Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 19701

 1                           Friday, 22 November 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.

 7             Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 9             This is the case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             Judge Fluegge is, for urgent reasons, not able to sit today.

12     Therefore, for a limited time, Judge Moloto and myself, we have

13     considered whether it would be in the interests of justice to continue

14     hearing the case under Rule 15 bis, and we decided it was.

15             Therefore, we'll proceed.

16             There are a few matters which are of some urgency, and therefore

17     I would like to deal with them first before we ask the witness to be

18     escorted in the courtroom.

19             First, on the 20th of November, 2013, the Prosecution announced

20     that it may make further submissions about adducing evidence which had

21     not been adduced in reliance on certain adjudicated facts, which have now

22     been vacated.  The Prosecution also announced the tendering of one

23     additional witness.  The Chamber requests the Prosecution to file any

24     such motions no later than the 2nd of December, 2013.

25             Then we briefly move into private session.


Page 19702

 1                           [Private session]

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21                           [Open session]

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

24             The next item I'd like to deal with briefly is the Prosecution's

25     announcement of tendering proof of death documents.


Page 19703

 1             On the 18th of November of this year, the Prosecution announced

 2     its intention to tender approximately 1400 documents underlying the

 3     expert report, P2797, of Witness Tabeau.  The Prosecution argued that

 4     (a), even taking Witness Tabeau's evidence at its highest without the

 5     actual documents in evidence, the Chamber might have been left curious as

 6     to how certain information was gathered and how conclusions were drawn in

 7     the report, which analyses these document.  And, (b), that all victims

 8     deserved to be named as a victim in the final judgement.

 9             The Chamber recalls its previous guidance that underlying

10     documents to expert reports should, as a general rule, not be tendered

11     into evidence.  More specifically on the 17th of October the Chamber

12     stated the following - and I quote - in its correspondence in relation to

13     Witness Tabeau, the Prosecution states:

14             "Should the Chamber find she is an expert and admit her POD

15     expert report, it's not the Prosecution intention, as a general rule, to

16     tender documents related to victims which are not specifically challenged

17     by the Mladic Defence, absent a specific challenge the Prosecution

18     considers tendering the underlying documents may, in most cases, be

19     unnecessary."

20             And then I continue with the quote from what the Chamber said:

21             "Based on this, the Chamber understands that the Prosecution will

22     proceed in accordance with the Chamber's guidance with respect to

23     Witness Tabeau.  With regard to the Prosecution's reference to wanting to

24     tender 2.000 documents with Witness Tabeau, the Chamber then understands

25     that this is only so if the Defence specifically challenges the expert's

Page 19704

 1     finding in relation to each victim."

 2             And now I'm at the end of the quote of what the Chamber said.

 3             The Prosecution has not argued that the Defence challenged

 4     specific findings of the expert.  Witness Tabeau's report, P2797, is

 5     extremely lengthy, at 656 pages, and any open questions as to how she

 6     drew certain conclusions could have been asked during her examinations.

 7     Furthermore, the Chamber does not consider that every victim of a crime

 8     necessarily needs to be mentioned in the final judgement by name,

 9     individually by name.  Tendering a large number of underlying documents

10     risks duplicating the sources needed to make a factual finding in

11     relation to the death of individuals.

12             The Prosecution has not argued and it does not appear that the

13     underlying documents have any additional value vis-à-vis the expert

14     report.  Under these circumstances, the Chamber considers that the

15     Prosecution's anticipated tendering does not assist the Chamber and

16     strongly encourages it to re-evaluate its approach prior to any further

17     submissions on this matter.

18             Then I move to the next item.

19             In a filing of the 20th of November, 2013, the Prosecution

20     indicated that it would re-call Witness Barry Hogan as a result of the

21     Appeals Chamber's decision on adjudicated facts.  The Chamber considers

22     this as a request to be permitted to call Hogan for additional evidence.

23             Now, before deciding, could the Defence state its position as to

24     the request of the Prosecution to be permitted to call Mr. Hogan.

25             MR. LUKIC:  We don't have any objections.


Page 19705

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the request to re-call Mr. Hogan is granted.

 2             We will now move on to hear the evidence of the witness.

 3             Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

 4             Mr. Traldi.

 5             MR. TRALDI:  Mr. President, as he is brought in, I just wanted to

 6     note the last document from yesterday, the minutes from the 11th Session

 7     of the Sanski Most Municipality Assembly Executive Council, we've

 8     uploaded matching versions under 65 ter 06442A.

 9                           [The witness takes the stand]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Brown.

11             Mr. Brown, I would like to remind you that you're still bound by

12     the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.

13                           WITNESS:  EWAN McGREGOR BROWN [Resumed]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And Mr. Lukic will now continue his

15     cross-examination.

16             Mr. Lukic, please proceed.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

18                           Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

19        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Brown.

20        A.   Good morning.

21             MR. LUKIC:  Then if we can see in the e-court 06442A.

22             This is record from the 11th Session of executive committee of

23     municipality of Sanski Most.  And we need page 5 in B/C/S.  And since I

24     haven't seen the English version yet --

25             MR. TRALDI:  I believe it will be page 3 in the English,

Page 19706

 1     Mr. President.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.  Yes.  [Interpretation] We can see and we

 3     will start with Kalacun.  You will find his name on the top of the

 4     English page.  We need page 5 in B/C/S.  Page 5 in e-court.  I don't know

 5     whether we can do that.

 6             MR. TRALDI:  It -- I think, based on the re-upload, it may be

 7     page 4 in e-court and I'd ask -- and I'd suggest the third and fourth

 8     speakers from the top are what Mr. Lukic may be looking for.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  That's it.  Thank you.  So ...

10        Q.   [Interpretation] Here, we can see that Mr. Kalacun first said as

11     follows:

12             "I would like to ask the IO chairman and to inform us of the

13     general position of the Krajina AR government on the exodus from the

14     Serbian state."

15             Nedeljko Rasula responds and says:

16             "There is no general position, there are no instructions, nobody

17     is forced to go into exile.  The basic principle is that citizens should

18     decide where they want to live.  If they want to leave, they should be

19     allowed to leave with a certain supervision and protection.  Those who

20     wish to remain in the municipality will be allowed to stay, only if they

21     have not participated in any underhand activities.  Those who wish to

22     leave will have to cover the costs of their journey, because we have no

23     resources for this.

24             "M. Lukic:  According to international law, exodus cannot be

25     prevented anywhere.  Those who wish to leave should be helped to do so,

Page 19707

 1     and those who wish to stay should be allowed to stay."

 2             Mr. Brown, were you aware of this document when you were drafting

 3     your report?

 4        A.   I don't believe I was.

 5             Could I see the date of the document, sir?

 6        Q.   As you can see, the minutes were taken on the

 7     14th of August, 1992, during the 11th Session of this body.

 8        A.   Do you want me to comment on the document, sir, or --

 9        Q.   No, no, I have questions for you that I wish to ask you.

10             First of all, would you agree with me that this document was

11     exactly contrary to your conclusion in paragraph 2.160?  I'm referring to

12     your report, sir.

13        A.   No, I don't necessarily think it's contrary to the report at all.

14     I think by this time a large number of non-Serbs had already -- well, (a)

15     there had been attacks on non-Serb areas, a significant number of

16     non-Serbs had left or were in detention centres, and the timing of this

17     document comes around when there was significant international pressure

18     as a result of the media visits by international agencies and pressure by

19     the international community in the negotiations.  And the document says

20     what it says, and some of the delegates, as you've read out, indicate

21     what they say.  But --

22        Q.   Therefore, according to you, this document is not contrary, does

23     not contradict your own findings.

24        A.   No.  I would have to read the whole document, and as I say, I

25     would argue that --

Page 19708

 1        Q.   I'm talking about the part of the document that we have just read

 2     out.  According to you, does this part of the document contradict your

 3     own findings?

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I think that the witness has -- what was

 5     read to him, he said it would not change and then he said apart from that

 6     I would like to look at the whole of the document.

 7             So he has answered your question.  And it's also fair if the

 8     witness wants to see the whole of the document to allow him.  Not at this

 9     moment.  If you would give him a copy then he would see, perhaps, the

10     deals of how people were -- had to be transported on buses and how many

11     there were.

12             MR. LUKIC:  For me, it is enough that he says that this part of

13     the document is not in contradiction with his --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

15             MR. LUKIC:  With his findings.

16             And we will propose this document into evidence.  So now we have

17     this A version which has translation.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, it would receive number ...

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 06442A receives number D432,

20     Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  D432 is admitted.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We will look at another document

23     pertaining to that same area.  As a matter of fact, we'll see two

24     documents.

25             First of all, let's look at 1D1456.  Did we see the same document

Page 19709

 1     yesterday perhaps?  No, I'm sorry.  We already saw this document.

 2             I'm interested in seeing another one, which is 1D1457.

 3        Q.   Here, we can see -- just a moment.  It's a document in which

 4     Dr. Radovan Karadzic issued an order.  The document was issued on the

 5     23rd of July, 1992, before foreign journalists arrived and before all the

 6     pressure was put on the government.

 7             I apologise.  Did you perhaps not hear me?  23rd July 1992 is the

 8     date when this document was issued, before foreign journalists arrived,

 9     and I'm referring to Gutman and Penny Marshall and others; right?

10        A.   I think Gutman actually arrived on the 16th of July, in and

11     around that time.

12        Q.   When did he publish his first texts?

13        A.   I believe at the end of that month.  So it might have been after

14     this.

15        Q.   In this order, in paragraph 2, President Karadzic orders as

16     follows:

17             "All inhabitants who surrender weapons and agree to live

18     peacefully and in keeping with the law must be enabled to remain in their

19     own homes and enjoy our protection."

20             Does this document contradict your findings, sir?

21        A.   No, I don't think it does.  I think it puts into context -- I

22     mean, at the beginning of the document it's talking about negotiations at

23     the London Conference, and at this time there was already information

24     coming out that -- well, first of all, there was already information

25     coming out in the international community that pressure was coming on the

Page 19710

 1     Bosnian Serbs that this was happening.  This is it -- and it wasn't just

 2     Penny Marshall or Gutman that was creating this issue.  And by this time,

 3     large numbers of people had already been moved out but there were -- many

 4     thousands were already in detention centres.  This document doesn't say,

 5     We should release all these individuals.  It doesn't give any indication

 6     as to why is it that the conditions are so bad that these people want to

 7     move out?  That there's a lot --

 8        Q.   You would agree -- so you would agree that this document is

 9     perfectly in line with your own findings.

10        A.   This --

11        Q.   It is either in line of your findings or not.  I don't need any

12     lengthy explanations.  Yes or no.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  It's not a simple yes or no issue.  You know that

14     and it makes no sense to present it as if it were.

15             Please proceed.  You have asked a question.  The witness has

16     answered.  He has explained why he considers the context of this document

17     such that it does not contradict his findings so, therefore, that is an

18     explained no.

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And now we will move on to another

21     topic:  Preventing looting and prohibiting looting.

22        Q.   In paragraph 2.186 of your report, are your findings which are

23     discussed in paragraphs 2.168 through 2.186.  You say that looting was

24     allowed, providing that the looted goods ended up in the coffers of the

25     corps and not in the pockets of individuals.

Page 19711

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment.  As regards the

 2     previous document that we showed to the witness, which is Dr. Karadzic's

 3     order, is being tendered into evidence.  The document number is 1D1457.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, that document would receive

 5     number ...

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  D433, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  D433 is admitted.

 8             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  And now I'd like to call

 9     up 1D1465.  As a matter of fact, this document has been admitted as

10     1D576 -- or perhaps not in our case.  I apologise.

11             1D1465 is the correct number.

12        Q.   This is a very short document, which was issued by the command of

13     the 30th Partizan Battalion on the 3rd of June, 1992, and under 1 it

14     says:

15             "At all costs, prevent looting, arson, and private wars in the

16     zone of responsibility of the division.

17             "Protect refugees and innocent people and treat the surrendering

18     enemy according to the international law on prisoners of war.

19             "Take the most drastic legal and other measures up to and

20     including physical liquidation against those who violate this order."

21             Physical liquidation of one's own troop is a rather extreme

22     measure when it comes to disciplining one's troops.  Would you agree with

23     that?

24        A.   Yes, it is, sir.  I didn't see any examples in the documents I

25     reviewed that that actually happened.  But, no, I do agree with your

Page 19712

 1     point that physical liquidation of your own troops is the ultimate

 2     sanction, I guess.

 3        Q.   This document is a military secret.  It was not intended for the

 4     media.  It was for internal purposes only; right?

 5        A.   Yes, it's within the commander's.

 6        Q.   The date when this document was issued is the 3rd of June, 1992.

 7     You will agree with me that the document was issued before any

 8     international pressure was put to bear?

 9        A.   Yes.  And I do know of some other examples in the collection of

10     similar instructions about -- which I reference and openly reference in

11     the report about behaviour, including references from the Main Staff

12     and -- and references from the 1st Krajina Corps.

13        Q.   You agree with me, won't you, that no distinction is made here

14     between those who engage in looting for their own personal gain or for

15     the gain of their corps; right?

16        A.   No, it doesn't make distinction here.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this document

19     into evidence, please.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  D434, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Is admitted into evidence.

23             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And now let's look at 65 ter 16585.

24     It is a Prosecutor's document.

25        Q.   The document was issued by the command of the 5th Corps prior to

Page 19713

 1     the corps -- the corps' renaming.  The Army of Republika Srpska was

 2     established on the 12th of May, and a decision was made -- then taken on

 3     its establishment.

 4             This document was sent to 33 different addressees which can be

 5     seen from the last page.  And under 2, it says:

 6             "2(a), raise the problem of criminal activity at all military

 7     gatherings and meetings at all levels daily, pointing out crime,

 8     particularly cases of looting, theft, and looting of private property,

 9     rape and ill-treatment of the local population regardless of their ethnic

10     background.  Anyone who has committed such crimes should be named,

11     publicly shamed and arrested, unless this has been done already, in front

12     of all the troops."

13             Further on, it says:

14             "Should these persons offer resistance during their arrest or

15     attempt to escape, apply the toughest possible physical methods,

16     including the use of fire-arms."

17             Would you agree with me that this was the position which was

18     adopted by the VRS from the JNA rules, from the very outset, from the

19     moment the VRS was first established?

20        A.   As I've said, I've seen this document and a number of other

21     documents coming from the -- from the -- from the corps that articulate

22     similar -- this or similar type of activity.  The issue is whether I saw

23     any rigorous, robust and effective measures taken by the corps in order

24     to implement this, and whether I saw investigations or prosecutions on

25     incidents and events, some of which were directly referenced in the

Page 19714

 1     Krajina Corps documents and whether I saw any of this actually being

 2     implemented, and I didn't.  I saw one or two small examples in the

 3     military prosecutor's court and the military court but those cases

 4     were -- were effectively dismissed or ---or were not fully investigated.

 5     And so I saw nothing that gave me the impression that these paper

 6     instructions were, in fact, followed and rigorously implemented.  But I

 7     do accept, sir, your position, that this type of document -- there are a

 8     number of those documents which were written through the period that I

 9     reviewed.

10        Q.   You've mentioned the archive.  How much of the archive that

11     belonged to the military prosecutor did you actually review?

12        A.   I -- I cannot remember in detail, sir.  It was some time ago.

13     I -- I certainly looked at the records in 1992, and I certainly looked at

14     the records into 1993 for the 1st Krajina Corps.  I can't remember how

15     far on I went.  It was -- it was actually some time -- time -- time ago.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We would like to tender this document

17     into evidence, please.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 16585 receives number D435,

20     Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  D435 is admitted.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just one more document about this

23     topic.  Actually, two.  The first one will be 65 ter 28410.

24             The document was issued on the 21st of May, 1992.  It comes from

25     the 1st Krajina Corps Command.  We need page 2 in B/C/S and page 3 in

Page 19715

 1     English.

 2        Q.   Let's look at bullet point 10.  I'm going to read in B/C/S -- it

 3     seems that the English version of the same text is somewhat shorter.  I'm

 4     reading bullet point 10:

 5             "Provision of war-time units should follow the standard

 6     procedure.  Looting or other criminal acts on the ground should be

 7     strictly prohibited."

 8             Would you agree with me that this part of this document says that

 9     the 1st Corps, in no way, wanted to resupply its coffers as a result of

10     looting and robbery.  It does not wish that to happen; i.e., this is

11     contrary to your findings proffered under 2.186, isn't it?

12        A.   No.  So what happened in this section of the report is that I

13     state that there were -- setting aside whether General Talic stopped the

14     issue of looting in terms of investigating and prosecuting people,

15     setting that aside, which is a different issue, what I argue is that

16     General Talic issued instructions through his corps to prevent the issue

17     of looting.  And I argue that he was unhappy about individual looting

18     occurring in his corps and issued these types of instructions.

19             Now, why he did that, he's a military commander.  Issue of

20     looting is an issue of discipline as much as it is about criminality.  So

21     I argue that he issued these instructions but he was happy to follow the

22     policy of the government, which I articulate in the section here, which

23     was that movable and immovable property was to be taken and centralised

24     and used for the benefit of the RS state.  And that was a policy that he

25     was happy to follow and requested his soldiers to follow.

Page 19716

 1             So he was unhappy with the issue of individual looting, and he

 2     passed out a number of instructions to that.  Whether those instructions

 3     were effective, they were not.  There was no prosecutions, no senior

 4     commanders convicted.  Nothing.  So I argue that he did pass these

 5     instructions out.  But concurrently with this, what he did was asked his

 6     soldiers to follow the government policy which was to take movable and

 7     immovable property, to centralise it for the benefit of the state.  And

 8     that movable/immovable property was incredibly wide-ranging.  It wasn't

 9     just about abandoned apartments or military vehicles that could be

10     commandeered, it was a wide-spread array of materials, including money,

11     gold, and other personal items.

12             So, on the one hand, I differentiate between this issue of him

13     passing instructions relating to military discipline of his corps, and I

14     differentiate that from what the RS government was doing which was taking

15     large amounts of movable and immovable property through a formalised

16     process which he was happy to support.  That's the argument I put in that

17     chapter, sir.

18        Q.   Thank you.

19             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I tender this document.

20             MR. TRALDI:  I believe it's already Exhibit P2873.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Then there's no need to pursue that.  Please

22     proceed.

23             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just one more document op this topic.

24     65 ter 16574 from the Prosecution list.  It's, again, a document of the

25     command of the 1st Krajina Corps.

Page 19717

 1        Q.   At the top, we see in the introduction:

 2             "From the Main Staff of the VRS of Bosnia-Herzegovina:

 3             "We have received a document stressing the need to vigorously

 4     oppose crime."

 5             And in the fifth paragraph, we read:

 6             "The Main Staff of the Army of the Serbian Republic of

 7     Bosnia-Herzegovina is resolutely determined to eradicate such

 8     occurrences ..."

 9             The next paragraph:

10             "Disciplinary action must be taken against every perpetrator of

11     such offences, or in cases of serious offences, criminal proceedings must

12     be instituted."

13             Further down:

14             "The organs of the military police and security organs are

15     duty-bound to take measures to uncover these offences and their

16     perpetrators, whereas confiscated stolen goods, objects, money and other

17     items and the profit shall be confiscated against a receipt."

18             We see that these orders constantly insist that this phenomenon

19     must be eradicated.  We have seen many documents that were not meant for

20     the public eye that were documents for internal use repeating the same

21     thing.

22             According to you, these orders keep being issued while the same

23     commands that issue them keep approving theft and keep tolerating it.

24             Is that your position?

25        A.   This -- this document talks about the issue of all looting,

Page 19718

 1     including looting of Serbian army -- other properties, weapons,

 2     ammunition and equipment.  So, again, I go back to this issue that

 3     individuals making profit, war profiteers, individuals operating on their

 4     own, I argue was not something that the Main Staff or the

 5     1st Krajina Corps were -- were comfortable with.  But come the middle of

 6     July when the Bosnian Serb authorities passed their instructions saying

 7     that all movable and immovable property, including money and gold and all

 8     sorts of other issues, are to be centralised and used for the state and

 9     that they pass that down to their soldiers, that's what I argue.  I

10     don't -- I don't doubt these documents that -- but what they don't want

11     to do is -- individual speculators making money out -- or taking

12     advantage of the opportunities.  But when it comes to a state process by

13     which similar types of property are centralised and used for the state,

14     they're happy to go along with that.  That's my argument.

15             Looting is, in part, a military discipline issue, so it wouldn't

16     surprise me that in a way the Main Staff and the 1st Krajina Corps are

17     putting these instructions out because it does cut to the issue of

18     military discipline as much as it does to the issue of criminality.  But

19     I go back to my point that these instructions, even setting aside whether

20     these instructions had any effect at all, and I didn't really see that

21     they did, I differentiate between individuals and their dislike of

22     individuals making -- taking the opportunity to enrich themselves from

23     that of the Bosnian state's position where, in the middle of June, they

24     pass instructions saying this stuff is to be centralised and used for the

25     benefit of the state.

Page 19719

 1        Q.   [No interpretation]

 2        A.   Sorry, there also comes point if you keep putting these

 3     instructions out and nothing happens, these instructions become

 4     meaningless.  If soldiers know that -- that, yes, there's -- these

 5     instructions could come out but no one is really charged, and,

 6     importantly, no senior people are charged, these are -- or investigated

 7     and subsequently prosecuted, these instructions become meaningless.  They

 8     become worthless.  And there were a number of these instructions which I

 9     did not see being followed up by robust investigations, and not just

10     investigations in relation to the low-level perpetrators, but

11     significant -- significant investigations that result in senior officers

12     being held accountable.  Not because they themselves may specifically

13     have been involved in looting but they are responsible for the activities

14     of their troops.  I saw none of that.  And so if these instructions and

15     similar ones to it are pushed out week after week after week with nothing

16     happening, that there's not been a diminishing -- diminishing in terms of

17     the criminality, and that there is no apparent robust and serious

18     investigations, in particular against senior officers, then what happens

19     is these instructions become pointless and meaningless and subordinates

20     begin to know it.  And so there are many areas about this issue of

21     looting that -- that -- that this document talks to.

22        Q.   If it turned out that proceedings were instituted, then these

23     instructions would not be meaningless, would they?

24        A.   Well, the fact that they had to continually push out these

25     instructions and that there were examples of looting that continued well

Page 19720

 1     into 1992, as I remember, and that I did not see senior members of the

 2     1st Krajina Corps being held accountable for actions of their troops, I

 3     would argue that -- that they -- that they were not effective.  A

 4     similar -- a -- a similar feature would seem to be also the treatment of

 5     detainees.  There were examples in the Krajina Corps documents, including

 6     examples coming from the Main Staff, that the Geneva Conventions were to

 7     be applied, but despite those instructions, it is evident in their own

 8     documents that violations continued; and not only that violations

 9     continued, that I did not see any meaningful investigation or prosecution

10     on -- on individuals within the 1st Krajina Corps, in particular, any

11     senior officers.  And -- and a similar -- a similar --

12        Q.   You're explaining the same thing for the fourth time now.  Have

13     you seen any proceedings --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  You didn't ask that.  The question was if it turned

15     out that proceedings were instituted, then these instructions would be --

16     not be meaningless, would they.  That was the question.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Now the witness has explained to us that -- it's a

19     hypothetical question.  If there are any meaningful proceedings against

20     those persons, put them to the witness and ask him whether that changes

21     his mind.  Because he did not say that never, ever, any action was taken

22     at whatever level.  But if you have a body of arrests, a body of -- a

23     number of cases that were prosecuted in 1992, direct action taken against

24     those who were suspected of having committed looting, then put that to

25     the witness instead of if proceedings were instituted.  I mean, it is

Page 19721

 1     hypothetical.  If there are examples, put it to the witness.  And not one

 2     very low-level case because he admitted already that some cases were then

 3     dismissed and exceptionally something happened but not meaningful.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.  [Interpretation] I would now like to tender

 6     this document.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 16574 receives number D436,

 9     Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  D436 is admitted into evidence.

11             Mr. Lukic, if you ask these questions to the witness, then it's

12     only fair to the witness that you put to him what your case is.  Is your

13     case that the witness is wrong because there were serious investigations,

14     there were serious prosecutions, people were arrested, et cetera, you

15     should put that to the witness.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into

17     details --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. -- it's not a matter of details --

19             MR. LUKIC:  We'll have our case.  I have time for that.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  No, Mr. Lukic, you do not understand that if you

21     examine --

22             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, I do.  Whenever I give [overlapping speakers]...

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, please don't interrupt me.

24             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I said don't interrupt me.  Let's start

Page 19722

 1     with that.

 2             Mr. Lukic, under the Rules, if you are seeking evidence,

 3     testimony, in support of your own case, and if the witness contradicts

 4     that case, the Rules require that you put to him what your case is in

 5     this respect.

 6             So, you have spent a lot of time on totally irrelevant issues.

 7     You have ignored, more or less, what the real -- real concerns are, and

 8     the real issues are.  Put to the witness if it the Defence case that

 9     serious investigations, arrests and proceedings were undertaken.  Put it

10     to him, then he can respond to it.  And if you have concrete examples of

11     it, put it to him as well so that we don't lose ourselves in hypothetical

12     areas.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. LUKIC:  I think I put our case in front of this witness, and

15     we have our case to prove it --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Please --

17             MR. LUKIC:  If he still stands that he never saw any

18     investigations, how can I change that.  That he --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  That's not what he said.  That's not what he said.

20     He said, At that time, I saw, apart from a few examples, I did not see

21     for any higher-up level military persons to be investigated, to be

22     arrested, to be prosecuted.  And if you have such cases, you should put

23     it to him.

24             Please proceed.

25             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

Page 19723

 1        Q.   [Interpretation] I should now like to ask you something about

 2     your paragraph 1.131, where you talk about the removal of the leaders of

 3     the Muslims and Croats' community who had to be sent to vacation --

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please repeat.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  I don't know where should I repeat from.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Microphone not activated] Repeat the whole

 7     question.

 8             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Point 1.131.  You talk about the removal of non-Serbs from the

10     Army of Republika Srpska.  You were asked about this in the Brdjanin

11     case; do you remember?

12        A.   It was -- it was a few years ago, sir, but I do think it was a

13     topic that came up.  I can't quite remember the details.

14        Q.   My colleague, Mr. Ackerman, suggested to you that it's normal to

15     require army members to be loyal to the state, that they had proven

16     themselves in combat, and that they have the citizenship of

17     Republika Srpska.  And you accepted that it's normal to require that from

18     men who were to stay on in the Army of Republika Srpska.  Would you

19     accept the same today?  If you want me to, I can show you the transcript

20     of that session.

21        A.   No problem.  I'll -- I'll accept that was the -- the transcript.

22        Q.   Also, it was suggested to you, and numbers were cited, that

23     37 Montenegrins, 204 Yugoslavs, 62 Croats, 26 Macedonians, 33 Muslims,

24     13 Slovenes, 3 Albanians and 3 Bulgarian, 2 Czechs, 4 Hungarians, 1 Turk,

25     1 Jew, 1 pole, 1 gypsy, 1 Ukrainian, and 21 undeclared by nationality, by

Page 19724

 1     ethnicity, stayed on in the Army of Republika Srpska.

 2        A.   Yes, I believe that comes from the combat analysis readiness

 3     report.  The numbers seem incredibly small in relation to the overall

 4     strength of the army which was, I believe, in the combat analysis

 5     readiness report in 1993 was, I believe, about 180.000.

 6        Q.   It was also suggested to you that the criterion was not whether

 7     one was a Serb or not.  Loyalty was the criterion.  Would you accept that

 8     today, that loyalty was the criterion, not nationality?

 9        A.   The military undoubtedly would expect loyalty as part of -- as

10     part of their -- being a member of the military.  But I think what I

11     argued, I hope I argued at the time and I believe I argue in the report,

12     is that, firstly, certainly in the Krajina area, there was a putsch from

13     the ARK Crisis Staff to have non-Serbs removed from senior positions in

14     business and other aspects in the Krajina and that -- that this emphasis

15     had been placed on the VRS through Crisis Staff meetings and that that

16     issue was sent up to the Main Staff for resolution.  But what should we

17     do about military individuals in the 1st Krajina Corps?  And the

18     Main Staff, on the basis of that request from the 1st Krajina Corps,

19     passed down instructions that non-Serbs should go on leave back to

20     Belgrade and that whether status would be resolved then, in reality,

21     many -- I'm not saying all non-Serbs in the 1st Krajina Corps, certainly

22     senior positions, were removed or left from -- from the corps.  I think

23     there were one or two who stayed on for a little bit longer, but

24     certainly by late summer there weren't any non-Serbs in the

25     1st Krajina Corps in staff and senior positions.  I think that was the

Page 19725

 1     argument I have in the report.  But, you know, I do accept that loyalty

 2     is a component of -- of someone in a military.  But you can be loyal and

 3     not necessarily be -- loyalty can -- we have, for example, Muslim

 4     soldiers in the British Army currently serving in Afghanistan.  Maybe

 5     that, for some of them, you know, throws up questions of faith and other

 6     issues but they willingly do their job.  Just because someone happens to

 7     be of a different faith or a different religion doesn't in itself mean

 8     that loyalty is questioned.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, we're close to the point where we should

10     take a break.

11             MR. LUKIC:  We can take the break.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes?  Then we'll take the break now.

13             Can the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.

14                           [The witness stands down]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break, and resume at 11.00.

16                           --- Recess taken at 10.38 a.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.

19                           [The witness takes the stand]

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Although it's not on the

22     list of our documentation envisaged for this witness, with the Trial

23     Chamber's leave, since you inquired about that.  I would like to call up

24     in e-court 10524.

25             Before us is the report on the work of military prosecutor's

Page 19726

 1     offices for 1992.  The report also contains a summary.  The 1st Corps is

 2     on page 9 -- it begins on page 9 of the B/C/S and page 12 of the English.

 3             We need to go three pages further because it must be different in

 4     e-court.  That is it.  We have the right page in English.  We see it says

 5     in the report the Military Prosecutor's office attached to the command of

 6     the 1st and the 2nd Krajina Corps.  It's the Autonomous Region of

 7     Krajina.  The document says, I quote:

 8             "In the said period, this prosecutor's office has submitted 559

 9     requests to carry out investigations into 484 soldiers,

10     8 non-commissioned officers, 19 officers, and 48 civilians."

11             It concerns a variety of offences.  And we now need to move two

12     pages on.  We need page 11 of the document in B/C/S.  And page 15 in

13     English.  Page 15 in e-court, in English.  We see this is about crimes

14     against property.  The first paragraph says:

15             "For this type of crime, 130 requests to carry out an

16     investigation were submitted against 124 soldiers, 5 officers, and

17     1 civilian ... 18 indictments were issued against 18 soldiers.  For this

18     crime, no first-instance court ruling has been made."

19        Q.   Did you know about these statistics of the prosecutors for the

20     1st and the 2nd Krajina Corps in 1992?

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic, if you care for some advice from the

22     Bench, are you wasting your precious time putting questions to this

23     witness about this kind of report because you don't -- we don't know what

24     the crimes are.  Are these war crimes or just ordinary crimes?

25             MR. LUKIC:  We are now talking about crimes against property.

Page 19727

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You see -- what kind of property?  Theft of a

 2     motor vehicle somewhere or theft of some ten loafs of bread somewhere.

 3     We don't know what kind of property this is.

 4             What the -- what the Presiding Judge asked you to do was to

 5     confront the witness with the record of cases where officers were

 6     prosecuted for committing the crimes that you have been saying they were

 7     warned against.  Not -- not a report of the prosecutor but a record of

 8     the case.  That's what the Presiding Judge asked you.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  We will definitely do that during our case,

10     Your Honour.  I was just trying to see with this witness whether he has

11     any knowledge about any of these cases.

12             We can go to next page.  There are concrete cases, but only five

13     of them, I can see.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, the reason perhaps why Judge Moloto is

15     asking, there are a few examples given.  Half of them have got nothing to

16     do with the kind of things Mr. Brown reported about, such as the theft of

17     a truck from a depot.  That is, of course, not the type of crimes

18     Mr. Brown reported about.

19             Similarly one of the other examples is that the theft of -- of a

20     pistol, although there was, I see, a few -- there are cases which do fall

21     within the category, apparently, but only four examples are given.  Or

22     are there five?  And what we do see is that some do, some do not, on a

23     total of 18.  That is apparently what you put to the witness at this

24     moment.  To say that you'll present all this during your Defence case, as

25     I said before, could the witness --

Page 19728

 1             Did you know this report; and have you formed any opinion about

 2     the property crime cases which are briefly described here?

 3             THE WITNESS:  I cannot remember, sir, if this is a document that

 4     included in my report or if I was aware of it at the time or it has came

 5     later.  But looking at this refreshes here, 18 individuals from two

 6     corps, by the way, this is the 1st and the 2nd Krajina Corps.  The level

 7     of individual annotated here is very low level.  The numbers seem to be

 8     incredibly small, bearing in mind the problem that seemed to be existed

 9     in the 1st Krajina Corps' zone in relation to looting.  I think this

10     reinforced my point that -- that -- that these instructions, at best,

11     were not followed and certainly that no senior officers were held to

12     account for the issue of -- significant issue of looting that was clear

13     in the 1st Krajina Corps documents.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Lukic, if I do understand it well from

15     these examples, that the 18 soldiers made up a more limited number of

16     cases, because I see in the -- I see in examples that there are often

17     more than one accused so -- which would bring the cases, number of cases,

18     apart from the number of persons investigated, down to --

19             MR. LUKIC:  But those were only indictments.  Eighteen

20     indictments.  And that's separate from investigations.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Yes.  And apparently no judgements whatsoever.

22     Do you know the follow-up of these cases so as to see whether this ever

23     ended up in a -- in --

24             MR. LUKIC:  Not at this moment.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Not at this moment.  Then let's proceed.

Page 19729

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Mr. Brown --

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Could we go to page 18 of this page.

 4             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Do you know how many reports were filed in war time against an

 6     unidentified perpetrator when it was not possible to identify the

 7     perpetrator due to the war chaos?  Did you deal with this?

 8        A.   No, I didn't.  And there were references in some of the documents

 9     that perpetrators were unidentified.  I assume that part of the task of

10     investigations is to try and find that.  But, no, there were a number of

11     references to unidentified perpetrators.

12        Q.   You said this document is from 1993, not the period for which you

13     reviewed documentation.  You will agree with me, won't you, that the

14     proceedings and identification of perpetrators could have taken place in

15     1993, 1994, 1995, or after the war.  And in that case, your report would

16     not cover such findings; correct?

17        A.   I'd have to look at the front of this document but I believe this

18     is presumably covering the period of 1992 up until the writing of this

19     document, which I think as you said was --

20        Q.   1993.

21        A.   -- 1993.  So this would seem to be that period.  Doesn't cover

22     what happened after.  There could have been work relating to

23     investigations that were ongoing that were not annotated in this

24     document.  As to investigations after the war, well, that seems to be

25     quite a long time to deal with issues of significant criminality.

Page 19730

 1        Q.   In fact, you have no knowledge about the method and the speed of

 2     the work of the justice system in the entire territory of the former

 3     Yugoslavia, do you?

 4        A.   No, sir.  The study of the justice system wasn't part of this

 5     report.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, going back, because I looked at the

 7     document, the property crimes in one out of the five cases, it says

 8     something about an enemy soldier, not an enemy civilian but an enemy

 9     soldier.  For the others, I do not find any reference to the ethnicity of

10     the victims.

11             Now, it seems that it -- could you tell us, and looking at the

12     names of the described victims, they do not immediately strike me as

13     Muslim names, or is there a possibility that the majority of these cases

14     were dealing with property crimes committed against other Serbs, or is

15     there any ... which, of course, would -- would mean something in the

16     context of --

17             MR. LUKIC:  For that we'll have to go to the court records.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you find any name which strikes immediately as a,

19     for example, Muslim name?

20             MR. LUKIC:  All accused persons are Serbs here.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm talking about victims, Mr. Lukic, to the extent

22     they are identified.

23             MR. LUKIC:  There is no -- I cannot see any names of the victims.

24     They said by-passers or prisoners.  I don't see the names of any -- any

25     victim names.

Page 19731

 1             THE WITNESS:  I believe the second case, sir, has got a name in

 2     it.  The victim is a military conscript.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  So, therefore, in order to draw any conclusions as

 5     whether these are investigative activities which can be related to what

 6     the witness has described, we need more information.  And the witness

 7     would need more information as well.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  He was not studying this document anyways.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  But since you were -- I take it you have considered

10     the relevance of it.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Actually, this document was provided by my colleague,

12     Stojanovic, who --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Either you have or you have not put the right

14     questions to yourself before you put the questions to the witness.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. LUKIC:  I brought this document only because of you,

17     Your Honour.  My intention was not at all.  But now I would offer this

18     document into evidence.

19             MR. TRALDI:  There we go.  The mike took a moment to work.

20             We clearly have no objection, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 10524 receives number D437,

23     Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

25             THE WITNESS:  Sir, would it be imprudent if I asked -- if I could

Page 19732

 1     have a copy of that for the break to read?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.  If whomever could provide it to the

 3     witness.

 4             We'll make it available, then.  The usher will give it to you.

 5             THE WITNESS:  I appreciate that, sir.

 6             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   And now I would like to go to your next part in your report,

 8     Manjaca camp, that is.

 9             Due to the restrictions in time, I will skip the first part.  I

10     may come back to it, time permitting.  I'll go to the second part

11     straight away, which is the part where you deal with Manjaca camp.  I'll

12     follow the sequence of the paragraphs.  I'm not going to read them.

13             First of all, paragraph 2.10 --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Before you continue, Mr. Lukic, you said no victim

15     was named in this document.  I see the name of a certain Mr. Djuric in

16     the second item.  So --

17             MR. LUKIC:  The second item, the witness draw my attention to.

18     There was one in the second.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I missed that at this moment.  And

20     that's -- doesn't strike me as a Muslim or specifically --

21             MR. LUKIC:  It's a Serb name.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  It's a Serb name.  Please proceed.

23             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   2.10.  Did you come across the order issued in June 1992 to set

25     up Manjaca camp, or did you base your conclusions only on the writings of

Page 19733

 1     Osman Selak?

 2        A.   I believe I used the reference of Selak's notebook, sir.  I did

 3     not see the specific instruction in the Krajina Corps collection on the

 4     establishment of the camp.

 5        Q.   211 -- 2.11.  In General Talic's order to establish the war --

 6     the prisoners of war camp at Manjaca, did you come across a portion which

 7     indicates that the Geneva Conventions have been violated?

 8        A.   I -- as I say, I didn't see General Talic's order specifically

 9     establishing the camp.  There's a reference in Selak's notebook that a

10     camp is to be prepared on that day, and I -- I know clearly that the camp

11     was established in -- in early June.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Traldi, is there any dispute -- is it the

13     position of the Prosecution that General Talic's order contains anything

14     which would indicate that the Geneva Conventions have been violated?

15                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

16             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honour, I don't think we have a position on

17     that at this moment.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   And now paragraph 2.12 where you mention prisoners' camps in

22     Prijedor, more specifically at Manjaca.  You said that there were also

23     Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje.

24             Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje, were those centres established

25     by civilian or military authorities?

Page 19734

 1        A.   I believe they were established by an instruction from the

 2     Prijedor Crisis Staff, which -- which had police/military/civilian

 3     presence.  Well, whether it was the crisis -- yes, it was the

 4     Crisis Staff.  I believe those reception -- or those camps were

 5     established on that decision.

 6        Q.   Is your testimony here today that any of the military personnel

 7     were members of the Crisis Staff of Prijedor?  And I'm putting it to you,

 8     sir, that they were not.

 9        A.   Crisis Staffs are not really the -- the subject, per se.  The

10     subject or detailed analysis of the Crisis Staffs are not, per se, the

11     subject of this report.  What I can say in Prijedor is that Colonel Arsic

12     and Mr. Zeljaja were present in meetings.  Whether they were national

13     defence meetings, whether they were Municipal Board meetings, whether

14     they were Crisis Staff meetings, they were involved in these meetings

15     with SDS representatives and police representatives in Prijedor.  And, in

16     particular, Colonel Arsic had been involved in the take-over the Prijedor

17     at the end of April.

18             So I would not agree with you that they were -- these military

19     personnel were not members of the Crisis Staff.  Well, formally --

20     whether there was a formal process of appointment, I can't say.  That's

21     not really the expertise I have.  But I do know that these military men

22     in Prijedor, the commanders at least, were present in these decisions and

23     I'd have to go back to this document about the establishment of camps,

24     but I believe that there was military representation at that specific

25     meeting.

Page 19735

 1        Q.   There's no document on establishment -- there's a document that

 2     was signed by Simo Drljaca on the 31st of five [as interpreted], where he

 3     cites a decision of the Crisis Staff, but let's not go there.

 4             Did you see a document clearly indicating who members of the

 5     Crisis Staff of Prijedor were?  I'm putting it to you again, sir, loud

 6     and clear, that that list of the members of the Crisis Staff of Prijedor

 7     does not contain the name of any of the military personnel.

 8        A.   I --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  The witness has answered that question.  He doesn't

10     know the formal composition of the Crisis Staff, and he stressed that

11     military were present during meetings.

12             So he has answered that question.  He ...

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Soldiers did not attend meetings of

14     the Crisis Staff.  Perhaps only two or three times did they attend

15     throughout all that period.  And this is what I'm putting to the witness

16     as I ask him:

17        Q.   Sir, do you know how many times did any of the soldiers attend a

18     meeting of the Crisis Staff?  And please bear in mind that you are

19     confusing the Council for National Security or Defence and the Crisis

20     Staff.

21        A.   I don't know the number of times military representatives were

22     present at Prijedor Crisis Staff meetings.  I do know that military

23     representatives were present at the National Security and Defence Council

24     meetings.  How many times that was, I don't know.  I just refer back

25     to my previous answer.

Page 19736

 1        Q.   Just a moment.  Just a moment.  Do you know that the

 2     National Security Council stopped operating when the Crisis Staff was

 3     established because the -- that body was a body of the municipality of

 4     the assembly of the municipality, and the Crisis Staff actually replaced

 5     the assembly of the municipality.

 6        A.   Well, whatever the body was called, whatever the iteration and

 7     the development of the various bodies in Prijedor, it strikes me that

 8     there was a body that involved SDS, local police, and, at times, military

 9     representatives in decision-making in Prijedor municipality, irrespective

10     of what the name of the -- the function was.

11             But in -- I just go back to my answer that this is not a report

12     about the workings of Prijedor Crisis Staff, Prijedor national defence

13     meetings or other bodies.  There are other experts who I know were

14     working in that area.

15        Q.   And now paragraph 2.13.  Did you come across a document which

16     says that the Main Staff of the VRS had something to do with the

17     establishment of Manjaca camp?

18        A.   No, sir, I don't have an instruction or have seen a military

19     document in the Krajina collection from the Main Staff around that

20     period, the 1st of June, indicating that the Main Staff had ordered

21     its -- its establishment.  Of course, the document on the

22     12th of June from the Main Staff establishing prisoners of war camps

23     throughout the various corps was disseminated on that day, and I think I

24     argue in the report or present in the report that General Talic passes

25     that instruction on to Manjaca camp and to the assistant commander for

Page 19737

 1     morale within his corps.

 2             So the camp has already been established by the 12th of May.

 3     That document is important enough to be sent down to Manjaca camp

 4     indicating that it is clearly already in existence, but, in relation to

 5     the 1st of June or the very initial day of its establishment, I have not

 6     seen a Main Staff instruction requesting that that camp be -- that camp

 7     be established.

 8             It is of note, however, that the 1st of June Selak entry, which

 9     would appear to indicate that that was the day the camp was expected to

10     be established, is the day before General Mladic visits Banja Luka, that

11     is the 2nd of June, he visits Banja Luka and there's a reference in his

12     own notebook that he is in Banja Luka with -- speaking to commanders and

13     officers of the corps.  So maybe it's the context there, but the specific

14     question of have I seen a Main Staff instruction establishing Manjaca

15     camp, no, sir, I haven't.

16        Q.   Did you ever see a report coming to the Main Staff from any of

17     the camps, including Manjaca, Keraterm, or Trnopolje?

18        A.   Do you mean camp-level documents going direct to the Main Staff,

19     sir, or do you mean --

20        Q.   Yes, yes.  Precisely.

21        A.   I don't think I have.  I -- I -- I -- I don't believe the camp

22     documents that I reviewed indicate that they went to the Main Staff.

23     And, actually, I wouldn't expect that.  There is a subordinated chain,

24     which would run from the Main Staff, to the corps, to the camp.  And the

25     documents from Manjaca camp that I have seen indicate that they go from

Page 19738

 1     the camp, to the security department of the corps.  So -- which would sit

 2     in that subordinated chain as I would seem to expect.  But, no, the

 3     documents that I've seen specifically from the camp, I do not -- I cannot

 4     say whether they went to the Main Staff because they're not annotated in

 5     this respect.

 6        Q.   Do you know that Omarska and Keraterm camps were managed and

 7     guarded by the police?

 8        A.   I -- I believe, and certainly in relation to Omarska, that the

 9     police were the -- the guard -- guarded the -- the camp.  There were

10     references or there's at least one reference that the military provided

11     some assistance; for example, in the laying of mines and also, I believe,

12     in relation to joint investigative bodies.

13             But, in relation to the guarding of camp, certainly at Omarska,

14     I -- I believe that that was run by the police.  I am not quite so sure

15     about the set-up in relation to Keraterm camp.  I believe it was

16     something of a joint camp, but the actual functions within it, I'm -- I'm

17     not sure.

18        Q.   In paragraph 2.21, you discuss an instruction which was sent by

19     General Mladic on the 12th of July.  Do you remember that that

20     instruction also includes a -- an order to prevent any breaches or

21     violations of the Geneva Conventions?

22        A.   Yes, sir, I -- I do remember that, and that is what it says.  In

23     fact there had been a previous instruction sent by the Main Staff on the

24     4th of June which specifically dealt with wider criminality.  But within

25     that Main Staff instruction on the 4th of June, there was a direct

Page 19739

 1     reference that they had received information about violations against

 2     civilians and prisoners of war and that -- amongst other things, and that

 3     the 1st Krajina Corps received that instruction and passed it down to

 4     units of the -- of the 1st Krajina Corps.

 5             So this 4th of June instruction which is referenced in my Krajina

 6     report on this 12th of May instruction does make reference that

 7     Geneva Conventions are to be abided by.

 8        Q.   And -- and now about your paragraph 2.36, which is the operative

 9     handling of inmates.

10             Do you know, or did you know that the reception of prisoners of

11     war at Manjaca was dealt with by a commission; and do you know who the

12     members of that commission were?

13        A.   No, I don't specifically know who the members of that commission

14     were.  The Manjaca documents indicate that there was a processing team

15     that reported on their work, usually daily, and I am assuming that that

16     would involve the interviewing of detainees and reviewing if there were

17     any files that had been sent.  But, in terms of the exact individuals who

18     were part of that process, I'm not clear on that, sir.

19        Q.   Very well.  And now just briefly let's go to the part that you

20     yourself marked as status.  The paragraphs are 2.41 through 2.45.

21             Is it true, sir, that the command of the camp warned everybody

22     that people were being brought in without any prior selection or

23     screening process, that a large number was brought in, and that a lot of

24     the documents show that people brought to the camp and that their escorts

25     were civilian police officers?

Page 19740

 1        A.   I don't know if it is the camp commander, but whoever is writing

 2     the reports are warning in a number of those reports, sometimes in

 3     significant detail, that large numbers of individuals who are being

 4     brought in did not deserve to be there, were rounded up from their homes

 5     or fields, and in significant details that were not combatants, were not

 6     carrying weapons or in uniform, some who were minors.  So there are

 7     significant a number of reference, I believe, in the documents that I

 8     reviewed from Manjaca camp indicating that the author of that the

 9     report - whoever that was - knew that and was passing that information to

10     the 1st Krajina Corps.

11             The second issue is:  Was I aware that the documents show that

12     the escorts were civilian police officers.  The documents don't always

13     say who's brought the individuals in.  In some cases they are escorted by

14     the police, most notably the incident on the 7th of August, when

15     detainees from Omarska were brought and there were deaths during that --

16     that -- that transfer.  There are, I believe, a number of other documents

17     which indicate the engagement of the police, but it doesn't always say in

18     the documents, when they've received individuals, who's brought them in.

19        Q.   And now 2.46.  Is it true that even before the 6th of August,

20     before the media campaign that you cite, the camp command carried out a

21     screening process and warned that people who were being brought from

22     Prijedor, Kljuc, and Sanski Most fell into various categories?

23        A.   They -- they themselves don't necessarily always clearly

24     differentiate the categories, but the reports clearly indicate a large

25     number of individuals who are not combatants.  Who are, in effective,

Page 19741

 1     civilians who had been rounded up and sent to detentions.  That's one

 2     large number.  They do make occasionally references to individuals who

 3     have been interviewed who they -- they deem as having been part of an

 4     armed resistance or a paramilitary -- whatever they phrase it, I can't

 5     remember.  I haven't looked at the documents in detail for -- all of them

 6     for -- for some time.  But that is a category of individuals, relatively

 7     small in numbers.

 8             So in that request, generally, there is that differentiation but

 9     there isn't a -- the biggest bulk seems to be or the biggest problem they

10     come across are people who are not prisoner of war, i.e., combatants.

11        Q.   The focus of my question was that there were warnings about that

12     even before the media campaign.  And in your footnotes 159 and 162, you

13     cite daily reports dated 8 and 9 July, in which the screening process

14     problems are indicated.

15             What I'm trying to do is to establish that that problem was

16     highlighted by the camp command, even before any media campaign started.

17        A.   That is correct.  That is correct, sir, yes.

18        Q.   And now paragraphs 2.49 to 2.51.

19             When it comes to the command of the 1st Krajina Corps, they

20     requested from the police structures to send their representatives to the

21     camp and to carry out a selection among the individuals whom they

22     themselves had brought to the camp in the first place; right?

23        A.   This particular section within status is -- is highlighting that

24     even though in -- in early -- in an earlier period, for example, the

25     July period that you mentioned, that it was known by the Krajina Corps

Page 19742

 1     that a large number of individuals, in essence, didn't deserve to be

 2     there and were civilians who had simply been rounded up and sent to the

 3     camp, that this resolution of their status was still not -- had still not

 4     occurred by the middle of August.

 5             Now, later, this 20th of August period, later on, is referenced

 6     in more detail about why this meeting on the 20th -- 19th and 20th comes

 7     around.  It strikes me from the chronology of the events that it wasn't

 8     because the Krajina Corps who had highlighted this problem som -- or at

 9     least had been made aware of this problem through the camp records some

10     time ago, this wasn't somehow being resolved that it just happened to

11     take that length of time to August to resolve it.  The 20th and 19th

12     meetings are about the -- the -- are related to the revelations that came

13     in early August and the criticisms that became apparent and the pressure

14     that was put on the Bosnian Serb authorities in relation to detainees.

15             So I -- it's a complicated chain.  I reference it in this section

16     to show that the issue had not been resolved in the -- in the camp.  But

17     later on, I explain why 19 and 20, in particular, was -- why this

18     selection process occurred, and I argue that the selection process

19     occurred not because the corps was necessarily trying to resolve it based

20     on its previous -- its previous reports that it had received but it is

21     related, in time, to the allegations and the pressure that was mounting

22     on the RS authorities as a result of activity that happened in early

23     August.

24             I apologise for that long explanation.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, is -- is the issue you're dealing with

Page 19743

 1     whether Manjaca was a military-run camp or a non-military-run camp?  Is

 2     that the issue?

 3             MR. LUKIC:  It's not.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  It's not.  Then what exactly is the issue?  Because

 5     then it --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Maybe in my next question [Overlapping speakers] ...

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  If you put clear questions so that we know

 8     exactly what you seek to elicit as evidence from this witness.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Mr. Brown, you've heard what the Presiding Judge is interested

11     in.  My next question was to be, and will be, this request directed at

12     the police that they carry out a selection, does it indicate the powers

13     of the camp administration over all the detainees?

14        A.   I'm not sure of the -- the question, particularly, sir.

15        Q.   [In English] Maybe it's unartfully posed.

16             [Interpretation] Why doesn't the camp administration carry out

17     this selection themselves?  Why do they, instead, call on the chiefs of

18     the secretariats of police to ask them to carry out the selection?

19             Do you find -- is it clear to you where the line is between the

20     jurisdiction of the camp administration and the powers of the police?

21        A.   I -- I -- I -- I can't necessarily deal with the issue of

22     jurisdiction.  What -- what I can say is that the camp received an

23     instruction via the 1st Krajina Corps from the Main Staff in order to

24     review the detainees that were being held in Manjaca.  And in order to do

25     that, it requested police to come to the camp to have a conference or a

Page 19744

 1     meeting to review the files and status of those individuals.

 2             Now -- and those individuals came, and the meeting was held.

 3             What does that demonstrate to me?  Well, that the camp is

 4     reacting to a Main Staff instruction through the 1st Krajina Corps.

 5             What does it tell me?  That, in order to resolve this problem, or

 6     this issue, that -- and bearing in mind only 14 days, less than that,

 7     actually, 1400 prisoners had come from Omarska and had been held in that

 8     detention centre, which was guarded by the police and that the police had

 9     a role in that.  That in order to resolve this, they wanted to get the

10     files and individuals who had been involved with those prisoners in

11     Omarska for a period of time to -- to -- to -- in order for them to carry

12     out this task that had been set them.  So they are requesting the police

13     to come to jointly resolve or deal with the task that was set them, which

14     is what they did.  That's what the document tells me about this meeting.

15     Does it tell me about the nuances of the relationship between -- the

16     judicial relationship from the camps and who can task who?  No.  But it's

17     clear that the camp in it -- in -- in reacting to its instruction from

18     the Main Staff gets the police to do what it requires is needed to

19     resolve the problem.

20             And, again, I apologise for the long-winded response to the

21     question.

22        Q.   You talk a lot, as if you were a lawyer.

23        A.   I'm glad I'm not a lawyer, sir.  I can tell you that.

24        Q.   We're now going to discuss the general conditions in the camp.

25     General remarks; that's 2.72.

Page 19745

 1             In that paragraph, you say that it appears that, for two months,

 2     the detainees had a poor water supply.  Is it the case that the corps

 3     made efforts to deal with the problem the water supply in -- in an area

 4     that was short on water?

 5        A.   Sorry -- sorry.  The reference to the section?

 6        Q.   [In English] 2.72.

 7        A.   Yes.  The -- the corps was aware that the water -- the water

 8     supply was inadequate and, indeed, sent out two instructions in order

 9     to -- to try and resolve that.  I forget the references here and the

10     exact dates.  This is in 2.69.

11        Q.   [Interpretation] Let me ask you:  Do you know that the corps did

12     a bacteriological analysis of the water?

13        A.   Yes, it did.  And it did that on the 27th of July, or at least

14     there was a document requesting that, I believe, on the -- on the

15     27th of July.  And they requested, I believe, that a section of pipeline

16     be -- be replaced or restored.  I think 2 kilometres.  And they -- they

17     put in two requests, I believe, for this in late July.  Now the timing, I

18     think, is important because that comes after the 16th of July visit by

19     the ICRC in which one of the issues they were critical of was inadequate

20     water.  Of course, it begs the question:  Why do you set up a detention

21     camp in the first place if the water supply is inadequate.  But, yes,

22     they did put out instructions about water, but I believe those

23     instructions came after the ICRC visit.

24        Q.   Is it true that the guards drank the same water, the soldiers who

25     were there, and that it was brought in cisterns because it was in short

Page 19746

 1     supply?

 2        A.   I believe -- I'd have to go back to the two document, but I

 3     believe that in the report on the water system at the end of July, it

 4     makes mention that the water is inadequate and is having to be brought in

 5     by cistern.  I can't tell you whether the guards drank the water from the

 6     camp in the cisterns or whether they were based at the barracks.  There

 7     was a barracks in Manjaca training area, not that far from -- from the

 8     camp itself.  I don't know what the water supply to the barracks was.

 9     Manjaca had been a farm.  It was -- it was a -- it had been a JNA farm

10     for the storage of cattle.  I -- maybe that's one of the reasons why the

11     water was not -- was not adequate there.  But I can't tell you what the

12     guards drank.

13        Q.   All right.  Now paragraph 2, item 77.

14             If, when people were brought from Omarska, let's say to Manjaca,

15     there were some dead, and they were brought by the police, that cannot be

16     blamed either on the camp or on the 1st Krajina Corps.  Would you agree

17     with that?

18        A.   I -- it's not as easy as that, I think, sir.  The specifics of

19     the incident from the documents of the camp are that these individuals

20     were brought to the camp.  They arrived early.  They were brought by the

21     police, I -- I -- I -- I agree.  They -- they arrived early.  They were

22     forced to stay overnight, and that overnight, killings took place on

23     those detainees which was known by the camp authorities and was known by

24     the camp commander and was reported to the 1st Krajina Corps, including

25     some names of potential -- or at least, I think, reference to the

Page 19747

 1     police -- the police commander.

 2             The camp refused to take the -- the -- the bodies in, and later

 3     took the remaining prisoners.  It would appear to be that -- from -- at

 4     least from the documents, and I can only go on the incident based on the

 5     documents I've seen, that the police escorts were the ones who committed

 6     the crime.  But there didn't seem to be any attempt by the camp to

 7     immediately hold the perpetrators, to immediately secure the scene as

 8     some kind of crime scene, to immediately inform, say, the military

 9     police, maybe -- you know, the killings itself outside the camp was on a

10     training area, a military facility, just because it's on the perimeter of

11     the camp if it's on a military facility whether there's a jurisdictional

12     issue here, a whole raft of the questions and issues that did not seem to

13     be addressed.  What happened from the documents were that the bodies were

14     taken away the -- I think there's a reference in one of the documents

15     that the bodies may have been dumped.

16             The perpetrators would seem to be the police, from the documents.

17     Clearly the police would have -- should have -- I -- I would have

18     expected, have done some investigation.  Did I think the military carried

19     out appropriate and professional response?  No.  As I said, I don't think

20     they called the military police, didn't keep the perpetrators where they

21     were, didn't protect the crime scene --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Brown, I think, in short, your answer would have

23     been the police committed the crimes.  Whether the camp and the

24     1st Krajina Corps are without any blame, you doubt, because no adequate

25     response was taken to what was reported.

Page 19748

 1             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  That's in four, five lines approximately what you

 3     told us in 30.  Could you please try to be more focussed.

 4             And, Mr. Lukic, it certainly assists if you put focussed

 5     questions to the witness.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Would you agree that the military police has no jurisdiction to

 9     carry out investigations against civilians in structures like the

10     civilian police.

11        A.   I -- I don't know the full regulations of the military police,

12     sir.

13        Q.   [In English] That's legitimate answer.

14             [Interpretation] Now concerning paragraph 2.79, when you talk

15     about the use of detainees to do work and even construct fire positions

16     around the camp, would you agree that the POW camp Manjaca was never in a

17     combat zone?

18        A.   As far as I am aware, I would agree with you, sir, yes.  There

19     was no fighting in and around Manjaca.

20        Q.   Also in paragraphs 2.80 and 2.81, you talk about the use of

21     detainees in the 1st Engineering Regiment to clean the power plant.

22     Would you agree that in this case, they did not run any risk to their

23     lives and they were not in a combat zone?

24        A.   No, sir, I would disagree with you.  Jajce had had significant

25     combat operation -- combat operations in and around that zone at the

Page 19749

 1     time, and in fact the hydroelectric dam, I believe, was -- was a key

 2     feature in a key area in which combat was occurring.

 3        Q.   All right.  We'll check that.  The detainees, the prisoners,

 4     volunteered to go to work.  Would you agree?

 5        A.   The documents don't -- don't make mention that the prisoners

 6     volunteered to do that, as far as I'm aware.  And I would imagine that

 7     irrespective of whether prisoners volunteer for military work that --

 8     that -- that type of activity should not be encouraged or supported.

 9        Q.   I should now like to move on to -- I began with paragraph 2.82.

10     I'll now move to 2.85.  That's the treatment of minors and elderly

11     detainees.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we do that after the break, Mr. Lukic.

13             Take a break of 20 minutes.  Could the witness be escorted out of

14     the courtroom.

15                           [The witness stands down]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at 25 minutes past midday.

17                           --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.

19                           [The witness takes the stand]

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22        Q.   Mr. Brown, may I ask you to try to give as short answers as

23     possible so we can finish this examination today.

24        A.   I'll do my best, sir.

25        Q.   Paragraphs 2.82 to 2.85 of your paper.  That's the treatment of

Page 19750

 1     detainees, minors, and elderly people.

 2             Is it true - and we can see that from your footnotes from 208 to

 3     212 - that the command of the camp proposed several times that detainees

 4     who are not fit for military service and those who are infirm be released

 5     from the camp.

 6        A.   Yes, I think there were one or two references that that should

 7     happen.

 8        Q.   [In English] I see five here, but ...

 9        A.   You -- you count quicker than I do, sir.

10        Q.   Now paragraph 2.87.  [Interpretation] Would you agree with me

11     that there is no responsibility on the part of the camp command, or the

12     1st Krajina Corps, for the fact that members of the police had brought

13     minors from Prijedor to the camp?

14        A.   I -- I don't think it's as easy as that.  I -- my -- I mean,

15     there's two issues:  One is the capture of the individuals initially and

16     who did that; the issue of transportation is a second issue.  But once

17     the individuals are in the camp, they are certainly the responsibility of

18     the corps -- or the military.

19        Q.   Could the camp administration refuse to take in these prisoners?

20     What is your position on that?

21        A.   I'm sure the camp could refuse to take these individuals.  The --

22     the camp, I believe, should abide by the Geneva Conventions.  The camp

23     clearly could have refused.  They could have clearly said, These

24     individuals are not combatants and don't deserve to be in my custody.  Or

25     if they did take them on, to treat them appropriately, and -- in terms of

Page 19751

 1     quickly releasing them.

 2        Q.   So in the process of admission it was not clear, it was not

 3     known, who was a combatant and who was not; correct?

 4        A.   It is clear that the camp, when they were writing their reports

 5     were unaware in some cases that large numbers were, but during the

 6     process of their -- their work became very quickly clear that many were

 7     not combatants.

 8        Q.   So is it true that when they realised that a person was not a

 9     combatant, the camp administration immediately reported that to their

10     superiors?  We have it in your footnote 216.

11        A.   Through the work -- the writing, those who wrote those reports

12     indicated to the 1st Krajina Corps that many individuals didn't deserve

13     to be combatants and didn't deserve to be there.

14        Q.   Would you then agree that the camp command was not responsible

15     and they reported to the superior command anything they observed?

16        A.   Was not responsible for what, sir?  Strikes me the camp was --

17        Q.   [In English] Sorry.  Probably something was lost in the

18     translation.

19             [Interpretation] Is it true that the camp command reported

20     everything they found to the superior commands and that it was not to

21     blame for anything.  It was not guilty.  They didn't hide anything?

22        A.   Well --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  There are three different questions but ...

24             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] This is my latest question.

25        Q.   Would you agree that the camp command did not hide anything, they

Page 19752

 1     reported everything to the superior command?

 2        A.   I -- I don't know what other reports were written.  The reports

 3     say what they say.  Whether that's everything, I don't know.  They're

 4     not -- they're not extensive documents.  They're a daily report of what

 5     they are doing.  So, taken in that context, yes.

 6             The camp, in relation --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I just --

 8             Mr. Lukic, did you intend to ask whether they were hiding their

 9     concern about the composition of the body of detainees?  They apparently

10     were not.  If that was primarily your question.  The composition of

11     who -- who were detained there.

12             MR. LUKIC:  That would be more artfully posed.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Did they hide, what kind of detainees they

14     had and they had concerned about whether they were appropriately detained

15     there?

16             THE WITNESS:  No.  I think these camps are very revelatory, sir.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Next question, Mr. Lukic.

18             THE WITNESS:  I meant reports, not camps, sir, in the transcript.

19             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   And now let me ask you about 5.29 [as interpreted], treatment of

21     prisoner, ill-treatment.  Would you agree with me that the command of the

22     1st Krajina Corps and the camp command had nothing to do with the

23     ill-treatment of those prisoners who were incarcerated at Manjaca camp

24     when they were outside of the camp, those ill-treatments that happened

25     beyond the perimeter of the camp?

Page 19753

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Traldi.

 2             MR. TRALDI:  Yeah, sorry.  I don't have an objection to the

 3     question.  Just the reference 5.29.  I'm not quite sure what that means

 4     and I don't see a corresponding paragraph number.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, could you assist.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  I said 2.89.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  2.89 under the heading:  "Treatment of detainees,

 8     maltreatment."  Yes, please.

 9             THE WITNESS:  The camp commander and the camp authorities had

10     responsibility for the detainees inside the camp.  Whether they were

11     civilians, non-combatants, or whether they were combatants, the camp

12     commander had the responsibility for those detainees.  The camp commander

13     and the camp authorities had the responsible for the actions of the

14     guards and soldiers within that camp, and so when -- when we talk about

15     those inside the camp, the camp commander and authorities did have

16     responsibility for both those issues.  Both -- now, the camp commander

17     reported to the Krajina Corps.  So in that respect, the Krajina Corps had

18     a responsibility to ensure the proper functioning of the camp.  The

19     soldiers within the camp were members of the 1st Krajina Corps and, of

20     course, the 1st Krajina Corps is a member of the VRS, under the authority

21     of the Main Staff and General Mladic.  So that deals with the issue of

22     the individuals within the camp.  The obligations, I believe, to look

23     after the detainees.

24             Now in relation to your second point which is the ill-treatment

25     of those outside --

Page 19754

 1        Q.   [In English] That's my only question about responsibility outside

 2     the camp.

 3        A.   I think you said inside as well.

 4        Q.   No -- okay.  What about the responsibility for mistreatment

 5     outside the camp?

 6        A.   The camp authorities are responsible for the camp, any actions

 7     inside.  The Krajina Corps is responsible for the actions of its

 8     soldiers.  If the Krajina Corps is involved in detaining individuals,

 9     taking individuals into custody, which they did as part of military

10     operations, the Krajina Corps is responsible for the safe treatment of

11     those detainees.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] I have a question:  Did you come across a

13     document in which you saw that the military police or any other members

14     of the army ever brought people to Manjaca to be incarcerated there?

15        A.   What I know is that the police escorted, in specific details, two

16     of the convoys that brought individuals into Manjaca, the convoy on the

17     7th of August, and the convoy from Sanski Most, which I believe was in

18     July.

19             Now, I know that there were other prisoners brought to Manjaca

20     outside those two large -- or two -- two transfers which specifically

21     made mention of police escorts.  There was a large number of individuals

22     from bought from -- this is from documentary reference, from

23     Stara Gradiska prison --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I stop you there.  Did they refer to military

25     police or to police alone?

Page 19755

 1             THE WITNESS:  I believe they just refer -- I'd have to go back to

 2     the documents again, sir.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Because that would bring it outside the scope

 4     of the question.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Sure.  This issue of Stara Gradiska, I just wanted

 6     to highlight, there is a reference of a movement of prisoners from

 7     Stara Gradiska prison to Manjaca, bringing -- I forget if it is 900 or

 8     600.  It does not specifically say that those prisoners were brought by

 9     military police, but Stara Gradiska was a prison that was also -- or a

10     detention centre that was also run by the military.  So outside those

11     three specific documented reports, I did not see documents specifically

12     identifying the military police as -- as -- as bringing individuals in.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   You say that Stara Gradiska was a prison, and, as such, it was

15     under the authority of the civilian authorities, and the army did bring

16     people in there and they were kept there.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  The previous answer reads otherwise, Mr. Lukic:

18             "Stara Gradiska was the detention centre that was also run by the

19     military."

20             So, therefore, that question has been answered.  If it's

21     incorrect, please challenge the answer, but don't ask for the same again.

22     Or imply in a -- in a question something which is different from what the

23     witness said.

24             MR. LUKIC:  To the best of my knowledge, Stara Gradiska was the

25     prison before the war, during the war, and after the war.

Page 19756

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Then ask the witness.  You just told us that it was

 2     a military-run prison.  On what basis did you establish that, because

 3     it's the position of the Defence that it was not a military prison.  You

 4     can ask that question, no problem.  But do not imply in the next question

 5     something which the different -- the witness had not said.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             Perhaps you have heard my answer -- my question, as a matter of

 8     fact, where I suggested to Mr. Lukic.  If you could answer that question

 9     to Mr. Lukic.

10             THE WITNESS:  Staff Gradiska was a prison before the war.  During

11     the operations in Croatia, the 5th Corps took it over and used it as a

12     facility to hold prisoners from Croatia.  It was also used in the early

13     part, I believe, in the early part -- this is from documentation, from

14     the early part of the conflict in Bosnia by the 1st Krajina Corps to hold

15     detainees and the 1st Krajina Corps military police units were involved

16     in that process, sir.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

18             THE WITNESS:  Actually, if I could, whilst I was in the break --

19     whilst I was in the break, Your Honours, I quickly looked at this

20     document about military prosecutions and there is one reference in there

21     of an individual who is a military police officer who -- in

22     Stara Gradiska who is being -- who was being investigated because he

23     robbed a -- a detainee there.  I don't know if that adds a little bit to

24     the story.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, --

Page 19757

 1             THE WITNESS:  Page 15 of the translation.

 2             MR. LUKIC:

 3        Q.   Thank you for your input.

 4        A.   Sorry, I will retract that, sorry.  It was Banja Luka prison.  It

 5     wasn't Stara Gradiska.  I do apologise, sir.  But my position still is

 6     that it was a military facility run by the corps.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Did I see in your report that the military police

 8     transported detainees from Manjaca to Stara Gradiska prison?

 9             THE WITNESS:  No.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  So that's the other direction.

11             THE WITNESS:  No, the prisoners came from Stara Gradiska to

12     Manjaca, sir.  The report didn't say that the military police, per se,

13     were --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay --

15             THE WITNESS:  [Overlapping speakers]... in that transfer.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I must not have looked carefully enough.

17             Please proceed.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

19        Q.   [Interpretation] 2.89.  How many ill-treated individuals were

20     seen by the ICRC team when they visited the camp on the

21     16th of July, 1992?

22        A.   The 16th of July Krajina Corps report to the Main Staff does not

23     identify specific numbers of individuals who had been maltreated.  The

24     16th of July instruction references general concerns, including the

25     treatment of prisoners.  The later ICRC -- more fuller ICRC report that

Page 19758

 1     gives a more -- more detail, I'd have to look at the documents but

 2     references large numbers, I think, or numbers.  It doesn't, again, note

 3     specific instances or specific numbers.

 4        Q.   And now let's look at 2.93.  Do you know that the guards of

 5     Manjaca and prisoners were given the same food that was prepared in one

 6     and the same place using the same ingredients?

 7        A.   No, I don't sir.  And that would seem somewhat irrelevant.  The

 8     regulations indicate that certain standards are being maintained for

 9     prisoners.  I don't know what the -- the guards at Manjaca prison were

10     fed.

11        Q.   You know that there were shortages of all of bare necessities in

12     Krajina before the corridor was opened; right?

13        A.   Sir, if you're -- if the nature of the question is that because

14     of shortages that's why prisoners were not fed, I don't -- I don't

15     subscribe to that, and neither do I from reading of Geneva Conventions

16     subscribe that that is a reason not to feed prisoners.  If you cannot

17     hold prisoners according to the standard, you shouldn't hold them at all.

18        Q.   Did you know that this was a dietitian or a specialist who

19     checked the -- the calorie value of the food that the prisoner --

20     prisoners were given at Manjaca?

21        A.   No, I don't know there was dietitian.  But based on the ICRC

22     report, if there was one, he clearly wasn't doing his job properly.

23        Q.   Is it clear that members of the ICRC demanded [Realtime

24     transcript read in error "remanded"] that even those people who had been

25     convicted of the crimes that they had committed also be released from the

Page 19759

 1     camp?

 2        A.   I don't know that is exactly the case.  There is a reference in

 3     the 16th of July, that they -- they want to -- I forget if it was release

 4     or speak to individuals who they claim were individuals who had committed

 5     crimes.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If we may just correct the record, Mr. Lukic.  At

 7     page 57, line 14, the word "demanded" is written as "remanded."  I

 8     thought I heard the witness say --

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Demanded.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I heard you, Mr. Lukic, saying "demanded."

11             MR. LUKIC:  Demanded, yes.  Thank you.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, is there any source for us to consult on

13     that issue you just raised a second ago?

14                           [Defence counsel confer]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  That is, the release of those convicted.  And may I

16     take it that you'd refer to those convicted and not having yet served any

17     sentence?

18             MR. LUKIC:  The witness was protected

19     so [Overlapping speakers] ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  If you give me a page number then ...

21             MR. LUKIC:  I don't have the page number.  I will -- 051, RM051.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll have a look.

23             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Did you know -- or, rather, in its report, did the ICRC committee

25     state that the representatives of Merhamet which was a Muslim charity

Page 19760

 1     organisation visited the camp several times every week?

 2        A.   No, the ICRC report didn't make mention of that.  I do know and I

 3     think I report that Merhamet did visit.  I don't think the documents make

 4     reference that they report -- that they visited every week but that

 5     they -- they did appear there before.

 6        Q.   In paragraph 2.103, you say that Ratko Mladic personally

 7     inspected the units of the 1st Krajina Corps; to be more specific, the

 8     command of the 1st Doboj OG.  How far was that command from Manjaca at

 9     that moment; do you know that?

10        A.   I don't know in terms of kilometres.  It is a distance.

11        Q.   We are also talking about the corridor, aren't we?

12        A.   Yes.  We're talking about his visit there.  Wasn't the only visit

13     he had to the corps, I hasten to say.

14        Q.   However, if we're speaking about this, the distance would be at

15     least 200 kilometres, and the reason for his visit was the corridor.

16     However, let's move on.

17             Representatives of the ICRC insisted on the camp being closed

18     down.  They didn't have any suggestions as to where it could be moved.

19     They didn't even know whether there were any such locations that the

20     military could use to open replacement camps, if Manjaca, indeed, was to

21     be closed.

22        A.   I -- I'm not sure that's necessarily the -- the role of the ICRC.

23     The ICRC are there to monitor the standards of detention centres and make

24     recommendations where necessary.  It is the obligation of the detaining

25     party, in this case the VRS, to provide suitable accommodation to hold

Page 19761

 1     those individuals.  Or if there's not suitable accommodation to ensure

 2     that they're released and transferred or -- or dealt with.  It's not the

 3     ICRC's job to find suitable -- or to ask about suitable accommodation.

 4     It's for the detaining party --

 5        Q.   [In English] Okay.  Okay.

 6             [Interpretation] Talking about paragraphs 2.102 to 2.106.  Let me

 7     ask you, did the command of the Krajina Corps take into account of what

 8     the ICRC observed and said about Manjaca?  Did they invest effort

 9     thereafter to improve the conditions of life of those who were held at

10     Manjaca?

11        A.   I don't believe he did, sir, at least not initially.  The key

12     recommendation of the ICRC, of course, was that the camp was closed and

13     that didn't happen until another six or seven months.  There were some

14     references in August, middle of August, we've talked about, where there

15     were --

16        Q.   Very well.  We have that in your report, sir.

17             Do you know that an infirmary was set up within the perimeter of

18     the camp?

19        A.   I believe -- it may be the RS's own investigation report makes

20     mention of a small infirmary that was being used, but I believe that the

21     ICRC report certainly identifies that medical facilities there are not

22     adequate.  And after the ICRC's report, I did not see in the

23     documentation a significant change or building or moving of -- of any

24     medical facility.

25        Q.   Do you know that over 8.000 medical exams were undertaken in the

Page 19762

 1     camp?

 2        A.   I did not see that from the documents, sir.

 3        Q.   Do you know that there was another medical facility, a triage or

 4     reception, outpatients' clinic, outside of the camp?  Did you incorporate

 5     that into your report?

 6        A.   In -- in which location was that, sir?  Where?  Outside the

 7     perimeter or the barracks?

 8        Q.   Outside of the camp but not far from it.  If that rings any bell,

 9     fine.  If not, let's move on.

10        A.   I didn't -- I didn't hear about that, sir.

11        Q.   Enes Sabanovic was a doctor, a Muslim.  Do you know that he

12     practiced in the camp as a medical practitioner?

13        A.   I didn't know the name but I -- I do remember one of the

14     investigative documents -- or the ICRC documents makes mention of a

15     doctor or some medical staff from the detainees being used for or

16     operating for medical purposes.

17        Q.   Do you know that the clinical hospital centre in Banja Luka was

18     also at the disposal of the camp's inmates, if they needed help, and that

19     the Serbian doctors from this medical centre visited the camp to

20     administer aid to the inmates?

21        A.   I didn't know that -- that the hospital in Banja Luka, which was

22     some distance away, was put at that disposal.  But I go back to the

23     comments of the ICRC that they have significant concerns about the

24     medical condition of prisoners and the medical treatment that they could

25     receive.  So despite having that hospital some distance away would not

Page 19763

 1     seem to be, from the ICRC's perspective, that individuals were being

 2     treated or else they would not have been reporting their comments as they

 3     did.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, before we continue, I tried to search

 5     on -- in relation to the witness you mentioned on the word "convicted."

 6     I found only one and apparently irrelevant place where that word

 7     appeared.  I would very much like to hear from you where we find the

 8     evidence which shows that convicted persons -- that the ICRC claimed that

 9     convicted persons should be released, convicted persons that were

10     detained at Manjaca camp.

11             MR. LUKIC:  They did not ask in that way.  They asked for four

12     prisoners to be released and all those four prisoners were actually

13     already being convicted.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  That's not the way in which you presented it

15     earlier, I think.  But apart from that, I would nevertheless like to --

16             MR. LUKIC:  It's in some of the documents from this report.  I

17     found it, but I don't know it by heart now.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  If the witness could assist us.

19             THE WITNESS:  Sir, I think it could be referring to the

20     16th of July instruction that the Krajina Corps sent to the Main Staff

21     where they report that the ICRC asked to see some individuals and --

22     or -- or be released, but they put in parenthesis the most -- or that

23     they are being convicted.  I think it is possibly in that document.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then if the parties could assist me in finding

25     that document under any 65 ter number because ERN numbers are very

Page 19764

 1     difficult for us to -- to address.

 2             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honour, I think the 16th of July report being

 3     described is P230.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  P230.  I'll have a look at it.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Is it true that those who were wounded, sick,

 8     and infirm were released from the camp very quickly after the visit of

 9     the ICRC delegation?

10        A.   No, sir, I don't believe that was the case.  There are still

11     references to sick, seriously sick individuals, going into the middle

12     of -- of August and I believe also into September.

13        Q.   Are you aware of the fact that the sick and the wounded were

14     released from the camp after the -- the ICRC visit?

15        A.   I'm aware that there were discussions in August and

16     September about the release of sick and wounded.  Whether that was them

17     all, the documents don't necessarily make it clear.  There was a release,

18     I believe, in September.  I'd have to check the document again.  Part of

19     the reasons for that release was articulated that they were drawing

20     unwelcome attention so there was a release.  It wasn't quick.  And -- and

21     I believe it was done because of the unwelcome publicity that had been

22     generated around the ICRC and other visits.

23        Q.   And now I would like to move to the part of your report entitled:

24     "Treatment of prisoners, deaths."

25             Here, you make mention of various incidents.  However, let me ask

Page 19765

 1     you:  Is it true that only two persons were actually killed in

 2     Manjaca camp; namely, Omer Filipovic and Esad Bender?

 3        A.   I'm aware from the documents that those two individuals were

 4     highlighted as being beaten to death in the camp.  There are a number of

 5     smaller -- small number of other references to deaths but they don't make

 6     it clear as to the background to those.  But -- but those two individuals

 7     are specifically named as being killed inside the camp.

 8        Q.   There were some deaths of natural causes within the camp, and you

 9     mention those in your paragraph 2.118; right?

10        A.   Yes.  This individual is reported as having died of natural

11     causes.  I don't make any judgement on whether that was true or not, but

12     that's what the document report.

13        Q.   As far as the two who were killed, Omer Filipovic and

14     Esad Bender, it is it true that the perpetrators were identified?  Do you

15     know that those people were on trial as a result of which they were

16     sentenced for the murder of those two people?

17             MR. TRALDI:  Mr. President --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Traldi.

19             MR. TRALDI:  As -- as often with a question like this, I think it

20     would be helpful if Mr. Lukic provided a year when the Defence is

21     suggesting the trial happened.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.  Isn't it true that we went through this

23     in quite some detail.  So just -- you can.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.  I'm just asking this witness if he is aware of

25     it.

Page 19766

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But then, I take it, there is no problem in

 2     putting objective details to the witness right away.

 3             Would that be, Mr. Traldi?  Apparently not.

 4                           [Defence counsel confer]

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It is our case that the trial took

 6     place several years after the war.  I don't know when exactly.  But the

 7     whole procedure was based on the facts and evidence collected immediately

 8     after the incident.

 9             We saw medical documentation.  In this case that was compiled

10     immediately after the incident.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Put it to the witness, Mr. Lukic, with the details.

12     Of course, if it is somewhat after the war it may be relevant to know

13     whether it was 2000 or 2007 or -- but were you aware of prosecution of

14     persons held accountable for the killings?

15             THE WITNESS:  No, sir.  And if it was after the war it would seem

16     to speak volumes.  I did not see any investigation, certainly no

17     prosecution based on the information that was coming from the camp at the

18     time.  And I did not see anybody held accountable during it.  And if it

19     was after the war it would certainly seem to -- to me, at least, to have

20     some [overlapping speakers]...

21             JUDGE ORIE:  But have you no knowledge about that.

22             Please proceed.

23             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  By the way, Mr. Lukic, I'd like now having been

25     guided by you through the -- to the portion where you said:

Page 19767

 1             "Is it clear that members of the ICRC demanded that even those

 2     people who had been convicted of the crimes that they had committed also

 3     be released from the camp?"

 4             The 16th of July report gives no basis for such a statement.  I

 5     hope it says that the ICRC had not been able to speak to four persons.

 6     They were then allowed to speak to those persons and they were informed

 7     that they had been convicted, I think by a military court.

 8             Now, another part of the report says that the ICRC, for the bad

 9     health condition, asked for the release of 19 persons which are then

10     described as most serious extremists, not as the persons who had been

11     convicted, and we find that somewhere else in the report.

12             So the question includes a reflection -- an inaccurate reflection

13     of the evidence unless you point me to any other point where it can be

14     found.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Not right now, Your Honour, but I think it was

16     discussed --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  If you put it to the witness, Mr. Lukic, you should

18     have verified for yourself where to find it.  Otherwise you should

19     refrain from putting it to the witness.  And if I can find out in two

20     minutes the sources you said you relied upon, then you could have done

21     the same.

22             Please proceed.

23             MR. LUKIC:  If this was the only topic.  I think that you are

24     aware that I didn't sleep these days working on these

25     materials [Overlapping speakers] ...

Page 19768

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's move on.  Let's move on.

 2             MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... so I don't want you to

 3     object that I didn't do this diligently enough.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  That's on the record.  Please move on.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] Paragraph 2.160.  After the first visit of the

 7     ICRC on 16 July, were they prevented from entering the camp?  Was their

 8     work hindered in any way?

 9        A.   Not that I'm aware of, sir.  They had a second visit a little bit

10     later, and I believe there were follow-on visits in August or -- or

11     September.

12        Q.   Paragraph 2.170.  The measures that were ordered on

13     3rd of August, 1992, were they being implemented in Manjaca for quite a

14     while?

15        A.   I would suspect they hadn't been implemented, else the ICRC in

16     their comments would have come up with a different conclusion.  I think

17     the request on the 3rd is to try and demonstrate to the visitors that the

18     camps were well functioning when clearly the ICRC had reported that they

19     weren't.

20        Q.   I'd like to move to 2.179, reactions to the revelations of the

21     conditions in Manjaca and the other camps in Krajina.

22             You talk about exposure.  However, we've established that the

23     camp command reported to the corps command on a daily basis about

24     everything that was going on, including negative things.

25             Is it your position that something was being hidden so it needed

Page 19769

 1     to be exposed?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, now carefully read the beginning of

 3     2.179.  It talks about "this exposure."

 4             This exposure, as in the first sentence, explained as activities

 5     and conditions inside Manjaca camp came to the wider international notice

 6     primarily through the media and ICRC reporting.

 7             Exposure is used in a very specific sense here.  Therefore, it's

 8     of no use to ask whether this exposure took place internally first.  You

 9     have asked that question already.  That question was answered already,

10     that they did not hide anything and that the reports were revelatory.

11     So, therefore, let's try to focus on what really matters.  Not repeat

12     things.  Not misread parts of the evidence.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

15        Q.   [Interpretation] In paragraph 2.183, you deal with the

16     London Conference and its impact on the exposure of the camps in BH, the

17     camps controlled by the Serbs.

18             Is it true that, at the same time, Croatian and Muslim

19     authorities were not allowing access to the camps that they controlled;

20     do you know?

21        A.   I can't say from the documents that I know that that was the

22     case.  However, there is one reference in a Krajina Corps document, I

23     believe, which is the 10th of August, which was sent to the Main Staff,

24     which is from the morale officer of the corps.  And it explains the

25     situation in the corps in the preceding months.  And within the -- within

Page 19770

 1     a component of that report dealing with camps, it makes mention of the

 2     problem of retaliatory action and the treatment of prisoners by soldiers

 3     because of two things -- well, a number of things.  Because of the

 4     reaction of the international community and media in misrepresenting the

 5     conditions in camps, and because of the international -- or the Croats'

 6     and Bosnian Muslims' unwillingness to allow access to camps inside their

 7     territory.

 8             So the report makes mention that this -- they believed that is

 9     happening.  So -- that is one -- that is one area that I do know that

10     there was that allegation.  I don't know whether that, in reality, was

11     true.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And how relevant it is, is another matter,

13     Mr. Lukic.  Because if the Croats or anyone else has misbehaved, that in

14     itself does not excuse or justify, unless there's any specific reason why

15     it would be different here.

16             Please put your next question to the witness.

17             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Now I'd like to ask you something about paragraph 2.214.

19             Did a single seriously ill prisoner die in the camp?

20        A.   I -- I do not know of seriously ill individuals dying or

21     succumbing as a result of their illness.  Obviously the two individuals

22     who were beaten were -- may be a separate issue.  But in relation to

23     those sick, I did not see references in the documents to individuals who

24     succumbed to those illnesses.

25             I don't know what relevance that really has, particularly because

Page 19771

 1     seriously ill is seriously ill.  It's not okay to have seriously ill in a

 2     camp and it to be okay but as long as they don't die.  I don't see

 3     individuals, from the document, that did succumb, in answer to your

 4     question.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Now paragraph 2.232.  That is, the closing in 1992.

 6     Regarding this paragraph, let me ask you this:  General Mladic was

 7     prepared to go forward with the -- an all-for-all exchange.  Did you know

 8     why it did not take place?

 9        A.   No, I'm not aware of that, sir.

10        Q.   Now, re-opening in 1993; point 2.243.

11             Was Manjaca, in 1992, opened primarily for humanitarian reasons?

12     Is it the case that armed elements of the Croatian community were brought

13     there, those who had fled from Mount Vlasic from an attack of Muslim

14     forces?

15        A.   I don't know the activity of what resulted in these individuals

16     fleeing, but these were -- I'd have to re-read the sections, but these

17     were Croats --

18        Q.   Let me put it differently.

19             Do you know that the stay of the military-able men at Manjaca was

20     in agreement with the Croatian side?

21        A.   I don't know that.  All I can say is that the reference on the

22     8th of June indicates that 900 members of the HVO and civilians fit for

23     combat had been transferred to Manjaca.

24        Q.   And what are your conclusions?

25        A.   I -- I -- I don't necessarily draw any conclusions as to -- as to

Page 19772

 1     anything more than the documents indicate, that the camp was reactivated

 2     for a brief period of time to house what they called civilians fit for

 3     combat, members of the HVO, that 900 were transferred there for a short

 4     space of time and that the same camp commander who been in charge in 1992

 5     was appointed as the commander for -- actually, he had been promoted but

 6     he had been appointed to reactivate the camp, but it only was reactivated

 7     for a very short space of time.

 8        Q.   You did not include in your report that it was an agreement

 9     between the Serb and the Croat side.

10        A.   I was not aware of that.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Can I ask you one question in relation to the

12     persons that, as you describe in paragraph 2.235, that were removed after

13     having been selected.

14             I see three categories:  That is, Croat prisoners of war;

15     extremist Muslim prisoners of war; and then the third category is the

16     Muslim prisoners of war.

17             Now, earlier, in the report, you described that many people could

18     not be seriously considered as prisoners of war because they have just

19     been rounded up.  Do you know where the civilian portion of the detainees

20     is to be found?  Or were they just all re-named prisoners of war for

21     purposes of exchange?

22             THE WITNESS:  I believe -- I might have to go over this document

23     a little bit again.  But I believe what happened is the Main Staff put an

24     instruction to have these categories remain.  So this is the Croat

25     prisoner extremists.  But the remaining prisoners were to be taken away

Page 19773

 1     and -- these are the ones who left in the coaches and went over to

 2     Croatia.

 3             I think this is referring to an instruction to say, There should

 4     still be some individuals from the group in Manjaca that we need to keep,

 5     and that is these ones here.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore, that's 532 --

 7             THE WITNESS:  That's the 532.  And the remaining 1800, or

 8     whatever it was, were the ones that were transferred into Croatia.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Because I saw earlier in your report

10     discussion was about an exchange with the exclusion of prisoners for whom

11     it had been established that they had committed criminal acts.

12             But a category of prisoners of war does not include that it would

13     have been established that they had committed crimes, would it?

14             THE WITNESS:  That's correct, sir.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  So there's some inconsistency in the approach there.

16             THE WITNESS:  Sir.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

18             Please proceed.

19             MR. LUKIC:  It is time for our break.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  It is time for the break.  We'll take a break of

21     20 minutes and then we'll have another 55 minutes to go after that.

22             Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.

23                           [The witness stands down]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Traldi.

25             MR. TRALDI:  To focus re-direct planning, if I could just inquire


Page 19774

 1     if Mr. Lukic is on track.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  I think we spoke that I will use 15 minutes during

 3     the next session and then I will give --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  How much time would you need, Mr. Traldi, for

 5     re-examination?

 6             MR. TRALDI:  I have been making an effort to cut as we went,

 7     Your Honour.  I think I'm at about a half an hour right now.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Then perhaps if Mr. Lukic could even take slightly

 9     more time, that would not bring us into problems.

10             MR. TRALDI:  It might, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll take a break, and we'll resume at ten minutes

12     to 2.00.

13                           --- Recess taken at 1.31 p.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 1.52 p.m.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  While we are waiting for the witness to be brought

16     in, I'd like to briefly deal with the Prosecution 11th motion to amend

17     the Rule 65 ter exhibit list.

18             On the 7th of November, the Chamber instructed the Prosecution to

19     seek addition for each document subject to the 11th motion to amend the

20     Rule 65 ter exhibit list in court at a time when it wishes to use that

21     document with the witness, Ewa Tabeau.  The Chamber notes that the

22     Prosecution did not seek the addition of any documents with

23     Witness Tabeau, and the Chamber hereby instructs the Prosecution to the

24     extent that it intends to tender some of these documents, to request

25     their addition to the exhibit list in connection with the request for


Page 19775

 1     their admission into evidence.

 2             To the extent that the Prosecution has already requested their

 3     admission in a pending motion, the Chamber invites the Prosecution to

 4     specify which document and motions are concerned.  And, under these

 5     circumstances, the Chamber denies the Prosecution's 11th motion to amend

 6     the Rule 65 ter exhibit list, without prejudice.

 7                           [The witness takes the stand]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Apologies, Mr. Brown, that we dealt with other

 9     matters when you are coming in.

10             Mr. Lukic will now continue his cross-examination.

11             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   I will not trouble you much longer.

13             Let me ask you, first, looking at the transcripts of your earlier

14     evidence and the description of your job, I concluded that your job in

15     the Prosecution was both investigative and analytical.

16             Is it true that you interviewed witnesses?

17        A.   I took part in a number of interviews as a support to

18     investigators and Senior Trial Attorneys, or lawyers.

19        Q.   Is it true that you also interviewed witnesses in the cases where

20     you acted at the same time as an expert?

21        A.   I was part of an interview team, yes, I was, sir, of a number

22     of -- a small number, actually, of military witnesses that the

23     Office of the Prosecutor felt, due to the work I was doing with

24     documentations and my previous military service, that I might be of use

25     to them, so I took part in a number of interviews with them.

Page 19776

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Brown, the simple answer being yes.

 2             Please proceed.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Now, regarding the drafting of your reports, I will put to you

 5     what I have found, and you will tell me if that's correct.

 6             You would first write up a report, then you would have meetings

 7     with the OTP where you discussed with the members of the Prosecution the

 8     content of the report, and, during these meetings, your report would be

 9     finalised.  After that, it would be disclosed to the Defence.

10             Was that the procedure or not?

11        A.   Yes -- yes.  To all intents and purposes, yes.

12        Q.   In the course of preparing these reports, you made two erratas.

13     Do you have your errata reports on you?

14        A.   Yes, I think I do, sir.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have these errata reports with me,

16     if I want to have them.

17             THE WITNESS:  Actually, sir, I don't think I have mine.

18             MR. LUKIC:

19        Q.   Okay.  I'll give you.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be provided with ...

21             MR. LUKIC:  Here you go.

22             THE WITNESS:  Thank you very much.

23             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Now, on the screen, if possible, we should pull up P2859, your

25     report.  We need paragraph 1, item 1.17.  It's your first report on the

Page 19777

 1     Bosnian Krajina.  Page 16 in English.  Page 17 in B/C/S.

 2             A document is linked to this paragraph, and it's in footnote 17.

 3     My colleague, Mr. Ackerman, at the Brdjanin trial suggested to you that

 4     it was the wrong document; that is to say, this footnote is not correct.

 5             Would you agree that this part of your report should be corrected

 6     too?  And the referenced document does not relate to what it purports to

 7     relate to in paragraph 1.17?

 8        A.   That may well be the case.  Maybe I haven't completed the errata.

 9     I'd have to go back to the document and look at it.  Maybe that is an

10     omission on my part.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, footnote 17 has been corrected.  You are

12     aware of that?  Errata sheet, first page, bottom, footnote 17 should

13     read ...

14             MR. LUKIC:  Yes [Microphone not activated]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I didn't hear you, Mr. ... it has been corrected,

16     although without ERN numbers, apparently.  But it's now the 5th Corps'

17     regular combat report.  What else would you like to have been corrected,

18     Mr. Lukic?

19             MR. LUKIC:  I was checking those documents, when I was checking

20     everything, and I didn't find ...

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We didn't hear what you didn't find, Mr. Lukic.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, we have a correction.  If there's anything to

23     be added to that --

24             MR. LUKIC:  Right now, I cannot ... cannot check it.

25     Paragraph 1.112.

Page 19778

 1        Q.   [Interpretation] You say in this paragraph that communications,

 2     like at the municipal level, were established in a similar way between

 3     regional organs, including the organs of the Autonomous Region of

 4     Krajina.  And you mention the 14th of April, 1992.  My colleague,

 5     Mr. Ackerman, suggested to you that, at that moment, the Crisis Staff of

 6     the Autonomous Region of Krajina did not yet exist.

 7             Would you agree that this is an error in your report, again?

 8             MR. LUKIC:  We can see 1D1469 on our screens.

 9        Q.   That would assist you.  That is your testimony from Brdjanin

10     case; 27th October, 2003.

11        A.   Possibly.  I don't know exactly when the Crisis Staff was

12     established, if there's a slight error here.  My point is more that the

13     ARK -- the corps has a relationship there.

14        Q.   Probably you -- you knew better at that time, ten years ago,

15     because you were specific.  Can we -- yeah, yeah.

16             MR. LUKIC:  We need page 64 in e-court and it's page 21542 from

17     the Brdjanin trial.  We need lines 2 to 5.  We have to go one page ahead.

18        Q.   The question was:

19             "We are going there, but I'm talking about 1.112 right now.  We

20     are talking about April of 1992.  There wasn't even an ARK Crisis Staff

21     at that point, was there?

22             "A.  No, I don't believe there was."

23             [Interpretation] Does that refresh your memory that at that time

24     the Crisis Staff of the Autonomous Region of Krajina did not exist and,

25     consequently, this paragraph is erroneous.

Page 19779

 1        A.   Well, it might be erroneous in terms of the Crisis Staff, but

 2     that is not the emphasis of the report or that section.  But, yes, I

 3     accept that.  I'm more than happy to amend that report and put

 4     Autonomous Region authorities instead of Crisis Staff.

 5        Q.   Paragraph 1.113 deals with the visit by Tadeusz Mazowiecki.  Do

 6     you recall now whether that visit took place on the 23rd of August?

 7        A.   I believe there was an attempt by him to visit, which was denied

 8     to him.

 9        Q.   And, consequently, the members of the Crisis Staff of the ARK

10     could not be present either.

11        A.   Well, I believe he accompanied Mr. Mazowiecki in his attempt to

12     visit the camp, from what I remember.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Traldi.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   So you believe nothing should be corrected here?

16             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honour, I just -- I think this paragraph is

17     being slightly mischaracterised.  The same information the witness just

18     provided is in the footnote to the paragraph 187 which recognises that

19     the visit was denied and says the report that's been cited notes that one

20     of the Crisis Staff members was involved in the organisation of the

21     visit.

22             So I think the report and Mr. Lukic are in agreement.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Are you, Mr. Lukic?

24             MR. LUKIC:  What I know, that -- and what was suggested that what

25     is mentioned here in the report is not correct, that the members of

Page 19780

 1     Autonomous Region of Krajina Crisis Staff actually visited Manjaca camp.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's have a look.

 3             Paragraph 187, Mr. ...

 4             MR. TRALDI:  Footnote 187 is the one that I[Overlapping

 5     speakers] ... Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  187.  Yes, that's what I thought I heard.  But ...

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I thought Mr. Lukic is now referring to footnote

 8     186.  You're contesting that the -- Predrag Radic -- that the president

 9     of the Autonomous Region of Krajina visited the camp.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's at 186.  And -- and the -- the witness

12     refers there to the 1st Krajina Corps regular combat report dated the

13     9th of August, 1992.

14             MR. LUKIC:  So, in this report, should it be that they visited

15     lower Manjaca or not?  That's the issue.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Well -- it seems that -- It seems that --

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

18             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

19             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... could we just try to cut

20     this short.

21             It seems that in the footnote, perhaps as a correction, you have

22     now reported that the visit was denied, whereas, in the main text, the

23     visit still is presented as having taken place.

24             Is that an error?

25             THE WITNESS:  Yes, that could be an error, sir.

Page 19781

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

 2             Please proceed.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Paragraph 2.18.  One second.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] It was suggested to you there that disarmament

 5     was supposed to take place only in non-Serb areas, and you cite a

 6     document in footnote 272.  At the trial on 28 October 2003, transcript

 7     page 21610, lines 15 through 17, you accepted that the document doesn't

 8     show that this order to disarm applies only to non-Serb regions.

 9     Footnote 273.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, of course I cannot follow what -- the

11     testimony in another case.  I notice, on the basis of your question, that

12     the text now reads, "Also," which seems not to be a reference to

13     exclusively disarming of, as you said, non-Serb areas but that the

14     army --

15             MR. LUKIC:  But army also should take part --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  -- also has -- yes.

17             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers]... also non-Serb areas.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, depends then on how you read it.

19             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You could also read:  The army also had a role

21     to play in --

22             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Okay.  Let's --

24             Any comment from the witness?

25             THE WITNESS:  I think I was using the document, the reference --

Page 19782

 1     I can't remember the exact document itself, but I think it makes mention

 2     that the military are to be involved in the disarming process.  I'm using

 3     the footnote to demonstrate that the army are to be involved in that

 4     process.  I'm not using the footnote to demonstrate that it's non-Serb

 5     areas attacked.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Next question, please, Mr. Lukic.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Let's see 1D1470.  It's the transcript from Tuesday,

 8     28th October 2003, Brdjanin trial.  We need page 50 -- 45 in the e-court,

 9     lines 14 to 17.

10        Q.   I think that you accepted here that you made mistake.

11        A.   Well, I -- as I say, I think I was using the footnote to

12     demonstrate a different issue within the text.  But without seeing the

13     document again, I will take at face value it doesn't say "attack non-Serb

14     areas."

15             But I think the reference, the emphasis of the sentence, is that

16     it's this issue of police and military co-operation.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you agree that it would have been more

18     accurate to correct a new version of the report so as to clarify this

19     matter.

20             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir probably.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Thank you.

22             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

23             THE WITNESS:  Or to put the footnote through the sentence.

24             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Are there any more mistakes in your report?  What do you think?

Page 19783

 1        A.   I stand by my report, sir.  I'm sure that there will be footnote

 2     references and smaller issues that undoubtedly will be in there, and I'm

 3     more than happy to make changes as necessary.  But the underlying

 4     aspects, I would stand by.

 5        Q.   Let's look at paragraph 1.31.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I'll not stop you at this moment,

 7     although you're already living in Mr. Traldi's time.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  I'll do this one and then I'll stop.  And so we need

 9     footnote 41.

10             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honour, I'd note that this one we put on the

11     record at the beginning of direct, Your Honour.

12             MR. LUKIC:  This one?

13             MR. TRALDI:  Yeah.  One of the first questions I asked the

14     witness.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Sorry.  It was a long time ago.  I forgot.

16             Then paragraph 2.5 and footnote 239 --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  So you still had one in reserve, Mr. Lukic?

18             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, I have many.  I have no time.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Why not sit with Mr. Traldi and assist

20     together the Chamber in removing errors which are of greater or lesser

21     importance?  The Chamber is open for that.

22             But you're asking for 2.5 --

23             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.  And footnote 239.

24        Q.   And on the 14th of July, 2005, in Krajisnik trial, on transcript

25     page number 16517 - if you want, we can see it - you admitted that that

Page 19784

 1     is wrong reference.  We can see -- I'll finish here just to show you the

 2     transcript, 1D1471.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  It's a wrong reference?

 4             MR. LUKIC:  It's a wrong reference.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Then why not try to find the proper one or strike

 6     the sentence?

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honour, I exceeded my time.

 8             Mr. Brown, thank you for answering my questions.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Thank you very much your patience, sir.  I

10     appreciate it.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber also appreciated that at the very end

12     you started even improving the quality of the work of the witness.

13             Mr. Traldi.

14             MR. TRALDI:  Yes, Your Honour.  To focus re-direct I have

15     proposed to Mr. Lukic that two documents be admitted from the bar table,

16     65 ter 16489 and 16582.  I understand that the Defence would reserve the

17     right to litigate the weight to be afforded these documents, but it would

18     allow us to finish today.

19             MR. LUKIC:  I can tell you immediately that we have no objections

20     to the first one.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MR. LUKIC:  It's 16489.  It's military document.  But we have

23     many issues with the second one.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you have issues or do you objections against

25     admission, which is not the same?


Page 19785

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Against -- we have objections against admission as

 2     well.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And them being what?

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Because it's multiple document signed by different

 5     people.  So it's not --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Traldi.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  I see it here --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  You see that you now know that there is some problem

 9     with the admission.

10             MR. TRALDI:  And --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  We can't -- I have got no idea what it is at this

12     moment, so you have to assess how to proceed, whether to keep on the

13     same -- safe side and deal with it with the witness, or to take the risk

14     that -- and tender it from the bar table.

15             MR. TRALDI:  It's a compilation of several official records, so I

16     may take the risk, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

18             MR. TRALDI:  But I -- I would ask that 16489 be admitted at this

19     time.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.  The number would be ...

21             THE REGISTRAR:  P2888, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Is admitted into evidence.

23                           Re-examination by Mr. Traldi:

24        Q.   Then, sir, I'd ask that we start where Mr. Lukic left off with

25     one of the purported mistakes in your report.

Page 19786

 1             MR. TRALDI:  Could we have 65 ter 06493.

 2        Q.   While this comes up, I'd ask you, did you ever see an indication

 3     that any disarmament operations in late May were conducted in Serb areas?

 4        A.   No, sir, I did not.

 5        Q.   And this document, now that it's up, starting in paragraph 1,

 6     notes that various Bosnian Muslim forces have been:

 7             "Disarming paramilitary Muslim and Croatian formations in the

 8     Sanski Most municipal area."

 9             It describes that in the next paragraph and then says:

10             "On 25 May 1992, this 'disarming' was followed by a military

11     action (attack) against the down-town neighbourhood of Mahala ..."

12             Based on your knowledge, is that a Muslim area?

13        A.   Yes, it is, sir.

14        Q.   "Which resulted in the capture of 2.000 civilians, but no

15     significant amount [sic] of weapons have been found because they had been

16     concealed earlier."

17             Is this document consistent with your conclusion that these

18     disarmament operations were targeted at non-Serbs?

19        A.   Yes it's.

20             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I'd tendered 65 ter 06493.

21             MR. LUKIC:  No objection.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  P2889, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Is admitted into evidence.

25             MR. TRALDI:  Could we have 65 ter 30215.  It is an article by

Page 19787

 1     Roy Gutman dated 19 July 1992 titled:  "There is no food, there is no

 2     air."

 3        Q.   While it comes up, sir, Mr. Lukic suggested to you that no

 4     articles had been published about the detention facilities before

 5     23 July 1992.

 6             Do you recall those questions?

 7        A.   Yes, sir.

 8        Q.   And does this document perhaps clarify for you whether articles

 9     had been published before that date?

10        A.   Yes, it would seem that Gutman, who was aware of Manjaca, was

11     publishing an article at this time.

12             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I tendered 65 ter 30215.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  P2890, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  P2890 is admitted.

16             MR. TRALDI:  Could we have 65 ter 30214, please.  It is article

17     also by Roy Gutman dated 19 July titled:  "Prisoners of Serbia's war."

18        Q.   And does this document also clarify that matter for you, sir?

19        A.   Yes, it's the same date.

20             MR. TRALDI:  I'll tendered that document as well, Your Honour.

21             MR. LUKIC:  Only I should maybe raise -- rise before, but I don't

22     know what's the position?  Can we introduce newspaper articles without

23     questioning writers?

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the purpose of what Mr. Traldi is doing is

25     to challenge the suggestion that the world would not have known yet and

Page 19788

 1     therefore the measures taken could not be in response to.

 2             That is -- seems the major purpose of this effort, Mr. Traldi, am

 3     I right?

 4             MR. TRALDI:  Yes, Your Honour.  I think the articles reflect that

 5     as of the 19th, if not earlier, conditions in the camp were known and

 6     publicised.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, you introduced the matter that the

 8     measures could not have been taken in response to, at least that was a

 9     suggestion in your questions, and that is what Mr. Traldi is now

10     responding to.

11             And not necessarily for the truth of the content of exactly what

12     was published, is it Mr. Traldi?

13             MR. TRALDI:  No, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  It may be true.  You may even think it's true, but

15     that's not purpose at this moment of --

16             MR. TRALDI:  I would agree with that, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             Mr. Lukic, if there's any objection please tell us what it is.

19             MR. LUKIC:  Only this one that I think it's not common to

20     introduce the media --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  The objection is denied.

22             Mr. Registrar.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 30214 receives number P2891,

24     Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  P2891 is admitted.

Page 19789

 1             MR. TRALDI:

 2        Q.   Next, sir, Mr. Lukic suggested to you that non-Serb forces were

 3     stronger than you credited them for.  Is it right that your evaluations

 4     of those forces' strength were made on the basis of VRS and Bosnian Serb

 5     documents?

 6        A.   Yes, it is, sir.

 7        Q.   Okay.  And I'd like to look at one example.

 8             MR. TRALDI:  Could we have 65 ter 06966.

 9        Q.   This relates to the follow-on operations in Prijedor in late

10     July 1992 which you discuss in your Krajina report.

11             The document notes in page 1 in point 1 in both languages that

12     the enemy has:

13             "Respected the cease-fire in the corps' entire zone of

14     responsibility."

15             And then describing Prijedor specifically in the next

16     paragraph says:

17             "Muslim fighters, singly or in small groups, occasionally appear

18     around the Kozarac and Kozarusa villages, attempting to make a breach

19     towards Prijedor or across mount Kozara towards the Sava river."

20             Is that consistent with the other documentation you've reviewed

21     about the strength of Muslim forces in Prijedor at that time?

22        A.   Yes, it is.

23             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I tender 65 ter 06966.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  P2892, Your Honours.

Page 19790

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Is admitted into evidence.

 2             MR. TRALDI:

 3        Q.   I'm going to show you two documents now about these operations

 4     and ask a simple question after.

 5             MR. TRALDI:  Could we have 65 ter 16935.

 6        Q.   This is a report from Prijedor SJB at the beginning of July 1992.

 7     If we could turn to the next page in B/C/S and at the bottom of the page

 8     here in English, is it right there we see a list of weapons that have

 9     been seized by the Prijedor SJB as of that date?

10        A.   Yes, this is.

11             MR. TRALDI:  And could we have 65 ter 10851, a similar report at

12     the beginning of August.

13        Q.   Now, we can't go through every category for time reasons, but

14     based on your recollection of these documents, do they indicate large

15     number of weapons were seized by the Prijedor SJB in July or are the

16     numbers pretty similar?

17        A.   No, they're relatively small numbers, but it's also the type of

18     weaponry there, hunting, carbines, old M-48s and old rifle.  So it's the

19     numbers that are small and also the type of weaponry that is there.

20             MR. TRALDI:  And, Your Honours, I'd tendered those two documents.

21     16935 first.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  P2893, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted.

25             MR. TRALDI:  And 10851, second.

Page 19791

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  P2894, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Also admitted into evidence.

 4             MR. TRALDI:  Now I want to turn back to Sanski Most.  Could we

 5     have P2409, MFI.

 6        Q.   And this morning Mr. Lukic suggested to you that persons who left

 7     Sanski Most did so voluntarily.  Do you recall that suggestion?

 8        A.   Yes, I do, sir.

 9        Q.   And here we see under "Conclusions," point 1:

10             "Mirko Vrucinic, Nedeljko Rasula and Colonel Nedjo Anicic shall

11     be in charge of resolving the issue of prisoners and their categorisation

12     and deportation to Manjaca."

13             And it lists three categories:  First category, politicians;

14     second category, nationalist extremists; third category, people unwelcome

15     in Sanski Most municipality.

16             Is there any reference here to international law or the principle

17     that these unwelcome people shouldn't leave the municipality unless they

18     choose to do so?

19        A.   None whatsoever, sir.

20        Q.   And it says they're being sent to Manjaca.  Is this consistent

21     with documents you reviewed from Manjaca as to what type of persons were

22     held there?

23        A.   Yes.  And it would seem reflective of the documents in Manjaca

24     themselves when they arrived and when they were processed that they knew

25     that large numbers who were in the camp were not combatants.

Page 19792

 1             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I tender P2409.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 3                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 4             MR. TRALDI:  Yeah, it's MFI'd.  It's an associate exhibit pending

 5     a decision.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And it's now admitted.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             MR. TRALDI:

 9        Q.   Before focussing on Manjaca, I'll ask you about a couple of other

10     specific camps.

11             MR. TRALDI:  Could we have 65 ter 7131.  This is a document

12     emanating from SJB Prijedor.

13        Q.   Mr. Lukic suggested to you today that the Prijedor camps were

14     essentially civilian camps.  Do you recall that question?

15        A.   Yes, I do.

16        Q.   Here on this first page at point 1, we see a reference to a

17     provisional collection centre that will be set up at the Omarska mines

18     strip mine.  And at -- at point 3, rather, we read:

19             "A mixed group consisting of national, public and military

20     security investigators shall be responsible for the work with and

21     categorisation of detainees.  They shall organise themselves respecting

22     the parity principle."

23             And it refers to Mirko Jesic, Ranko Mijic and

24     Lieutenant-Colonel Majstorovic who shall be responsible for their work.

25     Do you have a comment on this paragraph?

Page 19793

 1        A.   Well, it would seem that Omarska camp is going to have this joint

 2     military security input in relation to investigating these individuals.

 3     Colonel Majstorovic was an officer in the Prijedor military garrison.

 4             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I'd tender 65 ter 07131.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  P2895, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

 8             MR. TRALDI:  Could we have 65 ter 16627.  This is a document

 9     identified as from Prijedor Region Command.

10        Q.   And this document is labelled "Official Note," refers to

11     Zoran Zigic, and is a report of allegations against Zigic.  On the third

12     point it refers to him as a private and says he was taken into custody.

13     We see it's sent by the Prijedor Region Command to the security organ of

14     the 1st Krajina Corps.  What importance do you attach to this document?

15        A.   Zigic was a soldier within the Prijedor Region Command, and he is

16     clearly been working in Keraterm camp and he has committed an extortion

17     here and it is been reported up the chain.

18             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I tender this document as well.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you have a look at the date and see whether

20     the translation needs to be completed.

21             MR. TRALDI:  I note, Your Honour, that the translation is missing

22     the year.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Unless the parties would agree that the

24     13th of June, 1992, is meant -- which seems to be consistent with the

25     first line referring to the 10th of June, 1992.

Page 19794

 1             MR. LUKIC:  [Microphone not activated]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  You agree.  Then it can be admitted with the caveat

 3     that the year should be 1992.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             Mr. Registrar, please give the number.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  P2896, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

 8             MR. TRALDI:  Could we have 65 ter 16633, please.

 9        Q.   This is identified as from the Official Gazette and coming from

10     Dr. Stakic.  At point 1 we see that Major Kuruzovic, commander of the

11     Prijedor Territorial Defence, is relieved of duties as of 29 May 1992 and

12     placed under the command of the command of the region.

13             Would that have placed him within the VRS chain of command?

14        A.   Yes, it would sir --

15             MR. TRALDI:  And, Your Honours --

16             THE WITNESS:  Under Colonel Arsic.

17             MR. TRALDI:  Regarding Trnopolje, I'd refer Your Honours to

18     adjudicated fact 1063, and I'd tender this document.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Before we decide on that, can the president of

20     a Crisis Staff put Mr. Kuruzovic in a position in the army?

21             THE WITNESS:  Sir, I believe the background to this would be it's

22     a time when the Territorial Defences were being integrated into the VRS

23     as was expected at the 12th Assembly session, and it comes a few days

24     after that.  Kuruzovic had been the commander of the Prijedor

25     Territorial Defence, so I suspect that what was happening here was that

Page 19795

 1     there were negotiations into how we can and effectively merge the TO into

 2     the VRS.  And he is being appointed there.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And command of the region in these circumstances

 4     means what exactly?

 5             THE WITNESS:  Prijedor region command, sir.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

 7             No objections.

 8             Mr. Registrar.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  P2897, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

11             MR. TRALDI:

12        Q.   And in the interests of time, sir, I'm going to just focus on a

13     very narrow issue related to Manjaca.  Mr. Lukic asked you about how

14     prisoners were brought to Manjaca.  Do you recall those questions?

15        A.   Yes, sir.

16        Q.   And I'm going to focus on the type of prisoners who were kept

17     there.

18             MR. TRALDI:  Could we have 65 ter 30216.

19        Q.   In the second paragraph it says -- we see the date, 2 July, 1992.

20     The second paragraph, it says:

21             "Processing of individuals from Kljuc municipality is coming

22     close to its end."

23             Were there any large releases in July 1992?

24        A.   No, sir not to my knowledge.

25             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honour, I'd tendered this document.

Page 19796

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  P2898, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted.

 4             MR. TRALDI:  And could we have 65 ter 07153, please, page 4 in

 5     the English and 2 in the B/C/S.

 6        Q.   We discussed -- Mr. Lukic asked you about as well, the selections

 7     of prisoners in late August 1992.  Do you recall that?

 8        A.   Yes, sir.

 9        Q.   Okay.  And this, I think, will also relate to a question that

10     Mr. President asked you on Tuesday, when it comes up.  In the final

11     paragraph, it says:

12             "On 20 August 1992, we received a task from Major Pero Stupar,

13     which was the result of a telegram from the Main Staff of the Serbian

14     army, and related to our activities and engagement to realise the tasks

15     received.  In accordance with this telegram, representatives of the

16     Bosanska Dubica, Kljuc, Banja Luka, Prijedor, and Mrkonjic Grad CSBs came

17     to Manjaca camp."

18             And then it describes a little bit about a joint meeting.

19             On Tuesday, His Honour Judge Orie asked you, based on another

20     document, whether, in your view, the military had a role to play in

21     dealing with the revelations about conditions at Manjaca camp and you

22     said you believed it did.  Does this document reinforce your conclusion

23     in that regard?

24        A.   Yes, it does.

25             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I'd tender 65 ter 07153.

Page 19797

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  P2899, Your Honours.

 3             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honour, there's a document I would have used,

 4     if not for the clock, that relates to that meeting, and I will put on the

 5     record 65 ter 06018, and just ask Mr. Lukic if he'd be willing to discuss

 6     whether it can be bar tabled.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  It can be bar tabled anyhow, but I take it that you

 8     want to know whether he would object against it being admitted through

 9     the bar table.

10             MR. TRALDI:  [Overlapping speakers]... and I wouldn't expect,

11     Mr. President, him to have a position off the top of his head.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then perhaps you take your time.

13             Mr. Traldi, in the beginning you wanted to tender from the bar

14     table two documents:  One which was not objected to; the other one was

15     16582, 65 ter number.  Is that report anywhere footnoted in the report?

16             MR. TRALDI:  It is, Mr. President.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  It is.

18             Then, Mr. Lukic, the only objection you raised is that these are

19     various reports.  They all seem to be signed.  They all seem to refer at

20     least in one way or another to how people were moved from municipalities

21     to finally to Manjaca camp.  This document now in your cross-examination

22     you, of course, challenged some of the findings here.  Do you still

23     against a footnoted material to be in evidence just because you have

24     issues with it and there are several signatures?  These are several

25     documents.  They all deal more or less with similar things, although in

Page 19798

 1     different municipalities or with prisoners ending up in Manjaca.

 2             Which was a --

 3             MR. LUKIC:  To be honest with you I received it in time from

 4     Mr. Traldi, but I was doing on some other things.  So I just raised the

 5     first objection I could see.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  But to be more specific, maybe I really need more

 8     time.  It might be that I will not object, but I have to go through the

 9     document [Overlapping speakers] ...

10             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... let's then wait for that.

11     So you are now considering your position rather than having objected to

12     admission.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll MFI it.

15             Mr. Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  P2900, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Is marked for identification.

18             MR. TRALDI:  And, Mr. President, if I might beg the interpreters'

19     indulgence for two or three more questions.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, although it's not only the interpreters.  There

21     are other matters as well.  We can't finish very late.  I have

22     commitments elsewhere.  So if you would try to keep it short, with the

23     assistance of the witness.

24             MR. TRALDI:  Could we have 65 ter 07055.  And that will be the

25     last document I use.

Page 19799

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Say the number again.

 2             MR. TRALDI:  07055.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 4             MR. TRALDI:  My notes appear to be in error -- no.  We have the

 5     right document on the left and not on the right.

 6        Q.   Under point 4, this document is a 1st Krajina Corps report to the

 7     Main Staff dated 16 December.  In point 4, it reports:

 8             "Pursuant to your order, we are, with some difficulty, closing

 9     down Manjaca camp."

10             What do you take from this?

11        A.   Well, the 1st Krajina Corps is responding to a tasking it

12     received to close the camp down which it is carrying out.

13             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I'd tender this document.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 65 ter 7055 receives number P2901,

16     Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  P2901 is admitted.  2901 is admitted.

18             MR. TRALDI:

19        Q.   Sir, earlier today you mentioned that when the camp was reopened

20     in 1993, Colonel Popovic had been promoted and was put back in charge.

21     Do you have any comment on that?

22        A.   Yes, I do, actually.  I think that despite all the paperwork in

23     relation to abiding by Geneva Conventions, it speaks volumes that the

24     documents that they had knew what was happening in Manjaca and the same

25     commander was appointed and promoted, and it high lights that actually


Page 19800

 1     behind this the Bosnian Serb, the VRS, did not care and did not have any

 2     intentions of taking -- making anyone accountable for these activities.

 3             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, that completes my re-direct.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Traldi.

 5             Have the questions in re-direct triggered any need for further

 6     question, Mr. Lukic.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  We are at the end of the day.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I know that.  But I would -- I would defend before

 9     the interpreters that if you would need one or two more minutes and -- if

10     it's a -- if it's an important and relevant issue.

11             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... many issues, but we will

12     try to clarify them with other witnesses.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  If that's your -- I would have assisted you

14     but that's where we are.

15             Then, first of all, Mr. Brown, I'd like to thank you very much

16     for coming to this courtroom and for having answered all the questions -

17     I can say the many questions - that were put to you by the parties and

18     the Bench.  I wish you a safe return home again.  You are excused and may

19     follow the usher.

20             THE WITNESS:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.  And I do

21     apologise for some of the length of the questions.  Sometimes context is

22     not very easy.  And I also would like to thank the interpreters.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  You're apologising for the length of the questions,

24     I think Mr. Lukic would really appreciate that, but I take it that also

25     includes the length of your answers.


Page 19801

 1             THE WITNESS:  Yes, indeed, sir.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 3                           [The witness withdrew]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Traldi.

 5             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I tender at this point exhibit MFI

 6     numbers P2859 through 2863 which are his reports, statements, and errata

 7     sheets.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  If you would not mind, we leave that until next week

 9     to decide on it and to see whether there are any additional objections by

10     the Defence.

11             So that's the first thing on the agenda of Monday morning.

12             MR. TRALDI:  I will submit a list of associated exhibits for

13     tendering at that time as well.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we can deal with them in one -- one -- in

15     one -- in one step.

16             Nothing else to be raised.  We adjourn for the day, and we'll

17     resume Monday, the 25th of November, at 9.30 in the morning.

18             Mr. Registrar, would that still be in this Courtroom III or --

19     still in Courtroom III.

20             We stand adjourned.

21                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.53 p.m.,

22                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 25th day of

23                           November, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.