1 Friday, 10 July 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 11.37 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
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 Before we ask the witness to be escorted into the courtroom, I
12 would like to briefly deal with the exhibit list, Mr. Lukic. I think we
13 have now the exhibit list of the 9th of July. And on that list, let me
14 start with D01099, the number provisionally assigned. So that's number 6
15 on the first page. It says that there is no English translation, but I
16 do understand it has been uploaded now.
17 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You therefore tender it.
19 Any objections, Mr. Jeremy?
20 MR. JEREMY: Good morning, Your Honours. No objections.
21 JUDGE ORIE: D01099 is admitted.
22 Next one, D01100, any objections?
23 MR. JEREMY: No objections to any of them, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: D01100 admitted.
25 D1101, any objections?
1 MR. JEREMY: No objections.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
4 MR. JEREMY: No objection.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
7 MR. JEREMY: No objection.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
10 MR. JEREMY: No objection.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
12 D1105. It seems that a wrong English translation is uploaded.
13 Mr. Lukic.
14 MR. LUKIC: I think so. I'm not aware that it was corrected yet.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Therefore, the number assigned remains
16 provisionally assigned to that number.
17 For D1106, there is no English translation.
18 MR. LUKIC: There is no English translation.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then what would you like us to do --
20 MR. LUKIC: MFI it, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: MFI. D1106 is MFI'd.
22 Then, finally, D1107.
23 MR. JEREMY: No objection.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
25 Now the first five, I think, let me see. D -- I have to look at
1 those. Some of them were MFI'd pending translations. I think for D1094,
2 it's a bit unclear where we stand there, Mr. Lukic.
3 MR. LUKIC: I don't have D numbers on this list. If you can give
4 me 1D number.
5 JUDGE ORIE: It's 65 ter 32617.
6 MR. LUKIC: It's the Prosecution's 65 ter number?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because I have on this list no 1D number.
8 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, yeah, it's D1094.
9 JUDGE ORIE: It is already admitted.
10 Then let me see. Then we have 1095 which is MFI'd; 1096 which is
11 also MFI'd; 1097, permission was granted to add it to the 65 ter list and
12 is admitted; and D1098 is MFI'd. Therefore, I think we dealt with all of
13 them until now.
14 Then could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
15 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, before we have our witness with us, we
16 checked this D1098 --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. LUKIC: -- and it was MFI'd because I proposed it, to have it
19 MFI'd. But this morning we checked, the English translation is complete
20 and already uploaded as complete. So it was my mistake actually when I
21 said that the English translation is not complete.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So D1098, which was MFI'd, and is 1D05388 is
23 ready to be admitted.
24 Any objections, Mr. Jeremy?
25 MR. JEREMY: No objections, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: D1098 is admitted into evidence.
2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Under seal.
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Misic.
6 Mr. Misic --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- may I remind you that you are still bound by the
9 solemn declaration given at the beginning of your testimony, that you'll
10 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 Mr. Jeremy will now continue his cross-examination.
12 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.
13 WITNESS: MILUTIN MISIC [Resumed]
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Jeremy: [Continued]
16 Q. And good morning, Mr. Misic.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. Now, during your direct testimony in this case, you were shown
19 the Srebrenica missing reports, P1901, that was prepared by
20 Helga Brunborg. Now, I take it that you did not study this report in
21 preparation for your testimony?
22 A. [No interpretation]
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No interpretation.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't study it.
25 MR. JEREMY:
1 Q. And in preparing for your testimony, I take it you didn't study
2 any other reports relating to missing persons that had been prepared by
3 other expert witnesses in this case; correct?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. On that basis, is it therefore fair to say that you don't know
6 the extent to which experts in this case may or may not have relied on
7 any information provided by the Missing Persons Institute?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. Now, yesterday you were asked about missing persons certificates
10 that were sent to the Tribunal from the Missing Persons Institute, and
11 you looked at one such certificate and you stated as follows:
12 "I'm not going to speak about the content of the certificate
13 whether it is correct or not but it is illegal ..."
14 Now, sir --
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. And would this comment apply equally to any other missing persons
17 certificates that were sent to the Tribunal as part of the same batch?
18 A. Certainly. If they had not passed through the normal procedure,
19 yes, certainly.
20 Q. And I take it that you've not reviewed any of the 193
21 certificates that are referenced in the so-called POD annex which relates
22 to non-Srebrenica missing, in this case P2797; correct?
23 A. Is that the same document -- the certificate, can I have a look
24 at it?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could you repeat the number to start with,
1 Mr. Jeremy.
2 MR. JEREMY: The number was the POD annex P2797.
3 JUDGE ORIE: 2797. Perhaps we have a look at it. The witness
5 MR. JEREMY: Sure. And it should not be broadcast.
6 Q. Now, sir, this document references 193 missing persons
7 certificates that were provided by the Missing Persons Institute, and my
8 question was whether you had reviewed any of these 193 missing persons
10 A. Concerning these certificates, I asked the chief of sector in
11 charge to give his opinion. Since he did not say that he would stand by
12 them, although they were done by the sector, I didn't go into it any
13 further because in my eyes they were a forgery.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: So the answer to the question is you didn't review
15 them? Is that the short answer to the question? The question was
16 whether you did review any of them.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only the sample. Nothing more.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
19 MR. JEREMY:
20 Q. And when you say "the sample," that's the one certificate we
21 looked at yesterday; correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now one question. You said the chief of the
24 sector "did not say that he would stand by them, although they were done
25 by the sector." And you said:
1 "I didn't go into it any further because in my eyes they were a
3 Now, a forgery can be two things: Either the document comes from
4 where it says it comes but the content is not accurate; or a forgery can
5 be that a document is not what it looks like. It does not come from the
6 authority or the institute it claims it comes from.
7 What kind of forgery were you referring to? That's one. And
8 then the second question is what made them in your eyes a forgery?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, because the chief of
10 sector takes his distance from this document, and he was the one who was
11 competent for it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That's not -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Chief Simanovic -- is
14 Simanovic [as interpreted] is supposed to stand by this document.
15 JUDGE ORIE: That's not -- you told us that. That's not an
16 answer to my question. You said he didn't stand by that and in your eyes
17 it was a forgery. I asked you about forgery.
18 What kind of forgery is it? Is it content not accurate; or is it
19 that it's just a fraud?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because of the way it was created
21 and because the institute is unable to stand by their document. The
22 stamp of the institute should never have been affixed on that document.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.
1 Q. So, to be clear, it's the process by which those documents were
2 provided that you are concerned with, but you've no idea of the actual
3 content of that document and whether or not that content is accurate;
5 A. The content, in my opinion, is most probably not correct. And I
6 say that because it has not been checked by a competent official, the
7 only person who could verify this form.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We are not interested in whether it's probably not
9 accurate and your reasoning for it - that is, that it has not been
10 checked by the right person - is in itself not a reason to assume that
11 it's either correct or incorrect, and I'm referring now to the content.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Jeremy.
13 MR. JEREMY:
14 Q. Let's move on, sir. Now as regards Srebrenica-related missing
15 person material, yesterday you indicated that of the 10.000 or 10.100,
16 10.200 or so missing persons records that you say were not properly
17 verified by the Missing Persons Institute, you said that the majority of
18 those records relate to persons linked to Srebrenica events in 1995;
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Now, are you aware that the Srebrenica missing reports, P1901,
22 does not rely on any missing person information provided by the Missing
23 Persons Institute, whether verified or not?
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. Now during your testimony, you were shown a collection of
1 documents in Exhibit D1098. And these were the collection of
2 documents -- missing persons-related documents that related to 17
3 different persons, all of whom appear to be connected to Srebrenica.
4 Now, only 8 of these 17 are actually referred to in the Srebrenica
5 missing report in this case, P1909, were you aware of that?
6 A. No.
7 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, just on this point, you've indicated
8 that you'll take a look at this entire exhibit which relates to the 17
10 Now, if it assists, I can provide you, perhaps after the
11 testimony of the witness, with the eight persons who are actually
12 included in the Srebrenica missing persons report.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If we look at those portions, the witness has
14 not specifically given evidence upon, Mr. Lukic and Mr. Jeremy, both of
15 you, if you could give very brief explanations as what, Mr. Lukic, you
16 would wish us to look at in relation to those, where apparently you
17 consider there to be inconsistencies.
18 And if you, Mr. Jeremy, again would give, again, not full
19 argument, but just point at relevant things we should just look at. That
20 would be appreciated.
21 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honours.
22 Q. Now, sir, during your testimony you also referred to missing
23 persons information that was obtained by the ICMP, and ICMP documentation
24 form part of some of the exhibits that we looked at. Now, missing person
25 information is not used as a source of missing person information by
1 Prosecution experts in this case. Were you aware of that?
2 I should say missing persons information provided by the ICMP is
3 not used as a source for missing persons information by experts in this
4 case and whether you're aware of that.
5 A. No.
6 Q. Now, during the course of your evidence, we've looked at many
7 different sources of information relating to missing persons from the
8 ICRC, the ICMP, the Federal Commission on Missing and Exhumed Persons.
9 We've looked at birth certificates, we've looked at death certificates,
10 and even a military monograph.
11 Now, I take it that we can agree that you've got no idea of the
12 sources that the experts in this case relied on in preparing their
13 conclusions relating to missing persons?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. And, similarly, you've no idea of the methodology that was
16 employed by those experts in arriving at their conclusions?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. I'd like to conclude by looking at a specific example and one
19 that we've looked at in -- you looked at with Mr. Lukic in the recent
21 MR. JEREMY: And we'll need to go into private session, please,
22 to do so.
23 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
24 [Private session]
11 Page 37037 redacted. Private session.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
25 MR. JEREMY:
1 Q. Sir, this Chamber has received evidence, that's P1481, page 7,
2 that this Snagovo grave-site area refers to a general area in which
3 multiple secondary mass graves were located, graves that were linked to a
4 primary mass grave in Orahovac, and that's P1737.
5 Sir, are you aware of this connection between these graves?
6 A. Not exactly but I do know something about it.
7 Q. Okay. Do you know that Snagovo is in the territory of
8 Republika Srpska?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. JEREMY: Now could we please go to D1096, not to be
12 Q. And, sir, coming up on the screen is a document that you looked
13 at with Mr. Lukic yesterday and the day before.
14 So, sir, you'll recognise on the document on the screen before
15 you. This is an ICRC --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- information request, and we've already looked at the
18 information in recent days. We see the same name that we just looked at,
19 the same personal details, and we see the date of this certificate is
20 the -- May the 23rd, 1996.
21 Now, just focusing for a moment on the form rather than the
22 substance of this document, you've looked at a number of other ICRC
23 information requests in recent days. Now, the Chamber has received
24 evidence, and that's page 37 of P1900, that ICRC data is systematically
25 updated and reviewed and closed cases - for example, confirmed dead or
1 alive - are excluded on an ongoing basis.
2 I take it that you are aware of this systemic update and review
3 process carried out by the ICRC?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. JEREMY: Could we go to the next page please in this
6 document. Actually, let's skip forward to page 3, please.
7 Q. Now, sir, we see on the screen before us a DNA report. It's from
8 the ICRC. We see -- sorry, ICMP.
9 JUDGE ORIE: ICMP.
10 MR. JEREMY:
11 Q. And we see in the top right corner a reference to a protocol
12 number, and that's the name number that we looked at in the document that
13 we had on the screen before this document, P1901.
14 Sir, we see that the site's location is Snagovo, so it's the same
15 location. And we see the possible identity name, which I won't read out,
16 but we see it's the same name. We see the reference to donors, and we
17 see three names. Then we see the reference to the DNA profile from a
18 listed bone. And below that, we see the -- we read that the DNA profile
19 from a bone was matched to a family or family blood samples, and we see
20 the probability of relatedness at 99.99. And it goes on. And lastly we
21 see that this document is dated the 9th of March, 2006.
22 MR. JEREMY: If we could just go to the next document.
23 Q. And again we see identical information in terms of the site
24 location, the protocol number, the possible identity, and the donors.
25 MR. JEREMY: If we can go down, please.
1 Q. Here the DNA profile from the obtained listed bone has a
2 different code.
3 So, sir, this would suggest that this is a different bone sample;
5 A. I assume that that's the case.
6 Q. And we also see the percentage match or the likelihood of the
7 match and the percentage, which is a similar percentage to the one that
8 we've just looked at, and we see that this particular document is dated
9 the 18th of September, 2006.
10 So, sir, on the basis of the ICRC document we've looked at and
11 the two ICMP DNA match reports, we see that this is a person who,
12 according to the May 23rd, 1996 ICRC record, went missing on the 11th of
13 July, 1995 in the forest in Srebrenica; and then ten years later, we see
14 that, according to the ICMP, two bone samples taken from this person were
15 DNA matched to blood provided by three members of his family. Would you
16 agree that the -- that at least the documents that we have seen indicate
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you'd agree that the ICMP documents we've looked at indicate
20 that this individual was located in a mass grave; yes?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, the Srebrenica missing report that we looked at, P1901, is
23 dated 2009 --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Jeremy. Are you going to move away
25 from this document?
1 MR. JEREMY: I'm going to make a point related to it, but if Your
2 Honour would like to ask a question.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: My question relates to both of these two DNA
4 certificates. I would ask that they be put side by side.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We see -- on the left, we see page 4 of the document
6 in e-court --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: And -- no, it's now been changed. To the left, we
9 now see page 3 in e-court, and from the photograph it seems that these
10 are two teeth which have provided the sample; whereas on the right, we
11 see page 4 from this document in e-court, which seems to be a bone
12 fragment rather than teeth.
13 Please proceed.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, can I ask my question.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, I was just trying to get everything straight
16 on the record --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Yesterday --
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- we were looking at.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yesterday, sir, during evidence in-chief it was
20 suggested to you that the signatures on these two certificates are
21 different. Can you have a look at them and tell us whether, indeed, they
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember that I said
24 anything about signatures, but in my view these signatures are identical.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
1 Thank you, Mr. Jeremy.
2 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Now, sir, as regards ICMP DNA identifications. Now, the
4 Srebrenica missing report that we looked at, P1901, was dated 2009. Now,
5 this Chamber has received evidence - for example, P2792, page 10 - that
6 in 2013 this information was updated to take into account the ongoing
7 ICMP DNA identifications. And that as of 2013, 85.8 per cent of those
8 persons listed in the 2009 Srebrenica missing list had been found in
9 Srebrenica-related mass graves and identified by DNA. Were you aware of
10 that percentage of DNA identification of missing persons?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Sir, in this -- in the context of these DNA identifications and
13 the process that goes behind them, which I know that you are aware of, in
14 respect to this particular individual referred to and the documents that
15 we are looking at, you challenged the accuracy of the missing person
16 information and the DNA identification by offering a document, a
17 monograph of a unit in the ABiH, which refers to an individual with
18 similar personal details but with a different date of birth. That's
19 correct, yes?
20 A. No, not at a single moment did I dispute the ICMP findings as far
21 as identification was concerned. The only thing I'm challenging is the
22 ICMP list regarding the circumstances of death. What is in dispute with
23 regard to this person is the place of death and the circumstances of
24 death. Not verification.
25 So I'm saying that all lists, whatever they may be, have to
1 undergo a process of verification. So I'm not challenging the
2 identification of this person or the findings of the ICMP as regards
3 identification. And it's not only that I'm speaking about this case but
4 in general as well.
5 Q. And, sir, as I understand it, you believe that the circumstances
6 of death relating to this individual are -- according to the monograph of
7 the ABiH, you believe that this individual died in December 1995;
9 A. Yes, yes.
10 Q. And do you challenge whether that this individual was indeed
11 found in the Snagovo mass grave?
12 A. I do not see any logic in that; namely, that an individual that
13 lost his life due to an unfortunate accident can find a place in a mass
14 grave and the death occurred after the war. And I don't think it would
15 be justified for that kind of person to be buried in a mass grave in any
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not understand the
18 sentence before the last one.
19 MR. JEREMY:
20 Q. Sir, could you repeat the final two sentences of your answer for
21 the interpreters.
22 A. So the person lost his life after the war. The person was killed
23 by his own forces, his own unit. He was found on the spot. Now, where
24 is the logic there? How can that person have the status of a missing
25 person, and how can that person be found in a mass grave? I don't see
1 any reason for that and I don't see any logic in that.
2 Q. Now, if I understood your previous answer, you were not
3 challenging the ICMP identification, so I understood that you weren't
4 challenging the fact that this person was found in the Snagovo mass
6 A. Absolutely not.
7 Q. But you challenge the circumstances in which this individual was
8 placed into the Snagovo mass grave; is that correct?
9 MR. LUKIC: If I may just for a second. I don't think that
10 Mr. Misic speaks, but if you clarify. There was some translation issue.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's -- you want to clarify something now,
12 or would you like the witness to further answer the question?
13 MR. LUKIC: I think that if he can take off his headphones.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, is it a problem with the question or is it a
15 problem with the answer?
16 MR. LUKIC: Answer was actually given in the --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, let's --
18 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, do you understand the English language?
20 Could you please first answer my question. Do you understand the English
21 language? Not at all?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. English, I don't understand.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could you take off your earphones for a second.
25 Mr. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, the question posed by my learned friend
2 on page 18, line 20, was actually, in my opinion, and how I heard it was
3 answered after the first part of the question. So I would kindly ask
4 Mr. Jeremy to ask questions separately. We have two questions in this
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please the -- your understanding of
7 what was challenged and what was not challenged, could you revisit that,
8 Mr. Jeremy?
9 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness put his earphones on again.
11 Please proceed, Mr. Jeremy.
12 MR. JEREMY:
13 Q. Sir, do you dispute that this individual was found in the Snagovo
14 mass grave?
15 A. I repeat once again. There is no base that we are not
16 challenging until the opposite is proven. Every base can be this or
17 that, so the circumstances of death and the time of death are something
18 that we have to establish in the process of verification as a commission.
19 JUDGE ORIE: But that's not -- I think the simple -- let's start
20 taking it one by one.
21 Do you dispute that the teeth and the bone that was examined, DNA
22 examined by the ICMP, do you challenge that they were found in the
23 Snagovo grave?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not challenging that they were
25 found -- well, I'm not going to challenge it. But what is questionable
1 is on the basis of circumstances of death, how can they be in Snagovo --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we'll come to that later. So you do not
3 challenge that those body parts, which were DNA tested, were found in
4 Snagovo. You do not dispute that.
5 Second question is do you dispute the DNA testing and its result
6 as done by the ICMP?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely not.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Jeremy.
9 MR. JEREMY:
10 Q. Sir, on that basis, therefore, if, according to the ABiH
11 monologue, this individual died in December 1995 in Kladanj, then
12 according to you how did he find himself or how did he get to a mass
13 grave in Snagovo in RS territory?
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. Yes. So my question is: How did this individual go from Kladanj
16 in ABiH territory in December 1995 to Snagovo in RS -- into a mass grave
17 in Snagovo in RS territory? How would you explain that?
18 A. Well, that's precisely what I've been denying. ICMP is basically
19 a laboratory, and this information about where they were found, they get
20 that from the pathologist or from some other person that attended
21 exhumations at mass graves. It wasn't the ICMP that found this person.
22 They received the bone samples from the location where they were found,
23 from the appropriate officials, so probably the ICMP cannot stand by
24 that. And where I do not see the link is the link between the mass grave
25 and this person. That is what I've been challenging.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I earlier asked you whether you challenged that
2 the body parts - that is, teeth and a piece of bone - whether you
3 challenged that they were found in the Snagovo grave. You said you
4 didn't challenge that, but I now understand that you do challenge and
5 that you say there must have been a mistake in saying that those body
6 parts were found in the Snagovo grave before they arrived at the ICMP.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot deny it, I cannot confirm
8 it, that these bones were found there. I can believe that these tiny
9 pieces of bone were found in that mass grave, but I don't see the logic.
10 I don't see the reason. That's it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You are insisting again and again on the logic of
12 the whole thing. Are you aware that the basis of your criticism on the
13 logic, the basis for it is that you take it for a fact, not to be
14 challenged, undisputed, that this person died in December in 1995 in
15 Kladanj? As soon as you would start making that a question as well,
16 suddenly the logical question would be a different one; that is, how to
17 reconcile the one information with the other. And then you have to
18 consider which of the information may be right or wrong and that would,
19 something you've excluded until now, that would also put questions to the
20 accuracy of the report of this person dieing in December 1995 in Kladanj.
21 I hope you understand my short observation in relation to your testimony.
22 Please proceed, Mr. Jeremy.
23 MR. JEREMY:
24 Q. Now, sir, in a previous answer you've said that:
25 "It wasn't the ICMP that found this person, they received the
1 bone samples from the location where they were found from the appropriate
2 officials, so probably the ICMP cannot stand by that."
3 So are you suggesting that the process has in some way been
4 corrupted, that bone samples and teeth were planted by somebody in the
5 Snagovo mass grave; is that your suggestion?
6 A. Absolutely not. It is possible that there are errors. This
7 entire example shows that the process of verification is a very complex
8 issue, and this is an example: To the effect that not a single list can
9 be absolutely correct until it's gone through the entire process of
10 verification as I've already described. This is a contested issue. I
11 can deny all of this, I can confirm all of this, conditionally speaking.
12 You see, it is not impossible that in some way these bones
13 reached this location. But at any rate, this person should not be linked
14 at all as a person to the mass grave that we've been discussing, and now
15 it is not possible to verify the circumstances that this person went
16 missing as is stated in that document from July 1995. That is what is in
17 dispute and that is what I've been challenging. That is what I've been
18 trying to say. Verification is a very complex problem and it cannot be
19 carried out only on the basis of a single document, regardless of whether
20 it comes from the ICMP or any other institution, and that is why this has
21 been turned into a problem.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What makes you certain that the information about
23 the accident in December 1995, which resulted in the death of this
24 individual, is correct?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That person has not been verified
1 and that's precisely the problem I'm pointing out. The verification is
2 very complex. Nothing has been proven or denied about this person. But
3 considering that the verification has been done for a person with -- who
4 is the only person with that name and surname and father's name in that
5 part of Bosnia-Herzegovina, checks have been run, there is no person in
6 Serbia whose personal data are even remotely similar. And based on this
7 general data, we decided that person needed to be verified, and you see
8 how many contradictions there are about the place and date of
9 disappearance or killing.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You have answered my question. There is no
11 certainty at all about the death in December because it's not verified.
12 The next question: What makes you certain that these two -- that
13 this is the same person whose bones were identified and the person who
14 was killed in December 1995? What makes you certain that this is really
15 the same person?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Checks have been run based on the
17 records that were kept and are kept in Bosnia-Herzegovina. There is only
18 one such person in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: With two different dates of birth; correct?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There can be no two dates of birth,
21 but it can be determined exactly based on excerpts from the register.
22 The only disputable detail is date of birth as recorded in the monograph,
23 but the rest is not in dispute.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But if there is this discrepancy with respect to
25 the date of birth, what makes you certain that this was one and the same
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's indisputable. This person
3 existed. An error has been identified, that error has to be corrected,
4 and that person has to be identified. But I stress that based on all the
5 records --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You don't answer my question. What is the
7 evidence that this is really the same person? You say there was only one
8 person with these names in Bosnia-Herzegovina. What is the basis for
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the checks we ran in the
11 records; in the register of births, in the lists, in the CIPS.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now, for the first time you at least give
13 indication what kind of checks were run. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy, it's time for a break, I think, and we'd
15 take a bit of a longer break.
16 How much time would you still need?
17 MR. JEREMY: Five minutes, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Five minutes.
19 I'm looking at you, Mr. Lukic. What would we prefer, to finish
20 the cross-examination in the next five minutes and then take a break of
21 one hour or to break now?
22 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated].
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 MR. LUKIC: Sorry, whatever fits Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And whatever also does not meet any objections by
2 Mr. Mladic.
3 Five more minutes and then?
4 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, I think that -- we can continue.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We continue.
6 Mr. Jeremy, you have another five minutes.
7 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Can we go to the next page, please, in the document that we're
9 looking at, so the penultimate page. Sorry, the next page, please.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Not to be broadcast, I think.
11 MR. JEREMY: Not to be broadcast.
12 Q. Now, sir, we see a highlighted name in this list. And it's the
13 same name that we have been discussing. It's the same date of birth.
14 The disappearance in this document is actually the 12th of July, 1995. I
15 think in some of the others we saw it was the 11th of July, 1995.
16 Now, on these two pages is a list of 102 individuals, all of whom
17 appear to have gone missing on the 11th or the 12th or dates close to
18 that time.
19 MR. JEREMY: And if we can scroll over to the right-hand side,
21 Q. And we see that the grave location for all of them is Snagovo.
22 Now, sir, if 102 individuals were found in this mass grave in
23 Snagovo, is it your position that this individual that we were discussing
24 was the only individual who wasn't, in fact, in that grave and somehow
25 added into it afterwards, or do you think that more of these individuals
1 were also in some way linked to this grave in a way that would not
2 suggest that they were put in -- they were executed and placed into these
4 A. I wouldn't like to say anything with any certainty, because I
5 can't. As far as the other persons are concerned, the information is
6 probably correct, but I didn't analyse it.
7 Q. Did you look at any military monologues for any of these other
9 A. No.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Misic.
11 MR. JEREMY: No further questions, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you correct me, sir? Am I correct that this
13 morning you indicated that this person died after the war in 1995? Did
14 you use the phrase "after the war"?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what I thought. And when did the war end?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, officially it was concluded
18 with a signature in Paris in December 1995, but the peace was imposed
19 back with the Dayton Accords in November.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: So when did the fighting stop? Can you give us a
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think there was any
23 fighting after the 21st of November, 1995, in any area.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: In any area.
25 So if this person died in December when there was no longer any
1 fighting, what would members of the 28th Division be doing in the bush at
2 that time? Why would there be some soldiers somewhere in the field?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, there was still
4 smaller parts of units patrolling certain territories because there was
5 still no confidence that the peace would last and there was still fear on
6 all sides that some other fighting might restart.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: So the war hadn't ended.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's why certain areas were
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: So the war hadn't ended at that time yet. If
11 soldiers are still patrolling, then I suppose the war hasn't ended yet?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe we have a different view of
13 the definition of "war."
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break.
16 Witness, we'll take a bit of a longer break as we usually do, one
17 hour. We would like to see you back at 20 minutes to 2.00. You may
18 follow the usher.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 JUDGE ORIE: We take the break now.
21 --- Recess taken at 12.42 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 1.42 p.m.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, before we continue with the
24 re-examination of the witness, the Chamber was informed that the Defence
25 would not be in a position to bring any witnesses immediately after
1 the -- our recess, that is starting the 10th of August, and the Chamber
2 wondered why, where there is still another 40 witnesses to go, at least,
3 why there are no witnesses.
4 The Chamber understands and has always considered any --
5 Christmas time, et cetera, but the Chamber does not understand why in
6 just an ordinary week in the midst of August that no witnesses can be
8 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, that's the information we got from the
9 field, and our expert witnesses were scheduled at the end of our case,
10 and before them we would bring international witnesses. And we planned
11 to bring those local witnesses from Balkans in August and the beginning
12 of September, but the information we received is that nobody is available
13 in the first week of August.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, this is not a matter about the
15 information you receive. You should go after it yourself, as lead
16 counsel, and take care that there are witnesses even if you have to
17 change your schedule, even if you have to change the order of witnesses,
18 we just can't afford to lose a whole week. You know that.
19 We have to finish. So, therefore, if there is nothing better you
20 report to us as that you heard from the field that in the order as you
21 had in your mind no one would be available, the Chamber is seriously
22 considering to count that week as time for the Defence to present its
23 evidence, which would mean that if you don't produce it, then you lose
24 the time.
25 The Chamber is really seriously considering that, and a mere
1 observation that you heard from the field that there are no witnesses is
2 not something we would easily accept.
3 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. We just deemed necessary to
4 inform the Chamber. We will try to push our witnesses to come here, even
5 in the first week. But all we could produce were alibi witnesses, and we
6 spoke with the Prosecution and they would not be prepared to have
7 Srebrenica witnesses, if possible - if possible - if we were asked about
8 it. But we are not even now, when we checked, we are not able even to
9 bring those alibi witnesses in the first week.
10 We will try further to contact our witnesses and we will try to
11 fulfil it, that first week, but at the moment we do not have anybody.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then that should change. And if you need our
13 assistance by influencing by subpoenas or whatever, the Chamber is
14 willing to firmly support that the Defence can present its evidence, can
15 present its witnesses, and the Chamber would regret if time would be lost
16 in this way where it is available to the Defence to present its case.
17 Mr. McCloskey.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just briefly, Mr. President.
19 Mr. Lukic and I, of course, are continuing to have discussions
20 about witnesses, but -- so it's clear, the Prosecution is absolutely
21 ready to take on any witnesses that come, Srebrenica or otherwise.
22 Though, as we all have done with each other, sometimes we manage to meet
23 various courtesies, but we're ready to go.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record.
25 Mr. Lukic, it was just an informal announcement, which the
1 Chamber appreciates that you have sent it, but the Chamber is now waiting
2 for better messages.
3 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
4 MR. LUKIC: Can we briefly to go to private session, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we can. But is the witness --
6 MR. LUKIC: It's nothing in regard of this witness.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No. Therefore, the witness should stay out of the
8 courtroom until we've dealt with the matter.
9 MR. LUKIC: Yes, please.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 Well, usually the usher would wait for a sign that --
12 MR. LUKIC: No -- or I can deal with that when this witness
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll then deal with it after we've concluded
15 hearing the evidence of this witness.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misic, Mr. Lukic will now re-examine you.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. It will be a short
21 Re-examination by Mr. Lukic:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Good day again, Mr. Misic. You remember the
23 Office of the Prosecutor has put it to you that the percentage of missing
24 persons from Republika Srpska is about 72.18 per cent, and from the
25 Federation 74.83 per cent. In fact, this is the number of those
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Is it the case that identified persons must also undergo the
4 procedure of verification?
5 A. Of course. Unfortunately, we began with the verification of
6 identified persons, which we shouldn't have done. But in any case, all
7 missing persons -- all those who had the status of missing persons were
8 supposed to go through the procedure of verification.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now briefly could we see D1100.
10 Q. I'm not going to ask you about the substance of the document.
11 Just look at the address at the top. On this document sent by a
12 colleague of yours, we read Hamdija Cernelica street, 15/2. No, 2/15.
13 A. Yes, that's our real address.
14 Q. What is the address of Mr. Masovic?
15 A. Well, Mr. Masovic is at this address too, but unfortunately he
16 spends more time at Musala 9 Street. It's the former institute for
17 missing persons, but not of Bosnia-Herzegovina but the one that was
18 established first.
19 Q. To what address should the post arrive normally?
20 A. This address, Hamdija Cernelica 2/15.
21 Q. Briefly, let's look at one document which I believe has not been
22 tendered yet but it has been discussed. It's 65 ter 32612.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I interrupt you before this page disappears,
24 Mr. Lukic.
25 At page 31, lines 15 to 19, you said to the witness:
1 "You remember the Office of the Prosecutor has put to you that
2 the percentage of missing persons from Republika Srpska is about 72.18
3 per cent and from Federation 74.83."
4 Percentage of what?
5 MR. LUKIC: Identified missing persons.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: That is the word that's missing, sir.
7 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're welcome.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 Q. You were asked and you explained about the involvement or lack of
11 involvement of your institute in the drafting of these reports. I would
12 like to ask you this: Did ICMP keep you abreast of their actions? I
13 mean you, as the institute.
14 A. No, they ranked superior to us.
15 Q. While we're on this document. On our provisional transcript,
16 page 9, line 19, the Prosecution told you that the experts of the
17 Prosecution did not use the information provided by ICMP. Could we --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy is on his feet.
19 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, just to clarify. As I recall, I'd
20 said that the Prosecution didn't use missing persons-related information
21 provided by ICMP rather than the more general information provided by the
23 MR. LUKIC: It says here, maybe we could --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you quote it literally so that we know
25 exactly what we are talking about.
1 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. So page 9, line 19:
2 "Q. Now, sir, during your testimony you also referred to a
3 missing persons information that was obtained by the ICMP and ICMP
4 documentation form part of some of the exhibits that we looked at. Now,
5 missing person information is not used as a source of missing person
6 information by Prosecution experts in this case. Were you aware of that?
7 "I should say missing persons information provided by the ICMP is
8 not used as a source for missing persons information by experts in this
9 case and whether you were aware of that."
10 Now, if we can see page 4 from the document on our screens.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: You do agree with Mr. Jeremy's position, that he's
12 only referring to missing persons information?
13 MR. LUKIC: Provided by the ICMP.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, yes, yes.
15 MR. LUKIC: That's why I'm --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what he said.
17 MR. LUKIC: That's what I'm showing this page, Your Honour.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Misic, we can see that on this document of
19 the ICMP concerning missing persons, the reviewers are, among others,
20 Ewa Tabeau and Christian Jennings. Do you have any information in which
21 way was Ewa Tabeau involved in the work of the ICMP and which data she
23 A. No.
24 Q. Thank you. And the last topic we shall discuss relates to one
25 document I want to show you.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just as a reminder, we should not
2 broadcast it. Just a moment, please. So the document we need is D1096.
3 Not to be broadcast.
4 Q. We won't mention the name, because you know what this is about.
5 Did your institute follow the ICMP's method of work in analysing DNA?
6 A. No, we are not able to follow that, nor is it part our purview.
7 Q. Do you know if anyone from the officialdom of Republika Srpska
8 participated in the DNA analysis procedures?
9 A. I don't know anything about the personnel of the ICMP's DNA
10 laboratories. I don't know who works there.
11 Q. And regarding the mortal remains you were asked about, you said
12 you could not rule out the possibility they were found at Snagovo. Can
13 you confirm that these mortal remains were found there?
14 A. I cannot confirm. I can only suppose somebody brought them
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the witness had answered that question
17 previously. It was perfectly clear that the witness didn't know anything
18 about it and that therefore he couldn't exclude it and that, of course,
19 implicitly says that he can't confirm it. And now the witness says that
20 you only can suppose somebody brought them there.
21 Can you also suppose that they were buried there without being
22 brought by any third party, Witness?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It sounds very unlikely. I could
24 hardly believe it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour, but those were all the
2 questions I had for Mr. Misic.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then there is nothing to proceed any further,
4 Mr. Lukic.
5 MR. LUKIC: I'll just thank Mr. Misic --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. LUKIC: -- if you -- with your leave.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I understand that.
9 Mr. Jeremy, any further questions for Mr. Misic.
10 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, no, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misic, this then concludes your evidence given
12 in this court. I would like to thank you very much for coming a long way
13 to The Hague and for having answered all the questions, questions put to
14 you by the parties, questions put to you by the Bench, and I would wish
15 you a safe return home again.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
20 MR. LUKIC: Can we go to the private session for a moment.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we turn into private session.
22 [Private session]
11 Page 37063 redacted. Private session.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're now in open session, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Mr. Jeremy, if you open the door, perhaps there is a witness
1 waiting behind it and could you --
2 MR. JEREMY: I'll see to it, Your Honours. Yes.
3 [The witness enters court]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Tusevljak. Before you give
5 evidence, the Rules require that you make a solemn declaration of which
6 the text is now handed out to you. May I invite you to make that solemn
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
9 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 WITNESS: SIMO TUSEVLJAK
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Tusevljak. Please be seated.
13 Mr. Tusevljak, you'll first be examined by Mr. Sasa Lukic.
14 Mr. Lukic is a member of the Defence team of Mr. Mladic.
15 You may proceed, Mr. Lukic.
16 MR. S. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Examination by Mr. S. Lukic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Tusevljak.
19 A. Good day.
20 Q. Would you please be so kind as to slowly, for the record, state
21 your name and surname.
22 A. Simo Tusevljak.
23 Q. What is your father's name?
24 A. Rajko.
25 Q. Can you tell us where and when you were born.
1 A. The 12th of February, 1965, in Sarajevo.
2 Q. Where did you complete secondary school and elementary school?
3 A. I completed elementary and secondary school in Sarajevo.
4 Q. Upon completing secondary school, did you go to university?
5 A. Yes. I graduated from the faculty of security in Skopje in
7 Q. What year?
8 A. I enrolled in 1984 and I graduated in 1988.
9 Q. Did you get a job after graduation?
10 A. Yes, as soon as I graduated from university I got a job.
11 Q. I would like to ask you to speak more slowly, please, for the
12 record, so that everything that you are saying in response to my
13 questions can be transcribed. Where did you get this job after
15 A. The secretariat of the interior, the municipal SUP, Novi Grad.
16 Q. Which duty did you hold?
17 A. Inspector for general crime at the municipal SUP.
18 Q. How long did you remain in that position?
19 A. I remained in that position for a year and a half, and after that
20 I was transferred to the city SUP of Sarajevo.
21 Q. Which duties did you perform then?
22 A. Co-ordinator for property-related crime in the city of Sarajevo.
23 Q. How many police stations are there in the city of Sarajevo or
24 were there at that time?
25 A. At that time there were ten public security stations.
1 Q. How many municipalities were there in the city of Sarajevo?
2 A. Ten urban municipalities. And each and every one of them had its
3 own public security station. And they were within the city SUP of
4 Sarajevo, the secretariat of the interior.
5 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us how it is decided what the number of
6 policemen in a particular police station will be.
7 A. The number of policemen was determined on the basis of the number
8 of inhabitants: 1 policeman per 1.000 inhabitants. So that is how the
9 number of authorised officers in the public security station would be
11 Q. At the time was there a reserve police?
12 A. Yes. In the public security stations, there was also a reserve
14 Q. Could you please be so kind as to tell us how the number of
15 reserve policemen was determined for a particular public security
17 A. Well, at the time there were two times more of them than there
18 were active duty policemen.
19 Q. Was that always the case?
20 A. All the way up until 1990, when the number of reserve policemen
21 started increasing abruptly.
22 Q. Why was there this abrupt increase in the number of reserve
23 policemen; do you know about that?
24 A. After the multiparty elections in 1990, 1991, the number of
25 reserve policemen was increased because the reserve police also became
1 the party police, to a certain extent, of the SDA, the Party of
2 Democratic Action.
3 Q. Where did these people come from?
4 A. In most cases, these people were not citizens of Sarajevo. They
5 were not local people from Sarajevo. They came from Sandzak. That is a
6 part of Serbia, a region in Serbia.
7 Q. Which part of Serbia is Sandzak?
8 A. Sandzak is in the southern part of Serbia. It's on the border
9 between Serbia and Montenegro, and it was in both republics. In fact, it
10 separates Serbia and Montenegro.
11 Q. These people who came from Sandzak to Sarajevo, what was their
12 ethnic background?
13 A. They were all ethnic Muslims.
14 Q. Do you know how they declare themselves today?
15 A. Today they declare themselves as Bosniaks. In 1990, that
16 ethnicity did not exist.
17 Q. Thank you. Do you know who it was that brought them there?
18 A. They were brought there by the Party of Democratic Action. They
19 were brought to these police positions.
20 Q. And do you know which structures they were recruited from?
21 A. Well, they were recruited from rural areas, from their own party
22 structures, and these persons were not professional policemen. They
23 became policemen only in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
24 Q. Do you know from which milieu they would come?
25 A. Well, that was the first time that persons who were prone to
1 crime joined the police force, although that was prohibited by law.
2 These were persons that we had processed on account of crimes, and they
3 were given official IDs.
4 Q. What are the necessary requirements for a person to become a
6 A. At that time in accordance with the law, there were general
7 requirements and special requirements. The general requirements were
8 that you had to have a secondary school education, that you should be fit
9 and healthy, and not have a criminal record.
10 As for special prerequisites, for certain specialities certain
11 skills and knowledge were required so that you could become an active
12 duty policeman. You'd have to complete the secondary police school in
13 the neighbourhood of Vrace in Sarajevo, or you'd have to complete a
14 six-month course for a policeman that was also organised in the secondary
15 school at Vrace.
16 Q. Thank you. At the time, who kept criminal records?
17 A. The public security stations or the city SUP for the ten
18 municipalities of Sarajevo. According to the law, criminal records were
19 kept at one's place of birth in the former Yugoslavia. So it depended on
20 where you were born. If you had a criminal record, it would be kept at
21 your place of birth.
22 Q. In addition to these persons that you told us about just now, did
23 you notice that there were some other formations in Sarajevo?
24 A. Already in the beginning of 1991, there were paramilitary
25 formations of the Green Berets and the Patriotic League.
1 Q. Who was the founder of these units?
2 A. Also the Party of Democratic Action and certain former officers
3 of the JNA, as well as some of the top officials in the then Ministry of
4 the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
5 Q. Were some of your colleagues among them, people you knew
7 A. Yes. People I knew personally who worked either at public
8 security stations or at the city SUP, the centre of public security of
9 Sarajevo, and the MUP of the RBiH; that is to say, the Ministry of the
10 Interior of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
11 Q. I'm sorry. Do you know how these persons were being armed?
12 A. Already in 1991 in Bosnia-Herzegovina there was illegal arming.
13 In certain police operations that I personally took part in, we would
14 uncover such crimes.
15 Q. Could you give us an example.
16 A. Well, I personally, in co-operation with the police, was once in
17 a position to stop a van where there were 400 snipers, and it was evident
18 that this was arms smuggling because the van was owned by the Islamic
19 community, the Islamic religious community in Sarajevo, and the
20 documentation said that it was for the hunting society of Citluk in
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is well known that already then there was a war
22 raging in Croatia.
23 There was this other case too when the police station of Hadzici
24 stopped a truck full of weapons and the police brought them to the police
25 station in Hadzici, and the then chief of the public security station of
1 Sarajevo - I cannot recall his name this very instant - the truck was
2 allowed to go.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 A. I can give you some other examples from that period --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We didn't hear the end of
6 the sentence.
7 MR. S. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. S. LUKIC: I'm sorry.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Could you please repeat your last answer,
11 because the last part of your sentence is not recorded in the transcript.
12 A. I said -- can I start from the very beginning?
13 Q. Please go ahead.
14 A. On one occasion we stopped a van that was owned by the Islamic
15 religious community, and in that van there were 400 snipers. And --
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: All that is on the record, only the last part was
17 missing. There is no need to repeat everything, only the last part.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then I can tell you about the
19 Hadzici police station, where the police stopped a truck full of weapons
20 and ammunition and on orders from the then chief of the public security
21 police station was allowed to leave; although, this was an obvious case
22 of arms smuggling for the Party of Democratic Action.
23 MR. S. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Did you ever find --
25 MR. S. LUKIC: Sorry.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just want to get some clarification. How big
2 was this van, sir? Obviously smaller than a truck. You have used words
3 "van" and "truck."
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the first case, it was a van. A
5 Volkswagon. And then there is also Renault and Fiats and these are
6 smaller vehicles that are used for transporting smaller quantities. They
7 can transport up to 1.000 kilogrammes.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Stop that. I'm not talking about that. I am just
9 talking about the one van. Okay. You say it was a Kombi.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: And it could carry 400 people or --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not people, no.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Well, the record said "snipers," it didn't
14 say "sniper rifles," so I thought you were talking about people.
15 I'm sorry, Mr. Lukic. You may proceed.
16 MR. S. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. [Interpretation] When you told us that you investigated a case -
18 that is to say, the transportation of these 400 sniper rifles - can you
19 explain to us what the rules were regarding the transportation of such
20 quantities of weapons?
21 A. The rule is that the Ministry of the Interior should be informed
22 about that, and they provide a permit or approval for this kind of
23 transportation and also they provide a police escort from the place where
24 the weapons are loaded to the place where they were unloaded. Of course,
25 the transport is checked whether it is legal and whether the persons
1 involved in the transportation have permits from appropriate state
2 authorities for this kind of trade, for this kind of transport, and so
4 Q. Did that transport have that sort of escort, and was the
5 transport of these rifles announced to the Ministry of the Interior?
6 A. No, if it had been approved, we would have responded
7 appropriately. This was discovered quite by chance by a police
9 Q. What year was that?
10 A. 1991.
11 Q. Who was the minister of the interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina at the
13 A. The minister of the interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina was
14 Alija Delimustafic, and his deputy in charge of the police was Avdo --
15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the last name.
16 MR. S. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Were they professional policemen?
18 Excuse me, let me just interrupt you. Could you repeat the
19 deputy's name.
20 A. I'm talking about the deputies for police and his counsellors.
21 It was Avdo Hebib.
22 Q. Were they professional policemen? Did they have police training?
23 A. The minister of the interior was a political figure, nominated by
24 the SDA party. And out of all police training, he had completed a
25 secondary school for the police. So it was rather low-level police
1 training. And if he had not been a political nominee, he would have
2 never met the requirements for the job of the minister of interior. And
3 Avdo Hebib was a professional policeman.
4 Q. What was the situation in Sarajevo at the time? I mean the
5 political situation; do you know?
6 A. At that time, the tensions in Sarajevo were running very high,
7 and interethnic relations were strained to the maximum. The incidents of
8 crime was very high, and the number of crimes recorded per day was on the
9 rise constantly. There were even some areas of Sarajevo, which is a
10 relatively small city, 400.000 population, where you had 20 to 30 crimes
11 per day; robberies, forced confiscations of cars, break-ins. All forms
12 of crime. The situation was getting worse and worse by the day.
13 Q. Were the police depots holding weapons and ammunition at risk?
14 A. No, they were not at risk because the police was well-trained and
15 equipped and quite able to secure every depot in the city of Sarajevo
17 Q. Do you know that the weapons and ammunition from police depots
18 were transferred to other depots in the town of Sarajevo?
19 A. What I know is that as the number of reserve policemen increased,
20 reserve policemen were being issued long-barrel weapons, and more and
21 more rifles ended up in the hands of reserve policemen who kept them at
22 their homes. So a lot of weapons were drawn from the depots and
23 distributed to certain groups within the police force.
24 Q. Does it mean that these weapons were also used to arm the
25 population that was coming in from Sandzak?
1 A. Absolutely. And everyone who was being inducted into the reserve
2 force of the police.
3 MR. S. LUKIC: Can we see now 65 ter 1D0479 [sic], first page
4 both in B/C/S and English.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, if I may just mention, I notice that
6 you're asking a number of leading questions. Can you be careful to make
7 sure that your questions are not leading. An example is:
8 "Does it mean that these weapons were also used to arm the
9 population that was coming from Sandzak?"
10 You're just telling him the answer.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Because it also causes --
12 MR. S. LUKIC: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- that we don't have any clue as to why the witness
14 knows that, and that's, of course, a result of the way of questioning the
16 Please proceed.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Lukic, could you repeat the number, please.
18 MR. S. LUKIC: 1D05479. We can see it now on our screens.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your microphone is off.
20 MR. S. LUKIC: I'm sorry. Thank you.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Who was able to take the decision to transfer
22 weapons from one place to another?
23 A. Only the minister of the interior and whoever was in charge of
24 those weapons and ammunition.
25 Q. Was the chef de cabinet of the minister of the interior able to
1 take such a decision?
2 A. No, he didn't have those powers. He didn't have powers relating
3 to anything that had to do with weapons. There were deputies in charge
4 of the police force, deputies of the minister who were able to take such
5 decisions and issue orders.
6 Q. If there were a written order from the minister of the interior,
7 would the chef de cabinet then be able to decide to remove weapons from
8 one depot to another?
9 A. No, it had to go directly through the minister. And at a meeting
10 of the collegium, the minister would have to take that decision. Because
11 if you are moving weapons from one depot to another, the police from that
12 area had to secure the transport and to escort it.
13 Q. You see a document before you. Tell me, who issued this
15 A. The chef de cabinet, Mesud Omerspahic. At the time he was head
16 of the minister's cabinet.
17 Q. We see from this document that the weapons were moved from the
18 Rakovica installation to the Zlatiste installation. Was there some
19 security risk hanging over the Rakovica installation where the weapons
20 were kept?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
22 MS. EDGERTON: Just a little reminder. That's actually not what
23 the document says. So to avoid any misstatements of the evidence,
24 perhaps we could just stick to what's on the face of the document. The
25 document reflects --
1 JUDGE ORIE: That they were to be moved.
2 MS. EDGERTON: Correct.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I don't know whether it's a translation
4 issue or not, but the translation says that you had told the witness that
5 this order -- the document says that the weapons were moved, whereas the
6 document says that they are to be moved.
7 MR. S. LUKIC: Yes, that's right, Your Honour. I will rephrase
8 my question.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
10 MR. S. LUKIC: Thank you.
11 Q. [Interpretation] It's evident from the document, and it's my
12 mistake that I misspoke, that the weapons were to be moved from one
13 installation to another. So let me rephrase this question. Was there a
14 security risk for the Rakovica installation?
15 A. Rakovica was a special-purpose depot of the Ministry of the
16 Interior, the security services centre of Sarajevo. And there was police
17 equipment secured by police details. I was in Sarajevo at the time and I
18 know it well, about the security situation there, and I can say
19 confidently there was not the slightest security risk to police depot or
20 this police equipment.
21 Q. What was held in the Zlatiste depot at the time? At the Zlatiste
23 A. Zlatiste was, on the surface, a hotel or a restaurant. And
24 below, there were depots and warehouses holding, for the most part, the
25 archives, case files, and the documentation from the previous period.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I'm looking at the clock. It's time for
2 a break. Would this be a suitable moment?
3 MR. S. LUKIC: Yes, it is. But I have one more question.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then please --
5 MR. S. LUKIC: I would --
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- put that one question to the witness, and we'll
7 take the break after we've heard his answer.
8 MR. S. LUKIC: Thank you.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Does that type of building meet all the
10 requirements for holding weapons and ammunition?
11 A. From what I know, it doesn't. I went inside after the war. And
12 from what I saw, it was not made to hold weapons and ammunition and it
13 was not used for that purpose before the war.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll take a break now.
15 Witness, you may follow the usher. We'd like to see you back in
16 20 minutes.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 5 minutes past 3.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 2.45 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 3.07 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber was informed that the Prosecution wished
22 to raise a preliminary matter.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
6 [Private session]
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
24 MR. S. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Just a few more questions on this document.
1 Could you tell us where is the Rakovica installation.
2 A. The Rakovica installation is in Ilidza municipality heading
3 towards Blazuj. It's a neighbourhood called Rakovica.
4 Q. What was the majority population there?
5 A. The Serbs, over 50 per cent.
6 Q. In your opinion, what was the reason for moving weapons from that
8 A. Well, now I know much more than I knew in 1991.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
10 MS. EDGERTON: With respect, Your Honour, and I don't make what's
11 planned to be a long examination-in-chief any longer, but we -- that's
12 another leading question.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's also seeks opinion from a fact witness.
14 MS. EDGERTON: Very much.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, "what was the reason," is that leading? I do
16 understand that asking for an opinion is an opinion rather than a fact,
17 but were you referring to -- what part would exactly be leading Ms. --
18 MR. S. LUKIC: Maybe I can help you. I will rephrase my
20 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, it was the same point we'd raised before.
21 What was the reason for moving weapons from that location. We haven't
22 understood that that [Overlapping speakers] ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... yes, now I understand.
24 The question suggests that they were moved, which has not been
25 established yet.
1 Please proceed and rephrase the question.
2 MR. S. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. What do you know about this event?
4 A. I know that these weapons were moved only because they were in a
5 territory populated mainly by Serbs. And this happened already in July.
6 Preparations were already going on for what would come later. In the
7 past ten years in the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska, I
8 work mainly on discovering war crimes and documenting war crimes, so I
9 knew much more than I knew in 1991 and I can't avoid that knowledge.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just to remind you, sir, that you have just said
11 "these weapons were moved only because," and there has been a point
12 raised a little earlier to say that this document doesn't say that the
13 weapons were removed but that they were required to be removed, so ...
14 JUDGE ORIE: And one additional question: How do you know that
15 this was the only reason why - I then refrain from the request to move
16 them or whether they were ever removed, but how do you know that that was
17 the only reason?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It doesn't have to be that reason
19 alone. I said before that weapons were moved from certain locations and
20 distributed to reserve policemen.
21 Excuse me, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I stop you there. I read the beginning of your
24 "I know that these weapons were moved only because they were in a
25 territory populated mainly by Serbs."
1 So you gave that as the only reason, and where you say it doesn't
2 have to be that reason contradicts your previous testimony. If you want
3 to give us an answer to my question, you're invited to do so. How do you
4 know -- or do you withdraw your answer?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think the interpretation is
6 correct. I said it could be one of the main reasons why --
7 JUDGE ORIE: It may --
8 MR. S. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
9 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. If you say I said "it may be
10 one of the main reasons," usually our interpreters are doing a very good
11 job, but if you say they may have made a mistake, we'll have it verified.
12 We'll then check on the basis of the audio what you said and how it was
14 So if you say I didn't say that that was the only because if you
15 said I didn't say that, we'll have it verified, and then we'll know
16 whether you said it or not. Do you want us to verify it?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely. If I remember well --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you claim that, then you should remember
19 very well. Otherwise, you should not claim it. But it will be verified.
20 Please proceed with your -- well, then, there is no need to
21 answer my question because you didn't say that that was the only reason,
22 so therefore you don't have to explain why you knew that because you
23 withdraw, at least, the answer as it was given to us.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
25 MR. S. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Can we see page 3, same document, on B/C/S. And same on English.
2 Q. [Interpretation] What kind of document is this; can you tell us?
3 A. It's a receipt concerning the take-over of the Zlatiste -- at the
4 Zlatiste installation of a certain number of automatic rifles, including
5 Hecklers and other weapons.
6 Q. [In English] Thank you.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me understand. Were these now being taken
8 from the Zlatiste and not from the Rakovica to Zlatiste?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise. This document
10 shows that receipt number 1/91 is from the 8th of July, 1991, and this
11 weaponry was delivered to Zlatiste, and we cannot see where it had come
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, the note we were looking at, which is the
14 first page to this one, tells us where they were required to be removed
16 MR. S. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Can you read out the first sentence for us, the one underneath
18 the word "receipt"?
19 A. "I hereby confirm that I received the following for the Zlatiste
20 BH MUP Facility," and then further on, we see what it was that was
22 Q. Thank you.
23 A. Sorry, can I just mention something else? I think you should
24 focus on this: On the 8th of July, 1991, we have a receipt with number 1
25 on it, and it is already well into the second half of 1991. It is
1 evident on this basis that before that no weapons were transported to the
2 Zlatiste facility because otherwise there would have been a lot more
3 receipts. This is a book that is kept and where arrivals and departures
4 of weapons are recorded.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. S. LUKIC: I'm sorry, I would like to tender this document.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's a very long document. We dealt only with
8 a few pages, whereas I think it's 26 pages in English. Do we need them
10 MR. S. LUKIC: No, just those two.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But then I would have -- could you tell us the
12 Vrace deposit, was that in Federation-held territory or was that in
13 Serb-held territory?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the 8th of July, 1991,
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina was a country with a joint police force and the JNA
16 was still there, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. At that
17 moment, we did not have that kind of division in terms of the territory
18 under the control of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina or the Bosnian
19 Serbs. So this is 1991. There is absolutely no such division.
20 JUDGE ORIE: But nevertheless for Zlatiste, you say that was more
21 or less, if I could translate, I think it was Muslim territory, because
22 that's the gist of all of it, isn't it? That it was moved from a
23 Serb-inhabited area to a non-Serb-inhabited area. Isn't that the gist of
24 your testimony and of the questions?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Zlatiste is a facility, it is on
1 the slopes of Mount Trebevic, and only Bosniak settlements are below that
2 area. It has a view of the city of Sarajevo as well.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I misunderstood, but I understood the gist
4 of the questions, and perhaps also of the answers, to be that weaponry
5 was moved from, if I could say so, mainly Serb areas to non-Serb areas.
6 Unless I misunderstood -- Mr. Lukic, that's it.
7 MR. S. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: Now was Vrace -- Mr. Lukic was nodding to confirm
9 that that was the gist of his questions.
10 Mr. Witness, would you like to add anything to that?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The question here is who it is that
12 is guarding these facilities. It's the public security station of Ilidza
13 that is guarding the facility at Ilidza, and there are more ethnic Serb
14 policemen there, percentage-wise.
15 As for Zlatiste, the Zlatiste facility, it is at the level of the
16 MUP of RBiH. By virtue of that fact, whoever it is that is guarding the
17 facility -- well, it depends on who has control over that weaponry.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Therefore, my question: Who would have
19 control of the Vrace school deposit -- depot? Who would guard that?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know now. The Zlatiste
21 facility and the MUP school, these are two completely different
22 facilities. These are two completely different things in 1991, and we
23 are talking about 1991. At that time at Vrace, there was the secondary
24 police school and the police course was there as well.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And would that be guarded by mainly Serb polices?
1 Who would guard that facility?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please. In 1991, on the 8th of
3 July we have a joint police. There is no Serb police. There is no
4 federal police, Bosniak police. At that time, the police was a joint
5 police force, all the way up until the 4th of April, 1992, and we cannot
6 view this period in that way.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then could I take you to page 5 of this
8 document. Page 5 in English.
9 And you could perhaps assist me, Mr. Lukic, for the B/C/S page
10 corresponding to 5.
11 Here we --
12 MR. S. LUKIC: It's at page 4.
13 JUDGE ORIE: It's page 4 in the B/C/S.
14 Witness --
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we have that on the screen?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes.
17 Here, Witness, we see a similar movement of weaponry under this
18 same heading but it goes to Vrace. And therefore, I wonder how the
19 movement of weapons is best explained by saying it goes from a
20 non-Serb -- from a Serb-controlled place to a non-Serb-controlled place,
21 whereas apparently under the same order weaponry is moved to Vrace as
22 well which, as you told us, is neutral.
23 Could you explain why you would interpret the one as movement to
24 a non-Serb-controlled area and why apparently under the same order an
25 attachment says that it goes not specifically to a non-Serb-controlled
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that moment, there was no
3 physical control in terms of a division between the Serbs and Muslims.
4 What is indicative here is that in a school where you have pupils ages 14
5 to 18; they are regular students. And there is also a six-month police
6 course that is there, so these people are older, they had already
7 graduated from high school, they are older than 19, 20, because they also
8 had to do their military service in the JNA before they could undertake
9 this police training. And then at this school, where people of all
10 ethnic backgrounds are attending that course, and then all these rifles
11 are being transported there - at that moment, a Bosniak is the principal
12 of that school. And many employees at the MUP school are Bosniaks. And
13 many of the attendees of the course are also Bosniaks. And also people
14 who work at the school in Vrace.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Who was the principal of the school?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really cannot remember at this
17 moment because I did not attend the Vrace school, and I do know that it
18 was a Bosniak. I can state that with certainty.
19 JUDGE ORIE: But you don't know who it is but that he is a
20 Bosniak you do know. Is that how I have to understand your testimony?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. My memory tells me that
22 it was a Bosniak post, and the principal of the school was a Bosniak. I
23 attended some courses and I lectured at some of these courses in Vrace,
24 but I simply cannot recall his name now. It's been such a long time and
25 there are so many names in my mind since then.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And are you aware of other shipments to that same
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I don't know about
4 that. I'm just looking at this receipt here, and on the basis of this
5 receipt I see it is 2/91, the same date, and that this went to the school
6 in Vrace. And I see here -- while I was talking to you, I saw that there
7 are even hand-held launchers here.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You've not looked to these documents in preparing
9 for your testimony?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I told you that over the past ten
11 years I've been working on the investigation of war crimes, and in my
12 archives --
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's not my question. My question was whether you
14 looked at this document, consisting of 15 pages in your language,
15 before -- in preparing for today's testimony.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Did you look at all the pages of the document or
18 just the ones shown to you by the Defence?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I looked at most of these
20 documents. Now, I don't know whether everything pertains to these
21 receipts. However, in addition to these receipts, I saw quite a few
22 other receipts concerning arming, where weapons are being transported
23 from one warehouse to another, where police stations are being equipped
24 with weaponry and so on and so forth.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that the parties will agree that on page 2
1 in the original and page 2 in the English there is another shipment to
2 the Vrace school.
3 Are you aware of the order given by the minister to do all this?
4 Because the document - and perhaps we could go to page 1, both
5 languages - refers to an order given by the minister. It says:
6 "Please be informed that, following the order of the
7 Minister ..."
8 What could you tell us about the order of the minister?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't see him in these documents.
10 I don't know him --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, Witness --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and this is just an accompanying
14 JUDGE ORIE: The document says "... following the order of the
15 minister..." and I'm asking you what you could tell us about the order of
16 the minister which apparently underlies this document?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not see that order, so I
18 cannot talk about it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you have looked at this document and all the
20 accompanying paperwork, apparently. The document talks about moving
21 weaponry from Rakovica facility to Zlatiste facility. Do you have any
22 explanation as to why shipments to other destinations are attached to
23 this document as well?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, what I saw, I mean, these two
25 documents that you showed me on the screen, one is number 1, the other
1 one is number 2, and we can see that only 1 pertains to the Zlatiste
2 facility; whereas, number 2 pertains to the MUP school, which is not in
3 this accompanying document at all. There is not a word about it. These
4 are two completely different locations.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's exactly why I'm asking you this
6 question. Do you know who attached the other documents to this letter or
7 this accompanying letter?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mean, I don't know. I mean,
9 obviously these are documents that are accompanying these activities.
10 Actually, in terms of the dates that can be seen here, it can be related
11 to this letter and it can be a completely different transfer of arms and
12 ammunition. Because you've seen these documents, numbers 1 and 2. There
13 is no mention of the minister's order or this document either, so they
14 really do not have to be linked.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No.
16 Mr. Lukic, the English version says that every page contains a
17 handwritten number 10, I didn't find it on the originals, so would you
18 please try to find out what happened to this document, where it comes
19 from, how the attached paperwork seems to be unrelated or partly
20 unrelated to what is in the cover letter. It raises quite a few
21 questions which the Chamber would appreciate if you could give
22 clarifications on them where the witness apparently is unable to give
24 Please proceed.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: And before you do, I just have one or two
1 clarifications on a separate point.
2 Sir, you said at page 60, lines 16 to 20, that:
3 "In 1991, on the 8th of July we have a joint police. There is no
4 Serb police. There is no federal police, Bosniak police. At that time,
5 the police was a joint police force, all the way up until the 4th of
6 April, 1992 ..."
7 Based on that answer, can we agree that whether weapons were
8 moved from Rakovica to Zlatiste or to Vrace or to any other place, these
9 were being moved to facilities that are jointly controlled by both
10 parties, irrespective of which ethnic group is in the majority in what
11 area? But these were all neutral stations and were not being given to a
12 specific ethnic group. Can we accept that? Because I accept -- I assume
13 that this joint police was there all over Bosnia.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When speaking about that period,
15 within the Ministry of the Interior we had we already had people --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me stop you --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- as I've already said.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me stop you there. Just answer my question
19 before you give people in the ministry.
20 Can we accept that irrespective of where weapons were being
21 distributed to, they were being distributed to facilities that were
22 neutrally controlled by all ethnic groups? The answer to that question
23 is simply "yes" or "no" or "I don't know," based on your answer that you
24 gave that I read to you.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have said already that the
1 question was who had direct control --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Witness, Mr. Witness, I'm sorry, I know what
3 you have said. But please answer my question. And I don't stop you from
4 saying what you want to say. You can say what you want to say after you
5 have answered my question. Please, I'm just asking you that.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In relation to that period, already
7 then in the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska, there were huge
8 differences between the Muslim, Bosniak, Croatian, and Serb personnel,
9 although they were within the same Ministry of the Interior. There were
10 many disagreements in the course of their work of all of these members,
11 and that is how these weapons were there. I mean, the question was who
12 had physical control over the warehouse and who could carry out an
13 unhindered distribution of weaponry on the ground.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, you are not answering my question, sir.
15 And my question is based precisely on that: Who had control of the
17 You say in this answer that the facilities were controlled by a
18 joint police force. There was no police forces based on ethnic grounds.
19 It was just everybody. And I'm saying to you, is it then therefore
20 acceptable that wherever weapons were transferred to were transferred to
21 a joint police station, irrespective of who -- and the people who are
22 controlling there either -- is the joint police force?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that moment, there was a joint
24 police there. And I repeat I have been saying the following: It depends
25 who had control over that weaponry, and at that point in 1991 there was
1 only the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
2 and its members. And that is quite clear, and I am talking about actual
3 control and this complex question of the structure in the Ministry of the
4 Interior of the RBiH.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, sir. I think you are not going to
6 answer my question, so there is no point in going forward.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
8 MR. S. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Can you tell us what these structures are that
10 control the Zlatiste facility?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you started tendering the document. Then
12 I asked for a few additional questions.
13 Will you revisit that or do you want to tender it now or to
14 insist on tendering it?
15 MR. S. LUKIC: No, I want to tender the document right now.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. S. LUKIC: Only --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, no objections?
19 MS. EDGERTON: No.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D1108, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. S. LUKIC: Thank you.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Can you explain this to us: What are these
1 structures that had under their control the facilities that we discussed
2 a moment ago?
3 A. Already then in Bosnia-Herzegovina there was the Patriotic
4 League, and there were these parallel structures in the Ministry of the
5 Interior of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. These parallel
6 structures had actual authority with regard to these activities that were
7 being carried out, departments of crime police, police departments. 90
8 per cent of the people who worked there, policemen, carried out their
9 duties honourably. However, at that point in time already we had
10 policemen who were not sincerely doing police work. There were parts
11 of -- they were a part of the Patriotic League and other paramilitaries,
12 and they had this parallel structure in the Ministry of the Interior of
13 the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and they were carrying out activities
14 that are not in keeping with police work and are not in keeping with the
15 law at that point in time.
16 Q. Thank you. What year were the first multiparty elections in
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina held?
18 A. In 1990, the first so-called multiparty elections.
19 Q. What parties won?
20 A. Nationalist parties, the Party of Democratic Action, the
21 Serbian Democratic Party, and the Croatian Democratic Union, and together
22 they formed a coalition majority in the parliament and established a
23 government. They formed a coalition government and none of them had an
24 absolute majority.
25 Q. What party represented the Serb people?
1 A. The Serbian Democratic Party won the greatest number of votes of
2 the Serbian people, and it touted itself as the representative of the
3 Serbian people.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I noticed that a lot of your last few
5 questions are very repetitious and already answered in many, many
6 testimonies. And apart from that, I would be surprised if the
7 Prosecution would dispute many of those answers, Ms. Edgerton, as to who
8 won -- the nationalist parties winning the elections.
9 MS. EDGERTON: Of course not. I would only dispute the evidence
10 that the multiparty elections happened in 1991 when they happened a year
11 earlier; but, otherwise, of course not.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but apart from that you wouldn't.
13 Mr. Lukic, would you please keep that in mind, that what we've
14 heard many, many times should not be elicited again, especially not if
15 it's not in dispute.
16 MR. S. LUKIC: Yes, thank you.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said the multiparty elections
18 were in 1990. Not in 1992.
19 MR. S. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Do you know who represented the Serbian people in Sarajevo in the
21 government of Bosnia-Herzegovina after the war broke out?
22 A. After the war broke out, very few Serb politicians and others who
23 were in power in Bosnia-Herzegovina remained to work in Sarajevo. Most
24 of the members of the Presidency and members of the government left
25 Sarajevo at the time. And those who arrived were appointed by order, not
1 by the will of the people.
2 Q. And who made these orders?
3 A. The Party of Democratic Action and those who stayed in Sarajevo,
4 and very often these people who were in power were forced to work
5 contrary to their will. And most of the Serbs who remained in Sarajevo
6 looked for salvation among those representative bodies, the Citizens
7 Council, et cetera. You could discuss this at length.
8 Q. How did you find out? Where do you get that information from?
9 A. Because many Serbs left Sarajevo during the war and passed on
10 information about what was going on inside Sarajevo. I read a lot of
11 that and I still work on investigating these matters, and I know a lot
12 about the contemporaneous reports from people who left the city.
13 Q. Let's move to another subject. When was the MUP of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina divided?
15 A. An official division of the MUP occurred on the 4th of April,
16 1992. But before that, there was a sequence of events that led to it,
17 beginning with the killing of one member of a Serbian wedding party in
18 Sarajevo in May, the putting up of barricades, and many things came to
19 the surface in that period. Members of the Party of Democratic Action
20 and their sympathisers took their gloves off and it all culminated in the
21 division of the Ministry of the Interior.
22 Q. How was the MUP divided?
23 A. Serbian employees walked out of the Ministry of the Interior of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the agreement was that the Serb personnel would
25 be headquartered at Vrace. But there was no clear division, because the
1 Bosnian Muslim forces launched an attack on the Novo Sarajevo police
2 station on the 3rd of April killing one policeman on duty, Mr. Petrovic,
3 and the duty officer who was beaten up. They took control of the
4 Stari Grad police station. There was a clash between two parts of the
5 police force. Muslim policemen took part in it. The Serb policemen who
6 showed up for work where I worked were beaten up and turned away,
7 disarmed, and many of them had their apartments searched immediately.
8 They were -- the weapons, the official sidearms they had were taken away
9 from them. And those who left Sarajevo did not later take part in the
10 establishment of the police force of Novo Sarajevo.
11 Q. Just please slow down.
12 A. After the take-over of the Novo Sarajevo police station,
13 Stari Grad, the SUP Centar, all these are city police stations, Serb
14 policemen were no longer able to come to work, and those who did show up
15 for work would be beaten up and thrown out. The official side-arms they
16 had were taken away from them. They were no longer able to come to work.
17 The Serb personnel, including me, did not participate in any way
18 in the establishment of the Serbian MUP but still the door to the
19 Novo Sarajevo police station were closed for us. And I told you, one
20 Serb policeman was even killed in an attack by the Muslims and another
21 one was beaten up.
22 Q. At that time, how was the MUP of Republika Srpska organised?
23 A. I've told you already that we, the Serbs, it so happened came to
24 the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska and it was a carbon copy
25 of the republic MUP. I worked in the crime investigation department, and
1 apart from the internal organisation, which was a carbon copy of the
2 republic MUP, we had very few trained personnel able to do police work.
3 Q. When you say it was a carbon copy of the organisation of the
4 republic MUP, which MUP do you mean?
5 A. I mean the MUP of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina which
6 existed until the 4th of April, 1992, meaning with departments, with
7 security services centres, and the public security stations.
8 Q. What was your job in the new MUP of Republika Srpska?
9 A. For a month, I was in the crime investigation police, and there
10 were only four of us in a department that was supposed to employ 150 for
11 the whole city of Sarajevo. After that in May, I was appointed head of
12 the crime investigation department.
13 So in April, I was a co-ordinator for the city of Sarajevo, and
14 beginning with mid-May I was appointed -- named head of section of the
15 Romanija Bircani section of the security services centre.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could I seek clarification of one of the answers,
17 Mr. Lukic.
18 Witness, you said the following about not being given access to
19 the Novo Sarajevo -- let me see, one second. You said:
20 "The Serb personnel, including me, did not participate in any way
21 in the establishment of the Serbian MUP, but still the door to the
22 Novo Sarajevo police station was closed for us."
23 Does that mean that others had by then established the Serbian
24 MUP, although you were not involved? And if not, I do not fully
25 understand -- and you are nodding that it had not been established. But
1 could you explain a bit more in detail the relation between the
2 establishment of the Serbian MUP and the denial of access to the
3 Novo Sarajevo police station?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wasn't talking only about the
5 Novo Sarajevo police station. The police station of Novo Sarajevo, the
6 police station of Centar, the police station of Stari Grad were taken
7 over by the Patriotic League and other active members of the Bosnian
8 Muslim police who took part, together with the Green Berets, in the
9 attack against these stations. Also the city SUP, where I worked, which
10 is a separate --
11 MR. S. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Will you slow down when you speak, please.
13 A. The city SUP where I worked at that time as a co-ordinator for
14 the city of Sarajevo, if I had then come to the city SUP on that day, I
15 would probably not be sitting here today.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's not an answer to my question.
17 My question is where you say "we who did not participate in
18 establishing the Serbian MUP were nevertheless denied," that's how I
19 understood it, "access to the Novo Sarajevo police station."
20 I then asked you was it then established, the Serbian MUP,
21 because if not, I do not understand the gist of your answer.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The MUP of Republika Srpska
23 officially began to exist on the 3rd of April, I believe, when a special
24 unit of the police of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina split.
25 Beginning with the 4th of April, it started operating from the school at
1 Vrace. But all of us, had undergone a month before where there were
2 different views among us on what was going on in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
3 Many of our staff were being treated with condescension and disregard.
4 We were unable to do our work. And now I'm talking about the political
5 decision to create the Serbian MUP. We did not take part in that
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there. Was that political decision
8 taken before the 4th of April or when was that political decision taken
9 to establish the Serbian MUP?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was taken before the
11 4th of April.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. So what you are telling us is that
13 you were not involved, the Serbian MUP was politically established but
14 not yet operational. Is that how I have to understand it?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely. After 4th of April, it
16 was not operative in any aspect.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. S. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. [Interpretation] You've told us what duties you discharged in the
21 CSB Romanija Birac district. Can you tell us what was in the purview of
22 your section?
23 A. To investigate general crime, white-collar crime, fire, fighting,
24 and other public security jobs.
25 MR. S. LUKIC: I'm looking at the clock, yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We are both looking at the clock, Mr. Lukic, and we
2 come to the same conclusion, that it's time for a break.
3 Witness, we would like to see you back in 20 minutes.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 We'll take a break and we'll resume at 25 minutes past 4.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 4.04 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 4.26 p.m.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, while waiting for the witness to enter
9 the courtroom -- I was, as a matter of fact, addressing the other
10 Mr. Lukic.
11 Mr. Lukic, if scheduling issues as we've discussed before today,
12 if they are at risk not to work out well, then you should have a plan B.
13 So don't just rely on, This is my plan A, but you should have an
14 alternative plan if plan A doesn't work. And I leave it to that.
15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
18 MR. S. LUKIC: Thank you.
19 Q. [Interpretation] A moment ago we spoke about the purview of the
20 crime investigation police that was part of the police department of the
21 Sarajevo Birac police district. Can you tell us which departments
22 existed within the crime police of that CSB?
23 A. According to the rules on the internal organisation of the CSB,
24 there was the general crime department, the economic crime department --
25 Q. I'm sorry, I have already put this question, so thank you. It's
1 been dealt with.
2 Can you tell us -- or rather, do you have any knowledge as to
3 what the National Security Service was supposed to deal with?
4 A. In addition to the state security - that is to say, dealing with
5 external and internal enemies - in 1992, they were supposed to
6 investigate war crimes and other crimes as regards crimes against the
8 Q. What kind of co-operation did you have with the National Security
9 Service in terms of investigating war crimes in 1992?
10 A. The National Security Service did not have their own crime
11 investigators and also they did not work with investigative judges and --
12 Q. Please do slow down.
13 A. The Ministry of the Interior or the crime police, if they find
14 out that a crime had been admitted, then our crime technicians carry out
15 an on-site investigation with regard to everything that has been learned
16 about. They inform the public prosecutor and the National Security
18 MR. S. LUKIC: Can I have 65 ter 17102. I'm sorry, that's not
19 the document. The document number is 1D05481.
20 Q. We see here whose document this is and who it was sent to. The
21 first sentence says:
22 "Proceeding in accordance with the conclusions adopted at the
23 meeting of senior personnel on 11 July 1992, whereby the tasks relating
24 to the discovery and documentation of war crimes or genocide and the
25 submission of criminal reports, as well as in accordance with other
1 enactments ... and orders, were numbered among the priorities of the
2 National Security Service and the Crime Prevention Service."
3 Strictly confidential, 01-2/1/92 of 16 May 1992.
4 "A questionnaire on war crimes and victims of genocide has been
5 compiled in the information analysis administration."
6 At the time, did you have an opportunity to work on the
7 investigation of war crimes together with your coworkers?
8 A. The employees who worked in the crime police, as I've already
9 told you, went to the scene when crimes were committed or there were
10 interviews conducted with persons on the ground, people who came from
11 other areas, interviews were taken, statements were taken. I sent that
12 to the National Security Service when it would reach me, and in the same
13 way, we informed this department for analysis.
14 Q. Can you tell us -- sorry. Who was in charge of carrying out
15 investigations of crimes that are committed by members of the Army of
16 Republika Srpska?
17 A. If crimes are committed by members of the Army of
18 Republika Srpska, then the military prosecutor's office and the military
19 investigative judge were in charge of dealing with that.
20 Q. What is your role if you are the first to find out that a member
21 of the Army of Republika Srpska had committed a crime?
22 A. We inform the military security and the military prosecutor.
23 Q. This document also refers to a form, a questionnaire that the
24 inspectors working on these crimes had to fill out. Who was this sent
25 to? Just a moment, please. The National Security Service?
1 A. No.
2 Q. The Ministry of the Interior?
3 A. These forms, these questionnaires, are submitted to the National
4 Security Service, or rather the information analysis administration of
5 the MUP of Republika Srpska. These questionnaires were just used by this
6 information analysis administration so that they could follow the
7 situation on the ground and that they could compile their files, send
8 reports to the minister or someone else. So these are not official
9 reports. These are not official criminal reports or criminal complaints
10 that were sent to the prosecutor's offices. This is just analysis, pure
11 analysis. And they wanted to know what was going on on the ground.
12 Now that I look at this, when I look at these questionnaires or
13 these activities, you can see that there are quite a few shortcomings
14 there that, in legal terms, people are quite illiterate in terms of how
15 they qualify crimes or how deal with information that is requested.
16 Q. What is supposed to be done before a criminal report is filed?
17 A. First of all, one has to have adequate police knowledge
18 concerning investigations so that it could be a comprehensive criminal
19 report. There should be a report from the site itself, then analysis
20 from a technical point of view, and then also statements have to be taken
21 from witnesses, from the immediate participants, and then all of that
22 should be put together into a proper quality report, and then it should
23 be submitted to the prosecutor, and then he decides whether he is going
24 to address an investigating judge in order to investigate a particular
1 In that period, I'm talking about the laws that were in force
2 from 1992 to 1995 in the territory of Republika Srpska, and I have to say
3 once again that these were laws that were taken over from the legislation
4 of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the criminal code of
5 Yugoslavia and of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was the investigating judge who
6 made the final decision regarding the investigation, and the police only
7 helped him in rare situations when he would ask us to do that.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, last three pages, any matter which is
10 in dispute? Well, I'm not -- I take it that you've listened so that you
11 know whether there is any problem in it.
12 MS. EDGERTON: There was certainly nothing that brought me to my
13 feet in any regard. I was going to rise with respect to the document,
14 but -- and the lack of foundation and the witness's connection to the
15 document. But in terms of anything else, certainly not, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the whole explanation of how it works, the
17 role of the investigative judge, police, military prosecutor, that's all
18 not in dispute.
19 Mr. Lukic, why do we spend so much time on matters which are not
20 in dispute?
21 MR. S. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise, but I just wanted
22 to clarify this area that has to do with war crimes and genocide in
23 relation to the Ministry of the Interior and the Army of
24 Republika Srpska.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
1 MR. S. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 Q. Can you tell us what the situation was with professionals, with
3 personnel within the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska?
4 A. As for professional personnel, I'm talking about the crime
5 investigation police, was disastrous. Very few people were properly
6 trained to carry out their duties.
7 Secondly, it was undermanned, the department of crime
8 investigation. And also there weren't enough time technicians. I'm
9 talking about April through the end of 1992. The number of employees as
10 compared to the required staffing was too small. In May, June, four or
11 five operatives and crime technicians, and according to the
12 organisational chart there were supposed to be more than a hundred.
13 The situation was similar in other areas. I mean, I'm talking
14 about the area of Republika Srpska. Except for the Banja Luka centre.
15 That was the only one that inherited the infrastructure of the former
16 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the
17 Banja Luka centre is the only one that remained unchanged. Its seat
18 remained unchanged. All other CSBs were organised with new headquarters,
19 and that's why throughout 1992 efforts were made to establish proper
20 professional functioning within the Ministry of the Interior.
21 I'm saying that people were supposed to attend lectures, courses
22 in order to be professionally capable of working on crime investigation.
23 It's easy for people simply to wear uniforms and police insignia. Give
24 them a certain function. But for such matters, one needed to have police
25 knowledge, and you could only get that if you studied at the faculty of
1 law, the faculty of security studies, or if you seriously dealt with the
2 investigation of crimes before the war. Unfortunately, as I've already
3 said, we had very few such people.
4 Q. Thank you. What is the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the
5 Interior regarding the paramilitary formations that began to appear in
6 the territory that year, 1992?
7 A. In the course of 1992, especially in the first months of the war,
8 very frequently many of these paramilitary units that were active on the
9 ground overpowered in equipment and outnumbered the staff of the police
10 stations. I remember we addressed very frequently the Army of
11 Republika Srpska with requests asking them to help us to confront these
12 forces militarily, especially because members of these paramilitary units
13 that were not part of the Ministry of the Interior and not part of the
14 army created huge problems to the civilian population.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you name some of them so that we know what we
16 are talking about?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not talking about various
18 areas. In the area of Bratunac, there were so-called Red Berets. In
19 Ilidza, there were Chetniks. At least that's what they called
20 themselves, Chetniks. Then there were men who called themselves,
21 Carlijevi, Charlie's men. In Vogosca, there were informal armed groups,
22 30 or 40 men holding themselves out as a unit. But when we check with
23 our contacts in the army, we realised that none of them are members of
24 the army.
25 I can tell you from personal experience that we frequently ran
1 into check-points --
2 JUDGE ORIE: No, I just wanted a few names. I do understand that
3 these were all Serb paramilitary organisations or groups. Is that well
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, exclusively Serbian
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 MR. S. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Do you know under whose control these groups operated?
10 A. They were controlled by local commanders or even local
11 politicians who brought them from outside or organised them themselves.
12 Q. What was their connection with the Army of Republika Srpska?
13 A. The only connection they had with us was when we had a joint
14 action for liberating the territory.
15 Q. Whose action was it?
16 A. The police sometimes launched those actions of their own accord.
17 I know about the case of Yellow Wasps in Zvornik where the police crushed
18 that group single-handedly, and once we did it in co-operation with the
19 Army of Republika Srpska.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Just to avoid any confusion. Should I understand
21 your answer to be that the police sometimes launched together with the
22 Republika Srpska Army - with the army - actions or operations against
23 those paramilitary groups? Is that what you are telling us?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Sometimes we did it together
25 with the Army of Republika Srpska, and sometimes the police
1 single-handedly launched actions again them, like against the
2 Yellow Wasps.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I think the question was what connection these
4 paramilitary groups had with the Army of the Republika Srpska, which is
5 a --
6 MR. S. LUKIC: And police.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And -- well, that's -- that wasn't part of your
8 question as far as --
9 MR. S. LUKIC: It's not recorded.
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- I can see. Oh, it's not recorded. Okay.
11 Can you tell us what connection of those paramilitary groups was
12 with the VRS and the police?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We maintained absolutely no
14 connection with them. They confronted us and we pursued them for crimes
15 they committed on the ground, and we arrested them and we handed them
16 over to prosecutor offices.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered my question.
19 MR. S. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. When you say "we," who do you mean?
21 A. I don't understand.
22 Q. You said they only created problems for us, "us" whom?
23 A. When I say "us" I mean both civilians and members of the Ministry
24 of the Interior and members of the Army of Republika Srpska. They were
25 an evil for us.
1 Q. How was that problem solved, the problem with the paramilitaries
2 in various areas; do you know?
3 A. I can speak about the territory of Sarajevo, because that's where
4 I worked during the war. Already towards the end of 1992, at least in
5 our area, all the paramilitary units were broken up and forced to leave,
6 and some of them were even prosecuted.
7 MR. S. LUKIC: Can we see 65 ter 17107. This document have two
8 pages. And --
9 JUDGE ORIE: While we are waiting for it --
10 MR. S. LUKIC: And we are looking at the first page both in
11 English and B/C/S.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. While we're waiting for it, could I seek
13 clarification on a small matter.
14 In relation to how it was resolved, you said: "I can only tell
15 you about Sarajevo because that's where I worked."
16 Now, earlier you said: "We maintained absolutely no connection
17 with them."
18 Is that also limited to Sarajevo, or would that be
19 Republika Srpska-wide that absolutely no connections were maintained with
20 the paramilitaries?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, now, from this point of view,
22 because we are investigating all these crimes, from all the information I
23 had access to, all the reports and all the meetings of the collegium, I
24 had my colleagues from the local level transmit that view --
25 JUDGE ORIE: If you'd just answer my question. What you said,
1 absolutely no connections, was that limited to Sarajevo or did you intend
2 to say that this was true for the whole of Republika Srpska?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, from that period, I can only
4 speak about what happened in the territory covered by my centre,
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now I'm asking you this because earlier you
7 said something about the Yellow Wasps in Zvornik, which is not your area,
8 is it?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 1992, the Romanija Birac centre
10 of the security services also covered Zvornik. That's my area.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, your Sarajevo centre therefore had a large area
12 of responsibility. Is that well understood?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In the early days, it was
14 called the Romanija Birac centre of the security services. It had over
15 23 police stations within the centre.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And that would include Zvornik. Would it include
17 Bijeljina, would it include Bratunac?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. Zvornik, Bratunac,
19 Skelani, the whole of Birac. That's what the area is called. Sekovici.
20 But that lasted only until September, approximately. September 1992.
21 And then we realised it was absolutely impossible for it to operate that
22 way. It was a huge area, and we had practically no possibility to
23 control these police stations or that territory, so the Zvornik centre
24 was established and other different centres.
25 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered my question.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. S. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Do you see the document before you?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Who passed this document?
6 A. The Romanija Birac centre of the security services, the Ministry
7 of the Interior.
8 Q. Do you see the bottom?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you recognise the signature?
11 A. Yes, it's my signature.
12 Q. Do you know who Brne's Chetniks were?
13 A. I heard that name. It was a paramilitary unit in the area of
14 Ilidza municipality in that period.
15 Q. Do you know who set it up?
16 A. This man, Brne, who is mentioned here. He was the commander of
17 that unit, or commanding officer. That's a group that belonged neither
18 to the Army of Republika Srpska nor the police.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I just interrupt a little bit, sir.
21 You asked the witness whether he recognises the signature and he
22 says it's his, but I see the name doesn't look like his name. Or am I
23 looking at the wrong piece of paper?
24 MR. S. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We're looking at the right
25 document. I only asked about the signature.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: He signed on behalf of. Thank you so much.
2 MR. S. LUKIC: You're welcome.
3 Q. [Interpretation] Who was in information passed on to?
4 A. As you can see, it was passed on to the command of the
5 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps personally to the commander. Originally we
6 received this information from the public security station Ilidza, and we
7 forwarded the entirety of the document to the command of the
8 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.
9 Q. The document requests that the said units be placed under control
10 so that similar situations would not occur in the future.
11 A. That's because the public security station of Ilidza, which was
12 part of our security services centre, had informed us that such units
13 operated in their area, and the public security station was unable to
14 deal with them single-handedly. It was unable to place them under
15 control. And also we see from the document that the police has trouble
16 securing convoys exiting Sarajevo, and they were asking the army for help
17 in placing these units under control; in other words, in disarming the
18 members of these units and prosecuting those of them who needed to be
19 prosecuted while placing others in army units, regular army units.
20 Q. Do you know how such units were eventually placed under control?
21 A. Members of the military police could tell you that. The Ministry
22 of the Interior would organise a military-type action, corralling those
23 units, taking all their weapons, and then they would make a triage of
24 their members - those who were fit for military service would be
25 integrated into regular army units, and those who were unfit for military
1 service were sent away. And also if there was information that some of
2 them were responsible for crimes, they would be prosecuted. In any case,
3 they would be arrested.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I'm looking at the clock. We're about to
5 adjourn for the day.
6 If this is a suitable moment.
7 Witness, we'll adjourn for the day and we'll resume -- this
8 Chamber will resume on Monday, but we first have a witness who will
9 testify through videolink. That means that we do not know yet exactly
10 when we would need you any further.
11 Mr. Lukic, for the next witness, in terms of timing, is there any
12 chance that we would finish that witness on Monday?
13 MR. LUKIC: No.
14 JUDGE ORIE: No.
15 MR. LUKIC: There is seven and a half hours of cross for him.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Seven and a half hours.
17 MR. LUKIC: Of cross, announced by the Prosecution.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, this means that we are most likely hearing
19 the evidence of another witness for three days, which means that it will
20 only be on Thursday, most likely, that we'll be able to continue.
21 Yet I'm reminded that you'll be recalled anyway for other reasons
22 already and that therefore it's not even next week but it will only be
23 after the summer recess that we'll hear the remainder of your testimony.
24 But before we adjourn, I'd like to instruct you that you should
25 not speak or communicate with whomever about your testimony or about
1 testifying here in The Hague. That is an instruction which is valid
2 until you have reappeared here, so that would be for the many, many weeks
3 to come, until you return to The Hague.
4 So no conversations, no communications in whatever way, not with
5 the Defence counsel, not with anyone, about your testimony either already
6 given or still to be given. Is that clear to you?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then you may now follow the usher and, well, I wish
9 you a safe trip home again but also a safe trip back to The Hague at a
10 later stage.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 MR. S. LUKIC: I would like to tender this document.
14 JUDGE ORIE: This document.
15 Any objections, Ms. Edgerton?
16 MS. EDGERTON: None.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 17107 will be Exhibit D1109, Your
20 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
21 We will not adjourn until --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, much earlier today you tendered
23 1D05479, then Judge Orie then went on to further pages. It was never
24 admitted yet, if I'm right.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, it is admitted as D1108.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it?
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, I missed that. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And since we are never seeking repetitious
5 evidence, we leave it to that, not to be admitted again.
6 We adjourn for the day and we'll resume on, let me see, on
7 Monday, the 13th of July, 9.30 in the morning in this same courtroom, I.
8 We stand adjourned.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.07 p.m.,
10 to be reconvened on Monday, the 13th day
11 of July, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.