Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 43088

 1                           Wednesday, 3 February 2016

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.

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

 6     courtroom.

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

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case

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

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

11             I already invite the usher to escort the witness into the

12     courtroom, and meanwhile we'll deal with one matter, but I'm a bit

13     surprised.  I might need Mr. Lukic for that.  Because yesterday Defence

14     confirmed that the list of its remaining witnesses which I read out in

15     private session is correct.  The Chamber then asked the Defence to

16     confirm its intention to withdraw all remaining Rule 92 ter motions

17     related to witnesses not on that list, and the Chamber is seeking

18     confirmation by the Defence, confirmation for the record, that these

19     remaining motions are withdrawn or advise the Chamber in any other way.

20             Mr. Stojanovic, could you respond?

21             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  In the course

22     of the day, we will inform the Chamber officially about that decision.

23                           [The witness takes the stand]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, then we'll hear from you very soon.

25             Good morning, Mr. Matijevic.

Page 43089

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Matijevic, before we continue, I'd like to

 3     remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given

 4     at the beginning of your testimony yesterday, that you'll speak the

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

 6             Mr. Traldi will now continue his cross-examination.

 7             Mr. Traldi.

 8             MR. TRALDI:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 9                           WITNESS:  MILE MATIJEVIC [Resumed]

10                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

11                           Cross-examination by Mr. Traldi: [Continued]

12        Q.   Good morning, sir.

13        A.   Good morning.

14             MR. TRALDI:  Could we have Exhibit P3866 for the witness.

15        Q.   Now, this is a document from CSB Banja Luka reflecting the

16     conclusions reached at an expanded meeting of the centre council held on

17     the 6th of May, 1992.

18             Now, first, what was the centre council of the CSB?

19        A.   If I remember well, at that time, I was not yet chief of the

20     police section at the CSB because Stevan Markovic --

21        Q.   Sir -- sir, I'm going to interrupt you.

22        A.   -- got killed only in July.

23        Q.   Sir, I hadn't asked about what your position was at the time.  At

24     the moment, my question is specifically what's the centre council of the

25     CSB?  Do you know?  And if so, can you tell us.

Page 43090

 1        A.   I'm not familiar with the details about the centre council, but I

 2     know the centre council existed.  In fact, I would rather call it the

 3     collegium of station chiefs of the Security Services Centre, and that

 4     centre council occasionally convened under the supervision of the centre

 5     chief because I attended a couple of its sessions.

 6        Q.   Now, if we scroll to the bottom of page 1 in both languages, we

 7     see reference to a number of participants in that discussion, and that

 8     continues on page 2 in the English.  We see there the heads of the CSB

 9     departments and the chiefs of many of the subordinate SJBs at the time;

10     right?

11        A.   Yes, correct.

12        Q.   Turning to point -- to page 2 in both languages, we see

13     conclusions proposed by Mr. Zupljanin.  And looking at point 4 he says:

14             "All my orders conveyed orally, as well as those I may forward by

15     dispatch, must be carried out:  They are your law.  The chain of command,

16     commanding and execution are clearly distinguished in this service.  If

17     any one of your staff should refuse to act upon an order, just inform him

18     that he is fired; we have to get rid of the old idealogy and concepts not

19     suited to the present moment."

20             Now, this reflects Mr. Zupljanin's view of the importance of the

21     MUP hierarchy that you described at the end of the day yesterday; right?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Turning to page 5 in both languages, at the end, we read:

24             "The chief of the CSB Stojan Zupljanin informed the members of

25     the centre council present at this meeting that he had established a

Page 43091

 1     special counter-sabotage and counter-terrorist police unit of about 150

 2     to be deployed in these regions in the most complex security operations."

 3             Now, this is a reference to the special police detachment of the

 4     CSB that you also mentioned in your testimony yesterday; right?

 5        A.   Yes, that's true.

 6             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have P7159.

 7             This is a report on the formation and activities of the CSB

 8     Banja Luka special police detachment.  And we're just waiting for the

 9     English.  If we could have page 2 in the middle in English and the fifth

10     paragraph on page 1 in B/C/S.

11        Q.   We read:

12             "In April 1992, the government of the Autonomous Region of

13     Krajina with the knowledge of all municipality executive committees from

14     the region and with the approval of the Banja Luka Corps' military

15     security administration, passed the decision on the formation of a

16     special police detachment with the Banja Luka CSB."

17             Now, so -- the JNA 5th Corps, then, signed off on creating this

18     detachment; right?

19        A.   I really don't know any details about its establishment.  In

20     April, more precisely on the 6th of April, I joined the Banja Luka CSB

21     where I reported in order to be assigned, and then in the period of

22     April/May, I was still unassigned in the Security Services Centre until I

23     was appointed traffic police head at the CSB.  So I'm not familiar with

24     the details of the establishment of these units.

25        Q.   You certainly knew the CSB was establishing a unit; right?

Page 43092

 1        A.   Yes, I knew that much.  I've heard about it.  We all worked in

 2     the same CSB, so we knew.

 3             MR. TRALDI:  Now can we have 65 ter 07080.

 4        Q.   As it comes up, one of the officers in the special detachment was

 5     a man named Ljuban Ecim; right?

 6        A.   I cannot say anything precise about his position in those units.

 7     All I know is that he was a member of these units.  But in what position,

 8     I really can't say anything with any certainty.

 9        Q.   Now, this is a detachment from SNB Banja Luka in December 1993 to

10     the executive committee of the Banja Luka Municipal Assembly.

11             MR. TRALDI:  If we could have page 1 in English.

12        Q.   We see they're asking for a three-room flat for Ecim.  They

13     describe him as an inspector at SNB Banja Luka and, at the bottom of the

14     page in English, as the special police detachment's deputy commander.

15             Does that refresh your recollection as to his role?

16        A.   I've said that I know he was there, he was part of these units,

17     but I don't know what his job was.  I saw him mainly as a member of the

18     National Security Service.  I didn't know anything precise, nor did I

19     have any reason to be interested in the details of his job because his

20     job did not in any way coincide with mine.

21        Q.   Well, beginning in August 1992, part of your job was to

22     co-ordinate the deployment of police units with the VRS; right?

23        A.   Yes.  In the area covered by the Security Services Centre.

24        Q.   Obviously you had to know things about the police unit to do that

25     job effectively; right?

Page 43093

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   You couldn't have done your job if you were unaware of basic

 3     facts like the command structure of the unit, could you?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Now turning to page 2 in English and the bottom of the first page

 6     in B/C/S, we read that Mr. Ecim was commended, awarded, and decorated a

 7     number of times for his patriotism and success in battle and good

 8     performance of a number of special work tasks in the National Security

 9     Service.  His success in battle, that's directly related to your

10     responsibilities; right?

11        A.   I wouldn't say that.  First of all, because I have to stress

12     again, I know Ljuban Ecim exclusively as a member of the National

13     Security Service who was directly subordinated to the leadership of the

14     National Security Service.  And while I was chief of the police section

15     from August onwards, he was never specifically part of the command

16     personnel of the police units in any battlefields where we were involved

17     because we had a special police detachment of the CSB Banja Luka

18     commanded by Mr. Brane Pecanac.  You could have seen that name yesterday

19     in that document, as well as the entire command structure.

20             Mr. Ljuban Ecim appeared only as a member of the National

21     Security Service.

22        Q.   Now, sir, a moment ago when I first asked you about this document

23     you said -- sorry, when I first asked you about Mr. Ecim, you said that

24     you couldn't say anything precise about his position in the special

25     detachment.  You said:

Page 43094

 1             "All I know is that he was a member of these units."

 2             And now you're saying that you don't remember if he was even ever

 3     a member of the detachment?

 4        A.   No, no, I'm sorry.  No, I'm sorry.  It's a misunderstanding.  I

 5     didn't say he was a member of the special unit.  After the special police

 6     unit was established, when I was chief of the police section, I was

 7     sure -- I am sure that he was not then part of the command personnel.

 8     There was some other special police unit before that, and I don't know

 9     what their personnel was, what the command personnel was.

10             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I'm going to deal with that response

11     in a second, but first I'd tender this document.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter 07080 will receive Exhibit Number P07795.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

15             MR. TRALDI:  Could we have P7163.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we clarify.  In your last answer you said:

17             "It's a misunderstanding.  I didn't say that he was a member of

18     the special unit."

19             However, that's how it was translated to us.  You said:  I only

20     know that he was a member.

21             Is it that you misspoke or is it that you say, "I haven't said

22     that"?  Because then we'll listen to the audio and we'll find out what

23     you said and see whether it's you who made a mistake or whether it's one

24     of the interpreters who may have made a mistake.

25             Did you tell us that you just knew that he was a member or did

Page 43095

 1     you not say that he was a member?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said, and I repeat, as far as I

 3     know, Mr. Ecim at the time when I was not chief of the police section, he

 4     was engaged in a special unit of the CSB, but I don't know in what

 5     position.  When the special unit of the police was established,

 6     Mr. Pecanac was appointed commander, and at that time I also was

 7     appointed head of the police section.  At that time, I am sure ...

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I read to you what is on the record at this moment.

 9             You're recorded as having said:

10             "I cannot say anything precise about his position in those units.

11     All I know is that he was a member of these units."

12             Is that what you said, or is that not what you said?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that previously when I came

14     to Banja Luka, I knew that he was a member of the National Security

15     Service and he was engaged in special units, but I really didn't know

16     specifically in what position.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not asking you.  What is recorded -- and I

18     repeat the question to you as well.  You were asked about Ljuban Ecim.

19     The question was:

20             "As it comes up, one of the officers in the special detachment

21     was a man called Ljuban Ecim; right?"

22             Your answer was:

23             "I cannot say anything precise about his position in those units.

24     All I know is that he was a member of these units.  But in what position,

25     I really can't say anything with any certainty."

Page 43096

 1             Is that what you said or is that not what you said?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  So --

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, right.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  That's correct.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what I said.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Traldi, please, for the record, could you

 8     repeat the number of the P number that you are calling on the screen.

 9             MR. TRALDI:  7163.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  7163.  Thank you so much.

11             MR. TRALDI:

12        Q.   And, sir, before I show you this document, let's just get the

13     chronology of the special units straight.

14             First, this special police detachment that we saw Mr. Zupljanin

15     talking about in that meeting, that was created at the end of April 1992

16     and then continued until August 1992 when its members were mostly given

17     over to the VRS; right?

18        A.   Yes, precisely.  It is perfectly right what you said.  A certain

19     special unit existed - I don't know exactly from when - but it was until

20     August 1992.  When the structure of the special units was reorganised at

21     the level of Republika Srpska, a new command structure was appointed --

22        Q.   Sir, let's go step by step.

23             Later, the CSB created the special unit under Mr. Pecanac that

24     you referred to earlier and that we saw participated at Jajce; correct?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 43097

 1        Q.   And I'll distinguish carefully between which unit.  But if we

 2     could turn to page 2 of this document, and here we see an order dated

 3     31st of December, 1992, from Mr. Zupljanin sent to the police brigade

 4     command.  And he says:

 5             "In order to improve the quality of execution of combat tasks in

 6     the Banja Luka CSB police brigade," he appoints -- and the first name we

 7     see is Mr. Ecim appointed as battalion commander.

 8             So Mr. Ecim continued to be an officer in CSB units during your

 9     time as chief of crime prevention; right?

10        A.   Yes.  This document you have put up speaks to something else.

11     It's an order from the chief of the centre to the effect that Mr. Ecim,

12     with a number of other men, should get involved in the police brigade of

13     the CSB of Banja Luka which, from November 1992 until sometime in

14     May 1993, was at the front line in the area of Obudovac.  And in that

15     brigade, I know that Mr. Ecim, with a number of other men, these who are

16     here listed, carried out assignments in the field of national security.

17     I see here that he is named commander of the 1st Battalion.  I don't know

18     about their establishment structure exactly, but I know he was there.

19        Q.   Now, you mention a number of other men.  We see here

20     Zdravko Samardzija, Nenad Kajkut.  Were those also members of the initial

21     CSB special detachment that existed from April to August?

22        A.   I really don't know that.  I'm not sure.  I know that they worked

23     at the centre, but whether they were this, I -- I don't know.

24        Q.   You do know, again speaking of that initial detachment, that it

25     included members of the Serb Defence forces, or SOS; right?

Page 43098

 1        A.   I am not very familiar with this because I arrived Banja Luka in

 2     late April -- or, rather, May, and I wasn't familiar with the issues of

 3     the organisation of the work of the service in the Banja Luka area,

 4     especially with regard to the newly established units of the police or

 5     the army.

 6        Q.   Well, the SOS, you knew that was a criminal group in the

 7     Banja Luka area; right?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Traldi, could we insist on getting an answer to

10     your previous question, that you're not very familiar with matters.

11     Were -- were SOS -- members -- were --

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.  The question was whether the

14     initial detachment Mr. Traldi spoke about, whether that included member

15     of the Serb Defence forces, the SOS, yes or no.  Do you know whether

16     there were any SOS members of that detachment?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I heard, the structure

18     was very heterogeneous, but I really don't know details of this

19     structure --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  What --

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and the individual

22     characteristics of its members.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  You are telling us that you have no knowledge of SOS

24     members being members of that detachment.  Is that what you're telling

25     us?

Page 43099

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I've said that I heard that

 2     the SOS existed and that people were organised in some sort of unit or

 3     structure that was called SOS, but I had no communication with them.  I

 4     was in charge of different duties.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I didn't ask whether you had communication with

 6     them.  Those rumours you heard, did they include that SOS members were

 7     members of that special detachment?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really cannot state that because

 9     I don't remember that it was so.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  But that was -- what was so?  You said you --

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't have any specific

12     information about their jurisdiction, to what degree they were integrated

13     in the official police structures, and whether there was some parallel

14     organisation or something like that.  That's something that I wasn't

15     aware of.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Did the rumours you spoke about, did those rumours

17     include that members or at least SOS members were part of that detachment

18     or were linked to that detachment?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I've pointed out and I will

20     repeat that I came to Banja Luka in early April, and during the first

21     month, I had some private affairs to attend to.  I had to organise my

22     life.  So I wasn't really integrated in the work of the Security Services

23     Centre initially.  Up until the moment when I started carrying out duties

24     at the police station, I was not well-informed about what was going on.

25     That was until the moment when the detachment was established and that

Page 43100

 1     was in April as part of the activities of the Security Services Centre.

 2     Because they wanted those units to have some organised form.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Unfortunately, I tried it four times, that you are

 4     apparently not answering my question but you, rather, answer questions

 5     you've put to yourself rather than my question.

 6             Please proceed, Mr. Traldi.

 7             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have 65 ter 33642.

 8        Q.   As it comes up, this will be a report from the Milos group on

 9     12th of May, 1992.  You knew Milos was part of SNB Banja Luka; right?

10        A.   No.  I didn't know anything about that.

11        Q.   And it refers to terrorist attacks being carried out by the SOS,

12     terrorist and other actions against citizens of Muslim, Croat, and

13     Albanian nationality.  When you agreed earlier that the SOS was a

14     criminal group, this is the type of crimes you had in mind; right?

15        A.   I didn't openly say that it was a criminal group, but I know that

16     there were persons in the first composition of the police detachment who

17     later on did not pass the checks, the vettings, for being the members of

18     the police, and they were dismissed.

19        Q.   So do you now say you were unaware that the SOS was a criminal

20     group?

21        A.   I note that, as far as I know and to the best of my recollection,

22     there were individuals in these structures who later did not meet the

23     criteria to work in interior organs for security reasons, which seems to

24     indicate that they had tendencies to --

25        Q.   Sir, I'm not asking about tendencies.  You were in Banja Luka in

Page 43101

 1     April and May 1992.  You knew the SOS was committing crimes against

 2     non-Serbs; right?  Yes or no?

 3        A.   No, I didn't have any particular knowledge because I was in

 4     charge of completely different duties.  I did not deal with crime at all.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you a follow-up question.

 6             You were asked by Mr. Traldi about the crimes of SOS as a

 7     criminal group which you earlier confirmed in one of your answers.  So it

 8     was about crimes and SOS.

 9             In your answer --

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't say that it was a criminal

11     group.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll read to you what you said in answer to one of

13     the questions, and if you say that's not what you said, then we'll verify

14     it on the basis of the audio.

15             The question put to you was:

16             "Well, the SOS, you knew that was a criminal group in the

17     Banja Luka area; right?"

18             Your answer was:  "Yes."

19             You didn't say that.  We'll have that verified whether you --

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't put it that way but that I

21     heard that in the composition of those --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness -- Witness, we'll check on the basis of the

23     audio whether that's what you said, yes or no.

24             Now I now come back to my question.  When asked about whether

25     this were the type of crimes committed by the SOS, which triggered a

Page 43102

 1     discussion on whether it was a criminal group or not, in your answer, you

 2     started talking about individuals who were removed from the special

 3     detachment.  So I'm wondering why, if a question is put to you about SOS

 4     and its crimes, why in your answer you spontaneously start talking about

 5     individuals who were removed, and upon vetting, turned out to be not

 6     qualified to be members of the special detachment, if, as you told us

 7     earlier, you had no knowledge about SOS members being members of the

 8     special detachment.  Because in this answer, you're establishing a link,

 9     not asked to do so, but spontaneously.

10             So do you have any explanation as why a question in relation to

11     crimes committed by SOS members, why in your answer you link them to

12     individuals in the special detachment?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am quite clear with regard to

14     what I presented to you, but it seems there was a misunderstanding.

15             When you asked me whether I was familiar with the SOS structure,

16     I said that I didn't know anything or almost anything about this

17     structure --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, let me stop you --

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- or I had just --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me stop you there.  Let me stop you there.  I'm

21     not asking you to repeat what you said because we have the audio, we have

22     the transcript.

23             I'm asking why, when a question is put to you why -- crimes

24     committed by SOS, why in your answer you suddenly link that issue with

25     individual members of the special detachment, whether you have an

Page 43103

 1     explanation as why you established that link in relation to this question

 2     and this answer.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not creating a link between

 4     what you said, that is to say, the crimes of the SOS and the special

 5     detachment.  I'm creating a link between members of the SOS as a whole

 6     and the special detachment which was established later on the orders of

 7     the centre chief from all those structures that appeared in Banja Luka.

 8     Later on, it was the police detachment and an official unit of the

 9     Ministry of Interior of Republika Srpska.  I wanted to draw a line there,

10     but somehow it seems there was a misunderstanding between the other two.

11     I'm trying to be as clear and as direct and as specific as I can, and

12     I've told you what I know.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Traldi.

14             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have 65 ter 16981.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Are you done with 33642?

16             MR. TRALDI:  I am, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             MR. TRALDI:

20        Q.   Now, this is an article from Glas, the 13th of May, 1992, and if

21     we could scroll down to the bottom of the page and zoom in on the centre

22     article on the bottom of the page in B/C/S, centre article at the very

23     bottom of the page, we see a reference to a parade on the 12th of May in

24     Banja Luka and the introduction of the newly formed special squad of the

25     police.  And that refers to the same special detachment; right?

Page 43104

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And I think, just to make sure the record is clear, that I

 3     understood you correctly a moment ago to say that you now do acknowledge

 4     that members of the SOS were incorporated into that special detachment;

 5     right?

 6        A.   Yes, it's possible.

 7             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honour, I tender the last two documents.  And

 8     that's 65 ter 33642 and 16981.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter 33642 will receive Exhibit Number P07796.

11             And 65 ter 16981 will receive Exhibit Number P07797.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  P7796 and P7797 are admitted.

13             MR. TRALDI:

14        Q.   Now, the Chamber has received evidence that the special

15     detachment then committed crimes including in Bosanski Novi, P7102,

16     Prijedor, P7209, and Kotor Varos, P3711, crimes that were known to the

17     CSB.

18             Two questions.  First, were you aware that this special

19     detachment had committed crimes against non-Serbs in those

20     municipalities?

21        A.   No, I am not aware of that.

22        Q.   Second, as a police professional, that's what you'd expect from

23     an armed unit composed, in part, of members of what had been a criminal

24     group; right?

25        A.   It's an assumption which hypothetically I can explain by saying

Page 43105

 1     that if persons have a tendency to commit crime, then that can be

 2     expected.  But I cannot support that with any facts in this particular

 3     situation.

 4        Q.   I'm going to turn now to paragraph 7 of your statement which

 5     addresses Simo Drljaca, and you claim in your statement that he was

 6     replaced as chief of SJB Prijedor.

 7             MR. TRALDI:  And in that regard, I'm going to ask Ms. Stewart now

 8     to play a video, 65 ter 33601.  Now CLSS has confirmed the translation so

 9     we'll only need to play it once.

10                           [Video-clip played]

11             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Reporter:  ... for almost a month

12     now.

13             "Ratko Adzic:  Well, I wouldn't regard this here as being

14     replaced.  I believe that we've done this the Serbian way.  This is

15     simply a consequence of the state of war and, probably, if there is

16     anything local about it, that concerns what happened in Prijedor, and I

17     must say that the Serbs of this area have done colossal things here, this

18     including, of course, the public security station.

19             "Reporter:  'That is why,' stressed Adzic, 'the matter at hand

20     here is not about being replaced because, with a job like the one

21     Mr. Simo Drljaca did, he can only be promoted.'

22             "Ratko Adzic:  As regards Simo Drljaca, I am delighted that this

23     has happened, he would perhaps himself want to have a bit of a rest, but

24     I won't allow him to rest.  On the contrary, I believe that a man such as

25     this, such a member of staff, does indeed have work to do at the Ministry

Page 43106

 1     of Internal Affairs and should be one of my associates, and probably -

 2     albeit tacitly - I believe he has agreed to such a solution.  As a proven

 3     member of the Serbian Democratic Party, and as a person, I hope that Simo

 4     will also be my associate, and will of course continue working on these

 5     tasks because we cannot back out now.  Until we have a seal of approval

 6     for the Serbian state, we have no right to back out of the struggle.

 7             "Reporter:  Yet another misunderstanding which has its roots in

 8     the recent removal of municipal authorities and of Prijedor has thus been

 9     eliminated, and the town's public security station will finally be able

10     to devote itself more to the problems of both a war-time and civilian

11     nature."

12             MR. TRALDI:

13        Q.   That was Ratko Adzic, he became the minister of the interior at

14     the beginning of 1993; right?

15        A.   I think that it was so, yes.

16        Q.   And he was clear that Drljaca's appointment to his staff was not

17     a replacement but a promotion; right?

18        A.   Well, the way we understood it, when a man moves from one

19     position to another in circumstances that are not quite usual or

20     specially announced, then it was believed to be a removal.  I was not

21     aware of the circumstances of his transfer to other duties, but I do know

22     that there were some problems in Prijedor, so it's possible that both

23     affected the fact that he was removed from one post to another.

24             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honour, I tender the video.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

Page 43107

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter 33601 will receive Exhibit Number P07798.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  P7798 is admitted.

 3             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have 65 ter 33597.

 4                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 5             MR. TRALDI:

 6        Q.   Now, this is a dispatch dated 16 May 1994, and we see at the

 7     bottom that comes from Mr. Drljaca, now identified as chief of CJB

 8     Prijedor.  By 1994, the term used for regional police headquarters was

 9     CJB rather than the original CSB; right?

10        A.   The CJB and SJB are different organisations.  The -- the CJB

11     is --

12        Q.   Sir -- sir --

13        A.   I think there's an error here.

14        Q.   Sir --

15        A.   Yes?

16        Q.   By 1994, the term for a regional police structure that had

17     several municipalities under it was CJB instead of the original CSB;

18     right?

19        A.   As far as I know, there were CSBs there, which were security

20     service centres rather than public security services.  I'm not sure when

21     they were named differently as public security centres.  It may have been

22     after the war.  I'm not sure what it stands for here.

23             MR. TRALDI:  Let's for a moment have 65 ter 33604.

24        Q.   This will be another portion of your sworn testimony in the

25     Mejakic case in Bosnia.  And we'll be looking at the bottom of page 23 in

Page 43108

 1     English and at page 25 in B/C/S.

 2             Now, you were asked about organisational changes in the MUP.

 3     This begins at line 22 in the English on the right.  And you say:

 4             "In 1994, the new book of rules on the internal organisation of

 5     the Ministry of the Interior was passed, when the centre for security

 6     services Banja Luka because of its size.  It was the largest centre for

 7     security service in the Republika Srpska, it was divided into several

 8     centres, namely:  The centre for security services in Banja Luka for a

 9     number of municipalities in that region, but also the centre for security

10     services in" - and we turn to the next page in English - "in Prijedor was

11     established which had territorial jurisdiction over the municipality of

12     Prijedor, Novi Grad, Kozarska Dubica, Kostajnica, Sanski Most, Kljuc, and

13     Krupa.  I believe at that time the name of this town was Krupa na Uni."

14             So, first, do you stand by the testimony that I've just read back

15     to you?

16        A.   Yes.  One can see precisely here the difference between this

17     document and the previous one with regard to the Security Service Centres

18     and the public security centre, because, as far as I know, in 1994,

19     Security Services Centres were in operation rather than public security

20     stations.  And public security stations are internal organisational

21     structures of Security Services Centres at municipal levels.

22        Q.   And what you're clearly testifying here is that Prijedor didn't

23     just have a municipal centre, it had a regional centre with several SJBs

24     under it; right?

25        A.   Yet in 1994, it received a new organisational structure as one of

Page 43109

 1     the regional centres, yes, correct.

 2             MR. TRALDI:  Can we go back to 65 ter 33597.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Traldi, I don't know how much time you would

 4     need to finish this, but it is approximately time for a break.  So if it

 5     would take too long, I would invite to you do it after the break.  If you

 6     can finish it within, well, let's say, two to three minutes, then you're

 7     invited to continue.

 8             MR. TRALDI:  I think I'll be quite quick, Your Honour.  And if my

 9     impression changes, I'll let the Court know and we'll break.

10        Q.   Now, we see at the top that Mr. Drljaca, as chief of the CJB, is

11     sending this to all SJB in the region.  That reflects that as head of the

12     Prijedor CJB he had authority over the SJBs in the municipalities that I

13     just listed; right?  Kljuc, Kostajnica, Kozarska Dubica, Sanski Most, and

14     the others.

15        A.   That's correct.  Except that here I think there is a mistake in

16     the acronym CJB, because it was CSB Prijedor, and this dispatch is from

17     May 1994.  I think this is simply a typo.  CJB did not exist then as an

18     organisation.  There was CSB Prijedor and CSB Banja Luka.

19        Q.   Two last quick questions.  First, being the chief of a regional

20     centre, whatever you recall the acronym to be, that's clearly a promotion

21     over being the chief of just one municipality; right?

22        A.   Yes, yes, we can -- we can say that.

23        Q.   And, second, we say that the minister here is identified as

24     Mico Stanisic.  By this time, May 1994, Mr. Stanisic was serving again as

25     minister of the interior; right?

Page 43110

 1        A.   Yes.

 2             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I would tender the document and then

 3     I'd suggest we take the break.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter 33597 will receive Exhibit Number P07799.

 6             And 65 ter 33604 will receive Exhibit Number P07780.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I think you tendered only this document, Mr. Traldi.

 8     Is that...

 9             MR. TRALDI:  I had only tendered 33597.  The witness affirmed the

10     testimony that I'd read back to him, so I'd understood it not to be

11     necessary to tender that portion of the transcript.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  So then we leave it to 33597.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  33597 will receive Exhibit Number P07799.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that is hereby admitted into evidence.

15             We take a break.  Mr. Matijevic, we'd like to see you back in

16     20 minutes.  You may follow the usher.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18                           [The witness stands down]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  We will resume at five minutes to 11.00.

20                           --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

22             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave,

23     let me just say that together we have in the courtroom with us our young

24     assistant, Rebecca Monroe, who will be in the courtroom as we continue to

25     examine this witness.

Page 43111

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Welcome in the courtroom, Ms. Monroe.

 2             As a matter of fact, Mr. Stojanovic, however I'm pleased with

 3     your message, I was expecting, as a matter of fact, an answer to the

 4     question we raised earlier today, that it's about withdrawal of any

 5     remaining evidentiary motions, but then we'll hear from you later today,

 6     I take it.

 7                           [The witness takes the stand]

 8             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we haven't

 9     forgotten.  We are simply waiting to hear from Mr. Lukic who had some

10     obligations that couldn't be postponed regarding the transfer of

11     witnesses.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll hear later today from you.

13             Mr. Traldi, you may proceed.

14             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have 65 ter 33602.

15        Q.   Now, as it comes up, sir, one of the pieces of information that

16     Mr. Drljaca relayed in the last document was your appointment as

17     deputy chief of crime prevention for the RS MUP.  That was a promotion

18     for you, right, when you attained that position?

19        A.   Actually, yes.  If I may just add, Mr. Drljaca was basically just

20     forwarding a dispatch from the Ministry of the Interior signed by the

21     minister.  He was only informing his units on the ground.

22        Q.   He was informing the SJBs underneath him; right?

23        A.   Yes, that's correct.

24        Q.   Now, this is 65 ter 33602.  This is a collection of extracts from

25     Mr. Drljaca's MUP personnel files.

Page 43112

 1             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have page 40 in the English and 27 in the

 2     B/C/S.

 3        Q.   Now, here we see Drljaca is temporarily assigned to duties of

 4     head of the MUP, information office as of 1 April 1993, signed by

 5     then-Minister Adzic.  Now, this is his promotion to serve as one of

 6     Adzic's advisors that Adzic was talking about in the video we saw; right?

 7        A.   Yes, probably.

 8             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have page 31 in the English; 22 in B/C/S.

 9        Q.   This is dated 17 January 1994.  We see the minister signing it is

10     Mico Stanisic.  And it's a decision -- Simo Drljaca is hereby temporarily

11     assigned to duties and tasks of assistant chief of the Banja Luka

12     security service centre as of 17 January 1994.

13             Now, that's a higher position than a local SJB chief; right?

14        A.   You could say that, although the responsibilities of assistant go

15     only as far, whereas all the powers lie with heads of centre, chiefs of

16     centre.

17             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have page 23 in the English; 17 in B/C/S.

18        Q.   Now, this document is dated 27 April 1994.  We see at the bottom

19     in B/C/S that it's signed by Minister Stanisic again.  And by this

20     decision, Drljaca is provisionally appointed to the tasks and duties of

21     the chief of the Prijedor public security centre from 27 April 1994.

22             Now, that's the promotion that we saw reflected in the last

23     document before the break; right?

24        A.   Yes, possibly.  Chief of centre.

25        Q.   Turning to page 16 in English, 13 in B/C/S, we see a decision

Page 43113

 1     dated 20 October 1995 on early promotion to higher rank.  If we scroll

 2     down in the English, we see that Drljaca assigned to the tasks and duties

 3     of the chief of the Prijedor public security centre with the rank of

 4     major is receiving an early promotion to the rank of colonel.  If we turn

 5     to the next page in English only, we see that it's signed by

 6     then-Minister Tomislav Kovac.

 7             And so we see again that Drljaca is being promoted; right?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   So just to make sure we're clear, what we've now seen is three

10     separate ministers of the interior - Adzic in 1993, Stanisic in 1994,

11     Kovac in 1995 - all promoting, not replacing, Mr. Drljaca; right?

12        A.   Yes, you can see that from here.

13        Q.   And all of these promotions were well after the crimes that

14     Mr. Drljaca's police committed in Prijedor, including at

15     Koricanske Stijene, at Omarska camp, were well known, not just in the

16     Republika Srpska but internationally; right?

17        A.   Concerning these events which were later established to be

18     crimes, at that time some of them were known; others were not.  I cannot

19     say anything about the information available and the responsibility of

20     any chief of centre, including Mr. Drljaca.

21        Q.   Well, you knew at the time, surely, during the war, that the

22     crime at Koricanske Stijene, for instance, the mass murder of Muslims

23     there, was committed by members of the Prijedor police; right?

24        A.   I was informed although not of the details because it was the

25     crime investigation department that conducted the investigation, the

Page 43114

 1     section from the public security centre Prijedor.

 2        Q.   Now, you refer to an investigation.  No one was punished in RS

 3     courts for that crime during the war, were they?

 4        A.   Not as far as I know.

 5             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I'd tender this document.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter 33602 will receive Exhibit Number P07800.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

 9             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have P6952.

10        Q.   As it comes up, you say in paragraph 8 of your statement, that

11     Drljaca was close to the Prijedor Crisis Staff.  Now, you know he was a

12     member of the Prijedor Crisis Staff; right?

13        A.   Yes, by virtue of his position.  And pursuant to the order on the

14     establishment of Crisis Staffs, a chief of the public security centre

15     would automatically become member of the Crisis Staff.

16        Q.   And similarly, for instance, Mr. Zupljanin was part of the

17     regional Crisis Staff for the Autonomous Region of Krajina, the ARK;

18     right?

19        A.   Yes, I know he was a member.

20        Q.   Now, in 1992, Mr. Drljaca's reports, they were supposed to go to

21     Mr. Zupljanin at the CSB; right?

22        A.   Yes, by the line of reporting.

23        Q.   And so what we see here is 30 April 1992, that's the date of the

24     take-over of Prijedor; right?

25        A.   I really don't remember if that's the date, but if it's written

Page 43115

 1     here, it's possible.  I don't know the exact date of the take-over of

 2     power.

 3        Q.   And you'd agree that what is reflected here is Drljaca reporting

 4     up to the CSB immediately the day of the take-over; right?

 5        A.   That's noted here, yes.

 6             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have 65 ter 16024.

 7        Q.   This is a document coming from Mr. Drljaca, then the head of SJB

 8     Prijedor, on 11 May 1992.  We see a reference to a meeting of the council

 9     of the Security Services Centre in Banja Luka on 6 May 1992, the meeting

10     we saw earlier, and a number of conclusions.

11             Turning to the end in both languages of this document, we see

12     Drljaca requires his station commanders to brief their employees on the

13     conclusions from this meeting.  Now, that's an example of Drljaca

14     relaying Zupljanin's direction, the CSB's direction, down his own chain

15     of command in Prijedor; right?

16        A.   Yes, that's what we see from this document.

17             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I'd tender the document.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter 16024 will receive Exhibit Number P07801.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  P7801 is admitted.

21             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have 65 ter 02578.

22             This is a CSB Banja Luka decision dated the 28th of April [sic],

23     1992, type signed by Mr. Zupljanin.  Number ending 09399, informing

24     subordinate SJBs that employees who did not sign solemn declarations are

25     dismissed as of 15 April 1992.

Page 43116

 1             I think I may have misspoken.  It's dated the 28th of May, and I

 2     said - or at least am recorded to have said - the 28th of April.

 3             But it refers to this decision, 28 May, that employees who didn't

 4     sign solemn declarations are dismissed.

 5             Now if we could have 65 ter 16946.

 6        Q.   Now, this is a list of Prijedor SM employees who signed the

 7     solemn declaration and of those who did not dated the 29th of May, 1992,

 8     the next day.  Now, would you agree with me that we see here the

 9     information necessary to implement the CSB decision we just saw has been

10     collected by the Prijedor SJB the day after the decision was issued?

11        A.   It follows from this document except that it says "SM Prijedor,"

12     which means the station of police.  It doesn't reflect the whole

13     personnel of the public security station.  There may be more.

14        Q.   And the way that the direction about people who signed the solemn

15     declaration and those who did not would have gotten from the CSB to the

16     police station is it would have been relayed down the chain by the SJB to

17     the SM; right?

18        A.   Yes, yes.  Because the police station, "stanica milicije," is

19     part of the public security station.

20             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have 65 ter 16951.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  16?

22             MR. TRALDI:  16951.

23        Q.   And here we see a document sent by Drljaca also on the 29th of

24     May --

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, 16951.  We still have 591 --

Page 43117

 1             MR. TRALDI:  Yes, 16951.

 2        Q.   Here we see a document send by Mr. Drljaca also on the 29th of

 3     May to the Banja Luka CSB in response to a different communication dated

 4     the 28th of May, 1992, and reporting here on the structure of the

 5     Prijedor police.  So, again, we see next-day response and implementation

 6     of the order, the direction coming down from the CSB; right?

 7        A.   Yes, you can see that from this document.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can we go to the bottom of the English.  Thank

 9     you.

10             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I would tender 65 ter 02578, 16946,

11     and 16951.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter 02578 will receive Exhibit Number P07802.

14             65 ter 16946 will receive Exhibit Number P07803.

15             And 65 ter 16951 will receive Exhibit Number P07804.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  P7802, P7803, and P7804 are admitted into evidence.

17             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have P3434, please.

18        Q.   Now, this is a weekly report from CSB Banja Luka for the period

19     of the 18th [sic] to the 25th of May, 1992.  These weekly reports were

20     send to the RS MUP headquarters; right?

21        A.   Yes.  Whether they were forwarded in the original or not, I don't

22     know, but, yes, it went through the Ministry of Interior.

23             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have page 2, paragraph 2.

24        Q.   Now, we see a reference to fighting the escalation of the

25     situation in the Prijedor area.  Then we see a reference to an order by

Page 43118

 1     the Prijedor Military Command and the army carrying out an artillery

 2     attack on Hambarine, and then a vigorous mopping-up operation in Kozarac.

 3     This is information that would have come up to the CSB from SJB Prijedor;

 4     right?

 5        A.   Yes, logical.

 6        Q.   And this one of the operations where based on the standard

 7     practice that you described earlier yesterday, police units participating

 8     would have been resubordinated to the VRS command; right?

 9        A.   Yes.

10             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have 65 ter 02689.

11             This is an RS MUP daily bulletin describing events on the

12     26th of May, 1992.  If we turn to page 2, in the -- sorry, page 2 in the

13     English only.  Still page 1 in the B/C/S.

14        Q.   Under Banja Luka CSB, we see a reference to, on the 26th of May,

15     armed clashes involving the Serbian army and what are described as Muslim

16     extremists in the municipality of Prijedor, particularly around the

17     village of Kozarac.

18             And if we scroll now to page 2 in the B/C/S and the bottom of

19     this page in English, we see the recipients, the minister of the

20     interior, under-secretaries, office of the minister, and the RS

21     government.

22             So through these daily bulletins, information would flow from

23     Prijedor all the way up to the prime minister, Mr. Djeric; right?

24        A.   Yes, that's right.  That's how this was circulated.

25             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I tender the document.

Page 43119

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter 02689 will receive Exhibit Number P07805.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted.

 4             MR. TRALDI:  And could we have 65 ter 19184.

 5        Q.   These are Minister Stanisic's instructions for providing details

 6     for the daily bulletin to all CSBs dated 18th of April, 1992, ordering

 7     the CSBs to send the daily incident bulletin and other significant

 8     information of security interest to the ministry by fax.  All CSBs were

 9     responsible for keeping the ministry informed in this way; right?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And that was to ensure that the flow of information that we just

12     saw worked properly and allowed the RS leadership to know what was going

13     on on the ground; right?

14        A.   Yes.

15             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I tender this document.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter 19184 will receive Exhibit Number P07806.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  P7806 is admitted.

19             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have P2895.

20        Q.   One of the places that I'd earlier asked you if you knew --

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  P2895.

22             MR. TRALDI:  Yes.

23        Q.   One of the places that I earlier asked you if you were aware that

24     Prijedor police committed crimes against non-Serbs was Omarska camp.

25     Now, this is Mr. Drljaca's order establishing the camp.  You've seen it

Page 43120

 1     in your testimony in the Mejakic case; right?

 2        A.   Yes, I was an expert witness in the Mejakic case based on the

 3     available documents from the Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  And I was not

 4     aware of this because it comes from May 1992 when I did not hold any

 5     position in this area and Security Services Centre, but I was, rather, in

 6     Banja Luka.

 7        Q.   Now, you were certainly aware at some point in 1992 that the

 8     Prijedor police was committing crimes against -- members of the Prijedor

 9     police were committing crimes against detainees at Omarska; right?

10        A.   I heard that there were many security problems in the Prijedor

11     area, but I did not visit the area at the time.  It was not even

12     possible.

13        Q.   Sir -- sir, I'm not asking you about your travel then.  I'm

14     asking specifically:  Were you aware at some point in 1992 that members

15     of the Prijedor police were committing crimes against Omarska detainees?

16        A.   Up until the Koricanske Stijene incident, I didn't know anything.

17        Q.   Now, the Chamber has received evidence - P7209 - that the CSB

18     knew that members of the special detachment had committed crimes against

19     Omarska detainees by early June 1992.  Did you also miss this

20     information?

21        A.   I'm not familiar with that because I was in charge of other

22     duties at the time at the public security station in Banja Luka.

23             MR. TRALDI:  Now, if we turn to page 3 in the English and the end

24     of the document in B/C/S.  In B/C/S, we still have a different document,

25     I'm afraid.

Page 43121

 1             I'm looking for point 17 in both languages.

 2        Q.   And we see the implementation of the order to set up the camp

 3     shall be supervised by police chief Dusan Jankovic in collaboration with

 4     the Banja Luka CSB and with the support of authorised executive

 5     personnel.

 6             Now, the CSB level, the regional police was directly involved in

 7     setting up Omarska; right?

 8        A.   I was not aware of that at the time.  With regard to Omarska, I

 9     only learned about it in my role as expert witness in the Mejakic case.

10        Q.   In your statement, paragraph 8, you say you recall that

11     Mr. Drljaca usually made decisions without consulting with the Banja Luka

12     CSB.  Now, when I show you an order from him, you tell me you didn't know

13     about the decision he was making.  In fact, you weren't familiar with or

14     privy to the decisions Drljaca was making on the ground or his reporting

15     to or consultations with CSB Banja Luka during the summer of 1992, were

16     you?

17        A.   When I took over the duty of the chief of police, then I was

18     informed.  But up until then, including this document, it was not

19     objectively possible for me to know this because I worked at the public

20     security station in Banja Luka.

21             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have 65 ter 32036.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I seek confirmation of one of the previous

23     answers.

24             You told us that as an expert in the Mejakic case, it was then

25     that you learned about Omarska.  You never heard or learned about crimes

Page 43122

 1     having been committed in Omarska before that Mejakic case which, if I

 2     understand well, you gave your testimony in 2008.  You never heard about

 3     Omarska crimes before?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not in any specific way and not

 5     about any details.  I knew what any citizen knew.  But I left the service

 6     in 1995 and I was not really present in the Ministry of Interior.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Did every citizen know that crimes were committed at

 8     Omarska?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I cannot put it that way.

10     But it was known that there were crimes and certain problems, but being

11     specific is something else.  And I didn't really deal with that.  I never

12     even went there physically.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

14             MR. TRALDI:

15        Q.   You say "it was known that there were crimes and certain

16     problems."  It was known that prisoners there, detainees there, were

17     being killed; right?

18        A.   Yes, you could put it that there were some indications, but I

19     cannot really confirm anything specific.

20        Q.   It was known at the CSB level, it was known widely throughout the

21     ARK, that people being held there had been murdered; right?

22        A.   I cannot comment on or convey impressions or information that

23     citizens had at the time.  But as we had a situation of war in the

24     general area, people perished everywhere.  It was known that there were

25     victims in the Prijedor area, certainly so.

Page 43123

 1        Q.   Now, from August 1992 --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you one thing.  You say:  I cannot

 3     comment on what other citizens knew.  You told us that you knew what all

 4     the citizens knew.  So therefore apparently you are aware, otherwise you

 5     couldn't say:  I knew what everyone knew.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I have stated my mind well, I

 7     didn't know anything about specific events.  But one could hear that

 8     there were many security problems in the Prijedor area, on both sides.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  But, again, the focus of the question was whether

10     you knew about detainees being killed, not only as a citizen but also

11     whether this was widely known within the -- within your police circles.

12     Apart from details - who exactly, when exactly - but was it known that

13     detainees were killed.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not aware of that, really.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

16             MR. TRALDI:  Mr. President, I'd ask that the witness be given

17     Rule 90(E) advice.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm sorry, I missed that.

19             Witness, the Prosecution asked me to inform you about a rule in

20     our Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and I read it to you.  Let me see.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  The rule reads:

23             "A witness may object to making any statement which might tend to

24     incriminate the witness.  The Chamber may, however, compel the witness to

25     answer the question.  Testimony compelled in this way shall not be used

Page 43124

 1     as evidence in a subsequent prosecution against the witness for any

 2     offence other than false testimony."

 3             Which means if a truthful answer to a question might tend to

 4     incriminate yourself, then you can ask to be relieved from the duty to

 5     answer that question.  But if you answer the question, it should be fully

 6     in accordance with the truth.

 7             Please proceed, Mr. Traldi.

 8             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have page 47 of this document.

 9        Q.   Now, sir, this is a recording of an OTP interview with Colonel

10     Bogojevic who you testified yesterday that you had contact with, that you

11     co-ordinated with, that you had a good working relationship with.

12             Now, he is asked here beginning at line 19:

13             "Colonel, tell me about Omarska."

14             And he starts:

15             "I know bad things about Omarska."

16             And then at the end of his answer, after referring to some other

17     camps as well, says that:

18             "The conditions in the camps were very bad, very complex.  Those

19     camps, I could almost say for certain, were collection centre -- centres

20     where all categories of the population were rounded up and taken

21     regardless of age or combat fitness."

22             Now, my question is:  Did Colonel Bogojevic, during his

23     communications with you, tell you the bad things he knew about what was

24     going on in Omarska camp?

25        A.   I don't remember that we ever discussed those matters because I

Page 43125

 1     simply had no special reason to deal with Omarska, as I've said before.

 2     Because I was never involved in any way in any activities in the Omarska

 3     area.

 4        Q.   So as -- as chief of crime prevention who had what you earlier

 5     described as indications that detainees there had been murdered, you

 6     considered yourself to have no special reason to do anything about what

 7     was happening in Omarska.  Is that your testimony today?

 8        A.   Please.  I was chief of the police department at the Security

 9     Services Centre in Banja Luka, not the chief of the crime prevention

10     department.  And police precisely did not investigate crimes but was in

11     charge of some other duties, if we understand each other.

12        Q.   You were later deputy chief of crime prevention for the whole RS;

13     right?

14        A.   Yes, in Bijeljina.  In 1994, I was transferred there.  That's

15     correct.

16        Q.   And it is correct that in neither of those positions did you take

17     any steps to investigate the indications that you'd received that

18     prisoners at Omarska had been murdered; right?

19        A.   The crime prevention administration in the Ministry of Interior

20     was a place where I discharged duties as assigned by my superiors.  I

21     never received any duties or had any authority to deal specifically with

22     such activities.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I may just get clarity.

24             Is your answer that in fact you didn't do such investigations,

25     sir?

Page 43126

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't take any measures,

 2     because I did not have any authority.  I was not authorised by my

 3     superiors to discharge such duties.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.  Thank you so much.

 5             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have P3874.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  While we are waiting for that, could you tell us who

 7     had the authority and who would have had to do it?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The public security station that

 9     was territorially in charge, that is to say, the Prijedor Security

10     Services Centre and public security station.  First it was the Banja Luka

11     Security Services Centre and then the Prijedor one, they were in charge

12     of carrying out investigations in the area that they were in charge of.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And do you know whether they ever did that?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't know that.  I know, for

15     example, about Koricanske Stijene, that there was an investigation.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

17             Please proceed.

18             MR. TRALDI:

19        Q.   Now this is a document sent by Mr. Zupljanin to the RS MUP on

20     20th of July, 1992.  Directing your attention to the second paragraph in

21     both languages, we read:

22             "However, during these conflicts, representatives of Army of

23     Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and police arrested a great

24     number of citizens of Muslim and Croat nationality who were, depending on

25     the number and the circumstances in the field, sent to various buildings

Page 43127

 1     like schools, centres, factory facilities, open spaces, and so on."

 2             Now, you were aware of the detention by the VRS and the RS MUP of

 3     a great number of Muslim and Croat citizens in the ARK in the summer of

 4     1992; right?

 5        A.   There was certain information that there were arrests and

 6     detentions and other activities in the areas of certain public security

 7     stations why -- which was why the Security Services Centre sent

 8     dispatches urging everyone to take measures as prescribed by law; that is

 9     to say, releasing persons who were unlawfully detained when there was no

10     basis to keep them in detention.

11        Q.   Let's see what Mr. Zupljanin says about that.  He describes three

12     categories into which detained persons were placed.  And then, turning to

13     page 2 in the English, the first two categories are described as "of

14     security interest to us."  Then --

15             MR. TRALDI:  Sorry, we have to start at the bottom of page 1.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Where is it in B/C/S?

17             MR. TRALDI:  It's on page 2 in the B/C/S as well.  Thank you,

18     Your Honour.  In the top paragraph.

19        Q.   He says:

20             "The third category of these prisoners is composed of adult men

21     about" - turning now to page 2 in the English - "about whom the service

22     does not have any information of security interest for us so far.

23     Therefore, they can be treated as hostages."

24             That's very different from saying:  Act in accordance with the

25     law and release them as you just claimed, isn't it?

Page 43128

 1        A.   Yes, what is noted here is different.  That's true.

 2        Q.   It's consistent with what we saw Colonel Bogojevic describe, the

 3     rounding up of people regardless of age or combat fitness for detention

 4     in camps; right?

 5        A.   Yes, right.

 6        Q.   And, in fact, you were aware that people who the VRS and the RS

 7     MUP had no basis to detain were being held and in your boss's view at the

 8     time - Mr. Zupljanin's - they could be used as hostages; right?

 9        A.   I'm really not aware of that part because I know that the centre

10     chief officially advocated that everyone be processed in accordance with

11     the law.  I'm really not familiar with this word "hostages."

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Traldi, did you refer to Colonel Bogojevic or

13     Blagojevic?

14             MR. TRALDI:  Bogojevic.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

16             MR. TRALDI:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17        Q.   Finally, in this regard, sir, the Chamber has received evidence

18     that the same categorisation, same type of three categories was used at

19     Omarska, which we were discussing earlier.  That's a reflection of

20     CSB Banja Luka protocols, as we see Mr. Zupljanin referring to here,

21     being used in the camps in Prijedor; right?

22        A.   I'm not aware of that, but if the centre chief noted it, then it

23     must be so.  But I was not involved in this.

24             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I'm about to turn to another topic.  I

25     see it's a minute or two early, but I'd suggest for continuity that we

Page 43129

 1     break now.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, as a matter of fact, I think we resumed at

 3     five minutes to rather than ten minutes to, but let's take the break now

 4     and then be on track again.

 5             The witness may follow the usher.  We'd like to see you back in

 6     20 minutes.

 7                           [The witness stands down]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Traldi, could you tell us where you are,

 9     approximately, in terms of time.

10             MR. TRALDI:  I would expect to be finished within the first half

11     of the next session.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  First half of the next session.

13             Mr. Stojanovic, could you give us already an impression about how

14     much time you think you would need.

15             MR. STOJANOVIC: [No interpretation]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm missing interpretation at this moment.

17             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] At this moment, I think I will

18     have several topics to cover, and I suppose it will take about

19     ten minutes, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which would leave time later today to deal

21     with a few procedural items, and hopefully we could conclude those today

22     so that we don't have to schedule a hearing tomorrow just for these

23     practical matters.

24             We take a break and we'll resume at ten minutes past 12.00.

25                           --- Recess taken at 11.49 p.m.

Page 43130

 1                           --- On resuming at 12.11 p.m.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  While we're waiting for the witness, Mr. Stojanovic,

 3     you're on your feet.

 4             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.

 5             After consultations with my colleagues from the team, I just wish

 6     to inform you officially for the record that, as far as we are aware, we

 7     have no further motions regarding witnesses under Rule 92 ter.  But if we

 8     have omitted something, overlooked something, you may consider that we

 9     have no further motions for hearing witnesses under 92 ter.

10                           [The witness takes the stand]

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The question was about 92 bis.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I think it was about --

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  92 bis -- 92 ter?

14             JUDGE ORIE:  92 ter.  Because we discussed the witnesses still to

15     appear in court.  Yeah.

16             That's on the record, Mr. Stojanovic.

17             Mr. Traldi, if you are ready, you may proceed.

18             MR. TRALDI:  Thank you, Mr. President.

19             Can we have 65 ter 13129.

20        Q.   This is an RS presidential decree from 28 June [sic] 1995.  The

21     second name we see is promoted to the rank of major-general is

22     Vladimir Arsic.  Now, in 1992, he was commander of the 43rd Brigade in

23     Prijedor.  The MUP units that you said would have been subordinated to

24     the VRS during combat in Prijedor, they would have been subordinated to

25     him; right?

Page 43131

 1        A.   Under the rules of engagement of police members in combat

 2     operations, they were resubordinated to military commands.

 3        Q.   And so the ones in Prijedor would have been resubordinated to the

 4     command of the 43rd Brigade, Arsic; right?

 5        A.   In combat operations.  Not in their regular work.

 6             MR. TRALDI:  Your Honours, I'd tender this document.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter 13129 will receive Exhibit Number P07807.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

10             MR. TRALDI:  Can we have Exhibit P358.

11             This is one of General Mladic's notebooks from the war.  Could we

12     have page 151 in the English, 155 in the original B/C/S.

13        Q.   Here we see at the beginning of General Mladic's notes of a

14     meeting in Banja Luka on the 27th of May, 1993.  Turning to page 154 in

15     English and 158 in the B/C/S original, at the bottom of the page, both

16     languages, we see Mladic reports that -- Mladic records that

17     Colonel Bogojevic had informed him that four or five days earlier

18     Simo Drljaca had arrived, sent by the RS Ministry of Interior, and he

19     came about the Tomasica mine.

20             Turning to the next page in both languages, Mladic records the

21     mine is near Prijedor, records "where earlier they had buried around

22     5.000 Muslim bodies," and writes:

23             "I'm sure that the world knows about this from the released

24     prisoners."

25             Now, it's clear that we're talking about a very large mass grave

Page 43132

 1     here; right?

 2        A.   According to this, yes.

 3        Q.   Now, this is also -- this the notebook entry that you referred to

 4     in your statement; right?

 5        A.   I don't understand.  I refer to what?

 6        Q.   In your statement, you comment on one of the entries in

 7     General Mladic's notebook.  It's this entry; right?

 8        A.   Yes, yes, certainly.  I explained in my statement, in fact, I

 9     answered the question.

10        Q.   Now, lower down, Mladic records that Bogojevic informs him the

11     team includes -- well, first, that they want to get rid of it by burning,

12     grinding or some other way, and that the team includes Drljaca.  And

13     then:

14             "At the meeting were General Subotic, Arsic, Drljaca, me, and

15     Mile Matijevic."

16             Now, we agree Mile Matijevic refers to you; right?

17        A.   I think the name we see here refers to me because in the SUP of

18     Banja Luka there was no other Mile Matijevic.  That's as far as the name

19     is concerned.  Facts are something different.

20        Q.   Now, covering up a large mass grave, covering up the evidence of

21     that, that's not something anyone would falsely claim they themselves

22     were involved in; right?

23        A.   I didn't understand the question very well.  Is not something ...

24     what do you mean by that?

25        Q.   Covering up a large mass grave, that's a serious, ominous

Page 43133

 1     criminal activity; right?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   We see Colonel Bogojevic says he's involved in it.  Now, because

 4     this is a serious, ominous criminal activity, he wouldn't tell

 5     General Mladic he himself was involved if that wasn't true, would he?

 6        A.   I agree with the first part of what you said.  Covering up such

 7     serious matters is certainly a very grave thing.  As for what

 8     Colonel Bogojevic says about his involvement and the involvement of

 9     others, I will talk about that later.

10        Q.   What I'm putting to you right now is people don't tend to say

11     that they're involved in serious, ominous criminal matters to their

12     commanding officers unless they really are.  You agree with that; right?

13        A.   What you are saying is logical.

14        Q.   So I want to make sure I understand your evidence about this

15     notebook entry right.  As I understand your evidence, it is:  First, you

16     agree there are parts of the report that Colonel Bogojevic is giving that

17     logically must be true; second, that it is a coincidence that you, like

18     Colonel Arsic and Mr. Drljaca, were promoted after the cover-up of this

19     mass grave; and, third, that Colonel Bogojevic, who you had regular

20     contact with and a good working relationship with, is mistakenly

21     implicating you in the serious, ominous criminal cover-up of this mass

22     grave in Prijedor.

23             Have I understood your evidence correctly?

24        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, you understood it as you understood it.  However,

25     I don't agree with your statement at all.

Page 43134

 1        Q.   I put to you that that evidence is simply not capable of belief.

 2     Do you have any comment on that?

 3        A.   I do.  I do.  I will tell you very openly and very clearly and --

 4     although it's not appropriate to make any oaths here, but I want to tell

 5     you and before this Trial Chamber concerning this specific meeting and my

 6     alleged involvement according to this document is absolutely untrue.  In

 7     connection with this, I know nothing.

 8             To be quite honest, over the past few days, I was rather upset by

 9     what you said about me being promoted on account of these things.  But

10     let me accept your assumptions.

11             May I go on?  I have something more to say on this.

12        Q.   Go on, sir.

13        A.   I said very loud and clear what my relationship and my contacts

14     with Colonel Bogojevic were within the framework of regular assignments

15     and regular work.  Concerning these specific allegations and some issues

16     that were touched upon in the hierarchy regarding other operations, by

17     virtue of my position and rank, I was not able to be involved.  However,

18     when I learned of this document - I believe it was in 2010 - I was really

19     astounded and surprised, but I was not concerned.  I did not feel

20     concerned because my conscience is absolutely clear as far as these

21     allegations are concerned.  I simply have no knowledge and no involvement

22     in this.

23             Let me tell you one more thing.  I later kept thinking what to do

24     about these allegations.  Should I try to find out the reasons and the

25     way my name found into this document.  I consulted lawyers, but mostly I

Page 43135

 1     thought about it myself, because it's my profession and my long

 2     professional career to investigate and to collect evidence.  I decided

 3     not to do anything about it, knowing that the time would come for me to

 4     say what I know about this.  That's why I was rather inclined to come

 5     here once I was invited to appear before the Court and say this.

 6             Let me conclude by saying that as a human being and as a

 7     professional, I would honestly like to know how my name found its way

 8     into this document.  I stress once again that on this matter I know

 9     absolutely nothing.

10        Q.   Three quick follow-up questions on that, sir.  All yes-or-no

11     questions.

12             You don't contest that there was a mass grave at Tomasica, do

13     you?

14        A.   You can ask, yes.  I found out later that there was a grave.  I

15     don't know what size, but I know it exists.

16        Q.   You don't contest that it was covered up, do you?

17        A.   How long it remained unfound testifies to the fact that it was

18     covered up.

19        Q.   You say by virtue of your position and rank, you weren't able to

20     be involved in that.  In fact, you were able to be involved in whatever

21     tasks were assigned to you by your superiors; right?

22        A.   Concerning this case?

23        Q.   At the moment, speaking in principle, you say by virtue of your

24     position and rank, you weren't able to be involved in this.  If a

25     superior had ordered you to be involved, you'd have been able to be

Page 43136

 1     involved; right?

 2        A.   You have inspired me now, although I have been thinking about

 3     this before.  Looking at the composition of this meeting, you see

 4     Bogojevic, Colonel Arsic, Mr. Drljaca, and General Subotic.  Yes, he is

 5     here as a representative of Republika Srpska before the president of the

 6     republic.  All these men are at a level which is far beyond my powers.  I

 7     have long thought about this list.  If there were to be a representative

 8     of the MUP at such a meeting, it would be something -- someone of a

 9     higher level, above mine.  If I had been assigned to go to that meeting,

10     however, I would have gone and later I would have acted as planned.  But

11     I really don't know anything about this.

12             MR. TRALDI:  No further questions for this witness, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Traldi.

14             May I just seek clarification.  Is it -- the witness said

15     "looking at the composition of this meeting," you haven't asked him any

16     questions about the composition of the meeting, did you?  So, therefore,

17     I do not know what the position of the Prosecution is.  Is it the

18     position of the Prosecution that this witness was present at this

19     meeting, which does not immediately transpire for me, or is it the

20     position of the Prosecution that what is recorded here is what

21     Colonel Bogojevic told about a team who would deal with that?

22             MR. TRALDI:  Could we have -- sorry, I've lost the page in

23     e-court.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It was page 154 in English.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I -- or would it be 151 which would be perhaps --

Page 43137

 1             MR. TRALDI:  So --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  -- the page in which the meeting is announced as --

 3             MR. TRALDI:  We've got the right page in e-court now.  I think

 4     it's English page 155 and B/C/S 159.  And so there are two meetings at

 5     issue.  The first is the meeting at which General Mladic is taking notes.

 6     It is not our position that Mr. Matijevic attended that meeting.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, that's fine.

 8             MR. TRALDI:  Colonel Bogojevic is here -- I'm slowing down for

 9     the transcript.  Is here recorded as reporting to General Mladic about a

10     team but also about a meeting.  He says:

11             "At the meeting were General Subotic, Arsic, Drljaca, and

12     Mile Matijevic."

13             And our position is that we rely on the notebook entry for its

14     truth.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Just to have matters perfectly clear, that it's the

16     position of the Prosecution not that you attended the meeting with

17     Mr. Mladic but that what is written by Mr. Mladic, that reference is made

18     to a meeting and it's the position of the Prosecution that you were

19     present at that meeting.  And I do understand that you say:  I never have

20     been at such a meeting where General Subotic, Mr. Arsic, Mr. Drljaca were

21     present.  Is that well understood?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it has been cleared up

23     accurately.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, any further questions for the

25     witness?

Page 43138

 1             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, after all this

 2     clarification, the Defence has no further questions for this witness.

 3             I thank the witness on behalf of the Defence team of

 4     General Mladic.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I have one short question for you.

 7                           Questioned by the Court:

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  In your statement, you describe how Mr. Drljaca

 9     was -- was not really acting in accordance with the rules, if I could say

10     so.  He was acting on his own, not consulting those he would have to had

11     consulted.  Was that feasible for you at all that someone would not act

12     in accordance with the rules?

13        A.   I emphasised earlier and it was commonly known that Mr. Drljaca,

14     as the head of the public security station and later as chief of centre,

15     acted rather autonomously, and he was more associated to the Crisis Staff

16     than the police centre and the Ministry of Interior.  Why he acted in

17     that way is not for me to tell.  But I believe that as a senior person

18     from the SDS, he was simply more susceptible or perhaps more aware that

19     it was necessary to have stronger links with the Crisis Staff than with

20     the organisational units of the Ministry of Interior.  For that reason,

21     it sometimes happened that he would report rather to the one than to the

22     other, and he would even make decisions without prior consent from the

23     Ministry of Interior.  We have discussed this earlier today.  He even had

24     to bear some consequences of his actions later.  He was moved to

25     different positions, and they were not all promotions, as the Prosecutor

Page 43139

 1     hinted.  There were shifts but not necessarily prosecutions --

 2     promotions.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which one was not a promotion?  Which one was

 4     a -- where he was removed and brought to a lower position?  Because we

 5     have heard a few examples mentioned by the Prosecution.  If you say it

 6     were not all promotions, could you tell us of any occasion where he was

 7     not promoted but rather degraded?  Or left at the same level which ...

 8        A.   I was just commenting upon the earlier statement of the

 9     Prosecutor that he kept moving up.  However, when I said shifts from one

10     position to another, it means that you are sometimes not doing your work

11     up to snuff.  I have to admit, however, that Mr. Drljaca wielded great

12     authority among the civilian structures.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I understood that, but I was asking for an

14     example of that.  Because you say -- you commented on a position taken by

15     the Prosecution.  I understand that not necessarily how you consider it

16     had been.

17             Now, could you then give us an example of a switch or a shift

18     where it was not a promotion?

19        A.   Well, judging by the facts we have at our disposal that he was

20     moved to some higher positions, that is not in accordance with my

21     interpretation.  But if I may say so, I had this feeling, as I knew

22     Mr. Drljaca, that when he left for the MUP, he certainly accepted that he

23     didn't agree at some point.  People did not eagerly leave their posts

24     when they were moved or shifted to other organisational units away from

25     their places of residence.

Page 43140

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But I'm asking you for a shift which you could

 2     not reasonably understand as being a promotion, an example of that.

 3        A.   In the case of Mr. Drljaca, all the posts which he was assigned

 4     later were at higher levels than the chief of station where he started

 5     from, so we couldn't say that he was demoted.  But sometimes people would

 6     not accept being shifted to higher-ranking positions, if I may say that.

 7             I did not agree to be sent to Bijeljina because I had to leave my

 8     family and go to a different town, but that was the requirement of

 9     service at the time.  So I did not see it as any sort of special

10     promotion.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Do I then understand that the fact - and I'm

12     moving away now from promotion or not - the fact that the rules prescribe

13     how to act and whom to consult and whom to report to, that those rules do

14     not necessarily involve that that is how one acted with Mr. Drljaca as an

15     example of that?

16        A.   Well, I couldn't really -- if you could clarify that a little bit

17     in terms of what the substance or the gist is.  In terms of how one acts

18     or what the rules are?  I do not really understand the substance of your

19     question.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand that you say Mr. Drljaca was not

21     fulfilling his duties in accordance with the rules but, rather, reported

22     to, for example, party organs, SDS.  And my question is:  Does this mean

23     that even if there are rules which prescribe to whom to report and to

24     whom to consult, et cetera, that this does not necessarily mean that that

25     is what was done in practice?

Page 43141

 1        A.   Yes, precisely.  That's just how it could be interpreted.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 3             Have the questions by the Bench triggered any need for further

 4     questions?

 5             MR. TRALDI:  Just one, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please.

 7                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Traldi:

 8        Q.   Sir, just to make sure I understood a portion of your prior

 9     testimony correctly, you have no direct personal knowledge of who

10     Mr. Drljaca reported to or consulted with during the period between

11     May and August of 1992; right?

12        A.   In the period between May and August, I did not discharge a

13     regional duty so I was not informed about his duties or his

14     communications.  I only knew him by sight when I was at the Banja Luka

15     police station.

16             MR. TRALDI:  That's all I had, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Nothing further.

18             Mr. Matijevic, this concludes your testimony in this court.  I'd

19     like to thank you very much for coming a long way to The Hague and for

20     having answered all the questions that were put to you, put to you by the

21     parties, put to you by the Bench, and I wish you a safe return home

22     again.

23             You may follow the usher.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for your co-operation,

25     and my greetings.

Page 43142

 1                           [The witness withdrew]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we have a few items on our agenda, a few

 3     decisions to be read, which I'd like to do now, and with a bit of luck

 4     we'll be able to finish that before we have to take another break.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I first like to add a few words to what we discussed

 7     yesterday.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yesterday I indicated that the court sessions for

10     the purpose of hearing evidence during the second, the third, and the

11     fourth week of February are cancelled.  Not every session but at least

12     for sessions to hear evidence.  The reason for this is that it has not

13     been possible to schedule witnesses for that period.

14             The Chamber therefore expects the parties to spend this time

15     preparing for the next phases of the case, in particular, the rebuttal

16     case and preparation of their final briefs.  When later setting a date

17     for the submission of the final briefs, the Chamber will consider these

18     non-sitting periods against the overall time for the parties' preparation

19     of the briefs.  In this respect, the Chamber seeks to minimise the

20     negative effect the problematic witness scheduling could have on the

21     overall scheduling of the case.

22             Then I'll move on.  First delivering a decision.  The Chamber

23     will deliver its decision on the admission of P7527.

24             During the testimony of Simo Tusevljak on the 1st of September of

25     last year, an Official Note from an interview by the Agency for

Page 43143

 1     Investigation and Documentation in Sarajevo was marked for identification

 2     as P7527 pending the provision of a complete English translation.  On the

 3     3rd of September, the Prosecution advised the Chamber and the Defence via

 4     e-mail that the translation had been uploaded under doc ID

 5     0105-8653-1-ET.

 6             Following further discussion in court on the 22nd of October, the

 7     Defence made additional submissions in court on the 27th of

 8     October objecting to its admission by challenging the document's

 9     authenticity.  The Defence submitted that the Official Note is not

10     addressed to a recipient, there's not any information about its author,

11     and the case and protocol numbers are not specified.  Further, the

12     interview referred to is not attached to the report.

13             The Prosecution was invited to make submissions by the 29th of

14     October.

15             On that day, the Prosecution submitted that the format of the

16     Official Note was customary, meaning that the absence of the various

17     items highlighted by the Defence was standard.

18             The Defence responded by pointing out that the name of the

19     official creating the note was not printed and that the signature cannot

20     be deciphered.

21             The applicable law governing the admission of evidence is set out

22     in the Rule 89(C) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence,

23     which allows a Chamber to admit any relevant evidence which it deems to

24     have probative value.  While authenticity is a factor for consideration

25     in determining the probative value of tendered evidence, definitive proof

Page 43144

 1     of reliability is not required.  Prima facie evidence of reliability on

 2     the basis of sufficient indicia is sufficient to grant the admission of

 3     tendered evidence.

 4             The Chamber has reviewed P7527 in light of the parties'

 5     submissions and finds that the Defence's objections relate to the weight

 6     the Chamber might attach to it rather than to its admissibility.  The

 7     Chamber notes in this respect the following:  The content of the Official

 8     Note, the document upon which the Defence focussed its objections to the

 9     admission of P7527, shows consistency with the other documents contained

10     therein, namely, the death certificate and the medical report on cause of

11     death.  The latter two documents bear signatures, and P7527 was received

12     by the Prosecution from the Agency for Research and Investigation in

13     Sarajevo.

14             The Chamber finds that there are sufficient indicia for prima

15     facie proof of reliability and that P7527 is relevant and has probative

16     value pursuant to Rule 89(C) of the Rules.

17             The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to attach the complete

18     English translation to P7527 and admits the document into evidence.  And

19     this concludes the Chamber's decision.

20             I move on to the next decision to be read out, which is the

21     Chamber's decision on the admission of a document marked for

22     identification as P7608 during the testimony of Mile Poparic.

23             The Defence objected to the admission of the document into

24     evidence, submitting that the document's author is not identified and

25     that it is unclear whether the document was dated contemporaneously.  To

Page 43145

 1     be found on transcript pages 40731 through -732.

 2             On the 5th of November, 2015, the Prosecution advised the Chamber

 3     that the document was manifestly prepared by the Army of

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina for contemporaneous reporting purposes through the

 5     intelligence chain and is not dissimilar in content to Exhibit P7609.  To

 6     be found at page 40950.

 7             The Defence argued that the document does not state that it was

 8     prepared by the army and reiterated that the document's author is not

 9     identified.  And that's to be found on the page following the one I

10     previously referred to.

11             The Chamber recalls that the applicable law for the admission of

12     evidence is set out in Rule 89(C) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure

13     and Evidence which allows a Chamber to admit any relevant evidence which

14     it deems to have probative value.

15             With regard to relevance, the Chamber finds that the document,

16     which deals, inter alia, with VRS firing positions and weaponry at the

17     theology building, relates to the charges in the Sarajevo component of

18     the case.  The Chamber also notes that the Defence does not challenge the

19     document's relevance.

20             With regard to the Defence's objection that the author of the

21     document is not identified, the Chamber notes the signed attestation of

22     Captain Ragib Podrug - that is P7608, page 3 in e-court - confirming that

23     the document is a true copy of the original filed in the archives of the

24     Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  In light of this, the

25     Chamber considers that although it's not entirely clear who created the

Page 43146

 1     document, this is a matter which goes to the weight, if any, to be

 2     attached to the document as opposed to its admission.  This also applies

 3     to the Defence's objection concerning the date of the document.

 4             For the foregoing reasons, the Chamber finds that the document is

 5     relevant and of probative value and admits P7608 into evidence.

 6             And this concludes the Chamber's decision.

 7             Then I move to another decision which is a decision on the

 8     admission of Mile Dosenovic's expert report.

 9             On 13th of August, 2015, the Chamber marked the expert report of

10     Mile Dosenovic for identification as D1187 under seal.  The same day, the

11     Chamber invited the parties to file further submissions regarding

12     report -- the report's admission into evidence.  To be found at

13     transcript pages 37744 and -45.

14             On the 30th of October, 2015, the Prosecution notified the

15     Chamber and the Defence via an e-mail that it had no objection to the

16     report's admission.

17             With respect to the applicable law concerning expert evidence,

18     the Chamber recalls the applicable law governing the admission of

19     evidence set out in Rules 89(C) and 94 bis of the Tribunal's Rules of

20     Procedure and Evidence, and refers to its decision of the 19th of

21     October, 2012, concerning expert witness Richard Butler.

22             The Chamber also recalls its oral decision of the 22nd of May on

23     Dosenovic's expertise and considers that the content of his expert

24     report, which is in the field of radio communications and intercepts,

25     falls within the scope of his stated expertise and specialised knowledge,

Page 43147

 1     namely, in the area of military communication systems.

 2             The report is relevant to a number of documents admitted in this

 3     case.  The Chamber finds that the report may assist the Chamber in

 4     understanding issues such as those related to intercepted communications

 5     between VRS units.

 6             The Chamber notes that the report was presented by an expert

 7     witness and it was consistent with witness's specialised knowledge and

 8     skills.  It further considers the report to have probative value for the

 9     purposes of its admission into evidence.

10             Accordingly, the Chamber finds that Dosenovic's expert report

11     meets the standard of admission and, pursuant to Rule 89(C) and 94 bis,

12     admits D1187 into evidence under seal.

13             I now move to a remaining issue from the testimony of Witness

14     Dusan Pavlovic.

15             The Chamber hereby confirms the confidential status of P7792,

16     which was marked for identification on the 2nd of February, 2016, and

17     instructs the Registry that it should remain under seal.

18             I move to remaining issue from the testimony of

19     Ostoja Marjanovic.

20             On the 11th of December, 2015, the Prosecution advised the

21     Chamber and the Defence via an e-mail that it sought admission of

22     document bearing Rule 65 ter 33385a, which is the audio and accompanying

23     transcript of Witness Ostoja Marjanovic's prior interview with the

24     Prosecution.  This was played to the witness at transcript pages 40996

25     and -997.  As it was read into the record, the Chamber does not require

Page 43148

 1     the interview excerpt to be in evidence separately.

 2             A remaining issue now from the testimony of Savo Strbac.

 3             During the testimony of Savo Strbac on the 10th of November,

 4     2015, P7638 was reserved for an excerpt of a transcript of an interview

 5     with Milan Martic to be uploaded by the Prosecution.  The Prosecution has

 6     uploaded the excerpt into e-court.

 7             The Chamber instructs the Registry to assign P7638 to

 8     Rule 65 ter 06754a.  And the Defence has one week to revisit the matter.

 9             Next item in relation to the same witness.

10             During the testimony Mr. Strbac on the 11th of November, 2015,

11     Exhibit P7645, an excerpt of the witness's testimony in the Hadzic case,

12     was admitted into evidence.  That's found at transcript page 41145.

13             On the 19th of January, the Prosecution advised that an excerpt

14     of the exhibit had been uploaded into e-court under Rule 65 ter 33410a.

15             The Chamber instructs the Registry to replace Exhibit P7645 with

16     the excerpt.  The Defence has one week to revisit the matter.

17             I move to items remaining from the testimony of Witness

18     Mitar Kovac.

19             On the 10th of December, 2015, Exhibit D557, an excerpt of the

20     Islamic Declaration, was admitted into evidence.  Transcript page 42550

21     to -551.

22             On the 11th of December, the Chamber informed the Defence and the

23     Prosecution via an e-mail that an English translation of the document was

24     not available.

25             On the 23rd of December, the Prosecution advised - again via

Page 43149

 1     e-mail - that a new excerpt including a number of additional portions not

 2     included in the Defence excerpt and its English translation had been

 3     uploaded into e-court under Rule 65 ter 33596.

 4             The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace Exhibit D557

 5     with the revised version and gives the Defence one week to revisit the

 6     matter.

 7             Next is about D1358, which is an extract from a manual on the Law

 8     of Land Warfare, which on the 16th of November, 2015, was marked for

 9     identification pending the provision of a B/C/S translation and an

10     agreement between the parties on the extract to be tendered.  Transcript

11     page 41382 to -383.

12             On the 18th of November, the Defence informed the Chamber and the

13     Prosecution via e-mail that the whole manual had been uploaded into

14     e-court under Rule 65 ter 1D00456a.

15             On the 26th of November, the Chamber e-mailed the Defence and the

16     Prosecution, reminding them of the Chamber's general guidance on the

17     length of associated exhibits and requesting the parties to agree upon an

18     extract to be tendered into evidence and to upload it into e-court

19     together with its translation.

20             The Chamber's instruction is hereby placed on the record.  And

21     the Chamber wonders whether the parties are in a position to update the

22     Chamber on their progress in this matter.

23             If not immediately -- perhaps you are, then we will hear from

24     you.

25             Mr. Stojanovic.

Page 43150

 1             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I shall inform you about this

 2     very quickly, Your Honour.  I think that we are drawing it to a close.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Since we will not sit for some three weeks,

 4     perhaps if any in-between agreement has been reached, the Chamber would

 5     like to be informed about it already so that we don't have to remind you

 6     again after three weeks that we had had no response.  Then we'll later

 7     put it on the record formally.

 8             Then I move on to a remaining issue from the testimony of

 9     Vojo Kupresanin.

10             On the 11th of December, 2014, Exhibit P6994, a 77-page

11     transcript of a Prosecution interview with Kupresanin, was admitted into

12     evidence.  That day, the Prosecution indicated that it would upload a

13     version containing only the excerpts used with the witness in court.

14     Transcript page 29686.

15             On the 11th of December, 2015, the Prosecution e-mailed the

16     Chamber and the Defence, advising that a reduced version had been

17     uploaded under Rule 65 ter 31770a.

18             And the Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the

19     exhibit with the newly uploaded version and gives the Defence one week to

20     revisit the matter.

21             I move on to a remaining issue from the testimony of

22     Goran Krcmar.

23             On the 26th of February, 2015, during the testimony of Krcmar,

24     D918, an ICMP report, was marked for identification pending the provision

25     of an English translation.  The Chamber understood from subsequent e-mail

Page 43151

 1     correspondence that the Defence expected to receive the original English

 2     report from the ICMP the following May.

 3             On the 8th of October, the Chamber addressed the matter in court

 4     and set a deadline of 15th of October.  As of today's date, the Defence

 5     has not provided an update.  The Chamber once again requests an update

 6     from the Defence and sets a deadline of one week from today, and the

 7     Defence may inform the Chamber to start with by e-mail, which will then

 8     later be dealt with in court.

 9             Next item deals with miscellaneous exhibits admitted into

10     evidence and placed provisionally under seal.

11             Exhibits P7651, P7652, P7751, P7786, P7724, P7462, P5090, and

12     D1288 were all admitted into evidence and placed provisionally under

13     seal.

14             On the 12th of January of this year, the Chamber e-mailed the

15     parties to invite them to communicate with the Republic of Serbia to see

16     whether it intends to file a Rule 54 bis motion in relation to these

17     documents.

18             The Chamber instructs the Registry to lift the confidentiality of

19     these exhibits within six weeks of today's date, unless the Republic of

20     Serbia files a motion to keep these documents confidential during that

21     time.

22             And when I said to lift the confidentiality of these exhibits

23     within six weeks, of course, I meant to say in six weeks from now, with

24     the same caveat.

25             Next one is about Exhibit P2365, English translation replacement.

Page 43152

 1             This exhibit, Basara's handwritten history of the 6th Krajina

 2     Brigade, was admitted into evidence on the 10th of December, 2013.

 3             The Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber and the Defence on the

 4     13th of January, 2016, advising that a second revised English translation

 5     had been uploaded into e-court under doc ID 0047-8672-1 ET.

 6             The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the English

 7     translation of Exhibit P2365 with the revised one and gives the Defence

 8     one week to revisit the matter, if necessary.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  We have reached a moment where we usually take a

11     break, that is, after one hour.  We can do two things.  We could

12     continue.  I can tell you that I have some five one and a half -- two and

13     a half pages further to read.  We can continue and then conclude for the

14     day, adjourn for the day and for the next three weeks, or we can take a

15     break now and we would --

16             MR. TIEGER:  Mr. President, excuse me, I also wanted to note that

17     I had a matter which I wish to raise that might take as long as five

18     minutes.  I hope not that much, but perhaps.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  My estimate is that I would need another

20     15 to -- close to 20 minutes.  If it's five minutes, that would mean that

21     we would stop at 25 minutes to 2.00 and then adjourn for three weeks.

22     Otherwise, we take a break now.

23             Mr. Stojanovic.

24             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I have consulted with

25     General Mladic.  He suggests that we do not take the break but continue

Page 43153

 1     and then finish.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, then I'll try to resist the temptation to start

 3     reading more quickly.  I'll try to keep the same pace.

 4             Next one, correction in relation to Exhibit P7015, which is an

 5     SDS document and was admitted into evidence on the 22nd of October, 2015.

 6             The Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber and the Defence on the 13th

 7     of January, 2016, advising that a corrected version of the excerpt had

 8     been uploaded into e-court under Rule 65 ter 06616b.

 9             The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace

10     Exhibit P7015 with the corrected version and gives the Defence one week

11     to revisit the matter, if necessary.

12             Next item, Exhibit P3030, a JNA report, was admitted into

13     evidence on the 5th of December, 2013.

14             The Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber and the Defence on the

15     13th of January of this year, advising that a revised English translation

16     had been uploaded into e-court under doc ID SA03-7203-2-ET.

17             The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the English

18     translation of Exhibit P3030 with the revised one and gives the Defence

19     one week to revisit the matter, if necessary.

20             Next, Exhibit P2460, an exhibit which contains three video stills

21     and was admitted into evidence on the 18th of September, 2013.

22             On the 2nd of June of last year, the Prosecution e-mailed the

23     Chamber and the Defence, advising that the three video stills were

24     admitted in error and that the Prosecution should have tendered document

25     bearing Rule 65 ter 10275c.

Page 43154

 1             The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the exhibit

 2     with the correct document and gives the Defence one week to revisit the

 3     matter, if necessary.

 4             Next is a remaining issue from the testimony of GRM097.

 5             On the 21st of October, 2015, Exhibit P7583 was reserved for

 6     document bearing Rule 65 ter 33313, pending the provision of a DVD of the

 7     video-clip from 1 minute, 6 seconds, to 3 minutes, 5 seconds.  To be

 8     found at transcript page 40141.

 9             On the 3rd of December, the Prosecution provided the Chamber, the

10     Registry, and the Defence with the DVD.

11             The Chamber hereby admits P7583 into evidence and gives the

12     Defence one week to revisit the matter, if necessary.

13             Next item deals with document P7746 tendered through Milos Kovic.

14             On the 1st of December, 2015, excerpts of Rule 65 ter 06009 were

15     shown to Witness Milos Kovic and were marked for identification as P7746.

16             On the 22nd of December, the Chamber invited the Prosecution, via

17     an e-mail, to select excerpts of the document that had been used with,

18     inter alia, Witness Kovic.

19             On the 13th of January, 2016, the Prosecution informed the

20     Chamber and the Defence via e-mail that the excerpts had been uploaded

21     into e-court under Rule 65 ter 06009a.

22             The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to assign P7746 to

23     Rule 65 ter 06009a and admits it into evidence.  The Defence has one week

24     to revisit the matter, if necessary.

25             Some remaining issues from the testimony of Mile Poparic will now

Page 43155

 1     follow.

 2             I start with P7594.  This document, a summary of persons killed

 3     and injured due to sniping, was admitted into evidence on the

 4     2nd of November, 2015.  The English translation did not correspond with

 5     the B/C/S original.  On the 23rd of December, the Chamber invited the

 6     Prosecution via e-mail to upload a complete English translation.

 7             The Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber and the Defence on the

 8     11th of January, 2016, advising that the complete English translation had

 9     been uploaded into e-court under doc ID P07594 ET.

10             The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the English

11     translation of Exhibit P7594 with the revised translation and gives the

12     Defence one week to revisit the matter, if necessary.

13             I move to D1326 and D1327.  During Mile Poparic's testimony on

14     the 27th of October, 2015, Exhibit Numbers D1326 and D1327 were reserved

15     for two still images of a tracer.  To be found on transcript pages 40375

16     and 40379.  This all pending their upload into e-court.

17             On the 30th of November, the Chamber reminded the Defence via

18     e-mail to upload the still images into e-court.

19             The Defence e-mailed the Chamber and the Prosecution on the 11th

20     of December, advising that the two stills had been uploaded under

21     Rule 65 ter 1D05932 and 1D05935.

22             The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to assign D1326 to

23     Rule 65 ter 1D05932, and D1327 to Rule 65 ter 1D05935, and admits both

24     into evidence.  The Prosecution has one week to revisit the matter, if

25     necessary.

Page 43156

 1             I move to D1332.  On the 28th of October, 2015, the Chamber

 2     admitted Exhibit D1332, pages 3136 through 3139 of Nafa Taric's testimony

 3     in the Galic case, into evidence.

 4             On the 30th of November, the Chamber instructed the Defence via

 5     e-mail to upload this excerpt into e-court.

 6             The Defence e-mailed the Chamber and the Prosecution on the

 7     10th of December, advising that the excerpt had been uploaded under

 8     Rule 65 ter 1D05744a.

 9             The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to assign this 65 ter

10      number to Exhibit D1332.

11             I move to 1334.  This exhibit, an eight-minute video recording,

12     was admitted into evidence on the 28th of October, 2015.  Transcript

13     pages 40509 and 40959.

14             On the 3rd of December, the Chamber instructed the Defence to

15     inform the Chamber by 10.00 a.m. on the 7th of December whether or not it

16     wants to rely on the dialogue contained in the video.

17             The Defence e-mailed the Chamber and the Prosecution on the

18     9th of December, advising that it will be relying on video and not audio.

19     The Defence further advise the Chamber that the times it will require

20     are:  3 minutes, 29 seconds, to 3 minutes, 36 seconds; and 6 minutes,

21     26 seconds, to 6 minutes, 38 seconds.  And the Chamber understands this

22     to mean that the Defence only tenders this part of the eight-minute

23     video.

24             The Chamber therefore puts it on the record that only these

25     portions of the video are admitted into evidence as D1334.

Page 43157

 1             Exceptionally, the Chamber will not ask the Defence to provide a

 2     new DVD containing only this excerpt.

 3             And this concludes the agenda items I had on my list for today.

 4     I stayed well within the time estimate, so it must have been a wrong

 5     estimate.

 6             Mr. Tieger, you wanted to raise a matter.

 7             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, thank you, Mr. President.

 8             Mr. President, this is in respect of Mr. Stojanovic's earlier

 9     comments about the 92 ter motions and I was seeking some clarification.

10             Mr. Stojanovic mentioned that:

11             "After consultations with my colleagues from the team -- that, by

12     the way, was, I believe, a reference to his comment earlier in the day

13     that "we are simply waiting to hear from Mr. Lukic who had some

14     obligations" in order to respond to the Court's inquiry.  And then

15     Mr. Stojanovic went on:

16             "I just wish to inform you officially for the record that, as far

17     as we are aware, we have no further motions regarding witnesses under

18     92 ter.  But if we have something, overlooked something, you may consider

19     that we have no further motions for hearing witnesses under 92 ter."

20             Now, the -- we understood that in light of the Trial Chamber's

21     inquiry both yesterday and earlier today, earlier today the Court asked:

22             "Because yesterday the Defence confirmed that the list of its

23     remaining witnesses which I read out in private session is correct.  The

24     Chamber then asked the Defence to confirm its intention to withdraw all

25     remaining Rule 92 ter motions related to witnesses not on that list, and

Page 43158

 1     the Chamber is seeking confirmation by the Defence ... that these

 2     remaining motions are withdrawn ..."

 3             So I simply wanted to indicate that our understanding in light of

 4     that inquiry of Mr. Stojanovic's remarks to the Trial Chamber was that

 5     after consultation with Mr. Lukic in respect of the Trial Chamber's

 6     request to the Defence to confirm its intention to withdraw all 92 ter

 7     motions for persons not on the list of remaining witnesses, which was

 8     read out yesterday in private session, that Mr. Stojanovic indeed

 9     confirmed that this was the case, although he did so in a way that

10     indicated -- that -- apparently that any other 92 ter motions other than

11     those that might apply to persons on the list of remaining witnesses

12     were -- were no longer operative.  He used the word "withdraw"

13     but that's -- I wanted to make clear that that's how we understood it, to

14     be sure that that is indeed the case, so there's no misunderstanding.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  First of all, in view of what Mr. Stojanovic said, I

16     didn't yet make the effort to find out because I don't have all the many,

17     many 92 ter motions and there was one remaining.  I relied in this

18     respect, as we often do, on our staff, that apparently there may have

19     been some, but it was of no concern.  Because if there was any remaining

20     at all, that it was by mistake that they were not yet withdrawn.  So I

21     thought we would verify that after this court session, but since

22     Mr. Tieger is now specifically seeking clarification, Mr. Stojanovic,

23     could you remove his concerns?

24             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour.  If

25     there are any such 92 ter motions, not counting on the witnesses that you

Page 43159

 1     listed yesterday during closed session, we withdraw all those motions.

 2             I hope that I've made myself clear.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The only thing for us now to verify is whether

 4     there are any, and to see who was most accurate.

 5             We'll -- this being clarified, any other matter?  Because if I

 6     say we're not sitting for three weeks, that is not entirely true because

 7     we are sitting on the -- if I'm not mistaken, on the 16th of February.

 8     Let me just ...

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Therefore, we adjourn for the day, and we'll

11     resume on the 16th of February -- no, it was the 10th.  It was the 10th.

12     I was -- if I'm not mistaken.  Let me just check.  There was a hearing

13     scheduled for special purposes and that was on the -- I think it was on

14     the 10th of February, but it could be the ... let me just check.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll adjourn until the 16th of February, 9.30 in

18     the morning, when we have a special hearing.

19             We stand --

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  In this same courtroom, I.

22             We stand adjourned.

23                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.31 p.m.,

24                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 16th day of

25                           February, 2016, at 9.30 a.m.