Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 13599

 1                           Tuesday, 24 August 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.15 a.m.

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

 6     everybody 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, Mr. Registrar.

 9             Good morning to everyone.  May we have the appearances for today,

10     please.

11             MR. HANNIS:  Good morning, Your Honours.  On behalf of the

12     Prosecution, I'm Tom Hannis along with Joanna Korner, Belinda Pidwell and

13     Crispian Smith.

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

15     Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic, appearing

16     for Stanisic Defence this morning.  Thank you.

17             MR. KRGOVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Dragan Krgovic and

18     Igor Pantelic for Zupljanin Defence.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

20             Our 15-minute delay in taking the Bench this morning, was that we

21     were canvassing a number of housekeeping matters which we should probably

22     raise before the witness is called for re-examination.

23             The first is that the -- there are two urgent motions which we

24     have from the Prosecution, and we -- we would wish to know whether the

25     Defence is in a position to indicate now, if not now, later today,

Page 13600

 1     whether they intend to respond.  Because if they do so intend to respond,

 2     we would request a response by the end of this week and as much as both

 3     motions concern witnesses who are due to testify next week.

 4             The other matter is that I assume that counsel have considered

 5     what we raised overnight -- well, have considered overnight what we

 6     raised yesterday about whether time -- well, not time because we have the

 7     time that's why we raised it, whether they're prepared to deal with this

 8     motion that was scheduled for Friday dealing with exhumations.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, it is my understanding that we are

10     filing two motions today as -- as instructed by the -- by the

11     Trial Chamber, which refers to the motions -- the responses, I'm sorry,

12     the responses to the -- to the OTP motion as instructed by the

13     Trial Chamber last week.  We're filing them today.

14             If Your Honours are referring to the motions we received

15     yesterday, we do intend to respond to that and we would do that in the --

16     in the time which -- which the Trial Chamber allocates for -- for our

17     response.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  And concerning the -- the arguments, I am afraid,

20     Your Honours, the Defence is not ready to argue it today, because the

21     research is not -- is not completed until this moment, because we

22     anticipated it is going to be Friday, and I'm afraid there has been some

23     other matters - the coming witnesses - that we were -- we were pressed to

24     deal with.

25             So I'm afraid I couldn't [Overlapping speakers] ...

Page 13601

 1             JUDGE HALL:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  that's helpful to know,

 2     Mr. Zecevic.  Thank you.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.

 4             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, may I just -- I'm going to deal with a

 5     number of matters -- I'm sorry, I'm hidden at the moment.  I am going to

 6     deal with a number of matters once the witness is finished.

 7             But an urgent decision is needed, please, on our motion of the

 8     3rd of August, to which the Defence have already responded, I believe, to

 9     add the video relating to the killings at Mount Vlasic.

10             JUDGE HALL:  We haven't forgotten that one.  We hope to have that

11     out soonest.

12             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honour, I hope it is more than soonest

13     because as I'm explaining, if we have to move witnesses up, which we may

14     have to in the light of what has been happening, then the witness who is

15     scheduled to start next Monday, we may be starting on Friday.

16                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, is that Witness 023?

18             MS. KORNER:  Yes [Microphone not activated].

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And he is scheduled for Monday.

20             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, at the moment, he is scheduled for

21     Monday.  We have a witness scheduled for Friday, plus exhumations

22     argument, who you issued a witness summons for, and we understand from

23     VWS that there may be problems because of visas in getting him here.

24             So -- and apparently the witness summons has not been served,

25     we're told.

Page 13602

 1                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, our decision will be rendered tomorrow.

 4             MS. KORNER:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, what are you basically -- Ms. Korner.

 7             MS. KORNER:  I'm so sorry, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  What you are basically telling us is that we

 9     won't have a witness for Friday.

10             MS. KORNER:  At the -- the scheduled witness, no.  The witness

11     who is due to start on Monday, should be arriving today.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Then you move him to the Friday.

13             MS. KORNER:  [Overlapping speakers] ... if we have to we will

14     move him up.  We're still hoping we will get the scheduled witness for

15     Friday.  But, as I say, as my understanding is, he will be here today

16     and, therefore, all things being equal as he is 92 ter, if he has

17     listened to everything, then we would be able to start him on Friday

18     instead.

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.

20             MS. KORNER:  But there is --

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Do you have something or a witness to fill the

22     gap on Monday then?

23             MS. KORNER:  We're going to move -- we're going to move people

24     up.  We hope.

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And for Thursday, what will happen on Thursday?

Page 13603

 1     This Thursday.

 2             MS. KORNER:  The witness who is going to start tomorrow - I'm

 3     going to explain - we cannot call another witness today and I'm going to

 4     explain why when Mr. Hannis has finished his re-examination.  Because we

 5     are troubled by the matters that Your Honours raised yesterday which is

 6     this question of cross-examination estimates.  Which, I may say, when we

 7     checked I have raised at least three or four times and Mr. Hannis has

 8     raised a couple of times.  But I thought we could wait until after the

 9     witness is finished, because we can't call the next witness.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Just to have an indication as -- as I can see it

11     now, we -- we won't have a witness for Thursday.  Because the witness for

12     Wednesday will -- the -- the Wednesday hearing will be sufficient for

13     that witness.

14             MS. KORNER:  You have given Mr. Olmsted half an hour and the

15     estimate for cross-examination, at present, for this witness is four

16     hours, I think, in total.  So that would take us into Thursday.

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay, thank you.

18             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, as I say, I appreciate that -- I don't

19     think that the Defence were not expecting the exhumations to be brought

20     up so quickly; in other words, today rather than Friday, and as it's

21     their argument obviously they need a chance to prepare.  But, I mean, if

22     necessary, if we really run short on Thursday, perhaps we could do it

23     then, the Defence having had enough notice.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

25             So could we have Mr. Davidovic in.

Page 13604

 1                           [The witness takes the stand]

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Davidovic, good morning to you, sir.  Before

 3     Mr. Hannis begins his re-examination, I remind you, you're still on your

 4     oath.

 5             Yes, Mr. Hannis.

 6             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 7                           WITNESS:  MILORAD DAVIDOVIC [Resumed]

 8                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 9                           Re-examination by Mr. Hannis:

10        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Davidovic.

11             Yesterday, Mr. Cvijetic, at page 13555, 13555, was asking you

12     about the killings of the Sarajlic, Sejmanovic and Malagic families in

13     Bijeljina in September 1992, and he asked if you were able to associate

14     Mr. Stanisic in any way with those killings, and I don't know if it was a

15     matter of interpretation but your answer is a bit confusing.

16             You are recorded in the transcript as having answered that:

17             "I was not able to associate Mr. Stanisic with that killing in

18     any way because as far as this killing is concerned and the other

19     killings in Bijeljina are concerned, that took place before Mico Stanisic

20     became head of that ministry."

21             Now, we have evidence in this case and I don't think it is

22     contested that Mico Stanisic became the minister of the RS Ministry of

23     Interior March 31st, 1992 or thereabout, and was the only minister of the

24     RS MUP interior in 1992.

25             So -- and it's clear that these killings that we're talking about

Page 13605

 1     are around September 24th or 25th 1992 regarding those particular three

 2     families.  So can you help clarify that a little bit?

 3             Were you talking about some killings that had happened earlier in

 4     early 1992 or 1991?  Because that would have been the period of time

 5     before Mr. Stanisic became the minister.

 6        A.   When I talked about the killings in Bijeljina, before

 7     Mico Stanisic came to head the ministry, I was referring to the period

 8     when the SDS came into power.  At that time, Jesuric Predrag was chief of

 9     the public security station and serious killings happened in Bijeljina.

10     People were being taken away.  They simply disappeared and so on.

11             This happened throughout 1991, that is to say, the second half of

12     1991.  Then 1992, the beginning of the war in particular, when Arkan came

13     there.  And finally, the killing in September, when the family was

14     killed.  I can't remember the last name, I'm sorry.  I think that when I

15     spoke about this cycle of events I talked about all of it so I could not

16     bring Mico Stanisic into the picture because I talked about the beginning

17     of the war and when all these killings took place in an organised,

18     planned fashion with a view to intimidating the Muslim population and

19     expelling them from the area or making them flee from the area of

20     Republika Srpska.

21        Q.   Okay, I understand.

22             Now I'm talking about particularly about those killings,

23     September 24th, 25th, 1992, of the Sejmanovic, Sarajlic, and Malagic

24     families.  You agree Mr. Mico Stanisic was the minister of the interior

25     of the RS at that time?

Page 13606

 1        A.   Yes.  Yes, Mr. Stanisic was minister in that period of time and,

 2     again, I point out that the unit commanded by Dusko Malovic at the

 3     time -- well, at the time people were saying that that group, that unit

 4     had committed the mentioned killings, especially of the Sarajlic family.

 5     They were taken out of their house and taken to the banks of the

 6     Drina River and liquidated there.  He was then minister of the interior

 7     and it is well known that he was the immediate superior of Dusko Malovic.

 8        Q.   And these killings were a matter of some public discussion at the

 9     time, right?  There had been a press release issued by Mirko Blagojevic

10     or the Serbian Radical Party a few days after the killings, indicating

11     that the killings had been done by Dusko Malovic and his unit.

12             Did you know about that?

13        A.   Yes.  From citizens and other persons who were in touch with me

14     and even from my family, from my wife, I heard that that family was

15     brought and killed.  I was in Montenegro at the time.  Later on, it was a

16     generally known thing, especially in the media that that had happened and

17     that it was allegedly committed by Dusko Malovic's group.

18        Q.   Would you agree with me it certainly would have come to

19     Mico Stanisic's attention given the fact that it was well-known in the

20     media in Bijeljina where the MUP headquarters were?

21             JUDGE HALL:  Doesn't that call for a conclusion, Mr. Hannis?

22             Mr. Cvijetic what is your objection?  I anticipate that that is

23     what your objection is going to be.

24             Yes, Mr. Hannis, isn't that the problem with that question?

25     Calls for a conclusion on the part of the witness.

Page 13607

 1             MR. HANNIS:  Well, Your Honour it is does, but I don't think

 2     that -- that should prevent him from answering it.  That goes to how much

 3     weight you would give that evidence.  But, for example, in a drunk

 4     driving case, I -- my -- I could ask my wife if, in her opinion, that

 5     person appeared to be drunk because that is something within the realm of

 6     the average person's experience and knowledge.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  With respect, that analogy breaks down because in

 8     that case you are dealing with an observation.  There is nothing wrong

 9     with the witnesses giving observation, that is what witnesses ordinarily

10     are expected to do.  But here your answer clearly calls for a conclusion.

11             MR. HANNIS:  Yes, Your Honour.  But my question is to an

12     experienced professional policeman who lived in Bijeljina, who worked in

13     the MUP and would know the kinds of matters that regularly come to the

14     attention of the police.  And discussion in the public where there is a

15     press release about the killings that three local families certainly seem

16     to be the kind of thing that a policeman in that town would know about

17     from reading the paper, talking to people, listening to the radio.

18             JUDGE HALL:  We have the evidence of the publicity of this.  We

19     have the evidence of the fact that the number one accused was a minister

20     at the time, and it is probably an inference, a reasonable inference,

21     that you would, at the appropriate time, invite the Chamber to draw.  But

22     I think that's as far as you can take it as a question for the witness.

23             MR. HANNIS:  I take your point, Your Honour.  I will save that

24     for submissions later on.

25        Q.   In connection with that event, we showed you yesterday a

Page 13608

 1     statement from Mico Stanisic that was submitted to the Prosecutor's

 2     office, and you saw that bundle of documents during proofing that came

 3     from the regional Prosecutor named Lija Sukalic.  Do you know him?  Do

 4     you know who he is?

 5        A.   The name is Alija not Lija.  I know that prosecutor personally.

 6     And I know that he was --

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the rest of the

 8     answer.

 9             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We discussed it yesterday and I

10     did not deal with any one of these documents.  Even the Prosecutor did

11     not raise the issue or deal with these documents in the direct

12     examination.

13             MR. HANNIS:  Well, yes I did.  I showed the witness Exhibit

14     P1543, which is the package of documents.

15             But, Your Honours, the only reason I ask the question was that

16     when I showed the exhibit to the witness yesterday in e-court it was

17     listed as Exhibit P1543.  I took it that that document was already in

18     evidence.  I'm informed now that apparently it has only been marked for

19     identification.  Since this witness has now testified about some portion

20     of that, he knows the Prosecutor, the document itself appears to be in

21     regular in form, and on page 1, the letter -- the cover letter from the

22     prosecutor indicates this material is being sent to The Hague for its

23     consideration.  I think there is no issue that it is authenticity, and I

24     would now ask that it be admitted into evidence rather than marked MFI.

25             JUDGE HALL:  What is -- is there a response from the Defence?

Page 13609

 1             It seems to me, Mr. Cvijetic, that if only for the sake of

 2     tidiness and completeness, the MFI status should be lifted at this stage.

 3     Let's go ahead.

 4             But do you have -- do you have a response to the application?

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honour.  But not

 6     through this witness.  If I'm not mistaken, these documents are dated

 7     2004.  The question was where the witness was at the time, whether he

 8     knew about the substance of all of these documents and whether he

 9     participated in any way in all of this.  That was done only in 2004.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you even have a set

12     of 200 pages of different documents and now to admit under a single

13     number this kind of compilation -- well, I can't even count them now.  It

14     is not one document.  It is an entire investigation.

15             MR. HANNIS:  That's precisely the point and precisely why it is

16     put together as one exhibit.  It only makes sense when it is a complete

17     package.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  We -- the MFI would be lifted and the document

20     now be marked as a full exhibit.

21             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

22        Q.   Mr. Davidovic, at page 13562 yesterday, Mr. Cvijetic was asking

23     you about provision in the -- in the law of the Republika Srpska that

24     talked about allowing police officials from another republic to take

25     actions within the RS.

Page 13610

 1             And in answer to a specific question related to that, you said

 2     that when you came to the Republika Srpska you did not come in accordance

 3     with that article but you became [sic] on a request issued by the organs

 4     of the Republika Srpska and you mention how Mr. Karadzic in his

 5     conversation with Prime Minister Panic had requested help.

 6             But I take it in that answer you're talking about your second

 7     trip to the RS with your -- with men from your unit when you came in

 8     probably early July 1992.  But it was a different situation on your first

 9     visit with your men from the RS MUP when you came in probably early

10     April.  Because on that first trip, that's when Kertes and Gracanin told

11     you needed to take vacation and volunteer to go.

12             On that first trip when you came, you didn't wear your federal

13     SUP insignia; correct?

14        A.   Yes.  I explained that yesterday.  The first trip and the second

15     trip, I said unequivocally how I went the first and second time, and I

16     also talked about the authority or the Federal Secretariat in relation to

17     the Republican Secretariat, what subordination was and when we could act

18     in concert.  I think I explained that yesterday.

19        Q.   Thank you.  The next topic relates to Exhibit P591, which was

20     shown to you.  It's transcript page 13564.

21             This exhibit is a report by General Tolimir about various

22     paramilitary groups that were active on the territory in Bosnia or the

23     RS, and it's quite a specific question I want to deal with.  He said:

24             "You will agree with me that the Ministry of Interior of

25     Republika Srpska, in order to deal with numerous paramilitary formations,

Page 13611

 1     needed support of all structures and communities of Republika Srpska; am

 2     I right?"

 3             Your answer was:  "Yes."

 4             In addition to the support of those structures, would you agree

 5     it was also necessary to have the political will to do something about

 6     those paramilitary groups?

 7        A.   Yes, agree.  Without that political will, I mean, that is a

 8     decisive factor in all of it, there can be no success and there can be no

 9     result.  I think that that showed what the reason was, why everything was

10     annulled after the actions we carried out in 1992 and everything went on

11     just the way it had been.  I think that there was no political will to

12     have these problems resolved.  If you remember when I talked about the

13     meeting between General Mladic and President Karadzic in Lukavica, I said

14     that Karadzic pointed out a particular question at the time, that it

15     should not be allowed that a Serb should shoot at a Serb because that

16     would cause terrible problems.  And I think that throughout the war, even

17     when illegal things did occur, when crimes were committed, when murders

18     were committed, when persons were arrested, from the top political

19     echelons there was always an interpretation to the effect:  Let these

20     people go, don't let a Serb arrest a Serb.  And that was the opinion that

21     prevailed, at least where I was.

22        Q.   Thank you.  You mentioned page 13562 yesterday that you -- during

23     the course of planning for the operation in Zvornik that was carried out

24     in late July, that you found out that in Celopek there were Muslims

25     detained there and that some had been killed.  Did you have an

Page 13612

 1     opportunity to go to Celopek during that planning for the Zvornik

 2     operation?

 3        A.   Yes.  Before I carried out the operation in Zvornik, I went to --

 4     two operational reconnaissance missions.  Apart from the information that

 5     I received from the structures that requested me to come there, the

 6     structures in Zvornik, I went there on my own to see where those

 7     positions were, with how many people, how strong they were, what kind of

 8     environments they had, and how I could fight them with what forces.  And

 9     when I went to Celopek for the second time or passed it by, I saw members

10     of the reserve police there at the centre securing it.  And later on, I

11     learned that inside that centre there were people who had been

12     apprehended and taken there by force and that there had even been murders

13     which was indeed the reason for me to make the acquaintance of the chief

14     of the security of the VRS, Mr. Tolimir, who insisted that the army be

15     involved, and that later on measures be taken and criminal reports filed

16     against the perpetrators of those crimes.

17        Q.   Thank you.  I want to show you next a document, 1D75.

18     Mr. Cvijetic showed this to you yesterday.  And at page 13567, he -- he

19     asked you if it faithfully reflected how the action developed.

20             And you said:  "Yes, very briefly it does reflect the situation."

21             I had a question though, if I can see the English, I'll -- the

22     last paragraph says:

23             "Serb Republic Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ministry of Interior, police

24     detachment, together with the Serb armed forces military police members,

25     performed this action of disarmament."

Page 13613

 1             There is no mention of you and your group, but you took a major

 2     part in that action, did you not?

 3        A.   You know what?  I must say something that you won't like.  When

 4     the Yellow Wasps operations in Zvornik was carried out, many of those who

 5     were in powers, and especially after the events after the end and what is

 6     going on there The Hague, all those who were involved with the

 7     Yellow Wasps and others who were involved in the events in Bijeljina, all

 8     that reflected the will of the political structures and the MUP, too,

 9     that --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat.  The

11     interpreter doesn't understand, can't follow.

12             MR. HANNIS:

13        Q.   I'm sorry.  I raised my hand to stop you because I heard in my

14     headphones the interpreter saying, Could the witness please repeat his

15     answer because they don't understand and can't follow you.

16             Could you try it again.  And go as slow as you possibly can.

17     Thank you.

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Could both microphones be turned off, please,

19     for the witness.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I spoke about the involvement

21     and my work in the Yellow Wasps operations, I said that in that operation

22     that we carried out then, objectively speaking the MUP of the RS, based

23     on the authority it received from the political structures at the time

24     and which means from Mr. Mico Stanisic I went to Zvornik at the time and

25     carried out the operation of the arrest of those persons.

Page 13614

 1             In that operation, which was rather demanding and difficult,

 2     military units also took part.  The military -- it was the military

 3     judiciary at the time that processed perpetrators of war crimes and they

 4     wanted to work on those cases directly and I enabled them to do so.  I

 5     asked the chief of security, Mr. Tolimir, to assign army members to do

 6     that, and Mr. Salapura was involved in the planning of the carrying out

 7     of that operation.  He also a high-ranking official in the VRS and that

 8     is how they were also involved in that operation, but they were under my

 9     immediate command, they were subordinate to me, and they carried out what

10     I had requested them to do.

11             Later on, many of them presented that as their personal success

12     towards some politicians, but I can say what the operation was in a --

13     really like and who was involved in it.

14        Q.   Well, I guess that's -- that's part of why I'm asking the

15     question.  You've told us in your statement and in prior testimony that

16     you were basically the initiator of that operation, that you planned it,

17     you were in overall command.  But you and your unit are not mentioned in

18     this document, and I think you told us it was signed by Goran Macar.  It

19     seems to be some sort of document maybe intended as a press release, and

20     you're not getting any credit.  Can you tell us why that is?

21        A.   I didn't expect recognition or acknowledgment from anybody,

22     especially not from Macar or the people who worked him.  I worked based

23     on the authority that I received primarily from my minister, and the

24     reason why I came to the RS, namely the disarmament of paramilitary

25     units, I was in authority received from Mico Stanisic and Cedo Kljajic,

Page 13615

 1     and I must repeat, when I received that authority nobody limited me in

 2     the planning, the detailed analysis and the carrying out of that

 3     operation.  Nobody restricted me in saying you should do it this way or

 4     that way.  I didn't even say to Minister Stanisic on which day I would

 5     enter Zvornik and when the operation would be conducted, nor did he ask

 6     me.  But I did it totally autonomously, without anybody interfering, and

 7     I think we were able to carry it out with using the advantage of

 8     surprise.  But now some individuals are trying to present it as the

 9     success of military security, and so on, but that's how they want to

10     present it.  I'm saying what it was really like.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, Mr. Hannis, page 16, line 19, I believe

13     the witness said that Mico Stanisic and Cedo Kljajic gave him the task or

14     support for this action and it wasn't recorded.  Maybe you can clarify

15     that with the witness.

16             MR. HANNIS:

17        Q.   Mr. Davidovic, the transcript says -- there's apparently a

18     question about something maybe missed.  It says:  "... Cedo Kljajic, and

19     I must repeat when I received that authority nobody limited me in the

20     planning."

21             Did you say that neither Mico Stanisic nor Cedo Kljajic limited

22     you in planning the operation?

23        A.   Yes.  They were the ones who said that I had full authority and

24     that they would not restrict me in any way, nor would they give me

25     instructions as to do this or don't do that.  They said, Do what you

Page 13616

 1     think is best to prevent that conduct and enable the illegal [as

 2     interpreted] authorities to carry out -- to perform their functions that

 3     they should.

 4        Q.   And in -- in that same conversation with them, is that when they

 5     told you that Karadzic and Krajisnik were tired of what was going on with

 6     the Yellow Wasps?

 7        A.   Well, you know, I was told then that they had many comments and

 8     that even Karadzic and Krajisnik insisted that that very paramilitary

 9     formation be disarmed.  Because there was much information that they were

10     harassing people there, stealing vehicles, looting and committing all

11     sorts of crimes.  Many high-ranking politicians and people from the

12     economy at Pale had many problems with them, and even --

13             THE INTERPRETER:  We didn't hear the name.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Was robbed of his vehicle.  They

15     made some people, including Velibor Ostojic, to eat grass when they --

16     when they met them, and so on.  I don't know whether that is true though.

17     But that was -- that was the talk at the time.

18             MR. HANNIS:

19        Q.   The interpreters indicated they didn't get the name that you

20     mentioned in connection with a person whose car was taken.  Was that

21     Mr. Ostojic, the minister of information?

22        A.   Yes.  At the time, Velibor Ostojic was mentioned as minister, but

23     there were other persons apart from Velibor Ostojic.

24        Q.   Thank you.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Again, a part of witness's answer was not recorded.

Page 13617

 1     I don't know if we want to return back or ask for verification.

 2             The part where he says that he doesn't remember if -- if

 3     Cedo Kljajic or Mico Stanisic or somebody else told him about these

 4     events.

 5             MR. HANNIS:

 6        Q.   Is that correct?  Is that what you said, Mr. Davidovic?

 7        A.   No, no.  I said that they had informed me accordingly, but only

 8     the section about eating grass is uncertain.  I'm not sure whether I

 9     heard it from them or whether I heard that later.  They were talking to

10     me about serious problems about beating people up, robbing their

11     property, and harassing them and so on.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Let me go next to another topic and show you

13     Exhibit P1269.  This is a document that was shown to you at transcript

14     page 13585 by Defence counsel yesterday when he was asking you about the

15     disciplinary measures taken against Dragan Andan.

16             MR. HANNIS:  And if we could go to, I think it's the next page in

17     both English and B/C/S.

18        Q.   This is dated 9th of September, 1992.  And I'm sorry, I think we

19     have to go to page 3.

20             Do you remember seeing this yesterday?

21        A.   Yes, yes.

22             The last paragraph, item 1.  It says Dragan Andan temporarily

23     suspended and -- I don't think I need go on reading the last paragraph.

24        Q.   Okay [Microphone not activated].

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

Page 13618

 1             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry.  Could we go to the next page in B/C/S

 2     and the English page that shows item number 3 in this list.

 3             You were also shown item number 2 about Danilo Vukovic being

 4     disciplined.  I want you to have a look at item number 3 in this list.

 5     This shows that Branko Stevic was appointed chief of the Bijeljina SJB in

 6     September 1992.

 7             Does that refresh your memory now about who would have been the

 8     chief of the SJB Bijeljina in September of 1992?

 9        A.   The chief of the SJB at the time was Sinisa Karan [phoen], I

10     believe.  But a bit earlier, he was transferred to the position of the

11     chief of centre, possibly when Dragan was suspended.  So I believe that

12     somebody else succeeded him.  It may have been Karan.  I'm not sure about

13     all this, but this man - what's his name - Dusko Adnan, was probably the

14     acting chief, but whether he immediately succeeded Branko Stevic or there

15     was somebody else in that position before him, I don't know, because I

16     came in August, so there may have been some things in the preceding

17     period that I don't know of.  I'm not sure what was going on.

18        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  At page 13586, Mr. Cvijetic, at the bottom of

19     the page and going on to the following page, it says:

20             "You told us that almost all paramilitary formations entered

21     Republika Srpska claiming they were volunteers, patriots to -- coming to

22     fight on behalf of the Serbian people; am I right? "

23             Your answer was:

24             "Yes, you are."

25             I'm not sure where you previously supposedly told us that almost

Page 13619

 1     all paramilitary formations entered.  Would you agree that many of the

 2     paramilitary formations in the Republika Srpska were -- were home-grown,

 3     if I may say, were locals, not necessarily just people from outside the

 4     RS?

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I believe that this is a leading

 6     question, that the witness has already been offered an answer.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I belive that I should answer this

 8     question anyway.  If you allow me, I will continue.

 9             MR. HANNIS:

10        Q.   I'll allow you, if the Judges will.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The arrival of the paramilitary

13     formations was something that coincided with the beginning of the war in

14     the RS.  To my mind, paramilitary formations principally were arriving

15     from the Republic of Serbia.  At the beginning through Arkan and his

16     supporters and later there were volunteers from various areas, Serbia,

17     Nis, Vojvodina and so on, and they were coming on their own initiative to

18     various parts of the RS.  And the local authorities more or less offered

19     them accommodation and logistical report and everything the paramilitary

20     formations that had come in from outside needed.  I'm primarily referring

21     to those who came in from outside.

22             It's a fact that the paramilitary formations that had come in

23     from elsewhere were later joined by some local thugs, those who had been

24     trouble-makers even before because they soon found common interests and

25     acted together.  The passage where the number of 4- to 5.000 is mentioned

Page 13620

 1     is realistic, I believe.  It's a realistic estimate for all of the RS.

 2     They were -- those were people who were bloodthirsty, eager to kill

 3     others, hoodlums in a word, and they had ambitions of their own.  They

 4     are the dregs of humanity.

 5        Q.   Do you recall seeing in General Tolimir's late July report about

 6     the various paramilitary groups operating in the RS, that there were a

 7     number of local groups, some of them related to the SDS?  Among them

 8     there was mention of Mauzer, Ljubisa Savic, and the Serb Volunteer Guard

 9     in Bijeljina, reference to the SOS in Banja Luka and others.

10        A.   Yes, you're right.  But mind you, at the beginning of the war,

11     the SDS was trying to ignore the JNA because they considered them all

12     Communists and that they cannot defend Serbianhood, that a new elite of

13     the Serb people had risen and that they -- that there were not dealing

14     with a new enlightened Serbian national consciousness and they wanted to

15     build an army of their own.

16             In Bijeljina, there was Mauzer.  In Lubik [phoen], there was this

17     radical.  In Zvornik, there were also three to four groups.  And they

18     were basically units of the SDS party, and they did only what they were

19     requested to do so by the party, not by the military authorities, not by

20     the police authorities, but by the SDS party and the Crisis Staff of that

21     party.  And these are the paramilitary formations that had a local

22     character and that were from those towns and villages.  In every town

23     they had a local leader, some warlord of sorts and who decided -- who had

24     the last word about everything.  He was the master of life and death.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  22:9 it is recorded "now by the military," but I

Page 13621

 1     believe it should be "not by the military, not by the police

 2     authorities."  Thank you.

 3             MR. HANNIS:

 4        Q.   Did you hear that, Mr. Davidovic?  That seems to make sense.  Is

 5     that what you meant to say, that "not by the military" instead of "now by

 6     the military."

 7        A.   Yes, yes.

 8        Q.   Two last topics.

 9             You -- you testified about being contacted by Mr. Mico Stanisic

10     and meeting with him in late 2004 or early 2005.  Do you recall that?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Was the only topic he asked you about in that meeting related to

13     the September 1992 killings of those three Muslim families?

14        A.   No.  I believe the topic was only mentioned in passing.  It was

15     not the main subject of discussion.  I was asked whether anybody had

16     spoken about that and I said yes, but as I hadn't been involved I didn't

17     say anything then.  But I did say that talking to Dusko Malovic, upon

18     returning from Pljevlje, I spoke with him at the Bosanska villa and Dusko

19     said to me that his unit had done that person to the exclusive orders of

20     Drago Vukovic.

21             But as you're coming back to the issue of the Sarajlic family,

22     and what I said earlier, I must give a more comprehensive answer

23     concerning that topic, if you allow me.  I will be brief.

24             I saw that for the first time when I came here to The Hague and I

25     had the opportunity to scrutinise it in detail and I read it through, and

Page 13622

 1     I must return to what has been said earlier.  When I was saying that

 2     Mico Stanisic was the head and that he directly commanded the unit, I

 3     replied that he was the one who brought the unit to Pale and later to

 4     Bijeljina and that he commanded it.  That the duty of that unit was to

 5     secure facilities Minister Stanisic and carry out other tasks that had to

 6     do with the cabinet.

 7             Talking about the Sarajlic family and the connections of

 8     Mico Stanisic and Dusko Malovic, I must clearly state that -- how it was.

 9     When I read through the materials, the documents, I understood that the

10     leading structures of the MUP wanted to, and in the beginning they were

11     successful, wanted to cover up the murder.  As far as I was able to tell

12     from the documents, when the bodies were found in the morning and the

13     citizens had reported that, the members of the reserve force went to the

14     site, and, pursuant to the orders of the reserve commander, they threw

15     the bodies back in the water and tried to cover up the traces.  And later

16     on, they reported to the station in Bijeljina that they had done the job,

17     they had informed their commander, and then I believe it was Skoric and

18     other forensic technicians went to the site and found some traces but

19     they didn't -- they weren't able to interpret them.

20             Drago Vukovic later on tried to present it the following way:

21     That a collegium was held, chaired by Tomo Kovac, with the purpose of

22     establishing a team to investigate the case, but nobody of those present

23     ever corroborated that.  There were some statements by Simic and others,

24     but let me not go into that.  Anyway, it was clear that the local

25     leadership invested the greatest efforts, and when you remember that

Page 13623

 1     Muhic said, Why did you publish that?  Karadzic wants me to arrest you.

 2             So they didn't want to make it public and I think that they

 3     consciously covered up -- were covering up the fact -- the facts and

 4     maybe Karadzic knew about it.  Possibly only through the media.

 5             Anyway, everybody tried to -- tried not to inform Mico Stanisic

 6     of that.

 7             Speaking about Mico and Dusko Malovic as a unit, I mentioned

 8     that, but I didn't say that Mico Stanisic was, indeed, informed of the

 9     murder.  I couldn't put that into the context of whether or not

10     Mico Stanisic knew about the murder or was trying to cover it up.  But

11     later on, when the International Red Cross started looking for the

12     persons, then it became public, that there had been a mass murder, and up

13     to this day questions were asked why nobody had conducted an

14     investigation.  And I still fail to understand why they were unable to --

15     to follow that up to the end.  It was very -- a very simple case.  But

16     even today, it is unresolved.

17        Q.   Thank you.  And, lastly, at page 13590, Mr. Cvijetic asked you

18     about whether or not Mico Stanisic had given you absolute authority to

19     fight against paramilitaries.

20             You said you didn't have any reason not to have that kind of full

21     power, but you say:  Mico Stanisic, he did not hinder you in any way.

22             Although he didn't hinder you, did ever ask you, for example, to

23     arrest Arkan, or Arkan's Men for the known crimes that they had

24     perpetrated during their presence in the RS?

25        A.   I have to say that when I was sent to Bosnia the second time, to

Page 13624

 1     Republika Srpska, my only task was, and my obligation, was clearly

 2     defined.  Namely, that in Republika Srpska, I should arrest all

 3     paramilitary formations without any constraint, and I was not hindered in

 4     any way, in terms of any kind of selection.  That's the order I had from

 5     my minister at the time, Pavle Bulatovic was my minister.  He

 6     unequivocally gave me full powers and he said that the prime minister,

 7     Mr. Panic, stood behind that order and that I had the full support of the

 8     organ that was sending me there and that I would also have the support of

 9     the organs of Republika Srpska.

10             When I came to Bijeljina, Mico Stanisic talked to me, as did

11     Cedo Kljajic, and they said to me then that, regardless of name, gender,

12     everything that had happened, wherever it is my assessment that the

13     paramilitaries took power and did unlawful things, I could arrest them

14     and so on.

15             The first day I came to Bijeljina, in the SUP, I found Pejo, a

16     self-styled general who headed that service.  I found Sasa, who

17     introduced himself as the commander of the police station in Bijeljina.

18     And on that day, that Pejo slapped a Muslim policeman in the face, one of

19     my policemen.  Simic was his name.  I knew him from earlier on.  He

20     slapped him, I don't know why, I don't know for what reason.  At that

21     moment I entered the office of the chief and then he came to me.  He

22     started gesticulating and he was shouting who was I, and so on and so

23     forth.  He wore the insignia of a chief inspector of the police that I

24     had as well, although I was an official organ, and I had received the

25     insignia through regular procedure and I had that as an officer of that

Page 13625

 1     rank and he put these insignia on just like that.  I said, Who sent you?

 2     And I --

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not understand the rest of

 4     the sentence.

 5             MR. HANNIS:

 6        Q.   Let me stop you there because the interpreter said she didn't

 7     hear -- didn't understand the rest of the sentence.

 8             You've talked about this in your prior testimony and in your

 9     written statement.  Can I -- can I stop you and just ask you a couple

10     specific questions.

11             Sasa and Pejo that you just mentioned, were they Arkan's Men?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Did you -- did you arrest them?

14        A.   No, no.  They fled that very moment.  They left the building.

15     They fled from Bijeljina and they never returned to Bijeljina.  None of

16     them.

17        Q.   Good.  With regard to Arkan, you've told us in your statement and

18     I quote, paragraph 125:

19             "Mico Stanisic had made a deal with Arkan for him to come into

20     Sarajevo and occupy any territory he wanted and he could take whatever he

21     wanted and take it to Serbia."

22             So it's true Mico Stanisic never asked you specifically to arrest

23     Arkan because he had a deal with him to allow him to loot; isn't that

24     correct?

25        A.   Well, look, a deal, in the sense of Mico Stanisic calling them to

Page 13626

 1     Sarajevo and giving them this possibility.  I mean, I heard that at

 2     Ratko Mladic's when I first spoke to him at Lukavica at the garrison

 3     there.  That's when Ratko told me that there was lootings going on, and

 4     so on, and that Mico had called to Sarajevo, allegedly, the members of

 5     Arkan's Guard and gave them certain rights.  I think that they were

 6     talking about Bascarsija and said, Look you can take whatever you want,

 7     whatever you liberate, whatever you take in that sense, all of that is

 8     yours.  That's what General Ratko Mladic said to me then when he was

 9     telling me how these paramilitaries were not coming spontaneously or by

10     accident, but rather that they were enjoying somebody's support.

11             However, in later procedures that I undertook in order to disarm

12     paramilitaries, Mico Stanisic never said, Do not arrest Arkan or whoever.

13     I actually have to say that, had I had the opportunity to arrest him, I

14     would have done it with pleasure, and if I had any possibility to come

15     across him, I would have arrested him with pleasure.  I would have

16     brutally tied his hands and brought him before a court of law and then I

17     would see what would happen.

18             There was no hindrance in that sense.  It's not that

19     Mr. Mico Stanisic said, Do not arrest Arkan or Arkan's forces, no.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             MR. HANNIS:  I have no further questions, Your Honour.

22                           Questioned by the Court:

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Davidovic, may have I one question to you,

24     just for clarification.

25             Because you told us today that the paramilitary groups which were

Page 13627

 1     formed locally, were groups that were controlled by the SDS and by the

 2     Crisis Staffs but not by the army.

 3             Is that a correct understanding of your testimony?

 4        A.   Yes, precisely.

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Now, through other evidence which we have heard

 6     in this trial, we have been led to understand that members or even groups

 7     that were characterised as local paramilitary groups were, from time to

 8     time, resubordinated to the army.

 9             Can you confirm this?

10        A.   I have to clarify.

11             From time to time, when these paramilitary formations came, I

12     mean, they all came with the purported wish and intention to place

13     themselves under the command of the Army of Republika Srpska.  The Army

14     of Republika Srpska, the dilemma was, at first who was whose army.  Would

15     the JNA take over the function of the Serb army or would another army be

16     established exclusively under the authority of the SDS.

17             At first, they did place themselves under the command of the army

18     with the intention of going to the front line but that was only at the

19     very outset.  Later on, they chose whether they would go and whose

20     command they would place themselves under and usually they don't want to

21     be under anybody's command.  And then when they enter the kind of

22     relationships they did, they freely did what it was that they wanted to.

23     I mean, they barged into state agencies, I'm primarily referring to the

24     SUP.  Took driver's licence, traffic licences.  They took weapons from

25     homes and permits for these weapons, and also if they took things that

Page 13628

 1     belonged to people who did not come from that particular town, for

 2     instance, or if there were -- they belong to persons -- if vehicles, for

 3     instance, belonged to persons who were from the Croat Federation then

 4     they would take that away, and later on they looted only the property of

 5     Muslims.  They looted their property, they expelled them, they even

 6     killed them.

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Did, in Bijeljina, any of the paramilitary groups

 8     attempt to put themselves under the command of the police; do you know?

 9        A.   One of the groups to put themselves under the command of the

10     police?  Did I understand that properly?

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  That was my question, yes.

12        A.   There were no attempts to be placed under the command of the

13     police.

14             For example, when Arkan came to Bijeljina, he took over the

15     function of the police.  And he is the one who decided what the police

16     would do.  It's not that he would be placed under the command of the

17     police.  He took over the function of the police.  That very same day, he

18     appointed his own man as a chief there, a self-styled general called

19     Pejo, then this Sasa who left the army, he was appointed head of the

20     station and he decided what would be done.  The police did not try to

21     oppose them or did not oppose them as such.  When Arkan came, and when he

22     established that camp that they had near the Drina River, in fact, in

23     Bijeljina, they liberated Bijeljina.  I shall take the liberty of using

24     that word.  That's how they treated themselves.  They treated themselves

25     as liberators.  They were taking things away from people.  They started

Page 13629

 1     killing Muslim the very first day and looting their property.  They were

 2     taking their property out of Bijeljina.  I can only tell you a few

 3     details.  For instance, they took a fire brigade truck that had been paid

 4     for by the citizens themselves, citizens themselves had contributed to

 5     the payments for that vehicle and they took that.  They also took the

 6     buses of Transturisty from Tuzla.  And, for example, they barged into a

 7     department store and they took all sort of goods that were there.

 8     Then, in the SUP, for instance, they took files, operative files of

 9     criminals.  They even entered the court and they broke safes in the

10     court, and Jesuric Predrag was the head of the police at the time, and

11     they hid in the police station.  Imagine, they had orders not to leave.

12     The police were ordered to sit there in the SUP and during that time, the

13     paramilitaries, headed by Arkan, did what they did and that was presented

14     as normal state of affairs.  No one wanted to say a word about that, no

15     one wanted to oppose that, because allegedly they greeted Arkan as a

16     liberator.  Well, later on, they said that, Yes, he did liberate us but

17     he liberated us of people and property, objects.  That's the way it was.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Just to clarify, when exactly was this; do you

19     recall?

20        A.   It was the beginning of April, April/May.  Beginning of April.  I

21     think it was the 1st of April, that's when it started, and it was in

22     April/May.

23             When they liberated Bijeljina of things that they looted and

24     people they killed, then they went to liberate, as it were, Zvornik in

25     the same way.

Page 13630

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And do you know if these events were reported up

 2     through the system to the MUP?

 3        A.   Well, at the time, the MUP was comprehensive.  At that moment the

 4     CSB was in Tuzla.  The ministry was in Sarajevo.  I don't think that

 5     anyone ever reported anything about that at the time.  I read an

 6     interview that was given by Jesuric Predrag, I read it the other day over

 7     here, and he says unequivocally, thanks to him, I mean, he's talking

 8     about me, I made it possible for Arkan to liberate Bijeljina and I did

 9     not want to inform the centre in Tuzla or Sarajevo because why would I

10     inform them when they are not helping me in this way.  They are just

11     asking us to withdraw weapons and to decrease the level of personnel in

12     the police.  That is what he said.  He thought that they were in power

13     now, their time had come, and they could do whatever they wanted to.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So just to conclude, to your knowledge, the CSB

15     in Tuzla was never informed of the events in Bijeljina and Zvornik.  Is

16     that your testimony?

17        A.   Yes.  I'm absolutely sure that no one ever informed Tuzla about

18     that, let alone Sarajevo.  I have never found any trace of that or any

19     information that anyone had ever done any such thing.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, sir.  I have no more questions.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Davidovic, for your testimony before

22     the Tribunal.  You are now released, and we wish you a safe journey back

23     to your home.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, I do want to tender his 92 ter package

Page 13631

 1     before he's gone.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3                           [The witness withdrew]

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Is there any objections to anything that comprises

 5     the 92 ter package?

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Not for the time being,

 7     Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Hannis, there are two transcripts, if I'm not

 9     wrong, it's 1046 -- 10476 and 10477.  Why -- why should they be in your

10     package?  If I'm not wrong, it's two times four pages, and witness -- it

11     is not -- it is not a testimony of the witness.  It is just procedural

12     matters.

13             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, if I recall, I don't have those in

14     front of me right now, but there was an issue concerning the

15     cross-examination of that witness, where, in my view, in the argument of

16     the Prosecution at the time, that was something very unethical,

17     allegations made that he had committed crimes and stolen property from

18     Muslims, when it came obvious that those alleged victims were contacted

19     and said no such thing ever happened.  We wanted to put that in because

20     you're going to have evaluate this witness's credibility, and, in my

21     view, if you didn't see how that eventually played out and was resolved,

22     you might think there was something to the Defence allegations in that

23     case that this witness had been engaged in some sort of illegal activity.

24             I think the procedural matters, if those are the pages, I believe

25     they are, and eventually resulted in a finding by the Trial Chamber that

Page 13632

 1     there was no good-faith basis for asking those questions and the

 2     Trial Chamber was going to give no weight to those allegations, that's

 3     why I put it in.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  Thank you.

 5             MR. HANNIS:  May I be excused then, Your Honours?

 6             JUDGE HALL:  So the 92 ter package is now admitted and marked as

 7     an exhibit.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  The Registry will assign exhibit numbers in due

 9     course, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner --

11             MR. HANNIS:  I guess it's time for the break.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, your housekeeping matters are they such that we

13     should take a break and return?

14             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  I think it's going to take me some time to

15     resolve matters because I want to deal with the whole question of

16     witnesses who are coming here and the Defence [Overlapping speakers].

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic, before we take the break, I would

18     like to know whether there's any chance that you could be ready to engage

19     in the exhumation discussion on Thursday instead of Friday?

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, it depends how early we will

21     adjourn today because I have to prepare the next witness, and -- and I'm

22     cross-examining the next witness.

23             If we adjourn earlier, I will be ready to do it on Thursday.  If

24     not, then it is going to be Friday, I'm sorry.

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.  Because I -- I'm asking it because

Page 13633

 1     that could help us with avoiding the loss of an entire court day so let's

 2     see what happens.  Thank you.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I'm -- believe me, I'm willing to

 4     assist the Trial Chamber as well as anybody else to -- to speed things as

 5     much as possible.  But I cannot multiply myself, I'm sorry.

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.

 9             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, yesterday I heard Your Honours'

10     remarks at the end of the proceedings about the, as it were, the

11     non-sitting time because witnesses weren't available.  Can I start what

12     I'm about to say by simply reminding Your Honours that I'm sure

13     Your Honours don't need reminding that if there is spare time, there are

14     still some 26 or so undealt with motions, in particular, one that goes

15     back to May of last year, which we -- I haven't had a ruling on, not to

16     mention 13 or so where we've had part rulings, oral rulings with written

17     decisions to follow.  So, I mean, there is -- can I just put it on that

18     basis, if there is time available, there are still those matters

19     outstanding.

20             However, on the issue of the gap that has been appearing recently

21     with witnesses, largely it's because of the cross-examination estimates.

22     Now, Your Honours, we've been raising this periodically since effectively

23     March of last year when this started, but it has gotten a lot worse in

24     recent months.  And on the 12th of April, indeed I raised the very

25     question about whether or not we should abide by, when planning

Page 13634

 1     witnesses, the cross-examination estimates that were given.  In fact, it

 2     was more in the context of whether Your Honours were proposing to limit

 3     cross-examination as opposed to what's happening now, and the upshot was

 4     we were told that the Defence hadn't really exceeded the -- as it were,

 5     the allowance that was given for cross-examination, and, at the end of

 6     the discussion, Judge Harhoff said that, you, the Trial Chamber, would

 7     see how it went.

 8             Your Honour, we did a survey yesterday of the estimates that we

 9     were given and the actual time taken for cross-examination, and in some

10     cases, it -- it's really been pretty dreadful.  In most cases,

11     cross-examination has not taken as long as the Defence told us.  In some

12     particular cases, for example, this is going back some time now, but for

13     ST-150, the estimate of cross-examination was two hours, and neither team

14     cross-examined.  For ST-189, it was six hours in total.  One team -- the

15     Stanisic team didn't cross-examine at all, and the Zupljanin team took

16     1.5 hours.  For ST-127, the estimate altogether was four hours and 15

17     minutes.  The actual total time was 54 minutes, and no cross-examination

18     from the Zupljanin team, but they were the 15 minutes, and I think that

19     was just right.  That is effectively what has been happening and because

20     we have been abiding by the decision that Your Honours took that we

21     should take cross-examination into account when arranging for witnesses

22     that's why there has been, by and large, these gaps.

23             It has not helped also, I'm afraid, by the age-old problem, which

24     I have raised again on a number of occasions, the Defence requests to see

25     the witnesses.  For example, the reason we can't call tomorrow's witness

Page 13635

 1     today is both Defence asked to see him.  He arrived yesterday morning.

 2     They saw him during the afternoon.  VWS taken him back to the hotel at

 3     5.00 unless there is a good reason not to.  And as we have pointed out,

 4     we thought it's oppressive to have the Defence seeing them and then the

 5     Prosecution, so they become absolutely exhausted when they are going

 6     through different sorts of things.  That is an added, extra, reason why

 7     we can't just go -- or we haven't been able to call witnesses, as it

 8     were, one after the other.

 9             Your Honours, our suggestion is simply this:  We will, from now

10     on, ignore the estimates that we're given by the Defence when arranging

11     for witnesses.  We will, as an express, back-fill so that we always have

12     witnesses available.  Now, effectively the only way we can do that at

13     this stage of the case because we're coming to the end, as it were, of

14     the witnesses who have been witnesses all along, is to back-fill with the

15     witnesses who will be coving the adjudicated facts because they're short.

16     In order to do that before the site visit, we need Your Honours to

17     rescind the six-week gap that you ordered between disclosure and calling

18     the witness.  We have disclosed for I think the last launch will go out

19     today.  We will have disclosed for everything for the witnesses we

20     propose to call viva voce.  Those searches have been completed.  In most

21     cases, very little has been disclosed, one document maybe a couple.

22     Transcripts a statements had already been disclosed beforehand.

23             So if Your Honours want us to make sure that we always have a

24     witness available, if cross-examination is shorter than anticipated, then

25     we are asking Your Honours to rescind the six weeks and turn it into -- I

Page 13636

 1     think we can -- if it's four weeks, we can start calling witnesses from,

 2     I think, next week.

 3             So that's -- that's the situation.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, Ms. Korner.

 5             We did touch upon this issue yesterday, and I think I recall that

 6     Mr. Zecevic told us that he had, in fact, notified the Prosecution that

 7     he would probably not need the -- was it six hours.

 8             MS. KORNER:  [Microphone not activated]

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Six hours required for the witness yesterday.

10     And so the practical issue seems to be that the Defence teams provide the

11     Chamber and the Prosecution with an estimation of the time they will need

12     for cross-examination, and they do so quite far ahead of the witnesses'

13     actual appearance in court.  And in that situation, I understand that, to

14     be on the safe side, most Defence teams would tend to - just do be sure -

15     tend to overestimate a bit the time they might need so that we do not

16     come into the embarrassing situation that we have to keep witnesses here

17     much longer than they had anticipated.

18             So that's -- that's the starting point.  But then, as we get

19     closer to the time when the witness is actually appearing, apparently the

20     Defence is able to then reassess its time -- the time that it needs for

21     its cross-examination.  And I was under the impression that the Defence

22     teams, by and large, do notify the Prosecution, I don't know how much

23     time in advance, but I would imagine about a week or ten days perhaps,

24     prior to the witness's arrival, that they will need this amount of time

25     or less.

Page 13637

 1             So my question is: What is really the practice between the

 2     parties about the communication that takes place between the two parties

 3     about the time that is needed for -- for chief and cross?  Is there any

 4     communication and what is the practice?

 5             MS. KORNER:  The estimates, as Your Honours say, fairly well in

 6     advance so that we can plan when the witnesses come.  We do not get told

 7     at all, sometimes, unless we ask, Are you actually going to take six

 8     hours with this witness.  If we're told, we're told when the witness here

 9     or at court.  It's as simple as that.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So in my understanding, that is perhaps the issue

11     that needs to be ruled upon by the Chamber, or to be looked upon by the

12     Chamber that we should perhaps try to have agreement in the courtroom

13     about a minimum time for the Defence to notify the Prosecution and the

14     Chamber.

15             MS. KORNER:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Please do not overlap, madam.

17             MS. KORNER:  I'm so sorry.

18             The difficulty, Your Honour, is this:  That it has to be further

19     in advance because of VWS organising not only passports and the rest of

20     but visas.  And this is one of the problems with the witness that we want

21     to call on Friday, I'm told, is that it takes five days, according to

22     VWS, to organise a visa.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Let's hear the Defence teams.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I will speak in Serbian in order to

Page 13638

 1     be very clear.

 2             [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to be completely fair

 3     to our friends from the Prosecution.  Immediately before the beginning of

 4     their examination-in-chief, we do state that our cross-examination of

 5     that witness will be shorter.  That is because that is the first moment

 6     when we are in a position to realistically determine how much time we

 7     will need for the cross-examination of the witness.

 8             Because, Your Honours --

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic, is that after you have seen the

10     witness?  Is that the moment you say you can realistically estimate the

11     time?

12             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.  If that witness is willing to

13     speak to the Defence team.

14             Allow me just to provide a complete explanation.  A certain

15     number of months in advance, we state our estimates of the duration of

16     our cross-examination.  You must understand, Your Honours, that most

17     witnesses are viva voce witnesses.  To us, that means that the number of

18     hours intended to be consumed by the Prosecution in the

19     examination-in-chief directly affects the estimate of our

20     cross-examination.  It happens and quite naturally to my mind that the

21     Prosecution says, Yes, we did want -- or intended to question the witness

22     for four hours but now we will take only two hours after all, and that

23     certainly effects our estimate of the duration of our cross-examination.

24     Likewise, there have been cases when the Trial Chamber imposed

25     restrictions on the OTP regarding an examination-in-chief of a certain

Page 13639

 1     witness.

 2             To my mind, it is essential that the rationale determined at the

 3     very beginning of the trial with regard to the overall time of the

 4     cross-examination or the examination-in-chief respectively will not be

 5     infringed upon and it will not until the end of the trial.

 6             On Thursday, we will receive a list of witnesses for the

 7     following week.  That is the moment which three or four witnesses will be

 8     here in that week.  And it is only then that we can sit down and analyse

 9     over the weekend who these witnesses are and what they are expected to

10     say, irrespective of our preparatory work with regard to those witnesses.

11     Because in the meantime, there have been witnesses who testified about

12     some issues that we had intended to ask the witness we had yesterday or

13     the day before about.  And then we feel that there is no need for us to

14     repeat the same thing over and over again if some facts have already been

15     established.

16             That is why it is very difficult for us to give a precise

17     estimate.  It's a special situation when we speak to the witness, that

18     is, when we are giving the opportunity to interview him or her, when the

19     witness agrees to speak to us.  During that interview, we can establish

20     that the witness has knowledge about some facts that are relevant to this

21     trial, and then, naturally, we try to speak to that witness and try to

22     turn his testimony useful for the Trial Chamber, and it is in this sense

23     that we -- or in this way that we estimate the duration of time needed

24     for our cross-examination.

25             I believe that this suffices as an explanation.

Page 13640

 1             As regards our right to interview witnesses, I believe that is

 2     not contentious.  We have explained several times why it is impossible

 3     for us to examine witnesses in their place of residence because the trial

 4     is in progress.  The only reasonable situation or variant is that we

 5     interview the witness here in The Hague, if the witness agrees.  That is

 6     the cheapest resolution, the most reasonable solution, and the least

 7     time-consuming one.  It is absolutely reasonable, therefore, to my mind

 8     for witnesses to arrive one day in advance, which we have proposed quite

 9     some time before this day.  Any other variant would be much more

10     expensive and demanding in many ways.  That is why we think that the

11     witness should arrive one day in advance, and if he states that he is

12     willing to speak to the Defence, then he should be here a day in advance,

13     in order not to -- not to disturb the proofing by the OTP.

14             As regards the latest submission by Ms. Korner, as regards the

15     six weeks, I must say that it is completely unacceptable.  It is

16     physically impossible for us to scrutinise these very comprehensive

17     documentation unless we have six weeks from the date we received the

18     documents.  We reached a comprise with the OTP with regard to witness who

19     were coming under Rule 92 bis and we made an offer to reduce that period

20     to four weeks, but that is all we can do.

21             If anything else is unacceptable to us because it is quite

22     impossible for us to scrutinise the entire documentation in less time

23     than six weeks.

24             I hope that I have been able to have been of assistance to the

25     Trial Chamber.

Page 13641

 1             Thank you very much.

 2             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, just two things which arise from that.

 3             The first is the Defence are given a batting order, which is the

 4     slightly casual expression for the witnesses, in advance of just the week

 5     before, the actual specific witnesses.  But they know which witnesses are

 6     coming up and at the moment, they know, because effectively, as I say,

 7     we're coming to the end of the original list of witnesses, so they know

 8     exactly who is coming up.

 9             The second matter is this.  Your Honour, I've raised this before,

10     and I'm simply mentioning now, as Mr. Zecevic brought it up, we've said

11     over and over again we object to this business of the Defence seeing the

12     witness just before they testify.  Your Honours effectively made it clear

13     that we should carry on with this.  We still object to it, and I want it

14     firmly, as it were, in the open, because of the way that the proofing is

15     conducted, and I'm afraid that we are unhappy with it.  We're unhappy

16     that if -- unless witnesses specifically say that they want the OTP

17     present, if they say they don't mind if the OTP is present, that the --

18     the Defence are objecting to the OTP being there, and this is raising

19     problems all round.  But that's an ancillary issue, but it's one of the

20     ways, of course, that we could cut down on the wasting of time.  I mean,

21     there is no question about it.  If we go back to what we originally said,

22     which was the Defence must see these witnesses in advance.

23             So there's that.

24             Your Honour, it's a matter for Your Honours.  As I say, the only

25     way we can really fill in now is if we start to bring up the new

Page 13642

 1     witnesses to testify about the adjudicated facts.  Otherwise we're left

 2     in the same position, that we -- we may well have gaps if the

 3     cross-examination estimates are wrong.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE HALL:  The -- on the application, as I understand it to be

 6     an application, for an order that the time for the Defence -- sorry.  The

 7     time between the notice and the calling of the witness be abridged from

 8     the six weeks, that's something that we will discuss and revert to the

 9     parties at the next sitting.

10             There are two observations that I would make before we rise.  One

11     is that the proposal, as I understand it, or it may be as high an

12     intension which Ms. Korner has stated about back-filling, to use her

13     word, in terms of having the witnesses here, the -- that may be a

14     solution.  It is not something that I think the Chamber could or should

15     order at this stage because the -- as would have been obvious from what

16     would have been said in court yesterday, in addition to the -- whereas,

17     the Chamber is bound to take into consideration the primary consideration

18     of VWS, in terms of expense, the Chamber has an additional duty as Judges

19     to ensure that it doesn't impose requirements that cause unnecessary

20     distress to witnesses who are already under pressure by having to travel

21     to The Hague to give evidence in -- in this matter, which is a heightened

22     form of stress than that which witnesses always experience, and that is

23     something that we will always have to bear in mind.

24             The final observation relates to Ms. Korner's opening statement

25     about the time not spent in court being used for other purposes.  Of

Page 13643

 1     course, the Chamber is appreciative of the anxiety which parties would

 2     have that such motions as are outstanding are dealt with and expedited

 3     and finally disposed of as soon as possible.  But, of course, the concern

 4     that we expressed about time lost in court is in the context of the --

 5     what is well known to practitioners, although non-practitioners often

 6     miss the point, that a court, any court, is involved with work while

 7     sitting but that the bulk of its work done while it is not sitting, and

 8     the Chamber is keenly aware of the responsibility it has to deal with

 9     those motions in its non-sitting time, but it was its sitting time that

10     the concern was expressed about, in terms of the time lost.  Because that

11     time is irrecoverable, and that is the context.

12             So the -- we would rise now and as I said, the next -- when we

13     resume we would attempt to respond to -- yes, Ms. Korner.

14             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, there are a couple of other short

15     matters that I'd like to deal with.

16             First, can I repeat my request so that it is quite clear that if

17     the Defence, in their objections to the exhumation evidence, wish to rely

18     on any authority from this Tribunal or from national jurisdictions, they

19     should let us know 24-hours in advance.  We will do the same.

20             Second matter is this, and that's really to do with the site

21     visit which is not far away now, and can I just raise this for

22     Your Honours to consider.  We were all wondering if it would assist if we

23     were to provide in advance of the site visit, a booklet which will have a

24     photograph for each of Your Honours of the particular site that you're

25     going to see and with a page for any notes that you -- you want to make.

Page 13644

 1     Because, if so, we can organise that.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, Ms. Korner.

 4             We -- we gratefully accept the Prosecution's offer to have these

 5     booklets, and from previous experiences with site visits we know that

 6     they are extremely useful.

 7             Would it be possible not only to include photographs of the crime

 8     sites that we are going to visit, but also to have the relevant excerpts

 9     from the testimonies of the witnesses that relate to these crime sites?

10     So that we are able to consult on the spot what the witnesses actually

11     said and then be guided also by the photographs.

12             I know that it has been done in previous site visits where it was

13     considered to be of great assistance, but I'm also aware of the fact that

14     it is an extra burden on the Prosecution to identify those places and to

15     have them included in the log-books but it would be useful if could you

16     have that.

17             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, can I say this.  That I will say yes

18     we can do it, subject to being told firmly, no, we can't or that we will

19     have a problem with that.  But I will say yes, for the time being,

20     Your Honours, and hope that that works.

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And also the relevant maps that need to go with

22     it.

23             MS. KORNER:  Right.  If Your Honours -- Your Honours were given,

24     I think, a booklet of -- of the Croatian ethnic-type maps which I think

25     will cover nearly everything that -- that -- that you're going to see.

Page 13645

 1             We noticed that Your Honours had added Renovica to the itinerary.

 2     Can we just point out that it appeared that Your Honours thought that it

 3     was part of Pale town.  It is actually not.  It is something like 30

 4     kilometres away.  But just so Your Honours -- because it Renovica/Pale

 5     town.  So ...

 6             And, Your Honours, I'm sorry.  There was one final matter.  There

 7     was one other video that we've asked for leave to add.  The witness who

 8     is going to deal with that is due to testify in a fortnight's time.  The

 9     motion was filed -- so if Your Honours are considering the video which we

10     would like for the witness either on Friday or Monday, there's also the

11     other video filed on ...

12                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

13             MS. KORNER:  Yes, Your Honours, can I say we filed a motion, I'm

14     trying to remember the date.  The Defence has responded.  We were going

15     to apply for leave to respond to their response today, but just to point

16     out a couple of matters.

17             But, in any event, if Your Honours feel you have got enough

18     information about that, that's fine.

19                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

20             JUDGE HALL:  Before we adjourn, I think -- something on which I

21     touched at the beginning, the two motions filed -- thank you, Ms. Korner.

22     This is really for the Defence.

23             The two motions filed yesterday, could we have a response by end

24     of business Thursday?  Thank you.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.  Thank you.

Page 13646

 1             JUDGE HALL:  And we rise now to resume at -- sorry.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  My question before the break, Mr. Zecevic, about

 3     the exhumation discussion, are you able in a position to tell us whether

 4     it could happen Thursday, if time permits?

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Can I -- can I inform the Trial Chamber in the

 6     morning?

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.  Okay.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  So we would resume at 9.00 tomorrow morning - I'm

10     not sure which courtroom - but we will all be alerted at some point.

11                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.34 a.m.,

12                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 25th day of

13                           August, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.