Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 12188

 1                           Friday, 25 June 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

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

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

 7     Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.  Good morning to

 9     everyone.  May we have the appearances for today, please.

10             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.  Good morning.  On behalf of the

11     Prosecution, I'm Tom Hannis along with Crispian Smith.

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

13     Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for Stanisic Defence

14     this morning.  Thank you.

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

16     Defence, Igor Pantelic this morning.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  And I believe the Usher has gone to

18     fetch the witness.  Yes.

19                           [The witness takes the stand]

20                           WITNESS:  RADOVAN PEJIC [Resumed]

21                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

22             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning to you, Mr. Pejic.  Before Mr. Zecevic

23     resumes his cross-examination, I remind you you're still on your oath.

24             Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

Page 12189

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

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Pejic.

 3        A.   Good morning.

 4        Q.   Mr. Pejic, yesterday during the examination-in-chief by my

 5     learned friend Mr. Hannis, on page 12139 and the following of the

 6     transcript, you spoke about reports that you received from the SJBs in

 7     the territory of the CSB of Sarajevo.  If you remember, there was

 8     discussion about the reports concerning the participation of the police

 9     in combat operations.  Do you remember that part?

10        A.   I do.

11        Q.   To several questions put to you by the Prosecution you gave

12     answers, and you even gave an example of the situation in Ilidza

13     concerning the attack on Nedzarici when the police took part in those

14     combat operations.  You said that it was mostly pursuant to the direct

15     instructions of the army or the Crisis Staff.  Do you remember that?

16        A.   Yes, I remember, and that's what I said and that's how it was.

17        Q.   It's a fact, isn't it, if I understood your testimony correctly,

18     that only subsequently did you receive information from the SJBs to the

19     effect that members of that particular SJB took part in combat

20     operations; correct?

21        A.   Correct.

22        Q.   That information, if I understood you correctly, and it isn't

23     very clear in the transcript, that information was received by you at a

24     time when it was possible to communicate it to you and the CSB of

25     Sarajevo.

Page 12190

 1        A.   Yes.  If the combat operations had ceased, that is when the

 2     attack was stopped and the lines were stable.  Only after the cessation

 3     of those activities was it possible to compile a complete report about

 4     the number of police officers who had taken part in combat, whether or

 5     not anybody had been injured or killed and when they had returned to

 6     their SJB.

 7        Q.   Only upon the receipt of such a report from the SJB, you, and

 8     when I say "you" I mean the CSB, informed the ministry about that in your

 9     daily report; correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Sir, I'm about to show you P625, which is an annual

12     report of the MUP of the RS, in particular, page 32 in e-court, in the

13     Serbian language, which -- which is marked FI21 -- correction, FI20-1307.

14     I'm not sure of the page number in English that's why I gave the ERN

15     number.

16             You remember that yesterday we spoke about the average number of

17     dispatches which in the MUP of the Socialist Republic of BiH, you had at

18     the CSB of Sarajevo in 1992 and 1991.  We then mentioned the number of

19     300.000 dispatches in the MUP of the Socialist Republic of BiH, namely,

20     their communications centre, and you agreed that this number was probably

21     realistic.

22             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry.  I think the correct page in e-court for

23     the English is page 27.

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Mr. Hannis.

25        Q.   [Interpretation] I read out the ERN number --

Page 12191

 1             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, it's page 23.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Mr. Hannis.  Let the record show that

 3     Mr. Cvijetic joined the Stanisic Defence, please.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] Let me turn to the question.  We had to find the

 5     English page number in this document.

 6             You remember what was said yesterday about the number of

 7     300.000 dispatches open or sealed in the communications centre of the MUP

 8     of the RS [as interpreted] and you agree that this was the approximate

 9     number; correct?

10        A.   Yes, correct.

11             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, the transcript says 300.000 dispatches in

12     the MUP of the RS.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Mr. Hannis.

14        Q.   [Interpretation] My question was about 300.000 dispatches open

15     and sealed in the communications centre of the MUP of the Socialist

16     Republic of BiH before 1992, in peacetime.

17             You see the fourth paragraph in this document which speaks about

18     the total number of dispatches in the communications centre of the MUP of

19     the RS.  Can you see it on this page?  It's the fourth paragraph in

20     Serbian and the second in English.  There are the figures of 4170 and

21     4400?

22        A.   Yes, I can see it.

23        Q.   So the total number of dispatches in nine months was 8.570.  Now,

24     such a small number of dispatches certainly is not the result of the

25     absence of security-relevant events; correct?

Page 12192

 1        A.   Correct.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic, I wasn't quite sure of the time span

 3     in which these 8.000 dispatches were --

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, this --

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  -- sent back and forth.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  This report, the P625, covers the period from April

 7     until December.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thanks.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  So nine months, 1992.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Great, thanks.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  The whole existence of the MUP RS during the 1992.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] It is beyond doubt that from April through

13     December 1992, there was a huge number of security-relevant events;

14     correct?

15        A.   Yes.  The situation changed hourly, especially in the early days

16     of the war.

17        Q.   I suppose that one of the most important reasons for such a small

18     number of dispatches during that nine-month period, that is, during the

19     war in 1992, is caused by communications problems.  Do you agree?

20        A.   Yes, I do.  We didn't have enough personnel or equipment.  There

21     were no appropriate means of communications that the MUP of the RS could

22     use.

23        Q.   It's a fact, isn't it, Mr. Pejic, that after 1992, that is, in

24     1993, 1994, 1995, the number of dispatches rose significantly in the

25     communications centre of the CSB where you worked and in the entire MUP

Page 12193

 1     of the RS; correct?

 2        A.   Yes.  We were manned and we received technical equipment, and as

 3     a result, not only the number of dispatches but the amount of

 4     communications overall rose too.  I believe that in a realistic system

 5     appropriate for use in the police, I think that this was actually

 6     achieved at sometime in 1993.

 7             The year 1992 was, as a whole, problem-ridden, because even when

 8     we had procured equipment, we were short of personnel.  That's why the

 9     MUP to organise two training courses for new signalsmen or communication

10     operators, because whoever was left behind the territory that was

11     controlled by the other side could not report to our communications

12     centre, either because they didn't want to or because they didn't let

13     them.

14        Q.   Thank you.  It's a fact, isn't it, that the communications centre

15     at the Sarajevo CSB where you worked in 1992 had a total of 1.800

16     received and sent dispatches; correct?

17        A.   Yes, but the exact number can be seen in the log-book of incoming

18     and outgoing dispatches.

19        Q.   So we can say that this is an average of 200 dispatches per

20     month, and if I remember correctly, that is a volume which in the CSB of

21     Sarajevo, in the Socialist Republic of BiH before the war, that is in

22     peacetime, was the approximate daily number of telegrams; right?

23        A.   Yes.  We would have at least 200 dispatches daily on average.

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  I saw Mr. Hannis on his feet.

25             MR. HANNIS:  It had to do with the math.  I think the log-book

Page 12194

 1     shows that the first entry for CSB Sarajevo was sometime in June.  So the

 2     time period over which those 1.800 were sent would be June through

 3     December, rather than April.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, but I believe they had the joint communication

 5     centre for MUP RS and the CSB Sarajevo from -- from April until -- until

 6     June, and that is why the first 49 entries are -- are MUP RS, and I think

 7     if we add that to the -- to the end number of 1.813, we're still in the

 8     vicinity of 1.800-something dispatches a year.

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] I'm going to show you these documents which I

10     commented upon with Mr. Hannis.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] P1428.  Can we please show it.

12     These are incoming and outgoing dispatches.  In the time period from

13     April through August 1992.

14             [In English] Can -- Mr. Hannis, if you would be so kind to

15     provide the witness with a hard copy of this document.

16             Oh, okay.  Thank you very much, Ms. Usher.

17             [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown page 2 of this

18     document.

19        Q.   You see -- you see, Mr. Pejic, under 3, entry number 3, this is a

20     bulletin of daily events dated 23 April, and it's about one

21     Predrag Mocevic [phoen], his murder and massacre, and among other things,

22     it says that the dispatch was sent to the government of the Serbian

23     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   To avoid leafing through this document, I'll just read out and

Page 12195

 1     you please confirm.

 2             Entry number 7, the bulletin dated 24 April was also transmitted

 3     to the government of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   The same applies to entry 10, dated 25 April.  Equally

 6     transmitted to the government.

 7        A.   Correct.

 8        Q.   And on the following page, entry 14, entry 18, also to the

 9     government.

10        A.   Yes.  That's what the log-book says.

11        Q.   And so on and so forth.  Let us now please look at page 7,

12     entry 30.  It's an order about measures, dated 4 May 1992, and in the

13     fourth column to who the dispatch was sent, it says under three,

14     CB Doboj, but there is no phone number nor is it ticked.

15             Tell me, what does that mean?

16        A.   It means that the dispatch was not transmitted to the CB of

17     Doboj.

18             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown

19     page 10, entries 47 and 48.

20        Q.   47 is a document entitled "Position on the criteria for

21     determining the reserve police force."  The date is the 11th of May, and

22     we can see the list of addressees to whom the dispatch was sent.  It says

23     Doboj and Trebinje, but there is no entry made as to the time at which it

24     was sent or reply.

25        A.   This means that the dispatches were never sent.  Otherwise, there

Page 12196

 1     would be a date as well as a number to which it was transmitted.

 2        Q.   I suppose that the same applies to entry 48.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   I hope that you will agree with me that this means that the

 5     communication lines with the centres in Doboj and Trebinje were

 6     nonexistent at this time.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic, on the screen, on page 8, line 17,

 9     there is an answer registered by the witness in which the witness

10     allegedly said, "This means that the dispatches were never sent."  I

11     think this was not the witness's answer, but that was your assumption, is

12     that correct, or did the witness really say so?

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Just bear with me, Your Honours.  I need to find

14     it.

15             Well, I can ask the witness again because I don't think that I

16     made that comment.  I asked him open-ended question for his comment, and

17     he said that means that they were not sent at all.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Let's just -- let's clarify with the witness.

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Sir, you have heard His Honour Judge Harhoff's question.  We're

21     looking at entries 47 and 48 where Doboj and Trebinje are listed, and in

22     respect of none of them is there an entry made as to the time or the

23     number to which the dispatch was sent.  Can you tell us what this means?

24        A.   This means that these two centres did not receive the relevant

25     dispatch from the communications centre.  Had they received it, then the

Page 12197

 1     manner in which it was transmitted would be recorded, like the telephone

 2     number, as well as the time when the dispatch was transmitted.  In other

 3     words, this dispatch could not have been transmitted from the MUP

 4     communications centre.  The dispatch had to be sent in a different manner

 5     or a courier had to come and pick it up.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Okay.  So, Mr. Pejic, what the conclusion about

 7     these two entries is, if I understand it correctly, is that these two

 8     dispatches were at first attempted to be sent by some electronic means

 9     but this failed for whatever reason, and so it wasn't sent in the manner

10     in which it had -- was originally foreseen, and failing to send it

11     electronically, your assumption is then that it was sent by some other

12     means, either by courier or otherwise.

13             So is your testimony that the dispatches actually came through to

14     the addressee or to the destinate, or were they never received in the

15     other end?  Do you know?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Whether these dispatches ever

17     reached Doboj and Trebinje is something that we in the communications

18     centre could not know with any reliability.  If they were taken by the

19     couriers who normally did not collect mail in the communications centre,

20     then we wouldn't know of it.  Had the courier collected these dispatches

21     in the communications centre itself, then next to these two place names

22     an entry would have been made, taken over by the courier, and his name

23     would normally be written as well as the title of the centre.

24             I suppose that the dispatches were sent to their authors who were

25     also informed of the fact that the dispatches had not been transmitted.

Page 12198

 1     I suppose that subsequently a courier could have collected the dispatches

 2     either in the minister's office, if the minister was the signatory, or in

 3     the office of the authors of the document, or in the office where they

 4     were typed up.  I don't know if they received it and whether it was a

 5     month later, but what I can tell you is that based on the entry in the

 6     log-book, they were not transmitted from the communications centre

 7     itself.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

10        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Pejic, it is a fact, is it not, that all the

11     chiefs of the CSB and the ministry -- ministry in the head office,

12     including the minister, issued instructions to the stations in the field

13     that prompt information should be reported on and that the information

14     sent should be accurate, complete, and exhaustive.  Is that right?

15        A.   Yes, that is right, and this is something that was insisted on on

16     almost a daily basis.  I said at the outset that there were employees who

17     were new to the service and who failed to grasp the point or the gist of

18     what security-relevant information is.  One of the commanders had not --

19     had occasion to deal with this sort of information at the post that he

20     held previously in the ministry.

21        Q.   I think that as you started giving your testimony this morning,

22     you said that the situation with regard to -- that the situation changed

23     on an hourly basis and that security-relevant information never ceased to

24     reach you; is that right?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 12199

 1        Q.   It was misinterpreted, my question.  My question was the security

 2     events -- or, rather, I said first that the situation changed by the hour

 3     and that security events and information about these events were

 4     numerous.

 5        A.   That's right.

 6        Q.   Since you were engaged in analyses, it is a fact that the news or

 7     information received with a delay of one day in war time constitute

 8     important information that cannot be utilised in any way anymore.  Is

 9     that right?

10        A.   Yes.  Any belated information meant that things that had already

11     been done could not be rectified anymore.  If an intervention by the

12     police had already ended by that point and if the relevant information

13     was lacking, you find yourself at the end of the day having to remedy the

14     steps taken already rather than directing the activities in the desired

15     way.

16        Q.   To illustrate this with an example, I will show you the documents

17     shown to you by Mr. Hannis in his direct examination yesterday.

18             For reference, we're dealing with P1476.

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown 1D76.

20             When I said that P1476 is the reference, I meant the reference to

21     the examination by Mr. Hannis, who showed him this document and then

22     proceeded to show him the specific documents appearing in the log-book.

23        Q.   You see, sir, Mr. Hannis showed you this document yesterday.

24     It's 65 ter 180.  It's a MUP dispatch dated the 19th of July, 1992, and

25     its reference number is 10-14/92.  Do you recall seeing this document

Page 12200

 1     yesterday?

 2        A.   Yes, I do.

 3        Q.   The document was made as a result of the meeting of the first

 4     collegium of the MUP of Republika Srpska held in Belgrade on the

 5     11th of July, 1992, as stated, in fact, in the preamble of the document;

 6     correct?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   The CSBs are required to send in detailed information about seven

 9     different fields, so to speak.  One of them is the activity of

10     paramilitary formations, the second is the involvement of the police in

11     combat activities.  Perhaps we can turn to page 2.  Next, problems

12     related to the prevention and detection of crime and perpetrators

13     thereof; procedures and jurisdiction in the treatment and custody of

14     prisoners, persons evacuated from collection camps into which the army

15     brings Muslim residents without any documents, stating reasons in order

16     to defer such camps that were not defined to the organs of the interior.

17     Next, operation of the military judiciary authorities, et cetera.  We

18     will not read it any further, because it's self-explanatory.

19             You see that in the last paragraph the ministry states:

20             "All the data and information shall be submitted by the

21     25th of July, 1992, at the latest ..."

22        A.   Yes, I can see that.

23        Q.   As the -- as a result of this dispatch of the MUP that was sent

24     on the 19th of July, your security services centre sent a dispatch which

25     is P1073.

Page 12201

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown

 2     P1073.  Can the witness be shown page 2.

 3        Q.   As you see, this is again a document shown to you by my learned

 4     friend Mr. Hannis.  It bears the reference number 01-127/92.

 5             You gave your comments on it because it was mentioned in the

 6     log-book of the communications centre.  And this is now a letter from the

 7     CSB Sarajevo sent to the SJBs out in the field, to their respective

 8     chiefs, and bears the date of the 25th of July, 1992.  Therein, a request

 9     is made for information to be provided on the various issues that the

10     ministry sought from the SJBs.  Can you see that?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   You see between these two documents, the document that I have

13     shown you a moment ago from the ministry and the document that you're

14     looking at right now, there is an almost seven-day difference.  The

15     ministry document is dated the 19th of July, 1992, and it sets out the

16     time limit for the sending out of information of the 25th of July.  And

17     as we can see, this request is sent out to the SJBs out in the field only

18     on the 25th of July.  And obviously there is a seven-day interval between

19     the two; is that right?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   That seven-day gap, I suppose -- or, rather, tell me, do you know

22     how it came about, if you know?

23        A.   The only thing I can rely on in trying to reply to your question

24     is the log-book of incoming and outgoing dispatches.

25        Q.   Very well.

Page 12202

 1        A.   The log-book shows that on that day there were only three

 2     dispatches, and they are our own dispatches.  So obviously it couldn't

 3     have been received from the MUP on that day.  And if I look at

 4     number 127, then I see that although it is dated 25 July, it left the

 5     centre only on the 27th.  In other words, it sat there -- there for two

 6     days.  If it was received on the 25th by the centre, we took another

 7     two days to send it out to all the police stations.  Obviously, at that

 8     time there were also problems with communications.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Finally, the Prosecutor showed you a document with

10     which the SJB of Ilijas, pursuant to the request and the instructions

11     received from the CSB, and I'm talking about the document we have just

12     looked at, P1073, where the SJB of Ilijas which acts upon this document

13     and sends out a reply to the CSB.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]  Can the witness please be shown

15     65 ter 2609.

16        Q.   A minute ago we saw that the CSB on the 27th of July sent

17     dispatches to SJBs.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   This reply of the Ilijas SJB is dated 5 August 1992.

20        A.   I can see that.

21        Q.   And obviously it says:

22             "Re:  Your document strictly confidential 01-127/92 of

23     25 July 1992."

24             So there's a direct link to the previous document that we

25     commented on; right?

Page 12203

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Were you able to enter this dispatch in the log-book of incoming

 3     and outgoing dispatches?

 4        A.   Yes.  And that is the handwritten number up there, and the

 5     Prosecutor asked me about its significance.  It means that under 218, the

 6     dispatch is entered as received by the communications centre on the

 7     11th of August, 1992.

 8        Q.   There's again a difference in dates.  This document is dated

 9     5 August, and the CSB obviously received it six or seven days later.  Do

10     you know the reason why there was this delay?

11        A.   Obviously at that time communications lines with Ilijas were not

12     functional.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not sure, but I

15     think that Mr. Hannis tendered this document.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, it has been confirmed it is an exhibit.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.  I'm sorry, I missed the

18     number.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Just for the record, this is Exhibit P1476,

20     Your Honours.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

22        Q.   [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Pejic.  We have given an

23     illustration by using documents in which this is obvious.  Let me

24     summarise.  From the moment the dispatch was drafted in the ministry and

25     is dated 19 July 1992, the deadline for the submission of information

Page 12204

 1     according to that dispatch is 25 July, and we have just seen that the CSB

 2     only received information from the SJBs on the 11th of August, which

 3     means almost, if my math is correct, almost 21 days --

 4             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry.  I object to the form of the question,

 5     because he's only shown one being received on the 11th of August, and he

 6     says SJBs in the plural in his question.  And also, just for

 7     clarification, I think in fairness, he should show you what deadline was

 8     given to the SJBs in the dispatch from the CSB.  It wasn't July 25th.  It

 9     was August 10th.

10             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I absolutely agree.  In the letter

11     sent by the CSB, the deadline was the 10th of August, but I'm interested

12     in the following:  Information from the field.  The Ilijas SJB submitted

13     this information on the 11th of August.  We saw that, didn't we?

14        A.   Yes.

15             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry.  I think that misstates the evidence.

16     Ilijas submitted on the 5th.  It was received on the 11th.

17             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I absolutely agree.

18        Q.   You received the letter on the 11th of August.

19        A.   Yes.  That can be seen from the log-book.

20        Q.   Tell me, Mr. Pejic, before receiving a report from all SJBs in

21     its territory, the CSB does not report to the MUP.

22        A.   No, it does not submit a full report.

23        Q.   Or if it does submit a report, then it states in the report

24     information not received from, and then what follows is the list of SJBs.

25        A.   Yes, a partial or incomplete report can be filed.  That's why I

Page 12205

 1     said in my answer to your first question not a full report.  The centre

 2     could, and I suppose that the chief of the centre in this particular case

 3     really did that, namely, he sent a reply to the Ministry within the

 4     deadline but clearly state that it was -- the report was made based on

 5     available information, and to -- to justify their activity they will have

 6     enclosed dispatches sent out to the SJBs and stated that they -- that the

 7     replies are still pending.

 8             The chief of the centre had to at least inform the ministry that

 9     he was unable to collect the information in the said deadline.

10     Otherwise, he would have been -- he may have been called to

11     responsibility for failure to comply.

12        Q.   At any rate, the information from the SJB of Ilijas, once

13     received by the CSB on the 11th of August, couldn't have made it to the

14     MUP of the RS before that date; correct?

15        A.   That is correct.

16        Q.   So the ministry of the RS, from the day this dispatch was sent

17     out till the reception of incoming information, had to wait for at least

18     ten days; correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Tell me, how far is Ilijas from Pale approximately as the crow

21     flies?

22        A.   Well, I think about 30 to 40 kilometres.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Tell me, you said to Mr. Hannis while he was

24     examining you that currently you were an inspector in the service for

25     documenting war crimes.

Page 12206

 1        A.   Yes.  I'm a member of the team established by the MUP of the RS

 2     in 2005.

 3        Q.   Could you please give us the official name of that team or that

 4     service of the MUP of the RS?

 5        A.   Team for investigating and documenting of criminal offences of

 6     war crimes of the MUP of the RS, established pursuant to the decision of

 7     the minister in 2005, as amended by subsequent amendments.  Currently

 8     we -- this team works in the headquarters at Pale and is directly

 9     subordinate to the minister's office.  It does operational work for the

10     department of the police, and more precisely, the administration of the

11     crime police.  In all centres there are sub-teams, that is, departments

12     and sections who -- that also do some work for it.

13        Q.   This investigates team which also documents war crimes is a

14     body -- or the body that the Defence is -- Defence teams of the accused,

15     including Mr. Stanisic, contact for documents; correct?

16        A.   Yes.  Sometimes they do it directly, they approach the team

17     directly, but some attorneys contact the ministry first, but in that case

18     either the office of the director of the police or the office of the

19     minister or the chief of the crime police administration forward their

20     request to our team instructing us to act upon it and inform them what we

21     have done.

22        Q.   So at any rate, this team for investigating and documenting war

23     crimes is a body or administration within the MUP, the only such body

24     that procures such documents and forwards it to the requesting party;

25     correct?

Page 12207

 1        A.   In essence this is the case, but the team doesn't have the entire

 2     documentation.  So when requests are made for personal documents from

 3     personal files, we would forward that to our personnel administration and

 4     forward that directly to the applicant or go through the relevant body

 5     for investigating war crimes with the cabinet of the RS.  That's the

 6     former government secretariat for co-operation with the ICTY.  But the

 7     team would take care that all bodies of the MUP procure all available

 8     documents, integrate the documents and consult the -- consult the

 9     executive levels of the MUP and decide on the most appropriate way of

10     transmitting the documents.

11        Q.   I'm asking this because there have been some remarks by the

12     Prosecution's with regard to the authenticity of the documents, some

13     documents.  I'll try to shorten that and focus on matters of interest to

14     us, but we need your assistance for explaining this to the Trial Chamber.

15             When a Defence team of one of the accused applies for some

16     documents, you look for those documents or, rather, request these

17     documents from the administration in charge in the MUP of the RS.

18        A.   Yes, exactly, unless we have that document already in our

19     archives.

20        Q.   But if it's about a document that isn't in your archives but,

21     rather, in one of the stations in the field, then that document is sent

22     to you by that station.

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Then you inspect the document, copy it, and forward it to the

25     applicant, right?

Page 12208

 1        A.   Yes, but first we consult the administration in charge and the

 2     minister's office.

 3        Q.   Sir, if the Defence team of one of the accused from -- gets from

 4     the team for investigating and documenting war crimes of the RS a certain

 5     document, it's a fact that as soon as you forward that document to the

 6     Defence team that means that your team and the MUP do not doubt the

 7     authenticity of that document; correct?

 8        A.   Yes.  The authenticity of the documents, although they are

 9     copies, is corroborated by the fact that it was found in the archives of

10     the MUP or one of its organisational units.  Some documents that we

11     provide are not stamped, and the copy doesn't show that it was certified,

12     means that they were filed in the archives as copies.  So these are not

13     urgent documents that were indeed transmitted to someone and thus

14     stamped, but, rather, a copy which is archived as such.

15             Furthermore, I would like to say that -- well, possibly not in

16     this case, but some attorneys without any need applies for a number of

17     documents, documents that we have in our archives but in electronic form.

18     These documents have been taken out by the investigators of the ICTY,

19     assisted by the EUFOR.  They have taken them out from the archives of the

20     MUP and its organisational units.  They brought them all here and

21     scanned, and when they returned the documents to us, we got also

22     electronic versions of the documents, and we use those in order to avoid

23     searching the archives again, so that some documents could have been

24     found more easily here.

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Where are we going with this, Mr. Zecevic?

Page 12209

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, Your Honour?

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I'm just putting a question about the relevance

 3     of this.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  But, Your Honours, there has been numerous

 5     objections from Ms. Korner especially about the provenance of the

 6     documents, and when I gave the explanation that we received the document

 7     from the -- the team for investigation and documentation of the war

 8     crimes of the MUP of RS, Ms. Korner was actually suggesting that due to

 9     the fact that the document does not have the ERN number, there is --

10     there is -- there is a question of its authenticity and the existence of

11     the original and alike.

12             This is -- I found this as a -- as a good opportunity to clarify

13     this situation, because this witness works at the -- he's inspector in

14     this very same investigates and documentation team of MUP of RS.  So we

15     are getting the first-hand knowledge about that.  That is the only reason

16     why I raise this issue.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Very well.  Please proceed.

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.  I have no further questions

19     for this witness.

20             [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Pejic.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Thank you.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

23             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honours, I just have a couple of questions

24     because my learned friend Mr. Hannis, in his examination-in-chief, raised

25     the issue about the Krajina CSB Banja Luka communications situation, so

Page 12210

 1     simply for that.  Otherwise, I don't have any -- any other issue or

 2     question to raise with this witness.

 3                           Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic:

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Pejic.

 5        A.   Good morning.

 6        Q.   I have a question to ask you on a topic broached by Mr. Hannis,

 7     and I would like through my questions to clarify the matter for

 8     Their Honours.

 9             Tell us, in the first several months, and let's say through to

10     the end of 1992, you had information to the effect that the Krajina was

11     almost fully encircled from north, south, east, and west.  Of course,

12     prior to the breaking through of the corridor.  Is that right?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   In other words, the entire region was a battle-field of sorts; is

15     that right?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   It was only in late June and early July as the corridor was made

18     passable that physical links were restored, although they were not secure

19     or stable in view of the narrowness of the corridor with the rest of

20     Republika Srpska; is that right?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   You had technical knowledge to that effect, and we had

23     information that throughout 1992, in the region of the Krajina, there

24     were dire problems with electricity supplies.  Is that right?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 12211

 1        Q.   This -- because the very system on which the electricity supply

 2     was based on a grid, and, of course, certain transmission stations were

 3     required, just as is the case with the telecommunications system; is that

 4     not?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Will you agree with me that there was communication between the

 7     CSB Banja Luka and the municipal SJBs, but it was irregular and

 8     unreliable because, for instance, an SJB would have communication links

 9     with another SJB but not necessarily with all the others, and that was

10     the volatile situation of the times, was it not?

11        A.   Well, I -- I'm not really familiar with the situation with -- in

12     the CSB Banja Luka because I wasn't there, but from what I was able to

13     glean in the communications centre of the MUP and from what could be seen

14     on the diagram, they were in a better position in terms of infrastructure

15     than others, but I still know that we had to wait for several days before

16     we would receive a signal in the communications centre of the MUP, that

17     those in the CSB in Banja Luka had power and that we would be able to

18     transmit the information we had to transmit.  So I know that regardless

19     of the infrastructure they had in place, the problems they were

20     confronted with, especially in terms of power supplies, were dire.  On

21     some occasions we would wait for several days or even weeks in a row

22     before we could manage to send out a dispatch.  This particularly applied

23     to the period of April and early May, at a time when I still worked in

24     the communications centre of the MUP of RS.

25        Q.   In order to assist the Trial Chamber, you will recall and give us

Page 12212

 1     brief comments on it, although it was a long time ago, that precisely in

 2     this time period and because of the problems in power supplies and the

 3     blockade of communications, we have the sad anniversary of the death of

 4     several infants in the Banja Luka nursery hospital, precisely due to the

 5     power cuts.

 6        A.   Yes.  And I know that recently a memorial was erected in the

 7     memory of these infants.  The problems were the result of the absence of

 8     any sort of communications.  Had there been communication working at the

 9     time, appeals would not have been sent only to Belgrade for aid.  And I

10     was present at several such memorial services on the anniversaries of

11     this tragic event.

12             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Pejic.  I have no

13     further questions for you.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Hannis, how long do you think you would be in

15     re-examination?

16             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, I think at least 45 minutes.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Because I'm thinking that although we're ten minutes

18     in advance of the break, perhaps we should take the break a little early

19     and then you can proceed without interruption.

20             MR. HANNIS:  That's -- that would be convenient for me.  Thanks.

21                           [The witness stands down]

22                           --- Recess taken at 10.15 a.m.

23                           --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Before we continue, I admit that we owe counsel and

25     the parties an apology for not being clear as to when we were resuming.

Page 12213

 1     So you would have been waiting for us.  You could have spent the extra

 2     ten minutes more usefully than just hanging around.

 3                           [The witness takes the stand]

 4                           Re-examination by Mr. Hannis:

 5        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Pejic.  I want to start --

 6        A.   Good morning.

 7        Q.   I want to start with some of the matters that Mr. Zecevic raised

 8     this morning first, and then later on I'll go on to some things that he

 9     asked you about yesterday.

10             At page 6, line 10 today, he asked you about the number of

11     communications from the Sarajevo CSB in 1992 and mentioned the number of

12     approximately 1.800.  The -- the log-book you have there, P1428, we see

13     that log-book was used in Vraca for the first 49 entries up to the

14     13th of May, and then the portion that begins for Sarajevo CSB, item

15     number 1 there, I think is a date in June.  I think it's the

16     14th of June.  Is that correct?

17        A.   Correct.

18        Q.   Surely there must have been some dispatches sent and received

19     during that time period between the 13th of May and 14th of June.  Do you

20     know where those would be recorded?

21        A.   I don't know with any certainty.  It is possible that this part

22     of -- that the dispatches in that period were transmitted from

23     Kalovita Brda for the CSB, and the CSB itself did not need to have its

24     own centre for as long as the two of us worked for both the MUP and the

25     centre, but military records were not kept.

Page 12214

 1             MR. HANNIS:  I'm not sure about that last translation.

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter is not sure if the witness said

 3     military or dual.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  The witness said something different.

 5             MR. HANNIS:

 6        Q.   Witness, the last part of your answer was that military records

 7     were not kept, but it's been suggested that what you actually said was

 8     that dual records were not kept.  Would that be correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And you mentioned Kalovita Brda.  Can you tell us again what that

11     was and where it was?

12        A.   It's a neighbourhood of Pale which bears the name.  That's where

13     another part of our centre was located, holding individuals who were

14     preparing documents for encryption and other correspondence as well.  It

15     is possible that at the time when they were engaged in preparations to

16     relocate the MUP from Vraca to Jahorina they transmitted dispatches from

17     that centre.  So it's possible that they have the relevant documentation.

18        Q.   And there was communications equipment located there as well in

19     April and May of 1992; correct?

20        A.   Some of the communications equipment was, the equipment that was

21     being tested, as it were, and the equipment that was being prepared for

22     the purposes of the communications centre and the security services

23     communication centre.

24        Q.   Is that facility at Kalovita Brda one that is sometimes referred

25     to as the Scout House or the Scouts' House?

Page 12215

 1        A.   I don't know exactly which building it was, but some of these

 2     buildings were at one time used by scouts.  That is true.  Later on it

 3     was turned into a students' home, I believe.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Let me show you a document that I believe was

 5     dispatched during this time period, between 15 June and 14 -- between

 6     13 May and 14 June 1992.

 7             MR. HANNIS:  If we could show the witness Exhibit 1D46.  And this

 8     was at tab 13 of my original selection for this witness.

 9        Q.   Mr. Pejic, you'll see this is a document dated the 15 of May.

10     Its reference number is 01-1/92, and it's an order from the minister

11     creating war units.  Did you -- did you see this document before?  Did

12     you see this in 1992?

13        A.   I can't tell you exactly when I saw it, but I am -- I see that

14     it's familiar, but I can't tell you whether I saw it back in May when it

15     was made.

16        Q.   And if we could go to the last page in both English and B/C/S, to

17     the bottom.  You'll see it's stamped and signed.  Does that appear to be

18     Mr. Stanisic's signature?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And to the left side of the page at the bottom in B/C/S, please,

21     we'll see it says "Forward to," the Presidency, the government,

22     organisational units of the MUP and archives.

23             So am I safe to assume that this document was something that

24     would have been transmitted throughout the MUP?

25        A.   Yes.  When I look at its contents I am familiar with them, but

Page 12216

 1     the document did not go through the communications centre.  Judging by

 2     the reference number, I would say that it does not originate from the

 3     communications centre.  Rather, I think that the order was sent out

 4     together with other regular mail from the minister's office.  Those of us

 5     in the organisational units were made familiar or acquainted with this

 6     order by our superiors, that is to say, chiefs of the security services

 7     centres.

 8        Q.   When you say it didn't go out to the communication centre, you

 9     mean the communication centre where you were working at Vraca in late

10     April and early May?

11        A.   Yes.  Yes, that's the centre I'm referring to.

12        Q.   But you don't know whether or not it may have been sent out from

13     Kalovita Brda.

14        A.   I can't state with any certainty either way.

15        Q.   And you indicated that you were aware of it.  I will show you one

16     place where you may have become aware of it.  If we could look at

17     Exhibit P160.  This next one I want to show you, Mr. Pejic, is a summary

18     of the meeting on 11 July 1992 in Belgrade.  You attended that meeting;

19     correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   We actually see your name on the second page among those

22     attending.

23             MR. HANNIS:  And if we could go to page 15 of both the English

24     and B/C/S.

25        Q.   At the bottom half of the page, this is Mr. Stanisic speaking, at

Page 12217

 1     least that's who it's attributed to in this meeting, and in the last

 2     paragraph, my English translation says, beginning with the third

 3     sentence:

 4             "For that reason we passed a special order, number 01-1,

 5     dated 15/05 1992, in mid May, saying that the police be organised as well

 6     as other MUP services into war units."

 7             So at this meeting in Belgrade in July, that order that we just

 8     looked at was spoken about.  Do you remember that?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Is it possible given that date of 15 May and that number 01, is

11     it possible that this was a new system of numbering starting from

12     dispatches sent out from Kalovita Brda, because we see no further

13     dispatches sent from Vraca after the 13th of May.  So the timing is about

14     right, isn't it?

15        A.   This may be the case, or it may be the case that the log-book for

16     orders, a new one was opened in the minister's office, or -- or in the

17     office where they typed them out.  I said that the order need not have

18     necessarily been transmitted as a dispatch.  It could have been

19     distributed to the chiefs in person.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Next I want to go to page 7, line 21 today.

21     Mr. Zecevic was asking you about some of the entries in P1428, the

22     log-book that you have a hard copy of, and he was asking you about an

23     entry, number 30, where it seemed to indicate that nothing had been sent

24     to CSB Doboj.  Do you recall that?

25        A.   I do.

Page 12218

 1        Q.   And you agreed that that would mean the dispatch was not

 2     transmitted.  Would you allow for the possibility that another

 3     explanation could be that the communication worker on duty may have

 4     indeed sent it later but failed to make an entry in the log-book, because

 5     he was busy doing other things or a shift change?  Is that possible?

 6        A.   After 2100 hours or after the time these other dispatches were

 7     transmitted, during the hand-over of duty, the communications officer is

 8     duty-bound to inform the colleague replacing him fully of the dispatches

 9     that were sent or still remained to be sent.  Thus the communications

10     officer taking up duties would contact Doboj, transmit the message and do

11     the same thing that his colleague who was there previously did, would

12     make an entry, or if he failed to transmit the dispatch, he would have to

13     contact a courier to come and pick it up, but a note would have been made

14     to that effect as well.  In this case, evidently the communications

15     officer did not transmit the dispatch from the centre.

16             If it had been the case that you were referring to, then it would

17     have been a failure on the part of the communications officer to transmit

18     it and a note of this would have to have been made in the record during

19     the hand-over of duty.

20        Q.   But in fairness to the communication workers who were available

21     at the time, as I understand it, it was only you and Obrad Trifkovic.  So

22     there were only two of you doing all the work for the centre, 24 hours a

23     day, seven days a week, right?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   I want to ask --

Page 12219

 1        A.   In this instant example it's my handwriting, but you can see that

 2     my signature is absent from where "Doboj" is written.  And Trifkovic

 3     would have made an entry, because he was an officer with more experience.

 4        Q.   Okay.  Let me ask you then -- I'm sorry.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  This is not what the witness said.  What was

 6     recorded was not what the witness said about Trifkovic.  Can you

 7     please -- I mean, I can -- I can say what the witness said and maybe he

 8     can confirm, but I don't thing that you would be happy with that,

 9     Mr. Hannis, so please clarify that or we ask for a verification request.

10             MR. HANNIS:

11        Q.   Well, Mr. Pejic, it's been suggested by my learned friend that

12     what's in the transcript is not what you said.  Let me read what's in the

13     transcript.

14             MR. HANNIS:  Is it the entire thing or just the last sentence,

15     Mr. Zecevic?

16             JUDGE HALL:  It appears that the question and answer have been

17     conflated.

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  No, Your Honours.  It wasn't recorded properly the

19     answer of the witness.  The witness said something different in his last

20     sentence.

21             MR. HANNIS:  The last sentence --

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  Line 9.

23             MR. HANNIS:

24        Q.   The last sentence, Mr. Pejic, is -- your answer is translated as:

25             "And Trifkovic would have made an entry because he was an officer

Page 12220

 1     with more experience."

 2             Was that what you said, and if not, can you say now what you

 3     previously said?

 4        A.   Well, the gist is as follows:  I said that had Trifkovic

 5     transmitted the dispatch, he would have made an entry to that effect,

 6     because he is a colleague who had more experience than me.  In my view,

 7     he could not have committed such an error.

 8        Q.   But, Mr. Pejic, surely even an experienced professional can make

 9     a mistake or an omission.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry.  I have to object to this.  This is

11     calling for speculation.  The question was put and the witness answered

12     what is it in his opinion the situation about.

13             MR. HANNIS:  And he gave an answer, I think, which I'm entitled

14     to question, and I think the question I asked is an appropriate one.

15        Q.   Are you saying professionals do not make mistakes?  Especially in

16     the stress of the first few weeks of a war when you're working 24-hour

17     shifts with only one other colleague to handle all the communications

18     work?

19             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Hannis, I would approach your question in a

20     slightly different manner than the way Mr. Zecevic formulated his

21     objection in that as it is now phrased, it appears that you're arguing

22     with the witness.  Perhaps you can make your point in a different way by

23     rephrasing your question.

24             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, and I think my first question was

25     appropriately phrased.

Page 12221

 1        Q.   Would you allow for the possibility that even an experienced

 2     professional can make a mistake or an omission?

 3        A.   My answer is that every living person can make a mistake.  You,

 4     just as me and anybody else.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Could you look at the CSB section of the hard copy

 6     for the entries number 68, 69, and 73, I believe.

 7             MR. HANNIS:  If Your Honours still have your hard copies.

 8        Q.   You see, those appear to be blank.  Can you -- can you tell us

 9     what that means or how at that came to be?

10        A.   I can.  When somebody's preparing a dispatch, if he doesn't want

11     to enter his own registration number, that is the number that comes in

12     front of the serial number, he can call the communications number and ask

13     which the following number of dispatch is.  In this particular case, it

14     was said that the following number was 68.  However, in the meantime, the

15     author who received that number gave up on writing the dispatch and

16     that's why it was left blank.  So the number was taken, but the dispatch

17     was never made or transmitted to the communications centre for

18     distribution.  It could have been the chief of the department of the

19     police or of the crime police or anybody else, and that's why it's blank.

20             If the dispatch had actually come in, it would have been entered

21     under this number.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm really sorry, Mr. Hannis.  I think for the --

23     for the clarity of the record, we should enter the P number of the

24     document you were referring to when you posed the question.

25             MR. HANNIS:  The log-book is P1428.

Page 12222

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  P1428.  That's correct.

 2             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

 3        Q.   And, Mr. Pejic, sticking with P1428, I have a few more questions.

 4     Mr. Zecevic, at page 8, line 12, today was asking you about entries

 5     47 and 48, and you'll see there are a list of addressees there which

 6     include Doboj and Trebinje, but it appears that nothing was sent to them

 7     because there's no phone number entered as there is for the Sarajevo,

 8     Banja Luka, and Bijeljina CSBs.  Then he asked you if you would agree

 9     with him that this means communication lines with the centres in Doboj

10     and Trebinje were nonexistent at this time and you said yes.

11             My question is related to that, and could you look at entry

12     number 11 in P1428.  This is dated 26 April 1992, number 25, decision

13     returned.  It lists the five CSBs.  There are five telephone numbers, and

14     there are several signatures in the far right column.  So it appears --

15     am I correct in assuming that on the 26th of April there was a phone line

16     or there was a connection between Doboj and Trebinje and this item was

17     sent to them on that day?

18        A.   For Trebinje the answer is yes, but for Doboj no, because there

19     are no -- the number is not initialled, and in the last column there is a

20     line for the "sent" entry.  You can see that the other towns have this

21     data entered but not Doboj, because there are five signatures of the

22     signalsmen and this one is not marked as sent, but Trebinje is.

23        Q.   Could you then look at number 13 and 15, which are both entries

24     signed by you.  Can you tell me whether or not these entries indicate

25     that the subject documents were sent to both Trebinje and Doboj on the --

Page 12223

 1        A.   Yes, on the 26th of April at this time.

 2        Q.   And the second one on the 27th of April, item number 15?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  So prior to May 11th, when we see the entries for

 5     items 47 and 48, prior to that there had been communication lines with

 6     Doboj and Trebinje.  Do you know when that changed?

 7        A.   Beware when we're speaking about communications, which I

 8     explained at the beginning, especially when your colleague asked me about

 9     Banja Luka, it can happen that you have the line at 7.00 in the morning

10     but you don't at 1900.  So we would wait for Banja Luka to contact us so

11     that we can send them something.  It was the same with Doboj and

12     Trebinje.  The situation changed on an hourly basis:  Now you have a

13     phone line.  Now you don't have it.  Sometimes it was because of Trebinje

14     or Doboj, but sometimes even we, at Vraca, would be left without

15     electricity, and then we would be unable to send anything, although they

16     were able to receive.  So in the morning the situation would be different

17     from that in the afternoon, and this went on day by day.  So there's

18     nothing unusual with dispatches being able to be sent one day but not on

19     the following day.

20        Q.   Thank you.  I wanted to ask a couple of questions about the last

21     subject matter Mr. Zecevic brought up today.  He asked you about your

22     current work, and the documents that you get which are sometimes given

23     out to requesters, and it relates to the authenticity of documents.

24             The documents you have in the collections where you work now with

25     the team that you work with, as I understood your answer, those were

Page 12224

 1     documents that were found in the archives of various organisational units

 2     within the MUP; is that correct?

 3        A.   Yes, some of them.  We mostly have documents that have already

 4     been here in The Hague, and they mostly have an electronic version too.

 5     Part of the documents we collect from the various administrations in

 6     charge through the administration of the police or the minister's office.

 7             When we get the documents, we make the sets complete, and we send

 8     them to the applicants, and we act in the same manner when we get

 9     requests from the Prosecution.  Not only this one but also other

10     Prosecution -- Prosecutions.

11        Q.   Thank you.  On behalf of this Prosecution, we appreciate that.

12     My question is concerning your source materials from archives in the

13     organisational units, it seemed to me that those documents could include

14     documents that were placed there by individuals, former employees of the

15     MUP, maybe even current employees of the MUP, who may have been suspects

16     in this Tribunal or state court or had a motivation.  That's one

17     possibility, isn't it?

18        A.   When we look for documents, we look for them in the official

19     archives of the MUP, and you were able to see that these documents have

20     their register numbers, and as a rule, they must have been archived then.

21             This document, the activity report for nine months, has an

22     electronic version too.  And most of the other documents were copies that

23     had to be sent to the archives.

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  Sorry.  Your Honour, I believe perhaps when the

25     witness leaves or is excused we would need a clarification on the

Page 12225

 1     position of the Office of the Prosecutor concerning the last question

 2     Mr. Hannis posed, because it was my understanding that the Office of the

 3     Prosecutor is using the very same documents which were sized -- seized,

 4     I'm sorry, seized in the archives of the RS MUP or CSBs or SJBs.

 5     Therefore, if the Prosecution's position is that these documents in the

 6     archives are the documents which were, as I see from his question,

 7     planted by some of the -- some accused or other individuals, then we

 8     would need a clarification on the exact position of the -- of the Office

 9     of the Prosecutor in respect to that.  Thank you.

10             MR. HANNIS:  Our position on documents will be related to

11     particular documents.  I wasn't here for some of the objections that

12     Mr. Zecevic has referred to as being made by Ms. Korner to particular

13     documents.  It's my understanding that we have had some documents that

14     don't have stamps, don't have signatures.  In some cases I think one

15     document we objected to was a document that appeared to be -- was

16     purported to be from the SDA.  Now, if I am getting this mixed up with

17     something else.  But we do have a question.  For example, an informant

18     for State Security Service may provide documents to State Security

19     Service that purport to be from the SDA.  Yeah, we may have an issue

20     about whether that's an authentic document.  The mere fact that it is in

21     the RS MUP archives doesn't automatically make it authentic, just as a

22     document in the OTP collection doesn't automatically make it authentic.

23     We have to examine each one individually.  That's why I'm asking these

24     questions.

25        Q.   Thank you.  I'm going to move on.  Not something I need to argue

Page 12226

 1     with you, Mr. Pejic.  It's for us lawyers, I think, to talk about.

 2             Let me now go to yesterday.  Mr. Zecevic asked you, at page 12166

 3     going on to 12167, about the requirement for security-related events to

 4     be reported up the chain, and you explained how before the war even minor

 5     things like stopping an individual and asking for his identification was

 6     something that would be reported, but I understood from your answer that

 7     that kind of thing wasn't done during the war.

 8             Those things weren't being reported by dispatch, were they, how

 9     many times a policeman stopped someone to see their ID?

10        A.   It was mentioned in the bulletin of daily events as statistical

11     information.  If the person was not apprehended and deprived of liberty,

12     writing a dispatch would not be necessary.  It would only be recorded in

13     the statistical section of the daily bulletin.  But in war that certainly

14     wasn't possible.  Also, given the fact that the police officers on duty

15     didn't always -- weren't always able to communicate with the duty shift

16     officer because we didn't have enough portable radio stations.  So they

17     were only able to report on that when they returned from their duty

18     shift.

19        Q.   And in terms of the kinds of things that were sent by dispatch

20     before the war but which were not commonly sent by dispatch during the

21     war, I -- I understood that, for example, in 1991 by dispatch would be

22     sent things such as all points bulletins to be on the lookout for a

23     particular individual, or notices of appointment concerning employment;

24     is that correct?

25        A.   Well, the first part, yes, but even the second.  All official

Page 12227

 1     correspondence in peacetime which is -- which doesn't abound in

 2     information contained could be sent by dispatch and was.  So this also

 3     applied to wanted notices and other things.

 4        Q.   But I understood that during war time, and we don't seem to see

 5     examples of those kind of things, notices of appointment or wanted

 6     notices being sent by dispatch in 1992 after April 6th.

 7        A.   Correct.  They -- that wasn't done.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  At page 12170, line 11, Mr. Zecevic and you were

 9     discussing the number of dispatches sent out pre-war, and he said:

10             "If I were to tell you that it would be logical to expect the

11     number of dispatches during war time, the total number of dispatches,

12     should increase by 30 per cent, would you agree?"

13             And your answer was:

14             "In these," there's a question mark in my transcript, I think

15     this was probably "in these circumstances," or "in these realm of

16     security and security-related events, yes."

17             Now, with regard to this figure of 300.000 dispatches that was

18     mentioned as being a yearly figure for the pre-war MUP, what percentage

19     of 300.000 dispatches were security related?  Do you have any idea?

20        A.   I cannot give a precise figure, but certainly most of them.

21        Q.   And what percentage would be those things like notices of

22     appointment and non-security-related matters?  Any percentage you can

23     give us?

24        A.   Not the exact percentage, but a very small number of dispatches

25     had to do with personnel matters.  In urgent cases when the minister

Page 12228

 1     appoints the commander of a police station, then the personnel service

 2     would send out a dispatch to inform the others, but -- and they would

 3     also state that the decision would follow by regular mail.  Such

 4     dispatches were -- there were much fewer of them than dispatches of

 5     operational character.

 6        Q.   What was the first time that you ever heard this number of

 7     30 per cent as being a likely increase to expect when war broke out?  Had

 8     you seen that or read that some place, or was when Mr. Zecevic asked you

 9     the question the first time you heard 30 per cent?

10        A.   It was then that I heard this figure of 30 per cent for the first

11     time.  I agreed that it was to be expected, that the number of operator

12     dispatches rise by at least that percentage.  The expected percentage may

13     actually be greater than that, but if I wanted a more realistic estimate,

14     then I would have to say that it has to be viewed from the perspective of

15     the events that were happening.  Things were happening very fast,

16     especially the movements of population and the start of combat activities

17     and so on.

18             Why am I not insisting on a greater percentage?  Because even

19     though the war was starting, the number of criminal offences such as

20     brawls and so on, that usually would take up much more of the dispatch

21     communication was reduced.  That seems illogical but that was the case.

22             As far as I remember, theft and breaking into houses were --

23     became more common, more numerous then, and due to that, the number of

24     dispatches had to increase in this operational aspect, the policing

25     aspect which was security relevant.  Whether that percentage is

Page 12229

 1     30 per cent or not, in some it was below that, in some it was greater,

 2     especially in urban settlements.  But I cannot go into a deeper analysis

 3     of the situation at that time.

 4        Q.   Okay.  My question stems in part from the fact that you worked in

 5     analysis in your professional career, and I'm just trying to find out if

 6     there was some kind of science that was applied to come up with this

 7     estimate, because before 1992, neither you nor anybody else in the MUP

 8     had the experience of what it would be like to run a communications

 9     system in the MUP, in Bosnia, in war-time circumstances.

10             So where's 30 per cent come from?  Why not 10?  Why not 99?  Why

11     not -15?  I just don't understand how that number can be picked out.  Can

12     you tell me?

13        A.   Well, I did point out that for a more precise estimate I would

14     need an analysis of the overall events in the area, but as I don't have

15     one, I did not oppose what the attorney put to me, because I didn't have

16     a foundation to do that, nor did he say anything which I would

17     spontaneously oppose.

18             For example, for the area of Ilidza, in the first seven days, the

19     numbers of -- the number of dispatches about attacks on persons and the

20     facilities should have been much greater than was really done.  That's

21     why I said that it was realistic to expect a much greater number of

22     dispatches containing security-relevant information and security-relevant

23     events.  And this other aspect about which you spoke, I'm not saying that

24     it did not drop, because the entire documentation, all the log-books,

25     remained in Sarajevo.

Page 12230

 1        Q.   Okay.  I guess I need to make sure we're starting from the

 2     right -- the right base in trying to examine these numbers that

 3     Mr. Zecevic talked about.  If you could take a quick look at

 4     Exhibit P625.  This was at tab 43.

 5             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, this is the annual report.

 6        Q.   Mr. Zecevic showed you one page from this report.  I'm going to

 7     start with page number 23 in the English.  It's page 32, I believe, in

 8     e-court, in the B/C/S.  And I will tell you, Mr. Pejic, that this page is

 9     in the section under II, "Other task of the Ministry," item number 1,

10     reporting and informing, and the paragraph you saw before was the one

11     that says -- it's the next-to-last paragraph in your B/C/S.  It says:

12             "On average, 15 dispatches a day were sent to the centres and

13     other organs of the interior from the MUP headquarters (a total of 4170)

14     and on average 16 a day were received, a total of 4400."

15             Now, if you can keep those numbers in mind, 4.170 and 4.400.  I'd

16     like to direct you to another page within the same annual report.  This

17     is page 37 in the B/C/S and page 27 of the English.  And this paragraph

18     I'm going to show you now, Mr. Pejic, it comes from a section of the

19     report, number 3, task and duties of communications and cryptographic

20     data protection.  And --

21        A.   I can't see it.  I think that it was on the previous page.

22        Q.   Yes.

23             MR. HANNIS:  I think I need the electronic page 37 in the B/C/S,

24     which has a different page number because of the cover page.  Yes.  Yes.

25        Q.   At the very bottom of the page on the right there, you'll see it

Page 12231

 1     says:

 2             "In this period for the needs of the MUP headquarters, 2969 open

 3     dispatches were sent and 2802 were received; 1300 closed dispatches were

 4     sent and 1601 received."

 5             If my math is correct, I count 4.269 sent instead of 4.170.  Does

 6     that mean there's two different kinds of dispatches and the total number

 7     really should be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 8.300 sent?  Because

 8     this is the same report for MUP headquarters, but this relates

 9     specifically to the cryptographic data protection section.  Do you know

10     why there's that discrepancy?  Because if they're talking about the total

11     number of dispatches for MUP headquarters, it seems like it should be

12     identical to that 4.170 number we saw before, unless there's two

13     different kinds of dispatches we're talking about.  Do you know?

14        A.   The number you're referring to now is contained in the earlier

15     sum total, in my view.

16        Q.   Well --

17        A.   Now, the author of the report --

18        Q.   I'm sorry.  Let me stop you there.  This number is higher than

19     the previous number.  The other number was 4.170 sent, and this is 4.269.

20     So I don't see how this number could be contained within the lower

21     number.  Do you follow me?

22        A.   Then we're looking at different figures.  In this period, for the

23     purposes of the MUP, the seat, 2.969 were sent out, and 2.802 were

24     received.  Earlier on where the total figure appeared, it was much higher

25     than this one, and the explanation is quite simple.

Page 12232

 1        Q.   No.  Wait.  Wait.  Let me stop you.  Maybe there's a problem with

 2     my English translation, but 2.969 is the number of open dispatches sent,

 3     and 1.300 is the number of closed, so that makes a total of 4.269 sent.

 4     That's combining both open and closed.  Is my English translation

 5     correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Okay.  And that number 4.269 is almost 100 higher than the number

 8     we saw previously at the earlier page in your report of 4.170.

 9        A.   I think the translation you have is wrong.  In the Serbian

10     version the numbers are smaller, and I can account for this by the fact

11     that the report presents, through communications statistics, the activity

12     of the organisational units in the seat of the MUP, i.e., in the

13     administrations.  The other number, the first number of more than 4.000

14     that's mentioned, also encompasses some of the activities in the centres.

15     The figure which appears at page 33 of the report does not include these

16     dispatches too.  It only includes the dispatches of the MUP in the seat,

17     that's to say, the administration of the crime police, the administration

18     of ordinary police, et cetera.

19        Q.   The page you're looking at right now says 2.969 dispatches, open

20     dispatches, sent, and 1.300 closed sent for the needs of MUP

21     headquarters, right?  We agree with that so far?

22        A.   That's right.

23        Q.   And you add those two together and they come up with 4.269 total

24     dispatches sent during this period for the needs of MUP headquarters.

25     Right?  Okay.

Page 12233

 1        A.   That's right.

 2             MR. HANNIS:  If we could go back to e-court page number 32 in the

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

 4        Q.   I'm sorry, Mr. Pejic.  I'm just trying to be sure I understand

 5     this.

 6             What my English translation says here is that from the MUP

 7     headquarters, a total of 4.170 dispatches in all lines of work were sent

 8     to the centres and other organs of the interior.  Is that correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   So can you explain the difference between those two numbers?

11     Does this mean there's 4.170 from MUP headquarters and also 4.269 and the

12     total should be something 8400?  Or is it just a mistake or do you know?

13        A.   It is possible that when it came to the earlier figure a dispatch

14     was counted twice.  As for the sum total of 4.170, I think it's correct,

15     because it's taken over from the log-book.

16             As for the dispatches transmitted from the seat of the MUP, that

17     is to say, from the administrations, a dispatch that -- a dispatch may

18     have been recorded twice because it appeared in two administrations,

19     although the more reliable data is contained in the communications

20     centre, because that's where all these dispatches converge and where they

21     confer numbers on them.

22        Q.   Be -- be that as it may, whatever the number is, I want to ask

23     you about some of the possible reasons that there was a significant

24     decrease in the number of dispatches sent is during the war time, and

25     I'll list some things and ask if you agree that that could be one reason

Page 12234

 1     dispatches went down.  For one thing, the 300.000 number was -- pre-war,

 2     that was the entire Bosnia when there were, I don't know, twice as many

 3     stations for the entire MUP versus how many stations you had in the

 4     RS MUP; right?

 5        A.   That's right, but the number of stations could have a significant

 6     bearing on the number of dispatches received, but the number of

 7     dispatches sent for the MUP would not be really important because one

 8     would be sent to many stations.

 9        Q.   All right.  But the number received in MUP headquarters would not

10     depend on the number of SJBs.  It would depend on the number of centres,

11     right?  Because SJBs weren't communicating directly?

12        A.   Yes.  That's right.

13        Q.   And there were five --

14        A.   That's correct.

15        Q.   There were five centres in the RS MUP, and pre-war, how many

16     centres were there in the BiH MUP prior to the war?

17        A.   We were able to see it in that schematic we had.  I can't recall

18     it at this time.  The communications schematic clearly set out the nodes,

19     the hubs, and that's where the security services centres were.  If you

20     put it back on the screen, I could point out these for you.

21        Q.   We have that in evidence, and it's nine or ten depending on

22     whether you count Prijedor.  If Prijedor doesn't count, then I count

23     nine.

24        A.   Yes.  If that's what it shows.

25        Q.   So fewer centres.  Just the war-time conditions could contribute

Page 12235

 1     to fewer dispatches being sent for all kinds of reasons, policemen are

 2     fighting combat instead of doing police work, fewer communications

 3     personnel to do the communications work, problems with the communications

 4     equipment.  Those are all factors that might cause the number to go down;

 5     correct?

 6        A.   I think that from the entire testimony it is clear that the total

 7     number of dispatches is primarily the result of the level of material,

 8     technical, and human resources we had and the conditions in which we

 9     worked.

10        Q.   Two other factors is that for RS MUP in 1992, we're talking about

11     a period of a little less than 9 months versus 12 months for the -- for

12     the 300.000 for the entire MUP, right?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And --

15        A.   And as a rule, one should not compare 12 --

16        Q.   Twelve to nine?

17        A.   Yes.  Such a comparison should not be made, because we would need

18     to know how many of these 300.000 were there in nine months.

19        Q.   Correct.  And another factor could be simply sort of the

20     personality and work style of the minister and the senior staff in MUP

21     headquarters, because you'd agree with me that some individuals are more

22     likely to write lots of dispatches and others don't write so many.

23        A.   Well, that's a personal matter of those in managerial positions,

24     but the dispatch should be the means through which they performed their

25     duties.  The pre-war experience indicates that the minister himself

Page 12236

 1     issues the least, the fewest dispatches.  There's the deputies and

 2     assistants there.

 3        Q.   Okay.  I'm sorry.  At page 12174, line 15, Mr. Zecevic asked you

 4     yesterday about the SJBs in Eastern Bosnia and asked if all the public

 5     security stations under CSB Sarajevo, when dispatch communication with

 6     them was established in late 1992 or if in 1992 at all.  You said for

 7     some of them it was established in late 1992.  But in terms of

 8     communication with those Eastern Bosnia SJBs, isn't it true, for example,

 9     that Zvornik was communicating as early as June 1992, sending in daily

10     reports although they had to do it indirectly by first sending it to

11     CSB Bijeljina and asking Bijeljina to forward it to you.  Were you aware

12     of that?

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, I didn't object before, although my

14     learned friend is conducting a cross-examination, but I don't think

15     that's proper in redirect.  Thank you.

16             MR. HANNIS:  This last question was just "Were you aware of" a

17     particular fact.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Yes, and I added that Milici did

19     not have it in 1992 either because it was a new station.  Zvornik was a

20     police station that existed earlier on, and it was under our control, and

21     it was in a privileged position, as it were, compared to the other

22     stations around it.

23             MR. HANNIS:

24        Q.   We'll talk about Milici in a little bit with one document I want

25     to show you.

Page 12237

 1             At page 12176, line 14, Mr. Zecevic was asking you about the

 2     dispatch system as being something different from the public or open

 3     system.  So I need you to explain for me what that means.

 4             This was -- this was brought up in connection with looking at the

 5     June 29th MUP report on the state of communications in Exhibit P573,

 6     which if we can put on the screen, English page 8 and B/C/S page 13.

 7             You will have seen this yesterday, Mr. Pejic, and it talked about

 8     what communication links had been established between the centre --

 9     between MUP headquarters and various centres.  Can you explain to me what

10     the dispatch system is versus the public system?  Because this report

11     says MUP, at its headquarters, uses public telephone and telefax

12     communications systems to maintain contact with the security centres.

13        A.   The public sector is telecommunications maintained by the post

14     offices.  In the former Yugoslavia, alongside this system there existed

15     special protected telecommunication channels through which cables ran for

16     all sorts of communications for the purposes of the organs of the

17     interior.  These lines were not available to the public sector.  Even

18     control and repairs of these channels were performed by our members.

19             In early 1992, this system was broken up in Sarajevo.  In other

20     words, it was kept by Sarajevo, because the main switchboard for the

21     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was in Sarajevo.  Therefore, the so-called

22     special lines, "specijale" [phoen] were no longer operational.

23        Q.   So you had to resort to using the public lines; correct?

24        A.   That's right.

25        Q.   And were you able to communicate dispatches through those public

Page 12238

 1     lines from the centre in Pale to Banja Luka CSB, for example?

 2        A.   Before the TG and shortwave devices were set up, no, because the

 3     telegraph line from Sarajevo was down.

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  And the interpreter missed a part of the

 5     witness's answer.

 6             MR. HANNIS:

 7        Q.   I'm sorry, the interpreter didn't hear part of your answer.  We

 8     got:

 9             "Before the TG and shortwave devices were set up, no, because the

10     telegraph line from Sarajevo was down."

11             Can you tell us what you said after that?

12        A.   Teleprinters could not work along telephone lines.  There had to

13     be special telegraphy lines in place for them.

14        Q.   And when did those get put in place, for example, between Pale

15     and Banja Luka, if you know?

16        A.   I don't know.  I know that in recent times the teleprinter became

17     obsolete and computers came into use with protection.  During the war, I

18     know that the teleprinter traffic functioned through shortwaves, and I

19     don't think teleprinters were ever made operational till the end of the

20     war in the form in which they used to operate before the war.  So the

21     shortwave devices were used instead.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Hannis, we're at the usual point of the break.

23     How much longer do you think you'd be?

24             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I think I need about 15 more minutes.

25     I know I've gone way over my estimate but we've had a number of

Page 12239

 1     interventions because of problems with the transcript and translation.  I

 2     think I can use 15 minutes if you'll give me that much.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  So we take the break and resume in 20 minutes this

 4     time.

 5                           [The witness stands down]

 6                           --- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

 9             MR. HANNIS:

10        Q.   Welcome back, Mr. Pejic.  Two last things I want to talk to you

11     about, and I'm going to begin by addressing a topic that Mr. Zecevic

12     raised with you yesterday at page 12181, where he was talking about the

13     process when you received dispatches from SJBs and whether or not they

14     were forwarded to the MUP.  And in relation to that, I also want to

15     follow up on something he addressed with you today talking about this

16     particular document, 1D076.

17             MR. HANNIS:  If we could bring that up in e-court.

18        Q.   You looked at this earlier, Mr. Pejic.  This is a 19 July

19     document from the minister addressed to all the CSBs, and the first

20     paragraph says:

21             "In order to attend to the problems of jurisdiction of which we

22     have become aware and address other matters between the ministry ... and

23     the army that still need to be solved, as well as problems related to

24     paramilitary units activity ..."

25             They make reference to the 11 July 1992 meeting in Belgrade where

Page 12240

 1     it was concluded that:

 2             "... briefings should be prepared for a meeting with the army

 3     representatives."

 4             And then it goes on and lists the kind of information they're

 5     asking to get from the security services centres.  The first one is

 6     problems related to activities of some paramilitary units.  The second is

 7     data involving police involvement in combat actions, and so on.  You saw

 8     this before.  The date is 19 June and the number is 10-14/92.  And I want

 9     to show you the CSB document that we saw earlier related to this, which

10     was P1073, and the one that you saw earlier is this one dated 25 July.

11     And we were talking about where this was in your -- in your log-book, and

12     we see a reference here to 01-127, and if you look in the hard copy of

13     your log-book, there is indeed an entry on that date that makes reference

14     to 10-14/92.

15             Now, the original document from the minister that we were just

16     looking at, 1D76, requested that this information be furnished by

17     July 25th, and as you noted, this exhibit, P1073, although it's dated

18     25 July, apparently it didn't go out from your centre until the

19     27th of July; correct?

20        A.   According to what I can see in this log-book, yes.

21        Q.   And if we could go to the last page in both the English and B/C/S

22     of P1073.  We'll see that the deadline for the SJBs to return information

23     in P1073 -- I'm sorry.

24             MR. HANNIS:  I don't think we have P1073 on the screen.  That

25     appears to be 1D76.

Page 12241

 1        Q.   Yes.  This one from your chief in your centre gives a deadline of

 2     10 August 1992.

 3             MR. HANNIS:  If we can go back one page.  Thank you.

 4        Q.   Do you see that?

 5        A.   I can see that.

 6        Q.   And that only seems fair if it is not being sent out to the SJBs

 7     until the 27th of July, they couldn't be expected to reply by the

 8     25th of July.  But I have noted something in the log-book that suggests

 9     that CSB Sarajevo may have had at least a version of 10-14 prior to the

10     27th of July.

11             If you can look at entry number 101 in your log-book.  Did you

12     find that?

13        A.   Yes.  Yes, I've found it.

14        Q.   And am I right that looks like that is referring to 10-14/92?

15        A.   Yes.  Received on the 22nd of July.

16        Q.   Now, I want to deal with one of the responses to this document.

17             MR. HANNIS:  If we could look at Exhibit P866.

18        Q.   You'll see it on the screen in a minute, Mr. Pejic.

19             This is the to the CSB in Sarajevo, addressed to the chief by

20     name.  It's dated the 3rd of August, 1992, and it's from Milici Public

21     Security Station, and it has a reference number 18-18/01-230-4/92.  Do

22     you see that number?

23        A.   Yes, I do.

24        Q.   And looking briefly at the contents, you'll see that under

25     item (a), where they're talking about paramilitary activities in their

Page 12242

 1     area, they talk about an event on the 21st of May 1992 in the area of

 2     Nova Kasaba where Serbian volunteers, members of the White Eagles or

 3     Vukovar Detachment apparently executed a number of Muslim detainees or

 4     prisoners that they had.

 5             MR. HANNIS:  And for the record, Your Honour, I would indicate

 6     this relates to adjudicated fact 1368 and a charged incident in the

 7     indictment, item number 13.4.

 8        Q.   Now, if you'll look in your log-book at item number 203.  You

 9     find that, and am I reading correctly, is that not the reference number

10     of this document on the screen, 18-8/01-230-4/92?

11        A.   Yes, it is.

12        Q.   Now, on this page and on that entry number, I can't tell what

13     date this item was received, but if you continue on to the next page, we

14     see item number 208 appears to have been received or entered on the

15     7th of August.  Am I right?

16        A.   No.  It was received on the 10th of August.  Go back to entry --

17     or, rather, go back in the log-book, whereas the date in 208 is probably

18     the date from the document itself.

19        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  Now, in terms of the procedure when your CSB

20     received a report like this from Milici which was in response to an

21     original request for information that came from the ministry

22     headquarters, what would you do with that report?  Did you -- did you

23     forward it on directly as is, or did you incorporate it in some report of

24     your own?

25        A.   This particular document was transmitted.  It says here

Page 12243

 1     "Mirko/Borovcanin."  That is a reply to a dispatch from the CSB, and that

 2     department decided what to do with that dispatch, whether it would

 3     transmit it to the MUP partly or wholly or whether it would integrate it

 4     with other reports, but the communications operator couldn't decide about

 5     that.  As I said, it can be seen from the heading that it was shown --

 6     correction, sent exclusively to the chief.  Probably at the moment the

 7     chief was not present, so it was handed to whoever was on duty in the

 8     department of the police.

 9        Q.   Okay.  And who are Drago and Mirko that are referred to in the

10     handwriting on the actual document itself, P866?  Do you see that in the

11     upper right, handwritten?

12        A.   They are in the department of the police.  I'm not sure, but I

13     think that Drago at the time was chief of department, whereas Mirko was

14     an inspector.  His rank was that of either assistant or deputy chief of

15     the centre.  That is his closest co-worker.

16        Q.   And their last names?

17        A.   Drago is Borovcanin, and Mirko, if I remember correctly, Subotic.

18        Q.   And --

19        A.   But there were several people whose first name was Mirko, so I

20     cannot link this first name to the exact person who worked with

21     Drago Borovcanin.

22        Q.   Okay.  Given the nature of this information from Milici, do you

23     know what Mirko might have been tasked to receive it?

24        A.   Certainly one of the inspectors from the department of the police

25     who worked with Drago.

Page 12244

 1        Q.   And given the fact that the original request came from the

 2     ministry for information about activities of paramilitaries and the fact

 3     that this report relates to a mass killing of Muslims, would this be

 4     something that would be required to be passed on to MUP headquarters?

 5        A.   The chief of the department of the police, according to the rules

 6     and in accordance with the instructions on information, was duty-bound to

 7     inform the chief of the centre and then also the Ministry of the

 8     Interior.  Whether or not that was done cannot be seen from this

 9     log-book.  To establish that, I would have to see them -- see the

10     reference to the previous document of the MUP.  Likewise, they were --

11     they should have integrated all the information received and forwarded it

12     to the MUP; but if they adhered to the rules, then they were duty-bound

13     to do so.

14        Q.   Okay.  And we looked at the rules -- or you looked at the rules

15     with Mr. Zecevic earlier in Exhibit 1D51.

16             MR. HANNIS:  And if we could have that exhibit up just briefly,

17     looking at page 4 of both the English and the B/C/S.

18        Q.   Item number 6 talks about exceptionally from the regulation in

19     the previous item urgent reporting is done by telephone.  And item

20     number 7 says telephone reporting is mandatory in the following cases.

21     The third one says multiple murder, and the first one says events from

22     Article 9, line 1, 2, 5 and 6.

23             MR. HANNIS:  And if we could go to page 5 in both English and

24     B/C/S.  We'll see under Article 9, if I count correctly, lines 1, 2, 5

25     and 6 --

Page 12245

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Hannis, I confess to some difficulty in

 2     appreciating fully how this re-examination, which by definition is to

 3     clarify matters that would have arisen in cross-examination, is being

 4     entirely helpful.

 5             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, it was raised on cross-examination that

 6     when a report came in from an SJB to the centre, that it remained at the

 7     centre unless it was addressed to the MUP, and I'm trying to show that in

 8     certain circumstances certain kind of information was required to be

 9     passed on to the MUP even if not addressed to the MUP.  This particular

10     document was something that was responded to pursuant to a specific

11     request for information from MUP headquarters, and under the rules as

12     this witness has indicated and as is shown in 1D51, involves a mass

13     murder.  That's one of our scheduled incidents, and it would require

14     urgent reporting by the telephone.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Inasmuch as the documents have been exhibited,

16     the -- rather than having the witness merely assent to propositions that

17     you are advancing, are these matters that can be safely left for

18     submissions at the end of the day?

19             MR. HANNIS:  Well, Your Honour, this -- this is a man who worked

20     in the centre with the chief.  I don't want to be faced with a Defence

21     argument at the end of the case that's like, The document shows it was

22     received in CSB but there's no -- there's no evidence to show that it

23     went to my man, Mr. Stanisic.

24             This witness has already opined about the character of his

25     co-worker and what entry he would make on the log-book about whether a

Page 12246

 1     document was received or not.  I can ask him a question about whether or

 2     not his chief would follow the rules and report a multiple murder that he

 3     had information about to his boss.  And that's some evidence, I would

 4     argue, that Your Honours could consider in deciding whether or not

 5     Mr. Stanisic had notice of this particular incident.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  That's well enough, Mr. Hannis, but I think you

 7     have reached to the end of your 15 minutes that you asked for before the

 8     break.

 9             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  May I ask one more

10     question?

11        Q.   Mr. Pejic, are you aware that ten days after this document was

12     received your boss, Mr. Cvijetic, attended a meeting of the MUP senior

13     staff in Trebinje on August 20th, 1992?

14        A.   No, I'm not aware whether or not he was at that particular

15     meeting, although as a rule he informed the centre of his whereabouts.

16     But at the time, I no longer worked at the centre so I cannot say with

17     certainty whether or not he attended the meeting in Trebinje.

18             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.  No further questions.

19                           Questioned by the Court:

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Pejic, Counsel Zecevic brought to you in his

21     cross-examination this morning the information that some 8.000, I think

22     it was, dispatches were registered from April to December 1992, and he

23     used the expressions that dispatches had been opened and sealed.  And my

24     question to you is:  What did you understand these expressions to mean,

25     opened and sealed?  Is that the same as sent and received?

Page 12247

 1        A.   No.  Open dispatches are those -- don't have a confidentiality

 2     mark.  The text is not encrypted and thus not protected, whereas sealed

 3     or closed are ones that are encrypted.  That's how I understood it.  So

 4     open dispatches are those that could be transmitted in any way, whereas

 5     the closed ones were those that had been encrypted.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  I thought as much.  Now, Mr. Pejic,

 7     we have been dealing extensively, I think, during the examination from

 8     both sides with the number of dispatches that were sent and received

 9     between the MUP and the CSBs and the SJBs back and forth, and obviously

10     as you may have picked up, it is because the issue of the lines of

11     communication is a live issue in this trial.  But I thought that maybe we

12     should have a look are at not so much the dispatches that were received

13     and sent but perhaps have a look at those that were not sent and not

14     received, because, in the end, the interests revolves around the messages

15     that were not received or not received in time to those to whom the

16     messages were sent.

17             So I confess that my question to you perhaps is a bit fastidious,

18     but I wonder if you're able to give us an impression of the number or a

19     percentage, roughly speaking, of the dispatches and messages that either

20     were never sent because it was impossible to send them or they were sent

21     but it was too late so they became redundant.

22             I don't know if you can provide us with any sense of how this

23     worked, and certainly it would be difficult for you to say anything about

24     how many of the dispatches from the regions to the MUP that were never

25     successfully communicated, but maybe you could give us an impression of -

Page 12248

 1     what should I say? - the failure of sending or transmitting successfully

 2     the messages from your end to the CSB out there.

 3             So to boil down my question, sir, could you give us an impression

 4     of the percentage or amount of dispatches that were never sent, either by

 5     electronic means or otherwise, because it was impossible to send them, or

 6     dispatches that were actually sent but it was just too late.  Do you have

 7     any impression of this?

 8        A.   In the initial period, especially in April and May, and -- well,

 9     actually, I would say that all of 1992 was critical.  At that time, there

10     were more dispatches that didn't go out than those that did, especially

11     those that were successfully distributed on time and in accordance with

12     the regulations.  As time passed that number rose, and the problems with

13     the functioning of communications lines were reduced.

14             It would be irresponsible for me to state a percentage now, but I

15     think I've helped you enough if I say that fewer were sent than were

16     transmitted on time, and some of the dispatches entered in the log-book

17     were dispatched by courier, which means with delay.  And there's a number

18     of communications that never reached their destination, but they are few.

19             When circumstances became normal, some got their dispatches from

20     neighbouring stations, especially information dispatches.  They didn't

21     request these to be resent.  So they went to other police stations to see

22     which information dispatches they were missing and copied them.  That was

23     late in 1992 and early 1993.

24             To my mind, we did all we could in all communication centres.  We

25     invested enormous efforts to do our job, but it didn't depend on us.  It

Page 12249

 1     depended on the equipment.  But the communications operators must be

 2     acknowledged even for the small amount of dispatches that they were able

 3     to send out.

 4             If we had had two hours at our disposal per day and the little

 5     technical equipment, I believe that communications would have been

 6     successful; but it is no good if the com centre of the MUP has everything

 7     but the final user doesn't even have electricity.  So these

 8     communications moved in cycles from one user to another.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you for this.  So do I understand your

10     testimony to be that, roughly speaking, half of the messages that were

11     sent outgoing from the MUP and from the CSB in Sarajevo never reached

12     their destination by any means at all, that is to say, neither

13     electronically, nor by courier or otherwise?  Is that your testimony?

14        A.   No, that is not the ratio.  With delay, yes, but the number for

15     those that never reached their destination is much smaller.  20,

16     25 per cent maybe.  Whereas those that arrived with significant delay may

17     have accounted for half of the total number or perhaps even more.  But

18     this percentage of those that were delivered in time within the set

19     deadline to all organisational units, this percentage is very small.

20     There is a greater number of organisational units that received them with

21     delay, and I can make an estimate that about 25 per cent of all

22     dispatches never reached their destinations.  But of course, this can be

23     researched.

24             If I may add --

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Please.

Page 12250

 1        A.   We in telecommunications really met with understanding on the

 2     part of our commanders.  If I were to say in the morning at the collegium

 3     to the chief of the centre that we have no communications lines, or if I

 4     did do so, then we would have information overflow later.  So I suggested

 5     that we reduce the number of dispatches to be sent out at these peak

 6     hours to the minimum.  Of course, there was understanding, but there were

 7     also situations in which they were unable to do so because they had

 8     instructions from the MUP.  So they had to write dispatches.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  So if I understand you correctly,

10     roughly speaking, 25 per cent of the messages that were going out from

11     Sarajevo basically never reached their destination, and the rest, that is

12     to say, roughly speaking, 75 per cent did reach their destination but

13     with some degree of delay.  Is that correct?

14        A.   That's correct.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And --

16        A.   I think that's how it was.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And so if you can, do you have a sense of what

18     amount of those 75 per cent of the dispatches or messages that actually

19     did receive -- did reach their destination, can you tell us -- if you

20     have a sense of it, can you tell us how many of them came so late that

21     they had become redundant, that is to say, not only late but very late

22     and so that the -- by the time the addressee finally received the message

23     the moment had passed, it was redundant?

24        A.   Well, I think at least 50 per cent, but the other 50 per cent

25     that were delivered with delay were also information dispatches that may

Page 12251

 1     have been labelled urgent but they were valid for a longer period, so

 2     that talking about purely operational urgent tasks, as those we have been

 3     looking at, I would say at least 50 per cent were so late that nothing

 4     could be done anymore, because the time to do something or prevent

 5     something had already passed.

 6             I remember an example when there was an order who should join the

 7     army from the reserve police force, who -- who of them didn't meet the

 8     criteria to be a police officer.  But the stations received that with a

 9     significant delay so that these reserve police officers were transferred

10     to the army belatedly.  And when we speak about these instructions and

11     the documenting of war crimes, it was said that notification of these

12     events must go out immediately, and the RZ and RZ1 forms must be filled

13     out for the chiefs; but some stations received these dispatches only in

14     July or August or September, which most certainly was too late.  That's

15     why the practice with regard to registering and documenting war crimes

16     differed.  But, yes, they did do something, and it has proved very

17     useful.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  And just in order to be completely

19     sure that I have understood your testimony correctly, when you say that

20     the messages came so late that they had become redundant, that would

21     include by any means of communication, including courier, telephone

22     service, whatever.  It covers everything, is that correct?  Just to be

23     sure.

24        A.   Yes.  All types of communication through the communications

25     centre.

Page 12252

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you very much.  Thank you very much, sir.

 2     I have no further questions.

 3             MR. HANNIS:  I have a couple of questions in light of

 4     Judge Harhoff's questions.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Hannis.

 6             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

 7                           Further Re-examination by Mr. Hannis:

 8        Q.   Mr. Pejic, I want to ask you how you were able to estimate the

 9     percentage of dispatches that were sent but were either not received or

10     received late.  Did you get any kind of report?  How do you come up with

11     this percentage of 25 per cent or 50 per cent?  Is that just a

12     guesstimate?

13        A.   In my reply I said it would be responsible for me to give precise

14     percentages.  My replies were based purely on experience without any

15     previous analysis of the circumstances or statistics.  It is merely my

16     opinion based on my work practice.  So I don't have any solid arguments

17     to back them up.

18        Q.   Okay.  Thank you for that.  In respect to the log-books, we've

19     seen some examples of, for example, where there were dispatches to go to

20     the five CSBs and we saw that they did not go at all to Doboj or Trebinje

21     on a couple of occasions, but in the log-books, anywhere is it reflected

22     that a document was received late?  There's no way you can know that,

23     right?  You only know when you sent it out.  Is there any reflection in

24     the log-book when it was received?

25        A.   This was done by other services.  I cannot say with any certainty

Page 12253

 1     that a courier had a log-book or any sort of book of deliveries with him

 2     as an official courier service would have.  It would be carried without

 3     the supporting documentation, but we trusted the colleagues that they

 4     certainly would hand the dispatches over.

 5        Q.   And in the instance where you were given an urgent message to

 6     send out and because of communications problems you realised you weren't

 7     going to be able to send it within the deadlines, I understood from your

 8     earlier testimony the practice then was to return the document to the

 9     author, advising them that you weren't able to meet the deadline.  Is

10     that correct so far?

11        A.   That's right.  The author of the dispatch would decide whether

12     the dispatch would stay with the communications centre and resent over

13     the following couple of days, whether it -- and in that case whether it

14     would stay in an envelope in the centre or whether it would be sent by

15     courier, again from the operations centre or from his own office.

16        Q.   And would that be reflected in your log-book anyplace, a document

17     that was returned to the author because it wasn't able to be sent within

18     the deadline?  Would that show up in your log-book?  Would that be one of

19     those blank entries like 68, 69, and 73 that we looked at earlier?

20        A.   The blanks were for the numbers that had been taken.  If a

21     dispatch could not be sent to any of the addresses on a given day, it

22     would be returned with a note to that effect and would not be entered in

23     the log-book at all.  So we, in the centre, would behave as if the

24     dispatch had never arrived.  Since the links with Banja Luka were not

25     operational and it was not expected to be operational over the following

Page 12254

 1     couple of days, and if it had a deadline which had to be met and we could

 2     not meet it, it would never be entered in our log-books and it would be

 3     returned to the service or the department it originally came from.

 4        Q.   And finally, for those documents that you left in the mail to be

 5     picked up and carried by whoever might be going in the direction of the

 6     addressees, there's nothing reflected in a log-book about when those

 7     would have been picked up and when they would have been delivered and

 8     when they would be received.  So you have no way of knowing what happened

 9     to those, whether or not they were delivered on time or at all?

10        A.   This was not the job of the communications and encryption

11     service.  It was the job of other services.

12             Let me just add by saying this:  If a dispatch was addressed to

13     multiple addressees, as we were able to see in the documents we looked

14     at, in that case it would be entered in the log-book and an entry would

15     be made of which of these addressees it was sent to and which it was not.

16     Now, if it was not sent to any of the addressees at all, the author of

17     the dispatch would be informed accordingly and no entries would be made

18     in our communications centre log-book.

19        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Pejic.

20             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  That's all I have.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, Your Honours.  Just for the -- again an

22     intervention in the transcript.  I believe on page 65, 10, the witness

23     said the blanks were for the numbers that had been reserved, because his

24     testimony was that he's instructed by the author to reserve some -- some

25     numbers, so these numbers are entered onto the document.  That was his

Page 12255

 1     testimony, and that is why if it states here "taken," maybe it would

 2     create a confusion later on.  So instead of "taken," it has to be

 3     "reserved."  Thank you very much.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pejic, your testimony is now at an end.  We

 5     thank you for your assistance to the Tribunal.  You are released as a

 6     witness and we wish you a safe journey back to your home.

 7             The -- we now take the adjournment to -- I believe we're in this

 8     courtroom again on -- pardon me?  Yes.  We resume in this courtroom on

 9     Monday afternoon, 2.15.  So I wish everyone a safe weekend.  Thanks.

10                           [The witness withdrew]

11                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.21 p.m.,

12                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 28th day

13                           of June, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.