Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5415

 1                           Monday, 25 January 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.13 a.m.

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

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

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning, before I ask for the appearances, the

 8     record would note that the Bench is fully constituted with the return of

 9     Judge Harhoff.  Thank you, may I have the appearances, please.

10             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  For the Prosecution I'm

11     Tom Hannis appearing with our Case Manager, Crispian Smith.  And I had

12     requested a chance to address one brief procedural issue before the

13     witness came in.

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

15     Slobodan Cvijetic, and Tatjana Savic appearing for Stanisic Defence this

16     morning.

17             MR. PANTELIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Igor Pantelic and

18     Dragan Krgovic for Stojan Zupljanin Defence.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

20             Yes, Mr. Hannis.

21             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  I just wanted to bring one

22     matter to your attention.  I'm not requesting any specific relief at this

23     point because I'm not sure I'll need it.  But this morning I received an

24     e-mail listing I think some 94 documents that the Defence proposed to use

25     in cross-examination, and it's my understanding that these were ones that

Page 5416

 1     had not been previously notified as being possible -- possibly used with

 2     him.  That may not cause me any difficulty.  I see of the 94 some 80 are

 3     65 ter, therefore, documents that were on the Prosecution's list, so it's

 4     something I should have some vague familiarity with.  But it's been four

 5     weeks plus since we last were with Mr. Nielsen, so it bothers me that I

 6     only got notice of this morning instead of last week or two weeks ago.

 7     That's all.  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Is there any comment from the other side?

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, most of the documents which are

10     provided in the list to Mr. Hannis are already exhibits in the case.

11     Therefore, we didn't feel that this would cause any prejudice or problem

12     for the -- for our learned friends from the Prosecution side.

13             JUDGE HALL:  I note you said "most."

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I would say 95 per cent are the exhibits

15     already in the case.

16             JUDGE HALL:  We'll see where we go.

17             The Chamber has before it the Prosecution's third motion for

18     leave to amend its Rule 65 ter exhibit list to add documents relating to

19     the present witness, and the substance of the motion is that this deals

20     with a document which the Prosecution could not have earlier confirmed

21     that it would be using.  The Defence, I assume, having had recent notice

22     of this - this motion was filed the 22nd of January which is Friday past

23     - the question is how much time does the Defence need in order to deal

24     with this new document.  If either side is in a position to indicate that

25     now, it would be useful.  But the -- let me not volunteer any more.  Let

Page 5417

 1     me hear what the Defence has to say.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, I would first like to let the

 3     record show that Mr. O'Sullivan has joined us in Stanisic Defence.

 4             Concerning this document, we are ready to proceed.  We received

 5     the document on Friday, and I informed my learned friend that the

 6     Stanisic Defence would have no objection to it, and we can proceed with

 7     this document.  But there is one other aspect.

 8             This document which we are talking about is a response to a

 9     letter sent by Mr. Karadzic.  And I have asked Mr. Hannis in order to

10     have a complete set of these documents which refer to a fairly contested

11     issue in this case, that maybe it would be better if all of these

12     documents which are in possession or which the Office of the Prosecutor

13     is in a position to obtain, that all of these documents are provided to

14     the parties and then we can -- then we can, I believe, completely deal

15     with this issue.  That was the gist of my suggestion to Mr. Hannis.

16             And concerning this particular document, we are fine, we can

17     proceed, and we don't require any additional time.  Thank you.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.  And no doubt we would hear

19     further from Mr. Hannis on your discussion.

20             Mr. Pantelic.

21             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honour, at this stage we don't have any

22     particular objections, but please give me additional time that during the

23     break I have to check with my team the exact details of these documents.

24     But this principle I think that everything would be fine with

25     Zupljanin Defence.

Page 5418

 1             JUDGE HALL:  That's understandable, Mr. Pantelic.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             MR. PANTELIC:  And I do apologise, Your Honours.  If we are

 4     speaking about Mr. Hannis, we are speaking about these two documents,

 5     correspondence between the Cutileiro office, and that's all.  Only these

 6     two documents.  One.  I don't have objections, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Hannis, the point that Mr. Zecevic made about

 8     the documents in respect of which the subject document was a response to,

 9     perhaps you shouldn't be put on the spot of answering formally now, but

10     we would require response after the break.

11             MR. HANNIS:  I will check.  I know we made an inquiry as to

12     whether or not I had a letter to which the present one I'm asking to be

13     admitted is a response to, the 12 June letter from Cutileiro to

14     Mr. Karadzic.  And I have asked one of my assistants to check and see if

15     we have the letter to from Mr. Karadzic that prompted this response and I

16     certainly agree if we have, we should include that as well, and I'll try

17     and report to you after the break if we do have that.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  I think that disposes of all the

19     preliminary matters.  Could the marshal escort the witness back to the

20     stand, please.  I keep saying marshal, I should use the word "usher."  I

21     forget I am not where I used to be.

22                           [The witness takes the stand]

23             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning, Mr. Nielsen.

24             THE WITNESS:  Good morning, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Your cross-examination continues, welcome back and

Page 5419

 1     we wish you all the best for the new year.

 2             Before I invite counsel for Stanisic to continue, the Chamber

 3     would remind you that according to our calculations, you have an hour and

 4     a half left with the cross-examination of Dr. Nielsen.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  I am sorry, Your Honours, I believe there was --

 6     there was a discussion before we adjourned last year and we were of --

 7     our understanding was rather that the Trial Chamber would grant us the

 8     whole day of proceedings for ... I'm now suggested by my co-counsel and

 9     counsel for Zupljanin Defence that actually the decision has been taken

10     in that respect.  That, if you remember, we requested additional time,

11     and there was a discussion about it.

12             JUDGE HALL:  I confess that I'm relying largely on my own

13     recollection which may not be accurate.  Aided, of course, by such

14     records as the Registry has.  But does counsel for the Prosecution share

15     Mr. Zecevic's recollection of this ruling the Chamber made?

16             MR. HANNIS:  I'm checking the transcript now, Your Honour.  I

17     recall there was a discussion about it.  I don't recall the outcome,

18     frankly.

19             MR. PANTELIC:  Maybe I can be of assistance, Your Honour.

20     Honourable Judge Delvoie was presiding at that day, and we have detailed

21     discussion about the timing, and finally, the decision was made that

22     Stanisic Defence will have one day; Zupljanin, one day; and Prosecution

23     for redirect, one day.  That's the ruling that I know that it was

24     somewhere at the end.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Which will account for the three days that we have

Page 5420

 1     assigned for this witness.

 2                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 3             JUDGE HALL:  We thank counsel, and the transcript now confirms

 4     what Mr. Pantelic has indicated.  So that Mr. Zecevic has one day,

 5     Mr. Pantelic has one day, and the Prosecution has one day.  Thank you

 6     very much.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.

 8             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours, may I

 9     begin with your leave.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the usher to

12     hand a small binder to our expert witness Mr. Nielsen containing the

13     exhibits.

14                           WITNESS:  CHRISTIAN NIELSEN [Resumed]

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

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Nielsen.

17        A.   Good morning, Mr. Cvijetic.

18        Q.   Obviously we have to continue.  If you will remember last time we

19     left off at the point of commenting on certain laws that are crucial for

20     understanding the place and the role and the jurisdiction of the Ministry

21     of the Interior.  However, what we left out and in your work and your

22     report starting from paragraph 175, you are dealing with the internal

23     regulations of the Ministry of the Interior for the adoption of which

24     Mr. Stanisic was bound to do that according to all the internal

25     regulations and the law.  Is that correct?

Page 5421

 1             I apologise, we don't have Mr. Nielsen's answer on the record, to

 2     my previous question.

 3             Mr. Nielsen, can you please repeat your answer to my previous

 4     question, it hasn't been recorded.

 5        A.   [Overlapping speakers] Yes, that is correct.

 6        Q.   Again we don't have it on the record, please repeat, I don't know

 7     if you can see the record.

 8        A.   Yes, that is correct.

 9        Q.   All right.  We may proceed now.  These internal regulations were

10     to be adopted as an obligation by Mr. Stanisic based on the Law on State

11     Administration and the Law on the Interior in order to govern the

12     internal relations within the ministry of the interior and its organs

13     that were not governed by the law or more precisely regulated, although

14     they were provided in the law because you would agree with me it is not

15     possible to include everything in a law; is that right?

16        A.   [Overlapping speakers] That is correct.

17        Q.   In these paragraphs to which I referred, beginning with number

18     75, you justly -- I am sorry, Mr. Nielsen's answers keep not being

19     recorded.  The problem must be that you understand me and you hastened to

20     answer, so we overlap.  Could you please answer again my previous

21     question.

22        A.   I apologise, and, yes, that is correct.

23        Q.   In the quoted paragraphs you already dealt with one of these

24     documents.  First and foremost, the rules on the internal organisation of

25     the Ministry of the Interior under the circumstances of immediate threat

Page 5422

 1     of war and the state of war; correct?

 2        A.   Yes, that is correct.

 3        Q.   I say you justly dealt with it because that is, in fact, the most

 4     important and the most extensive internal document for whose adoption the

 5     minister was responsible; correct?

 6        A.   It certainly was the most extensive internal document, that is

 7     correct.

 8        Q.   And physically, it is indeed very voluminous, it weighs several

 9     kilos.  And with that document the minister practically stipulates the

10     internal organisation of the ministry beginning from the minister at the

11     top down to the clerk and employee who performs the simplest jobs such as

12     janitors, cleaners, et cetera?

13        A.   That is correct, although it should be noted that despite its

14     voluminous size, it was about half as long as the previous SRBiH rule

15     book on the same subject.

16        Q.   All right.  In that document what is enumerated are the job

17     descriptions of every employee that required training and qualifications,

18     the way of contracting employment, termination of employment, et cetera?

19        A.   [Overlapping speakers] That is the point of the document; that is

20     correct.

21        Q.   In that binder, the first document is number 20.  I apologise, we

22     need on record your previous answer.

23        A.   That is correct.  That is the point of that document.

24        Q.   In that small binder I've given you under number 20, you will

25     find the record from the extended session of the collegium of the MUP

Page 5423

 1     dated 9th September, 1992?

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And for the Trial Chamber it's

 3     Exhibit 65 ter 239.

 4        Q.   While the Registrar is looking for the document you can see that

 5     the agenda featured the consideration of the draft document on internal

 6     organisation under number 2.

 7        A.   Yes, that is correct.

 8        Q.   Thus you will agree in the month of September it had already been

 9     prepared in the form of a draft, as they called it, but it had not been

10     passed yet?

11        A.   Yes, and I state that in paragraph 176 of my report.

12        Q.   Yes, and I believe you stated that at one of the collegium

13     sessions in November, the minister insisted that it should be urgently

14     adopted.  Do you agree?

15        A.   Yes, I recall that.

16        Q.   Are you aware, Mr. Nielsen, at this time from September to

17     November was a time when this document, according to the procedure, had

18     to be forwarded to every employee in the remotest police station, and

19     every employee had the right to put forward his suggestions and comments.

20     Are you familiar with this procedure of adoption of such documents?

21        A.   I was aware that all leading employees of the MUP, for example,

22     chiefs of public security stations and Security Services Centres were

23     invited to comment upon the draft document.  I have to admit that I

24     wasn't aware that every single employee of the ministry was invited to

25     comment upon it.

Page 5424

 1        Q.   All right.  Let me tell you then this time from September to

 2     November passed precisely in collecting these comments and suggestions

 3     and during Mr. Stanisic's tenure, the document was not adopted among

 4     other reasons because of the announced resignation of Mr. Djeric which

 5     was taken November, do you know about this problem in the functioning of

 6     the Government of Republika Srpska?

 7        A.   Yes, I'm aware of that.  Mr. Djeric resigned from his position at

 8     that time.

 9        Q.   You will agree, though, that this area did not remain uncovered

10     because the organisation operated all the time based on the old book of

11     rules of the Ministry of the Interior, the Socialist Republic of

12     Bosnia-Herzegovina, I believe you mentioned it somewhere.

13        A.   That is correct, and just as we mentioned last year with the law,

14     the new rule book is in large part based on the previously existing rule

15     book.

16        Q.   Correct, I agree with you.  To conclude with these rules, I'd

17     just ask you to look at a set of documents that the minister adopted in

18     this period, and they were indeed enacted there in the binder.  Let me

19     just go through them briefly, not in detail, we don't have time for that.

20             For instance, the rules on discipline and disciplinary liability

21     of the employees of the Ministry of the Interior.  It's under 20.1.  Have

22     you found it?

23        A.   Yes, sir.

24        Q.   It's already an exhibit, so I won't call it up on the screen.

25     Let me just ask you, did you have occasion to look at it?

Page 5425

 1        A.   Yes, and, in fact, I can see based on the ERN that this was one

 2     of the documents that I personally collected.

 3        Q.   Have you had occasion to evaluate --

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Sorry, let me tell the

 5     Trial Chamber that it's 1D54 for the record.

 6        Q.   Have you had occasion to evaluate that the minister simplified

 7     and abbreviated the procedure for establishing disciplinary liability and

 8     extended the statute of limitations for disciplinary infractions to

 9     double the length?  Have you noticed that?

10        A.   I am aware that as with the rule book on the internal

11     organisation of the ministry, the regulations on disciplinary

12     responsibility were made more effective or stream-lined, we could say.

13     However, I've not studied in detail the statute of limitations for

14     disciplinary infractions.

15        Q.   All right.  Thank you, then we won't deal with it in detail.

16             Could I ask you to look at another document from this set.  It's

17     20.10.  And it's 65 ter 1860.

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Maybe the legal officer can help

19     us get this document on the screen.  It's a report, a progress report for

20     July, September 1992.

21             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir, I have it.

22             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   We won't discuss this report much.  It will probably be recalled

24     when we discuss other topics.  Let us just turn to the page --

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let me find it first.  It's

Page 5426

 1     page 19.  That's the page number, and that's how we can probably find it

 2     in e-court.  In B/C/S it's 19.  No, this is 16.  We have to turn three

 3     pages further.  We need page 19.  Right, that's the page.

 4        Q.   Mr. Nielsen --

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we find the right page in

 6     English.  I have to be honest, I have not prepared the references in

 7     English, but my colleagues tell me it's number 25 -- 24 in English,

 8     page 24.

 9        Q.   We just opened this page, Mr. Nielsen.

10             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And could we scroll down a little

11     in Serbian.

12        Q.   We find a short list on this page and on the next page, a list of

13     documents that the minister passed in the course of his tenure up to

14     September 1992.  That's the end date of the report.  There are nine

15     rules, five draft laws were suggested in this period because the minister

16     sometimes even proposes bills in its own jurisdiction and a number of

17     orders and instructions, et cetera.

18             My question regarding all these documents in the binder including

19     instructions that have been exhibited such as the instruction on

20     compulsory current reporting, et cetera --

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Cvijetic, I notice that there's a slight

22     difference between the B/C/S version and the English version which are on

23     the screen of the documents.  It appears that the Serbian version

24     actually does mention five draft laws, but the English version only

25     contains four.  I don't know if this is of any significance, but maybe we

Page 5427

 1     can just clear it up.

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I will ask my colleague who speaks

 3     English to assist me.  It seems the only one missing is the third law,

 4     the law amending the law on the personal identification card.  The third

 5     line in the list from Serbian is missing.

 6        Q.   So, Mr. Nielsen, this includes also all the major instructions.

 7     1D51, which we will not open.  In your set it's 20.6, instructions on

 8     current interim and other reporting, as well as a number of other

 9     instructions.  And in your work you dealt with these instructions and a

10     series of orders that the ministry used to control the Ministry of the

11     Interior.

12        A.   That is correct.  I would note that this is a document from

13     September -- excuse me, October 1992, and that means that as is indicated

14     at the beginning of the section, not all of these administrative and

15     draft law proposals have yet been adopted, but they have all been drafted

16     and are intended to be adopted for the use of the Ministry of Internal

17     Affairs.

18        Q.   Yes.  As far as draft laws are concerned, but you will agree with

19     me that in this period, and that's the point of my last question here,

20     the minister endorsed all the necessary internal documents for the

21     operation of the Ministry of the Interior except these last rules that

22     were not adopted during his tenure?

23        A.   Yes, I agree with that.

24        Q.   Thank you.  That's the end of that topic, and you won't need the

25     binder anymore.

Page 5428

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I ask the usher to hand to you

 2     the next binder.

 3        Q.   Among those internal documents the minister passed, there is

 4     about -- there are about ten orders that have been a subject of your

 5     study and also the Prosecution.  In your evidence and in your paper --

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Just a correction of the

 7     transcript.  It's not about ten orders, it's about several dozen orders.

 8        Q.   You dealt in greater detail with one particular order; namely,

 9     the order to establish a staff for the contingency of war.  You dealt

10     with that in direct examination.  But before we open the document, may I

11     ask you to look at the document number 1 in the binder.  It's 1D00-4042,

12     but I won't open it.  I'll instead say what it is.  I quoted from this

13     law several times, and I will just ask you to follow.  It's the Law on

14     All People's Defence; correct?  Have you found it?

15        A.   That is correct.

16        Q.   If you don't mind, open to Article 91.  Right.  I will read and

17     you just confirm whether I read correctly, because you do speak my

18     language.  "The armed forces constitute" --

19             MR. HANNIS:  I don't speak the language.  Could we have a

20     reference to where it is in English.

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, then we have to open

22     Article 91 in English.  We opened it with the previous witness.  This

23     will take a lot of time.  Can we find Article 91 in English.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  It's on the screen.

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] In English it's 61; right?  We

Page 5429

 1     have both versions now.

 2        Q.   It's enough to read it out; I don't have to interpret it.  It's

 3     defined here what the armed forces are.  They consist of the Yugoslav

 4     People's Army and the Territorial Defence.

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we now just move to

 6     Article 104, page 67 in English.

 7        Q.   One question applies to all three articles.

 8             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And in Serbian it's page 18,

 9     Article 104.  If we could just zoom in on that article.

10        Q.   In your report you do mention the principle of resubordination.

11     "In situations of immediate threat of war and other contingencies, the

12     police may also be used to carry out combat tasks of the armed forces in

13     keeping with the law.  During its engagement for combat activities in the

14     armed forces, the police shall be under the command of the authorised

15     officer in charge of the combat activity."

16             That is written in the law.  I think I found a passage about this

17     in your report, do you agree with this principle?

18        A.   I agree with that, and I'm familiar with that principle.

19        Q.   Thank you.  And there's another article, 207.

20             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we find the corresponding

21     pages.  That's correct.  We have it in B/C/S.  Let's just see where it is

22     in English.  Page 115 in English.

23        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, according to military regulations in the system of

24     All People's Defence, all subjects in the state are duty-bound to prepare

25     for All People's Defence, to make plans, to form staffs, and take all the

Page 5430

 1     other necessary steps for the purpose of defence preparations and

 2     continued work under the circumstances of immediate threat of war and

 3     war.  That's what this article is about.  I don't know if you had

 4     occasion to study it, but you must be familiar with the general principle

 5     from studying the system of All People's Defence?

 6        A.   Yes, I am aware of that, and in the report I note that the

 7     president of the RS government, Branko Djeric, issued instructions for

 8     all institutions in the RS to draft such operating guide-lines in

 9     accordance with the relevant regulations.  I don't think I referred to

10     that article but that was surely the point of his instruction.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Okay.  Now we can move on to

12     65 ter 126.  That's Exhibit 1D46.

13        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, you are familiar with this order.  I think you have

14     commented on it in your previous testimony.  So, Mr. Nielsen, this

15     obligation to draw up plans in the event of an imminent threat of war or

16     a state of war is an obligation that applies to the Ministry of the

17     Interior as well as it does to all other state organs, this is what you

18     have just said when you mentioned Mr. Djeric.

19        A.   That is correct.  That is an obligation that applies to the

20     Ministry of Internal Affairs.

21        Q.   Thank you.  You commented on this order until item 7 inclusive.

22     Can we now please look at item 8, and can we just briefly comment on it.

23     Have you found item number 8?  Let's see if we have it on our screens.  I

24     think that's the case.  It reads literally as follows:

25             "In carrying out regular duties and tasks, the provisions of the

Page 5431

 1     law on internal affairs and other regulations of the Serbian Republic of

 2     BH currently in force shall be strictly upheld."

 3             This is what the minister says in this order.  And then it goes

 4     on to say:

 5             "Whereas in military operations military regulations and rules

 6     shall be enforced."

 7             My question relating to item 8 is be very short.  Isn't it true,

 8     Mr. Nielsen, that this item 8 provides for the pure application of the

 9     rules and regulation that we were discussing previously?  Would you agree

10     with that?

11        A.   I agree that that is the point of this item 8 with respect to the

12     engagement of police personnel in combat activities.

13        Q.   Thank you.  I agree with your comment, and I would have to move

14     now to next document, that's number 1 in your binder, which is

15     Exhibit 1D00-3610.  We have to wait for it to appear in e-court.

16             Mr. Nielsen, as you may have noticed, from the heading this is an

17     enactment issued by the Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist

18     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina whereby both the minister of the interior

19     of Republika Srpska as well is dealing with the issue of wartime

20     organisation.  Do you agree?  I apologise, I meant Bosnia-Herzegovina.

21     And that in this document, if you look at page 5 -- can you please have

22     page 5 of this document.  Please look at paragraphs 1 and 2.  Minister

23     Alija Delimustafic expresses his dissatisfaction with the flaws

24     established in the course of preparation of public security stations.

25     And in paragraph 2, the lack of analysis of the work and functioning of

Page 5432

 1     these stations within the system of wartime organisation.  Can you see

 2     that?  What is evident from this is that the joint Ministry of the

 3     Interior was obliged to draw up these plans and also to draw up the

 4     wartime organisational chart of the joint Ministry of the Interior, this

 5     is what stems from this document, would you agree with me?

 6        A.   As I stated earlier, most of the relevant regulations enacted in

 7     the Republika Srpska were either copies of or slightly revised versions

 8     of the relevant regulations in SRBiH MUP; therefore, it is entirely

 9     correct that this is the point of this document, and I'm also aware that

10     Minister Delimustafic as well as other leading officials of the old

11     SRBiH MUP were highly unsatisfied with the situation on this point.

12        Q.   Very well.

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, because we believe

14     that this is a relevant document, I tender it to be admitted into

15     evidence because it is linked to the order that we had previously

16     discussed.  This is 1D00-3610.

17             MR. HANNIS:  I don't object to the admission of this document,

18     but I need some clarification about this statement, how Delimustafic's

19     document is related to the previous document by Minister Stanisic on the

20     15th of May 1992?  Is that what is being said?  I don't see how

21     Minister Stanisic in May 1992 is creating war units based on something

22     that Delimustafic said in March 1992 before there was a break in the

23     joint MUP.

24             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the point is that

25     they are both operating on the basis of the same regulations and drawing

Page 5433

 1     up the wartime internal organisation of the Ministry of the Interior.

 2     What I want to say is that what Mr. Stanisic did was nothing that he made

 3     up himself that has a foundation in the previous practice that went on

 4     for years.  So if you want to delay the admission of this document once

 5     you have seen the next one, I think the things will become more clear.

 6     Both Mr. Stanisic's order and this document and the next one have a

 7     foundation in one and the same regulation, and this is where I see the

 8     connection between those; and for that reason I'm tendering it to be

 9     admitted into evidence.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D158, Your Honour.

12             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  And I apologise, I've

13     been criticised by my learned friend Zecevic.  I've been criticised for

14     not following the sequence of documents.  Can we please now have

15     document 1D00-0454.

16        Q.   And in your binder, Mr. Nielsen, that's number -- actually, that

17     is the document before this one.  1D00-0454, you found it, and I think we

18     also have it on our screens.

19             The essence is that in the document that's just been admitted was

20     preceded by a 1991 document addressed to all the administrations of the

21     joint Ministry of the Interior.  And can you please focus on last

22     paragraph on page 1.

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we please scroll up.  That's

24     right.  And I don't know whether the corresponding paragraph in English

25     is there.

Page 5434

 1        Q.   I think in paragraph 3 it says that there is an obligation to

 2     prepare a proposal for assigning employees, and for that purpose I'm

 3     providing the necessary forms, a list of employees assigned to MUP

 4     according to the wartime organisation including all the jobs in your

 5     organisation under the rules in force, et cetera, et cetera.

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Now, can we please look at the

 7     attachment to this document.  It's a form.  And I think it's page 3 in

 8     both versions.  Yes, that's the relevant form.  Can we please have the

 9     English version.

10        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, have you found this form?  What we have here is a

11     list of employees assigned to the SUP according to the -- MUP, according

12     to the wartime organisation.  I see that number 1 is minister of the

13     interior, then his deputy Vitomir Zepinic, et cetera, et cetera.  So you

14     would agree with me that this confirms what we discussed previously,

15     i.e., that this wartime organisation and the operation of the MUP, so to

16     speak, functioned on the basis of the same principles and the same rules

17     and regulations; am I right, Mr. Nielsen?

18        A.   I agree that the document we are currently looking at reflects

19     the fact that the leading officials of SRBiH MUP, because of a severely

20     deteriorating security situation to which we have previously referred,

21     drafted the necessary preparations or contingency plans for the operation

22     of the ministry should a state of war be declared.  And certainly in

23     RS MUP, Minister Stanisic, again although there was not an official state

24     of war declared, set up the ministry to function as if war conditions

25     obtained.

Page 5435

 1        Q.   I think that we agreed on one thing, that was essentially only

 2     the application in both cases of the Law on All People's Defence; is that

 3     right?

 4        A.   I agree with that assessment.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  We have wrapped up this topic.

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I suggest that this

 7     document be admitted into evidence as Defence exhibit.  Its number is

 8     1D00-0454.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D159, Your Honours.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, the next document in your binder is number 6, and

13     I'm trying to find it in your report, this particular area that you dealt

14     with.  This is an area concerning camps, collection centres, and points

15     where people were detained in 1992.  That's the subject that you have

16     dedicated a whole chapter to.  Let me just find the beginning, and maybe

17     you can help me to do it as quickly as possible.  Yes, that's

18     paragraph 285 until the end of the next chapter.

19             Have you found it?  Shall I wait for you?

20             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have Exhibit 2079

21     according to 65 ter on our screens.

22        Q.   You will agree, Mr. Nielsen, at least according to the number in

23     the binder, that this is an extremely complex and extensive area.  We

24     cannot discuss it in detail, and we cannot discuss all the documents.  In

25     line with the Chamber's guide-lines, I have made selections of the

Page 5436

 1     documents and divided them into groups, and I will tell you which group

 2     I'm particularly referring to.

 3             This is a decision on the application of international

 4     humanitarian law [as interpreted].

 5             Mr. Nielsen, have you found --

 6             THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction:  International Laws of

 7     War.

 8             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Have you found this order on the implementation of International

10     Laws of Wars, you can see that this order was issued by the president.

11     It's dated the 13th of May, 1992.  Let us look at item 3 of this

12     document.

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I don't think we have the right

14     document.  That's not item 3 that I was referring to.  Please move to the

15     next page.  Item 3 on the next page in B/C/S.  The English version is

16     okay.  Let's look at item 3 in the B/C/S.  It's up there in the upper

17     part.  Which reads "the minister is authorised."  Yes, that's the one.

18        Q.   According to the president's order:

19             "The Minister of Defence of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and

20     Herzegovina is authorised to prepare instructions on the treatment of

21     captured persons."

22             I'm showing you this for the sole purpose of identifying it as an

23     initial regulation which indicates that the problem of the application of

24     the international laws of war with regard to the treatment of captives

25     has been identified by the state leadership and that the president and

Page 5437

 1     the Presidency have assumed their role according to the constitution and

 2     law to address this issue in a proper way.  Would you agree with me?

 3        A.   Well, I agree that Radovan Karadzic in his capacity as president

 4     of the Presidency issued this order.

 5        Q.   Very well.  Thank you.

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: {Interpretation] I don't know whether this has been

 7     admitted into evidence.  If not, I tender this short order, or rather,

 8     short regulation to be admitted into evidence.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic, isn't this part of what we've been

10     referring to as the law library?

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] All right.  I withdraw my

12     proposal.  I agree with the Chamber.  Let's move on to Exhibit P189,

13     which is already in evidence.

14        Q.   That's document 6.1 in your binder.

15             Mr. Nielsen, in order to implement this order an instruction on

16     the treatment of captured persons were issued, and it was signed by

17     Mr. Subotic, the defence minister.  Attached to this instruction was a

18     sort of card or a form to be filled out for each captured person.  Had

19     you had an opportunity to see this instruction?

20        A.   Yes, I am familiar with this order and these instructions.

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are now going to

22     deal with a series of orders and instructions of President Karadzic,

23     records of the meetings of the Presidency.  I will go through them

24     quickly because they all refer to the same subject, and probably inviting

25     we shall submit to the Chamber a list of all the exhibits that need to be

Page 5438

 1     admitted into evidence.  I just want the witness to confirm whether he

 2     had opportunity to read that or not.

 3             Can we please look at document 65 ter 186.

 4        Q.   It's 612 [as interpreted] in your binder, Mr. Nielsen.  I see you

 5     have already found it.  You can see here that Mr. Karadzic continues to

 6     be seized of that problem.  He makes reference to the international law

 7     and, therefore, issues instructions how to treat the civilian population

 8     in case they become detained.  We are not going to comment on it.  Can we

 9     simply just read it to ourselves.  And then we have the next document

10     which is another order issued by Mr. Karadzic.  Let me just say that this

11     was repeated on the 19th of October.  That's 65 ter 222.  Let me see,

12     that's 6.3 in your binder and you have it, as I can see.  Practically in

13     this order Mr. Karadzic emphasises an obligation to adhere to

14     international covenants.  The same was done by him on the 6th of August,

15     1992, which is document 6.5 in your binder, and it's already in evidence

16     as P191.  He also appointed certain persons in charge of various issues.

17             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Since it's already in evidence we

18     need not look at it.  And we have one more document from October.  It's

19     actually dated 22nd October.  That's 65 ter 259.

20        Q.   And in your binder, it's 6.4, Mr. Nielsen.  Yes.

21             Mr. Nielsen, at least as far as Mr. Karadzic's document are

22     concerned, we have learned what the position of President Karadzic was

23     regarding this issue.  He addressed this issue by issuing orders and

24     conclusions with regard to the application of international Laws of War.

25     Now --

Page 5439

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic, it's 10.25.  Is this a convenient

 2     point?

 3             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] If you say so, Your Honours, I

 4     would agree.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  So we take the adjournment and resume in 20 minutes.

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

 7                           --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  While the witness is being escorted back to the

 9     stand, I need to return to something that occurred on Friday in terms of

10     the -- an order for redaction that was made.  And it turns out that there

11     is a portion of the transcript which indeed not have been redacted, so,

12     therefore, the order that is now being made is that in terms of Friday's

13     transcript, page 80 line 20 to page 83 line 10, the time code being 1324

14     to 1330 hours, that need not have been redacted, is, therefore, restored

15     to the public record of Friday's proceedings.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  Sorry, Your Honour, during the break, I was

17     informed by Mr. Zupljanin that he has certain problems with his neck, due

18     to previous long time ago accident, so he would kindly ask if he can get

19     to use one of these chairs with your permission.

20             JUDGE HALL:  If it's available, certainly.

21             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

22                           [The witness takes the stand]

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I continue?

24             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

Page 5440

 1        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, now we come to a series of records from the sessions

 2     of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I'll just read

 3     out the number of the exhibits, we don't need to open them.  P201,

 4     P427.18, and 1D104.  It's 66, 67, and 68 for you.  You can confirm to the

 5     Trial Chamber that these are records from the 23rd, 24th, and 25th

 6     session of the Presidency of Republika Srpska.  Let's just look at the

 7     dates.  5th June and 8th August 1992.  Is that correct?

 8        A.   That is correct.

 9        Q.   Can you just confirm that in the record of the 23rd session of

10     the 5th of June in the agenda, item 2, it says that the issue of

11     prisoners of war was considered, as well as the issue of their

12     accommodation and food for them.  Was that issue really discussed, can

13     you confirm?

14        A.   Yes, I confirm that that is what the document says.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Can you confirm that the next session also discussed

16     this topic, and so did the 25th session.  It says a particular issue was

17     the one of camps and security.  That's your document 6.8, page 1, the

18     penultimate paragraph.

19        A.   Yes, I confirm that that is what the document says.

20        Q.   You will agree with me that the Presidency dealt with this issue

21     continuously, especially in the month of August.  Do you agree that it

22     was on the agenda on all the three sessions?

23        A.   Yes, and I note that the reason that that was the case, the

24     reason why the Presidency was so interested in that subject, as I note in

25     my report, was the fact that the conditions in detention facilities had

Page 5441

 1     become an international issue at that point.

 2        Q.   Before I move to the next topic, I have to ask you to go back to

 3     P189.  We don't need to open it.  These are the instructions by

 4     General Subotic.  Item 18 is the one we need to look at because it has to

 5     do with my next question.  For you is number 6.1.  For the organisation

 6     and the accommodation in camps, corps commanders of the army of the

 7     Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina are responsible.  That's what

 8     General Subotic assigned to them as their obligation.  Do you agree?

 9     Item 18 in the instructions.

10        A.   That is correct.  That is what points 18 says.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we now call up P61.2.

12        Q.   For you, Mr. Nielsen, it's number 7.  I just want to look at the

13     establishment of military camps.  As you can see, obviously in keeping

14     with the prior decisions of the Presidency, General Ratko Mladic also

15     issued a document called the treatment of prisoners of war.  And in this

16     document he mainly interprets the documents of the Supreme Command

17     referring to international treaties, providing a basis for the

18     establishment of military camps for prisoners of war.  Have you had

19     occasion to see this document before?

20        A.   Yes, I'm familiar with this document.

21        Q.   Thank you.  It's already exhibited so we can move on to the next

22     one.  Your number 8.  1D156.  In the series of these orders by

23     General Mladic, there is one that we are going to see in a second.  Take

24     your time if you have not seen it before.  On page 2 --

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to the legal officer.

Page 5442

 1     We need page 2 immediately.  Paragraph 3.

 2        Q.   It says, the corps establishes a camp for prisoners of war.

 3     Number 8, have you found it?  Now move to page 2.  Paragraph 3 begins

 4     with the words that, "the corps shall establish a camp for prisoners of

 5     war in keeping with our order," et cetera.

 6             Mladic orders the Eastern Bosnia corps to establish a POW camp in

 7     the spirit of the general order.

 8             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, Your Honours, the English on the screen

 9     doesn't appear to be matching up with what is being discussed.  At least

10     on my screen.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It's point 2 in the third

12     paragraph.

13             MR. HANNIS:  I see it now.

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] You can see it now.  Is it all

15     right?

16        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, Ratko Mladic now implements his own order ordering a

17     specific camp to be set up; correct?

18        A.   I agree.

19             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we now move to another

20     document.  Let me see if it's exhibited.  1D157.

21        Q.   Your number 9.  Now we have the order of the commander of the

22     Eastern Bosnia Corps setting up a POW camp on the Batkovic farm and like

23     in the order by General Mladic, the conditions under which the camp will

24     operate are determined, the way security is provided, et cetera.

25             Mr. Nielsen, you know that the Batkovic camp was a military camp;

Page 5443

 1     correct?

 2        A.   Yes, I know that Batkovic was a military camp.

 3        Q.   Then I will show you documents for a couple of other military

 4     camps.

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] P427.14.

 6        Q.   It's your number 10.  It's from the command of the Birac Brigade.

 7     Look at point 6 where the commander, Major Svetozar Andric deals with the

 8     evacuation of the Muslim population, what it should look like, what do

 9     with men, women, and children, and this is addressed to the staff of the

10     Territorial Defence of the Zvornik municipality.  Do you know that on the

11     territory of the Zvornik municipality, one camp was established on the

12     basis of this order?

13        A.   Well, I agree that that is what the document says in point 6.

14     I'm familiar, as I noted, with Batkovic, but I'm not familiar with the

15     specific existence of military detention facilities in Zvornik

16     municipality since I, in my report, mostly focus on detention facilities

17     operated by the police.

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we now call up 65 ter 1463.

19     It's a decision of the commanding officer in whose area of responsibility

20     it was.

21        Q.   In item 1 you can see that a camp was organised in Vlasenica, and

22     the name should be familiar to you, Susica camp.  Were you aware that

23     this was a military camp?

24        A.   I am familiar from other cases at this Tribunal that Susica was a

25     military detention facility.

Page 5444

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since this is not

 2     yet an exhibit, may I tender it now.  I believe it's relevant and the

 3     witness is familiar with the document.

 4             MR. HANNIS:  Well, I'm not sure the witness said he was familiar

 5     with the document, but I don't have any objection to its admission.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D160, Your Honours.

 8             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have to proceed

 9     more quickly.  Let's move to document 65 ter 1457.  Your number 12.  We

10     need item 8 in this document.

11        Q.   This is a daily operation report from the command of the Eastern

12     Bosnia Corps which notes that in the area of Zvornik there are around

13     500 prisoners in the area of Zvornik and another 800 in the area of

14     Vlasenica.  I'm just trying to show how the need to form POW camps arose.

15     The numbers grew and the units were no longer able to take charge of them

16     so camps needed to be set up.  I suppose that you are not familiar with

17     the document, but this document demonstrates the need to form -- to set

18     up POW camps, and I would like to tender it.

19             I am sorry, I didn't ask my question.  Do you agree with my

20     position that it is reports like this that show the need to set up such

21     camps because operational units cannot take responsibility for prisoners

22     and conduct combat activities?

23        A.   I agree that documents like this indicate one reason and one way

24     in which detention facilities were formed on the territory of

25     Republika Srpska, in this case by the military.  I have to say that I'm

Page 5445

 1     not previously familiar with this document which was collected; I can see

 2     based on the ERN after I left the Tribunal.  But I would like to note

 3     since we do have this document in front of us that point 3 of this

 4     document actually speaks to the police and says that there is often

 5     shooting in villages and in the city without any reason for that, and the

 6     police does not intend to prevent this, so that obviously relates to my

 7     subject of analysis.

 8        Q.   Very well, but my question was about the need to set up

 9     POW camps.  You can agree that this document precedes the establishment

10     of such a camp, yes or no?

11        A.   Yes.

12             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I tender this

13     document.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D161, Your Honours.

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 642 will be our next

17     document.  In item 4 we see an identical situation.  It's again a combat

18     report, but now we are in the sector of the 1st Krajina Corps, and in

19     item 4 the same is noted, that they have 600 prisoners of war and they

20     are facing the same problem.  This document confirms the same point as

21     the document we exhibited, so I tender this document as well, 65 ter 642.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D162, Your Honour.

24             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   I'd now like to show you a document that has been exhibited,

Page 5446

 1     P61.1.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, if I may go back Mr. Cvijetic.

 3             Although in terms of the sequence of documents, as I understand

 4     it, I acceded to the application that it be admitted and given an exhibit

 5     number, was there a question to the witness in respect of that document?

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the document was

 7     identical to the previous one, so my questions on the previous document

 8     apply to this one as well.  I can only repeat the same question, does

 9     point 4 confirm the need to set up POW camps, because operational units

10     cannot guard them.  It's the same question.

11             JUDGE HALL:  I understand that, but perhaps for completeness, the

12     witness should be invited to ...

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour.

14        Q.   You heard the question, Witness.  Would your answer be the same

15     as to the previous document?

16        A.   Yes, again with my caveat that this is not the only reason why

17     detention facilities are being formed.

18        Q.   Very well.  I believe we already have the next document.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  What are, then, the other reasons?

20             THE WITNESS:  Well, in my expert opinion, I believe that the use

21     of the term "prisoners of war" in this and the previous document in

22     practice, when analysed in the context of all available documentation,

23     shows that the term "prisoners of war" was, in fact, applied in a blanket

24     manner to a lot of persons in municipalities controlled by the RS who had

25     at no point been engaged in combat activities.

Page 5447

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So you are saying that these camps ended up

 2     holding not only POWs, but also civilians.  Is that your testimony?

 3             THE WITNESS:  Yes, and that is reflected in both the military and

 4     the police documentation that I have been able to examine.

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, this order from the command of the 1st Krajina Corps

 8     is probably something you have seen before.  Measures of reinforced

 9     security are applied here, or are to be applied pursuant to this order,

10     and the command and the Chief of Staff specify these reinforced measures

11     and the use of civilian police as guards.  P61.1.  Have you found that?

12     Pursuant, therefore, to an order from the military command, the civilian

13     police is engaged to provide security in a facility like this.  Would you

14     agree that at the moment when they take up such a duty in the area of

15     responsibility of a military unit, a civilian -- the civilian police

16     place themselves under the command of that military unit in executing

17     their security tasks?

18        A.   I agree with that, and I would point out, as I do in the report,

19     that the minister of Internal Affairs and other leading officials of the

20     ministry on several occasions objected to the use of police officials to

21     guard military detention facilities.

22        Q.   I agree on that point.  I will then not dwell long on the next

23     document.  65 ter 3026.  Your number 15.

24             Here we have a study on the Susica camp prepared by the warden

25     concerning the guard service.  And he, like the command of the 1st

Page 5448

 1     Krajina Corps -- let me just find the page.  Page 6.  Page 6 contains a

 2     table.  The legal officer pulled it up for us.  He envisages military men

 3     to provide security and the civilian police is engaged only for

 4     reinforced security.  It's obviously the same system as in Manjaca, the

 5     military always followed the same principles, and it's the military

 6     commander here who decides how security will be provided.  Do you agree?

 7        A.   I have not been able to read the entire document through, but

 8     based on the parts that you have shown to me, that is what it appears to

 9     indicate.  That is correct.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let me tender this, 65 ter 3026.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D163, Your Honour.

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The next document will be your

15     number 16, Exhibit 1D03-0496.  I don't know if it's in e-court.  Has it

16     been translated?  I apologise, we have to take a minute.

17        Q.   Let's finish with the military with this document.  It's from the

18     administration for intelligence and security affairs of the Main Staff.

19     President Karadzic decided on the 25th December to disband the Manjaca

20     camp as a sign of goodwill and to reduce the tensions among the

21     international public, et cetera.  Do you agree that a decision like this

22     could not be carried out that easily, not even if it carried the

23     authority of the Main Staff and the Supreme Command, because it says here

24     by disbanding the camp they would be letting go even of the most hardened

25     criminals and those responsible for the gravest crimes.  So this provides

Page 5449

 1     for a selective approach to the execution of an order from the Supreme

 2     Command.  Do agree that it was not impossible to ensure uniform conduct

 3     in this case, not even pursuant to the order of the Supreme Command?

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic, with the greatest respect, although

 5     Mr. Nielsen is an expert witness, I'm not sure that the way that question

 6     was phrased which seemed to incorporate more submissions and argument

 7     than anything else, is one that he could helpfully answer.  Perhaps you

 8     may wish to rephrase it as a more focused question.  In any event, the

 9     document speaks for itself.  Any conclusions to be drawn from it would be

10     a matter for submissions at the appropriate stage.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour.  I forgot an

12     introductory question to the witness.

13        Q.   Have you had occasion to see a document like this before?

14        A.   I'm familiar with this and similar documents and would note what

15     is an interesting point, namely, that despite the fact that many of these

16     people have been in detention for a period of weeks, or even months, it

17     is still the case at the end of 1992 that criminal complaints have not

18     been filed against many of them.

19        Q.   The point of my question was this, and you can agree or disagree,

20     does this look like resistance to the decision of the Supreme Command in

21     a sense?

22        A.   I don't think it looks like disobedience.  It looks as comments

23     from the field which are designed to alert the president to the fact that

24     the status, legal status of a number of detained persons has still not

25     been determined, specifically again because they have, for whatever

Page 5450

 1     reason, not raised criminal complaints against many of them.

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Obviously there's no more

 3     discussion possible on this document.  I will not tender it,

 4     Your Honours.  Can we move to the next document, 65 ter 1396.

 5        Q.   As you can see, it's a decision, your number 17.  A decision to

 6     establish penitentiary and re-education facilities in the territory of

 7     the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina adopted by the Presidency.  I

 8     just want us to identify another type of facility where people were

 9     detained.  These are official penitentiary institutions in

10     Republika Srpska where certain regulations applied.  And you will agree

11     with me they were within the jurisdiction of the justice ministry of

12     Republika Srpska; correct?

13        A.   That is correct; that is what this document discusses.

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I tender this document?

15             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D164, Your Honours.

17             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Next document, 1D00-2309.

18        Q.   Yes, it's Doboj.  Can you just open your own document from the

19     set.  It's just one page, next page.  Page 3.  This is the affirmation of

20     the translator in Bosnian.

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We need in B/C/S a page which

22     corresponds to the current English one.  In B/C/S it's 2.  Page 2 in

23     B/C/S and page 3 in English.  Right.

24        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, we've now read a decision to establish penitentiary

25     correctional facilities, but here we see an interesting document from the

Page 5451

 1     district prison in Doboj, you've read it.  From this we see that a report

 2     on the situation in that prison is sent to the Crisis Staff of Doboj

 3     municipality.  I believe you dealt with this topic, the influence of the

 4     Crisis Staffs, even on affairs of this.  How do you explain that?  There

 5     is the proper organisation, there is the justice ministry, and yet we see

 6     that Crisis Staffs deal also with penitentiary institutions.

 7        A.   I note that this document stems from the end of June 1992.  From

 8     the large quantity of documentation that I've been able to examine, it is

 9     certainly the case that in the first three months, particularly in the

10     first three months of the RS's existence, the Crisis Staffs engaged

11     themselves proactively and extensively in all manners of activities in

12     municipalities in the RS.  I note that, in fact, my section in the report

13     on RS MUP and the operation of detention facilities in the RS notes that

14     the police themselves formed the Omarska facility pursuant to an order of

15     -- or a decision of the Prijedor Crisis Staff.

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I tender this

17     document, 1D00-2309.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D165, Your Honours.

20             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I'll move on now to the next two

21     documents.  One of them is P193 already in evidence.  It's your number

22     19.

23        Q.   You are familiar with this exhibit.  Let us just see how the

24     document dealt with this issue.  They adopted a decision on former

25     commission for business to collective centre.  You have reviewed it, so

Page 5452

 1     there's no need for us to comment on it.  Let's us just see how the

 2     government addressed this issue.  You have seen this document, can you

 3     please confirm that for the record.

 4             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, if it's already in evidence and he is

 5     not going to ask the witness to comment on it, I don't know why we need

 6     to show it to him.

 7             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, I have asked him to confirm

 8     whether he has reviewed this document or not.

 9             THE WITNESS:  I am familiar with this document.

10             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Right.

11        Q.   The next one is P194.  I assume that you are familiar with the

12     results of the work of this commission.  I would just like to draw your

13     attention to page 6, that is the last page of this document.

14     Specifically item 4 where it is suggested that all these facilities

15     should be handed over for security to the Army of Republika Srpska.  Are

16     you familiar with this document and these conclusions?

17        A.   I am familiar with this document.  I believe that I discuss it

18     and analyse it in my report, and I would note that the point in number 4

19     is completely consistent with my findings, namely that as of August 1992,

20     not least because of the international outrage regarding detention

21     facilities in the RS, the Ministry of Internal Affairs was very actively

22     and very rapidly trying to divest itself of any involvement in the

23     operation of such facilities.  In some cases --

24        Q.   Very well.  I'll move to the next topic, if you don't mind.  I

25     think we dealt with this document sufficiently.

Page 5453

 1             Mr. Nielsen, you have just mentioned the decisions of the

 2     Crisis Staff.  Let me just check whether you had this document in mind,

 3     which is document 21 in your binder, and that is actually 1D00-0183.  You

 4     speak about the setting up of Omarska camp on the basis of a Crisis Staff

 5     decision, and I think you also had the same camp in mind in your

 6     footnote; is that right?

 7        A.   Yes, I believe that is the document I referred to.  This is

 8     merely a different version which doesn't have the same ERN.

 9        Q.   Very well.

10             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I tender this

11     document to be admitted into evidence because the witness is familiar

12     with it, and he makes reference to it in his report.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D166, Your Honours.

15             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we have now document

16     65 ter 443, please.

17        Q.   We are still dealing with Crisis Staff decisions.  Here we have a

18     decision adopted by the Crisis Staff of Prijedor municipality on the

19     release of people from detention.  You will agree with me that this

20     matches your point, and that is that the Crisis Staff were very much

21     involved in the issue of prisoners, even on deciding who was going to be

22     released from detention camps or not?

23        A.   That is correct.  I want to note that these Crisis Staffs, of

24     course, as a matter of routine included at the municipal level the chief

25     of the public security station as a representative of the police.

Page 5454

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I tender this

 2     document as well.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D167, Your Honours.

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And the next is 65 ter 472.

 6        Q.   It's an order from the same Crisis Staff.  Your number 23.  It's

 7     an order to all enterprises and agencies to terminate the employment of

 8     workers who had participated in the armed rebellion, armed insurgency,

 9     and who are currently in Omarska and Keraterm.  The decision to up to the

10     Crisis Staff; correct?

11        A.   That is what the document says; that's correct.

12        Q.   Have you had opportunity to see a document like this?

13        A.   Yes, I'm familiar with this document.

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]  Thank you.  I tender this

15     document, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D168, Your Honours.

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Next 65 ter 1880.  Your number 24.

19        Q.   These are minutes of the session of the National Defence Council

20     of the Prijedor municipality, dated 29th September, 1992.  And please

21     look at sub-items 1, 2, and 3 under item 1 -- item 2, sorry.

22             So item 2, there are sub-items 1, 2, and 3.  You can see what

23     decisions this council made.  It takes over all the essential obligations

24     regarding the unhindered arrival -- sorry departure of all persons from

25     the open Trnopolje reception centre, the public security station is to

Page 5455

 1     provide escort for the convoy; and subitem 3, the municipal Red Cross is

 2     advised to close down the open Trnopolje reception centre.  So at the

 3     municipal level major decisions are made regarding these centres in

 4     Prijedor.  Do you agree?

 5        A.   I agree that significant decisions are made.  And I would again

 6     point out that Simo Drljaca who was the chief of the public security

 7     station in the municipality of Prijedor is a member of the Crisis Staff

 8     and is a member of the body that is making these decisions.  So these

 9     decisions are made with police participation.

10             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to

11     tender this document into evidence.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D169, Your Honours.

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Nielsen, I'm going to finish

15     with number of documents of Mr. Mico Stanisic, and for that purpose can

16     we have Exhibit D55.  It's your number 33, I apologise.  So 1D55.

17        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, have you seen this order issued by Mr. Mico Stanisic

18     before?  In this document, Mr. Stanisic is dealing with how detention

19     measures should be applied.  And in item 2 it says a security collection

20     centre shall be directly -- will be the direct responsibility of the

21     Serbian army.  And if they do not have enough men for this duty, it shall

22     therefore be necessary to engage members of the reserve police for the

23     task and to place them at the army's disposition.  You mentioned this

24     issue and I would like to remind you of the law on the Internal Affairs,

25     the Criminal Code.  Within public security stations, there were rooms in

Page 5456

 1     which people could be detained for up to three days.  The subject of this

 2     order is particularly those premises, those rooms; is that right?  The

 3     minister hereby determines what kind of conditions regarding hygiene

 4     should exist.  Would you agree with me?

 5        A.   You've asked me several questions, so I'll start with the first

 6     one.  And that is that I'm not previously not familiar with this

 7     document.  I can only assume that it is among those documents which the

 8     OTP was unable to collect and which Mr. Stanisic discussed during his

 9     interview with the OTP.

10             In response to your second question, this document is indeed

11     consistent with the other documentation that I have been able to analyse

12     in the sense that we know that already at the mid-July 1992 meeting of

13     the leadership of RS MUP in Belgrade, concern was expressed about

14     deplorable, un-hygenic, unsanitary, and dissatisfactory conditions in

15     detention facilities.  So in that sense, this seems to be a logical

16     effort by Mr. Stanisic to remedy that situation.

17        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, Mr. Stanisic here speaks about detention units

18     within public security stations in which the police is entitled to detain

19     persons for up to three days.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Will the counsel please speak more slowly and

21     repeat his last question.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Cvijetic --

23             Mr. Nielsen, hold on a minute.

24             The interpreters simply did not get the question that was asked

25     by counsel.  So for the record, Mr. Cvijetic, would you be good enough to

Page 5457

 1     repeat your question.  And again I remind you not to overlap.

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, this order obviously refers to remand prison units

 4     within the police premises in which the police can detain people for up

 5     to three days.  As for all other facilities, it deals under item 2

 6     specifying that the police is not responsible and it's not its

 7     jurisdiction to deal with these matters.  Can we agree on that?

 8        A.   Well, I would agree with that conclusion with the observation,

 9     however, that this order is issued on the 10th of August, 1992, a point

10     at which the police is still involved in operating large-scale detention

11     facilities that were being shut down in the course of August and

12     September of 1992.

13        Q.   Regardless of the fact that I don't agree with what you said

14     last, I'm going to move to the next document which is already in

15     evidence, which is 1D56.  Will you please read this order.

16             MR. HANNIS:  May I ask if counsel does not intend to tender that

17     last one.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  It's already exhibited.

19             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry.

20             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It has been admitted before,

21     Mr. Hannis.  Just like the one that we see right now.

22        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, my position and the Defence position is identical in

23     this regard, and that is to say that Mr. Stanisic is dealing solely with

24     these affairs only within his remit.  As for other detention and

25     collection centres, he clearly states that it goes beyond his

Page 5458

 1     jurisdiction.  Is that an inference that can be drawn from his orders?

 2        A.   The fact of the matter is that at the 11 July 1992 meeting in

 3     Belgrade, the minister and all other leading officials of the ministry

 4     clearly, as is revealed in the record of that meeting, discussed

 5     unsanitary and deplorable conditions in detention facilities, and the

 6     need to remedy that situation.  That is why in examining this document,

 7     which I do in my report, I put it in the context of a general effort by

 8     the minister to ameliorate the situation in detention facilities in the

 9     RS; to clearly indicate who is responsible for what facilities, to -- as

10     for his ambitions to remove the police eventually from the business of

11     guarding and operating detention facilities; and finally to investigate

12     and close down, as he says in this order in front of us, any wild, I'm

13     not sure what the best English translation would be, wild prisons which

14     might exist on the territory of the RS.

15        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, the last document that I'm going to show you, let me

16     just check the number.  It's already in evidence, and it's 1D57.  1D57.

17             You can see this document.  It's your number 37.  It's a document

18     forwarded by the minister to the centres and public security stations by

19     making reference to the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare and with a

20     view to collecting information about detention and collection centre in

21     the territory of Republika Srpska.  The minister says regardless of

22     jurisdiction, it is necessary that you provide the following data, and

23     underneath he lists what specific information he requires.  I'm not going

24     to show you proof that this order actually reached all the centres and

25     the stations because I don't have time for that.

Page 5459

 1             My question is the same as before, it is obvious that

 2     Mr. Stanisic distinguishes between these camps and detention facilities,

 3     but he is not trying to avoid helping other organs in providing this

 4     information.  One of the ways of doing that is by sending this circular

 5     letter.  Do you agree with me on that?

 6        A.   Again let me say clearly that the documentation shows that both

 7     the army of the RS as well as the MUP of the RS operated detention

 8     facilities in the summer of 1992.

 9             As of August 1992, as I indicated in my previous answer, the RS

10     MUP was proactively trying to divest itself as quickly as possible of any

11     involvement with detention facilities.  The order in front of you -- or

12     the document in front of us, I agree, shows that the minister in

13     accordance with orders issued by the Presidency at that point wants to

14     clarify the exact situation on the entire territory of the RS according

15     to existing prisons, detention facilities, and camps, regardless of who

16     is at that point in time operating those.

17        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, at the end I will state the Defence position, and I

18     will give you an opportunity to either agree with it or not.  The

19     Ministry of the Interior under the Law of Criminal Procedure and the

20     enactments adopted by the MUP, and the Law on Criminal Procedure and

21     Internal Affairs has the right to detain persons for whom there is

22     reasonable suspicion that they have committed criminal offences for up to

23     three days.  To that end, they have the right and the capability to have

24     certain premises for these purposes in their stations.  All

25     Mr. Stanisic's orders refer exclusively to these cells and premises.

Page 5460

 1             As for all other facilities, camps, collection centres, call them

 2     what you will, the Ministry of the Interior has no jurisdiction over.

 3     There is not a single order issued by the MUP minister in which he

 4     ordered or supported or encouraged the establishment of any such facility

 5     of this other kind.  There is no order in which the minister ordered the

 6     use of members of the police in providing security of such facilities.

 7     On the contrary, all his efforts were aimed at excluding the police from

 8     any security related affairs concerning these facilities, and that these

 9     facilities be handed over to the army.

10             Mr. Nielsen, do you agree with what I have already said whether

11     that was within the system or not?

12             MR. HANNIS:  Objection, Your Honour.  That's a very compound

13     question.  It's argumentative, and it assumes facts not in evidence.  He

14     needs to break it down.

15             JUDGE HALL:  I note that it runs from line 53 through to line --

16     sorry, line 5 to line 25.  It's almost a speech, Mr. Cvijetic.  Again,

17     could you attempt to phrase the question in a manner that the witness can

18     give an answer.

19             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, have you in your examination found any order issued

21     by Mr. Stanisic according to which he ordered the establishment of camps

22     or detention centres that we discussed?

23        A.   I have not found any orders issued by Mr. Stanisic in which he

24     personally orders the establishment of such facilities.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Have you ever found any order issued by

Page 5461

 1     Mr. Mico Stanisic in which he orders or gives an instruction to use

 2     members of the police to provide security in such facilities, yes or no?

 3        A.   My answer would be, yes, I have found orders issued by

 4     Mr. Mico Stanisic in which he certainly treats the use of members of the

 5     police to provide security in such facilities, and indicates awareness

 6     that such engagement was ongoing.  However, in all of those documents, he

 7     also seems to indicate, particularly after the 11 July 1992 meeting, his

 8     position that the police should as quickly as possible hand such

 9     responsibilities over to the military.

10        Q.   I insist on my question.  Have you ever found an order whereby he

11     issues an order or an instruction to use the police for those purposes?

12        A.   No.

13        Q.   Yes or no.

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, with this

15     I conclude my cross-examination, and I have no questions for this

16     witness.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Cvijetic, before you leave this witness, I

18     would like to just have your last point clarified a bit because I think

19     that earlier on you did offer evidence to the Court that police officers

20     could be resubordinated to the army in times of an imminent threat to war

21     or in wartimes.  And so it would appear that, in fact, police officers

22     could in some instances be resubordinated to the army to assist in

23     operations that were related to the war.  That is to say, not only taking

24     part in an armed operation, but also to assist in other activities

25     associated with such an operation, for instance, the running of a camp.

Page 5462

 1             So I just want to be sure how these two pieces of evidence relate

 2     to each other.  Because on the one hand it seems as if actually police

 3     officers could be resubordinated to such tasks as guarding or ensuring

 4     the security of camps, and on the other hand you maintain that

 5     Mr. Stanisic never issued any such orders.

 6             How are we to reconcile these two pieces of evidence?  Can you

 7     clarify.

 8             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  We had a

 9     previous witness when you were absent.  He was a professional military

10     man.  It was a protected witness so I am not going to name him.  He had

11     worked in one of these camps, and he gave very definitive answers to this

12     question.  I believe the other judges remember.  There is no dilemma in

13     the minds of the military in this respect.  The minister of the interior

14     does not decide on questions like the engagement of the police in combat

15     activities and in the security service of camps.  It is the corps

16     commander and the warden of the camp who take these decisions.

17             These orders were not even notified to the minister, at least in

18     the aspect that we discussed.  That's how I see it.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So your point is that the MUP and the minister of

20     the interior had no influence over the use of military personnel in the

21     running of the camps except, of course, the camps that fell under the

22     direct authority of MUP.  Is that your point?

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It is our position, our case, that

24     no camp was under the direct control of the Ministry of the Interior

25     under the law.  And from the evidence that we presented today, this does

Page 5463

 1     not follow.  As for the use of policemen to provide security at military

 2     facilities, we have made this perfectly clear, including with the

 3     evidence led so far that it was done pursuant to the orders of military

 4     commanders beginning with General Mladic to corps commander.  And under

 5     the circumstances of immediate threat of war and such circumstances, the

 6     ministry had to comply, especially in the area of responsibility of a

 7     military unit.  And this professional officer told us that in that area

 8     of responsibility, nobody can discuss the order of the military

 9     commander.  It has to be carried out.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I understand.  But my point was -- and please

11     help me to clarify if I have misunderstood.  My point was that detention

12     facilities for ordinary civilian crime, completely unrelated to the war

13     efforts, that such camps were in fact coming under the authority of the

14     Ministry of the Interior; is that correct?  So I have misunderstood, then

15     please clarify.  Who was in charge of the running of an ordinary

16     detention facility for civilian crime?

17             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Those are penitentiary

18     correctional facilities.  Official institutions under the law.  And it is

19     the Ministry of Justice that has jurisdiction over them.  That is not a

20     fact in dispute.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, it's time for the break, so you may

22     wish to resume when we return.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.  I was just

24     wondering if we will make the switch like in hockey, so thank you very

25     much.

Page 5464

 1                           [The witness stands down]

 2                           --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 12.32 p.m.

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  May I continue, Your Honours?

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

 8                           Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Nielsen, on your right you will see two

10     binders.  Please pick them up to facilitate and to speed up our

11     discussion of certain documents because my time is limited.

12             The topic I want to discuss is in chapter 4 of your expert report

13     titled, "The MUP of Republika Srpska and the War in Bosnia-Herzegovina."

14     To sum up, in paragraph 191 you state the position that I completely

15     disagree with and consider inaccurate; namely, and I'll para-phrase, The

16     MUP of Republika Srpska played the main part in the war and was the only

17     military power until the establishment of the Army of Republika Srpska

18     which was exclusively and directly controlled by the leadership of

19     Republika Srpska, and it was considered a part of the armed forces.

20             Did I para-phrase your position correctly?

21        A.   Well, really you're para-phrasing the position of Mrs. Plavsic,

22     which I was para-phrasing, but, yes, that's the gist of it.

23        Q.   I suppose since it's in your paragraph 191 that you adopted that

24     position as your own?

25        A.   Well, I include that statement or a similar statement, as you

Page 5465

 1     noted, in the report, because I believe that it accurately reflects the

 2     statements of the RS leadership at the time concerning the composition of

 3     the armed forces and the role of the RS MUP during the early phase of the

 4     war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 5        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, my colleague put to you Articles 91 and 104 of the

 6     law from which it is quite clear that the only two branches of the armed

 7     forces are the army and the Territorial Defence, not the police; correct?

 8        A.   I would point to the fact that Radovan Karadzic in his capacity

 9     as president of the RS, when he issued an order or decision on the

10     formation of the high command of the RS armed forces, included the

11     Ministry of Internal Affairs in the definition of armed forces.

12        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, would you please focus and answer my questions.  We

13     will come to your arguments related to the Supreme Command at some later

14     point, but you said yourself that the Supreme Command was set up only

15     towards the end of 1992.  I'm asking you if it is true, if it is correct

16     that my colleague put to you articles of the law on All People's Defence,

17     Articles 91 and 104 which say explicitly that the armed forces are made

18     up of the army and the Territorial Defence, not the police; do you

19     remember that?  You confirmed that not so long ago.

20        A.   Well, with respect to the specific articles, I agree that that

21     reflects the de jure situation.  However, the de facto situation is that

22     the RS leadership and the officials of the MUP through an extensive part

23     of this period referred to the MUP as part of the armed force and that

24     Biljana Plavsic referred to RS MUP specifically as "Nasa Vojska," our

25     army.

Page 5466

 1        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, I understand your need to add, but we are now

 2     wasting time needlessly.  My question was, if it was the situation under

 3     the law, and if I understood correctly, you confirmed.

 4             MR. HANNIS:  Objection, asked and answered.  He did confirm that

 5     de jure that was the situation.  And this problem started by Mr. Zecevic

 6     para-phasing what was in Mr. Nielsen's report.  If he would have quoted

 7     directly from the report, we wouldn't have this problem.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I apologise.  I was

 9     trying to deal the best I can with the issue of my limited time.

10        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, let's look at the de facto situation you are

11     referring to.  Look at P183.  It's number 1 for you.  It's a decision of

12     the 15th of April, that the lady you mentioned, Mrs. Biljana Plavsic and

13     Dr. Nikola Koljevic, members of the Presidency of Republika Srpska

14     adopted to proclaim the immediate threat of war and mobilisation.  Have

15     you seen this document?

16        A.   Yes, I'm familiar with that document.

17        Q.   You see in point 2 it says that mobilisation of the

18     Territorial Defence in the whole territory of Serbian Bosnia-Herzegovina

19     is thereby ordered and all conscripts have the duty to make themselves

20     available to municipal Territorial Defence staffs in their areas.

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Let's look at the next document,

22     1D03-0491.  It's a document of the Ministry of Defence, 16 April 1992.

23        Q.   I can see that your answer has not been recorded in the

24     transcript.  I think he confirmed that point 2 indeed contains what I

25     read out, but I can ask him again.  Would you please repeat your answer

Page 5467

 1     to the previous question.

 2        A.   Yes, I agree that that is what the document says.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  This document we are looking at now, your tab 2, is

 4     the decision to set up the Territorial Defence as an armed force of the

 5     Serbian Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it goes on to explain who will lead it.

 6     Can you see it?

 7        A.   Yes, I see the document.

 8        Q.   Have you seen this before?  It's signed by the Defence minister,

 9     Bogdan Subotic.

10        A.   Yes, I've seen it before as it's cited in other expert reports.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, can I

13     tender this document.

14             MR. HANNIS:  No objection.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D170, Your Honour.

17             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  The next document is

18     1D00-2721.  The decision on the general and public mobilisation and

19     requisition of assets in the republic passed by the president of the

20     Presidency on the 20th May 1992.

21        Q.   Have you seen this document before?

22        A.   Yes, I have.

23        Q.   Here in point 2, all military conscripts are ordered to report

24     immediately to the nearest units and commands of the army, and then we

25     see the date of commencement of the mobilisation.

Page 5468

 1        A.   Yes, I see that.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there's no objection, I move to

 3     have this document admitted.

 4             MR. HANNIS:  No objection.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D171, Your Honours.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Tell me, Mr. Nielsen, to the best of your knowledge, and from

 9     your studies and research, isn't it the case that the Territorial Defence

10     was organised into units along military principles?

11        A.   Yes, that is my understanding of how the Territorial Defence

12     functioned.

13        Q.   They had commanders and ranks and all the other aspects of

14     military organisation; correct?

15        A.   Yes, because pursuant to the prevalent military doctrine at the

16     time, the Territorial Defence was complementary to the JNA.

17        Q.   As part of the armed forces; correct?

18        A.   Yes.  In times of war, yes.

19        Q.   This military doctrine you refer to, does not mention the police,

20     does it?

21        A.   It does to the extent that you, yourself, quoted from the

22     relevant defence legislation which states that the police can be

23     resubordinated to the military during times of conflict.

24        Q.   I fully agree with that, but apart from that, it is not claimed

25     that the police is part of the armed forces.  The doctrine states that

Page 5469

 1     the Territorial Defence and the army are the only ones that make up the

 2     armed forces in wartime; correct?

 3             MR. HANNIS:  Can I have a reference to what document counsel is

 4     referring to as stating the military document -- or the

 5     "military doctrine"?

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm not stating a specific document.  The document

 7     I stated is a part of the military doctrine which is the Law on All

 8     People's Defence.  The witness himself said that the prevalent military

 9     doctrine at the time considered the Territorial Defence as complementary

10     to the JNA.  And that is the basis of my question.  I wasn't referring to

11     any specific document.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] Would you be so kind as to answer my question,

13     Mr. Nielsen?

14        A.   Well, I agree with you, and that's precisely the interesting

15     innovation that the RS makes in the course of 1992, namely to include the

16     police in the armed forces.

17        Q.   Sir, when you say "innovation" you are basing that on these

18     statements by certain politicians and the fact of setting up the

19     Supreme Command; right?  Those are the main two elements?

20        A.   Those are two of the elements.  They are not the only elements;

21     that's correct.

22        Q.   Thank you.  You must know that in these initial stages of the

23     conflict, April, May, and June 1992, so-called light partisan brigades

24     were formed in certain municipalities.

25        A.   I certainly know that light brigades were formed in certain

Page 5470

 1     municipalities.  Whether or not they were called partisan, I have to

 2     admit I'm not sure.

 3        Q.   Since you worked in the Office of the Prosecutor for a long time

 4     and you are a Prosecution expert, you certainly know that in the Stakic

 5     and Brdjanin judgements, the Trial Chambers found that those light

 6     partisan brigades that had been set up in certain places initially had

 7     been outside the structure of the Army of Republika Srpska and outside of

 8     the commands.  That is one of the facts offered for stipulation in this

 9     case as well.  Do you know that?

10        A.   I'm not sure if the finding was that they were outside the

11     structure of the Army of Republika Srpska, or that they were outside the

12     structure of the JNA, but I'll have to take your word for it at this

13     point.

14        Q.   Let us go back to one of the elements on which you base the

15     conclusion that the police was indeed included in the armed forces,

16     allegedly, namely this decision on the establishment of the Army of

17     Republika Srpska, 65 ter 271.  It's your number 4.  You now have the

18     document before you.  It's a document to establish the Supreme Command of

19     the Army of Republika Srpska signed by President Karadzic on the 30th of

20     November 1992, and you quoted -- you cite it as one of the elements

21     supporting your position; is that right?

22        A.   Yes, that's correct.

23        Q.   I suppose you have read this decision because you reference it in

24     one of your footnotes?

25        A.   I read every decision that I reference in a footnote, so, yes,

Page 5471

 1     that assumption is correct.

 2        Q.   That's what I thought.  When you were reading, didn't you notice

 3     in Article 1 the reasons why the so-called Supreme Command of the VRS was

 4     established?  It says for the purpose of harmonisation and co-ordinating

 5     and improving the sufficiency of the command system of the VRS.  Did you

 6     make note of that?

 7        A.   As always, we think in similar ways, and yes, I did notice that.

 8        Q.   As you said a moment ago under the military doctrine prevalent at

 9     the time, Territorial Defence would also be complementary to the army.

10     And under that doctrine it would fall under the command of the army in

11     circumstances of immediate threat of war or war?

12        A.   Yes, that's what I said.

13        Q.   Article 5 also states:

14             "Final decisions by the Supreme Command of the Army of

15     Republika Srpska on the basis of the constitution and the law are the

16     responsibility of the president of Republika Srpska."  Can you see that?

17        A.   Yes, I see that, that is what the document says.

18        Q.   Which means that this Supreme Command is a consulting body for

19     harmonisation and co-ordination, whereas decisions are definitively made

20     by the president of the republic in the interests of the country and its

21     defence, as the law stipulates; correct?

22        A.   Yes, Article 5 says that the president's decision is final and

23     that is, of course, reflected in orders given to both the MUP and the VRS

24     to coordinate better throughout 1992.

25        Q.   It is the case, isn't it, that you cited this document in your

Page 5472

 1     report as a proof of innovation, as you call it, namely the inclusion of

 2     the police in the armed forces, only because of Article 3 -- sorry,

 3     Article 2, which says that, "the Supreme Command of the VRS consists of,"

 4     and then enumerates various elements ending with the minister of the

 5     interior.  Is that right?

 6        A.   As I said earlier, that is but one of the elements that led me to

 7     that observation which I make in the report.  It's based in large part

 8     also on the characterisation by the RS MUP in its own reports of its own

 9     relationship to the VRS and its own role as part of the armed forces in

10     what they saw as the struggle for the liberation of the Serbian nation.

11     It's also based, as I note in paragraph 381 of my report, on the fact

12     that RS MUP engaged to a massive extent over 300.000 man days monthly in

13     participation on average in combat activities by the forces of RS MUP

14     together with the VRS in joint operations.  So it's a large number of

15     documents and an overall analytical observation that I make here.

16        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, we are now discussing this particular element.  We

17     discussed quite sufficiently the possibility of resubordinating the

18     police to the VRS on the basis of other documents, now I'm asking you

19     about this document.  Since you answered in the affirmative that it was

20     one of the reasons why you cited this, I'm asking you if you noticed

21     Article 4 in this decision which states that the Supreme Command may

22     include other ministers and other authorities in its work?

23        A.   Yes, I'm familiar with that article of the document.

24        Q.   Isn't it the case, Mr. Nielsen, that Djeric's government

25     practically fell, or rather resigned on the 24th November 1992?

Page 5473

 1        A.   I know that Mr. Djeric actually resigned, I believe, at the end

 2     of October, but that it took effect, I think, around that date that you

 3     mentioned.

 4        Q.   And all the ministers from that moment until the end of December

 5     and January next year operated as a technical government?

 6        A.   I believe that is the case, yeah.

 7        Q.   Since you, yourself, said it was the de facto situation, did you

 8     look at what happened at these sessions of the Supreme Command in order

 9     to establish what the de facto situation was?

10        A.   I have not had the opportunity to review those sessions, no.

11        Q.   So you restricted yourself to this decision, and you haven't

12     looked at a single session of the Supreme Command; is that what you are

13     trying to say?

14        A.   Well, I'm trying to say that the ambit of my report was such that

15     I was aware that the relevant military documentation, the details of what

16     was going on at that Supreme Command, were being looked at by the

17     military expert; so, no, you are correct in saying that I have not looked

18     at the sessions of the Supreme Command from the end of November 1992

19     until the end of 1992.

20        Q.   I know, but sir, since you express this as your position about

21     the de facto situation, I only assume that it would be logical for you in

22     order to establish whether that was actually the de facto situation or

23     not, you should have looked at how this decision that you have taken as

24     one of the element operated in practice; is that right?

25        A.   It is my position that the document that was issued, this

Page 5474

 1     decision which was issued by President Karadzic on the 30th of November

 2     1992, in fact, reflects quite accurately the de facto situation up until

 3     that date.  Now, as to what happened after that date and if it -- if it

 4     in any way contradicted the spirit or the letter of this document, I'm

 5     certainly willing to examine any documents that you might want to show to

 6     me.

 7        Q.   If I understood you correctly, maybe my English is not good

 8     enough, is it your evidence that this decision of the 30th of November

 9     had a retroactive effect?  Is that what you are saying?

10        A.   No, that is not what I'm saying.  I would differentiate in any

11     case between orders that have an explicit retroactive effect, and there

12     are examples of such orders being issued in 1992 by various institutions,

13     and orders that do not have an explicit retroactive effect but confirm an

14     existing de facto situation.  Those to my analytical mind are two

15     different things, and what I'm saying is that this order in many respects

16     confirms an existing de facto situation.

17        Q.   If I understand you correctly, what you are trying to say is that

18     the Supreme Command of Republika Srpska existed before the 30th of

19     November 1992; is that your evidence?

20        A.   That is again misconstruing what I just said.  What I'm saying is

21     that there are an enormous amount of examples for ongoing co-ordination

22     on practical, technical, and legal matters between military and police

23     organs going back to the formation of the VRS in May 1992, and that, as

24     such, this institutionalisation of such consultation and co-ordination is

25     a logical culmination of a de facto situation.

Page 5475

 1        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, with all due respect, I under that you are an

 2     analysis, but you have to base your analysis on facts and not on

 3     arbitrary constructions; isn't that right?

 4        A.   I'm basing my analysis on facts.

 5        Q.   I'm very glad to hear that.  We are just now examining these

 6     facts, but I seem to misunderstand things.  Let us now move on to

 7     document --

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] But before that, I would tender

 9     document 271 according to 65 ter into evidence, which is a decision to

10     establish Supreme Command of Republika Srpska.

11             MR. HANNIS:  No objection.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D172, Your Honours.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can you please look at

15     document 1936, according to 65 ter.  That was the only session of the

16     Supreme Command that took place in 1992, i.e., on the 22nd of December of

17     that year.

18        Q.   Did you have an opportunity to see this document?

19        A.   No, this is the first time I'm looking at this document.

20        Q.   So for the benefit of the Chamber, I'm going to tell you that on

21     page 2 in paragraph -- or rather, paragraph 4, I believe, V. Lukic is

22     mentioned here as a prime minister elect which means that he already

23     attended this session of the Supreme Command.  And on page 3 in the

24     penultimate paragraph, we see an address delivered by Mr. Stanisic, that

25     is on page 3 in e-court in both versions.

Page 5476

 1             Mr. Nielsen, although I believe you haven't read the entire

 2     document since you probably might find it difficult to comment on it, but

 3     I'm going to say that at this session of the Supreme Command,

 4     Mr. Stanisic and I would like that to use as administration of what the

 5     Supreme Command actually was.  Minister Stanisic says that a situation

 6     related to Golf vehicles should be investigated.  He speaks about the

 7     formation of para groups.  He is talking about the reinforcement of

 8     military judiciary.  And he says that there was no co-ordination between

 9     the military and civilian police forces.  That was the role of the

10     interior minister as member of the Supreme Command.  Can you see that?

11        A.   Yes, and that conforms to the kind of co-ordination activities to

12     which I previously referred.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Sorry, Your Honours, I thought you wanted to ask a

14     question.

15        Q.   [Interpretation] When you say co-ordinated activities, isn't it

16     true that in combatting crime, the minister of the interior insisted on

17     the fact that criminal offences were being committed by members of the

18     army.  However, because of legal regulations, the members of the police

19     didn't have any authority or jurisdiction over them?  That is to say, to

20     undertake measures that should be taken under the law against such

21     perpetrators?

22        A.   Well, I am aware that that is one of the matters that was

23     discussed between the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the army.  I think

24     not to hang it up on a semantic point, but I'm talking both about

25     co-ordinated activities, "koordinirane activnosti," and activities of

Page 5477

 1     co-ordination, "activnosti koordinacija," which are subtly different

 2     things, but a forum in which two institutions which are central to the

 3     functioning of the state have a plenum in which they can discuss the

 4     issues that involve both of their ministries and forces.

 5        Q.   Very well, Mr. Nielsen.  Would you allow for a possibility that

 6     in your report with regard to the position of the MUP as part of the

 7     armed forces, you have committed an error?

 8             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I think part of the problem we've been

 9     having here is that I think counsel seems to be using "armed forces," in

10     quotations marks, as maybe that term as described in a particular law, as

11     opposed to armed forces in generic sense as a force carrying arms and

12     engaging in combat.  If we could have some clarification for his question

13     to the witness, that may resolve some of the wrangling that we have been

14     having.

15             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I agree with the suggestion of my

16     learned friend, given that in the introduction I think I have clarified

17     with the witness, Mr. Nielsen, here that I'm referring to the armed

18     forces as defined by the law, whereby they are made up by the army and

19     the Territorial Defence and not the police.  So whenever I make a

20     reference to the armed forces, this is what I mean by that.

21             MR. HANNIS:  May I clarify, that's the 1982 law on All People's

22     Defence?

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] That's right, that's the law on

24     All People's Defence adopted in the Law on National Defence of

25     Republika Srpska in February 1992.

Page 5478

 1        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, can you answer my question.  Do you think that it is

 2     possible that you have committed an error?

 3        A.   Could you specify what error you are accusing me of having

 4     committed?

 5        Q.   That you have included members of the Ministry of the Interior

 6     among the armed forces who both under the law and de facto were not?

 7        A.   Well, in the sense that that is a mistake, then it is a mistake

 8     that's not only made by myself, but in fact by the RS leadership at the

 9     time, who repeatedly refer to the -- again in a de facto sense, as the RS

10     MUP as a critical part of the armed forces of the RS and as a critical

11     element in achieving the military and strategic objectives of the RS, as

12     they do throughout 1982.

13             But in a de jure sense, if it's the very narrow point of whether

14     it's a mistake on the de jure sense, then I -- and with narrow reference

15     to the 1982 law, then I absolutely accept your point.

16        Q.   I'm glad to hear that.  Just one more comment.  You are an

17     intellectual, you have a PhD, you are an analyst, and I cannot accept

18     that you -- [Overlapping speakers]

19             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, this doesn't sound like a question.  He

20     indicated, I have one more comment, and now he is ...

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm just laying foundation for the question.

22        Q.   [Interpretation] I believe that the words uttered by politicians

23     cannot carry the same weight as documents and legal norms.  Would you

24     agree with me?

25             MR. HANNIS:  In what context?  Could we have some clarification.

Page 5479

 1     That's a vague question.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness said that

 3     he had based his conclusions on the words uttered by the RS leadership,

 4     that is to say on the speeches delivered by politicians on certain public

 5     occasions.  I put to him the documents and the laws.  I'm just asking him

 6     whether he puts these two sources at the same level regarding the weight.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  So phrased the witness may answer the question,

 8     Mr. Zecevic.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

10             THE WITNESS:  My answer is that I think that I would neither as a

11     professor nor as an analyst be doing mu job properly if I were only to

12     examine the de jure situation during a period in which it is abundantly

13     clear that it was in fact the de facto situation that was more often

14     obtaining in the field.  And I would again note that the RS MUP which

15     itself, including its very top leadership, was itself made up of lawyers,

16     that they themselves were guilty of committing this conflation

17     consistently throughout 1992.

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation]

19        Q.   I wouldn't like to comment on politician's competence.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at 1D36004

21     [as interpreted].

22        Q.   I would use that to point out to you a difference between the

23     legal concept that existed in Republika Srpska and the one that existed

24     in the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

25             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can page 3 be shown to the witness,

Page 5480

 1     please.

 2        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, this is a decision adopted by the Presidency of

 3     Bosnia-Herzegovina on the 4th of April 1992.  It provides for

 4     mobilisation to be carried out.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please see the previous

 6     page.

 7        Q.   That's the Presidency -- adopted by the Presidency on the 4th of

 8     April 1992, which pursuant to the decision of the Presidency of the

 9     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina the mobilisation of the

10     Territorial Defence units shall be carried out in all municipalities and

11     towns in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Have you seen this document?  I think it is

12     your tab number 6.

13        A.   Yes, I'm familiar with that document.

14        Q.   Item 3 of this document reads that the entire reserve force of

15     police in Bosnia-Herzegovina shall be carried out; is that right?

16        A.   Yes, that's correct.

17             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I tender this document

18     into evidence if there are no objections.

19             MR. HANNIS:  No objection.  And may I inquire if he intended to

20     tender the previous 65 ter, 1936?

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I thought it wasn't

22     fair to the witness to tender this document.  I am interested in doing

23     so, but since the witness hadn't seen it before, I don't think it's fair

24     to tender it through this witness.  For the most part, I made comments

25     and I put to the witness specific parts and for that reason I didn't

Page 5481

 1     tender it into evidence.  There will definitely be another witness

 2     through whom we can tender this document, but if Mr. Hannis insists on

 3     this and if he has no objection, I would like to tender it then.

 4             MR. HANNIS:  I don't insist, I have no objection, though I have

 5     no doubt that it's authentic, and I think it's relevant, so ...

 6             JUDGE HALL:  It may be neater -- I take Mr. Zecevic's

 7     reservations about the tenuous connection between the witness and that

 8     previous document, but it may be neater to tender it now.  So the

 9     documents are sequentially admitted and marked.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D173 and Exhibit 1D174, Your Honours.

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Just to be completely clear, 1936

12     is 1D173, and 1D36004 shall become 1D174; is that correct?

13             THE REGISTRAR:  That's correct, Mr. Zecevic.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15        Q.   I'd like to show you now in sequence the following document,

16     1D00-4381.  It was signed by the then defence minister of the Socialist

17     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  It carries the same date which is the

18     5th of April 1992.  It was signed by Mr. Jerko Doko, and this document

19     actually constitutes an elaboration of the previous conclusion adopted by

20     the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

21     Mr. Nielsen, have you seen this document before?

22        A.   No, I don't recall that I have, and I note that it doesn't have

23     an ERN.

24        Q.   I'm surprised that you haven't seen it.  It's a public document.

25     Very briefly I will lead you through it.  This document refers to the

Page 5482

 1     Presidency document ordering general mobilisation of the

 2     Territorial Defence and the reserve police.  This is a very important

 3     document that can help explain what you and I discussed a moment ago.  On

 4     page 2 of this document, the Defence minister, Mr. Jerko Doko entrusted

 5     the ministry of the interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina to secure, if

 6     necessary, appropriate weapons and assets for units of the

 7     Territorial Defence.  That's on page 2 under the heading of

 8     "Conclusions."  Last line under item 2.

 9             And item 3, that's on the next page, reads ... that's the first

10     sentence on page 3 of this document.  It reads that units of the

11     Territorial Defence that are mobilised for carrying out the above-listed

12     task under the quoted regulation shall be subordinated to the public

13     security and will act in compliance with the orders of the officers of

14     the Ministry of the Interior.  The commanding officers of these units

15     should be informed about this.  With regard to command and control of the

16     mobilised TO units, the TO staffs must also strictly respect the fact

17     that the units are subordinated to the Ministry of the Interior of

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

19             Mr. Nielsen, I am surprised that you haven't reviewed this

20     document either before or while you were writing your report.  What stems

21     from this is that in the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in

22     April 1992 -- I see that Mr. Hannis is on his feet.

23             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry to interject.  Your Honour, we don't have

24     an ERN.  I don't know if this is -- I don't know the source of this

25     document.  I see it appears to be a telegram.  It's not signed.  I have

Page 5483

 1     some vague recollection in the back of my mind that Mr. Doko either when

 2     he testified or when he was interviewed about this denied that this

 3     document came from him.  So I have some questions about the validity.  I

 4     may be mistaking the document, but I believe there was one, and I bring

 5     it to your attention, and I will be objecting the admission of this

 6     document at this time.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not aware of

 8     Mr. Doko making any objection to this document.  We received it from the

 9     centre for research of war crimes of Republika Srpska.  And on page 1 it

10     has the stamp of the municipal Territorial Defence staff in Visegrad,

11     which leads us to conclude that this document that was issued in Sarajevo

12     by the minister was truly and actually received by the TO staff in

13     Visegrad.  On that basis, I concluded that this is an authentic document

14     and that it was delivered to all TO staffs as indicated in the heading of

15     the document itself.  But as far as I'm concerned, we may mark this

16     document for identification.  And once we have cleared up the situation,

17     we may then tender it to the Trial Chamber for admitting into evidence.

18             JUDGE HALL:  That was going to be my suggestion, Mr. Zecevic.

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  I hope

20     that Mr. Hannis agrees for this document to be MFI'd.

21             MR. HANNIS:  I do, Your Honour.  That will give me time to

22     research my questions about it.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Are you asking it to be so marked at this stage?

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

25             MR. HANNIS:  Marked for identification, please.

Page 5484

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit 1D175, marked

 2     for identification.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   So, Mr. Nielsen, it stems from this document, that in the

 5     Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina the Territorial Defence was

 6     resubordinated to the Ministry of the Interior.  Can you see that?

 7        A.   Yes, but I think it's important to note here that this is taking

 8     place at a very, very late date.  This is already the 5th of April, 1992,

 9     when the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina is practically ceasing

10     to exist.  And they are obviously, in the same document that we have in

11     front of us, taking issue with what they view as the illegal formation of

12     RS MUP and other activities in the republic.  So it's a very particular

13     situation.

14        Q.   I think that for the purposes of this case, this represents one

15     of the early documents because it's dated the 5th of April 1992?

16        A.   Well, I'm speaking of the context of the life span, if you will,

17     of the SRBiH which was certainly on its last legs as of the 5th of April

18     1992, not this the context of this indictment.

19        Q.   Sir, my impression is in light of my previous comment regarding

20     your report, is that you have made a mistake.  When you commented these

21     documents of the SRBiH where it is obvious that the Ministry of the

22     Interior and its members were part of the armed forces of the republic,

23     when you compared the de facto and de jure situation Republika Srpska in

24     which members of the Ministry of the Interior were not members of the

25     armed forces, and when you say armed forces, again I'm repeating that I

Page 5485

 1     have in mind the legal formulation from the Law on All People's Defence?

 2             THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction:  Law on National

 3     Defence.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   And in that context, I asked you whether this situation was the

 6     reason for you to draw an erroneous conclusion in your report?

 7        A.   From a point of logic, I find it hard to see how I could reach an

 8     allegedly wrong conclusion based on a document which I've told you I have

 9     never seen before.

10        Q.   In many places you've reached a number of conclusions based on

11     the de facto situation, so I thought perhaps in this case, too, you meant

12     the de facto situation?

13        A.   I was not referring to this de facto situation, which in any

14     case, I clearly see and I think we can all clearly see, refers not to

15     what is going on in the nascent Republika Srpska but rather in the SRBiH

16     which is soon to re-emerge as the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

17        Q.   All right.  Thank you.

18             Just one more question on this.  Do you believe that this

19     document I've just shown you that was MFI'd, do you believe it to be

20     relevant to your report or not?

21             MR. HANNIS:  Is that assuming that it's authentic?

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  Assuming that it's authentic, of course.

23             THE WITNESS:  With that caveat, I don't really think so, in the

24     sense that the ambit of my report is to treat SRBiH MUP, and then once

25     SRBiH MUP ceases to exist, RS MUP.  This document is taking -- is being

Page 5486

 1     written in the context after RS MUP has been formed, and I obviously do

 2     not, in my report, engage in any analysis of what the, if you will, Rump

 3     Bosnian MUP looked like, interesting though that may be.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   You mean the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina when you say this?

 6        A.   Yes, I mean the MUP of Bosnia and Herzegovina which continued to

 7     exist and to operate as the MUP of Bosnia and Herzegovina and as the

 8     successor to SRBiH MUP.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Let's move to another topic.  Deportation and forced

10     transfers.  In your report, paragraphs 320 to 329 -- and again because of

11     time limitations, I'll have to para-phrase your general position because

12     if I read all the nine paragraphs, it would last too long.

13             Generally, it is your position that the police of

14     Republika Srpska was involved in deportations and forcible transfers of

15     the population; correct?

16        A.   I agree that the police of Republika Srpska at some times and in

17     some locations did take part in such activities.

18        Q.   If I understood your report correctly, you base that finding on a

19     couple of facts that you interpret in your own way.  One, insufficient

20     security for all the citizens especially Serbs; correct?

21        A.   That is the way in which the RS MUP describes the security

22     situation, that is correct.

23        Q.   And second, the fact that a significant number of non-Serbs were

24     leaving the territories of areas affected by the war and combat?

25        A.   That, as you call it, fact is reflected also in RS MUP reports;

Page 5487

 1     that is correct.

 2        Q.   And, three, another fact that you use to support your finding are

 3     the so-called operations of cleansing or mopping up of the territory?

 4        A.   I do note that the RS MUP was involved in mopping-up activities,

 5     yes.

 6        Q.   And finally, your fourth element is the involvement of police

 7     officers in disarming operations.  You place that in the context of

 8     forced transfers and deportation.

 9        A.   That is not the final element, but yes, that is another element

10     of the analysis; that's correct.

11        Q.   Very well.  I'll take these four elements because I thought them

12     the most important for this topic.  To take them in order, the second

13     point was the fact that a significant number of non-Serbs were leaving

14     territories affected by the war in combat.  Do you know that at one point

15     President Karadzic issued an order forbidding the departure of people

16     from the territory of Republika Srpska?

17        A.   Well, I know that he issued an order forbidding the departure of

18     males of military age from the Republika Srpska.  I am not aware off the

19     top of my head with the general order forbidding the departure of all

20     people from the territory of the RS.

21        Q.   Thank you, that will be enough.  Do you know the conclusions of

22     the London conference on the free movement of civilians in the territory

23     of Bosnia-Herzegovina of 1992?

24        A.   No, as I stated previously, I'm not an expert on international

25     conferences on the former Yugoslavia.

Page 5488

 1        Q.   I'm not asking you as an expert, I'm asking you about the facts.

 2     Are you saying that you are unaware of the fact that there was an

 3     agreement between the parties to the conflict dated 22nd May 1992, that

 4     had been signed with the assistance of the ICRC on the 22nd of May in

 5     Geneva, on the free movement of civilians and some other matters?

 6        A.   I'm not aware of that specific fact, no.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Let's just show the witness

 8     1D00-3943.

 9        Q.   Please look at the document, and maybe it will jog your memory.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, I remind you, you have five minutes

11     remaining.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  I know, Your Honour.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Have you seen this document before?

14        A.   No, sir.

15        Q.   Thank you.

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

17     P427.23.

18        Q.   It's another document from the same series, agreement number 2,

19     dated 23rd May, also relating to exchanges of prisoners, lifting the

20     siege from various features and deblocking civilian population,

21     et cetera?

22        A.   No, sir, I have not seen that document before.

23        Q.   Sir, it is in the nature of things that if there was an agreement

24     between the parties, that means that both Serbs and non-Serbs evacuated

25     from certain territories and resettled in others; is that right?

Page 5489

 1        A.   I think that involves quite a bit of wishful thinking, but I'm

 2     not excluding that such matters were discussed and even perhaps agreed to

 3     in Geneva.

 4        Q.   All right.  But you certainly know, I suppose, that a large

 5     number of Serbs had been expelled from certain territories in

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina and moved to the territory of Republika Srpska;

 7     correct?

 8        A.   I know that there was -- there were very large movements of Serbs

 9     from certain territories, as you call them, in Bosnia-Herzegovina to the

10     territory under the control of the RS.  And I'm also aware, of course, of

11     similarly large movements of Bosniaks and Croats during the same

12     time-period in the other direction.

13        Q.   Don't you think that these facts have a certain impact on the

14     movement of persons from one territory to another, a matter that you

15     discussed in your expert report?

16        A.   Certainly it is the case, and it's reflected in the documents

17     that I quote, that there were large movements of people with concurrent

18     deleterious consequences for the security situation, and that is

19     reflected in the RS MUP documentation.

20        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, just one more document.  P160.  It's a document of

21     the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska from July 1992.  It's a

22     summary of the meeting that was held on the 19th of July.  You have seen

23     this document before.

24        A.   Yes, and I quote it in my report.

25        Q.   May I ask you to turn to page 20 to see the conclusions.

Page 5490

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] In e-court -- just a moment.

 2             I can see the clock, Your Honours.  As you know, as you see, I

 3     have not completed because our assessment was not very good.  I know I

 4     don't have the moral right to ask for another extension, but I believe

 5     that these matters are very serious, and it would assist the

 6     Trial Chamber to clarify them.  We have done what we could.  I discussed

 7     it with the Defence team of Mr. Zupljanin, and they are prepared to give

 8     me one hour from their time allocation tomorrow that I could use to

 9     finish my cross-examination with your leave.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Well, in as much as the witness is here for three

11     days, if Mr. Pantelic is so generous as to afford you a portion of his

12     time, I don't suppose there's any harm, but we'll have to see what

13     happens.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  [Microphone not activated] We'll have to finish

15     the cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic tomorrow.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Allowing Mr. Hannis his Wednesday, whatever

17     arrangement as is arrived at between counsel for Zupljanin and Stanisic

18     would be all right as far as the Chamber is concerned.  But I don't know

19     that Mr. Hannis would be a part of these negotiations.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Microphone not activated] Well, Your Honours, if

21     the situation arises, we will talk to Mr. Hannis as well.

22             MR. PANTELIC:  That's what I just want to say.  We count on

23     Mr. Hannis in these negotiations, if we would need some more time, I hope

24     that he will generously give something.

25             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, I was going to say if it has no impact

Page 5491

 1     on me having the full day on Wednesday, I don't know care if Mr. Zecevic

 2     goes all day tomorrow and Mr. Pantelic only has one minute.  Frankly,

 3     much of the time, I'd rather hear Mr. Zecevic than Mr. Pantelic anyway.

 4     But you take my point, but I don't care how they divide the time among

 5     themselves, but I generally oppose any extension of the time beyond

 6     Tuesday.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Anyway, we'll take the adjournment now until

 8     tomorrow.  According to this schedule, we are in this Courtroom mornings

 9     for the remainder of the week.

10             MR. HANNIS:  And one matter before you go, Your Honour.

11     Regarding the Prosecution's pending motion to add that document for this

12     witness, I have confirmed that the letter that Mr. Zecevic wanted us to

13     include was already included in the earlier motion as 65 ter 3463, that

14     being a letter of 5 June from Dr. Karadzic to Mr. Cutileiro.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  I can concur, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

17                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

18                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 26th day of

19                           January, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.