1 Tuesday, 27 October 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case IT-08-91-T. The
7 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Good afternoon, everyone, and may we have the
9 appearances, please.
10 MS. KORNER: Good afternoon, Your Honours. It's Joanna Korner,
11 Belinda Pidwell, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Slobodan Zecevic and Slobodan Cvijetic for Stanisic
13 Defence. Good afternoon, Your Honours.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours, Dragan Krgovic for
15 Zupljanin Defence.
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, before the witness comes back in
17 again, Mr. Zecevic and I did not meet yesterday afternoon, because
18 Mr. Zecevic still wants to consider the position in respect of what is to
19 be done about the document saga.
20 JUDGE HALL: Package of 108?
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
22 MS. KORNER: Exactly the package. He may -- the witness may
23 start this afternoon he may not, I'm not sure about that. However, I am
24 afraid it occurred to me yesterday that because of the time constraints,
25 I omitted a number of documents that were on the list for the present
1 witness, Mr. Krulj. Basically because they amount to much of the same
2 thing, you remember the first few documents I showed you were
3 communications up to republic level or between the SJBs and the CSB. But
4 the difficulty is that I don't know where we are at the moment on this
5 question of whether we can put in remaining documents, for example, if we
6 can't come to some sort of an agreement about communications and the
7 number of documents we have showing communications as a bar table motion.
8 If we can, then I don't need to go back over the others. But if we
9 can't, then I do. And these are all virtually identical. I omitted, for
10 example, 65 ter 939, 960, 963 because, as I say, my view was until we had
11 this discussion yesterday that I could put them in through a bar table
12 motion, if I had to.
13 Now, if that's an agreed way of dealing with it, then I can just
14 continue with this question of the diary today. But if not, then I have
15 to go back and put the other documents in through this witness.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, are we talking right now about the
18 108 documents we ruled upon yesterday and you tried to get an agreement
20 MS. KORNER: No, no, no, sorry.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay, then I misunderstood you.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
23 MS. KORNER: Complete misunderstanding, Your Honour. Until Your
24 Honours gave the ruling yesterday which relates to the next witness, I
25 hadn't appreciated or not properly appreciated the way that Your Honours
1 want to approach the admission of documents. And in dealing with
2 Mr. Krulj, I omitted from the list that everybody had something like 1,
3 2, 3, 4, 5 documents that simply showed communication having put in one
4 or two of them as examples on the basis either that at some stage we will
5 be able to reach agreement with the Defence about the communication
6 documents, or if we couldn't reach agreement, in other words, if it's not
7 accepted that we hold in our possession a large number of documents
8 relating simply to communication, then those documents that I did not put
9 in with the witness because of the time constraints we would put in as
10 exhibits through a bar table motion. But clearly, this witness can talk
11 about them as he has about the others.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: He can't?
13 MS. KORNER: Of course he can, yes.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
15 MS. KORNER: He can, yes. But it seems to me it's a complete
16 waste of the Court's time not to mention the Prosecution's valuable time
17 simply to say to him, is this yet another example of a report that went
18 up. And then you know, wait while I ask for it to be admitted. And so
19 because I said two and a half hours -- and can I say all our estimates of
20 how long it would take to get through this case were based on an
21 obviously erroneous understanding that a lot of documents would go in
22 through a bar table motion.
23 So what I'm asking now is whether as I have this witness here, is
24 it Your Honours' ruling that I want to get these documents, the other
25 communication documents in I have to take him through those as well?
1 That's what I'm asking. Instead of simply, as I say, at the end putting
2 them in through a bar table motion.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: A couple of questions before we decide on the
4 issue. First of all, have these documents been disclosed to the Defence?
5 MS. KORNER: Yes, they are all on our list, they are 65 ter
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: But I understand that they were not on the list
8 that you intended to show to this witness.
9 MS. KORNER: No, no. Sorry, Your Honour, you were sent --
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes.
11 MS. KORNER: -- as were the Defence, a list of documents saying
12 witness ST-202.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes.
14 MS. KORNER: If you looked at yesterday's transcript, you will
15 note that I went through 65 ter 936, 938, I skipped 939, I put in 959, I
16 skipped 960, -63, -73. Exactly. Because they are just more of the same
18 And as I say, either at some stage during this trial we reach
19 agreement with the Defence about documents relating purely to
20 communications with either the CSB, and there's a firm shaking of the
21 head going on there, or it means we'll have to put the documents in to
22 show the amount of communication that there was.
23 Now, I think it's a waste of time to simply say to this witness,
24 have a look at this documents, this relates to Trebinje. This is another
25 one of the same reports. I was proposing, therefore, to put them all in
1 through a bar table motion, or alternatively, have them all admitted now
2 because they are all -- the ones I've asked him about are all samples
3 which is what you are suggesting from Mr. Djeric.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 MS. KORNER: Every document I've put to him is on that list,
6 there were three extra ones that I haven't got to yet, which I handed in.
7 But every single document on this list that I put to him was on this
8 list. I haven't put anything outside this list.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: So we are only talking about documents that for
10 reasons of convenience you did not choose to put to this witness while he
11 was here?
12 MS. KORNER: Exactly.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: And -- right. Thanks.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Before we rule on it, we would like to hear the
16 position of the Defence.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I fully understand the position of
18 Ms. Korner, and we are going to be in the same position, so, therefore,
19 we would just like to avoid one thing. I don't think that it's
20 acceptable the second alternative which she proposed, being that
21 witnesses shown one document and then all the others as a similar
22 documents are admitted because, again, we are coming to the situation
23 that these documents will be tested by Defence. So the time that will
24 be -- that would be saved on the Prosecution side will be used by the
25 Defence in the cross-examination. And, therefore, we might then be
1 penalised because we took more time than anticipated but that is only
2 because of the rulings of the Trial Chamber on the admission of the
3 documents. I mean, I need this to be understood fully.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, I fully appreciate your concerns. But my
5 question is this: Would that be any different if these five or six
6 documents were to be admitted through a bar table motion? You would have
7 the same problem, wouldn't you?
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, if these documents would be
9 admitted through the bar table motion, we would be, of course, given the
10 opportunity to be heard on the matter, in writing. To respond to the bar
11 table motion. But there is not going to be any more witnesses to test
12 the documents. So, therefore, I think the bar table motion would save
13 time in the ultimate -- at the ultimate level. It will save time of
14 the -- save the Court time by bar table motion, because what it does is
15 that the Prosecution proposes 200 documents, they are obliged to explain
16 the relevance, the authenticity of each and every one, we respond to
17 that, and then Your Honours decide. That is as far as I understood and
18 if Ms. Korner can confirm that. Thank you.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I agree. I mean, I might say it's not
20 a concept that's very familiar to me because it doesn't exist in my
21 jurisdiction, but as I understand it, we put them in, in writing, we
22 explain the relevance and why we want them admitted and we would say in
23 this particular case because of the time constraints we couldn't take the
24 witness through each and every one of them but Your Honour heard this
25 witness. So that's how it would happen.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: The Chamber's ruling is the following: We will
2 allow these five or six documents that you did not put to this witness to
3 be introduced through a bar table motion, but we stress that we do this
4 on an exceptional basis because we realise that we will be faced with the
5 same issue again and again and again on other matters and maybe even on
6 this matter, the matter of communication. So we will -- we will reserve
7 our position to deal with it, you know, on a case-by-case basis. But we
8 do think and we do agree with the parties that it will save court time if
9 we can have them agreed as -- if we can have them introduced, sorry,
10 through a bar table motion. But again, the concern of the Chamber is, in
11 perspective, that we would wish to be careful not to be too generous in
12 admitting a very large portion of documentary evidence through a bar
13 table motion at the end because the experience is that once we get to the
14 end of the trial it will be unmanageable.
15 So for these documents, we will admit them and then next time it
16 happens we'll take a particular position.
17 MS. KORNER: All right. Yes, can I just say to Your Honours, it
18 is something that's going to come up over and over again, I'm afraid.
19 And it would be -- we can obviously deal with it on another occasion
20 because we ought to get on, but it is something really that we ought to
21 be able to sort out once and for all because case-by-case basis it's just
22 going to take up time. Can I say, for example, that there's a witness
23 coming who is going to deal with Sanski Most documents where if I had to
24 put every single one that is relevant through him, he will be here for
25 days, he would be on videolink for days actually, so I'm just saying,
1 that's what's going to happen.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yet, if the parties do reach some sort of an
3 agreement on this, on how it to deal with the documentary evidence that
4 only shows one single aspect, namely that communication, for instance,
5 just as an example, that communications did take place on a very regular
6 basis between two or three institutions, then I think that might solve at
7 least this problem. Other problems may then arise, but hoping and
8 waiting for a possibly agreement between the parties on this issue we'll
9 prefer that until then we do it deal with it on a case-by-case basis.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: With all due respect, Your Honours, we discussed
11 that in the pre-trial during the 65 ter conference. We say that the
12 communication is an issue in this case and we -- there is no agreement
13 between us and the Prosecution on that. I said that during the pre-trial
14 phase on the 65 ter conference, and I'm repeating it right now on the
15 record. So there's no possibility of the agreement between us on that
16 particular matter.
17 And I don't -- I fully agree with Ms. Korner. If we are -- if we
18 are faced with this issue on a case-to-case basis, it would mean that
19 Ms. Korner will have to stand up each and every day, each and every --
20 after each and every witness and say, Your Honours, in consideration of
21 time I omitted these documents, I would -- I propose to offer them
22 through the bar table motion. Then we will have our comments, then Your
23 Honours will be deciding that, and then again we will be using valuable
24 court time. Instead of deciding once and for all what are the rules.
25 Because we would be much more comfortable if we would know what are the
1 rules in presentation of evidence in this case. Thank you.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Mr. Zecevic. The reason why we were
3 hoping for some sort of an agreement was that by your own admission
4 yesterday, we understood that some sort of contact would be made between
5 the parties in relation to the 108 documents that are coming through the
6 next witness. So this is what led us to believe that there was still
7 some sort of communication going on about this. But your statement today
8 makes it clear that no such agreement will take place and we may
9 reconsider our position. But let me add this: That if the issue of
10 communication is a very central aspect of this trial, then I'm not sure
11 if we serve justice right by having all the evidentiary documentation
12 submitted to us through a bar table motion. Then in fact it might be
13 better to face the music with the witnesses at least in relation to some
14 of the documents, and then face the music, as I say, let's hear it from
15 the witnesses what is the true story about communications according to
16 the witnesses. Because if this is really such a controversial issue, I
17 would be hesitant to have to deal with it in the end purely on the basis
18 of 500 documents that were admitted to us through a bar table motion.
19 That simply isn't a proper way of dealing with such a crucial issue.
20 Then I would rather have it from the witnesses and then we may have to
21 decide on a different way in which we introduce this evidence to us.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: I fully agree with Your Honours. I fully agree
23 with that. What I'm trying to say is, Your Honours, there are issues and
24 issues in this case. The spirit of cooperation that we have with the
25 Office of the Prosecutor is on basis of some of the issues we are able to
1 reach an agreement and we are moving in that direction, which I think
2 should only be positive sign.
3 Now, there are some issues where we definitely cannot, but what
4 I'm trying to -- what I'm trying to find out would be the principle, how
5 are we dealing with the exhibits in general, not -- I somehow, with all
6 due respect, have the feeling that we are -- we are concentrating on
7 certain issues, but we would like to know the overall frame of
8 introduction of the evidence in this case. The clear situation so we can
9 plan in advance and we know which way and which actions to take. Thank
10 you very much.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can I try -- I would like to try to explain the
12 concern of the Trial Chamber and how we thought that eventually we could
13 deal with it. And I take a totally stupid example to avoid to get you an
14 example that is in issue. If there are 100 documents to which one of the
15 parties wants to prove that Mr. So-and-so, and it has -- all documents
16 concern one sort of kind of a meeting in a municipality, and what one
17 tries to prove is that Mr. So-and-so was not present at all those
18 meetings, but in those documents there is a lot more than only the
19 presence or the non-presence of that person. So at that moment, they
20 could come in as a whole, as a bundle. If we restrain the evidence to
21 the fact that Mr. So-and-so is present or is not present. And there you
22 could agree upon that those documents come only in with the purpose of
23 proving that specific fact and all the rest we can ignore.
24 That's how we were trying to settle this.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, that is entirely acceptable for us.
1 The problem, I think, which is -- which is like the problem which cannot
2 be avoided is that the documents usually do address a couple of different
3 issues. It's not that simple. But, I mean, if it -- if we would be told
4 that the certain documents serve the purpose of establishing this
5 particular aspect only, then we might sit down and talk to the opposing
6 side. Thank you very much.
7 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, can I just say one of the
8 problems is, we've been going since quarter past 2.00 now on this
9 subject, and if we do it on a case-by-case basis, it's going to come up
10 every single time, and I echo Mr. Zecevic's desire that we actually have
11 a proper system set in place as opposed to dealing with things by
12 case-by-case basis.
13 And the second thing is this: That our estimates of time and the
14 time that you've given us were not based in any sense, at least not from
15 our point of view or indeed I believe from the Defence's point of view,
16 of having to put every document we wanted exhibited to the witness. It
17 just takes a very very long time. And documents, as I said yesterday,
18 are the basis of most of the leadership cases. That's what they amount
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, if I may, I think we should stop now
21 this discussion. I think we have fully appreciated your concerns. We
22 have said that for these five or six documents that you would have to put
23 through this witness we will go along with the bar table motion. But the
24 Court will have to think again about how to prove this. Obviously these
25 documents, I suppose, will tend to show that the two accused were well
1 informed of events on the ground.
2 MS. KORNER: Exactly.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Right. So this is the issue.
4 MS. KORNER: As simple as that.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: And you are seeking to prove this by putting to
6 us and to the witnesses a big number of documents that would indicate
7 that Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Zupljanin were well informed by way of all
8 these communications and letters and reports and bulletins to them.
9 So when Mr. Zecevic says that he will have no objection to going
10 on, getting on with that and accepting this, then of course the next
11 issue arises about well, what exactly was in those documents because it
12 is not enough to show that communications took place and that a lot of
13 bulletins went up and down. You also have to prove that -- that the two
14 accused were actually informed about some of the crimes that were
15 committed on the ground.
16 And this is where it becomes difficult for the Chamber to have to
17 deal with a very large number of documents that tend to show the
18 commission of crimes exclusively on the basis of a bar table motion.
19 Documents that we are just being given in a huge bundle, hundreds and
20 hundreds of documents that we will then have to sit and read through
21 after the trial and determine, you know, whether we can trust that the
22 two accused were really informed about all of these fantastic things that
23 we now discover in the documents.
24 This is why I'm saying, well, maybe we should think about - and
25 this is what we will do - think about an alternative way of getting at
1 least some of these documents confronted to a witness and have the
2 witnesses' testimony about it. Not all of them necessarily, but at least
3 some of them. And that is what is exactly the way we propose in relation
4 to the 108 documents that the Prosecution says that these 108 documents
5 relate to three different aspects, and the proposal by the Chamber was
6 therefore let's have a couple of documents from each of these three
7 categories and see what they say. And if you assert that all the
8 remaining documents in each category say the same thing or almost the
9 same thing, then we will be willing to admit all of them. But not
10 without having seen at least some of them.
11 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour. May I say, I absolutely agree with
12 you. For example, communications, obviously we are selecting hopefully
13 we have witnesses who will come who are able to speak from their own
14 knowledge of the events in the document or the document themselves, which
15 is why we had Mr. Draganovic with all the Crisis Staff minutes. We would
16 then hope to in some way or another not have to deal with simply what
17 Your Honour rightly refers to as evidence that there was communication as
18 opposed to specific events. The reason we are doing this is because it's
19 clear from Mr. Stanisic's interview with the OTP, and that's why it's
20 such an issue that he rejects communication, he says there was - I'm
21 summarising - but there was a complete breakdown in communication and
22 that's -- we have to deal with that as I said I think before.
23 With regard to the next witness, in fact I said three categories
24 as a rough thing, but we broke it down into some more, we sent those
25 categories I think to Your Honours and to the Trial Chamber. The
1 difficulty there is they fall into the same category in that they are
2 assembly minutes or government minutes but they are not the same. And in
3 particular, the assembly minutes all say different things, and deal with
4 different topics. We broke it down, in fact, into eight categories when
5 we went and did a double-check, which is assembly minutes, Presidency
6 minutes, NSC joint Presidency minutes, NSC minutes, council ministers,
7 government ministers and then documents relating to directly to the
8 witness and a few miscellaneous, so in fact there's a total of eight
10 Now, we were proposing to adopt Your Honours' suggestion or
11 ruling on this matter when it comes to him and simply pick out some
12 examples from each category and then ask for the rest to be admitted as
13 exhibits. So that's --
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: And that was the ruling we handed down yesterday
15 exactly in order to try and find a solution to how to deal with this
16 enormous amount of documents.
17 MS. KORNER: Exactly. The same will apply not to the next
18 witness because he is a 92 ter but the one after that. There are two
19 witnesses who can deal with these major documents.
20 Your Honours, that's all I want to say. Perhaps we can get
21 Mr. Krulj back in again and, Your Honours, I'm -- in the light of
22 discussing this about the diary, I'm just going to have to take him
23 through some more entries in the diary.
24 Can I just check, though, that 65 ter number 198, which is the
25 July 11th meeting, was in fact made an exhibit?
1 THE REGISTRAR: It was admitted as Exhibit P160.
2 MS. KORNER: Thank you. Could the witness have the binder back.
3 Thank you. And can we have up on the screen, so we don't waste too much
4 time. 65 ter number 2118. And I cannot tell you anything of B/C/S ...
5 So the B/C/S page will be -- for the next entry will be 26.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 MS. KORNER: Page 26. And in the English it's also page 26.
8 WITNESS: ALEKSANDAR KRULJ [Resumed]
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 Examination by Ms. Korner: [Continued]
11 Q. Mr. Krulj, I'm sorry again you've been kept waiting, and let's go
12 back to this diary, and don't worry about who wrote it.
13 JUDGE HALL: If I may have a moment, Ms. Korner. Mr. Krulj, I
14 remind you you are still under oath.
15 Ms. Korner, the comment that you made just before the witness
16 came in, where you said in it the light of the discussion about the
17 diary, I take it you are picking up where we left of off at the
18 adjournment yesterday?
19 MS. KORNER: Yes, my understanding was that unless I could show
20 that this diary contained meetings about which this witness can speak, I
21 can't have it admitted as an exhibit because the Defence objection.
22 JUDGE HALL: No. In terms of the contents, the Chamber had no
23 difficulty as regards the relevance, and therefore, admissibility on that
24 ground. Our difficulty was a more narrow one, and it had to do with the
25 providence and authenticity of the diary. And you had referred in your
1 submissions yesterday to the fact that our rules of admissibility do not
2 require a signature or proof of authorship for admissibility. But the
3 point -- the concern of the Chamber was that those -- that possibility is
4 not so broad as to allow into evidence a document which, and I'm trying
5 to express what I'm trying to say, I intend no disrespect to counsel on
6 either side and I'm certainly casting no aspersions on the probity of
7 counsel, but the persons -- a document which could have been manufactured
8 by whomever and yet used by the side seeking to rely on it to get it in,
9 if there is no evidence whatever before the Tribunal as to where the
10 document came from therein lies the difficulty. Once that hurdle would
11 have been overcome by the side relying on the document, then the problem
12 as we see it is solved, because as Judge Delvoie would have said
13 yesterday, in terms of the contents itself, there is the clear
15 MS. KORNER: But, Your Honour, but what I'm -- yes. Firstly, we
16 understood we didn't have to call evidence about the providence of these
17 documents. Therefore, we dispensed with Mr. Mitford-Burgess from our
18 witness list, but we can call evidence to show that we acquired this
19 document from the RS MUP, and I have forgotten where it was now, who
20 provided it to one of our investigators, I believe. So we can say where
21 it comes from, it comes from Trebinje. The point is that it contains
22 entries which we don't have other documentation for of meetings which
23 this witness can say he attended. And it doesn't, in our submission,
24 matter whether we can actually prove who the author was. I suppose it's
25 conceivable that the Republika Srpska MUP may have manufactured this
1 diary, but it seems to be highly improbable. And therefore, the test for
2 its admission is can the witness speak to the contents? Answer, he can.
3 We suggest that under your rules and the rules of this Tribunal it should
4 be admitted as an exhibit and then the weight that's given to it is
5 dependent on what else we can say about the diary.
6 So that's the reason. That's why -- I don't particularly want to
7 take this witness, certainly I'm sure the witness would prefer I'm not
8 going to take him through these rather tedious meetings.
9 JUDGE HALL: We have no difficulty with the diary being marked
10 for identification at this point, but I've alerted you to what you may
11 have to do at some point down the road.
12 MS. KORNER: Well, you see, all right, Your Honour, again that's
13 something else that hasn't come up before. If there's a challenge to
14 the -- well, there isn't a real challenge to it, it's just that
15 Mr. Zecevic says doesn't know who wrote the diary, full stop. We are
16 going to have to call evidence as to how we acquired the document, we the
17 OTP, I mean. Because if so, I mean, then we will have to put back on to
18 our witness list the investigator in charge of the case.
19 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, could you assist us on this point.
20 Ms. Korner, as I understand her, is saying that your objection was
21 limited to the fact that the Prosecution to -- to the assertion that the
22 Prosecution hasn't proved the authorship of the diary which as Ms. Korner
23 has pointed out, would not, without more, be sufficient to exclude it.
24 Could we understand clearly what, if any, your challenge is to the
25 admissibility of this diary?
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I believe I was pretty clear
2 yesterday when I made the objection. There are two aspects of this: The
3 Prosecution is stating that this particular diary belongs to a certain
4 person who passed away, and this witness states that this is very
5 unlikely that this diary belongs to that person because the way how it
6 was written. So in my opinion, this is -- this is a valid ground to
7 object to the -- to admission of this document. That's number one.
8 The second -- the second issue that I had was a nexus between
9 this particular witness and then the diary of we don't know who. Despite
10 the fact that the witness may confirm some of the meetings, he can
11 confirm that there has been some of the meetings, but I mean, there are
12 some comments contained in this diary. I mean, obviously we will need to
13 know to at least a certain extent to whom does it -- does it belong at
14 all to the member of MUP? It might be somebody else. Thank you. I hope
15 I was of assistance.
16 JUDGE HALL: Of course on your last point, the witness has yet to
17 be cross-examined by you, so no doubt you are making a note of that and
18 would explore it.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Definitely.
20 JUDGE HALL: So it's the first point with which we must be
21 concerned, I take it?
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honour, I would definitely cross-examine
23 the witness after.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I -- we don't say -- our theory is
25 that it was written by a particular gentleman because of what is
1 contained in the diary, but we say it doesn't matter whether it was
2 written by this gentleman or some other gentleman within the MUP, and I
3 would ask the witness to confirm that, whoever wrote this diary it's a
4 police type of diary and it's a member of the MUP in Trebinje. So
5 therefore we say as such, and that's clear from the contents of this
6 diary, it's an admissible document. If we can show further who actually
7 wrote it, then it adds to, if you like, the indicia of reliability that
8 Your Honours would be looking for.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think let's get on with it now. In the face of
10 a challenge against the authenticity of this diary, it will, and I'm sure
11 you will appreciate, be difficult for the Chamber to admit it because
12 there is a risk that it may have been manufactured by someone completely
13 different. So I don't see that there's any way around the hard way,
14 namely, to confront the witness, this witness, with the aspects in the
15 diary which you wish to have confirmed.
16 MS. KORNER: That's what I was starting to do, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, that's why I say let's get on with it.
18 MS. KORNER:
19 Q. All right. Sorry about this, Mr. Krulj. First of all, you've
20 had a chance on a number of occasions to look through the diary; is that
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Whoever wrote that diary, and don't worry about whether it's Cuk
24 or somebody else, in your view was this gentleman who wrote the diary a
25 member of the MUP in Trebinje?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And in that diary, are there meetings recorded which you to your
3 knowledge attended?
4 A. There are some parts.
5 Q. Let's try and take a selection of those meetings. First of all,
6 can you look in your divider -- sorry, your bundle behind divider 28 and
7 go to the page number you can see on the screen 02971419. And in the
8 English it's page 26.
9 Now, this records a meeting with the SJB chiefs on the 10th of
10 July, 1992. And the agenda is proposed candidates for the national
11 security service and preparations for a working meeting in Belgrade
12 following day, and you've already looked at it, was the 11th of July
13 where the big meeting in Belgrade
14 about that yesterday?
15 A. Which page?
16 Q. Sorry, in the B/C/S -- in the Serbian language you will see at
17 the top 02971419. Tab 28, I'm sorry. If you go to tab 28, please. And
18 on the top you will see, it's about ten pages, it's got the number on the
19 top 02971419.
20 A. It's not divider 28.
21 Q. Can you have a look at the screen?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you see there Trebinje, 10th of July, 1992. Right.
24 A. I can see it.
25 Q. Meeting with the SJB chiefs -- meeting with the SJB chiefs agenda
1 proposed candidates for the national security service, preparations for
2 working meeting in Belgrade
3 in Belgrade
4 we looked at yesterday?
5 A. Yes, but not this meeting. Listen, there was Gacko, Bileca,
6 Nevesinje, Stolac, and Trebinje.
7 Q. Yes, but sorry, it says, Meeting with the SJB chiefs, Bileca and
8 Gacko, this is candidates, isn't it?
9 A. You can see it from this text, and I think that I've told you
10 earlier that I did not attend the meeting on the day prior to it because
11 this was one day before the meeting in Belgrade.
12 Q. Yeah. And it says, Departure from Trebinje at 700 hours.
13 MS. KORNER: Sorry, can we go to the next page, please, in the
14 English, 27. And in the B/C/S, it's the next page as well, I think.
15 Q. Departure from Trebinje at 0700 hours by minibus. Did you go in
16 a minibus from Trebinje to the meeting on the 11th of July?
17 A. I don't think we went in a minibus but in a regular vehicle. We
18 never had any kind of a minibus.
19 Q. All right. Did you go with Mr. Savic?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. But not by minibus?
22 A. No.
23 Q. You left -- did you leave from Trebinje at 0700 hours?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. All right. You see apparently at that meeting there was an order
1 that Muslim and Croat judges be arrested and that interviews be
2 conducted. Do you remember Muslim and Croat judges being arrested?
3 A. No. This is from the meeting held a day prior to that, and I
4 told you that I did not attend that meeting, so I don't remember. It
5 just carries on on the following page the text concerning the meeting on
6 the 10th of July.
7 Q. All right. Well, can we go then, please, to the 15th of July.
8 If you didn't attend a meeting, would you send your commander to the
10 A. I don't think that anybody attended. You can see the list of
11 attendees. Their names are written at the beginning.
12 Q. Yes, but it says, Meeting -- never mind.
13 MS. KORNER: Rather than argue with this you about this. Can you
14 go to the 15th of July, 02971423, which is page 30 in both the English
15 and B/C/S.
16 Q. Again it's headed "Trebinje, 15th of July meeting with SJB
17 chiefs, agenda tasks resulting from the working meeting of the SRBH MUP
18 held in Belgrade
19 A. On the 15th of July, 1992; right? How many items on the agenda
20 are there?
21 Q. Two apparently. Sorry, should be in front of you.
22 A. I have another one here that was opened in front of me where
23 there are 18 items on the agenda, 423 Trebinje.
24 Q. Okay. It's item 1. Can you look at the screen. I just want to
25 know, we've been through -- we went through this in the interview. Is
1 this a meeting that you attended?
2 A. Yes, I think so.
3 Q. Yes. Okay. Can I just ask you, I know it's a long time ago, you
4 went through this last time, seven, "Securing the Prisoners." Which
5 prisoners were being discussed there?
6 A. I think this meeting followed the meeting in Belgrade. We read
7 the conclusions, and it should have been conveyed to all the chiefs of
8 the public security stations, and by the time we returned, of course, a
9 meeting was scheduled, and it proceeded according to the items on the
10 agenda of the 11th of July, all of them were conveyed to the chiefs of
11 the stations. There were discussion about protecting the border
12 crossings, about the units allocated for protection that were deployed in
13 these camps or collection centres. So everything that is in the agenda
14 of the meeting from Belgrade
15 Q. I see. All right. So that's what it refers to, is it?
16 All right. Can we move on then, please, to the 17th of July,
17 page 35.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. If we look there, we can see that under item 3, Bileca, we see
20 Ljubinje, Krunic, and Mihic. Who were they?
21 A. What it says here underneath the order accompanying the report,
22 item 3, all of these are members of the national security or the state
23 security. I don't recall this meeting. Ratko Lare [phoen] and
24 Koprivica, Mirko were in Trebinje; Zoran Vidakovic in Gacko; Krunic and
25 Mihic in Ljubinje; and Bozo Grahovac in Nevesinje. These are former SDB
1 [as interpreted] employees, and this is related to the organising of the
2 national securities sector. But this has nothing to do with us, or with
3 public security. I think that I did not attend this meeting because that
4 has nothing to do with the stations. This is a separately organised unit
5 or service.
6 Q. But it says meeting of SJB chiefs and commanders. Wasn't this
7 about candidates for the national security service?
8 A. It's possible, it doesn't say here who attended, but it doesn't
9 seem logical to me for the public security station chiefs to be
10 discussing candidates for employees of a different service, particularly
11 of the national or state type of service. This is some kind of
12 professional leadership or expert drafting. I'm using the word "expert"
13 in quotes.
14 Q. Can you move it to the 31st of July, page 41.
15 A. Very well.
16 Q. We see there that there's an overview of the --
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Under 2, the establishment of
19 [B/C/S spoken] unit.
20 MS. KORNER:
21 Q. Exactly, did you attend this meeting? We can see there is a
22 report from Ljubinje on the next page, 42?
23 A. I probably did. Either I did or the commander did. I cannot
24 recall the date, but let's say that I did. Somebody did attend in any
1 Q. On the formation of the special purpose unit, that's at page 44,
2 if you go over, sir, to -- I think you'll find it at page 0 -- no, I
3 can't find anything more.
4 But do you remember the discussions about this formation of the
5 special unit?
6 A. At this meeting?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. I do because it was agreed at the meeting in Belgrade to abolish
9 all so-called Specijalna Jedinica units in the area of the stations and
10 the centre to prevent their activities and to form a Specijalna unit as
11 part of the brigade under the brigade command and that we from the
12 security centre should try to secure accommodation for that unit and to
13 provide it with maximum support in terms of the most -- the best trained
14 and the most junior cadre trained for police tasks and we actually
15 completed that in late 1992 or 1993. Early 1993 when this unit was
16 actually formed. I don't recall the exact time.
17 Q. All right. Can we move now to the 20th --
18 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, may we have a moment, please.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, right in the beginning, and Mr.
21 Krgovic as well, of course, right in the beginning of his testimony
22 today, it was the first question Ms. Korner asked. First of all -- wait
23 just a minute.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, I remember. If the witness can confirm that
25 it was somebody from the police.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes. With this -- with this firm yes of the
2 witness, is your challenge still standing?
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, my challenge -- my challenge
4 was --
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: The first one, I mean.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: The first one -- well, the first challenge was
7 concerning the --
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Authenticity.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Concerning the alleged -- that the alleged owner of
10 this diary is late Cuk. That was the position of the Prosecution. Now
11 the witness have confirmed that it must have been somebody from the SUP,
12 so therefore we know that. And I didn't file any -- I didn't raise and
13 file any objections any more because I think -- but obviously these
14 things have to be established. That was the point of my objection
15 before. Thank you.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, of course.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, we think that this is enough for you
19 to -- not to continue this line of questioning just to prove the
20 authenticity of the document. So we can accept it as an exhibit.
21 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much, Your Honours. Okay. Thank
22 you. Thank you, Mr. Krulj, we needn't go through this rather tedious
23 exercise. Can I ask you then finally --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 MS. KORNER: -- one last document on the screen, although, I
1 don't think you've seen it before. We didn't show it to you. It's 65
2 ter number 1792. And that diary, I hope is going to be made an exhibit
3 now. Thank you.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P168, Your Honours.
5 MS. KORNER: Thank you. I don't think that can be it, sorry. Is
6 that the first page? Yes, sorry, the first page. You are on the second
7 page now. First page in English, please. Yes, thank you.
8 Q. This is a report to the minister of the interior from the CSB in
9 Trebinje dated the 13th of January, 1993, and it's a report on the work
10 between the 4th of April and the 31st of December 1992. Was this a
11 standard report that would be sent, Mr. Krulj?
12 A. Yes, it's a standard report. We are talking about the end of the
13 year and the start period is the 4th of April. That's when the ministry
14 was formed, so I assumed that that is an annual report.
15 Q. All right. I just want to ask you a couple of questions, then,
16 about the contents of this. In paragraph 3 it starts:
17 "Before this the minister of the interior of the government of
18 the SAO Herzegovina had organised meetings of Serbian staff from this
19 area at which plans were adopted for the engagement of the police in the
20 event of a war or imminent threat of war."
21 Did you attend any such meetings?
22 A. No. I'm not aware of this report either, and I had no part in
23 its drafting for sure.
24 Q. Well, no, if we go to the end, it's actually stamped.
25 MS. KORNER: Can we go to the last page, please, page 5 in
2 Q. By Krsto Savic and signed by somebody on his behalf apparently.
3 MS. KORNER: We've got both in B/C/S. Can we have the English
4 up, please. Thanks.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's signed for him. This is a Z
6 or an L in the Cyrillic script. What would you like to know about the
7 signature? It's not Krsto Savic's signature.
8 MS. KORNER:
9 Q. It's somebody signing on his behalf, but does that appear to you
10 to be an official stamped and signed report?
11 A. Probably, yes, there are no markings, it's true, but, yeah.
12 MS. KORNER: All right. I want to go back, please, I'm sorry,
13 just for one moment, to the first page both in the English and the B/C/S
14 to the last paragraph in January 1992. Last paragraph on the B/C/S page
15 as well, please.
16 Q. "In January 1992 the Special Police unit was already undergoing
17 training in barracks in Bileca and was ready to carry out the most
18 complex tasks." Did you know about a Special Police unit undergoing
19 training in barracks in Bileca?
20 A. I said yesterday that it was formed in what way, I think this
21 happened before, before 1992 because the war began on the 1st of October
22 1991 and we have the preparations in January. But I think that this unit
23 existed before January 1992. That's my opinion.
24 Q. And do you know what the most complex tasks were that it carried
1 A. What I heard was that it was helping at the front in certain
2 areas in the Dubrovnik
3 Q. Do you mean just straight engaged in combat?
4 A. I don't know.
5 Q. But would combat be described, in your experience, as a complex
7 A. Most complex one, yes.
8 Q. All right. Yes, all right. Thank you, Mr. Krulj.
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may that be made an exhibit. It's on
10 our 65 ter list.
11 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P169, Your Honours.
13 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much. Mr. Krulj, thank you very
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are welcome.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I note the time, I don't know if you
17 want me to start or?
18 JUDGE HALL: Well, we have five minutes. [Microphone not
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the presiding Judge, please.
21 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, my microphone wasn't on. I was saying that
22 you have five minutes before the scheduled break.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: I heard you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE HALL: Yes, thank you.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Could the witness [sic] provide this binder for the
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:
3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Krulj, good afternoon.
4 A. Good afternoon.
5 Q. I am going to ask you before we begin to speak slowly and to make
6 a pause before you begin responding to my question so that the
7 interpreters could interpret my question completely as well as your
8 answer. Please, we speak the same language so usually what happens is
9 that we often overlap and then the interpreters have difficulties to
11 A. Very well.
12 Q. Thank you. Mr. Krulj, I'm going to go through your particulars
13 quickly. You were employed at the centre of the security services in
14 Mostar; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. At the time, I'm talking about the period prior to the 1990s, you
17 were one of the best educated policeman in the Herzegovina area?
18 A. Well, if you take it that way, yes.
19 Q. During the examination-in-chief, you said that you were
20 overseeing and monitoring the activities of the police on the territory
21 of Herzegovina
22 A. Yes, from 1986, this is actually a part of the job description of
23 the police inspector.
24 Q. Then in the 1990s, you were transferred to work on defence
25 preparations in the Ljubinje SRB -- SJB?
1 A. [No interpretation]
2 Q. Can you please tell us very briefly, we have a couple of minutes,
3 explain to us what does that mean, defence tasks in the public security
4 station very briefly?
5 A. Every public security station in Bosnia-Herzegovina before the
6 war --
7 Q. Just slowly.
8 A. There were categorisations of the posts which -- and one of the
9 posts was the desk officer for defence preparations. And it was his job
10 to man the reserve forces adequately which were provided for under the
11 regulations of the internal operations of the ministry. So a station
12 could not have a larger number of the reserve members than that provided
13 for under the Ministry of the Interior regulations.
14 Part of the duties of this officer were replenishment, regular
15 training, training of the reserve forces, conduct of certain tactical or
16 exercises in the field, which provided for the use of the reserve forces
17 of the police. Where I worked in my town we had about an 80 strong
18 reserve force. These were militarily-fit-for-service men who were vetted
19 in certain ways, checked if they had a criminal record or not, and this
20 was -- there was also a Special Police force unit within this unit which
21 was made up partially of active reserves -- active forces and then the
22 reserve forces. Yesterday --
23 Q. Let me interrupt you here, I'm going to lead you through this
24 then we will cover the grounds more quickly.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Sir, we are going to make a break
1 and then we will continue when we come back.
2 JUDGE HALL: We will resume in 20 minutes.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 --- Recess taken at 3.40 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 4.05 p.m.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, while the witness is ushered in, I
7 would like just to announce that we are joined with Mr. O'Sullivan as
8 part of the Stanisic Defence.
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 MR. ZECEVIC: May I proceed, Your Honours?
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Krulj, let us summarise what we have just
14 talked about. In 1989 you transferred to work at the SJB Ljubinje as an
15 officer for defence preparation tasks for that SJB?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Tell me, please, these defence preparations were planned in
18 accordance with the duty of all state and other social organs in the
19 former Yugoslavia
20 A. Yes, absolutely.
21 Q. That is to say, that all entities, state organs, social organs,
22 companies, schools, all of these entities had a duty to have a defence
23 plan and act in accordance with it, including the Ministry of the
25 A. Yes. And as for the Ministry of the Interior, it was an
1 administrative organ.
2 Q. Please make sure that you make a break between question and
3 answer, please.
4 Let me just ask you this first: In accordance with these
5 mandatory provisions of the Law on National Defence, was there also an
6 order on implementing the plan for defence preparations on the part of
7 the Ministry of Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina back in 1989 when you
8 were performing those duties?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] For the transcript, I said 1989
11 page 32, line 11.
12 Q. I will now show to you the order of the MUP of Republika Srpska
13 of the 15th May, 1992 this is 65 ter number 126.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please see it on our
16 Q. In your binder, it should be under number 1. Please open it.
17 Just press on it. You also have that document on the monitor. Please
18 tell me, do you recognise this document?
19 A. Well, we received a lot of documents, and I think we received
20 this one, and I do recognise it. I can't quote the entire content
21 though, but, yes.
22 Q. Please look at the last page, the signature. Do you recognise
23 the signature of the minister, Mico Stanisic?
24 A. Yes, I think that is his signature, yes.
25 Q. Please look at the document, take a couple of minutes, if you
1 need, I wish to ask you whether this document dated 15th of May 1992 was
2 in any way different from other documents that you normally came across
3 at the MUP of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1989?
4 A. No, it is not different.
5 Q. So this means that this document, the content of this document is
6 identical to other documents that are -- were used for defence
7 preparations in the MUP of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
8 before 1992, yes or no?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Please look at this at page 2, item 7, last line. It says here:
11 "While carrying out combat operation, the units of the ministry
12 shall be subordinated, shall be resubordinated to the command of the
13 armed forces. However, the ministry units shall be under the direct
14 command of certain ministry officials."
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. I think
16 we have a problem with the document in English. We have a completely
17 different document on the right-hand side. I asked for 65 ter 126 to be
18 put on our screens. Could we see page 2, item 7 of that document,
20 Q. Thank you. Mr. Krulj, this means, and you can correct me if I'm
21 wrong, that in case where combat operations are carried out, in case
22 where there is a war, MUP units are mobilised and placed under the
23 command of armed forces, yes or no?
24 A. Yes, that's how it was before the war, and unfortunately the war
25 erupted, and I had to do it during the war, but it was done in the same
1 way before the war as well.
2 Q. When they say here that the ministry units shall be under the
3 direct command of certain ministry officials, do they mean that a unit in
4 an organised fashion together with a commander goes to positions and that
5 the unit commander is then subordinated to the military officer at the
6 location where combat operations are to be carried out, yes or no?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So that means that this commander of a police unit which is
9 resubordinated to the army at the time when they arrive at the location
10 where combat operations are carried out, is resubordinated to the
11 commander of armed forces, which is to say the military to the
12 immediately Superior
13 military hierarchy; is that correct or no?
14 A. Yes, they enter the military framework, the military hierarchy.
15 Q. Thank you. Tell me, please, item 8, last line reads:
16 "In military operations, military rules and regulations shall be
17 in force." This is linked to what we just described from item 7; is that
18 correct or no?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Just a moment, please. At the time when these MUP units are
21 resubordinated to the army, all members of that unit lose the authorities
22 they had as police officials, and they simply become ordinary plain
23 members of the army; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. In that case, they held accountable under military rules as
1 members of the army, and it is the military commander who is immediately
2 responsible for them and their actions; isn't that right?
3 A. Yes. At the platoon level it is the commander of the company and
4 battalion that is responsible for them.
5 Q. Now, in that same item 8, it reads:
6 "Any violation of regulations and failure to carry out tasks
7 which have been ordered shall be subject to severe punishment and result
8 in appropriate disciplinary and criminal punishment."
9 Tell me, please, was that abided by in practice?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And now item 9 says that a staff shall be established and this
12 staff is being established only in the structural sense, so to speak, and
13 not in the sense of effective command and control; isn't that right?
14 A. Well, I never received any kind of a letter signed by staff
15 commander, so you are right.
16 Q. Did you ever receive any sort of official letter from the police
17 staff in 1992?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Do you have information indicating that CSB that you belonged to,
20 that [B/C/S spoken] or any other public security stations in your
21 territory ever received any sort of letter sent by staff or staff
23 A. No, I don't know that anybody received it. Under bullet 7,
24 chiefs of CSB were also members of that staff, which means that had they
25 received it in the hierarchical order, they were duty-bound to forward it
1 further to the chiefs of public security stations, but no.
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Krulj.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
4 document, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE HALL: Admitted.
6 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D46, Your Honours.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mr. Krulj, starting from the 1st of January 1991, you were
9 appointed chief of the public security station in Ljubinje, the SJB in
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. That appointment in 1991 was signed by minister of MUP of the
13 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time, Mr. Alija
14 Delimustafic, correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. The proposal for your appointment to that post of the chief of
17 SJB in Ljubinje came from your immediate superior, chief of CSB in
18 Mostar; correct?
19 A. Yes, Mr. Slobodan Bozic.
20 Q. Mr. Krulj, you were not a member of the Serbian Democratic Party,
21 were you?
22 A. I was not.
23 Q. Was it the Serbian Democratic Party that nominated you for this
24 post, or was it your boss, chief of CSB in Mostar?
25 A. After the first multiparty elections, consultations in
1 municipalities were carried out, consultations with presidents of
2 municipalities, and the official proposal was normally written by chief
3 of CSB. According to the then rules, and also rules later, members of
4 MUP were not allowed to be members of any political parties.
5 Q. Thank you. Based on the territorial organisation that was in
6 place, that was in force until 1992 within the Ministry of Interior,
7 public security station in Ljubinje belonged to the CSB in Mostar?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. When the SAO Herzegovina was established, the territory of
10 Ljubinje municipality became part of that regional community, yes or no?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you remember when SAO Herzegovina was established? If you
13 cannot remember the date and month, do you at least know the year or what
14 time of the year it was?
15 A. I think it was in 1991, but I'm not sure.
16 Q. Thank you. In your statement that you gave to the OTP, I can see
17 that you were in Mostar for the last time on the 28th of March 1992
18 that you visited precisely the CSB in Mostar?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And on that day, there was an attack at the barracks in Mostar
21 where a lot of people were killed and a lot of damage was caused by an
22 explosive device?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And I suppose that this is why you remember that date so well?
25 A. Well, I remember the date, yes, and a lot of these documents have
1 become of age. It's been over 18 years since they were issued. But I
2 remember that date because I sat with my colleagues at the CSB premises
3 in Mostar and when I came home, I saw that a fire truck full of
4 explosives was blown up next to the barracks. That's why I remember
6 Q. The attack was carried out by members of Croatian paramilitary
7 formations; isn't that right?
8 A. I don't know. It's likely.
9 Q. From that day, from that date, is it actually then that the war
10 broke out in Mostar?
11 A. In Mostar itself, yes. And as I've told you, within the borders
12 of my municipality or at the borders of my municipality, it started a lot
14 Q. Let me ask you something else. Do you remember the plan of the
15 European Union on peaceful resolution of the situation in Bosnia from
16 1991 and 1992 which was popularly known as Cutileiro plan?
17 A. Yes, I remember that. I remember that it existed.
18 Q. Do you remember that that plan envisaged mostly, in general
19 terms, the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina into three entities, each
20 of which would have its own organs including police and that in Sarajevo
21 there would be the so-called federal ministries as they were known at the
23 A. I remember that, it was quite frequently discussed at the time.
24 I can't give you any details now, but it was quite a lot covered by the
25 media. It received a lot of publicity, but then some changes came about
1 and the plan was abandoned. At least that's what I remember.
2 Q. But you must remember that one of the key parts of that plan was
3 the division of Bosnia
4 separate organs?
5 A. Yes, anybody who is informed about general affairs knew about
6 that. Anybody who was literate.
7 Q. And objectively this is very similar to the situation that was
8 agreed on in Dayton
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina for the past ten years is based; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Mr. Krulj, can you please tell me, do you remember that the MUP
12 minister of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Alija
13 Delimustafic issued an order on the mobilisation of police reserves in
14 September 1991? Do you recall that?
15 A. Yes, about the 20th of September, 1992.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 1991.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Can you please tell me the situation in the territory of your
19 municipality and Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole was very complex from
20 the point of view of security because of the crisis and the war waging
21 around Dubrovnik
22 A. Yes, the war was being waged some 20 kilometres or 10 kilometres
23 as the crow flies from the centre of Trebinje. I mean, it was very
24 close, that area.
25 Q. Can you please tell me, there were members of the Yugoslav
1 People's Army there, volunteers, as well as paramilitary forces; is that
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can you please tell me your opinion as a professional policeman,
5 what was the discipline of those units like, in your opinion?
6 A. Well, I'm not sure if I'm being -- if I'm exaggerating, but I'm
7 going to say it was terrible. They were creating terrible security
8 problems for us. There was uncontrolled shooting around town, damage to
9 vehicles, looting and robbery, and so on.
10 Q. Yesterday during the examination-in-chief, in response to the
11 Prosecutor's question relating to document P161, on page 49 of the
12 transcript, line 13, you were answering a question that had to do with a
13 paramilitary unit named Arkan's men, and my learned colleague was asking
14 you about that. And then there was some problems about transcript
15 entries, and I'm going to tell you the way I heard it and the transcript
16 says differently. Can you please confirm.
17 You said that vagabond, and I think you are thinking of some kind
18 of tramp from the village, gathered some 30 people and formed some sort
19 of unit that called itself Arkan's men, is that correct? And in the
20 transcript what it said was that that man had said that he had killed 30
21 odd people, actually he gathered 30 people around him.
22 A. Well, I thought I clarified that yesterday. Yes, that he
23 assembled or gathered about him some 30 people.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 A. I read that from a document, I think.
1 Q. Yes, you read that from a document. That's right. Can you
2 please tell me, all these armed groups, these volunteers, paramilitary
3 forces members, army members, they were all in themselves more numerous
4 than the police force in the area of your municipality?
5 A. Well, there were no such cases in my municipality. As for the
6 other municipalities, there were some.
7 Q. In the region of Herzegovina
8 A. Well, although we do have a station in Mostar which had some 15
9 members of the regular police force and volunteers, so these irregulars
10 were much more numerous than the regular police officers.
11 Q. And they were armed, weren't they?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In the region of the whole area and your municipality, Ljubinje
14 there was fear among the people?
15 A. Yes, that is true. They were afraid and many of them were
16 leaving. They were leaving for Serbia
17 running away from the situation, if I can put it that way.
18 Q. And this fear, of course, was related to the experiences of the
19 Serbs in that area during World War II, and of course related to the
20 situation that was leading to the conclusion that there would be a new
21 war in the area?
22 A. Well, many information -- much information and misinformation was
23 circulating, and there was -- in this area 2.000 casualties were the
24 result of actions in 1941, and you can imagine how it was like, what
25 those people felt when the Croatian forces appeared on the boundaries of
1 the municipality. And then on the other side, a part of the Trebinje
2 municipality was already occupied.
3 Q. Can you please tell me, the check-points on the roads were set up
4 during the MUP of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia's mandate; is that
6 A. The military was there and there was some irregularity, so as
7 soon as the reserve forces were mobilised, we set up check-points. Not
8 just us, but it was pursuant to an order of the ministry of
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina. So we set up check-points at all exits and entries
10 to the municipality territory. We even received blue kiosks from the MUP
11 urgently and we were instructed to set these up throughout the territory.
12 Q. Can you please tell us the definition of a check-point briefly as
13 part of the -- just one moment, can you just wait.
14 A. I'm sorry. A check-point is a permanent control or a check-point
15 of the police manned continuously for 24 hours, meaning that all
16 entrances and exits or passage of citizens is monitored. This is
17 something that is conducted in peacetime. The check-point work is
18 overseen by the Ministry of the Internal Affairs from Sarajevo, and this
19 was done at that time as well.
20 Q. Very well. Can you please tell me, you also had such oversight
21 by Mr. Esad Rektic who was from the MUP and who came on behalf of Ejup
22 Ganic from the ministry to check the work of the check-points?
23 A. Yes, they were touring the area that was engulfed in war. His
24 name was not Esad but Sead, from what I remember. He was the senior
25 military officer and he was some sort of main inspector at the republican
1 ministry. There was no such post at the republican Secretariat, but
2 there was such a post in the republican Secretariat.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat his question.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, the interpreters asked if you could
5 be good enough to repeat your question.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay, I'm sorry, I'm trying to move the speed
7 further, I'm sorry, Your Honours.
8 Q. [Interpretation] In any event, this inspector general of the
9 police who came to the area accompanied by Presidency member Ejup Ganic
10 toured this check-point of yours and he didn't have any objections or any
11 remarks; is that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Can you please tell me after the Law on Internal Affairs of
14 Republika Srpska was adopted, there were changes in the territorial
15 organisation and the Ljubinje SJB, where you were the chief, was then
16 part of the security service of Trebinje territorially, which was
17 actually formed under that law for the first time; is that right?
18 A. Yes. Yes.
19 Q. Your to date security centre was under the control of the Serbian
20 forces; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you please tell me, Mr. Krsto Savic who was chief of the
23 Trebinje CSB, before 1990, he worked in the police as assistant chief of
24 police in Nevesinje; is that correct?
25 A. Yes, he was actually the assistant commander of the police in
2 Q. In 1989; is that correct, deputy commander?
3 A. Yes, in late 1989.
4 Q. Then in 1990 he was promoted and became the chief of the public
5 security station in Nevesinje; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And then he was appointed chief just like you were, the minister
8 of the republican MUP of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
9 Mr. Delimustafic -- Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mr. Delimustafic; is that
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you please tell me, 44 for the transcript, it's Mr. Alija
13 Delimustafic. Can you please tell me, Mr. Krulj, the SAO Herzegovina
14 after it was proclaimed formed its government, did it not?
15 A. Yes, it did.
16 Q. Isn't it correct that that government had its minister of police,
17 if I can put it that way and that position was occupied by Mr. Krsto
18 Savic; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So Mr. Krsto Savic as, let me put it that way, quote unquote, the
21 minister of police of the SAO Herzegovina government, was in Trebinje
22 practically before Republika Srpska was declared, before the constitution
23 was adopted, the Law on Internal Affairs, and the MUP of Republika Srpska
24 was formed; is that correct?
25 A. Yes, he was. Mostly he was in Nevesinje but he was also in
1 Trebinje. He didn't really come to see us all that much because at the
2 time there was open combat in our area.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krulj, could you just assist us in explaining
5 in pursuit of the line of questioning that counsel is putting to you, how
6 were the CSBs and the SJBs subordinated under the army during combat
7 operations? How was that done, was that done by a written order to the
8 chiefs of the SJBs and the CSBs, or was it just done informally or, can
9 you explain the mechanism by which the police units were transferred and
10 resubordinated to the armed forces? What was the mechanism that applied
11 to this transfer?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm going to explain it to you. I
13 have a specific example from that time. At the time when the response to
14 the call-up was not all that great and there weren't enough people to
15 replenish the military forces, I was asked, and I did have the right
16 under the law as chief of the station to lend out a unit of the police to
17 a specific sector and a commander would be sent with those 25 people.
18 And they were resubordinated to the second company of the military
19 battalion that was holding that area. And this was regulated by law and
20 I as the chief of the station of the police in Ljubinje had the right to
21 engage a part of the police force in this manner.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand and thanks. But just how were you
23 instructed or ordered to hand over this unit to the army? Was that by a
24 written decision or by a telephone call from the commander of the 2nd
25 Corps or whatever it was, the army officer? Just how did it happen? In
1 other words, what I'm asking is that, is there any record of such
2 transfers? Any requests made by the army to the police to resubordinate
3 police units from the police to the army?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the municipality, we had the
5 highest rank within the brigade, so the brigade commander asked us,
6 commander of the brigade that had four battalions, so in order to
7 replenish the Ljubinje battalion, he asked me to provide this assistance.
8 The then Ministry of Bosnia and Herzegovina was aware of this type of
9 help as well as the public security centre in Mostar because war was
10 going on in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are talking
11 about the 1st of October 1991. I'm now speaking about December, I'm not
12 quite sure about the date now.
13 This was quite a legitimate use of units of the police.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm not questioning the legitimacy. I think it
15 was done probably according to the rules. My only interest was to
16 understand better how it was done and when you, for instance, when you
17 transferred a unit to the battalion, did you then receive a phone call
18 from the commander of the battalion asking you to kindly resubordinate
19 one of your units to him, or was it by virtue of a written order, or did
20 the order come from the MUP? How was it done actually?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was done in such a way that by
22 my decision on resubordination, the unit automatically becomes part of
23 armed forces, and in a hierarchical sense they are responsible to the
24 company commander and then the brigade commander. Once the reasons for
25 their engagement no longer exist, I returned the unit back and I return
1 it again to reserve forces. While the unit is within the military
2 forces, they are not duty-bound to send any sort of reports to me, nor do
3 I have any sort of duty with respect to them. I don't need to report
4 them of anything because at that particular point in time they are no
5 longer policemen.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. But what did you react upon? What
7 triggered your decision to transfer one of your units to the army?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was informed about the security
9 situation and I didn't have to be pushed to do this because a certain
10 area had to be closed off. The decision had been taken at the meeting
11 with the brigade commander. And I attended that meeting and I accepted
12 to give some of my men to resubordinate them to them in order to close
13 off the passage to that part of the municipality.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. So my question is, am I right in
15 understanding that you went to a meeting where the commander of the
16 brigade was attending and he asked around if any of the police chiefs
17 could dispense with units and transfer them to him, and then you decided
18 on your own authority to resubordinate one of your units to him
19 immediately thereafter, is that how it happened?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Welcome.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] May I continue, Your Honours?
24 Thank you.
25 Q. Yesterday during examination-in-chief, I think it remained
1 unclear when my colleague on page 43, lines 12 to 18, you mentioned this
2 Specijalna unit established by SAO Herzegovina in 1991 which was then
3 sent to the Dubrovnik
4 comprised -- well, let me ask you this: Do you remember testifying about
5 this yesterday?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. Do you remember that you said that this unit was not under the
8 jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior, yes or no?
9 A. It wasn't under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior.
10 Q. You said that this unit was mostly manned by people who were
11 on -- who were border-line criminals, I don't want to use too harsh
13 A. Well, yes, it may have been too harsh a word but these people
14 drove around in civilian vehicles.
15 Q. This unit did not carry out any police tasks but rather
16 participated only in combat operations and it didn't have any permanent
17 establishment, rather when its participation in combat operation was
18 needed, that unit would be assembled and sent to the front?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. So this means that such a unit, this unit, was linked with the
21 police only because somebody at some point in time gave this unit the
22 name Specijalna unit of the police; isn't that right?
23 A. Yes, that's what they heard. They heard that something like that
24 existed in the Knin Krajina and this is how they christened this unit, if
25 I may say so.
1 Q. All right. So if I understand you well, this is a paramilitary
2 unit that was organised; isn't that right?
3 A. Yes. Well, my municipality was the most endangered one, and they
4 never came to my municipality, and nobody from my municipality was ever a
5 member of that unit. And, yes, it could be said that it is a
6 paramilitary unit because it did not belong to the regular police and it
7 wasn't under the command of the military either.
8 Q. All right. Yesterday you tried to explain to the Trial Chamber
9 and to the Prosecution something that I think is really important for
10 this case and needs to be explained, so we have these paramilitary units
11 that are called Specijalna units of the police without in essence having
12 anything to do with the police, that's number one. And then we have the
13 so-called Posebna police units which due to interpretation into English
14 we can call PJP, Posebna units of police, PJP. Yesterday you explained
15 how these units are established and what tasks they are assigned to, so
16 could you now briefly repeat this to the Trial Chamber because I don't
17 think that it was clearly entered into the transcript yesterday. So we
18 are now dealing with PJP units, Posebna police units.
19 A. Yes, I will use this term PJP. In peacetime, in the peacetime
20 organisation of the Ministry of the Interior, and I don't need to speak
21 about responsibilities and jurisdiction now because I described that
22 yesterday, so these units existed and they frequently had exercises both
23 at the level of a police station and at the level of the security centre.
24 Q. Just a moment, please. I apologise, Mr. Krulj, but we don't want
25 to be too broad about this. I want this to be explicit and clear. Let
1 me try to guide you. You are much more experienced in these matters than
2 I am, but I will do my best in order to make sure that it's clear for the
3 Trial Chamber.
4 So at the territory of each public security station, SJB, a
5 certain number of acting policemen is selected, these are members of
6 regular police force, and these people based on their mental and physical
7 abilities are exceptional, right?
8 A. Yes, that's what I said yesterday.
9 Q. And now these policemen from various public security stations at
10 the level of a CSB are assembled and placed under the command of an
11 inspector who is in charge of these matters within the CSB, and now these
12 units are called Posebna police units, PJPs at the time?
13 A. Yes. And I wanted to say that I was a commander of such a unit
14 during an exercise in 1988 in Posusje, and I did this as a police
15 inspector and we continued doing this later on as well.
16 Q. Now, these units, PJP units, were used for various purposes. For
17 example, when there were football matches, such a PJP unit would be
18 assembled, they would carry out the task of providing security during
19 that football match, and following the completion of their tasks they
20 would all go back to their original public security stations to carry out
21 their regular duties?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So if we can summarise this, these PJP units exist only in order
24 to carry out specific tasks, they are assembled and called to carry out
25 that particular task, and upon the completion of that task, they are sent
1 back to their regular duties within their own SJBs; correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And now a third category in order to clarify this fully. There
4 is a unit called Specijalna Brigade of the Ministry of the Interior,
5 special brigade of the Ministry of Interior. So this Special Brigade is
6 again a unit of the Ministry of the Interior, it's called a Special
7 Brigade of MUP, and it existed back during the time of the MUP of the
8 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it was headquartered where,
9 in Sarajevo
10 A. Yes, in Sarajevo
12 within the Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
13 Q. Thank you. So that same type of unit, special brigade of MUP of
14 Republika Srpska, was also established after the Law on Internal Affairs
15 of Republika Srpska was passed, and that unit was under the command of
16 Milenko Karisik; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. This special brigade of MUP was also linked to the military at
19 its seat, it was attached to the ministry at its seat, correct?
20 A. Yes, solely there.
21 Q. However, you spoke about the detachment of this unit, so the
22 detachment of the special brigade of the Ministry of the Interior of
23 Republika Srpska under the command of Milenko Karisik sometime late in
24 1992, more likely in early 1993, so the detachment of that special
25 brigade of MUP was created in the territory of the Trebinje CSB; is this
1 correct what I just said?
2 A. Yes, that's correct. Let me clarify. Let me explain briefly.
3 Q. Really briefly, please.
4 A. Right after the meeting in Belgrade, we had to find an area and
5 ensure quality people for that unit. And at the time our manning
6 strength was 40 per cent, that means that 40 per cent of our posts were
8 Q. Just a moment --
9 A. And this is why it was delayed and it wasn't established until
10 the end of the year or early 1993.
11 Q. So this detachment in essence had nothing to do with Trebinje
12 CSB, this detachment of the special brigade, or with SJBs in that
13 territory, it had nothing to do with them; correct?
14 A. No, nothing.
15 Q. This detachment was directly linked, and it was under the command
16 of the special brigade of MUP at the seat of the ministry, under the
17 command of Milenko Karisik, correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, I suppose that you know that these detachments of the
20 special brigade in the territory of Trebinje
21 ordered by the commander of the MUP special brigade used to also carry
22 out some Special Police tasks, complicated, complex tasks?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you. I hope that this explanation will be of assistance to
25 the Trial Chamber and everybody else to understand this distinction
1 between these three categories of units.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one little question to clarify for me. If I
3 remember well yesterday, and I'm talking now about a PJP units, the
4 Posebna, and I think I remember that yesterday the witness told that this
5 -- these units were in part reserve policemen commanded by active ones;
6 is that correct? Do I remember that correct?
7 MR. ZECEVIC: May the witness answer.
8 Q. [Interpretation] Can you answer?
9 A. During the war, yes, they were also manned from reserve force.
10 However, it was exclusively under the command of the police inspector
11 from the police department at the centre, CSB, and that was that
12 inspector's only job, only task.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you very much.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, do you have any
15 other questions about this because I would move on? Thank you.
16 Q. Tell me, Mr. Krulj, please --
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, I may have one problem, namely in
18 relation to the information provided by Mr. Krulj relating to these
19 paramilitary volunteer groups that seemingly were roaming around not
20 being under the control of the police nor being under the control of the
21 army, and my question is whether anyone actually tried to put these
22 people under some sort of control?
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. You have heard the question, can you answer?
25 A. We tried our best and I managed to do that in my municipality
1 because three or four men came to make some kind of unit that would be a
2 kind of elite unit, so they asked for support. Some people who had a
3 tendency to violate the law and they tended towards criminal acts and
4 crimes and so on, but we prevented that. However, in some
5 municipalities, and there were attempts like that in Trebinje, Nevesinje,
6 Mostar, Gacko, we later engaged, because these units, these paramilitary
7 units would come in 1993, 1994, so we tried through the ministry and the
8 brigade to prevent this using our detachment. We had a little bit of
9 help from the military police, but more or less we did manage to prevent
10 it ourselves. I am not going to say that we were successful everywhere
11 because it was not possible to do that, to go back to those times now
12 it's difficult perhaps to explain that to you now. Perhaps I'm
13 explaining to you things more from the aspect of a professional
14 organisation, but actually out in the field you had armed men and mostly
15 their objective was theft, and you are a policeman. I don't know if the
16 answer is satisfactory.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: I realise that the situation must have been
18 extremely difficult for everyone. Can I just ask for one clarification
19 of your answer, namely, did you as head of the SJB try then to have these
20 volunteer groups subordinated under your control, under the control of
21 the police? Was that the aim, or what was the plan that you devised for
22 bringing these volunteer groups under control?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I expelled them using my policemen.
24 I expelled 13 people on the same day and there were none in my
25 municipality. No paramilitary formations in my area.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Krulj, can you please tell me from late
4 March when all this began in Mostar and you said that the attack on the
5 barracks was carried out then, and then in the period that followed,
6 yesterday you said that you had a lot of problems with roads and
7 communication; is that correct?
8 A. Yes, but yesterday when I was looking at a document, somebody
9 asked me what the UKT connection was, and this was a connection via a
10 hand-held device, and I saw that the Nevesinje communications proceeded
11 through the centre for informing. And in the Stolac area it was done by
12 messenger. And the Stolac area is in the 088 group, just like Ljubinje,
13 so it used the relay station at Velis [phoen] so Ljubinje and Nevesinje
14 have proper connections at the time. I saw that when the Prosecutor
15 asked me about the meeting, she asked me about the UKT type of
17 Q. So if I understood you correctly, let me just summarise, the
18 municipality of Ljubinje and the municipality of Nevesinje
19 telephone communication with Mostar, but at the time when the relay
20 station was destroyed in Mostar through which all of these communications
21 proceeded then the Ljubinje and Nevesinje municipalities were cut off and
22 left without any telephone lines or communication; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. If I remember correctly you said yesterday that this lasted for
25 some four or five months or longer until another relay station was set up
1 at Leotar, I think, mount Leotar
2 A. This happened sometime between the 10th and the 20th of May,
3 that's when the relay was knocked down, at Velis. I don't know how long,
4 how many months it to took them to make this new one. I really cannot
5 tell. But in any case, it took at least three or four months, maybe
7 Q. Just one more question about this particular situation at the
8 time. You said yesterday during your examination-in-chief that the
9 public security station in Ljubinje before war began, sometime in March
10 or April and May 1992, operated -- actually, that a lady, a Muslim woman
11 worked there at the public security station; is that correct?
12 A. Yes, she was working on issuing identification papers and car
14 Q. And throughout the whole wartime period, she stayed on the same
15 job and if I remember correctly, you said that she was still working on
16 the same job today; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you. And did anyone ever pressure you since you were the
19 chief of the public security station to remove that lady from service or
20 to fire her or anything like that, yes or no?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness now be shown
24 document 65 ter 47. 65 ter number 47.
25 MS. KORNER: It's already exhibited by me.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P158.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. Actually can we see
3 P158, please.
4 Q. This is in your tab 2, information on the work of the Trebinje
5 CSB in the period of 1st of July until the 15th of August; isn't that
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You were shown the document by the Prosecutor yesterday. I would
9 just very briefly like to look at page 2, paragraph 3. I think that it's
10 the same thing in the English. Yes, in English it's paragraph 4 from the
11 top. Actually, it's on page 3, I apologise.
12 Madam Korner criticised Mr. O'Donnell yesterday because of the
13 stamps, and I just have to do the same thing myself, now. Paragraph 4
14 beginning with the words "a special problem," do you see that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In that report, just like you mentioned before, you said that you
17 pointed out problems of the non-functioning of the communication system
18 and other problems that you encountered; is that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. Thank you very much. We are going to move to the next
21 document. We also need to pay attention to the time. Can you please
22 tell me -- Your Honours, I'm being warned that it's time for a break
24 JUDGE HALL: I think we have another 20 minutes.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, yes, I will continue.
2 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] we resume at 5.40. Thank
3 you very much.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 --- Recess taken at 5.20 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 5.42 p.m.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if it pleases the Court, can I have
9 the document on the e-court while we wait for the witness, in order to
10 save time? Can I call P160, please. I need page 13 in Serbian, and page
11 16 in English. This is a good page in English, but the Serbian page
12 another three pages, this is number 10 and I need 13, one three. I'm
13 sorry? I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I don't know the -- next page.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. That's perfect. Thank you very much.
16 JUDGE HALL: While the witness is taking his position,
17 Mr. Zecevic, I'd remind you, you have 55 minutes remaining.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: I know, Your Honours, I was just discussing with
19 the Registry, I might ask for a leave to -- because I have a lot of
20 documents which I need -- which I would need some time to present with
21 the witness.
22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
23 MR. ZECEVIC: I will try my best to speed it up as much as I can,
24 Your Honours. Thank you very much.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Krulj, yesterday the Prosecutor showed you
1 P160 which are the minutes from the first collegium of the MUP of the
2 Republika Srpska. I think this is tab 3, and it's dated the 11th of
3 July, 1992 in Belgrade. I think it's open at the correct document.
4 Can you please tell me, isn't it correct that the collegium
5 meeting, the first one was held in Belgrade
6 that was the only place where all the chiefs of the CSBs from the
7 territory of Republika Srpska could come together?
8 A. Yes, because we all went through Montenegro or Serbia
9 were going to Bijeljina or Pale. I didn't go to Sarajevo then because
10 the road was even longer through Vlasenica, Sekovici, it was some 700
11 kilometres actually to get there.
12 Q. Thank you. Do you recall that in August a collegium session was
13 held in Trebinje and Mr. Zupljanin -- or the Banja Luka CSB were unable
14 to attend because Mr. Zupljanin was not able to come; do you recall
15 speaking about that?
16 A. Yes. I actually saw that from the diary who was present and he
18 Q. Can you please look at page 13 now. It's already on the screen.
19 A. All right.
20 Q. I need to look at the paragraph that begins with the words
21 "otherwise." I'm just going to read it to you, and I'm going to put one
22 question on it to you. This is the text spoken by Mr. Mico Stanisic the
23 minister. He says:
24 "... the basic thing from which we will not retreat" -- in the
25 English text, I apologise, it is -- it's the first paragraph on page 16
1 of the English.
2 "... the basic thing from which we will not back away from is
3 that the MUP is a professional organisation, a professional police force,
4 not influenced by politics, which means no individuals, groups, different
5 currents or parties influence it. After all, the Presidency of the Serb
6 republic passed a decision forbidding party action in a war regime. This
7 means that our work is professional from the jurisdiction of Internal
8 Affairs organs aimed at creating state with rule of law, and making it
10 You as the chief of the public security station, did you abide by
11 these professionalism guide-lines and apply them to the members of the
12 police force at your public security station?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. On page 14 in the B/C/S
15 and then on the English page, we have the correct page, it's page 16 in
16 the Serbian text this is on page 14.
17 Q. It's one paragraph but last, and I'm going to read it to you.
18 It's also something that Mr. Stanisic said:
19 "In order to achieve full constitutionality and legality and in
20 order to implement the other legal acts, we have decided to prevent
21 criminal acts not only by civilians, but also those committed by soldiers
22 and members of the army by active and reserve policemen and members of
23 Internal Affairs organs and their superiors for whom it is established
24 that they committed any type of criminal offence."
25 Can you please tell me if you abided by these guide-lines by the
1 minister of police, Mr. Stanisic, in the course of 1992?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you. Now I'm going to ask you to look at the conclusions.
4 This is on page 20 of the B/C/S text and in the English it's on page 21.
5 And we will look at paragraph marked with the number 1.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] We just need to look at one page
7 later in the Serbian. The English page is all right but the text in
8 Serbian is not on the correct page. The document page is page 20 and so
9 I'm not really able to tell you the page number in e-court. All right,
10 thank you, it's okay now.
11 Q. And you can see on the basis of all the discussion, conclusion
12 number 1 is here. Earlier we looked at this diary and you said and you
13 pointed out in response to a question by my learned friend that a meeting
14 held after the collegium, all the 18 conclusions were presented to all
15 the public security station representatives in the region; is that
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Please tell me, in conclusion number 1, in the last sentence it
20 "The priorities before us spring from the conclusions that
21 follow, and above all, they include gathering information on activities
22 of the enemy, on war crimes, on serious forms of criminal offences,
23 especially looting and war profiteering, et cetera."
24 Tell me, please, did you consider this to be a mandatory
25 conclusion, and did you also consider this to be a priority in your work?
1 A. Yes, I think that each professional policeman considered this to
2 be a priority.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now skip three pages
4 forward in the Serbian, and then in the English text it will be page 24.
5 Item 7, yes, we have the good page in the Serbian version.
6 Q. Let us now go over this quickly.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see item 6. Could
8 the witness see item 6 too, in the English text as well. It's on the
9 same page.
10 Q. You can see here that item 6 pertains to prevention and
11 documenting of war crimes, and it speaks of that; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now would you please look at item 7, it says:
14 "Prevention and detection of other crimes and their perpetrators
15 with priorities being looting, war profiteering, aggravated criminal
16 offences against somebody's life and limb and other criminal offences
17 regardless of who the perpetrators are."
18 Did you uphold these conclusions in your work regardless of who
19 the perpetrators were?
20 A. Yes. Yes.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat his answer
22 because they were overlapping question. Thank you.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Would you please repeat the second part of your answer because it
25 wasn't recorded, and please speak up.
1 A. Yes. As regards this paragraph where it says that those
2 responsible to carry out these tasks, they list CSBs, SJBs, and the
3 administration for the affairs and tasks of the crime prevention
5 Q. Thank you. See this in item 6 there is something that I would
6 like to comment with you. Item 6 under the conclusion speaks of
7 documenting war crimes committed by the enemy. Do you see it? Do you
8 see the text?
9 Yesterday the Prosecutor showed you a criminal report signed by
10 you, P167, and that was in 1994. You filed that criminal report, that
11 criminal complaint in relation -- against members of Muslim forces from
12 the territory of Capljina
13 municipality in 1992. Do you remember that document?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In order not to waste time, tell me, please, Capljina is a
16 neighbouring municipality, right?
17 A. Stolac municipality is in between our municipalities.
18 Q. And how far is it from your municipality?
19 A. 43 kilometres.
20 Q. Capljina was not within the territory of Republika Srpska
22 A. No, it wasn't.
23 Q. I suppose it means that it was outside of the territorial
24 jurisdiction of the Trebinje CSB?
25 A. Naturally.
1 Q. Tell me, you investigated these crimes committed against Serbs in
2 the territory of municipality which was under the control of Muslim
3 forces because, I suppose, there were some doubts whether that would be
4 documented under the territory which was under their control; right?
5 A. Yes, right.
6 Q. To be fully fair, even had they wanted to conduct an
7 investigation and to file charges for those war crimes, they were faced
8 with an objective problem because all of the witnesses and victims were
9 in the territory of Republika Srpska. You spoke about that yesterday
10 saying that some of them were even as far away as in Bijeljina and that
11 you had to look for them?
12 A. Yes, in Bijeljina, in Serbia
14 Q. I mean, this created real difficulties for employees of the
15 Ministry of the Interior on both sides, this fact that neither witnesses
16 nor victims were available to them, they had no access to them, so they
17 couldn't really conduct an investigation in accordance with the
18 regulations and rules of the profession?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. I suppose that the MUP of Republika Srpska had identical problems
21 in documenting war crimes committed against some other ethnic groups in
22 the territory of Republika Srpska?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. The document that we just saw, the collegium of the 11th of July
25 1992 in Belgrade
1 non-functioning of the military judiciary, do you remember that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. There was also some discussion about the non-functioning of
4 civilian courts in the largest part of Republika Srpska?
5 A. Yes, in our territory, yes. Non-functioning which went over a
6 long period of time.
7 Q. Let's explain that. When you say in your territory, you mean the
8 territory of the Trebinje CSB, that is to say, the territory of
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So in the territory of Herzegovina
12 judicial organs didn't function properly?
13 A. At that time there was just the basic court which at the time was
14 known as the municipal court in Trebinje.
15 Q. Just a moment, please. We are now dealing with 1992, say from
16 April until the end of the year; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, you are going by all means too fast.
19 I'm going to slow down by putting a question to the witness.
20 Mr. Zecevic asked you:
21 "I suppose that the MUP or that the MUP of Republika Srpska had
22 identical problems in documenting war crimes committed against some other
23 ethnic groups in the territory of the Republika Srpska?" Answer: "Yes."
24 I don't really get the sense of the question and the sense of the answer,
25 what do you mean by your yes?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I meant to say is that I meant
2 that it was linked to the previous question, that in relation to the
3 criminal report that I signed, it was difficult for the police of the
4 Federation to collect documents about those crimes committed because
5 there were no witnesses. All of the witnesses were either in the
6 territory of Republika Srpska or abroad. Similar problems were
7 encountered by the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska also
8 because they couldn't locate witnesses when it comes about -- when it
9 comes to Bosniaks, and they also couldn't locate, say, members of
10 paramilitary units. And both sides encountered such problems in
11 documenting these war crimes. That's what I spoke about, or maybe I
12 misunderstood the question.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: No, no, probably not. And then you mean you had
14 problems in the Republika Srpska in relation to crimes committed in the
15 Republika Srpska? That's what you are saying?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Just briefly, to clarify, I hope I will be of assistance to the
20 Trial Chamber and you as well. So when we speak of these crimes, say a
21 crime is committed, victims and witnesses usually after the crime cross
22 over into the territory which is under the control of Muslim or Croat
23 forces, and by doing so they make it impossible for you to carry out an
24 investigation, to file a criminal report, to locate people who would
25 testify, and they make it impossible for you to collect key evidence
1 necessary in order to institute criminal proceedings against the
2 perpetrators? You cannot find witnesses to identify perpetrators, that's
3 the essence of the problems?
4 A. Yes, that's how I understood it.
5 Q. And the same applied to the members of the MUP from Muslim and
6 Croat parts that were under the control of Muslim and Croat forces
7 because their witnesses would also cross over into the territory of
8 Republika Srpska or go to other countries throughout the world?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I hope the Trial Chamber is
12 satisfied or if you need me, I can put additional questions about this to
13 the witness. Thank you.
14 Q. Now, let us go back to the judicial organs. The previous
15 territorial organisation of judicial organs of Bosnia and Herzegovina
16 the district court in Mostar as the highest court for the entire
17 territory of Herzegovina
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In the territory of Herzegovina
20 Srpska, there was just one basic court and it was located in Trebinje?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. After Republika Srpska was established and its judicial organs, a
23 higher court in Trebinje was set up and there also remained the basic
24 courts in Trebinje, and the third court was set up in Nevesinje; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. In that situation this establishment and the setting up of courts
2 went very slowly and it wasn't very efficient; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. In comparison with the peacetime when you compare the function of
5 courts during peacetime to the situation that existed in the greater part
6 of 1992, could you say that the judicial system when it comes to criminal
7 proceedings functioned properly or not?
8 A. I don't think it functioned at the time. I think that there were
9 only two judges in the basic court in Trebinje.
10 Q. Thank you very much. This absolutely did not mean that the
11 police did not carry out on-site investigations in every single case and
12 all the other investigative measures with criminal reports as a result,
13 regardless of the fact that the courts were not functioning at the time?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. So your competencies and your tasks were completed when US police
16 filed a criminal report with the relevant responsible Prosecutor?
17 A. Yes, unless certain additional investigative measures are
19 Q. You said that before the war you went out to inspect public
20 security stations throughout Herzegovina
21 A. Yes, all of them. All of them Herzegovina.
22 Q. So, yes, throughout Herzegovina
23 1986, and in 1989, and in 1990 and so on?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I'm sure that you know that every public security station has
1 something that is called a KU registry book?
2 A. Yes, in their crime prevention section.
3 Q. Can you, but very briefly, please, explain to us what this KU
4 register contains, what kind of information?
5 A. At the police station there are several important registers or
6 books. One is the book of daily events which is kept by the duty service
7 of the police. They enter into this book all of the events, all of the
8 reports that come in from citizens, and all of the crimes.
9 In addition to this, in the crime prevention police there is also
10 a book which is permanently archived and it is known as a K register,
11 which is the register of crimes. So crimes are recorded in two books.
12 Information there entered concerns a perpetrator whether he is known or
13 not known when the investigation was commenced, when it was concluded,
14 and so on, so for each crime there are several columns over two pages,
15 over 15 columns for each entry.
16 Q. Thank you. And you said that this K register is a permanent
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. That means that in the public security station, this document is
20 held in perpetuity?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So each station is obliged to preserve this document?
23 A. Yes, that is correct.
24 Q. Can you please tell me whether this register was maintained for
25 each year separately or it was maintained continuously? For example, was
1 a register started when the station was opened, and then maintained until
2 the book was full when a new one would be started? Can you explain how
3 it worked?
4 A. No, on the 31st of December of each year one K register would be
5 completed. It would be closed. There would be a stamp placed, and it
6 would be signed by the chief of the station or a police official, and
7 then a new one would be started for the next year until the book was
9 Q. Thank you. Now that we are discussing this matter, yesterday on
10 page 34, line 6 to 15 you were asked by my learned friend from the
11 Prosecution about the planting of explosives at the mosque in Ljubinje;
12 do you remember that from yesterday?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Can you please tell me, this specific incident by its very nature
15 and according to the nature of police work, it should be entered into the
16 daily event log-book; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. After that a team would be sent to the crime scene?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. An investigation would be conducted. Did you speak with any
22 A. Yes, I think that we did. I don't know how much I would need to
23 explain that.
24 Q. No, no, I'm just asking you about the system, the way things
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So all the documents are held in a police file; right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And each of those actions would be documented in the K register;
5 is that correct?
6 A. The act is recorded, not each supplemental action or document
7 that goes into the file. You could have 50 documents, 50 statements.
8 Q. All right. Very well. You told us yesterday that you didn't
9 manage to find the perpetrators of that crime?
10 A. Yes, that is correct.
11 Q. And so is this crime registered as committed by unidentified
12 perpetrators in the register?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And criminal charges was submitted against unidentified
15 perpetrators; is that correct?
16 A. Yes, I can answer the way the procedures officially were supposed
17 to be conducted, but, yes, that is how it's usually done.
18 Q. In that particular instance and in other cases, all the data in
19 the K registers in all the stations still exist, right?
20 A. This is how the police force works. It's not something that is
21 out of the ordinary. Everybody knows that.
22 Q. Okay. Isn't it also correct that the key document in your work
23 are the rules on the execution of duties in the police force?
24 A. Yes, that is correct.
25 Q. This rule book existed at the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the
1 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, do you remember from what year?
2 A. Well, it was after the law. This is a kind of rule book with
3 guide-lines that is adopted after the law is passed, guiding the work of
4 the police force. So it dates from 1977. If any new rules are adopted
5 or such guide-lines, mostly they are copied from somewhere else.
6 Q. Can you please tell me the rules of the MUP, of the Socialist
7 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1977 was used after the MUP of
8 Republika Srpska was formed in 1992; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. After the MUP of Republika Srpska rules were adopted on the
11 execution of duties in the domain of public security, it's identical to
12 this one, isn't it?
13 A. Yes, until the new Law on Criminal Procedure was adopted when the
14 times that one is allowed to stay in official premises was changed. In
15 the rule book this was changed to three days, and it's slightly different
16 in the law, isn't it?
17 Q. Can you please tell me the Law on Criminal Procedure that you
18 just referred to which influenced and had the effect of changes in the
19 rules, when was it adopted?
20 A. I don't know. Perhaps in 2003 or 2004.
21 Q. Thank you very much. Can you please tell me just one thing, we
22 talked about that. Actually, you covered that with the Prosecutor
23 yesterday. The collegium in July 1992, you said in your statements, and
24 I think also yesterday you mentioned it, that the minister, Mr. Stanisic
25 and his associates wanted you as a professional policeman with
1 considerably more experience than Krsto Savic take over the leadership of
2 the Trebinje CSB?
3 A. Well, not like that. They wanted me to come to Trebinje and to
4 perform the duties of a deputy. I don't know if the minister wanted that
5 exactly, but I was often called because of that.
6 Q. The Ministry of Republika Srpska in the course of 1992 sent
7 certain Working Groups for the purpose of improving the situation in the
8 Trebinje CSB, do you recall that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Yesterday during the examination-in-chief you looked at a
11 document dated the 6th of July, it was a meeting of the 6th of July,
12 1992, attended by Mr. Skipina and some other members of the MUP of
13 Republika Srpska from the headquarters who had come to attend this kind
14 of meeting; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can you please tell me during such meetings which were attended
17 by such Working Groups or kind of inspection, did they criticise the
18 state of affairs and did they seek that improvements be made and that
19 work be done strictly according to the law, yes or no?
20 A. Yes, they did.
21 Q. I would now like to show you some documents and orders of some
22 gentlemen from the ministry and from Mr. Stanisic, and perhaps we can
23 comment on them to see which documents you received and which ones you
24 are familiar with.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at document
1 1D2751, please. I think that that is the fifth tab, tab 5 in your set of
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 MS. KORNER: Just while that's being done, I spoke to Mr. Zecevic
5 about these documents before and asked him where they had been obtained
6 from. These aren't our documents, I don't think. And I'd just like to
7 clarify for the record that they were acquired by the Defence from the RS
8 MUP. Is that right, Mr. Zecevic?
9 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct.
10 Q. [Interpretation] You opened the document, it's an order to public
11 security stations dated the 26th of July. It should be in your tab 5.
12 A. Tab 6 actually.
13 Q. Tab 6, all right, I apologise.
14 A. Okay, I have it.
15 Q. Could you please look at the document. It's a document from the
16 Security Services Centre in Trebinje, which I hope was delivered to you
17 as well. Do you recall that document?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The document conveys an order by the minister of Internal
20 Affairs, or the Ministry of Internal Affairs, based on the conclusions
21 that we reviewed, the ones from the first ministry collegium session of
22 the 11th of July held in Belgrade
23 ministry documents. Do you remember that?
24 A. Yes, yes, I do.
25 Q. When we look at Article 1, it says:
1 "All MUP members who committed crimes with the exception of
2 political and verbal offences prior to or since the beginning of combat
3 activities or the establishment of the MUP of the Serbian Republic
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina, take legal measures to remove them from our ranks,
5 relieve them of duty, and place them at the disposal of the Army of
6 Republika Srpska."
7 Do you see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Can you please tell me -- actually, let us comment on this a
10 little bit because the fact is being sort of mystified here in this case.
11 When the ministry insists in this way for certain individuals to be
12 removed because they do not deserve to be members of the MUP because of
13 their previous activities, this is one aspect of it?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The other aspect is that while they were members of the MUP from
16 the beginning of the combat activities and the establishment of the MUP,
17 they had committed some criminal acts so this is the second option for
18 removal; is that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Does that mean that a such persons who committed certain crimes
21 are being pardoned and that criminal proceedings are not conducted
22 against them or not?
23 A. This is not a pardon. Criminal charges or misdemeanour charges
24 are submitted against those persons. The second category is the combat
25 assignment if we are talking about active members of the force. That
1 person is being transferred to the Army of Republika Srpska as a wartime
2 assignment, and against them criminal charges will be submitted, and this
3 is something that I did as well.
4 Q. All right. We will have examples, but let us clarify this first.
5 This means that, for example, a member of the police force carries out a
6 crime. At the time when information is discovered that this person had
7 committed a crime, actions are taken in respect of that person just like
8 they would be taken in respect of any other person.
9 A. So if a person is a police officer, they are supposed to prevent
10 somebody else from stealing, so --
11 Q. Well, for the purposes of my question and the transcript, please
12 answer yes or no, so what is the answer?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So investigation is initiated against such a person which will
15 perhaps result in criminal charges being submitted and then that person
16 would be placed under the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor's Office for
17 further processing; is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In case we are talking about a more serious crime, a more serious
20 crime, the perpetrator is arrested and detained up to a period of three
21 days; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I mentioned for the transcript
24 would be detained for a period of up to three days. Thank you.
25 Q. So these proceedings are conducted in relation to any person
1 regardless of whether they are a member of the MUP or not?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In the event that we are talking about a crime that does not
4 require detention or arrest of a person, that person who committed such a
5 crime is subject to disciplinary proceedings within the ministry or
6 within your public security station; is that correct? And this person's
7 disciplinary responsibility is different from his criminal
9 A. Yes, absolutely.
10 Q. So this means that the disciplinary responsibility remains within
11 the public security station, whereas criminal responsibility is forwarded
12 on to the Prosecutor and the Court for further action; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So in the cases where we have a perpetrator of a minor crime,
15 which does not require that that person be arrested or put into custody,
16 such a MUP member is suspended by the ministry, a criminal report is
17 filed against that person to the responsible Prosecutor, and at that
18 moment, this person is placed at the disposal of the armed forces of
19 Republika Srpska; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So this is the meaning of this order, that this is what needs to
22 be done rather, it doesn't mean that somebody is pardoned in relation to
23 a crime that that person has committed; correct?
24 A. Yes, you're right.
25 Q. In accordance with the then --
1 A. May I ask you, are you asking me whether the only punishment for
2 a crime is being sent to the army?
3 Q. Well ...
4 A. I suppose you know that that's not true.
5 Q. Well, I know that, but we are hearing different kinds of
6 arguments here. But tell me, based on our then regulation and also now,
7 regulations now in existence, it is only the president who has a right to
8 pardon somebody from criminal prosecution according to the constitution;
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Tell me, please, this need to place such persons and all other
12 persons at the disposal of the Army of Republika Srpska stemmed from the
13 pressure that you as members of police faced from the citizens and
14 members of the Army of Republika Srpska in relation to your reserve
15 force; right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. At the time it was believed that if somebody is a member of
18 police reserve force, that was an avenue for evading going to the front
19 and taking part in combat activities there, that was one of the ways of
20 evading it; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And then all of these civilian organs and the military pressured
23 you to transfer these police reserve members to the military reserve and
24 have them sent to the front; right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. In addition to that, the actual situation at the front was such
2 that they always lacked personnel who was fit for the military?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So in the context that we have explained just now, that is the
5 context in which we need to read this order that we have just discussed?
6 A. Certainly.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can I tender this order in
8 evidence, please.
9 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D47, Your Honours.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Tell me, please, when I asked you about this order you said that
13 you had a case in your career where you disciplined one of your workers
14 and placed him under -- at the disposal of the Army of Republika Srpska,
15 can you explain?
16 A. Yes, briefly. Not just one. I disciplined more than one. There
17 were several suspensions, but if you suspend such a worker and he stays
18 at home just lying there and there's a war going on, and I have a case of
19 a policeman who drove somebody while under the influence. They went to a
20 village, they got drunk there, and this policeman was then in a traffic
21 accident in which the vehicle was completely destroyed. So naturally, I
22 filed a criminal report against that policeman. I suspended him, I
23 submitted a claim for compensation in the amount of the value of the
24 vehicle. He was suspended, and then transferred to the Army of Republika
25 Srpska. And when it comes to misdemeanours where say somebody stole 5
1 litres of fuel from an official car, well, we didn't have just a single
2 such case, we had more.
3 Q. Thank you. Do you remember the name of this policeman of yours
4 that was prosecuted?
5 A. Nenad Popara.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MS. KORNER: Could we have a date, if that's possible.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Do you remember when that was? Do you remember the date?
10 A. I think it was in the summer of 1992. I'm not sure about the
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Is this satisfactory for you? Summer of 1992.
13 MS. KORNER: Yes.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: That's the best we should have.
15 MS. KORNER: No, I shouldn't have interrupted in any event, but I
16 was just wondering if he could give us a date, that was all.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
18 Q. [Interpretation] As I've said to you, I will be putting some
19 other documents to you from the MUP of Republika Srpska.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 1D693,
21 which should be the following document.
22 Q. This is a document or rather a dispatch dated 17th December 1992
23 It was sent by the MUP administration at its seat to all chiefs of SCBs
24 [as interpreted] and all chiefs of SJBs, do you remember this document,
25 you should have received it?
1 A. Yes, this was a cable which was the usual type of communication.
2 Q. So this cable again pertains to checks of all MUP employees
3 through operative misdemeanours and criminal records; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In addition to order -- to the order which stipulated that those
6 who had a negative record had to be relieved of duties immediately, and
7 there was also a punishment envisioned in such cases?
8 A. Yes. It says here that payment of wages would be stopped.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we tender -- could we have a
11 number for this document, please.
12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
13 JUDGE HALL: It's now admitted and marked.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D48, Your Honours.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 65 ter
16 261, please.
17 Q. This is an order of the Ministry of the Interior from Bijeljina
18 number 52/92, dated 23rd October 1992, and again it was sent to all
19 chiefs of CSB and SJBs, and in it they order the redaction of the reserve
20 police force, and it also says that the remaining reserve policemen have
21 to be made available for wartime assignment in the Army of Republika
22 Srpska. Do you remember this document?
23 A. Yes. And perhaps we initiated such a document for the well known
24 problems that they always asked us to do this. And it says here that all
25 military commands be notified that we are no longer duty-bound to provide
1 policemen to send them to the front. It was a very big problem for us,
2 and I think that in a meeting we initiated this. We started this
3 initiative. We asked the minister to act, or rather, we highlighted this
4 problem for them.
5 Q. This order, if I understood you well, should be put in the
6 context with what we spoke about earlier where there was pressure on the
7 part of civilian authorities and the militaries to send reserve policemen
8 to the front, that was on one side, and on the other side in cases where
9 policemen were resubordinated to the military, the military would take
10 away your personnel that you needed in order to carry out your police
11 tasks; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Which means that they made it impossible for you to carry out the
14 tasks for which the police was established, the police is meant to carry
15 out these tasks?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And this is why you asked that such an order be issued. You
18 initiated this?
19 A. Yes. Well, we couldn't ask for an order to be issued, but we
20 highlighted this as a problem. And it didn't only exist in our
21 territory. It existed in most other locations.
22 Q. In addition to legislation and rules in the police, you are also
23 duty-bound to act in accordance with mandatory instructions; right?
24 A. Yes. Those are sublaws regulating the work of the police.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we tender this
1 into evidence, please. This document.
2 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D49.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown
5 1D00-4279, please.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Just to correct the transcript, the exhibit that
7 has just been admitted is 1D49.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Tell me, please, this is a document of the Ministry of the
10 Interior dated 28th September 1992. This is the document of Republika
11 Srpska, of course, and these are instructions on the rules of behaviour
12 and interpersonal relations of the personnel of the Ministry of the
13 Interior. Do you see this?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did you receive this instruction?
16 A. Yes, and we had some similar before the war. This is a code of
17 behaviour for the Ministry of Interior workers, and I think it's similar
18 or perhaps even identical to the one before the war.
19 Q. So these instructions specify rules of behaviour and also rules
20 for interpersonal relations among the members of the Ministry of the
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And that's very important in order to establish order within the
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we also have this document
2 exhibited, please.
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D50.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown -- just
6 a moment, please. 1D2436.
7 Q. Again instructions, and I think that you mentioned it
8 yesterday --
9 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, just a moment.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, we were wondering whether in the
12 interest of being as economical with time as we could, if your -- the
13 documents which you are now seeking to tender all tend towards the same
14 point, seek to establish the same point, whether -- subject of course to
15 what the Prosecution has to say, they couldn't be tendered together
16 rather than -- because of the four that you have -- that this witness has
17 been -- tendered through this witness, they are -- whereas they are
18 different in their specifics, they all tend to go to establish system
19 so --
20 MR. ZECEVIC: That's correct, Your Honour, let me -- if I may
21 interrupt you, I'm sorry.
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't have anything against that. These are the
24 orders of the Ministry of Interior of Republika Srpska, some
25 instructions, some documents which are all official documents. I gave
1 the other binder to the witness if the witness can have the binder over
2 night maybe he can check out and we can give them the numbers according
3 to the list which I provided to all parties, and they may be admitted as
4 exhibits, if my learned friend does not object to that. And that would
5 significantly shorten the period. Your Honours, I do intend to rely on
6 these documents. It's either -- I think this is -- these are obviously
7 very important documents. Many of them are signed by Mr. Stanisic
8 himself. Therefore, we do intend to rely on these documents. Either we
9 introduce them through this witness or any other, it's...
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think, if I may interrupt, the point that was
11 suggested by the presiding judge was simpler, namely, to simply ask if
12 any of these documents could be grouped together for the purpose of
13 showing one part only. Like, if the issue is that you wish to show that
14 instructions were handed out from various authorities for the purpose of
15 imposing discipline on the police personnel or MUP personnel, then
16 perhaps those could be grouped together and just put in as one bundle.
17 And then we could admitted those four or five documents together in one
18 rather than having to go through each of them because we can't see from
19 your list what these documents are about.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand. I know. Your Honour, I can do that.
21 The only problem is, for example, we have I believe three or four
22 instructions which are obviously documents which as the witness said were
23 essential for the operation of the -- daily operation of the MUP. They
24 are only instructions, but they refer to different -- different matters.
25 That's why I'm concerned if we give -- maybe we can give one number like
1 100 A, B, C or 1 or something. I am perfectly willing to accommodate the
2 Trial Chamber with that. Because we are anyhow finishing now, I can do
3 that overnight and come up with solution as I can in the morning.
4 JUDGE HALL: Well, you have overnight to think about how you
5 would approach this, Mr. Zecevic.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much, I will.
7 MS. KORNER: If it assists, as far as documents are concerned
8 that appear on the face of it to be signed or sent on behalf of Mico
9 Stanisic and on the basis of the assurance I receive from counsel that
10 these were obtained by the Defence from the RS MUP, and obviously I'm not
11 going to object to them going in, I mean, for whatever reason we haven't
12 got these documents, some of them anyhow. So on that basis, however he
13 chooses to deal with it is all right with us.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thanks. It's just that the same rule applies to
15 the Defence that applies to the Prosecution, namely that the Chamber
16 needs to at least be given some idea about what these documents contain.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: No, I understand. I intend to ask the witness,
18 but, Your Honours, it can be simple. I can list down the instructions
19 and I can ask him, Are these instructions the instructions that you
20 received in 1992, have you followed these instructions, and that's -- I
21 think that would be it. And the witness can have the binder tonight in
22 order to reflect his memory. Thank you very much. Shall we --
23 MS. KORNER: As we've got two minutes left can I just raise
24 tomorrow with Your Honours, which -- the next witness rather?
25 MR. ZECEVIC: He should be excused.
1 MS. KORNER: Yes, the witness can leave. Yes, absolutely.
2 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krulj, you are still -- as you would appreciate,
3 I'm certain, your evidence is still not complete, and I would remind you
4 of the instructions that I gave you yesterday, that during the overnight
5 adjournment, you can't speak with counsel from either side and in your
6 discussions with anyone outside the Chamber you can't discuss your
7 testimony. So we would resume tomorrow morning at 9.00 in this
8 courtroom. Thank you, sir.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, again you may have gathered from what
11 Mr. Zecevic has proposed, you would be left a bundle overnight that you
12 can peruse and see whether some of the documents in that once you were to
13 familiarise yourself with them, are documents which are of the same class
14 and character that can go in together, but it would be counsel's call.
15 When you return tomorrow, you would be in a position to answer counsel's
16 question in that regard. Do you understand?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am aware this document, these are
18 instructions and orders.
19 JUDGE HALL: So you may have the binder overnight to familiarise
20 yourself with them. Thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right. Very well. Thank you.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 [Trial Chamber and legal officer
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I just wanted to confirm that Your
1 Honours' order as to how I deal with the evidence that -- the documents
2 that Mr. Djeric can deal with stands and therefore I can make a selection
3 from the categories, and the rest will be -- no, the rest will be MFI'd
4 subject to cross-examination, is that still the order?
5 All right. Well, leaving that aside, Your Honour, we are coming
6 to intercepts tomorrow. I thought there was only one. In fact, a check
7 has revealed that there are no less than seven altogether -- one extra
8 one but on top of the one, which Mr. Djeric has to listen to. Now, he
9 has already listened to one, and I've told Mr. Zecevic this, he has
10 identified the voice of the speaker and to the extent he can recognise
11 his own voice, his voice. The whole question of intercepts is now
12 outstanding we have responded today five days earlier than we ought but
13 we have actually filed the response today. My understanding from
14 Mr. Zecevic, however, is if Mr. Mr. Djeric can say yes I recognise the
15 voice of the other person to whom I'm speaking, I can lead that evidence.
16 Is that right? I just want to make sure.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: No, I said -- it was a misunderstanding.
18 MS. KORNER: Well, then I don't where we are going to. That's
19 going to be a problem tomorrow.
20 JUDGE HALL: We are obviously.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
22 MS. KORNER: I know it's time but we'll have to because as I say,
23 there are seven intercepts which I want to deal with and how we deal with
24 it when the motion was served a week ago or ten days ago, I don't know,
25 but I'm going to be arguing that I should be allowed to lead that
2 MR. ZECEVIC: It was my understanding that Your Honours wanted to
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, but we are again stressing the interpreters
5 and it is something that we cannot and should not do. But, Ms. Korner is
6 asking for an indication from the Chamber here now, so if you can put
7 down your comments very very quickly then we'll be able to rule on it.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, we objected to the intercepts.
9 There is a motion pending. That is our position. I talked to Ms. Korner
10 today. In a situation where the witness would be able to say, okay, this
11 is my conversation with this person, I recognise my voice, of course, and
12 it this person's voice, of course. Then our objection will only be
13 limited to -- not to the authenticity, but to the actual legality of the
14 intercept because we have -- I don't know if you read our motion, there
15 is two or three points why we are objecting against the intercepts.
16 So that is the essence of our communication. But doesn't mean --
17 I just want to put this on the record, Your Honour. It doesn't mean that
18 somebody else can come and say oh, yes, I recognise, I talked to
19 Mr. Zecevic years ago and Mr. Cvijetic and I know this is -- those are
20 the two voices. That will not go. Thank you.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE HALL: I thank the interpreters for their indulgence, and
23 we take the adjournment now until tomorrow morning at 9.00.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.
25 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 28th day of
1 October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.