Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 4695

 1                           Monday, 14 December 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

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

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

 7     the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.  Thank you,

 8     Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning to all.  May I have the appearances for

10     today, please.

11             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  For the Office of the

12     Prosecutor, I'm Tom Hannis along with Gerard Dobbyn and our case manager,

13     Crispian Smith.

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

15     Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, joined by our expert Mr. Mladen

16     Bajagic appear for the Stanisic Defence.  Thank you very much.

17             MR. PANTELIC:  Good morning, Your Honours, for Zupljanin Defence,

18     Igor Pantelic and Dragan Krgovic.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  Before the witness takes the -- well, I

20     see these she's been escorted into the courtroom, we've been alerted that

21     there may be a minor preliminary matter?  Okay.

22             MR. HANNIS:  Well, regarding the next witness I have --

23             JUDGE HALL:  I see.

24             MR. HANNIS:  -- an application I want to raise, I thought I'd do

25     it before he came in.

Page 4696

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Very well.

 2                           [The witness takes the stand]

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning to you, Ms. Hanson.  I remind you that

 4     you are still on your oath before I would invite I think it was

 5     Mr. Zecevic who had some further questions.  Or was it Mr. Pantelic?

 6     Pantelic, thanks.

 7             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 8                           WITNESS:  DOROTHEA HANSON [Resumed]

 9                      Further Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic:

10        Q.   Good morning, Ms. Hanson.  I have just one question for you:

11     Were you aware that sometimes mid-April in 1992 the Presidency, Bosnian

12     Serb Presidency, adopted the decision of the state of imminent threat of

13     war in Republika Srpska?

14        A.   Yes.

15             MR. PANTELIC:  I think microphone is off.  Now it's okay.

16             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I am aware.

17        Q.   And that subsequently on the Republican Assembly session in Banja

18     Luka, on, I believe, 12th of May, 1992, this decision was actually

19     subsequently formalised?

20        A.   I am aware of that Assembly session, I believe, but I'm not aware

21     of that particular verification but I can well imagine.

22             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you so much.  I don't have further question

23     for Ms. Hanson.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE HALL:  So.  Thank you for your assistance, Ms. Hanson.  You

25     are now released.

Page 4697

 1             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 3                           [The witness withdrew]

 4             MR. DOBBYN:  Good morning, Your Honours.  I believe at this point

 5     now is the appropriate time to deal with the admission of Ms. Hanson's

 6     report, which has been marked for identification up to this point?  It's

 7     Exhibit P434.  And I would be asking that it be tendered into evidence

 8     now.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             MR. PANTELIC:  Excuse me, Your Honour, just for the record,

11     Defence would like to stand with its previous reasoning in objections

12     with regard to the admission of the report.  Thank you so much.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Do you have a position, Mr. Zecevic?

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, Your Honours.  This is a joint application.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  Well, the decision of the Chamber is

16     that the report having been previously marked for identification is now

17     admitted as an exhibits.  We are not unmindful of the objections which

18     were taken initially by counsel for the Defence, but in our view, the

19     only course open is to admit the report fully as an exhibit and all of

20     the issues which have been identified in the process of cross-examination

21     now affect the weight which the Chamber will at the end of the day give

22     to that report.  Thank you.  So the report would now be, having been

23     tendered, is now admitted and marked as an exhibit.

24             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, if I may.  The next witness will be

25     Christian Nielsen.  He is our expert on the police.  I did have one

Page 4698

 1     matter I had indicated through an e-mail that I wanted to raise

 2     concerning one document, which is 65 ter number 1862.  It's a document

 3     that is described as the RS MUP payroll for April 1992 for the special

 4     platoon in the Serbian Ministry of Affairs.  It had previously been

 5     listed in Mr. Nielsen's report at footnote 273 in connection with

 6     paragraph 220 of his report, but the ERN listed is incorrect by one

 7     digit.  In his report it is listed as FI20-1877.  The actual document is

 8     FI20-0877.

 9             I wanted to bring this to your attention and substitute the

10     correct document.  The issue of the special platoon of police from

11     Sokolac is something that I think is mentioned in our pre-trial brief,

12     it's something that the Defence is well aware of.  We were discussing

13     charts showing the organisation of the various units, and I know

14     Mr. Zecevic took issues with where we were trying to place that platoon

15     on the organisational chart.  So it's not a matter of notice, I don't

16     think, it's just a matter of correcting the record and that's why I

17     applied to substitute FI20-0877 for the document that was previously

18     listed, FI20-1877.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  We do not oppose, Your Honour.

20             MR. HANNIS:  Thanks to my learned friends.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  Thank you.  So the correction may thus be

22     made.

23             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.  The one matter I'd like to raise further

24     before we call in the witness has to do with just timing and tendering.

25     It's my understanding of Your Honours' previous indications with the

Page 4699

 1     expert witness Hanson that footnoted documents in the expert's report, if

 2     they are on the Prosecution's 65 ter list, will be admitted as part of

 3     the report if you accept the report; am I correct in my understanding

 4     about that?  Okay.  Because there were too many documents in the

 5     footnotes for me in the time available to go through with Mr. Nielsen

 6     each one of them, and what I propose to do at the end of his evidence, if

 7     you are satisfied to accept his report, then I want to tender all the

 8     footnoted documents that are also on our 65 ter list.  But for purposes

 9     of numbering, I think it makes sense to do it at the end of his evidence,

10     then I can provide a list to the Registry officer indicating which ones

11     are in his report and have a 65 ter number.  If that's acceptable.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  That would be the best solution and the best way

13     forward.

14             MR. HANNIS:  Okay.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And if I may again, just for clarification,

16     repeat the Chamber's position on this.  The exercise that the Chamber has

17     been trying to perform is an attempt to limit the number of associated

18     documents that are normally following in the wake of the expert reports

19     to what is really necessary and relevant to the case.  And so we expect

20     the parties, and this goes also for the Defence when it's going to be

21     their turn, to identify in advance which of the footnoted documents in

22     the expert reports that they would wish to have admitted into evidence

23     once the report itself is admitted.  So I hope this clarifies the

24     position.

25             MR. HANNIS:  It does.  And I have to apologise for not having

Page 4700

 1     that list with me now at the beginning of his evidence.  And for purposes

 2     of the record, what I intend to do, if I show him documents now, I'm

 3     going to refer to the 65 ter number, or in some cases the exhibit number

 4     for those that are already in.

 5             And lastly, there is a document that is marked as 65 ter number

 6     10083 which is described erratum sheet for Mr. Nelson's report.  I don't

 7     know if Your Honours have seen that yet, but we went through and

 8     identified some typographical errors, et cetera, and I don't know the

 9     best way procedurally to do that.  I'm going to ask him if he has looked

10     at it and it reflects the changes he wanted to make, and if he wants you

11     to consider that as part of his total report, and then I would tender it

12     if that's the appropriate way to proceed.  I see Mr. Zecevic on his feet.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, we don't -- I believe we don't take the issue

14     with the last thing what you suggested.  What I wanted just to procedural

15     matter, we would appreciate, and I think it would be for the benefit of

16     all in, specifically the Trial Chamber, that when Mr. Hannis is providing

17     the list of the report, the 65 -- so the list of the documents which are

18     in the report and are on the 65 ter list, the cross-reference to the

19     footnote must be given as well because otherwise it would be really

20     enormous task to identify which document goes with what.  Thank you very

21     much.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  That's a very good idea, thank you, and I would

23     ask Mr. Hannis to comply.

24             MR. HANNIS:  I agree.  And we'll certainly do that.  That will be

25     helpful to us as well as you and my learned friends.  Thank you.

Page 4701

 1             I have nothing further now, and I guess I'm ready to call in

 2     Mr. Nelson.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  Do you wish to give us a heads-up on

 4     where we are with this report between the parties?

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, we've discussed, Mr. Hannis and

 6     myself, as you know, we took the -- we filed an objection on Mr. Nielsen,

 7     which we still maintain.  That's the first.  The second thing is, Your

 8     Honours, Mr. Nielsen's report is basically a foundation for the pre-trial

 9     brief of the Office of the Prosecutor with which we take the issue.  I

10     tried to -- to the best of my abilities, I tried to identify the parts

11     where -- and I can give the indication to the Trial Chamber, and I

12     thought that maybe the best way would be that I go through the executive

13     summary of the document, and then I will provide you with a certain --

14     with a certain E numbers in the executive summary with which we basically

15     do not take the issue, or I should indicate that we take the partial

16     issue with some of the -- the numbers in the executive summary.

17             So to that end we don't take the issue with E1, E2, E5, E10, E22,

18     E23, and partially we take the issue with E6, E8, E9, E17, E18, E24.  The

19     rest we most definitely take the issue with.  I hope I was of some

20     assistance.  Thank you very much, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.  This is useful for us to

22     know before we hear the witness.  So that means that the paragraphs in

23     the executive summary that you have not singled out are the paragraphs

24     with which you do take issue; is that correctly understood?

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, that is correct.  We take the issue with

Page 4702

 1     everything else in all other paragraphs which I didn't mention, yes.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 3             MR. HANNIS:  May I inquire, those which he takes issue partly

 4     with, if he could identify which parts, if possible.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, you will see in the cross-examination,

 6     Mr. Hannis.

 7             MR. HANNIS:  Fair enough.

 8                           [The witness entered court]

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Morning, sir.

10             THE WITNESS:  Morning, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Would you be good enough to read the solemn

12     declaration.

13             THE WITNESS:  I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

14     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, sir, you may sit down.

16                           WITNESS:  CHRISTIAN NIELSEN

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Nielsen, welcome to the Tribunal, welcome

18     back I should say --

19             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  -- I know that you have been employed here

21     before.  Mr. Nielsen, you are being called as an expert witness for the

22     Prosecution to share with the Chamber your knowledge of the MUP, and for

23     this purpose, the Prosecution has been granted six hours to take you

24     through your expert report.  And the Defence have asked for eight hours;

25     is that correct, Mr. Zecevic?

Page 4703

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  I believe it was nine, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Nine hours, sorry, that's true.  And the

 3     Zupljanin Defence has asked for four hours, if I'm not mistaken.  So this

 4     is how the testimony will proceed.  The Prosecution will start out and

 5     take us through your expert report, and then the floor will be given to

 6     the Defence with the number of hours that I have just indicated, and then

 7     the Prosecution will have an opportunity for re-examination after the

 8     Defence cross-examination, and in the end the Judges may have some

 9     questions for you.

10             You have been given a pseudonym, ST-092, but as there are no

11     issues of protective measures that apply in your case, we will just refer

12     to you by your name.  For the record, I'd like you to state your name and

13     your date of birth.

14             THE WITNESS:  My name is Christian Axboe Nielsen and I was born

15     on the 12th of September, 1973.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you very much, sir.

17             Mr. Hannis.

18             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

19                           Examination by Mr. Hannis:

20        Q.   Good morning, Dr. Nielsen.  I would like to begin by showing you

21     65 ter number 10084.  This is your CV, Doctor.  And one of the questions

22     I would like to ask:  On the CV it indicates you are presently teaching

23     at the university in Denmark?

24        A.   Yes, that's correct.

25        Q.   And I see that one of the courses you teach is in the Serbian

Page 4704

 1     language?

 2        A.   That is correct.  I teach the language that is referred to in

 3     this courtroom as B/C/S at the university in Denmark.

 4        Q.   And you have a PhD in what?

 5        A.   I have a PhD in history.

 6        Q.   That's your CV that was provided by you; correct?

 7        A.   That is correct.

 8             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I'd like to tender that document, if I

 9     may.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

11             MR. HANNIS:

12        Q.   And when did you last -- oh, I'm sorry.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, the document shall be given

14     Exhibit P454.  Thank you, Your Honours.

15             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, sir.

16        Q.   When did you last work as a full-time employee for the ICTY?

17        A.   I left the ICTY at the end of 2007.

18        Q.   Okay.  I would like to refer you next to 65 ter number 10082.

19     This is tab 75 in the hard copy of the binders, but I will tell you this

20     is your report entitled "The Bosnian Serb Ministry of Internal Affairs,

21     Genesis, Performance and Command and Control 1990 to 1992."  Can you tell

22     us when you began writing that report?

23        A.   I began writing the report in September 2002.

24        Q.   And why were you writing that report?

25        A.   I arrived at the OTP at the ICTY in June 2002 and was immediately

Page 4705

 1     tasked to examine documents concerning the RS Ministry of Internal

 2     Affairs, or RS MUP, and a couple of months later, approximately in

 3     September 2002, I was tasked to write an expert report or, rather, a

 4     report that became an expert report on that subject.

 5        Q.   And how did you go about preparing that report?  Could you

 6     describe briefly for us your methodology and your sources?

 7        A.   My methodology quite simply was to examine as many documents

 8     pertaining to the RS Ministry of Internal Affairs and its predecessor

 9     ministry, the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina's Ministry of

10     Internal Affairs.  That, at some points, required when I identified

11     significant gaps in OTP's collection of such documents, also travelling

12     to the field and searching for additional documentation.  Most of the

13     sources in the report that the court has before it are original documents

14     of the RS MUP, that is to say, the overwhelming majority of sources that

15     I quote in the report are the documents of RS MUP itself or of its

16     predecessor ministry to which I referred.

17        Q.   In connection with gathering or supplementing that collection,

18     did you take an active role in the actual gathering of some of these

19     documents?

20        A.   Yes, beginning in November 2002 [realtime transcript read in

21     error "1992"], I asked for permission to travel to Bosnia and Herzegovina

22     to rectify what I identified as significant gaps in the holdings of the

23     OTP as pertaining to documentation of MUP, and on several occasions

24     starting in November 2002 and until the end of my employment - and I

25     should mention that I was at OTP in two different periods - I collected,

Page 4706

 1     I would estimate, tens of thousands of pages of documentation relevant to

 2     this topic.

 3        Q.   And in writing your report -- I am sorry I see Mr. Pantelic?

 4             MR. PANTELIC:  Sorry, I think we have a unclear situation here.

 5     It's page 11, line 7, starting with November 1992, I think it's not

 6     correspond the fact what witness maybe mentioned.

 7             MR. HANNIS:

 8        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, could you clarify for us:  It's on the transcript as

 9     "... beginning of November 1992, I asked for permission to travel to

10     rectify what I identified as gaps in the holdings of the OTP ..."  was

11     that 1992 or some other year?

12        A.   I believe that I said 2002.  That was definitely the year.

13        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  And with regard to the documents you reviewed

14     in preparing your report, did you work with originals in the B/C/S or

15     from translations or both?

16        A.   I always did my analysis based on the B/C/S originals of the

17     documents.  I was only very rarely presented with the translations,

18     usually when staff members who did not speak B/C/S had questions about

19     the content of those documents.

20        Q.   I take it then that you are fluent in reading, writing, and

21     understanding B/C/S?

22        A.   That is correct.

23        Q.   Can you tell us when and how you obtained that proficiency?

24        A.   I began studying B/C/S in 1994 and took several courses at

25     university level in Germany and in the United States, and I subsequently

Page 4707

 1     spent a very considerable amount of time in the former Yugoslavia where I

 2     had the opportunity to further develop my proficiency in the language.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  And in compiling the report, was that your report,

 4     this exhibit, was that prepared only by you or was it written by anyone

 5     else?

 6        A.   I'm the sole author of the report, and I'm also the sole person

 7     who decided to -- which documents would be included in the report.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  In your report at paragraph 4 in the introduction you

 9     say that the aim of this report is to provide an analysis of the

10     establishment of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska.

11     Is that an accurate description of what you were trying to do?

12        A.   That is correct.

13        Q.   And in paragraph 6, you indicated that your report was done on

14     the basis of available RS police, military, political and other related

15     documentary materials.  Is that an accurate description of what you based

16     your report on?

17        A.   That is correct.

18        Q.   Okay.  You are aware that a substantial amount of material has

19     come into the OTP since you left?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Thank you.  I would like to show you next Exhibit 10083 -- 65 ter

22     number 10083.  And this is described as the erratum sheet for your

23     report.  You are familiar with this document that was prepared to reflect

24     some errors, typographical -- primarily typographical errors in your

25     report?

Page 4708

 1        A.   Yes, I am.

 2        Q.   And having had a chance to review that, are you satisfied that

 3     those changes should be made to your report, and would you like the Trial

 4     Chamber to consider this erratum sheet as part of your report?

 5        A.   Yes, I would.

 6        Q.   Now, I think since the time that was prepared, you indicated to

 7     me yesterday that there was one additional item you had discovered.  In

 8     reviewing your prior testimony in the Krajisnik case, you indicated that

 9     you needed to make a change to paragraph 82 of your report.  Do you have

10     that in front of you?

11        A.   Yes, I do.

12        Q.   And could you indicate what that change is?

13        A.   Certainly.  In the first paragraph of -- excuse me, in the first

14     sentence of paragraph 82 of my report, I state:

15             "Earlier in the day the president of the Assembly Momcilo

16     Krajisnik had strongly hinted that the establishment of a Bosnian Serb

17     police force was imminent."

18             I was asked on cross-examination in Krajisnik and corrected, but

19     failed to subsequently correct in the addendum or the erratum sheet, the

20     fact that the person who made that comment was actually the then

21     president of the SDS Radovan Karadzic and not Momcilo Krajisnik.

22     Therefore the sentence should read:

23             "Earlier in the day, Radovan Karadzic had strongly hinted that

24     the establishment of a Bosnian Serb police force was imminent."

25             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.  Your Honours I would like to indicate I

Page 4709

 1     will move to tender his report and the erratum sheet at the end of all

 2     his testimony.

 3        Q.   For now I have a couple of more questions about your report,

 4     Dr. Nielsen.  With regard to the footnoted documents, what can you tell

 5     us generally about the authenticity of those documents?  When and where

 6     and how were they obtained?

 7        A.   The footnoted documents, certainly those that pertained to the

 8     Ministry of Internal Affairs, either the RS Ministry of Internal Affairs

 9     or its predecessor in the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina

10     stemmed from a number of document collections that we had in the Office

11     of the Prosecutor.  I was not personally involved in collecting all of

12     these documents.  I do know in most cases where those documents were

13     collected, as I had an opportunity to review that information.

14             Another substantial, very substantial portion of the documents,

15     original documents cited in this report were, as I stated earlier,

16     documents that I collected personally at the offices of the Ministry of

17     Internal Affairs of the Republika Srpska between 2002 and 2004, and as

18     such, I am quite certain that these documents are indeed authentic and

19     original documents of the ministry in question.

20        Q.   In the course of preparing your report, can you give us any

21     estimate of approximately how many documents you reviewed?

22        A.   It's always very difficult, whether with this report or a work of

23     history, to reconstruct precisely how many pages one has reviewed or

24     documents.  However, I would certainly say that I reviewed in excess of

25     200.000 pages of documentation.

Page 4710

 1        Q.   And in the course of reviewing that, did you come across any

 2     documents that were doubtful to you in some way concerning perhaps

 3     authenticity or source, and if so, how did you handle those?

 4        A.   On very rare occasions, I did encounter a few documents that

 5     were, in my opinion and based on my analysis, of questionable provenance.

 6     In any case where that was a matter of doubt, I chose to not rely upon

 7     those documents unless it could be ascertained as an analyst beyond my

 8     own reasonable doubt that these were indeed authentic documents.  That is

 9     to say, any documents that are cited in this report, are done so on the

10     basis of my analysis that they are indeed authentic documents.

11        Q.   And as a category of documents, I would ask you about media

12     sources.  I think we all in the courtroom have some trepidation about

13     relying on media resources given the fact that there were three different

14     sides in this conflict with different motivations, and I think it would

15     be fair to say that there was a lot of propaganda from all three sides in

16     this conflict.  How did you deal with media sources and when did you

17     include any of those?

18        A.   I included relatively few media documents, that is to say

19     open-source documents in my report.  Most of those in the report pertain

20     to, I think the period in March 1992 immediately preceding the break-up

21     of the Bosnian Ministry of Internal Affairs.  And I did so in that case

22     to reflect the quite vociferous public debates ongoing at that point in

23     time.  I certainly agree that I would not attach as much analytical value

24     to those documents as I do to the documents that stem from the Ministries

25     of Internal Affairs, but I did provide them, as it were, to also give a

Page 4711

 1     flavour of the kind of public debates that were ongoing at the time

 2     concerning RS MUP and its predecessor.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  I mentioned earlier that you testified previously in

 4     the Krajisnik case.  That's at this Tribunal; correct?

 5        A.   That is correct.

 6        Q.   And as an expert?

 7        A.   That is also correct.

 8        Q.   On what?

 9        A.   On the same subject, that is to say on the basis of a slightly

10     earlier version of this report.

11        Q.   Okay.  Any other testimonies as an expert on the police in the

12     Republika Srpska?

13        A.   No, not to date.  However, I should mention, as is reflected in

14     my CV, that I have been retained by the Canadian Ministry of Justice and

15     I'm expecting to testify in a case in Vancouver next year that is

16     pertaining to a former member of the RS MUP.

17        Q.   And are you also listed and scheduled to testify as an expert in

18     any other cases in this Tribunal?

19        A.   Yes.  I am currently scheduled to testify on the basis of another

20     report in the case of Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic, and I have

21     also been notified that I will testify on the basis of the present report

22     in the case of Radovan Karadzic.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Now, regarding your report, you have, I think, on

24     page six, you've listed some acronyms that you rely on, and at footnote 1

25     on page 6, you make a reference to the RS Republika Srpska and the SR

Page 4712

 1     BiH, the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  You indicate that

 2     the -- the date that the name officially changed to Republika Srpska was

 3     apparently August 12th 1992; is that correct?

 4        A.   That's correct.  It appeared as an amendment on August 12th and

 5     the name change took effect officially in August 1992.

 6        Q.   Okay.  I have to confess that sometimes I may not be precise in

 7     making the reference, so I hope you'll understand if I say Republika

 8     Srpska and we are talking about something in March, you understand I'm

 9     referring to the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or you can

10     correct me when I make that mistake, okay?

11        A.   I think that such, if you permit, loose usage actually conforms

12     quite well to the usage that's seen in the documents themselves and by

13     the participants in these events.

14        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  A couple of matters [Microphone not activated]

15     of terminology before I go into the substance of the report at page 39 --

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for counsel, please.

17             MR. HANNIS:

18        Q.   At paragraph 39, which is at page 20 of the English in your

19     report, and paragraph 41 subparagraph 4, which is at page 21 in the

20     English.  I don't know if you can advise of the B/C/S page for those

21     paragraphs.  Do you have the B/C/S version in front of you or the

22     English?

23        A.   I have the English version in front of me.

24        Q.   You make reference to OSUP.  Can you tell us briefly what the

25     OSUPs were?

Page 4713

 1        A.   The OSUPs were Municipal Secretariats for Internal Affairs.

 2     These existed until 1990 when a new Law on Internal Affairs in the

 3     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina came into effect at which point

 4     they were replaced by the SJBs, the stations of public security.

 5        Q.   And on subparagraph 4 under paragraph 41, you make reference to

 6     this proposal that:

 7             "The Serbian Assembly and government could declare void the 1989

 8     amendments to the Law on Internal Affairs.  This would restore the old

 9     Municipal Secretariats of Internal Affairs SUP ..."

10             Would it be fair to say that that refers to the OSUPs, the

11     predecessor municipal OSUPs?

12        A.   That is correct.  The municipal -- the word "municipal" is

13     "opstina" or "obcina" [phoen] in B/C/S, and that is the O in OSUP.

14        Q.   Can you explain me to the difference between the OSUPs and SJBs

15     that we have been talking about in this case, if any?

16        A.   Very general generally, I would say the predominant difference

17     between the OSUP and its successor the SJB is that the municipality and

18     officials at the municipal level had a much more considerable say in the

19     operation of the OSUP than they did once the SJBs came into functioning.

20     That is to say, that the beginning of the SJBs represents, as it were,

21     somewhat mild centralisation of Internal Affairs, with more power or

22     more, let's say, yes, more power, more control placed within -- vested

23     within the ministry itself rather than at the municipal level with

24     municipal level officials.

25        Q.   And the OSUPs were funded by the municipality; correct?

Page 4714

 1        A.   Yes, that is correct, to a considerable extent.

 2        Q.   And what about the SJBs?

 3        A.   The SJBs also represented a change in the sense that hence forth

 4     the financing was more internal to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

 5        Q.   One other term I want to ask you about is referred to at footnote

 6     157 on page 39 of the English in your report.  It's a footnote to

 7     paragraph 110, regards the term authorised official.  Can you tell us a

 8     little bit about what an authorised official was in the RS MUP in 1992.

 9        A.   Well, as I suggest here, I provide a definition actually taken

10     out of the Serbian dictionary of police law.  I quote a policemen, a

11     professional member, worker, official, we might say employee of the

12     Ministry of Internal Affairs who, in the implementation of internal

13     affairs, has particular obligations and authorisations for seeing in the

14     laws on criminal procedure the Law on Internal Affairs and other

15     regulations, and as I note in the same footnote, from this definition, as

16     well from as from the definition given for police officer in the same

17     dictionary, it emerges that every authorised official in the Secretariat

18     Ministry is considered to be a police officer.

19        Q.   And are you aware of some of the privileges that attach to

20     holding a position of authorised official in the MUP as contrasted to

21     other employees of the MUP who were not authorised officials?

22        A.   Yes, I am aware of some of these privileges.  Certainly one of

23     the most germane ones is the ability exercised by authorised officials

24     operating in the field to carry fire-arms, for example.

25        Q.   Make arrests?

Page 4715

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And with a prior MUP witness I had this conversation, and I think

 3     I confused him or perhaps he confused me, there was a reference to the

 4     term "operative" in describing certain MUP employees.  Are you familiar

 5     with that term?

 6        A.   I'm certainly familiar with the term "operative."  It's not a

 7     term in the sense of authorised official.  That is usually used in public

 8     security.  It's a term that I'm much more familiar with as being used in

 9     documents on state security and usually refers to what one in English

10     would call an agent.

11        Q.   Okay.  Would operatives on the state security side also be

12     considered authorised officials or not, if you know?

13        A.   As far as I know, yes, they would.

14        Q.   Now, is it fair to say that not all employees of the MUP are

15     authorised officials?

16        A.   That is correct.

17        Q.   But conversely, all authorised officials in the MUP are employees

18     of the MUP?

19        A.   That is correct.

20        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  Can you give me some examples of MUP employees

21     who would not be authorised officials?  What type of personnel are you

22     talking about?

23        A.   I think that category would include, for example, clerical

24     employees, secretaries, stenographers.  It would most likely also include

25     or definitely include the canteen personnel, other people who are working

Page 4716

 1     and receive their salaries from the Ministry of Internal Affairs but who

 2     certainly don't have the -- either the right to carry fire-arms or to

 3     arrest individuals.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Now, I would like to turn to your report, I'm going

 5     to generally try to go chronologically through some of the documents.

 6     And the first topic that I want to talk about deals with the separation

 7     or the fragmentation of the old BiH MUP.  And the first document I want

 8     to show you is 65 ter number 038.  This is tab 5 in your first binder.

 9     It's a 11 February 1992 meeting.  Do you have that?

10        A.   Yes, I do.

11        Q.   This is a meeting that was held in Banja Luka of, appears to be,

12     senior officials of the MUP, and they all appear to be Serbians.  Can you

13     tell us about -- can you tell us about this meeting?

14        A.   This meeting takes place, as can be seen, on the 11th of February

15     1992 in Banja Luka.  As was stated, the people present are Serbs,

16     ethnically, who are employees of the then Socialist Republic of

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina's Ministry of Internal Affairs, at various levels of

18     that ministry.  And in the document they -- which is basically the

19     minutes of that meeting, they discuss their plans for the formation of a

20     Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

21        Q.   We note on page 1 that the first speaker listed is

22     Stojan Zupljanin.  And he is described as informing those present that a

23     decision had been made that "not a single new Muslim or Croatian employee

24     would be hired until the status of about 600 Serbian police employees

25     from Croatia who had fled to BiH is resolved."  Did you see any other

Page 4717

 1     reference in your review on documents about this situation and what might

 2     have happened concerning those former Serbian police employees from

 3     Croatia?

 4        A.   Certainly it is the case that at this point there is an ongoing

 5     armed conflict on the territory of Croatia, and a number of ethnically

 6     Serb police officers who had up until that point been employed in Croatia

 7     fled to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it was the position of many Bosnian

 8     Serbs in MUP in Bosnia and Herzegovina that these, as it were, refugee

 9     employees from the neighbouring Croatian MUP, who in most cases had

10     arrived because they were discriminated against and had been fired by the

11     Croatian MUP, should be able to find employment of some sort in Bosnian

12     and Herzegovinian MUP.  This was a point of contention as certainly I

13     would say Bosnian Croat employees and some Bosnian Muslim employees

14     disagreed with this solution.

15        Q.   Thank you.  And the second speaker is listed as Mico Stanisic is

16     reported as saying:

17             "The position of the council of ministers at the last session was

18     that in the territories in SR BH which are under Serbian control, that

19     control must be felt."

20             Do you have the B/C/S there and can you tell us if you agree with

21     that translation?

22        A.   Yes, that is an accurate translation in my view.

23        Q.   Okay.  And the council of ministers is referring to who or what,

24     if you know?

25        A.   This is referring to the council of ministers that was

Page 4718

 1     established by the Serbian people, the Assembly of the Serbian people in

 2     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 3        Q.   And were you aware that Mr. Stanisic was listed as a member of

 4     that council?

 5        A.   Yes, that is correct, and I note that in my report, I believe.

 6        Q.   And what do you understand this to mean, that control must be

 7     felt in the territories under Serbian control?

 8        A.   Well, control can be a very vague word, but I take it to mean

 9     that the authorities that are being established by the Serbian people in

10     accordance with its Assembly during that period should be operational on

11     the territory, that is, as he puts it, under Serbian control.

12        Q.   Thank you.  I'd like you to turn to page -- page 2 in the

13     English, page 3 in the B/C/S.  Speaker listed is Predrag Jesuric.  Do you

14     know where he was from?

15        A.   Yes, Predrag Jesuric is or was an official of MUP from Bijeljina

16     in north eastern Bosnia-Herzegovina.

17        Q.   He is noted as stating:

18             "I did not receive any moral or material assistance from our MUP.

19     I had to turn to the SR Serbia MUP, which was very helpful."

20             Is that the MUP of the Republic of Serbia?

21        A.   It is the MUP of the then Socialist Republic of Serbia.

22        Q.   Okay.

23        A.   And it accurately -- his statement accurately reflects the

24     situation in which certain parts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in

25     which Serbian -- ethnic Serbian officers worked were at that point

Page 4719

 1     receiving material and other assistance from Belgrade from both the

 2     Ministry of Internal Affairs of Serbia and the Federal Secretariat for

 3     Internal Affairs in Belgrade.

 4        Q.   And in your review of documents and in your report, I think you

 5     tell us about other examples of where the Serb MUP members received

 6     material assistance from the Republic of Serbia MUP?

 7        A.   That is correct, there is a section towards the end of my report

 8     that also focuses on that.

 9        Q.   Both before and after the conflict began in April 1992?

10        A.   That is correct.

11        Q.   Okay.  He goes on to say:

12             "I only trust my own people and weapons that I have acquired and

13     hidden."

14             Do you know why the MUP official would be hiding weapons, from

15     whom, if you know?

16        A.   One could assume, based on other document, numerous other

17     documents that refer to hiding of weapons, that the ethnic Serbian

18     officials in the Bijeljina area were keeping those weapons that they had

19     obtained, among other -- from among other sources from Belgrade hidden

20     from their colleagues of other ethnicities.  Certainly once we see

21     retrospective reports being filed by the RS MUP about its functioning in

22     1991 and 1992, or that is to say more precisely, the functioning of Serbs

23     in SR BiH MUP up to April 1992 and then the functioning of RS MUP after

24     April 1992, they make retrospective references on a number of occasions

25     to the quote unquote, illegal, collection of weapons and the -- even the

Page 4720

 1     illegal arming of ethnic Serbs in municipalities in which Bosnian Serbs

 2     were preponderant in the organs of Internal Affairs.

 3             I want to stress at this point because I will be using the term

 4     "illegal" on a number of occasions that whenever I do so, I'm not making

 5     any finding as an analyst about the illegality or legality of such

 6     actions; rather, I am merely noting that the original documents which

 7     were produced by Bosnian Serbs working for the organs of Internal Affairs

 8     themselves used that term.  And I think as an analyst, that whether or

 9     not those actions were indeed illegal, it is highly salient and pertinent

10     that they should choose to use that word.  These are, after all, police

11     officers and it is certainly my assumption that they themselves knew

12     where the line was between legality and illegality at any specific point

13     in time.

14        Q.   Thank you, Doctor.  The next speaker is listed as Krsto Savic.

15     Do you recall where he was from?

16        A.   Yes, Krsto Savic is from eastern Herzegovina down in the Trebinje

17     area.

18        Q.   Later in 1992 became the head of the CSB in Trebinje?

19        A.   That's correct.

20        Q.   At the bottom of page 2 in the English and page 4 of the B/C/S at

21     the top, Savic says:

22             "I would mention again that we are already establishing a SJB on

23     the left side of the Neretva."

24             This is February 11th.  Were you aware of discussions that are

25     sometimes referred to as the Lisbon talks or Lisbon conference, the

Page 4721

 1     Cutileiro agreement or the Cutileiro plan?

 2        A.   Yes, I am aware of those discussions, and for the sake of

 3     accuracy, I would note that it is neither an agreement nor a plan, but,

 4     rather, a set of principles that provides a framework for continued

 5     negotiations.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  We'll come back to that in a little bit, but I want

 7     to finish with this document, by going to page 4 of the English and it's

 8     page 6 in the B/C/S.  Under "Conclusions."  Number 1 says:

 9             "A Serbian collegium is hereby established in the SR BH MUP,

10     consisting of Serbian personnel at executive positions ..." can you tell

11     me, in the regular MUP, the entire MUP, was there a collegium?  Was that

12     something provided for under the old Law on Internal Affairs or the old

13     rule book for Internal Affairs that existed in early 1992 before the war

14     began?

15        A.   I have to say that I'm not aware whether what is here referred to

16     in the English translation as "collegium" is specifically provided for in

17     either the law of Internal Affairs from 1990 or the rule book that also

18     stemmed from 1990.  However, there certainly did exist such a body.  Here

19     it's translated as collegium.  It's also something that in English we

20     would refer to often as a senior staff meeting or senior staff steering

21     council, and that, yes, such a body certainly existed and met, how

22     frequently, I'm not sure, but certainly met at that point in the

23     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina's MUP.

24        Q.   Now, are you aware of whether or not there was a Muslim collegium

25     or a Croatian collegium established on or about this time?

Page 4722

 1        A.   I have not seen any specific references to such bodies.  I have

 2     to say, given the situation in SR BiH MUP at the time, it would not

 3     surprise me if such bodies existed.  Certainly, I believe that Bosnian

 4     Croats and Bosnian Muslims met on their own without Serbs being present

 5     to discuss certain issues, but here we see that it's a specific body

 6     that's being formed in the conclusions of this meeting, or not formed,

 7     but in fact, it seems to -- yes, being formed, excuse me, I misspoke, and

 8     that it is led by then assistant minister, Momcilo Mandic.

 9        Q.   We see in item 2 that Momcilo Mandic has been named to manage the

10     Serb collegium and ensure implementations of the decisions.  Number 3 is

11     that:

12             "The collegium is instructed to carry out all preparations

13     necessary for the functioning of the Serbian MUP after promulgation of

14     the Serbian Republic of BH constitution."

15             Do you know when the constitution was promulgated by the Bosnian

16     Serbs, approximately?

17        A.   I believe it was, I know that the Law on Internal Affairs comes

18     into effect at this point on the 28th of February 1992.  I have to admit

19     that not being a political expert, I don't off the top of my hand - I'm

20     not working with this issue every day - don't recall off the top of my

21     head precisely when the constitution came into effect.

22        Q.   But there's no reference in this document about the functioning

23     of the Serbian MUP waiting until something had been worked out with

24     regard to the Cutileiro discussions?

25        A.   Well, point 3 simply states, I mean, taking the document at its

Page 4723

 1     word, that what needs to be waited for or needs to be awaited is the

 2     constitution of the Serbian Republic of BiH, not the -- not any

 3     international negotiations.  There's no reference to such negotiations in

 4     that point of the conclusions.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  And item number 5 says:

 6             "Not a single decision regarding staffing policies in the SR BH

 7     MUP will be implemented without the approval of Momcilo Mandic."

 8             Now, who was the minister of Internal Affairs at this time in

 9     February 1992 of the MUP in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

10        A.   The minister of Internal Affairs at that point in time was Alija

11     Delimustafic.

12        Q.   And to your understanding, according to the existing Law on

13     Internal Affairs and the rule book, would Deputy Minister Mandic have

14     some authority over and above Delimustafic concerning staffing policies?

15        A.   No, deputy -- well, I see that the transcript says "Deputy

16     Minister Mandic," I want them to make it clear that we understand he's

17     not a deputy minister, he's the assistant minister at this point in time.

18     And no, he would not have had authority over Delimustafic, and he also

19     was not primarily, he, Mandic, was not primarily responsible for staffing

20     matters.  However, I would say at a de facto level, it was certainly well

21     known at this point in time in February, March, 1992 that it was

22     Momcilo Mandic who was, to a considerable extent, the person that the

23     Serbian Democratic Party looked to in resolving personnel issues

24     affecting Serbian personnel in the ministry.

25        Q.   Thank you.  I want to take you now to your report, paragraph 86.

Page 4724

 1     Begins at page 32 of English and goes on to page 33.  There's a reference

 2     that I need some help and probably the Judges could use some help on

 3     understanding.  You talk about some telephone conversation that

 4     Minister Mandic had where he was discussing what was happening with the

 5     MUP.  And in one of those, you said Mandic spoke about showing

 6     Delimustafic and Zepinic who the real Boro and Ramiz were.

 7             Can you explain for us what that's a reference to?  In March

 8     1992, what do Boro and Ramiz refer to?

 9        A.   Boro and Ramiz is a very well known Yugoslav cultural reference

10     referring to the friendship of two persons of separate ethnicities, and

11     it was to some extent a shorthand way of referring to a well functioning

12     friendship or partnership among persons of different ethnicities

13     precisely because of the Yugoslav system.  So when Boro and Ramiz is

14     referred to here in this paragraph, it's the notion that allegedly at

15     that time in the public, and this is seen in some of the media sources,

16     Delimustafic is the Ramiz, the Muslim, and Zepinic, Vitomir Zepinic is

17     Boro, the Serb.  And so their co-operation as minister, Delimustafic and

18     Deputy Minister Zepinic, despite their different ethnicities was seen to

19     embody this spirit of inter-ethnic co-operation, and here it's being

20     referred to in a rather derisive way.

21        Q.   Thank you, and I would next like to show you 65 ter number, well,

22     I guess now it has an exhibit number, MFI, it's P353.  This is tab 7 in

23     your binder.  It's a document dated the 31st of March.  Are you familiar

24     with this one?

25        A.   Yes, I am.

Page 4725

 1        Q.   Can you tell us what this is and what the significance of it was?

 2        A.   The document we have before us is in many ways the birth

 3     certificate, one could say, of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the

 4     Serbian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is RS MUP.  It is a document

 5     that is sent by the Assistant Minister Momcilo Mandic, to the minister of

 6     Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina to all

 7     municipal and regional offices of Internal Affairs in both public

 8     security and state security in Bosnian Herzegovina, and essentially

 9     announces the establishment of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in

10     accordance with the new RS Law on Internal Affairs which will start

11     functioning on 1st of April, 1992, that is to say, the following day.

12     And as such, states that -- formally that the Bosnian Serbs are

13     henceforth going to operate within the context of the RS Ministry of

14     Internal Affairs in the context of their own Law on Internal Affairs.

15        Q.   I have one question concerning the list of security service

16     centres to be set up.  The last one is listed as Ugljevik, pardon my

17     pronunciation.  Was there a Security Services Centre set up for the RS

18     MUP in that location, and if not, can you tell us why?

19        A.   What actually transpires in the first half of April is that once

20     the situation in Bijeljina becomes more stable from the Bosnian Serb

21     point of view, they set up their Security Services Centre, the CSB, in

22     Bijeljina.  Ugljevik is a small town to the south of Bijeljina, and

23     Mandic, at a later date, as I note in the report, sends out a dispatch

24     stating that it should not be Ugljevik but rather Bijeljina that is the

25     seat of the CSB in north eastern -- in the north eastern RS.

Page 4726

 1        Q.   And how would you describe the reaction, if any, to the sending

 2     of this dispatch on the 31st of March?

 3        A.   Well, the -- from the Bosnian Serb side the reaction is obviously

 4     to proceed as Mandic instructs.  I don't have any immediate reaction from

 5     the Bosnian Croats, but I do have a reaction the same day from

 6     Minister Delimustafic, who on that day, and I believe it's tab -- maybe

 7     it's not in the binder here, but certainly in the report I refer to a

 8     dispatch from Delimustafic on the same day stating that Mandic's dispatch

 9     was illegal and that all subordinates in the ministry are to disregard

10     the dispatch and proceed to function -- to continue to function as

11     employees of a unified Bosnian and Herzegovinian Ministry of Internal

12     Affairs.  And Delimustafic in that dispatch also refers to his hope that

13     despite a very grave security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, they

14     will nonetheless, as employees of Internal Affairs, be able to stabilise

15     the situation and continue to operate as a unified ministry.

16        Q.   If you could look at tab 8 in your binder, 65 ter number 1301.

17     And I'll ask you if that's the --

18        A.   Oh, yes, that is.

19        Q.   -- Delimustafic document that you were just referring to?

20        A.   Pardon me, I skipped it by a tab.  But, yes, that is precisely

21     the dispatch I refer to, and as we can see it's sent out on the very same

22     day, in fact around midday, by Delimustafic.  He refers, as I said, to a

23     very complex security situation.  He refers to the dispatch giving the

24     number of that dispatch and says that, from his perspective, this is null

25     and void.

Page 4727

 1        Q.   Thank you.  I'd like to look next at another document relating to

 2     this, it's tab 99 in your binder, which would be binder number 4 if you

 3     have all four.  It's 65 ter number 326.

 4             This appears to be a dispatch sent also on the 31st of March from

 5     the Zvornik public security station.  You find that?

 6        A.   Yes, I've found it.

 7        Q.   And what can you tell us about that in connection with these

 8     dispatches on the 31st of March?

 9        A.   Well, here we see a reaction by a number of employees of the

10     public security station in Zvornik on the same day, and they've obviously

11     read both Mandic's dispatch and the subsequent dispatch, counter-dispatch

12     as it were, by Alija Delimustafic, and it says that the employees of SJB

13     Zvornik have decided to continue working in unison and to not divide on a

14     national basis.  It asks -- clearly they are confused.  This is in

15     Eastern Bosnia.  They are very confused by the two contradictory

16     dispatches they've received on that day, and they've therefore asked for

17     further clarification and expressed the hope that the inter-ethnic

18     conflict can be avoided.

19             And they also state that they hope that everyone will continue to

20     work as professionally and not on a political basis.  And I would note

21     that the list of names that appears at the bottom of both the English and

22     the B/C/S is a list of names that are both Muslims and Serbs.

23        Q.   Thank you.

24             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, I'm about to move on to another topic,

25     I wonder if this is an appropriate time for our first break.

Page 4728

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  We'll resume in 20 minutes.

 2                           [The witness stands down]

 3                           --- Recess taken at 10.24 a.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.

 5                           [The witness takes the stand]

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Dr. Nielsen, when I introduced you this morning,

 7     I failed to notify you of something which I should have done, namely the

 8     fact that for the purpose of your testimony here in this trial, the

 9     Stanisic Defence team has been reinforced by the Defence expert on MUP,

10     Dr. Mladen Bajagic, who is sitting there in the middle, unrobed.  So I

11     just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that the gentleman sitting

12     there is the Defence expert on the matters on which you will testify.

13             Tom Hannis.

14             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you for that, Your Honour.

15        Q.   Dr. Nielsen, I wanted to ask you about one thing in your report

16     before I go to a discussion about Cutileiro.  And it's at page 8,

17     paragraph 4 where you talked about the aim of your report, and you

18     indicated a reference to the November 1990 multi-party elections.  You

19     said:

20             "These multi-party elections led directly to a multi-party

21     agreement on the distribution of posts within the SR BiH MUP.  This

22     process in turn eventually contributed to the breakdown of the SR BiH

23     MUP."

24             Can you explain briefly how in your view that multi-party

25     agreement on the distribution of posts within the MUP led to the

Page 4729

 1     breakdown of the MUP?

 2        A.   Prior to the first multi-party elections in Bosnia and

 3     Herzegovina in November 1990, this had been a party state system in which

 4     the League of Communists was the sole political factor, and therefore

 5     also the sole factor behind various ministries and the staffing of

 6     ministries, as such.  In the wake of the victory at the November 1990

 7     elections of three, what I would term, nationally based or nationalist

 8     parties, the Serb Democratic Party, the Croat Democratic Union, and the

 9     Muslim Party of Democratic Action, they essentially divided posts in the

10     Ministry of Internal Affairs in accordance with more or less the

11     electoral results.  I refer the Court to paragraph 7 of my report on page

12     10 in which I identify the party affiliation, as it were, of various

13     ministers -- of the minister and various assistant ministers and deputy

14     ministers in the MUP.  I want to stress that just because a party

15     affiliation appears in parentheses after their names, that does not

16     denote that they were members of those parties.  It rather notes that

17     they were -- they enjoyed the support of those parties in holding that

18     particular post in MUP between November 1990 and April 1992.

19             While this original division of posts among the three parties

20     was, as far as I've been able to tell, fairly uncontroversial, the

21     continued jostling for position at all levels of the Ministry of Internal

22     Affairs, micromanaging by political party leaders of who would in various

23     political position -- police positions at the municipal and even village

24     level, introduced an element in which it is clear that the support of a

25     particular political party often overrode or certainly exceeded in

Page 4730

 1     importance the professional qualifications of those candidates being

 2     considered for that position in the police.  And I've seen references by

 3     Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and by Bosnian Serbs in the police who

 4     deplore what they perceive to be a politicisation and increasingly

 5     acrimonious one of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.  So that's what I

 6     mean when I say that it contributed to a generally deteriorating

 7     situation in which political affiliation and support, rather than

 8     professionalism, became a guiding factor in choosing personnel.

 9        Q.   And the general impact of that on the professionalism of the MUP

10     was what?

11        A.   Well, certainly it's a factor of functioning states that the

12     civil service, the state apparatus, of which the police is a part, is

13     held to be outside of party politics to the degree in SR BiH MUP that

14     this was no longer the case and to the degree that every single

15     appointment became the point of contention on a national or ethnic basis,

16     then certainly it meant that over the long term, certain persons who

17     arguably should not have been appointed to positions of authority in the

18     police did, in fact, receive such appointments, and that had a negative

19     effect on the professionalism of the police.

20        Q.   And I take it that that's not just your view, you saw that view

21     expressed by police professionals of all three ethnicities in the

22     documents?

23        A.   That is correct.  And I would point out that in the document we

24     viewed prior to the break from SJB Zvornik, there we see employees of

25     both Bosnian, Muslim, and Serbian ethnicity expressing regret that things

Page 4731

 1     are being resolved on a mono-national basis rather than on a professional

 2     basis.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Now, I want to follow up on our discussion about the

 4     break-up of the Bosnian Herzegovina MUP by directing you to first of all

 5     tab 84.

 6             MR. HANNIS:  This is 65 ter number 3452.

 7        Q.   This is a document entitled: "Statement of Principles for New

 8     Constitutional Arrangements for Bosnia and Herzegovina."  Have you seen

 9     that before today?

10        A.   Yes, I was shown this document last week.

11        Q.   And you're familiar with what it concerns?

12        A.   Yes, I am.

13        Q.   Tell me, if you could, what these principles are about and what

14     they are related to?

15             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic.

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry Your Honours, I just lost the LiveNote on

17     my computer.

18             JUDGE HALL:  So did I.

19             MR. HANNIS:  Me too.

20                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

21             JUDGE HALL:  I understand there's a technical problem which

22     should be corrected in five minutes, so we'll just wait.  If it's longer

23     than that, we'll have to adjourn.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, I understand from the technicians

25     that the problem is now solved.  Thank you.

Page 4732

 1             MR. HANNIS:

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Let me re-ask the question, Doctor.  Could you tell

 3     me what those principles are about and what they are related to?

 4        A.   As I understand this document, this reflects a statement of

 5     principles for a possible new constitutional arrangement for Bosnia and

 6     Herzegovina.  It is from, I believe, the 15th -- no, the 18th of March,

 7     1992, as is reflected on the final page of the document, and it states

 8     very clearly in capital letters immediately above the date that this

 9     paper is the basis of further negotiations, so that is the context in

10     which I made my earlier statement that this is not a plan or an

11     agreement, but rather a framework for continued negotiations.

12        Q.   Thank you.  In your binder at tabs 85 through 98, and these are

13     65 ter numbers 3453 through 3466, I don't want to bring all those up

14     right now, but do you recall having a chance to look through all of those

15     documents before coming to court today?

16        A.   Yes, I do.

17        Q.   They appear to be primarily correspondence to and maybe one or

18     two from Mr. Cutileiro with Bosnian Serb leaders, Mr. Karadzic,

19     Mr. Krajisnik; is that correct?

20        A.   That is correct.

21        Q.   Okay.  Now, there's been some suggestion in the trial to date in

22     questioning of witnesses that the division of the Bosnia-Herzegovina MUP

23     and the creation of a separate Serbian MUP was simply being done pursuant

24     to Cutileiro agreement or Cutileiro plan.  Based on your review of the

25     documents, did you see anything to support that, or to refute it?

Page 4733

 1        A.   It is my view based on my review of these documents last week and

 2     based on the review of the documents that are cited in my report and that

 3     were previously cited in my report, that the division of the Ministry of

 4     Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in -- at

 5     the beginning of April 1992, certainly took place simultaneously with

 6     ongoing, and I stress the word "ongoing" negotiations, about the future

 7     constitutional arrangement of Bosnia and Herzegovina as is reflected in

 8     the principles document.

 9             These negotiations presupposed a sovereign state of Bosnia and

10     Herzegovina, and they did envisage that policing, and this is reflected

11     in section D of the document, of the principles document, would take

12     place henceforth at the level of the constituent units that might - and

13     again I stress the word "might" - be formed within Bosnia and

14     Herzegovina.  However, this was not a final agreement, it was not a final

15     plan.  I'm aware of the fact that Alija Izetbegovic, in his capacity as

16     the head of the SDA, withdrew his signature in late March from this

17     document.

18             I'm also aware of the fact that on the day Momcilo Mandic sent

19     his dispatch establishing RS MUP, there were negotiations in Brussels at

20     which the SDS leadership and the SDA leadership were present but that it

21     did not reach a definitive agreement on this point, and I think this is

22     actually to some extent reflected in Mandic's dispatch, and further

23     dispatches of other officials within RS MUP, which refer to a possible

24     future state organisation; that is, there is a large element of

25     contingency remaining, and as such, I do not believe that the formation

Page 4734

 1     of RS MUP can be said to have taken place on the basis of a trilateral

 2     final agreement.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Did you see in your review of the documents any

 4     contemporaneous assertions in the MUP documents that suggested that the

 5     creation of a separate Serbian MUP was being done pursuant to the Lisbon

 6     talks or Cutileiro?

 7        A.   Certainly if we could go back to the 31st March 1992 dispatch,

 8     perhaps I could be told what tab number that was?

 9        Q.   [Microphone not activated] Sorry, that is tab number 7.

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

11             MR. HANNIS:  [Microphone not activated] It's Exhibit P353 --

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please, for the Prosecutor.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Microphone, counsel.

14             MR. HANNIS:

15        Q.   Sorry, that's Exhibit P353 MFI.  It's tab 7 in your binder, if

16     you are talking about Mr. Mandic's dispatch.

17        A.   Yes, that's the dispatch to which I referred.  In this dispatch,

18     as I noted in my previous response, he says that this decision to form a

19     separate Ministry of Internal Affairs is in accordance with the decision

20     of the Assembly of the Serbian people, and, I believe, he also refers to

21     the quote unquote, Sarajevo agreement, thus the gist of Mandic's dispatch

22     is certainly to make it appear as if this decision is talking place based

23     on some agreement with the other parties.  However, if that were the

24     case, it certainly does not explain why Delimustafic would then react so

25     promptly by responding and accusing Mandic of doing something that is

Page 4735

 1     illegal and inappropriate.

 2             I would also note that I have reviewed other documents stemming

 3     from later in 1992, in which Mandic and also Tomislav Kovac who became a

 4     leading figure in the RS MUP, refer in quite different tones to the

 5     establishment of the ministry, or more appropriately, the closing down of

 6     SR BiH MUP.  There in those documents that I've reviewed, they refer to

 7     the end of SR BiH MUP in terms that leave no doubt that this was not done

 8     based on an agreement, but it was rather an attempt, as Tomislav Kovac

 9     expressed it, to destroy SR BiH MUP.  Mandic on 5 May, 1992, uses a quite

10     profane term in B/C/S to say that the Bosnian Serbs basically of their

11     own volition and without any agreement dissolved SR BiH MUP and that it

12     was a unilateral decision to form RS MUP.

13        Q.   And that last reference to Mr. Mandic, you are referring to a

14     telephone conversation that's referred to in 65 ter number 1097, I

15     believe it's tab 18 in your binder.

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I believe we are coming to the

17     intercept issue.  We objected to it and, therefore, we renew our

18     objection on all intercepts that are to be used in this case, including

19     this one.  Thank you.

20                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Hannis, are you seeking to have document 1097

22     admitted into evidence, or are you just touching briefly upon the

23     telephone intercepts for the purposes of testimony?  Where are we going?

24             MR. HANNIS:  Well, I'm intending to do the most I'm permitted to

25     do today, but it is a part of his report.  I know with some of our prior

Page 4736

 1     witnesses intercepts have been part of 92 ter packages for some of those

 2     witnesses.  We have some intercepts in that way.

 3             This intercept is a footnoted document in his report.  If -- if

 4     it's is problem at this juncture, I can ask him another question and we

 5     can deal with it later.  But there are some intercepted conversations

 6     which are footnoted documents in his report which are on our 65 ter list

 7     and which we will be seeking to admit.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  The Chamber expects to the issue the decision on

 9     the intercepts tomorrow hopefully, or certainly before the recess, so I

10     would prefer if at this moment you could just, you know, put another

11     question to the witness so as to avoid the uncertainty about the status

12     of the intercepts.  Thank you.

13             MR. HANNIS:  I can do that.  Thank you.

14        Q.   Dr. Nielsen, are you aware of any comments by Mr. Mandic after

15     March 31st, 1992, for example, in a media interview where he described

16     his role in connection with that dispatch, and the effect it had on the

17     then existing MUP in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

18        A.   Yes, I am.  If I could just be permitted a few seconds to find

19     that because I would prefer to quote it directly.  It's, I believe,

20     footnote 145 in paragraph 94 of my report, that's on page 35 of the

21     report.  In 1998, Momcilo Mandic was interviewed by the Bosnian news

22     magazine "Slobodna Bosna" and in that interview referring not

23     specifically, I must note, to the 31st March dispatch, but to the

24     establishment of the RS MUP's headquarters at the contested school of

25     Internal Affairs at Vraca right outside Sarajevo, Mandic said that, and I

Page 4737

 1     quote:

 2             "When we set out for Vraca to take the police academy, we knew

 3     that we would be shot dead as terrorists if we failed.  We knew that BH,

 4     that is Bosnia-Herzegovina, would be recognised on 7 April.  If I and

 5     Karisik Special Police had not raided, we would certainly have been

 6     proclaimed terrorists and the BH state would have executed us."

 7             This certainly seems to suggest from Momcilo Mandic's

 8     perspective, that there was not an agreement to separate the school of

 9     Internal Affairs to divide it, and by extension that there was no

10     agreement to form a separate Ministry of Internal Affairs.  However, I

11     want to stress again that my conclusion as an analyst here on the absence

12     of an agreement is not based on any one document, but is in fact based

13     cumulatively on a review of considerable amount of documents first and

14     foremost Delimustafic's counter -- order countermanding Mandic's dispatch

15     on the 31st of March 1992.

16        Q.   Thank you.  And with regard to your review of the documents and

17     timing vis-a-vis Cutileiro discussions, did you see evidence of planning

18     for a separate Serbian MUP prior to Mr. Cutileiro ever appearing on the

19     scene?

20        A.   There are a large number of documents which refer to such

21     planning, to advance stages of both contemplation and action aimed

22     towards the establishment of a separate Ministry of Internal Affairs

23     based on ethnicity, and in this case particularly RS MUP.  The draft 1992

24     annual report of RS MUP, which I refer to towards the end of my report on

25     pages 107 to 109, is among the seminal documents produced by RS MUP

Page 4738

 1     itself, which retrospectively refer to, again their word, illegal actions

 2     taken to plan for and establish a separate Ministry of Internal Affairs,

 3     independent of any negotiations that were ongoing in the spring of 1992.

 4             So, yes, certainly there were planning -- there was planning for

 5     a separate Serbian MUP as early, I think, as September and October of

 6     1991.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  And finally, are you aware of a specific statement

 8     made by Radovan Karadzic to the RS Assembly in 1994 concerning Cutileiro?

 9        A.   Yes, I am aware that Karadzic made statements at a later date,

10     the gist of which - and I don't have the statement fresh if my head - but

11     the gist of which is certainly that there was not an agreement, and, in

12     fact, I'm also aware of subsequent documentation stemming from Cutileiro

13     himself, which certainly suggests that he wanted to have negotiations

14     ongoing, even after the beginning of armed conflict on the territory of

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that he did not himself view any negotiations

16     over which he had presided in resulting in a tripartite agreement on the

17     division of the country.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Let me move to another topic.  You talk in your

19     report about the RS or the Serbian Republic of BiH Law on Internal

20     Affairs.  It's tab 6 in your binder.  That's 65 ter number 053.  And you

21     discuss this report at some -- this law at some length in your report.

22     This law was first passed by the Bosnian Serb Assembly or the Assembly of

23     the Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina on 28 February 1992; is that

24     correct?

25        A.   That's correct.  And if I may be permitted, that is in fact the

Page 4739

 1     same day that the Assembly adopted the constitution.  I was able to

 2     refresh my memory on that point by looking at my own report during the

 3     break.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  And in paragraph 98 of your report, page 36 of the

 5     English, you mentioned two points that you wanted to note in comparing

 6     the new Law on Internal Affairs with the pre-existing law.  The first

 7     point was that there's a very large overlap in the wording between those

 8     two; correct?

 9        A.   That is correct, yes.

10        Q.   And the other point you wanted to make, that this is a relatively

11     small document compared to the rule book for Internal Affairs, which has

12     a lot more detail about the specific regulations controlling the workings

13     and internal relationships of members of the MUP?

14        A.   That is correct.  Both prior to 1992 and the formation of RS MUP

15     and after the formation of RS MUP and, in fact, until the present day,

16     there are a number of legal instruments that are germane to the

17     functioning of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the RS.  The law is,

18     of course, the basic document governing Internal Affairs in the RS.

19     However, the much longer, in the 1992 version, it was approximately 200

20     pages long, rule book on the internal organisation of RS MUP sets out in

21     exhaustive detail what everyone in the ministry does from the minister

22     down to the janitorial personnel.  And in both cases, the case of the Law

23     on Internal Affairs, as well as the case of the rule book, the 1990 SR

24     BiH MUP documents on those subjects were very much the model used by the

25     officials forming the RS MUP, as I think is in fact quite natural for

Page 4740

 1     them to do.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  And in paragraph 98 you point out some of the

 3     distinctions in terminology, and I think that the three that are

 4     primarily important for us to be aware of concern the difference between

 5     the old law which referred to the "republican secretariat" and the

 6     "secretary" as opposed to the new law which uses the term "ministry" and

 7     "minister."  That's one; correct?

 8        A.   That's correct.

 9        Q.   And the term "working people" is replaced in the -- replaces the

10     the term "citizens" from the old law?

11        A.   That is correct.  And both changes reflect the types of legal

12     changes which were taking place throughout eastern Europe at this time as

13     these countries made transitions from socialist party states to

14     multi-party systems.

15        Q.   Okay.  And the last one that I think we need to be aware of is

16     the old law referred to "state security," and the new law, the term is

17     "national security" for referring to the side of the MUP that deals with

18     matters regarding the security of the entity; correct?

19        A.   That is correct.  From April 1992 until the end of 1993, the RS

20     MUP used the term "national security" rather than "state security."  At

21     that point in 1994, they reverted to the more traditional term "state

22     security."

23        Q.   Just a few of the changes I want to ask you about.  The first one

24     is at page 39 of your report in paragraph 113.  You point out that in

25     Article 22 of the old law, the 1990 law, there was a requirement for the

Page 4741

 1     secretariat to report to -- not only the appropriate republican organs,

 2     but also the federal organ, that is -- that would have been the Republic

 3     of Yugoslavia, correct, I guess the SFRY?

 4        A.   That is correct.

 5        Q.   And the new law also contained that language even though the new

 6     republic, the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or as it later was

 7     called the Republika Srpska, was an independent country and a separate

 8     part not in Yugoslavia; is that correct?

 9        A.   Well, the Republika Srpska was not a part of the Federal Republic

10     of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro after April/May of 1992, but this

11     language seems to allow them to continue to report to Belgrade on matters

12     that are relevant for security of the country.  I think in practice it's

13     certainly the case, as I note in my report, that there are documentary

14     illustrations of continued communication between the officials of RS MUP

15     and their counter-parts in MUP of Serbia and in the Federal Secretariat

16     of Internal Affairs in Belgrade.

17             One illustration of this is the fact that when the top officials

18     of RS MUP have a meeting to discuss the entire situation that the

19     ministry is confronting in the field and in the seat of the ministry

20     itself, and that is a meeting that takes place on the 11th of July, 1992,

21     they, in fact, meet in Belgrade in Serbia, not in the RS, and that the

22     minutes prepared from that meeting, and which are cited in my report,

23     reflect that a leading official of the Federal Secretariat for Internal

24     Affairs is in fact also present during that meeting.

25        Q.   Article 28, in the old law there were nine CSBs listed.  Under

Page 4742

 1     the new law in the -- what becomes the Republika Srpska there are five

 2     CSBs.  And I guess that's a reflection of the fact that the RS is a

 3     smaller territory than the former BiH?

 4        A.   Yes, it is.  I think it would also be an appropriate place to

 5     note that there is a new place for a CSB, namely CSB Trebinje.

 6     Previously Trebinje had been a subordinate to CSB Mostar, and it was, in

 7     fact, a long-running wish of the Bosnian Serbs expressed in numerous

 8     documents that there be a separate CSB established in Trebinje, and they

 9     certainly did that once they had their own ministry.

10        Q.   And the CSB in Bijeljina in the new law appears to be a new CSB

11     as well?

12        A.   Yes, that would previously have been subordinate, I believe, to

13     Tuzla, and again, as we discussed earlier this morning, this is in

14     Bijeljina and not in Ugljevik.

15        Q.   Yes, we saw that in Mr. Mandic's dispatch on the 31st of March.

16     This law was passed on the 28th of February; correct?  Do you know why

17     Mr. Mandic's dispatch had Ugljevik instead of Bijeljina?

18        A.   It's a matter that I looked into a number of years ago, but that,

19     quite frankly, I am not in a position right now with certainty to comment

20     on.  As I stated earlier, it may have had something to do with the fact

21     that the situation in Bijeljina was not from the Bosnian Serb point of

22     view stable at the time that the law was passed, but that is speculation

23     on my part.

24        Q.   Are you aware of the date that Arkan and his men helped take part

25     in the take-over of power in Bijeljina?

Page 4743

 1        A.   I believe that it is a well-known fact, and in fact reflected in

 2     trial and appeal judgements from this Tribunal, that Arkan and his

 3     paramilitary forces entered Bijeljina and established control over that

 4     municipality at the very beginning of April 1992.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  The next section I want to ask you about is at page

 6     45 of the English.  It's paragraph 150 in your report.  And it refers to

 7     Article 102 of the old 1990 law, which read in part as follows:

 8             "Workers of the republican secretariat may not engage in

 9     activities that are incompatible with their duty.  A republican secretary

10     will determine which activities are affected by the previous paragraph."

11             That provision was not incorporated in the new law; is that

12     correct?

13        A.   That is correct.

14        Q.   Now, are you aware that there was some controversy about that

15     provision in the 1990 law prior to the creation of the new law at the end

16     of February 1992?

17        A.   Yes, I am aware of that and I, in some detail, explore a little

18     bit of that controversy in footnote 163 on page 45.  This relates to the

19     transition of which I spoke a bit earlier; namely, the transition from a

20     party state to a multi-party system.  And we see uncertainty and

21     indecision on the part of several factors that are involved in the

22     drafting of Internal Affairs laws in the Socialist Republic of

23     Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 1990 to 1992 period as to whether particularly

24     political activities of professional police officers should be permitted

25     or forbidden.

Page 4744

 1        Q.   And in your footnote 163, and you make reference to a draft law

 2     proposing to change Article 102 to have some specific prohibitions in

 3     connection with authorised officials taking part in political functions

 4     or holding political office, or being guided by their political

 5     convictions in carrying out their task, or expressing or advocating those

 6     political views; correct?

 7        A.   That is correct.  However, as I state in the final sentence of

 8     that footnote, there is no indication that that draft law was, in fact,

 9     adopted, or that it affected the 1992 RS Law on Internal Affairs since

10     that it was in such language as not to be found in the 1992 law.

11        Q.   And related to this article, I think it's Article 114 of the old

12     law, there was a list of 12 separate kinds of conduct which were

13     described as being misconduct for purposes of the law.  And in the old

14     law there was a clause 12 which prohibited involvement in activities

15     incompatible with official duties; basically, the language of Article

16     102, correct?

17        A.   That is correct.  And as I state, in the report, both the article

18     of the 1992 law as well as -- excuse me, of the 1990 law, Article 102 and

19     clause 12 of article -- of the relevant article of the 1990 law are not

20     present in the corresponding article in the 1992 law.  In other words,

21     any prohibitions in the Law on Internal Affairs on conducting activities

22     that are allegedly incompatible with official duty are excised from the

23     1990 -- 1992 RS MUP law.  I wish to also, in light of my prior testimony

24     in Krajisnik, and having reviewed this report in the mean time, state

25     that this was raised in the Krajisnik trial, and I stand by my

Page 4745

 1     interpretation of the law as it is in the report.

 2        Q.   And given the nature of police appointments that were being made

 3     to the MUP in early 1992, would that provision have any bearing on

 4     individuals named as police chiefs, et cetera, in the Serbian MUP?

 5        A.   Well, I am aware of the fact from reading the Assembly minutes of

 6     the Assembly of the Serbian nation that throughout 1992 there was a very

 7     lively discussion ongoing about the extent to which the SDS, the Serbian

 8     Democratic Party, should exercise control of the police and the extent to

 9     which party bodies, such as the Crisis Staffs established by the SDS,

10     could intervene in the police up to and including appointing chiefs of,

11     for example, public security stations.

12             So in this context, there is, one could say, very little to

13     hinder police officials from actively engaging in political activity

14     whether for the SDS or, for that matter, other political parties.

15     Certainly, if we look at the period prior to 1992 and prior to April

16     1992, then I think in light of the party political distribution of

17     leading posts in SR BiH MUP, the politicisation, as I said earlier this

18     morning, of the police suited not just the SDS, but to a significant

19     extent the HDZ and the SDA and, as such, that probably is one of the main

20     reasons why the draft amendment of the law, which would in fact have

21     inserted a prohibition against political activity of professional police

22     officers was never in fact enacted.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Next I want to turn to some documents that deal with

24     the organisation and structure and reporting within the -- within the RS

25     MUP.  The first document I'd like to look at is at tab 11 in your binder.

Page 4746

 1             MR. HANNIS:  It's 65 ter number 1858.  This is a document dated

 2     the 15th of April.

 3        Q.   And you'll see that the preface says:

 4             "According to the Law on Internal Affairs, I hereby issue the

 5     following order:"

 6             This has a signature and a stamp apparently from the

 7     Minister Mico Stanisic, and item 2 is to the TO staffs in the area of the

 8     Serb autonomous district of Romanija.  It says:

 9             "They shall form a commission to take an inventory of materiel

10     and technical equipment of the barracks in Falitici [phoen].  The

11     inventory lists are to be sent to the MUP not later than 18 April."

12             Can you tell me.  Can you tell me where in the law Mr. Stanisic,

13     as minister of the interior, has the authority to issue an order to the

14     TO staffs, if you know?

15        A.   To the best of my knowledge, Mico Stanisic as the minister of

16     Internal Affairs of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina does not

17     have, in the Law on Internal Affairs, a direct authority to order the TO,

18     that is the Territorial Defence units, or its members, to perform any

19     actions.  It seems if one takes the whole context of this particular

20     document, that he is doing so on the basis of an earlier agreement in

21     which the police was supposed to obtain some equipment that seems to have

22     been removed by someone else, and he seeks to rectify that situation.

23        Q.   And paragraph 4 indicates any individual who fails to act on this

24     order shall be arrested and placed in custody.  That suggested he appears

25     to believe he has the authority to do that, would you agree?

Page 4747

 1        A.   In any case in which I see a minister of Internal Affairs,

 2     whoever that person might be, issuing orders, then certainly I would go

 3     so far as to say at that point in time that minister certainly seems to

 4     think that he has the authority to do so.

 5        Q.   Thank you.

 6             MR. HANNIS:  The next one I would like to look at is Exhibit 1D46

 7     in evidence.

 8        Q.   You'll find it at tab 22, Doctor.  You see it's dated the 15th of

 9     May.  Again the preface says:

10             "Pursuant to the Law on Internal Affairs, I hereby order:"

11             It is signed and stamped apparently by Mico Stanisic, and this is

12     a document you talk about in your report where he is establishing war

13     units within the MUP.  Concerning the date, do you recall the date in

14     which the VRS, the Republika Srpska Army was formed in the Assembly?

15        A.   I believe that was on the 12th of May, 1992.

16        Q.   Okay.  Now, in paragraph 7, which is at page 2 of the English,

17     and I am not sure if it's on page 2 of the B/C/S?

18        A.   It is.

19        Q.   Yes, it is.

20             "The use of ministry units in co-ordinated action with the armed

21     forces of the Serbian Republic of BH may be ordered by the minister of

22     the interior, commander of the police detachment of the ministry, and

23     chief of the CSB."

24             In that context, do you know what the reference to armed forces

25     of the Serbian Republic of BH refers to?

Page 4748

 1        A.   As I'm quite certain I state in the report, after the formation

 2     of the VRS, the Army of Republika Srpska, on the 12th of May, 1992, and

 3     henceforth, the term "armed forces" includes in this case also the

 4     police, but in particular here it's referring to the co-operation between

 5     the units of the ministry with the army and the remaining TO forces,

 6     which are at that point being subsumed by the Ministry of Defence, and

 7     that is the VRS.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  The third paragraph under number 7 says:

 9             "While participating in combat operations, the units of the

10     ministry shall be subordinated to the command of the armed forces.

11     However, the ministry units shall be under the direct command of certain

12     ministry officials."

13             What do you understand that to mean about control over the MUP

14     units engaged in combat with the armed forces?

15        A.   Certainly, it's the case throughout the period from April 1992

16     until the end of 1992 that there are combat activities in which units of

17     RS MUP participate.  The draft 1992 annual report notes extremely

18     extensive involvement of RS MUP units in combat activities.  The way I

19     read this is as saying that when these RS MUP units are in the field

20     involved in combat activities, then they are subordinate to VRS command,

21     but that in doing so the ranking official on the MUP side, whatever his

22     rank may be at that point in time, will continue to directly command the

23     employees of the ministry.

24             If we are to take an abstract example, this would mean that if a

25     unit of the police is out in the field and they are subordinated to a VRS

Page 4749

 1     colonel or major, then that colonel or major would issue orders to the

 2     police in the context of their joint combat activities, but he would do

 3     so by going through the relevant police commander who is the ranking

 4     police commander on the field.  Bureaucratically speaking this is a quite

 5     predictable assertion of the jurisdiction and separateness of the police,

 6     even in the context of joint military activities.  They participate in

 7     such activities, but they retain their status as police and are to be

 8     commanded through the ranking police officials.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Dr. Nielsen, what do you mean by

10     "bureaucratically speaking"?

11             THE WITNESS:  Well, what I mean by that, looking at it as a

12     historian, is that the minister in most ministries, in most countries,

13     even when there are joint activities taking place that involve employees

14     of several ministries at the same time is going to make sure that

15     ultimately at the end of day, so to speak, his employees still report

16     back to him, and that they cannot, for any longer period of time, be used

17     to carry out activities without his consent.

18             And as we see later in the same order, in fact, and in subsequent

19     dispatches from RS MUP, it's clear that if the RS MUP officials or

20     employees were involved in combat activities, this was not a carte

21     blanche that was being issued to the Ministry of Defence, but that the

22     Ministry of Internal Affairs and its leadership expected to be informed

23     on a rolling basis about their use in any additional actions.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But that would depend on the conditions for the

25     resubordination, would it not, and are you able to testify about this?

Page 4750

 1             THE WITNESS:  Whether I'm -- is the question, Your Honour, am I

 2     able to testify on the question of resubordination?

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes, because I certainly understand your that

 4     from -- as you call it, from a bureaucratic point of view, any minister

 5     would expect exactly what you have told us, but my intervention was based

 6     on the observation that there might be other considerations, meaning

 7     other than bureaucratic considerations, to determine the exercise of

 8     control over police units that have been resubordinated to the army.  And

 9     that's why I'm saying, or suggesting to you that what from a bureaucratic

10     point of view may seem obvious, may not be so obvious if you see it from

11     a military point of view.  But I'm just putting a question to the -- to

12     you in this in order to clarify.

13             THE WITNESS:  Certainly, Your Honour.  I am, of course, aware

14     that this Trial Chamber will hear testimony from a military expert, and I

15     defer to him on questions of a specifically military nature.  Obviously,

16     and I'm certainly not the only case of this, when we have experts who

17     testify, one on the police, and one on the military, there will always be

18     a question of where one person's expertise ends and the other person's

19     begins.

20             What I am commenting on here is based on my reading of police

21     documents and a number of military documents in which joint military

22     activities are discussed, and in the specific case the 15 May order that

23     we have in front of us.  I think the most appropriate thing to do in --

24     as regards point 7 that we have in front of us, is to say that my reading

25     of it is that even though units of the ministry are subordinate to the

Page 4751

 1     command of the armed forces, they are being directly commanded during

 2     those activities by certain ministry officials or employees, and that is

 3     just simply reading what point 7 says.

 4             I can -- will point out, and it's pointed out and dealt with at

 5     length in the report, that from the minister himself down to the

 6     municipal officials in the police throughout 1992, there was considerable

 7     resentment at the fact that the police were overwhelmingly engaged in

 8     combat activities during that year, and therefore were not available to

 9     do their jobs, as it were, which is to perform the tasks of Internal

10     Affairs.  I see this as a bureaucratic attempt to limit the extent to

11     which employees of Internal Affairs can be seconded and ordered by the

12     Ministry of Defence and its officials in the army, specifically because

13     they have to do so through the direct command, as it says, of certain

14     employees of the ministry.

15             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

16        Q.   And in item number 9 we see that the order establishes a staff to

17     command and control the overall forces of the ministry.  And it lists

18     that Mr. Stanisic, the minister of the interior, will be the commander,

19     listed deputy commander, and members to include the chiefs and the CSBs

20     and the commander of the police detachment, among others.

21             Could you look next at, in your binder, the tabs 23 through 28,

22     reflect appointments following on this order.  Tab 24 is 65 ter -- I'm

23     sorry, tab 23 is 65 ter 1494.  And we see that that is the appointment of

24     Mico Stanisic as commander, and that appointment is made by Mico Stanisic

25     the minister; correct?

Page 4752

 1        A.   That is correct.

 2        Q.   And the next one, two, three, four -- five documents, 65 ter

 3     numbers 2368 through 2372, that's tabs 24 through 28 in your binder,

 4     reflect appointments on the same day, 15th May of four CSBs chiefs,

 5     including Mr. Zupljanin, as well as the appointment of Milenko Karisik to

 6     this staff that we just saw in the previous order; correct?

 7        A.   That is correct.

 8        Q.   And all those appointments are made by the minister,

 9     Mr. Stanisic?

10        A.   Yes, they are all made and they are made on the same day in which

11     he issues the order that we were looking at previously, on the 15th of

12     May 1992, the day that the staff is established.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Now, let me move to a different order addressed to a

14     different addressee.  This is tab number 33 in your binder.

15             MR. HANNIS:  And it is Exhibit P377, which has previously been

16     marked for identification.

17        Q.   It's a very short order dated the 29th of June, 1992.

18        A.   Yes, I see it.

19             MR. HANNIS:  I am sorry, I think I've got the wrong document up

20     in e-court.  I may have transposed my digits.  I'm looking for a 26 June

21     1992 document.  I have it as 377 MFI.

22             THE WITNESS:  337, I believe.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Hannis, we are a minute shy of the break, do you

24     want to take the break now?

25             MR. HANNIS:  This would be a good time, Your Honour.

Page 4753

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

 2                           [The witness stands down]

 3                           --- Recess taken at 12.04 p.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 12.26 p.m.

 5             MR. HANNIS:  Just in terms of scheduling, I'm advised,

 6     Mr. Zecevic, that I hope to finish with my direct of this witness by the

 7     end of the day, if all goes well.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

 9             MR. HANNIS:

10        Q.   Dr. Nielsen, the exhibit I did want to show you is Exhibit P337

11     marked for identification.  And it's on the screen now.  It is at tab 33

12     in your binder dated 29 June, 1992.  And it appears to be an order from

13     the minister of the interior, Mico Stanisic, to the Zvornik public

14     security station asking or directing that they allow a certain

15     confiscated Golf vehicle to be used by the Kalesija SJB.  My question is

16     did you see other documents where the minister is writing directly to a

17     public security station rather than going through one of the CSBs?

18        A.   Normally, if it the minister of Internal Affairs is directing

19     something to be done at the municipal level, whatever that might be, he

20     would be issuing that time of instruction through the regional CSBs, the

21     Security Services Centres.  He is, of course, not prohibited from going

22     straight to the SJB and ordering them to do something.  I would, however,

23     note looking now at the signature on this page, that despite the fact

24     that the English translation says that it's signed and stamped and it

25     says -- like, I think there's even a spelling mistake there, it says

Page 4754

 1     "Tanisic," it's obviously "Stanisic," but the original says in print

 2     "minister for Internal Affairs, Mico Stanisic," but as is sometimes the

 3     case one can see that someone has signed for him, and the signature --

 4     certainly if we compare the signature to that present on the 15 May

 5     appointments that we reviewed earlier today is not the minister's

 6     signature.

 7        Q.   And based on your review of documents, is it a signature that you

 8     recognise?

 9        A.   Not immediately, I must say.

10        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  Do you recall seeing other documents from the

11     minister directly to an SJB and not being copied to a CSB or an

12     administration with -- oh, I'm sorry?

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Hannis, just to make sure, in the transcript

14     this is referred to as 337.  I couldn't find it on your list.  Would that

15     be 377?

16             MR. HANNIS:  Yes, Your Honour.  I had incorrectly numbered it on

17     my list, 377.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And I didn't correct that yet, sorry about that.

19     Thank you.

20             MR. HANNIS:  No, I'm sorry about it.

21        Q.   And, Dr. Nielsen, do you recall seeing other documents directly

22     from the minister of interior to an SJB not copied to the CSB or other

23     administrations within the MUP headquarters, or do you recall?

24        A.   I don't immediately recall seeing other such documents.  What

25     clearly is the pattern in the overwhelming majority of documents is that

Page 4755

 1     orders going to the SJBs went through the CSBs.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  The next document I want to discuss is tab 36 in your

 3     binder, it's 65 ter number 176, which I believe has Exhibit P427.8.  It's

 4     a 17 July 1992 report on some aspects of the work done to date and the

 5     task ahead.  And if we can go to page 2 -- well, before we do, you see

 6     that's addressed to the Presidency and the prime minister -- the

 7     president of the Presidency and the prime minister?

 8        A.   The handwriting on the first page of the original B/C/S document

 9     states that it was provided to the Presidency -- president of the

10     Presidency and the president of the government.  That is what we normally

11     would call the prime minister.

12        Q.   Thank you.  And on page 2 at the beginning we see that the

13     minister of the interior then called a meeting -- held a meeting in

14     Belgrade on 11 July 1992.  Have you seen and reviewed the minutes of that

15     meeting?

16        A.   Yes, I referred to that document earlier today and it is cited

17     the 11 July 1992 minutes are cited in the report several times.

18        Q.   Thank you.

19             MR. HANNIS:  And in this document, I'd like to go to page 3 of

20     the English, page 4 of the B/C/S.  Top of the English page and, I think,

21     top of the B/C/S as well.

22        Q.   The first paragraph says:

23             "The army, Crisis Staffs, and War Presidencies have requested

24     that the army round up or capture as many Muslim civilians as possible,

25     and they leave such undefined camps to Internal Affairs organs.  The

Page 4756

 1     conditions in some of these camps are poor:  There is no food,

 2     individuals sometimes do not observe international norms, et cetera."

 3             Did you see -- besides your review of the meeting of 11 July

 4     1992, prior to this date had you seen MUP documents referring to this

 5     phenomena of as many Muslim civilians as possible being rounded up or

 6     captured and put into undefined camps?

 7        A.   I've seen a large and reviewed a large number of RS MUP documents

 8     that refer to numerous civilians of Bosnian Muslim ethnicity being, as it

 9     were, detained and then subsequently held in a number of facilities,

10     among those facilities were facilities that were controlled by the

11     RS MUP.

12        Q.   And in those documents often times you see MUP employees

13     complaining about MUP personnel being tasked to guard the detainees in

14     those facilities; right?

15        A.   Yes, I have reviewed such documents.  The MUP personnel guard the

16     detainees in a number of those facilities, and the MUP personnel are also

17     on numerous occasions conducting investigations or, they say

18     informational interviews or conversations with the detainees.

19        Q.   And those detainees were prisoners of war, civilians, both?

20        A.   There are a number of indications in the documents produced by RS

21     MUP itself throughout the summer of 1992 that they made efforts to come

22     up with a categorisation of detainees.  The initial reason offered by the

23     RS MUP for their detention is usually the failure from the RS MUP's point

24     of view of those individuals to surrender weaponry that they allegedly

25     possessed.

Page 4757

 1             It should be stated that in a number of cases, quite a large

 2     number of cases, the RS MUP itself was not the detaining organ, rather

 3     these people were detained in many cases by the VRS.  And, in fact, the

 4     RS MUP often -- as indeed at this meeting, speaks of the large number of

 5     people that have been rounded up by the VRS and put in facilities

 6     controlled by the MUP as a problem.

 7             As they evolved their thinking in the summer of 1992, the

 8     officials of the RS MUP, as I said, develop a categorisation of these

 9     prisoners, the vast majority of whom are eventually lumped in a category

10     in which it appears from the RS MUP's documentation that they themselves

11     have reached the conclusion that these are not prisoners of war and that

12     there is no substantial evidence linking them to hostile activity, and

13     they are then through the offices of among other things, the

14     International Red Cross, allowed to leave these facilities and eventually

15     leave the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

16             I deal with this in quite some length in my report in the section

17     from pages 81 to page 90, and there I offer up a large selection of

18     documents that substantiate the comments that I just made.

19        Q.   In that connection, in fairness isn't it correct that sometimes

20     the MUP -- some MUP employees are also complaining about the conditions

21     in which these people are being held, and the fact that some of them are

22     civilians apparently being held without any criminal charges being filed

23     against them?

24        A.   Yes, the documents I reviewed do indeed reflect such concerns,

25     sometimes uttered by employees of RS MUP themselves, sometimes written

Page 4758

 1     into reports filed by, for example, the VRS, but in which they deal with

 2     prisoners who have been held in facilities such as Omarska in Prijedor

 3     municipality which was under the control of the RS MUP.

 4        Q.   Based on your review of the documents however, is the more common

 5     complaint about the fact that the MUP is being required to guard these

 6     people rather than the other matters we just mentioned?

 7        A.   I want it to make it very clear that both complaints are

 8     frequently uttered.  However, it is the case that the -- and this is

 9     obviously a qualitative statement based on the reading of a large number

10     of documents, that the primary concern of RS MUP from the SJB level up to

11     the leading officials of the ministry -- for example, the officials who

12     participate in the 11 July 1991 [sic] meeting, seems to be with the

13     inordinate amount of man-hours and resources that RS MUP is, from their

14     perspective, losing because they have to guard a substantial number of

15     detention facilities in which a very considerable number of people are

16     being detained.

17             The frequency with which RS MUP complains in its own internal

18     reports about the drain of resources on the ministry which such detention

19     facilities represent, is to a large extent analogous to the complaints

20     that the ministry officials also have about the extensive involvement of

21     RS MUP officials in combat activities during the same period.

22        Q.   Thank you, if we could stay on page 3 of the English and go to

23     page --

24             MR. HANNIS:  I see Mr. Zecevic.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry.  Just intervention in transcript 62, 20,

Page 4759

 1     I believe the document refers to 11 July 1992 and that is what I believe

 2     the witness have said.  Thank you very much.

 3             MR. HANNIS:  I believe that's correct.

 4        Q.   Dr. Nielsen, would you agree the meeting on 11 July was July

 5     1992?

 6        A.   Yes, that is of course correct.

 7             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you Mr. Zecevic.

 8        Q.   Now, staying on page 3 in the English going to page 5 in the

 9     B/C/S, the last paragraph, it's referring to the minister who is pointing

10     out that the government is preparing a new political and territorial

11     division of the Serbian republic which will replace the previously

12     necessary forms such as autonomous Serb areas and regions with districts.

13     This will require the MUP to adjust to the re-organisation.

14             Do you know what the organisational structure of the MUP was in

15     the relation to the Serb autonomous regions; for example, vis-a-vis CSBs,

16     the Security Services Centres, were they aligned with the Serb autonomous

17     regions?

18        A.   I think in discussing the RS MUP and the Serb autonomous regions

19     or SAOs, I've been able to distinguish several phases in their

20     relationship.  During the second half of 1991, and I believe the first

21     SAOs were formed in September 1991, we see a growing co-ordination

22     between Bosnian Serb employees in various regions of Bosnia-Herzegovina

23     in the RS MUP -- or excuse me, in the SR BH MUP with the organs that are

24     being formed of these Serb autonomous regions.  This co-ordination is

25     increasing until the beginning of the war in April 1992.  From

Page 4760

 1     approximately April 1992 until this meeting in July, there are numerous

 2     instances in which the police are closely co-ordinating their activities

 3     with the organs of the still existing autonomous regions in the RS.

 4             However, by - and it is expressed in this document and other

 5     documents from the summer of 1992 - by the summer of 1992, from the

 6     RS MUP's perspective and from the minister's perspective, there is a need

 7     to consolidate decision-making on a variety of issues strictly within the

 8     Ministry of Internal Affairs, and in such a way that the RS MUP starts to

 9     disassociate itself from the Serb autonomous areas and these Serb

10     autonomous areas are, of course, also eventually closed down during the

11     course of the second half of 1992.  But from the first quarter of RS

12     MUP's existence, it is the case that you see a close co-ordination in

13     many fields between the SAO leaderships and the chiefs of the CSBs in

14     areas such as Trebinje, Banja Luka, et cetera.

15        Q.   Relating to that I have a question about the assignment of SJBs

16     to particular CSBs and, in particular, I want to ask you about Doboj.

17     You are aware that there was quite a controversy about whether Teslic

18     municipality and Teslic SJB were going to be affiliated with other -- the

19     ARK and Banja Luka CSB or with Doboj?

20        A.   Yes, I am aware that that particular SJB was contested within the

21     RS MUP, as it were.

22        Q.   And at the beginning of the conflict in April 1992, Teslic was

23     assigned or connected with CSB in Doboj?

24        A.   Yes, I believe that is the case.

25        Q.   And who had the authority to make the decision about which CSB a

Page 4761

 1     SJB would be reporting to or subordinated to?

 2        A.   Well, certainly prior to 1992, it was usually set out in the laws

 3     referring to the ministry, and it would be clearly delineated

 4     particularly in the rule book also where these SJBs would be subordinate

 5     to.

 6             It's quite unusual, in fact I think the case of Teslic is unique,

 7     that you see an internal struggle or contestation within the RS MUP about

 8     the placement of a certain SJB with respect to its CSB.

 9        Q.   Thank you, Doctor.  Let me turn next to page 6 of the English and

10     page 11 of the B/C/S.  And the middle of the page in English and the

11     B/C/S I think.  Paragraph begins:

12             "To resolve the observed problems and the dispute over

13     jurisdiction between the MUP and the army, a joint meeting should be

14     prepared to address all of the problems in order to reach an

15     agreement..."

16             Going on the next sentence begins:

17             "Special emphasis should be placed on:  The activity of

18     paramilitary formations, the problem of engaging police in combat

19     activities when not necessary, the co-ordinated efforts of the army and

20     MUP to prevent crime, and the procedure and jurisdiction with regard to

21     the treatment and holding of prisoners, among others."

22             Are you aware of what the problem or dispute about jurisdiction

23     between the MUP and the army was in relation to the activity of

24     paramilitary formations?

25        A.   Well, I am aware that during the summer of 1992, orders were

Page 4762

 1     issued by President Radovan Karadzic that were then reiterated in orders

 2     of the VRS stating that paramilitary formations needed to be disbanded

 3     and that to the extent, I believe, the language, and I'm para-phrasing

 4     here, but I believe that to the extent that these groups, these

 5     paramilitary formations were engaged in activities that were positive

 6     from the perspective of the Serbian nation, they should be integrated

 7     into the Army of Republika Srpska.

 8             There were a number of cases in various municipalities and

 9     regions of the RS throughout the summer of 1992 in which it proved quite

10     difficult to in fact carry out that order.  Paramilitary formations

11     remained active in a number of geographical areas in the RS.  And on

12     occasion there were conflicts between the police and the army about who

13     was doing what to implement that order.

14             So I think the way this is read or this is to be read in this

15     particular point of this document is that they realised that to avoid any

16     unnecessary conflict and given that they are ostensibly working towards

17     the same goal, they need to co-ordinate better and to make sure that they

18     get these paramilitary formations disbanded as quickly as possible.

19        Q.   To your knowledge, if paramilitary individual or formation was

20     observed committing a crime against civilians, for example, who had the

21     jurisdiction or authority to detain and/or arrest and process those

22     individuals, was it the MUP, was it the army, was it both or some

23     combination?

24        A.   I deal with in my report with the case of the Yellow Wasps as

25     they were called, a paramilitary formation that was quite active in

Page 4763

 1     Zvornik municipality, and which represented from the perspective of the

 2     RS authorities a serious danger to the stability of the legitimate

 3     authorities of the RS in that municipality.

 4             And because of that concern, the special unit or special

 5     detachment as it was called, of the police, of the RS MUP, actually in an

 6     operation in which some military police officers were involved as well,

 7     moved decisively at the end of July 1992 to remove the Yellow Wasps from

 8     the streets of Zvornik, as it were.

 9             The documents which I was able to find and review in RS MUP

10     reveal that the -- certainly for the individuals that the MUP arrested

11     during that operation, it was the MUP that was in charge of the initial

12     detention and processing of those individuals and as would happen, with

13     arrests of individuals by the MUP, once they had been detained and

14     arrested, it was up to the judicial organs to further determine the

15     nature of the investigation of such individuals.

16             I don't know what would have happened precisely with those

17     paramilitary formations who were detained or arrested by the military

18     police.

19        Q.   Were you aware the involvement of any individuals or unit from

20     the federal SUP in the Yellow Wasp operation?

21        A.   I know from the documents that I reviewed that there was

22     co-ordination with the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,

23     as it was called at that point in time, and this because Zvornik is a

24     municipality that borders the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and for

25     that reason it was quite natural and necessary to co-ordinate this

Page 4764

 1     particular effort with officials of the neighbouring state.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  On this document, my last question, it mentions

 3     procedure and jurisdiction with regard to the treatment and holding of

 4     prisoners.  Do you know what prior to this was the nature of the observed

 5     problems and dispute over jurisdiction between the MUP and the army about

 6     that issue of treatment and holding of prisoners?

 7        A.   This involved a number of issues.  One was the disputed

 8     responsibility for guarding some facilities.  There are documents that

 9     one sees from Prijedor municipality in which there seems to be an effort

10     by the police to divest itself of responsibility for guarding facilities

11     and to handover these facilities to the army, or alternately, in some

12     cases in which police officials had been seconded and were guarding

13     facilities that were formerly detention centres under the control of the

14     army, there was again a wish from the perspective of the Ministry of

15     Internal Affairs of the RS to have the army overtake full responsibility

16     for the guarding of those facilities, and therefore to free up the scarce

17     resources of the RS MUP personnel so that they could be involved in other

18     activities.

19             Later, particularly in August 1992, as a number of detention

20     facilities, particularly in northwestern Bosnia-Herzegovina on the

21     territory of what was called the Autonomous Region of Krajina, were

22     dismantled pursuant to international pressure once the conditions in

23     those facilities became a matter of public knowledge, one sees a number

24     of very tense disagreements between MUP personnel and VRS officers.  The

25     MUP personnel are in a very big hurry to get rid of these facilities, and

Page 4765

 1     by extension divest themselves of any responsibility for the persons who

 2     had up until then been detained in those facilities, and that a means

 3     that they, in a very accelerated and - certainly from the VRS's

 4     perspective - rushed manner, transferred hundreds of individuals,

 5     probably thousands, to the VRS's jurisdiction.

 6             In my report on page 83, I refer to some communication starting

 7     in paragraph 292 in which officials of the Manjaca detention camp, which

 8     was clearly a VRS detention facility, expressed dissatisfaction with the

 9     manner in which they are now being asked to take over full responsibility

10     for detainees being transferred from RS MUP detention facilities, chief

11     of which was here Omarska.  They are unhappy on a number of points.  One

12     is the physical state of the prisoners when they arrive at Manjaca, and I

13     refer to that in paragraph 292.  And they are also unhappy with the fact

14     that the vast majority of these prisoners, as I state in subsequent

15     paragraphs, arrive without any accompanying documentation that would

16     indicate to the VRS why these persons were still being detained.

17             And there's a number of documents from the VRS to the RS MUP, and

18     indeed to the RS government, complaining about the lack of accompanying

19     documentation regarding these prisoners.

20        Q.   Thank you, Doctor.  I want to go now to 65 ter number 307.  This

21     should be tab 38 in your binder.  That may be binder 2.  We'll start with

22     the first page of this document which is dated 27 July 1992.

23             The signature and stamp appear to be from the minister of

24     Internal Affairs; it's signed but I can't read whose signature it is.

25     Looking at the first page in both English and B/C/S, you see the

Page 4766

 1     introductory paragraph says:

 2             "Pursuant to the order by the president of the Presidency ..." I

 3     take it Radovan Karadzic at the time.

 4        A.   That is correct.

 5        Q.   "... as well as the request by the Assembly of the Serbian people

 6     in a session held on the 25th and 26th, I issue the following orders:"

 7     Now, you've seen this document before?

 8        A.   Yes, I have.

 9        Q.   Do you know what order of the president of the Presidency it

10     refers to and what that was about?

11        A.   Well, I've certainly seen the order to which it refers at an

12     earlier point.  However, and I have to ask for the Court's understanding

13     on this point, it's a number of years since I prepared this report and,

14     given my other responsibilities, I haven't been able to review every

15     single document that I reviewed originally in preparing this report, so I

16     would want to before making any observations about that order, want to

17     look at the actual order, which, as I said, looked at a number of years

18     ago.

19        Q.   Okay.  Fair enough.  Let me ask the question this way:  One of

20     the items -- one of the orders is number 4, which says:

21             "All special units formed during the war period on the

22     territories of the Security Services Centres are to be immediately

23     disassembled and put at disposal of the army."

24             Was that an issue that was either discussed at the Assembly or

25     subject of the order of the president?

Page 4767

 1        A.   I'm aware of the fact that in the Assembly sessions which I was

 2     able to review again a number of years ago, there were a frequent number

 3     of discussions in the summer of 1992 concerning Special Police units at

 4     which concern was expressed about first the proliferation of Special

 5     Police units in the RS.  At some point it seemed certainly also to

 6     members of the Assembly that anyone could form a unit and call it a

 7     Special Police unit, and this was a point of concern.

 8             And secondly, there was a particular concern with respect to the

 9     area of the Autonomous Region of Krajina, ARK, about the activities of

10     the CSB Banja Luka Special Police unit.  What one sees in the period

11     pursuant -- or after 27 July 1992, the date this document, is indeed that

12     most of these special units, certainly the ones at the municipality level

13     are shut down.  The CSB special units are to a large extent disbanded, at

14     least temporarily, and they are in the course of the second half of 1992,

15     and in accordance with instructions issued by the leading officials of

16     the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the RS, reconstituted as a

17     centralised Special Police unit of the RS MUP that is controlled by the

18     commander of that unit and the minister, and which is broken up

19     geographically into several regional units under central control.

20        Q.   Based on your review of the documents, was one of the complaints

21     in particular about the special unit from Banja Luka related to

22     allegations that they committed murders in Kotor Varos at the hospital,

23     murders of non-Serb civilians?

24        A.   There were a number of allegations -- sorry, I just started to

25     get the B/C/S in my headphones here.

Page 4768

 1             There were a number of allegations made against that unit

 2     including alleged killings of civilians as well as the more common

 3     allegation which was the plundering or theft of civilians in the

 4     Autonomous Region of Krajina.

 5        Q.   Let me ask you about item number 2 in this document:

 6             "In accordance with my order strictly," number such and such,

 7     "dated 23 July, I order that all individuals who were held responsible

 8     for crimes and are being officially prosecuted (except for political and

 9     verbal offences) are to be immediately removed from the Ministry of

10     Internal Affairs, as well as those persons who had, during the war on the

11     territory of former Bosnia and Herzegovina, committed crimes and for

12     familiar reasons criminal proceedings were not instigated against them."

13             My first question, can you look at the B/C/S and tell me if this

14     translation I have comports with your reading of it, "committed crimes

15     and for familiar reasons criminal proceedings were not instigated against

16     them"?

17        A.   Yes, it could be translated as for familiar reasons or for known

18     reasons.

19        Q.   Okay.  Do you, based on your review of the documents, have an

20     idea of what that's of reference to, what might be those known or

21     familiar reasons that certain individuals who had committed crimes during

22     the war and criminal proceedings had not been instigated against them?

23        A.   Based on my review of this and other documents, I can only

24     tentatively conclude that this is a reference to the lack of a fully

25     functioning state, and that, therefore, for known reasons, whatever that

Page 4769

 1     in the minister's mind subsumes or includes, has not been possible to

 2     conduct criminal proceedings against them, these individuals.

 3             I would note, however, that the draft 1992 annual RS MUP report

 4     gives very precise figures on, number one, how many employees of RS MUP

 5     were removed from the ranks of RS MUP and put at the disposal of the VRS

 6     because of conduct perceived to be incompatible with their employment in

 7     RS MUP.  And that is a figure that is in the thousands, I believe it's

 8     above 6.000.

 9             The second category are the -- those employees who, in the course

10     of 1992, are removed from RS MUP and are not put at the disposal of the

11     Ministry of Internal Affairs; that is to say, they are removed but they

12     don't go to the VRS -- excuse me, I said Ministry of Internal Affairs, I

13     meant the Ministry of Defence, that is the VRS.  That is a quite small

14     number of people by comparison.

15             And the draft 1992 annual RS MUP report also gives figures on the

16     number of police officers who became the subject of criminal proceedings.

17     Likewise, that number which is the exact number is found in the RS MUP

18     draft annual report is much smaller than the number of people who are

19     simply removed and transferred to duty in the VRS.

20             MR. PANTELIC:  I do apologise to my learned friend and to the

21     Dr. Nielsen, it is page -- while we are still on the same document, it's

22     page 72, line 20, my learned friend, Mr. Hannis, ask Dr. Nielsen about

23     the item 2 in this document, and it seems to us that there are slight

24     error in translation of the document, so I kindly ask -- we are very

25     lucky to have Dr. Nielsen who is familiar with the B/C/S language, I

Page 4770

 1     think it's a proper time to clarify this particular sentence which is

 2     actually, Dr. Nielsen, item 2 and then after word "Bosnia and

 3     Herzegovina" until the end.  And you can compare or my learned friend can

 4     clarify that with you, you can compare translation which is on the left

 5     side of the screen and this particular sentence, because it's quite

 6     important and it changes the substance of this item.  Thank you so much.

 7             MR. HANNIS:

 8        Q.   Are you able to help us with that, Dr. Nielsen?

 9        A.   Well, I've looked at the translation and I've looked at the B/C/S

10     and focusing, I believe, counsel referred to the words after Bosnia and

11     Herzegovina in that last sentence of paragraph 2, and I must say that I

12     do not necessarily have a problem with the official translation we have

13     here.  So I would certainly appreciate any clarification.

14             I would note that in -- when there was an issue about the

15     translation of documents in my previous testimony at this Tribunal, I was

16     sometimes asked just to read the passage in B/C/S aloud and then the

17     courtroom interpreters could offer their interpretation of it.

18             MR. PANTELIC:  I don't have any particular.  But thank you,

19     Dr. Nielsen, we shall clarify that in our cross-examination.  It was a

20     small test of your knowledge of B/C/S.  Thank you so much.

21             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

22        Q.   Dr. Nielsen, then I'm through with that document.  I want to go

23     to the next -- to the last one I have for you, which is 65 ter number

24     1888.  It's tab 45 in your binder.  While it's coming up, I'll indicate

25     this is a document dated 20 August 1992.  It's a summary of a MUP

Page 4771

 1     management Working Group meeting held in Trebinje.  Do you have it,

 2     Doctor?

 3        A.   Yes, I do.

 4        Q.   I want to ask you about an entry on page 6 of the English, and

 5     I'm trying to find the reference in B/C/S.  It's near the bottom of page

 6     6 in the English concerning the situation in Bijeljina, and I think

 7     that's found at page 7 of the B/C/S, near the bottom.  No, page 8 of the

 8     B/C/S.  I didn't allow for the cover page.  Do you see that reference, it

 9     talks about:

10             "The problem with the Muslim section of the population is

11     compounded by the arrival of Mujezinovic refugees and the return of those

12     who had left Bijeljina before, influenced by Mr. Karadzic's and

13     Mr. Panic's recent statements."

14             And then it goes on, the last sentence in the paragraph:

15             "The misunderstandings between the MUP and the representatives of

16     the Bijeljina Municipal Assembly have partially been resolved following a

17     meeting attended by the minister of the interior."

18             Based on your review of the documents, do you know what that is

19     referring to?  Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Panic's statements, the

20     misunderstanding between the MUP and the Bijeljina Municipal Assembly,

21     noting that this is a meeting on 20 August 1992?

22        A.   Not specifically, no.  I know from general knowledge that during

23     this particular time was some notion that at a locality, I believe called

24     Janja, close to Bijeljina there was a remaining enclave of Bosnian

25     Muslims.  I can only speculate that it may refer to that, but I'm not

Page 4772

 1     able to offer any further comment on that.

 2        Q.   Let me take you then to page 10 of the B/C/S, and it's page 8 of

 3     the English.  Actually on the preceding page in the English it starts out

 4     with the minister summarising the discussion and then we can go to page 8

 5     in the English.

 6             MR. HANNIS:  And if we could go to page 10, or the next page in

 7     the B/C/S.

 8        Q.   Item number 4, it mentions that:

 9             "The MUP is still receiving requests for active participation on

10     the frontlines."

11             And it says:

12             "That's why in this phase of the creation of our state, our

13     function should also be to protect borders but in accordance with

14     appropriate orders," and then in parentheses we see "co-operation with

15     military commands, activation of a certain number of police employees,

16     own command staff to command at front lines."

17             How do you read the last phrase:  "... own command staff to

18     command at front lines" in connection with that earlier 15 May 1992

19     document we saw creating war units?

20        A.   The way I read the portion in parentheses in point 4 is as being

21     compatible with the 15 May 1992 order, which, as I said earlier, reads

22     that the RS MUP units when subordinated to the VRS for the purpose of

23     combat activities are being commanded directly by the designated

24     employees of the ministry for the purpose of that operation, so this

25     would seem to be an illustration of that point.

Page 4773

 1        Q.   Thank you.  And the next paragraph, the last phrase, it says:

 2             "In future a written report must be sent to the minister of the

 3     interior on each and every days of police engagement in combat

 4     activities."

 5             You find that consistent with what you described before about

 6     sort of the bureaucratically speaking desire to maintain control over

 7     your employees?

 8        A.   Yes, I do find that is consistent with my earlier point.  I would

 9     also point out that the draft 1992 RS MUP annual report as well as the

10     documents sent to the ministry from the regional CSBs at the end of 1992

11     illustrate that RS MUP officials at municipal, regional, and ministerial

12     level were in the habit of painstakingly collecting information on the

13     number of military operations in which police officials have been

14     involved, the amount of man-hours or man days that had been spent on such

15     combat operations, and that they were in the habit of then collating that

16     information so that the minister and other leading officials could

17     understand the extent to which their employees were involved in one

18     activity or the other.  That is to say, whether they were involved in,

19     for example, traffic policing, combatting property crime, or for that

20     matter fighting on the front.

21             Therefore, again, this is consistent in the sense that once a

22     particular combat activity would be concluded, then the minister is

23     reminding everyone here that he wants a written report about every case

24     of further engagement of employees in combat activities.

25        Q.   Thank you, Dr. Nielsen.  Going to the next page in the B/C/S,

Page 4774

 1     staying on the same English page, item number 5, starts out:

 2             "When conducting their duties, police officers cannot take any

 3     sides, despite the demands and attempts at this stage of establishing

 4     municipal and republican authorities.  Their work must only be based in

 5     law."

 6             That last sentence reads:

 7             "We must fully support each and every one of our members, even

 8     when they overstep the bounds of lawful authority to a limited degree."

 9             Do you have any idea what that is a reference to concerning

10     members of the MUP overstepping bounds of lawful authority?

11        A.   I think like everyone, I can only read what it says on the page

12     in the case of the statement.  Any further observations I could make

13     would be conjecture.  I would just say that there is certainly a later

14     statement from Tomislav Kovac, assistant minister for police, that

15     people, the public in the RS should not jump to conclusions when they,

16     for example, see employees of the ministry removing household goods from

17     houses or taking cars and using it because what that activity which may

18     prima facie appear to be illegal to average citizen, he says, may just

19     simply be RS MUP requisitioning equipment for operational purposes.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Staying on this page in B/C/S and going to the next

21     page in the English, I want to ask but item number 7.  And it begins

22     stating:

23             "The order to disband the so-called special units established by

24     CSBs and SJBs, has been issued due to certain abuses."

25             And I think you commented about this earlier, some of the kinds

Page 4775

 1     of complaints about special units.

 2             Goes on to say:

 3             "Criteria for detachment membership must be made stricter."

 4             And the last sentence under number 7, says:

 5             "Individuals and groups within our ranks," it says "out ranks,"

 6     but "our ranks shall bear full responsibility under the law for any

 7     behaviour to the contrary (genocide, creation of camps, et cetera)."

 8             Are you aware from the documentation was there anything

 9     indicating that MUP members had been involved in genocide or creation of

10     camps that would cause this to be inserted in this summary of the

11     discussions at the 20 August meeting?

12        A.   Well, I am aware of the fact that particularly around the 20

13     August meeting there were a number of complaints being filed by the VRS

14     regarding the inappropriate treatment in the view of the VRS of the

15     detainees that were being delivered from RS MUP controlled facilities to

16     VRS facilities.  I referred to that a bit earlier in the case of the VRS

17     Captain Dana Lukajic [phoen] who is cited in my report and who complains

18     about this -- the treatment of prisoners who are now being transferred

19     from Omarska to Manjaca.

20             I'm also aware of the fact that the VRS in this -- at this

21     particular point in time, and I'd like to just quickly check the date on

22     this.  That at this particular point in time there were also allegations

23     that dated from June to August of improper conduct by police officers in

24     the CSB Banja Luka Special Police unit.

25             I think this would be an appropriate moment to note that since

Page 4776

 1     the very same point of this document, point 7, states that there were

 2     problems with the special units formed at the CSB and SJB levels earlier,

 3     and that they are being replaced, as I said earlier, by the centralised

 4     detachment of the police of MUP which would be located at various CSBs

 5     but would be under a unified command, it's significant to note - as I do

 6     in my report - that the CSB Banja Luka police unit, Special Police unit

 7     was to a very considerable extent formed out of a previously existing

 8     paramilitary organisation; namely, the Serb Defence forces or SOS, and

 9     that as such the RS MUP appeared to have had a negative experience with

10     the conduct of paramilitary units -- of paramilitary unit members who had

11     been given permission to act as members of a Special Police unit in the

12     ARK area.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Next, I only have two more documents to show you.

14     One is 65 ter number 1862.  It's tab number 66 in your binder.  This is a

15     document that previously had the incorrect ERN, and I requested the

16     Court's permission to substitute the correct one which is now on the

17     screen.

18             And, Dr. Nielsen, you talked about this document in your report

19     in reference to a special unit that existed at the level of the

20     headquarters in the MUP?

21        A.   Yes, but there was a unit, there was a special unit that existed

22     at the level of the MUP of the RS since the beginning of the conflict,

23     and that is then reconsolidated in the fall of 1992 in a different

24     composition, and with additional control over these regional Special

25     Police units that are at the CSB level.  The one that we have in front of

Page 4777

 1     us in tab 66, is a payroll from April 1992 and refers to a special

 2     detachment that is located at the Serbian MUP, that is to say, at the

 3     seat of the ministry.

 4        Q.   My English translation says special platoon.  Can you tell me if

 5     that's correct?

 6        A.   That's what I read the B/C/S as saying as well, special platoon.

 7        Q.   Okay.  Now, we've heard evidence before about the special unit or

 8     the Special Brigade, the one that was commanded by Milenko Karisik, is

 9     this part of that or is this something different?

10        A.   Well, in this particular case - and I believe this may be the

11     only such payroll for this unit that I've seen - there's not any

12     indications in the document whether or not it is subordinate to another

13     unit.  It does say that it's directly at the level of Serbian MUP which

14     would be their term at that point in time for RS MUP, and it say that

15     Dusko Malovic is the commander.  There are no references to the existing

16     Special Police unit of RS MUP, which at that point was simply called the

17     special detachment or detachment.

18        Q.   Based on your review of documents, do you have any knowledge

19     about what duties Dusko Malovic and his special platoon performed for the

20     MUP or in the MUP?

21        A.   I know that I refer at one point but only once in the report to

22     Dusko Malovic, but I wouldn't be able to find that part of my report

23     immediately, but it is also the only time that I refer to it and it's not

24     a unit which left an extensive documentary trace, so I'm not in a

25     position to say anything more than what I've already said in the report

Page 4778

 1     about that unit.

 2        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  And let's move then to the final document I'd

 3     like to show you.  It's tab 80.  Tab 80 in your binder.  And the 65 ter

 4     number is 279.  This is document described as a draft report or the

 5     RS MUP annual report for 1992 for work in the period April to December

 6     1992.  It's dated January 1993 from Bijeljina.  And is this the document

 7     you referred to a few times earlier in your testimony?

 8        A.   Yes, that is the document.

 9        Q.   I'd like to ask you about a few -- trying to ask you about a few

10     points in here.  The first one is on page 6 of the English, and I believe

11     it's page 9 of the B/C/S.  Yes.  In the English, I'm looking at the

12     bottom of page 6, and this is talking about Eastern Herzegovina.  It

13     says:

14             "In that period the work of the Muslim personal in the SJB was

15     blocked and orders and decisions of the official MUP in Sarajevo were

16     refused, all aimed at preparing for a final separation from the BH MUP.

17     The organisation of a Serbian ministry and setting up a CSB based in

18     Trebinje was rushed forward.  In February and March, comprehensive

19     activities were conducted in order to set up the Serbian SJB in Mostar

20     and plans were made to break up the Mostar CSB."

21             Skipping to the next sentence and going on to page 7 in the

22     English:

23             "By March, four police stations were set up within the Serbian

24     SJB in Mostar, the take-over of which was planned after signing the oath

25     in the Trebinje CSB.  Furthermore, at the end of March 1992 in all the

Page 4779

 1     public security stations in the SAO Herzegovina, reserve and active

 2     policemen and management staff of Muslim and Croatian background were

 3     disarmed."

 4             Is that consistent with one of the examples you gave to indicate

 5     why you thought the split and formation of a separate Serbian MUP was not

 6     part of any Cutileiro discussion or negotiation or plan?

 7        A.   That is one of the points on which I based that conclusion, that

 8     is correct.  It is important to understand that there's no -- despite the

 9     31 March dispatch of 1992 of Momcilo Mandic announcing the establishment

10     of RS MUP on the 1st of April, there is no one answer to the question

11     when did RS MUP truly begin to function on a de facto basis.  What we

12     see, as is the case with military units, as is the case with the Crisis

13     Staffs, is we see a variety of events taking place that the date on which

14     the RS MUP starts to function, the date on -- or the date on which

15     Serbian personnel take de facto control of the police in a municipality,

16     is heavily dependent upon local circumstances.

17             But it is in the case, as we see here in Trebinje, it's the case

18     in certainly other areas of Eastern Herzegovina, hence the reference to

19     SAO Herzegovina here, and it's the case in certain other municipalities

20     that long before the Cutileiro negotiations had reached the point at

21     which we have the principles document of 18 March 1992, facts were being,

22     so to speak, constructed on the ground by -- through arming of the

23     police, and through in some cases an unwillingness to continue to

24     co-operate with police officials of other ethnicities.  And in some

25     cases, this is also the case in Pale, SJB Pale, outside of Sarajevo, by

Page 4780

 1     the removal, firing of Muslim officials or the removal physically from

 2     the police station prior to the inauguration of RS MUP.

 3             When we speak about Trebinje and Eastern Herzegovina, it's worth

 4     noting that in the draft 1992 annual report, they also emphasise that as

 5     early as the fall of 1991, September/October 1991, a number of SJBs in

 6     Eastern Herzegovina sent ethnic Serb employees of SR BiH MUP to fight on

 7     the front in Dubrovnik in Croatia, and they emphasised that they did this

 8     and undertook this action despite the fact that it was, in their own

 9     words, illegal and despite the fact that no instructions for such

10     mobilisation or combat deployment of police forces had been issued by

11     Sarajevo and by the ministry in Sarajevo.

12        Q.   Thank you.  If we could go to the next page in the B/C/S, and

13     near the bottom of page 7 in the English currently on the screen.

14             Reading from the paragraph that says:

15             "It is not our intention to provide an elaborate description of

16     the activities of Serbian employees in the former MUP in organising and

17     enabling of the MUP in the Serbian areas," and I want to go on to the

18     next paragraph.

19             It says:

20             "This applies first and foremost to issues dealing with

21     activities regarding the division of the MUP, illegal organisation of the

22     Serbian MUP at the place where it was based, illegal arming of reliable

23     active personnel and reserve employees, winning over some employees for

24     work in Serbian MUP, preparation for the final division which, to a

25     certain extent, came to a head with the telegram sent to all personnel

Page 4781

 1     for their decision to work for the Serbian MUP (at the end of March),

 2     preparation of the Law on Internal Affairs and its adoption at the

 3     Assembly, splitting of the special purpose unit, liberation of the school

 4     at Vraca..." et cetera.

 5             First of all, would you agree with me that all events listed

 6     there are key events in the creation of a separate Serbian MUP in 1992?

 7        A.   Yes, they are key events and course the report itself sees fit to

 8     highlight them because they are in the perspective of the authors of the

 9     report key events.

10        Q.   And as you've noted before, it uses the reference "illegal

11     organisation" and "illegal arming" to refer to the activities carried out

12     by Serbian MUP personnel earlier in 1992?

13        A.   That is correct.  And again without taking any analytical

14     position on whether these activities in fact were illegal or not, I again

15     find it significant to highlight that these are employees of the Ministry

16     of Internal Affairs who certainly know what is legal and what is illegal

17     who are making an observation about the illegality of their activities.

18     Moving aside from the issues at hand and the concrete events being

19     described here, one can say as a simple point of logic, that if there

20     truly had been a negotiated agreement or plan, if you will, to split

21     Bosnian MUP up into three ethnically-based MUPs, then why would anyone be

22     engaged in such pervasive and consistent illegal activity.

23        Q.   Thank you, I'd like to --

24             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Hannis, I alert you that we are two minutes away

25     from the adjournment.

Page 4782

 1             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, I'm sorry to report I don't think I'm

 2     going to be able to finish the document in two minutes, but I will be

 3     well under my six hours, I may need 20 minutes in the morning to

 4     complete.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Should we take the break at this point?

 6             MR. HANNIS:  This would be a good place to break.  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Dr. Nielsen, what I am going to say I'm sure you

 8     will have heard previously, but I'm obliged to remind you that having

 9     been sworn as a witness, you cannot, until you are released, have any

10     communication with the lawyers from either side, nor can you discuss your

11     testimony with anyone outside of the court.  Unless there is a change of

12     which I am not aware, we will resume tomorrow morning in Courtroom I.  So

13     we take the adjournment now to tomorrow morning.  Thank you.

14                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.43 p.m.

15                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 15th day of

16                           December 2009, at 9.00 a.m.