Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 35508

 1                           Wednesday, 13 May 2015

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.34 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.  This is case number

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

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             We're waiting for the witness to be escorted into the courtroom.

12     I do understand that the present witness is the last witness available

13     for today.  If I look at our schedule, tomorrow's witness should be

14     easily concluded tomorrow as well.  I see even a very precise estimate of

15     the Prosecution; one hour and 25 minutes, not one and a half hours.

16                           [The witness takes the stand]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  After that witness tomorrow, is the next witness

18     ready or is ...

19             MR. LUKIC:  No, Your Honour.  The next witness is coming on

20     Friday.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             Good morning, Mr. Radulj.

23             THE WITNESS:  Good morning.  [Interpretation] Good morning.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Radulj, before we continue, I'd like to remind

25     you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you have given at

Page 35509

 1     the beginning of your testimony.

 2             Mr. Stojanovic, you may proceed.

 3                           WITNESS:  SLOBODAN RADULJ [Resumed]

 4                           [Witness answered through interpretation]

 5                           Examination by Mr. Stojanovic: [Continued]

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Radulj.

 7        A.   Good morning.

 8        Q.   If you remember, we left it off with the questions concerning

 9     your new job; i.e., when you became deputy military prosecutor.  Could

10     you please tell the Trial Chamber, in October 1993 when you joined the

11     Military Prosecutor's Office, how many prosecutors were there?

12        A.   As far as I can remember, there was the chief prosecutor, there

13     were three deputies, and I came as a fourth deputy.  Only a month later

14     one of the colleagues left.  I believe that he went to Australia.

15        Q.   What was the name of the military prosecutor when you were his

16     deputy?

17        A.   Major Srboljub Jovicinac.

18        Q.   What was the territorial competence of the Military Prosecutor's

19     Office where you started working?  What area did your Military

20     Prosecutor's Office cover?

21        A.   The Military Prosecutor's Office in Banja Luka covered the zones

22     of responsibility of the 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps.  In geographical

23     terms, that would be the line from Brcko to Ozren and Doboj and then

24     further on to Mount Vlasic, Kupres, Grahovo, all the way up to Novi Grad

25     in the direction of Bihac.  The northern boundary of that territory, of

Page 35510

 1     course, would be the Sava River.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  And what was your subject jurisdiction?  What did

 3     you, as a military prosecutor, do for the 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps?

 4        A.   The subject jurisdiction of the military prosecutor's office and

 5     of the military court was to process all the crimes that were committed

 6     by members of the VRS, either active or reserve troops while they served

 7     in the military.  Serving in the military also implied their travel from

 8     the unit to their homes, because the units were providing transportation

 9     for their troops when they travelled from the line to their homes.

10        Q.   A very practical question:  A military conscript who was on leave

11     and who was at home and who committed a crime, who would have the

12     jurisdiction to process and bring charges against such a person?

13        A.   At the time when a member of the armed forces was on leave, in

14     that case he was considered to be a civilian; i.e., it was a civilian

15     court or a civilian prosecutor's office that would have been in charge of

16     the crimes committed by such a person.

17        Q.   And now on to something different.  If a civilian who was not

18     engaged in any of the units of the VRS committed a crime that had

19     something to do with the military - i.e., spying or stealing military

20     property or any other type of misdemeanour, a crime, for example,

21     sabotage, something that had to do with the army - who would be in charge

22     of processing such a person?

23        A.   Let me expand a little in order to answer your question.  At that

24     time, we applied the criminal code of the SFRY and the criminal code of

25     the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  In the criminal code

Page 35511

 1     of the SFRY, there were crimes, I believe under Chapter 15 or 20, I'm not

 2     sure, so crimes against armed forces and security and safety.  If

 3     anybody, a civilian or a member of the military, committed a crime

 4     against the security of the state or the military, they would be charged

 5     by the military prosecutor's office and they would be tried by a military

 6     court.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  One more question about your jurisdiction.  If a

 8     crime was committed and if it didn't fell under the chapter of crimes

 9     against the military and safety, and if such a crime was committed by an

10     active or reserve police officer, who would be in charge of processing

11     such a crime?

12        A.   I really can't remember whether we had any such cases, but I

13     believe that the law was very clear in that respect.  It says that

14     everybody who committed such a crime, irrespective of their status, and

15     if a crime was against safety, security, and armed forces, such crimes

16     would be processed by a military court which had the jurisdiction.

17        Q.   If such a person - i.e., a policeman - committed a conventional

18     crime such as theft, robbery, murder, who would be in charge of

19     processing such a policeman?

20        A.   In such a case, it would be regular - i.e., civilian courts -

21     that would process such a policeman because those crimes are not

22     considered to have been committed against the military or the safety and

23     security of the state.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Within the context of questions of subject matter

25     jurisdiction, the military prosecutor's office that you worked for, were

Page 35512

 1     you in charge of processing all the crimes, irrespective of their gravity

 2     and the punishment provided for them?

 3        A.   I didn't understand your question.

 4        Q.   Let me take things step by step.  The military judiciary and the

 5     military prosecutor's office, when it came to first instance procedures,

 6     did you prosecute all the crimes irrespective of their gravity and the

 7     punishments and sentences provided for them, or was there a second

 8     instance as well, or a different instance?

 9        A.   Yes, now I think I've understood your question.  Since there were

10     first instance courts, and there was also a supreme military court, the

11     first instance courts and the prosecutor's office were in charge of all

12     the cases of crimes, irrespective of the sentence provided for them.

13     Only the supreme court could act as a second instance court in such

14     cases.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, in the answer there is a switch from

17     competence of the prosecutor and the competence of the court.  To say the

18     prosecutor would prosecute whatever before the first instance but the

19     supreme court ... So we should clearly distinguish between the competence

20     and jurisdiction of the prosecutor's office and of the court's and that's

21     a bit chaotic in your answer.  So if you would please explain, that would

22     be appreciated.

23             Perhaps the most question then is:  Was your office, your

24     prosecutorial office, also competent to prosecute the cases in second

25     instance?

Page 35513

 1             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  [Interpretation] Shall I answer?  The

 2     prosecutor was in charge of all the cases, irrespective of the

 3     sentencing.  When it came to the second instance proceedings, the

 4     prosecutor filed appeals against the decisions of the first instance

 5     court, and that was the only role when it came to the second instance

 6     decision-making; i.e., filing appeals.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And if the convicted person or accused,

 8     whatever you call him, would file an appeal, would you then also further

 9     prosecute that person before the appellate court, the supreme court?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is what happened.  If the

11     accused was not satisfied with the sentence, he had the right to appeal

12     to the supreme military court.  When the supreme military court received

13     such an appeal, it informed the prosecutor's office about that appeal

14     having been filed.  And then the prosecutor had the right to issue a

15     written response to such an appeal.  Such a response was then considered

16     by the supreme court and made its final decision accordingly.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So where you earlier said that the only role

18     was where the prosecutor appealed, the role was a bit more extensive

19     because you were involved in appeal proceedings as well, if the accused

20     or the convicted person had appealed the judgement.

21             Please proceed.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

23             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24        Q.   Only those of us who were not members of the military judiciary

25     would like to know where was the military prosecutor's office located at

Page 35514

 1     the time in 1993 and 1994?

 2        A.   The full title of the institution was the Prosecutor's Office of

 3     the Army of Republika Srpska and its seat was in Han Pijesak.  Towards

 4     the end of the war, it was moved to Zvornik.

 5        Q.   And where was the seat of the supreme military court which dealt

 6     with cases as a second instance institution?

 7        A.   The seat of the supreme military court was first in Han Pijesak

 8     as well and later it was moved to Zvornik.  These two institutions have

 9     always occupied the same location.

10        Q.   Thank you.  What were your conditions of work like?  When I say

11     "your conditions of work," I mean the premises, the staffing, the

12     equipment capabilities.

13        A.   In general terms, our conditions were very dire.  And that's an

14     understatement.  There were not enough professionals or administrative

15     staff.  We had old mechanical typewriters so that it took a typist almost

16     half an hour to type a single page.

17             The premises were inadequate.  There was not enough room.  There

18     were very frequent electricity outages, and the chief prosecutor used an

19     old Golf I vehicle for which, more often than not, he didn't even have

20     enough petrol.  The seat was in Banja Luka.

21        Q.   At that time, was there a facility that was used to detain those

22     persons who had to be remanded in custody?

23        A.   Yes.  In the barracks Mali Logor, that was the name of the

24     barracks, there was a military investigation prison, VIZ, where suspects

25     were kept, suspects that were dealt with by the military judiciary and

Page 35515

 1     the military prosecutor's office.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Could I ask for clarification, Mr. Stojanovic.

 3             Sir, at page 7, line 18, you are recorded as saying:  "The seat

 4     was in Banja Luka."

 5             The seat of what?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The seat of the basic military

 7     prosecutor's office for the 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps where I worked.

 8     Because the question pertained to conditions of work in the 1st and

 9     2nd -- or rather, the prosecutor's office where I worked.  I think that I

10     was specific on that.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Earlier you told us that the prosecutor's office

12     were seated first in Han Pijesak and then later in Zvornik.  That's why

13     I'm asking the question now about Banja Luka.  Where does Banja Luka come

14     in?  Because you haven't told us before that the prosecutor's seat was in

15     Banja Luka.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you allow me, I will explain in

17     detail.

18             There were first instance prosecutor's offices that covered the

19     1st and 2nd Krajina Corps in Banja Luka.  There was a prosecutor's office

20     in Bijeljina that covered the area of eastern Bosnia.  Then there was a

21     prosecutor's office at Sokolac for the area of the Sarajevo and Romanija

22     regions, and the prosecutor's office in Bileca for the area of the

23     Bileca Corps.  These were first instance organs.

24             The Defence counsel asked me where the seat was of the supreme

25     military court and prosecutor's office.  So this was the second instance

Page 35516

 1     organ.  The military prosecutor's office of Republika Srpska had its seat

 2     in Han Pijesak.  Later on, they were moved to Zvornik.  So these are

 3     second instance organs for these two institutions.  That is why I

 4     mentioned Han Pijesak and Zvornik.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.

 6             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for this

 7     clarification.

 8        Q.   Next question that I actually started already:  According to the

 9     solutions provided for then in the Law on Criminal Procedure, within the

10     system, who was in charge of carrying out investigations against

11     suspects, persons suspected of having committed crimes?

12        A.   According to the Law on Criminal Procedure that was in force

13     then, the investigation was carried out by the court; or rather, the

14     investigating judge of the military court, to be precise.

15        Q.   On the basis of the law, who submits a request for carrying out

16     an investigation and who prosecutes suspects and indictees?

17        A.   According to the law that was in force then, the military

18     prosecutor's office had the following authority:  After a criminal report

19     was filed and if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person

20     had committed a crime, within the shortest period of time it was their

21     duty to submit a request to the investigating judge of the military court

22     to carry out an investigation.  After the investigation, his duty is to

23     return the case to the prosecutor in charge for taking further action.

24        Q.   Another question in this regard.  According to the law then,

25     within this system, who was in charge of making proposals and who was in

Page 35517

 1     charge of remanding persons into custody or releasing them from custody?

 2        A.   On the basis of the law, the military prosecutor was supposed to

 3     make proposals related to detention; however, it is also the duty of the

 4     court to remand persons into custody if the crime involved is such that

 5     the law stipulates that the envisaged sentence for the commission of such

 6     a crime is ten years.

 7        Q.   When you say ten years, do you mean as a minimal sentence or as a

 8     possible sentence?  I'm speaking of obligatory detention now.

 9        A.   Now, after all this time, I cannot be sure.  I think that it was

10     at least ten years in prison.  I cannot be certain, but I think it was

11     ten years and more.

12        Q.   Thank you.  I fully understand.  We've been through so many

13     amendments to all these laws.

14             Now, in the system of the prosecutor's office, who is the one who

15     says -- according to the law, who says in the system, "This is a war

16     crime" or "No, this is homicide" or "This is aggravated robbery" or "No,

17     this is robbery"?  So who qualifies the crime committed?

18        A.   The system of work in the military prosecutor's office was as

19     follows:  The chief prosecutor would receive all the cases, and I

20     remember very well on the front page of the document involved he would

21     qualify the crime, is it homicide, is it evasion of military obligation,

22     or whatever else.  Then we, as deputies, desk officers, act on the basis

23     of instructions issued by the chief prosecutor.  However, at the time the

24     judge was not bound by what the prosecutor had said.  It is the facts of

25     the case that guide the judge.

Page 35518

 1        Q.   Yes, that was my next question.  When you say that the judge is

 2     not bound by this, rather, the judge is only guided by the facts of the

 3     case, my question is as follows:  According to the law then, did the

 4     court have the possibility to look at the same facts but to qualify the

 5     crime in different terms from a legal point of view?

 6        A.   Absolutely.  The court did have that right.  And, in practice,

 7     there were cases when the court would say that the crime committed was

 8     not as serious as what the prosecutor had originally charged.  Also, the

 9     reverse was true.

10        Q.   Thank you.  In your work, you, as deputy prosecutor, were you

11     ever subjected to any kind of pressure with regard to the prosecution of

12     perpetrators of crimes?

13        A.   No.  No pressure whatsoever.  Of course, I followed the orders of

14     my superior, the chief prosecutor, and I acted on the basis of his

15     instructions and guide-lines.

16        Q.   You as an organ of the military judiciary - that is to say, as

17     the military prosecutor's office - were you duty-bound to submit reports

18     to someone and, if so, to who?

19        A.   Yes.  Our work was subject to checks, of course, and I know that

20     the chief prosecutor often went to attend meetings at corps commands and

21     the commands of other units where he would report on the work of the

22     military prosecutor's office.

23        Q.   When qualifying certain crimes, did you as deputy prosecutor have

24     situations when you were pressured to do something which was the complete

25     opposite of what your own opinion was with regard to a particular crime?

Page 35519

 1        A.   No.  No pressure was exerted.  But I don't think that the

 2     prosecutor's office was submitted to pressure either, because the

 3     prosecutor was a military professional anyway, and he had such a

 4     personality that it was very difficult to affect him in any way.  We, his

 5     co-workers, thought, and think to this day, that he was a professional,

 6     even more strict than necessary.  I would even say that he's a man who

 7     was a bit career-driven too, and influenced others, as a matter of fact,

 8     wanting to have matters resolved in a lawful way.  So it was very hard to

 9     exercise any kind of influence over him.

10        Q.   As deputy prosecutor, and later on as a military prosecutor

11     yourself, did you have any problems with evidence, collecting evidence,

12     access to possible crime scenes, carrying out on-site investigations,

13     getting witnesses who would be relevant in supporting the indictment,

14     also issuing subpoenas?  So I'm referring to procedural matters.  Did you

15     have any difficulties in your work?

16        A.   As I've already said, I came to the military prosecutor's office

17     towards the end of 1993.  The situation was a bit better then than it had

18     been during 1992.  The problem then was reaching the scene, collecting

19     evidence, the impossibility of reaching witnesses, precisely because we

20     did not have a vehicle to reach the scene.  As I said, the area is from

21     Brcko to Bihac.  At any rate, everything depended on what the military

22     police and security organs would obtain and submit to the prosecutor's

23     office.  Later, everything that was not done at first would subsequently

24     be done by the investigating judge who was in charge of the case.

25        Q.   According to the law that was in force then, speaking in terms of

Page 35520

 1     procedure, how much time could a suspect or indictee spend in detention

 2     in the investigation prison?

 3        A.   Well, let me tell you:  In the military prosecutor's office, we

 4     had a lot of problems there.  Usually, the police would bring in a

 5     certain person, and such a person would be remanded in custody for two

 6     days.  The prosecutor's office was duty-bound within those two days to

 7     prepare the relevant evidence and file a request for carrying out an

 8     investigation and make a proposal on the extension of custody, first of

 9     all, for one month.

10             During this very short period of time, in view of the fact that

11     we did not have sufficient resources, including human resources, we

12     sometimes had to work day and night so that we could get things done on

13     time.  May I mention that we usually worked from 7.00 to 7.00.  There

14     were no real working hours.  Also, it depended on whether we had

15     electricity.

16             So if we would manage to submit a request for carrying out an

17     investigation, the person who was in detention could remain in detention

18     until the end of the investigation, but the maximum period was six

19     months.  However, if the investigating judge would not complete the

20     investigation, that person, regardless of the crime involved, would have

21     to be released from custody on the basis of the law.  Even if the

22     prosecutor's office were to ask for an extension of detention, the court

23     would release them.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Tell us now, specifically, you as deputy military

25     prosecutor in that period, if you still remember, did you have any

Page 35521

 1     situations when you would charge Serbs or indict persons of Serb

 2     ethnicity and the injured party would be a person or persons of non-Serb

 3     ethnicity, irrespective of the crime involved?

 4        A.   Yes, there were such cases.  Serbs committed crimes against

 5     non-Serbs and were charged for them.

 6             It's hard for me to remember all such cases, but I do remember

 7     one which was very hard.  In any case, a non-Serb was murdered for the

 8     gain of some petty cash, and that Serb who committed the murder was

 9     sentenced to 12 years in prison.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask --

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were other cases of that

12     nature.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you, that one case you remember, was

14     that murder committed in the context of combat or in context of any

15     military activity, or was it just outside of that context?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on memory, a Serb soldier was

17     driving from Prijedor to Ljubija.  He pulled over and picked up a

18     civilian, a hitchhiker.  He admitted all that during proceedings.  He

19     asked him if he had any money, and the passenger said that he had 500

20     German marks.  As far as I can remember --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you mind to focus your answer on my question.

22     My question was whether it was in a military context.  Was he driving to

23     his family or was he with his unit or -- when it happened?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember the year.  It may

25     have been 1994.  He was on his way back from the unit, as far as I can

Page 35522

 1     remember.  It's very hard to remember all the details.  Everything

 2     happened 20 years ago.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But if I understand you well, it's not your

 4     recollection that it was in the direct military context that this crime

 5     was committed.

 6             I'm asking you this for the following reason.

 7             Because, Mr. Stojanovic, we have now listened to some now 40

 8     minutes all kind of abstract matters.  The charges in this case are,

 9     among others, that no investigations were initiated in relation to the

10     crimes which are at the core of this case, and at the core of this case

11     is not one specific murder of a civilian who is robbed from his

12     properties; but it is war crimes, crimes against humanity.

13             Do you remember a prosecution of any of the servicemen who was

14     suspected of having committed a war crime, a crime against humanity, in

15     the context of this indictment?  And if you are not familiar with the

16     indictment, it is about large-scale operations, shelling civilians,

17     et cetera, that kind.  Was there any prosecution to your knowledge

18     initiated for such crimes?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that I arrived and joined

20     the military prosecutor's office in late 1993.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not interested in when you arrived.  I'm

22     interested in whether you ever prosecuted such a case.  And, of course, I

23     do understand that you didn't prosecute cases before you arrived in the

24     prosecutor's office.  That goes without saying.

25             Do you remember any such case being prosecuted by you or your

Page 35523

 1     office?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  I remember some cases.  One

 3     of them would be Sugic, another Amidzic, and some others.  In any case,

 4     there were many cases that were prosecuted by my colleagues.  I can't

 5     really say what cases they prosecuted.  But one thing I can say:  Towards

 6     the end of the war - i.e., as the war drew on and the military

 7     prosecutor's office and the military court increased their capabilities -

 8     we started taking more and more such cases into consideration.  You know

 9     that there is no statute of limitation on such crimes, so they could be

10     prosecuted.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  That's all in the abstract.  Give us one such an

12     example you prosecuted.  I do understand that you were not fully familiar

13     with the cases prosecuted by your colleagues.  But one of those cases you

14     prosecuted that is a clear war crime, crime against humanity, you

15     prosecuted, tell us about it.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The only thing I can remember as I

17     sit here today is that I was involved in the Sugic case.  And there was

18     another case, Amidzic, that was processed after the war.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Tell us about the Sugic case.  Who was prosecuted,

20     what was the result of the prosecution, what had happened?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That case was heard by the military

22     court in Banja Luka.  When the Sugic brothers were brought in, I was the

23     prosecutor on duty.  I was invited to be present during their

24     interrogation.  After the interrogation, I asked for the two of them to

25     be remanded in custody.  That may have been in 1996 or 1997.  I'm sure

Page 35524

 1     that it was after the war.

 2             What happened to the case later --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I'd like to know cases during the war, if you have

 4     any.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I do -- one of the bigger

 6     cases was the Stanovic case that I have already mentioned; however, I

 7     can't remember any other names.  There was the Valter case but that's

 8     something different, not what you want me to tell you.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I'm not interested in the cases which are not

10     covered by my question.  But I do understand that the Stanovic case was

11     then one which is covered by my question.  Tell us, who was the accused,

12     what had happened?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I understood you properly,

14     you're asking me about that first case, about the incident that happened

15     on the Ljubija-Prijedor road?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  No, no, I'm -- I'm interested in cases clearly

17     dealing with war crimes, crimes against humanity, prosecuted during the

18     wartime because the indictment charges that no effective action was taken

19     either to prevent or to punish such crimes.  So apart from who was

20     driving what car and in what location prosecutor's office A was or

21     prosecutor's office B was, or whether you had enough typewriters or not,

22     I'd like to know what prosecutions were undertaken by your office during

23     the war concerning crimes as they are charged in the indictment against

24     the accused.

25             That's what I'm, first of all, interested to hear from you,

Page 35525

 1     because that might challenge the Prosecutor's case.  Any examples of

 2     that?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have any such cases or

 4     examples.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 6             Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.  And, Mr. Stojanovic, I hope you

 7     understand --

 8             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Just briefly, Your Honour,

 9     because those were questions -- of course, Your Honour.  I had all those

10     questions before me.  I won't take up much more time, because you -- in

11     practical terms, you have snatched my questions from me.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but you took 40 minutes to tell us all -- to

13     ask the witness about the system, about the cars driven, about whatever,

14     but you didn't touch upon the core of the issue which is before this

15     Court, and that's the reason why I put a few questions.  And I now

16     understand that this witness cannot tell us anything about any

17     prosecution he was involved in during the wartime concerning crimes as

18     they are charged against the accused you are defending at this moment.

19             Therefore, that other knowledge may turn out not to be that

20     relevant if we do not have information that really would assist the

21     Chamber; that is, what action was taken in order to investigate and

22     prosecute the crimes which are found in the indictment.  And that's the

23     reason why I thought after 40 minutes where you had only a few minutes

24     left that perhaps I would try to get to the core of what this case is

25     about.

Page 35526

 1             Please proceed.  Please proceed.

 2             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with all due

 3     respect, this witness has clearly stated what was the legal framework and

 4     what were the possibility of conducting trials during that period.

 5     That's one reason.

 6             And the second is what we want to hear from this witness, and I

 7     will have a few more questions for him.

 8        Q.   Sir, you mentioned the cases Radulj [sic] and Amidzic.  Can you

 9     remember what crimes were at stake and in what area.  They were members

10     of a group, a whole group that was charged, can you remember that case

11     and what it was all about?

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Traldi.

13             MR. TRALDI:  I am very sorry.  Just for the transcript.  My

14     friend is recorded to have referred to the cases "Rado and Amidzic," and

15     I wonder if the first name might have been misrecorded.  I heard the

16     witness refer to the Amidzic case but not to a Rado case.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we will put the question to the witness

18     again after the break, Mr. Stojanovic, because we take the break first.

19             We would like to see you back in 20 minutes, Witness.

20             And then, Mr. Stojanovic --

21             You may follow the usher.

22                           [The witness stands down]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And how much time would you still need after the

24     break, Mr. Stojanovic.

25             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Not more than ten minutes, Your

Page 35527

 1     Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  That's on the record.  We'll resume at 10 minutes to

 3     11.00.

 4                           --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

 5                           --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.

 6                           [The witness takes the stand]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

 8             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Mr. Radulj, tell us, you mentioned the Amidzic case, could you

10     please recall the charges against the accused, including Amidzic?

11        A.   The Amidzic case was assigned to me sometime in 1996 or 1997.

12     Several deputies had left the military prosecutor's office, and the

13     remaining cases were assigned to the rest of us who stayed with the

14     prosecutor's office.  When I looked at the cases, I noticed that --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, would you please answer the question.  The

16     question was:  What the charges were against the accused.  Not when you

17     took over the case, not why the others left, but what were the charges.

18        A.   Okay.  As far as I can remember, it was a grave crime against

19     civilians committed in an elementary school near Kljuc.  What I remember

20     is that there were ten or even more accused in that case.

21        Q.   Thank you.  What can you tell us about the Sugic case?  What

22     crimes did they commit and what were they charged with?

23        A.   As far as I can remember, the Sugics murdered civilians in a

24     village near Celinac.  It happened either in 1992 or 1993.  I'm not sure.

25        Q.   Thank you.  In 1996 or 1997, when you were a deputy military

Page 35528

 1     prosecutor, were there any pressures put on you not to prosecute cases of

 2     Serbs committing crimes against non-Serbs in 1992?

 3        A.   No, there were no pressures either then or before that.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, before we move to the pressures.

 5             What explained that crimes committed in 1992 or 1993 were only

 6     prosecuted far later, five years?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can just share my opinion with

 8     you, if that may be of any use to you.  I believe that the problem lies

 9     in the fact that the accused were not accessible, in the fact that there

10     was not enough evidence, in the fact that many of the perpetrators got

11     killed during the war or had left the territory of Republika Srpska;

12     i.e., Bosnia and Herzegovina.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm more interested in facts than in opinions, but

14     at least you gave some what may have been facts underlying what happened.

15             Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

16             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Could a person be tried if you were not in a position to secure

18     evidence, witnesses, facts due to the war?

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, again, if you have no evidence, you

20     can't prosecute someone.  If wartime can -- I mean, that's all

21     self-explanatory.  Of course, what this Chamber needs is clear evidence.

22     At least that's what we expect to receive during the Defence case, clear

23     evidence that where the Prosecutor claims that not for good reasons

24     matters were not investigated or prosecuted, that you'd tell us that not

25     in general terms that if there's no evidence but why in those cases there

Page 35529

 1     really was no evidence, et cetera, rather than general statements.

 2             So could you please try to get to the concrete questions so that

 3     we can get concrete information.

 4             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Let's be concrete.  In the Amidzic case, could you prosecute if

 6     there were reasons that you mentioned in your answer to Judge Orie's

 7     question?

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  No, not if you can --

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course not.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  It is not if there were reasons.  Were there such

11     reasons?  What was the evidence available, why was that considered to be

12     insufficient, who were the accused, were they inaccessible, et cetera?

13     Not if they were inaccessible or if there was no evidence, that's of

14     course -- these are all hypothetical questions.  Let's get to the

15     concrete facts of this or any other case where it would be in the

16     interest of the Defence to demonstrate that everything was done that

17     could be done.

18             Please proceed.

19             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Mr. Radulj, in the Amidzic case, as a prosecutor, did you think

21     that conditions were in place for you to prosecute at the moment when you

22     took over the case?

23        A.   At that moment I did what I could.  I asked for the investigation

24     to go on.  Before the investigation was over, I could not do anything.

25        Q.   Thank you.  When was the military prosecutor's office disbanded,

Page 35530

 1     including the military judiciary?

 2        A.   There was an act which was passed in 2000 to that effect.

 3        Q.   The cases which were not finalised and were within the

 4     jurisdiction of the military judiciary, what happened to them?

 5        A.   All the cases falling under the jurisdiction of the military

 6     jurisdiction were forwarded to the civilian jurisdiction pursuant to

 7     special rules and regulations.

 8        Q.   Let me finish with the following question:  Do you know if the

 9     civilian judiciary continued to prosecute war crimes that happened in

10     1992?

11        A.   I know that after that all the cases of crimes that happened from

12     1992 onwards are still being prosecuted in the Republika Srpska and the

13     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

14        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Radulj.  Thank you for your help.  We have no

15     further questions for you.

16             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this completes my

17     examination-in-chief.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you Mr. Stojanovic.

20             The Amidzic case, Witness, when did you take that over?  I think

21     you said.  Was it in 1996, 1997?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, Mr. Stojanovic asked you whether you could

24     prosecute it then and you said I asked for the investigation to go on.

25     But in this case, it's of primary importance to know whether it could be

Page 35531

 1     prosecuted in 1992, 1993, because this case is not about failure of doing

 2     what authorities had to do after the war but is mainly about failure to

 3     do what was necessary immediately sequential to the crimes being

 4     committed.

 5             Do you have any facts, to your knowledge, why or whether the

 6     Amidzic case could not be prosecuted or further investigated in 1992,

 7     1993?  Do you have any facts, to your knowledge, what was investigated in

 8     1992 and 1993?  And I'm interested in concrete facts, not in general

 9     opinions about that these kind of things are difficult in wartime because

10     that goes without saying, but I'm asking you whether you have any

11     concrete facts in that context.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can say what I heard; that is to

13     say, what I learned.  And I learned that when I came to the prosecutor's

14     office in 1993.  People were talking about a grave crime near Kljuc.  I

15     found out that some persons who were brought into custody by the military

16     police but that, allegedly, the entire brigade had threatened to leave

17     the position, or some soldiers had come before the military court and

18     exerted pressure in that way to have these individuals released.  These

19     are just stories that I had heard.  It's not that I saw any of this or

20     that I was an eye-witness.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  So if earlier you said that you thought that the

22     problems lie in the fact that the accused were not available and the fact

23     that there was not evidence, that the one example you give us now is that

24     the accused or the suspects were arrested but that there was a kind of a

25     revolt and that that prevented, at least that's what you heard, the

Page 35532

 1     investigation and the prosecution to be continued.  Is that well

 2     understood?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  I said what I had heard, but

 4     allegedly only two persons were in custody, and there were more than ten

 5     suspects who were --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  But at least those two were available.  Because in

 7     your opinion you expressed earlier, no reference whatsoever was made to

 8     accused or suspects that were available, and you didn't hint in any way

 9     at what you heard about pressure put upon you not to prosecute, and even

10     a kind of a revolution within the army where, as you're telling us now,

11     that this is what you heard.  So I'm wondering why your opinion you

12     expressed a while earlier doesn't say anything about what you tell us

13     now.

14             Do you have any explanation for that?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do have an explanation.  I was

16     answering questions that pertained to the period when I was in the

17     prosecutor's office, and I spoke about that period.  I thought that what

18     had happened before that is something that I could not testify about,

19     because I wasn't present when that happened.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, you were not present when happened what you

21     just described and a moment ago you said you were expressing opinion

22     rather than fact.  I leave it to that.

23             Mr. Traldi, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?

24             MR. TRALDI:  Yes, Mr. President.  And good morning.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning.

Page 35533

 1             Mr. Radulj, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Traldi.  You find

 2     Mr. Traldi to your right.  Mr. Traldi is counsel for the Prosecution.

 3             Please proceed.

 4                           Cross-examination by Mr. Traldi:

 5        Q.   Good morning, sir.

 6        A.   Good morning.

 7        Q.   Now, sir, you were interviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor in

 8     2002; correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And can I take it that your position is you told the truth in

11     that interview?

12        A.   Correct.

13        Q.   Now, I want to start just by following up briefly on the

14     questions that you've been asked about the Banja Luka military court.

15             First, have I understood correctly your testimony just now, that

16     the evidence you gave about the Banja Luka military court and military

17     prosecutor's office earlier refers only to the period after you joined

18     the office in October 1993?

19        A.   I did not quite understand what you were saying, but I think that

20     you're asking me to confirm that my statement pertains to the period from

21     October 1993 when I was in the public prosecutor's office, if that is

22     what you meant?

23        Q.   You've understood me correctly, sir.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Traldi, talking about testimony and talking

25     about statements, let's clearly try to distinguish between the evidence

Page 35534

 1     given now and whatever appears in the statement the Chamber is unaware

 2     of.

 3             MR. TRALDI:

 4        Q.   Let me ask very precisely, as I referred to "evidence."  Have I

 5     understood correctly your testimony that the evidence you've given this

 6     morning, in your testimony, about the Banja Luka military court and

 7     military prosecutor's office, refers only to the period after you'd

 8     joined the office in October 1993?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Now, you referred to two cases just now, the Amidzic case and the

11     Sugic case.  Both of those cases involved VRS soldiers accused of

12     murdering Muslim civilians; right?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   You became involved with both of them in 1996, you said?  Is that

15     correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Now, you would have reviewed the case files when you got assigned

18     to the cases; right?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And you would have heard discussion of the cases in the office as

21     you testified about the Amidzic case; right?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   So you're aware as you sit here today that in 1992, shortly after

24     those crimes happened, all of the perpetrators were arrested; right?

25        A.   I don't know what you mean.  It's not clear to me.

Page 35535

 1        Q.   Well, as you sit here today, you know that shortly after the

 2     crime that Amidzic and the others were charged with, they were arrested;

 3     right?

 4        A.   No.  I said that I found out that only two perpetrators had been

 5     arrested - had been arrested.

 6        Q.   Well, let's go step by step.  You don't recall from the case file

 7     that all 12 of the accused perpetrators gave statements confessing to the

 8     crime?

 9        A.   Well, that I do not remember because it was more than 20 years

10     ago, and basically I didn't even review the entire case file then because

11     the investigation hadn't been completed.

12        Q.   And so you also don't recall that they then wrote to

13     General Talic complaining about their detention, that there was nothing

14     in the case file for the next nine months after that, and that then two

15     of them were rearrested in 1993?  You don't remember that either?

16        A.   No, I only remember that somebody, maybe an investigating judge,

17     this was already in 1996, said that most of them got killed.  Not all of

18     them, though.

19        Q.   Now, you'd known about the crime already in 1992; right?  About

20     the massacre at Velagici school that they were arrested for and then

21     released for.

22        A.   No.  I heard people talking about that in 1993, when I arrived in

23     the prosecutor's office.  I already said that.

24        Q.   In fact, you heard about it in Prijedor in 1992 even though it

25     happened in Kljuc; right?

Page 35536

 1        A.   Yes.  As far as Prijedor is concerned, I heard about that.  But

 2     I'm repeating again that about Kljuc I learned in 1993.

 3        Q.   Well, let's have 65 ter 32564, page 41.  And this will be part of

 4     your interview with the Office of the Prosecutor.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I meanwhile ask one additional question.

 6             If you're assigned to a case, if the investigation is not

 7     complete, you just don't read the whole file?  Is that how I have to

 8     understand your answer?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's not that I don't read

10     it.  Since it is a request for investigation, then you have very little

11     material to read.  Very little can be seen from that material.  It's only

12     the very beginning of the investigation, and you have a great deal of

13     files to deal with.  So we had to move very quickly.  And now it's been a

14     very long time since then.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me then just go back to your answer where you

16     said you had not -- one second, please.  You said:

17             "... and basically, I didn't even review the entire case file

18     then because the investigation hadn't been completed."

19             I understood that you didn't review it.  That means that you

20     didn't read it.  But if there is anything -- if you meant something else,

21     then please tell us.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I read the criminal report and

23     the description of the crime.  The number of victims, place, time, all of

24     that.  As for all the other details, at that moment I thought they were

25     of lesser importance.  Maybe I even read it, but right now I cannot

Page 35537

 1     remember.  This is what I remains in my memory.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you consider confessions, as to what Mr. Traldi

 3     alluded to, by suspects who are detained to be less important if you take

 4     over a case file?

 5             I'm just asking you as a professional, whether you say it's of

 6     lesser importance that those detained are confessing to the crimes, that

 7     that's less important than what you did read?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, of course, confessions in a

 9     case like this are the most important.  There is no denying that.  But

10     I'm saying that I may have read it, but after 23 or -4 years, I cannot

11     recall the details.  On the other hand, we had a large number of cases.

12     I reacted immediately.  I wanted the investigation to continue.

13             First of all, I was surprised that the case had come to me.  I

14     asked for an urgent reaction then --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, you've answered my question.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. TRALDI:

18        Q.   Now, this is a portion of your interview with the Office of the

19     Prosecutor.  The transcript is only in English, so I'm going to read to

20     you slowly.

21             MR. TRALDI:  And if we could scroll to the bottom of the page.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we could verify:  Do you -- I noticed that

23     you greeted me in the English language and only after that you said

24     "dobro jutro" so may I take it that you can read English?

25             THE WITNESS:  [In English] I'm sorry.  [Interpretation] I'm

Page 35538

 1     sorry, my English is not all that good.  It is better to go through

 2     interpretation.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I'm not suggesting that we should not go.  But

 4     if you read it on the screen, at least you have an opportunity to at

 5     least decipher some of it.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             MR. TRALDI:

 8        Q.   Now, sir, I was asking you whether you'd heard about the Velagici

 9     massacre in 1992 when you were in Prijedor.  And starting here, the third

10     question up from the bottom, you're asked:

11             "Do you recall when you first picked up the phone what that --

12     that's not the question -- when did you first pick up the Velagici file

13     and how did it come into your hands if Captain Jovicinac didn't assign it

14     to you?"

15             You say:

16             "I think it was the first time it actually came into my hands in

17     96 when I did react and when I did this proposal, by I did know about it

18     prior to that, before that, because I heard stories."

19             And you're asked:

20             "When did you first hear about the Velagici massacre?"

21             And you answered:

22             "I think at the time I was still in Prijedor because it was an

23     event people talked about."

24             You're asked:

25             "So, the Velagici massacre occurred the 1st of June 1992, was it

Page 35539

 1     soon after that, sometime in June 1992 when you heard about it?"

 2             Now, you describe that you first heard about a column of JNA

 3     vehicles that was attacked in May 1992 in Kljuc.  And then turning to the

 4     next page at the top, you say:

 5             "... only later on, mid-June or mid-July did I hear about this

 6     massacre in the school, or the, Velagici is the name of the village.  I

 7     only saw the case file in 96."

 8             So do you stand by what you said in your interview, that you were

 9     aware of the Velagici massacre in mid-June or mid-July 1992 when you were

10     still in Prijedor?

11        A.   Well, to tell you quite frankly, in view of the time distance

12     involved, I believed that I knew about this even in Prijedor, as I stated

13     then in 2002.  As I've already said, it's been a long time and there is

14     the effect of that.  But I believe that what I stated then is correct,

15     that I did have that knowledge.

16        Q.   And it's correct that your recollection was fresher in 2002 than

17     it is today, of course; right?

18        A.   Yes.  [In English] Yes, yes.

19        Q.   Now, this Velagici case was the only case in the Banja Luka

20     military court where charges were initially brought under Article 142,

21     war crimes, rather than under Article 36 for murder; right?

22             And, sorry, I should be more specific.  It's the only case where

23     charges were brought against VRS soldiers under Article 142 for a crime

24     against non-Serbs; right?

25        A.   [Interpretation] I know that it is a very, very serious crime.  A

Page 35540

 1     grave crime.  But at this moment, I cannot say how it was dealt with in

 2     legal terms.  It is possible that it was Article 142.

 3        Q.   Well, you were asked about Article 142 in your interview, and you

 4     stated that the military prosecutor had told you he received an

 5     instruction not to use Article 142, the qualification of war crimes,

 6     anymore.  Do you stand by that today?

 7        A.   Again, you're putting me in a difficult situation.  I cannot

 8     recall these details, but I can provide an opinion that was prevalent

 9     then among us lawyers, if you allow me.

10        Q.   At the moment, I'm asking specifically whether you stand by your

11     statement in your interview - and we can look at the full text, if it

12     will help - that the military prosecutor told you he had received an

13     instruction not to use the Article 142 classification for crimes by VRS

14     soldiers against non-Serbs.

15        A.   Well, bearing in mind that statement 13 years ago, I believe that

16     what I stated then is correct.  Otherwise, I do not recall these details.

17        Q.   So I take it you don't recall today whether he told you who gave

18     him this instruction?

19        A.   If that's what he said to me, I think that he did not say who it

20     was that had given the instruction.  However, if you allow me, why was it

21     not qualified as a war crime?  The only reason was because a state of war

22     had not been declared at the time in Republika Srpska; rather, an

23     imminent threat of war had been declared.  So that is the reason why

24     these crimes were not qualified as war crimes.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can I just get a clarification.

Page 35541

 1             If they were not qualified as war crimes, why were they being

 2     brought before a military court and not taken to a civil court?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The answer lies in the law itself;

 4     that is to say, military persons are held responsible for all the crimes

 5     they had committed regardless of whether these crimes are against the

 6     military or general crimes.  In all of these cases, these were serious

 7     cases of murder and they could have been punished by the death sentence

 8     according to the law that was then in force.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And do I understand then that even where a state

10     of war has not been declared, if a soldier commits a murder of a civilian

11     out there, that it comes to a military court?  Thank you.

12             MR. TRALDI:

13        Q.   Now --

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I shall provide an answer.  He is

15     brought before a military court because he is a member of the armed

16     forces, a member of the army.  It is on that basis that he is brought

17     before a military court.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You had answered me.  Thank you.

19             MR. TRALDI:

20        Q.   Now, clearly the Sugic brothers and the Velagici perpetrators

21     weren't sentenced to terms of imprisonment for their crimes during the

22     war.  You agreed during your interview that had they been, they and

23     others like them, it would have been a huge step to preventing other

24     crimes that had happened that were committed by VRS soldiers during the

25     war.  Do you stand by that today?

Page 35542

 1        A.   Yes.  I'm sure that that would have been prevention and also it

 2     would have been educational, as it were, for others not to do anything

 3     like that.

 4        Q.   And not sentencing them sent the opposite message; right?

 5        A.   Exactly.  Yes.

 6        Q.   And the prosecutor's office took the decision that -- well, let

 7     me start that question again.

 8             There was pretty efficient prosecution during the war of Serb

 9     soldiers who killed Serbs; right?

10        A.   Well, I think that they were prosecuted the same way as others.

11     I did not see any difference.

12        Q.   Well, let's have page 44 of this same document.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  But the question was not whether you see any

14     difference.  The question was, first of all, whether there was an

15     efficient prosecution during the war of Serb soldiers who killed Serbs.

16     Was there or was there not?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't be able to say that

18     there was a difference there.  The only difference may lie in the fact

19     that it was easier to obtain evidence when a Serb was killed.

20             If non-Serbs were killed, the victims and their relatives would

21     have left and it was not as easy to obtain evidence that were needed for

22     any kind of prosecution.

23             When it came to Serb victims, it was easier.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

25             MR. TRALDI:  Now, if we could scroll down.

Page 35543

 1        Q.   This is another portion of your interview with the Office of the

 2     Prosecutor, and let's scroll back up a little bit so we start with

 3     "Because in Sanski Most ..."

 4             Now, you were asked similar questions in 2002 when your

 5     recollection was fresher.  It was first put to you:

 6             "Because in Sanski Most no one got prosecuted for killing

 7     non-Serbs.  At least, that's what it appears like, nobody ended up in

 8     prison."

 9             You responded:

10             "Unfortunately that's correct, you're right."

11             I'm going to stop there for a moment.  Do you stand today by what

12     you stated in your interview, that in Sanski Most nobody was

13     prosecuted -- no VRS soldiers were prosecuted for killing non-Serbs?

14        A.   Well, your question takes me by surprise.  I don't remember that

15     anybody ever asked me about Sanski Most, nor do I have anything to do

16     with Sanski Most.

17        Q.   Well --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Traldi --

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't understand really.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there a recording, audio, video, of this

21     interview?

22             MR. TRALDI:  There is audio.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, if you say:  "I didn't say it," then we'll

24     just listen to the audio to find out whether what you're telling us now,

25     that you have no recollection that any questions were asked about

Page 35544

 1     Sanski Most or that you said anything about it.  If you -- if you

 2     seriously doubt that, then we should clearly find out whether an unfair

 3     record of your interview was prepared because this Chamber would not

 4     accept that.

 5             Do you insist on that you didn't say this and this wasn't asked?

 6     Because then we'll verify.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't have any doubts.  I

 8     do have doubts about my own memory, if I may be honest.  Sanski Most is

 9     mentioned.  I may have said that according to the records that were

10     available to me at the time as a deputy prosecutor that nobody in

11     Sanski Most was prosecuted.

12             I can repeat that.  Today, according to the records I had then, I

13     can say still say that nobody in Sanski Most was prosecuted.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  You're moving from what we are doing.  You're moving

15     away from it.  You're now saying:  "I may have said something different

16     from what is recorded," that you didn't tell it as what you remembered

17     but that you learned that from the records.

18             Now, apart from whether you did or not, and that's not the issue,

19     if you say:  "At the time, I didn't give my recollection but I told the

20     interviewer that I had learned this from your records," then we'll check

21     whether you said that or whether you said something different, whether

22     you did or did not refer to the source of your knowledge.

23             If you say:  "I refer to the source of my knowledge and I didn't

24     present it as my own recollection," then we'll verify it.  If you think

25     that it's worthwhile doing that, we'll do it.

Page 35545

 1             Do you want us to do it?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't think that there is

 3     need for that.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  That answers my question.

 7             MR. TRALDI:

 8        Q.   Sir, you said a moment ago you didn't have anything to do with

 9     Sanski Most.  Now, of course, what you had to do with Sanski Most was

10     that the 6th Brigade, based in Sanski Most, was part of the 1st Krajina

11     Corps, and its soldiers and crimes they committed were within your

12     office's jurisdiction; right?

13        A.   That is correct, yes.

14        Q.   Looking at the rest of your answer to this question, you say:

15             "Yes, this is, you noted that, noticed very well because, ah, at

16     the beginning of the war there were less, there were fewer cases

17     processed, but the number grew as the war sort of developed because the

18     bodies of authorities were being established, army became more and more

19     disciplined.  And they asked, they demanded responsibility for acts later

20     on, the army demanded, but, as far as 1992 is concerned, everybody just

21     wanted to forget everything about that."

22             Now, first, when you said 1992, you were referring to a context

23     of massive crimes committed by the 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps again the

24     Muslim and Croat civilian populations in their areas of responsibility

25     during that time; right?

Page 35546

 1        A.   Right, yes.

 2        Q.   You're then asked:

 3             "But, again, in large, in large part that was based on which

 4     nation the victim was from?  Because we, if you agree with me, because we

 5     looked at nearly all of the murder files from 1992 to 1993.  And there

 6     you will see pretty efficient prosecution of Serb soldiers who killed

 7     Serbs, usually family members.  Would you agree?"

 8             And you answer:

 9             "That's correct because those, ah, cases had the precedents and

10     those other cases were left for some other times when the political

11     situation would be better, more friendly towards such cases."

12             So two questions:  First, when you say those other cases that

13     were to be left for some other time, you're referring to a conscious

14     decision not to prosecute VRS soldiers for crimes against Muslims and

15     Croats during the war, even in the context of those massive crimes you

16     just confirmed the 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps were committing; right?

17        A.   I believe -- I'm sure that you did not understand me properly.  I

18     never said, and nobody else did either, that perpetrators of war crimes

19     should not be prosecuted.  That certainly has never been said.

20             Second of all, at the initial period, we did not have the

21     necessary institutions that would have been able to prosecute criminals.

22     All those things happened within the vacuum between the disappearance of

23     the old state and the emergence of a new state.  It also happened partly

24     due to the political situation and the morale that prevailed in the army.

25             There was a period of waiting for the institutions to be set up

Page 35547

 1     and that's when all the war crimes would be prosecuted, because there is

 2     no statute of limitations on them.  In other words, nobody ever said that

 3     perpetrators of war crimes should not be prosecuted.

 4        Q.   Let me rephrase my question.  First -- and I'm going to break it

 5     up into a few parts.

 6             First, do you stand by what you said in your interview, that it's

 7     correct that the records reflect pretty efficient prosecution of Serb

 8     soldiers who killed Serbs in the Banja Luka military court during the

 9     war?

10        A.   Well, I wouldn't agree with that even today.  That may be due to

11     the translation.  That was never my opinion.  I still cannot say that I

12     think that way.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, if there is any translation issue, we'll

14     check on the basis of the audio.  We'll have the translation verified.

15     If you didn't say it, we want to know because then we are presented with

16     an inaccurate record of transcript of an interview.  And in similar

17     cases, it has turned out, now and then, that there were inaccuracies

18     either in the recording or in the translation.

19             What this Chamber, however, does not accept, that someone

20     withdraws from his own words, blaming transcribers or interpreters for it

21     rather than to acknowledge that that's what they said before.

22             Therefore, again, the question here:  Do you want us to verify

23     the interpretation of your words spoken at the time?  Say "yes" and we'll

24     do it.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

Page 35548

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Does that mean that you do not challenge the

 2     accuracy of the recording of this statement, neither the interpretation?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not challenging the accuracy,

 4     but I would like to provide an explanation.  Please allow me to explain.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, the only thing we were focusing on at this

 6     moment is what you said at the time.  That matter has been resolved.  I

 7     leave it in the hands of Mr. Traldi what other questions to put to you.

 8     And if your explanations are directly related to the question, then, of

 9     course, you have an opportunity to give such explanations.

10             MR. TRALDI:

11        Q.   I'm going to repeat my initial question:  Do you stand by what

12     we've now agreed you said in your interview, that it's correct that there

13     was pretty efficient prosecution of Serb soldiers who killed Serbs in

14     your court during the war?  Yes or no?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Now, do you stand by what you said, that those cases, cases where

17     are the victims were Serbs, had precedence?

18        A.   No.

19        Q.   Do you also stand by, yes or no, what you said in your interview

20     that other cases, which I take to mean cases where the victims were not

21     Serbs, were left for some other time?  Yes or no?

22             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not understand the answer.

23             MR. TRALDI:

24        Q.   Sir --

25        A.   Again, I have to provide an explanation.

Page 35549

 1        Q.   You --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  First of all, the interpreters didn't hear your

 3     answer.  So could you please first repeat your answer whether those cases

 4     against non-Serbs were left for some other time.  Do you stand by that?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Next question please, Mr. Traldi.

 7             MR. TRALDI:

 8        Q.   Now, the fact that cases involving crimes by VRS soldiers against

 9     non-Serbs were left, at best, for some other time, to the point that you

10     picked up a file in 1996 where the perpetrators of a mass murder had been

11     arrested, confessed, and then been sent back to their units in 1992,

12     reflects that what you said in 2002 in your interview was true - cases

13     involving crimes against Serbs had the precedence; right?

14        A.   Cases against Serbs that had precedence concerned evading a

15     military service.  That's what I had in mind when I said that.  Those

16     were the only cases that fell into that category.

17        Q.   Well, in fact, there were successful prosecutions of soldiers for

18     killing Serbs.  The Pero Marin case; right?

19        A.   I don't recall that case at all.

20        Q.   In fact, I'd put to you that what the records reflect is cases

21     where the victims were Serbs or cases where, as you mentioned, the

22     interests of the army were implicated, those cases not only had

23     precedence in terms of successful prosecutions and sentences to terms of

24     imprisonment, those cases came first, last, and only in the work of the

25     Banja Luka military court.  That's the truth, right?

Page 35550

 1        A.   Yes.

 2             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I see we're at the time for a break.

 3     I'm sorry to interrupt.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I nevertheless would like to go to your

 5     statement in more detail and try to find out what you're telling us.

 6             As you can see on your screen, the question about the cases and

 7     which you said which cases had precedence, that question was exclusively

 8     about murder cases, isn't it?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't remember those

10     details.  It was a long time ago.  But I know for sure that --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you read -- could you then read -- I'll slowly

12     read it to you, the whole of what you said.  The interviewer asked you:

13             "... in large part, that was based on which nation the victim was

14     from?  Because we, if you agree with me, because we looked at nearly all

15     the murder files from 1992 to 1993.  And there you'll see pretty

16     efficient prosecution of Serb soldiers who killed Serbs, usually family

17     members.  Would you agree?"

18             I first -- I was seeking whether you agree that this question is

19     clearly and exclusively about murder cases.  Is it, or is it not?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't answer by just saying "yes"

21     or "no."  I've already asked you to allow me to explore.  It was much

22     easier to obtain evidence if both parties were Serbs because --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  That I may all be true.  That's a different matter.

24     You are interpreting your own answer, and for that reason I first take

25     you to the question in order to see exactly what the question was about.

Page 35551

 1     There may have been good reasons for it, that's a different matter, but

 2     is this question purely about murders?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can see, the answer

 4     would be yes, in view of my previous statement.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Now I'll take you to your answer.  Your answer is:

 6             "That's correct ..."

 7             And then on your own initiative, you continued:

 8             "... because ... those cases had the precedence and those other

 9     cases were left for some other times."

10             Now, I think you explained to us a few minute ago that when you

11     were referring to cases that had precedence that you were referring to

12     those cases where not meeting your military obligations was concerned,

13     whereas I have difficulties in understanding this answer in any other way

14     than the cases that had the precedence is the cases of prosecutions of

15     Serb soldiers killing Serbs and not by desertion or not responding to a

16     call-up.  That's my analysis of the words you used.

17             If you have a good explanation as why I should understand your

18     answer, I'm not talking about anything else but about your answer.  If

19     you have any explanation why where you said those cases had the

20     precedence, how we should understand that as referring to desertion or

21     not responding to call-ups, withdrawing from your military obligations,

22     please tell us how we could possibly understand that in the way you now

23     present it to us?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You have completely confused me.  I

25     would like to see my signature on that text that I authored in 2002.

Page 35552

 1     This resembles an answer of a military judge, not a military prosecutor.

 2     I really don't understand.  I'm totally confused.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Are you challenging the accuracy of the transcript

 4     and the interpretation, is that what you're doing?  You know there is a

 5     standing offer, we'll verify it.

 6             But earlier, you started explaining that cases that had

 7     precedence were other cases, apparently explaining your explanation --

 8     your statement, and I had difficulties in logically following that

 9     explanation.  Therefore, I gave you this opportunity to logically explain

10     how we could have possibly understood the reference to those cases that

11     had precedence as anything else than murder cases, and you still have an

12     opportunity to do that.

13             If you take that opportunity, fine.  You can do it.  If you limit

14     yourself to questioning the accuracy of this transcript and the

15     interpretation, fine as well.  Then we'll verify it.

16             Which of the two:  Do you want to further explain this text, not

17     what happened, but this text; or do you want the accuracy to be verified?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do I have the right to ask for a

19     break, please?  Or shall I just wait for our regular break time?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  First of all, do not -- Mr. Mladic, you do not have

21     to interfere.

22             It is regular break time, but if you could briefly answer my

23     question whether you want to explain or whether you want the

24     verification, then we'll do that after the break.  We'll give you an

25     opportunity after the break -- if you want to explain and if you want to

Page 35553

 1     challenge the accuracy, tell us now because we'll do it as soon as we

 2     can.

 3             Which of the two do you want to do after the break?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I use the break time to give

 5     the whole thing a thought, please?  And then I will be prepared to give

 6     you answer after the break.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  You may follow the usher.  And we'll take a break

 8     and we'll resume at 25 minutes past midday.

 9                           [The witness stands down]

10                           --- Recess taken at 12.01 p.m.

11                           --- On resuming at 12.25 p.m.

12                           [The witness takes the stand]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Radulj, we left you with a question before the

14     break; that is, whether you wanted to have the accuracy of the recording

15     to be verified, or whether you would like to give an explanation on the

16     context in which you used the words "those cases had the precedence" as

17     referring to anything else than to murder cases.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had a good and long thought about

19     everything.  I provided that statement 13 years ago, which is why I don't

20     remember many things, so I won't challenge the statement.  I don't want

21     it to be verified.  Nothing would happen as a result of that.  Nothing

22     would be changed.

23             And as for the question about prosecuting crimes where, as you

24     put it, Serbs took precedence over others, I stand by my statement that

25     at that moment I had in mind crimes concerning the military and military

Page 35554

 1     service.  Exclusively that.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it's not really an explanation because that

 3     was clear already, but I leave it in Mr. Traldi's hands how to proceed.

 4             Mr. Traldi.

 5             MR. TRALDI:  I'd actually intended to turn to a different topic,

 6     Your Honours.

 7        Q.   And, sir, I'm going to take you now back to Prijedor.

 8             MR. TRALDI:  If we could have 65 ter 07108.

 9        Q.   Now, what we see on the screen, so far only in the B/C/S, is the

10     decision appointing you as the acting public attorney in May of 1992;

11     right?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Where was your office?

14        A.   My office was on the second floor of the building housing the

15     Prijedor basic court.

16        Q.   How far was that from the Prijedor SJB, the police station?

17        A.   The police station was very close.  In the same street.  In the

18     neighbouring building on the right-hand side, if you were standing in

19     front of the court building.

20        Q.   And the municipality building was across the street; right?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Also on the other side of the street, same block, same street,

23     was the headquarters of the Ljubija mine company where you'd previously

24     been employed; right?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 35555

 1        Q.   Now, we see in the same decision appointing you that

 2     Esad Mehmedagic is dismissed.  Mr. Mehmedagic was a Muslim; right?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Did you know him?

 5        A.   Only by sight.

 6        Q.   And his vision was impaired; right?

 7        A.   Yes, I heard that.

 8        Q.   Now, you never saw him after the war; right?

 9        A.   No.

10        Q.   Now, the Trial Chamber has received evidence that Mehmedagic was

11     held at Omarska in the summer of 1992, was taken out, never returned, and

12     was later exhumed from the Stari Kevljani mass grave.  Were you aware of

13     that?

14        A.   I learnt about that.  I learned that he had been exhumed, but I

15     don't know when.  I don't remember.

16        Q.   Did you also learn he'd been held in Omarska?

17        A.   I did not know that he was in Omarska, but I did know that he had

18     been taken from his house and taken somewhere.

19        Q.   Did you know who took him?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   Did you know what institution the people who took him were from;

22     the police, the army?

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   Now, Mr. Mehmedagic was one of many Muslims and Croats who were

25     dismissed from their jobs in Prijedor municipality in May of 1992; right?

Page 35556

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   You and the president judge of the court, Judge Mico Kreco,

 3     agreed when you spoke about these dismissals that they were unlawful and

 4     unreasonable; right?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Like you, Judge Kreco was a Serb by ethnicity; right?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Now, there had been a different president judge of the court

 9     previously, a Nedzad Seric; right?

10        A.   But I didn't know him.  But, yes, that is correct.

11        Q.   He was a Muslim, right?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Omer Kerenovic had previously been a judge on the Prijedor court,

14     right, before the war?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Also a Muslim; right?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Both Judge Seric and Judge Kerenovic were also exhumed from the

19     Stari Kevljani mass grave after the war; right?

20        A.   I'm not aware of that.  I don't know.

21        Q.   So are you also not aware that they were also detained in Omarska

22     beforehand?

23        A.   I'm not aware of that.

24        Q.   Now, Mr. Mehmedagic, Judge Seric, Judge Kerenovic, they were

25     prominent people in the community in Prijedor before the war; right?

Page 35557

 1        A.   Correct.

 2        Q.   Other prominent Muslims were killed in the camps too, right, like

 3     the mayor, Muhamed Cehajic?

 4        A.   Yes, I heard about that.

 5        Q.   You heard he was held in Omarska and he was killed?

 6        A.   I heard about that later.

 7        Q.   Yesterday, at transcript page 35488, you discussed your view that

 8     in 1992 the organs of power in Bosnia had disappeared and it was

 9     necessary to create new organs.  Now, the removal of these community

10     leaders, these prominent Muslims, was one way that the organs of power in

11     Prijedor disappeared or were transformed; right?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And the new organs of power included the VRS; right?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   In Prijedor, the new organs of power included the Prijedor

16     Crisis Staff; right?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   You testified a moment ago that you and Judge Kreco agreed the

19     dismissals of Muslims and Croats were illegal.  Those dismissals went

20     ahead anyway because it was these new Bosnian Serb organs of power that

21     were really making the decisions, that were really in charge of life in

22     Prijedor; right?

23        A.   Well, I cannot say that they were really the ones who were in

24     charge of life.  Maybe individuals made decisions like that.

25        Q.   Well, the Crisis Staff made a decision that Muslims and Croats

Page 35558

 1     should be fired.  The view of the public attorney, the view of the

 2     presiding judge, was that this was illegal.  The Muslims and Croats were

 3     fired anyway.  That's because the Crisis Staff had the power; right?

 4        A.   Well, I know that on the 29th or 30th of April there was a change

 5     of government, but only top people were replaced.  So that was done in

 6     April.  Not the other non-Serbs as well.

 7        Q.   People in companies were replaced in May and June of 1992; right?

 8     Non-Serbs.

 9        A.   Yes, there were such cases.

10        Q.   So not just the top people in government.  People throughout the

11     society, particularly in positions of authority - Muslims and Croats,

12     were dismissed from their jobs; right?

13        A.   Yes, I think that the dismissals came after the units of the

14     Republika Srpska Army were being formed.  Those who did not accept that

15     left.

16        Q.   Well, just looking at this particular example, we see

17     Mr. Mehmedagic was dismissed as of the 4th of May.  That's a couple of

18     days after the take-over and even before the VRS was formed; right?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Now, we discussed a moment ago, and you confirmed, what happened

21     to a number of prominent Muslims in the community.  That would have had a

22     devastating effect on the Muslim community in Prijedor, the death and

23     disappearance of many prominent figures; right?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   You testified yesterday that interethnic relations in Prijedor

Page 35559

 1     had been good before the war.  Prijedor was known, in fact, before the

 2     war, as a place where interethnic relations were good, a place where the

 3     old communist slogan of brotherhood and unity really meant something;

 4     right?

 5        A.   Yes, yes.

 6             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I'd tender 65 ter 01078.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P7384, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted.

10             MR. TRALDI:

11        Q.   And when you say new organs of power had to be created,

12     Yugoslavia, as it had been known, disappeared.  What was destroyed was

13     exactly that place where interethnic relations were good, that place

14     where brotherhood and unity really meant something.  That place

15     effectively didn't exist anymore; right?

16        A.   Yes.  In that sense, it did not exist.

17             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have 65 ter 31035.

18        Q.   Now, you confirmed a moment ago that Muslims and Croats were

19     dismissed from companies, as well as jobs in government.  One of the

20     companies where the Muslim and Croat employees were dismissed in the late

21     spring and early summer of 1992 was the Ljubija mine company where you'd

22     previously worked; right?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Now, this is a report to SJB Prijedor by the Ljubija mine

25     company.

Page 35560

 1             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have page 3 in both languages, please.

 2        Q.   Now, looking at the second paragraph, we read:

 3             "Immediately after the take-over of power on 30 April 1992, a

 4     clear differentiation of personnel was made in our enterprise ..."

 5             Now "differentiation" refers to what we've been talking about,

 6     differentiation along ethnic lines, the dismissals of Muslims and Croats;

 7     right?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And we see immediately following that, that:

10             "... after the attack on Prijedor on 30 May 1992," that you

11     described yesterday, "a wartime staffing specification was introduced and

12     personnel were assigned accordingly, in keeping with the decisions of the

13     Government of Republika Srpska."

14             Now, the decisions of the government of the Republika Srpska

15     would have been relayed to this company through the regional Crisis Staff

16     and the Prijedor municipal Crisis Staff; right?

17        A.   First of all, I do not remember that.  I was in Brezicani the

18     last time in September 1991.  I did not return there after that, so I

19     cannot say anything specific about this.

20        Q.   Well --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Traldi, you are developing a speed of speech

22     which is far too high.

23             MR. TRALDI:  I'll try and restrain it, Mr. President.

24        Q.   In fact, you're aware, putting the question somewhat differently,

25     that the Muslims and Croats dismissed in Prijedor were dismissed because

Page 35561

 1     of a decision by the Prijedor Crisis Staff; right?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And we see at the bottom of the page and turning to the top of

 4     page 4 in B/C/S, a reference to the consistent implementation in this

 5     company of the decisions to dismiss workers of the Crisis Staff War

 6     Presidency of the Prijedor Municipal Assembly and the government of the

 7     Autonomous Region of Krajina.  And so the Ljubija mine company was

 8     implementing the Crisis Staff -- the Prijedor Crisis Staff and the

 9     autonomous region's Crisis Staff's decisions; right?

10        A.   Well, probably it was that way if this document says so.  I

11     really have no comment.

12        Q.   Turning back to page 3 in both languages, we read below

13     attachment 2 at the bottom of the page in the B/C/S that:

14             "Already in early June, only around ten days after the fighting

15     in the town, the army and police took over all direct securing of

16     facilities, property, and persons.  Additional measures were taken to

17     ensure general security in the enterprise and very close co-operation was

18     also continued with the Army Main Staff and the Public Security Centre."

19             Now, you would have been aware, because you were next door to the

20     public security station and across the street from your old employer's

21     headquarters, you would have been aware that they were co-operating with

22     the police and with the army; right?

23        A.   The fact that the building is close to my building doesn't mean

24     that I have to know what is going on in that building.  So what you are

25     putting to me now is the first I've ever heard of it.  I cannot confirm

Page 35562

 1     or deny it.

 2        Q.   Turning to page 5 in the English and 6 in the B/C/S, we see a

 3     list of high personnel in that company beginning with the acting

 4     director, Ostoja Marjanovic.  You knew him, yes?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And did you know that, as reflected here, he was, in 1992, acting

 7     director of the company and was mobilised in the VRS?

 8        A.   I'm not aware of that.

 9        Q.   Now the resources of important companies, would they be mobilised

10     at times for the war effort?

11        A.   Yes, yes.

12        Q.   And you know, of course, the Ljubija mine company was an

13     important company in Prijedor; right?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Ran three mines, employed large numbers of people.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Its resources were also put at the disposal of the war effort;

18     right?  Also mobilised.

19        A.   Yes.

20             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I'd tender this document.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P7385, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

24             Witness, I've one other question for you.  When Mr. Traldi asked

25     you whether in companies people were dismissed as well, you said there

Page 35563

 1     were such cases.

 2             Looking at this document, I see that only for the Ljubija mine it

 3     amounts to 1.500, if not more.  I'm just wondering what you meant by

 4     "there were such cases" instead of perhaps saying that this happened on a

 5     massive scale?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, what was then done at the

 7     mine is something that I cannot know about.  Among other things, the

 8     reason was that production had ceased and also probably because of the

 9     mass departure of non-Serbs from Prijedor.  That kind of thing certainly

10     happened, too.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I understand that there is more to say about it, but

12     to say there were such cases where it happened on a massive scale.  And I

13     take it it would not have escaped your attention that 1.500 - that's

14     quite a large number - were dismissed.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just to give a brief explanation.

16     When I said "individual cases," I meant what happened at the end of

17     April, or rather beginning of May, when only people in top positions were

18     being replaced; whereas, what happened after the 30th of May is a

19     completely different story, and it is true that then there were mass

20     dismissals of employees because everything bad that was done in Prijedor

21     was done after the 30th of May, 1992.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

23             MR. TRALDI:

24        Q.   You say everything that was bad was done -- in Prijedor was done

25     after the 30th of May, 1992.  You know there was killing of large numbers

Page 35564

 1     of Muslims, destruction of large amounts of Muslim civilian property

 2     during operations in Hambarine and Kozarac before the 30th of May; right?

 3     Yes or no.

 4        A.   Yes, yes.

 5        Q.   Now, turning to some of those other bad things, you testified

 6     yesterday at transcript page 35504 that you had no contact with Omarska

 7     and Keraterm.  You knew during your time as public attorney in Prijedor

 8     that people were being taken to Omarska and Keraterm, non-Serbs, and

 9     non-Serbs were being murdered and tortured in those camps; right?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   You testified a moment ago about the mass departure of non-Serbs

12     from Prijedor.  Those were the people who yesterday you said were forced

13     to leave; right?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And one of the people who was held in Keraterm was a friend of

16     yours named Islamovic; right?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And he told you that he'd had to promise to leave Prijedor

19     municipality, and when he did promise to do so he was released; right?

20        A.   Yes.  He asked for help as well, to leave Keraterm.  So I helped

21     him get out, indirectly.

22        Q.   He was a Muslim; right?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And you know that the Muslim and Croat places of worship in

25     Prijedor town were destroyed in 1992; right?

Page 35565

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   One of the bad things that happened right on the 30th of May was

 3     that a mosque was destroyed; right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And after the fighting that day, Muslims and Croats had to hang

 6     white flags from their houses; right?

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We could not understand

 8     the witness's answer.

 9             MR. TRALDI:

10        Q.   Sorry, sir.  You're being asked to repeat your answer.

11        A.   I said "yes."

12        Q.   Now, you discussed on direct examination your letter objecting to

13     the occupation of abandoned houses, abandoned property.  A lot of the

14     property which was abandoned had previously belonged to people who'd been

15     held in the camps; right?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Now, is it right that in your letter you did not at any point

18     refer to the need to return the property to its rightful owners.  You

19     simply referred to the need to allow it to be allocated properly?

20        A.   The objective of my letter was primarily to protect property, and

21     I pointed out there that it has to do with private property which is

22     inalienable, and that the municipality will be responsible if there is

23     destruction of property in order to have this property preserved and

24     returned to the owners one day.  I said there that no one knows how long

25     the war will last.  One day it would have to come to an end, and one day

Page 35566

 1     people will come to get their own.  And Dayton was written in that

 2     context, roughly, as far as the return of property is concerned.

 3        Q.   Now, your letter was written in the context of a decision that

 4     had been taken a month earlier to declare abandoned property in Prijedor

 5     municipality the property of the state; right?

 6        A.   Yes, as far as I can remember.  A temporary decision was taken;

 7     that is to say, that it is temporarily the property of the state so that

 8     it could be safe-guarded better.  But it doesn't mean that it's owned by

 9     the municipality, and no one ever thought that it was supposed to be

10     owned by the municipality.

11        Q.   And your letter makes it clear that the priority is allocating

12     this abandoned property that's now property of the state to VRS soldiers

13     and their families; right?

14        A.   Yes, that property was supposed to be distributed to the families

15     of the fallen soldiers and to people who were disabled during the war.

16     At that time, many buses full of Serbs arrived from Travnik, Zenica,

17     Sarajevo, and other places.  So these refugees were supposed to be put up

18     somewhere.

19        Q.   Now, I want to turn back for just a moment to the take-over of

20     Prijedor.  At that time for the first time Radio Prijedor played Chetnik

21     nationalist songs; right?

22        A.   I was not in Prijedor from the 15th of April until the 15th of

23     May, so I don't know about that period.  After that, there were songs,

24     among others, Serb national songs, including Chetnik songs.

25        Q.   You were asked in your interview whether it was announced at the

Page 35567

 1     time of the Prijedor -- sorry, the take-over of Prijedor that Prijedor

 2     was going to be called the Serb municipality of Prijedor.  You explained

 3     that that wasn't necessary because Prijedor was part of the Autonomous

 4     Region of Krajina and all of the municipalities within the ARK had Serb

 5     authorities, so you considered it logical that the authorities in

 6     Prijedor would be Serb authorities.  Do you stand by that today?

 7        A.   That first part of the question, as far as this name "Serb

 8     Prijedor" is concerned, this is the first time I hear of it.  And in

 9     relation to that, if there is a Serb autonomous region, then that was the

10     region that was in favour of the preservation of Yugoslavia, then there

11     was no need to change the name of Prijedor, and then there are these

12     authorities that are in favour of preserving Yugoslavia.

13        Q.   Well, let's have quickly 65 ter 32564, page 24.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  While we're waiting for it, can I ask one follow-up

15     question.

16             You explained your letter when asked by Mr. Traldi by saying

17     that, of course, after the war would be over, Muslims would return to

18     their homes and that's what all was to be expected.

19             Now, that's not very explicit in that letter.  And this Chamber

20     has heard evidence that it may not have been on everyone's mind that

21     Muslims who had left the territory in those municipalities were expected

22     to return.  We even have heard evidence which hinted at an expectation

23     that they would not return and that was even intended, that they would

24     not return.

25             My question to you is:  Apart from your implicit understanding of

Page 35568

 1     what the expectations were, could you point at any document or any

 2     specific fact in which it becomes clear that your assumption that

 3     non-Serbs would return to the areas which they had left was realistic and

 4     that was really what was expected to happen?  So concrete points which

 5     would have expressed that, such as if, after the war, the Muslims will

 6     return, we should keep their homes ready for them or whatever.  So I'm

 7     seeking concrete facts which would support what you describe, more or

 8     less, as an implicit assumption.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, allow me to answer this

10     question.  First of all, when I wrote the letter, after all, I'm a person

11     who had a great deal of experience as a lawyer even then, and I was

12     familiar with international law, and as a reserve officer I was familiar

13     with the law of war, and I knew who in wartime --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, I'm not asking that.  I'm not asking on

15     what your assumption was based.  I'm asking you about concrete facts, and

16     I just gave a possible example, concrete facts which would contradict

17     some of the evidence this Chamber heard and which would be in support of

18     your assumption.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, the essence was to

20     protect the privately owned property of Prijedor that belonged to the

21     citizens who had left Prijedor.  I believe I wasn't clear enough on that.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness --

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Secondly, I wish to indicate --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, you've been perfectly clear on that.  You

25     told us that in very clear terms, but it's not an answer to my question.

Page 35569

 1     Do you have any minutes of meetings where it was explicitly discussed how

 2     Muslims would be helped to return, how to bring them back their property,

 3     et cetera?  I mean, I'm asking you about concrete facts, to your

 4     knowledge.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you're looking for written

 6     evidence, I don't have any on me.  However, later at the meetings of the

 7     municipal assembly, those issues were discussed.  I left Prijedor after

 8     that, so I don't know what was going on.

 9             But there is one thing that I need to say:  Property or assets

10     did not fall into anybody else's hands.  Whatever it was, it waited for

11     its rightful owners to return, like everywhere else in Bosnia and

12     Herzegovina.  So Prijedor did not differ from other towns, such as

13     Zenica, Bijeljina, Travnik, and others.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  The last part, again, is not an answer to my

15     question but apparently something you want to emphasize.  I leave it to

16     that.

17             Mr. Traldi.

18             Oh, Judge Moloto.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just so that we don't interrupt you many times,

20     Mr. Traldi.

21             Sir, just want some clarification to one of your answers here.

22             At page 50, lines 15, you were asked a question:

23             "So not just the top people in government.  People throughout the

24     society, particularly in positions of authority - Muslims and Croats,

25     were dismissed from their jobs; right?"

Page 35570

 1             You answered:

 2             "Yes.  I think that the dismissals came after the units of the

 3     Republika Srpska Army were being formed.  Those who did not accept that

 4     left."

 5             My question to you is:  What is the significance of mentioning

 6     units of the Army of the Republika Srpska in relation to this question

 7     put to you?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The significance of that lies in

 9     the fact that those units were replenished from the ranks of those who

10     wanted to defend Republika Srpska and who wanted to live there.  Those

11     who didn't want to do so decided to leave Prijedor, so they resigned

12     because there was no production, or certain companies drafted their own

13     lists, and I suppose that the ethnic principle was used in drafting such

14     lists, and those people were fired from their positions.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm afraid you're not answering my questions.  You

16     are telling the Court that the dismissal of people escalated after the

17     VRS was formed.  So I don't understand what you mean by "replenishing VRS

18     soldiers," because they were not being dismissed from the army, they were

19     being dismissed from their companies, and you say this happened after the

20     units of the VRS had been formed.

21             Am I to understand, if I may put it bluntly, that you are saying

22     here that the escalation was there because the VRS was promoting it?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that we spoke at

24     cross-purposes here.  I said --

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm not asking you how you spoke.  I'm just asking

Page 35571

 1     you whether this is what you meant.  You volunteered VRS.  There was no

 2     mention of VRS in the question.  You volunteered the fact that this went

 3     up after the VRS units were formed.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  I claim --

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What are you saying "no" to?  Are you saying you

 6     didn't volunteer the VRS name?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.  I may have mentioned the

 8     VRS --

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You did mention --

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- by accident.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You did mention it.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After the 30th of May, after the

13     attack on Prijedor, there was a large-scale dismissal from companies of

14     non-Serb workers.  And if I had mentioned the VRS --

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And this happened, according to this statement

16     that you have given, that happened after the formation of the VRS units?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I would like to withdraw that

18     from my statement.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Unfortunately you cannot, it's on the record.

20             Thank you so much, Mr. Traldi.  You may proceed.

21             MR. TRALDI:

22        Q.   Sir, just returning to the question of your view on the Serb

23     nature of the authorities in the municipality within the ARK, you were

24     asked a similar question to what I'd asked you in your interview, and you

25     responded:

Page 35572

 1             "I don't remember the prefix 'Serbian,' but that is possible.

 2     This was a long time ago.  I don't remember.  I think it wasn't necessary

 3     to specially state that it was a Serbian municipality, because through

 4     that it didn't become the Member ... It was already now a member of The

 5     ARK."

 6             You were asked:

 7             "The Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina?"

 8             And you answered:

 9             "Yes."

10             And you were asked:

11             "What do you mean by that 'it became part of the Autonomous

12     Region of Krajina'?"

13             And you answered:

14             "'Cause all the municipalities within the Autonomous Region of

15     Krajina had Serbian authorities.  It's just that the question that you

16     asked whether it was a 'Serbian" or just 'The municipality of Prijedor.'

17     You didn't have to say that it was Serbian, because it had become ... it

18     was logical that all the municipalities which were part of the ARK would

19     be Serb municipalities."

20             And you added that you didn't think that the name had changed.

21     Now, do you stand by that portion of your interview that I have read back

22     to you as truthful and accurate?

23        A.   Yes, yes.

24        Q.   And you'd heard that, speaking of the ARK, its Crisis Staff

25     President, Radislav Brdjanin, referred to Muslims as balijas; right?

Page 35573

 1        A.   Yes, I did hear that.

 2        Q.   And that's a derogatory term for Muslims, yes?

 3        A.   Yes, it is.

 4        Q.   Now, finally, sir, yesterday you testified that the Ljubija mine

 5     company that you'd worked for owned three mines:  The Ljubija, Omarska,

 6     and Tomasica mines.  You confirmed earlier that you'd known that people

 7     were detained in terrible, criminal conditions on the Omarska mine

 8     property at the Omarska camp; right?

 9        A.   Yes.  I knew that non-Serbs were detained there.

10        Q.   Now, the Chamber has received evidence that there were mass

11     graves on the properties of both the Ljubija and Tomasica branches of the

12     mine company.  Were you also aware of that?

13        A.   There were rumours about Ljubija.  I didn't know about Tomasica

14     until perhaps a few months ago.

15        Q.   Well, it was exhumed in 2013, so you've known for at least a year

16     and a half; right?

17        A.   What do you mean?  Are you referring to Ljubija?

18        Q.   Tomasica, sir.

19        A.   Ah, Tomasica.  Ah, yes.  What I meant was I have learnt about

20     that only recently.

21        Q.   So your evidence is you weren't aware of that mass grave until

22     after the war, long after the war; right?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And so you were never, as a military prosecutor, directed to

25     investigate either the creation of the grave or the murders of the people

Page 35574

 1     who were buried there, were you?

 2        A.   No.

 3             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I have no further questions for this

 4     witness.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Traldi.

 6             Mr. Stojanovic, we'll take a break.  Could you tell us how much

 7     time you would need after the break?

 8             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Not more than ten minutes, Your

 9     Honour.  I need to cover three different topics.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll take a break first.

11             Mr. Radulj, you're invited to follow the usher.  We'd like to see

12     you back in 20 minutes because we will resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.

13             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

14                           [The witness stands down]

15                           --- Recess taken at 1.18 p.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 1.43 p.m.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, could you remind Mr. Mladic and tell him

18     how to behave in the court, also in relation to the public gallery.  If

19     you address him, then ...

20                           [The witness takes the stand]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Radulj, you'll now be further examined by

22     Mr. Stojanovic.

23                           Re-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:

24        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Radulj, after the setting up of the VRS and

25     after the mobilisation, could somebody who was not a member of the

Page 35575

 1     military or who did not have work obligation stay working in a company,

 2     irrespective of his or her position there?

 3        A.   As far as I can remember, all militarily able-bodied men had to

 4     be either in the military or they had to do work obligation.  Therefore,

 5     there was no third option.  I'm talking about militarily able-bodied

 6     people.

 7        Q.   If a militarily able-bodied man, a military conscript, did not

 8     respond to a mobilisation call and didn't want to defend the state, could

 9     he then be subject to criminal responsibility for not responding to that

10     obligation?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   You already spoke about that as a case that had priority before a

13     military judiciary.  Why?  Why would such cases enjoy priority before the

14     military judiciary?

15        A.   Those cases had priority in order to boost military discipline.

16     On the other hand, complying with constitutional obligation on the part

17     of every citizen meant that they had to serve in the army, if necessary.

18        Q.   In the Ljubija mine, did people of Serb origin have to leave for

19     the aforementioned reasons?

20        A.   Irrespective of ethnic affiliation, those who did not respond to

21     the call-ups had to be criminally charged or, rather, prosecuted or they

22     were investigated, and that applied to Serb citizens as well.

23             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] And now I'd like to call

24     up P7385.  I believe that I'm interested in page 3 of this document.

25        Q.   Just a while ago we had an occasion to see it when the Prosecutor

Page 35576

 1     asked you about that document.

 2             Do you remember the document that you have before you?

 3             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] In B/C/S, I'm interested in the

 4     following page, please, and in the English version I believe that we are

 5     on the page that I'm interested in.  Let's go to the following page in

 6     B/C/S, please.

 7        Q.   You were shown one part of this report; inter alia, you were

 8     asked about that.  It says here of the total number of 4.297 employees,

 9     1.887 were dismissed during the first differentiation.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Where are you reading in the English, Mr.

11     Stojanovic?  I found it.

12             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours -- yes, that's

13     correct, thank you.

14        Q.   Can you now follow me?  1.887 were dismissed.  After the legally

15     prescribed procedure had been conducted, 216 appeals of workers whose

16     appeals were valid and grounded as shown by the attached documents were

17     held, or better put accepted.

18             After subsequent checks, another 74 workers were dismissed,

19     including 16 Serbs who had left the territory of Republika Srpska of

20     their own volition.  In other words, the emphasis is put here on the

21     reasons why Serbs were dismissed.  When it says that they left the

22     territory of Republika Srpska of their own volition, what did they --

23     what did that imply, Mr. Radulj?

24        A.   In the prosecutor's office, we considered such cases as a

25     departure in order to evade military service, if those people were

Page 35577

 1     military conscripts, and we found those cases interesting.  As for other

 2     cases and departure for other reasons, that was not subject of our work

 3     at all.

 4        Q.   And now I'd like to ask you this:  If somebody left their town

 5     and the company that they worked for, if they didn't turn up for work for

 6     no reason at all and for a certain time, could they be kept in employment

 7     according to the then-prevalent laws?

 8        A.   I believe that the prevalent laws said that if an employee was

 9     absent from work for five consecutive days without a justified reason was

10     summarily dismissed, and I believe that we are talking about that kind of

11     cases.  I suppose that that is the case because I didn't read the entire

12     document.

13        Q.   And now I will finish with another question.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll just intervene for one moment.

15             You earlier confirmed the differentiation referred to,

16     differentiation along ethnic lines, the dismissals of Muslims and Croats.

17     Now, if you say:  "I suspect that that was, I've not read the whole of

18     the document, there must have been other reasons as well," you confirmed

19     the differentiation is ethnic differentiation, and what is written here

20     is about what happened in the context of this differentiation.

21             Therefore, I am putting this to you that if you now suggest that

22     there may have been other reasons not having read the document, that the

23     document is about dismissals on the basis of the differentiation as was

24     instructed, and that is, I think, differentiation.

25             So if you want to say, well, there were other reasons to dismiss

Page 35578

 1     people as well, fine, may be the case, but that's not what this document

 2     is about.  And since you were wondering whether you had sufficiently read

 3     the document to make any comments, I just am explaining to you now how

 4     the words are used in this document so as to give you an opportunity to

 5     comment on that use of language in this document.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've not seen this document before,

 7     i.e., the question based on the document that was put to me by the

 8     Prosecutor.  But now that the Defence lawyer has read the document to me

 9     and when he has put the question to me, and I realised that there were

10     Serbs that were also dismissed, I know that there were such cases.

11             However, when I answered the Prosecutor's questions, I spoke

12     about the large majority of non-Serbs who failed to respond to call-ups,

13     inter alia, but there were others as well as you can see from this report

14     issued by the Ljubija mine.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Then I have a little follow-up here.  The 16 Serbs

17     that were said to be dismissed were dismissed because they left of their

18     own volition.  What would be the point of keeping them on the payroll if

19     they are not coming to work?  In fact, they seemed to have resigned

20     rather than being dismissed.

21             Thank you.  So that cannot be the answer.

22             Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.

23             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24        Q.   And now, Mr. Radulj, I would like to take you to page 41,

25     lines 11 through 19, of today's record.  You were asked whether the cases

Page 35579

 1     of non-Serb victims were delayed for some other time, and you said yes.

 2     I would like to ask you why were those cases left for later?  Why were

 3     they prosecuted only later, not at the moment when they happened?

 4        A.   I must emphasize that nobody ever issued a document or a decree

 5     for those cases to be left for later.  It was down to the situation.

 6     There were priorities, and those priorities involved the military-related

 7     cases.  I've already spoken about that.  It was virtually impossible to

 8     secure evidence that would have made it possible to have lawful

 9     proceedings in those cases.  Neither the prosecutor's office nor the

10     court had enough staff or equipment in order to do things properly at the

11     time.

12             Later, when things improved somewhat, those cases were dealt with

13     one by one.  Those proceedings are still ongoing at various courts all

14     over Bosnia and Herzegovina.

15        Q.   Mr. Radulj, on behalf of the Mladic Defence, I would like to

16     thank you.  We have no further questions for you.

17        A.   Thank you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you Mr. Stojanovic.

19             Do you have any further questions, Mr. Traldi?

20             MR. TRALDI:  Very briefly, Mr. President.

21             First, can we have 65 ter 32447.

22                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Traldi:

23        Q.   This is a document coming from the military prosecutor's office

24     attached to the army Main Staff entitled:  "Dispatch on the Institution

25     of Criminal Proceedings Against Persons Who Have Not Responded to the

Page 35580

 1     Call-up Or Left Units Without Authorisation."

 2             MR. TRALDI:  Turning to page 5, end of the document in both

 3     languages.

 4        Q.   We see its sent to the various military prosecutor's offices.

 5     It's correct that the priority -- that one of the priorities was dealing

 6     with prosecuting people who didn't respond to the call-up and that that

 7     priority was set by the Main Staff; right?

 8        A.   I've never seen this document before.  It was never shown to me.

 9     I see it for the first time here.  As far as I can see, it was drafted in

10     the month of the September 1992.

11        Q.   What --

12        A.   I was not in office at that time.

13        Q.   I'm aware of that.  What it reflects, though, is the priority

14     that you mentioned on redirect, the priority of cases involving not

15     responding to a call-up being passed from General Gvero to the various

16     military prosecutor's offices; right?

17        A.   Yes, yes.

18             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I'd tender this document.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

20             Mr. Stojanovic.

21             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] We have no objection, Your

22     Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P7386, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Is admitted into evidence.

Page 35581

 1             MR. TRALDI:  And finally if we could have 65 ter 32564, page 46.

 2             I see I've been recorded to say "23564" and I'd meant to say

 3     32564.  If we could scroll to the bottom.

 4        Q.   You're being asked about your work in the military prosecutor's

 5     office, and you're asked a question about criminal law, both procedural

 6     and substantive.  You're asked whether:  "... it would be possible for a

 7     deputy military prosecutor, a prosecutor to obtain a conviction in a

 8     case... where the accused gave a full confession to the military

 9     prosecutor and the investigative judge, so a proper formal statement that

10     included a confession?  To the crime of murder?"

11             Just to summarises it briefly, Mr. Resch asks or identifies other

12     available evidence:

13             "The victims' bodies and ballistic tests confirming the bullets

14     that killed the body came from the accused person's gun and asks:

15             "Under those circumstances, without a statement from the victim's

16     family whether he can get a conviction."

17             And if we turn to the next page.  There is a lengthy discussion

18     about the procedure of the case, and if we scroll to the middle of the

19     page, summarising your answer, Mr. Resch says:  "The fact that the

20     relatives did not testify would not preclude a finding of guilty."

21             Your answer:

22             "What do you mean by wouldn't preclude?"

23             He says:  "Prevent, prevent ..."

24             And you say:  "I think there are no legal obstacles to him being

25     pronounced guilty," which I take to mean the accused person in the

Page 35582

 1     circumstances that were described.

 2             So do you stand today by your answer in your interview that where

 3     the victim's body is available, the murder is confessed, ballistic tests

 4     confirm the murder weapon, the legal obstacles that you mentioned on

 5     redirect would not have prevented a conviction?

 6        A.   Based on everything that I heard from you, I don't see a reason

 7     why a conviction should not be pronounced.  So, yes, I adhere by that.

 8             MR. TRALDI:  I have no further questions.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Traldi.

10             Mr. Radulj, this concludes your testimony in this court.  I'd

11     like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague, a long way for you,

12     and very having answered the questions that were put to you by the

13     parties and were put to you by the Bench.  I wish you a safe return home

14     again, and you may follow the usher.

15             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  [Interpretation] Thank you, too.

16                           [The witness withdrew]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We have some time left.  We'll deal with some very

18     practical matters.

19             I'd first like to deliver two decisions and that may consume all

20     the time which is left.  The first is a decision the Chamber will now

21     deliver on the expertise of Svetlana Radovanovic with regard to her

22     analysis of Prosecution expert reports authored by witnesses Ewa Tabeau

23     and Helge Brunborg.

24             On the 9th of February of this year, the Defence filed a notice

25     of disclosure of Svetlana Radovanovic's expert report pursuant to Rule 94

Page 35583

 1     bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.  The Prosecution responded on

 2     the 11th of March, submitting that while it does not challenge the expert

 3     status of Radovanovic or the relevance of her report, it also does not

 4     accept the conclusions of the report and therefore requests to

 5     cross-examine her.

 6             On the 25th of March, the Defence filed a response to the

 7     Prosecution's 11th of March submission.

 8             On the 1st of April, the Prosecution sought leave to reply and

 9     filed its reply to the Defence response.  The Chamber will address the

10     25th of March and the 1st of April submissions in a separate decision.

11             With respect to the applicable law concerning expert evidence,

12     the Chamber recalls and refers to its 19th of October 2012 decision

13     concerning Expert Witness Richard Butler.

14             On the basis of Radovanovic's curriculum vitae and considering

15     that the Prosecution does not dispute Radovanovic's qualifications as an

16     expert in the field of demographics, the Chamber is satisfied that she

17     has specialised knowledge and expertise and that such knowledge and

18     expertise may be of assistance to the Chamber in assessing the expert

19     evidence presented by the Prosecution during its case-in-chief.

20             With regard to the Prosecution request to cross-examine the

21     witness, the Chamber notes that the Defence plans to call Radovanovic to

22     give evidence.  The Prosecution will therefore have the opportunity to

23     cross-examine her.

24             Based on the foregoing, the Chamber decides pursuant to Rule 94

25     bis that Witness Radovanovic may be called to testify as an expert

Page 35584

 1     witness and shall be made available for cross-examination by the

 2     Prosecution.

 3             The Chamber defers its decision on the admission of the report to

 4     the time of the witness's testimony.

 5             And this concludes the Chamber's decision.

 6             The next decision the Chamber will now deliver is its decision on

 7     the expertise of Dragic Gojkovic with regard to the destruction of the

 8     religious buildings in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995 and

 9     his analysis of the Prosecution expert report authored by Witness Andras

10     Riedlmayer.

11             On the 13th of February, 2015, the Defence filed a notice of

12     disclosure of Dragic Gojkovic's expert report, pursuant to Rule 94 bis of

13     the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

14             The Prosecution responded on the 16th of March, submitting that

15     while it does not challenge the expert status of Gojkovic, or the

16     relevance of his report, it does not accept the report's conclusions and

17     therefore requests to cross-examine him.  The Prosecution further submits

18     that 15 documents attached to the report should not be considered as a

19     part of the report and that the Defence should seek leave to add them to

20     its 65 ter exhibit list and tender them for admission separately.

21             On the 30th of March, the Defence filed a response to the

22     Prosecution's 16th of March submission.

23             On the 7th of April, the Prosecution sought leave to reply and

24     filed its reply to the Defence response.  The Chamber will address the

25     30th of March and the 7th of April submissions in a separate decision.

Page 35585

 1             With respect to the applicable law concerning expert evidence,

 2     the Chamber recalls and refers to its 19th of October, 2012 decision

 3     concerning Expert Witness Richard Butler.

 4             On the basis of Gojkovic's curriculum vitae and considering that

 5     the Prosecution does not dispute Gojkovic's qualifications as an expert

 6     on destruction of religious buildings in Bosnia and Herzegovina between

 7     1992 and 1995, the Chamber is satisfied that he has specialised knowledge

 8     and expertise in that field and that such knowledge and expertise may be

 9     of assistance to the Chamber in assessing the expert evidence presented

10     by the Prosecution during its case-in-chief.

11             With regard to the Prosecution request to cross-examine the

12     witness, the Chamber notes that the Defence plans to call Gojkovic to

13     give evidence.  The Prosecution will therefore have the opportunity to

14     cross-examine him.

15             Concerning the Prosecution submissions related to 15 documents

16     attached to the report, the Chamber invites the Defence to request their

17     addition to its 65 ter exhibit list.

18             Based on the foregoing, the Chamber decides pursuant to Rule 94

19     bis that Witness Gojkovic may be called to testify as an expert witness

20     on destruction of religious buildings in Bosnia and Herzegovina between

21     1992 and 1995 and shall be made available for cross-examination by the

22     Prosecution.

23             The Chamber defers its decision on the admission of the report to

24     the time of the witness's testimony.

25             And this concludes the Chamber's decision.

Page 35586

 1             We have two minutes left.  Let me just take one or two small

 2     items from the pending issues list.

 3             I start with remaining associated exhibits to

 4     Witness Vidoje Blagojevic's statement.

 5             On the 1st and the 2nd of April, the Chamber inquired whether the

 6     Defence's failure to address document bearing Rule 65 ter number 14584

 7     during the testimony of Vidoje Blagojevic meant that it was withdrawn as

 8     an associated exhibit.

 9             The Chamber has not heard from the Defence on this matter and

10     considers its silence to be an implicit withdrawal.  The Defence has an

11     opportunity to revisit the matter within three days.

12             My last item deals with P7038.

13             On the 21st of January of this year, the Chamber marked for

14     identification under seal P7038 based on the Prosecution's submission

15     that the whole document might not need to be admitted into evidence.

16     This can be found at transcript page 30337.

17             On the 2nd of April, the Prosecution informed the Chamber via an

18     e-mail that the parties had discussed this issue and are in agreement

19     that P7038 should be admitted in its entirety.

20             Assuming that the Defence does not object, the Chamber hereby

21     admits P7038 into evidence under seal.

22             We'll adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow, Thursday,

23     the 14th of May, in this same courtroom, I, at 9.30 in the morning.

24                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.15 p.m.,

25                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 14th day

Page 35587

 1                           of May, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.