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
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19 remaining motions are withdrawn or advise the Chamber in any other way.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.
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.
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;
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
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?
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?
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:
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
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."
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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;
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
18 Two questions. First, were you aware that this special
19 detachment had committed crimes against non-Serbs in those
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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;
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
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
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?
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.
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
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.
1 MR. TRALDI: Can we have page 40 in the English and 27 in the
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
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
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
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;
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
1 here, it's possible. I don't know the exact date of the take-over of
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.
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 --
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
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
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;
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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;
14 A. Yes, in Bijeljina. In 1994, I was transferred there. That's
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,
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
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?
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
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
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.
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?
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
25 Now, it's clear that we're talking about a very large mass grave
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
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
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.
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
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
12 You don't contest that there was a mass grave at Tomasica, do
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
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
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It was page 154 in English.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I -- or would it be 151 which would be perhaps --
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
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
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, any further questions for the
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
1 hinted. There were shifts but not necessarily prosecutions --
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.
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
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
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?
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
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
23 You may follow the usher.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for your co-operation,
25 and my greetings.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
25 Mr. Stojanovic.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
24 The Chamber therefore puts it on the record that only these
25 portions of the video are admitted into evidence as D1334.
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
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
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
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.