091022ED

Page 1900

1 Honours give me a moment, I can --

2 MR. PANTELIC: We can wait until the break and then --

3 MR. DI FAZIO: It might be a better idea to wait until after the

4 break.

5 MR. PANTELIC: No problem. Thank you.

6 JUDGE HALL: Is the witness on his way back into court?

7 [The witness takes the stand]

8 WITNESS: CVJETKO IGNJIC [Resumed]

9 [Witness answered through interpreter]

10 JUDGE HALL: Good morning, sir. I remind you that you're still

11 on your oath.

12 Examination by Mr. Di Fazio: [Continued]

13 Q. Good morning, Witness. I'd like to start today by showing you

14 some photographs and asking you about some places in Brcko.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be -- I'm going to ask that the

16 witness be shown 65 ter 2151 and 2149, but perhaps if we go first to

17 2149. If we can get that up on the screen.

18 Q. Do you recognise that place?

19 A. It's Laser Brcko. It's a company that owns buses for

20 transportation.

21 Q. And do you know what part of Brcko that particular establishment

22 was located?

23 A. In the eastern part.

24 Q. And -- thank you.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: And I seek to tender that map. Sorry, that

Page 1901

1 photograph. My apologies.

2 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.

3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P147, Your Honours.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Thanks, and if we could just have another

5 photograph now. That's 2151.

6 Q. Do you recognise that place?

7 A. That's also Laser.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I seek to tender that photograph into

9 evidence.

10 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.

11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P148, Your Honours.

12 MR. DI FAZIO:

13 Q. About how far from the centre of town was that place, Laser Bus

14 Company?

15 A. One and a half kilometres or two. Actually, it's more -- more

16 towards two than one now.

17 Q. Thank you. And I now want to show you two other photographs.

18 The first is 65 ter 2160.

19 Do you recognise that place?

20 A. It's the Partizan gymnasium.

21 Q. Than you. Was it sometimes or occasionally shown as Partizan

22 Sports Hall?

23 A. I think so.

24 Q. Thank you.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: I seek to tender that photograph.

Page 1902

1 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.

2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P149, Your Honours.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Thanks. And if we could get 2159 up on the

4 screen, please.

5 Q. You see the building with the white roof about centre of the

6 photograph?

7 A. That's -- that's Partizan view from above. That's the local

8 house of culture and the hotel and the Partizan building. It's in the

9 centre of town.

10 Q. Is it? Right. Could you, please --

11 MR. DI FAZIO: If I could seek the assistance of the usher so the

12 photograph could be marked.

13 Q. You can touch the screen with a special pen that will be given to

14 you. Could you just draw a close circle around the building you've just

15 spoken about.

16 A. [Marks]

17 Q. Thank you. And perhaps you could just write the letter P in the

18 centre to indicate Partizan Sports Hall?

19 A. [Marks]

20 Q. Thank you. And while you've got the pen there. I think you

21 mentioned in your evidence that that was the centre of town. From -- in

22 this photo, is the Posavina Hotel visible or not, and --

23 A. No. This is the Jelena Hotel to the right and Posavina would be

24 to the left, but it can't be seen in the photograph.

25 Q. Okay. Thank you for that information. And secondly, is the SJB

Page 1903

1 building visible in that photograph, the police station, or part of it?

2 A. No.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please, I seek to tender that

4 into evidence.

5 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Admitted and marked.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P150, Your Honours.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: And can the witness be shown now the map that was

8 used yesterday, P127.

9 Q. Witness, I'm going to show you a map of Brcko.

10 A. Mm-hmm.

11 Q. And that's the map of Brcko. Could -- looking at the map, could

12 you -- is it possible -- is it on the map, first of all? Is it possible

13 to locate the -- where Partizan Sports Hall is, or the Partizan Cultural

14 Centre?

15 A. It will be difficult because this is a rough map, but I'll try.

16 Q. Yes. Perhaps if we can zoom in just a bit. I'm told that's

17 necessary before markings can occur.

18 A. Down, down. Sava, the bridge, Posavina. All right. How do I

19 point at it?

20 Q. You can use the pen again. Perhaps if you -- you once again

21 write a smaller P to indicate the position of -- of Partizan Sports Hall.

22 A. What ... Posavina entrance here. Hereabouts.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 A. This is not a detailed map. I -- I can show the Posavina.

25 Q. No, that's okay. Thank you. Can you just put the letter P next

Page 1904

1 to that to indicate Partizan Hotel -- Sports Hall, rather.

2 A. [Marks]

3 Q. Thank you. And the Laser Bus Company, is the location of the

4 Laser Bus Company also visible on that map?

5 A. Yes. If we can raise the map. Can we go up?

6 Q. Yes. If we can just go up a bit.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm informed that I have to tender this before I

8 can proceed to get another image marked. I'm sorry about that. Can I

9 tend this, and can it be given an exhibit number, please?

10 JUDGE HALL: Yes.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P151, Your Honours.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

13 Q. Now, the next location, if you can mark it, is the Laser Bus

14 Company.

15 A. The other way. More. Enough. Can I mark it or circle it?

16 [Marks]

17 Q. Thanks. And can you put a -- write the letter L next to it so

18 that we know that's the Laser Bus Company?

19 A. Just a moment. I made a mistake. I think that this is Bimeks

20 and that Laser is further down. I think this one is Laser and the other

21 one is Bimeks. This is Laser.

22 Q. And mark it with L so that we know in future that's the Laser Bus

23 Company?

24 A. [Marks]

25 Q. Thank you. The witness has marked it with two letter L's, and I

Page 1905

1 seek to tender that document -- that map into evidence, please.

2 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.

3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P152, Your Honours.

4 MR. DI FAZIO:

5 Q. And finally on this issue, how far --

6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Di Fazio, would you like to have Bimeks

7 indicated as well while we're there?

8 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, that's a good idea. Perhaps we could have

9 another -- if you could also get a new map so we can make a new exhibit.

10 Q. And can you indicate the Bimeks -- the Bimeks factory, please.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, if it can be done on the previous one, I'm

12 happy for it to be done on the previous one as well.

13 JUDGE HARHOFF: That was my attempt, but it is too late.

14 MR. DI FAZIO:

15 Q. Well, perhaps if we could -- if we could ask the witness to mark

16 on this particular map the Bimeks factory.

17 A. Bimeks has several facilities. This part here is a farm, and

18 another facility is over there. There are a total of five facilities, I

19 believe, because Bimeks was not located in one place only. Here right by

20 Laser the large black mass here on the map is the place where the cattle

21 was fed. I'm not sure what they were feeding there. And toward the Sava

22 River there were the refrigerating facilities, meat processing.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, if Your Honours, please, in light of that

24 evidence that there are five locations around Brcko, I don't propose to

25 carry this any further. Thank you very much.

Page 1906

1 Q. One last question on these two establishments that I've been

2 asking you about. How far was the Partizan Sports Hall from the police

3 station?

4 A. Two hundred metres. Maybe less. Hundred and fifty to 200.

5 Q. Thank you for that.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness now be shown 65 ter 33, please.

7 Thank you.

8 Q. Witness, if you could just have a moment to have a look at the

9 B/C/S. I'm going to ask you a few questions about this document, which

10 is a military document. Just to assist you, it's a document dated

11 29 September 1992, from the Eastern Bosnia Corps command intelligence

12 organ to the VRS Main Staff. It's an extraordinary report.

13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Di Fazio.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

15 JUDGE HARHOFF: What I see on my screen is something that appears

16 to be from the Brcko police station. Is that the same document?

17 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry, my apologies. Both documents I had

18 this morning had 3s in it, and I got confused. I do -- it was my

19 mistake.

20 Q. The document that you correctly have in front of you is a

21 document dated [sic]: "Information on the strength, deployment and other

22 activities of the police station," and the author is a gentleman named

23 Petar Djokic, and he was one of the commanders of the police station; is

24 that right? Petar Djokic.

25 A. Yes.

Page 1907

1 Q. I don't want to go through the document in any great detail. It

2 speaks for itself. It -- it indicates that as at the 8th of June, the

3 police station had various numbers of policemen carrying out various

4 numbers of different types of duties. Do you see that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And it says that patrol functions were being carried out in a

7 regular way. There was regular service, a patrol service, securing the

8 facilities, rapid reaction service and duty service. Do you see that?

9 It's about the third paragraph, about the third or fourth paragraph down.

10 A. Yes, yes, I can see it.

11 Q. And Commander Djokic goes on to say that the work is -- regular

12 service is organised in nine sections with three eight-hour shifts, and

13 that the sections cover the whole territory of the town which is

14 liberated by now. Do you see that, that particular sentence?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. That would indicate the police were patrolling the entire town,

17 wouldn't it? And that the entire town had been secured. Is that

18 correct?

19 A. I don't know exactly how the police went about their business.

20 They were another organisational unit. How they function, especially at

21 that time, I believe I cannot tell. The criminal police is separate from

22 the regular police. They have their departments and sections, and

23 there's a process of reporting in place, and I don't have knowledge about

24 that.

25 Q. Very well. I can understand that, and thank you for explaining

Page 1908

1 that, but in terms of control, actual simple control, is what this

2 document claims, that on the 8th of June, 1992, the whole town was being

3 covered by police patrols? Did you actually observe anything to that

4 effect?

5 A. I don't know. The area may have been covered, but poorly.

6 Q. Thank you. And one thing is -- to -- tell me if this is correct:

7 The commander who wrote this particular document, Petar Djokic. He would

8 be in a good position to know, wouldn't he, if the -- if the town was

9 indeed being covered by -- the entire town was being covered by police

10 patrols?

11 A. Your Honours --

12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The witness has asked to make

13 assumptions, whether or not Petar Djokic should know this or that. Can

14 the witness answer that question or such a question at all, especially

15 with regard to the fact that he belonged to another organisational unit

16 and that he knows next to nothing about the way the police went about

17 their work? So this witness was only involved in forensic activities.

18 So he can only make assumptions if asked to do so.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours --

20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And he has already replied that it

21 may be assumed that the area was covered, but if so, poorly. He said

22 something like that.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: And my reply is this: He's a police officer of

24 long-standing experience. He had been in the police since -- had been in

25 the police for many years before 1992. He's able to comment on the

Page 1909

1 police structure, police personalities, and demarcation of areas of

2 responsibility of police. So it would seem to me that he's in as good a

3 position as anybody to comment on the ability of a police commander to

4 accurately -- police commander to have access to information that would

5 allow him to produce this sort of document.

6 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Di Fazio, I confess that I am -- I expected the

7 objection to come much sooner in terms of this line of questions, but

8 don't you come hard up against the rule against asking a witness on the

9 stand to comment on the evidence of another witness? Isn't that the --

10 MR. DI FAZIO: I think I -- my best strategy here is to simply

11 not ask the question now. I'll withdraw the question and rely on the

12 document itself and what it says on the face of the document. It's the

13 best way to go about it. So I will withdraw my question, and I will seek

14 to tender the document into evidence.

15 JUDGE HALL: At some point.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, my primary application is to seek to tender

17 it into evidence now. The witness has commented on the document. It

18 has -- it's been apparently signed by the police commander himself, and

19 in my submission it's admissible as is with that --

20 JUDGE HALL: Through this witness?

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Through this witness. If Your Honours please, the

22 Prosecution's position is that a document in this jurisdiction doesn't

23 necessarily become inadmissible because the author was not called to

24 comment upon it.

25 JUDGE HALL: I understand that. It's just that the -- I'm not

Page 1910

1 sure I see the nexus between this witness and the document.

2 Mr. Zecevic -- Cvijetic.

3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you have anticipated

4 my objections. This is exactly what I wanted to say. This witness knows

5 practically nothing about this document. We cannot check with him even

6 whether the author of this document is indeed Petar Djokic, you see, and

7 you have already anticipated what my objection will be. So I only ask

8 you to adhere to your practice so far, and the tendering of documents in

9 this way through witnesses who know nothing about them should be --

10 should not be allowed.

11 JUDGE HALL: Well, Mr. Cvijetic, I apologise for calling you

12 Mr. Zecevic. It's the second day I've made that error. Thank you.

13 Mr. Di Fazio, the -- I suppose that the -- there could be no

14 objection to the document being marked for identification, but I have

15 grave reservations as to it being tendered as an exhibit at this point.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I understand that, if Your Honours please.

17 Perhaps we can leave it in this fashion so that we can get on with the

18 evidence: My primary -- for the record, my primary application is to

19 tender it fully into evidence. If Your Honours are against me, then of

20 course it should at least be marked for identification at this stage.

21 And this issue of the means -- or the methods of admissibility of

22 documents in this type of class is a matter that we can address the Trial

23 Chamber on perhaps at a later stage. Ms. Korner may have submissions to

24 make to you about that. But for the moment, I'm content that we mark it

25 for identification and we proceed as far as we can with this witness, and

Page 1911

1 this issue, I think, will have to be revisited at a later stage, but for

2 my purposes --

3 JUDGE HALL: So we mark it.

4 THE REGISTRAR: That's Exhibit P153 marked for identification,

5 Your Honours.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

7 Q. You know a place called Luka, Luka, which is in Brcko?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. It's on the -- it's on the river, I believe.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did you ever go there in -- after May --

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber approximately when you went there

14 and for what reason?

15 A. I can't remember, but someone gave me an envelope to take to a

16 man at Luka. I gave it to that man and returned. I was at Luka for

17 20 seconds. It may have been around the 4th, 5th, 6th of May. It was

18 the beginning of May anyway.

19 Q. Were there prisoners there?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. I know I've heard you that you were only there for a short period

22 of time. In that short period of time did you manage to see them or look

23 at them?

24 A. I saw people, but I didn't recognise anyone. I tried hard to

25 look away because I was ashamed, and I feared that I might see somebody I

Page 1912

1 knew.

2 Q. And the -- one last question on this visit. Do you know who gave

3 you the envelope?

4 A. I can't remember.

5 Q. Do you -- okay. Can you tell us this: Was it on -- were you on

6 official police business, or was it a personal matter you were attending

7 to?

8 A. No. I worked as a crime technician, and I suppose it was one of

9 the supervisors who told me to take that envelope to Luka, and I

10 delivered it to some people at the office over there, and I didn't know

11 those people who were there.

12 Q. Fine. And finally, just to be absolutely sure, when you talk

13 about a supervisor, you're referring to someone in the SUP?

14 A. I don't understand. What do you mean?

15 Q. The supervisor who asked you to take the envelope to Luka, was

16 that person a supervisor within the SUP?

17 A. Yes, yes, from the SUP.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 A. I think so. He must have been from the SUP.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness now be shown 354, 65 ter 354.

22 Now, this is the document that I mistakenly referred to earlier,

23 if Your Honours please.

24 Q. Witness, again to acquaint you with it, it's dated 29 September

25 1992. It's from the Eastern Bosnia Corps Command to the VRS Main Staff,

Page 1913

1 an extraordinary report, and the author, who is a gentleman named -- who

2 is Captain First Class Simeun Cuturic [phoen] says that the Eastern

3 Bosnia Corps Command gathered the following information. And in the --

4 if you just have a look at the first paragraph, you don't have to read it

5 out to yourself, but just have a look at the first paragraph and read

6 through it. I just want to ask you some questions about the content.

7 Okay. Thank you. My first question is -- is this: The -- this

8 report says that after both bridges of the Sava had been destroyed in

9 Brcko, the town was flooded with individuals who claimed to be patriots

10 and devoted to Serbianism, but instead engaged in robberies, rapes, and

11 murders for no justified reason. Did you observe any of that behaviour

12 in Brcko?

13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, an objection. I

14 want to have it on the record. Again a document is being shown to the

15 witness and portions be read out without asking the witness first whether

16 he knows anything at all about the document. I believe it would be only

17 fair to ask the witness, and this is what I intend to do in

18 cross-examination, to use his own words to describe the events in Brcko

19 during the critical period. Here we have a description of events drafted

20 by others. First we saw a police report. Now we have a military report.

21 He should be asked whether he knows anything about the report, about the

22 author, or whether he knows anything in terms of the contents. I cannot

23 but object, sorry.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: That's precisely what I'm doing.

25 JUDGE HALL: Isn't your objection a -- aren't you confusing the

Page 1914

1 facts or the events on which counsel is examining the witness with the

2 fact that the background happened to be in a report? I'm not sure I see

3 the basis of the objection.

4 Counsel is asking about events. The context is this report which

5 is available.

6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, then it's very simple

7 to ask a question of the witness the way I wanted. "Do you know this and

8 that from that period or not?" We don't need a document that he's

9 unfamiliar with. It is enough to ask him the way you put it. We agree

10 in essence. I simply object to the way that this is being sought from

11 the witness.

12 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed, Mr. Di Fazio.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

14 Q. The document refers to a flood of different patriotically

15 orientated individuals devoted to Serbianism, but in fact use that as an

16 excuse to carry out robberies, rapes, and murders. Did you observe any

17 such behaviour in -- after May, after the beginning of May in Brcko?

18 A. Yes. There was a lot of crime. And criminals too.

19 Q. But an influx of -- was that related to an influx of people who

20 were -- who claimed to be patriotically orientated and devoted to

21 Serbianism? If you don't know, say so. I'm not inviting you to

22 speculate, but if you do know, please tell us.

23 A. I had no dealings with them, and I don't know what it was that

24 they asserted, but I can't deny that there was crime and lots of

25 criminals about the town.

Page 1915

1 Q. Thank you. I want to ask you if you know any of the individuals

2 referred to here. And when I say "know," I mean, do you know them

3 personally, or had you met them, or do you know about them? And first of

4 all, Mauzer. Had you ever heard of him?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. How did you come to hear about him?

7 A. There was a unit from Bijeljina commanded by Savic. I don't know

8 exactly. I never met the person. I didn't know him. I only heard about

9 him.

10 Q. Savic, is that Mauzer?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Thanks. And what about this other gentleman, Major Gavrilovic?

13 Had you heard of him?

14 A. No.

15 Q. And the -- the radical Chetnik Mirko Blagojevic and his associate

16 from Brcko, Mile Gatarevic. Did you know of them or meet them or have

17 information about them?

18 A. I had no dealings with them. I know, though that, this

19 Blagojevic person is a member of a Radical Party. I don't know anything

20 about their activities though.

21 Q. Thank you. And finally from that paragraph there's -- the last

22 sentence says that somebody, somebody named Zika Ivanovic, also known as

23 Crnogorac, prepared documentation on these events, and the author

24 believes that documentation -- that that documentation was at the Brcko

25 police station, and my question is first, do you know -- have you ever

Page 1916

1 heard of Zika Ivanovic, also known as Crnogorac?

2 A. Yes, I heard of it.

3 Q. And who is he? Was he a police officer or a military man or one

4 of these groups that came in?

5 A. There was a military force, but I don't know whose force it was.

6 Q. Okay. And just finally on Crnogorac or Mr. Ivanovic, what

7 precisely did you hear about him? What did you learn about him?

8 A. I don't understand. I had heard that there was a unit of Zika

9 Crnogorac. I didn't go to the front lines, and I don't know where they

10 fought, whether they fought, and who they fought.

11 Q. Thank you. Could you now just have a look at the next paragraph.

12 And in fact, I just want to ask you a few questions about the first part

13 of that paragraph. It says:

14 "Murders occurred not only in Luka but also in Srpska Varos ..."

15 Where is Srpska Varos?

16 A. Srpska Varos is to the east next to the Sava River if you go from

17 the centre of town.

18 Q. Okay, and just to --

19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Di Fazio, the Registrar informs us that you

20 have two minutes left.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please, I'm going to have to make

22 an application for a bit more time. I can indicate to you that I have to

23 finish -- my planned examination-in-chief involves finishing off this

24 document, which I expect to do fairly shortly, and then one last topic,

25 which I don't think will take more than about five to eight minutes. So

Page 1917

1 that would be my application. If I need to delve into the bank, so to

2 speak, of time, then I'll need to do that, but I can indicate that I

3 won't be much longer at all.

4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Hurry up then. Thank you.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll do my level best. Thank you.

6 Q. Just how far out of town from the centre is Srpska Varos?

7 A. It is adjacent to the centre of the town.

8 Q. Thank you. Now the document goes on to refer to the executions

9 of persons outside their houses and corpses being left to stand there

10 until the utility service found them and took them to the pits. And it

11 says that one pit is located on the right side of the road towards the

12 duty-free zone. From that description, one pit is --

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Is that the -- the place, the grave that you worked from doing

15 your best --

16 A. Yes. Yes.

17 Q. Thank you. And I want to look at page 2 of the English, and on

18 the B/C/S it's the second page in, and it's, very briefly -- very briefly

19 my question is this --

20 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please, it's about two-thirds of

21 the way down on the second page.

22 Q. The author says that he -- there were -- there were witnesses of

23 events in Luka, including somebody named Sudo, a Muslim volleyball

24 player, a national team member who managed to escape across the Sava, and

25 the very next day gave interviews to HTV, BBC, and Sky. Do you have

Page 1918

1 knowledge of any such event, A man named Sudo swimming across the Sava

2 and then talking to the press?

3 A. I'm not familiar with that.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, my primary application

6 again is to tender the document fully into evidence. If not -- if you're

7 not with me, then I would ask that it at least be marked for

8 identification.

9 JUDGE HALL: Marked for identification.

10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P154, marked for identification, Your

11 Honours.

12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just before we leave this document clarify

13 one question with you, because you indicated several times that you knew

14 of certain units, one apparently led by Mr. Savic or Mr. Mauzer, another

15 unit led by Mr. Blagojevic, who was a member of the radicals. Now, these

16 units, I'm just curious to know how come that you describe them as units.

17 Were they uniformed, or did they act as a military unit or as an

18 organised unit in some way under the command of -- of the person that you

19 have mentioned? Were they armed?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were in uniform. They were

21 armed. As for the way they were organised or who they were linked to,

22 that is something I don't know. I have no knowledge about the

23 functioning of an army or an army unit, for that matter.

24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Do you recall if they were wearing any insignia?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps the regular insignia worn

Page 1919

1 by other soldiers, but I don't recall it in particular. Perhaps they had

2 Serb insignia.

3 MR. DI FAZIO:

4 Q. Last topic. Let's go back to your time at the -- at the grave in

5 your work --

6 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, but there is an intervention in the

7 transcript. Page 22, line 9. I believe the witness said 'no knowledge."

8 JUDGE HARHOFF: I recall that as well. Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

9 MR. DI FAZIO:

10 Q. Let's take -- go back to the -- to the grave site that you worked

11 at in May and June and early July of 1992. You were the only policeman

12 working there; correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Were you provided with any photographic equipment to photograph

15 the scene and corpses?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Did the police provide you or offer any assistance to you for the

18 identification of these bodies, for example --

19 A. No.

20 Q. Were you instructed to take notes about features of the corpses

21 that you couldn't identify, for example, the obtaining of relics such as

22 watches, or necklaces, or other paraphernalia that might later assist in

23 identifying unknown bodies?

24 A. No. We occasionally came across some identification papers but

25 that's it. I didn't pay much attention to the rest. Even if there was a

Page 1920

1 watch or something else on a corpse, I never paid heed to that. We only

2 took away documents, and I tried to describe it in visual terms to the

3 extent possible.

4 Q. You mean here to this Trial Chamber you've done your best to

5 describe it in visual terms. Is that what you mean?

6 A. Yes. Yes.

7 Q. I'm asking you if the police supplied this material to you. Did

8 they -- did the police supply you with assistance to take notes?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Okay. Now, all of the things that I've just mentioned, the

11 taking of photographs, preservation of relics such as watches or personal

12 paraphernalia, notes on the appearance of bodies, where they came from,

13 obtaining information from the truck drivers who went around and

14 collected the bodies, that wouldn't have taken very long, would it? It

15 could have been done by a few men at least. A few police officers, I

16 should say.

17 I'm sorry, that's a question. Would you like me to repeat it

18 or -- or --

19 A. I received no assistance. I had no help, and I received no

20 particular instructions to do anything otherwise to what I was doing.

21 That's how things stood.

22 Q. And in your work as a crime scene examiner, when you went to

23 examine murders, that was -- amongst other things that you would have

24 done at a murder scene, all of those things that I've mentioned; the

25 taking of notes, the preservation of relics or paraphernalia related to

Page 1921

1 an individual, the noting of marks such as tattoos or distinguishing

2 features, and all -- the taking of photographs, all of those things would

3 normally occur, would they? That's the sort of thing that you would do

4 as a crime scene examiner normally, isn't it?

5 A. If it had not been for the war.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

7 JUDGE HALL: Cross-examination.

8 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:

9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ignjic, good morning.

10 A. Good morning.

11 Q. For the record, I'll introduce myself. I'm attorney-at-law

12 Slobodan Cvijetic, Defence team member of the accused Mico Stanisic.

13 From your testimony so far, as well as from your statement that

14 was admitted, I gather that you divide the time and events in Brcko into

15 two periods, before July 1992 and after.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. I just want to caution you. You did well in this last question.

18 Since we speak the same language, you have to pause, and I myself am

19 often to blame for that as well, and being frequently cautioned by the

20 Chamber.

21 So the period before and after. You will agree with me that

22 these two periods differ significantly and that there was a breaking

23 point based on which you divide the two periods?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. I noticed another thing. There's another thing that you used to

Page 1922

1 distinguish between the two periods, and you link that to an important

2 war crime and the crime being processed, and you frequently refer to the

3 time as the events that happened before that case and after; correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. I objected to some of the questions put by the Prosecutor, and I

6 would like to clarify that with you. Could you please describe to us the

7 period before -- before July in briefest possible terms, if possible, or

8 would you rather have me put you specific questions?

9 A. I can briefly say that as of the 1st of May, the town was half

10 liberated, that there was fighting in the town and that it was being

11 constantly shelled, that there was round-the-clock shooting, and there

12 were many soldiers, criminals, everything, everything that usually

13 accompanies a war, and it was very difficult to establish a functioning

14 government. There was no electricity, water. There was no communication

15 possibilities. It was a rather chaotic situation.

16 As time passed by, slowly authorities were being established

17 bringing things back to normal. As of July, the work started taking

18 place basically the way it used to be before the war.

19 Q. Very well. While we're on the topic of shelling, you will agree

20 with me that Brcko, because of its important geostrategic position as it

21 is along the corridor, which was supposed to link the eastern and western

22 part of Republika Srpska, and at that place the corridor is extremely

23 narrow, that it is because of that that the town was constantly shelled.

24 Is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

Page 1923

1 Q. The shelling was done from the neighbouring Republic of Croatia

2 and from Gunja in particular for the most part; correct?

3 A. From both sides. From the Bosnian side and the Croatian side.

4 Q. Very well. When you say the Bosnian side, you have in mind the

5 territory controlled by the Bosnian Muslims?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Throughout the war was Brcko within artillery range from both

8 sides?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Mr. Ignjic, was this random shelling? That is to say that the

11 entire town was frequently shelled and even targeted by multiple-rocket

12 launchers?

13 A. My house was damaged as well by a multiple-rocket launcher that

14 fired from Croatia.

15 Q. Perhaps you can explain to the Chamber briefly what that piece of

16 weaponry is.

17 A. Well, it's a multi-barrelled weapon and the acronym is VBR.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please. I don't take objection

19 to the line of questioning by my learned friend if that's what he wants

20 to ask the witness, but there must be some basis for this witness to be

21 able to answer these questions. He must -- you must be sure that he can

22 comment on issues relating to artillery and military issues before

23 matters that go beyond ordinary observation, factual observation of this

24 witness before he can give you that sort of information.

25 He may -- he may have the expertise or -- I'm not suggesting he

Page 1924

1 has to be an expert, but he may be acquainted, sufficiently acquainted

2 with these matters for you to be satisfied that he can answer, but if

3 he's not, then we may be delving into the realm of speculation.

4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my learned friend

5 Mr. Prosecutor objected and responded to his own objection. I'm asking

6 this of the witness as a simple citizen of Brcko, not as an expert. He

7 himself said that his house was damaged by a multiple-rocket launcher.

8 The basis for these questions is the statement that he gave to the OTP

9 that was made an exhibit.

10 In any case, I'm about to get to the point, and I'll no longer

11 ask about these matters.

12 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed, Mr. Cvijetic.

13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Mr. Ignjic, such random shelling of the town, did it result in

15 civilian casualties as well? Were there those who were killed as a

16 consequence of that shelling?

17 A. Yes.

18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Cvijetic, there's something that is not very

19 clear to me. You are talking about two periods, and you said before and

20 after July. I suppose we can narrow that: Before and after the 1st of

21 July or the 30th of April, the blowing of the bridge, no? But my -- the

22 question is -- what is not clear to me is the events you're talking about

23 now, are they before or after whatever your point -- your starting point

24 of the division of the two periods is? I can't situate -- situate it in

25 time what you're asking right now. Could you clarify that to me?

Page 1925

1 JUDGE HARHOFF: And if I may add to Judge Delvoie's question,

2 what distinguished the two periods?

3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you want me to state

4 my point in advance and then ask the witness about the criteria for

5 separating the two period. If I say so, that would be a suggestion to

6 him. So I would -- I will prefer asking him about it. And as far as the

7 shelling is concerned, the witness clearly said that there was shelling

8 throughout the war, and I'm now asking him about the first more intensive

9 part of war. You said the 1st of July, but I can't be as precise as

10 that, whether it was the 1st or 2nd of July or whichever date.

11 Do you allow me to get at that through asking the witness

12 questions, such as: "How long did that fierce shelling last?" That

13 would be a question.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It varied. Sometimes it went on

15 for three days and then there would be a pause, and sometimes the

16 frequency was different. There could be even seven days without one

17 shell hitting town, and on other days there would be, I don't know, a

18 hundred shells.

19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. All right. Then tell me, until what time did fierce military

21 actions take place at Brcko, fighting?

22 A. In the first period, the first few months, I don't know exactly.

23 Until the line moved a bit away from town. So the -- the passage was

24 widened through town. I don't know how wide the corridor was around

25 Brcko. Three or four kilometres maybe, maybe not even that. But as it

Page 1926

1 was moved, as it moved away from town, things became more peaceful.

2 Q. You will agree that in the first few months there was -- there

3 were intensive military actions?

4 A. Yes. There were -- for months there were -- there was fighting

5 in the outskirts of the town.

6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry to interrupt you again, but just in pursuit

7 of the questions put by Judge Delvoie and myself just a while ago, it was

8 you who introduced to the witness the distinction between events before

9 and after July, and my question was, really, what -- which events marked

10 the distinction? Was that the liberation of Brcko, or was is

11 something else? I mean, what was the dividing events that enabled you to

12 introduce to the witness the distinction between something that happened

13 before July and after July? What's the difference between the two

14 periods?

15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it isn't me who

16 tries to delimit that period. It's the witness who did that. And I am

17 proceeding question by question to get at that. One of the criteria was

18 the intensity of military actions, and now my following question will be

19 about something -- about another criterion for the separation of periods,

20 but do allow me to put that question.

21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic -- Cvijetic, sorry, I don't want to

22 interfere with your line of questions, so I just ask: The witness is

23 telling us about the first few months. Can we situate that in time? The

24 first few months of what? When -- when is that? I don't -- I don't talk

25 about your division. I just -- if we can know now -- if you say I prefer

Page 1927

1 you don't know, then, okay. But I'm wondering, "the first few months,"

2 what does that mean?

3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I will put my question and state

4 my point.

5 Q. Mr. Ignjic, you say in your statement that the period in question

6 was a time of chaos, "we felt unable to do anything."

7 Tell us, Mr. Ignjic, that period of chaos and anarchy lasted

8 from, till? From what time till what time exactly, according to you?

9 A. Roughly from the 1st of May until early July. At the beginning

10 it was worse. Toward June it became better, and in June it was rather

11 good.

12 Q. Do add the year.

13 A. 1992.

14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe it's time

15 for a break. My colleague -- five minutes. All right.

16 Q. Mr. Ignjic, in that period you said that you saw groups of former

17 criminals moving about town in uniforms. Give us your assessment of who

18 effectively had control over the town, the police, the military, the

19 Crisis Staff, the paramilitary formations or criminals?

20 A. Mostly the criminals, unfortunately.

21 Q. Okay. In that initial period, did those paramilitary formations

22 and criminals also take the building of the SJB?

23 A. First they took the building, then we entered, and then they

24 tried once more to take it, or twice, and it went to and fro. Yes, they

25 were trying, but we always found some solution to have them leave.

Page 1928

1 Q. In that process of taking the building of the SJB, did they rob

2 it and take away the equipment?

3 A. Yes. The first time the entire forensic equipment was taken

4 away, personal ID cards, driving licenses, and any objects of value that

5 there were. I don't remember exactly. I know what was taken away from

6 my office. Actually, nothing was left there.

7 Q. All right. Were they able to acquire police uniforms that way?

8 A. Probably, but I don't know exactly where the uniforms were kept.

9 I only know that there was a significant quantity of uniforms of the

10 reserve police in a warehouse.

11 Q. So you will agree with me that this was possible?

12 A. Absolutely.

13 Q. Mr. Ignjic, as we're speaking about paramilitary formations and

14 individuals, did you hear about, see, or did you have the opportunity to

15 meet Ranko Cesic?

16 A. In the war, yes. I didn't know him before.

17 Q. So you are saying that they -- when he was shown to you that he

18 was wearing a military police uniform; is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Were you able to meet, see, or hear anything about Goran Jelic?

21 A. I saw him during the war. I didn't know him before.

22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, before you go on with this line of

23 questions, we should take the break.

24 [The witness stands down]

25 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.

Page 1933

1 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, if I might have a moment. I just

2 wanted to state for the record that the -- on the application for the --

3 in respect of Witness ST-161, that the application to have his evidence

4 by videolink is -- is granted, and a written decision will follow.

5 Please proceed.

6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Mr. Ignjic, I think that we stopped when a name was mentioned,

8 and that name is Goran Jelisic. I will now ask you about him, whether he

9 was a police officer at the police station of Brcko.

10 A. I don't think he ever officially was one.

11 Q. Do you know where Goran Jelisic is from?

12 A. I do. He is from Bijeljina. He's from a street close to the

13 place where my wife was born.

14 Q. Do you have information about him ever being a police officer at

15 Bijeljina or a police officer at all?

16 A. I don't think that he ever was a police officer.

17 Q. I must ask you now whether you know what he was.

18 A. I know what I heard from my wife, but I didn't know him before.

19 Or he was -- I'm not sure how to put this in English.

20 Q. That might not be an adequate translation into English, but could

21 we call him problematic?

22 A. Yes, I think so.

23 Q. Mr. Ignjic, I will go back to what you said yesterday about the

24 identification of bodies. You went into great detail, so I'll only ask

25 you whether you will agree with my conclusion that the identification of

Page 1934

1 bodies at that period, as you had described it today, also can be seen as

2 an attempt to establish some sort of order in the functioning of the

3 authorities irrespective of all the problems you had. Could we see it

4 that way?

5 A. Maybe. From the very beginning, we were trying to bring about

6 some order. We knew how -- how things should have been done and what the

7 regulations were, but war is a cruel time and some things cannot be done

8 easily.

9 Q. All right. Let us just clarify. You used two abbreviations

10 yesterday. For those following this trial and for the sake of the

11 transcript and the Trial Chamber, you said that you were trying to

12 identify a person who you said was a member of the ZNG HVO. Tell us what

13 these two abbreviations mean.

14 A. The HVO is the Croatian Defence Council, and ZNG, I'm not sure

15 myself. I knew, but I forgot. I can't remember now.

16 Q. Does the National Guards Corps mean anything to you?

17 A. Oh, yes, that's it.

18 Q. Will you agree with me, whichever way it was, that they were

19 members of the paramilitary formations, Croatian formations, from

20 neighbouring Croatia?

21 A. Maybe. I don't know much about that organisation.

22 Q. But certainly those were military forces?

23 A. Yes. He was a soldier wearing a uniform with Croatian insignia.

24 Q. But in the identification process you found out that he was from

25 Rijeka. That's in Croatia, is it?

Page 1935

1 A. Yes. He had an ID card on him.

2 Q. How he ever got to the Brcko theatre of war we can only

3 speculate; right?

4 A. I know nothing about that.

5 Q. All right. Mr. Ignjic, in that period when you were identifying

6 those bodies, were you able to report along official lines the

7 organisational unit that was superior to yours, say the one in Bijeljina?

8 Could you establish such communication?

9 A. I'm not sure when the telecom lines started working again. I

10 know that in the beginning we had neither electricity nor water or -- and

11 the phones didn't work. When exactly they started working again, I don't

12 know.

13 Q. All right.

14 A. But even if I had reported, I would have reported my supervisor,

15 and he would have reported to someone else. That was the way to go about

16 it. So I don't know when -- whether reporting started and, if so, when.

17 Q. Scene of crime, technicians fall within the crime department or

18 crime suppression department; correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And in the CSB in Bijeljina, there was such a unit?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And that would have been the professional line that you would --

23 you were a part of?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. While we're on that topic, let me ask you this: Did you know who

Page 1936

1 the minister of the interior was at that time?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Very well. Do you know who appointed Veselic the first chief of

4 police?

5 A. I don't know.

6 Q. What was the role of the Crisis Staff in his appointment, if any?

7 A. I don't know exactly how that went.

8 Q. Is there a possibility that he was appointed by the Crisis Staff

9 in the first few days?

10 A. Perhaps.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, this is a clearest

12 invitation to speculation that you can imagine. The witness has said, "I

13 don't know. I don't know exactly how that went." He was asked, "Do you

14 know who appointed him?" I don't know. What was the role in the Crisis

15 Staff in this appointment? "I don't know exactly how that went." Well,

16 there's a possibility -- it's not going to advance the matter any

17 further, and he's being invited to speculate.

18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would kindly ask

19 that your words be interpreted to me. There is no interpretation. There

20 is no interpretation. I would like to know what's going on.

21 Perhaps the interpreters should say something because I didn't

22 hear what the Judge said.

23 JUDGE HALL: No, I -- I didn't say -- I hope that my glancing in

24 your direction you were able to understand is an invitation to rephrase

25 your question. Next time I'll articulate it.

Page 1937

1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I had in mind Judge Harhoff. I

2 thought he said something. Very well. I'll reformulate the question. I

3 agree.

4 Q. Did you know anything about the existence of the Crisis Staff,

5 its authority, et cetera?

6 A. I had heard of it, but I didn't know what their activities were

7 specifically.

8 Q. Very well. Mr. Ignjic, I'd like to dwell a bit on the events

9 after the 1st of July. In a Brcko neighbourhood called Kolobara, there

10 was an important crime that took place. Do you know what I am talking

11 about?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Two Serbs killed several Muslims, and if I'm not mistaken, a

14 woman was raped on that occasion as well.

15 A. That is correct.

16 Q. In relation to that incident, there was an on-site investigation

17 that was carried out which you attended. Am I correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. A sketch was drawn of the scene of crime by yourself, I believe.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Photographs were taken as well. I don't know who did that

22 though.

23 A. It was probably me, but I can't recall exactly.

24 Q. Forensic evidence was secured, spent cartridges were

25 photographed, and I don't know whether those cartridges were saved as

Page 1938

1 evidence, but I suppose so. Interviews were conducted with all those who

2 could have possibly shed any light on the incident; correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. On the 1st of July, 1992, a criminal report was submitted against

5 those suspected of having committed that crime to the basic public

6 prosecutor's office in Brcko. Do you know that?

7 A. I suppose that's how it went, although I'm -- I've forgotten much

8 about that.

9 Q. In any case, we can agree that the case was processed.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Do you know that it was handed over and put under the competence

12 of the military court in Bijeljina?

13 A. I know that there was another trial in Brcka -- Brcko that I was

14 summoned to, and I know that the man that was accused was sentenced. I

15 don't know about the transfer to the military jurisdiction. I'm not sure

16 about that, but I know that the case was concluded in Brcko.

17 Q. I'm asking you about this because you relate that incident to the

18 two periods that you delineated at the beginning of July. As of that

19 moment, you state that slowly things started being done according to the

20 law. That is to say, according to the way it should have been.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. You said so yesterday when you spoke of the identifications and

23 the burial; is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Mr. Ignjic, can you correlate that with the passing of a

Page 1939

1 regulation by virtue of which the prosecutors and judges were appointed

2 in Brcko?

3 A. I am not familiar with that, but in my view this meant the

4 re-establishment of authority, of government, although I don't know about

5 the appointment of judges.

6 Q. I am making the link because it was done during that time, and

7 this enabled for on-site investigations to be carried out as well as for

8 the different cases to be processed.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you. I am trying to establish a link with something else

11 that I'd like to discuss with you. In July, in front of the CSB

12 following an order of the ministry, Mr. Dragan Andan arrived to see what

13 the situation was and propose measures to deal with the problem which had

14 arisen in the working of the police station so that it could become

15 operational again. Are you familiar with any of that and the orders from

16 the ministry as well as the events in the CSB?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Did you know that in front of the ministry, that is to say on

19 behalf of the ministry, in Brcko an inspection arrived with an almost

20 identical task? In turn they proposed several measures, some of which

21 were implement after Mr. Andan's visit. And they also proposed further

22 measures to become -- to have this station become operational again. Do

23 you recall that?

24 A. I don't.

25 Q. Are you familiar with an order by the assistant minister for

Page 1940

1 police affairs, Mr. Tomislav Kovac, by which he demanded that the army do

2 not mobilise police personnel for military purposes and so that they

3 should be returned to the station which would in turn be able to take

4 control of the town. Do you remember that order from the ministry?

5 A. I don't.

6 Q. Let's clear something up. When you were asked today about the

7 letter and the term "SUP" was used, as well as the "SJB," there is only

8 one building in Brcko which is the public security station.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And you received that letter from someone from the SJB?

11 A. Yes. It used to be the SUP, then it became the SJB, but it's the

12 same thing.

13 Q. Very well. To conclude, Mr. Ignjic, I'd like to go back to

14 something.

15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have an exhibit

16 from yesterday, from the 65 ter list. The number is 2138, which is the

17 list of the employees of the SJB in Brcko.

18 Can you see it, Mr. Ignjic?

19 A. Yes.

20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] In B/C/S could we please have page

21 4.

22 Q. I'm interested in numbers 191 and 192. They should be on the

23 same page in the English.

24 Can you see it, or do we need to zoom in?

25 A. Mladen Katic, who was a senior policeman. He used to be a

Page 1941

1 policeman before the war.

2 Q. Zdenko Nenic?

3 A. I don't know that person.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: No problem with the question, it's just that for

5 the record it should show that we're here dealing with P139. It's

6 important that the record show that rather than the 65 ter number because

7 it's now advanced to a full exhibit.

8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. In any case, we are with that document. So you read out the

10 names?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. It seems to me that these were Croats.

13 A. No, they're not. Mladen Katic is a Serb from Donji Zabar. I

14 know his parents.

15 Q. What did about Zdenko Nenic?

16 A. Well, his first name suggests that he may be a Croat, but I don't

17 know him.

18 Q. What about Zeljko, Miroslav?

19 A. Yes, there are Zeljkos there as well as Miroslavs, but I don't

20 know most of them. I know some from the upper part of the page, those

21 who worked with me. As for the new staff 95 per cent of them are people

22 I don't know.

23 Q. So you allow for a possibility that the names Jadranko, Zeljko,

24 and others, the people having those names could be Croats?

25 A. That is possible.

Page 1946

1 documents which has been causing some problems, obviously, throughout the

2 trial so far. It's a matter of, Your Honours, whether you're prepared to

3 hear me on this day. I've alerted both my friends for the Defence.

4 JUDGE HALL: Are you ready to proceed now?

5 MS. KORNER: Yes. Absolutely.

6 JUDGE HALL: Please.

7 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, what seems to be happening at the

8 moment is that Your Honours are, first of all, saying what is the

9 relevance of the documents. We understand that, and I think we've

10 discussed how we deal with that. That's one thing. But we seem to be

11 moving further to a rather strict policy that applies to whether the

12 document comes in through a witness. Namely, either the witness must be

13 able to recognise the signature or in some way give a great deal of

14 corroborative evidence about the contents of the document or in some

15 other way be able to prove the authenticity of the document.

16 Now, Your Honours' guideline on this, if I can just find it

17 again, which was guideline 4:

18 "There is no rule which prohibits the admission into evidence of

19 documents merely because their alleged source was not called to testify.

20 Likewise, the fact that a document has neither a signature nor a stamp is

21 not in its reason -- in itself a reason to find that the document is not

22 authentic."

23 Your Honours, what has been happening for the last few days in

24 particular is that we've asked -- let's take this last document, the list

25 of policemen from Brcko. The witness yesterday was asked about that

Page 1947

1 document and was able to identify the people that he said were involved

2 in this ill-treatment from that list. It is clearly a vital document of

3 relevance because who is or who is not a police officer is one of the

4 major issues in this case and has been all along. So if there's a list

5 that shows that these men are the police officers who were working at

6 Brcko at the relevant period, then we would submit that it should be

7 admitted as an exhibit, because the witness is able to say, "Though I

8 didn't draw up the document, these names are the names I recognise." We

9 have the same -- with the same document this morning, it's still not been

10 admitted as an exhibit.

11 Now, Your Honour, the problem is this: We didn't cater for a

12 strict rule of admissibility, in other words, that there must be ability

13 to recognise the signature or the contents, we'll talk about the contents

14 of the documents. If we have to do that, then we will obviously be

15 increasing -- we will have to increase the number of witnesses which we

16 tried to reduce.

17 Our submission is -- and I'm surprised that the Defence are

18 taking these what I would suggest are technical objections, because they

19 may find that it's what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,

20 but when they try to present documents we object if those strict rules

21 aren't there.

22 We would suggest that the policies that are set out by 89(C),

23 once we've established it's relevant, then the document should be

24 admitted -- I'll just turn up 89. (C) -- well, first of all, "A Chamber

25 shall apply -- 89 (A), a Chamber shall apply the rules of evidence set

Page 1948

1 forth in this section and shall not be bound by national rules of

2 evidence," which Judge Harhoff has already pointed out to us. "A Chamber

3 may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value."

4 Your Honours, there are a number of decisions, I've brought them

5 with me, and I can cite them. Perhaps -- there's only one Appeals

6 Chamber decision on it and that was in the case of Galic, which was a

7 long time ago, 7th of June, 2002 that were in effect they just say -- it

8 deals mainly with hearsay evidence. Trial Chambers have a broad

9 discretion under Rule 89(C) to admit relevant hearsay evidence. So it's

10 really hearsay evidence, but all the rules say the test is relevance and

11 probative value.

12 And we would submit, for example, that while there was a document

13 the other day which was a letter addressed to the minister of the

14 interior, that is relevant in this case because what the defendant Mico

15 Stanisic was informed about or his ministry was informed about is

16 relevant, it may not be signed or sealed, and that, we would submit,

17 merely attaches to the weight that Your Honours give to it rather and

18 than its admissibility as a document.

19 So effectively, what's happening at the moment is we ask for it

20 to be admitted, the Defence object, perhaps the best result we get is

21 marked for identification, which is actually just stacking up a huge

22 number of documents. And if we simply put in all the documents through a

23 bar-table motion, then Your Honours won't have any witness evidence on

24 it, and we will simply set out why we say it's relevant and it will all,

25 depending on Your Honours' decision, of course, because it's your

Page 1949

1 discretion, come in without witnesses being asked about it.

2 So, Your Honours, what we're suggesting is that the test should

3 be not as particularly Mr. Cvijetic has been suggesting each time whether

4 the signature can be recognised or whether it's got a seal or a stamp,

5 but simply, is this a document about which the witness can speak either

6 as to its contents or as to its relevance. And so that's -- those are

7 our submissions on the matter.

8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.

9 MR. ZECEVIC: Your -- Your Honours, very short submission. First

10 of all, the position of the Defence is not what -- what my learned friend

11 has just explained. The problem that we have, and I think the Trial

12 Chamber shared our view in that respect, is the nexus between the

13 particular witness and the document.

14 The point of the matter that is if the -- if -- the witness

15 today, he was shown a military document he doesn't know anything about,

16 and then this document was -- because this military document talks about

17 some events that happened, this witness was asked that this document be

18 admitted. I really couldn't find any nexus, and that is the gist of

19 our -- most of our objections.

20 The same thing goes with the witness before. He was shown -- he

21 was a victim who was kept in the -- in a detention centre, yes, and now

22 he's shown a document with the list -- with the -- so the formal

23 document, a list of whatever it is of the -- of the MUP members of Brcko

24 or somewhere in September 1992. There is completely no nexus between him

25 and that document. And that is -- that is the gist of our -- of our

Page 1950

1 objections in all these cases.

2 Now, I understand the problems that the -- that our friends are

3 facing, but that is -- that is precisely why there is jurisprudence in

4 this Tribunal that there are bar-table motions. So all the documents

5 where they could not find or need not find a witness who will have enough

6 nexus with the document they offer it on the bar table. They give an

7 explanation why, the authenticity and all that, we respond, and that is

8 it. And they can -- after that they can rely on that document in their

9 final submissions. I mean, that is, as far as I know, the jurisprudence

10 so far in this Tribunal.

11 So what I'm trying to say is that we are -- we don't have to

12 invent the hot water. We have the situation which is -- which is already

13 adopted in this Tribunal, and I don't see why we should modify that,

14 because I honestly think that it doesn't help either the Prosecutor or

15 the Defence or Your Honours to have -- to have a document produced during

16 the testimony of the witness where there is completely no nexus between

17 that particular document and that witness. That is -- that is our

18 submission.

19 Thank you very much.

20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. And while we are on the same

21 topic, for the record, the Zupljanin Defence is absolutely in support of

22 the submission of our colleague Mr. Zecevic.

23 The main issue from our point of view is the nexus. You as

24 well-experienced fact-finders will certainly find the basis in each

25 particular case, because we cannot have an overall approach with this

Page 1951

1 regard. And let me respectfully remind you about the words and

2 submission of Honourable Judge Harhoff with regard to the situation with

3 previous witness, Mr. Delic, who was a prosecutor. And when we are

4 dealing with a bundle of documents among which many of them were signed

5 by particular witness, and in terms of judicial economy, in terms of

6 avoiding overloading, sort of say, of -- of case with enormous number of

7 exhibits, I think that you will find proper and right ruling in this

8 particular situation.

9 Thank you very much.

10 MS. KORNER: Can I just in response say this: Of course we agree

11 there has to be some nexus. We can't just show any old document that has

12 no nexus to the witness. But for example, let's take the example of

13 where the -- that the witness yesterday said, here is this list of police

14 officers. I can say that the people who told me what police officers had

15 these names and here's a list. I cannot think of a closer nexus quite

16 honestly. And equally one has a military document that described an

17 event that the witness can talk about from his own personal knowledge and

18 then he says, "And this -- although, of course, I personally have never

19 seen this document, but this is a military document from," let us say,

20 "the 1st Krajina Corps --" I can see Mr. Zecevic shaking his head, but

21 can I finish and then I'll -- that he -- the document itself shouldn't

22 have that nexus with the witness because they're talking about the same

23 event.

24 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, just very briefly. But the whole point

25 in my submission was that this witness cannot confirm that this is the

Page 1952

1 document of the 1st Krajina Corps. He can't. It is very -- as

2 Mr. Cvijetic said, it was very simple. He should have given his

3 recollection, like he did, his recollection of the events of -- at a

4 certain point in time in Brcko because he was there.

5 Now, my learned friend can use this document and help -- help him

6 recollect his memory by stating, "Do you remember this? Do you remember

7 this?" I mean, that would -- the result is basically the same.

8 The problem is exactly that one: There is no nexus between him

9 and that document.

10 That is my opinion. Thank you.

11 JUDGE HARHOFF: If I may respond to some of the documents that

12 have been made. I would like to begin by recalling that during the

13 pre-trial stage of this trial, I as the Pre-Trial Judge made no secret of

14 pointing out that the Trial Chamber, once we got to trial, would seek to

15 be restrictive in its admission of evidence, because experience from all

16 other trials before this Tribunal is that the amount of evidence that

17 comes before the Judges is just so overwhelming and in the end, much of

18 the evidence that is brought before us has limited relevance and limited

19 probative value in relation to the charges that are raised in the

20 indictment. So I think that there is a legitimate interest on the part

21 of all the Chambers to try and really seek to limit the evidence that

22 comes in to what is strictly necessary to prove the points that are

23 raised in the indictments.

24 Having said this, obviously the test for admission is a

25 three-prong test. It has to be relevant, it has to have probative value,

Page 1953

1 and there has to be some sort of nexus between the witness and the

2 document.

3 Now, obviously it is the nexus prong that has caused some

4 uncertainty here in the last few days. Neither of the parties today have

5 raised the difficulty that the Chamber has experienced, and that is this:

6 What do we do if a witness is confronted with a document and the document

7 says something and the witness says something completely different? So

8 if there is a clear inconsistency between the information included in the

9 document and the evidence provided by the witness. That's the difficulty

10 we had with the two documents that we MFI'd today.

11 The only thing that I can say on behalf of the Chamber is that

12 these cases will have to be taken on a case-by-case basis, because it is

13 very difficult to establish a general rule to these things, to this sort

14 of problem. And obviously if the Chamber were to say that the witness

15 must not only be able to comment on the events described in the documents

16 but must also be able to confirm the truthfulness and the accuracy of the

17 information contained in the document, if we were to say that this is a

18 criterion for admission, then I think we would certainly be able to

19 achieve the goal of restricting the -- the evidence, but that might also

20 be to go too far. If, on the other hand, the Chamber were to say, well,

21 as long as the witness can just comment on the information contained in

22 the document, that is enough for admissibility, I think that would be

23 perhaps to -- to be too lenient. So the Chamber is trying on a

24 case-by-case basis to steer through somewhere in the middle of these two

25 extreme points.

Page 1954

1 The best thing I can suggest is that the parties, when you bring

2 evidence to the Court, that you yourself take into consideration whether

3 this document can and indeed should be admitted through this witness, or

4 maybe whether you would wish to perhaps have another go with it with

5 another witness who is more likely to confirm that what is contained in

6 the document is actually authentic and correct.

7 Now, as for the document yesterday, as I recall, Mr. Gashi was

8 put -- was confronted with a list of policemen, and it was the

9 Prosecution's submission that the next witness would be someone who could

10 actually confirm, and I think the natural thing to do in that situation

11 was to do exactly what the Chamber did, and they need to say, well, if

12 there is a witness who himself was a policeman and whose name appears on

13 the list, then it just felt more natural to have that document introduced

14 through that next witness rather than through Mr. Gashi.

15 So these are at least my personal observations. I don't know if

16 my brothers have anything to add, but I think to repeat my personal

17 suggestion to the parties is that try yourself to -- to take into

18 consideration whether all the documents that you bring before us need to

19 come into evidence, and if they do, then for what purpose, and consider

20 if they should perhaps be introduced through another witness, in

21 particular in cases where the witness clearly denies or says, "I have no

22 knowledge about what the document pertains to -- to include."

23 That's where the Chamber sees a difficulty. Now what are we

24 supposed to do with this document that is clearly contradicted by the

25 witness?

Page 1955

1 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, that -- can I say straightaway, I

2 fully accept that there's no point in showing a document which says, "I

3 don't know anything about it and I don't remember it happening like

4 that." That's foolish. What I was concerned about, if you like, are

5 the halfway house documents. You know, where the witness can't say that

6 he's never seen it before but can say I recognise these names and, yes,

7 they were there, and these events happened as this document reflects.

8 Now, Your Honour, of course the bar-table motion which,

9 Mr. Zecevic is very keen on, is of course a way of dealing with it and we

10 can do the whole -- every document on our list, but it seems to me that's

11 not right either.

12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just add to what I said a few comments

13 about the bar-table issue.

14 Since we are not operating by a system that is truly adversarial

15 nor in a system that is truly inquisitorial but somewhere in between, the

16 issue of a dossier does not arise really, but the method of admitting

17 documents through the bar table has been developed here as a means to

18 somehow compensate for the attempts made by most Chambers to try and

19 limit the evidence, and I think the bar-table option is and should remain

20 an exception where a few documents in the end that perhaps a party forgot

21 to have admitted or for some other reason was not admitted while there

22 was a chance to do so can then be admitted through the bar table. But I

23 would not like to see that we have in the end a huge load of documents

24 that all need to be introduced through the bar table. The bar table

25 should remain a very limited option.

Page 1956

1 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, can I just say, there's one

2 problem, and that's a problem -- a matter I've been discussing is the

3 witness particularly who is coming on Tuesday, in theory can deal with a

4 massive number of documents, all signed by him or part of government

5 programmes. Now -- but if he has to deal with them all, the three hours

6 that I'm going to be asking for for him is going to be doubled, and so I

7 was hoping to deal with the most important ones, because in his testimony

8 before the Krajisnik Chamber, which I think Your Honour will be familiar

9 with, it was pretty short and only a few documents were dealt with,

10 whereas obviously -- and all these documents are on our 65 ter list.

11 There are many documents that he can deal with, if he so chooses, which

12 is another matter.

13 So if Your Honours are of the view that if a witness can deal

14 with a document it should be put to him, then I think it's going to take

15 a little bit longer. Whereas we were hoping to put some, for example,

16 Assembly minutes simply in as bar table.

17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Right. It depends on the nature of the documents

18 a bit. Again, I stress the case-by-case approach that the Chamber is

19 taking. If you're speaking about a whole batch of documents that are

20 virtually of the same nature, same kind, my suggestion would be to deal

21 with a few of the most important of those and seek to have them admitted,

22 and then the question arises whether it would really be necessary to have

23 all the others admitted into evidence as well.

24 I mean -- what can I think of? If the issue, for instance, just

25 as an example, is that you wish to show how reports were made from a SJB

Page 1957

1 to the CSB and then you wish to show your point by presenting a hundred

2 such reports, then I think -- I don't know if the Defence wishes to take

3 issue with it, but the issue would then be that -- that either the

4 Chamber will accept through the admission of a few of those documents

5 that this was a routinely done thing and the witness that you bring can

6 then confirm that "This is how we did it," and then if the Defence is

7 ready to accept that this was the procedure, then I don't see the need to

8 have all the hundred reports admitted into evidence. Then we will take

9 the witness's word for it, and so --

10 MS. KORNER: Your Honour.

11 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm trying to be helpful.

12 MS. KORNER: No, I understand that. Your Honour will recall that

13 in fact we raised that very matter and we produced a chart which Your

14 Honour has some difficulty in grasping not surprisingly but the second

15 matter is, for example, can I take Assembly minutes, the Bosnian Serb

16 Assembly minutes. I was proposing to ask Tuesday's witness about a

17 couple of them but each and every one of them contains matters which are

18 relevant in particular to joint criminal enterprise, so we were hoping to

19 deal with this witness, possibly one other, somewhere he spoke himself,

20 but then put them all in under the bar-table motion as a bulk exhibit. I

21 don't think it is possible to say there is one single Bosnian Serb

22 Assembly minute which is not relevant in some way or another.

23 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may be heard on a couple of

24 matters.

25 The first thing I will -- I will -- I will go back to page 58, 2

Page 1958

1 to 7, where my learned friend was talking about the halfway house

2 documents. Your Honours, that is precisely the point. The document

3 shown to the witness, perhaps in its first paragraph, talks about the

4 certain event that the witness can remember, and he says, "Yes, that --"

5 but the rest of the document he doesn't know anything about. There

6 might -- this document might contain some issues which are very

7 important, some other issues which are very important.

8 Now, in case you would admit that document, then we would need to

9 cross-examine the witness through that particular -- then we would need

10 to cross-examine the witness and ask him paragraph by paragraph, do you

11 remember this, do you know this, do you know this, do you know this, do

12 you know this, do you know this, in order to find out at the very end

13 that except this, this little piece of the document, he knows nothing

14 else about. That is the problem that we are having. When the document

15 is introduced only by -- let's say there is a letterhead, it says

16 ministry of what, and you show it to the witness, do you know that the

17 ministry existed, he says, yes, can we have the document admitted. That

18 is what I'm talking about. That is my concern.

19 The second thing, with all due respect, Your Honours, the issue

20 of the communications is the issue that we intend to challenge. The

21 number means nothing. Let me explain you. The normal -- in a normal

22 situation, the ministry, from this -- in a case where it has six CSBs and

23 a number of SJBs, let's say 50, the ministry should receive at least a

24 thousand -- thousand communications per day. That is the -- the average

25 what each and every minister of interior in all the countries of the

Page 1959

1 world receives.

2 Now, if the -- if the Prosecutor shows there is a hundred over

3 four or six months, then of course it is not -- there is a problem in

4 there. There has to be some problem, and there has to be some

5 explanation. Now that is the issue, and that is why each and every of

6 these documents have to be explained or this issue needs to be addressed

7 by the parties. That is -- that is the number two.

8 Number three: Your Honours, I have a problem with the -- with

9 the minutes of the -- of the -- of the Assembly. Your Honours, the

10 Assembly is a democratic thing. You have people who are the

11 representatives of the -- of the -- of their particular community. They

12 come in. They say their mind. This has nothing -- I mean, in my honest

13 opinion, this has nothing to do -- this cannot be a basis for joint

14 criminal enterprise. Not at all. This is -- we have the forum where

15 people can say whatever they mean. They might have -- they might

16 challenge this or challenge that, vote for that, not -- vote no for the

17 other thing.

18 I don't really see the relevance of that. I would -- I would

19 understand that the certain portions of these transcripts are like an

20 illustration presented to -- to the Trial Chamber and out of that the

21 Prosecution builds their case, but that is exactly what they are doing

22 through -- through the -- through the alleged experts that they want

23 to -- that we are taking issue with.

24 Now, that is why I think it is -- it is in fact doubling, because

25 all this -- all what is important is what the experts are going to talk

Page 1960

1 about, and now we want to introduce the whole documentation, and it's --

2 it's minutes of the -- of the forum, of the most democratic forum that

3 the civilisation knows.

4 That's my opinion.

5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsels, I'm sure you can recall that during the

6 pre-trial phrase when we had the 65 ter meetings a great number of times

7 the Pre-Trial Judge invited the parties, the Defence and Prosecution, to

8 identify the issues that were contested and that needed to be proven at

9 trial, and most often the Pre-Trial Judge was told off because he was

10 told, "Ah, we're not going to discuss this at this stage. That will be

11 evident at trial."

12 Now we are at trial, and -- and so now is the time when the

13 parties have to show their hand. So if there is an issue about -- I'm

14 just mentioning as an example if there is an issue about how the

15 communication lines went from the SJB to the CSB to the MUP, then those

16 issues have to be clarified, and the Prosecution will bring evidence to

17 show how it worked, and the Defence may bring evidence to challenge the

18 point that the Prosecution is trying to make and say that it doesn't --

19 it didn't function the way the Prosecution tells us it did, but it

20 functioned in some other way, or it didn't function at all. And -- and

21 so my comment is to return to the invitation that was made to the parties

22 during the pre-trial phase to actually try and identify the issues that

23 are -- that are contested.

24 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I don't know why the parties --

25 MR. PANTELIC: It's my turn --

Page 1961

1 MS. KORNER: Yes, you can --

2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Before --

3 MS. KORNER: No, no. We said over and over again that the

4 Defence pre-trial briefs were utterly defective, we were not being told

5 what the issues were, and Your Honour tried to make them declare what the

6 issues were as you say got told off, but not us, we have said over and

7 over again these issues should be clarified.

8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just point to the time --

9 MR. PANTELIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... is defective.

10 That's -- please do not misinterpret our position. One minute, Your

11 Honour. One minute, please. Thanks God we are in the hand of

12 professional Judges. With all due respect. I have great respect for all

13 Judges within this Tribunal, but some of them being a diplomat or

14 professors or academic might not be focused for the core of the case, and

15 I will tell you simply what is the position of Zupljanin Defence.

16 Point number one, Your Honours, we are wasting enormous amount of

17 time here with history, politics, I don't know which kind of assumptions,

18 due to the broad and groundless theory of joint criminal enterprise

19 pushed by this Prosecution without any particular basis in illegal

20 system. That's why we have to -- that's why we have to waste time with

21 Assembly meetings and stuff like that. If you can direct Prosecution to

22 drop charges for -- for this extremely broad third category of JCE, which

23 means nothing, then we could have more efficient trial. Otherwise,

24 Defence is obliged to response to enormous ocean, space of various

25 documents and then we are wasting time here, Your Honour.

Page 1962

1 Case is very simple. If they have proofs that my client ordered,

2 instigated, or committed certain crimes, okay. Give me the evidence.

3 What does it mean Assembly or Crisis Staff or history of here and there?

4 Thank you so much for your attention.

5 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm afraid that once again we have abused the

6 services of the interpreters. We are far over the time where we should

7 have had a break, and I suggest we take the break now, at least, and if

8 there is a need to continue this discussion, then we can meet after 20

9 minutes, but if not, then I suggest we adjourn.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honour. I have all time of my

11 life. I can -- I can discuss this matter, you know, days and days if

12 necessary.

13 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I don't know there's much point. I

14 think we've raised the real issue, and I see Mr. Zecevic nodding, who

15 doesn't perhaps quite take the extreme views expressed by Mr. Pantelic,

16 but we actually were going to use the time today to try and finally

17 decide on the laws so that we could put the package in.

18 JUDGE HARHOFF: So we adjourn now?

19 MS. KORNER: So we adjourn now, yeah.

20 JUDGE HALL: We are in Courtroom II on when we resume on Monday

21 morning at 9.00. Thank you. I trust everyone has a safe weekend.

22 JUDGE HARHOFF: And thank you to the interpreters.

23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.19 p.m.,

24 to be reconvened on Monday, the 26th day

25 of October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.