Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 2137

 1                           Wednesday, 28 October 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

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

 6     IT-08-91-T the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning, all, and may I have the appearances,

 8     please.

 9             MS. KORNER:  Joanna Korner, Belinda Pidwell, Crispian Smith for

10     the Prosecution.

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

12     Slobodan Cvijetic for Stanisic Defence.

13             MR. KRGOVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Dragan Krgovic for

14     Mr. Zupljanin.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

16             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, may I just say that with the consent

17     of the Defence we are going to interpose the witness who should have come

18     later this week.  He has domestic problems which mean that he couldn't

19     hang on as we anticipate the witness Mr. Djeric is likely to take a very

20     long time so we hope that Your Honours won't mind we're interposing that

21     witness.  He will need -- he's got protective measures, and I think it's

22     image and pseudonym, so we'll have to adjourn for 20 minutes.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  We will not have to adjourn because it's just

24     image.

25             MS. KORNER:  Is it?  Oh, right.  Sorry, my fault.  Thank you.

Page 2138

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  There's no objection on protective measures from

 2     Defence.

 3                           [The witness takes the stand]

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, while the witness is entering, I

 5     tried my best to group the documents as instructed by the Trial Chamber.

 6     I managed that, and I grouped them in five different groups.  One is

 7     instructions and rule books.  The second one are the instruction

 8     concerning detention and the facilities.  The third group is documents

 9     concerning MUP members who committed crimes, which we discussed before.

10     The fourth is information requests.  The fifth is war crimes

11     instructions, and the last is instructions concerning the looting.

12     Looting, looting of the property and other crimes committed by members of

13     the MUP.

14             Now, the problem, unfortunately, Your Honours, is with the --

15     with the e-court.  I was thinking about it.  The point of the matter is

16     that only one document can be shown on the -- on the monitor at a certain

17     point in time, so I will anyhow need to go document by document.  I will

18     try to keep it at a very fast pace, but ...

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Our proposal is that if you show us one document

23     from each group, say the most important document from each group, and if

24     you assert that the other documents in that group are the same or more or

25     less the same, and if the Prosecution doesn't object then I think we have

Page 2139

 1     a look at one document and we have that admitted along with the two or

 2     three or four other documents in that group.

 3             I don't know if that is acceptable to the Prosecution.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I --

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Just to suggest some way of binding the Chamber's

 6     need to actually have a look at least some of the documents and the quest

 7     for expediency.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand Your Honour's wish, but let me just

 9     give you one example.  For example, one of the instructions concerns the

10     reporting, the need for reporting which the witness talked about during

11     the direct examination.  So daily reporting, monthly, three months and a

12     year reporting.  There is an instruction on that.  So that's one thing.

13     But also there is an instruction on the disciplinary responsibility of

14     the members of MUP which is clearly very important.

15             Now, I can -- I can show the instruction on the -- the rule-book

16     on disciplinary responsibility during the time of imminent threat of war,

17     but I don't know how is that connected with the -- with the instruction

18     on the reporting.  That is the only problem that I have in that respect,

19     Your Honours.  But if -- if the Trial Chamber pleases, that way we can do

20     it.  And if Ms. Korner doesn't object, of course.

21             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I don't mind at all.  I mean, if I'm

22     given a list of the documents that have been provided to us and shown

23     what -- you know, what categories they go into, rather like the ones we

24     did for Mr. Djeric, then I don't require the witness to simply say, "Yes,

25     I recognise this," if that's all that's going to be asked.  But obviously

Page 2140

 1     if you want to ask -- if the implementation personally by the witness is

 2     going to be sought, well, then obviously the document will have to be

 3     looked at.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  I definitely need the implementation from the

 5     witness.

 6             MS. KORNER:  I don't think we will save time, Your Honours, I'm

 7     afraid.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  That just occurred to me that the whole

 9     administrative back and forth in terms of how to do it, we'll probably

10     spent as much time as we would have had gone through them.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Such is life, I suppose.

13                           WITNESS:  ALEKSANDAR KRULJ [Resumed]

14                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

15                           Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:  [Continued]

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Before I begin, good morning, Mr. Krulj.

17        A.   Good morning.

18        Q.   Yesterday I showed you the witness document 1D2436.  The witness

19     commented on the document, but due to lack of time I omitted to tender it

20     into evidence.  This is the instruction on reporting, the document I just

21     mentioned a minute ago.

22             [In English] May I have -- yes, I'm waiting for the Trial Chamber

23     to -- I think the document has been commented, and I offer it for

24     evidence.

25             JUDGE HALL:  My apologies, Mr. Zecevic.  Marked and entered --

Page 2141

 1     entered and marked, sorry.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D51, Your Honours.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  The next

 4     document that I would like to put to the witness, and can it please be

 5     shown on the screen, is 1D5393.  This is a mandatory instruction on the

 6     procedure by the Ministry of the Interior when conducting searching

 7     activities, and this is 1D5393.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  What number is this?

 9             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   I can't help you any longer because I had to group these

11     documents, but this is the mandatory instruction by the Ministry of the

12     Interior when conducting searching activities.  It will come up on the

13     screen.

14             Mr. Krulj, this instruction pertains to searching activities when

15     they are searching for perpetrators who at the time when the criminal

16     report was made were not available to law enforcement organs; correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And this instruction sets out a certain procedure on to how this

19     needs to be done, what are the deadlines for wanted notices and so on.

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   This is from October 1992.  And while you worked as chief of

22     public security station in Ljubinje, I suppose that you applied this

23     instruction.

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   But until the instruction was issued, until it came down from the

Page 2142

 1     MUP of Republika Srpska in October 1992, until that time you applied the

 2     instruction that was in force for the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and

 3     Herzegovina; isn't that right?

 4        A.   Yes, and it's almost completely identical.

 5        Q.   Thank you very much.  Could we have this document tendered into

 6     evidence, please.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D52, Your Honours.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Now can we show the witness

10     1D00-3727.

11        Q.   This is instruction for drafting annual reports, and this

12     instruction is linked to the previous document, the previous exhibit --

13     rather, the first one we mentioned this morning, which is called

14     Instruction on urgent current occasional and statistical reporting within

15     the Ministry of the Interior.

16             MS. KORNER:  Sorry.  I'm so sorry to interrupt.  I was distracted

17     by something else when Mr. Zecevic produced the document.  I haven't got

18     a translation.  I didn't see one on the screen.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  Oh, I'm so sorry.  I'm so sorry.  This is because

20     of the fast pace I'm going.  There is one of the other documents which is

21     still pending translation.  So if we can have it MFI'd, and we will offer

22     it for evidence once the translation is -- is received.  I'm really

23     sorry.

24             MS. KORNER:  I have no reason to doubt it is what you say it is.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  No, no, no, it was sent to CLSS some time ago, but

Page 2143

 1     it hasn't been as yet translated.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  So that the document should -- that document should

 3     now be marked for identification rather than --

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Overlapping speakers] that is correct, Your

 5     Honour, pending translation.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D52 will be marked for identification,

 8     Your Honours.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.  I'm really sorry for this.

10        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Krulj, were you able to find 1D3727, which

11     is the instruction on drafting annual reports?  You have it on the

12     screen.

13        A.   Yes, on the screen.

14        Q.   Do you see this?  This was sent to everybody, CSBs, to everybody,

15     to SJBs, to everybody.  You received this document?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Did you write your annual report for 1992 on the basis of this

18     document?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we tender this document into

22     evidence, please.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, admitted and marked.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D53, Your Honours.

25             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown 65 ter

Page 2144

 1     document 242.

 2        Q.   This is the document that has a cover letter of the 19th of

 3     September, 1992, and these are the rules on the disciplinary

 4     responsibility of the workers of the Ministry of the Interior under the

 5     wartime regimen once the immediate threat of war has been declared.  You

 6     see that document?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Are you familiar with these rules?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   There are just two or three things that I wish to ask you from

11     this -- these rules.  These rules shorten the procedure for establishing

12     disciplinary responsibility of the workers of the MUP; right?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Disciplinary proceedings are regulated by law, the Law on

15     Internal Affairs and by the rules on disciplinary proceedings in

16     peacetime.  Isn't that right?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Once an immediate threat of war is declared and once the wartime

19     regimen of work is introduced -- was introduced, it became necessary to

20     adopt these rules on the disciplinary responsibility in order to be more

21     efficient in ensuring the discipline among the workers of MUP.  Isn't

22     that right?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Now, would you please look at Article 2.  Page 3 in the Serbian.

25     It's 0324-6179 in Serbian.  That's the ERN number in Serbian.

Page 2145

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we see the English text as

 2     well, Article 2.

 3        Q.   Article 2, which we can see is continued, is carried over on page

 4     3, enumerates serious violations of duty by the members of the interior,

 5     the additional ones that were envisioned for this wartime regimen; right?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   At the very beginning, I think the third bullet point -- so this

 8     is Article 2, on the third page, on the following page, please.  So from

 9     the above, the third bullet point it says:

10             "Committing a crime for dishonourable motives."

11             Could you tell us what would that be, a crime for dishonourable

12     motives?  What would be the elements of that crime?

13        A.   Well, a crime for dishonourable motives could be of -- a crime of

14     a sexual nature or gaining material gain, profit from a victim.

15        Q.   Yeah, from a victim.  All right.  And right underneath that the

16     next bullet point:

17             "Expressing national, racial, or religious intolerance and acting

18     against the defence measures and against the security interests of the

19     state."

20             Do you see that?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And in addition to this there were also grave violations of work

23     duty which could be penalised by terminating somebody, which is the most

24     serious consequence that could be pronounced as a result of a

25     disciplinary proceedings.  Isn't that right?

Page 2146

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   I apologise to the interpreters.  I'm speaking quite fast, and I

 3     think on page 9, line 18, I think what we discussed is the termination of

 4     work.  That's the term.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we see last page, Article 17,

 6     please.

 7        Q.   Article 17, please look at it.  Do you remember that article?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Article 17 of these rules says that the statute of limitations

10     for conducting disciplinary proceedings is extended.

11        A.   Yes, for light violations three months from the day that they

12     learned about the violation, and for grave violations the deadline was

13     extended by six months.

14        Q.   And then these rules extended doubly.  So for light violations it

15     was extended from three months to six months, and for grave violations

16     from six months to one year.  That's what it says here; right?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   In paragraph 3, if the violation of work duty also had elements

19     of a crime, then the institution of disciplinary proceedings would run

20     out, the statute of limitations would run out one year after the day that

21     they learned about such a violation.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   You will agree with me that these rules on disciplinary

24     responsibility are much stricter -- provided for much stricter rules

25     concerning the disciplinary responsibility of the members of the MUP?

Page 2147

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   In addition to making the rules much stricter, the statute of

 3     limitations was also extended so that -- so as to avoid that a violation

 4     that was made would be unpunished due to the fact that there was a war

 5     going on and there was an immediate threat of war declared and so on;

 6     right?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Thank you.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have this document admitted,

10     please, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, admitted and marked.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D54.

13             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] We have now completed this group of

14     documents which are rules and instructions, and now we're going to move

15     to documents that refer to rules on detention and -- and custody, and can

16     we please look at 1D00-264.

17             THE INTERPRETER:  2764, interpreter's correction.

18             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Very well.  Can you see on the monitor this is an order from the

20     MUP of the Republika Srpska of the 10th of August, 1992, and it was sent

21     to all the CSBs, and you will see at the bottom of the page it has also

22     been sent to some public security stations.  Did you directly receive

23     this document, or are you familiar with it by means of the order that you

24     received from the CSB of Trebinje?

25        A.   Well, the custom was that some of the documents that arrived at

Page 2148

 1     the centre only are copied and then dispatched in the form of an order to

 2     the public security stations, and public security stations usually

 3     received all of these orders through the CSB.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  You can see under item 1 that the order deals with

 5     detention and holding measures that are to be applied exclusively within

 6     existing regulations.  Do you see that?  That --

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   So that means that the detention and holding measures can be

 9     enforced only within the bounds provided for under the law.

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   In the next paragraph it sayings that the CSB chiefs are

12     personally responsible for the lives of the persons during detention and

13     custody and are responsible to prevent any kind of abuse in that area.

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And the third, it says that they have to fulfil the basic hygiene

16     and health requirements at the premises where those persons are being

17     held; is that correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Paragraph 2 talks about the security of collection centres, and

20     it says that the security collection centres are under the direct

21     responsibility of the Serbian Army and issues the instructions that if

22     the army didn't have enough manpower it shall therefore be necessary to

23     engage members of the reserve police pursuant to the laws that we

24     discussed yesterday.  So they would become part of the army forces at

25     that time in order to carry out the security duties in these collection

Page 2149

 1     centres; is that correct?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic, could you elicit from the witness

 4     how he distinguishes between detention centres and collection centres?

 5     Why is there this difference between the responsibility of the CSB on --

 6     for the first group and for the Serbian Army for the second group?

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Let me clarify.  Paragraph 1 of the order refers to measures of

 9     detention and holding.  The detention and holding measures are measures

10     that you, under the Law on Criminal Procedure and the Law on Internal

11     Affairs, exercise as part of your regular police duties; is that correct?

12        A.   Yes.  They are applied to perpetrators of criminal act, and they

13     can be held for up to a period of three days.

14        Q.   All right.  And these collection centres, this is a term that

15     does not exist in the Law on Criminal Procedure, and the police has no

16     jurisdiction either under the Law on Criminal Procedure or the Law on

17     Internal Affairs or any other law over such premises, collection centres.

18        A.   Yes, that is correct.  But I do not differentiate between

19     detention and collection centres.  Even I don't know what that is.  I

20     mean, is that the same thing?

21        Q.   I did not encounter any detention centres in this document.  I

22     didn't -- in paragraph 1, what is being mentioned is detention and

23     holding measures or custody, and then in paragraph 2 we have the

24     secure -- the collection centres.  Is that right?

25        A.   Yes.  These are two separate concepts, terms.

Page 2150

 1        Q.   In your territory you did not have --

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   The public security station in Ljubinje did not have any

 4     collection centres, did it?

 5        A.   No.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know how far

 7     we can get with this witness on this matter.  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  That's fine.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please tender this

10     document?

11             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, admitted and marked.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D55, Your Honours.

13             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we show the witness document

14     65 ter 217.  It's from the same group of documents.

15        Q.   This is a dispatch from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the

16     17th of August, 1992, to the public security centres and refers once

17     again to the order to act pursuant -- to act -- or the conduct towards

18     prisoners of war, refugees, civilian population.  Do you see that?

19        A.   Yes, I do.

20        Q.   Are you familiar with the contents of this document?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   This document is an order that prisoners of war, the civilian

23     population, and refugees should be treated exclusively according to the

24     law within the framework of the MUP jurisdiction and according to the war

25     on international conventions which replace the subject matter.

Page 2151

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Were you familiar with the norms regulating that particular area?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Paragraph 2 says:

 5             "The ministry shall immediately be informed of the existence of

 6     public outlaw, rogue prisons, camp and the treatment of persons of war or

 7     refugees that are being held there."

 8             Do you see that?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And the last paragraph says that with regard to persons who do

11     not comply with valid regulations, it says it is necessary, the last

12     sentence, to immediately start gathering information and documentation

13     and submit criminal reports to the authorised prosecutor's office.

14             Is this in accordance with the legal authorities of the MUP and

15     the regular procedures --

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   -- to which the law obliges you to?

18        A.   Obliges us to, yes.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Did you act -- in cases like this -- did you have

20     cases like this?

21        A.   No, I didn't.

22        Q.   But you are familiar with these regulations?

23        A.   Yes.

24             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we would like to

25     tender this document.

Page 2152

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, admitted and marked.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D56, Your Honours.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   We will look at the last document from this group, 1D00-197.

 5     It's a dispatch of the 24th of August, 1992, from the MUP, dispatched to

 6     the CSBs and the PJ -- and the SJBs.  Do you remember that document?

 7        A.   Yes, I do.

 8        Q.   In paragraph 2 -- or, actually, we can see from the document that

 9     the dispatch was a consequence of a request of the Ministry for Labour

10     and Social Affairs of Republika Srpska; is that correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And once again it refers to these illegal, irregular collection

13     centres, camps, and the like.  Is that correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   The Ministry of the Internal Affairs is placing you on notice

16     that regardless of the jurisdiction you would need to furnish the data,

17     meaning that even though you were not the person of jurisdiction

18     authorised for such collection centres, you were obliged to report all

19     that you know and report of the existence of such places if you were

20     aware of that; is that correct?

21        A.   Yes, but I think we need to make a comment here about

22     jurisdiction in general.

23        Q.   All right.  Go ahead.

24        A.   You can -- actually, when I was reading this document last night,

25     it says regardless of the jurisdiction.  So we did jobs that were not in

Page 2153

 1     our jurisdiction, that is true.  So I think that in this case, not only

 2     in relation to this document but generally, it's important to clarify the

 3     manner in which the civilian police was authorised for military

 4     conscripts that had committed criminal act.

 5             I think that the Prosecution and the Defence are asking questions

 6     about the military prosecution organs, military courts and so on.  So the

 7     army worked according to the laws of the federal state.  So we had no

 8     jurisdiction over military matters.  I am only talking about this in

 9     order to protect the reputation and the work of members of the police who

10     I believe did their jobs as honourably as they were able to.

11        Q.   Thank you, sir, but you spoke a little bit fast, so for purposes

12     of the transcript I would like to say the following:  I think on page 17,

13     lines 3 and 4 -- or lines 2 and 3, you said something slightly different

14     than what is in the transcript.  I'm going to clarify.  You did not have

15     any jurisdiction over members of the military; is that correct?

16        A.   Yes, that is correct.

17        Q.   So members of the military were absolutely under the jurisdiction

18     of military investigative and judicial organs; is that correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Let us now go back to the document.  This document

21     obliged you to furnish the following information:  The name of the place

22     where the detention camp, prison, or collection centre was located; the

23     name of the municipality; then who ordered the institution to be

24     established; who gave the order for those people to be brought to the

25     detention camps; the number of imprisoned people or captured people and

Page 2154

 1     their particulars; as well as the number of persons arrested and their

 2     particulars.

 3             So you were given the deadline until the 30th of August of that

 4     year to furnish this information.  Do you recall that?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Do you remember the document?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Since in your territory you didn't have such instances, I assume

 9     that there was no reason for you to act upon this order.

10        A.   That is correct.

11        Q.   Do you remember whether you informed the ministry that there were

12     no such centres in the Municipality of Ljubinje?

13        A.   Yes.  We were obliged also to reply in the negative.  This was

14     part of our duties.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we would like to

17     tender this document, please.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, admitted and marked.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D57.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please look at

21     65 ter 125.

22        Q.   This is a dispatch of the Banja Luka CSB of May 15th, 1992, which

23     is conveying to its public security stations under its jurisdiction the

24     text of the order received from the MUP, and this is why I am using this.

25     I am sure that you did not see the dispatch in this form, but the text

Page 2155

 1     was conveyed from the ministry order.  So I assume that you also found

 2     out about it through your CSB centre.

 3             Do you remember a dispatch with these contents?

 4        A.   No.  We didn't get this.  This is Banja Luka.  I cannot remember

 5     it right now.  Perhaps we did receive it.

 6        Q.   This again deals with the information about inadequate,

 7     unprincipled conduct of some members of the reserve forces, and the

 8     document takes the position that such persons cannot be members of the

 9     MUP, which is something that we discussed yesterday.

10        A.   Yes.  The centre probably did have this dispatch, but this matter

11     is covered by a number of documents, so I really cannot remember in

12     detail this particular one.  I think all the stations in the area of

13     Republika Srpska received a dispatch like this.

14        Q.   Well, the idea of showing you this document actually is something

15     that was done constantly.  This is the earliest one that I managed to

16     find of May 15th, but documents and orders of this content were re-issued

17     periodically throughout the entire 1992; is that correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not sure if I

21     should tender this or not because the witness was unable to recognise the

22     document.  I'm not going to tender that particular document then.

23             Next document, please, 65 ter 185.

24        Q.   This document comes from the Ministry of the Interior of

25     Republika Srpska, dated 23rd of July, 1992.  You have it on your monitor.

Page 2156

 1     This is an order that came as a result of the conclusions of that first

 2     collegium of the MUP of Republika Srpska which you attended on the 11th

 3     of July in Belgrade.  Isn't that right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   This document is from the same group of documents.  This order

 6     pertains to procedure that needs to be applied in relation to MUP members

 7     who committed crimes either earlier or during the conflict.

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   You can see here that the ministry is ordering you that in

10     relation to such members who have committed criminal acts before or since

11     the beginning of the war, in other words, since the formation of the MUP

12     of Republika Srpska, that you need to take legal measures with respect of

13     such members -- against such members.

14             When they say legal measures, or measures provided under the law,

15     do you mean -- do you read this to mean both criminal measures and

16     disciplinary measures?

17        A.   Yes, I understand it as both of those measures.

18        Q.   And then in item 2 they say the chiefs of CSBs are responsible

19     for implementing the order?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And then in item 3, the ministry required that information be

22     delivered to them by a certain date.

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Do you remember this order?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 2157

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this

 2     document into evidence, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, admitted and marked.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D58.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Another document on the following day.  This is 65 ter 188.

 7     Could we have that on our screens?  This is the document of the ministry

 8     dated the 24th of July, which is to say on the following day after the

 9     order that we just saw, which was dated 23rd of July, and this here is

10     dated 24th of July.  On behalf of the minister somebody else signed the

11     document, and it pertains to an identical situation, namely that members

12     of the ministry against whom criminal proceedings were underway before

13     responsible courts need to be relieved of duty and placed immediately at

14     the disposal of the Army of Republika Srpska.  Do you remember this

15     document?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   So this is yet another document from the series of documents

18     which all kept reiterating the same matter throughout 1992, from the very

19     beginning?

20        A.   Yes.

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have this document

22     tendered into evidence as well too.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, admitted and marked.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic, just for clarification, these

25     orders, do they imply that -- that persons who were under prosecution for

Page 2158

 1     having committed crimes were being released from the prisons and put

 2     under the army's command?

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours.  I believe that

 4     we have clarified this yesterday --

 5             MS. KORNER:  Shouldn't the witness answer rather than

 6     Mr. Zecevic?

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Naturally.  Naturally.  I

 8     apologise.

 9        Q.   Mr. Krulj, please.

10        A.   Members of the Ministry of the Interior who were criminally

11     prosecuted and against whom criminal proceedings are being instituted

12     before the competent courts of Republika Srpska should be relieved of

13     duty and placed at the disposal of the army.

14             This has nothing to do with criminal responsibility.  That is to

15     say, a policeman who made a violation earlier and criminal proceedings

16     were instituted against him or he just committed a violation or a crime

17     against him, criminal report would be submitted to the relevant

18     prosecutor's office.  And in addition to that, in addition to criminal or

19     disciplinary responsibility, in addition to that, he needed to be

20     relieved of duty.  He needed to be suspended from his regular police

21     duties and placed at the disposal of the army.  I think I explained that

22     yesterday.

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But would he be released from custody and

24     transferred to combat activities, for instance?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  No.  If he was in detention, then

Page 2159

 1     no.  If he committed a crime, a criminal report is filed against him,

 2     just like any other citizen.  A report is filed with the relevant

 3     prosecutor's office.  And simultaneously, he is suspended from his police

 4     duties.  So these are additional measures.  And proceedings are

 5     instituted against him regardless of where he is, be it in the army

 6     or ...

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes.  I think my problem is that I'm not sure I

 8     fully understand the link between being under investigation or

 9     prosecution and then the transfer to the army.

10             Suppose a policeman had committed a crime and was being

11     prosecuted for that, and he was not held in detention in relation to the

12     crime that he committed.  That the order apparently says that this

13     policeman would then be relieved of his duty, so he would no longer be

14     able to work as a policeman, and then he would be put to the army, I

15     suppose to be enrolled in the army as a soldier, and that's the link that

16     I'm not sure I understand.

17             Can you explain why was it that some policemen who had committed

18     crimes and were under prosecution were then not only relieved of their

19     police duties but also forced into the army?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  If we look at the rules on

21     disciplinary responsibility of the members of the MUP, then you will see

22     that there are light violations and grave violations.  A grave violation

23     would be a commission of a crime.  A disciplinary proceeding is

24     independent of any criminal proceeding, and in those cases these people

25     were mostly disciplined by terminating them at work for the crime they

Page 2160

 1     had committed regardless of what was the outcome of the criminal trial

 2     for that crime, and that person was terminated at work as a result of

 3     disciplinary proceedings.  That person would automatically be called up

 4     by a military organ to enlist him in the army.

 5             I hope that this is entirely clear, but if necessary, I will

 6     clarify more.

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   So if I may add on to this in order to assist further.  So a

10     military duty to participate in the defence of the country is the highest

11     duty according to the law and the constitution, and it is a duty of every

12     individual within a certain age range.  Isn't that right?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And in that sense everybody has a duty and an obligation to

15     defend their country.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   When a person is a member of the MUP, then that person carries

18     out that duty to defend via performing their duties within the Ministry

19     of the Interior as their work obligation.

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Since in May a general mobilisation was declared -- do you

22     remember that?  It was declared in Republika Srpska.

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Then the person whose work duty within the organs of MUP ceased

25     to exist as a result of the gravest punishment, as a result of being

Page 2161

 1     terminated at work, then that person automatically is converted into a

 2     conscript and sent to the front.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   So this is a legislative, automatic process.  It is not just a

 5     result of this order by the Ministry of the Interior.  Isn't that right?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation]  I hope this is clear, but if the

 8     Court wishes me, I can provide further clarification.  Thank you.

 9        Q.   Just one more matter.  If a criminal report, a criminal complaint

10     was filed against that person who committed a crime, a criminal report to

11     the authorised prosecutor, the outcome of that criminal report will be

12     decided by the prosecutor and not by the chief of that organ of the

13     interior.  Isn't that right?

14        A.   Yes, naturally.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now show to the witness

17     1D00-4597.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, the registry reminds me the last

19     document hasn't yet been admitted.  So you're tendering that as an

20     exhibit?

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, by all means, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, admitted and marked.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D59, Your Honours.

24             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown

25     1D00-4597, please.

Page 2162

 1        Q.   Mr. Krulj, this document was issued by the Ministry of the

 2     Interior in Bijeljina, dated 16 November 1992.  It was sent to chiefs of

 3     all public security stations and chiefs of all CSBs.  Do you remember

 4     receiving this document?

 5        A.   Yes.  I can see that here, yes.

 6        Q.   This document, first of all, pertains to the conclusions of the

 7     collegium held by the minister of the interior on the 5th of November

 8     when current problems in the work of the ministry were discussed.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Could you please go to the last page.  This document mostly deals

11     with personnel issues, most of the document.  And please go to the last

12     page, item 9, which is on page 3 of your text.  Item 9.

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   So item 9 again orders the same thing as the previous order dated

15     the 23rd of July, namely that those persons who had been held criminally

16     responsible for crimes or who had committed crimes or in some other way

17     compromised themselves need to be excluded from the ranks of the Ministry

18     of the Interior.  Isn't that right?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have this document

22     tendered into evidence as well, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D60.

25             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 65 ter

Page 2163

 1     356.  Could you scroll up, please, so that the witness can see the

 2     signature.  Rather, scroll down.

 3        Q.   This document is dated 15 April 1992, Ministry of the Interior.

 4     It's an order.  You see the order?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Do you remember it?

 7        A.   Well, yes.  We had similar orders.  They would come in.

 8        Q.   See what it says here.  It has only two items.  Item 1 says:

 9             "Persons committing seizure, looting, appropriation of other

10     people's and missing property and other unauthorised acts in order to

11     achieve unlawful gain are to be identified and subjected to the most

12     rigorous responsibility measures, including arrest and detention.

13             "This order shall come into force immediately."

14             Tell me, please, this order actually just additionally highlights

15     your duty under the law?

16        A.   Yes.  And it does so for the umpteenth time.

17        Q.   Did you apply this order in your work, this order and the law?

18        A.   Yes.  To the extent that we were able to, yes.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] Could we introduce this into

21     evidence as well.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Krulj, was this a frequent occurrence that

23     you had to arrest and detain and prosecute and ensure prosecution of

24     policemen in your municipality?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  No.  We didn't understand each

Page 2164

 1     other.  We often received orders of this kind, and perhaps there were

 2     just two or three such cases over a period of two or three years.  But we

 3     frequently received orders of this type.  You can see yourself that the

 4     documents repeat themselves.  This is what I meant.

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I understand that, that these orders came

 6     frequently.  My curiosity was just in relation to your answer that you

 7     did in fact apply this provision.  So I was curious to know how frequent

 8     that happened.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps several times.  I cannot

10     remember how many times there was the case of somebody from the police

11     looting or stealing or something, and then this kind of report would be

12     issued.  But this was not the case in my jurisdiction.

13             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   I apologise.  Just one clarification while we still have the

15     document on the screen.  This order does not strictly refer to members of

16     the MUP, because it says "persons who commit."  So it refers to everyone

17     practically, doesn't it?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   The reason to emphasise these duties is due to the fact that on

20     the 15th of April a war broke out and this is why these duties were being

21     emphasised one more time in this order.

22        A.   Yes.  I apologise.  I thought this just referred to members of

23     the ministry, but what I can see now is that it does say "persons."

24             Things like this were more common.  There were lots of

25     confiscated vehicles that had been stolen, a lot of movable items that

Page 2165

 1     had been robbed, and these kind of items -- kinds of items were often

 2     confiscated at check-points and in town.

 3             I apologise again.  I thought that this referred exclusively to

 4     members of the ministry.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  I think now we've clarified the matter.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please tender this document?

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D61.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we now move to the

10     next group of documents, and can the witness please be shown document

11     65 ter 138.

12        Q.   It's an order on reporting for the needs of the government.  It's

13     a document by the Ministry of the Interior of the Serbian Republic of

14     Bosnia and Herzegovina of the 26th of May, 1992, and it's sent to all the

15     security services centres, including Trebinje.  I assume that via the CSB

16     you were also requested to furnish this information.

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   In paragraph 1 of the document, it says that "it's essential to

19     regularly write reports about offences against the people and property

20     within the territory of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,"

21     is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And then after that certain groups of questions are mentioned,

24     and they're more of the nature of statistical information; is that right?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 2166

 1        Q.   And on page 3, if you recall, you'll see that the deadline was

 2     set until the 31st of May, 1992.  Do you remember if you did send your

 3     CSB in Trebinje the data from your public security station?

 4        A.   Yes.  We probably did.

 5        Q.   All right.  Thank you.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] We would like to tender this

 7     document, Your Honour, please.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  It's admitted and marked.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D62.

10             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] We're now coming to an important

11     document.  It's 1D0609.  Can we please show this document to the witness

12     1D00-0609.

13        Q.   [No interpretation]

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.  It was on, but it wasn't working.  I'm sorry,

15     Your Honours.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Sir, I'm going to repeat.  This is a document of

17     the Ministry of the Internal Affairs of the republic -- of the Serbian

18     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina of the 19th of July, 1992, and it was

19     sent to the chiefs personally of the security services centres, including

20     the one in Trebinje, and the document is the result of conclusions

21     adopted at a meeting of the first MUP collegium on the 11th of July,

22     1992, in Belgrade, which you also attended.

23             This document pertains to the tasks to document, and uncover acts

24     of war crimes or genocide and the submission of criminal reports as well

25     as other documents and orders, and for those purposes the administration

Page 2167

 1     for administration and management drafted a questionnaire on war crimes

 2     and victims of genocide, and then there are instructions on what to do

 3     with this questionnaire.  Are you aware of this?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And what the document insists is that ...

 6                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  May I continue?

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Just a moment.  Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

10        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Krulj, could you please look at the third

11     paragraph on the first page which states:

12             "It should be borne in mind that questionnaires on war crimes

13     remain just a form of investigative documentation only, until such time

14     as they have been proven (judicial sentence or decision by an authorised

15     state commission) and will be so regarded, all the more so because

16     criminal reports will also be submitted against unidentified

17     perpetrators."

18             Can you see that?

19        A.   Yes, I can.

20        Q.   Thank you.  And then the last paragraph states the deadline by

21     which the documents should be provided.  What I would like now to do is

22     to look at the actual form, and that is on page 3.  That is the form RZ

23     on page 3 of this document.

24             You are familiar with this form, aren't you?

25        A.   Yes, I am.

Page 2168

 1        Q.   It was a compulsory form for each individual case of a war crime,

 2     and it would be filled in and sent to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

 3     Isn't that correct?

 4        A.   Yes.  This was done by the criminal police.

 5        Q.   Did you have cases in your practice where such a form had to be

 6     filled in in your territory?  I'm talking about 1992.

 7        A.   I don't think so, no.

 8        Q.   In 1992.

 9        A.   I don't think so, no.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we tender this document,

12     please?

13             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, admitted and marked.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D63.

15             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I still have two

16     documents to go through and four or five questions, so I think I will

17     need ten minutes at the most.  I can see that it's time for a break, so

18     if I may be allowed to continue for another ten minutes after the break

19     and then I believe that I will complete my cross-examination of this

20     witness.

21             MS. KORNER:  [Overlapping speakers] almost as bad as mine, but

22     can I just ask.  I know that Mr. Krgovic has got questions.  We've then

23     got another witness.  It doesn't seem to me that we're going to get to

24     Mr. Djeric today.  So therefore I'm -- if anybody has any doubts about

25     that, otherwise I'm going to send him away.

Page 2169

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mrs. Korner, I thought that you had asked that a

 3     witness ST-79 would follow --

 4             MS. KORNER:  Exactly.  I'm talking about Mr. Djeric.  He's here

 5     as well.  That's the one I want to send away, because I --

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes.  There's no chance that he will begin today.

 7             MS. KORNER:  No, I don't think so either.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  So we'll take the break.  We return in 20 minutes.

 9                           [The witness stands down]

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

11                           --- On resuming at 10.47 a.m.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, while the witness is in the process of

13     resuming the stand, we have two oral rulings to deliver.  Judge Harhoff

14     will deliver one and Judge Delvoie the other.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Right.  I hope the interpreters have been given a

17     copy so that they could follow.

18             THE INTERPRETER:  No, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  On -- I'll read slowly then.

20             On 8 October 2009, the Prosecution filed a notice in relation to

21     65 ter numbers of additional documents for expert witness Dorothea Hanson

22     in which it requests the Trial Chamber to take note of the addition of

23     seven documents to its exhibit list.  The seven documents are all

24     referred to in Dorothea Hanson's expert report.  The Prosecution submits

25     that they were disclosed to the Defence no later than February 2008 but

Page 2170

 1     that the documents were not included on the exhibit list filed on

 2     8 June 2009 as they are background documents supporting the report.

 3             Following the direction of the Trial Chamber given at the

 4     Pre-Trial Conference on 4 September 2009, the evidence of Mrs. Hanson is

 5     to be heard pursuant to Rule 94 bis, and the Prosecution now wishes to

 6     use the seven documents in its examination-in-chief.  The Prosecution

 7     therefore asks the Trial Chamber to take note of the addition of the

 8     seven documents.

 9             Once a party has filed its exhibit list pursuant to Rule 65 ter,

10     it can only be amended with leave of the Trial Chamber through a motion

11     showing, among other things, good cause for the request and why the

12     documents are of sufficient importance to justify their inclusion.  It is

13     insufficient and inappropriate for a party to merely submit a notice to

14     the Chamber as it wishes to amend its Rule 65 ter lists.  In the absence

15     of a properly filed motion, the Chamber notes that Defence is also

16     deprived of an opportunity to respond.

17             While the Chamber will on this occasion and in the interests of

18     judicial economy treat the notices as motions for the amendment of the

19     Prosecution's exhibit list, it will not accept this practice in the

20     future.  Any future similar requests are to be made by properly filed

21     motions.

22             The Prosecution does not extend any argument to demonstrate good

23     cause for the addition of these documents to its exhibit list nearly two

24     months after the ruling on the mode of testimony of this witness, nor

25     does it indicate the importance of the documents to the evidence of the

Page 2171

 1     witness.  As the Prosecution has not established good cause for the

 2     relief sought, it is not necessary for the Chamber to seek responses from

 3     the Defence in this instance.  Consequently, and in view thereof, the

 4     Chamber denies the request for amending the Prosecution's exhibit list.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 7             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour -- sorry, before you deal with the next

 8     ruling, can I ask this:  that if we do a proper filing given reasons why,

 9     would Your Honours be prepared to perhaps reconsider?  We take -- we take

10     the rebuke seriously, and it won't happen again.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, we, of course, don't see that we can

13     prevent you from re-filing, and once you -- we'll have to consider it.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  On the 14th of October, 2009, the Prosecutor --

15     the Prosecution filed a notice requesting the Trial Chamber to take note

16     of the amendments to the mode of testimony of ST-52 and ST-79 from viva

17     voce to Rule 92 ter, and of ST-4 from Rule 92 bis to Rule 92 ter.

18             Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 92 ter, the Prosecution seeks the

19     admission into evidence of the statements and transcripts of these

20     witnesses and associated exhibits which its status forms an inseparable

21     part of the witness's evidence.

22             Fourteen of the documents do not appear on the Prosecution's

23     exhibit list, and the Prosecution therefore seeks to add them to its

24     exhibit list.

25             On the 26th of October, 2009, the Prosecution filed a similar

Page 2172

 1     notice requesting the Trial Chamber to take note of the amendment to the

 2     mode of testimony of Witness ST-140 from viva voce to Rule 92 ter.  The

 3     Prosecution also seeks to admit -- to add, sorry, nine associated

 4     exhibits to its exhibit list.  The Prosecution argues that there is no

 5     prejudice to the accused as a result of the variation of the mode of

 6     testimony.

 7             Prosecution submits that the transcripts, written statements, and

 8     associated exhibits of the witnesses meet the requirements of

 9     admissibility under the rules and that the amendments are made in an

10     attempt to save time in court and streamline the presentation of evidence

11     at trial.

12             As noted in the preceding decision, the party's exhibit list can

13     only be amended with leave of the Trial Chamber upon a showing of good

14     cause.  The same holds true for a party's witness list.  Changes to the

15     mode of testimony of witnesses who appear on the witness list are to be

16     made by a properly reasoned motion for the admission of witness

17     statements and transcripts pursuant -- pursuant to the appropriate Rule,

18     that is, either Rule 92 bis or Rule 92 ter.

19             For the reasons noted in the preceding decision, the Chamber

20     emphasises that it is insufficient and inappropriate to a party to merely

21     submit -- submit a notice to the Chamber as it amends its lists.  It is

22     also contrary to the guidelines that the Chamber had -- has issued.

23     Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial economy, the Chamber will on

24     this occasion treat the notice -- notices as motions for the admission of

25     evidence pursuant to Rule 92 ter.

Page 2173

 1             Having so decided, the Trial Chamber grants the Defence 14 days

 2     from today to respond in respect of ST-4, ST-52, and ST-140.

 3             The Chamber has been informed by way of e-mail from the

 4     Prosecution to its legal officers that the Defence agrees that ST-79 be

 5     heard after ST-202.

 6             I think that is correct.  Isn't it, Mr. Zecevic?  Mr. Krgovic?

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

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  Thank you.

 9             Can the Defence also state whether it objects to the request to

10     her -- to hear, sorry, ST-79 pursuant to Rule 92 ter?  Do you object to

11     that, or are you in agreement with that?

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  We do not object.

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  You do not object.

14             Mr. Krgovic, you do not object?

15             MR. KRGOVIC:  No, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  As the Defence does not object, the Trial Chamber

17     allows the Prosecution to call ST-79 pursuant to Rule 92 ter.  The

18     Chamber also finds that the three associated documents form an

19     inextricable and indispensable part of this evidence.  The Trial Chamber

20     will accept on to the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter exhibit list this prior

21     testimony and the three accompanying documents.  This material will be

22     admitted into evidence upon the witnesses having complied with the

23     conditions of Rule 92 ter.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  A minor point by way of correction.  At

25     line 9 on page 36, the transcript correctly says that -- it is

Page 2174

 1     insufficient for the Prosecution to submit a notion, but clearly the word

 2     we intended to say was notice.  Thank you.

 3             Could we have the witness back.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.  While we wait for the

 5     witness, I was notified by my assistants that 1D52, which was erroneously

 6     offered for evidence and then marked for identification because the

 7     translation is pending, has been with the CLSS since 4th of December,

 8     2008.  But -- I mean, it was -- I'm not saying that the CLSS bears any

 9     responsibility for that.  It is probably us that didn't prioritise this

10     document on time, but I'm just saying that we diligently sent the

11     document almost a year ago for translations, but due to known reasons it

12     hasn't been translated.  The moment it's -- we receive the translation we

13     will offer it.  Thank you very much.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

15                           [The witness takes the stand]

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Mr. Krulj, can we continue?  You have before you the form on war

18     crimes that we discussed earlier.  Please look at A, 1 column, under

19     items 5 and 6.  This is an area where ethnicity and religion should be

20     entered of the victim; right?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   So I'm going to interpret this and you can tell me whether I'm

23     interpreting this right, namely this form was not used solely for victims

24     of war crimes of Serb ethnicity but, rather, for victims of war crimes of

25     all ethnicities, victims in that territory.

Page 2175

 1        A.   Yes.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Now can we show the witness a

 3     document from another group.  0642, 1D00-0642.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, are you exhibited this?

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I believe it has been exhibited

 6     already.  I'm sorry?  Oh, I'm sorry.  Can I have this exhibited, please.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, admitted and marked.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  This is 0609; right?

 9                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic, what was the ERN number?

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  I believe it has already been exhibited, Your

12     Honours, as 1D63.  It's -- it's the document concerning the war crimes,

13     the war crimes form that -- I'm sorry.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  0609.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  That is correct, Your Honour.  1D00-0609 has

16     already been exhibited and it's 1D63, yes.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Okay.  Great.

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  So I was -- I was using the opportunity because the

19     document was still on the -- on the monitor that I ask the witness for

20     that.  Thank you.  So it's clarified.

21             Can the witness be shown the new document, 1D00-0642.  Okay.

22        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Krulj, you can see this document.  Again,

23     Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska, dated 6 September 1992.

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   This document pertains to an order where again in paragraph one

Page 2176

 1     they reiterate that measures of confiscation of objects, property items

 2     and so on have to be carried out exclusively in accordance with the Law

 3     on Internal Affairs, the Law on Criminal Procedure, and instructions.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And that also there need to be proper receipts issued that need

 6     to be numbered and recorded in accordance with the rules and so on, and

 7     treated as negotiable instruments.

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And that all of these items accompanied by proper documentation

10     need to be sent to the proper offices of the MUP of Republika Srpska.

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And then in paragraph 4 they speak of punishments for those who

13     violate these provisions; right?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Do you remember this order?

16        A.   Yes.  And you can see at the bottom that it was sent to all CSBs,

17     all public security stations.  So it reached our station as well.

18        Q.   And you applied this in your work?

19        A.   Yes.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we tender this into evidence as

21     well.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  Admitted and marked.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D64.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, at the -- just before the break you had

25     indicated that you would wrap up in about ten minutes.

Page 2177

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  I'm just reminding you that you have spent three

 3     hours and nine minutes already.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand, Your Honours, but I thought these

 5     documents will assist the Trial Chamber.  That is why I insisted --

 6             JUDGE HALL:  I'm only alerting you at this point.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.  I will -- I just need to

 8     clarify two things and I -- I'm going to be finished in five minutes.

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Krulj, thank you very much for this.  We

10     have no additional documents.  Now I'm interested in some facts, so could

11     you please assist us with that.

12             Were you familiar, back in 1992, with the fact that in Bileca

13     there was some sort of collection centre or a prison or anything of the

14     sort in?

15        A.   Yes.  I learned that from conversations.

16        Q.   So from conversations you were aware of the fact that they

17     existed?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And what facts did you learn through those conversations?

20        A.   Well, I learned that in a room, I don't know whether it was

21     students' hall or something like that, or a public security station room,

22     but I knew that there was a certain number of Muslims there who were held

23     as a result of conflicts in the northern part of Bileca municipality.

24        Q.   This information, did you receive it via official channels, or

25     was it via private channels that you just happened to hear of it?

Page 2178

 1        A.   No.

 2        Q.   So you didn't receive it via official channels but rather via

 3     private channels?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   All right.  Thank you.  When you say that they were taken into

 6     custody, by whom?  Was it by the army?

 7        A.   Those were the military units, and that was the very beginning,

 8     so I really don't know who participated in those conflicts and who took

 9     those people in.

10        Q.   All right.  And you don't know who was in charge of law and order

11     of that -- in that collection centre, who was in charge of security?

12        A.   No, I don't know that.

13        Q.   At any rate, you are sure that you did not receive officially,

14     via official channels, any information about any prison or collection

15     centre in Bileca?

16        A.   Yes, I'm sure of that.

17        Q.   Thank you.  I would now like to see P162.  I think that you saw

18     that document the day before yesterday in examination-in-chief.  P162.

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown the

20     second and then the third page of the document.  In the Serbian.  I

21     apologise.  The third and then the fifth, because in between we have

22     these pages.

23        Q.   Mr. Krulj, you can see on this page that there is some text

24     added.  Part of sentence is added in handwriting.

25        A.   Yes.  I can see that it's added, and I need to read it.

Page 2179

 1        Q.   And then the parts that are added give a somewhat different

 2     explanation of the positions given in the printed part of the document --

 3     or, rather, they further clarify them.

 4        A.   Could somebody read out to me the handwritten portion?  And it

 5     says "And they are almost --"

 6        Q.   That is not so important to me.  Can we now turn to page 3,

 7     please.  Page 3 in the Serbian -- or, rather, I apologise, page 5.

 8             See in this lower part of the page there's quite a bit that is

 9     added, added by hand and by pencil or pen.

10             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we -- we need the bottom part

11     of the page, please, so could you scroll down.  Thank you.

12        Q.   Do you see that there are things added?

13        A.   Yes.  And it says:

14             "However, there is evidence -- evident moving out to the Federal

15     Republic of Yugoslavia on a daily basis."

16        Q.   All right.  What is important for me is that there are certain

17     portions that have been added in handwriting in pencil or pen.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Can we now turn to last page.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] The page before last, please.  I

21     apologise.

22        Q.   See, Mr. Krulj, this document hasn't been signed by anybody, and

23     you will agree with me that now we have seen that certain portions were

24     added by hand and in pen or pencil, that this is actually a draft, not a

25     final document.

Page 2180

 1        A.   What I would say that this is some sort of a draft version of the

 2     document because it hasn't been signed, and I think that a document that

 3     has such added portions, portions that are added so illegibly, could not

 4     be sent to some other institution.  That is my opinion.

 5        Q.   Thank you very much.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

 7     questions.

 8             Thank you, Mr. Krulj.  I apologise for taking up so much of your

 9     time, but this is why you actually have come here.  Thank you.

10                           Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:

11        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Krulj.  My name is Dragan

12     Krgovic, and on behalf of the Defence of Mr. Zupljanin, I am going to put

13     some questions to you about your testimony over the past couple of days.

14        A.   Very well.

15        Q.   Mr. Krulj, when you talked during the examination-in-chief about

16     the Specijalna Jedinica Policija unit, you mentioned and the Prosecutor

17     showed you a document P169 how this unit was trained at the Bileca

18     barracks.  Do you recall that?

19        A.   Yes.  The Prosecutor asked me if they had training.  Yes, I

20     remember that.

21        Q.   And this is the military barracks in Bileca; is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.  It's the headquarters of the corps.

23        Q.   And then you responded to the Prosecutor's question that the unit

24     existed from before; is that correct?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 2181

 1        Q.   I assume that if it was trained by the military that it was also

 2     issued with weapons by the army and that it took part in combat together

 3     with the army; is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes, probably.

 5        Q.   And it probably took part in combat at the time when the conflict

 6     broke out; is that correct?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And members of the unit did not wear police uniforms, but they

 9     wore camouflage uniforms.

10        A.   Yes, they wore camouflage uniforms.

11        Q.   And red berets, I assume, and maybe some other markings.

12        A.   I really don't remember the kind of caps they wore.  They didn't

13     wear the police caps in any event.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Krgovic, I think we have come to understand

15     that camouflage uniforms could be either the colour of the army, or they

16     could be in blue colours so as to indicate somehow that they were police

17     units.  Could you clarify with the witness which colour the camouflage

18     uniforms had?

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Sir, you heard His Honour's question.  Could you tell us about

21     the kind of uniform that it was?

22        A.   Well, I mostly saw the military camouflage uniforms in the units,

23     because that was worn by a number of the soldiers, whereas most of the

24     soldiers in Herzegovina were dressed in the old JNA uniforms.  Yes.

25     These were green camouflage uniforms.  Let me put it that way.

Page 2182

 1        Q.   Well, I apologise.  They were not wearing the blue uniforms.

 2        A.   As far as I know, they were not, no.

 3        Q.   Mr. Krulj, we're going to go back to a different topic now and

 4     that's the meeting of the 11th of July, 1992, in Belgrade.  From what I

 5     understood, the point of the meeting was to provide an opportunity for

 6     the chiefs of the CSBs and individuals from the public security station

 7     to talk about the problems they were encountering in their work, to

 8     report on the situation in their zones where they were located, and to

 9     try through the ministry to take certain steps in order to resolve all

10     these matters; is that correct?

11        A.   Yes.  You can see that from the minutes of that meeting.

12        Q.   And each of the participants at the meeting talked about the

13     problems they were encountering and about the most burning issues in the

14     territory covered by a certain SJB or a CSB; is that correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And this was a legitimate legal way to indicate some problem or

17     some occurrence in order to have that matter resolved within the system

18     pursuant to regulations and the laws that were in effect at that time; is

19     that correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   The problems that were discussed at the meeting were more or less

22     identical in the entire Republika Srpska territory, with minor deviations

23     here and there; is that correct?

24        A.   Yes, there were some deviations.

25        Q.   And because of that you were able to form an impression of the

Page 2183

 1     situation not only in your own region but in the other regions as well.

 2     You were able to get a complete picture; is that correct?

 3        A.   Yes.  I don't remember if the meeting was held in two parts, and

 4     I don't remember if we attended the entire meeting, the meeting between

 5     the stations.

 6        Q.   I'm going to take you back now to the document from that meeting.

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we show the witness P160,

 8     please.

 9        Q.   I don't know if you have that in front of you, but these are the

10     minutes from the meeting.  And if you don't have it in front of you, you

11     can just follow it on the screen, and we will show the relevant pages.

12             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown

13     page 4 of the document in the Serbian, and this is page 7 in the English

14     version.  This is ERN number 324-1854.  That's the relevant page in the

15     B/C/S.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic, you said that this meeting took

17     place in Belgrade; is that correct?

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  And the witness

19     explained yesterday why that meeting was held in Belgrade.

20        Q.   This part that I am referring you to is the address by

21     Mr. Zupljanin, and I'm going to read a part of it.

22             "Paramilitary organising and violent behaviour of a number of

23     armed groups and vast quantities of illegally held weapons in

24     circumstances of ethnic intolerance, chauvinism, and revenge-seeking

25     present a great danger for the law, security of the citizens."

Page 2184

 1             Would you agree that the situation was the same where you were?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And Mr. Zupljanin pointed the problems with the paramilitary

 4     forces at this meeting, and as a conclusion of what he says, I would like

 5     to show you page 26 in the B/C/S.  In the English that would be page --

 6        A.   All right.

 7        Q.   I think it's page 26 in the English.  You can see that conclusion

 8     there.  Perhaps you can read that part where it says "Activities of the

 9     paramilitaries," and, "We would need to submit a special report and take

10     specific measures."

11             So what Mr. Zupljanin is suggesting, the collegium accepts those

12     discussions and responsibility for carrying it out.

13             I would now like you to go back to page 5 in the B/C/S, in the

14     Serbian version, and that is page 8 in the English version.  The part

15     that the Prosecutor showed you says that the army and the Crisis Staff or

16     the War Presidency demand that as many Muslims as possible be assembled,

17     and it talks about these camps and the conditions in these camps.  Do you

18     see that?

19        A.   Yes, I do.

20        Q.   Then after that, let's go back to page 26 again.  Actually, we're

21     talking about page 27, where the collegium and the minister reach a

22     conclusion to solve the question on investigating judges, the detention

23     centres, and especially the collection centres, and in relation to that

24     the jurisdiction of the organs so that the MUP, pursuant to the law on

25     the criminal procedure and law internal affairs can act against people

Page 2185

 1     only when they are put on trial or handed over to the justice organs in

 2     compliance with these organs.

 3             So, Mr. Zupljanin pointed to the problem.  He conveyed the

 4     information he had about that to the collegium and the minister, and in

 5     response the collegium and the minister adopt a conclusion and take

 6     measures from their jurisdiction; is that correct?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Mr. Krulj, this is precisely the way to deal with problems if

 9     some illegal matters crop up, and that is the way that Mr. Zupljanin

10     dealt with it.  Would you agree with me?

11        A.   Yes.  He followed the procedure where you would inform the

12     minister and the relevant bodies, which would be followed by appropriate

13     action.  The usual way would be to inform about these problems at the

14     meetings, which would either be held at the CSB or the ministry, and then

15     if there are any problems the ministry would respond by issuing certain

16     orders or requests.

17        Q.   And this is the same thing that you would do had you had the same

18     sort of problems?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   In this specific case, Zupljanin was pointed to the problem of

21     the collection centres under whose authority they were, the problems that

22     were cropping up, and he wanted instructions and assistance in order to

23     resolve that?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Could the witness now be shown 1D55, please.

Page 2186

 1             The document was shown to you by my colleague Mr. Zecevic this

 2     morning, and now I would like you just to look at paragraph 2 where it

 3     says:

 4             "The security of collection centres shall be the direct

 5     responsibility of the Serbian Army ..."

 6             This is precisely the existing chain of command.  Zupljanin

 7     informed the collegium about the problems.  The minister took specific

 8     steps, probably after consulting certain judicial organs, and then it

 9     says in the statement, and I'm going to -- in the conclusion, and I'm

10     going to go back to that after that and that it should be necessary to

11     contact the Ministry of Justice.  Is that correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And so this dispatch is the result of the initiative started by

14     Mr. Zupljanin at that meeting; is that correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Could we now go back to Exhibit P160, please.  Mr. Krulj, let's

17     look at page 5.  According to these minutes, Mr. Zupljanin says:

18             "The financing of the MUP and the services is done by the SAO

19     Krajina government.  When the financing is resolved, we will have fewer

20     interventions and less influence."

21             As far as I understood you from this discussion, practically

22     local authorities in the municipality financed the police for a certain

23     period of time because there were no communications.

24        A.   Yes, for a time.

25        Q.   And they also tried to exert their influence on the local organs

Page 2187

 1     of command, trying to influence their work.

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And this is the problem pointed out by Zupljanin.

 4             Now I'm going to go back to the conclusions.  Page 28, item 16.

 5     The ministry -- well, let me allow you to find it first.

 6        A.   Very well.

 7        Q.   "The Ministry of the Interior must be financed exclusively from

 8     the budget of the Serb republic."

 9             Do you see that conclusion?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   So Stojan Zupljanin's initiative adopted in these conclusions,

12     and as a result of that certain people were entrusted with the execution

13     of that task.  We can see that from here.  Is that correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Now we're going back to page 5 again.  I'm sorry that I have to

16     do it this way, but I have -- my intention is to show clearly what

17     actually Stojan Zupljanin said and what the conclusions were and how

18     things developed after that.

19             So can you please look at this part where he says that the

20     functional network of -- of connections was shattered.  Connections were

21     not functioning.

22             So the same thing applied in the territory of your own

23     municipality; is that correct?  The communications were not functioning?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Can you please look at the next page.  This is page 6 now.

Page 2188

 1        A.   All right.  Very well.

 2        Q.   Mr. Zupljanin says here exactly what you were talking about

 3     today, and that is that the military judicial system was not functioning,

 4     that judges had not been elected, and that overlapping jurisdictions or

 5     mutual jurisdictions would need to be regulated.

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the answer of the

 7     witness.

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   And then he goes on to say that there are no judges for the

10     criminal cases.  They're afraid, they're exposed to threats in some

11     municipalities?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   I apologise.  Could you please repeat your previous answer when I

14     was asking you about the court jurisdictions.  You said yes.  I heard you

15     say that, but it was not recorded in the transcript.

16        A.   I said yes, that was a major problem.

17        Q.   And then there is this second conclusion here that several

18     thousand court cases are not completed.  There aren't enough judges for

19     criminal cases.  Judges are afraid.  They are exposed to threats, and

20     hardcore criminals were being released from prison, which made it

21     difficult for the rule of law to function as well as for the work of the

22     police organs.  Is that correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   So this was the same problem that you were encountering in your

25     municipality; is that right?

Page 2189

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Also, Mr. Zupljanin goes on to say about measures being taken

 3     that would need to be taken for -- some unclear matters would need to be

 4     resolved, that you would need to resolve the status of criminal case

 5     judges, and resolve some other problems there that affected the work of

 6     the MUP.  All of that is stated here, is it not?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   After that, I'm going back to page 26 again.

 9        A.   Very well.

10        Q.   Where it says in one of the conclusions that the work of the

11     military judicial organs, and they're functioning.  Then we have page 27,

12     paragraph 14:  For the purposes of resolving existing problems and

13     outstanding issues it is necessary to organise a joint meeting with the

14     Ministry of Justice at which the following problems would also be

15     discussed.

16             In essence, the bulk of these proposals and failings were

17     included in the minutes of that meeting; is that correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   I'm going to go to page 29 now.  That is the last page.  The last

20     paragraph where it says:

21             "The summary of this meeting with the conclusions should be

22     submitted to the CSBs for further direction and better quality work and

23     also to the prime minister and the president of the Presidency for their

24     information and for the purpose of taking further measures to improve the

25     work of the Ministry of the Interior."

Page 2190

 1             So we can conclude on the basis of that that this -- these

 2     conclusions and the minutes were also submitted to the government and to

 3     the Presidency and not only to the CSBs so that these matters could be

 4     dealt with adequately.

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   So specifically in relation to what Stojan Zupljanin said and his

 7     request for assistance in relation to these matters, he practically

 8     fulfilled his obligations pursuant to the regulations of the work of the

 9     MUP and his authority and powers by informing those authorised and by

10     seeking that certain steps be taken.

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Just as you would have done in an identical situation; is that

13     right?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   I just have one part here that Mr. Zupljanin spoke about, but

16     this is then included in the conclusions, so it's not really subject for

17     analysis.  So in relation to this part I'm not going to put any more

18     questions to you.  I did have one question that had nothing directly to

19     do with this meeting.

20             When Mr. Zecevic showed you these rules about disciplinary

21     responsibilities applied during imminent danger of war and the state of

22     war he - actually these rules date from September 1992 - according to

23     those regulations and prior regulations initiating disciplinary

24     proceedings for MUP employees is something that is the responsibility of

25     the commander or the chief of the public security station.  The

Page 2191

1     initiation of such proceedings should he find out about certain

 2     violations.

 3        A.   The disciplinary proceedings are initiated by any employee.  That

 4     is their right.  The proposal to initiate proceedings is something else.

 5     That is submitted by the authorised superior officer of the station or

 6     the centre to a commission or to the Prosecutor.

 7             Here we're talking about summary proceedings, and I think there

 8     is no need for me to go into that, but that is the way how a disciplinary

 9     proceedings are initiated.

10        Q.   Thank you, sir.  I have no more further questions for you.

11        A.   Thank you very much.

12                           Re-examination by Ms. Korner:

13        Q.   Mr. Krulj, I want to go over some of the matters you've been

14     asked about by the Defence in the last couple of days.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  Sorry, Ms. Korner.  Do you need the lectern?

16             MS. KORNER:  Oh, no, I'm fine, thanks.  I've got one down there

17     somewhere.  I'll live without it.

18        Q.   Now, first of all, you were asked a number of questions by

19     Mr. Zecevic in relation to how you dealt with paramilitary formation that

20     came into your municipality.  Do you remember that?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Can I just get this right.  First of all, yours, as we saw at the

23     beginning, was a small municipality with a very, very small proportion of

24     Muslims.  Is that right?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 2192

 1        Q.   And was there much difference between the size of your

 2     municipality, Ljubinje, and those of Bileca and Gacko?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   In what sense?  Were they much bigger?

 5        A.   Much bigger, with much more population.  Bileca about 12.000

 6     inhabitants, and Gacko perhaps even more than that.

 7        Q.   And each of those, as we've seen, had SJBs.  Gacko and Bileca.

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And can I just confirm, because I'm going to show you a document

10     a bit later, but the head of the SJB in Bileca was Mr. Goran Vojovic?

11        A.   Mr. Goran Vujovic.

12        Q.   Vujovic.  So sorry.  And was the commander a man named Miroslav

13     Duka?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And in Gacko, is that right, it was a gentleman named Popovic who

16     was the head of the SJB?

17        A.   Yes, but I'm not sure whether it was so at the very beginning.

18        Q.   All right.  Now, as I understand what you're saying, the only

19     information you received about events in either Gacko or Bileca was at

20     meetings that were held at Trebinje with the other chiefs of the SJBs?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Or obviously collegiums.

23        A.   Yes.  At internal collegiums those matters were not discussed,

24     and you could see it based on the documents that you have.

25        Q.   Particularly on the diary.

Page 2193

 1        A.   Yes.  That's what I meant.

 2        Q.   All right.  And you told, I think it was either Mr. Zecevic or

 3     Mr. Krgovic, a few minutes ago that you only heard about what was

 4     happening in Bileca and prisoners privately.  Is that right?

 5        A.   Mostly through private channels, and that was before the meeting

 6     that was held in Trebinje.

 7        Q.   All right.  I want to come back to that aspect a little later.

 8             You've also been shown a large number of documents emanating

 9     largely from Mico Stanisic by Mr. Zecevic, and do I understand this

10     correctly, that you are able to recall that you received each and every

11     one of these documents?

12        A.   I'm not able to remember now, but if I take a look at the

13     document and I can see to whom it was addressed, then I can remember that

14     it reached us.  I can guarantee you that it reached every public security

15     station.

16             Now, if you were to tell me, "Give me a quote from a document of

17     the 26th of June, 1992," then I wouldn't be able to do that, but if I see

18     a document like I saw it here today, then I can claim with certainty that

19     that document reached my public security station.

20        Q.   Yes.  Sorry, but -- you see, this is quite important, and nobody

21     blames you for this, Mr. Krulj.  Are you saying it's simply because it's

22     addressed to the SJB or the CSB you must have received it or that you can

23     actually recall receiving it, because there's a difference.

24        A.   I remember receiving these documents.  And there were a lot of

25     documents with similar content.

Page 2194

 1        Q.   All right.  So even if you didn't have to take any particular

 2     action in your own municipality, you can still remember that you received

 3     those documents?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And so there was no problem in getting those documents to you.

 6     Communication certainly worked to that extent?

 7        A.   Well, perhaps we reached it after ten or -- perhaps we received

 8     it after 10 or 15 days via courier.  It certainly didn't reach us on the

 9     day the document was written.

10        Q.   All right.  But -- that's why I wanted to confirm.  You're quite

11     sure you got all these documents.

12        A.   Yes.  And you can verify that in the archives of our station.

13        Q.   All right.  Now, I want to talk to you a little bit, please -- or

14     I want to ask you - sorry, I don't know exactly what I corrected somebody

15     else for - about something that you said in respect of a document, which

16     I believe has now been numbered 1D46.  And if we could have that on the

17     screen.

18             This is this order of the 15th of May dealing with the wartime

19     organisation of the ministry, and you were shown item 8.  Please, in

20     English and in Serbian.  And 9, which is the setting up of the

21     disciplinary matters and the setting up of this staff.  And you told us

22     that violation of regulations and failure to carry out tasks which had

23     been ordered in an appropriate display of disciplinary and criminal

24     punishment, et cetera.  You were asked was that abided by in practice and

25     you said yes.

Page 2195

 1             How do you know that?  How do you know it was abided by in

 2     practice?

 3        A.   When talking about this, I speak of the institution where I

 4     worked, and I can state with full responsibility that I upheld, I abided

 5     by this order.  And as for you mean how it went in practice, I can

 6     explain.  For example, if somebody committed such and such crime, then,

 7     yes, sanctions followed.

 8        Q.   Yes.  No.  Sorry --

 9        A.   In accordance with the law.

10        Q.   This is what I'm trying to get at.  You can say that in your

11     municipality you abided by it, but do you have any idea whether everybody

12     else abided by it?  That's the question.

13        A.   I gave responses in relation to my municipality, and that's how I

14     understood the questions.

15        Q.   Yes.  Exactly, Mr. Krulj.  It's not your fault, but the

16     impression may have been given that you were giving an answer for

17     everywhere else in the whole Trebinje section.

18             And then you -- it went on, the question, item 9 said that:

19             "A staff should be established, and this staff is being

20     established only in the structural sense, so to speak," said Mr. Zecevic,

21     page 35, and not in the sense of effective command and control; isn't

22     that right?"  And you said, "Well, I never received any kind of letter

23     signed by a staff commander so you are right.

24              "Did you ever receive any sort of official letter from the

25     police staff in 1992?  Do you have any information indicating that the

Page 2196

 1     CSB you belonged to ever received a sort of letter sent by staff or staff

 2     commander?"

 3             And you said:

 4             "No, I don't know that anybody received it."

 5             Right.  Can I ask you to have a look now, please, at 65 ter 2369.

 6     It will come up on the screen in front of you.  Eventually.

 7             Now, this is a decision by Mico Stanisic, dated -- I'm not sure

 8     what it's dated, but it says "Following the 15th of May."  Decision to

 9     appoint Krsto Savic to the position of chief of Trebinje CSB security

10     services centre, member of the Serbian republic of the interior staff for

11     command and control of the overall forces of the Ministry of the

12     Interior.  And then pursuant to the powers, statement of reasons, et

13     cetera, establishing a staff for command and control of the ministry's

14     forces in accordance with position held, et cetera.

15             So were you -- are you saying to the Court you didn't know that

16     in fact Krsto Savic had also been appointed chief of this staff, or

17     appointed to the staff?

18        A.   He is being appointed to a member of the staff as chief of CSB.

19     So he had previously been appointed chief of CSB and then staff member.

20             As I have said yesterday, I didn't see this decision, and I also

21     said that I didn't see the signature right here at the bottom where it

22     says "Minister."  I never saw somebody sign as Chief of Staff.  And as

23     for Krsto being a staff member, yes, I could see it on the basis of the

24     previous document where it said who the staff consisted of.  It says who

25     was the chief, who was deputy assistant, and then all chiefs of CSBs, and

Page 2197

 1     Krsto was a chief of a CSB.  So based from that document I could see that

 2     he was a member of the staff, and as for the decision actually appointing

 3     him, no, I never saw that.

 4        Q.   No.  At the moment I'm just asking you whether you knew that in

 5     fact such a staff did exist and that Krsto Savic was a member of it.

 6        A.   Yes.  I could see it from the document that we saw before this

 7     one.

 8        Q.   No.  But did you know in 1992, in May, that this staff existed

 9     and that Krsto Savic was a member of it?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   All right.

12             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, in those circumstances, may I ask this

13     be made an exhibit.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  I have no objection, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

16             MS. KORNER:  Thank you very much.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P170.

18             MS. KORNER:

19        Q.   Now, I just want to ask you a little bit more about this business

20     of the resubordination that you were asked about of police to the army.

21             You told us - I'm just going to find the place - that you had a

22     conversation -- sorry.  I'm just trying to find my ... yes.  Yeah.  This

23     was at page 46 of the -- the -- yesterday's LiveNote.  That the brigade

24     commander asked you to provide assistance to him with policemen, and you

25     said:

Page 2198

 1             "I didn't have to be pushed to do this because certain areas had

 2     to be closed off.  I attended the meeting, and I accepted to give some of

 3     my men to resubordinate them."

 4             Do you remember saying that?  Do we take it from that, when you

 5     say you accepted, that you had a choice as to whether or not you were to

 6     supply reserve police for the purposes of the army?

 7        A.   We did have a choice in accordance with the agreement with the

 8     senior officials at the centre, especially if there was no communication.

 9     And if I didn't make a decision within ten minutes, then it would have

10     been too late if they informed me three days later.  So I could have not

11     sent a unit.  Because if I were to wait for somebody to actually send me

12     an official request and then for me to officially respond, then it could

13     have been too late.  So, yes, I was authorised to do that.

14        Q.   No, no.  I understand that.  I just -- so it's not that the

15     brigade commander could order you to supply them, he could request, and

16     you could decide whether yes or no?

17        A.   Precisely so.  He could not order me.

18        Q.   Can I just understand this:  Supposing when one of your policemen

19     was engaged under the command of the military in an action he had

20     committed a criminal offence such as looting, who would be responsible

21     for initiating the prosecution against the -- or the investigation,

22     rather, not the prosecution, against this individual?

23        A.   At the time while he is resubordinated -- it was never just one

24     single person.  It was mostly a unit at the level of a platoon, say 20

25     people.  So during that period of time, it is the military

Page 2199

 1     resubordination that is responsible and competent.

 2             Now, if that unit were to be sent back to the MUP forces, and

 3     that's precisely for that reason that we sent the command of the unit as

 4     well, then there would be disciplinary proceedings, because the documents

 5     say if somebody does or has done previously a crime, then, yes, we could

 6     send the information and the report, but it would be the military

 7     hierarchy that would actually have the jurisdiction.

 8        Q.   But as you say if -- I just want -- so we can get this clear.  If

 9     the platoon came back to resume normal police duties and there was a

10     report that someone had committed a crime whilst on the military duties,

11     you would be responsible -- I say "you," but the police would be

12     responsible for beginning the investigation.

13        A.   It was the commander of the battalion who was duty-bound to start

14     the investigation or, rather, military police and the security.  Each

15     brigade had a military police detachment and a security department, and

16     they were stronger than a police station in Ljubinje.  And each town had

17     a brigade with military police and military security.

18             If they were to fail to do that, then upon their return we would

19     submit a criminal report and take disciplinary action to expel the

20     perpetrator due to a crime that had been committed earlier.

21        Q.   Yes.  All right.  You say to expel you would submit a criminal

22     report to whom, the military prosecutor or to the ordinary prosecutor,

23     the civil prosecutor?

24        A.   After their return, then it was us who were duty-bound to submit

25     it to civilian prosecutor.

Page 2200

 1        Q.   Thank you.  And just while we're on that topic, if a crime was

 2     reported to you and you made investigations, even if the investigations

 3     showed that the perpetrator was likely to have been a member of the

 4     military at the time, would you submit a report still to the civilian

 5     prosecutor?

 6        A.   I don't know how to reply to that.  If he was a member of the

 7     military, then normally it would be military police who would come and

 8     take over that case from us with all the appropriate documents that we

 9     had about the crime, the act, and so on, and they would submit it to the

10     military prosecutor in Bileca.  They would submit a report.

11        Q.   Can we just -- sorry, let's look at an actual example from your

12     own municipality.  You told us about the mosque being blown up, and you

13     told us you carried out an inquiry -- or an investigation.  Do you

14     remember telling us that?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Supposing your investigations which you had begun had shown that

17     it was likely to have been a military unit that blew up the mosque, would

18     you then submit a report to the civilian prosecutor or simply contact

19     the -- the military police?

20        A.   Well, it was -- if it was a military unit, we would get in touch

21     with the military police.

22        Q.   So you wouldn't submit any kind of report to the prosecutor?

23        A.   We could submit a report, the basic report, to the civilian

24     prosecutor, but if it was a military unit, then it was -- then it is the

25     military prosecutor who has jurisdiction.  Had we uncovered who the

Page 2201

 1     perpetrator was, then the civilian prosecutor would declare himself not

 2     to be competent and would send the case over to the military prosecutor.

 3        Q.   Right.  This is what I'm trying to get at.  It was actually the

 4     civilian prosecutor, wasn't it, not the police who made the decision

 5     which of them -- two of them had jurisdiction.  That's right, isn't it?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   All right.  Thank you.  Now, can I move --

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, it's 12 -- it's time for the break.

 9             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  Thank you very much.

10             JUDGE HALL:  We'll resume in 20 minutes.

11                           [The witness stands down]

12                           --- Recess taken at 12.08 p.m.

13                           --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.

14                           [The witness takes the stand]

15             MS. KORNER:

16        Q.   Mr. Krulj, I want to go over some of the things you said again

17     about the Special Police.  You told Mr. Zecevic at - here we are - page

18     48 of yesterday's transcript, who was going over what you said to me in

19     chief, about the special unit that was established by the SAO

20     Herzegovina, which was sent to the Dubrovnik front.  Right.

21        A.   It was Specijalna, not Posebna unit.

22        Q.   I fully understand.

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

24             MS. KORNER:

25        Q.   I fully understand the distinction you're making, but I just

Page 2202

 1     wanted to concentrate on this unit.  You told Mr. Zecevic it was not

 2     under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior, it did not carry

 3     out any police tasks but only participated in combat.  Is that right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And how did you know that?

 6        A.   I knew that as a member of the MUP, that nobody in the territory

 7     of the Trebinje centre had any sort of jurisdiction or competence over

 8     that unit.  I said that that unit didn't come to my territory, but I also

 9     know that commander in Trebinje or chief on Bileca could not deploy that

10     unit either, nor could anybody else among us do that.  And I can tell you

11     that the centre had not yet been established when the unit was set up.

12        Q.   Yes.  That's -- that's what you're telling us, but I want to come

13     back to that in a moment.  How do you know - or are you saying this is

14     what you were told by somebody else - that this unit carried out combat

15     activities?

16        A.   From talking to my colleagues in Trebinje, I knew that they went

17     to the area of Ravno and area of Mostar.  That's all I learned from the

18     conversation.  I never saw that unit taking charge of traffic or

19     patrolling in town or conducting any sort of checks.  That's what I know.

20        Q.   No, no.  But you wouldn't expect a special unit to do traffic

21     duties, would you?  A special unit was designed, as you told us, to deal

22     with outbreaks of public disorder, roadblocks and things like that,

23     wasn't it?

24        A.   Those are Posebna units what you're talking about, about

25     disturbances of law and order and other things.  That's done by Posebna

Page 2203

 1     units.  As for Specijalna units it was a combat unit of SAO Herzegovina

 2     that had nothing to do with public security stations in the territory of

 3     Herzegovina.

 4        Q.   All right.  So you're quite clear on that.  So Mico Stanisic as

 5     minister of the interior had nothing whatsoever to do with this

 6     particular unit that you're talking about.  Is that what you're saying?

 7        A.   At the time he didn't.  On the 28th of March I was in Mostar at

 8     the security centre there having coffee with my colleagues and Specijalna

 9     Jedinica was already in existence at the time.

10        Q.   All right.  And this is the unit that you say contained

11     criminals, but also, as you said when you gave evidence when I was asking

12     you questions, two members of the regular police.

13        A.   I said two.

14        Q.   Yes.

15        A.   I think there were several members of police who had left police

16     force and were members of that unit.

17        Q.   But you said -- sorry, the word you used was "active policemen."

18        A.   Yes, who used to be active policemen and then they left police

19     force and joined that unit.  They were active policemen who had left

20     police force and went to the army on their own initiative.

21        Q.   Well, this isn't the army we're talking about.  I'm now

22     talking -- leave this -- I'm talking about this group called the Special

23     Police set up by the SAO Herzegovina.

24        A.   What I'm saying is that these people earlier used to be active

25     policemen, and then they transferred to that unit.

Page 2204

 1        Q.   But in order to transfer to that unit, they must have got

 2     permission, must they not, from their superiors in the police force?

 3        A.   No.  They simply left their job as policemen and then moved on to

 4     the other unit, and by doing so they were taken off any duties at the

 5     police.  If somebody failed to come to work without legitimate excuse for

 6     more than three days, that would constitute a grave violation of

 7     discipline and automatically would terminate them.

 8        Q.   And can I ask you how you know that that's what happened to these

 9     several members of the police?  How do you know that they left without

10     permission?

11        A.   I don't know these people.  I don't know these members.  I am

12     talking about what I heard.  I don't know people who were in that unit.

13     I said that from Ljubinje, from my station, there were no men who joined

14     that unit, but I think that that was the standard procedure of the

15     Ministry of the Interior, regular procedure.

16             I have to say that at the time we received our salaries from the

17     centre in Mostar.

18        Q.   All right.  Did you also hear that the men who were in these --

19     in this particular SAO unit committed crimes?

20        A.   I didn't hear of any crimes, but I did hear that they behaved

21     inappropriately, drank, broke things, grabbed drinks in certain areas

22     around Mostar, and that they also seized materiel and equipment,

23     especially vehicles.

24        Q.   All right.  You see, you told Mr. Zecevic earlier that one of the

25     things you wanted to do in coming here was to protect the reputation and

Page 2205

 1     work of members of the police who did their job honourably.  Is that

 2     something you feel quite strongly about?

 3        A.   If you really want me to say, I mean, it's for the purposes of

 4     protection of the truth and the dignity of those people and the people

 5     who honourably and professionally conducted their duties.  Not everything

 6     should be placed on the shoulders of the police.  The police didn't have

 7     an easy time during the time of this dirty war, and you probably don't

 8     have an idea about that.

 9             If I were -- if I were to tell you one particular instance that

10     had to do with me when I was in a vehicle and ten people were firing at

11     this vehicle where I was in, and this was something that was under the

12     jurisdiction of the military, and then those perpetrators, the following

13     day, were actually released to go home.  They were allowed to -- they

14     were relieved temporarily to go on holiday.  That's the story.

15        Q.   Mr. Krulj, can I say I'm not suggesting that you acted

16     dishonourably.  I'm just -- I just want to look at some of the things

17     that you've said, that's all.

18             I'd like you to have a look, please, at an article that was

19     published in "Glas" --

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, if I may.

21             MS. KORNER:  Certainly.

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  I think there is a misunderstanding,

23     clarification is perhaps needed for me eventually.

24             You're insisting about the active policemen that were in those

25     Special Police Unit.  I think you were referring to the Specijalna unit,

Page 2206

 1     weren't you?

 2             THE PROSECUTOR:  I'm referring to the unit that he's described

 3     that was set up by the SAO Herzegovina.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yes, yes.  That's the Specijalna.  But I checked

 5     it on the transcript yesterday, and I think that the active policemen

 6     that the witness meant were in the other unit, the Posebna.

 7             MS. KORNER:  No.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  That's what he told us yesterday.

 9             MS. KORNER:  No, Your Honour.  What he said on -- and he's just

10     confirmed it.  What he said on -- on the -- whatever date it was -- the

11     26th, Monday, at page 2001, 2002:

12             "There was one unit called the Special Police, but this was not

13     under the jurisdiction of the CSB because the CSB had not been formed

14     yet.  This was formed by the government of the SAO Herzegovina, and there

15     were a couple of people," and he now says, "who were active policemen."

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  But yesterday, and I'm referring to page 53, line

17     9 and 10, I specifically asked whether it was Specijalna or -- what's the

18     other name?  Posebna.  And there I got the answer Posebna.  So perhaps --

19             MS. KORNER:  He's talking about.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  We need to clarify that.

21             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, if you go back to you -- this, he was

22     talking about a different -- he was talking about the PJP, which was

23     different from this unit.  That's what he was talking about.

24             All right.  Shall we -- I accept it probably needs clarification.

25        Q.   Can we just understand this.  In the group that -- the group

Page 2207

 1     you've called Special Police set up by the SAO Herzegovina, did that

 2     contain people who you now say were active police but left and

 3     transferred to this unit?

 4        A.   I did hear of such cases, yes, but may I clarify one thing,

 5     please?

 6        Q.   Certainly.

 7        A.   Until the 1st of April, 1992, we belonged to the Mostar centre.

 8     There was no security centre in Trebinje.  The chief of the centre in

 9     Mostar was a Croat, Slobodan Bozic.  He was my boss.

10             Do you believe that that Specijalna Jedinica unit was part of the

11     police and the centre in Mostar because there was no security centre in

12     Trebinje?

13        Q.   Yes.  At the moment what I'm trying to concentrate on is this

14     group that you say was set up by the SAO Herzegovina that has no

15     connection with the -- the formal MUP of the Ministry of the Interior.

16     Do you understand that?

17        A.   Yes.  That was a paramilitary formation that named itself

18     Specijalna Jedinica Policija special unit of the police, or it was named

19     that by somebody from the leadership of the SAO Herzegovina.

20        Q.   All right.  I think maybe we can clarify this because you've

21     mentioned the 1st of April and it's obvious an important date.

22             MS. KORNER:  Can we have a look please at 65 ter 10142.

23             No, that's not it.  10142.  I don't know what's up on ...

24             And I think we need to -- no, that's fine.  Yes.  That will do.

25     Slightly to the left in the B/C/S, please.

Page 2208

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry.  I put my colleague Ms. Korner on notice

 2     that I would in principle object to admission of -- of these documents.

 3     So let me just briefly explain.

 4             Your Honours, the theory of the Prosecution is that the media in

 5     1991 and 1992 were used as a propaganda machinery for -- from all sides

 6     in Bosnia.  Therefore, they are alleging that this -- this media was

 7     creating a sense of fear, was building up the war effort or hatred

 8     towards other -- other nationalities, ethnicities, and so on and so on.

 9             Now, if that is -- if that is the situation, which we -- which I

10     personally believe is true, then I don't think that it is consistent with

11     that position that the -- that the Prosecution uses the very same

12     propaganda documents establishing quite the contrary situation.  I'm not

13     saying -- I'm just using this opportunity because this is the first time

14     that we are having a media article presented in our case to state this as

15     a general objection that we have towards admission of the media -- media

16     articles.

17             Thank you very much.

18             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, that's an overstatement of our

19     position.  When I opened the case, I drew your attention to certain

20     organs such as the Informator in Sanski Most which I said was certainly

21     propaganda, but media articles where, you know, report, and indeed when

22     it comes to Banja Luka, we'll be putting in the whole of the -- the

23     "Glas" articles about the SOS.  Media articles are admissible in this

24     Tribunal with all the caveats, and I think we've discussed this before.

25     We're not saying that all the media all of the time was an instrument of

Page 2209

 1     propaganda for the SDS or the SDA or whichever party it was.  We're

 2     saying in some cases, particularly the publications where the language

 3     used is inflammatory, that's one thing.  This article is a

 4     straightforward report, apparently, and I simply want to ask the witness

 5     about what's contained in that report in the light of what he said.  And

 6     it's the same with many other articles as I say that we'll be introducing

 7     and which have been entered into evidence on many occasions before.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, do I also understand your objection

 9     also to be to the question that she's about to put to him about the

10     article apart from the question of admissibility, and the question of

11     admissibility, I would have thought that what Mrs. Korner has said is the

12     answer to the question, but did I understand your objection to be even to

13     putting the question to him that she will --

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  No, not at all, Your Honours.  I just in principle

15     wanted to object because this is the first time we're going to have this

16     article, and I want the record to clearly show that we are taking in

17     principle the objection to admission of media articles in this case.

18     Thank you very much.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

20             MS. KORNER:  Well, there's nothing like rewriting the

21     jurisprudence in the Tribunal.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Please proceed, Ms. Korner.

23             MS. KORNER:  Thank you very much.

24        Q.   Okay.  This is an article that you were -- you were familiar,

25     were you, with the "Glas" newspaper, Mr. Krulj?

Page 2210

 1        A.   I did hear of it, but I don't read the paper.

 2        Q.   All right.  But this reports apparently on the 1st of April that:

 3             "The SAO Herzegovina police and Special Police Units were

 4     established in Trebinje today.  Following the national anthem and the

 5     inspection of the units, the policemen took their solemn oath.

 6             "Mico Stanisic, minister the interior of the Serbian republic

 7     stressed at this celebration that the people of the Serbian republic have

 8     their own Ministry of the Interior," and so on and so forth.

 9             Now, firstly, were you present at this parade or whatever it was,

10     ceremony?

11        A.   Yes.  I was in civilian clothing, and I was expecting a meeting,

12     but I will tell you that on the 28th, after the cistern exploded in

13     Mostar, all the Serbs ran away from Mostar, all the civilians, the

14     judges, all those who managed to escape from the -- to the eastern part,

15     and then the policemen who came from Mostar came to Trebinje.  So this is

16     not a review of any kind of Special Police because if it says so in the

17     paper it's a pure lie, because it's a matter of some 20-odd active

18     policemen, exclusively active service policemen.  And I wasn't there in

19     that review line in front of the centre where those people were standing

20     when the minister arrived, but I was standing next to that line, and I

21     was in civilian clothing, and they do not -- there was no mention of

22     anything like that.  If that is what is said here, I do not accept that,

23     that it was any kind of special unit.  It was just regular active-duty

24     members of the police force, and the reason for that was the one that I

25     explained before.

Page 2211

 1        Q.   I'm sorry, first of all, you said that -- okay.  The newspaper

 2     reporter has got it completely wrong.  There were no Special Police at

 3     this parade.  Can you just say -- is that what you're saying?

 4        A.   Yes, I state that with full responsibility.

 5        Q.   Well, do you know why Mico Stanisic was there reviewing just

 6     20-odd active policemen?

 7        A.   Krsto Savic was the one who did the review, while Mico Stanisic

 8     came to inform us about the new Law on Internal Affairs and about the

 9     beginning of the functioning of the new security centre in Trebinje.

10     That meeting we held very briefly in the premises of the public security

11     station in Trebinje.

12        Q.   Yes.  You -- exactly.  You told us about the meeting, but --

13     sorry.  I'm just going back to the document for a moment.

14             So the words "SAO Herzegovina police" and "Special Police Unit"

15     you say simply aren't right?

16        A.   As for the presence in front of the station, there was no

17     Specijalna Policija from SAO Herzegovina there.

18        Q.   All right.  On the face of this article, the -- what you've just

19     told us about the SAO Special Police would be wrong, that's right, isn't

20     it?  What you told us earlier about it being the police, it had nothing

21     to do with the Ministry of the Interior.  It would be wrong, wouldn't it?

22        A.   It's true there was a police that had nothing to do with the

23     Ministry of Internal Affairs, and those police members were not at this

24     review on this particular day.

25        Q.   All right.

Page 2212

 1             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honours, I'm not seeking to put this in

 2     at the moment without further [indiscernible], but could I have it marked

 3     for identification.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  Mr. Zecevic.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  My objection still stands, and I believe the

 6     witness directly gave the reason why I was objecting, that it contains

 7     not -- not truthful -- it's a document which is not truthful at all.

 8     Thank you.

 9             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honour, that's a matter for Your Honours

10     to decide rather than Mr. Zecevic.  Your Honours have heard what the

11     witness said, and you've seen what the article said.  At the moment I'm

12     not asking for it to be admitted as an exhibit.  I'm simply asking for it

13     to be marked for identification.  Whether it's untrue or not, I heard

14     what the witness said.  Your Honours decide whether or not you accept it.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  No, I agree with Ms. Korner.  It is just that the

16     witness was there, and he confirms that there was no -- there was nothing

17     like -- like this parade of SAO Special Police, and that is exactly the

18     right example of the propaganda which I was talking about.  Thank you

19     very much.

20             MS. KORNER:  Can I -- I'm sorry, it isn't propaganda.  It's a

21     report.  What's propaganda about it?  It's simply a report.  But could I

22     ask just one further question, Your Honour?

23             JUDGE HALL:  Is --

24             MS. KORNER:  Can I ask one further question and then we'll see.

25        Q.   Are you saying that there was no Special Police Unit as well that

Page 2213

 1     was set up in Trebinje at this time, 1st of April?

 2        A.   These were active police officers who were there.

 3        Q.   I know.  I understand what you said about who was at the parade.

 4     I'm simply asking you whether -- are you saying as well there was not the

 5     establishment at this period of a Special Police Unit, and by that I mean

 6     which comes under the minister of the interior?

 7        A.   It was formed and it existed permanently pursuant to provisions

 8     of the law.

 9        Q.   Yes.  So there was -- you see, we're going around in circles now.

10     There was a Special Police Unit set up in Trebinje around this period.

11     That's right, isn't it?

12        A.   Yes, but this review was not a review of that unit.  One vehicle

13     filled with policemen came from each municipality accompanying the

14     leadership that had come to attend the meeting, and these were just

15     regular active police officers who in front of the police station were

16     lined up by Krsto Savic in honour of the arrival of the minister of the

17     interior.  It was not a formation of the Posebna Jedinica unit.  There

18     was summons to come on the 1st of April, and so there was maximum of five

19     policemen per vehicle, and so the review actually was a review of regular

20     active-duty police forces.

21             This is not the only such heading.  This was -- there are many

22     such headings, headlines.  It was written by the Serbian press.  They

23     were writing how the unit was armed and so on.  There was all kinds of

24     things that were being written at the time.

25        Q.   Tell me something.  Is there a film in existence of this parade

Page 2214

 1     that you've ever seen?

 2        A.   I didn't, but perhaps it does exist.  It's possible that there

 3     was a recording, taping of it, yes.

 4        Q.   And finally on this -- this document, did Mico Stanisic say words

 5     to the effect of, "Our legality and legitimacy are derived from the

 6     legitimate will of the Serbian and other peoples expressed at the

 7     plebescite and declared their wish for their own Assembly, their own

 8     constitution and their own laws"?

 9             Did he say something like that at this ceremony?

10        A.   I think that he did, and I think that he had a full right to say

11     that.  What you just referred to did occur over the previous month, the

12     plebiscite, the formation of the Assembly of the Serbian people in

13     Bosnia-Herzegovina, and mostly Mr. Stanisic asked that the police

14     continued to work the way it worked before pursuant to the regulations in

15     effect.  There was no insightful language or anything like that, although

16     it's quite a different matter how this was portrayed in the press.

17        Q.   All right.

18             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honours, in that event, partially

19     accepted.  May I just have it marked for identification?

20             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

21             MS. KORNER:  Thank you very much.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 171 marked for identification, Your

23     Honours.

24             MS. KORNER:  Right.

25        Q.   Now, the -- sorry.  Yes.  All right.  Do you agree that there was

Page 2215

 1     in fact set up at the CSB in Trebinje a Special Police Unit, what you

 2     call the PJP?

 3        A.   There was a unit of the police that was called Posebna Jedinica

 4     Policija, the PJP at the Trebinje station.  It was not called Specijalna

 5     Jedinica Policija, no.

 6        Q.   All right.  Well, can you have a look, please, at a document,

 7     65 ter 155.

 8        A.   [No interpretation]

 9        Q.   We're going to make it -- enlarge it, if that's what you said.  I

10     didn't get a translation.

11             Now, can you just read out, please, the Cyrillic.

12        A.   "We have been made aware of the situation and the problems --"

13        Q.   No, sorry.  I'm so sorry.  Mr. Krulj, not that.  The top, because

14     it's been translated in English as something.

15        A.   "CSB security services centre Trebinje.

16             "To the Special Police Brigade Detachment Commander."

17        Q.   Okay.

18        A.   So to the commander of the Specijalna police.

19             "We have been aware of the situation and problems of the Trebinje

20     police detachment.  It is imperative that as soon as possible --"

21        Q.   Right.  Stop.  This says -- do we agree it has been translated

22     both orally and in writing as "Special Police"?  So that's what it was

23     called at Trebinje.

24        A.   Detachment of the special brigade of the police of Trebinje, and

25     the special brigade of the police is at the seat of the ministry.  Here

Page 2216

 1     this is addressed to the commander of the detachment of the Special

 2     Police Brigade, and that was Karisik Milenko and the assistant of --

 3     actually, it was signed by the Assistant Minister, Tomislav Kovac.

 4             Can you please just tell me what the date of the document is if

 5     you --

 6        Q.   Regrettably we can't.

 7        A.   -- have it.

 8        Q.   No.  Regrettably it doesn't have a date on it.  It's 251 of

 9     the -- but can I just ask you this:  "We have been made aware of a

10     situation, problems of the Trebinje police detachment."

11             In your view this is the detachment from the Special Brigade

12     under Karisik; is that right?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   All right.

15        A.   Yes.  This is late 1992 and early 1993.  Well, this is all right.

16        Q.   All right, yes.  That's the next thing I want to ask you about.

17             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I don't think I'll have that made an

18     exhibit at the moment.  Could I have it marked for identification because

19     I think we need to investigate.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  I don't -- I don't have a problem.  I just want to

21     remind my learned colleague that this document was withdrawn from your

22     65 ter list.

23             MS. KORNER:  It was?

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry.

25             MS. KORNER:  Oh, that's news --

Page 2217

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  That is the information that I received from my

 2     assistant.

 3             MS. KORNER:  Well, if it was withdrawn it's news to us, but as I

 4     said, Your Honour, I'm not seeking to have it admitted as an exhibit but

 5     obviously just marked for identification at the moment.  I think we need

 6     to make a bit more inquiries about it.  Can we just check though?

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  If it is not on the 65 ter list, it is

 9     inadmissible.

10             MS. KORNER:  Well, no, Your Honour.  We've been through this I

11     thought.  We've been marking them for identification a number of

12     documents which aren't on our 65 ter list on the basis that we would

13     apply to amend our 65 ter list.  If we don't get it marked for

14     identification it's a bit difficult to bring it back up again.  So can we

15     have that marked for identification?  And apparently it's on our 65 ter

16     list still.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry.  It wasn't any objection.  I was just

18     notified that it was withdrawn.  I'm sorry.

19             JUDGE HALL:  So it's marked for identification.

20             MS. KORNER:  Thank you very much.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P172 marked for identification, Your

22     Honours.

23             MS. KORNER:

24        Q.   All right.  Just very simply, are you saying Milenko Karisik was

25     only appointed in charge of Special Police in the end of 1992 and early

Page 2218

 1     1993?

 2        A.   No.  He was appointed earlier, but I think that the detachment of

 3     the brigade in Trebinje was formed at that time.

 4        Q.   Right.

 5        A.   And this is a legal document that is in keeping with the

 6     regulations.  The only thing is that it is not dated.

 7        Q.   Yes.  All right.  That's fine.  So I didn't want to -- I didn't

 8     want to show you earlier documents.  Milenko Karisik was in fact

 9     appointed, wasn't he, early on in 1992 to head the -- the Ministry of the

10     Interior Special Police Brigade, and then when the CSB ones were

11     abolished later, there was a new -- there was a formation of a new

12     brigade towards the end of 1992.  Is that what you're saying?  Is that

13     right?

14        A.   As far as I know.  As far as I know, from the 4th of April there

15     was the special brigade of the police under the command of Karisik.  And

16     as for CSBs, abolishing it, I don't know.  Maybe somebody from the

17     ministry knows about it.  I don't.

18        Q.   Well, don't worry, I'm not going to trouble you with it.  All

19     right, that's all I want to ask you, please, about the Special Police.

20     Well, actually, no, there's one other document.

21             MS. KORNER:  Can I have 65 ter 2132 just to finally put an end to

22     this.  We've only translated, Your Honours, the top bit.

23        Q.   Do you agree that this appears to be a list of employees of the

24     special unit for the the payment of salaries for the month of April 1992,

25     for the SJB in Bileca?  And do you recognise any of the names on the

Page 2219

 1     list?

 2        A.   I do not recognise a single policeman here.

 3             MS. KORNER:  All right.  We'll have to deal with that some other

 4     way, Your Honours.  And that can come down.

 5        Q.   All right.  Leaving the Special Police, please.  I want to deal

 6     now with this matter of this particular order from Mico Stanisic that you

 7     were shown yesterday and today, or the series of orders, 23, 24, and 26

 8     of July.

 9             Do I understand what you're saying to be this:  that police

10     officers who were thought to have committed criminal offences would be

11     dismissed from the police and sent to the army because that was

12     automatic, that if they left the police they would go into the army?  Is

13     that what you're saying?

14        A.   I said that measures of disciplinary and criminal responsibility

15     were taken against them, and in addition to that, their names and their

16     files were sent to the Ministry of Defence in order for them to be

17     enlisted into the army units.

18        Q.   All right.  Well, let's just have a look at the first one that

19     you -- you looked at yesterday.  I have no idea what the P number is.  It

20     was 1 Defence 2751.

21             I thought -- yes.  I don't know what the P number was, I'm

22     afraid.

23             MS. KORNER:  Well -- it's a Defence document, yes.  That's what I

24     just said, 2751.

25        Q.   And you told Mr. Zecevic you definitely received this document.

Page 2220

 1     Is that right?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And it's repeating the -- or they're forwarding to you the

 4     dispatch of the 23rd of July, with the order that "all members of the MUP

 5     who have committed crimes," and we've got that one, "prior to or since

 6     the start of combat take legal measures to remove them from our ranks,

 7     relieve them of duty, and put them at the disposal of the army of the

 8     Serbian republic."

 9             Now, on the face of that that does not mention, does it,

10     anywhere, taking criminal proceedings against them.  It simply says, get

11     rid of them from the police and stick them in the army, to put it

12     colloquially, doesn't it?

13        A.   Well, if you want to relieve somebody of duty, if you want to

14     remove them from the police, how are you going to prove that that person

15     committed a crime if there hadn't been any criminal reports?  And there

16     were such cases where people had criminal reports filed against them, not

17     traffic violations, and they were still members of police.  And here

18     they're ordering that anybody who was subject to criminal proceedings or

19     there were criminal reports filed against them, that they need to be

20     removed from the ranks of police, because how can you dismiss somebody if

21     you don't have evidence that that person committed a crime?

22             You need to have evidence, and that is criminal report.

23        Q.   Yes.  But hang on.  But nowhere does it say, does it, in that

24     record, and we look at the original order itself, or we can, which came

25     out on the 23rd of July, it doesn't mention the word or criminal

Page 2221

 1     proceedings had been taken, does it?  So if you read the document on the

 2     face of it, it just says if they've committed crimes, remove them and

 3     send them to the army.  And I appreciate what you say.

 4        A.   The law is what prescribes what a crime is, and no order is

 5     needed in relation to each single crime.  What they need to do is file a

 6     criminal report in case somebody committed a crime.  And in cases where a

 7     criminal report was filed, three, five, or I don't know how many months

 8     ago, then we were duty-bound to relieve that person of police duties.

 9             I don't think that they should have written, "If somebody commits

10     a crime, make sure that you file a criminal report."  I don't think

11     there's a need to specify it so plainly.

12        Q.   All right.  We'll come on to this, what's further down in this

13     document in a moment, but are you saying that -- well, first -- no.  The

14     first question is:  Why was it necessary, if it was already legally in

15     place, for such an order to be issued in the first place if the law

16     already said that police officers who committed crimes against whom a

17     criminal report has been filed should be suspended from duty?  Why was

18     that necessary?

19        A.   Because there had been such cases in certain stations, and

20     because ministry had learned that there were such cases in certain SJBs

21     and that people who had committed crimes were still in the ranks of

22     police, and I think that this is fully clear.

23        Q.   Is it your understanding of this order that as His Honour

24     Judge Harhoff asked you, if you had a police officer in custody who had,

25     for example, killed a prisoner who was in his custody, or raped a woman

Page 2222

 1     who was in his custody, that instead of the criminal proceedings

 2     continuing, he would be released and sent to the army?  Is that what your

 3     understanding is, Mr. Krulj?  You say you've got this order.

 4        A.   How could I understand it in that way?  I'm explaining it for the

 5     hundredth time.  That would be equal to pardoning somebody from criminal

 6     prosecution.  How could police do something like that?  Where did you

 7     come up with such a thesis?

 8             So if somebody goes and kills somebody and as a punishment is

 9     sent to the army?  It is simply beyond me to think that somebody could

10     legitimately believe that that was possible.  If somebody killed

11     somebody, then they cannot go to the army.  And if they were awaiting

12     trial, then they would go to the army.

13        Q.   But on the face of this order, where is the distinction drawn,

14     Mr. Krulj, between an offence which allows you to suspend the prosecution

15     and send him to the army and one which does not?

16        A.   I don't think so.  I disagree.

17        Q.   No, no.  I'm asking you.  I'm asking you the question.

18             MS. KORNER:  If you don't mind, Mr. Zecevic.

19        Q.   Where in this order which you say you received can one see,

20     reading the order, a distinction between the sort of crimes that allow

21     you to suspend criminal proceedings and the sort of crimes which do not?

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  I have to object, because --

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will reply --

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  I don't think that there is any basis for -- for

25     this question, I think, Your Honours.

Page 2223

 1             JUDGE HALL:  What --

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  The witness -- the witness answered, and I wouldn't

 3     like to answer -- to give me reasons, because I wouldn't like to

 4     influence the witness, but ...

 5             JUDGE HALL:  What I -- thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

 6             What I was going to ask Ms. Korner was having regard to the

 7     witness's answer which you may or may not accept, is the -- in fairness

 8     to -- to the witness, aren't you inviting an argument in respect of this

 9     document of which he was not the author?

10             MS. KORNER:  No, no.  I'm going to come on to it --

11     [indiscernible] deal with another part of this document, but I'm asking

12     him as a recipient how would he have known from this order if he'd had

13     somebody in custody who had allegedly committed a murder and someone in

14     custody who had allegedly stolen from a house, how he would distinguish

15     between those who could be sent to the army and those who could not?

16             JUDGE HALL:  As a recipient?

17             MS. KORNER:  As a recipient.  Exactly.

18        Q.   Do you understand the question, Mr. Krulj?  Supposing you had

19     somebody who allegedly had committed a murder, beaten a prisoner to

20     death, and someone who had stolen from a house, how would you distinguish

21     which one remained in custody based on this order, and which one -- the

22     criminal proceedings continued against and which was released?

23        A.   I understood your question.  This document means that members of

24     the police are educated enough so that when a crime is committed, for

25     each crime they need to file a criminal report.  In addition to a

Page 2224

 1     criminal report, that member would be removed from police duties.  If

 2     that person committed a crime, he would be put in detention for up to

 3     three days.  Prosecutor and the relevant court would be informed of it.

 4             I suppose in that case the Court would extend the pre-trial

 5     detention.  The investigative judge would have done it as it was

 6     regulated at the time, and that person would have been in gaol during

 7     that period of time.  Whereas with respect to the person who stole

 8     something, a criminal report would be filed for theft, for having

 9     committed theft.  That would have been sent to the prosecutor's office.

10     And while awaiting trial, that person would have been placed at the

11     disposal of the army.

12        Q.   All right.

13        A.   Those were our regulations.

14        Q.   All right.  Well, let's -- I hear what you say on this.  Let's go

15     down to the end of this particular order.

16             Dispatch -- it repeats what it says is in dispatch of the 23rd of

17     July and then dispatch number 0211 of the 24th of July.  This is where we

18     get the mention apparently of the proceedings.

19             "It is necessary that all members of the MUP who have been held

20     criminally accountable or against whom criminal proceedings are under way

21     in the competent courts be relieved of duty and be put at the disposal of

22     the army of the Serbian republic."

23             Exactly.  Right.

24             Now, I would like you to have a look, please, as you were shown

25     this morning, of the 24th of July dispatch number 0211, which was

Page 2225

 1     produced as an exhibit.  If it's --

 2             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honours, I have the

 3     objection.  I believe the witness answered many times, and this is

 4     getting nowhere.  He -- he answered that this was prescribed by the law,

 5     and that is the basis on what they were doing.  He said that --

 6             MS. KORNER:  It's a --

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] He said that five teams at.

 8             MS. KORNER:  It's a completely different point, Mr. Zecevic, if

 9     you wait a moment.  I'm not pursuing what he says about this now.

10             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.

11             MS. KORNER:  Right.  Can we find, I think it was 65 ter but it

12     was produced as a Defence exhibit 18 -- 188.  It's 1D59, the exhibit.

13        Q.   Okay.  This is allegedly, this is the order 20211 signed on

14     behalf of Mico Stanisic, which is allegedly referred to in that 26th of

15     April one from Krsto Savic.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Now -- yes, I see.  Sorry.

18             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, in fact -- don't worry.  This is not a

19     point I want to proceed with.  In fact, Your Honour, there's no further

20     point I want to make on these documents then.  I made a mistake in my --

21     no.

22        Q.   All right.  Can we finally then, please -- that's all I'm going

23     to ask you on this topic.

24             You were shown the document -- no.  You were asked by

25     Mr. Krgovic -- sorry, there's one last point, not on this document.  War

Page 2226

 1     crimes.  You were asked by, I think, Mr. Zecevic about investigation of

 2     crimes, and in particular, war crimes, and about the difficulties with

 3     that.

 4             I want you to have a look, please, at -- it's gone again.  Yes.

 5     Document 65 ter 127.

 6             This is an order from Mico Stanisic, dated the 16th of May, to

 7     the security centres in -- including Trebinje.  And can we go, please, to

 8     the third page in English and the second page in B/C/S.

 9              "War crimes.

10              "Measures and activities conducted to document war crimes.

11     These activities must involve collection of information and documents on

12     war crimes against the Serbs."

13             Did you get this order?

14        A.   No.  Since only preliminary information was collected at the

15     police stations and war crimes were processed by CSB at the seat, and it

16     was mostly done by crime prevention police.  So perhaps a letter was sent

17     based on this document to the SJB.

18        Q.   So, what, you saw every other order from Mico Stanisic but never

19     got sent this one?

20        A.   It's possible that I saw this one too.  I'm familiar with the

21     content and I have said so.  Either it was copied from something else.

22     Every order that was sent to public security stations to everybody and to

23     CSBs, to everybody, was something that I received as well, whereas an

24     order that was sent only to centres, security centres, was sometimes was

25     forwarded to public security stations in its original form or it could

Page 2227

 1     have been copied into a different form and sent to public security

 2     stations.  This is the usual way the police conducts communication.

 3        Q.   Okay.  But you are familiar with the -- with this instruction to

 4     collect material and investigate war crimes against Serbs?  Do you ever

 5     recall receiving an order --

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   -- from Mico Stanisic which said conduct investigations into war

 8     crimes generally, whoever they may have been committed against?

 9        A.   I think that that can be seen partially in this order and can

10     also be seen in the form that was attached, the form that required that

11     entries be made about the ethnicity and religion, and that was the form

12     that accompanied this order.

13        Q.   This order of May?

14        A.   The form?

15        Q.   Yes.

16        A.   I don't know.

17        Q.   No.  Because you were shown a form of -- for a later document,

18     much, much later, dealing with the investigations into camps, which I'm

19     going to come on to.

20             Did you ever -- did you ever conduct an investigation on the

21     orders of Mico Stanisic or on Krsto Savic in relation to any offences

22     committed against Muslims?

23        A.   Not pursuant to an order.  However, there were some crimes,

24     property crimes, in my municipality, some minor crimes, and we did it

25     based on the law, not pursuant to an order.

Page 2228

 1        Q.   All right.  And this is the final topic I want to -- you were

 2     asked about Bileca by, I believe, Mr. Zecevic or Mr. Krgovic, and you

 3     were shown a document, 2765.  I think it was.  Sorry, 2764.  Sorry.  You

 4     were asked about collection centres.  If you look at that.  I have no

 5     idea what the number was.  D35 -- 55.  10th of August.

 6             Were you aware at all, Mr. Krulj, that there had been publication

 7     of -- in international media of camps, particularly in the Prijedor area?

 8        A.   Yes.  Yes.

 9        Q.   And were you aware that as a result of that this is why this --

10     there was this hive of activity about prisons and collection centres

11     within the Serbian republic?

12        A.   I didn't understand your question.

13        Q.   Well, were you aware that these letters asking about -- and

14     orders in respect of collection centres and prisons came about as a

15     result of the international publicity?  If you weren't aware, say so.

16        A.   I wasn't aware.

17        Q.   You were asked by I think again His Honour Judge Harhoff, the

18     difference between a collection centre and a detention centre I think it

19     was, and you said that you couldn't see any difference.  Is that right?

20        A.   That's what I said, but the premises for detention as regulated

21     by law exist only within police stations, and this is where suspects are

22     held, and for me in the jargon, in the unofficial language, the detention

23     centre and the collection centre are the same.  I don't see the

24     difference in it.

25        Q.   All right.  As you said, the detention centres -- sorry.  The

Page 2229

 1     only premises for detention as regulated exists within police stations

 2     and presumably also prisons.  Did you hear about prisons in Bileca being

 3     held -- prisons, I say, people being held in a place called the Dacki

 4     Dom?

 5        A.   I said that I heard of it and I mentioned that name.

 6        Q.   And some were called the Student Dormitory?

 7        A.   It was pupils hall, not students.  There is no university in

 8     Bileca so it was students as in secondary school students.

 9        Q.   And people were being held there, you heard about that, didn't

10     you?

11        A.   I said that I heard it from conversations and also from a meeting

12     when it was discussed in Trebinje.

13        Q.   Right.  Well, this is the next point I wanted to make.  So that

14     was the difference, wasn't it?  That was clearly not a SJB premises nor a

15     prison.  So that was a collection centre, wasn't it?  If that's what you

16     call them.

17        A.   I never visited it, and I never called it, referred to it under

18     that name.  It wasn't a prison because later on the terminology was

19     established and -- or rather it was done later whether they started

20     calling it collection centres, then I don't know.  At that time, back

21     then nobody said to us there are this many people at a collection centre.

22        Q.   But these were not --

23             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, it appears that you aren't going to

24     finish this afternoon.

25             MS. KORNER:  Oh, I am.  I'll do it in two minutes so he doesn't

Page 2230

 1     have to come back.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Two minutes?

 3             MS. KORNER:  Two minutes, yes.

 4        Q.   And as you said, you say you told Mr. Krgovic, I think it was

 5     Mr. Krgovic, that you never heard any official information about Bileca

 6     but you did actually, didn't you, because when you attended meetings, as

 7     you told us, in Trebinje you would hear reports on what was happening in

 8     Bileca.

 9        A.   I think that was in that meeting when the representatives of the

10     Ministry of the Interior attended.

11        Q.   But -- sorry, I'm just dealing with it.  It's not right to say

12     that the only information that you got about Bileca was private

13     information?

14        A.   What I was trying to say is this:  In the document, in the diary,

15     you can see that there are meetings described and not in a single meeting

16     was this discussed, perhaps just once.

17        Q.   And finally on this.  Can you think of any reason why the head of

18     the SJB, Mr. Vujovic, of Bileca, should be providing lists of persons

19     over 60 who have been detained?

20        A.   I think there was a working group comprising two inspectors who

21     did it.  As I have said to you, I think that I know one of them but not

22     the other one.  These two inspectors are from the Ministry of

23     Judiciary -- or, rather, could have been that the MUP submitted a report

24     to the Ministry of Judiciary and this is what Vujovic said, if I remember

25     correctly.

Page 2231

 1        Q.   All right.  But would you recognise Mr. Vujovic's writing if you

 2     saw it?

 3        A.   I don't think so, because I never received any documents from

 4     him, and I haven't seen the man for almost 20 years, since 1993.

 5        Q.   All right.

 6             MS. KORNER:  That's all that I ask.  Thank you very much.

 7             Oh, yes, Your Honours.  I'm reminded I didn't ask to have the

 8     document relating to war crimes exhibited, which he said he recognised

 9     the contents thereof.  It's 65 ter 127.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P173, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krulj, we thank you for your attendance and

13     assisting the Tribunal.  You're now released, and we wish you a safe

14     journey back to your home.  Thank you.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Thank you all.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, before we rise there's a question that

17     we have of you, and we would seek your answer tomorrow.  You would

18     remember that in common with counsel from the other side and indeed the

19     bench, it was recognised that it would be useful for there to be

20     scheduled in advance days when we could all catch up with those things

21     necessary to make our work in court more efficient, and it is proposed

22     that the first of those days be Monday next, the 2nd of November, and

23     that is dependent on how firm your arrangement is for a witness for that

24     day but we'll take your answer tomorrow morning.

25             MS. KORNER:  I'll just tell you very quickly.  We're so backed up

Page 2232

 1     now, Your Honours, that we've got three witnesses here at the moment.

 2     Monday would be not a particularly suitable day, I'm afraid, unless we

 3     would sent the witness away.

 4                           [The witness withdrew]

 5             JUDGE HALL:  So we will resume tomorrow --

 6             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, we fully appreciate -- we think it's a

 7     very good idea, but I think we need more advanced notice so that we can

 8     reorganise ourselves.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  Tomorrow morning at 9.00 we resume.

10                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,

11                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 29th day

12                           of October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.