived Omarska camp?

1 A. I cannot speak in general terms about all missing persons, but

2 personally I am aware of one case, and I will describe it here as my

3 observation.

4 In the first half of July when I came to the Omarska Investigation

5 Centre, soon after arrival I heard that that night there had been some

6 very grave incidents, and I immediately went to see our leader or

7 commander, Zeljko Meakic. I asked him, "What happened last night?" And

8 he said that several Muslims or, rather, detainees had been killed in the

9 Omarska camp. I said to him that though I do not have the authority to

10 give him orders, that for these things somebody will have to answer.

11 After that, he told me that it had been done upon the request of

12 an inspector. I insisted that he tell me the name of that inspector

13 because I assumed that it could have been perhaps one of my colleagues.

14 He didn't give me the name, but he said that he was an inspector who was

15 sitting in the corridor for the first two or three days because we didn't

16 have enough office space. I inferred that it must have been inspector

17 Rade Knezevic. I asked him what Rade had done, and he said that he had

18 given a guard a list of names which, in his judgement and according to his

19 demand, valuables should be taken, and after that, they should be

20 liquidated.

21 After that, I spoke to a guard who brought this list to the

22 commander, and the guard confirmed that Rade Knezevic had given him this

23 list of names. At first he asked, "What am I to do with this list, and

24 why are you giving it to me?" Upon which this one answered, "Take their

25 money and liquidate them because they are extremists."

1 I immediately informed Ranko Mijic about this, and upon my return

2 to Prijedor or, rather, the next day in the morning, we had a meeting with

3 Mr. Simo Drljaca. At that meeting I informed Simo of the event that had

4 taken place in Omarska and said resolutely that I refused to abide by such

5 conduct on the part of this inspector or any other who might resort to

6 such acts because these were inhuman, illegal actions in the extreme.

7 Simo responded at the time, "We'll see and check it out," and that was how

8 our conversation ended. About 18 persons were on that list.

9 Q. Do you know what happened to -- do you know what happened to the

10 women who were left behind in Omarska, as you indicated you were present

11 the day the list was drawn up indicating which women could leave? What

12 happened to the others who remained?

13 A. I really don't know, and I can't tell you the real truth about

14 that. I don't know.

15 Q. My final question to you - and I thank the Chamber for its

16 indulgence - is on -- in English, you need not look but I'll read it to

17 you, but on pages 4 and the top of 5, I would ask you if you agree with a

18 statement that your boss, Mr. Bera, concluded saying, "During their stay

19 in the investigation centre, two persons, both Muslim, died of natural

20 causes," and then the second part, "In the period from 27 May to 16 August

21 1992, a total of 49 persons left the centre in an unknown manner and in an

22 unknown direction."

23 Do you agree that only two persons, Muslims, died of natural

24 causes, and that some 49 persons were unaccounted for, their whereabouts

25 were unaccounted for? Would that be also one of your conclusions?

1 A. I know that one person died of natural causes, that the family was

2 allowed to bury the remains in an appropriate manner. I would not agree

3 with the statement of Mr. Vojin Bera.

4 Q. As to the two persons dying of natural causes or as to the other

5 part of it, about the 49 persons; which do you disagree with?

6 A. The 49.

7 Q. Do you care to explain the basis of your disagreement?

8 A. I can't give you proper arguments about it. I told you about a

9 case that I personally am aware of and that I investigated up to a point,

10 simply because I wanted to make sure that none of my own inspectors was

11 involved in any such activities. That was my aim. And I did in fact

12 establish that my inspectors in the investigation centre of Omarska did

13 not overstep their authority and did not conduct themselves in an

14 inappropriate manner.

15 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honours, for the extra time.

16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jesic.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Ms. Susan

18 Somers.

19 Mr. Jovan Simic for additional questions.

20 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I do have some, but I beg for your

21 indulgence for a moment. I'm just looking for a document.

22 Re-examined by Mr. J. Simic:

23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Jesic, do you know that in ex-Yugoslavia

24 there was a federal constitutional court which was based in Belgrade?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Do you know that, according to the constitution in effect at the

2 time, all federal bodies were superior in the chain of command in relation

3 to the republic bodies?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. At the time of the events and the conflict in Prijedor

6 municipality, was Republika Srpska already proclaimed? Had it already

7 been proclaimed? I'm talking about 1992, May 1992.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Was it called the Republic of the Serb People of

10 Bosnia-Herzegovina? Was that its name at the time?

11 A. And of others, too, as far as I know: The Republic of the Serb

12 People and Other Citizens.

13 Q. In those days, you were living in the territory of that republic?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. As a citizen of that republic, were you obliged to abide by its

16 laws?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Are you aware of the existence of a constitutional court of

19 Republika Srpska in those days as well?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And my last question: Do you know Nedzo Milicevic personally?

22 A. No, I do not.

23 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have no

24 further questions.

25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Jovan

1 Simic.

2 Judge Fouad Riad, please.

3 Questioned by the Court:

4 JUDGE RIAD: Mr. Jesic, good morning. Can you hear me?

5 A. Good morning.

6 JUDGE RIAD: I just have a few clarifications to ask you

7 concerning your interviewing first the detainees. You said that sometimes

8 the detainee would be interviewed several times to find out if he hasn't

9 said the truth. First, what was the -- what were your means to bring out

10 the truth? Was there any exertion of strength, of forcing throughout?

11 A. No. The way we established the truth would be roughly as follows:

12 A person will not admit that he purchased illegally an automatic rifle.

13 Then interviewing other persons, we discover that that person did indeed

14 purchase that rifle. Then we call him back in for a talk and we tell him

15 that we have information according to which we have checked out that that

16 is true. Then we would go out into the field and find the rifle in

17 question, and then he would finally confess.

18 JUDGE RIAD: That was concerning the rifle. Sometimes -- as you

19 said, you would have categories, people who were financing or who were

20 planning and so on. Was it easy to find in this way, or you had to

21 extract it by other means?

22 A. As far as financing is concerned, of course it was more difficult

23 to establish in the investigation. In some cases, we didn't manage to

24 prove it. We had quite a number of examples of Mirza Mujadzic having

25 collected a large number of foreign exchange for the needs of the SDA, and

1 then through these interviews we discovered that only Mirza Mujadzic had

2 the key to the safe containing the foreign exchange and no one else did.

3 There were oral statements by people who were in contact with him, but

4 this was not complete and full material evidence to prove these charges.

5 JUDGE RIAD: But I would like you to tell me about the whole

6 policy of the investigators, not only your own, because you mentioned also

7 the other ones.

8 Now, what -- first, would you try sometimes to get confessions by

9 force? You or the others. If not you, the others, because you have been

10 watching. You have been seeing what's happening.

11 A. Yes, probably there were such cases, but I insisted that my

12 inspectors do not resort to any such means.

13 JUDGE RIAD: I remember you said that the other room adjacent to

14 yours, you saw this man on the ground. But what happens if somebody --

15 you discovered that Mirza did not say the truth. What would the

16 investigators do to him?

17 A. In that case, that person would be released or, rather, he would

18 not be put in that category.

19 JUDGE RIAD: He has -- he was hiding the truth. He was hiding

20 what he committed and then you discover it. Would he be -- how is he

21 treated at that time, a liar?

22 A. Then we would act in accordance with the law and legal provisions.

23 I personally would not apply force in that case.

24 JUDGE RIAD: And in general, were the investigators entitled to

25 give orders or to tell the guards what to do with the detainees before or

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

14 and the English transcripts.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 after they are interrogated?

2 A. My inspectors did not have such orders, nor did they have the

3 right to do that. What the inspectors of the Public Security Centre did I

4 cannot testify because I am not responsible for them.

5 JUDGE RIAD: Yes, you are not responsible. But you had knowledge,

6 you knew what was happening.

7 A. In that case, I would inform their chief, their superior, Ranko

8 Mijic.

9 JUDGE RIAD: That's all you could do?

10 A. That's all that I could do according to the rules and

11 regulations. If -- anything else that I might do would mean overstepping

12 my own powers.

13 JUDGE RIAD: And after the interrogation or even before you had a

14 first and second category, some were transferred to Manjaca and some

15 transferred to Trnopolje. What was the criterion? Was it only, as you

16 said, age, sickness, or sex, the women; or was it their guilt according to

17 the categories?

18 A. Their guilt was the first criterion. It is on the basis of that

19 criterion that we did that. The persons that we knew had committed

20 certain violations of the law, they would be grouped into category 1 and 2

21 and would be transferred to Manjaca. The persons for which we did not

22 have any such information went to Trnopolje.

23 JUDGE RIAD: But you also said that Trnopolje would take the

24 people -- the aged and the sick. So a guilty, a guilty old man would go

25 to Manjaca all the same, or a guilty, sick man?

1 A. If he was sick, then he should have been provided with medical

2 treatment. He should go to treatment and be -- he should go to Trnopolje

3 and be treated there. We didn't have such cases of elderly and sick

4 people.

5 JUDGE RIAD: You said they were sent to Trnopolje, according to

6 you, so you had cases --

7 THE INTERPRETER: Mike, please, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE RIAD: You said they were sent to Trnopolje, so you had

9 cases of sick people, of old people, and they may have been guilty. What

10 happened to them?

11 A. I said that if there were any sick people, they were given medical

12 aid and then sent to Trnopolje.

13 JUDGE RIAD: And you mentioned that there was a triage made and

14 some people were released if proved not guilty. What was the percentage

15 of the people released? How many people were released? Have you an

16 idea?

17 A. That occurred during the first few days. We released about ten

18 people and after that came Simo Drljaca's order on the phone that from

19 then on, no one may be released without his permission and approval.

20 JUDGE RIAD: Then there was nobody released after that?

21 A. Yes.

22 JUDGE RIAD: You also mentioned that --

23 A. Sorry, there were people released with his approval.

24 JUDGE RIAD: How many? A lot?

25 A. This was the category of persons who had been in the Yugoslav army

1 and who were brought there by mistake, really, rather than on the basis of

2 any reason, and also some elderly people who were released then.

3 JUDGE RIAD: My last question: You mentioned that you informed

4 Drljaca, after you knew about Knezevic list of names to be liquidated.

5 You mentioned that you refused to abide by such conduct of any person.

6 And was this conduct repeated after that?

7 A. I don't think so. I can't claim with 100 per cent certainty, but

8 I think not in that form.

9 JUDGE RIAD: You mean not in this big dimension?

10 A. Yes.

11 JUDGE RIAD: But in other ways?

12 A. I am not aware or familiar with any other cases, and I really

13 cannot tell you the truth about them because I don't know. I told you

14 what I personally heard, and investigated, and in a sense proved.

15 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much, Mr. Jesic.

16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Fouad Riad.

17 Madam Judge Wald has the floor.

18 JUDGE WALD: Mr. Jesic, you told us that in the beginning when

19 your duties were defined, you were told that your job was to collect

20 information and documents and that an armed uprising might or could occur

21 and sabotage groups were being trained, et cetera. Is it true, then, that

22 these collection centres, to your knowledge, were set up before the

23 alleged attack on Prijedor, which happened, I think, at the end of May?

24 Is that right? I mean, the Omarska and Keraterm were set up and your

25 duties were defined before we've heard about an attack, an alleged attack,

1 by Muslims on Prijedor, but that didn't occur until the end of May so

2 these camps were set up and your functions defined before that attack

3 occurred?

4 A. Yes. That's right. That was a few days before.

5 JUDGE WALD: That's basically what I wanted to know. Secondly,

6 when you told us about the categories, that 1 and 2, if it was found that

7 people were either the organisers or they had contributed through funding

8 or arms to these uprisings, that they might be processed for whatever

9 crimes were applicable. In other parts, you told us that those people

10 went to Manjaca. Do you know whether or not any process was ever brought

11 against them? Were they ever actually tried for any kinds of crimes or

12 were they just sent to Manjaca? Were those people in categories 2 and 3,

13 who you told us were supposed to be at some point processed, criminally

14 processed, for whatever crimes they committed, allegedly committed, but

15 then you told us that those were the group that went to Manjaca. I

16 wondered if you knew whether any process had actually ever been brought

17 against them.

18 A. With a certain number, yes, to some of them, yes, but before they

19 left for Manjaca. Cirkin Sead, for example, legal action was taken

20 against her, criminal proceedings initiated, and that was at -- with the

21 military court.

22 JUDGE WALD: I see. Do you have any idea, from your knowledge,

23 approximately how many people had actual criminal process begun against

24 them while they were at Omarska, before they went to Manjaca?

25 A. Well, a group, a criminal report was made against a group pursuant

1 to Article --

2 JUDGE WALD: Do you know approximately how many?

3 A. With respect to an armed uprising, about 20 individuals.

4 JUDGE WALD: About 20, okay. Now, did I hear your testimony

5 correctly that after Drljaca said that nobody could be released except

6 with his permission, is it true that nobody -- well, that somebody, a few

7 people, were released before the end of the camp, when everybody was

8 either sent to Trnopolje or was sent to Manjaca? Were there a few people

9 that were released while they were still in Omarska after that beginning

10 group?

11 A. Yes. The category who was in our army and the elderly.

12 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Now, is it -- is my understanding correct that

13 the investigators didn't draw up any lists until after the people had

14 already been brought to Omarska? In other words, it wasn't the

15 investigators that drew up the lists of people who should be arrested and

16 brought to Omarska; is that true? Or is it only after people had been

17 arrested and brought to Omarska and you had gone to the triage business,

18 then you would draw up the lists? Did you have any say about who got

19 brought to Omarska, or just what happened to them, in terms of the

20 categories, after they were already in Omarska?

21 A. We insisted that each individual who was detained had to -- that

22 they had to know why they were being detained, but that suggestion wasn't

23 taken up and then people began to be detained in large numbers without

24 actually having criminal charges brought against them, that is to say,

25 information about any criminal undertakings. So we had to undertake a

1 triage, and on the basis of the information we obtained from the triage

2 and the interviews, we would group them into the first and second

3 categories.

4 JUDGE WALD: You mentioned that you knew Mr. Prcac and you saw him

5 at least once in the camp. Did you know what Mr. Prcac's job was in the

6 camp? Did you have any sense of what his function was in the camp?

7 A. I didn't know what function he had because it was with Zeljko

8 Meakic that I had my contacts. I contacted Zeljko Meakic when the need

9 arose. But I saw Drago in the camp on several occasions.

10 JUDGE WALD: But you never -- or did you ever have any

11 conversation with him about what he was doing?

12 A. I didn't.

13 JUDGE WALD: You told us that you insisted that your people, your

14 interrogators that belonged to your state security, that those people

15 would abide by what you referred to as a code of conduct of the members of

16 the State Security System. And I gather that that -- am I right that that

17 code of conduct would have said that they should not beat or abuse the

18 prisoners during the interrogation; is that right?

19 A. Yes, that's right.

20 JUDGE WALD: And you have told us that, to your knowledge, none of

21 your people who were under your supervision did in fact abuse the

22 prisoners; is that right? Your people did not abuse the prisoners? Is

23 that your testimony?

24 A. For the active ones, active-duty ones, yes, but as to the reserve

25 ones, they might have overstepped their authorisation, but I think that

1 their conduct was proper too throughout.

2 JUDGE WALD: We have heard from one other witness that the

3 interrogators worked in teams of three with one from each of these

4 services - state security, public security and military - and that they

5 would interrogate a person in a team of three, one asking questions, one

6 writing down answers, and it was not clear what the third one did. Is

7 that your impression or is that your testimony? Is that the way the

8 interrogators worked or did some of them interrogate all by themselves,

9 singly?

10 A. As for the inspectors for military security, in most cases they

11 worked separately because they were investigating members of the army. In

12 several cases, they worked together as a team.

13 JUDGE WALD: So when people from your service, from the State

14 Security Service, interrogated, did they interrogate with other people

15 from the public security and maybe from the military, or did they

16 sometimes interrogate all by themselves?

17 A. No, my inspectors didn't work on their own ever. They didn't

18 conduct the interviews on their own. It was the team of the state and

19 public, and sometimes the military teams as well.

20 JUDGE WALD: So did your code of conduct contain any instructions,

21 or were there any separate instructions to your people, to your state

22 security people, what to do if they were on a team of interrogators and

23 people from the other two branches might abuse or beat prisoners? Were

24 they given any instructions as to what they should do if somebody else on

25 their team began to abuse or beat prisoner?

1 A. We had oral instructions.

2 JUDGE WALD: What were they?

3 A. We were told to inform our superiors.

4 JUDGE WALD: To inform your superiors, and you told us you did do

5 that. How about on the moment, at the moment that the beating was taking

6 place as opposed to later on telling the instructor [sic]? Did your

7 people have instruction that they were to try to intervene or to stop

8 somebody else from misbehaving toward the prisoner at the moment?

9 A. I didn't personally give instructions of that kind. I just told

10 them that they should behave properly, exclusively within the provisions

11 of the law.

12 JUDGE WALD: Did your code of conduct that you referred to, your

13 state security code of conduct, have any instructions or provisions

14 telling employees what to do when they observed somebody else with whom

15 they were working abuse prisoners?

16 A. Yes. Mostly they would inform me of cases of that kind.

17 JUDGE WALD: But they weren't told that they were to, themselves,

18 try to intervene and stop it?

19 A. No.

20 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Thank you.

21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Madam Judge

22 Wald. I have only two questions. My first question is the following:

23 Who decided who the detainees to be interviewed were, which detainees were

24 to be interviewed in the camp? Who made that decision?

25 A. At the beginning, I said that we decided with the commander of the

1 -- the leader of the guard, that we should do this according to the place

2 of residence and as they were brought into the centre, and afterwards --

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I apologise for interrupting but

4 you mentioned a leader of the guard. Now, this brings me to another

5 question. How were the guards organised in the camp?

6 A. Well, they were part, in the organisational sense, part of the

7 Public Security Station of Prijedor. That's what they came under. The

8 second round of security, as far as I was able to learn, was provided by

9 the military. That is to say, right around the building, security around

10 the building was by the members of the Prijedor Public Security Station.

11 They had their leader. And I can't go into their tasks, actually, because

12 I didn't know what they were, what their duties implied.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you. But to go back

14 a bit, when you said at the beginning that you were speaking to the leader

15 of the guards, who was that leader? What was he doing, that leader of the

16 guards? Who was that?

17 A. Well, he had the task of taking charge of internal and outside

18 security for the premises where the detainees were located. Also, they

19 had to ensure the sanitary service for those individuals, and also with

20 others -- with other organs to take care of the food, the food and health

21 of the detainees, how the detainees were fed, and to take care of security

22 generally, to see that nobody --

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you. What was the

24 relationship, if I can use the term, and I'll see whether you understand

25 or not, but what was the relationship that existed between this leader of

1 the guards and the guards themselves, if it existed? Was there a

2 relationship between the two?

3 A. Well, I can't give an answer to that because I don't know. I

4 didn't have any connection with them, actually.

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] When you say that in the

6 beginning you had this -- these dealings with the leader of the guards,

7 could you tell us -- give us two or three names of those leaders, the

8 people that you talked to. Who were they?

9 A. I talked to Zeljko Meakic as the commander of the guards, and

10 that's what I was told, that Zeljko Meakic performed this function. The

11 others, I knew Kvocka, I knew Prcac. I knew a policeman called Grahovac

12 or something like that, but I didn't actually ask them what their function

13 and position was and what their duties were. I didn't ask them that.

14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] When you mentioned Kvocka and

15 Prcac, what was the position of those people, Kvocka and Prcac, for

16 example, with respect to Zeljko Meakic? What was this relationship and

17 how did they figure in comparison to Zeljko Meakic?

18 A. As far as I know, Zeljko was the komandir, the leader. The others

19 probably had lower-down functions. Whether they were deputies or not, I

20 don't know. I never saw a piece of paper with anything written down that

21 they were deputies of any kind, but I saw them there. They were present

22 there, and I saw them on the premises and around the premises, in the

23 buildings and around.

24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Now, what was the situation

25 around Zeljko Meakic -- let us imagine that neither Zeljko Meakic nor Simo

1 Drljaca were there. Was there somebody that took over the responsibility,

2 their responsibilities, for security in any way, the security of the

3 centre as a whole? When they weren't there, did anybody take that on?

4 A. Well, probably somebody did. In the first shift, it was usually

5 Zeljko that was in the first shift. I saw Drago a couple of times in the

6 first and in the second shift.

7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] When you say the first shift,

8 what -- was there a second shift, a third and fourth shift? How did

9 things function? How many shifts existed?

10 A. Well, I say the first because we worked from eight in the morning

11 till four in the afternoon, generally speaking, most days. But as I've

12 already said, there were days when we would stay late, until 8 p.m. - that

13 was for a short period of time when we worked more intensely - and then I

14 saw these people there.

15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. I did have some other

16 questions to ask you, but we have to end by 12.45, so we're going to

17 adjourn now, and afterwards perhaps we will meet again after the lunch

18 break. I'm now going to ask the usher to accompany you out of the

19 courtroom, and we're going to adjourn for lunch.

20 We resume at 2.00.

21 --- Recess taken at 12.50 p.m.

22 --- On resuming at 2.02 p.m.

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.

24 Mr. Jesic, did you have a rest? Do you feel rested?

25 A. Yes.

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] For the final part of your

2 testimony, we were talking about calling the detainees, how this worked.

3 Let me ask you, could you describe in broad lines the actual procedure of

4 calling a detainee in for interrogation? How things worked?

5 A. In the first phase, as I said, the callout went according to

6 areas, according to settlements. The guard would say, "Let the people

7 residing in Puharska, Cerici, Prijedor, Kozarac come to the pista." So

8 the first day, we would cover the detainees from Puharska, then the next

9 day the people from Cerici, then the following day another settlement,

10 until we had covered the lot.

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So it was the investigators who

12 asked the guards to bring prisoners; is that right?

13 A. After this callout, the guards would accompany the detainees to

14 the interrogation, and the inspector or the investigator would take down

15 the particulars and continue the interview. It worked like that until we

16 completed the first stage. In the meantime, lists were made up of the

17 first, second and third category.

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] After having interrogated a

19 detainee, did the investigator give any instructions whatsoever to the

20 guards, to take the detainees back, for example? Could an investigator

21 say to a guard, "This detainee is going to the 'white house,' this one is

22 going to the hangar," or somewhere else, any other building or any other

23 room?

24 A. No. That was not the duty of the investigator, and as far as I

25 know, nothing like that happened. Having completed the interview, the

1 investigator would tell the guard to take the detainee back to where he

2 had come from. As far as I know, there were no cases of the investigator

3 specifying a particular place where the detainee should be taken, the

4 "white house," Room number 2 or Room number 3, because these were the

5 people from -- who provided the physical security who were familiar with

6 the actual premises.

7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You have already said that in

8 principle, these events or this procedure of bringing a detainee who was

9 to the hangar, after being interrogated, was the detainee taken to the

10 "white house"? You say if the detainee was taken to the "white house,"

11 you said that did not happen in principle, but you do have information

12 that this did happen. So the detainees were brought to the investigators

13 coming from the hangar, and after interrogation, the detainee was taken to

14 the "white house."

15 According to your knowledge of the organisation of the camp, your

16 experience, how did this happen? Who could order the detainee not to go

17 back to the hangar but to go to the "white house"? Who could decide such

18 a thing?

19 A. I can say that that is something that my inspectors did not decide

20 about. This is something that I can guarantee. As to whether some

21 individual took upon himself to do that, I don't know. I can't claim

22 that.

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Can we agree in

24 saying that the investigators informed the guards which detainees they

25 wanted to interrogate, and the guards went to find them and bring them to

1 the investigators? Is that how things worked? Can we agree on that?

2 A. Yes.

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] As you spent the time in the

4 camp from its opening until its dismantling working as an investigator in

5 the Omarska centre, can you tell us how the security in the camp was

6 organised? Specifically, I would like to ask you to tell me what was the

7 position of Ranko Mijic, who worked with you as an investigator on the

8 part of the civil police; what was the position of Ranko Mijic in the

9 public security, that is, in the security of the camp?

10 A. Ranko Mijic was the head of the crime department of the Public

11 Security Station in Prijedor. In the Omarska camp, he was responsible for

12 a group of inspectors coming from the Public Security Centre Prijedor. So

13 I was in charge of the state security, and he was in charge of the public

14 security. In most cases, he was the one who contacted the personnel

15 providing physical security as they belonged to the Public Security

16 Station of Prijedor.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So he had contacts with the

18 security personnel of the camp. Who were they?

19 A. I know the older generation: Miroslav Kvocka, Ljuban Grahovac,

20 Zeljko Meakic, Drago Prcac. All the others were younger people whom I had

21 not known until that time.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] What was the hierarchical

23 relationship between Ranko Mijic and the persons you have mentioned,

24 Miroslav Kvocka, Ljuban Grahovac, Zeljko Meakic, and Drago Prcac?

25 A. In the public Security Service, in terms of hierarchy, Mijic was a

1 step above Zeljko Meakic, who was the commander, and Mijic was directly

2 responsible to Simo Drljaca for what was happening in the Omarska camp.

3 Q. So according to your understanding, if you start from Simo Drljaca

4 and go down the chain of command, who would be down that chain going from

5 Simo Drljaca downwards?

6 A. Simo Drljaca, Ranko Mijic, Zeljko Meakic.

7 Q. The persons that you have just mentioned, Kvocka, Grahovac,

8 Meakic, Prcac, did they have any role or position in that chain of

9 command, in that hierarchy?

10 A. I assume that Zeljko Meakic had his deputies, as there should be,

11 according to the rules. So according to the hierarchy, then come the

12 policemen or the guards who provided security in the camp.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] When you mention Meakic,

14 Grahovac, Prcac and Kvocka, were they all in the same position, in terms

15 of hierarchy, or was there any difference among them?

16 A. I think not, according to the hierarchy that exists in the public

17 Security Service.

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] When you say that Zeljko Meakic

19 must have had his deputies, do you have any idea who was Zeljko Meakic's

20 deputy?

21 A. I really do not know that for a fact. It might be possible but I

22 don't know that.

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But when you mentioned these

24 names - and let me repeat them: Kvocka, Grahovac, Meakic and Prcac - what

25 were their functions in the camp -- the positions of those persons in the

1 camp?

2 A. I know Kvocka ever since the beginning. We met several times on

3 the pista and in front of the building, and after that, I heard that he

4 was replaced because he took his brothers-in-law from the camp to his

5 parents' home.

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Jesic, before the

7 break, you spoke of the procedure of calling -- no. In order to decide

8 which detainee should be called to be interrogated, you said that you

9 spoke with the guards' shift leader. This was just before the break. I

10 should like to go back to that question. A shift leader of the guards was

11 the expression that you used. Could you tell us, please, what that is?

12 What is the guard shift leader that you were referring to?

13 A. A shift leader should be responsible for work in his shift, to be

14 in charge of a group assigned to him.

15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. I'm sorry, there are often

16 translation problems. I must make sure. Before lunch, I heard you

17 mention "guard shift leader." Now I hear "head of the guard group."

18 Maybe the interpreters have changed the term. According to your opinion,

19 is there a difference between a shift leader of the guards - I hope the

20 interpreters will be able to follow - and the chief of the guard group?

21 Are they one and the same thing for you, or are there two different things

22 -- are these two different things?

23 A. You're talking about commander and chief? I think it's the same

24 thing.

25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Witness, we always have this

1 problem. The term that you used, "smjena," does that for you mean a team

2 or a shift?

3 A. I am really not familiar with the hierarchy and the chain of

4 command in detail because I worked in a different service, and I didn't

5 consider it necessary for me to be so familiar with these things, so I

6 can't give you a precise and detailed answer that would be the absolute

7 truth.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. But you still

9 maintain that there was a shift leader? You spoke with the shift leader

10 of the guards, did you, to learn who were the prisoners that should be

11 interrogated -- to tell him who the prisoners are that should be

12 interrogated?

13 A. I spoke in the sense giving them -- in the sense of giving them

14 the names that they need to bring to us for us to check out certain data.

15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. But you spoke to

16 "them." Who are they?

17 A. I mostly spoke to Zeljko, and he would pass it on to the persons

18 most directly in charge. I really didn't have much time to go into the

19 details.

20 Ranko Mijic also did a great part of the job because

21 organisationally, he is linked to the Security Service, and he knew more

22 of the people there because they belonged to his organisational unit. And

23 for those reasons, I simply didn't think it necessary to study the duties

24 of these individuals in detail, nor to know them in detail.

25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Just a moment,

1 please.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] As you know, the Chamber

4 realises that it has opened a subject that has not been touched upon by

5 the parties, that is, the question that I raised. So I think, as I have

6 said, and I stand by what I said, that the parties should be treated on an

7 equal footing and they shall be given a chance to re-examine.

8 I shall give the parties three minutes to put one, two, or three

9 questions to the witness, depending on your own organisation. Three

10 minutes for each party, and I think I should begin with the Defence, so

11 Mr. Jovan Simic. I'm saying this because there are other Defence counsel

12 involved, so for the moment I give the floor to Mr. Jovan Simic.

13 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

14 Re-examined by Mr. J. Simic:

15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Jesic, can you tell us the name of the person

16 who was commander of the security?

17 A. Zeljko Meakic.

18 Q. Did you speak to anybody else but Zeljko Meakic, regarding

19 everything that Their Honours have asked you about, when you contacted the

20 security?

21 A. Officially, no, but I did have contact with others.

22 Q. I see. Officially, none other.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, sorry, microphone. Microphone,

24 Mr. Jovan Simic.

25 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, I didn't press the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

14 and the English transcripts.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 microphone. We have no further questions.

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay, thank you. Sorry, other

3 counsel, any additional questions? I see Mr. Lukic on his feet.

4 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honours, I have only one question.

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Proceed.

6 Cross-examined by Mr. Lukic:

7 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Jesic, are you familiar with the

8 organisational structure of the police department? Do you know whether a

9 police department has a deputy?

10 A. No. I am not fully familiar with the police structure of a

11 department.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.

14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I see the other counsel have no

15 questions. No? Ms. Susan Somers, then.

16 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 Re-cross-examined by Ms. Somers:

18 Q. Mr. Jesic, before lunch Judge Rodrigues proposed a question to

19 you, and I'll read it back, if you might be able to help us clarify it.

20 His Honour said -- yes, the question that Judge Rodrigues asked you was,

21 "Now, what was the situation around Zeljko Meakic? Let us imagine that

22 neither Zeljko Meakic nor Simo Drljaca were there. Was there somebody

23 that took over the responsibility, their responsibilities, for security in

24 any way, the security of the centre as a whole when they weren't there?

25 Did somebody take this on?" You answered, "Well, probably somebody did.

1 In the first shift, it was usually Zeljko who was in the first shift. I

2 saw Drago a couple of times in the first and the second shift."

3 Which Drago were you referring to, please?

4 A. Drago Prcac I was referring to. And this was in the event that we

5 had a group of females who were being sent from the camp to Trnopolje. We

6 made a list in the camp, and Drago went out, went downstairs to read out

7 that list and call out the persons from the list, take them to the bus,

8 and send them off to Trnopolje.

9 Q. Mr. Jesic, was that because Zeljko was not there?

10 A. All I can say is that Drago happened to be there, as far as I can

11 remember, and he is an authorised official person, as a part of the

12 Security Service. That was the reason that I gave him the list.

13 Q. Authorised by whom, if you can tell us? Authorised by whom?

14 A. An official authorised person means a person who has an official

15 ID and has competences as a policeman, as an inspector from the crime

16 service, or anything like that.

17 Q. After Drago Prcac completed this reading out of names with which

18 you were involved, did you have to go any further up to any higher

19 official in Omarska to confirm any aspect of the implementation of that

20 order, or did it end with Prcac?

21 A. In such cases, we would inform Simo Drljaca. That was in fact

22 done at the request of Simo Drljaca, that a list be made and these people

23 transferred. Of course, I informed Simo Drljaca that we had carried out

24 his orders.

25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers, the time.

1 MS. SOMERS: Thank you. I'm not permitted to ask the part two of

2 that --

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay, finished?

4 MS. SOMERS: -- about Drljaca's response after he talked to

5 Drljaca? Is this permitted?

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay.

7 MS. SOMERS:

8 Q. Did Simo Drljaca, to your knowledge, ever contradict any of the

9 actions that day, or concerning that day, that Drago Prcac took?

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Jovan Simic?

11 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't understand why

12 things are being depicted this way. The witness said these were done on

13 the orders of Simo Drljaca. My learned friend is now asking whether he

14 opposed this, but he gave the orders. Maybe she misunderstood, because

15 she has reversed entirely the context of the question, I'm afraid.

16 MS. SOMERS: May I respond, Your Honour?

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, very quickly, Ms. Susan

18 Somers. I am afraid we are going to learn something from this. I'm not

19 going to give you this exceptional opportunity to use three minutes

20 because you're abusing those minutes. I said you should make the best of

21 three minutes, as you wished, by posing one, two or three questions, but

22 it was three minutes. So Ms. Susan Somers finally.

23 MS. SOMERS: Could the Chamber permit him to clarify that answer,

24 then?

25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We must finish this. Clarify

1 the point but ending it without opening other questions.

2 MS. SOMERS:

3 Q. Your answer was that you informed Simo Drljaca. Is that still

4 your position? You informed Simo Drljaca that this had been done; is that

5 correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 MS. SOMERS: Thank you. Thank you very much, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic. Is there an

9 objection?

10 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I had an objection, Your Honour,

11 but not any more, thank you.

12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you. I wish to

13 check with my colleagues, whether they have any additional questions.

14 Judge Riad? No. Judge Wald? No. In that case, that brings to an end

15 all our questions for you, Mr. Jesic. Thank you very much for coming here

16 and we wish you a safe journey home. Thank you. I shall ask the usher to

17 accompany you out.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too, Your Honours.

19 [The witness withdrew]

20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic, we still have a

21 little time left.

22 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we will certainly get

23 through another witness because, if I understood you correctly, we will be

24 working until 3.30. And I was going to tender some documents into

25 evidence. I don't know what we are going to do with the one that's under

1 seal. Is it too late when we hear President Jorda's ruling, but I

2 nonetheless wish to tender some documents: 41 and 42/5 A and B.

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. At any rate --

4 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours, I said

5 39/5, which is the protected document, and it was my mistake because we

6 have 40/5, another exhibit, 40/5, to be tendered, 40, 41 and 42.

7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers?

8 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, because we had discussed certain things

9 in private session, I won't go into detail. If the Chamber might defer a

10 ruling on that particular issue, the Prosecution would certainly not be

11 complaining at all about the delay, inasmuch as it occasioned part of it.

12 On the other documents --

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Susan Somers, let's

14 make a distinction. We are now going to discuss documents that are not

15 under seal. And to discuss that, we are going to go into private

16 session. All we are doing now is discussing the documents that we can

17 discuss in public, which is to say documents 40, 41 and 42, Defence

18 exhibits, and also, I think you too had some documents to be tendered.

19 MS. SOMERS: That's correct, Your Honour. My understanding is

20 D40/5 is Prosecution's 2/4.16, and that document was part of the three

21 binders of documentary evidence admitted by the -- by this Chamber's

22 predecessor Chamber in 1999. And then so that one I believe has been

23 accounted for.

24 42/5 also -- is also part of the Prosecution's binder of

25 documentary evidence that was admitted in 1999, and I think would be

1 subject simply to recall as opposed to readmission. A part -- I'm told

2 part of it is. We may have to determine which part. I'm not clear which

3 particular parts of it Mr. Simic wants to put in.

4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon, Ms. Somers.

5 The Registrar has sent a note to me saying that all these documents

6 indicated by the Defence have actually been admitted into evidence by the

7 Prosecutor. That being the case, document 40/5 has been taken note of,

8 and that document corresponds to Prosecution Exhibit 2/4.16, 16. The

9 document 41/5, Defence document 41/5, corresponds to Prosecution Exhibit

10 3/204, and document 42/5 of the Defence corresponds to Prosecution Exhibit

11 2/3.5. Is that right, Madam Registrar?

12 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Mr. President, it is.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Therefore, there is no need to

14 have them tendered -- have the Defence ask for them to be tendered. They

15 have already been admitted by the Prosecution. Now, Ms. Somers, your own

16 documents? The documents you used yourself.

17 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. There were initially

18 Prosecution 3/299 and 3/300 and then 3/292. Those are the three documents

19 at issue. We would ask for admission into evidence of all three. I think

20 the relevance has been established. And on the two documents which were

21 from the constitutional court of BiH, those documents would be probably

22 subject to Rule 94 to be judicially noticed as the decisions of courts of

23 another country. I want -- I remind the Chamber, which had very helpfully

24 encouraged a number of judicially noticed and adjudicated facts to be

25 admitted into the proceedings, and certainly arguably this could have been

1 included -- these two could have been included - for some reason, they

2 were not - but in fact represent decisions of the existing constitutional

3 court of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Their relevance further is highlighted by

4 the position that it puts other persons in the territory, particularly in

5 Prijedor, vis-a-vis the new Serb government that was taken -- that had

6 taken effect.

7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We have to say that now on the

8 contrary, the exhibit put forward by the Prosecutor with the number 3/292,

9 according to the information presented by the Registry, has already been

10 admitted and it is D38/1. That is the number by which it has been

11 admitted, so now we have the opposite situation. We don't have to have it

12 tendered. I know that we have enormous number of documents, so I

13 apologise for that comment, but we have to see whether it already exists

14 and whether it has already been admitted. I know that each of the parties

15 wishes to assure itself their document has been introduced into evidence

16 without going into -- without checking it out. But, yes, that one has

17 been admitted.

18 What we need to discuss, another outstanding matter, Mr. Jovan

19 Simic, are document 3/299 and 3/300, those two documents, and may we hear

20 your position, Mr. Jovan Simic, as regards those two documents.

21 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] The Defence team has received

22 photocopies where some numbers have been admitted, and so we aren't always

23 in a position to check, which is why we have a situation of this kind

24 arising.

25 As far as those two documents are concerned, we object because the

1 relevance has not been established. There were attempts, the attempt was

2 made to use these two documents with respect to the credibility of the

3 witness, but the witness has no knowledge of them, nor was he able to

4 comment, so we object to these two documents being admitted into evidence,

5 relevance not established.

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. The

7 Judges will confer.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The Chamber admits Prosecution

10 document 3/299 and 3/300, and after the -- and the Chamber will decide the

11 weight and value and probative value that it will attach to the two

12 documents.

13 MS. SOMERS: May I bring something to Your Honours' attention,

14 please? First of all, it did skip the Prosecution's attention that it was

15 a Defence exhibit, but we noticed that there was a draft translation. The

16 translation that accompanies the Prosecution's repeat attempt to admit it

17 is a final translation. Would the Chamber want us to submit the final

18 translation so that it is a revised translation that is an official one,

19 if that would be of assistance?

20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic, I think that

21 your answer should be yes. Is that right?

22 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] What else can I say, Your Honours?

23 It appears that we haven't got the document.

24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You can always say no and give

25 us your reasons, Mr. Jovan Simic. Have you found it?

1 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] No, we don't object.

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. The translation,

3 revised translation will be tendered, Madam Registrar, and the number will

4 be?

5 THE REGISTRAR: Please give me a moment to recheck it and renumber

6 it.

7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No, I apologise, no. It is

8 Exhibit 3/292 and to tender a revised translation, so we don't need a new

9 number. We are just going to have the revised translation admitted.

10 THE REGISTRAR: Well, since it was submitted, it was D38/1. It

11 should really be D38/1 bis so we can keep it in order and you know that

12 it's the revised translation. That's the procedure we were using prior

13 to.

14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. I know that that was the

15 case, but I see in the transcript it is not D381 but D38/1, and in that

16 case, it is enough to add "bis" for the revised translation.

17 May we continue now? I think we may, and I don't allow for no --

18 Mr. Jovan Simic.

19 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence would

20 like to call the next witness, who is Milos Jankovic.

21 [The witness entered court]

22 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. The

23 witness has brought something in with him which we don't know what it is,

24 so perhaps you could caution him to save comments later on during the

25 testimony. We don't know what the witness has brought into the courtroom

1 with him.

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm not quite sure I follow.

3 Ah, I understand. Witness, what have you got there with you,

4 Mr. Milos Jankovic? What is it you have in your hands?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have a written statement that I

6 gave to the lawyer on the topic that I'm going to speak about now. This

7 is the written statement. I have this for the witnesses, and I also

8 have -- this is something related to encryption which, if I am asked, says

9 that I needn't answer.

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just a moment please, Witness.

11 One moment, please.

12 Mr. Jovan Simic, are they documents which you asked the witness to

13 bring with him, or what?

14 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] No.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, he didn't ask for them. I

16 brought them myself at my own initiative.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Witness, let's take

18 it slowly. We'll see in due course. You can keep the documents for the

19 moment, and we'll see if we need to use them or not and for what purpose.

20 Keep the documents with you for the time being.

21 Very well. But first of all, let's start at the beginning, which

22 is the solemn declaration handed to you by the usher. Would you read it

23 out, please.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Would you go ahead and read it

1 out loud, please. Read the solemn declaration out loud, please.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

3 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

4 WITNESS: MILOS JANKOVIC

5 [Witness answered through interpreter]

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated. Take a seat,

7 please. Perhaps you could draw closer to the microphone. That's right,

8 thank you.

9 Thank you for coming, Mr. Milos Jankovic. You're going to start

10 off by answering questions put to you by Mr. Jovan Simic. That means that

11 you're going to answer the questions that Mr. Jovan Simic is going to ask

12 you, so it's up to him to say whether or not you're going to use the

13 documents you have with you.

14 Without further ado, I give the floor to Mr. Jovan Simic. Jovan

15 Simic, your witness.

16 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We won't

17 be using the documents.

18 Examined by Mr. J. Simic:

19 Q. [Interpretation] For the record, Witness, could you please state

20 your full name.

21 A. My name is Milos Jankovic.

22 Q. When and where were you born?

23 A. I was born on the 30th of October, 1948, in the village of

24 Pelagicevo, Gradacac municipality, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

25 Q. Are you married? Do you have any children?

1 A. Yes, I am. I'm married with two children.

2 Q. In the period of March and April 1992, where were you employed and

3 what was your job?

4 A. I was employed in Prijedor. It was the Public Security Station of

5 Prijedor, and my job was -- I was chief of communications and

6 cryptoprotection; encoding.

7 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] May I ask the usher to distribute

8 document D43/5 A and B, and to provide the witness with a copy as well.

9 Q. Mr. Jankovic, this is a document dated the 29th of April, 1992.

10 Are you acquainted with the document? And another document that we

11 discussed here -- actually, could you tell us in your own words what you

12 know about this particular document and how you came into possession of

13 it.

14 A. This is not a document that I can talk about. As regards its

15 content, it is the same as the other one, but in official terms, in the

16 heading, it doesn't say "republic," it says "Ministry of the Interior."

17 And this -- the words "very urgent." On the other document, the same

18 words exist, "very urgent."

19 In the signature, there is the commander, Colonel Hasan Efendic,

20 never heard of him, but it says "Minister of the Interior" in my document,

21 Mustafa -- Delimustafic. Delimustafic, I think. I think the first name

22 was Alija and that the surname was Delimustafic, whereas here that is

23 different. And the last letters in the bottom left-hand corner, we have

24 DJ/NS; in the other one there are -- the initials are different.

25 But the document, the document is the same in substance, but sent

1 by a different institution to a different addressee.

2 Q. So you're saying that the text of the document, of both documents

3 is the same, that the text is the same in both documents; is that right?

4 A. Well, just glancing through it, and off the bat, I would say that

5 it was exactly the same. Now, if I were to compare the two, perhaps I

6 would find a word different here and there, but I can see that the

7 contents are exactly the same.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Saxon?

9 MR. SAXON: I need to express some confusion because there is a

10 document on the ELMO and the witness has said that he can't talk about the

11 document before him that's on the ELMO, and then the witness appears to be

12 talking about another document that he has referred to as his document

13 that's signed by someone else. And quite frankly, the Prosecution is

14 confused and is having a very hard time keeping up with which document is

15 being referred to, contents. It simply is not clear, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I don't think so, Mr. Saxon.

17 The Prosecutor always wishes to clarify, and we shall do so.

18 Mr. Jovan Simic, what's happening? We are here comparing some

19 documents. What documents are we comparing? What documents are in play

20 here?

21 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, unfortunately, I just

22 have one example of this second document signed by Alija Delimustafic, as

23 the witness stated. I am going to give you that document with the English

24 translation of it. I'll give it to the witness, actually, to compare and

25 to tell us whether that is the document. There are two identical --

1 almost-identical documents, that is, that were sent out to two different

2 levels, one the Ministry of the Interior and second to the Territorial

3 Defence, but just one of them came into the possession of the witness.

4 Now, this second one, if I may, may we just check and see if that

5 second document is the document that the witness mentioned a moment ago?

6 And I'll be sending it on, copy -- a copy of it on to Your Honours. May

7 we have the document placed on the ELMO and the witness to have a look at

8 it?

9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon, are matters a little

10 clearer now or do you need some more specifics? For my part, I am going

11 to wait and see whether things have been cleared up.

12 MR. SAXON: I will wait and see with you, Your Honour, thank you.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Let's see. Let's wait

14 and see. Mr. Jovan Simic?

15 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Mr. Jankovic, is that the document you mentioned a moment ago,

17 signed by Alija Delimustafic?

18 A. Just a moment, please. May I read through it for a couple of

19 seconds?

20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Perhaps, Mr. Jovan Simic, you

21 could guide the usher and then the usher can place the document on the

22 ELMO, because you were saying, "Is the document signed by" such and such?

23 Perhaps we could focus on the signature on the ELMO for all of us to see.

24 Do you understand what I'm getting at?

25 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I do, Your Honour. Just one

1 moment. We will do that.

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well.

3 A. As far as I recall, this document is identical to the other one.

4 I'm just not certain about the numbers, official numbers, written up

5 here. But as to the contents, yes, the minister was Delimustafic, and it

6 is signed by Delimustafic in both, and as I said, the initials are the

7 DZ/M also coincide -- are also the same as the initials on the other one

8 and that was the signals officer.

9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just one moment, please,

10 Mr. Jovan Simic. We now have document D43/5. I think that there is

11 another document. Perhaps instead of referring to matters by saying "this

12 document," "that document," could you give us the number, please? Not the

13 name but the number.

14 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I stand

15 corrected. I'm probably a little tired. So it is D44/5 A and B. That is

16 the number of the document.

17 Q. Mr. Jankovic, could you tell us the contents of that document now,

18 please. You have it in front of you. Take a look and tell us briefly

19 what it is about.

20 A. According to this document, on the basis of a decision by the

21 presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the then-Minister of the Interior,

22 Mr. Alija Delimustafic, sent out an express order, and it says in the

23 heading, "CSB," that is to say, to all the security centres in

24 Bosnia-Herzegovina, all the centres of public security in

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the SUP of Sarajevo, Secretary of the Interior in

1 Sarajevo. So it is sent to all those chiefs, personally, of the organs

2 mentioned. On the basis of this presidency decision, he orders as

3 follows: That all roads in the territory of the Republic of

4 Bosnia-Herzegovina be used -- being used by units of the former JNA for

5 pulling out materiel and equipment are to be completely blocked in direct

6 coordination with the Ministry of the Interior. That was point 1.

7 Point 2: Larger areas with -- there is a printing error here. It

8 means -- it says -- it should state military installations. There was a

9 typing error, but it is with military installations from which they are

10 able to pull out materiel and equipment are to be blocked using various

11 man-made and natural obstacles which shall be guarded by the units of the

12 Territorial Defence of the Republic of BH and the MUP, Ministry of the

13 Interior.

14 And point 3: Unannounced convoys of the former JNA units and

15 convoys without MUP escorts shall not be allowed to leave the barracks or

16 to communicate within the territory of the Republic of BH, to start combat

17 action throughout the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and to coordinate

18 them with the staff of the Territorial Defence of the regions, districts

19 and so on. Within the frameworks, combat operations, plans, should

20 include extensive measures for the protection of the population and the

21 material goods of the citizens of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina

22 signed by the then-Minister, Alija Delimustafic, and the DJ -- DZ/M was

23 the signals officer and his initials and so on. His name was Dzanko

24 Mirsad. That was his name.

25 Q. Mr. Jankovic, could we please slow down? Tell us the name and

1 surname of the signatory of this document, please, nice and slowly,

2 because it was not recorded in the transcript. Just give us the name and

3 surname. What does it say at the bottom of the document?

4 A. It says Minister of the Interior, Alija Delimustafic. That was

5 his name, and I remember that very well, that that was how it was.

6 Q. Mr. Jankovic, tell us now very briefly how did you come into

7 possession of this document; on what day?

8 A. I -- not I but the signalman who was on duty in the

9 communications centre, of whom I'm the immediate superior, he was on duty,

10 and he received it, I can't tell you the exact time, but around 2.00 or

11 3.00 in the afternoon on the 27th of April, 1992.

12 Q. Was any kind of meeting held just then, and if so, where and

13 when?

14 A. A meeting was called at very short notice, only a couple of hours

15 prior to the beginning, without any formal documents. People were called,

16 only authorised officials, workers in the police, workers in the crime

17 department, and workers in the communications unit to which I belong. And

18 as the meeting had not been announced in advance, the hall was still quite

19 full. I was present at that meeting. And chairing the meeting there were

20 five men. The first, I remember very well, was the President of the

21 municipality, Muharem or Muhamed Cehajic. He was the town mayor. Then

22 the second was Mirza Mujadzic, the President of the SDA. In the middle

23 was Hasan Talundzic, chief of the security. Next to him Fikret Kadiric,

24 commander of the traffic police station. And the last was Simo Miskovic.

25 THE INTERPRETER: The President of the SDA, I think the witness

1 said, in Prijedor.

2 Q. What was the topic of the meeting?

3 A. The topic on the agenda was that, in view of certain tensions in

4 society which were reflected on our service, that our service should

5 remain united, that we should establish closer and better relations with

6 the MUP in Sarajevo, and they promised, as no salaries had been paid for a

7 long time, they promised to pay out one salary in a couple of days and

8 then a second salary shortly after that. And as there had been divisions

9 between the Security Service entering Banja Luka and the MUP in Sarajevo,

10 they suggested or advised us to respect orders coming from MUP, and this

11 applied to all officials who were present at the meeting.

12 Q. Mr. Jankovic, this document that has been marked D43 and D44/5,

13 was it read out at the meeting? Yes or no.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And was the meeting interrupted or did you continue working after

16 the document was read?

17 A. After the document was read, there was general chaos and a very

18 fervent discussion and people went their separate ways.

19 Q. Thank you. You said you were head of the cryptographic

20 department. Do you know how many direct telephone lines there were

21 between the Omarska Investigation Centre and the police station in

22 Prijedor?

23 A. There was only one outside line, and it was not from the very

24 beginning but only a couple of days later. There were telephone sets but

25 they were not working because the local exchange wasn't working. There

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

14 and the English transcripts.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 was only one direct connection between the collection centre and

2 Prijedor.

3 Q. I assume that you had information about the functioning of radio

4 communication that existed in Omarska. Could you very briefly tell us how

5 that radio link functioned during the existence of the Omarska centre?

6 A. Yes. It was my duty to monitor this and to be familiar with it,

7 and I was. In the collection centre, from the first day, they had one

8 radio receiver that was operational. However, there were many users who

9 didn't know how to handle it, so that at first the link was problematic.

10 I don't know how long this went on but gradually it improved and, later

11 on, there were no problems.

12 Q. My last question: Do you know Mr. Prcac?

13 A. I do.

14 Q. What can you tell us about him, as a colleague of yours, as a

15 fellow worker and as a man that you knew?

16 A. I have known him since 1980 until 1984, 1985, I don't remember

17 exactly when he retired. We worked together for four or five years. I

18 know that in his part of the work, he was the best. He was diligent,

19 quiet, hard working. I never saw him clash with anyone or argue with

20 anyone. I never saw him have a drink too many. None of the superiors

21 ever had any complaints against him. He was a quiet and good,

22 hard-working worker who went to retirement at the end of his regular years

23 of service.

24 After that, until the collection centre was formed, we didn't meet

25 often. I only met once or twice when he came from the village carrying

1 some vegetables. He came by rail, by train, and I remember seeing him

2 carrying these bags. And that is how I saw him, dressed more in peasant

3 clothes. We just exchanged greetings and we didn't talk much.

4 After the collection centre was opened, I never saw him there.

5 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no

6 further questions.

7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Jovan

8 Simic.

9 Mr. Saxon.

10 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 Cross-examined by Mr. Saxon:

12 Q. Mr. Jankovic, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about this

13 document that you read so carefully a few minutes ago. You described a

14 meeting, I believe, at the Prijedor Public Security Station where this

15 document was discussed, but as I was listening to your testimony, I

16 believe you said that this document was received on the 27th of April.

17 Was that a correct translation? Did you say "27 April," or did you say

18 another day, 1992?

19 A. I said the 27th of April. I wouldn't remember such dates, but I

20 know in this particular case because there was a lot of talk about this

21 document, and I remember that it was the 27th of April, and that is what I

22 said.

23 Q. So that date really -- because of the importance of this document,

24 the date, the 27th of April, really stuck in your mind? Is that what

25 you're saying?

1 A. Yes. The document that I still remember said the 27th. This

2 particular one, I didn't pay attention to the date. Maybe it's not that,

3 but I remember specifically that particular document which said the 27th

4 of April --

5 Q. And then --

6 A. -- though my memory may be wrong.

7 Q. And then the meeting that occurred where this document was

8 discussed and then chaos ensued, as you said, took place later on the 27th

9 of April; is that right?

10 A. The meeting started before the document arrived at the

11 communications center in Prijedor. But in the course of the meeting,

12 maybe an hour after it opened, the police officer on duty at the entrance

13 entered the hall where the meeting was being held and called me by name

14 because one of my workers upstairs called me to come in quickly, urgently,

15 because he was having problems in forwarding the telegram to three

16 municipalities.

17 Q. So that meeting ought to have occurred on the 27th of April?

18 A. Yes. Maybe one hour before this telegram actually arrived the

19 meeting started, but it hadn't ended when the telegram arrived.

20 Q. Do you recall giving a statement to counsel for Mr. Prcac earlier

21 this year, on the 4th of April?

22 A. The 4th of April? I don't know the date. I did write a

23 statement, the one I have here with me.

24 MR. SAXON: All right. Well, maybe I could ask the usher's

25 assistance to put that statement on the ELMO, please, so that we can all

1 look at it or, at least, the English version, and if that statement could

2 be marked. I have a copy of it here. I could give a copy to the

3 registry, and if that statement could be given a number, please.

4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Madam Registrar, can we

5 have the code or the number.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, the next number would be 3/301.

7 MR. SAXON: There is my copy. If the English version could be

8 placed on the ELMO, please.

9 A. May I take it out?

10 MR. SAXON:

11 Q. I'd like, actually, to use the copy that I handed you, if that's

12 all right, Mr. Jankovic, because that's the copy that we received from

13 your counsel.

14 Can you take a look at the first page, please. Do you see your

15 signature on that document?

16 A. Yes, that is my signature.

17 Q. Can you open up the document, please. Turn the page, please. You

18 see in the first page, is that a copy of the document, the statement that

19 you gave to counsel for Mr. Prcac?

20 A. Yes, it coincides with my own photocopy.

21 MR. SAXON: Mr. Usher, could you please turn to the next page and

22 then the following page, and I'm wondering if we can pull back -- there we

23 go. That's a good view.

24 Q. Mr. Jankovic, could you take a look at the first page, please, of

25 your witness statement. It begins, "In April 1992, I was working in the

1 Prijedor Public Security Centre as head of the communications and

2 communications security department." Do you see that? You can look at it

3 right in front of you, sir, in your own language. It's right in front of

4 you on the table.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Do you see that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And the next sentence says, "I was working in that capacity on 29

9 April 1992." Do you see that?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And then a little bit lower down you talk about a meeting that

12 took place in the Public Security Centre, and you say that, "The meeting

13 was not scheduled in advanced." Do you see that? "We were summoned

14 verbally that day and there was no agenda." Do you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And lower down you begin to discuss the receipt of a dispatch. Do

17 you see that in that large paragraph that fills up much of the page where

18 you say, "I took the dispatch for the chief of the Prijedor CJB and I

19 returned to the meeting." Do you see that?

20 A. I can't find it just now.

21 Q. Okay. Take your time, take your time, it's okay.

22 A. Tell me where it is, please.

23 Q. Well, right in the middle of the page: "The communications

24 officer called me because the duty communications officer from the Banja

25 Luka CSB had refused to connect him," and then there's a discussion of a

1 dispatch which you took to the chief of the Prijedor station himself. Do

2 you see that?

3 A. Yes, I do. Yes, I do.

4 Q. All right.

5 A. I see it.

6 Q. Do you see any mention of the date April 27th in the statement

7 that you gave to counsel for Mr. Prcac?

8 A. No.

9 Q. All right.

10 A. It's not mentioned here. I don't see any mention of it. I see

11 that it is not mentioned.

12 Q. And you mentioned --

13 A. It says the 29th, but that is not correct.

14 Q. You talk about a meeting that occurred on the 29th in your

15 statement and receiving this dispatch on the 29th of April, 1992. What I

16 want to know is, which version is correct, what you told the Trial Chamber

17 today or what you put in this statement that you signed about a month ago?

18 A. I asked the attorney, because I was dictating this dispatch to an

19 old typist who made several mistakes, and I asked him to tell you to allow

20 me to correct these mistakes.

21 In addition to this mistake, this is a mistake that I noticed

22 myself subsequently, but I had already given a copy to the attorney.

23 There's another mistake in line 28, first word. It says, SJB, SJB --

24 inside of Banja Luka it should be Bosanski Novi. It was an elderly man

25 who was typing it. This was all done in haste. I noticed some errors as

1 I went along, but as you see, these mistakes went unnoticed.

2 It was not the 29th of April. That was two days later when a

3 takeover of power took place. That is certainly not correct. What is

4 correct is what I am saying.

5 And also instead of this Bosanski Novi, there are other stylistic

6 errors. For example, the way a dispatch is to be delivered, the typist

7 didn't put it properly. He was typing more quickly than I was speaking.

8 Q. Mr. Jankovic, did you review the statement before you signed it?

9 A. I did, but ...

10 Q. And did you understand that it was important that this statement

11 be accurate when you signed it?

12 A. Yes, I did understand it was important, and I paid most attention

13 to the contents and less to things like numbers. And you see, again, it

14 says Banja Luka, which is incorrect. It should be Bosanski Novi. There

15 might be another error that I still haven't managed to notice.

16 Q. Well, let's move away from this statement, because we don't have a

17 lot of time today, and talk about the document that you read out a short

18 time ago. That was the order dated, by the way, 29th of April, 1992,

19 signed by Alija Delimustafic, and I just have a couple of questions that I

20 want to ask you about that order.

21 MR. SAXON: And perhaps a copy of that order could be placed back

22 on the ELMO, if we have an English version, please. Can we place the

23 English version on the ELMO and provide the witness with a copy of the

24 B/C/S version.

25 Q. You see the date on that order, Mr. -- you see the -- do you see

1 the date on that order, Mr. Jankovic?

2 A. That is the wrong -- this is the TO. I need the MUP.

3 Q. Well, this is the one I want to talk about. This is the one you

4 read out a few minutes ago. I want to talk about this document. Could

5 you just put it down for a minute. Do you see the date on this document?

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Jovan Simic. Mr. Jovan

7 Simic.

8 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the order that he

9 read was signed by Delimustafic, so that is the statement that the witness

10 is talking about all the time. If necessary, he should be given the

11 statement that he read, I would suggest to my learned friend.

12 MR. SAXON: Absolutely. I apologise if I was incorrect. That's

13 what I thought had just been placed on the ELMO. Apparently I was wrong.

14 Thank you for clarifying that.

15 Can we place on the ELMO a copy of what the witness read

16 previously. Is this it? All right.

17 Q. Can you see the date on that order, Mr. Jankovic?

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon, is this a document

19 marked 44, D44/5; is that right?

20 MR. SAXON: I believe, yes, Your Honour. I believe so.

21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm not asking, I am stating

22 that this is a document that has been marked D44/5.

23 MR. SAXON: Very well, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please continue.

25 MR. SAXON:

1 Q. Do you see the date on the top of that document, Mr. Jankovic? It

2 says 29 April 1992.

3 A. I do.

4 Q. Now, during the night of the 29th of April, 1992, and in the

5 morning of the 30th, power in Prijedor was taken over by Serb authorities;

6 is that right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Let's just focus on this order or this dispatch just for a -- very

9 briefly. On the 29th of April, or even if it was the 27th of April, 1992,

10 as you mentioned, Bosnia and Herzegovina still existed as a recognised

11 state, did it not?

12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic.

13 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my learned friend is

14 testifying. Bosnia-Herzegovina in those days was not a recognised state.

15 It was part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. My learned friend is

16 attempting to testify and mislead the witness.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] It is a way of putting

18 questions, making a statement and then asking whether the witness agrees

19 or not. It is not my preferred method, but I think that the Prosecutor,

20 and the Defence for that matter, has the right to do it, and the witness

21 can say, "Yes, I agree" or "I disagree." As I have said, it is not my

22 preference but I respect differences in our methods.

23 Yes, Mr. Jovan Simic?

24 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Quite true, Your Honour, but such a

25 method could be applied when talking to somebody who is familiar with

1 these things and who was directly involved. But this is a person who does

2 not fit into that category, especially with respect to dates. Two or

3 three months for him may not mean much. So it would be better, I think,

4 to rephrase the question.

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let us hear the reply of the

6 witness. And then, if necessary, if you need additional questions, you

7 can put them to the witness. What was your question, Mr. Saxon?

8 MR. SAXON:

9 Q. My question was, on the 29th of April, or even if it was the 27th

10 of April, 1992, if you know, was Bosnia and Herzegovina a recognised

11 state? If you know.

12 A. I never focused on all the information outside the work I did,

13 because my professional orientation was such that I never allowed politics

14 to have any effect on me. So I don't remember any dates, when

15 Bosnia-Herzegovina was recognised, when Yugoslavia ceased to exist, et

16 cetera. I never even wanted to know those dates. All I knew how to do

17 was to respect my superior and abide by the rules, on condition that I was

18 not asked to do something that was outside the law and I knew what I could

19 do and what I should not do.

20 Q. Well, then, why, then, did this order cause so much excitement?

21 A. I never knew that it would cause excitement. To this day, I don't

22 know why. Some people said it was a good thing, some people said it

23 wasn't. It was marked "very urgent" and that means as quickly as

24 possible, and that is what I did. I took it in person because there were

25 no signalman around and I was the chief. But as they were not there, I

1 had no choice but to carry it myself. I give the signalman -- gave the

2 signalman a book to take note of the dispatch, to sign that he had

3 received it, and I carried out my duties according to the book --

4 Q. Sorry to interrupt you, to your knowledge, was a copy of this

5 order published in the local Prijedor paper in July of 1992, Kozarski

6 Vjesnik?

7 A. Yes, it was. I can't tell you how many days later, a couple of

8 days after the takeover of power, Simo Drljaca called me to go to his

9 office and there I found several men whom I didn't know. Simo asked me

10 whether this dispatch existed. He said that some journalists had reported

11 on it, and he told me to bring it to him if I had it. I said that

12 according to the rules of service, it does not exist but -- since the

13 crypto material is destroyed and burnt every ten days. But since it was

14 still not ten days, maybe we could find it. And the signalman found the

15 tape, made another copy. I brought it to Simo. He gave it to this man.

16 I don't know who the man was. And I left. A couple of days later, I saw

17 a photocopy of it in the Vjesnik paper, newspaper, Kozarski Vjesnik

18 newspaper.

19 Q. You told us that shortly after this order was received, power was

20 taken over in Prijedor by Serb authorities. Can you describe how the

21 takeover of Prijedor was carried out? Who organised it? Who directed

22 it? Which police units participated in the takeover?

23 A. That evening, it was in the evening, it was already getting dark,

24 though it was early summer. I was in my apartment. Whenever there were

25 urgent meetings, and if I was convened as the chief of department, my

1 signalman knew where I was and he would call me. I was called and told

2 to go to Cirkin Polje. There were a lot of people congregating there.

3 Some people I knew, workers from our own Public Security Station, but

4 there were far more people whom I did not know. This was in the evening,

5 darkness was falling. And during the night, as a signalman, I didn't

6 have anything to do there. I just had to show up. And that was the first

7 time I saw Simo Drljaca. He came and introduced himself and said that by

8 decision of, I think, the SDS, he said that from now on, he would be the

9 chief of the Public Security Station and I accepted him as such. As I had

10 nothing to do, I was just present there, I sat there in this room. There

11 were several rooms in this building, and they were getting together. I

12 think there were small groups. I saw that some of them had weapons.

13 Whether they distributed those weapons there or not, I can't say because I

14 didn't see it. Anyway, those who took over power left. None of us slept

15 that night. And when they took control of the Public Security Station and

16 other facilities --

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think we've heard a lot

18 regarding the conflict, because, as you know, there is a decision on

19 judicial notice regarding the conflict. Do you need all this information,

20 Mr. Saxon?

21 MR. SAXON: No, Your Honour, and I realise we are out of time. I

22 will pose one more question and I will sit down, if that's all right with

23 the Trial Chamber.

24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Go ahead, please.

25 MR. SAXON:

1 Q. To your knowledge, had Simo Drljaca been appointed in his new --

2 in the position as chief of the Public Security Station by the government

3 in Sarajevo?

4 A. I don't know anything, nor did I have the right to ask. He just

5 came up and said, "I am the chief," and I respected him as the chief. So

6 did all the others.

7 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Jovan Simic?

9 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have a very brief

10 question.

11 Re-examined by Mr. J. Simic:

12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Jankovic, are you sure that the day the

13 dispatch arrived and the day the meeting was held were on the same day?

14 Are you quite sure that this happened on the same day? Are you sure of

15 that? Yes or no.

16 A. I am deeply convinced that the takeover was on Thursday and the

17 dispatch arrived on Tuesday because I had just arrived from the field.

18 And why the 29th is written here, I can't understand.

19 Q. My question, Mr. Jankovic, is not the date but whether the

20 dispatch arrived on the same day that the meeting was held.

21 A. Yes. I said that already, that the dispatch arrived an hour into

22 the meeting.

23 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further

24 questions.

25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Jovan Simic.

1 Judge Fouad Riad? Judge Wald?

2 JUDGE WALD: No.

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jankovic, we have no more

4 questions for you. Thank you very much for coming, and we wish you a safe

5 journey home. Thank you very much. The usher will see you out.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 [The witness withdrew]

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I see Mr. Saxon standing, but I

9 think that Mr. Jovan Simic also wishes to tender some documents. Is it

10 the same thing, Mr. Saxon, excuse me?

11 MR. SAXON: It is related, Your Honour. It is simply a

12 clarification to reduce confusion. I simply wanted to point out to the

13 Chamber and to all parties that the document that was tendered by

14 Mr. Jovan Simic, D44/5, and discussed by this witness, by the last

15 witness, has actually already been admitted. It is document 2/3.2. It

16 was part of the documentary evidence collection submitted by the

17 Prosecution in 1999 and admitted into evidence in March of 1999. So I

18 simply wanted to clarify that. That's all.

19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Saxon.

20 Mr. Jovan Simic?

21 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] My colleague Mr. Saxon is quite

22 right. That is one and the same document.

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And you'd like to have 43/5

24 tendered into evidence?

25 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I feel a little lost myself

2 now. I think that we had Exhibit 43/5 and 44/5, yes or no?

3 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Two documents, that is?

5 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Right.

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Now, you accept that there is a

7 correspondence between the document already admitted into evidence and

8 your D44 exhibit but are you not asking to tender document 43/5? You're

9 not?

10 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you. We take

12 note that Defence Exhibit 44/5 corresponds to a Prosecution Exhibit

13 numbered D2/3.2 [as interpreted], which has already been admitted into

14 evidence. And there we have it. May we move into private session to

15 discuss the matter of the other document? Let us move into private

16 session, please.

17 [Private session]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Pages 11813-11815 redacted private session.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 [redacted]

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you. The

3 meeting is adjourned until tomorrow morning, 9.20.

4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3:45 p.m., to

5 be reconvened on Tuesday, the 15th day of May, 2001,

6 at 9.20 a.m.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25