Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 3856

 1                           Thursday, 26 November 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                          [The accused entered court]

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

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

 6     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case number IT-08-91-T.

 7     The Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning to all.  May we begin in the usual

 9     manner by having the appearances, please.

10             MS. KORNER:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Gramsci De Fazio,

11     Joanna Korner, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.

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

13     Slobodan Cvijetic, and Eugene O'Sullivan for the Defence of Mico

14     Stanisic.

15             MR. PANTELIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  On behalf of

16     Zupljanin Defence Igor Pantelic, Dragan Krgovic, and Jason Antley.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Yesterday, the Court dictated that we adjourn before

18     a matter which had been raised by Mr. O'Sullivan and responded to, I

19     believe by Ms. Korner, on behalf of the Prosecution had been definitively

20     resolved.  Unless either side feels some burning need to make further

21     submissions to the Chamber, we think we have an appreciation of what is

22     in dispute between the parties, but we are not prepared to give our

23     ruling at this point.  It's something that we would wish to consider and

24     the -- as soon as we have concretised the position that we take on this,

25     we would give an indication.  Thank you.

Page 3857

 1             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, the burning need, I shall say, is, at

 2     the moment we are in a position where if you are not going to rule on the

 3     admission of Mr. Draganovic's testimony as an exhibit, plus the documents

 4     that accompany it, where are we if it's not going to be admitted?  I

 5     don't think it's - with the greatest of respect Your Honours - I don't

 6     think it's something you can delay, because if it's not admitted then he

 7     has to be called in full.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Counsels, the reason why we wanted time to

10     consider the issue that was brought up by Mr. O'Sullivan yesterday is

11     that we wanted to consider carefully the implications of Rule 92 ter,

12     because the rule doesn't set out clearly what exactly the Prosecution is

13     supposed to do in these cases.  It's obvious that when we deal with

14     Rule 92 bis, that is to say in situations where the witness is not

15     coming, in those situations it seems incumbent on the Prosecution to

16     bring all documents, not only Prosecution documents but also documents

17     introduced by the Defence that are adjacent to the testimonies that's

18     come in through 92 bis.

19             But then what is the situation in respect of Rule 92 ter?  There

20     we could either choose to say, well, in the cases of 92 ter, the same

21     mechanism applies, the Prosecution has to bring both Defence and

22     Prosecution documents.  However, Rule 92 ter really doesn't imply this

23     because obviously here the witness is brought for cross-examination.  So

24     that's why we were hesitant to set out the principle because we need to

25     discuss it more thoroughly.

Page 3858

 1             But for the moment, what we will say is that in respect of this

 2     witness, his testimony is admitted and along with it the 92 ter package

 3     that the Prosecution has proposed.  We are then confident that for this

 4     witness, the Defence will then be free to advance the documents that are

 5     adjacent to these testimonies and that were once introduced through the

 6     Defence counsels in the other cases.

 7             So for this witness, we will just go along the way the

 8     Prosecution has proposed and we will then reserve our position on what to

 9     do in future cases.  So for this witness, Mr. O'Sullivan, we kindly ask

10     you to identify those documents that you wish to have introduced and

11     then, as I said, we'll get back with a more principled decision.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And may I add that, of course, as I indicated

14     yesterday, what comes in, in evidence from the transcripts will only be

15     the parts that have been highlighted by the Prosecution.  That goes

16     without saying.  It goes for all the 92 ter testimonies.  And, of course,

17     the documents that come in are only the documents that are related to

18     those highlighted part of the transcripts.

19             I think this is --

20             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, that's news to us.  That's the first

21     time you've said that.  We've highlighted -- we've -- so far and that's

22     the way the motion was drafted and acceded to by Your Honours' ruling.

23     We have highlighted -- we put in all the transcript but highlighted the

24     parts that we thought were relevant, where it it's very long transcript

25     as it was in this case.  So the whole of the transcript is admitted.  If

Page 3859

 1     it's not, none of the cross-examination from this would be highlighted

 2     because we don't -- or not -- or very little of it because we didn't

 3     consider it was relevant.  So it's got to be -- and that's the way the

 4     motions are drafted and that's the ruling.

 5             The prior -- it's not partial transcript, it's the prior

 6     transcripts, full stop.  So it has to be the whole transcript with the

 7     highlighting as an indication of what you should consider to be relevant,

 8     and obviously we've selected the documents that we considered to be

 9     relevant, and indeed Your Honours, as I say, made a considerable effort

10     with this witness because in paragraph 15 of your ruling of the 2nd of

11     October you say:

12             "The Trial Chamber in its review of the accompanying documents

13     finds that most of them do indeed form an inextricable and indispensable

14     part of the evidence they accompany, save for the involving ..."

15             And then literally there is a page and a half of documents which

16     you listed which you didn't consider to be relevant and which we removed,

17     out of what we had already selected.  So with the greatest of respect,

18     Your Honours, it has to be the whole transcript plus the documents that

19     you admitted.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  As far as we were able to establish, the

21     documents that you have proposed now to come in along with the testimony,

22     they do only relate to the highlighted parts, don't they?

23             MS. KORNER:  I would hope so, yes.  I imagine so.  I must say,

24     it's not an exercise I've gone back to check.

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I think we checked and we discovered --

Page 3860

 1             MS. KORNER:  I can see Judge Delvoie nodding.  So they do, yes,

 2     they do.  But the whole transcript has to go in as an exhibit.  Not just

 3     -- I mean, otherwise you've got -- you are going to chop around with the

 4     transcript which may not make sense as to what it's leading into, if you

 5     see what I mean.  And also, as I say, it would exclude the Defence part

 6     because that's -- we didn't highlight it as particularly relevant.  So,

 7     as I say, Your Honours, I think it has to be the whole transcript, and

 8     that's what we have understood your rulings to be.

 9             Your Honours, Mr. Smith has pulled up our original motion, and we

10     say effectively that it's a long -- we ask for the whole transcript to be

11     admitted, but because it's a long one, we've highlighted the relevant

12     parts, and your ruling simply said the transcript.

13             It was the 27th --

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  It seems as if this is subject to all sorts of

15     interesting interpretations.  If we allow the entire testimony to go in,

16     then we will only pay attention and have regard to the highlighted parts,

17     so you know, whichever way you want to put it.

18             MS. KORNER:  But you see the Defence, Your Honour, I think that's

19     it.  The Defence may want to draw attention to other parts of the

20     transcript, so you have to admitted the whole thing.

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  No, no, they are free to draw to our attention

22     the parts that they want to highlight.  This whole exercise was made in

23     an attempt to shorten the amount of evidence that comes in.  And so to

24     focus and to narrow down on the parts that are really relevant so that we

25     can disregard the rest.  This is an ongoing struggle by this Chamber to

Page 3861

 1     seek to narrow down the scope of the evidence to what is really essential

 2     and necessary and relevant.

 3             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I understand that.  I don't think,

 4     however, that you are causing yourself any problem by this.  You admit

 5     the transcript.  We've highlighted the parts we think are relevant.  The

 6     Defence can draw your attention to the other parts that they think are

 7     relevant, but the transcript is there as an exhibit.  And moreover, you

 8     never know what is going to happen in the future.  It may well be that as

 9     a result of what happens in the trial other parts of that transcript may

10     become relevant, so therefore you admit the transcript but you only look

11     at the parts that are highlighted, simple as that.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, isn't it a little bit like you want

13     to draw the Court's attention to three pages out of a book, and if you

14     hand over materially the book, you hand over the book, not only the three

15     pages, you don't tear out the three pages, but it's more or less that.

16     But the only thing that goes in is what you said that has to go in, three

17     pages of the book, and not then the book in the whole.

18             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honours, can I say this, it's not quite

19     the same thing as a book, because a book is divided into chapters.  These

20     transcripts are a continuation of a witness telling the -- giving his

21     account of what happened.  Although only certain parts may be

22     particularly relevant, none of it is irrelevant as such.  I mean, you

23     can't really say it's completely irrelevant to any issue in this case,

24     the whole of judge Draganovic's testimony is relevant to issues that

25     arise in this case, but there are particular portions which relate

Page 3862

 1     particularly, for example, in this case to the actions of the MUP, and it

 2     is those that we have highlighted.  And that's the -- all other matters

 3     that go to the question of joint criminal enterprise, but those are the

 4     matters we've highlighted, but you can't say it's irrelevant, as such.

 5     And that's literally what I'm -- I am sorry Mr. O'Sullivan, just let me

 6     finish.

 7             That is literally what our motion said, and your ruling hasn't

 8     been, and indeed nor am I aware of any other Trial Chamber's ruling that

 9     has been to that effect where this section has been used of the rules,

10     that only the highlighted parts are admitted.  The rulings in all, as far

11     as I am aware of, I know of no ruling any Trial Chamber where it's simply

12     been the highlighted part that is admitted.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. O'Sullivan.

14             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  There are with respect a number of points here

15     which are important, we submit.  Now, Rule 92 ter provides that in lieu

16     of having the witness testify viva voce as a time-saving mechanism,

17     800 pages of previous transcript can come into evidence.  And your ruling

18     on the 2nd of October, I'm looking at paragraph 12, where you identify

19     two witness, ST-155 and ST-198 as being irrelevant and therefore

20     inadmissible, and all the other 33 that the Prosecution tendered you

21     admit the entire transcript as being relevant.

22             Now, when it comes to what the parties do eventually with any of

23     this evidence is for final submission or submission on the evidence.  The

24     Prosecution may only rely on a certain pages of the 800 pages, and we may

25     only rely on certain segments, but that's further down the road.  At this

Page 3863

 1     point if the transcripts are admitted as they are, and if your ruling is

 2     that associated documents are necessary to be able to make submission, we

 3     may say that person is not credible because in cross-examination in a

 4     previous trial, he was shown exhibits -- Defence exhibits 1, 2, 3 from

 5     the previous trial, and we say don't believe him, he is a liar, you need

 6     to see those exhibits from the previous trial, so they must be in this

 7     case.

 8             So in the final analysis, it's -- at the point of final

 9     submission where the parties will choose the evidence on which they rely

10     to persuade you, one way or the other, but those pieces of the puzzle

11     must be admitted, the transcript and the associated documents.  And it's

12     different than a book, Your Honour, in this sense.  In fact your

13     guide-lines on the book say that a book, the relevant pages of a book may

14     come in, and it may be a concise controlled package, it may be.  A

15     transcript is different.  This is this -- these people's -- witness's

16     testimony is in fact the direct, the cross-examination, and judges

17     questions from those previous proceedings, and we need to have that to be

18     able to make submission to you in the end.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

21             JUDGE HALL:  Counsel, prudence dictates that we adjourn now so

22     that we can give you guide-lines by way of a ruling before we proceed

23     further with the witness who isn't present in the box.

24             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honours, can I just say this, with the

25     greatest of respect, you've ruled, and we have proceeded on the basis of

Page 3864

 1     of this ruling.  And to suddenly change the whole --

 2             JUDGE HALL:  That is precisely why I began by saying prudence

 3     dictates.  We are aware that we have ruled on this matter, and we do not

 4     -- we wouldn't take a position that is inconsistent with that ruling.

 5     But we don't want to be placed in a position of having to further clarify

 6     what we thought had been clarified earlier.

 7             You want to assist, Mr. O'Sullivan.

 8             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  One final matter in relation to that is our

 9     request for consideration of the 9th of October.  Thank you.

10                           --- Break taken at 9.30 a.m.

11                           --- On resuming at 10.25 a.m.

12             JUDGE HALL:  If counsel has deduced that our delay in resuming in

13     taking the Bench again was due to the complications of this issue, they

14     are correct.  Judge Harhoff will give our conclusion.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  The Chamber's ruling is the

16     following:  The testimony of this witness and of 92 ter witnesses in the

17     future are admitted in their entirety.  The Prosecution is required to

18     highlight the parts of the testimony that they wish to draw particularly

19     attention to, and they are required also to select the relevant documents

20     that were admitted into evidence in the previous trials through the parts

21     that have been highlighted.

22             The Defence is free to put to the witness any other document that

23     was admitted through this witness in the earlier testimony, and they are

24     thus not limited to only using the documents that have been selected

25     through the -- through the selection made by the Prosecution.

Page 3865

 1             We think this decision is in conformity with the Chamber's

 2     earlier ruling of 2nd October, and we are ready to proceed from here.

 3             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  Just to make sure we've understood, in regard to

 4     the Defence, if a document has been put to the witness in the previous

 5     trial, there's no need for us to do this again, is there?  He has already

 6     testified about a previous document, it seems that 92 ter is designed to

 7     save court time and not to have us repeat an exercise that has been done.

 8     In relation to this witness he was cross-examined for three and a half

 9     days.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. O'Sullivan, the purpose of this exercise, you

11     will recall, is to narrow down the scope of the evidence that comes in.

12     We can do this in various ways.  As far as the Prosecution is concerned,

13     because they are waiving the right to examine in chief by choosing to

14     introduce this witness through 92 ter, we are requiring the Prosecution

15     to identify those documents that they seek to have admitted along with

16     the testimony.

17             The Defence still has the freedom of cross-examining.  Now, if

18     the Defence were allowed to just insist that all documents introduced

19     through this witness in the earlier trial were to be admitted, then that

20     would defeat the purpose of Rule 92 ter and would certainly defeat the

21     struggle that this Chamber is trying to have in order to limit the

22     evidence to what is necessary and relevant.  That's why the Chamber

23     thinks that if the Defence wishes to have a particular document

24     introduced into evidence and admitted into evidence in this trial, then

25     they have to put it to the witness.  Just as they would have to do it in

Page 3866

 1     any other cross-examination.

 2             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  Your Honour, we are certainly not prepared to

 3     proceed on that basis.  We haven't prepared the cross-examination of this

 4     witness or any other 92 bis [sic] witness on that basis.  The assumption

 5     has been, your rulings have been, that the -- well, Your Honour, yes, we

 6     are suffering great prejudice if we have to decide by noon today which of

 7     the three and a half days of testimony from Brdjanin documents which are

 8     -- which we may not even have access to at this point on the basis of

 9     your ruling today after two months of trial.  That puts us in a very

10     serious position.  Tremendous burden.  The position is that in lieu of

11     having this man come for 11 days, which he could have come for 11 days

12     had he been viva voce, in which case there would have been a complete

13     repetition of what Ms. Korner asked him and what the Defence would have

14     put to him if he were viva voce.  He is not, he is 92 ter, and that he

15     has adopted his 92 ter transcripts as giving -- he would give the same

16     answers here as he did several years ago.  And that's the basis for his

17     admission of his testimony, and our cross-examination is not necessary,

18     it's a time saving device.  Please don't put the emphasis on reducing the

19     scope of the number of exhibits.  That's unfair to us.  We have assumed

20     that what he was cross-examined on in Talic and Brdjanin is the basis for

21     the truth and relevance of what he will -- has adopted yesterday in this

22     court.  And it's a time-wasting exercise to even go through the process

23     of showing him the same documents that were used by the Defence in the

24     previous trial.  Not to mention the fact that we are not in a position to

25     do that.

Page 3867

 1             And I believe what I'm recounting here is completely consistent

 2     with the practice of this Tribunal in all previous cases under 92 ter.

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Does 92 ter say that the prior testimony and

 4     evidence can be admitted in whole or in part?

 5             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  With respect, that is not what it says.  It says

 6     that the evidence of the witness may be in whole or in part his previous

 7     testimony.  This is what I mean.  The witness can adopt his previous

 8     testimony, the statement of the transcript, and say I would answer the

 9     same way today as I did then.  And there can be no further questions from

10     the Prosecution.  His evidence is in whole, his previous statement.  It

11     can be in whole or in part because then he can be asked further questions

12     as has been done here.  So once the previous statement or transcript is

13     admitted, if in fact we take it one step further, Judge Delvoie, we've

14     seen witnesses correct, bring modifications to their previous statement,

15     which again suggests that that is his testimony then or is his evidence

16     -- under 29 ter, his evidence, then, is the previous statement plus the

17     corrections he made in court.  And typically there's no need for any

18     further questions unless the party calling that witness determines that

19     they want to add additional questions.  So the phrase in whole or in part

20     refers to his evidence, which may be in whole, that statement; or in

21     part, oral and --

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. O'Sullivan, there has to be a reasonable and

23     a practical way of doing this.  If your suggestion is that each and every

24     document admitted into evidence in the earlier trial through this witness

25     must come in and also be admitted into evidence in this trial, then I

Page 3868

 1     think that you are asking for a lot more than you really need.

 2             You see that the Chamber is requiring from the Prosecution to

 3     identify the documents that they wish to have admitted along with the

 4     testimony.  That would make no sense if we were to follow your

 5     suggestion, namely that all documents come in.  So this is why the

 6     Chamber is of the view that there has to be a way in which the Defence

 7     can indicate which documents they wish to have admitted.  We can ask you

 8     to put forward a list as we are asking the Prosecution to do, but I don't

 9     see the need to have each and every document which may be totally

10     irrelevant to this case admitted into evidence just because of the fact

11     that it was admitted in the previous trial.

12             So please be helpful, if I may put it this way, and come forward

13     with some sort of a solution by which we can take into consideration and

14     admit into evidence those documents that you seek to have admitted

15     without necessarily having to put them to the witness.  I can only see

16     one solution, and that is to say give us a list and we'll admit those

17     documents.

18             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I'll certainly address

19     your specific question, but am I to assume that you have rejected our

20     motion for reconsideration, which we say is the proper position, as you,

21     yourself, as pre-trial judge and pre-trial Chamber said, only those

22     exhibits on the 65 ter list are admissible?  And that was precisely your

23     first ruling on the 30th of September in relation to a 92 ter witness.

24     If it's not on the exhibit list, it doesn't come in.  Then on the 2nd of

25     October your written decision said something different, absolutely.  And

Page 3869

 1     since early October the Prosecution has been tendering many more

 2     documents that were not on the pre-trial brief 65 ter list.  And that is

 3     the prejudice to us.  We say, if you want to narrow the scope of the

 4     exhibits, we ask you to follow your pre-trial ruling which made it clear

 5     that we would be put on notice of the 65 ter list.

 6             Now, if with your going to -- that's the practical solution, we

 7     say.  But if you are going to go the other way, as you did in -- on

 8     October 2nd, where you've determined which exhibits -- which prior

 9     statements and transcripts are relevant, then we say -- and in fact, if I

10     can just refer you to that decision on the 2nd of October, at

11     paragraph 16, you say, "In keeping with the jurisprudence of the other

12     previous cases."  And you refer to a number about the admission of

13     relevant exhibits which are inseparable from the testimony of the

14     witness.  And they are inseparable from the testimony of the witness.

15             If, for example, we want to make submission eventually --

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  We are beating around the bush, I'm sorry.

17             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  Well, how can we argue the case if we don't have

18     the relevant evidence, if only part of the relevance, only the testimony

19     is there, and not the document to support a position that either party

20     may wish to make?

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  There is an underlying requirement of relevance

22     and probative value and that has to be on -- that has to be the priority.

23             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  I quite agree.  If during cross-examination

24     under Rule 90 H, there are -- if the cross-examination was permitted in

25     the Brdjanin trial, we have to assume that the Bench was able to

Page 3870

 1     determine that the questions put by counsel during that cross-examination

 2     was relative and probative, and therefore this man has said, This is my

 3     testimony.  You are putting us in a terrible bind by not allowing us in

 4     the end to make submission because we will not have the basis to say you

 5     should not believe this person - I'll give one example - because in a

 6     previous trial he was shown a document Exhibit 2D of the Brdjanin case,

 7     which isn't in our case, if we follow what you are suggesting.  There's

 8     no burden on the Chamber to admit the documents.  The parties will decide

 9     in due course which aspects of the testimony we adopt.

10             I don't see -- with all due respect, I don't see a difference

11     between the 92 ter and actually having this witness testify viva voce for

12     11 days.  Assume he did testify for 11 days, and the result was the

13     transcript of the Brdjanin case, all that testimony and all those

14     exhibits would be in, and we would deal with those accordingly in

15     submission.  And there's no court time wasted by using 92 ter.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. O'Sullivan, no two trials are alike, and

17     there will inevitably and necessarily be large parts of one trial that

18     are irrelevant to the next trial.  The Chamber is not seeking to prevent

19     the Defence from anything.  The Chamber is asking for your assistance to

20     try and narrow down the scope of the evidence that is admitted into this

21     trial.  And if I may say, your suggestion that for this purpose each and

22     every document that has been admitted in a prior trial must therefore

23     also be admitted into evidence in this trial is neither helpful nor

24     necessary.

25             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  Well, if I can echo what Ms. Korner said

Page 3871

 1     earlier, we do not know at this point to what extent the evidence may

 2     become relevant because there are twists and turns in this trial which

 3     may not follow Krajisnik, Brdjanin, Milosevic.  And this person -- we are

 4     relying on what the -- the parties are relying on the testimony of this

 5     person, for better or for worse on either side.  In the end we may have

 6     to deal with that.

 7             Now, Your Honour, if the solution is to say because this is our

 8     position, we think that the cross-examination of this witness is

 9     relevant, we do, and we can provide you, I suppose we can go -- we can

10     troll through the Brdjanin transcript and say, Here are the exhibits that

11     counsel for Talic and Brdjanin used, and we don't have any questions on

12     it, but we want you to have those documents so that when you read and we

13     make submission on those -- that testimony, that you have it.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Can't you see -- I am sorry, I'll wait for the

15     translation.

16             In my view what you are asking is that you want the Chamber to do

17     the work that is really to be done by the parties.  You are asking us to

18     troll through all the evidence that came in, in another trial, and then

19     it's for us to select what we might find is relevant.  And I'm sorry, my

20     understanding is that this is the job of the parties.

21             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  Absolutely, Your Honour.  That's what I'm

22     saying.  We're not asking you to -- you've ruled that the transcripts are

23     admissible based on a motion filed by the Prosecution and a response by

24     the Defence.  We are not asking to you troll through the transcripts at

25     all.  The parties will make submissions in due course, perhaps at 98 bis,

Page 3872

 1     perhaps at the end of the case.  And the parties will present to you what

 2     they say are the important aspects of all the evidence.  So you are not

 3     having to go through it.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And then -- I'll wait for the translation.

 5             And then why is it that we cannot ask the Defence to present us

 6     with a list of the adjacent documents that you wish to have admitted into

 7     this trial?

 8             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  Well, we can, but our position will be -- our

 9     position will be, all of them.  Our position will be all.  That's

10     precisely our point.  Because we do not think it's fair to us to be

11     unable -- at the end of the day to not be able to make a submission on

12     the testimony of a witness who is speaking to a document from a previous

13     trial that is not in evidence in ours.  Because that's exactly what the

14     consequence will be.  We'll say witness X said this and here is his

15     interpretation of the document, which may be beneficial to the Defence -

16     we can't make that submission because you don't have the document in

17     evidence.  Or we can say, Don't believe this witness, and again there's

18     no basis for us to say that because you have no way to evaluate our

19     submission and our interpretation of what he said, which may be based on

20     a document.  That's the point.

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  If you make that submission it goes without

22     saying that the underlying document will be admitted into evidence here

23     as well.  It's not that difficult.  What I'm trying to weed out is only

24     the documents that have no importance, no bearing on anything that the

25     witness said during his cross-examination in the earlier trial which is

Page 3873

 1     irrelevant to this case.  There is no need for us to have to go through

 2     all of the documents subsequently if the parties do not wish to rely on

 3     them.  I think --

 4             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  If we are clear on this, if that means that in

 5     our final submission we can make reference to an exhibit from a previous

 6     case that has not been tendered but still make reference to it in the

 7     final submission, then that's fine.  But that means it will be admitted

 8     at the time of the final brief because that's the point at which we

 9     evaluate the totality of the evidence and present our submissions.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  If this means that in the end you will just ask

11     for all documents to be admitted, then we're back to square one.

12             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  No, we are ridiculing the process at all.  We

13     are trying to defend our client, and we're trying to get the evidence

14     that we will need in the end, and we don't know what that is yet.  This

15     isn't a case of swamping the Chamber or making a farce of a trial, of

16     course not.  It is to be in a position to make submissions based on the

17     trial record.  And we say that some of these things may become relevant

18     in 10 months even though they aren't crucial now.  But the man has said,

19     he's going to -- he's adopted his statement.  Now, there's the example,

20     Your Honour.  In a year and a half from now, there may be an argument to

21     be made based on something that this person said in cross on a document.

22     We may have to make that submission, or the Prosecution may have to make

23     that submission.  It's not a question of swamping you or clogging the

24     process.

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Let's hear what Mr. Pantelic has to say.

Page 3874

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you Your Honours, just for the record the

 2     Zupljanin Defence adopts all submissions made by our learned friend

 3     Mr. O'Sullivan because during the break we discuss this matter and

 4     practically tailored our approach.

 5             Just for the record, Your Honour, the spirit of the Rule 92 ter

 6     from my point of view is the following:  92 ter rule is actually, how can

 7     I say, a Siamese twins.  It's a two bodies, two heads in one body because

 8     testimony of the witness and the exhibits tendered through that witness

 9     in previous transcripts is one body.  And at certain stage, now maybe

10     it's not so clear, but at certain stage, it might be very important.  I

11     don't see any particular reason, with all due respect, Your Honour, why

12     we cannot have all relevant exhibits tendered in previous proceeding

13     through particular witness and then at the final stage to decide which

14     kind of exhibit we shall make reference.

15             And in addition, Your Honour, please, I don't see in the previous

16     trials in case law of this Tribunal the different approach related to the

17     adoption of a 92 ter previous exhibits tendered through particular

18     witness, and his or her relevant statement.  Thank you so much.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  You will appreciate, Mr. Pantelic, that I

20     mentioned just awhile ago that relevance is the key issue here.  And I

21     think the controversy between the Chamber and Mr. O'Sullivan at this

22     moment is that where Mr. O'Sullivan says that all documents are per se

23     relevant, then the Chamber has a different view and thinks that it is

24     still possible to exclude a number of documents from the earlier

25     testimony that are not relevant to this case.  But I think enough has

Page 3875

 1     been said at this point at the moment.  The Chamber will consider it.

 2             MS. KORNER:  I am sorry, may I just mention something in relation

 3     to one of Mr. O'Sullivan suggestions, and that is that all exhibits would

 4     come in through the final brief.  We would certainly say that wasn't a

 5     helpful way of doing it because then we wouldn't know in advance what

 6     were admitted exhibits, whether we had anything to say about the

 7     admission of the exhibits and the like.

 8             Can I say this, and I do support Mr. O'Sullivan on this, in the

 9     end you, the Judges, shouldn't be doing the work.  We counsel will be

10     saying of the exhibits which have been admitted, now that we've seen the

11     full issues in the case, and part of the problem is we don't yet have a

12     clear idea of what is going to be an issue in the case, we say the

13     following exhibits, whether it's in oral submissions or in the final

14     briefs that we submit, are the relevant ones.  So it is our job, as you

15     rightly point out, Your Honours, to indicate from the cadre of documents

16     admitted which are the relevant ones that you should look at.  But if

17     they are not admitted at this stage, the stage when the witness comes or

18     whatever, then there's a problem.  And so on this, the Defence and

19     Prosecution are completely ad idem.

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Counsels, we have to get on with our business and

22     the Chamber has considered the matter once again.  The ruling that we

23     gave in -- when we came in after having the break was that the testimony

24     in its entirety goes in, the documents that have been selected by the

25     Prosecution are admitted into evidence, and the Defence is then free to

Page 3876

 1     put whichever documents they wish to the witness and have that or those

 2     documents admitted into evidence through this witness.

 3             And what we will add to this is that if by the end of the

 4     cross-examination, and the cross-examination will take place just in the

 5     normal fashion, if by the end of the cross-examination and by the end of

 6     the witness's testimony the Defence wish to have further documents

 7     admitted into evidence, then they will provide a list of those extra

 8     documents to the Chamber, and we'll have them admitted.

 9             If at a later stage further down the road, the Defence becomes

10     aware of a document that they would still wish to have admitted and that

11     were once admitted in the -- through this witness in the earlier trial,

12     then the bar table motion still remains an available option to the

13     Defence, then Defence is free to at that later stage to seek admission

14     into evidence of this -- into this trial.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  It goes without saying that we will still require

17     that whichever document is being sought admitted into evidence must still

18     be relevant to this trial.  So there's an underlying and perpetual

19     requirement of relevance.

20             Mr. Zecevic.

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour -- Your Honour,

22     just one remark.  If the Court insists on relevance as the fundamental

23     principle, then the question is why the Court allows 92 ter witnesses at

24     all.  You see, where the problem is, when you admit an entire transcript,

25     it's 88 per cent irrelevant to this trial.  In other words, out of the

Page 3877

 1     evidence of the witness in the previous trial, 88 per cent is irrelevant

 2     to us.  12 per cent is relevant.  If we admit a whole transcript, then we

 3     have to admit all of the documents as well that would be the logical bond

 4     because there is a logical bond between the evidence, the transcript that

 5     is, and the body of documents.  If we admit only part of the documents,

 6     then the transcript ultimately will have no purpose.  Why accept 92 ter

 7     witnesses at all?  They should instead come here viva voce, 15 exhibits

 8     will be shown to them by one party, 15 by another, and that's the

 9     solution to the problem.  Because I don't see a logical link between

10     introducing the whole transcript of a witness's evidence from a previous

11     trial and only a certain number of the underlying documents.

12             I say there is really an underlying problem in logics.

13             MR. PANTELIC:  Absolutely agree, Your Honour, just for the

14     record.  This is a very, very -- very professional, mindful, and fully in

15     assistance with the judicial economy, Your Honour, this approach, just to

16     swap 92 ter witness to viva voce, be focused on particular issues, and we

17     shall have a clear transcript, we shall have clear list of exhibits which

18     will assist you and the parties here.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I am sorry, I think this is putting the cart

20     before the horse.  While we were discussing during the break, the Judges

21     were considering actually requiring both parties to identify and

22     highlight the relevant parts of the testimony and to do so in advance, to

23     the effect that only those highlighted parts would be admitted.

24             Now, due to the intervention made by Mr. O'Sullivan and in order

25     to not cause any prejudice to the Defence, we ended up allowing the whole

Page 3878

 1     testimony to come in.  So the reason why we ended up doing that was

 2     actually to come forward and meet the requirements of the Defence.

 3             But still we think that the requirement of relevance does justify

 4     a more careful look at the underlying documents that were admitted in the

 5     previous trial through this witness and, as you said yourself,

 6     Mr. Zecevic, large parts of the earlier testimony might be irrelevant to

 7     this case.  For those parts, the Chamber will have to do the work that we

 8     still think should be done by the parties.  So for the testimonies, we

 9     will have to determine which parts of the testimony that are really

10     relevant, and we are assisted in this by the highlights offered by the

11     Prosecution.  Those highlights have no legal bearing, they are merely an

12     assistance to the Chamber and we are thankful for that.

13             But still documents that were admitted in the previous trial in

14     parts of the testimony that really, as you say yourself, are irrelevant

15     to this case should not be admitted into this trial.  And we have now

16     created a mechanism by which we think that full attention has been given

17     to the demands of the Defence.  We ask you to identify documents that you

18     wish to have admitted and that you did not have time to put to the

19     witness while he was here during the cross-examination, and we will admit

20     those documents.  And if that is not sufficient, then there is a safety

21     clause in that in the end, by the end of the trial you still have the

22     option of admission of whatever document that is you think should be

23     admitted through the bar table motion.  And, you know, I don't think we

24     can do anything more to -- to accommodate the needs of the parties.  And

25     as I said, there's an underlying requirement of relevance, so in your own

Page 3879

 1     submission, Mr. Zecevic, it seems that a number of the documents that

 2     were admitted in the previous trial are not necessarily relevant to this

 3     case and should not be admitted.

 4             I would like to conclude this discussion now.  We have gone long

 5     enough, and I think maybe it's even it's time for a break before --

 6     12.05.  Another hour?

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, sit straight through.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Very well.  And it's about time that we get the

 9     witness in.

10             But please, Mr. Zecevic.

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'll be very brief.

12     What Ms. Korner said is really the essence.  At this moment we don't know

13     what is relevant, which are the relevant portions of the evidence, the

14     prior evidence of this witness, and because of that we don't want to tie

15     our own hands by presenting only a certain number of documents, let alone

16     all the other further aspects of this ruling of yours that create a

17     problem concerning the time we need to put exhibits before this 92 ter

18     witness, and especially the bar table motion that was suggested.

19             The problem is, Your Honours, that at the moment we are admitting

20     a whole prior transcript, then that transcript under Rule 92 ter

21     constitutes an exhibit, and we want to have the possibility to refer to

22     that exhibit at the time we and the Prosecution make our final

23     submissions.  All of this will have absolutely no impact on the workload

24     of the Trial Chamber.  Both parties will, in final submissions or in

25     92 bis submissions, will say that we believe that the transcript of this

Page 3880

 1     witness's evidence is relevant in points 72 and 73.  The other party will

 2     say, No, it's relevant in paragraphs 89 and 91.  That is how we will

 3     submit to Your Honours what we believe is relevant.  But at this moment

 4     neither we nor the Prosecution are able do this.  And the Defence in

 5     particular cannot tie its own hands by showing to the witness exhibits

 6     that today seem relevant and may not be relevant at all tomorrow, or

 7     maybe in six months because by that time that particular fact will not be

 8     in dispute, something else will be in issue.

 9             According to your ruling, I think we are going back to the same

10     situation that Mr. O'Sullivan had dealt with when he presented our

11     request for you to reconsider the 9th October decision.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE HALL:  At this point we intend to move on.

14             Would the marshal escort the witness back to the stand.  And

15     while the witness is coming in, to the extent that counsel may be curious

16     as I was as to what the position is in terms of the convenience of the

17     interpreters and the accused themselves, I am advised by the Registry

18     that we may sit through until the -- what would ordinarily have been the

19     break at 12.05, and then we will take the 20-minute break then and resume

20     for the final session of today.

21             MR. DI FAZIO:  Perhaps while the witness is being brought in,

22     Your Honours, you will recall my application yesterday for the admission

23     into evidence of all of the transcripts and the documents.  And I --

24             JUDGE HALL:  I thought we had admitted --

25             MR. DI FAZIO:  I can't recall if we actually gave them numbers,

Page 3881

 1     or whether it's necessary at this juncture or later, but ...

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  The 92 ter package will receive the

 3     Exhibit P411.1 through P411.61.

 4             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.  And in addition to that, just two more

 5     exhibits.  One is P117 and P358.  Those two exhibits in the case are

 6     currently marked for identification, currently marked for identification.

 7     They've been used before with other witnesses, and they are marked for

 8     identification.  They are also two documents that were produced to this

 9     witness during his past testimony in Brdjanin.  So on that basis on the

10     basis of what you've done today and on the basis of your order, they

11     should be transformed from documents for identification to full exhibits

12     so I'd make that application, that's P117 and P358.

13             Do Your Honours follow?  They are not part of the residue of

14     61 documents.

15                           [The witness takes the stand]

16                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

17             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

18             Good morning to you, Mr. Draganovic, as a matter of courtesy, I

19     should explain, unfortunately you being an attorney you would understand

20     this, that today was one of those occasion in which there were a number

21     of issues which -- in which there were extensive exchanges between the

22     Bench and counsel, and that is why your resuming the stand was delayed.

23     So now we expect that we are in a position to continue.  And I would

24     remind you that you are still on your oath.  Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

25             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.

Page 3882

 1                           WITNESS:  ADIL DRAGANOVIC [Resumed]

 2                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 3                           Examination by Mr. Di Fazio: [Continued]

 4        Q.   Good morning.

 5        A.   Good morning.

 6        Q.   We need to swiftly get through this so if we confine your answers

 7     and keep them at short as possible.  I want to show you now a whole

 8     series of photographs.

 9             MR. DI FAZIO:  Can the witness be shown P59.

10        Q.   Do you recognise that place with the red doors?

11        A.   Certainly.  Those are the garages of Betonirka where people were

12     locked up.

13        Q.   Approximately how far is Betonirka, those particular garages that

14     you can see in the photograph from the police station in Sanski Most

15     where you were held following your arrest?

16        A.   Very close.  The next compound is the police station.  It's a

17     distance of about 60 to 80 metres.

18             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.

19             Could the witness be shown 65 ter 2256.

20        Q.   Do you recognise that place?

21        A.   Yes, yes, certainly.

22        Q.   What is it?

23        A.   Those are, I think, those same garages.

24        Q.   Thank you.

25             MR. DI FAZIO:  I seek to tender that into evidence.

Page 3883

 1             JUDGE HALL:  I thought it was an exhibit.

 2             MR. DI FAZIO:  Not yet.  Not yet.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P412, Your Honours.

 5             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thanks.  Next 65 ter 2254.  Thanks.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Now, you see in the photograph there, there's a couple of

 7     buildings I want to ask you about here.  Firstly, you'll see the low flat

 8     building in front of which are two men.  What is that place?

 9        A.   That's the compound of the Betonirka where those garages belong.

10        Q.   Thank you.  And in the distance you can see another building

11     which is, I'm not sure, at least two, and more likely, three stories

12     high.  Can you see that?  On the far right.  What is that place?

13        A.   That is the building of the police and the Ministry of Defence.

14     They are practically glued to one another, they share the same entrance.

15             MR. DI FAZIO:  Can the witness be given the pen and to mark that

16     particular building on the screen, and then I'd like to tender that

17     image.

18        Q.   Just mark, perhaps by circling, the building that you call the

19     police station.  The military building.

20        A.   [Marks]

21             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thanks.  I tender that.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P413, Your Honours.

24             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.  Can the witness be shown 65 ter --

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Di Fazio, is the witness able to indicate a

Page 3884

 1     rough estimation of the distance between the garage and the Betonirka

 2     compound and the police building.

 3             MR. DI FAZIO:  I thought he had done that.  Yeah, 60 to 80 metres

 4     he said, so ...  And we'll have another photograph shortly I think that

 5     will assist Your Honours in dealing with that issue.  But if we can move

 6     on, 65 ter 2252, please.

 7        Q.   Do you recognise that place?  If so, tell us what it is.

 8        A.   Yes, I do.  This is the building of the Krings Hall which was

 9     also a camp in Sanski Most.

10             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you, I tender that photograph.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P414, Your Honours.

13             MR. DI FAZIO:  Can you -- the next one I'd like to show is 65 ter

14     2253, please.

15        Q.   Do you recognise that interior?

16        A.   That is the interior of the Krings Hall where the camp was.

17        Q.   Thanks.  After 1995, and I don't want a big long explanation what

18     you actually did, just answer it as simply as you can, but after 1995

19     when you went back to Sanski Most, did you have reason to go there and

20     carry out judicial inquiries and go into the building?

21        A.   Since I carried out exhumations that was the building where we

22     brought the bodies for examinations and autopsies.

23             MR. DI FAZIO:  Can the witness be shown 65 ter 2259.  I'm sorry,

24     I seek to tender that particular image.  I forgot that.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P415, Your Honours.

Page 3885

 1             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.  The next image I'd like to show is 65

 2     ter 2259.

 3        Q.   Now, do you recognise that particular building?

 4        A.   I do.  That's the building of the primary school Hasan Kikic.  To

 5     the left very close you see the Orthodox church, this is the entrance

 6     into the administrative part of the school building.  There was another

 7     camp there, but in the gym on the other side of the school.

 8        Q.   Thanks for that.

 9             MR. DI FAZIO:  And I seek to admit that into evidence.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P416, Your Honours.

12             MR. DI FAZIO:  Next image is 2257, please.

13        Q.   That place, can you tell us what that is.

14        A.   I think this is again the school, the entrance into the school

15     Hasan Kikic, so the previous photograph is linked to this one.

16             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.  And I seek to tender that into

17     evidence.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P417.

20             MR. DI FAZIO:  And can the witness be shown 2258.

21        Q.   Have you ever seen that interior before?

22        A.   Yes, I have.  This is the gym of the primary school Hasan Kikic.

23     As I've already said, people were held there.  That was a camp.

24             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thanks for that.  And can that please be tendered

25     into evidence.

Page 3886

 1             JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Yes, admitted and marked.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P418.

 3             MR. DI FAZIO:  Can the witness please be shown Exhibit P379.

 4        Q.   What is that place?

 5        A.   This is the building of the police station in Sanski Most.

 6        Q.   Thanks.  You can see in the photograph that the complex seems to

 7     consist of two buildings.  One building is the lower building with green

 8     -- some sort of green features.  And on the left there's another higher

 9     building.  Which is the higher building that you can see on the left

10     attached to the building with the green features?

11        A.   This higher building that was built later was the Ministry of

12     Defence.  It housed the Territorial Defence, the staff.  It was the

13     military building.

14        Q.   Thanks.  I'd like you to mark that please, could you mark the

15     building, perhaps by drawing an outline that you call the police building

16     and we'll know then that that's the police building and that the other

17     building is the Ministry of Defence building.  So just mark the outline

18     of the police building.  That is correct.  Just like you are doing there.

19        A.   [Marks]

20        Q.   Well, okay.  All right.  You've seem to have delineated the

21     building on the far left, and there's an arrow pointing into the building

22     on the far left.  Which is the building on the far left?

23        A.   That is the building of the Ministry of Defence, or as it was

24     called the Secretariat of Defence.  To be quite precise, this is a shared

25     entrance into the police building and the military building.

Page 3887

 1        Q.   Thanks.

 2        A.   There it is.  There's one shared entrance.

 3             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you, I seek to tender that.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted.

 5             MR. DI FAZIO:  With the image, that's right, with the image, yes.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P419.

 7             MR. DI FAZIO:  Okay.  Can the witness please be shown P380.

 8        Q.   Do you recognize that interior?

 9        A.   I do.  This is one of the cells in the police prison.  The

10     building that we just saw.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Now, in your testimony you gave detailed evidence of

12     how you were kept in a cell.  Is that the cell -- the particular cell you

13     were kept in following your arrest, or is it another cell?  Can you tell

14     us that or not?

15        A.   No, this is the neighbouring cell, number 2.  I was in cell

16     number 1.  I know that you also have the photo of cell number 1.  I

17     recognise this by the floor-boards because they are not stuck together.

18     They are divided.  In my cell there was no such division in the floor,

19     and you can see the outer part of these iron doors.  In our cell, the

20     window you see here was boarded up with a tin panel.  In this cell it was

21     not, as far as I remember.  In any case, I was in a cell with the window

22     boarded up.

23        Q.   Thanks for that.  Look, is there any substantial difference

24     between that cell, and I'm asking you in terms of proportion at this

25     stage, in proportion between that cell that you see in front of you and

Page 3888

 1     the cell next door where you were?  Are they essential the same, one in

 2     the same, in terms of size at least?

 3        A.   Practically there was no difference.  The size is exactly the

 4     same.  There were three cells in total.  This is just the remand prison.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  And you explained in your evidence back in -- when

 6     you testified in Brdjanin, that in those cells there were four people

 7     when you first arrived and then I think another four were later brought

 8     in, plus yourself, so there were about nine people, nine men in the cell

 9     that you were in of similar proportions to that one.  Is that -- do I

10     understand you correctly?

11        A.   Yes, that's correct.  I was the fifth person brought and another

12     four were brought after me, so we were nine in this small place.

13        Q.   Okay.  Look at the paint on the walls, can you just tell the

14     Trial Chamber if when you were imprisoned for that period of time the

15     walls were in that condition, or were they different during the period of

16     time of your incarceration?

17        A.   I have already spoken about that in detail, but I'll repeat.  At

18     the beginning, the colour of the walls was approximately like on this

19     photo, but in just a couple of days it grew dark with mould and humidity

20     from our perspiration and the humidity.  The walls became almost

21     completely dark, almost as dark as the floor.

22        Q.   Thank you.  And you've also mentioned that when you were

23     incarcerated, the window was covered or at least the window in your cell

24     was covered by a piece of metal or steel with a few holes in it, and you

25     had to take turns standing -- the men had to take turns standing to

Page 3889

 1     breathe through holes cut into the door that appeared in the metal.  Do

 2     you recall that?

 3        A.   Yes, of course I remember.  That's exactly how it was, the way

 4     you described it.  There was this tin panel, perhaps 2 millimetres thick,

 5     hammered on to the window and in this tin panel, there were around a

 6     dozen tiny nail holes, and we took turns breathing because there was no

 7     other source of air except on this metal door that you see on the

 8     picture, this is a picture taken from outside.  But on the inside there

 9     was a small hole for the door handle and through that tiny hole we also

10     took turns breathing, and the air was bad because there was a stinking

11     toilet in this hallway with no drainage, no sewage at all, so we breathe

12     that stinking filthy air through that tiny hole.

13        Q.   You've described in your evidence how prisoners were taken for

14     interrogation, and you, yourself, were taken off for interrogation.  When

15     your fellow prisoners in the -- who were with you in the cell came back

16     from having been interrogated in the police station, what sort of

17     physical condition were they in?

18        A.   The persons who were locked up there when they were taken away to

19     be interrogated returned with visible injuries on their face, their

20     bodies, and the soles of their feet.  I must say that not everyone was

21     taken out, but I think more than a half of us were, and I believe they

22     were beaten during interrogation at the police station.

23        Q.   Thank you.

24             MR. DI FAZIO:  I've completed using that photograph.

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  [Microphone not activated] Would you like to

Page 3890

 1     tender that?

 2             MR. DI FAZIO:  That's already in evidence, and it hasn't been

 3     marked so we can just put it to one side now.

 4             I'd like to produce now, if I may, 65 ter 3418.  That's an aerial

 5     shot.  Sorry, I apologise, 3418.03.

 6        Q.   Okay.  I'm going to ask to you mark this image.  Can you draw for

 7     the Trial Chamber the -- sorry, mark perhaps with a few stripes the area

 8     of Sanski Most known as Mahala.

 9        A.   Yes.  This is a panorama of one part of Sanski Most, of a later

10     date.  We see the Sana river here on the left, and we see the city

11     bridge.  From this town bridge, this is part of the Mahala neighbourhood.

12     From here down is just one part of the Mahala neighbourhood.  I'll write

13     Mahala.

14        Q.   Yes.  Okay.  I don't want to overload this image, so we'll

15     perhaps just do one more feature that I'm going to ask you about.  You

16     mentioned the Hasan Kikic school.  Could you indicate, using a delicate

17     hand, the roof area so that we can see very clearly the roof area of the

18     Hasan Kikic school.

19        A.   I can.  Let me stress that I, myself, went to this primary school

20     and I know the location very well.  It's this part, and this is the gym.

21     The Sports Hall.

22        Q.   Thank you.  And just so we are clear, perhaps underneath that and

23     a little distance away, just write the letters HK so that we know it's

24     Hasan Kikic.

25        A.   Okay.

Page 3891

 1        Q.   Very well.  Thank you for that.

 2             MR. DI FAZIO:  And I seek to tender that image.  And if

 3     Your Honours please, I'd like a fresh image of the same scene put up

 4     again.  So I'll tender this particular one.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P420.

 7             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thanks, can we now have the same image up on the

 8     screen again, clean.  In other words, I suppose ...

 9        Q.   Okay.  Now, you've already mentioned the police building and the

10     military building and the cells.  I want you to look at the image and

11     see, and we can make it bigger, and in particular I'm interested in the

12     bottom right-hand quadrant.

13             MR. DI FAZIO:  Yes, I think that's a bit -- okay.  Yes, that's

14     better, thank you.

15        Q.   Now, can you mark the roof of the police building.  Not the

16     military building, not the military building, but the roof of the police

17     building.  Not the cells, just the police building.

18        A.   [Marks]

19        Q.   Okay.  And you've written there PU.  Thank you.

20        A.   That's the police administration.

21        Q.   All right.  Thank you.

22             I'd now like you to mark just the roof again of the cells where

23     you were kept.

24        A.   On the same photograph?

25        Q.   Yes, but again be delicate so we can see clearly where it is.

Page 3892

 1        A.   [Marks]

 2        Q.   Okay.  And perhaps you could write just -- yes, thank you,

 3     indicate with an arrow, and perhaps you can write the letters PC for

 4     police cell.  PC.

 5        A.   [Marks]

 6        Q.   Okay.  Thanks for that.

 7             And finally, finally can you indicate where Betonirka garages

 8     were back then, back in 1992.  They may not appear in the photograph, but

 9     the general area where they appeared, where they were located.

10        A.   I will explain this portion here.  See this new large building,

11     it didn't used to be there before because it was recently built.  There

12     was the perimeter of the construction company called Dvadeseti Oktobar.

13     Betonirka and Dvadeseti Oktobar used to be one company and then they

14     split and they divided this perimeter.  That's why I'm explaining it so

15     that there are no objections later on.  And garages used to be there

16     because that was the fence that divided these two perimeters.  So from

17     the prison to the garage, this is the area.

18             While this was all construction company site, there were wooden

19     makeshift huts here that belonged to the construction company

20     Dvadeseti Oktobar, the Twentieth of October.

21             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thanks, I seek to tender that and one more aerial

22     shot on this which should assist.  So I seek to tender this.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P421, Your Honours.

25             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.

Page 3893

 1             And can we just now have another aerial shot please, P3 -- sorry,

 2     65 ter 341801.  Can we focus just a bit further in on the exact centre.

 3     Yes, that's fine.  Thank you, just like that.  Actually, no, can we make

 4     it a bit smaller, we need to see more of the bottom.  That's probably

 5     better.  Thank you, yes.

 6        Q.   Just again mark the area where Betonirka garages were and where

 7     the cells were that you were kept.

 8        A.   The Betonirka garages were here.  In this area here.

 9        Q.   All right.  Just put a letter B next to that, B for Betonirka.

10        A.   [Marks]

11        Q.   And just again mark the roof, the roof area of the cells where

12     you were kept.

13        A.   This part here.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Again just mark it PC.

15        A.   [Marks]

16        Q.   And finally on this one, again if you could just mark the roof of

17     the police building.

18        A.   [Marks]

19             MR. DI FAZIO:  And I seek to tender that.

20             JUDGE HALL.  Admitted and marked.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P422, Your Honours.

22             MR. DI FAZIO:  While we are still on geography, can the witness

23     be shown P107, please.

24        Q.   Now, this map is not really going to enable you to do anything

25     much more than provide a general indication.  But can you show us on that

Page 3894

 1     map, if you can --

 2             MR. DI FAZIO:  And if the image can be made a bit bigger, that

 3     might be a bit of assistance.  That's probably better.  Thank you.

 4        Q.   Can you indicate with a dot where the police station was located.

 5     Make it as small as possible.

 6        A.   All right.  Let me just orient myself.  It should be there.

 7     Since this here is a football pitch and the stadium, so it should be

 8     right next to it.

 9        Q.   Given the proximity to Betonirka, I won't ask to you indicate

10     that.

11             One other feature perhaps is Hasan Kikic school, can you show us

12     on the map where that was located.

13        A.   The Hasan Kikic school should be somewhere here.  It's very hard

14     to show it because the map is on such a small scale.  But it should be

15     here.

16        Q.   Okay.  Could you just mark that, if you would, with the

17     initials HK.  Make them small, please.

18        A.   [Marks]

19        Q.   Thank you.  And if it's possible to mark and the map the location

20     of Krings Hall, could you do that.

21        A.   And the Krings, just a minute, please.  It's here.

22        Q.   Thank you.  And if you could just write the letter K next to that

23     so that in the future we'll know that that represents Krings Hall.

24        A.   [Marks]

25             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.  If Your Honours please, I seek to

Page 3895

 1     tender that image.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Di Fazio, we could have a problem here.  The

 4     witness has marked two things HK.

 5             MR. DI FAZIO:  Yes, I thought about that.  Your Honours, given

 6     that -- yes, I understand what you are driving at.

 7        Q.   Perhaps it would be safest, could you go back and --

 8        A.   I put KR for Krings.

 9             MR. DI FAZIO:  Oh, I see.  Okay.  HKR now stands for Krings.  HK

10     stands for the Hasan Kikic school.  The unmarked dot with no letters next

11     to it on the right represents the police station.  And on that basis I

12     seek to tender the image.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P423, Your Honours.

14             MR. DI FAZIO:

15        Q.   Now, you've told us that Betonirka was approximately 50, I think

16     you said 50 to 60, or 50 to 80 metres away, that order of metres.  In the

17     time that you were imprisoned in the cells at the police station, did you

18     ever hear anything from the direction of Betonirka?

19        A.   I was arrested on the 25th of May.  Those of us who were in the

20     cell didn't know any longer what was happening outside except that on the

21     26th, there were a lot of shells falling.  On the 27th during the day in

22     the evening and also during the night, we heard that from the Betonirka

23     compound there were the sounds reaching us, the sounds of crying,

24     screaming, blows, and so on.  Based on that, we concluded that people

25     were imprisoned there.  We didn't know that, we simply heard this.

Page 3896

 1             This lasted throughout our entire stay.  At certain intervals, at

 2     certain times during the day or night one could hear moaning, crying,

 3     shouting, and so on.

 4        Q.   Okay.  And just lastly on this issue, did the metal plate that

 5     was fixed over the window, did that cause problems in audibility?

 6        A.   No.  Given that it was just plain tin sheet and the sounds could

 7     reach us through it, we could hear the sound made by military personnel

 8     and radio sounds coming from the military building next door.  The

 9     propaganda programme that was aired on the radio, we could hear it.  So

10     we could hear all of the sounds around the prison.  The walls are not

11     thick.  It's quite a low building, you could see what it looked like.

12     And through the tin sheet, we could hear the sounds.

13        Q.   Thank you for that.

14        A.   If I may add this, some people were in the meantime transferred

15     from Betonirka to our cells.  They came with visible injuries.  On the

16     other hand, some people were transferred from the cells to Betonirka.  So

17     this is how we were able to find out about what had been going on there.

18        Q.   Okay, thanks for that explanation.  Turn now to another topic,

19     you've testified that on the 17th of June, 1992, you were transferred

20     from the prison cell to Manjaca.  I want you to cast your mind back to

21     that particular day and I want you to tell that Trial Chamber how that

22     exercise was conducted, how it happened, that you were taken from the

23     cells to Manjaca.  The first question I want to ask you is this, who took

24     you out of the cells ready for your trip to Manjaca?  Who was it?

25        A.   I already gave evidence about this.  When the cell door was

Page 3897

 1     opened assistant chief of police appeared, Drago Vujanic, he had a list.

 2     He and another soldier wearing a military uniform appeared.  Drago had

 3     papers on him, and he was calling out names.  Drago and policeman

 4     escorted me and another colleague of mine, whose name was called out.

 5     Each of us had four policemen escorting us.  They had weapons pointed at

 6     us.  We had to pass through the police station compound with our heads

 7     bent down and our hands behind our backs, and we were taken to the back

 8     area where the police garages are, and we were taken to the Betonirka

 9     compound.

10             Drago Vujovic ordered me to get on the truck there.  Since we

11     were colleagues, he is also a lawyer and we were close friends, we went

12     to university together, so I asked him whether he could give me my

13     papers.  I was referring to the papers that had been taken out of my

14     pocket, my ID, driver's licence, and so on.  And he said, Don't worry, it

15     will reach you subsequently.

16             So we were escorted by police.  The police escorted us to Manjaca

17     as well.  On the 17th --

18        Q.   Thanks.  Can I just interrupt you there.  I just want a few more

19     details but just go --

20             MR. PANTELIC:  I do apologise to interrupt.  Maybe my learned

21     friend can clarify with witness the exact family name of this person

22     Drago that he mentioned because it's appeared to me that it's not precise

23     in the transcript.  Thank you.

24             MR. DI FAZIO:  I'm happy to do that.

25        Q.   Just before I do that, though, just before I go back to the

Page 3898

 1     transfer, I just want to, I'm sorry about this, but cast your mind back

 2     to the period of time when you were still incarcerated in the cells.

 3     Very briefly just tell the Trial Chamber during all that time that you

 4     were locked up in the police cells, who guarded you and your fellow

 5     prisoners?  Who was it that guarded you?

 6        A.   From the moment we entered the police station perimeter when I

 7     was arrested a member of police force asked me to take my belt off, my

 8     shoe laces and so on, to empty my pockets, and he took me to a cell.  It

 9     was the policeman on duty.  The same happened to other people.  When we

10     were locked in, again we were locked in by a policeman who was on duty

11     that day whom I used to do know, as a former judge and president of the

12     court I knew that policeman, I had known him for many years.

13             The building of that prison was secured by police.  They held the

14     keys.  And policemen would come once or twice a day to take us out of our

15     cells.  They would also bring us food once a day.  They also took us for

16     individual questioning.  We would be taken to the police administration

17     building and inspectors of the crime prevention police questioned us

18     there, as did members of state security.  Therefore, this prison was

19     fully under the jurisdiction of the police and the same applied to other

20     facilities in Sanski Most.  Krings, Hasan Kikic school, and all other

21     locations where people were held, all of them were secured by members of

22     the police station in Sanski Most.

23        Q.   Thank you for that clarification.  Now let's return to the day of

24     your transfer.  Firstly, can you clarify for the Defence the name, the

25     surname of the man you mentioned, Drago, was it Vujovic or some other

Page 3899

 1     surname?

 2        A.   Drago Vujanic.

 3        Q.   Okay.  Good.  Thank you.

 4             All right, now you have told us that --

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Di Fazio, could you pause about 2 minutes short

 6     of the 12.05 adjournment, there are some matters involving the exhibits

 7     with which the Registry has to deal.

 8             MR. DI FAZIO:  Can do that, Your Honour.

 9        Q.   Yes, the period that -- you've told us there was the police that

10     took you out of the cells and took you to Betonirka, and you were loaded

11     on to what?  Buses or trucks, can you remember?

12        A.   I was loaded on to a truck which was blue, mid-sized truck.  It

13     was driven by a civilian, and we had police escort.  Drago Vujanic with

14     several other police inspectors escorted our truck.  I also need to add

15     that Drago Vujanic was the prison warden.  He was the warden of that

16     prison at that time.

17        Q.   You mean the police cells?

18        A.   The police prison.  He was appointed warden of the police prison.

19        Q.   Sorry to be pedantic, are you talking about the cells where you

20     were kept when you say the police prison?

21        A.   That's correct.  Those cells and the Betonirka.

22        Q.   Thanks.  And when you got to Manjaca, who was there to unload

23     you?  I don't mean physically, but to oversee the process of you getting

24     off and being herded into your new accommodation?

25        A.   When we arrived there and the canvass was lifted off the truck,

Page 3900

 1     we were ordered to get off the vehicle.  Drago Vujanic held a list, and

 2     he called out individual names for us to get off the truck, there were

 3     also police inspectors, as I have told you, escorting us whom I also

 4     knew.  We were then taken over by military police who started immediately

 5     mistreating us and beating us.  We entered the premises, and they took us

 6     to stables all the while terribly beating us.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             MR. DI FAZIO:  Now, if Your Honours, please, that's a discrete.

 9     I've got one more topic to go which is a separate issue from this, so

10     would now be an appropriate moment for the break.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, with your leave, I was informed by

12     the Prosecution today that two exhibits, mainly Exhibit P366 admitted on

13     the 18th of November, and Exhibit P384 admitted on the 19th of November,

14     should be placed under seal.  Thank you.

15                           [The witness stands down]

16             JUDGE HALL:  So ordered.

17             Before we take the break, there is a brief ruling which the

18     Chamber has to deliver:

19             The Prosecution has sought admission into evidence of around

20     100 documents through Branko Djeric.  In an oral ruling of the 26th of

21     October, 2009, the Chamber determined that it would rule upon the

22     admission into evidence of the documents after the conclusion of the

23     cross-examination of Branko Djeric.

24             Several of the documents are already in evidence and need not be

25     considered by the Chamber.  They are Rule 65 ter numbers 933, 1177, 1188,

Page 3901

 1     1220, 1319, 1346, 1568, 2334, 2337, 2341, and 2395.

 2             Moreover, several other documents are subject of Mico Stanisic's

 3     motion to exclude intercept evidence.  These documents will remain marked

 4     for identification pending the decision on that motion.  They are Rule 65

 5     ter numbers 1070, 2877, 2917, 3231, 3237, and 3238.

 6             The Chamber has reviewed the testimony of Djeric and the parties

 7     submissions as to the admissibility of the remaining Prosecution

 8     documents.  It finds that the documents are admissible and therefore

 9     decides to admit them into evidence.  The following exceptions:  First,

10     65 ter number 10135 will not be admitted.  And the Chamber does not find

11     that the requirements for -- because the Chamber does not find that the

12     requirements for admission have been met.  Secondly, 65 ter number 97 is

13     a duplicate of P179.10.

14             A decision on the admission of the documents the Defence has

15     sought to have admitted through Djeric will be delivered at a later time.

16             So we return in 20 minutes.

17                           --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.

19                           [The witness takes the stand]

20             MR. DI FAZIO:  May I continue, Your Honours?

21             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

22             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.

23        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, thank you for answering questions so far briefly.

24     It's really assisted the Prosecution today, and I would ask that you

25     continue to confine your answers and keep them as brief as possible.

Page 3902

 1             Do you know Stojan Zupljanin?

 2        A.   Yes, I know Mr. Zupljanin well.

 3        Q.   When did you first meet him?

 4        A.   A long time ago.  I think it was in 1967, if I'm not mistaken,

 5     because that is when I started attending the secondary school of public

 6     administration as Banja Luka.  I believe that that is where we met, but

 7     the gentleman can correct me if I'm wrong.

 8        Q.   And following that, did you have from time to time professional

 9     contact with Mr. Zupljanin?

10        A.   Did I.  But that I can explain.  So we went to secondary school

11     of public administration.  He was one year ahead of me, if I'm not

12     mistaken.  We were at the same pupils' accommodation facility, I think,

13     and we socialised and we attended the same faculty and we met there until

14     the end of our studies, and he got a job with the police, whereas I

15     worked in the judiciary and so that we had professional contacts.

16        Q.   All right.  You testified on Friday, 26 April 2002.

17             MR. DI FAZIO:  And if Your Honours please, this evidence is at

18     page 5110 of the transcripts.

19        Q.   You testified that when you are in Manjaca, a number of

20     personalities came to the camp.  And you said that the camp was also

21     visited by Stojan Zupljanin and another gentleman, a guy named

22     Nenad Balaban.  They were together.  Did you also -- did you know this

23     other chap, Nenad Balaban?

24        A.   It is all exactly the way you put it, yes.  I knew

25     Mr. Nenad Balaban.  He was a judge before the war of the district court

Page 3903

 1     at Banja Luka.  I believe that for a time he was also the president of

 2     the district court of Banja Luka after the war.  Now he is attorney at

 3     law in Banja Luka.

 4        Q.   And do you know what role or position or job he had at the time

 5     that you saw him in Manjaca?  And I'm talking about Balaban now, not

 6     Mr. Zupljanin.

 7        A.   Yes.  I knew Mr. Balaban's position.  I used to meet him even

 8     before 1992 while we worked as judges.  I remember meeting him when the

 9     commander of a reserve JNA unit -- when the -- when there was war in

10     Croatia, and I met him on the territory of the Bosanska Dubica

11     municipality.  I found out later that Mr. Balaban was the commander of

12     military security of the 1st Banja Luka Corps of the Serbian army, if I'm

13     not mistaken, that is.  But I believe that's the way it was.

14        Q.   Thank you.  You testified that when you saw both men,

15     Mr. Zupljanin and Mr. Balaban, that Mr. Zupljanin was head of the CSB,

16     and that Balaban was dressed in military uniform and Mr. Zupljanin in

17     civilian clothes.  Where were you when you first laid eyes on them that

18     day?

19        A.   I was in the Manjaca concentration camp.  I was an inmate.  It

20     was around lunchtime, we received meals, at the time the meal was served.

21     And I was in the part of the camp where there was a roofed-over place for

22     dining.  And Mr. Zupljanin and Mr. Balaban passed by, rather, they were

23     passing through the camp, and the commander of the camp, Bozidar Popovic,

24     I think that was his name.  I was at that roofed-over place at mealtime,

25     and they went through there and they went to a facility called Konjusnica

Page 3904

 1     which means stable.

 2             And when they were returning, I decided to speak to them.  And I

 3     approached them and they stopped and exchanged greetings with me.  And

 4     this would be the reply to your question.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell the Trial Chamber what was said between

 6     you and these two men?  What -- how matters proceeded once you had

 7     greeted them.

 8        A.   The conversation was very short and so was the encounter.  I

 9     remember the conversation.  The first thing I noticed, especially in

10     Mr. Balaban, was his surprise at my being in the camp.  And he said, Are

11     you too in the camp?  And then he swore but with no ill intentions.  And

12     I said, Yes, I'm here.  And he asked about some other colleagues of ours,

13     lawyers, judges, attorneys, who are also Muslims, Bosniaks.  And I told

14     him who else there was in the camp, and I asked Mr. Zupljanin, What is

15     all this about?  How long is this agony going to last?  What will happen

16     to us?  And he replied briefly that we would be released, that nothing

17     would happen, so he was telling me that we would all be released from the

18     camp, in a few words.

19             It was a brief encounter.  And Mr. Balaban said to me, Well, you

20     are better off here than being in a trench at the front line.  And I

21     thought to myself, well, that's probably true.  And then they left.  And

22     I stayed in the camp.

23        Q.   Thank you.  One last question on this particular topic.  You say

24     they went to a facility called Konjusnica which means stable.  Were

25     prisoners accommodated or kept in that place, the stable that they went

Page 3905

 1     to?

 2        A.   Whether they were put up there at the time, I don't recall now.

 3     People were put there for a longer time, they were there in isolation.  I

 4     spent eight days in special treatment that was one group of people, there

 5     was another group of people who were ill and isolated for that reason,

 6     but I don't remember whether anybody was lying in that part at the time

 7     because the stables were actually sufficient as accommodation.  I really

 8     don't recall whether anybody was in the stable at the time.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Now, I'd like you to --

10             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Di Fazio, you are aware that you've exhausted

11     the hour that you had indicated you would spend on this witness?

12             MR. DI FAZIO:  I am, Your Honours.  Can I just seek your

13     indulgence.  I'm on my very last topic, and I'm basically just going to

14     show a small excerpt from a video, and that's it.  I would estimate I'd

15     probably -- I will be exceeding, but I won't go beyond about 5 to

16     8 minutes.  That sort of order of minutes.  It's not going to be a long

17     time.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] With leave, Your Honours, just a

20     correction of the transcript.  Could my learned friend ask the witness to

21     repeat because one part of his answer when he was speaking about the

22     people who were in the stable, one part of his answer was not recorded.

23     The part when he would have spoke who those people were and why they were

24     put there when he was -- his description of those circumstances didn't

25     make it to the transcript.  I cannot suggest to the witness what to say

Page 3906

 1     now, but he -- so it may be good for the -- to ask the witness to repeat.

 2     Or I'll deal with it in the cross-examination.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Krgovic.

 4             MR. DI FAZIO:  I'd prefer it if Mr. Krgovic dealt with it in

 5     cross-examination.  I'm sure it can be clarified then.

 6             Would Your Honours just give me a moment.

 7                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 8             MR. DI FAZIO:

 9        Q.   Just before we move on to the video, you recall in your previous

10     testimony that you described all the various beatings and deaths that

11     occurred in Manjaca that you either learned about from other prisoners or

12     that you saw with your own eyes.

13        A.   That is correct.

14             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thanks.  Can the witness be shown P411.40.  If

15     Your Honours please --

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Di Fazio, I'm not quite certain of how to

17     interpret the answer given by the witness to your question because you

18     say -- you asked him whether he recalls in the previous testimony that he

19     described all the various beatings and deaths that occurred in Manjaca

20     that he learned from others or saw with his own eyes.  To whom did he

21     describe that?

22             MR. DI FAZIO:  To the Court.  It's in the transcript --

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So he didn't describe it to Mr. Zupljanin or to

24     Mr. Balaban.

25             MR. DI FAZIO:  No, no, no, I'm sorry if I made that -- I should

Page 3907

 1     have --

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Just to clarify.  Thanks.

 3             MR. DI FAZIO:  No, no, Your Honour is quite right, that's the way

 4     I intended that evidence, and I think that is what the witness meant.

 5             Very well, is the video ...

 6        Q.   Now, I'll ask for it to stop every now and then, Mr. Draganovic,

 7     and ask you to very briefly, again very briefly, comment on what we can

 8     see.

 9             MR. DI FAZIO:  If Your Honours please, there will be no sound

10     with this excerpt, that's because it's almost inaudible, and for the

11     purposes of this particular witness, there's no need to know what is

12     actually being said.  It's actually what you can see that is the relevant

13     testimony.

14             Can we play the video, please.

15                           [Video-clip played]

16             MR. DI FAZIO:  Just hold it.

17        Q.   Do you recognise any of those people?  Or have you seen those

18     people before?

19        A.   It's difficult to recognise these people now, but I recognise the

20     facility, and I may have seen those people from the camp, but I cannot

21     say this is person X or Y.  That's not possible.  But this is Manjaca

22     camp.  This is the interior of the stable where the people are sitting

23     and the layout as they were placed there.

24        Q.   Just one question, thank you.  The disheveled condition of the

25     men that you can see there, was that -- is that how they appeared to you

Page 3908

 1     when you first arrived at Manjaca?

 2        A.   I testified about that in detail in the Brdjanin/Talic case.  But

 3     I can repeat even now.  All of us looked like this then.  There was no

 4     way we could have been tidy because there were no adequate living

 5     conditions there.  It's a stable.  It's meant for livestock, and staying

 6     there for months without the basic living conditions, people cannot look

 7     any different from what they look in this image.

 8             MR. DI FAZIO:  Can we continue playing the video.

 9                           [Video-clip played]

10             MR. DI FAZIO:

11        Q.   Just a watch it.

12        A.   I recognise the people in the first scene, and I know the man who

13     was distributing water, and the water bearer.  I was in this same stable.

14     So this take shows the inmates distributing water from this plastic

15     container.

16        Q.   Thank you.

17             MR. DI FAZIO:  And if Your Honours please --

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, I can add that this is

19     stable number 1, the one where I was in.  I can tell by the people that I

20     saw.

21             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.  And for the purposes of the record, I

22     think that's at point 2 minutes, 14.1 second into the tape.  Please

23     continue playing.

24                           [Video-clip played]

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here we can see Mr. Ashdown's

Page 3909

 1     visit.  And we now see Bozidar Popovic the commander of the camp.  I

 2     don't remember if he was a lieutenant-colonel or a colonel in the army.

 3             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thanks.  Just go back very small.  Okay.  Now play

 4     it.  Hold it.  Thanks.

 5        Q.   Now, in that particular portion of the videotape which is at

 6     2.23.6, there's a man with military uniform.  Who is that?  On the left.

 7        A.   That is the commander of the camp, Bozidar Popovic.

 8        Q.   Thank you.

 9             MR. DI FAZIO:  Can we continue playing.

10                           [Video-clip played]

11             MR. DI FAZIO:

12        Q.   You can see that gentleman there, he is obviously extremely

13     emaciated and skinny.  Did you see any men in that sort of physical

14     condition when you arrived at Manjaca?

15        A.   Well, most people were in that condition or a similar condition.

16     Those were the early days of the camp when we had been there for up to a

17     month.  We can see these journalists are explaining that inmates from

18     Omarska had arrived three days earlier.  That is the most difficult time

19     of your stay in the camp because when -- that was a death camp.  People

20     were physically mistreated, there was no food, people lived in fear that

21     they would be killed, and so on.  So that most people were skinny and

22     everybody had lost weight, 20 kilos or 30.  And I'm one of those, I also

23     lost 30 kilograms.

24        Q.   When you say death camp, you are talking about Omarska, aren't

25     you?

Page 3910

 1        A.   No, no.  I'm speaking about the Manjaca camp.  The Manjaca camp

 2     was a death camp at first, until the international Red Cross came and

 3     registered the inmates, and until the UNHCR started supplying the camp

 4     with food.  So I'm referring to the Manjaca camp not the Omarska camp.

 5     Of course the people who had come from Omarska were in an even worse

 6     condition than we at Manjaca.  We had already heard from the

 7     representatives of the International Red Cross that the people at Omarska

 8     had been through an even worse ordeal than we at Manjaca.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10        A.   And you could tell by looking at them when they were brought,

11     transported from Omarska, you could see the disastrous condition in which

12     they were.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             MR. DI FAZIO:  Can we condition playing.

15                           [Video-clip played]

16             MR. DI FAZIO:  Sorry, I interrupted unnecessarily.  Please

17     continue.

18                           [Video-clip played]

19             MR. DI FAZIO:  I think that's sufficient for my purposes, if

20     Your Honours please, and I'd like to tender that excerpt.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

22             MR. DI FAZIO:  My apologies, Your Honour.  I might have ...

23             JUDGE HALL:  I understand that's already in.

24             MR. DI FAZIO:  Yes, yes, I'm sorry, that was -- I was just

25     playing an excerpt, so I didn't need to capture that as a separate

Page 3911

 1     exhibit or anything.  Thank you for that.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Di Fazio, before we leave the picture on the

 3     screen, I just have a question about the conditions under which the

 4     detainees were held at Manjaca because every time we've seen footages

 5     from the stables people have been sitting down in that position.  And I

 6     think I heard the journalist, the female journalist say, although it was

 7     almost inaudible, that they were forced to sit like that for the bulk of

 8     the day.  And it was only when they were taken out that they could rise.

 9     So my question to you is, could you elicit from the witness the

10     conditions for the detainees when they were there, were they allowed to

11     move around freely?  Or did they have to sit like this, and for how long.

12             MR. DI FAZIO:

13        Q.   Well, you heard His Honour's question, it's clearly put.  No need

14     for me to repeat it.  Can you explain to the Trial Chamber and clarify

15     that aspect of matters.

16        A.   Yes.  Your Honours, I can explain it as follows:  In the stables

17     we had to be in one place all the time, either sitting or lying down.

18     Nobody was allowed to leave the stable without special need, so we had to

19     report if we wanted to go to the toilet, and we would be let out in

20     groups of ten with our heads down if we wanted to go to the toilet.  Or

21     if we went to do force labour, and daily about 1.000 people went out to

22     do agricultural work or fell trees or build a church, that would be all

23     our movement.  Later after several months in the camp, with the

24     permission of the military police, a number of sick people could leave

25     the stable and sit outside, but that would be a group of about 20 or 30

Page 3912

 1     persons.

 2             So movement was not allowed.  It happened that somebody went out

 3     and went to another stable, but if a military policeman noticed -- it

 4     happened that I had to crawl from one stable to another, and I was lucky

 5     because I wasn't beaten up because I went from one stable to another to

 6     see a relative.  Once I was hit in the face twice, the military policeman

 7     Popovic punched me in the face because we didn't lower our heads when we

 8     went toward the stable.  He saw us through the wire fence and so I was

 9     punched twice and so was my colleague, and we were threatened that we

10     would be taken outside in the evening and beaten.

11             That would be my answer about our stay inside.  I spoke in detail

12     in my statement, my earlier statement about the conditions of stay, the

13     conditions that prevailed.  And if necessary, I can say more about that.

14     At any rate, the conditions were inhumane.  I can say that no one person

15     who was in the camp at which I stayed that didn't suffer serious

16     consequences and who didn't develop an illness, and many inmates have

17     already died at the age of 40 to 50.  And I can say that in my assessment

18     that over 500 former inmates of Manjaca camp are already dead.

19             It's not only about the conditions of stay, but also the police

20     officers who kept us there, they were very ingenious in contriving ways

21     of making it more difficult for us.  Such as we were made to leave the

22     stables in rainy weather and stand in the rain for hours, and we would

23     then re-enter the stable wet and lie on the concrete floor or the earth

24     floor and of course we were soaked, and the wet clothes would dry on our

25     bodies.  Especially in the beginning and also later in the fall, the

Page 3913

 1     conditions were utterly inhumane, so there was hardly a person who didn't

 2     develop pneumonia or any other serious disease.  There was also typhoid

 3     fever but that was never published.  These people were taken to

 4     Banja Luka or some place, I don't know, some people died, others were in

 5     a very serious condition.  There was a group of people who were seriously

 6     ill, they were taken to England, I don't know which month that may have

 7     been.  And that would roughly be my answer if you are satisfied.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  One extra thing briefly, I know that

 9     you are anxious to get on, you said that you were kept under special

10     treatment.  Can you explain that to us.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I said special treatment, you

12     see people who are working military policemen who had access to the camp,

13     they simply had a programme, a plan for torturing us, apart from the

14     beatings, the physical abuse, there was also psychological abuse that I

15     have also mentioned in my evidence.  They kept threatening us, telling us

16     that we would never leave the camp alive, that they will kill us.  It was

17     a programme followed by military policemen who came into the stables

18     every day and tortured us mentally and physically.  That was especially

19     bad in the first half of our stay in the camp.

20             I've already said that this special treatment, or rather part of

21     it, was making us to stand in the rain and, therefore, come back into the

22     stable soaked.  And there were many other things, but I've already

23     mentioned them in my prior evidence.

24             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Di Fazio, can I ask a question, we have the

Page 3914

 1     images here of the video, do we have the text as well?

 2             MR. DI FAZIO:  There is a transcript, and we can put it into

 3     e-court if you wish.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  It would be helpful.

 5             MR. DI FAZIO:  If the Trial Chamber wishes I'm more than happen

 6     happy to put that transcript into evidence.  And we can make a note of it

 7     and we will attend to it perhaps on Monday or perhaps later during the

 8     course of this witness's evidence.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  Thank you.

10             MR. DI FAZIO:

11        Q.   Two last issues, just very briefly.  Was there an Orthodox

12     church, an Orthodox church located anywhere near Manjaca camp that you

13     are aware of?

14        A.   In the vicinity of the Manjaca camp, an Orthodox Christian church

15     was being built.  Camp inmates were taken there on a daily basis,

16     escorted by the military police in groups, and the inmates worked for

17     several months on the construction of the church, and the church was

18     built in the time that we were in the camp.  It was somewhere above the

19     camp, overlooking the camp.  I had never been at that site because I was

20     not one of those people who were allowed to go out.  So I don't know

21     exactly, but I think it's 3 to 4 kilometres from the camp.

22        Q.   Thank you.  And now, my last question, which will require me to

23     put to you a portion of your testimony.

24             MR. DI FAZIO:  5453 in the transcript from Brdjanin.

25        Q.   You are asked if civilian police had participated in beatings or

Page 3915

 1     whether it was just the military police, and you said this:

 2             "On the whole, the military police were involved in the beatings

 3     and members of the army.  However, in the beatings that took place at

 4     night, members of the Serbian police would also participate in them

 5     sometimes.  The policemen who were providing security in the camp, in

 6     particular the Serbian policemen from Kljuc would do this.  Some of my

 7     cousins from Kljuc were in the camp with me and they were beaten.  In the

 8     course of the night, they were taken out and both the military policemen

 9     and the civilian policemen would beat them.  They were given very severe

10     beatings with rifle-butts.  They were even beaten, these civilian

11     policemen would even hit them on the fingers with their rifle-butts.

12     They had to put their hands on a table of some sort and then they would

13     hit their fingers with the rifle-butts.

14             "I want to say that the policemen from Sanski Most, the civilian

15     policemen who were providing security, as far as I know they didn't

16     participate in these beatings."

17             Now, how many policemen from Sanski Most were helping out with

18     providing security at Manjaca?  Can you remember that?

19        A.   I can say there were two periods when the civilian police came

20     from Sanski Most on buses to work as security details at the camp.  In

21     the first stint they worked there 15 days, and then another 15 days.  And

22     they rotated.  They came twice from Sanski Most, and I can't remember how

23     many times from Kljuc.  But in the beginning of my stay there were

24     policemen from Kljuc there who were particularly cruel to the people, the

25     victims at the camp.  That's why I made this distinction because the

Page 3916

 1     people from the civilian police force of Sanski Most were people I knew.

 2     Some of them were my neighbours.  They were working at the police station

 3     in Sanski Most and after all is said and done, they were still different

 4     from the policemen from Kljuc.

 5             One bus load of policemen came the first time, and when they came

 6     for another stint, it was again a bus load, 20, 30 men, I don't know

 7     exactly.  I don't know how many men were needed to guard the camp, but

 8     they mostly guarded outside the wire fence.

 9             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you for answering my questions.  If

10     Your Honours please, I have no further questions.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Cross-examination.

12             Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

13                           Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:

14        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Draganovic.

15        A.   Good afternoon.

16        Q.   My name is Dragan Krgovic, I'm appearing on behalf of

17     Mr. Zupljanin, and I have a few questions for you concerning your

18     evidence earlier today and your past evidence in Brdjanin and Talic.

19     Just one thing, we speak the same language and for the interpreters and

20     everyone to be able to follow, we need to make pauses between questions

21     and answers, so after my question, wait for a second or two before you

22     start answering.  I'm a fast speaker, you are a lawyer, you will probably

23     answer quickly, we need to be careful.

24             Mr. Draganovic, you mentioned this encounter with Mr. Zupljanin

25     in Manjaca, and from what I understood from your Brdjanin evidence it was

Page 3917

 1     in end July, beginning of August; is that right?

 2        A.   I'm sure that it could have been in the second half of the

 3     summer.  It's hard to say whether it was end July or the beginning of

 4     August or the end of August, but it was quite late into the summer.  I

 5     never noted down that date, and I couldn't be more precise.

 6        Q.   And that was the only time you saw Mr. Zupljanin in Manjaca?

 7        A.   Yes, that was the only time.  If he had visited more than that

 8     once, I would have certainly heard about it.  One the inmates would

 9     always spread the news of visitors to the command of the camp.

10        Q.   And from what you were able to see, he just passed through the

11     camp, he didn't address anyone with a speech, he didn't hold a rally,

12     nothing like that?

13        A.   No, no, there was no speech, and he only passed through the

14     premises of the camp together with the camp commander.

15        Q.   That's this Mr. Balaban; right?  He was with him?

16        A.   Yes, Mr. Balaban was together with Mr. Zupljanin.

17        Q.   Do you know that at that time when you were held in Manjaca,

18     Zarko Tole an HVO officer captured in combat was also held in Manjaca at

19     the same time?

20        A.   Yes, I recall that.  Mr. Zarko Tole was in the same stable with

21     me.

22        Q.   Do you know that he was a colleague of Mr. Zupljanin's from

23     before the war, and Mr. Zupljanin visited him on that occasion?  Do you

24     know that?

25        A.   No, I really didn't know that.  I don't know anything about the

Page 3918

 1     relationship between Mr. Zarko Tole and Mr. Zupljanin.

 2        Q.   You said in your earlier evidence and you mentioned today again

 3     that after the arrival of the International Red Cross, and the aid from

 4     the UNHCR, the image of Manjaca changed considerably.  It was sometime in

 5     the summer that these ICRC packages and representatives began to come.

 6        A.   Yes, that's what I said in my testimony and that's true.

 7        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, just one more thing about Manjaca.  You said in

 8     your evidence that in 1995 when you returned to Sanski Most you found a

 9     certain document at the health centre there, a document related to the

10     death of several people during the transportation from Sanski Most to

11     Manjaca, do you remember that?

12        A.   Yes.  I said that I found documentation at the health centre in

13     Sanski Most, a list of people who had been transported to Manjaca and

14     brought back from there, including indications of their individual

15     diagnosis.  These people were dead.

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we show a 65 ter document 2786.

17     I'm not sure if it's in this package.

18        Q.   I see an Official Note here where you describe how you found that

19     document.

20        A.   Correct.

21             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the next page.  Could we

22     zoom in.

23        Q.   This is basically the document you found.  You just added a cover

24     letter, this Official Note.  I'm not sure if you wrote your note on a

25     separate piece of paper which was then attached or these two were

Page 3919

 1     together because we see this here as one document.  Could you clarify.

 2        A.   The document we see on the screen now is the original document

 3     that I found.  I wrote an Official Note about this document, and in this

 4     Official Note, I explained what this is.

 5        Q.   So your note is a separate document basically?

 6        A.   The note is my document, and this is an original that I

 7     uncovered.

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we see the bottom of the

 9     text.

10        Q.   The text in bold type.  Could the witness read it.

11        A.   You mean --

12        Q.   The text.  Can you read it.

13        A.   "At the proposal of the Sanski Most court and the Sanski Most

14     Secretariat of the Interior, the examination of the above named was

15     carried out by a medical committee consisting of Dr. Bosko Grubisa and

16     Dr. Stanko Erceg.  We established that the above named persons died of

17     asphyxia."

18             Asphyxia, I suppose means suffocation, and here we see the

19     original signatures of Drs. Bosko Grubisa and Stanko Erceg.  Between the

20     two signatures we see the stamp of the health centre in Sanski Most.

21        Q.   Thus, from this document, I get confirmation of your evidence.

22     These people were sent from Sanski Most to Manjaca, and during the

23     journey they suffocated to death and their bodies were taken back to

24     Sanski Most where certain procedures were carried out?

25        A.   Yes, that's true, but I'd like to add that among these people who

Page 3920

 1     were returned to Manjaca four persons are missing.  These people were

 2     alive; however, they are not recorded anywhere, nor have they ever been

 3     found.  It is assumed that they are killed.

 4        Q.   In this case the investigating judge issued an order to establish

 5     the cause of death, that's what I can see from this document, or that

 6     certain steps be taken to find out the cause death.

 7        A.   It seems to follow from what is written here.  However, I did not

 8     find at the court any sort of protocol written by the investigating judge

 9     when I joined the court in 1995.  Therefore, this is the only document

10     related to these people that has been found.

11        Q.   And it says here that this was the proposal of the court of

12     Sanski Most and also the SUP, the Secretariat of the Interior of

13     Sanski Most?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   It was up to the police station in Sanski Most and the court of

16     Sanski Most to take steps and procedures to find the cause of death.

17        A.   These steps and procedures fell within the jurisdiction of the

18     court and the police in Sanski Most at the time.  And we know well that

19     the police and the judiciary at that time were run by Serbs.

20        Q.   All right, Mr. Draganovic.  Speaking of the conditions in

21     Manjaca, when you testified in the Brdjanin case, that was on the 22nd of

22     May, when you were shown one document of the charity organisation

23     Merhamet describing the conditions in Manjaca, you said that this report

24     did not reflect the current situation in Manjaca, and you said you

25     thought the reports coming out of Manjaca were not consistent with what

Page 3921

 1     was actually happening in those camps, centres.

 2        A.   That's what I said, and I believe it was true.

 3        Q.   And generally speaking, the people who were responsible, in this

 4     case Colonel Popovic or anyone else responsible for any such centre, when

 5     they would be sending a report that had been asked, they would always try

 6     to look it better than it actually was.

 7        A.   Well, you see, the people in this organisation Merhamet really

 8     helped us a lot.  They would come from time to time.  They would bring

 9     some aid that was precious for us camp inmates.  Can I go on?  But I have

10     to say that these people were under very strict control by General Talic,

11     I believe, directly.  And their reports had to be subjected to some sort

12     of censorship.

13        Q.   Merhamet was a Muslim humanitarian or charity organisation;

14     right?

15        A.   Yes.  I have documents about the establishment of Merhamet, and

16     they show that Merhamet was founded by the Serb authorities.  For

17     instance, in Sanski Most, it was the Crisis Staff in Sanski Most who

18     decided who would be in the Merhamet organisation.  Now, in Banja Luka --

19        Q.   No, I didn't mean to go into detail.  I was just asking for your

20     conclusion that people who were running certain facilities when writing

21     reports to superior authorities always tried to show things looking a

22     little better than they actually were.

23        A.   Yes, yes, I accept that.  Moreover, whenever a delegation would

24     be announced or a team of reporters or a visit from a humanitarian

25     organisation, before that visit, inmates would be forced to tidy up a

Page 3922

 1     little, throw some quick lime on to dumps, clean up a bit as far as was

 2     possible in those conditions to make it look a little better.

 3             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I am sorry, Your Honour, I forgot.

 4     I would like to tender this document.  If it's not in evidence already.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Again I understand it's part of the 65 ter package.

 6             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   When you were talking about the conditions in Sanski Most and the

 8     reports describing that situation, do you know perhaps that

 9     Mr. Stojan Zupljanin in the summer of 1992 formed a commission whose job

10     was to tour police stations in Sanski Most, in Prijedor, and

11     Bosanski Novi, to establish the existence or non-existence and the

12     conditions prevailing in such detention facilities, camps, do you know

13     that?

14        A.   I think I've seen a document to that effect somewhere, but I

15     really can't remember what was written in it.  I think something like

16     that passed through my hands.

17        Q.   You could have seen it when you were reviewing all sorts of

18     documentation in 1995?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   I'll come back to that later.

21             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Court's indulgence.

22        Q.   Just a moment, Mr. Draganovic, excuse me.  We were a bit late

23     starting today.  I need to find the document I want to show you.

24             Meanwhile, let me ask you this:  You said you were arrested on

25     25th May 1992.  You said you were arrested by Dane Kajtez, aka Danilusko;

Page 3923

 1     Bata Vukic; Vase Davidovic; and Milorad Krunic; correct?

 2        A.   Yes, I think, except I'm not sure about Krunic, I'm not sure I

 3     mentioned him, but the other three are correct.  Possibly.  I don't know.

 4     Maybe he was the driver of that Mercedes.

 5        Q.   And this man Dane Kajtez, he was a member of the SD Serbian

 6     Territorial Defence, do you know that?

 7        A.   Yes, I know that Danilusko Kajtez was a member of the SOS at the

 8     time.

 9        Q.   And you described them at that moment as soldiers?

10        A.   Yes.  They really wore camouflage military uniforms with insignia

11     of the Serbian army.

12        Q.   And after that you were taken to the police station and from your

13     explanation I concluded that the place where the cells are is physically

14     separated from the police station, that means some sort of shed or

15     something in the yard; right?

16        A.   That facility is part of the police premises, or the public

17     security station premises.  Although you are right in saying that it's

18     physically separated from the main building.

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25                           [Private session]

Page 3924

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5                           [Open session]

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, were you able to see this document possibly in

 9     1995 when you returned to Sanski Most or later on?

10        A.   Please give me some time to read it, or you read it out.

11        Q.   I'll read out the parts I'm interested in.  I'm interested in

12     some parts only, and I will show you the signature.  It says here that:

13             "At Sanski Most during combat activity two centres were

14     established.  One of them was the collection centre at the gymnasium, and

15     the other was a collection and investigation centre at the Betonirka

16     factory.  On the 1st of August, the gymnasium was vacated ..."

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel please repeat his last words.

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   "... and the collection and the investigation centre was

20     established at the Krings Factory Hall.

21             "The Crisis Staff of the municipality ordered their investigation

22     centre to be set up.  It made the decision that the prison should be set

23     up the Betonirka company facilities.  It appointed the warden and

24     assistant warden of the prison, who were given personnel for physical

25     security.  The personnel consisted of members of the former TO and four

Page 3925

 1     or five members of the reserve police force."

 2             Mr. Draganovic, did you know that a prison warden was appointed,

 3     I believe that you spoke about Mr. Dragan Vujanic, or did you say

 4     Dragomir?

 5        A.   Drago.

 6        Q.   Drago.  And that his assistant was Krunic.  Were you familiar

 7     with these facts at the time when you were in detention?

 8        A.   I would just ask that the remainder of the document be shown to

 9     me, or that the second page.

10             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could you please show the second

11     page to the witness.

12        Q.   I'll go through the entire part that is relevant for the

13     detention, and then I'll ask you a few questions, or if you wish, I can

14     give you a hard copy of the document.

15        A.   I would like to have a look at it.  I am afraid that I might say

16     something wrong unless I see the entire document.

17        Q.   Please look at the signature but don't say the name, please.

18        A.   I really don't recall whether or not I've seen this document in

19     the documentation.  If the document was given to the OTP, then I must

20     have seen it.  Otherwise, I haven't.

21        Q.   Do you understand?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   I just want to ask you whether this was one of the documents that

24     you found when you returned to Sanski Most in 1995.

25        A.   I believe so.  It's a document from the Sanski Most police

Page 3926

 1     administration.

 2        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, I would like to revert you to the first page of

 3     the document, and then I will ask you a few questions.  But you didn't

 4     answer my last question, it follows from this document --

 5        A.   I will answer.  Go ahead and ask.

 6        Q.   It follows from this document that the Crisis Staff of the

 7     Sanski Most municipality established the prison in Betonirka and the

 8     Sports Hall and that a warden and a deputy warden were appointed.  Does

 9     this correspond to your knowledge at the time?

10        A.   I believe that this is exactly the way it was.

11        Q.   And the warden was Drago Vujanic, and his assistant was Krunic.

12        A.   Before Drago Vujanic, the Crisis Staff appointed a warden Papric,

13     the retired or earlier police chief.  I knew that.  Papric, I believe his

14     first name is Miladin, and I don't know if he is still alive.  He lived

15     in Prijedor.  He with Nedeljko Rasuo and two other members of the Crisis

16     Staff from the SDS came to the cell in which I was on the second day

17     after my arrest.  And then Papric wore a uniform.  He had a police

18     uniform, the uniform of the Serbian police and the uniform of a prison

19     warden.  That's when I saw the man, and he said I can see some

20     respectable people here and -- well, I don't have to re-tell it all.  But

21     after some weeks or so he was no longer warden, which I learned later on.

22     He soon resigned because he had seen at Betonirka that respected citizens

23     of Sanski Most were being beaten up, and that's why he said that he

24     would -- he didn't want to do his job anymore, if that's sufficient for

25     you.

Page 3927

 1        Q.   Yes.  Please look at the -- especially the second page of the

 2     document which speaks about the conditions prevailing in what they call

 3     collection centres and collection -- and investigation centres.  And I

 4     will ask you some brief questions about that and you will explain that

 5     part of to me later.  It says here that these facilities, apart from

 6     Betonirka, were lit, that the inmates had blankets, Styrofoam, that they

 7     had water, that they were entitled to visit, receiving visits, and

 8     inhumane conditions and bad treatment of the inmates isn't mentioned

 9     here.  Do you agree?

10        A.   I can see what you have read, but these statements are false.

11        Q.   And the one receiving such a report would have no reason to doubt

12     it's content if he receives it from a responsible person?

13        A.   I cannot comment that.

14        Q.   But you will agree with me that the people responsible tried to

15     depict the situation different from what it was; isn't that so?

16        A.   Please accept my previous answer.  I don't want to comment this.

17     I cannot say what other people are thinking and how they are going about

18     their duties.  I must tell you that there was daily correspondence and

19     special orders going from chiefs of police or circulating among chiefs of

20     police, chiefs of CSB.

21        Q.   And you were only detained in police detention on the premises of

22     the police station?

23        A.   Yes, that is correct.  I was in the detention facility for only

24     24 days.  It was part of the Sanski Most police station.  As president of

25     the municipal court of Sanski Most without a written order, without any

Page 3928

 1     investigation, without any document, I was kept in an inhumane conditions

 2     and taken to Manjaca concentration camp, and there are documents that

 3     show the circumstances of my release.

 4        Q.   And when you were taken to Manjaca, the vehicle in which you were

 5     taken there was escorted by, among others, the warden Vujanic?

 6        A.   Yes.  Actually, he was the commander of the police station, that

 7     is the CSB.  He was chief at the time, Drago Vujanic, and he was also

 8     prison warden.  Next to him there was Zoran Despot who was a criminal

 9     police inspector at the Sanski Most police station.  And there were two

10     more.

11        Q.   I apologise for interrupting you.  You said that he was chief of

12     police.  When you say so, he was chief of the SJB, the public security

13     station?

14        A.   Correct.

15        Q.   Wasn't Milan Ivanic chief at the time?

16             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic.

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] If I may just elicit the answer to

18     this last question, and then I'm finished for today.

19        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, do you know that at the time Milan Ivanic was

20     commander of the police station?

21        A.   As far as I know there were assistant chiefs of police.  I

22     believe that Mr. Ivanic was one of the assistants of the chief of police,

23     and I believe that only in a later period Ivanic became chief, but at the

24     time, as far as I remember, Mr. Drago Vujanic was chief.

25        Q.   I will show you a document --

Page 3929

 1        A.   But I don't rule out the possibility that due to the lapse of

 2     time I might be wrong.

 3             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Draganovic.  I have

 4     no more further questions of you today.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Draganovic, the -- it is regrettable that you

 6     are going to be inconvenienced by having to remain with us a few days

 7     more.  Tomorrow is a UN holiday and the court will not be sitting, and on

 8     Monday the court had made previous arrangements not to sit in order to

 9     catch up with certain procedural and administrative matters.  So,

10     therefore, this trial is now suspended until Tuesday morning.  And for

11     the information of counsel, we resume at 9.00 in Courtroom II.

12             So Mr. Draganovic, you are excused as a witness.  You are not of

13     course released, and I repeat the usual cautions about not communicating

14     with anyone, and I wish you is safe weekend, and likewise counsel and the

15     parties.

16             MS. KORNER:  Can I just remind Your Honours that I did make an

17     oral application yesterday in respect of the documents that I didn't

18     manage to get in with the witness who was in closed session.  So that

19     perhaps you can deal with it on your -- the day for dealing with

20     administrative matters.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

22                           [The witness stands down]

23                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

24                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 1st day of

25                           December, 2009, at 9.00 at a.m.