Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 1660

 1                           Tuesday, 20 October 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to

 6     everyone in the courtroom.  This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor

 7     versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning.  May I, first of all, call for

 9     appearances as usual.

10             MS. KORNER:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Joanna Korner and

11     Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Slobodan Zecevic and

13     Slobodan Cvijetic for Stanisic Defence.

14             MR. PANTELIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Igor Pantelic, Dragan

15     Krgovic, and Eric Tully for Zupljanin Defence.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

17             Before we begin, there is a matter which has become something of

18     a concern which the Chamber thinks it should address frontally at this

19     relatively early stage of the trial, and there have been a number of

20     occasions when -- and this is -- whereas we're not singling out

21     Mr. Pantelic, the -- in fact, the -- what we have identified as a problem

22     has been usually as a consequence of his taking issue with the

23     interpretation of the testimony of several of the witnesses as -- as

24     provided by the interpreters.  And Ms. Korner has usually responded that

25     the way in which his interventions have been done are such as to, in

Page 1661

 1     effect, be telling the witnesses what to say.  The -- on reflection the

 2     Chamber thinks it has been somewhat indulgent of counsel and consequently

 3     unfair to the interpreters, and we take this opportunity to remind all

 4     present, particularly counsel, that the process of interpretation is a

 5     different skill and different process from that of translation.  And the

 6     effect of simultaneous interpretation is to provide a fair account, a

 7     sense of what the witness is saying and inevitably where, in this case,

 8     counsel and the witness speaks the same language, counsel or anybody else

 9     who -- who -- who speaks the same language as the witness may think that

10     they would have done it differently.  But we affirm our confidence in the

11     integrity and ability of the interpreters to do their work, and the --

12     remind counsel that very often, to the extent that there is a difficulty,

13     it is occasioned by the failure to allow time, an interval between

14     question and answer for the interpreters to catch up.  So the -- we will

15     simply not hear counsel's interventions in the way that -- especially,

16     Mr. Pantelic, has been proceeding in the past.

17             So we trust that that is fully understood from this point on.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, thank you.

20             The -- returning, in a similar vein, returning to this still not

21     fully resolved question of these several documents on which counsel for

22     the Defence have been relying and which we have indicated that the

23     practical and sensible, in our view, method of approach is to put to the

24     witnesses such portions of the documents as counsel is seeking to rely on

25     or to challenge the witness, that, in order to facilitate the proper

Page 1662

 1     interpretation, counsel should make available to the interpreters copies

 2     of the documents in B/C/S so that they can, themselves, more easily and

 3     readily interpret the documents in terms of formulating -- assisting,

 4     counsel in formulating the questions that they're putting to the witness.

 5             Thank you.

 6             Finally, in this vein, counsel should remember that -- this goes

 7     for witnesses, too, to a certain extent, but again counsel, having the

 8     responsibility of leading the evidence, should remember to -- not to

 9     speak too quickly because, again, that complicates matters and makes it

10     difficult for everybody concerned.

11             Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

12             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour, I appreciate your guide-lines

13     and instructions regarding the way of how we should proceed in certain

14     occasions.

15             Just for the record, Your Honour, it is my duty to provide a full

16     professional legal services to my client, and I will object on every

17     occasion where I, in a situation to noticed -- to notice that important

18     portion or word said by witness is not in transcript, due to, let's say,

19     unintentional omission of our friends from interpretation.

20             Working here for a quite long time, I appreciate, and I fully

21     noted the efforts of our friends from interpretation.  They are not

22     robots, they are human beings.  So in this highly -- I would say, highly

23     stressful situation, where these kind of interpretation should be done,

24     of course, unintentional omissions could be made.  The advantage of

25     number of lawyers for the Defence who are bilingual is that we can locate

Page 1663

 1     and catch these particular moments which is mostly not part of ability of

 2     the Prosecution or Trial Chamber.

 3             So this a criminal trial, and, of course, I will -- I'm -- it is

 4     not my intention to put in the mouth of witness particular portion of his

 5     testimony or to suggest him to testify along these lines.  It is simply

 6     clarification of certain words or portions, which is necessary for us to

 7     have a clear and accurate transcript.  As I said, this is a criminal

 8     trial, and our client's fate is in our hands.  And sometimes when we, in

 9     general terms, realised that the quality of interpretation is not in

10     accordance with the high standards of the interpretation within this

11     Tribunal, personally I will react.  I will react for the record.  And I'm

12     ready, Your Honours, to -- if something will arise to challenge, through

13     audio tapes and comparing with the records to find -- to find the right

14     solution.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Pantelic, I apologise for interrupting you.

16             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  The Presiding Judge, and, indeed, the Bench does

18     not disencourage counsel from drawing the Court's attention to possible

19     mistakes.  That was not what the Presiding Judge just said.  What the

20     Presiding Judge did say was that, to the extent in which errors made by

21     the interpretation are due to the fact that counsel speak too fast or

22     overlap with witnesses, then it is an invitation to counsel, once again,

23     to speak slowly and not overlap, because, thereby, we may reduce the

24     number of errors that the interpretation sometimes makes.  That's all.

25     But we do not, in any way, disencourage counsel on both sides to draw the

Page 1664

 1     attention to the Court if there are errors in interpretation.

 2             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.  I

 4     announced that the Stanisic Defence has submission five minutes as a

 5     preliminary matter which we would like to share with the Trial Chamber.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  I will speak in Serbian.  Thank you very much.

 8             [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. Stanisic's Defence is very

 9     concerned with the developments in this case, and we believe that it is

10     our obligation to share our concerns with you and everybody else in the

11     courtroom.

12             We held a 65 ter conference last week.  However, no progress was

13     made, or virtually no progress at all.  We still have a number of pending

14     requests from the Prosecution and from the Defence which might have a

15     direct impact on our preparations and the strategy of Defence in

16     cross-examination.  Unfortunately, the problem is not being reduced.  It

17     is becoming bigger.  At the moment, we have reached a point where the

18     integrity of the proceedings and the right to a fair trial guaranteed by

19     the Statute is being put to the test in view of the Defence.

20             Let me illustrate my statement.

21             Yesterday, in the course of the trial, we had a warring situation

22     in our view which also had an impact on the fairness of the trial.  The

23     facts are as follows.  Our clients have been charged, amongst other

24     things, that they did not take measures to prevent acts from the

25     indictments or punish perpetrators and especially in Count 11 under age

Page 1665

 1     by abetting and aiding the commission of crimes by not undertaking the

 2     necessary measures in order to carry out investigations, the arrest of

 3     the perpetrators, by which he fostered the climate of non-punishability

 4     which included the investigation of such clients.

 5             This is what our clients have been charged with, especially

 6     Mr. Stanisic, in Counts 11(h) in the indictment in this case.  In our

 7     view, the Defence has a legitimate right and it also has arguments and

 8     documents to present evidence which will directly and without any doubt

 9     refute the allegations, and confirm that the investigations, indeed, were

10     carried out in keeping with the law and regulations, that there were was

11     no discrimination with regard to the perpetrator or victim, and that

12     there was certainly no purported investigations but, rather, procedures

13     in -- in compliance with the law of the country where the crimes took

14     place.

15             It is not a mistake on the part of the Defence that the documents

16     have not been translated.  The fact is that the Prosecution disclosed

17     them very late in the process.  It is our position that the Defence has

18     to be allowed to talk to the witness who is -- the Prosecutor who was

19     directly involved in the criminal cases.  We have to be given an

20     opportunity to analyse all the documents to the last detail.  We don't

21     believe that perfunctory overviews are good enough, because here we are

22     looking at concrete crimes, at concrete data, as to when, how, and where

23     a certain crime happened, how a certain person lost their life.  We are

24     not dealing with arbitrary data as does the indictment.  For example, in

25     the indictment we have a number of examples where several people are

Page 1666

 1     mentioned as victims in different periods of time and in different places

 2     and as a result of different incidents and events.

 3             Therefore, I suggest that the Trial Chamber should allow the

 4     Zupljanin Defence, that is currently carrying out cross-examination, to

 5     analyse all the documents with the witness because the witness -- the

 6     documents show that the overall process was carried out in keeping with

 7     the law, and that's why each and every of the documents that are on the

 8     list is very important to prove our case.

 9             There is one more thing, that, in our view, is even more

10     important.  On the 31st of August, which means 50 days ago exactly,

11     submitted a motion for exclusion of witnesses under 94 bis.  With regard

12     to the witnesses on the list, the Trial Chamber has decided Mr. Donja and

13     Mr. Nielsen, the Defence has submitted a motion to appeal but that has

14     not been decided.  Mrs. Hanson should appear before this Court on the

15     side of the Prosecution within several days, and we still don't have a

16     decision about Mr. Hanson [as interpreted].

17             If the Trial Chamber were to render their ruling today and if

18     that ruling were to be submitted to the parties today, I believe that

19     that fact would have an impact on the integrity of the proceedings and

20     right to a fair trial.  Since I have been preparing for Mr. Hanson's

21     cross-examination, I'm even more strongly convinced that our request for

22     the exclusion of that witness was completely justified and for that

23     reason, in case of a negative decision, we're going to request to be able

24     to appeal, and this is going bring to us to quite an unpleasant

25     situation.

Page 1667

 1             First of all, we're not going to have the time for the

 2     Trial Chamber to look at our certification to appeal in an adequate way

 3     and we will still -- we will already have the witness in the courtroom.

 4     If there's no decision on the certification to appeal, my approach to the

 5     cross-examination of that witness will be interpreted by the

 6     Appeals Chamber as the consent of the Defence and our giving up on our

 7     certification to appeal, and in that case, the -- any decision on the

 8     appeal will be unnecessary from the point of view of the Appeals Chamber.

 9             I believe that this jeopardizes the fairness of the trial and the

10     integrity of the proceedings because the Defence is put in a position to

11     act contrary to the interests of its client, because we're not talking

12     about the readiness for the -- of the Defence to cross-examine the

13     witness.  The Defence will be ready.  We are talking about the situation

14     which goes against the fairness of the trial.  I don't see any other way

15     to provide for that.  We will be forced to ask for a stay of the

16     proceedings because of the decisions on those matters which will waste

17     additional time.

18             I would like to touch upon another thing which also has an impact

19     on the entire situation, which is, indeed, very worrying.  A few days

20     ago, we submitted a request for the exclusion of intercepts and the

21     decision is still pending.  Those intercepts are what the alleged expert

22     reports are based on, and a number of them have been tendered into

23     evidence, and that also has to be decided on before the experts enter the

24     courtroom, and a negative decision to that submission will result in the

25     Defence's certification to appeal.

Page 1668

 1             I'm not going to deal with all the other pending issues, but I

 2     believe that they should be discussed as soon as possible and resolved as

 3     soon as possible.

 4             Your Honours, we're really very concerned with the developments

 5     in the courtroom, as I have already said.  I believe that the situation

 6     is being worsened by the day, the problems are mounting, and I believe

 7     that they have reached a critical stage.  We would like to overcome the

 8     problems in keeping with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.  We want to

 9     avoid a situation where the urgency and the time within which the trial

10     has to be brought to an end.  We should forget [as interpreted] the

11     rights of the accused that are guaranteed to them by the Statute and the

12     fairness of the trial.  Thank you very much.

13             MR. PANTELIC:  Just for the record, the Stanisic -- sorry,

14     Zupljanin Defence fully supports the submission of our learned friend,

15     Mr. Zecevic.

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  And one other thing, page 9, 6, instead of "we

17     should forget," "we should not forget."  Thank you.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

19             Oh, sorry, before I hear you, I just want clarification on one

20     point from Mr. Zecevic.

21             The -- your first point about the documents, I'm not sure that I

22     followed the essence of -- of what you are saying there.  Do I understand

23     your submission on that point:  That the -- well, first of all, are we

24     talking about the same basket of documents that we were dealing with

25     yesterday?

Page 1669

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  That's correct, there was three or four documents

 2     yesterday.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  And I do understand your submission to be that the

 4     method proposed by the Chamber of Defence counselling being permitted to

 5     put to the witness the relevant portions on which you rely is inadequate

 6     for your purposes.  Is that what I understand your position to be?

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  That is correct, Your Honour.  That is exactly.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  So what is your specific submission as to how those

 9     documents should be dealt with?

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, the proposal which Defence made

11     yesterday, I tried to explain why, in my submission just a couple of

12     minutes ago, I tried to explain why this is important for us.  I hope you

13     understand that.

14             Now, the suggestion by the Defence of yesterday was that the

15     document should be commented by the witness.  The document should be

16     MFI'd, waiting for translation, and after translation is -- is received,

17     then the document is offered for exhibit, together with the English

18     translation.  That is, I think, the most -- the easiest way.  That is how

19     we, with the minimum time, we get what we want and I think it is not --

20     it is not against the Rules of Procedure or the -- or the practice within

21     this Tribunal.

22             The second option would be that we go and read with the -- with

23     the witness relevant portions, but the problem with that, Your Honour, is

24     that if this document consists of five or six pages, each and every page

25     is a conclusion or a letter sent to somebody, all of that is relevant.

Page 1670

 1     So each and every page is relevant.  It can be done quickly by the

 2     counsel, but it might -- it might take a longer time than -- than the --

 3     than the first alternative that we were talking about.  That is -- that

 4     is what I say -- what is the essence of my submission.

 5             Thank you, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you Mr. Zecevic.

 7             Yes Mr. Pantelic.

 8             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honour, I said earlier that Zupljanin Defence

 9     fully supports submission of Mr. Zecevic, but it wasn't appearing in the

10     transcript.  So it -- just for the record, nothing more.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Does the -- does Office of the Prosecution have any

12     comment on the submissions made by Mr. Zecevic and supported by

13     Mr. Pantelic?

14             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, in respect to the earlier outstanding

15     motions, there are matters that I have raised on a number of different

16     occasions.  Let me put it this way:  We have said for months now that we

17     really need some resolution on some of the matters.

18             On the intercepts one, however, we do say that was served on us

19     or lodged last week.  It's very, very late, indeed, and Mr. Zecevic has

20     been, to my certain knowledge, mentioning this, indeed, on one occasion

21     in a 65 ter conference, and they have waited to the last moment on this

22     one to file a motion.  So -- and we have -- 14 -- yes.  The report that

23     they included with their motion is dated July the 3rd.  So, on this

24     occasion, they are, in our submission, very, very late, and we are going

25     to take the full 14 days that we're entitled to, to deal with that

Page 1671

 1     submission.  So I don't know what -- what is intended to happen about

 2     that.

 3             On the other ones, they have been outstanding a very long time.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE HALL:  As we understand the representations made by

 7     Mr. Zecevic, there are, essentially, three points.

 8             The first of which relates to the question of these documents,

 9     and the Chamber is not unappreciative of the duty of counsel for the

10     Defence in putting forward the case of their respective clients initially

11     by challenging and testing the witnesses called by the Prosecution, even

12     before they would have had a chance to present their case much farther

13     along the road, which fact we would, with respect, remind counsel of

14     that - these proceedings being adversarial - that their chance to present

15     their specific Defence will come.

16             But returning to the difficult question of these documents.  The

17     experience of the last part of yesterday indicated that perhaps there is

18     some merit in the Chamber re-visiting its decision as to how these

19     documents should be dealt with, and the -- for the sake of simplicity, we

20     think that -- the documents on which counsel -- which have been dealt

21     with yesterday, that we would go back to that point and have them marked

22     for identification and once the translation is in, we would see where we

23     go, and presumably at some point, having been marked for identification,

24     they would be properly exhibited through the witnesses who are able to --

25     to deal with them.  That seems, to us, to be the only practical way of

Page 1672

 1     dealing with these documents.

 2             On the matter of the Witness Hanson, the Chamber expects that it

 3     will be in a position to give a ruling on that at the close of today's

 4     work.

 5             In terms of the matter of the question of the intercepts, the --

 6     as counsel for the Prosecution has noted, the time-limits under the Rules

 7     are such that the Prosecution has not been in a position to respond, and

 8     therefore, a decision on that is premature.  But, generally, in terms of

 9     the outstanding matters in which the Chamber shares the concern of

10     counsel that these matters appear to be just hanging out there, in our

11     own defence, we must point out that, as with counsel on both sides, the

12     Chamber itself is understaffed, and is -- in addition to staffing

13     problems is, like everybody else, working under pressure of time to

14     conduct the trial while considering the -- these -- these several

15     matters.

16             The matter of -- it may very well be that, to the extent that

17     some of the out-- yet to be resolved objections, in terms of witnesses,

18     and more particularly, the documentation that those witnesses -- that the

19     witness's testimony would carry with them, would necessitate, in order

20     not to delay the progress of the trial, a reconfiguration, for want of a

21     better word, as to how -- as to the order in which witnesses are

22     presented.  But that's a day-to-day, situation-by-situation decision.

23             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I'm sorry, it's not, I'm afraid.  Much

24     as we would like to be.  We have already reorganised the witness list

25     because of the ban we had.  We now have -- we gave the Court a list of

Page 1673

 1     witnesses 'till Christmas.  We have organised for witnesses to come up

 2     already, flights and everything are booked for next week.  Intercepts

 3     certainly affect some of them.  And in respect of Hanson, Mr. Zecevic has

 4     very clearly announced that if the rule is in favour of allowing her to

 5     testify, then his next move will to be apply for certification to appeal

 6     which no doubt we can respond to on the spot on, and that one we can, but

 7     it leaves the situation that Ms. Hanson, who is due to start testifying,

 8     we thought, maybe tomorrow, but at the rate we're going, probably on

 9     Thursday, will not be testifying.

10             So there are all these considerations.

11             Our suggestion was, sometime ago that, of course, the trial

12     should be adjourned while we sorted out all these matters.  Your Honours

13     took the view that it was better the trial should start and we've

14     accepted that decision, but we are now in a situation where, to

15     reorganise the witnesses again is going to cause a lot of problems.

16     Because we now have to look at which witnesses are affected by intercepts

17     and which are not, and we have to move Ms. Hanson back again until the

18     matter is dealt with.  So it's not quite as simple and straightforward as

19     simply reorganizing the list of the witness.  They are all coming from,

20     mainly, from the former Yugoslavia.

21             JUDGE HALL:  We didn't intend to suggest it was simple.  We

22     realise there are problems --

23             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

24             JUDGE HALL:  -- Ms. Korner.

25             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honour, I do think that a resolution of

Page 1674

 1     the Hanson problem is required, may I say, not at the end of today but

 2     now, if possible.  Because then we can see where we are.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE HALL:  The -- when we said at the end of the day, it's

 5     after the lunch break that we intend to hand down a decision on Hanson.

 6             MS. KORNER:  Right, Your Honour.  But -- absolutely.  Well, I

 7     mean, can I just say this:  That if the decision is in favour of the

 8     Prosecution being allowed to call, Mr. Zecevic wants to put in a notice

 9     to appeal, an application for leave to appeal.  Well, that obviously has

10     the effect of her not being able to testify, which will leave a gap.

11     Which, may I say, may not be unuseful for everybody's point of view.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Could we have the witness return to the stand.  You

13     have something to add, Mr. Pantelic?

14             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  Witness can enter.  In the mean

15     time, I would like just to have a clarification from Trial Chamber.

16             My understanding regarding the admission of -- of documents, the

17     bulk of documents that we spoke yesterday, would we go now through a way

18     of marked for identification, and then at certain stage, as I well

19     understood Your Honour, Judge Hall, that we could tender it through the

20     other witness.

21             I think the proper solution would be the following, and I kindly

22     ask for your instructions.  This witness is a highly capable to speak

23     about these documents because he was the creator of these documents and

24     he was a participant in these proceedings.  So we have two options.  To

25     go through all these documents today with this witness and then once we

Page 1675

 1     got official translation, at the moment when we get official translation,

 2     it will be admitted as the whole evidence.  Whole exhibit.

 3             Other solution would be to -- when we get official translation,

 4     if we are not following the first avenue, then to call, again, Mr. Delic

 5     and to tender through him this, because I don't see other person through

 6     whom we could tender these exhibits and probably our friends from OTP

 7     will not object to this suggestion.  Or maybe they have something to add,

 8     I don't know.

 9                           [The witness takes the stand]

10             MR. PANTELIC:  And we have approval from our learned friend, from

11     Prosecution.  Thank you.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Good morning, Mr. Witness.  And may we apologise

14     for all these administrative matters.

15             A couple of matters were raised and we were told that they would

16     only last five minutes this morning, and now so far we have spent more

17     than an hour discussing them.  But before we get to you, Judge Delic, let

18     us just clear this last matter and then we will resume the

19     cross-examination.

20             Mr. Zecevic, you suggested that we should re-visit five to six

21     documents which were put to the witness yesterday, and re-visit our

22     determination as to how to deal with this document in terms of admission

23     into evidence.  The documents were only in B/C/S and no translation into

24     English seemed to exist.  This -- you may remain seated.  This is why we

25     suggested that the fastest and easiest way of getting around this was to

Page 1676

 1     read out the relevant parts of the documents to the witness and then have

 2     him confirm because then we would have the interpretation, or the

 3     translation, perhaps, in the record and we could take it from there.

 4             Now, you're suggesting that we should re-visit this decision

 5     because the remaining parts of those documents, that is to say those

 6     parts that were not read out, they also include evidence which is crucial

 7     to the Defence, if that is a correct understanding of your observation.

 8             The Trial Chamber obviously has no way of discovering this,

 9     because we don't read B/C/S and so we have not seen what's in there.  But

10     if you insist that they be translated and introduced because you claim

11     that the remaining parts of these documents - I can't recall the number

12     but I think it was five to six documents - if you insist that they

13     include information that the Chamber has to see in order to reach a fair

14     determination of this case, then the Chamber will re-visit its decision.

15             So our ruling is that we kindly ask you to give us the

16     identification numbers of those five to six documents, and we will then

17     MFI them through this witness, and then as soon as we have the

18     translation, we'll get back to it, and we'll make a ruling as to whether

19     they can then be admitted into evidence or not.  And that will depend on

20     relevance and probative value.

21             So that's far as the five to six documents go.  We will re-visit

22     it and kindly ask you to give to the Registrar the relevant

23     identification numbers.

24             As for the objection raised by Counsel Pantelic, we understood

25     yesterday from the proceedings that Counsel Pantelic wanted to introduce

Page 1677

 1     to us a batch of approximately 50 documents for the purpose of showing to

 2     the Chamber that all the investigative procedures that had been initiated

 3     at the time were done according to the rules, and rather than having to

 4     read out the relevant parts of each and every of these documents, we

 5     suggested that perhaps the witness could have a look at it overnight and

 6     then confirm to us first thing this morning when he starts his -- when he

 7     resumes his cross-examination, to confirm to us whether, indeed, his

 8     review of those approximately 50 documents - I cannot recall the correct

 9     number - had been -- would confirm whether his review of these documents

10     would confirm that the proceedings that had taken place at the time had

11     been done fully in accordance with the rules and regulations that existed

12     then.  And we were careful to suggest a precise formulation of the

13     question to be put to the witness yesterday, and it received the approval

14     of both parties.

15             So that is why we thought that, as far as this batch of documents

16     is concerned, a satisfactory procedure would be the one that we

17     suggested; namely, that we ask the witness to have a look at it, and if

18     he can confirm that in all of those instances, the investigations were,

19     indeed, carried out in accordance with the rules and regulations, then

20     that brings an end to that matter.  Then the Trial Chamber will accept

21     that, in these cases, the authorities had acted with due diligence and

22     without any discriminatory intent and that is what we asked the witness

23     to confirm, and he is yet to confirm that.

24             We also asked counsel then, in addition to the witness's

25     assessment of the proceedings, or the procedures that had been applied

Page 1678

 1     then, to also provide the Chamber with some statistical support in terms

 2     of how many incidents do the documents cover; was the perpetrator known;

 3     was the victim known; and were there any subsequent judicial proceedings

 4     that were initiated as a result of any of the investigations made by the

 5     police.

 6             So that's where we are.  And if parties have no other objections

 7     and other matters to raise, I suggest we get on with it, and ask

 8     Mr. Pantelic to resume his cross-examination of Judge Delic.

 9             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, may I just mention one matter:  The

10     statistical matter had -- was something that occurred to us overnight.

11     It's going to take -- because we couldn't talk to the witness or anything

12     like that, it's going to take too long, we feel, to get him to add up the

13     number of cases in the book and then do the various maths.  The cases

14     that are represented by those the Defence are going to show him and the

15     ones, indeed, that we've asked him about, are a tiny proportion of what

16     existed in what's called the KT book, so we think that can be done by

17     agreement or possibly through the summary witness, can I put it that way.

18             The second matter is this:  If Mr. Pantelic proposes to use with

19     this witness the exhibit that we were provided with, the name marked -- I

20     think it's 2D03-0149, then we've got two pages translated.  We got them

21     yesterday.  But if that assists there are two pages which are actually

22     translated.

23             So if he gets to that, then we can assist.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, Ms. Korner for this, and I'm sure we

Page 1679

 1     will be assisted by seeing those pages.

 2             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, can I proceed.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, please.

 4             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Delic, you're still on your oath.

 6                           WITNESS:  MILENKO DELIC [Resumed]

 7                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 8                           Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic: [Continued]

 9        Q.   Can you hear everything, Mr. Delic?  Say "yes" into the

10     microphone.

11        A.   Yes.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Pantelic, I saw you count the number of

13     documents when Judge Harhoff spoke about 50, and you seem to indicate

14     there were less.  How many were there?  How many are there?

15             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honour, you have a hawk eye.  Actually, it's

16     around 15, it's much less than 50, roughly saying, and while I'm on this

17     topic, I would like to suggest the following method.  We already

18     downloaded these documents in e-court and we divided them by titles, and

19     I think it would be fair for my client to follow the same proceedings

20     that Judge Harhoff just suggested, that I can go through Mr. Delic

21     through all these documents, have his comments and his confirmation, if

22     any, then to tender particular documents for MFI, and then, at a certain

23     stage, when we get official translation of these documents, we could have

24     exhibits.  If it is so -- if it pleases this Trial Chamber.

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thanks, Mr. Pantelic.

Page 1680

 1             Listen, the Court is not going to tell the Defence how to

 2     organise its case.  We suggested the procedure yesterday, based

 3     exclusively on your own submission that the purpose of bringing these 15

 4     documents to the witness was only to confirm that the proceedings which

 5     they cover had been made according to the rules.  That was all.  And if

 6     this is still the case, our suggestion would be that we keep it there.

 7             So if the witness now can confirm that everything was done

 8     according to the book, fine, that's the end of the matter.  If the

 9     witness cannot confirm this, then we might wish to go into details and

10     then see which cases were irregular and, in that case, we will perhaps

11     have to consider admission into evidence.  But if the witness confirms,

12     as you suggest he would, that everything was done according to the book,

13     as I said, then no question of admission into evidence arises.

14             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I will proceed on this

15     way.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Delic, you had an occasion to look at the

17     documents that were submitted to you by the registry -- did it last

18     night.

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Can you agree that this is a group of documents dealing with

21     certain criminal cases as well as the records of on-site inspections,

22     letters regarding criminal procedures and pre-criminal procedures in

23     Sanski Most during the relevant period which was the year 1992.

24             Do you agree with me?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 1681

 1        Q.   As you were studying and perusing the duties, were you able to

 2     see that the police did everything in keeping with the law and requests

 3     of the prosecutor's office that -- did they do their job in keeping with

 4     the law?

 5        A.   I could see that there were Official Notes for each of the cases,

 6     that there were interviews conducted with witnesses in particular cases,

 7     and also there are cases where such notes and interview records did not

 8     exist.

 9        Q.   Very well then.

10             MR. PANTELIC:  Please, can I call up document 2D03-0063.

11        Q.   [Interpretation] Could you please look at the first document.  I

12     believe that you will find the same number on the right-hand side at the

13     top of the document, 00482336 is the document number.  You have it on the

14     screen and you can use that one as well.

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   This is a report against an unknown perpetrator, with the victim

17     being Tehvida Smajlovic.  And that case was filed on the 26th of

18     February, 1993.  We spoke about it yesterday.  The crime happened on the

19     15th of December, 1992; is that correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   In that case, you as the prosecutor, issued an order to police to

22     carry out some additional actions, and the police, in their turn, filed a

23     criminal report; is that correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   So as far as this case is concerned, everything was done by the

Page 1682

 1     book in keeping with the law?

 2        A.   Just bear with me for a moment while I look at the document.

 3             There's just a record of the on-site inspection --

 4        Q.   Hold on, sir.  The time is short.  We have to be pragmatic.  We

 5     have to follow the guide-lines issued by the Trial Chamber.  The things

 6     are simple.  We are not asking for your judgement or your final decision.

 7     Since I'm representing my client I'm just asking you - and my client

 8     worked in the police not in Sanski Most but at a higher level - what I

 9     would like to hear from you, what I would like to know, after the insight

10     into the documents before you, in your view did the police do everything

11     that they were supposed to do?

12        A.   I can't answer whether everything was done as it should have

13     been, because I have nothing to base my conclusion on.

14        Q.   Very well then.  Could you please confirm that you issued an

15     order to the police to carry out some additional investigations and

16     interviews, yes or no?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Did the police file a criminal report with regard to this event?

19        A.   Yes.  Against an unknown perpetrator.

20        Q.   Was an on-site inspection carried out with regard to this case?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   So what is in dispute here?  I don't understand you when you say

23     that the police didn't do something that they should have done.

24        A.   I simply don't know whether they took statements from

25     eye-witnesses or persons who had information about the incidents --

Page 1683

 1     incident.

 2        Q.   Very well.  In this stage, what you have -- you would say that

 3     the police did everything as per your instructions.

 4        A.   In that stage, yes.  But I don't know what happened after that.

 5        Q.   We cannot speculate.  This is all we have.

 6             Could you please look at the following document, which is

 7     00493238.

 8             MR. PANTELIC:  This is a 2D03-0071.  Sorry.  It's 00 -- sorry,

 9     sorry.  It's my mistake.  It's a document 2D03-0071.

10        Q.   [Interpretation] Very well.  Mr. Delic, this document is three

11     pages long.  It's a record of an on-site inspection which was compiled on

12     the 3rd of November, 1992, in the village of Kruhari after the death of

13     nine persons from the village of Skrljevita?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   You were present?

16        A.   Yes, I was.

17        Q.   There was an also an investigating judge?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And there were also police inspectors on the site?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   The bodies were found in the forest called Grahoriste?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Do you know the ethnic origin of the people who died?

24        A.   They were Croats.

25        Q.   Do you know anything about these proceedings?  Were you in charge

Page 1684

 1     of the proceedings since you were on the site?  Were perpetrators ever

 2     found and arrested?

 3        A.   Yes.  The perpetrators were found and they were two adults and

 4     two minors.  The two adults were members of the military at the time, and

 5     the criminal report was referred to the military investigative organs.

 6     And as far as the minors were concerned, proceedings were conducted

 7     before the basic court in Sanski Most.

 8        Q.   Could you please go to the following page, and you will see

 9     number 0048474?

10             MR. PANTELIC:  It is, in our list, 2D03-0080.

11        Q.   [Interpretation] Have you got the page?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   The case was filed on 19 November 1992 against an unknown

14     perpetrator, and the victim was Tade Ilicic; is that correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   The incident happened on 10th of July, 1992, and the crime in

17     question was a murder; is that correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   On page 4 of this case file, under 0048477, it says that you

20     stated that a record of an on-site inspection was received and that you

21     issued certain orders to the police with regard to the incident.  Did you

22     do that?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   What was done in respect of this case; do you remember what

25     happened next?

Page 1685

 1        A.   The police filed a criminal report against an unknown

 2     perpetrator, and with the report, there was also an Official Note on --

 3     about an interview conducted with the spouse of the deceased.  She

 4     provided her statement to the police.  She said what she knew about the

 5     incident.

 6        Q.   As the prosecutor in charge, did you issue an indictment against

 7     the unknown perpetrator?

 8        A.   The perpetrator was never identified.  Therefore, this is where

 9     the process stopped.

10        Q.   So that case remained in the KTN long book?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Next document it is 00480497.

13             MR. PANTELIC:  This is 2D03-0080.  It is -- I'm calling

14     2D03-0080.

15        Q.   [Interpretation] This is a file of the 25th of November, 1992,

16     against an unknown perpetrator.  The victim is Jose, Galesic; correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   The late Mr. Galesic was a Croat, I believe?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   In the case there is a criminal report submitted by the police;

21     correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Next there is a record of an on-site investigation which you

24     attended as well; correct?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 1686

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic, at a convenient point, we will take

 2     the break.

 3             MR. PANTELIC:  Just a few seconds, Your Honour.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] In this case, towards the end, there are six

 5     Official Notes drafted by various police inspectors from Sanski Most;

 6     correct?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   The police, in this case, pursuant to your order, carried out

 9     everything that was necessary; correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11             MR. PANTELIC:  Well, I think this is a convenient time for break,

12     Your Honours.

13             JUDGE HALL:  We will break now and return in 20 minutes.

14                           [The witness stands down]

15                           --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.

17                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

18             JUDGE HALL:  We apologise for the delay in taking the Bench, but

19     it was as a result of certain administrative and procedural matters, to

20     facilitate the work -- today's work.  One of the things that we have done

21     during the break is to issue a decision, denying the motion for

22     certification to appeal the oral decision accepting Christian Nielsen as

23     an expert and request for a stay of proceedings, so that is in the

24     process of being filed.

25                           [The witness takes the stand]

Page 1687

 1                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic, I invite you to resume your

 4     cross-examination, and I would point out that you have 1 hour and 26

 5     minutes left.

 6             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I will do my best.  But

 7     just for the record, I'm now -- I'm dealing with a sort of judicial batch

 8     of documents which were -- which was provided to us on the October 12th.

 9     It was not a part of our strategy for cross-examination before, so due to

10     this reason, I will kindly ask you to adjust, if necessary, time for

11     cross-examination, because, as I said, initially it was not a part of our

12     line, so due to the sort of late disclosure to us, we were -- you know,

13     obliged to tailor our time.  So -- but I will do my best to --

14             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  As always, let's proceed and we'll see where

15     we go.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you so much, Your Honour.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Delic --

18             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have in e-court

19     2D03-0094.

20        Q.   Mr. Delic, as you can see on the right-hand side corner, upper

21     corner, the number --

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Mr. Pantelic should repeat the number.

23        A.   Yes.

24             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   This case file was open on the 23rd of June, 1993, submitted

Page 1688

 1     against an unknown perpetrator.  The victim is Muhamed Silkic?

 2        A.   Halkic.

 3        Q.   I apologise my copy is a bit illegible.  I believe he is a

 4     Muslim?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   In the file we have a criminal report signed by the police chief,

 7     Mirko Vrucinic.  In practical terms, it contains a description of the

 8     crime, on the 29th of October, 1992, an unknown perpetrator murdered

 9     Mr. Muhamed Halkic?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Next in the file we have an Official Note of the 29th of

12     October by the police inspector, Mr. Mile Dobrijevic from Sanski Most;

13     correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   The next Official Note in the file is the one which,

16     unfortunately, does not have a signature.  I suppose this Official Note

17     was also drafted by the police; correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Then we have another Official Note which was also drafted by the

20     police.  Then there is a third.  Something in here seems to have caught

21     my attention.

22             Dejan Bilbija, it seems that his ID was copied.  It is contained

23     in the first Official Note, just following the criminal report.

24             What about this Bilbija person, was he a potential suspect or

25     maybe the perpetrator?

Page 1689

 1        A.   I'm not familiar with that.

 2        Q.   In any case, now I see what it is.  Please have a look at page --

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Mr. Pantelic should repeat the ERN reference.

 4             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Could we have page 00482354.

 5             There it is.

 6        Q.   In my opinion in item 5 of this Official Note, it says that in

 7     October of 1992 a rifle grenade was fired at the house owned by

 8     Dzafe Halilovic.  This was stated by a Serb, who said that together with

 9     Dusan Bilbija and Darko Miljenovic fired a rifle grenade at the house

10     each.  I see an ID photocopy.  It says Dejan Bilbija which to me means

11     that the police indeed managed to identify at least one perpetrator, at

12     least one of the suspects.

13        A.   Yes.  This is the actual -- this it actually the police file, a

14     police card of the suspect.

15        Q.   It means that the police made some progress and it turns out that

16     Dejan Bilbija plus an additional two people were suspected of having

17     committed this murder.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Let's go to the page number 60, which is at the end of the file.

20     There you, as the prosecutor, issued certain orders to the police, to

21     conduct interviews, as well as to undertake other forensic activities,

22     and I believe it was done by the police; correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Let us next -- let us move to the next criminal file.  The last

25     three digits are 378.  It is 2D03-0107.

Page 1690

 1             This file was opened on the 9th of December, 1992, against an

 2     unknown perpetrator.  The victim was Petar Pavicic.  I suppose his

 3     ethnicity was Croatian?

 4        A.   Correct.

 5        Q.   Next in the file we have a criminal report submitted by the chief

 6     of police in Sanski Most, Mr. Mirko Grucinic [as interpreted] on the 9th

 7     of December.  It say there that an unknown perpetrator opened

 8     automatic -- fire from an automatic weapon, killing Petar Pavicic, after

 9     which the perpetrator left the scene of crime in an unknown direction.

10     In the document that we see here, we have your order issued to the police

11     in Sanski Most to undertake certain measures, such as interviews, as well

12     as forensic activities.

13             Next we have document which ends with the three-digit figure of

14     382.  Branko Sobot, who was a police inspector, indeed conducted certain

15     interviews; is that correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   It seems that in this file we have all the indications of the

18     police doing their work professionally; is that correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   The next document --

21             MS. KORNER:  I'm sorry, could I just put -- I have the same

22     problem as the Trial Chamber.  I haven't got a translation.  Does it say

23     who the perpetrator was alleged to be in this case, in this file?

24             MR. PANTELIC:  In this case, actually it was unknown perpetrator.

25             MS. KORNER:  No.  But, yes, but is there a mention of who is

Page 1691

 1     suspected of having committed the crime.  Perhaps the witness, well --

 2             MR. PANTELIC:  I will try to ...

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Delic, perhaps you can have a look.  But as

 4     far as I can see from the note of the interview, it cannot be concluded

 5     who the perpetrator was.

 6             In the letter by the chief of police, which is the document

 7     ending in 409, if can you see it, it says that the police issued a

 8     dispatch asking that other people be brought in from Prijedor who were

 9     members of the 5th Kozara Brigade.  Based on that, I conclude that this

10     was probably under the remit of the military prosecutor?

11        A.   This concerns another case.

12        Q.   Yes, my mistake, you're right.

13             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, if it assists what I'm asking about

14     there seems to be mention of someone called Salko in this file, and I

15     wonder if that's anything to do with it.  When I say anything to do with

16     it, the alleged perpetrator.

17             MR. PANTELIC:  Mm-hm.

18        Q.   [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  In the criminal report itself, the

19     police say that the unknown perpetrator contacted the spouse of the

20     victim and introduced himself as a Salko.  Is that what it says?

21        A.   Yes.  We can see from that from the Official Note, following the

22     interview with Marija Pavicic who was the mother of the victim.

23        Q.   In the criminal report, at page 1, you can see what Mr. Grucinic,

24     the chief of police, says.  He says that the unknown perpetrator

25     introduced himself as Salko so as to let her know that the murder was

Page 1692

 1     committed by a Muslim.  We suppose that he was trying to cover up his

 2     tracks by trying to pass himself off as a Muslim.

 3        A.   Yes, one can draw that conclusion, since the perpetrator was

 4     unknown.

 5                           [Defence counsel confer]

 6             MR. PANTELIC:  Okay, sorry.

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] I think we went through this, in terms of your

 8     order to the police, and this was followed through, I believe?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   We move to the next document now, which is 2D03-0112.

11             Here we see that the letter by the chief of police,

12     Mirko Grucinic was sent to your prosecutor's office, in relation to the

13     case of Safet Islamovic [phoen] and Osman Muhamodzic [phoen].  These were

14     Muslims; correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Grucinic says that certain measures were taken and that the two

17     bodies were found as well as that there were indications that the

18     perpetrators were members of the army and of the 5th Kozara Brigade;

19     correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   We can also see here that the police -- well, we don't have the

22     whole file, but I suppose that there followed the legal procedure;

23     correct?

24        A.   Yes.  It is possible that the police forwarded the file to the

25     military organs.

Page 1693

 1        Q.   We have a note of the scene of crime investigation being

 2     undertaken which was standard procedure; correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Let's move on to the next document, which is a crime file opened

 5     on the 7th of December, 1992.  The last three digits are 439.  It is

 6     2D03-0116.

 7             This file was open the against an unknown perpetrator who had

 8     committed the crime of murder.  The victim was Zajneba Alibegovic [phoen]

 9     and Zarfije Sinanovic [phoen]from Kijevo.  I suppose these two women were

10     Muslim; correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   In the file itself we have what we would usually expect to have

13     there; the murder took place on 6th November, 1992, in the village of

14     Kijevo.  As standard procedure you issued an order to the police to

15     undertake certain activities in the pre-trial stage and to conduct

16     interviews.  We have there also a report of an on-site investigation.  I

17     suppose you were in attendance as well.

18             Next, we have a criminal report, submitted by the chief of

19     police, Mirko Grucinic, with attachments such as statements, gathered by

20     police inspector.  In this case, there were at least seven or eight such

21     statements.

22             We can conclude, therefore, that yet again, the police fulfilled

23     all the orders that you issued to them in relation to the case; correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   The next case file ends in 034.  It is 2D03-0132 on our list.

Page 1694

 1             Mr. Delic, this file was opened on 16th March 1993, submitted

 2     against an unknown perpetrator.  The victim was Hazema Smajlovic.  I

 3     suppose she was a Muslim; correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Next, we have standard correspondence between the prosecutor's

 6     office and the police concerning the various orders and what the police

 7     were supposed to do.

 8             Next, we have a criminal report signed by chief of police,

 9     Mirko Grucinic, in which it says that on the 12th September, 1992, there

10     was a blast, an explosion, next to the house owned by a Muslim.  On that

11     occasion the owner's wife, Hazema, sustained injuries because of the

12     blast; correct?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   We have a report of an on-site investigation as well as an

15     Official Note, actually two, drafted by the police inspector Zdravko

16     Savanovic; correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   In your assessment would you say that everything was done by the

19     police in this case too, by the police in Sanski Most; correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   The next case we have has the last three digits of 042.  It is

22     our internal 2D03-04 -- 0140.  It was opened on the 17th of February,

23     1993, submitted against an unknown perpetrator.  The victim was

24     Hazim Jakupovic from Kamengrad.  I suppose he was Muslim as well?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 1695

 1        Q.   As part of the file we have the standard correspondence between

 2     you and the police by way of orders to the police.  We have a criminal

 3     report submitted by the chief of police, Mirko Grucinic, in which it says

 4     that on the 15th October, 1992, a traffic accident was caused resulting

 5     in a fatality, the fatality was Hazim Jakupovic.

 6             There's also a record of an on-site investigation which you

 7     attended as well.  We also have several Official Notes and statements by

 8     eye-witnesses.  I believe the police also carried out all of your orders;

 9     correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Very well.  Let's move on to the next criminal file, the last

12     three digits are -- is 051.  It is our internal number --

13             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] I'll slow down; I apologise.

14     2D03-0149.

15             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, that's the one we've got translations for,

16     Your Honour, of two pages, which we can put up.

17             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   This a criminal file which was opened on the 15th of March 1993.

19     The perpetrator is unknown, and the victim is Juse Krupic from Donji

20     Kamengrad?

21             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I'm sorry, if Mr. Pantelic waits one

22     second, we'll put up the actual ...

23             Sorry, more than one second.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, Ms. Korner, that would be helpful.

25             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] All right.

Page 1696

 1        Q.   It wasn't entered in the transcript that the victim here was most

 2     probably of Muslim ethnicity; is that correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   This is a criminal report filed by the chief of police at

 5     Sanski Most, and it says that on the 11th November, 1992, the body of

 6     Juse Krupic was found in a garage of the mosque yard at Donji Kamengrad.

 7     And, as part of the criminal report, other evidence is also submitted

 8     such as the interview and medical documents, as well as the protocol of

 9     the on-site investigation, as well as your correspondence with the police

10     about your orders given to the police; is that correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   So, at page 054 of this file --

13             MS. KORNER:  We've got a translation of that.

14             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   We see your letter to the police at Sanski Most, in which you

16     order them to conduct an interview regarding the case of the reserve

17     police officer, Zoran Miladinovic, would focus on the circumstances --

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel please repeat this part of his

19     question.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Pantelic, the Prosecutor [sic] didn't hear

21     your question.  Could you please repeat it.

22             MS. KORNER:  The interpreter, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  The interpreter, sorry.

24             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   So let me repeat.  In your letter dated 8 December, 1992, which

Page 1697

 1     you sent to the police at Sanski Most, you issue an order to conduct an

 2     interview about the case of the reserve police officer, a certain Zoran

 3     Miladinovic, focussing on the circumstances when and why and which way he

 4     took the deceased person who was the duty officer with him at the

 5     check-point and all other circumstances the police needs to know about.

 6             Is that correct?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   So, it is obvious that here, too, in a way, a police officer was

 9     involved in the activities; is that correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   At any rate, this criminal file includes your orders, as well as

12     the protocol of the on-site investigation, where it is established that a

13     police officer, too, was involved in the event; is that correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Do you know how this case developed subsequently?  Did the police

16     officer conduct an internal inquiry, or did he launch a procedure

17     following your orders?

18        A.   I can't remember now whether the perpetrator was found, whether a

19     person was actually reported as a perpetrator of this criminal act.

20        Q.   All right.  But certainly in the criminal report that we see

21     here, we see that following your orders interviews were conducted with

22     Zoran Miladinovic, a police officer, isn't that correct, on page 1, and

23     with other persons of whom we don't know now whether they were police

24     officers or eye-witnesses.  But your orders were followed, weren't they?

25        A.   Yes, that's what the criminal report says.

Page 1698

 1        Q.   Thank you.  The next file we want to look at now has the last

 2     three digits of 526.  Our internal mark is 2D03-0158.

 3             This is a criminal file which was opened on the 14th of

 4     September, 1992, against an unknown perpetrator.  And the victim was

 5     Alma Kicin, a minor from Demisevac; is that correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   I suppose that the victim was of Muslim ethnicity?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   On the following page we can see your orders to the police.

10     That's the usual correspondence.  And there is also a criminal report

11     filed by the chief of police, Mirko Vrucinic, which says -- or which

12     states that during the night between the 3rd and the 4th of December,

13     1992, one perpetrator or several shot from the dark at the house owned by

14     a Muslim, and on that occasion, the victim, the minor victim Alma was

15     killed.  And the protocol of the on-site investigation and the interviews

16     conducted following your office are also included.

17             Is that correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   So in this case, too, we can say that the police followed the

20     procedure, in accordance with your order; isn't that so?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Now there's another document which has a number.  It

23     follows from this one - the last three digits are 820 - and that's your

24     letter that you sent to the police.  It is dated the 13th of August.

25             It's on the next page following this file, the file about this

Page 1699

 1     girl Alma.

 2             Sorry, no, my mistake.  No.  It's a separate set of documents.

 3             The number is 998, yes, we do have that one.  And then the --

 4     followed by 999.  And then 820.  We don't have the criminal files here,

 5     but this is the correspondence in which you give orders to the police,

 6     but that is not relevant now.  This is the 1st of July, 1994.

 7             Although, the KTA [as interpreted] is 11392, but this event is

 8     from 1992, right; and the correspondence followed later?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Yes.  I can see that some police activities took place, and the

11     unknown perpetrators from 1992 seem to have been located, and it was

12     established that they are members of the 6th Kozara Brigade; is that

13     correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Your next letter also has to do with a case where the victims

16     were Muslims and where you also gave orders to the police.  It is about

17     some events and an on-site investigation done on the 8th of November,

18     1992; is that correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   You give an order here and inform the police that it is required,

21     should some -- should they learn of some information that they inform

22     you; is that correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   The next file was opened on the 13th of August, 1992, where you

25     sent a letter to the police, dated the 13th of August.  And you say

Page 1700

 1     that ...

 2             MR. PANTELIC:  Sorry, my mistake.

 3             [Interpretation] 2D03-0168.  This is just a single document --

 4        Q.   -- where you inform the police of Sanski Most that they should

 5     collect the necessary information concerning the protocol of the on-site

 6     investigation made on the 13th of August which we don't have here.  But,

 7     as far as I can tell, some incident seems to have happened and it was

 8     necessary for the police to follow the regular procedure; is that

 9     correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   The next document is a case which you spoke about yesterday to my

12     learned friend, Mr. Cvijetic.  It is rather comprehensive.  It's

13     2D03-0169 and we won't dwell on it here, but we can say that it is a

14     complete criminal file, including a criminal report which was submitted

15     against known perpetrators of Serb ethnicity who had committed the crime

16     of murder at Stari Majdan and that individual or the group, if you

17     remember, killed those two Muslims, right?

18        A.   It was an individual perpetrator.

19        Q.   Yes, an individual.  And he was a member of the 6th Krajina

20     Brigade, and then the military prosecutor took over and it was further

21     processed; is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Right.  We established that yesterday.  But we can also see that

24     the police did everything that was necessary and that they had the

25     authority to do following your orders; is that correct?

Page 1701

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Let us proceed with the next set of documents, the first one with

 3     the last three digits being 862.  Our document number is 2903-0241.

 4             Then 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 52, 54, and 57.  Let's not go into

 5     details now, but we can establish that these are on-site investigation

 6     protocols concerning various events, the first one is dated 15th of June,

 7     1992.  You were also present as well as -- or, rather, as a member of the

 8     member of the police of Sanski Most.  A dead body was found in the Sana

 9     river, and the required forensic activities were conducted and procedures

10     followed; correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   The next one is also dated 15th of June.  You were present.  Also

13     an on-site investigation protocol in the Sana river -- let me just check.

14             Yes, it was on the same day but another investigation.  A dead

15     body was found and the procedure was followed; correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Then the next one is an on-site investigation done on the 17th of

18     August, where the late Munib Masic was found, a Muslim, I suppose.  I am

19     speaking about the document dated 17 August 1992.

20             It should be in this sequence.  The number in the upper corner is

21     880.

22        A.   Yes, I found it.

23        Q.   This is also part of the procedure that you conducted with the

24     police on the 17th of August, 1992, when a dead body -- the dead body of

25     a Muslim, Munib Masic, was found, and the forensic procedure was

Page 1702

 1     conducted.

 2             Let us now pass to the following document, dated the 27th of

 3     August, 1992.  It is also an on-site investigation protocol.  The police,

 4     a medical doctor, and the prosecution were present.  Four bodies were

 5     found, and the regular procedure was conducted; is that correct?

 6        A.   Let me just explain.  We received information about four dead

 7     bodies from the village of Kljevci, but we didn't find the bodies at the

 8     site.  There was a report about the dead body of Petar Ivankovic.  We

 9     commented that case already with the OTP.

10        Q.   Very well.  The next on-site investigation protocol was compiled

11     on 13th of September, 1992, again, in the presence of both the

12     prosecutor's office and the police as well as the forensic expert --

13             MS. KORNER:  I just mention that Mr. Pantelic is not actually

14     giving the exhibits any numbers at the moment.  He's just going straight

15     through.  I don't mind, but if he wants later for reference, the D

16     numbers are not coming out, unless you propose to do the whole as a bulk

17     exhibit at a later stage.

18             MR. PANTELIC:  That was my initial idea, but let's hear --

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I think the idea behind this approach was not to

20     have these documents exhibited because the purpose of this exercise was

21     only to discover, whether according to the witness, the procedures that

22     were taken and the measures that were taken to investigate those crimes

23     were taken correctly, according to the book.

24             MS. KORNER:  I quite understand that --

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So if the witness, by the end of this exercise,

Page 1703

 1     is able to assess the quality of the measures taken for investigation

 2     and -- and perhaps prosecution, then that would be the end of it.

 3             MS. KORNER:  Yes, Your Honour.  At the moment, Mr. Pantelic is,

 4     in fact, he's just going on different dates, but what is not altogether

 5     clear is that these are actually separate files.  He was giving the

 6     numbers originally but he stopped, and so at the moment purely for later

 7     purposes, if necessary, I -- if Mr. Pantelic -- if they're going to be

 8     exhibited, is going to put them as one bulk, that's one thing.  It

 9     doesn't really matter.  But at the moment it is very difficult to see,

10     from reading the transcript, that he is actually referring to different

11     perpetrator files.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Pantelic, apparently you have been giving

14     reference numbers to the files that you have introduced so far except for

15     the last two ones, so maybe you would be good enough to continue the

16     practice, just said, so as to enable the Chamber, in the end, if we have

17     to considered admission of any of these documents, we can then identify

18     them.

19             MR. PANTELIC:  I will do that gladly.  Your Honour, my initial

20     idea was just to cover all these separate activities of police and

21     prosecution and then to have Mr. Delic opinion but no problem; although,

22     again, the most preferable way for us would be that we could tender all

23     these documents and then have [indiscernible] I'm repeating, you know,

24     [Overlapping speakers] ...

25             JUDGE HARHOFF: [Overlapping speakers]

Page 1704

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  like Cato in Rome that

 2     Carthage should be destroyed by Rome, don't understand me wrong.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Let's see about that when we get to the end of

 4     this exercise, but can I just, for clarification, ask you to indicate the

 5     number of files, because when Judge Delvoie asked you a while ago how

 6     many documents we were talking about, you said 15 documents.  But it

 7     seems to me that we have far exceeded the number of 15 documents, and I

 8     wonder if what you meant to say was that the batch consists of 15 files

 9     and each file would then consist of a number of subdocuments so to say.

10             Is that the case?

11             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, actually, my information was that actually we

12     are speaking about the number of files but with many documents, but, of

13     course, I covered with -- with Mr. Delic when I speak about one case, one

14     file, we covered many, many pages.

15             So in total, we have around roughly 15, plus we have now this

16     particular on-site records, which my idea was to cover all together, but

17     will follow your instruction, Your Honour, and I think it's absolutely

18     appropriate.  So to go back --

19        Q.   [Interpretation] We have to say for the sake of the procedure

20     that the document you have before you displaying the last two digits 862

21     is actually 2D03-0241.  We have already spoken about this document.  This

22     is an on-site investigation protocol dated 15 June, dealing with the body

23     in the Sana.

24             And the next document is your number 863 and it is our number

25     2D03-0242, another on-site investigation protocol drafted on the same

Page 1705

 1     date, and it seems to me that it was drafted maybe an hour or so later.

 2     Again, dealing with the body in the river Sana.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   The next on-site investigation protocol bears the last three

 5     digits 880, and it is ours 2D03-0243.  And this is an on-site

 6     investigation protocol dated 17 August 1992.

 7             A body -- the body of Munib Basic [as interpreted], a Muslim was

 8     found, and the procedure was carried out and an on-site investigation

 9     protocol drafted.

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   The next document is 2D03-0244, and your number is 882.  This is

12     an on-site investigation protocol that you also attended on the 27th of

13     August, 1992, or maybe 29th of August -- no, I believe it's the 27th of

14     August, 1992.  We have already spoken about that.

15             In the village of Kljevci three female and one male bodies were

16     found; is that correct?

17        A.   Yes, we had information that there were four bodies.  However, we

18     did not find the bodies on the site.

19        Q.   The next document is 2D03-02446.  This is another on-site

20     investigation protocol drafted on the 13th of September, 1992.  An

21     explosion had taken place in the village of -- this is illegible.

22        A.   Husimovci [phoen].

23        Q.   Yes, Husimovci.

24             And the prosecutor and the police attended the on-site

25     investigation.

Page 1706

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And there were also casualties, as can I see.  We've already said

 3     that.  They were all Muslim, weren't they?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And then we have the next document which is under our internal

 6     number 2D03-0248, and your number is 886.

 7             This is an on-site investigation protocol dated 18

 8     September 1992, again, in the presence of the prosecutor, the police, and

 9     the court expert, a forensic medical expert.  The case was probably a

10     murder case.  The information is contained in here.  The protocol was

11     compiled, and the victim was a Muslim; is that correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And, again, a certain legal procedure was applied involving the

14     prosecutor and the police; right?

15        A.   Right.

16        Q.   The next document we have is 2D03-0252.  This is an on-site

17     investigation protocol dated 18 September --

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Hold on a minute, Mr. Pantelic.  Can we just go

19     back to the previous document and your question to the witness was, and I

20     quote from what is on my screen, page 46, line 3, your question was:

21             "Again, certain legal procedures was applied involving the

22     prosecutor and the police; right?"

23             And the witness answers: "Right."

24             Can you elicit with the witness what were the legal procedures

25     taking?

Page 1707

 1             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Mr. Delic, you heard His Honour, Judge Harhoff.  Could you please

 3     explain the nature of the procedure that was applied and involved the

 4     prosecutor, the police, and an investigating judge at the moment of the

 5     on-site investigation.

 6        A.   The body was found and the investigating judge, the policemen,

 7     the crime technician, the physician and I, myself, went to the site, and

 8     the investigation was headed by the investigative judge, with the

 9     participation of crime technician, forensic technician, and inspector,

10     and the investigating judge compiled the protocol describing the site and

11     what was found on the site.  The forensic technician was then ordered to

12     take photos of the site of the crime, to sketch the site, to collect the

13     casings found at the site, and it was stated that the forensic technician

14     followed through.

15             Then the investigating judge issued an order to the forensic

16     medical expert to draft his opinion and findings about the wounds found

17     on the body.  I can say that this was a customary procedure which was

18     applied after the crime had taken place.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, Judge.

20             Can I just ask you, then, if that was the end of the

21     investigations, or were further prosecutorial steps taken?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was the beginning of the

23     investigation, the initial investigation steps, an on-site investigation

24     and the collection of evidence found on the site.  I then issued an order

25     to the police to take further steps, with a view to discovering the

Page 1708

 1     perpetrator of that crime, a whole array of operative actions were needed

 2     to do that, interviewing people who might have information about the

 3     incident.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And if you -- and were such interviews then

 5     conducted?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have anything to that

 7     effect in the file.  I don't know what was done, so I'm not able to

 8     answer your question.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And you cannot recall the follow-up of that

10     particular incident?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't recall whether the

12     perpetrator of that crime was ever discovered or not.

13             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I have -- in fact, I was about to

14     raise the same problem.  I'm not quite clear.  Is the only document in

15     this file the on-site investigation?  Was it -- is that all the Defence

16     have copied?  That's the only thing I'm not clear about.

17             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, in fact, all these on-site records are a part

18     of documents which Defence received from OTP and there are a number of

19     these records, but all we have is actually these on-site records.

20             So in previous cases, we were able to produce and to -- to -- to

21     have the answer from Mr. Delic about the -- the criminal files.  But now

22     what we received from OTP, probably because of war or collection of

23     documents, I don't know what the reason is, only we have these particular

24     on-site records, whereas you rightly pointed out, Judge Harhoff, you

25     asked the witness to maybe refresh his memory, what was the follow-up of

Page 1709

 1     all these activities, but, unfortunately, he cannot recall.

 2             So that's all we have.  Yeah.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes, I understand.  I just wonder whether it's

 4     worthwhile, then, going through all of them.  But I leave it to you to --

 5     but try, wherever you can, Mr. Pantelic, to elicit from Judge Delic, if

 6     he recalls, the end of the stories, so to say.

 7             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour, I'll certainly do.

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Delic, we'll be talking about the next few

 9     on-site investigation protocols.  Our numbers 2D03-0248, the following

10     number is 52, 54, 55, and 57.

11             Let's not go through each of them separately.  You see if

12     yourself that the records are almost identical, and reflect the onsite

13     inspections on different days, different months, sometimes it is August,

14     September, November, and I believe it would be best for us to draw this

15     line of questioning to an end, but let me just ask you one thing:  When

16     you look at all these records - I believe that you studied them last

17     night - and now have you just said to the Judge that you don't recall.

18     Let me ask you just once again.  Do you perhaps recall if any of the

19     cases were processed when you were a judge?  Did anything happen after

20     the initial stages?

21        A.   I really don't recall.  Most of the case remained unsolved

22     because the perpetrator was never discovered.  In most cases,

23     unfortunately.

24        Q.   I understand, especially when it comes to the few cases of the

25     bodies which were found in the body -- bodies in the river.  Even if

Page 1710

 1     peacetime that would have present a huge problem.

 2             In order to end this line of questioning, I would kindly ask you

 3     to tell me, we're talking about the year 1992.  To the best of your

 4     recollection, were there any other cases which, pursuant to your order,

 5     were processed by the police, interviews conducted, evidence collected?

 6        A.   I suppose so.  I believe that there were.  You could check that

 7     in the KPN [as interpreted] log-book.

 8        Q.   I understand.  Very well.

 9             Now just for the record, since the name of the log-book has not

10     been recorded properly, could you please spell the name of the log-book?

11        A.   KTN.

12        Q.   Now it's okay.  And this is the log-book which is maintained for

13     unknown perpetrators, right?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And when you analysed a log-book with the prosecutor, you

16     analysed the KTN -- the KT log-book.

17        A.   Yes.  This is the log-book of perpetrators who are known.

18        Q.   Now this gives us a totally different picture of your activities,

19     the activities of the prosecutor, the court, and the police in

20     Sanski Most.  A lot more cases were processed, and not even to mention

21     the military prosecutor's office and the military procedure?

22        A.   Yes.

23             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours -- just for a moment, Mr. Pantelic --

24     Your Honours, that's absolutely right.  We haven't actually got the

25     unknown perpetrators book, but we're actually in the process of getting

Page 1711

 1     it.  Unfortunately, when collected it was missed [realtime transcript

 2     read in error "policed"], and one of the reasons why Mr. Olmsted is in

 3     Bosnia to collect that.

 4             So it's absolutely right, we don't have the unknown perpetrators

 5     book here at the moment.

 6             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   While we are on the topic, Mr. Delic, would you agree with my

 8     position, which is that you, together with the investigating judge, were

 9     in charge of the criminal investigation procedure and that the police, as

10     prescribed by the law, was at your disposal, in order to implement your

11     orders, in terms of certain investigative activities?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   In your experience in Sanski Most, and as far as you can recall,

14     did it ever happen that, when you issued an order to the chief of police,

15     Mr. Vrucinic or one of his inspectors, as the competent prosecutor, did

16     any of them ever refuse to carry out that order?

17        A.   I am not familiar with that, with them ever refusing to implement

18     it.

19        Q.   I'm not asking you to speculate but to speak as a professional.

20     Say, if an inspector refused an order, would you immediately contact his

21     chief, that is to say, Mr. Grucinic on the disobedience?

22        A.   Yes, that is only logical.

23        Q.   The chief of police, Mr. Grucinic, according to our information

24     and according to what Colonel Bosora [phoen] says, was an intelligence

25     officer of the brigade, the 6th Brigade, which was Bosora's brigade.  Are

Page 1712

 1     you familiar with that?

 2        A.   No, I have no knowledge of that.

 3        Q.   If I put to you that this was said by his commanders, then have

 4     you no reason to doubt my words; is that correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Now, Grucinic as chief of police of Sanski Most, did he submit a

 7     criminal report to you or notified you orally about certain overstepping

 8     of police authority by any of the police members under him?

 9        A.   I don't remember any such notifications or reports.

10             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, Your Honour.  The transcript - and this is

11     obviously important - is recording Mr. Grucinic all the way through.  It

12     should be Vrucinic.  That's a V.  And can I just, while on my feet, say

13     that page 50, line 15, I said "missed" not "policed" as it's written in

14     relation to the log-books.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic, it's that time.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  [Microphone not activated]

17                           [The witness stands down]

18                           --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 12.34 p.m.

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21                           [The witness takes the stand]

22             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Mr. Delic, you had an interview with the OTP on the 22nd of

24     September, 2007; correct?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 1713

 1        Q.   I think it took place in Banja Luka.

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   I will quote certain portions of the interview and perhaps you

 4     can confirm to me that these are correct excerpts.

 5             The Prosecutor asked you whether there were certain instances in

 6     which the police did not act professionally in the performance of their

 7     duties.  You responded by saying:  "I cannot recall such a specific

 8     case."

 9             Is that correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, can I ask, please, for page numbers of the

12     interview?

13             MR. PANTELIC:  It's English version, 26.

14             MS. KORNER:  Thank you.

15             MR. PANTELIC:  There are differences due to the font size, so

16     B/C/S is 14, I think it's 26 of English.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] In any case, following their question, which was

18     whether you had any objections to the way the police conducted their

19     investigations, you responded by saying:

20             "I did not.  I don't recall having any."

21             Is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   The next portion is when you were asked whether you were

24     satisfied with the police work that was done.  You said that you had

25     never had any arguments with them and that they regularly responded to

Page 1714

 1     your requests.

 2             Next you were asked --

 3             MS. KORNER:  I'm sorry, can you give the full answer, please.

 4             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   When you were asked whether you were happy with the way the

 6     police work was done, you said that you never had any conflicts with them

 7     and that they respond to your requests.  Then you added:  "Well, whether

 8     they could have done that in a better or poorer way, that is something I

 9     could not judge based on my knowledge of their procedures."

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Next, the Prosecutor asked you this:  In such circumstances,

12     which made the lives of everyone hard, you responded -- you were asked

13     whether they performed their duties to the best of their professional

14     ability, and you responded by saying yes.

15             Is that correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Very well.  Now, while we're on those particular circumstances,

18     do you know, or did you know a person whose nickname was Nunja?

19        A.   I did.

20        Q.   This Nunja person, as far as we know, was some sort of a leader

21     of a certain armed group, which was called Sos [phoen]; is that correct?

22        A.   Yes, that's what people were saying.

23        Q.   What was your personal impression of that group, or to be more

24     specific, were they dangerous, armed?  Did they have proneness to crime?

25             How would you describe the group?

Page 1715

 1        A.   The rumour had it that they were armed.  People were also saying

 2     that they committed certain crimes, such as thefts.  I remember that, at

 3     the beginning of the war, they stopped a truck convoy coming from Kladusa

 4     and moving towards Sarajevo.  There may have been five or six trucks or

 5     more.  They simply seized the trucks, and I don't know what happened with

 6     the goods that were in them.

 7             I know that Nunja was killed in an explosion.  He attempted to

 8     plant an explosive device --

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  The witness's microphone is off.

10             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Could you please repeat the last portion because your microphone

12     was off.  You were telling us about Nunja trying to plant an explosive

13     device under a car.

14        A.   Yes.  Nunja was killed in trying to plant an explosive device

15     under a motor vehicle, a passenger vehicle.  The device detonated in his

16     hands.  I am familiar with that, because I attended the scene following

17     the incident.  We carried out an on-site investigation.

18        Q.   Do you have any knowledge about whether at a certain period of

19     time he placed himself at the disposal of the 6th Krajina Brigade.  Did

20     he participate in combat?

21        A.   I don't have any specific information.  I was not an army member.

22     Hence, I have no such information.

23        Q.   But you will agree with me that this Nunja and his group,

24     objectively speaking, represented a danger to the people of Sanski Most,

25     and they scared both Serbs, non-Serbs, as well as the authorities.

Page 1716

 1        A.   Yes, that's what people were saying.

 2        Q.   But -- in your answer to one of the Prosecutor's questions, you

 3     said that you issued an indictment against Mrdja, Kokot [phoen] and

 4     Bilbija and that the president of the Chamber, Judge Dragica Glusac,

 5     issued decision of the first-instance court by which she sentenced them

 6     to a term in prison of one year, and that in front of the court building

 7     a large group of uniformed men gathered.  You also said that these were

 8     soldiers of the Army of Republika Srpska which were drunk and dangerous,

 9     as well as armed; is that correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   In that case, you submitted an appeal which was decided on

12     positively, and their sentences were increased; is that correct?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   This was a very difficult time for both the judge and the

15     judiciary as a whole in which they had to try members of the Serb

16     community for crimes they had committed in such an atmosphere in which

17     there were several thousand armed people, where there was a threat to

18     one's life, or it posed a danger to perform one's duty duly?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   At page 22, and I think in English it is it page 34, when you say

21     about that case, that once your appeal was successful and when they

22     received higher sentences, that a certain Vosko Skoric came to your

23     office who was the president of the war veteran's association in Sanski

24     Most and that he threatened you because you had appealed.  He told that

25     you although were not an army member, that he would mobilise you, take

Page 1717

 1     you to Mount Grmic to the forest, where he would tie you to a tree and

 2     leave you; is that so?

 3        A.   Yes, that's what he said.

 4             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, it's not in page -- it's the interview at

 5     page 22?

 6             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Yes, interview page, yeah, yeah.

 7     30 -- 34, maybe.

 8             MS. KORNER:  22 or 32?

 9             I don't want to delay Mr. Pantelic any further, but it would help

10     if he could -- actually, when he is asking questions based on the

11     interview, have the actual page numbers in English and B/C/S ready so I

12     can find it.

13             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, I will do my best.

14        Q.   [Interpretation] Since we're missing it in the transcript, the

15     person who came to your office to threaten you was a certain

16     Bosko Skoric; correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   So there was great insecurity and a lot of pressure was put on

19     the members of the judiciary in the performance of their duties back in

20     1992; correct?

21        A.   Well, at that time, it wasn't very popular to set up a trial

22     to -- to try Serbs who had committed crimes against non-Serbs.

23        Q.   Therefore, I conclude that basically all of those who

24     participated in the judiciary process by -- and in their various

25     capacities, including the police, which followed your orders, that all

Page 1718

 1     such people were put under a certain type of pressure by those armed army

 2     members in Sanski Most.  Could one conclude that safely?

 3        A.   Yes, one could.

 4        Q.   I wish to comment or to discuss something with you; specifically,

 5     I mean Exhibit P123, MFI.

 6             This is a letter of the 10th of November 1992 sent by the chief

 7     of police Vrucinic to his superior in the CSB in Banja Luka, for the

 8     attention of Chief Zupljanin.

 9             In the letter he says, on page 1, and we already reviewed some of

10     the cases referred to in this letter, in which he says that between the

11     23rd of October 1992 until the 8th of November, 1992, there was several

12     incidents.  You confirmed to us that many of them were initially

13     processed, such as the incident in which nine Croats in the village of

14     Skrljevita were killed, pre-trial measures were taken.

15             Next we had several other villages, such as Majdan, Miljovan

16     [phoen], so on and so forth; correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And as for the first two incidents, this involved certain combat,

19     and as you told my learned friend, Mr. Cvijetic, this probably fell under

20     the competence of the military prosecutor's office; correct?

21        A.   Yes.

22             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we please see the second page

23     of that same document.

24        Q.   Here, in the paragraph on the top, it says that the perpetrators

25     of those acts were mostly soldiers and members of paramilitary units.

Page 1719

 1     The circumstances are explained.  And the document goes on to say that:

 2             "The inspectors of the Sanski Most police in all of the cases

 3     carried out on-site inspection and undertook measures and steps

 4     prescribed by the law?"

 5             Is that correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   It does say so, but you can also confirm that this was, indeed,

 8     done, because we have discussed that already today.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   It says further on, Vrucinic says -- and this is the follow-up of

11     what you had just explained, for the benefit of the Trial Chamber.

12             "Some of the perpetrators are known to the police.  However, the

13     situation is such that we cannot and it would not be advisable for the

14     security of the police officers and the -- and the enforcement organs to

15     carry out arrests and criminal prosecution of the perpetrators."

16             Would that tally with your assessment that, when thousands of

17     members of that brigade were carrying arms, it was difficult, if not

18     impossible, to carry out the procedure in the same way one would in

19     peacetime; right?

20        A.   Yes, that's correct.

21        Q.   He says further on, and he states that some soldier and Serb

22     extremists, fighters from the front, that they won't allow prosecution of

23     those who work for the Serbian cause and avenge Serbian victims on

24     battlefields and other parts of the Republika Srpska.

25             Here Vrucinic again explains the circumstances and the atmosphere

Page 1720

 1     under which the judiciary and the police officers work in Sanski Most;

 2     right?

 3        A.   Yes, you're right.

 4        Q.   In the conclusion of his letter Vrucinic says, and I quote:

 5             "There is fear of retaliation both in the command and in the army

 6     and the prosecution organs as well as in the police, as they feared what

 7     might happen to them if they continued processing the crimes in

 8     question."

 9             Would that be your assessment of the situation as well?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   However, despite what -- of what seems to be a very serious

12     statement you, members of the police, the prosecutor's office, and the

13     judiciary still continued working on discovering the perpetrators of the

14     crimes committed in 1992 in Sanski Most; is that correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Let's go back to the previous page, please, in the same document.

17             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Scroll down a little, please.

18     Scroll down -- scroll up, I apologise.  I would like the upper right

19     corner displayed.  Thank you.

20        Q.   I know it is not very easy for you to see this on the screen, but

21     maybe you can tell us what it says in the right hand writing.  It's not

22     very legible, and there is a number, 02, and then it says:  Inform the

23     corps commander and the MUP, and then there is a Cyrillic signature,

24     Djukic, and some initials.

25             Can you see that in the right upper corner?

Page 1721

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   If I put it to you that the person or the organ in charge in the

 3     CSB of Banja Luka acted pursuant to the document and immediately, given

 4     that this was about crimes perpetrated by the army, that he immediately

 5     referred this document to the command of the 6th corps.  Would that be a

 6     fair conclusion on my part?

 7             MS. KORNER:  Before the witness answers, how can he answer that?

 8     He has no idea what the CSB did.  What happened after that.  All he can

 9     do is look at what's on the document.  Anything else is just to ask him

10     to speculate.

11             MR. PANTELIC:  It's enough at this stage, Your Honour, to have

12     answer of this witness.  So I rephrase my question, with your permission.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] We can then state that it says here in the upper

14     right-hand corner that the command of the corps and the Ministry

15     of Interior should be informed?

16        A.   Yes, this is what it says here.

17             MR. PANTELIC:  And for the sake of precision, I would kindly ask

18     our friends from OTP to provide additional translation because it's not

19     correspond to English version that we have here, just to have this

20     handwritten portion on the right top page.  In due course.  It's not a

21     matter for today.  Quite soon.  We should have the author of this

22     document, so he will be able to -- to give more details.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Okay.  We have dealt with this now.

24             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Could the Court please produce -

25     just bear with me for a moment -

Page 1722

 1             [In English] Sorry, Your Honour, I lost my -- ah, okay.  Here it

 2     is.  Sorry.

 3             I don't know if it's admitted as exhibit, but 65 ter document is

 4     610.

 5             MS. KORNER:  It's P118 [Microphone not activated].

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  [Microphone not activated] P118.

 7             MR. PANTELIC:  P118, thank you.

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] You have already commented upon this document.

 9     You will remember that this is about the meeting of the coordination

10     board of the Sanski Most municipality on 17th of November, 1991.

11             Under item 1 it is stated that there had been an armed attack on

12     Trnovo and [indiscernible]?

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  The year is 1992.

14             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   What was this?  Do you remember what the attack involved?

16        A.   I don't know anything about that attack.  I was present here

17     under item 2 of this document, but when I was present, no discussion

18     took -- took place about any attack.

19        Q.   In any case, under item 2 in which you participated it was

20     concluded that the perpetrators of the gruesome crime had to be

21     discovered as soon as possible, and measures against possible

22     perpetrators of criminal offences should be taken.  Do you remember?

23        A.   I did not participate in the entire course of the meeting.  I've

24     already explained that in my conversation with the OTP.  I said that

25     certain individuals, and I don't know their names, I don't know the name

Page 1723

 1     of the gentleman who had arrived from Zenica.  But in any case, he

 2     criticised my work, he was wondering why I was not prosecuting

 3     perpetrators, and then I had to explain - and I did explain - that we

 4     could only prosecute known perpetrators.  I explained the procedure to

 5     him under the Law on the Criminal Procedure and we had an argument there.

 6     I left the meeting.  So I really did not stay for the entire duration of

 7     the meeting.

 8        Q.   I understand.  Now let's look at page 3 in the same document,

 9     please.

10             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] This is page 2.  Can we go one

11     page further, please.  [Microphone not activated] next page, please.

12     Next, please.  Okay.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Delic, looks at items 10, 12, 14, and 15.

14     These items speak about orders given to the military and the civilian

15     police forces.  Under 12 it says that it is hereby ordered to the

16     officers of the 6th brigade to the military and the civilian police.

17             Under item 14 it says that a conclusion was reached with regard

18     to the command of the brigade, and then that certain groups should be

19     placed under the control of the 6th brigade.

20             My conclusion as I'm analysing this document is that this

21     coordination board or whatever you wanted to call it, it was a municipal

22     body anyway, issued orders to both the military and police with regard to

23     certain activities; right?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Thank you.  And now, Mr. Delic, you have also mentioned that

Page 1724

 1     before this Trial Chamber and in your interview as well.  You had a

 2     person working in the court.  She was a typist, Mrs. or Ms. Mina Munic?

 3        A.   She was a typist at the court, yes.

 4        Q.   Mrs. Mina Munic was Muslim by ethnicity, wasn't she?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Since there were armed conflicts going on in Mahala, which was a

 7     neighbourhood in Sanski Most, you learned one day that she had been taken

 8     to the sports hall.  You've already said that to the OTP; right?

 9        A.   Yes, that's correct.

10        Q.   And now, as a prosecutor and as a human being, did you take some

11     steps, did you collect information so as to learn why she had been taken

12     there?  She was a friend and a colleague.  Did you make any inquiries

13     about her destiny?

14        A.   Yes, I talked to my acquaintances.  I inquired about her.  There

15     was an armed convict going on in Mahala, and I learned that a large

16     number of individuals from that part of the town had been accommodated in

17     the sports hall.  I could only suppose that there was a temporary

18     measure, because of the armed conflict that was going on there, in that

19     part of the town.

20        Q.   The transfer of those individuals was part of a military

21     operation to remove them from the area of combat.

22        A.   Yes.  I assumed that, due to the combat, that's -- the large

23     number of people were accommodated in the sports hall.  People from that

24     part of the town.

25        Q.   Did you know that there was some other facilities in Sanski Most

Page 1725

 1     where the civilian population was transferred to by the military bodies?

 2        A.   No, I did not know that.  I don't have that information.

 3        Q.   Did you know about the incident that took place sometime in early

 4     July 1992, when a group of Muslims was transported to Manjaca on a truck,

 5     and given the heat -- that they suffocated during transport?

 6        A.   No, I didn't know that.

 7        Q.   I assume that you learnt that this particular incident had -- had

 8     you learned that, that you would have taken measures, as a prosecutor,

 9     because when you learned something, you were under the obligation to

10     carry out certain activities.

11        A.   If I had learned that, I would have asked from the police to

12     investigate the circumstances, to take measures and actions to discover

13     the possible perpetrators or culprits, and I would do anything that was

14     necessary to do, had I learned about an event of that kind.

15             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Was the witness able to have Ms. Munic released?

17             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   You heard the question of the Judge.  Please answer.

19        A.   I didn't go there.  I only received information from some

20     acquaintances that she had spent some time there and that later on they

21     were transported to Velika Kladusa, or Bihac, somewhere there, in an

22     organised fashion.

23             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   You mentioned earlier the obligation to regularly submit reports.

25     When you, as a municipal prosecutor, draft your periodic reports to the

Page 1726

 1     centre in Banja Luka.  That's what you did, right?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And I suppose that you have information about the procedures of

 4     the police.  They probably also reported to their superior body on a

 5     regular basis.

 6        A.   Yes, that's certainly what they should have done.

 7        Q.   And that is also the case with the army.  They also have their

 8     superior command and they also submit reports along the lines of command.

 9        A.   Yes, probably.

10        Q.   And did the chief of police, Mr. Vrucinic, ever mention that

11     incident when the group of Muslims practically suffocated in that truck

12     to you?

13        A.   No.

14        Q.   Do you have any knowledge about whether or not, later on, after

15     1992, while there was talk about this particular incident?

16        A.   I have no knowledge about that incident.

17        Q.   Even when you were district prosecutor in Banja Luka, not even

18     then?

19        A.   No.

20        Q.   Tell me, please, you lived in the centre of Sanski Most, or did

21     you live in the outskirts?  Where did you live in 1992?

22        A.   In the town centre.  I live in my own house.

23        Q.   I was at Sanski Most last summer, and I have a rough idea

24     where -- where the centre of town is.  So could you tell me how far your

25     apartment was from the police station?

Page 1727

 1        A.   I can't tell exactly, but between 500 metres and a kilometre.

 2        Q.   In the direction of the bridge?

 3        A.   Well, from my house to the square, the distance is about 500

 4     metres, roughly.

 5        Q.   And during your stay at Sanski Most in 1992, you personally never

 6     heard of any event of the -- exceeding authority and the police station,

 7     such as beating up detainees, harassing them, et cetera?

 8        A.   No, I have no particular information about that.  I mostly stayed

 9     at home, and I only commuted between my house and my workplace.  In the

10     evening, there was no electricity, so it was dangerous to move about at

11     night or in the evening.  And in the day time, if I wasn't at work, I was

12     mostly at home.

13        Q.   Did you have information about the demolishing of religious

14     buildings in Sanski Most or the possible perpetrators?

15        A.   No, I had no information about the perpetrators.  But I saw that

16     the mosque in the city was demolished.

17        Q.   Were there rumours about the possible perpetrators, about a

18     particular group or --

19        A.   I don't know who the perpetrator may have been, but fact is that

20     the mosque was demolished by explosive.

21        Q.   In your contacts with the police, did you see that the police was

22     also equipped with explosive, or was it another formation that used

23     explosive?

24        A.   Well, the police shouldn't have explosive.  The military uses it.

25        Q.   In your capacity as prosecutor at Sanski Most in 1992, did you

Page 1728

 1     have any direct knowledge of civilian population of non-Serb ethnicity

 2     being by force expelled from the territory of Sanski Most or otherwise

 3     harassed?

 4        A.   No, I had no such information.  But I was often present at

 5     on-site investigations where the victims were persons of Muslim or Croat

 6     ethnicity, which can be seen in numerous protocols and documents that

 7     were presented here, and those people were very scared.  They -- they

 8     feared for their lives.  And I suppose those may have been the most

 9     important reasons why entire neighbourhoods requested to be collectively

10     moved out of the Sanski Most municipality.

11        Q.   Under those conditions of huge uncertainty, was -- were there

12     also occasions of a Serb population leaving Sanski Most, as far as you

13     know?

14        A.   Not to a large extent.  There may have been individuals deserting

15     from the military and taking individual refuge somewhere, but there were

16     no requests for massive removal of Serb population.

17        Q.   Speaking about this, tell me whether you had knowledge whether or

18     not in the surroundings of Sanski Most, or indeed, in a significant part

19     of Sanski Most itself, in 1992, there was a constant fighting?

20        A.   I know that in the summer - it may have been June or July of

21     1992 - there was armed conflict between the VRS and armed groups,

22     consisting of Muslim individuals in the area of the Prpolje [phoen] and

23     Hrstovo [phoen] villages.

24        Q.   And from the report from the meeting of the committee, we see

25     that mention made of a number of military operations around those

Page 1729

 1     villages in the surroundings of Sanski Most; correct?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   If I'm not mistaken, and do correct me if I am, in the first half

 4     of 1996, you were municipal prosecutor at the municipal prosecutor's

 5     office at Kotor Varos; correct?

 6        A.   That was in 1996, when we left as refugees.

 7        Q.   I will not state any percentages now, but practically all Serbs

 8     fled Sanski Most once it had been taken by Muslim forces; right?

 9        A.   Yes.  It was on the 10th of October, 1995.  About 30.000 Serbs

10     collectively left the Sanski Most municipality then, because of the

11     attacks of the ABiH.

12        Q.   Even today it is difficult to give any precise estimates.  But

13     if -- as -- very small number of Serbs lives at Sanski Most?

14        A.   Yes, a small number returned.

15        Q.   When you were prosecutor at Kotor Varos, who -- sorry.  What was

16     the scope of your authority?  What did your work there include?

17        A.   At that time, we mostly dealt with thefts.

18             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I'm really sorry to interrupt but

19     what's the relevance of what happened in October 1995, let alone 1996?

20             MR. PANTELIC:  Just give me a minute, you will see.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic, on the face of it, having regard to

22     the dates in the indictment, the -- the -- these periods are well outside

23     of what is relevant.  It's all well and good for you to say give you a

24     moment, but could you indicate for us how this is relevant?

25             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honour, I was -- I'm about to finish my

Page 1730

 1     cross-examination, so we'll see my point.

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] So you were prosecutor at Kotor Varos in the

 3     first half of 1996; correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   While you were at Kotor Varos, did you hear of the crime

 6     committed somewhere in 1992 in front of the medical clinic at Kotor

 7     Varos?

 8        A.   No, I haven't heard of it.

 9        Q.   Did you find any evidence, any note, or perhaps a rumour about

10     what happened in front of the medical clinic at Kotor Varos?

11        A.   No.  I know absolutely nothing about those events.

12             MR. PANTELIC:  No further question for this witness.  Thank you.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Ms. Korner, re-examination.

14             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  Yes I do.

15                           Re-examination by Ms. Korner:

16        Q.   Mr. Delic my apologies on behalf of Mr. Olmsted that you are

17     having questions from me and not from him, but unfortunately he had to

18     leave.

19             I want deal with some of the matters you've just been dealing

20     with and then go back to this question of your files.

21             First of all, can I ask you this:  If you don't know the answer,

22     don't guess or speculate.  Just say you don't know the answer.  It's much

23     simpler that way.

24             You were shown, first of all, a document, P118, and you were

25     asked whether it was right from looking at that document as to whether

Page 1731

 1     the municipal assembly issued orders to the police and the military, and

 2     you said it appeared that way.

 3             Do you know from your own knowledge whether the municipal

 4     assembly was giving orders to the police or the military?

 5        A.   I don't know.

 6        Q.   All right.  Next, you were asked about the incident when a number

 7     of Muslims who had been transported from Betonirka in Sanski Most to

 8     Manjaca died of suffocation in the truck.  And you were asked whether

 9     you'd heard about it, and if you had, whether you would have

10     investigated.

11             Do you know where Manjaca is?

12        A.   I do.

13        Q.   Is that in the municipality of Banja Luka?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Under whose authority would an investigation into deaths in

16     Banja Luka come?

17        A.   Under the authority of the basic public prosecutor in Banja Luka.

18        Q.   Would you have had any authority to take part in an investigation

19     in the Banja Luka municipality?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   All right.  Now, next, you were asked about your -- the secretary

22     who had worked for you in the court, a Muslim lady, who you had heard had

23     been taken to the sports hall.  And you made inquiries and discovered

24     that she may have gone there because the civilian population from Mahala

25     was being moved out; is that right?

Page 1732

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Did you ever see her again?

 3        A.   I saw her after the war.

 4        Q.   All right.  But after she'd been taken to the sports hall and

 5     after the war -- and when you saw her again after the war, did you see

 6     her?

 7        A.   Yes, in the court-house at Sanski Most.

 8        Q.   Sorry.  She went to the sports hall.  Then she came back to the

 9     court-house, did she?

10        A.   Yes, after the war.  The woman still works at the court in

11     Sanski Most.

12        Q.   Yes.  Sorry, going back to 1992, she goes to the sports hall, you

13     make inquiries.  Do you see her between then and -- and until she

14     returned to the court-house after the war?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   Was there any reason that you could see why she shouldn't return

17     to work at the court-house, in 1992?

18        A.   No.

19        Q.   Did you make any attempts to see her while she was in the sports

20     hall, to find out what was going on?

21        A.   No, I didn't.

22        Q.   And why was that?

23        A.   Well, I never went to that part of town at the time.

24        Q.   When you saw her after the war, did you ask her whether she'd

25     gone voluntarily to the sports hall?

Page 1733

 1        A.   We didn't speak about those events.

 2        Q.   So she never explained to you what had -- what had happened to

 3     her?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   And you never asked?

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   All right.  Now, let's go back, if we may, to some of the matters

 8     that you were asked about by Mr. Cvijetic.

 9             Now, first of all, yesterday were asked about the conditions in

10     Sanski Most in the period of the summer.

11             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, Your Honour, I'm just trying to find the page

12     of the transcript.  It's page 36 of yesterday's transcript.

13        Q.   And you were asked - in fact, 35 - you were asked about

14     communication break downs and the like, whether there was enough

15     electricity, and you said:  "Towards the end of May and early June, the

16     entire republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina saw the outbreak of conflicts,

17     including Sanski Most."

18             And then you said you couldn't leave the town, there were

19     frequent controls or check-points.

20             Who was manning the controls and check-points?

21        A.   Members of the army of Republika Srpska in Sanski Most.

22        Q.   Yes.  So we're not talking about Muslim or Croat check-points

23     there.

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   And if you'd wanted to get a pass, as the prosecutor in

Page 1734

 1     Sanski Most, would you have been able to get one?

 2        A.   I probably would have.  I probably would have been issued one, if

 3     there had been any reason for me to travel to, say, Banja Luka.

 4        Q.   All right.  And if there'd been a report of a killing or some

 5     crime actually outside the town of Sanski Most, would you have been able

 6     to attend an on-site investigation, if you had needed to?

 7        A.   If it was necessary to carry out an on-site investigation, then I

 8     usually went in a police vehicle.  The police would take me and the

 9     investigating judge concerned to the scene of crime, to undertake that

10     investigation.

11        Q.   Right.  Now, you were asked also about statistics for the solving

12     of crimes, which was page 91 of yesterday's transcript -- page 90 to 91,

13     about the percentage of crimes discovered and detection about 50 per cent

14     in 2007 and 2008.

15             And you were asked:

16             "Did you compare that with European averages?"

17             And you said:

18             "I don't have those statistics?"

19             You were asked for a ballpark figure, would it differ a lot from

20     the percentage that we have.

21             And you said:

22             "I believe the situation is more or less the same."

23             Do you have the faintest idea, Mr. Delic, what European

24     statistics, if they exist, say about what percentage of crimes are

25     solved?

Page 1735

 1        A.   I don't have any information on European statistics.

 2        Q.   All right.  As I say, if you can just be good enough not to guess

 3     or speculate.

 4             Now, next, I want to deal with the military versus the civilian

 5     court jurisdiction that you were asked about.  Under the old Socialist

 6     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Criminal Code, did civilian courts have

 7     jurisdiction over matters such as crimes against humanity and other

 8     crimes related to war?

 9        A.   I don't think there were any such proceedings in the former

10     Yugoslavia.

11        Q.   No, I'm not asking whether they actually took place, because I

12     agree, it's unlikely given there wasn't a conflict.

13             I'm just asking about the -- the Criminal Code.  If you don't

14     know the answer, Mr. Delic, then say so.

15        A.   I don't know.

16        Q.   All right.  Well, do you know the answer to this:  Whether a

17     military or a civilian court had jurisdiction over a crime, was that

18     something that would be decided prior to the trial, by whichever court

19     was seized of the complaint?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   So if a complaint was made to a civilian prosecutor, and after

22     the full investigation had been carried out it turned out that it came

23     within military jurisdiction, would the authority still remain with the

24     civilian prosecutor until such time as the court had ruled that it came

25     under military jurisdiction?

Page 1736

 1        A.   In such a case, the prosecutor would hand over the case to the

 2     military prosecutor's office, if he believed they were the competent

 3     authority.

 4        Q.   So would that be before -- would that after the investigating

 5     judge had come on -- on the scene, or before?

 6        A.   That could take place at any stage of the procedure in -- during

 7     which there may be a question of jurisdiction or competence.  The organ

 8     that believed itself not to be competent to process the case was under an

 9     obligation to forward the case to the competent body for which it

10     believed was supposed to be in charge.

11        Q.   And in order for -- for example, if a complaint was -- came to

12     your office, for you to decide this came within the competence of the

13     military prosecutor, what information would you need?

14        A.   I would need to know whether the person reported was an army

15     member, whether that person had been mobilized to an army unit.

16        Q.   So you would have to have a perpetrator, would you?  You would

17     have to have an alleged perpetrator?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And if the perpetrator's unknown?

20        A.   Then we don't know under whose jurisdiction the case fell.  In

21     any case, in such cases, I ordered the police to do their work on

22     discovering the perpetrator.

23        Q.   Right.  And, finally, this, on this aspect, if a case which was

24     initially reported to you turned out to come within military court

25     jurisdiction, would those complaints still be recorded in the KT book?

Page 1737

 1        A.   If the criminal report was submitted by the police to my

 2     prosecutor's office, then, yes, it would be registered in the KT

 3     log-book.

 4        Q.   And if it was then transferred because, after investigation, it

 5     was determined that it came within the military court jurisdiction, would

 6     that be recorded in the KT book?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   All right.

 9             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I want to move, as a discrete topic,

10     to the unknown perpetrator cases which will take me a bit more than five

11     minutes.  I know it's a bit early, but I wonder if that would be a

12     suitable time to break.

13                           [The witness stands down]

14                           --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.41 p.m.

15                           --- On resuming at 2.48 p.m.

16             MS. KORNER:  Before the witness comes in, Your Honours said you

17     were about going to render your decision.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, I was about to say that before you resume your

19     cross-examination --

20             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

21             JUDGE HALL:  -- we would do that.

22             And this is on the issue of whether the witness, Dorothea Hanson,

23     should be accepted by the Chamber in this trial as an expert witness.

24     And the decision of the Chamber is that she should be so accepted as an

25     expert.  But the -- having been so deemed by the Chamber, it doesn't

Page 1738

 1     necessarily follow that her report is accepted as a matter of evidence in

 2     its entirety.

 3             So once she would have been tendered as a witness, what of her

 4     report would remain for the proper consideration of the Chamber would be

 5     revealed at the end of the usual process of examination and

 6     cross-examination.

 7             Thank you.

 8             MS. KORNER:  I'm sorry, Your Honour, I simply -- is that the end

 9     of Your Honours ruling?

10             JUDGE HALL:  It was intended to be.

11             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honour, I'm really sorry and, it's I'm

12     sure entirely my fault, I don't understand that.

13             The idea was that her report would be put in and she would be

14     asked some supplementary questions, effectively as Dr. Donia was, to

15     highlight some of the aspects of the report.

16             Now you say that it does apply --

17             JUDGE HALL:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  if I may interrupt you

18     here, Ms. Korner, perhaps I was too economical in my use of words.

19             She comes in and her report is tendered.  What is made of the

20     report, because it purports to be the report of an expert and therefore

21     there are a number of - and this goes to the point that the Defence has

22     taken - such issues as they would wish to raise would be -- and this is

23     what I meant where I talk about the ordinary process of examination, and

24     I really should underline cross-examination, would indicate what the

25     Chamber would have to address its mind to as to how much of that report

Page 1739

 1     is properly acceptable as being within the confines of her area of

 2     expertise.

 3             I trust that that assists.

 4             MS. KORNER:  Um, Your Honour, she's either an expert or she's not

 5     an expert.  If Your Honours feel that some parts of her report deal with

 6     areas which are beyond her area of expertise, then I think in all

 7     fairness Your Honours should indicate that before we call the witness, as

 8     opposed to us guessing in the dark as to what parts of the report you

 9     think reflect her expertise and those that do not.

10             So, Your Honours, with the greatest of respect, I don't think we

11     can proceed on this basis.  Not without wasting a great deal of time.  We

12     have to know exactly in your judgement, whether it's oral or written, it

13     doesn't make any difference, you feel that the reports forth out --

14     without her expert -- area of expertise.

15             JUDGE HALL:  I would have thought that it would be a more

16     efficient use much time, her report having been put in, and we don't --

17     unless we assume that the Prosecution tends to rely on her report in its

18     entirety, we expect that the -- we would be guided by the Prosecution as

19     to what of her report, how much of her report they're relying on.  But

20     the -- the practical challenge of having to dissect that report, as I

21     understand what you have just said would you propose would, be a -- to my

22     mind, not the most efficient use of the Court's time or counsel's time.

23             We, the -- the reservations which the Defence have made by their

24     motion is something which would be obviously fleshed out in the course of

25     cross-examination, and, at the end of the day, whatever conclusions Ms.

Page 1740

 1     Hanson or any other expert would have purported to make would not be

 2     something that the Chamber need necessarily take on board.  Its

 3     conclusions at the end of the day, as with every other witness, are a

 4     matter for the Chamber.

 5             MS. KORNER:  I certainly understand it, Your Honour.  But the

 6     answer to Your Honour's question is, do we rely on her whole report, yes

 7     we do.  And that's why we've understood from the beginning that the

 8     report would go in and we would not have to, as it were, deal, lead the

 9     evidence of what's in the report and how she came to those conclusions.

10     All we'd have to do, as we understood the ruling so far in respect of

11     experts, is just flesh it out.

12             Anyhow, I mean, Your Honours, as I say, it's my feeling that the

13     next question is, given Mr. Zecevic's assertion that he proposes to

14     appeal, where does that leave us for, let's say tomorrow afternoon and

15     Thursday?

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Ms. Korner, as I read the rule, the Chamber may

17     decide whether she's an expert or not.  On this question, the Chamber has

18     deliberated and ruled.  She is qualified as an expert.

19             The next question is what to do then with her report.  You will

20     bring it under Rule 94 bis as an expert report and it is then for the

21     Defence to challenge.  If by the end of the challenge raised by the

22     Defence, the Chamber finds that there is really nothing of substantive

23     value in this report, just as an example, then, of course, the Chamber

24     has to be free to say that we will not admit the report, or at least not

25     all of it.

Page 1741

 1             MS. KORNER:  I think that's a question of a voir dire then;

 2     although, it's a slightly odd way of proceeding because you're the judges

 3     both of the voir dire and in the -- and as judges of fact.  But the way

 4     to deal with that if there was a challenge to an expert or that part of

 5     an expert's report that, as to whether or not -- in effect I think

 6     Your Honours are saying that she may or may not be an expert at the end

 7     of cross-examination.  That would be dealt with before the evidence is

 8     given in the trial.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  No.  Again, she is admitted as an expert, and

10     this means that she will be allowed to make inferences and to enjoy the

11     normal rights of -- of providing evidence that applies to -- to experts.

12             So you may put questions to her and so may the Defence, which

13     will allow her to make inferences and present them to the Court.  But

14     that is her oral evidence.  This does not necessarily and certainly not

15     according to the Rule, nor the practice in the Popovic Appeals Chamber

16     decision, does not necessarily imply that her report has to come in as --

17     as an evidence, or all of it.  It remains for the Defence who have

18     already challenged the report in writing, to continue their challenge

19     during her -- during the cross-examination of Mrs. Hanson, and then we

20     will make a ruling at the end of that.

21             MS. KORNER:  Well, I hear what Your Honours say on that matter.

22     I will leave it to Mr. Zecevic, if he has anything to say.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, would it help, to understand the

24     ruling, if I said that in the Trial Chamber's view we don't even have to

25     read the report before deciding whether we accept her as an expert or

Page 1742

 1     not?

 2             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  Because you're looking at her as Mr. Hannis

 3     argued, it's whether she is by nature of her studies and experience

 4     qualified to be called an expert.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  I think that's what we decided, yes, so nothing

 6     more.

 7             MS. KORNER:  Right.  Well, thank you, Your Honours.

 8             So I can take it answer that Your Honours are expecting her to

 9     begin her evidence tomorrow, or Thursday, whenever we get to it.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Absolutely.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Can we have the witness [Microphone not activated].

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

14             MS. KORNER:  May I just ask, are we going to get a written ruling

15     on this as well, or is this -- the oral ruling is going to be the only

16     ruling?

17                           [The witness takes the stand]

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Ms. Korner, a written ruling would for the

19     purpose of the appeal, I suppose, and you could probably do that without

20     having a written order so ...

21             MS. KORNER:  We're not -- I'm not seeking to appeal.  I'm just

22     wondering whether there's going be a ruling with reasons.

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  We have given the reasons and unless we are

24     required or asked specifically to provide a written ruling, which we

25     would do, then we would not -- we would -- we would given written ruling

Page 1743

 1     if we are so asked or required by the parties, but if none of the parties

 2     wish to see a written ruling, we would prefer not to do so.

 3             MS. KORNER:

 4        Q.   Mr. Delic, I'm sorry, you've been kept waiting slightly.

 5             There's one other matter that I should have ask you before I look

 6     at the unknown perpetrator cases with you again.  And that's this:  You

 7     told Mr. Cvijetic yesterday that - forgive me, on the page - yes.  He put

 8     it to you yesterday at page 73 that he was going to ask you whether you

 9     agreed with him and he said:

10             "I honestly admit at the moment I can't compare that with your

11     log-book.  But in principle, do you agree with me that most of the

12     criminal reports and crimes, as well as perpetrators, were processed by

13     the military organs; is that correct?"

14             And your reply was:

15             "It's very difficult to compare without the data, but it does

16     appear that they were dealing with a number of cases."

17             Now, it may be clear from that answer, but are you able to offer

18     any proper comparison with the number of cases that were dealt with by

19     your office and the numbers which were processed by the military

20     prosecutor?

21        A.   No, I don't have that information.

22        Q.   All right.  Now next, as I say, the unknown perpetrator cases,

23     which you have been shown a number of these by the Defence.  And you

24     haven't had an opportunity - because we haven't got the book at the

25     moment - to look at the book that contains the records of these cases.

Page 1744

 1             Can you just confirm - I think you have - that there is a book

 2     that contains the list of the complaints, where the perpetrators were

 3     unknown?

 4        A.   Yes.  In the basic prosecutor's office in Sanski Most, there was

 5     a register with all the criminal reports against unknown perpetrators.

 6     That register, as well as the other registers after the 10th of October,

 7     1995 -- or, rather, before that date, they were on -- in the office of

 8     the prosecutor.  After that date, I have no idea as to the fate of those

 9     documents.

10        Q.   Don't worry about that.  That's our responsibility.

11             All right.  Looking through the case files, as you have with --

12     as you did last night and you have with Mr. Pantelic largely this

13     morning, is this right, they typically consist from what we've seen of an

14     on-site investigation report; is that right?  I'm going to list the

15     documents.  I just want to check that with you.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Then there's a letter from you, instructing the police to conduct

18     an investigation and to file a criminal report.

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And, finally, a criminal report by the police which says they

21     couldn't identify the perpetrator.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Now if there was a thorough investigation carried out, what other

24     documents would be expect to find in these files?

25        A.   I would expect to find Official Notes on any interviews conducted

Page 1745

 1     with potential witnesses or people who may have any type of information

 2     in relation to the incident.

 3        Q.   What about forensic evidence?  Would you expect to find that in

 4     these files, even though they were unknown perpetrators?  Scientific

 5     evidence.

 6        A.   If there were such pre-trial measures, such as searches of

 7     apartments or premises, and in case some weapons were seized for which it

 8     was suspected may have been used in the commission of the crime, in that

 9     case, forensic testing would be done, in order to compare the spent

10     cartridges found on the scene with additional cartridges fired from that

11     weapon.  In that case, that could be used as evidence to prove that the

12     person to whom the weapon belonged is actually the perpetrator of the

13     crime, in case that those cartridges exhibited the same characteristics.

14        Q.   Right.  So it would include -- so you'd expect, would you, that

15     the file would contain a list of items taken from the scene, such as

16     spent cartridges?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   What about photographs?

19        A.   Yes, photographs as well, taken during an on-site investigation,

20     say, pictures of the corpse and the area where the incident took place.

21     That would also be used as evidence.

22        Q.   And that's even in a case where the perpetrator is not known.

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Now, is the job of the police done once they file an unknown

25     perpetrator criminal report?

Page 1746

 1        A.   Well, no.  The police work is not done by that.  If there is a

 2     statute of limitations for that particular crime, they are duty-bound do

 3     keep searching for the perpetrators of that crime until such date.

 4        Q.   All right.  Now, if a perpetrator was discovered for something

 5     that had been originally logged in the unknown perpetrators' book, would

 6     it be transferred from that book to the known perpetrators' book?

 7        A.   Yes.  In the log-book of unknown perpetrators, it would be stated

 8     that the case was resolved; and in the log-book of known perpetrators,

 9     there would be a reference provided, pointing back to the log-book of

10     unknown perpetrators.  There would be a link and there would be a

11     statement showing that that particular case is closed.

12        Q.   All right.  Now if you can't answer this, do say so straight

13     away.

14             Do you know how many of the unknown perpetrator cases of which

15     we've looked at, presumably only some in detail, were actually resolved

16     either in 1992 or later, whilst you were still at Sanski Most?  In other

17     words, perpetrators were identified.

18        A.   I don't know what the figure may have been.

19        Q.   Well, were any?

20        A.   Probably.  But without being able to look at the log-books, I

21     can't say.

22        Q.   All right.  Now, you mentioned that conditions were bad in

23     Sanski Most between June and -- and August -- until between June and

24     August of 1992.  Did conditions improve after that?

25        A.   Well, somewhat, perhaps.  But throughout 1992 and 1993, generally

Page 1747

 1     speaking, the situation was bad.

 2        Q.   All right.  Well, can I ask you this:  After August of 1992, are

 3     you aware of the police going back to try and solve any of these unknown

 4     perpetrator cases, where the victims were either Croats or Muslims?

 5        A.   I don't have that data.  I presume that they worked on those

 6     cases.

 7        Q.   Well, don't presume.  If you don't have the data, you don't have

 8     the data.  All right?

 9        A.   No, I don't.

10        Q.   Now I just want to ask you a couple of questions about three of

11     the files, in fact five in all, that you were asked about in

12     cross-examination.

13             The first one is the one that was marked 2D03-0094.

14             And you will --  I think you have got the file in front of you,

15     still, have you?  I don't know where it is it in your file but ...

16             I don't know how we're going to get this up on the screen because

17     I don't know how it was being brought up ...

18             Was yours -- sorry?  Yeah.

19                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

20             MS. KORNER:

21        Q.   Sir, can you find -- it's the one -- it should be the date of

22     the -- the folder, or the file, is the 23rd of February, 1993.  I don't

23     know if those are in order.  So if you've got a file there.  I think

24     they're in date order.

25                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

Page 1748

 1             MS. KORNER:  [Microphone not activated] oh, I see.  Index tab 5.

 2        Q.   Can you find that there, sir, in your file?  The thing you got

 3     there.

 4        A.   I have the criminal report on the screen.

 5        Q.   Yes, but I need you to have the whole thing open, the whole file,

 6     please, that you were given.  It's one that has a photograph in it of

 7     a -- an identity card belonging to somebody called Nedjeljko something or

 8     other.

 9             All right.  Just confirm:  This is an unknown perpetrator, is it?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Does it contain, however, some kind of a record of a confession

12     made in 1993?  I'm going to have ask you to just tell us very -- by

13     having another look at it; and, if so, by whom.

14        A.   Attached to the criminal report there was a -- an Official Note

15     of an interview that was done with the Simas Salkic [phoen] who was the

16     spouse of the deceased.

17        Q.   No, a confession by a perpetrator.  Sorry, sir, it's my fault.

18        A.   As far as this Official Note with the confession is concerned, I

19     cannot remember now that it was received by my office, and here I see

20     that the signature of the authorised official is missing.

21        Q.   Yes.  But sorry, sir, what I want to know is has somebody

22     allegedly confessed to this crime?

23        A.   I'm -- I have no knowledge of this at this moment.  If I could

24     take a look at the log-books from 1993, I would be able to establish

25     whether these three persons mentioned are, indeed, entered there as

Page 1749

 1     perpetrators.

 2        Q.   Right, okay.  I think the best thing, sir, I won't trouble you

 3     and we'll arrange to get this translated.  I think that's probably the

 4     simplest way of dealing with it.

 5             All right.  Next, can I ask you to look, please, at 2D03-0107,

 6     which is the next document in your file, I hope, which is a report, 9th

 7     of the 12th 1992, with the number on top, 00482378.

 8             Is that the next document?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Right.  You were asked about this, and you said that somebody

11     called -- there was mention of someone called Salko in there, a Muslim

12     name, and Mr. Pantelic put it to you that somebody pretended to be a

13     Muslim when committing this crime.  Is there anything to suggest that he

14     pretended to be a Muslim?

15        A.   There is the statement given by the mother of the victim.  She

16     gave a statement to the police inspector and says there that the person

17     in question purportedly stated that name to her as being his own name.

18        Q.   All right.  But when you say "purported," do you mean she saying

19     he clearly wasn't a Muslim?

20        A.   We don't know who that person was and, therefore, cannot speak

21     about ethnicity.  But the statement which is part of the file shows that

22     Marija Pavicic stated that that person had said to Pero's wife Branka

23     that Salko was the one who had killed Pero.  And since that person has

24     not been found, I don't know his ethnicity.

25        Q.   Right, thank you.  And then could you move, please, to 112.  And

Page 1750

 1     all I want to ask you about this, is you were asked -- in this case, this

 2     was several suspects and you were asked was this forwarded to the

 3     military.  And you said:  "It's possible that the police forwarded this

 4     case to the military."

 5             Do you actually know one way or another?

 6        A.   I do not.

 7        Q.   All right.  And, finally, 0149 to 2D03-0149 which is the -- has

 8     got the date on the front of the 15th of March 1993, and it's the one

 9     where we had a couple of pages translated.

10             And I just wanted to see if I understand this.  Is the suspect a

11     reserve police officer in this case?

12        A.   Let me just find it.

13        Q.   Sorry, yes.  It's --

14        A.   I've found it.

15             Yes, in my letter dated 8 December 1992, sent to the SJB,

16     Sanski Most, mention is made of one Zoran Miladinovic, who was a reserve

17     police officer.

18        Q.   All right.  Sorry.  In which case, if he's the suspect, why is it

19     an unknown perpetrator?

20        A.   It isn't my impression that he was a suspect.  But he was the

21     person who, on that day, had contact with the person whose body was later

22     discovered.  That is why I demanded that the police interview him, in

23     order to elicit possible evidence with regard to the events of that day

24     or the movements of the victim.

25        Q.   All right.  And does the -- does the file reveal whether the

Page 1751

 1     police did anything?

 2        A.   The criminal report, which was filed against an unknown

 3     perpetrator dated 15 March 1993, shows that enclosed with it, there is

 4     a -- the note of an interview conducted with Zoran Miladinovic and there

 5     are five or six more persons.  But I don't have the content of that note

 6     or -- here, so I don't know what the persons in question said.

 7        Q.   And this file doesn't show any further information about this

 8     investigation.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   All right.  Now I want to ask you about -- sorry, just one other,

11     and that's at Kajtez case which you were asked about by both Mr. Pantelic

12     and in more detail by Mr. Cvijetic.

13             That was a notorious case, wasn't it?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Those murders that took place at Skrljevita?

16             Were you aware of what happened in this case further on?  I'm

17     going to ask you to look at document, please, for a moment, which is 65

18     ter 2063.

19             Now, because these men were in fact part of the 6th Krajina

20     Brigade it was transferred to the military court.  Were you aware that

21     when they appeared on the 2nd of January 1993, they were released from

22     custody?

23        A.   I do not know this document.

24        Q.   No.  But I appreciate you won't have seen the document.  It's

25     just a reminder, or you may not.  But I'm just asking you it because

Page 1752

 1     of -- this was so notorious, you heard that these men had been released

 2     from custody by the military court?

 3        A.   No, I didn't hear of that.  But later I learned that before the

 4     district court in Banja Luka, last year or so, these two persons, Kajtez

 5     and Maksimovic stood trial.  And as far as I know, they were acquitted by

 6     the court.  And I am surprised by that, because I had the opportunity to

 7     speak to my fellow prosecutor who worked with me for the district

 8     prosecutor's office in Banja Luka and who was in charge of this case.

 9     She even asked me some questions.  She wanted me to clarify some

10     circumstances because I was present at the on-site investigation.  And in

11     speaking to her, I learned that Kajtez admitted to having committed the

12     crime several times but he was also -- but there was also an eye-witness

13     who survived by chance, but allegedly that person was unable to identify

14     Kajtez as the one who had shot at him.

15        Q.   Well, that was going to be my last question in the series:  Were

16     you aware - and obviously you were because you'd done the on-site

17     investigation - that these men only came to trial last year in

18     Banja Luka.

19             Can I just ask you one other thing about this whole case.  Could

20     you have --

21             MS. KORNER:  Could we have up, please, Exhibit 65 ter 2065.

22        Q.   All right.  This is a document, 21st of September, 1993,

23     addressed to the military court on behalf of Kajtez, setting out his

24     military career and then his background.  Apparently in the Second World

25     War, his relatives were killed by the -- it's called the Ustasha.

Page 1753

 1             And asking the court to take this into account when he was back

 2     in custody and then released again and so on.  Now, were you aware that

 3     the SDS, in fact President Vrkes, had written asking for leniency for

 4     this man?

 5        A.   No, I don't know.

 6        Q.   All right.  And finally -- thank you, Mr. Delic, that's all I'm

 7     going to ask you about the unknown perps .  Just one other thing about

 8     the crimes on the indictment.  Just so that we quite understand it, you

 9     asked by Mr. Olmstead about this, you were given a copy of the indictment

10     and asked to look at the allegations of crime that are reflected in this

11     indictment which relate to Sanski Most; is that right?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And today -- I'm sorry, yesterday, again, Mr. Cvijetic said to

14     you:

15             "Is there a possibility that the acts alleged in the indictment

16     were perpetrated who fall under three criteria:  That they were military

17     personnel; that the acts were committed in the area of responsibility or

18     in the area of deployment of military unit; and, thirdly, that the crimes

19     were of such a nature that they had to be prosecuted by the military

20     prosecutor's office, and I'm talking about war crimes, armed rebellion,"

21     and so on, and you said is that a possibility.

22             Well, we've already been through that -- the areas of

23     responsibility.  But, can we just for one moment remind ourselves of

24     what's in the indictment, when I find my own copy.

25             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, Your Honour, I had it a moment ago and, of

Page 1754

 1     course, I've left it.

 2                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 3             MS. KORNER:

 4        Q.   One of the allegations against the two defendants in the

 5     indictment is that prisoners kept in the SJB building were beaten during

 6     and after interrogation with rifle butts, electric cables, poles, feet,

 7     and fists.  In some cases the beatings were so sever as to result in

 8     serious injury, permanent disfigurement, and death.

 9             Have you any reason to believe that those who were in charge in

10     the SJB were military personnel as opposed to police personnel?

11        A.   I have no reason to believe that they were military personnel.

12        Q.   All right.  In the garage attached to the Betonirka factory, it's

13     right, isn't it, that's right next door to the police station?

14        A.   Yes.  Beside the police station, there was a concrete factory.

15        Q.   All right.  Numerous detainees, forced into 3 by 5 metre cells

16     with no ventilation, no toilet, no beds, no running water, eat tainted

17     food, forced to line up, beaten, et cetera, et cetera.

18             Any reason to think that that had anything to do with the

19     military, that particular prison or place of detention?

20        A.   I do not know.

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours I have a complaint if

22     I may.

23             I think that it would be fair to ask the witness first whether he

24     has knowledge at all about persons being imprisoned at Betonirka and

25     whether he knows anything at all about Betonirka because like this we're

Page 1755

 1     not sure whether he knows anything about that.

 2             Apart from that, I don't think that I asked the witness questions

 3     about this topic.

 4             MS. KORNER:  Well, first, Your Honour, to deal with the last part

 5     of the objection first, I read out the actual question that was asked.

 6     Is there a possibility that these acts alleged in the indictment ...

 7     et cetera, so, clearly a question asked.

 8             As regards the second that, of course, is the point that no --

 9     none of these matters were ever the subject of complaints to his office

10     and therefore that's why I'm trying to show that the question asked bears

11     no relevance to those -- the allegations in the indictment.

12             JUDGE HALL:  As I understand the first part of Mr. Cvijetic's

13     objection, it is that there was -- in my words, not his, in fairness to

14     the witness, there should have been a preliminary question before you

15     asked the question you asked, dealing specifically with this site.  And

16     it seems to me there is some merit in that.

17             MS. KORNER:  Certainly.

18        Q.   Were you aware, Mr. Delic, that people who had been -- not sure

19     what the right word is.  I won't say arrested but detained were being

20     kept not only in the SJB but in the factory garage that was next to the

21     SJB?

22        A.   No.

23        Q.   You never heard that at all, from anybody?

24        A.   I had no knowledge about that.

25        Q.   All right.

Page 1756

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours.

 2             I think that in this context this question should be asked of the

 3     witness, whether he knew of any persons detained at the SJB building.  So

 4     questions about that building, no more than that.

 5             MS. KORNER:

 6        Q.   Did you know that people had been detained by the police, the

 7     Serb police in Sanski Most, in the SJB building?

 8        A.   I had no information to that effect.

 9        Q.   So at no stage were you at the public prosecutor ever asked to

10     process anybody that had been taken to and detained in the SJB building

11     or the factory garage?

12        A.   No.  I received no criminal report against these persons.

13        Q.   All right.  You did, however, know, didn't you, that people --

14     because you told us that people were being held in the Hasan Kikic sports

15     hall?

16        A.   No.  I was speaking about the sports hall in the Narodni Front

17     neighbourhood, and the Hasan Kikic is an elementary school.

18        Q.   All right.  So you've never heard of anybody being detained there

19     either?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   Did you ever wonder what had happened to Judge Adil Draganovic?

22        A.   I heard that he spent sometime at Manjaca, but I don't know how

23     he got there.

24        Q.   Yeah, but after he was taken from the court-house, do you know

25     where he was taken to?

Page 1757

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  I don't believe that we mentioned Mr. Draganovic

 2     in our cross-examination.  Maybe with next witness.

 3             MS. KORNER:  No.

 4             MR. PANTELIC:  I don't know, in the future Adil Draganovic will

 5     come.

 6             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  I'm trying to explore what he is saying about

 7     knowing who had been taken to these various places, and he mentioned

 8     Judge Draganovic.

 9        Q.   Did you know where he had gone after he'd been taken from the

10     court-house?

11        A.   I never said that he was taken away from the court-house.

12        Q.   I'm sorry, it's my fault then.  I thought you said earlier on

13     that somebody, Mr. Vrkes and other people arrived and that the various

14     Muslims and Croats were taken.  Is that right, or is that wrong?

15        A.   No, no, nobody took anybody away.  But there was a meeting when

16     Vlato Vrkes announced that I had been appointed prosecutor, but nobody

17     was taken away on that occasion.

18        Q.   All right.  Let's look at the mosques then, shall we, that are on

19     the indictment.

20             The -- well, we know, we've been told that every mosque in Sanski

21     Most, I think, was destroyed during this period.  Would you agree with

22     that?  And I mean the municipality, not just in the town.

23        A.   I know that the mosque in down-town Sanski Most was destroyed,

24     and I saw that in some villages exclusively populated by Muslims, to

25     which we went to conduct on-site investigation there, that maybe two or

Page 1758

 1     three more mosques were destroyed.  But I don't know exactly how many

 2     mosques there were in the municipalities or how many were destroyed.

 3        Q.   All right.  You did know about the one in Mahala, didn't you?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Was any criminal -- destroying a mosque, would you -- do you

 6     agree, is a criminal offence?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And is this right, the Catholic church?  Was there a Catholic

 9     church in Sanski Most Town?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Was that also destroyed?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Did you ever receive any criminal reports from the police on the

14     destruction of the mosque or the Catholic church?

15        A.   I did not.

16        Q.   And just so we finally understand that, there were -- is this

17     right:  Only seven cases recorded in the book in the whole of 1992 where

18     the allegation was that the Serbs -- a Serb had perpetrated a crime

19     against a non-Serb?

20        A.   That's not for all of 1992.  That's only the period from the end

21     of May --

22        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] [microphone not activated]

23        A.   -- up until -- that's what we found in the log-book.  That's the

24     number of persons reported in the log-book.

25        Q.   Yes.  Thank you.

Page 1759

 1             MS. KORNER:  That's all I ask.

 2             MR. PANTELIC:  And if I may, Your Honour, just for the record, I

 3     would kindly ask my learned friend Ms. Korner mentioned something during

 4     re-direct of this witness along the lines that court in Banja Luka only

 5     last year finalized the criminal procedures against Kajtez and the

 6     others.  Please, in future for two simple reasons avoid your ironic

 7     remarks because we are short in time here.  We have to be very efficient.

 8     And number two, even now it is a fact of common knowledge that even now

 9     after the Second World War still we have certain proceedings, not to

10     mention this particular Tribunal, or Rwanda Tribunal, or even Federal

11     Tribunal in Bosnia, so, please, it would be fair not to -- to have this

12     kind of ironic remarks.

13             Thank you.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.  And, of course, --

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Pantelic and I -- I only say that the

17     Chamber expects that all counsel would conduct themselves appropriately

18     and control their inclinations.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Delic, we thank you very much for coming to

21     assist the Tribunal, and we wish you a safe passage back to your home.

22     You are now released.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24                           [The witness withdrew]

25             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, the next witness will be called by

Page 1760

 1     Mr. Demirdjian, who I should have said joined us at the afternoon

 2     session.

 3             We haven't finished with Sanski Most by a long chalk.  But

 4     because of the witness problems, we're moving to Brcko.

 5             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  The next witness

 6     is Witness ST-34, Mr. Isak Gasi, from the municipality of Brcko.  He has

 7     no protective measures and I expect to be one hour with him.

 8             In relation to his evidence, I could quickly introduce the fact

 9     that he will be dealing with killings in Schedule B of the indictment,

10     killings at the Luka camp at the SJB building, unlawful detention,

11     torture, cruel treatment, and inhumane acts, as Schedule C and D.  Again

12     at the SJB building at Luka camp.  And, finally, Schedule F, attacks on

13     non-Serb parts of the town of Brcko; and Schedule G, takeover of power in

14     the municipality of Brcko.  That would be the introduction, and we may

15     introduce the witness.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE HALL:  Go ahead.

18                           [The witness entered court]

19             JUDGE HALL:  Please make the solemn declaration.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

22     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Good afternoon to you, sir.  What is your name,

24     please?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Isak Gasi.

Page 1761

 1             JUDGE HALL:  And what is your profession?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Bosnia before the war, I used to

 3     be to an electrician.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  And in what town do you reside?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before the war it was Brcko;

 6     whereas now, I reside in the United States.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Your date of birth is when, sir?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 5th of April, 1957.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  The 5th of May,

10     1957.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Where were you born?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Brcko, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

13             JUDGE HALL:  And what is your ethnicity?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a Bosnian Muslim.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Have you given evidence in these proceedings on a

16     previous occasion?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have.  Three times.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, so you would be well aware of the procedure,

19     whereby the side calling you, in this case, the Prosecution, would have

20     questions for you, followed by the lawyers representing the -- each of

21     the two accused, and after re-examination by the Prosecution, the Chamber

22     itself may have some questions of you.  Thank you.

23             Thank you for coming to testify.

24             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, counsel.

Page 1762

 1             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 2                           WITNESS:  ISAK GASI

 3                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 4                           Examination by Mr. Demirdjian:

 5        Q.   Mr. Gasi, is it correct to say that you testified in the past in

 6     the Tadic case, the Milosevic case, and the Krajisnik case?

 7        A.   Yes.  In all three cases.

 8        Q.   The last time you testified in the Krajisnik case, that was on

 9     the 4th and 5th of February 2004.

10             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  And, Your Honours, that is the testimony we're

11     going to be relying upon for the purposes of this 92 ter witness.

12        Q.   Now, Mr. Gasi, when you arrived here a few days ago were you

13     provided with your testimony, the one that you gave in the Krajisnik

14     case?

15        A.   Yes.  You gave it to me to prepare myself.  I went through the

16     whole of it.

17        Q.   And when you provided your evidence back in 2004, did you answer

18     the questions as honestly and as accurately as could?

19        A.   Yes, I did.  To the extent of my knowledge and about things that

20     I was certain of.

21        Q.   And if you were asked the same questions about the same topics,

22     would you provide the same answers before this Trial Chamber?

23        A.   I probably would.

24             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Your Honours, I'd ask that 65 ter 1021 and 1022

25     be admitted in evidence, and these are the transcripts of his testimony

Page 1763

 1     on the 4th and 5th of February 2004 in the Krajisnik case.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  [Microphone not activated]

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P125 and P126, Your Honours.

 4             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 5        Q.   Mr. Gasi, I will ask you a number of questions dealing with the

 6     events in 1991 and 1992, starting with the municipality of Brcko itself.

 7     Just for the purposes of the Court, it is correct to say that Brcko is a

 8     municipality in the north-east part of Bosnia-Herzegovina, bordering with

 9     Croatia; is that correct?

10        A.   Yes, it is correct.

11        Q.   Now, in your testimony in Krajisnik - and for Your Honours at

12     pages 407 - you explained that during the early months of 1992 tensions

13     were rising and that you attended a session of the Brcko Municipal

14     Assembly during which you heard discussions about the division of the

15     town of Brcko.

16             Do you recall that?

17        A.   Yes, I do.  It may have been April 1992.

18        Q.   And do you recall roughly which part of April this was?

19        A.   It is possible that it was the second week of April.  Although I

20     may be mistaken as well.  I think it was around that time.

21        Q.   Can you tell us who attended this session of the Municipal

22     Assembly?

23        A.   In attendance were those people reflecting the results of the

24     first multi-party elections in Brcko; that is to say, the representatives

25     of the three ethnic community and their parties, the HDZ, SDS, and SDA.

Page 1764

 1     There were also certain representatives from the SDP, which was the

 2     Former League of Communists party.  Among other things, there was

 3     discussion on any future events in Brcko and how to calm down the

 4     situation.  It was mentioned that a lot of people in Brcko listened to

 5     different types of rumours, semi-truths, and people were basically trying

 6     to gain more information during such sessions.

 7             I was not an elective deputy, though, I was only there with a

 8     friend of mine who was a journalist.  There was speeches made by

 9     delegates of different political parties.  I was rather impressed seeing

10     people from the SDS jumping up, taking up of the floor.  There was a

11     friend of mine who was a member of the executive board in the local SDS

12     took the floor.  I think his name was Listanic [as interpreted], and it

13     was he who asked for a tripartite division of the Brcko territory on

14     behalf of his party.  He wanted a part for the Muslims, another part for

15     the Croats, and a third part for the Serbs.

16        Q.   I apologise for interrupting you.  In the transcript at line 22,

17     page 102, it reads "Listanic."  Was that the last name you meant to say?

18        A.   Ristanic, Djordje Ristanic.

19        Q.   And it is correct that he said, and this is in the transcripts at

20     page 407 in your Krajisnik testimony, he said the words:

21             "We will divide it or we will have problems."

22        A.   Yes.  He said that unless we reach an agreement on the division

23     of the Brcko municipality into three parts there would be problems which

24     will probably come about after the 4th of May.  This was almost an

25     ultimatum, a threat.

Page 1765

 1             As far as I could gather at the time, the other parties disagreed

 2     with it.  That is to say, the Muslim party, and the Croatian party, as

 3     well as the former Communists.  They simply rejected any discussion of

 4     the division of the Brcko municipality.

 5        Q.   Now, did they explain during this meeting which parts of the town

 6     the SDS wanted to be part of the Serbian Brcko?

 7        A.   As far as I could tell, based on the maps of the town of Brcko,

 8     what they wanted to have was most of the industrial area bordering on

 9     most of the Serb villages which had almost 100 percent ethnically pure

10     composition next to the town of Brcko.

11             So the divide would be along the line of the industrial zone

12     towards the centre of town, an ending at river Brka.  Another line was

13     supposed to go along Potocari and the local commune of Grtica [phoen],

14     partially encompassing a part of new Brcko, and going along the middle of

15     the main road towards the post building as well as the police station

16     building, ending at Brka river.

17             So it was the whole industrial zone and almost 80 per cent of the

18     town itself.  That was their proposal, and the other parties did not wish

19     to discuss that.  That's why he issued the ultimatum.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Page 103, lines 16 to 19, I think the witness said

21     something different, so if my learned friend can readdress this with the

22     witness so we can have the exact words of the witness in the transcript.

23             Thank you.

24             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:

25        Q.   Now, the question was did they explain during this meeting which

Page 1766

 1     parts of the town the SDS wanted to be part of the Serbian Brcko, and the

 2     answer is that based on the maps of the town of Brcko what they wanted to

 3     have was most of the industrial area.

 4             I will deal with this immediately.  Witness, if we were to

 5     provide you a map, would you be able to indicated this area?

 6        A.   I think I would.

 7             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Could we call up 65 ter 3161.  And perhaps with

 8     the assistance of the usher, the witness could be provided with the magic

 9     pen to mark this area on the screen.

10             The map is on the screen, I believe.

11        Q.   Can you see it, Mr. Gasi?

12        A.   Yes, I can.

13        Q.   Now the usher will provide you a pen.  And if you could mark the

14     area that the SDS was proposing to be part of the Serbian municipality of

15     Brcko.

16        A.   It was supposed to start somewhere here, following through here.

17     This would be it.  [In English] It would start here.

18        Q.   And?

19        A.   All the way.

20        Q.   Could you mark that area with a number 1, the area that was

21     supposed to be part of the SDS plans.  Just so we can differentiate the

22     zones.  Just mark a 1 and put a circle around it.

23        A.   [Marks].

24        Q.   Thank you.

25             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Now, Your Honours, if we could capture that

Page 1767

 1     image.  I'd like to ask that the two maps be tendered separately, the one

 2     that has the marking and the one that does not have the marking as we

 3     will be using the map further on.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 5             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  I'd like the witness to be -- sorry.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  My apologies, the clean map will become

 7     Exhibit P127, and the map with markings will be Exhibit P128.

 8             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Thank you.

 9             Could the witness be shown 65 ter 267.

10        Q.   Now, Mr. Gasi, I'm going to show you a newspaper article from the

11     daily newspaper Oslobodjenje.

12             Do you see it on your screen?

13        A.   [Interpretation] Yes, I can see it.

14        Q.   When was the first time you saw this article?

15        A.   Two days ago.  I was shown this article by you in your office.

16        Q.   And did you have a chance to read the article?

17        A.   Yes, I read it, all of it.

18        Q.   Now, if we look at the third paragraph under the section called:

19     SDS Demands Division, do you see the section that talks about the

20     rightful division.  It's a paragraph that begins with "Observers from the

21     European Community appealed on the reason ..."

22             Do you see that paragraph?

23        A.   Yes, I was just looking at it.

24        Q.   Okay.  Now, do you see that section that says according to that

25     rightful division, Serbs would get all economy in Brcko, as well as

Page 1768

 1     educational facilities, culture, traffic, PTT, hotel, barracks,

 2     et cetera?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Now, does that fit with your recollection of the demands of the

 5     SDS in 1992?

 6        A.   Precisely, yes, you're correct.  That's it.

 7             It seems that the journalist was well-informed.

 8        Q.   May I take you to the second column in B/C/S.  And in English,

 9     that is the top of the second page.

10             Now when I say second column in B/C/S, it's actually the third

11     column on that page, but it's the second column of the article.  Yeah,

12     right there.  Maybe a little bit lower as well.

13             Does it deal with the ethnic breakdown in the down and the

14     municipality of Brcko?

15        A.   Yes.  Muslims, 40 per cent; Serbs, 18.9; Croats, 25; and then

16     there are Yugoslavs and others.

17        Q.   And does that reflect the ethnic break down prior to the war in

18     Brcko?

19        A.   I think so, yes.

20        Q.   Finally, the last item I'd like to deal with in this article is

21     at the bottom of the second column in B/C/S, and the middle of the second

22     page in English, the issue of the blowing up of the bridge on the 30th of

23     April.  And I'd like to you read that section and tell us if it fits with

24     your recollection of the events in 1992.

25        A.   Yes.  Everything in the article is as if the person writing it

Page 1769

 1     was on the spot.  It happened exactly as described.

 2             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Your Honours I'm mindful of the time that we

 3     must break for the day.  So before I move to another topic, if I can ask

 4     this article to be admitted and we can resume tomorrow morning.

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, concerning the

 6     proposal to have this admitted, we already have this witness's -- or

 7     another witness's statement that was admitted.  He discussed the events.

 8     This witness did not identify neither the article nor the author, because

 9     he saw it only two days ago for the first time.

10             I believe it to be second or third-hand evidence, and, at the

11     same time, we have another witness, witness's statement on the same

12     circumstances.  Therefore, I don't think the preconditions are met to

13     have this article admitted.  The witness cannot identify it and has no

14     knowledge of it.  It was only shown to him two days ago.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  Actually, I was about to ask counsel on

16     what basis is this admissible.

17             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Your Honours, this is a publically available

18     newspaper article that corroborates what this witness said in the

19     Krajisnik case.  It corroborates the elements of his evidence that he

20     actually witnessed in 1992, and once again it is a publicly available

21     document that assists him in -- basically corroborating his evidence.

22             JUDGE HALL:  But it's -- so far as we know, it's a -- from an

23     unknown source, an anonymous article which is the -- to use your word,

24     is -- adds nothing to what this witness is saying.  It merely says the

25     same thing by some unknown, unidentified person.  What is the connection?

Page 1770

 1             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  I apologise, Your Honours, for interrupting.

 2             This article comes from a well-known and reputable and newspaper

 3     in the region, Oslobodjenje.  It has a date and is also authored by the

 4     journalist, Mr. Bosanac.  Now that, I believe, is sufficient to have --

 5     for the question of admissibility of the document.  Now, as to what

 6     weight is given later on is another issue, but at this stage we have the

 7     title, we have the source, we know which newspaper it comes from, and we

 8     an author.  And clearly from what the witness says, the author seems to

 9     be well-informed or was there during those events.

10             I'm also reminded that newspaper articles are admissible under

11     the jurisprudence of this Tribunal.

12             JUDGE HALL:  I think [Microphone not activated].  Yes, sorry --

13             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour --

14             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic, you have something to add?

15             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, as a matter of principle I object too.  If we

16     open this avenue, then we should be covered with the newspaper articles,

17     various sources, et cetera.  We have to keep in accordance with your

18     guidance, really, I would say exact standard which particular potential

19     exhibit must fulfil to be exhibited.

20             As we -- we witnessed -- as we are all witness, this afternoon

21     and this morning, very serious materials related to previous witness

22     where he was the author and go in the core of our case were in accordance

23     with the suggestions of Trial Chamber, I would say assessed in the other

24     way.

25             So I strongly believe that this practice should stop with -- with

Page 1771

 1     newspaper articles, et cetera.  We know what is in newspapers and we can

 2     rebut as many -- as much as possible, if it necessary.

 3             Thank you so much.

 4             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Your Honours, there doesn't seem to be any

 5     challenge to the admissibility of the document.  It just seems that there

 6     is a general rejection of newspaper articles, and Mr. Pantelic is saying

 7     that these document have to go to the core of this case.  This case --

 8     this newspaper deals with takeover of the municipality of Brcko and deals

 9     with the core issues in this case.  I don't see what the basis is for --

10             MR. PANTELIC:  You can get it from this witness, just simply ask

11     him what was his personal knowledge, and then he can give you his -- I

12     don't have any problem with that.  Then he will, as eye-witness, give you

13     a testimony.  If you are going along this ways we should be completely

14     blocked with a millions of -- tons of newspapers, articles, and we know

15     all what was the role of media in war, in propaganda, et cetera.

16             So what's the basis for that?

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE HALL:  Accepting the -- as you have kindly alerted me, the

19     jurisprudence of this Tribunal is that the general admissibility of

20     articles of this nature, nevertheless, in terms of the -- what this

21     article says in the context of the witness' testimony, we are of the view

22     that it adds nothing and therefore we aren't going to admit it.

23             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Much obliged --

24             JUDGE HALL:  The witness has had the opportunity to read it and

25     comment on it, and his comments are a part of the record.

Page 1772

 1             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  And it is five minutes -- six minutes past the time

 3     of adjournment.  So we resume at --

 4             MS. KORNER:  I do have a further question, and that's this.

 5     We're obviously delayed.  Mr. Delic took a lot longer than anticipated.

 6             Can I ask what Your Honours would intend to happen if Ms. Hanson

 7     does not complete her evidence on Thursday, lunch-time, because we've got

 8     two witnesses who are the subject of witness summonses fixed for next

 9     week, Tuesday, the 27th, and Thursday, the 29th.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, we try to, as we often council counsel,

11     not to anticipate.  Today is Tuesday afternoon.  It's your witness.  You

12     will you assess what the situation is at some point on Thursday.

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, do I understand your question to be

15     whether, as it appears, it may be necessary to use the -- that reserved

16     extended sitting on Thursday.  Is that what are you asking?  Or are you

17     talking about beyond Thursday?

18             MS. KORNER:  No, I'm talking about beyond Thursday.  Mr. Zecevic

19     estimates his cross-examination will take six to seven hours, and I think

20     Mr. Pantelic is about a couple of hours.

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Ms. Korner, we're in your hands.

22             MS. KORNER:  Not exactly Your Honours, no, because we can say

23     well, we're go doing interrupt Ms. Hanson and you may take the view that

24     you don't want her interrupted.  So to that extent, what we're simply

25     asking:  At the moment we have a witness due to fly in for Monday.  We

Page 1773

 1     have two unmovable witnesses for Tuesday and Thursday, who are big

 2     witnesses on the face of it.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Why don't --

 4             MS. KORNER:  In the event, which we anticipate is likely, that

 5     Ms. Hanson will not finish testifying, even if you were to sit extended

 6     on Thursday but would go into Monday, whether you would object, because

 7     you are the -- the Judges who are moving this case on, if we have a then

 8     a gap until the Tuesday witness.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  We would certainly avoid having gaps, and we are

10     not going to tell you in which order you must bring your witnesses.  If

11     you advise the Chamber that we can avoid gaps by interrupting Mrs. Hanson

12     and then taking the two other witnesses in between and then call her

13     back, or if you want to use Mrs. Hanson to fill out any further gaps that

14     may arise later on, then I think it's basically for the Defence to

15     indicate their position about this, whether they would accept having

16     interrupted testimonies from Mrs. Hanson.  The Chamber, as such, does not

17     oppose that.  We are only interested in moving ahead and avoiding gaps.

18     So in the end I think if the Defence can live with it, then that's fine

19     with us.

20             I don't know if have you a position.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, not at the moment, Your Honour.  We have to

22     think about it because it opens up quite a few questions.  Thank you very

23     much.

24             But I will inform Ms. Korner immediately.

25                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.25 p.m.,

Page 1774

 1                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 21st day of

 2                           October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.