Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 3930

 1                           Tuesday, 1 December 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.10 a.m.

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

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

 7     Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning to all.  As I crept outside, we

 9     reconvened in everybody's favourite courtroom, and we begin in the usual

10     manner by calling for the appearances.

11             MR. DI FAZIO:  Good morning, Your Honours.  My name is Di Fazio.

12     I appear with Ms. Korner this morning and our case manager is

13     Ms. Bosnjakovic.  Thank you.

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

15     Slobodan Cvijetic, and Eugene O'Sullivan appearing for Stanisic Defence

16     this morning.  Thank you.

17             MR. PANTELIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  For Zupljanin

18     Defence, Igor Pantelic and Jason Antley.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  We have been alerted that before the

20     witness is called to the stand that there may be some preliminary

21     matters.

22             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  Your Honours, yes.  I'm sorry.  The first is

23     this:  We filed a motion yesterday about adding documents to the 65 ter

24     list.  Without saying anything for the reasons which I've expressed in an

25     e-mail to the Defence counsel and legal officers, can I just formally

Page 3931

 1     apply to withdraw that motion.  We'll have to refile it.  I think you

 2     have to say yes.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, as prayed.

 4             MS. KORNER:  Sorry?

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, leave as prayed.

 6             MS. KORNER:  Thank you very much.  Your Honours, may I now ask to

 7     go into private session.

 8                           [Private session]

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 3932











11 Page 3932 redacted. Private session.















Page 3933

 1   (redacted)

 2                           [Open session]

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.  Good

 5     morning.

 6             Your Honours, I have one observation in relation to the request

 7     by the Prosecutor that pursuant to Rule 92 ter with this witness that

 8     we're going to hear now to adduce package of 100 documents.  This is what

 9     it says in the attachment that we received with this witness.  So in the

10     discussion on this matter initiated by my colleagues Mr. O'Sullivan and

11     Mr. Zecevic, and since I will be dealing with that witness, I did study

12     that set of documents.  I studied the testimony of that witness in the

13     previous case, the Brdjanin case, and I have a few useful observations

14     which could be of assistance both to the Trial Chamber and to us for

15     future reference and how to proceed.  Namely, Rule 92 ter implies a basic

16     assumption, and that is that a set of evidence that accompanies a witness

17     to this specific case must be open and discussed in direct examination,

18     examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and of course, with the

19     participation of the Trial Chamber from the previous case.  That would

20     be, if I may put it that way, the basic entry ticket for that set of

21     documents to be admitted with the witness's testimony in this case.  So

22     the question we have here is what would happen if the bulk of that set of

23     documents was practically not open or discussed during the

24     examination-in-chief and the cross-examination in the previous case

25     either?

Page 3934

 1             Your Honours, I have studied all of those documents,

 2     Your Honours, and I have compared them with the testimony of this witness

 3     in the Brdjanin case, and I have come to the conclusion that I have made

 4     the following selection out of those documents:  The bulk of the

 5     documents being adduced through this witness was adduced in the following

 6     way:  When asked if he knew anything about that particular document, the

 7     witness simply replied, "Yes.  I found that document in the house of

 8     Mr. Rasula, at the SDS premises," and other places that he went, private

 9     houses and so on.  That was his only comment in relation to a particular

10     piece of evidence.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Can I just be sure about which witness are you

12     actually talking about.

13             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, he's talking about Mr. Draganovic, but

14     we've already admitted -- Your Honour, I was about to interrupt.  Your

15     Honours have admitted the statement, admitted the documents, and I think

16     Mr. Cvijetic is trying to re-open the whole matter in the middle of

17     cross-examination of Mr. Draganovic in which case we object.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I thought we were speaking about the next witness

19     actually, 110.

20             MS. KORNER:  So did I, but he's not.

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Can you help us out Mr. Cvijetic.  Who are we

22     talking about?

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Witness Draganovic is about to

24     enter the courtroom, and as far as I'm concerned he's the next witness,

25     and this set of documents came with him, and if it's not a problem, I

Page 3935

 1     would ask just to be given five more minutes of your time, please.

 2             So the bulk of those documents related to this witness --

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But, Mr. Cvijetic, I think we've ruled on the

 4     matter.

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes.  This is exactly

 6     what I'm talking about.  Please allow me to finish so that we could take

 7     a position about the interpretation of your decision for future cases,

 8     and my proposal actually will be directed with that goal in mind.  I am

 9     practically speaking about the problems that you would encounter

10     practically when you come to interpreting these witnesses -- these

11     documents, so I would like to suggest some practical things when we are

12     dealing with this particular matter.

13             So the bulk of the documents was adduced because the witness

14     simply said, "Yes, I found that document," nothing more.

15             The next group of documents is a group that the witness

16     interpreted by reading them out in the courtroom.  For example, the diary

17     which is allegedly written by Mr. Rasula.  And his testimony was about

18     the meeting that was held on the 19th of April, 1992, and he talks in

19     detail about what happened at that meeting, and then at the end, it was

20     established that he actually was not even present at that meeting.  And

21     then the smallest group of documents out of that set are authentic

22     documents of that witness as an investigating judge or documents which

23     directly refer to him or documents relating to exhumations where he

24     actually was qualified to deal with and interpret those documents.

25             However, the speed with which the documents were admitted was

Page 3936

 1     such that the documents, in the beginning, were commented on by the

 2     Prosecutor during the examination-in-chief and the Defence in the

 3     cross-examination, and the Chamber.  However, as time went on, this

 4     finally was reduced down to reading the titles of the documents, and even

 5     the witness Draganovic was not given the opportunity to comment on them.

 6             Part of the set are document 65 ter now 611 --

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Could you -- perhaps I'm the only one in here who

 8     has this difficulty, but it would be useful if you could indicate what

 9     the end -- what is down at the end of this road down which you're taking

10     us, and then we'd see whether this is something that time needs to be

11     devoted to at this stage, because as I understand some of your prefatory

12     comments, you were not seeking to challenge the ruling which we made on

13     Thursday.  You were talking about the consequences for future matters.

14     So perhaps if you could give us a glimpse of your destination.

15             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, all my comments are

16     actually directed at my final proposal, and I am getting close.

17             All I wanted to mention was that there were documents in this

18     batch that had never been discussed.  There were even documents that the

19     Prosecutor actually gave up on, claiming that they will be adduced

20     through the next witness.  There were also documents which were -- the

21     objection that was put by the Defence that that particular witness was

22     not a relevant witness for that document, and that was supported by the

23     Trial Chamber and yet that document was -- was admitted into evidence.

24             So my request is this:  Would you actually have to go through

25     each and every one of these documents, check them and compare them, and

Page 3937

 1     see whether what I'm claiming is right.  In other words, whether this

 2     evidence was admitted in a proper way where the principle of immediacy

 3     and contradiction -- or actually, equality of arms was satisfied.

 4             If you find that this is incorrect -- or, rather, that I am

 5     correct in what I'm proposing, my proposal is that with witnesses where

 6     we have a batch of documents that are introduced, that are -- if I may

 7     use the term "tied up," that we actually hear that witness viva voce; or

 8     in the alternative, that we actually know what your position is on the

 9     admittance of such documents, because our request will be, in those

10     cases, to have a much longer time -- much more time for cross-examining

11     those witnesses, because in that case we will have to go through all

12     those documents and thus assist the Trial Chamber in determining whether

13     those documents are relevant and proper.

14             In the opposite case, the Trial Chamber will have a very major

15     burden to make a selection from this batch of documents without the

16     appropriate assistance from the parties that the parties could actually

17     provide import.  Thank you.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, before I hear you, Ms. Korner, I just want to

19     ask Mr. Cvijetic one question.

20             Are we still talking about 92 ter witnesses, because I would have

21     thought -- I will hear what Ms. Korner has to say, but I would have

22     thought that the rationale behind calling a witness under the provisions

23     of 92 ter would have answered a number of the questions that you would

24     have raised, but then I may be missing something.  Let me hear from

25     Mrs. Korner.

Page 3938

 1             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, what this is, is the Defence seeking

 2     to re-open not only the ruling on this witness - and you have already

 3     ruled - but on the rulings that Your Honours made in respect of all

 4     applications that we've made for witnesses to be 92 ter, save for the

 5     latest one.  What is -- we have done, and can I explain again, is we have

 6     selected from the documents that were introduced the ones which are

 7     relevant to this case which were admitted in the previous cases in which

 8     the witness testified, and therefore it is not a question of simply

 9     putting in all the documents because they were introduced.  And what's

10     more, as we said I think last Thursday, Your Honours yourselves in fact

11     looked at the selection we made, particularly for this witness, and said

12     some, in your view, as opposed to our view, did not appear relevant.  And

13     so this is an attempt to re-open the rulings, to, I think, re -- re-open

14     the motion for reconsideration if Your Honours have already ruled, which

15     we think you have, but we were not entirely sure, last week orally, and

16     so we're saying we object to this.

17             So that's the position.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE HALL:  For the information of counsel, the ruling on the

21     motion for reconsideration is in process of being worked out and will be

22     handed down shortly, but we would consider what -- the observations that

23     Mr. Cvijetic has made this morning.

24             So could the usher call the -- bring the -- escort the witness

25     back to the stand, please.  Thank you.

Page 3939

 1                           [The witness takes the stand]

 2                           WITNESS:  ADIL DRAGANOVIC [Resumed]

 3                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning, Mr. Draganovic.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  You would not be surprised that the delay in your

 8     being recalled to the stand this morning was, from your perspective, your

 9     experience in court matters, was due to certain preliminary matters which

10     the Chamber had to consider.  So now we resume, and I remind you that

11     you're still on your oath.

12             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honours, due to the changes in the courtroom

13     schedule from afternoon to morning session, my colleague Mr. Krgovic is

14     not this morning here, so I will take the rest of cross-examination of

15     this witness, with your permission, of course.  Thank you.

16                           Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic:

17        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Draganovic.  My name is

18     Igor Pantelic, and I am the Defence counsel for Mr. Stojan Zupljanin, and

19     as my colleague Mr. Krgovic, who questioned you on Thursday, is not

20     present today, I will continue where he left off.

21        A.   Good morning.

22        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, you mentioned to Mr. Di Fazio that you testified

23     in a number of cases before this Tribunal, and I believe that you also

24     mentioned that you gave evidence also in a case tried before the

25     Banja Luka District Court; correct?

Page 3940

 1        A.   Yes, I did testify before the Banja Luka District Court, but I

 2     failed to mention then that I also -- that I have also testified in

 3     the -- or before the Cantonal Court in Bihac, a war crimes court as well.

 4        Q.   What year did you testify in the Banja Luka court?

 5        A.   To be honest, I can't really remember what year exactly it was,

 6     but it -- but this was the case against military policemen from the

 7     Manjaca camp, but I can't recall exactly whether this was three or four

 8     years ago.

 9        Q.   And this case was a case against war criminals, military

10     policemen, I assume, according to an indictment issued by the Banja Luka

11     District Court; correct?

12        A.   Yes, that's correct.

13        Q.   Do you know what the outcome of that trial was, whether the

14     perpetrators were convicted?

15        A.   Yes, I certainly do know what the outcome was.  This trial was --

16     a final decision was issued.  There were six accused.  They were military

17     policemen in the Manjaca camp.  Three of them were convicted and

18     sentenced to prison terms, and three were acquitted.

19        Q.   And what about the case in the Bihac Cantonal Court?  What kind

20     of case was that?

21        A.   Well, the indictment was issued by the cantonal prosecutor in the

22     Mostar Sana canton.  It was against a single perpetrator.  I believe his

23     name was Stupar or something like that.  I can't really remember what his

24     name was.  And I believe that these proceedings were also completed.  In

25     the -- at the first instance the sentence that was pronounced was a

Page 3941

 1     prison term of 15 years, but then at the second instance, after an

 2     exhumation in Hrustovo was conducted and bodies had been found, I believe

 3     that this case was brought before the Supreme Court of the Federation,

 4     and I believe that there was a conviction at the end of that case as

 5     well.

 6        Q.   As far as I understood you, both the Banja Luka and the Bihac

 7     trials were regular trials.  They were not -- these were not trials in

 8     absentia of the accused; correct?

 9        A.   Yes, correct.  The accused were present.

10        Q.   All right.  As a professional you can agree with me, can't you,

11     that when I say that during the war it is practically -- it is all but

12     impossible to actually try criminals for a number of reasons.  Often it

13     is impossible to provide security for the thing, but in any case, this is

14     something that we also know from history, that war criminals are tried

15     after a war is over.

16        A.   Well, you see, I do know that in some cases criminal proceedings

17     were instituted against certain perpetrators, but these were crimes of

18     killing or murder for the most part.  I recall a lot of cases where the

19     Prijedor prosecutor, which is the lower prosecutor -- or, rather, the

20     investigating court in Prijedor also conducted certain investigation, but

21     this was again involving the crime of murder.  I know that there were

22     also criminal complaints filed even during -- in the course of 1992, for

23     mass killings in some municipalities in Bosanska Krajina, but there were

24     no cases of war crimes tried, as far as I can recall.  And based on the

25     documents that I had occasion to see, I would say, relying on my memory,

Page 3942

 1     that there were no such indictments, no indictments for war crimes.

 2     There were some investigations conducted in Prijedor at the lower court,

 3     but they resumed after the war.  They were tried first for murder, but

 4     then the indictments were amended, and in fact some accused were accused

 5     of war crimes.  And this was also -- this was done by the district

 6     prosecutor in Banja Luka.

 7        Q.    I apologise.  I'm pausing, waiting for the transcript to be

 8     completed.

 9        A.   Well, I apologise.  Perhaps I was speaking too fast.

10        Q.   No, no.  It's all right.  Now, tell us, as an experienced judge

11     and a former president of a court and currently a successful

12     attorney-at-law, you would agree with me that in all these pre-trial

13     cases -- pre-trial phases of a trial and during an investigation, it is

14     practically the public prosecutor who issues orders to the police as to

15     what actions to take and so on?

16        A.   Yes, I agree with what you're saying.

17        Q.   Of course, during an investigation, because our system is

18     actually the continental European system, the investigating judge has

19     practically the same role because he is the person who actually conducts

20     such investigations; correct?

21        A.   Yes, certainly.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Draganovic, I just wanted to be sure that --

23     that when you say that some of the perpetrators of mass killings were

24     prosecuted during the war, that this was not related to the war as such.

25     So the mass killings and the prosecution and possibly conviction for mass

Page 3943

 1     killings was not prosecuted as a war crime?  Is that correctly

 2     understood?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Exactly.  There were no -- there

 4     was no prosecution for war crimes, and there were no criminal complaints

 5     accusing anyone of war crimes.  These were individual cases of murder.

 6     For instance, in Prijedor municipality, in the course of a single night

 7     there were some 20 or so murders of elder people, Bosniaks, who stayed

 8     behind in Prijedor, in which certain individuals took part, and a number

 9     of persons were taken into custody then as ordered by the Prijedor

10     prosecutor's office and an investigation was conducted, but an

11     investigation into murder and robbery.  There were no war crimes

12     proceedings.

13             I also remember that there was a criminal complaint in one case

14     in Kljuc municipality where there were mass killings of people in a

15     certain locality.  There was a criminal complaint prepared there, but

16     there was no further prosecution following that.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you for this explanation, but I just want

18     to ascertain, because the borderline between a mass killing committed

19     during war and a war crime may be difficult to understand correctly.

20     What do you mean when you say that they were not convicted -- or

21     prosecuted, sorry, for war crimes?  How do you define a war crime in --

22     in your practice?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Well, primarily a war crime, as a

24     criminal offence, has no statute of limitations.  As for the crime of

25     murder, it is characterised by certain features, and it is usually more

Page 3944

 1     difficult to prove a murder in the absence of evidence, which is why in a

 2     number of these investigations these individuals were actually released

 3     [as interpreted].  And it was only after the war and under pressure from

 4     the victims and their families we were able to actually have the District

 5     Court in Banja Luka amend those indictments and, in fact, now pronounce

 6     them to be war crimes against civilians.  And also, war crimes are far

 7     more -- far graver -- far graver crimes than murder, and that is a

 8     clearly defined limit or delimitation between the two.  And in fact, in

 9     this case there were certain individuals who committed these crimes who

10     belonged to either the police or the Republika Srpska Army.

11             So these would be the features that would actually qualify these

12     crimes as war crimes.  That's in my humble opinion.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Would the laws and the legal basis on which a

14     murder would be prosecuted, would they be different from the legal basis

15     on which a war crime would be prosecuted, and would there be any

16     difference in the judicial institution that would try these crimes, in

17     terms of the court?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Yes, it's clear.  There is a

19     difference there.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Can you explain?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For the crime of murder, pursuant

22     to the criminal laws applied in Republika Srpska, which is the former FRY

23     law, if I'm not mistaken, there were some changes, some amendments of

24     that law in Republika Srpska, so that for the crime of murder -- the

25     crime of murder could be tried by lower courts, by the basic courts in

Page 3945

 1     municipalities, while only the higher courts were authorised to try war

 2     crimes; namely, the Banja Luka higher court would be authorised in that

 3     case for the area of Republika Srpska.  It would be the only one

 4     authorised to try war crimes in that period until the court of Bosnia and

 5     Herzegovina was formed, which has a separate war crimes chamber.  So now

 6     the war crimes court actually decides on jurisdiction, whether some lower

 7     court, for example, would be able to try a specific war crimes case.

 8             I think that there is a rule there that if proceeding -- if

 9     proceedings were started during the war or later, so the case is still

10     ongoing, that had been tried already, in that case the Banja Luka

11     District Court would be authorised, or the Cantonal Courts in the

12     Federation if they had been conducting such proceedings before.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And is there a special law on war crimes that

14     would form [Realtime transcript read in error "forward command post"] the

15     legal basis on which prosecution would take place for the prosecution of

16     war crimes?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't think that there is a

18     special law on war crimes.  There are regulations now.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.

21             MR. PANTELIC:  Just a correction to the transcript.  Witness

22     mentioned on page 14, line 24, it should be -- instead of the word

23     "released," it should be "acquitted," because he mentioned that a number

24     of persons who were tried before the Banja Luka court were acquitted, not

25     released.  Just a correction to the transcript.

Page 3946

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And may I also, on my own account, draw attention

 2     to the transcript on page 16, line 11.  I think I said that -- I was

 3     asking the witness whether there would be a special law on war crimes

 4     that would form the legal basis of the prosecution of war crimes.  Thank

 5     you.

 6             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Well, we are more familiar with the regulations, so we are in a

 8     position to help the Trial Chamber, so let us deal with a few more

 9     questions on that matter in order to clarify matters.  So qualifications

10     on a certain crime are given by the Prosecutor in his request for an

11     investigation and then later in the indictment.  That is according to our

12     laws.  Isn't that right?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   In that sense, the prosecutor is -- instructs the police to carry

15     out certain investigations such as forensic examinations, interviews with

16     potential witnesses, and so on and so forth; is that correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   So now Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole, namely both the

19     entities, in 1992, 1993, and 1994, were applying the criminal law of the

20     former SFRY, of the former Yugoslavia.  They incorporated their laws into

21     their legislature.  Both the Federation and the Republika Srpska did

22     that.  Isn't that right?

23        A.   Yes, that is correct.

24        Q.   And that law contained an entire set of crimes, war crimes,

25     crimes against the civilian population, crimes of destruction of

Page 3947

 1     religious facilities during war operations.  These are all the crimes

 2     that are contained in international conventions, ranging from genocide to

 3     others; is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   You perhaps know this and perhaps you don't know, I leave that up

 6     to you, but if I were to say to you that during war operations, from 1992

 7     all the way until 1994, the military court was authorised for those

 8     crimes, war crimes.  The jurisdiction lay with the military courts, not

 9     with the civilian courts.  Did you know that?

10        A.   Yes.  I actually -- when I was working on these assignments as

11     the president of the court, and at the same time I was carrying out the

12     duties of an investigating judge, so sometime in 1999 or maybe even

13     earlier, I received in Sanski Most some cases from the military court in

14     Banja Luka about some cases in the Sanski Most municipality, which, once

15     again, were cases of military personnel.  And here I'm thinking about

16     soldiers who were in uniform and who had carried out some crimes.  These

17     were mostly killings and robberies.  I confirm that this was like that.

18     So the military court at that time in the Autonomous Region of the

19     Krajina or the Serbian Republic, that had jurisdiction over these

20     matters.

21        Q.   Of course you will agree with me that if during certain military

22     operations it is noted that a member of some military unit commits a

23     crime, regardless of the qualification of that crime, then the role of

24     the military prosecutor is to process that before the military court.

25     Isn't that correct?

Page 3948

 1        A.   Yes, that's how it should have been, and I think that that's how

 2     it is.

 3        Q.   And let us assist the Trial Chamber here a little bit as well.  I

 4     think it will be useful.

 5             When we're talking about sentencing, if I'm not mistaken, the

 6     situation was like this:  In the old law, the law of the SFRY, such grave

 7     crimes such as war crimes, crimes against the civilian population, were

 8     subject to a -- to the death penalty.  Isn't that right?

 9        A.   Well, I cannot remember all the details, but I think that you

10     were correct that the death penalty was envisaged for such crimes.

11     Either that or a life sentence, depending on what the difference was in

12     these crimes.  When we're talking about a war crime, regardless of the

13     type of war crime or just murder, homicide and things like that, that's

14     where the difference was.

15        Q.   Well, we're talking about 1990s, since at that time as the former

16     Yugoslavia we were quite near to some sort of European integration at

17     that time, so the law was changed at that time so that the highest

18     sentence after the death sentence was abolished was 25 years in prison.

19     Isn't that right?

20        A.   Yes, that is correct.  Yes, it was -- the death penalty was then

21     replaced by the strictest penalties of 25 [as interpreted] or 15 years.

22        Q.   There has been a mistake in the transcript.  Actually, the

23     maximum sentence was 20 years for those most serious crimes.  Isn't that

24     correct?

25        A.   Yes, 20 years was the maximum sentence.

Page 3949

 1        Q.   And as we have already mentioned for crimes of homicide and

 2     robberies, since you're an experienced judge you know that the sentences

 3     for such crimes were also quite severe and ranged from 15 to 20 years for

 4     some aggravated crimes, and this is not only from your own practice

 5     probably that you know but from general case law.

 6        A.   Yes, I think that the maximum sentences for crimes like that were

 7     up to 15 years.  At that time.

 8        Q.   Well, perhaps you may agree with this or not, but I think that

 9     for a victim and for the family of the victim, the greatest satisfaction

10     is the sentence itself and not whether a certain crime is qualified as a

11     war crime or as a homicide.  We could say that even some sort of social

12     role is to establish a certain kind of procedure by setting up maximum

13     sentences.

14             MR. DI FAZIO:  If Your Honours please, I don't want to cut off

15     Mr. Pantelic from any relevant line of cross-examination, but I'm having

16     some trouble understanding what the point is here and where this line of

17     cross-examination is going.  I hope I'm not the only one who's troubled,

18     but I wonder if Mr. Pantelic could perhaps indicate to us what exactly

19     the relevance of this body of evidence is.  I'm having some trouble with

20     that.

21             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  I will do that gladly.

22             First of all, Honourable Judge Harhoff made a certain line of

23     questions which personally I find very important for this case for

24     several reasons, and then on a follow-up basis, what Judge Harhoff just

25     asked, my intention was to clarify certain categories with that regard

Page 3950

 1     with the witness who is competent, who is a professional, who has

 2     experience, in order to shed a light on all these proceedings before the

 3     courts, because a part of the prosecution theory was that --

 4             MR. DI FAZIO:  I don't have any problems at all with the

 5     witness's ability to comment usefully on these topics, but it's the

 6     ultimate point of this evidence.  How is it going to help you, and how is

 7     any of the -- any of the material that the witness is currently talking

 8     about not available from all the other documentation in the case and

 9     matters that are agreed between the Prosecution and Defence, especially

10     pertaining to laws and judicial proceedings in the former Yugoslavia.

11     That's the -- that's the problem I have.  And if there's no immediate

12     relevance to those -- if there's no immediate benefit that we can get

13     from going down this road of cross-examination, whereas we can get all

14     the information from other documentation in the case, then this might be

15     a way of cutting short the cross-examination.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  Maybe my learned friend missed the relevant part.

17     Actually, my dear friend, we are speaking about the year 1992, not the

18     former Yugoslavia, but we are speaking about the Republika Srpska,

19     Federation Bosnia-Herzegovina, and we are covering period which is the

20     time-frame for your indictment.  That's the questions that I posed to

21     Mr. Draganovic.  It's the 1992 year.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Can I just cut through here.  My question was

23     related to the witness's testimony that there were mass killings that

24     were not prosecuted as war crimes, so I put that to the witness.  My line

25     of questioning triggered responses which I find was very useful from the

Page 3951

 1     witness, and Mr. Pantelic took up on some of these issues.

 2             I think you have exhausted this aspect, so my suggestion is let's

 3     get back on track and continue with your cross-examination, but thank you

 4     to the parties.

 5             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  Certainly.

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Draganovic, the same situation applied in

 7     Republika Srpska and in the Federation in 1992.  We cannot say that the

 8     number of those court cases because the war and because it was difficult

 9     to get in touch with witnesses because there were refugees from all over,

10     from the Federation area, from the area of Republika Srpska were leaving,

11     and only after the war ended was it possible to re-open again those

12     proceedings, which is what is being done.  Isn't that correct?

13        A.   Well, it's difficult for me to give you a relevant answer to this

14     particular question since I really didn't do any kind of inquiry about

15     that or investigate the proceedings being conducted in both the entities,

16     including the situation in the district of Brcko, which is a separate

17     unit.

18             I was precise and clear about what I know and what I can be

19     definite about, because I participated in these proceedings in a certain

20     way, and some decisions and reports that I saw also contribute to my

21     knowledge.

22             So I just have now remembered a judgement in that period.  This

23     was 1992 or 1993 where the case was tried by the Sanski Most basic court

24     for an aggravated rape of an old woman.  This rape was committed by a

25     member of the police reserve forces.

Page 3952

 1             The court passed a suspended sentence of I don't know how many

 2     years of imprisonment, but still it was a suspended sentence.  I just

 3     wanted to say that there were some extreme and unlawful decisions that

 4     were made by courts at that time.

 5        Q.   You must have heard that your colleague, Prosecutor Delic, spoke

 6     about major difficulties and pressures from members of the

 7     6th Krajina Brigade and some other members of paramilitary units.  Did

 8     you hear of such incidents?

 9        A.   Well, I know that it was difficult at the time to be a prosecutor

10     or a judge.  What I could see after the war when I reviewed the documents

11     in the Sanski Most Municipal Court, where I returned, I could assess that

12     the judges, for the most part, in keeping with the law actually suspended

13     all the proceedings that had been started at the time, which is in fact

14     pursuant to the law and the legal precepts, and all I can do now is

15     confirm your question.

16             I know Mr. Delic.  He was a colleague and a prosecutor at the

17     time, and I know that he actually had to undergo pressure.  And there was

18     pressure exerted both on him and other prosecutors.

19        Q.   And of course, in view of your experience and education, you will

20     agree with me that when speaking about Sanski Most, the commander of the

21     military unit in 1992, Colonel Basara, commanded thousands of soldiers

22     who were members of his brigade, and he was the one responsible for

23     prosecuting and processing crimes, because many of those crimes had

24     actually been committed by members of the brigade; correct?

25        A.   Well, since your question is specific, I can only agree with you

Page 3953

 1     in -- in one small aspect.  It is correct that Colonel Basara was the

 2     commander of this brigade, the 6th Brigade, and he was replaced by

 3     Commander Kajtez, if memory serves me well, but Basara did not -- was not

 4     the person who decided who -- on all these crimes that were committed at

 5     the time.  Pursuant to the law, we both know who were the persons who

 6     could actually initiate proceedings.  It was the police and also a judge,

 7     a prosecutor.  As for military personnel, I can agree with you that the

 8     authorised person was -- or the competent individual to start proceedings

 9     was the commander of the brigade.

10        Q.   Well, that's exactly what I was aiming at.

11        A.   Well, does my reply answer your question?

12        Q.   Yes.  You were very specific and precise.

13             Now, could you please tell me, in 1995 when you returned to --

14     or, rather, in 1996 -- when exactly did you return to Sanski Most?

15        A.   Well, returned in 1995, at the time when Sanski Most was placed

16     under the control of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Army.  This was -- and

17     authorities.  This was around the 15th or 16th of October.

18        Q.   And as you testified, and pursuant to other documents, you -- on

19     this occasion you actually got hold of a -- of a large number of

20     documents for the Crisis Staff and other authorities in Sanski Most;

21     correct?

22        A.   That's correct.

23        Q.   You reviewed those documents in detail, of which you told the

24     Prosecutor both in this case and in the Brdjanin case.  You spoke in

25     detail about a diary that was compiled by Rasula; correct?

Page 3954

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   For all practical purposes you, from the time when you were

 3     arrested, which was, I believe, on the 25th of May -- so from that time

 4     on you were not really able to have any direct knowledge about anything

 5     that had to do with the work of the Crisis Staff and so on; correct?

 6     This would be logical, because you were detained at the time.

 7             But later on, as you investigated this, you were able to gain

 8     some indirect knowledge about these things; correct?

 9        A.   Yes.  Up until the moment when I was arrested, I was aware of

10     some of the decisions made by the Crisis Staff, and in fact, I was

11     actually dismissed from the court pursuant to one such decision by the

12     Crisis Staff.  And on the 15th of May, when I left the court - this was

13     on the 15th of May, 1992 - before that day five members, five senior

14     officials of the police -- of the Sanski Most police station, visited me

15     and issued an ultimatum, as it were.  They asked that I hand over certain

16     items such as money, gold and valuables that were actually in my safe

17     because they related -- they were actually evidence in some of the cases

18     that were then being investigated.

19             I refused to hand over these items and demanded that I be allowed

20     to talk with the president of the District Court in Banja Luka in order

21     to get some instructions from him.  So I told them that they must bring a

22     decision in writing -- or, rather, an order in writing ordering me to do

23     so.  And in fact, that's what they did, indeed.  They went to the

24     police -- back to the police station, and they came back with a

25     Crisis Staff decision.  However, I did not comply with that decision

Page 3955

 1     either, and I didn't get an instruction from the prosecutor in

 2     Banja Luka -- the judge in Banja Luka, Rosic, who is now late.  I

 3     received an order issued by Kresimir something.  I forget his last name,

 4     and he said the following to me:  "Adil, man, please look after yourself.

 5     It's a miracle that you're alive."  So I understood what he was trying to

 6     tell me.  I realised that I was being unreasonable and doing things that

 7     can actually cost me my life.  So I then instructed these members of the

 8     police to address the treasury of the bank, the commercial bank, to issue

 9     that because I wouldn't do it.  The vault in the bank.

10        Q.   Which members of the police station were these that you

11     mentioned?

12        A.   Well, there was an inspector in the crime department.

13        Q.   Do you know his name?

14        A.   Yes.  Branko Sobot.  He was an inspector.

15        Q.   Was Vrucinic there?

16        A.   Well, these were all the closest associates of Vrucinic's.  I can

17     tell you what they did.  They actually took me in custody and took me to

18     Vrucinic's office and ordered me to unlock this safe because I had the

19     key with me.  And I had left the court building because I didn't want

20     them to find me, but they did find me.  They took me to Vrucinic's office

21     and demanded that I open, that I unlock this safe, which was a metal

22     safe.  And there was also Vlado Vrkic there.  He was there as a member of

23     the Crisis Staff.  He was actually present when I opened the safe.  They

24     counted the money they found in there and also wrote down all the items

25     that had been taken, the gold and the money.  And I had this receipt,

Page 3956

 1     actually, but unfortunately, it was burned down when my house was burned

 2     down.

 3             I recall that there was also a former police commander, one of

 4     the former police commanders there.  I forget his name, but I don't think

 5     it's really relevant.  Yeah.  I think his name was Andjelko Kajtez, yes.

 6     So there was Branko and there was Andjelko Kajtez there, and there were

 7     three other police officers, uniformed policemen, who actually were their

 8     security officers.

 9        Q.   When you talked about or testified about the diary that Rasula

10     actually compiled, what was your assessment?  Was this a realistic -- did

11     he paint a realistic picture of these events in 1991 and 1992?  Was his

12     depiction of those events true and correct?

13        A.   Well, I had occasion to review and read a number of times this

14     diary and compare them with the documents produced by the Crisis Staff,

15     certain decisions made by the Municipal Assembly of Sanski Most, also

16     compared them to decisions made by the SDS, and with numerous other

17     documents, and I concluded and I actually learned that some parts of the

18     diary correctly depicted certain events and certain meetings that were

19     held at the time.  He wrote down very carefully and entered all the

20     important and significant elements and discussions of certain individuals

21     in those meetings.

22             Now, in some other parts, and that was my conclusion, I found

23     that he just sort of sketched out plans for -- or agendas for Crisis

24     Staff meetings which would be discussed in a Crisis Staff meeting that is

25     to follow, because he would note that such and such items will be

Page 3957

 1     discussed on such and such date at the Crisis Staff meeting in such and

 2     such house, and he would just jot down in abbreviated form the topics

 3     that will be discussed and decisions that were to be made.

 4             But I also observed that some parts of the diary were part of his

 5     propaganda, if you understand what I'm trying to say.  They were

 6     something -- they were really -- there were items that he wrote down

 7     against individuals, certain parties.  There was, for instance, some

 8     mention of the establishment of certain Muslim units which was pure

 9     propaganda, because I couldn't find any documents confirming that there

10     were actually any such units established.  So what I'm trying to say is

11     that we have to bear all this in mind, and of course, based on documents

12     and other -- numerous other sources, I was able to draw such conclusions.

13             JUDGE HALL:  We've reached that point in the morning where we

14     take the break, so we would resume in 20 minutes.

15                           [The witness stood down]

16                           --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Before the usher brings the witness -- before the

19     usher escorts the witness back to the stand, could we move into private

20     session, please.

21                           [Private session]

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 3958

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22                           [Open session]

23             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

24                           [The witness takes the stand]

25             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

Page 3959

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Draganovic, did you hear that sometime in

 3     November 1992 there was a mass killing of the inhabitants of the village

 4     of Skrljevita?  They were ethnic Croats.  Did you hear about that

 5     incident?  Could you please turn your microphone on.

 6        A.   Can you hear me now?  Yes?

 7        Q.   Yes.  Can you repeat this for the transcript.

 8        A.   Yes, I did hear of those killings.  Actually, in the documents --

 9     I found out about the killings from documents.

10             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we please show the witness

11     document 10162 from the batch of the Prosecution documents.

12        Q.   This is a document made by the Military Police Company of the

13     7th -- of the 6th Krajina Brigade of the 7th of December, 1992, referring

14     to that crime, including the measures taken, including ballistics and

15     forensic examinations, and stating also that the above-mentioned persons

16     were taken into custody and sent to the investigative prison in

17     Banja Luka.  Can you see that in this report?

18        A.   I am familiar with this document, and I can say that the

19     investigation was conducted by investigating judge of the Sanski Most

20     Municipal Court and the prosecutor.  The police assisted during the

21     investigation.

22        Q.   I know that the prosecutor at the time was Milenko Delic.  Who

23     was the investigating judge, if you happen to know?

24        A.   The investigating judge was Mrs. Slavica Blagojevic.  She made

25     the investigation report, and I found that later in the court archives.

Page 3960

 1             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at the document

 2     from the same batch of documents.  This is 2061.  That's the number of

 3     the document.

 4             MR. DI FAZIO:  If Your Honours please, for the purposes of the

 5     record, the document that Mr. Pantelic referred to just now, 10162, is in

 6     fact P411.43.

 7             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you for that.

 8             MR. DI FAZIO:  I only raise that, Your Honours, because at some

 9     point in the future when we're researching transcripts that would be

10     really useful to have the exhibit numbers.  I've been guilty of the same

11     thing myself.  And wherever possible, it's best, if we can, to use the

12     exhibit numbers.

13             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   The document that you see in front of me, what is it?

15        A.   Yes.  It's the document that I referred to a little bit earlier.

16     It's the report on the investigation by the investigating judge of the

17     Sanski Most lower court.

18        Q.   You, as a professional, agree that everything that was necessary

19     was done at this stage, even the bringing into custody of the people from

20     the previous list and that they were all handed over into the custody of

21     the military court in Banja Luka; is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.  This case -- in this case all the actions provided for

23     under the law were carried out.  And it is true that the persons who

24     committed this crime were captured and arrested and detained in

25     Banja Luka, where they spent some time, after which they were released.

Page 3961

 1     And then the proceedings continued after the war.

 2             MR. PANTELIC:  This document, 2061, from the Prosecution set of

 3     documents, is it admitted as exhibit or what is the situation?

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P411.30, Your Honours.

 5             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you very much.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Draganovic, can I just ask in relation to

 7     this document whether this is a proof of what you told us earlier in your

 8     testimony that this was done by the lower court in Sanski Most and

 9     therefore could not have been a prosecution for war crimes.  Is that

10     correct?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a war crime, in this case,

12     and the Municipal Court in Sanski Most conducted certain investigative

13     actions that it could pursuant to the law.  However, the jurisdiction for

14     criminal proceedings, or judicial proceedings in this case, lay with the

15     higher court, the District Court in Banja Luka.  So the case could be --

16     could have been continued.  However, as those persons were released from

17     custody, and I think -- I dealt with that particular matter as part of my

18     testimony in the Brdjanin case.  I think I talked about that already.  So

19     I don't know if there is any need for me to repeat that.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  No, that's fine.  Thank you.

21             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Before the break we talked about the diary of Nedeljko Rasula,

23     and you gave some comments in relation to that.  What I'm asking is

24     whether the day of the Patriotic League is being celebrated in

25     Sanski Most today as a state holiday.

Page 3962

 1        A.   I'm sorry, I really don't know what day that is.  If you can just

 2     remind me what day that is, the day of the Patriotic League.  I don't

 3     know if it's being celebrated, but can you please tell me what day that

 4     is?

 5        Q.   I'm just asking you whether you know whether the day of the

 6     Patriotic League is celebrated in Sanski Most.

 7        A.   No, that day is not celebrated.  I don't know about it.  I don't

 8     know that it's celebrated in Sanski Most.

 9        Q.   In 1992 or later, did you know that there was a certain

10     Green Berets training centre in the area that is called Golaja?

11        A.   As far as I know, that was not a training centre, but some events

12     ensued in early June when the villages of Vrpolje, Hrustovo, Pljevci,

13     where the population is practically 100 or 98 per cent Muslim, were

14     attacked, surrounded by the Army of Republika Srpska and its police, and

15     I know that one group of armed Bosniaks was encircled in that area, and

16     then in the combat they captured -- well, how can I say that?  Yes,

17     captured.  We can use that term.  Captured a number of soldiers or

18     officers of the Serbian Army and that they used them in an exchange.  I

19     know that.  As for some training and exercise centre, that is something

20     that I'm not aware of.

21        Q.   But you found out about this event after the war probably.

22        A.   That is correct .  I found out about it in the Manjaca camp, when

23     I was there.  This information reached me there from some inmates who

24     already knew about this incident.

25        Q.   The attack by the 6th Brigade under the command of Colonel Basara

Page 3963

 1     as part of the disarmament operation, the operation to disarm the Mahala,

 2     did you hear anything about that event?

 3        A.   Of course I did hear about that event.  I heard about all of the

 4     events that ensued before I was arrested and after I was arrested, and

 5     this was a so-called Crisis Staff action, action by the military, the

 6     police, and the Serbian authorities to disarm people.  The first armed

 7     attacks were conducted against the Mahala in Sanski Most.  This is the

 8     part of town inhabited by the Muslim population.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  For the transcript, line -- page 32, line 11, in

10     line 10 you asked:  "But you found out about this event after the war

11     probably."  And then in the transcript it is said:  "That is correct.  I

12     found out about it in the Manjaca camp ..."

13             So that means that is incorrect, I suppose.  So the transcript

14     should say that is not correct.  You found out during the war.  Can you

15     say yes for the record?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I found out already at the Manjaca

17     camp.  This has to do with the event -- if I'm not mistaken, you asked me

18     about Golaja, about that event.  As for Mahala, this does not refer to

19     Mahala.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  Thank you.

21             MR. PANTELIC:  Just for the record, it's page 34, instead of

22     Belaj, it's Golaja.  Just a clarification.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Very well.  Did you have information about a

24     good part of the Muslim and Croat population in Sanski Most in 1992

25     having weapons?

Page 3964

 1        A.   I know for sure that the Serbian people in Sanski Most

 2     municipality had weapons.  I can say that.  As for the Muslim and the

 3     Croat people, this was happening in such a small scale that it was not

 4     that significant.

 5        Q.   If I were to tell you that there are official reports and notes

 6     about a significant quantity of confiscated weapons, would you be

 7     prepared to correct the answer that you gave now, that there is evidence

 8     about it?  I'm not saying that you need to have known about it, but if

 9     such reports existed, would you be prepared to correct your position?

10        A.   I'm not prepared to correct my position regardless of whether you

11     show me documents or not, since I knew what the circumstances were.  I

12     was familiar with the situation among the Serbian people and the military

13     and the police, where all the weapons were and where weapons were

14     distributed.  Each Serbian house received weapons.  I also knew what

15     Muslim and Croat citizens had at their disposal.

16             Look, there were weapons that were legal and that were illegal.

17     As for documentation, I can look at those documents and I can give you my

18     opinion on them, but I state with full responsibility that I know these

19     facts and I know what the situation was, and I know that the weapons that

20     they did have, the Muslims and the Croats, that they had -- were on the

21     list of weapons to be surrendered and that these weapons were in the area

22     of armed conflict, and this was in Vrpolje and Golaja.

23             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

24     Exhibit 2D21.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.  Could you please just

Page 3965

 1     enlarge this a bit?  I cannot see clearly.  Thank you.  This is well.

 2     This is very well.

 3             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Have you seen this document before?

 5        A.   Just a moment, please.  Yes, I see the document now.  It is

 6     possible that I've already seen it earlier, but I can volunteer my

 7     opinion about this document if allowed.

 8             This is pure propaganda you see.  This document is untrue.  The

 9     contents are not true.

10             You can see the signature there.  It says "Milos."  Who is this

11     Milos?  Whose document is this?

12             These -- this type of propaganda notes, there was a lot of them.

13     One of them even was addressed -- or actually spoke against me, and I

14     think that you can see that even this document contains my name.  It

15     mentions Ismet Sarcevic, Karabeg Mirzet, Adil Draganovic.  You see, this

16     information in the document is completely inaccurate.  This is a

17     non-document, in fact.  It served as propaganda to incite hatred of one

18     people against -- or one ethnic group against another.  There are a

19     number of names mentioned there, including my own, as the president of

20     the court, claiming that I attended a meeting or gathering of citizens.

21     I, in fact, did not attend any such meeting.

22             Mention is also made of some 500 armed civilians, which is

23     completely incorrect, untrue.  Because you see, had there been 500 armed

24     Muslim civilians in Sanski Most, there would have been armed clashes in

25     Sanski Most.  In the town itself, not a single bullet was fired by a

Page 3966

 1     Muslim or a Croatian people when the operation organised by the Serbian

 2     Crisis Staff, a joint operation with the police, was carried out and the

 3     territory of Sanski Most captured by force.  And in fact, even before

 4     this armed occupation, as it were, and the violence that was committed on

 5     the 27th of May of 1992 there, it had already been taken over in every

 6     sense.

 7             Obviously, the goal was to actually instill fear in the non-Serb

 8     population and to expel them from Sanski Most municipality, to destroy

 9     some parts or some segments of the population and retain some other for

10     economic reasons.  So this was a planned operation which was

11     comprehensive.

12        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, could you please tell us, since you mentioned

13     this joint operation, wasn't it true that the main command of the

14     6th Krajina Brigade was the one that actually conducted this entire

15     operation of disarming and taking over?  Do you agree with me?

16        A.   Well --

17        Q.   What was this brigade doing at the time there?

18        A.   Well, you see, I wouldn't agree with what you've just said.  This

19     was an operation in which all the various forces participated.  It

20     involved the 6th Krajina Brigade as the military unit, the police, the

21     public security station with its entire complement of reserve police.  It

22     also included the Serb Territorial Defence, which had already been

23     established by then, because all the citizens of Serb nationality had

24     already been mobilised, and they had been issued certain military tasks

25     and assignments.

Page 3967

 1             So all these different forces participated in this comprehensive

 2     operation, and the operation was coordinated and commanded both by the

 3     Crisis Staff, the military command of the 6th Krajina Brigade, the public

 4     security station.  And all these forces participated in this joint

 5     operation with a joint objective, and they succeeded in it.

 6             And I would like to note here that over those 15 to 20 days

 7     Sanski Most -- in Sanski Most some 18.000 people of Bosniak nationality

 8     were expelled from Sanski Most.  This was up until the second half of

 9     August, and of that number, over 4.000 men, Muslim and Croat, had already

10     been detained in camps, in detention facilities.  And numerous Muslim and

11     Croatian villages had already been completely cleansed, meaning that the

12     people had been expelled, their houses burned down and their properties

13     burned down for the most part.  Some villages were destroyed, were razed

14     to the ground.  Vrpolje, Hrustovo, are examples of that.  Pljevci.  These

15     were Muslim hamlets.  Then Trnova as well.  All houses there were

16     destroyed.

17        Q.   Thank you, but I think the Prosecutor has --

18             MR. DI FAZIO:  I think something needs to be cleared up.  And

19     that was the witness mentioned an operation involving the

20     6th Krajina Brigade.  It's not clear to me, I don't think from the

21     evidence, which particular operation he is talking about.  He may be

22     talking about an operation that occurred in Mahala, but -- and subsequent

23     evidence, I think, confirms my fear that he's talking generally.  And if

24     you read the evidence, it will look as if he's talking about the

25     6th Krajina Brigade being involved in all of these matters that he

Page 3968

 1     described, whereas he may have been talking about a specific operation.

 2     It's just a clarification.  In order for you to understand this portion

 3     of evidence, that will have to be clarified.

 4             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, the way I understood you was that the

 6     6th Krajina Brigade, which numbered several thousand men, was throughout

 7     1992 actually one of the participants in those operations.  You didn't

 8     mean all the operations -- or actually, you meant all the operations in

 9     1992; correct?

10        A.   Well, I was referring to the beginning of the armed attack on the

11     Sanski Most municipality which started in Mahala, and all of these

12     various forces that I mentioned a little earlier participated in this

13     operation.  This was at the beginning of this attack.

14        Q.   And these actions actually continued through the summer; correct?

15        A.   Yes, through the summer.  Some two to three months, because after

16     the summer there were no further operations of this kind, and not at this

17     scale in any case, because the authorities had already -- the Serb

18     authorities had already been in place in Sanski Most.

19        Q.   Would you please take a look at the document before you.  Did you

20     see these Green Berets in March 1992 before the conflict broke out?  Were

21     there any Green Berets in Sanski Most?  Yes or no, just briefly.

22        A.   No, there were no Green Berets in Sanski Most.

23        Q.   All right.  Now, are you aware that there were some

24     3.000 citizens of Muslim ethnicity who were armed at this time?  As the

25     president of the court, did you have any information in that respect?

Page 3969

 1        A.   Well, first of all, that -- such information I did not have in my

 2     possession, and they're untrue, incorrect.

 3        Q.   All right.  Thank you.  Now, tell me next, did you have any

 4     knowledge, any personal knowledge, about certain officials that are named

 5     in this document that -- including yourself, that you were active or part

 6     of some activities in the SDA of Sanski Most in preparation of certain

 7     actions against the Serbian people in Sanski Most?

 8        A.   No.  That is incorrect.

 9        Q.   Were there any activities organised by the SDA headquarters in

10     Sarajevo to arm members of the SDA in Sanski Most in March 1992?

11        A.   I had no such information, and I don't know of any case except

12     one that people actually managed to obtain some automatic rifles, but

13     there was -- there were a few such instances, and I did have one occasion

14     when I learnt of that.

15        Q.   Could you tell us when this was?

16        A.   Well, this was already sometime -- well, it's hard to say right

17     now, but --

18        Q.   Was this in early 1992?

19        A.   Yes, in early 1992, but this had to do with the arming of the

20     reserve force, the reserve police force.

21        Q.   And who actually conducted this arming of the reserve forces of

22     the police?

23        A.   I believe that the Federal Ministry of the Interior -- or,

24     rather, the Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina was involved

25     in this, because as far as I know, after some of these political

Page 3970

 1     agreements reached, after political negotiations, there were supposed to

 2     be certain ethnic quotas in these various departments, and there was to

 3     be certain parity between the various ethnic groups, and this is what

 4     these weapons were for.  So these were some ten or so automatic rifles

 5     that we're talking about here.

 6        Q.   Was this legal or illegal arming?

 7        A.   This was legal.

 8        Q.   And, Mr. Draganovic, are you now telling us that the author of

 9     this document is a liar, that he is not speaking the truth, that what he

10     says here in the document is untrue?

11        A.   Well, I'm not saying that he's a liar.  I think that's a very

12     harsh word.  But I've already said what I think about this document.  I

13     think its purpose is propaganda.

14        Q.   Is anything correct in this document?

15        A.   Well, this document is really not correct.  It's not accurate.

16        Q.   Is it completely inaccurate or is there anything that's accurate

17     there?

18        A.   Well, I don't know that anything in this document is accurate.  I

19     couldn't find anything that is accurate.

20        Q.   All right.  But would you agree with me that, regardless of the

21     fact that you were a president of the court and, as such, you had more

22     information at your disposal than a regular Joe, but would you agree with

23     me that even you could not find out or know all the information that was

24     in the possession of the state security or the Military Intelligence

25     Service?  So would you agree with me that it is possible that you did not

Page 3971

 1     have all the information at your disposal as to what was going on then?

 2        A.   Well, this is a very general question.  It's quite possible --

 3             MR. DI FAZIO:  That is a Donald Rumsfeld-type question.  It's

 4     a -- known/unknowns.  How can he say if -- comment on what he didn't

 5     know.

 6             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Do you allow for the possibility that certain security circles

 8     regarding certain issues such as arming of the Muslim people in

 9     Sanski Most had more information at their disposal than you did about

10     this?

11        A.   Well, of course it's possible.  For instance, how could I know

12     when the Serb armed forces will attack Mahala and arrest me?  I couldn't

13     have known that, because had I known, I would have fled and hidden, taken

14     refuge somewhere.  This is intelligence information that I learnt of

15     later on when I found Rasula's diary.  You understand what I'm saying.

16        Q.   Well, that is exactly my point.

17        A.   Well, I just answered your question.  So I could not have any

18     knowledge of some intelligence information that certain intelligence

19     services actually gathered.  How could I know of them?

20        Q.   Well, if Serb intelligence services had some information,

21     intelligence information, about a large number of people being armed,

22     wouldn't this be -- wouldn't this information be the grounds for

23     conducting a provisional attack -- a preventive attack against these

24     forces?

25        A.   Well, please don't misunderstand me.  I'm trying to be very fair

Page 3972

 1     here.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Pantelic, didn't the witness answer your

 3     question about this document, and do you have eventually another document

 4     to show him with this information you say he should have known of or

 5     didn't know of?  He answered about this -- this document, so why insist?

 6             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honour, my intention is just to, if possible,

 7     elicit the answer from this witness regarding the -- first of all, the

 8     possibility that, personally, he wasn't able to know all intelligence

 9     informations, number one.  And number two, if this informations --

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  What intelligence information?

11             MR. PANTELIC:  About the armaments of Muslim and Croat forces.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  You put a document to him in that respect?

13             MR. PANTELIC:  Just in front of him, Your Honour.  That's

14     document which explains the activities in the beginning of 1992 of

15     Muslim-Croat forces in Sanski Most.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  But if it's this document, he says -- he already

17     said twice what he thinks about this document.  He says it's propaganda.

18     In his view, it's propaganda.  So it's not intelligence.

19             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Very well.

20        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, can you please tell me now if you knew

21     Mr. Suad Sabic, who was a lawyer in 1992 in Sanski Most?

22        A.   Yes, I did know him.  I still know him.

23        Q.   What was his position in the SDA party structures in Sanski Most

24     in 1991 and 1992?

25        A.   From what I can remember, Mr. Sabic was a member of the party,

Page 3973

 1     the Municipal Board of the party of the Sanski Most municipality, and was

 2     elected to the Main Board of the party in Sarajevo.  So this, then, is

 3     the answer to that question of yours.  But he also, as a member of the

 4     party, after the multi-party elections, he was elected as a deputy to the

 5     Assembly of the municipality of Sanski Most.  He also had the role to

 6     negotiate on behalf of the party with the other parties about the

 7     division of power, appointments of certain people, cadres to certain

 8     posts, and he conducted those talks following the multi-party elections.

 9     There were these criteria established or parities in certain segments

10     using those talks.

11        Q.   Did you have information about how the SDA in Sanski Most formed

12     its Crisis Staff?  Did you have that information?

13        A.   I did not have that information, but there were certain organs in

14     the party.  You had the Municipal Board, and it had all the political

15     powers in the Sanski Most municipality, including the Crisis Staff.  I

16     don't know if it was the Crisis Staff or not, but believe me, I didn't

17     know that there was a Crisis Staff, and I don't know, but on one occasion

18     a colleague of mine who is of Serb ethnicity, Djuro Copic, who was in the

19     SDS - he was the vice-president or something - I spoke to him because I

20     received a threatening letter.  This was shortly before my arrest.  This

21     was sometime in April.  Perhaps the 11th of April.  I think that's when

22     it happened.  Anyway, I received a letter threatening me to leave the

23     municipality peacefully with my family if I will want to stay alive.

24     Otherwise, me and my family would be killed.

25             So I took this letter to him.  He said, "What can I do?  You're

Page 3974

 1     in the Crisis Staff."  "What Crisis Staff?" I asked.  And that was my

 2     conversation about that, because I could see how far this propaganda

 3     machinery went.

 4             When my colleague, in the same building, who at the time was the

 5     municipal state attorney with whom I was practically every day, and we

 6     were members of the electoral committee of the municipality, well, if he

 7     could say something like that, I was simply speechless after that.

 8             So now you're asking me in the same way if -- whether there was a

 9     Crisis Staff.  I really don't know if there was a Crisis Staff, and that

10     would be my answer.

11             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we now show the witness

12     document 2D09-0021.

13             [In English] And may I ask Mr. Usher to -- for the benefit of

14     this witness, to handle this hard copy of document that we have on the

15     screen, and he can have a comment on that.

16             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours may recall this is the document that

17     was shown to the witness, whose number I forget, who was in closed

18     session, and I think His Honour Judge Delvoie asked where part one of the

19     article was, and I don't know that we've ever had a response, and we

20     certainly haven't been provided with part one.

21             MR. PANTELIC:  Yeah.  This is article from newspaper "Walter."

22             MS. KORNER:  I know that.  But if you look at it, it says it's

23     part two.  Where is part one?

24             MR. PANTELIC:  That's all that we have in our process of

25     disclosure and location of the document, so unfortunately, this is how it

Page 3975

 1     works.  Sometimes we have all documents.  Sometimes we have a part of

 2     documents.  Certain parts are missing.  Not to mention, Your Honours,

 3     3.000 documents that we are -- still don't have that we filed the motion.

 4     So probably some are there.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So this is the second part not only of an article

 6     but of the statement of this Sabic.

 7             MR. PANTELIC:  That's correct.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And the statement made when and where?

 9             MR. PANTELIC:  It's on the top of the English translation.  It's

10     on the 25th of August, 1992, in Sanski Most police.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  So a statement to the police.

12             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes.  I don't want to speculate, Your Honour, but

13     I truly believe, and one day we shall be in situation to know where are

14     these 3.000 documents from Banja Luka seizure.  One day we shall know.

15     Maybe certain important documents are inside.

16             So at this stage would I like to reserve, for the record, a right

17     of Zupljanin Defence, and I believe that I am speaking on behalf of the

18     Stanisic Defence, too, that at certain stage, if in the process of

19     disclosure, and I'm now make -- I'm making a reference to 3.000 documents

20     which were still held by the Prosecution, that if at certain stage for

21     the interest of our defence the situation will arrive, we reserve our

22     right to call again for additional cross-examination all witnesses from

23     the beginning of the trial, if that would be the case.  Just for the

24     record, Your Honour.  Because we still don't know what is in these

25     3.000 documents.  But I don't want to waste the time for this

Page 3976

 1     cross-examination.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I'm not sure I fully understand the allegation

 3     that you're making.  Are you saying that the Prosecution is hiding

 4     3.000 documents from you?

 5             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, he's referring to -- he's referring to

 6     the Rule 66(C) motion filed a long, long time ago, and regrettably it's

 7     still not dealt with.  But I can assure Mr. Pantelic that a document such

 8     as an alleged confession made by Mr. Sabic to the Sanski Most police

 9     would not be amongst the documents that were being withheld.  But,

10     Your Honour, that's what he's referring to.

11             MR. PANTELIC:  I cannot speculate, Your Honour, what is in

12     this -- all this documents, but -- okay.  Let's leave this topic for a

13     moment and then we shall come at the appropriate moment.

14        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Draganovic.

15        A.   Yes, go ahead.

16        Q.   Can you please tell me, did you ever see this article before,

17     this document?

18        A.   Yes, I have read this article.  I read it in the local paper

19     "Walter."

20        Q.   And now, we can see here that under number 11-14/02-2, on the

21     12th of August, 1992, Mr. Sabic gave a certain statement to organs of the

22     Sanski Most police.  And now that we are on this matter, can you please

23     tell me whether you provided some statements when you were detained at

24     the Sanski Most police station?  Did you give any statement to the

25     inspectors there?

Page 3977

 1        A.   Yes, I did give statements, several statements, in fact, to some

 2     inspectors who I know from the Sanski Most police.

 3        Q.   Who are those inspectors?

 4        A.   Once it was Dobrijevic, Mile Dobrijevic, aka Mima, and Zoran,

 5     Zoran Despot, criminal investigations inspector.  Both of them were CID

 6     inspectors.  Once -- actually, twice I think I did give a statement of

 7     some sort.  Branko, Branko Sobot.  I mentioned him, I think, already.  He

 8     was the CID chief at the time in that, let me say, period, May 1992.  He

 9     was the chief of -- actually, Mile Dobrijevic was the CID chief but he

10     never appeared anywhere.  Sobot Brane appeared, who was carrying out the

11     interrogations with these other inspectors.  And I do remember giving

12     statements but I did not sign those statements.  I did not see what was

13     written, and I don't know what was written down.

14        Q.   Was anyone from the state security there when you were giving a

15     statement?

16        A.   Yes.  On one occasion, yes, together with Sobot Branko there was

17     an inspector present.  His name was Jugoslav Rodic.  He was from the

18     state security.

19        Q.   When you were in Manjaca did you provide statements there?

20        A.   I was taken away a few times, and I did give statements.

21        Q.   Who took your statement?  Did they introduce themselves?

22        A.   After I was transferred to Manjaca, I was in isolation with that

23     group of people who were brought with me, in the horse stables for

24     several days.

25        Q.   Well, just to be efficient, can you just give us the name,

Page 3978

 1     please?

 2        A.   I don't know the first and last name.  It was some officer whom I

 3     didn't see after that.  I don't know his name.  I think that he is from

 4     Banja Luka.  He was wearing a military uniform.  I gave a statement to

 5     him which was probably the same as what I had already said in

 6     Sanski Most, so I just repeated what I said then.

 7        Q.   How many times did you provide a statement in Manjaca?

 8        A.   Well, I really don't know how many times it was.

 9        Q.   More than once; is that correct?

10        A.   More than once.  I was taken out frequently and made to stand

11     there the whole day.  Then they would bring me in.  They seemed to have

12     some special sympathies for me.  I don't know.

13        Q.   Let us go back to Sanski Most.  What did they ask you during that

14     interview?

15        A.   Well, it's hard to go back, believe me.  I don't know what they

16     asked me.  It's -- these are very difficult questions to which I am not

17     sure I can give answers.  I do recall some questions, but these questions

18     were shocking to me.  Believe me when I say that, because all of these

19     people knew me well.  They knew me well.  Up until yesterday I was the

20     president of the court.

21        Q.   What did they ask you, sir?

22        A.   Well, they would ask me -- let's say Mr. Branko Sobot took me out

23     one day and asked me about 20 automatic rifles.  I was shocked.  I froze

24     up.  What rifles?  Please.  I only said, "What are you doing to me,

25     Branko?  You know everything.  Why are you asking me that?"

Page 3979

 1        Q.   Did they ask you something about party -- the party arming

 2     itself?  Did they ask you anything like that?

 3        A.   I don't remember questions like that being put.  Mostly they had

 4     to do about me, certain charges against me.  I practically had the

 5     impression at the time that I was already sentenced to death, and now it

 6     was up to me to defend myself.  And this is specifically about me.  There

 7     were no questions that had to do with the arming or politics or policies.

 8             I had a question, for example that, there were trenches found

 9     around my home.  Or that, after my arrest, heavy weaponry was found in my

10     home, for example.  Or that I preferred in court to deal with cases of

11     Muslims, Bosniaks, rather than Serbs.

12             These questions were really shocking to me, and I saw where all

13     of this was leading, and I knew that the death sentence is unavoidable in

14     my case.  And I'm really telling you, at no point was I asked about

15     arming, because all I could have said that there was no arming at all,

16     especially not in the Mahala.  I know that there was no arming in the

17     Mahala because that's where I lived.

18        Q.   All right.  Can you please turn to the second page of this

19     document in front of you.

20             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we also look at the next page

21     on the screen.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, but this document that

23     you gave me deserves attention.  This is also a statement that was given

24     in prison.  It's a statement by Mr. Sabic Suad.  I don't know if it's a

25     complete statement or not.  This is something that only Mr. Sabic can

Page 3980

 1     talk about.

 2             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   I understand you, absolutely, Mr. Draganovic.  Can you please

 4     turn the page and you can see at the top, on the third line marked by the

 5     number 20 by hand, and then underneath the photograph we can see the

 6     number 20.

 7             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] And then we can scroll up, scroll

 8     up.  Scroll down.  Scroll down.

 9        Q.   Did you see in Sarajevo when there was a referendum about the

10     independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina?  Did you travel to Sarajevo with

11     Sabic and the others?  Just answer yes or no.

12        A.   Yes.  Yes, yes, yes.  That is correct from that report that we

13     travelled together, because I was supposed to hand over the referendum

14     material because I was the president of the referendum commission.

15        Q.   All right.  We need to go faster.  I do understand.  Please, I

16     just need short answers, yes or no.

17        A.   Yes, yes, that is correct.

18        Q.   And these individuals that are listed there travelled with you.

19     Some of them travelled in police vehicles.  That was you, and Buric Enver

20     who was the police station commander, and then Ismet Sarcevic?

21        A.   Yes, that's --

22        Q.   And the -- in the other vehicle -- the other vehicle contained

23     these other individuals; correct?

24        A.   Yes, that's correct.

25        Q.   Is it correct that Ismet Sarcevic, and now, that's under 22,

Page 3981

 1     item 22, actually established contact with our people?  I assume that

 2     this "our people" refers to SDS people in Visoko and that they resumed

 3     with arming people there.  Do you know anything about that?

 4        A.   Well, I don't know anything about that.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Let's move on.  Now, tell me this:  On page 3 of this

 6     document, that is the statement of Mr. Sabic continues there, and he

 7     speaks about -- and that's under item 33 and then 38A and 39, he speaks

 8     about the position of the Main Staff of the SDA in Sarajevo were to

 9     actually drag out the negotiations about the three coalition parties.

10     And also, as we can see under 38A, there was a rift within the police

11     station in Sanski Most and in the Territorial Defence so that the SDA

12     then decided that they would establish their own organs and police in the

13     NTO in the municipality.

14             Would you agree with what is stated there?

15        A.   Well, I couldn't agree with this part, because I can tell you

16     about the rift.  What I can tell you is that this man was arrested at the

17     same time that I was arrested, and I can really not speak about how and

18     where he was interviewed, but I could not agree with this position of

19     his.

20        Q.   And do you agree with what he states under number 40, where he

21     says that all police officers or -- or, rather, all employees of the

22     police of Muslim or Croat ethnicity who did not remain in the Serbian

23     part of the police, that they were invited by the SDA to establish a

24     Muslim police station?  Do you agree with the words and the statement of

25     Mr. Sabic there?

Page 3982

 1        A.   Well, I can tell you this:  I did not take part in the work of

 2     the party, and I don't know what the party position was, but I can just

 3     briefly comment on what had led to the rift in the police.

 4             The policemen of Muslim nationality or Muslim ethnicity were

 5     expelled from the police station, and I'm sure there were testimonies to

 6     that effect, and evidence as well, and documents.  So people just left,

 7     or they went to the Sanski Most municipality after consulting the SDA

 8     officials and had a meeting there.  They barricaded themselves in there,

 9     and probably they had that intention.

10             On the 17th of that month -- what month was that?  I believe that

11     was April, in April 1992.  They had to leave that building, and they just

12     disappeared.  Practically they left the building under duress because

13     some shells were fired at them from a -- from an APC.  The shells were

14     fired at the building.  They threatened that they would destroy the --

15     pull down the municipal building, so they left the building on their own.

16        Q.   All right.  So you don't know of any political arrangements about

17     the division within Sanski Most municipality.  Was there any mention of

18     such things?

19        A.   Well, you see, there were a lot of things being discussed.

20     Certainly there were people negotiating, because people wanted to avoid

21     armed conflict.  And the SDA officials had the very best intention.  They

22     offered, if necessary, to divide the territory of Sanski Most

23     municipality, and in that sense such things were discussed.

24        Q.   Well, that's what I wanted to know.  Now, tell me --

25             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic, it's time for the break.

Page 3983

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  Sorry.

 2             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, for, I suppose the nth time, we've got

 3     Mr. Trbojevic waiting.  It's the second time he's back.  He's not very

 4     happy altogether, but can I ask whether -- how long Mr. Pantelic is going

 5     to be now and whether Mr. Cvijetic, who is not really -- whose client is

 6     not affected by this witness at all, has any questions.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Well, before Mr. Pantelic answers the question about

 8     time, would I bring to his attention that at this point you would have

 9     spent two hours.

10             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you, Your Honour, for the information.  I

11     must say not more than ten minutes, maybe 11, something like that.

12             JUDGE HALL:  So, Ms. Korner, it would appear that we would to get

13     your witness today --

14             MS. KORNER:  Well, no.  I don't know that -- I'm hoping that

15     Mr. Cvijetic has no questions, but I don't imagine that's the case.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic.

17             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, of course I have

18     some questions, and I need at least one session to question this witness,

19     and I believe that I will probably also need a part of the next session.

20     And if Ms. Korner is asking because of the next witness, I believe that

21     the next witness can only be brought in tomorrow, because the questioning

22     by Mr. Pantelic and the replies provided by this witness actually broach

23     certain topics that are relevant to Mr. Stanisic.

24             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honours, I'm sorry, we're going to object

25     to this now.  We are -- we've asked over and over again for realistic

Page 3984

 1     estimates of time.  We have at the moment, therefore, two witnesses

 2     waiting to give evidence on the basis that this witness would be

 3     concluded in at least halfway through the second session today.

 4                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we requested two

 6     hours, if I'm not mistaken.

 7             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honour --

 8             JUDGE HALL:  That is our information.

 9             MS. KORNER:  The request may be so, but, Your Honour, this

10     witness was one hour in chief.  Your general ruling was that the Defence

11     would get roughly the same time to cross-examine.  Now, I certainly

12     appreciate that this witness is relevant to the case of Mr. Zupljanin.  I

13     do not see in what conceivable way this witness can be relevant to the

14     case of Mr. Stanisic.

15             MR. PANTELIC:  I must object.  I must object, Your Honour.

16     Approach 92 ter is absolutely unbearable for the Defence, so, you know,

17     it's very easy for the Prosecution to say one hour, let's say, and let's

18     have thousands of transcript pages and documents.  So we are in that

19     situation, Your Honour.  Please understand our position.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Mrs. Korner, the -- Mr. Pantelic may have expressed

21     the observation I was about to make in a more agitated manner than I

22     would have chosen, but the point is that with 92 ter witnesses, in terms

23     of time, clearly the time is the -- the sharing of time favours the

24     Defence.

25             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I see that.  Well, all I can say is

Page 3985

 1     that if Mr. Cvijetic insists on cross-examining for more than one

 2     session, then we're -- we're backing up all over again with witnesses.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Anyway, we rise.

 4                           [The witness stood down]

 5                           --- Recess taken at 12.10 p.m.

 6                           --- On resuming at 12.34 p.m.

 7                           [The witness takes the stand]

 8             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, just to wrap up this part of questioning, the

10     magazine or the newspaper "Walter" that we see before us on the screens,

11     this is a federation newspaper; is that correct?  The Muslim-Croat

12     federation.

13        A.   I believe it is published in Sarajevo, and of course I don't know

14     how many readers it has and who buys it.

15             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this

16     document.  Can I get the number, please?

17             MS. KORNER:  No, Your Honour, I object to it -- or I don't think

18     it was -- an application wasn't made to tender it last time because the

19     witness didn't know anything about it.  So it just stayed in abeyance.

20             MR. PANTELIC:  This is new witness.

21             MS. KORNER:  No, I'm not objecting, Mr. Pantelic.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you.  Exhibit 2D28.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Pantelic, I forget the date of the article.

25     Could you refresh my mind?

Page 3986

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  It's 15 May 2001, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 3             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, could you agree with me that the part relating to

 5     the pre-trial proceedings and the investigating phase of a trial contains

 6     such activities as information interviews?  Correct?

 7        A.   Yes, these information interviews can be characterised as the

 8     pre-trial phase of a proceeding.

 9        Q.   So when a public prosecutor in -- at a certain stage, or the

10     investigating judge at the next stage, assesses that it is necessary to

11     complete this procedure with some additional statements and information,

12     then they issue or instruct the police to conduct an interview to collect

13     information; correct?

14        A.   Well, you see, the -- the very fact that a statement is

15     produced -- and this phase of the investigation is actually initiated by

16     the prosecutor, because the police is not authorised to take any action

17     without instructions from the prosecutor, except in emergency situations

18     where it concerns detection of crimes and apprehension of perpetrators.

19     We can agree on that.

20        Q.   I agree with you, and what I'm putting to you is that on the

21     basis of what you said, you have provided a number of such statements

22     both in Manjaca and to the police, which means that there was -- that

23     some procedure was initiated against you; correct?

24        A.   No, that's not correct.  There were no criminal proceedings

25     initiated against me.

Page 3987

 1        Q.   Well -- but if you say that your statements were provided as part

 2     of these interviews to collect information, then there must have been

 3     some kind of prosecution initiated, I assume before military organs.

 4        A.   No.  I did not -- I was not interviewed by military organs in

 5     Sanski Most.  I was interviewed, and I made these statements which were

 6     not written, nor did I sign anything in Sanski Most, but I provided these

 7     statements to the police.  I was interviewed by the police.

 8        Q.   What about in Manjaca?

 9        A.   Well, in Manjaca, I was taken out for questioning by military

10     policemen, and I assume that I was questioned by some kind of military

11     investigator, because I saw that this person was wearing a uniform.  But

12     who this person was, whether he was a military person or a security man,

13     I don't know, because I had never seen the man before, nor did I ever see

14     him after that.  But I have to say that he was quite -- he treated me

15     quite fairly.

16        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, you're an experienced judge, and you spent many

17     years working as an investigating judge as well.  Once -- so tell us,

18     once an order is issued to the police to conduct an interview to collect

19     information or to prepare an official note regarding a certain event,

20     this then initiates proceedings, and there are no limits, really.  This

21     can go on up until the moment when the crime itself actually enjoys the

22     statute of limitations; correct?

23        A.   Well, you're asking questions that I can't really answer.  I have

24     to react to this.

25        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, please allow me --

Page 3988

 1        A.   Well, I agree with you, but I have to interfere here, intervene.

 2        Q.   Well, I'm just asking you to answer me.  If there is a certain

 3     investigating procedure initiated and if a statement is taken from a

 4     person, there is no limit to this.  This can go on for as long as an

 5     investigation is ongoing; correct?  There is no other limitation except

 6     when the crime actually expires.

 7        A.   Well, I have to reply.  It's not a simple question.

 8        Q.   Well, please answer my question.  As the president and

 9     investigating judge, please tell me -- I'm just asking you to comment the

10     legal provisions.  So I'm asking you, an informative -- information

11     interview is conducted based on an order from an investigating judge or

12     from a prosecutor; correct?  But there is one -- one proceeding is

13     instituted; correct?

14        A.   Well, I was in a cell for 44 days.  I never -- I was never issued

15     any written statement regarding my detention.

16        Q.   Well, please answer my questions.  I'm asking you as the

17     president of the court, a professional, an attorney, an investigating

18     judge.  If there is a -- if criminal proceedings have been instituted,

19     there may be one, two, five, ten, or a hundred interviews conducted with

20     the accused; correct?  Or the suspect; correct?

21        A.   Yes.  The interview can be carried out, but you're limited as to

22     the time, for how long I can be in detention.  There must be a request by

23     the prosecutor.  If there is no request by the prosecutor you have to

24     release me.  That's my answer.

25        Q.   I'm telling you now and I'm asking you, what was the deadline for

Page 3989

 1     detention according to the law from 1992?  How long could a state be -- a

 2     person be held in detention for a maximum period?

 3        A.   If I'm not mistaken, there was a maximum period of time for up to

 4     three days.  This is police custody.

 5        Q.   And what about the prosecutor's custody?

 6        A.   The prosecutor's custody is for a period of one month.  It can be

 7     extended after that, but the person must have an attorney and must have

 8     everyone -- everything according to regulations.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please be asked to repeat his

10     answer because the Defence attorney and the witness are overlapping.

11             JUDGE HALL:  You're overlapping.  The interpreters are having

12     difficulty keeping up.

13             MR. PANTELIC:  Sorry.

14             JUDGE HALL:  And the -- Mr. Draganovic, the -- Mr. Draganovic,

15     I'm sorry, the interpreters need you to repeat the answer, your last

16     answer.  Perhaps Mr. Pantelic could assist with repeating the question.

17             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  Don't worry.

18        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Draganovic, it's a short and clear question.

19     According to the criminal law of 1992 that was in force then, how long

20     could judicial detention last for a maximum period of time?  Let me help

21     you there a little bit.  You had the Trial Chamber, the right of appeal.

22     So what was the maximum period of time that it could last?

23        A.   Up to six months.

24        Q.   Let me tell you now -- all right, just wait.  I'm speaking now.

25     You can speak later with the Prosecutor, but what I'm telling you now is

Page 3990

 1     this:  There was a requisite procedure conducted against you before the

 2     investigative organs in Manjaca and because of the -- and before the

 3     military court in Banja Luka for illegal actions and for possession of

 4     weapons; is that right?

 5        A.   This is the first time that I'm hearing this, and it's good that

 6     you told me that so that I know.  I never heard that before, nor was I

 7     ever informed, nor did I ever receive a single document in which what you

 8     are saying now was stated, and if I had received that, then I would have

 9     known that.

10        Q.   All right.  Tell me this:  In 1995, when you came to Sanski Most,

11     how long -- how many members of the Serb ethnicity were in Sanski Most?

12     If you have the number, you can please tell me.  If you don't know, just

13     say so.

14        A.   I don't know.  I really don't know.

15        Q.   Do you know how many Serbs there are in Sanski Most right now?

16        A.   I don't know that either.

17        Q.   When you mentioned that 18.000 non-Serbs left from Sanski Most,

18     on what basis did you state that piece of information?  Do you have any

19     evidence of that?  Is there some sort of calculation that you were able

20     to do?

21        A.   Yes, there is evidence about that.

22        Q.   Just tell me where this evidence can be found.

23        A.   This evidence can be found in reports of the Serbian Assembly or

24     the Executive Board of the Serbian Assembly of the municipality of

25     Sanski Most, because they looked at the numbers at their meeting in 1992.

Page 3991

 1     They monitored the numbers of non-Serbs who were still living in the

 2     territory of the Sanski Most municipality.  And that's there.  I also

 3     know on the basis of some data that I established after the war.  This is

 4     information by the International Red Cross and other information that I

 5     researched from statements by witnesses and certain people.

 6        Q.   All right, Mr. Draganovic, but you're not a demographics expert,

 7     so you can't really help us much in that area.

 8        A.   Yes, yes, that is correct.  I agree.

 9        Q.   Very well.  In 1995, when you came and then when you initiated

10     investigations, you mentioned that you found in the vault of the

11     Police Chief Vrucinic a green folder with some documents in it; is that

12     correct?

13        A.   Yes.  I did give that statement in the Brdjanin case.

14        Q.   This file was found with documents.

15        A.   Yes, it was.  There were several files actually.

16        Q.   Did you personally keep any of those documents for your own

17     purposes perhaps?

18        A.   I don't think that I kept any of the documents for my own

19     purposes, no.

20        Q.   Did you hand over the entire documentation to the Secret Service,

21     the AID, then or later?

22        A.   I handed over a part of some of that documentation to the AID,

23     the Agency for Investigations and Protection.  I handed over some of the

24     documents to the investigators of The Hague Tribunal.  There are about

25     4.000 documents here that I handed over.  These documents were taken from

Page 3992

 1     Sanski Most, and they were listed in an official record.  The

 2     investigator Ms. or Mrs. Paczulla, I think that was her name, from

 3     Canada.  And the rest of the documents were handed over to the

 4     prosecutor's office of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  But there were copies of all

 5     the documents, so there was a trail of where each document went so that

 6     all relevant organs were informed about the documents, and the originals

 7     were kept at a certain location until they were officially handed over.

 8        Q.   Did you sign those receipts and certificates about the hand-over

 9     the documents?

10        A.   I think so, yes.  I did sign some reports about submission of

11     documents, sending out of documents.  The ones that I handed over I

12     signed for, definitely.

13        Q.   And you don't have anything in your own possession of those

14     documents from Sanski Most?

15        A.   Other than some copies, no.  No.

16        Q.   What copies?

17        A.   Perhaps that diary and maybe some other documents which were --

18     well, these were perhaps some decisions by the Crisis Staff regarding my

19     arrest -- or at the time of my arrest.

20        Q.   But you don't have the originals?

21        A.   No, I don't have the originals now.

22        Q.   And that representative of the Tribunal, was her name

23     Jutta Paczulla?

24        A.   Yes, that is correct.

25             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, it's spelled P-a-c-z-u-l-l-a.  I think

Page 3993

 1     Your Honours may have seen that name.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 3             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] Can you please tell me, Mr. Draganovic, since

 5     you testified quite a lot before this Tribunal and the courts in Bosnia

 6     and Herzegovina, since 1995, how frequently did you have contact with the

 7     AID Secret Service?  How many times did you have conversations with them?

 8        A.   Let me tell you.  I was an investigating judge and the president

 9     of the court.  When I needed to check certain things or to get some

10     information, I would then call those people to service me in that aspect

11     and to assist me.

12        Q.   During your preparations for your testimony, you had meetings

13     with AID representatives regarding the circumstances about which you

14     would certify; is that correct?

15        A.   That is not correct, and you can be sure that I did not have any

16     contacts or talks for the purposes of any testimony that I gave.  As I

17     said, I just used those certain people that were handy to help me about

18     matters that I was investigating as an investigating judge, in order to

19     gather certain information, knowledge, so on.  I did not submit any

20     reports to the AID.  I used them as a service to help me in my work as an

21     investigating judge.

22        Q.   But, my colleague, Mr. Draganovic, I think that you exaggerated

23     when testifying and responding to answers by my learned friend

24     Mr. Di Fazio here.  I think that you exaggerated with your assessment.

25     It was sort of literal for purposes of creating a certain effect.

Page 3994

 1             How can you compare Manjaca and describe it as a death camp?

 2     Isn't that a little excessive?

 3             Let me just tell you one thing, Mr. Draganovic.  I myself, as

 4     your colleague, do not dispute in any way that you had very, very

 5     distressing experiences, and let us hope something like that is never

 6     repeated.  That is my opinion.  But I really believe that you're adding

 7     salt to the wound here.  How could you say for Manjaca that it was a

 8     death camp, that people were killed there, burned there?  Was that set up

 9     so that people would be destroyed?  Please, Mr. Draganovic.

10        A.   First of all, I respect you as a colleague, and I respect and

11     appreciate the work that you are doing.

12             At no point was I was a poet here.  I was really testifying about

13     what I think and what I experienced.  The time doesn't permit for me now

14     to talk to you about that, you understand.  You would all have goose

15     bumps.  You have my testimony.  I stand by it, I believe that it was

16     clear, and I swear by my all that the first two or three months, it was a

17     death camp.  And the conditions in which we were staying there, I simply

18     did not believe that I would survive them.  None of us believed that we

19     would survive that:  Beatings, mistreatment, lack of food, conditions

20     that were in -- what else was that than an attempt to destroy all of us

21     who were there?  And you can be sure I would not wish something like that

22     upon anyone.

23             That is all.  You have everything in my testimony, and I stand by

24     my words that it was precisely like that, and I'm sure all the inmates

25     who passed through Manjaca would say the same thing.  That is why I said

Page 3995

 1     initially it was like that.  Later, the conditions were more bearable.

 2     But the way a man felt was important.

 3        Q.   All right, Mr. Draganovic.  Let us finish this question.  I would

 4     just like to say one thing to you.  I personally cannot understand.  As I

 5     said, there were incidents there, and ultimately people were brought to

 6     trial because of that in Banja Luka, but what I'm saying is that it is

 7     impossible that Manjaca was a death camp, because in that case you would

 8     have mass killings there, executions.  I understand a death camp to be

 9     something that the Nazis committed to people they conquered in

10     World War II.  You cannot make that parallel in that way.  That is a

11     death camp.  This is what I wanted to say.

12             I think that you are exaggerating.  I think it would be fair for

13     you to qualify your assessment, to tone down your assessment.

14        A.   Well, I would like to say that this was not the same as the

15     Omarska camp, that the conditions there were much worse.  People were

16     getting killed there en masse in Omarska, and Keraterm in Prijedor.

17             Here we didn't have physical liquidations in the same numbers

18     as -- or in proportion to the number of people who were being detained

19     there.  But a death camp -- look, at that time, during the first two or

20     three months, the way it was, had it continued that way, we would all

21     have died or have been killed.  None of us would have remained alive.

22             Let me just give you one example.  Two days ago I was speaking to

23     my wife who said, "Ilijaz, Professor Ilijaz Avdic, inmate, died."  He was

24     an inmate together with me.  There is no day that passes without somebody

25     dying.  Professor Ilijaz Pasic is 54 years old.  Last year

Page 3996

 1     Dr. Mehmed Derviskadic died, who treated all of us inmates.  And he was

 2     only 50 years old.  I said that more than 500 people have died.  Not a

 3     single day passes without a person dying in Bosnia-Herzegovina of the

 4     people who had been in Manjaca.  They could be abroad as well.  It

 5     doesn't matter.  This is why I'm saying that this is a death camp because

 6     it has caused so much death and suffering for all the people who passed

 7     through that camp.  During the time that the camp was operating,

 8     5 to 6.000 people passed through that camp.  Please.

 9        Q.   Really, with all due respect to those who were victims who died,

10     but, please, are you a medical expert?  How do you know what the reason

11     is for all of that?  How can you talk about that as well?  Just tell me,

12     are you a medical expert or not?

13        A.   No, I'm not.

14        Q.   Thank you very much.  I have no further questions.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic.

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I begin, Your Honours?

17             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  Please proceed.

18                           Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Draganovic, good day.

20        A.   Good day.

21        Q.   I am Slobodan Cvijetic.  I'm in the Defence team of

22     Mr. Mico Stanisic.

23        A.   I'm happy to hear that.

24        Q.   You said that you returned to Sanski Most on the

25     15th of October, 1995.  You said that in the Brdjanin case, if I'm not

Page 3997

 1     mistaken.

 2        A.   Yes, that is correct.

 3        Q.   So this is an accurate fact.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Not right away, but you began to carry out investigations -

 6     that's what you said - about possible war crimes which occurred in the

 7     Sanski Most municipality during 1992.  And later, I assume.  Is that

 8     correct?

 9        A.   That is correct.

10        Q.   I got the impression that you didn't form an official formal body

11     or a commission that would deal with these matters.  I think that you

12     responded to one question that you had received a verbal suggestion from

13     the Sanski Most War Presidency to begin such work.  Am I correct?

14        A.   It was a written note from the Sanski Most War Presidency, but I

15     also worked pursuant to the authority of the Cantonal Court and the

16     cantonal prosecutor's office.

17        Q.   I would like to know if you have those written documents.

18        A.   Those documents exist.

19        Q.   Did you show them to the Prosecutor's office?

20        A.   Yes, I think those documents do exist.  I don't recall whether I

21     showed them to anyone or not.  These are just investigative actions

22     pursuant to the criminal law.  I was authorised to do that.  I don't

23     remember if I provided those documents to the court.

24        Q.   And those investigating activities also involved research into

25     the mass graves that were discovered; is that correct?

Page 3998

 1        A.   Yes.  And these are precisely the investigations that I carried

 2     out pursuant to instructions or the authority issued by the president of

 3     the Bihac Cantonal Court.

 4        Q.   When I put a question to you, just make a short break.  We have

 5     already been warned not to overlap.

 6             However, in your statement you said that on return from such an

 7     investigation, you frequently of your own initiative would stop by at

 8     Mr. Rasula's house or to the apartment of the representative of the

 9     national security service.  I don't remember his name right now.  And in

10     that way, you would look for documents which you would consider to be

11     relevant; is that correct?

12        A.   Well, that is not completely correct, the way you formulated your

13     question.  What I can say is that on those first days when I came back, I

14     had an assignment, and I also base this on my discussion with the

15     Prosecutor, that I should establish the locations where I could find some

16     documents about the war crimes.

17             Now, I was informed -- I had been informed that

18     Mr. Nedeljko Rasula's house in Caplje [phoen] village had already been

19     occupied by someone.  A man of Bosniak ethnicity had moved into his

20     house, and so I gained entry into that house with a number of witnesses,

21     because this man was already living there, and I obtained those

22     documents.  I got them there in that house.  This was in keeping or in

23     accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure, and I gained entry legally

24     and lawfully and seized those documents.  They would have been burned,

25     probably, because many of those documents had already been thrown out as

Page 3999

 1     garbage.

 2        Q.   So at the moment when you actually entered the house, you did not

 3     actually have a legal document that would allow you to do so?

 4        A.   Well, as an investigating judge, I didn't need any such -- any

 5     such formal document other than the approval of the prosecutor, and I had

 6     obtained that.

 7        Q.   What kind of approval did you obtain from the prosecutor?

 8        A.   Well, we had a conversation over the phone, so the approval of

 9     the prosecutor could be either before the fact or after the fact.

10        Q.   And this is the manner in which you then proceeded to obtain the

11     documents that we've seen here before us?

12        A.   Correct.

13        Q.   In the course of 1995, when Sanski Most was captured or, as you

14     would say, liberated by the BH Army, Serbian civilians left Sanski Most

15     in large numbers, and some of the buildings that were the property of

16     Serbs were destroyed; correct?

17        A.   Unfortunately, that is correct.

18        Q.   There were also a number of killings of Serb civilians; correct?

19     And in the case -- in the Brdjanin case, there was a list of such

20     civilians put to you.

21             Now, if I can ask you, then, did you make any progress regarding

22     this document, because at that time you were not willing to comment it.

23        A.   Well, could you remind me what I said then about it?

24        Q.   Well, looking at the list, you said - and you weren't even sure

25     of that - that you had only conducted one investigation regarding one man

Page 4000

 1     who had been killed; correct?

 2        A.   Well, I really can't remember, because during the proofing

 3     session I did not have occasion to read through this list again, and if I

 4     was shown -- and to read through my statement, my earlier testimony.

 5             Now, if I was shown a statement and I said that, that's probably

 6     true.  And I probably conducted investigations --

 7             MR. DI FAZIO:  Do we have a transcript notation for this, for

 8     this testimony?  It would make it easier for the Prosecution and all the

 9     parties to follow the evidence if we could get the transcript from the

10     Brdjanin case where this -- this material was put.  A page number, yeah.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am putting this to

12     the witness directly and asking him if he can recall this fact.  I don't

13     want to go back and revisit the entire Brdjanin case.  I'm just asking

14     the witness whether he remembers this fact whether he had conducted any

15     investigation into the death of that civilian.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Well, that's what I stated, and I

17     stay by what I said then.

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   And what is your answer to this Trial Chamber?

20        A.   Well, my answer is the same, but do put my answer to me, please.

21     Remind me of what I said.  I can't recall it now, because a lot of time

22     has passed.  I haven't seen the document since, and I can't really recall

23     it.

24        Q.   I agree with you, and here's the list --

25             MR. DI FAZIO:  That's precisely the problem I was talking about,

Page 4001

 1     and that's why we need the transcript reference.

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I do have a list of dead

 3     individuals in hard copy, and only -- all I can do is perhaps put this

 4     list to the witness, ask him if he remembers it, and then perhaps he can

 5     give us his opinion.

 6             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, we've been through this with

 7     Mr. Cvijetic over and over again.  If he wants to say that the witness

 8     said something in the previous trial, he must come armed with a copy of

 9     the transcript, a copy of the answer, and the page number.  I know he

10     can't read English and therefore he has to listen to the tape, but if

11     there's something he wants to put to the witness, then he must be able to

12     sort it out with one of his team who speaks English as to what the page

13     number is.  I hope Mr. Cvijetic understand that.

14             The witness is now asked to have his answer put to him.  If he

15     can't put the answer to him, then he cannot continue with this line of

16     cross-examination.

17             JUDGE HALL:  If I may assist, Mr. Cvijetic.  The distinction

18     which apparently the -- is being lost and the point that Ms. Korner is

19     making is that there is a distinction between what you understand the

20     facts to be and putting to the witness what he said on a previous

21     occasion; and if you are, in fact, seeking to do the latter, then, as

22     Ms. Korner said, you have to be in a position to put what he said, not

23     rely on what you understand the background facts to be.  So that's the

24     distinction that is necessary for you to keep in mind.

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I do have that, Your Honour.  This

Page 4002

 1     is the transcript of the 22nd of May --

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the year.

 3             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] But I'm trying to help the witness

 4     by showing him the list of individuals.  This was --

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  22nd of May of what year, Mr. Cvijetic?

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 2002.  I apologise.  I made an

 7     error.  I said 1992.

 8        Q.   Mr. Ackerman asked you whether you had conducted an investigation

 9     into the death of this individual, and then he showed you this document.

10     And what I would like to do now is show you that same list.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher please assist me.

12     So this was put to the witness during the cross-examination conducted by

13     Mr. Ackerman.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  The witness asked you, "What was my answer?"  You

15     now said what Mr. Ackerman asked him.  What was his answer?

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, well, not all of it.

17     Just the last page.  Could you please give me the document back so I can

18     find that portion.

19             MR. DI FAZIO:  Thanks.

20             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Not all the documents, just this

21     one.

22             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I'm sorry, I know Mr. Di Fazio is

23     taking the witness, but this is really important.  It hasn't still sunk

24     into Mr. Cvijetic.  He must have in front of him the transcript in

25     English and read out in English the answer that Mr. Draganovic gave to

Page 4003

 1     Mr. Ackerman, not show him the document.  And we would like the page

 2     number of the transcript on which this answer is said to occur.

 3             MR. DI FAZIO:  If I can get the page number it will solve a lot

 4     of things and then I will be able to follow the evidence.  It's just the

 5     page number that would assist.  I've got the transcript here and I've got

 6     the 22nd out, but I just don't have -- and I've got Mr. Ackerman's

 7     portion of that transcript.  I still just need that little extra bit of

 8     information.

 9             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this was on the

10     23rd of May, 2002.  The question was:

11             "After the Serbs left, did you assist in conducting an

12     investigation into the killings of these individuals, the list of which

13     I'm going to show you?"

14             And I will -- I promise that I will have the exact page number

15     and everything tomorrow morning when we continue with this witness, but

16     I'm just asking this witness, when he was answering this question, the

17     question was did he conduct an investigation into the killing of this

18     Serbs.  That was my question.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Well, I did conduct ...

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic, when you have the page number, then

22     you can put the question to the witness.  At this point, no -- this

23     simply isn't going to work.

24             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] All right, Your Honours.  So I

25     will leave this aside for now.

Page 4004

 1        Q.   But, Mr. Draganovic, my question was specific.  Did you conduct

 2     any investigations?

 3        A.   I did conduct investigations -- or, rather, certain procedures in

 4     these investigations, and I would like to point out that there is a

 5     difference between an investigation and investigative procedures.  So

 6     when I was -- when I received information from the police that a body was

 7     found, then would I conduct an on-site investigation.  I would put

 8     together a team and we would go to the site, the crime site, and find --

 9     and conduct an investigation.  I would do that when informed, when such a

10     body was found and reported to me.  If not, I couldn't go out.

11        Q.   All right.  Could you tell us how many such investigations you

12     conducted?

13        A.   Well, it's hard to actually recall that.  It's hard to specify

14     anything without a detailed analysis, because after all, there is no

15     indication when you find a body whether that body belonged to a Muslim,

16     Serb, or Croat.  You will agree with me that it's impossible to determine

17     the identity of a person, and especially so as some of those bodies were

18     in a very advanced state of decomposition.  Sometimes we would even just

19     find bones and clothes on them.  They would be a couple of years old.

20        Q.   All right.  Now, this -- the documents that you found, you

21     mentioned in respect of those documents that you co-operated with the

22     investigation and information agency; correct?

23        A.   Well, this was an agency for investigations and protection.

24     Their task was to investigate crimes.  I've already testified about this

25     in the Brdjanin case, and also during my evidence here I mentioned that

Page 4005

 1     fact.

 2        Q.   All right.  Now, we have that batch of documents here with us.  I

 3     will try to classify them in groups of documents, and I would appreciate

 4     it if you could help me with that classification, because there are over

 5     100 documents in there.

 6             Some of the documents, the only -- there are some documents that

 7     you said you only knew about because you had found them, but you didn't

 8     know anything about the content itself.  You said that there were some

 9     orders there from the police or military that you wouldn't even have

10     known about because -- you couldn't have known about because at the time

11     you were in detention; correct?

12        A.   Yes, you could put it that way.

13        Q.   For another group of documents you said that you had read them

14     and then drawn certain conclusions based on them.  Am I correct?

15        A.   Well, you see, I cannot really answer your question, because

16     without a specific document being put to me and my opinion or conclusion

17     that I offered at the time being put to me, I cannot really confirm

18     whether that was so or not.

19        Q.   All right.  I will put a very specific example to you.  For

20     instance, on the 19th of April, 1992, there was a meeting attended by

21     representatives of the army, the representatives of the SDA, the SDS, and

22     the purpose of the meeting was to try and overcome the problems that were

23     then in evidence in Sanski Most municipality.

24        A.   Could you please repeat the first part of the question?  I didn't

25     get it quite.

Page 4006

 1        Q.   Well, there was a meeting.  There was an attempt at the time.

 2     There was a meeting held at the time?

 3        A.   Yes, there was such a meeting.

 4        Q.   And you learned about what went on in that meeting by reading the

 5     relevant portions relating to that meeting in the entries or in the diary

 6     by Mr. Rasula; correct?

 7        A.   Well, no.  I learned about what went on in that meeting already

 8     on the same day or the next day after the meeting, but I also confirmed

 9     some of the knowledge by reading through the diary.  But I learned from

10     some of the people who had attended the meeting about the meeting itself.

11        Q.   All right.  But you did not attend it?

12        A.   No, I didn't.  I was on the premises at the time.  I was in the

13     municipal building.  I could see that the hall where the meeting was held

14     was guarded.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Cvijetic, where are we going with this?

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, I'm leading to the fact that

17     there were numerous conclusions made by this witness, both in the

18     Brdjanin case and here, that are second-hand facts, as it were.  They are

19     not first-hand information.  And I also want to put to him some other

20     statements that he made that weren't direct knowledge of his.

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Could I suggest that you confront the witness

22     exactly with the facts that you wish him to confirm or to deny rather

23     than having to go through all his previous statements to see if there's

24     any inconsistencies in the -- in the possible explanations that he has

25     given to this.  I mean, go for it head on.  By that approach we might

Page 4007

 1     save some time.

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, that is my purpose,

 3     Your Honour.  I am going to be direct now.

 4        Q.   So we've already concluded that you did not attend this very

 5     important meeting.

 6        A.   That's correct.  I didn't.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  I've heard your answer.  So you did not attend it.

 8             You then said that in many cases concerning various events you

 9     actually put it together or reconstructed the events, as it were, later

10     on because you were in Manjaca at the time; is that correct?

11        A.   Well, again I have to say that I cannot actually give you an

12     affirmative answer to this, because the knowledge that I had was derived

13     from various documents, but also some information actually came through

14     to me even while I was in Manjaca, in the camp, or at the time when these

15     events were actually occurring.  And there was also knowledge that I

16     obtained after interviews with witnesses who actually participated in the

17     events.  So that is why I have to answer your question in this way.

18        Q.   All right.  Now, to be specific, could you please tell us

19     specifically what is your knowledge?  How many victims were there

20     actually in Manjaca camp?  How many people died there?

21        A.   Well, I know, myself, of the victims that were in the vicinity of

22     the camp and in the camp itself.  For instance, Muhamed Filipovic was

23     killed in the camp.  There was a boy whose name was Bender who died

24     there.  Then there was a young man, Esad Delalovic, a policeman from

25     Sanski Most, Emir -- I forget his last name.  So as far as I can recall

Page 4008

 1     now, these were the people who were killed in the camp itself.

 2             There was also a member of the HOS who was killed there, but I

 3     don't know of this.  We didn't see this killing.  We could only hear it.

 4     He was killed in the stable.  We could only see when he was taken to the

 5     stable, and we heard shots.

 6             But, for instance, there were these eight instances where people

 7     were killed, people who had been brought from Omarska camp.  And on the

 8     morning when these people were supposed to come to -- or enter the camp

 9     itself they were killed, and I could see this myself.  Later on I

10     learnt -- or, rather, I learned -- while I was still at the camp I

11     learned from Dr. Derviskadic, on that same evening, that 24 men from

12     Sanski Most, from Sanski Most, had been killed while they were

13     transported from Manjaca -- from Sanski Most to Manjaca.  They had

14     suffocated.  I learned of that that same evening.

15        Q.   Sir, please.  I -- my question was:  What is your certain

16     knowledge?  How many men were killed in Manjaca itself, or died in

17     Manjaca?

18        A.   Well, my assessment is that about 60 people died there.  I cannot

19     really confirm and claim with certainty whether this is correct or not,

20     but after I analysed the numbers and the cases that I had learned about

21     and that I also saw myself, and also taking into account a number of

22     bodies that had been thrown into a pit, bodies that had been brought

23     there from Kljuc, and I only learned about it later on.  They were found

24     in the vicinity of Manjaca.  So based on all this information, I assessed

25     that about 60 people were killed, or maybe even more.

Page 4009

 1        Q.   All right.  Mr. Draganovic, that is taking into account the men

 2     who had suffocated and those who you heard of later on and so on, but

 3     directly in Manjaca, how many men do you know were killed there?

 4        A.   Well, eight plus four plus one directly.  That's my direct

 5     knowledge.

 6        Q.   Well, yes.  So it is the number that I mentioned to you, 12 plus

 7     1; correct?

 8        A.   Yes.  And I apologise to the victims if I omitted anyone.

 9        Q.   All right.  Now -- Manjaca was visited by Lord Ashdown; correct?

10        A.   Yes, Mr. Paddy Ashdown came to the camp.  Of course, at the time

11     I didn't know who the gentleman was or what his name was.

12        Q.   Manjaca was also visited by members of a Muslim charity,

13     Merhamet; right?

14        A.   Yes, they came from Banja Luka.  They visited the camp once a

15     week.

16        Q.   Members of the International Red Cross also came, as well as

17     journalists; correct?

18        A.   Well, you could put it that way.

19        Q.   However, you do not agree with the statement by Mr. Ashdown or

20     the reports of the charity Merhamet, the Muslim charity, when they speak

21     about the situation in Manjaca camp; correct?

22        A.   Well, there was only one statement of Mr. Ashdown's that I did

23     not agree with.  I agreed with everything else he said, but there was one

24     thing where I actually did not agree with what he said, and that is when

25     he mentioned that there was -- or, rather, that life in the camp had the

Page 4010

 1     semblance of order and organisation.  So that is the aspect I could not

 2     agree with.  I agreed with everything else.  This was an interview

 3     conducted by a BBC journalist with Mr. Ashdown.

 4             As for the report by Merhamet, I did not agree with that report

 5     because I don't think it was given in the way that I gave it, because

 6     those people were under observation and monitoring, and they were

 7     unable -- probably wouldn't have been able to come had it had not been

 8     so.  But the fact that they came meant a lot to us.

 9        Q.   Very well.  Very well.  So specifically, did

10     Mr. Tadeusz Mazowiecki also come to the camp?

11        A.   I think that he did come to the camp on one occasion,

12     Mr. Tadeusz Mazowiecki.  He did come to the Manjaca camp, yes.

13        Q.   Did he enter the camp?

14        A.   Yes, he did, from what I can recall, but this was late at night,

15     perhaps around midnight.  I don't know why, but around midnight when

16     there were no lights or nothing, he couldn't see anything except us like

17     monsters being held in those stables.

18        Q.   All right.

19             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the meantime I

20     have received from the service relating to Mr. Ackerman's service, this

21     is page 5952, line 8.  Mr. Di Fazio asked for a specific, and that

22     reference is there for my question.  However, I'm going to show that

23     exactly to the witness tomorrow.

24              I'm going to show and would ask to have the witness, please,

25     shown a document.

Page 4011

 1        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, if it is correct that eight -- or, rather,

 2     14 people died in the camp, you would agree with me that on the basis of

 3     the total number of persons who were there, the conclusion cannot be

 4     drawn that it was, in fact, a death camp, don't you think?

 5        A.   I stand by my position.

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  There's a lot of

 7     background noise.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A number of persons were taken from

 9     the Manjaca camp to the Kljuc municipality area where some ten people

10     were killed there.  Then a number of persons were taken to the

11     Batkovic camp, about 500 of them, when this camp was disbanded, and at

12     least two people were killed there.  So that it is hard to say.

13             I don't know what happened to people who were taken out of the

14     camp who were from the Kotor Varos municipality, specifically from the

15     Vecici village, who were also captured in forests and who spent a certain

16     period of time in the camp.  I don't know what happened to them

17     afterwards.

18             Some groups were also taken for exchange to the military

19     investigative gaol in Banja Luka, to a small camp, Mali Logor.  I cannot

20     know the exact number of those who died of the people who passed through

21     that camp.

22             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we please show

23     one document to the witness that is on the 65 ter list, 3037.

24        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, do you see this document?  And in the top

25     left-hand corner you can see who it's by.

Page 4012

 1        A.   I see the first page of that document.  I don't see the rest.

 2     And I can see that it's the 1st Krajina Corps Command, and I see that the

 3     date is the 23rd of August, 1992.  I can also see that it's a strictly

 4     confidential document, number 600.

 5        Q.   Could you please look at the title of the document,

 6     Mr. Draganovic.

 7        A.   The title of the document is:  "The visit by UN representative

 8     Mr. Tadeusz Mazowiecki," and it's a report to the Government of Republika

 9     Srpska, the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska and the forward

10     command post of the 1st Krajina Corps.

11        Q.   Can we look at page 2 of this document now, please.  Can you look

12     at the last paragraph there, please.

13        A.   Yes, I can see that the document was signed by the assistant

14     commander of the 1st Krajina Corps, colonel --

15        Q.   No, no.  Look at the last paragraph of the text.

16        A.   All right.

17             "Regardless of the consequences of the cancellation of

18     Mr. Mazowiecki's visit to the prisoner-of-war camp, we declare with full

19     responsibility that the purpose of his visit was not inspecting of the

20     state of the human rights, but on the contrary, intelligence,

21     reconnaissance which can be confirmed by those requesting the government

22     of the AR," and so forth.

23        Q.   I concluded on this document and from other documents that you

24     can see that the visit to -- by Mr. Mazowiecki was cancelled or forbidden

25     and that he did not enter the camp.

Page 4013

 1        A.   Well, if you see that, then I correct my statement.  And this is

 2     possible, because I couldn't have known, believe me.  I know that many

 3     groups did come, but I did not prepare myself to know whether he was

 4     there or not.  I know that there was quite a fiery debate about that, and

 5     I think that he submitted his irreversible resignation to his duties at

 6     the United Nations.

 7        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, the essence of my question is consistent with the

 8     suggestion by His Honour Judge Harhoff to submit evidence on the basis of

 9     which we can conclude that you sometimes draw conclusions indirectly.  In

10     response to my question, you categorically stated that Tadeusz Mazowiecki

11     did visit the camp, but now you're withdrawing that part your statement

12     after I've showed you this document.

13        A.   I apologise, but my learned friend, you are behaving a little bit

14     sneakily.  I guess that is part of your job.

15             I said that there were many international representatives, and I

16     have already said that I didn't know Mr. Ashdown, what his name was when

17     he was up there, but I, of course, found that out later.  But I did know

18     that Mr. Elie Wiesel was there.

19        Q.   Mr. Draganovic, I didn't ask about Mr. Elie Wiesel.  All right.

20     Just -- just be patient.

21        A.   Just one moment.  I apologise, but one more time.  It's possible

22     that I made --

23        Q.   A mistake here.

24        A.   Yes.  Was brought into a confusing situation, and I accept that

25     it is possible that Mr. Mazowiecki did not enter, was not in the camp,

Page 4014

 1     because you must know how much time has passed and that my recollection

 2     and memory is beginning to pale slowly.

 3        Q.   Well, that's my question.  I'm not taking that against you, but I

 4     would like you to answer me sincerely.  Is it true that many

 5     information -- much information on which you testified about was

 6     information you acquired indirectly, without personal knowledge of the

 7     relevant facts?

 8        A.   I --

 9        Q.   Just answer me with a yes or no.  Well, I will be happy --

10        A.   I cannot answer with a yes or no.  I am responding to your

11     question by saying that I already spoke about that when I testified in

12     the Brdjanin and Galic cases, how and in what way I acquired information

13     and I am repeating that position and response of mine right now.  These

14     are several ways in which I got that information and from several

15     sources.

16        Q.   All right.  How did you find out that the civilian police -

17     specifically you said from Kljuc - was entering the camp and was

18     mistreating the inmates there?  Did you personally observe any such

19     incident?  Briefly, if you can.

20        A.   My cousins, or my relatives, whose last name is also Draganovic,

21     are from Kljuc.  I'm also from Kljuc.  And my information comes from

22     them, that these were policemen from Kljuc whom they personally know.  I

23     didn't know those people personally.  So I could see it that those people

24     were beaten up.  They were lying there beaten up every night.  We were

25     concerned that they would be called out.  I was most afraid also that I

Page 4015

 1     would also be called out also because my last name was Draganovic, that

 2     we shared the same last name, that I'm also born in Kljuc.  But thank

 3     God, they did not call me out.

 4        Q.   All right I'm satisfied with the answer.  You said you didn't

 5     personally see that abuse.  Do you agree with me?

 6        A.   Just one moment.  All of those things, when we're talking about

 7     mistreatment and the beatings, not only did I find out about that from

 8     the stories of those who actually experienced that, I heard that with my

 9     own ears.  Do you understand?  And I saw some beatings.  So --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  The speakers are overlapping.  It's very

11     difficult for the interpreters to follow.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Again, Counsel and Witness, the interpreters are

13     having a difficulty.

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well.  Okay.

15        Q.   We mustn't overlap.  You must wait for me to interrupt you at

16     least.

17             Mr. Draganovic, Mr. Draganovic, when you -- did you say anything

18     about the arrival or coming in of the police from Sanski Most?

19        A.   Where?

20        Q.   To Manjaca.

21        A.   Yes, I did talk about that in my testimony.

22        Q.   And how did they behave?

23        A.   I said that in my statement.

24        Q.   Well, I would like to hear that.

25        A.   I said the police from Sanski Most behaved more correctly than

Page 4016

 1     the police from Kljuc because they did not take people out.  They did not

 2     participate in the beatings of people.  And I think that is quite clear

 3     what I said.

 4        Q.   Let us continue.  You also testified about the death of --

 5        A.   Just one moment.  I do remember one thing.  One police officer,

 6     reserve police officer, only one, beat up one of his professors.

 7        Q.   All right.  You talked about the death of Mr. Omer Filipovic

 8     also; is that correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10             MR. DI FAZIO:  If Your Honours please, I notice it's almost time

11     and --

12             JUDGE HALL:  It's time.

13             MR. DI FAZIO:  It's time, but perhaps may I just ask for one

14     indulgence and that's this:  A few minutes ago counsel for the Defence

15     referred to a document involved -- concerning the visit of Mazowiecki,

16     Tadeusz Mazowiecki, to the area, and that document was 65 ter 3037.  It

17     should -- it should be exhibited or at the very least marked for

18     identification.  The Prosecution application is to admit it fully into

19     evidence, unless, of course, the Defence want to tender it into evidence

20     fully, in which case the Prosecution would have no objection to that

21     course of action.  But, one way or another, it should go into evidence.

22     And if not, if you're not with me on that, it should be marked for

23     identification.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Di Fazio.

25             Mr. Cvijetic, what is your position on this?

Page 4017

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know how much

 2     the witness knows about this document, but I can propose it for

 3     admission.  That is not something that the Defence would be against, no.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I will explain why.  Witnesses

 6     will come who know about this document directly, and I tried to avoid

 7     criticism in that sense, but if the Prosecutor would like to have it

 8     admitted, I tender it, then.  I'm not opposed to that.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  We'll mark it for identification at this stage.

10             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, may I mention one other matter in

11     relation to Mr. Cvijetic's cross-examination and that's this --

12             JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated].

13             MS. KORNER:  Oh, I'm so sorry.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit 1D87, marked for

15     identification, Your Honours.

16             MS. KORNER:  It's just this:  It's the matter I raised earlier

17     on.  Everything he's asking about is actually covered in the nine days

18     that Mr. Draganovic testified in the Brdjanin case, which I'm afraid to

19     say I take some responsibility; but nonetheless, we are literally

20     rehashing this, as he keeps saying what is in the transcript, and I'm

21     just wondering whether Your Honours might suggest to Mr. Cvijetic that

22     repeating what's already in evidence, through the transcript, is not very

23     productive.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Well, he will have overnight to reflect on your

25     observation, your helpful observation, Mrs. Korner.  Thank you.  We

Page 4018

 1     resume in this Chamber tomorrow morning at 9.00.

 2             And, Mr. Draganovic, I am obliged to repeat the usual warning

 3     about not contacting or not speak with the lawyers or discussing your

 4     testimony with anybody.

 5                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

 6                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 2nd day

 7                           of December, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.