100906IT

Page 14231

1 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... resumes

2 cross-examination, I remind you you're still on your oath.

3 Yes.

4 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

5 WITNESS: MARINKO KOVACEVIC [Resumed]

6 [Witness answered through interpreter]

7 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic:

8 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Kovacevic.

9 A. Good morning.

10 Q. When my colleague Mr. Zecevic asked you about the powers and

11 jurisdiction of the Military Prosecutor's Office regarding crimes against

12 humanity, you gave a few very precise answers last Friday. I'd just

13 like to go through certain parts of the same document you discussed with

14 Mr. Zecevic, but it won't take long. I just want to put the position of

15 the Defence regarding jurisdiction.

16 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we call up P1284.10 in

17 e-court, please.

18 Q. Yes, that's the document you discussed with Mr. Zecevic. These

19 are guide-lines for identifying criteria for criminal prosecution.

20 A. Excuse me for a moment, please, I forgot my glasses. They are

21 back in that -- reading glasses, yes, in the little bag. I'm really

22 sorry.

23 Q. We thank Mr. Cvijetic while we wait for your eyeglasses.

24 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Page 3 of this document, please,

25 in Serbian, and the same page in English. Page 3 in Serbian. One page

Page 14232

1 further. This page is number two. We need the next page in B/C/S.

2 That's right.

3 Q. Now, Mr. Kovacevic, in item 3, we see that that Military

4 Prosecutor's Office, in its instructive analysis of various types of

5 crimes that would be under their jurisdiction, lists, under number 3,

6 crime against humanity and international law from chapter 16 of the

7 Criminal Code. That's where these crimes are listed and numbered;

8 correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. On page 4 --

11 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at page 4, please.

12 Q. In this instructive analysis, the Military Prosecutor's Office

13 describes certain circumstances that have been observed in the units of

14 the Army of Republika Srpska and explains how one should go about

15 prevention.

16 On page 4, at the end of the last paragraph - I'll quote

17 it - they say:

18 "In view of that, concerning crimes that occur from the conduct

19 of persons in a situation of immediate threat of war, serious penalties,

20 including the death sentence, are envisaged."

21 You know that the state of immediate threat of war affects the

22 sanctioning policy and the -- the prosecution policy?

23 A. Yes, that's right.

24 Q. We have to pause for a second between questions and answers so

25 that the interpreters can follow and that the record be clear.

Page 14233

1 As professionals, and, you, as a witness of that time, we know --

2 rather, I put it to you that regardless of whether the immediate threat

3 of war had been declared or not, and that has political implications as

4 well, de facto, from 1992 until 1995 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, there was

5 a permanent armed conflict?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. We also see, slightly above this passage that I quoted, a

8 sentence where the Military Prosecutor's Office notes the following. It

9 begins with the words:

10 "Upon the proclamation of an imminent threat of war," and the

11 year is 1993 [as interpreted], a general mobilisation had been declared.

12 You know that all military conscripts had their wartime

13 assignment and a work obligation during the armed conflict --

14 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Just one correction to the

15 transcript: Part of my question related to year "1992," not "1993," as

16 was recorded on page 4, line 6.

17 Can we move to page 12 of this document.

18 [Defence counsel confer]

19 Q. To my previous question recorded on page 4, line 3, the question

20 was: During that generally mobilisation in 1992, all military conscripts

21 had a certain wartime assignment and there was also a work obligation for

22 those who did not have a wartime assignment to be involved in combat

23 operations; is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. If we look at page 12 of this instruction from the Military

Page 14234

1 Prosecutor's Office, we see that they analyse certain elements of crimes,

2 and in paragraph 2, we see that they say - and the sentence begins:

3 "The greatest numbers of these crimes can be committed only in a

4 time of armed conflict or they are, in some other way, closely related to

5 armed struggle which requires that such crimes are committed as part of a

6 large-scale military operation and on the orders of superiors."

7 Now, I'm asking you as a former prosecutor, do you agree with

8 this qualification, this legal qualification, of this group of crimes?

9 A. Yes, I agree.

10 Q. Further, the Military Prosecutor's Office, in their instructive

11 analysis, towards the bottom of page 12, list one by one which acts

12 constitute such crimes, and they qualify it as criminal and inhumane acts

13 against the civilian population and prisoners of war, killings, torture,

14 and inhumane treatment, rapes, establishment of camps, detentioning

15 camps, looting property, and forced transfer of population.

16 Unfortunately, very ugly things happened in Bosnia and

17 Herzegovina and perpetrators were to be found among all the three ethnic

18 groups. But what I'm interested in is this: A whole series of these

19 acts listed in this analysis made by the Military Prosecutor's Office, we

20 must say regrettably, although we learnt about it only later from the

21 documents of -- and judgements of this Tribunal, happened also in the

22 municipality of Prijedor?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. On page 14 of this instructive analysis, we see that the

25 prosecutor is issuing a warning to the military commands and their staff.

Page 14235

1 In paragraph 2, on page 14, the Military Prosecutor's Office

2 cautions the Military Command Staff of the VRS about the following. And

3 it all goes along the lines of well known rules from the times of the

4 JNA, and it's all in line with the international humanitarian law.

5 So, in paragraph 2, they say:

6 "The very knowledge in possession of the Command Staff that units

7 of the armed forces of the Army of Republika Srpska or their members

8 committed or are committing such acts without any measures taken to

9 redress the consequences or prevent the act, while subjecting the

10 perpetrators to criminal prosecution, constitute liability for some of

11 these criminal acts."

12 Is that written there?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, in the next paragraph, the last sentence, reflects another

15 instruction, namely, that military commands must inform the Military

16 Prosecutor's Office of such occurrences. Is that so?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And in conclusion, on pages 15 and 16, the Military Prosecutor's

19 Office gives a very precise order to unit commands related to detection

20 of war crimes. And towards the bottom of page 15, you see that the

21 command of the Main Staff demands precise reporting from all units on the

22 ground; and, in fact, the Military Prosecutor's Office instructs units on

23 the ground to work on detecting all cases of war crimes against humanity

24 and war crimes.

25 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] And now let's look at page 16.

Page 14236

1 Q. This sentence is very important:

2 "In the area of their responsibility."

3 It is unequivocal here that a specific military commander, in the

4 area of responsibility of his unit, must work to detect war crimes.

5 A. Yes, that's correct.

6 Q. In the lines that follow, the Military Prosecutor's Office very

7 precisely instructs military commanders in their areas of responsibility

8 to inform the nearest military authorities - military police, military

9 judicial organs, et cetera - they instruct them to secure the crime

10 scene, to ensure that evidence is collected by taking witness statements,

11 preparing documentation, et cetera, et cetera. And in point 4, the

12 military police and military judicial organs are instructed to give

13 priority to these crimes in their work.

14 Is that so?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Now, who are the addressees of this instruction? We see on the

17 next pages that it's made available to all the units, secretariats for

18 national defence in all municipalities.

19 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] And let's move to page 17; that's

20 the final part of the document.

21 Q. It's also sent to police stations, the military police, military

22 courts, et cetera.

23 So to conclude, Mr. Kovacevic, it was not in dispute at all that

24 the Military Prosecutor's Office had jurisdiction in 1992 and was in

25 charge of prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity?

Page 14237

1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. And it's not in dispute that all commanders of military units

3 were duty-bound, in keeping with this instruction, to work on detecting

4 and documenting any and all cases of violation of international

5 humanitarian law?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. I suppose that you and your superiors in the Military

8 Prosecutor's Office had contacts with the military judicial organs, where

9 you harmonised your positions as professionals and dealt with issues of

10 jurisdiction, if there were issues of jurisdiction between military

11 prosecutions and civilian prosecutions.

12 A. Yes, we had such meetings.

13 Q. To shed some more light on these activities, I'd like to call up

14 P1285. It's a Prosecution Exhibit that relates to the work of the

15 Military Prosecutor's Office. These are monthly reports, and we are not

16 going to waste time on all of them.

17 I'd just like to look at the 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps because

18 they cover the area of Banja Luka.

19 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] If we could look at page 3 of this

20 document, although it's marked 2.

21 Q. It's a monthly report, and the soldiers are very precise in their

22 reporting. These are the 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps.

23 We see that the army filed one criminal report against a civilian

24 for crimes against international humanitarian law. Can you see that?

25 A. Yes.

Page 14238

1 Q. You cannot know, of course, why -- why this criminal complaint

2 was filed against a civilian, but we will see on page 13 of this monthly

3 report what it was about. Let's just wait for that page to come up.

4 So acting precisely with the instructions and the positions

5 taken, the Military Prosecutor Office attached to the 1st and

6 2nd Krajina Corps Command, the prosecutor is submitting, on page 13 - we

7 can see this is under 8 - crimes against humanity, and we see that the

8 Military Prosecutor Office has filed a criminal report against a certain

9 Jozo Baric, pursuant to Article 142, for the massacre committed against

10 members of the Serbian ethnic group on 17th of September in the village

11 of Serdari.

12 Do you see that?

13 A. Yes, I do.

14 Q. I suppose that you remember these events. These were turbulent

15 times in September. You remember this event in which Serbs from the

16 village of Serdari were killed, among them were even children and some

17 elderly people as well?

18 A. Yes, I remember that incident. There were, in fact, several

19 similar incidents in which there was mass killing of the Serbian

20 population in Kotor Varos municipality. And I remember this particular

21 incident because this involved an extremely large number of victims and

22 that among them were really small children.

23 And I would just like to say one thing more and that is that in

24 Kotor Varos, as a boarding municipality compared to Banja Luka

25 municipality, in 1992 there were really many incidents of this nature,

Page 14239

1 but I believe that this one involved the highest number of civilians

2 killed by members of the Croatian -- or, rather, Muslim army. And for

3 that reason it remained etched in my memory, and I remember it quite well

4 at the moment.

5 Q. Further on, on page 14, the Military Prosecutor's Office of the

6 1st and 2nd Corps, under chapter 4, it says that meetings were held with

7 civilian organs in --

8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the names of

9 the places slowly.

10 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Derventa, Teslic, Knezevo,

11 Laktasi, and Banja Luka.

12 Considering the activities of the prosecutor's office, we are

13 particularly interested in the fact that, among other things, in

14 paragraph 3 of this chapter 4, it is focussed on contact with the

15 judiciary, as we can see, in Derventa, Teslic, Knezevo - and Knezevo is,

16 in fact, Skender Vakuf - and finally Laktasi and Banja Luka.

17 In your contacts with your counterparts, did you acquire

18 information that such communication existed between the Military

19 Prosecutor's Office and members of the civilian judiciary in these area?

20 Was there any exchange of information?

21 A. Yes, there were such meetings in 1992 and in later years, in

22 1993, for example. Yes, we had meetings.

23 Q. Further on, the Military Prosecutor's Office, as we can see,

24 plans to establish active contacts with other civilian judiciary organs.

25 And on page 19 - and then we shall finish with this document - we see

Page 14240

1 that this report -- we are waiting for page 17 to come up on our screens.

2 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Page 17, please.

3 Q. We can see that this report was also submitted to the high

4 prosecutor's office in Banja Luka. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, at that

5 time, I presume that that refers to the district court -- or, rather, the

6 district prosecutor's office.

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. We do understand each other, but I'm asking you for the sake of

9 the correction in the English transcript, where, under item 6, there is a

10 question mark. So we want this to be clarified in the English version.

11 So we are talking here about the district prosecutor's office who had

12 jurisdiction at the time; is that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, let's wrap up this subject and finalise the issue regarding

15 the jurisdiction of the Military Prosecutor's Office, although our

16 learned friends from the OTP are trying to fight very hard to prove

17 otherwise --

18 MR. OLMSTED: Sorry. Yes, Your Honours, that's not really

19 necessary. It's argumentative.

20 MR. PANTELIC: If -- I do apologise. If you think that it's not

21 at issue that military authority -- military judicial authorities were --

22 were under the -- the road to persecute war crimes committed by

23 civilians, then I will not really -- if it's not in dispute between us.

24 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the issue is with regard to the form

25 of the question. I don't think it's appropriate for Defence counsel to

Page 14241

1 be putting to the witness what or what isn't the Prosecution's position

2 on a particular issue. He should just simply ask a question and get an

3 answer.

4 MR. PANTELIC: I'll do that. I do apologise.

5 Q. [Interpretation] So let us look and analyse document

6 65 ter 10293. And with this, we shall conclude this subject. However,

7 we have to go through this document because that's also an integral part

8 of the Prosecution case.

9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic. Mr. Pantelic.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Before we leave this subject, I have a couple of

12 questions that I might as well pose now in order to get the context

13 right.

14 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, certainly. I do apologise. I just

15 have one question in relation to that and then you will have the floor,

16 Your Honour.

17 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] Go ahead.

18 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

19 Q. [Interpretation] So, Mr. Kovacevic, what we see here is a report

20 by the prosecutor attached to the Main Staff of the army. I'm not going

21 to speculate, but I think that this is a historic document issued by the

22 prosecutor office because we heard from several testimonies that this was

23 in the process of being established, but based on the number in the top

24 right corner, which is number 1, and the date is the

25 9th of September, 1992, I conclude - and the author is Supic, the place

Page 14242

1 is Han Pijesak, the date is 9 September 1992, where the prosecutor's

2 office --

3 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] If we can move to page 3 of this

4 document.

5 Q. This particular prosecutor's office, on the 26th of August, 1992,

6 is instructing all the subordinate military prosecutor's office to give

7 priority to prosecutions of crimes; for example, under bullet 3, where it

8 says "against humanity and international law."

9 So, Mr. Kovacevic, after all these documents, one can see the

10 very clear responsibility and obligation on the part of military

11 structures that whenever they learned that a crime against humanity was

12 committed, they were duty-bound to prosecute, to collect evidence, and to

13 carry out all other activities?

14 A. Correct.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I've finished with this line and with

16 this topic, so if you have questions, of course, for ...

17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.

18 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, I do apologise. Because it's 65 ter, I

19 would like to ask to tender this document.

20 JUDGE HARHOFF: 65 ter number what?

21 MR. PANTELIC: 65 ter 10293.

22 MR. OLMSTED: No objections, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.

24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D107, Your Honours.

25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.

Page 14243

1 Mr. Kovacevic, I have a question that relates to the answer you

2 gave to Counsel Pantelic when he was asking you whether you, as the

3 public prosecutor, co-ordinated the efforts to investigate crimes with

4 the military prosecutor on. On the rolling text on the screens in front

5 of us, it's just at the turn between page 7 and page 8, and the question

6 put to you was the following:

7 "I suppose that you and your superiors in the Military

8 Prosecutor's Office had contacts with the military judiciary organs,

9 where you harmonised your positions as professionals and dealt with

10 issues of jurisdiction ..."

11 And then your answer was:

12 "Yes, we had such meetings."

13 My question to you goes to the nature of these meetings because,

14 you see, the Chamber sits back with information provided to us by a

15 number of witnesses that, in fact, a number of crimes were committed

16 during the armed conflicts, as Counsel Pantelic says, by all three

17 parties. Yet there has been, throughout this trial, an issue of which

18 prosecutor should take the responsibility to have these crimes

19 investigated and prosecuted; should it be the military prosecutor, or

20 should it be the public prosecutor?

21 And I think it is probably safe to say that a number of crimes

22 that were in fact committed were never investigated or prosecuted by any

23 of the two authorities of prosecution.

24 So that brings me back to your answer. When you said that you

25 had such meetings in which the public prosecutor and the military

Page 14244

1 prosecutor would meet up and coordinate issues of jurisdiction, can you

2 tell us about these meetings? How frequent did they take place? What

3 were they about? And what were the actions taken, facing the reports

4 that you received about the commission of crimes?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in response to your

6 question, I can give you the following answer:

7 The public prosecutor represents the prosecutor's office. In

8 other words, Nebojsa Pantic, the public prosecutor, represented the

9 prosecutor's office in these and similar meetings. Just like, in such

10 meetings, the district prosecutor's office of Banja Luka was represented

11 by Milan Puvacic, the district prosecutor.

12 I had an opportunity to attend, in 1993, I think, perhaps one of

13 those meetings, along with the Prosecutor Pantic and the

14 Prosecutor Puvacic, where a small number of criminal reports received

15 were being discussed; that is to say, received by the Military

16 Prosecutor's Office. These reports referred to -- or, rather, the

17 discussion referred to the jurisdiction, whether it should be under the

18 military or the civilian organs. In all these criminal reports that were

19 the subject of this meeting, the offence cited was abscondment from the

20 military forces, or theft of property of the military. And the

21 perpetrators were reserve soldiers and civilians, in a number of cases.

22 Therefore, a question was raised at this meeting of establishing

23 subject-matter jurisdiction for these particular criminal reports and

24 these particular criminal offences, given that the persons reported had

25 changed their status; in other words, they were no longer reserve

Page 14245

1 soldiers but became civilians in the meantime. That is to say, they were

2 given a work obligation. And in the instances where civilians were the

3 perpetrators of crimes within the domain of general crimes against

4 military property, these civilians had left Republika Srpska or, rather,

5 the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

6 That meeting, as far as I could conclude and from what I knew,

7 there was no dilemma in anyone's mind that the military prosecutorial

8 authorities had jurisdiction for crimes against the civilian population

9 and the international law.

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Kovacevic, for this clarification.

11 Now, if I understand your testimony correctly, the jurisdiction

12 between -- or, rather, the division of jurisdiction between military and

13 public prosecutors would also depend on the status of the perpetrator; is

14 that correct?

15 I'm asking you this because you testified just a while ago that

16 the status of the perpetrator had changed. As long as he was a

17 reservist, he would fall under the jurisdiction of the military

18 prosecutors; but if he changed his status and became a civilian, then he

19 would come under the public prosecutor's office.

20 Was that correctly understood?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those were the topics that we had

22 to discuss to harmonise our positions between the Military Prosecutor's

23 Office and civilian prosecutor's offices. They had to arrive at a common

24 position regarding jurisdiction over civilians who had to be prosecuted

25 for such offences.

Page 14246

1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.

2 How would, for instance, a murder committed against a civilian

3 during the armed conflict be handled? Would that be handled as a war

4 crime or as a private crime?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only speak about common

6 practice. In determining jurisdiction in 1992, and that continued

7 throughout the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, if there was a murder or a

8 multiple murder, according to common practice with regard to civilian

9 perpetrators, criminal reports were filed by police authorities. And the

10 crime, if it involved several victims, would be qualified as murder from

11 Article 36, it would be aggravated murder - Article 36, para 2, I

12 believe - and, as such, it was to be prosecuted by the civilian

13 prosecutor's office.

14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.

15 I just wish to be very clear about this because you seem to be

16 saying that the jurisdiction really depended on the status of the

17 perpetrator. So, in other words, the military prosecutor would assume

18 jurisdiction over a murder as a war crime only if the perpetrator

19 belonged to the armed forces, either as a regular combatant or as a

20 reservist.

21 Is this correctly understood?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know about the actual

23 practice of military prosecutor's offices regarding prosecutions from

24 this chapter, chapter 16 of the Criminal Code. My knowledge about

25 jurisdiction for prosecuting crimes in the entire territory of Bosnia and

Page 14247

1 Herzegovina for the duration of the conflict is what I just described.

2 From what I know, both in the territory of Republika Srpska and

3 in the territory of the Federation, the jurisdiction was the same in

4 prosecutions of these crimes if - I repeat - these crimes were reported,

5 Article 36, para 2, civilian authorities had jurisdiction; but in other

6 cases, if somebody reported a crime against the civilian population or

7 international law, such reports went directly to the Military

8 Prosecutor's Office and the military authorities in the entire territory

9 of Bosnia and Herzegovina. From what I know, that was the practice

10 throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina throughout the war.

11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kovacevic. I don't

12 think I should be taking more of the Defence counsel's time, so I give

13 the floor back to Mr. Pantelic. Thank you.

14 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacevic, in your answers to my learned

16 friend Mr. Olmsted and also the Defence team of Mr. Stanisic, you said

17 that in our legal system that prevailed in 1992 there was a certain

18 change in jurisdiction - I believe it was in June 1992 - when

19 jurisdiction for practically all crimes was transferred from higher

20 courts to lower courts, higher authorities to lower authorities.

21 A. Yes, that's right.

22 Q. I believe you may remember that at the same time jurisdiction

23 over the work of the police was also adjusted. And we should look at

24 P1090.

25 While we're waiting: The principle was that there should be

Page 14248

1 cooperation between the lower court, the lower prosecutor's office, and

2 police stations in coordinating and detecting war crimes because of the

3 change in jurisdiction that I just described?

4 A. That's right.

5 Q. You probably haven't seen this document before, and we didn't --

6 don't need to discuss it. But to illustrate this change of jurisdiction

7 on the 2nd of July, 1992, a certain Mr. Josic, who was a police inspector

8 in a public security station, head of the criminal investigations

9 department, we see that policemen from Banja Luka are complaining to

10 their superiors in the CSB Banja Luka, saying that they do not have

11 enough staff to fight the amount of crime that is placed in their lap

12 after this change of -- in jurisdiction.

13 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] In Serbian, in e-court, we need

14 page 3 in B/C/S.

15 Q. It was signed by Chief -- by the Chief Tutus, and the report was

16 prepared by Mr. Josic. And it says: In view of the new obligations and

17 the shortage of staff and the increased number of crimes that are now

18 within our jurisdiction, et cetera, et cetera.

19 What was the situation with the prosecutor's office? Did you

20 encounter problems once a whole series of crimes were transferred to your

21 jurisdiction? But very briefly, please.

22 A. There were many problems. A very extraordinary situation reigned

23 in the whole of Banja Luka. The war started. There were no qualified

24 staff, qualified officers. And such a huge inflow of cases was very

25 difficult to prosecute within a reasonable amount of time. All of a

Page 14249

1 sudden, we had dozens of cases a day received by the prosecutor's office.

2 Q. We'll pause here.

3 Mr. Kovacevic, you said it your statement to OTP investigators,

4 and we heard it also from your colleagues who testified here, prosecutors

5 and judges, there were many cases of attacks by army members against

6 prosecutors and judges. Do you know that?

7 A. Yes, of course.

8 Q. And the prosecutors and judges in question are precisely those

9 who did their work professionally and risked their lives sometimes

10 because of that. Have you heard of that?

11 A. Yes, of course I did. I myself was in such a position a couple

12 of times. My car was shot at. My apartment was shot at. It all

13 happened in 1992.

14 Once, in the courtroom, a civilian, or somebody from the audience

15 because it was a public trial, set off an explosive device. We did not

16 have any police in the courtroom. We didn't have qualified personnel who

17 would conduct security checks before letting anyone come into the

18 courtroom.

19 It was very difficult for prosecutors to work in 1992 in every

20 way.

21 Q. So if I understood correctly, in a trial where you were the trial

22 attorney, armed individuals threatened your life, because, at that time,

23 almost everyone carried arms.

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. I'm now specifically interested in the region of Prijedor. Of

Page 14250

1 course, we can't analyse it all now, but in 1992, did you have any

2 knowledge about Prijedor as a rather idiosyncratic region, political and

3 other ways. There were rumours that certain officials from Prijedor were

4 acting any way they liked. How was Prijedor treated within the

5 Autonomous Region of Krajina? What was its reputation? What were the

6 stories going around?

7 A. From what I know of the Prijedor area, indeed, that area

8 functioned in a different way than the rest of Krajina in 1992.

9 Q. In what way?

10 A. Well, in view of certain structures, primarily in the police

11 force, the situation was very difficult to control. It was very

12 difficult to -- to get good information if something happens.

13 Q. There was a question from my learned friend Mr. Olmsted where you

14 said you came up against a wall of silence in your own work, and you

15 mentioned the example of Prijedor. The difficulties that you encountered

16 as prosecutors, were they shared by other authorities that had to

17 communicate with Prijedor? Did they also find it difficult to get

18 information from Prijedor, to get anything that was necessary from

19 Prijedor if it was necessary for prosecutions and detection of crimes?

20 A. That's precisely what I tried to say in my answer to the

21 Prosecutor. Other authorities came up against a similar wall of silence

22 in -- in getting information, in exchanging information with the

23 municipality of Prijedor.

24 Q. Now, please, Mr. Kovacevic, let us just note for the record that

25 in Prijedor area there was a very strong and well-organised unit - I

Page 14251

1 don't know of which level, whether it was a brigade or a tactical group -

2 of the Army of Republika Srpska made up of military staff who were

3 conducting combat operations on the front line; is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And, of course, in view of the instruction given by the

6 prosecutor, it was only logical to expect the commanders, the army

7 commanders and other commanding staff, to know what was going on in the

8 area of Prijedor.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, now we have to conclude this cross-examination.

11 And, for that purpose, we have to move to specific analyses of two

12 crucial cases. The first one is the Koricanske Stijene crime. And the

13 so-called Vrbas case -- or, rather, the non-Serb victims who were thrown

14 into the Vrbas. Both these heinous and brutal crimes took place in

15 August of 1992.

16 First of all, you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that it is

17 in line with the law -- the role of the prosecutor is to prosecute

18 ex officio certain crimes and, among other things, to direct the

19 preliminary criminal proceedings which is stipulated by the law. So,

20 therefore, you will agree with me that the prosecutor plays a certain

21 active role in insisting on the process of detecting the perpetrators and

22 other things; of course, in cooperation with the police?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Of course, there is hierarchy within the prosecution's office.

25 You said that Mr. Pantic was your boss, then Mr. Puvacic was his boss,

Page 14252

1 and finally I think that it was Mr. Gladanac at the level of the

2 republic?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. As we could see, both in the activities of public and military

5 prosecutor offices, certain positions were taken towards the policy of

6 prosecution, depending on different circumstances. And in that way, the

7 prosecutor's role was that of an active agent in combatting crime in

8 society. You accomplished that through certain directives and

9 consultations at the level of the prosecutor's office and adopted

10 strategies of how to proceed; is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, in our legal system, the investigating judge also had a

13 certain active role to play. This is beyond dispute, and the

14 Trial Chamber gathered as much from your answers.

15 Now, can you please explain to the Trial Chamber, when you

16 receive a criminal report against an unidentified perpetrator, you

17 register the case and you propose certain things to the investigating

18 judge. Now what I'm interested in is the following: Is the

19 investigating judge autonomous in conducting this investigation? He is

20 allowed to issue certain orders and carry out certain activities without

21 your knowledge; or is he directly linked with your activity?

22 Can you just explain this procedure briefly.

23 A. I'll just give you a short explanation:

24 The investigating judge is an organ investigating the whole case.

25 In any specific situation, or in the specific case of Koricanske Stijene,

Page 14253

1 the investigating judge had commenced an on-site investigation. And as

2 long as it lasts, and it can last indefinitely, but preferably should

3 last as short as possible, but while it's ongoing, the investigating

4 judge plays an absolutely independent and active role with regard to

5 collecting all the information, taking statements from the individuals

6 that might in any way provide valuable information.

7 Q. Will you stop there, please.

8 So the investigating judge may carry out certain activities

9 without even informing you as the prosecutor?

10 A. He doesn't have to give me prior notice, but he must inform me

11 subsequently about the activities that he had carried -- he or she had

12 carried out.

13 He was entitled to carry out a series of activities, and then

14 when -- the summary of all these activities, after a certain period,

15 should be passed on to me.

16 Q. And, of course, each and every participant in this part of the

17 proceedings have their respective role under the law. The prosecutor is

18 free to seek assistance from other state authorities, like the army,

19 police, et cetera. There are no limitations in his attempt to gather

20 evidence.

21 A. There are no limitations whatever. He can contact military

22 security authorities. Particularly in this particular case, which, in

23 view of the activities of the prosecutor's office, was very special - I'm

24 talking about the Koricanske Stijene case - there was a dilemma whether

25 we would have jurisdiction for the on-site investigation or whether that

Page 14254

1 would be within the jurisdiction of the military authorities. Because we

2 didn't know at the very beginning who the victims were.

3 So he was obliged to coordinate his work, if necessary, with the

4 military security organs and other military authorities, and he could do

5 that autonomously.

6 Q. Are you aware of the fact that in these contacts with the

7 military judiciary, the military distanced themselves from the whole

8 case. They refused to undertake any measures. Do you know anything

9 about that?

10 A. That became quite apparent quite soon. Some 15 or 20 days later,

11 we faced certain difficulties.

12 Q. Let me stop you there.

13 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Let's look at

14 Prosecution Exhibit -- yes -- well, this dispatch is part of P18567, but

15 in order to be more efficient, can we -- can we please look P675.

16 Q. Speaking of this subject, let us shed the light on the role of

17 the military, specifically in those times when all the events were

18 revealed very quickly.

19 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we please enlarge this for the

20 benefit of the witness.

21 Q. We can see that the dispatch was sent on the

22 21st of August, 1992. It's an extraordinary operational report. And the

23 commander of this area of responsibility, Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic

24 says -- or, rather, proposes a committee to be formed within the

25 Krajina Corps to carry out an on-site investigation. And at the end he

Page 14255

1 proposes that the CSB organs be informed as well.

2 So he is talking about a report of a mass killing taking place on

3 that location. And in according with the instructions that Mr. Peulic

4 received from the Military Prosecutor's Offices, practically proposing

5 some other measures as well. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic is a professional officer, very

8 experienced, and he knows very well that if such a serious thing takes

9 place in his area of responsibility, what should be done.

10 Now, what I'm asking you is the following: In your opinion - and

11 you are a professional - if we know that in this period, not all the

12 details are yet available, whether the military was involved, whether the

13 police was involved, what was the situation particularly in view of the

14 jurisdiction for prosecuting crimes against civilians, tell me, did ever

15 anyone from the military judiciary or military security authorities

16 contact you or your boss, Pantic, seeking cooperation in detecting the

17 perpetrators of the Koricanske Stijene crime? Did you have any

18 cooperation in that sense at all?

19 A. According to what I know and remember, we did not have any

20 cooperation on this particular incident.

21 Q. Now let's be very specific. In 1992, you couldn't have known to

22 what extent the police was involved in certain detecting work. You have

23 issued certain orders, but when you came here and you spoke to the OTP,

24 you were shown a set of documents and correspondence, including

25 dispatches, in which the chief of the Prijedor police informs the chief

Page 14256

1 of the CSB that the individuals who are suspected of possibly committing

2 these crimes are members of the military and are assigned the certain

3 military tasks.

4 Now I'm asking you, what was the obligation of the military

5 prosecutor and the military security organ in light of the information

6 that we see in this dispatch? What was the military prosecutor and the

7 military security organs were supposed to take on the basis of the

8 suspicion that the perpetrators were among their ranks?

9 A. At least they should have taken a copy of this criminal report

10 and carry out this part of the job, provided they establish that it's

11 their jurisdiction at the time.

12 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] I see that my learned friend

13 Mr. Olmsted is on his feet.

14 MR. OLMSTED: I was going to object to the form of the question

15 which not only is it extremely long and complex but it's also misleading.

16 The document we have in front of us states that the convoy of

17 buses that went to Koricanske were escorted by members of the Prijedor

18 and Sanski Most civilian police. And then later on it states that these

19 police officers participated in the liquidation. And then it further

20 states that the military units had nothing to do with this.

21 So unless perhaps Mr. Pantelic is offering a hypothetical

22 question - if the perpetrators happened to be military, should the

23 Military Prosecutor's Office have done something about it - then,

24 perhaps, that's a proper question. But here it's assuming facts not in

25 evidence. And this witness, as he has testified, simply didn't get any

Page 14257

1 information regarding who the perpetrators were, other than, of course,

2 this particular memo from the military which states it was the civilian

3 police.

4 JUDGE HALL: We would take the break now, and Mr. Pantelic would

5 have the opportunity to --

6 MR. PANTELIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...

7 JUDGE HALL: -- rephrase that question when we return.

8 [The witness stands down]

9 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.

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

11 [The witness takes the stand]

12 JUDGE HALL: So, Mr. Pantelic, you will attempt your question

13 again.

14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Q. [Interpretation] So, Mr. Kovacevic, we see on the screen this

16 interim report, a dispatch from the commander, Mr. Peulic. And Peulic

17 uses qualifications very correctly. He says, in fact, genocide against

18 civilians. He is not a lawyer. The word "genocide" was used by all the

19 three sides for propaganda purposes. But it's indubitable that this

20 concerns a very large number of the civilians, that it happened within

21 the area of responsibility. And it's indubitable that according to the

22 instruction previously received, commander Peulic is informing his

23 superior command about this crime. Correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Now let's go back to the line of questioning that we started

Page 14258

1 before the break.

2 Either it's a question of interpretation or a misunderstanding

3 with Mr. Olmsted. I was not asking anything hypothetically. I will show

4 you now the same documents that he has shown you before; namely,

5 dispatches concerning communication between CSB Banja Luka and

6 CSB Prijedor about where the members were, whether they were in the army

7 or not, et cetera.

8 You remember that?

9 A. Yes, I do.

10 Q. But before we get to that, we must - because you are a

11 professional and so are the Judges here who will dispense justice - we

12 are not having a trial against institutions or organisations. We have on

13 trial, individuals who are being tried for individual responsibility.

14 That's why I'm asking you: Did my client, Mr. Zupljanin, ever give you

15 any orders to obstruct an investigation or did he advise you not to

16 conduct an investigation? Did he ever obstruct justice?

17 A. Never.

18 Q. Do you have any information that my client, Mr. Zupljanin, ever,

19 in relation to your superior, Mr. Pantic, excerpt any pressure, maybe

20 Pantic complained to you that he was under pressure not to investigate or

21 anything like that?

22 A. No, I don't have any information that Mr. Zupljanin obstructed

23 anything in this case, from what I know or from what Mr. Pantic told me.

24 Q. In this area of individualising criminal responsibility, we have

25 to explain to the Trial Chamber the structure of CSB Banja Luka and its

Page 14259

1 work vis-à-vis the prosecution, and the specific tasks of individual

2 people in prosecuting perpetrators of crimes.

3 Now, let us look at a Prosecution Exhibit. P1567. It's a

4 voluminous document related to criminal reports that have to do with

5 KTN Koricanske Stijene and KTN Vrbas that we discussed.

6 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, this is a document

7 we'll have to analyse later. I'll need 2D71 now.

8 Q. That is, in fact, the Vrbas case, the killing of those non-Serbs

9 and the bodies found in Vrbas. It's not a separate document; it's part

10 of a case file.

11 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] And we need page 16, if I'm not

12 mistaken. Perfect, that's it.

13 Q. Before we analyse further the work of the police and the

14 prosecutor and the investigating judge, tell me: As an experienced

15 prosecutor, you know what police work is, what a work-plan is, the

16 operative work-plan when the police is working based on the instructions

17 of the investigating judge or its own senior officials; it's a plan that

18 says how they should conduct a specific operation?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. A very important issue is cooperation with --

21 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Yes, this is the right English

22 version. But we need the second page in English with the names.

23 Q. You see, Mr. Kovacevic, you were a prosecutor for many years.

24 You cooperated on daily activities with members CSB Banja Luka. The

25 chief of the centre was Mr. Zupljanin; right?

Page 14260

1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. Assistant chief and the chief of public security was Djuro Bulic;

3 correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Now, under Djuro Bulic, there was a series of departments and

6 sections, but we are now interested in the department for crime

7 prevention. Below Djuro Bulic was the chief of the crime prevention

8 department in CSB Banja Luka, and his name was Milorad Djuric; correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Now, depending on the type of case and the number of cases, there

11 was also in the hierarchy a chief of section for general crime

12 prevention; correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And that was Zivko Bojic?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And then there was the leader of the team of inspectors. Nobody

17 works alone but in a team. And that was the inspector from this general

18 crime prevention section, and that was Mr. Dragomir Markovic?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Now, when you, as a prosecutor from the basic prosecutor's

21 office, have communication and cooperate with others, I assume - and you

22 will correct me if I'm wrong - you are in charge of specific cases. And

23 in certain operations, you communicate with Chief of Sector Bulic, or

24 Chief of Section Bojic, or Section Chief Djuric and the operative team;

25 correct?

Page 14261

1 A. Yes, mostly.

2 Q. With all due respect, it's different from your superior

3 Mr. Pantic; he has the same communication with someone else at a

4 different level of the CSB; correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. It's very important here, Mr. Kovacevic, for the sake of

7 establishing the truth, that Stojan Zupljanin is not a one-man orchestra

8 and a magician with a wand. He has, under him, well-trained

9 professionals in different departments whose job is to deal with certain

10 types of crimes and carry out operative work.

11 A. That's right.

12 Q. Now that we have noted all the players in a certain police

13 operation, let us go back ...

14 [Defence counsel confer]

15 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] My colleague advises me that we

16 should later return to this work-plan.

17 Q. Let us go back to the case of Koricanske Stijene.

18 In your evidence given to the Prosecution, you also analysed

19 certain documents and dispatches that are in the case file. For the

20 record to be precise and to have the correct chronology, I will put to

21 you certain dates and we will go through this chronology together.

22 This serious crime occurred on the 21st of August, 1992, at

23 Koricanske Stijene; correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. CSB Banja Luka files a criminal report against an unidentified

Page 14262

1 perpetrator on 8 September 1992; correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. As far as I remember your answer to the Prosecutor, you were in

4 charge, because there is an certain procedure of registration through

5 various organs of the prosecutor's office, and you were entrusted with

6 the case. You received it on the 10th or 11th.

7 A. I believe it was officially received by the prosecutor's office

8 on the 11th.

9 Q. The 11th of September?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. There is a letter where you propose to the investigating judge

12 that certain investigative actions be taken, and the date of that letter

13 to the investigating judge is the 14th of September, 1992; right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. The investigating judge, after several witness interviews

16 conducted at your proposal, believes that this particular action has been

17 completed and returns the case to you on the 24th of September.

18 A. I don't have it here on the screen, but I believe it was the

19 24th.

20 Q. And on the 30th of September, 1992, you issue an instruction to

21 the members of the crime police in CSB Banja Luka to continue operative

22 work to identify the perpetrators; correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. So we have here, roughly speaking, a month of exchange between

25 various authorities; the prosecutor's office and the police. It all took

Page 14263

1 place within a month and ended with your order to continue operative

2 work.

3 A. That's right.

4 Q. When you arrived here in The Hague, the OTP showed you some other

5 dispatches between CSB Banja Luka and Prijedor regarding these operative

6 actions. You said you did not remember that from 1992. You don't

7 remember seeing it, but you were looking through them with the

8 Prosecution. I'd like to go through those documents with you again.

9 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] First of all, let us take P1573.

10 Q. We'll start with this document. CSB Banja Luka is sending this

11 dispatch to the SJB Prijedor quoting a dispatch from the MUP of

12 Republika Srpska dated 31st August 1992 and gives orders to Prijedor to

13 take written statements from the policemen who escorted the convoy, to

14 provide the personal details of these police officers by the

15 15th of September.

16 Do you see this?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. That's an integral part of police work, isn't it, in efforts to

19 identify the perpetrators; correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Let us look at the next document now. I'm sorry we can't have

22 everything on the screen at the same time to see a whole overview.

23 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] The next one is P682.

24 Q. On the 14th of September, 1992, SJB Prijedor sent a dispatch to

25 SJB Banja Luka, and the reference is the request from 11 September, and

Page 14264

1 the public security station of Prijedor says the following:

2 1, SJB Prijedor is unable to carry out an investigation into the

3 incident at Koricanske Stijene.

4 It's clear from this that CJB Banja Luka required an

5 investigation and required certain steps to be taken by SJB Prijedor --

6 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] Mr. Pantelic.

7 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. -- right?

9 A. Yes.

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think we have been through this already quite

11 intensively. So unless you're able to bring something completely new to

12 this, I suggest you move on.

13 MR. OLMSTED: And, Your Honour, I was about to stand up, myself,

14 because really these documents are with regard to internal workings of

15 the RS MUP, and this witness was a prosecutor at the time. And so I

16 don't know if there's even foundation for him to comment on

17 communications between the CSB and Prijedor. They -- Mr. Pantelic

18 certainly could ask whether this witness was aware of this information

19 contained in this dispatch; but, beyond that, what more can he provide?

20 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, the position is very simple. We have

21 four very important dispatches which I want to line up here for the

22 record and for the final determination for the submission. This witness,

23 was aware about a certain number of these dispatches during proofing with

24 the OTP. So, I am not going to go into every detail. I just want to see

25 and hear from this witness, in light of his professional experience as a

Page 14265

1 prosecutor, where the military jurisdiction and military organs are

2 fitted in this particular case of Koricanske Stijene. And I will show

3 you just in a few moments how we see -- I mean, we shall ask from witness

4 if can he give us some -- some answers and his personal knowledge about

5 it.

6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, I agree with that. Unless the four

7 documents that you want to show to the witness are already on the record

8 and unless the witness now offers some other answer to the question as to

9 whether the military indicated right away its reluctance to investigate

10 the Koricanske Stijene incidents.

11 I think the witness gave a clear answer when he was confronted

12 with the document in which Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic said that this was

13 not anything of the military's business.

14 JUDGE DELVOIE: But, Mr. Pantelic --

15 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE DELVOIE: If you want to respond, please do. I'll ask my

17 question afterwards.

18 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Actually, I would like to draw the attention

19 of this Trial Chamber and to discuss this particular part from a witness

20 that we have here in light of his previous prosecutor experience. What

21 the further steps should be taken when the information of potential

22 alleged perpetrators being a member of army should be done. That's --

23 that's the point, actually. That's the point.

24 MR. OLMSTED: Well, yes, the Prosecution doesn't have a problem

25 with that question as long as it's clear who should take those steps. If

Page 14266

1 you're talking about what the Military Prosecutor's Office should do,

2 again, this witness was with the civilian prosecutor's office, and those

3 questions are best asked to someone who was with the Military

4 Prosecutor's Office.

5 MR. PANTELIC: I completely agree with you, Mr. Olmsted.

6 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacevic, let us look at the next fact that

7 seems to follow from this. We see that these persons, whose details are

8 requested, were, as of 9 September, in the military units in Han Pijesak.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And we also see from this that upon the request of the army and

11 the Red Cross, some order or request was finally issued for these police

12 officers to be attached to this convoy.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, please tell the Court, in a situation like this, when

15 potential perpetrators are in the ranks of the army, what can you as a

16 prosecutor tell us? What kind of measures are to be taken by the

17 military prosecutor or by you as the civilian prosecutor?

18 Just hold on a minute.

19 MR. OLMSTED: That question is misleading because this document

20 does not say that these police officers were members of the military. It

21 says they were sent to the front lines.

22 MR. PANTELIC: With all due respect, let's disregard this

23 objection because my learned friend should know that his own Exhibit P618

24 speaks by itself about who and where was sent and under which authority.

25 So that's why I want to go through this particular documents because it's

Page 14267

1 of the crucial importance for the Defence of my client, in terms of

2 showing what the relevant departments of -- criminal department of CSB is

3 doing in the meantime and also to see and to hear - if, of course, this

4 witness is -- is able to give us the answer - what he as a civilian

5 prosecutor in this particular case will -- will do.

6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic --

7 MR. PANTELIC: -- which measures. Yes.

8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic, if I understand you well, you take

9 it from this document that there is an indication that members of the

10 military were among the perpetrators; is that right? Because that's what

11 you're suggesting already two or three times.

12 Is that -- is that what --

13 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, Your Honour, we know that before

14 September, before August, and after August, namely, on the -- on the

15 9th of September, we don't know upon which order and how members of a

16 special platoon from Prijedor were sent to -- to the front and became,

17 actually, military -- military officials.

18 So that's the point.

19 JUDGE DELVOIE: So you're linking the Koricanske Stijene killings

20 with policemen under resubordination on the basis of this document?

21 That's -- that's one -- perhaps one of the documents, but this is one of

22 the documents, in your view, that indicates that?

23 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, with all due respect, it's -- it's a

24 misunderstanding. No, no. The position is the following, that from

25 9th of September 1992, there are ample evidence and lot of informations

Page 14268

1 that members of who are in the -- in the -- in this convoy, members of

2 SJB Prijedor, upon certain order were sent to military -- to military

3 operations.

4 JUDGE DELVOIE: After the events.

5 MR. PANTELIC: After the events.

6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.

7 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct, yes.

8 JUDGE DELVOIE: And your position is, because they are, at that

9 moment, as Mr. Drljaca is saying, under the command of the military, it

10 should be the military -- military jurisdiction investigating?

11 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct.

12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you. Like this, it's clear to me.

13 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] So let's move to document P -- I'm

14 sorry I'm trying to put this in chronological order. This was a response

15 from the 11th of September.

16 Yes, that's the reply to this dispatch. Now we're coming to the

17 next dispatch. CSB Banja Luka, 7th October 1992. It's

18 Prosecution Exhibit 61 -- P617.

19 Q. So another dispatch concerning Koricanske Stijene. Prijedor is

20 required to provide a detailed answer. Which police officers escorted

21 the convoy.

22 2, was there anyone else on the security detail.

23 3, what did these police officers write in their reports when

24 they came back.

25 And, 4, a report on the on-site investigation.

Page 14269

1 And then identification and burial.

2 You see the document?

3 A. Yes, I do.

4 Q. You will agree with me that this was the usual practice of the

5 police in the process of detecting the perpetrators, so this is a normal

6 relationship that existed in that context?

7 A. Yes.

8 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Now, let's look at Prosecution

9 Exhibit P618. And that's the last document in this set. So P618. Here

10 it is. Can we please enlarge the document for the benefit of the

11 witness.

12 Q. So, on the 13th of October, Prijedor replies to the CSB dispatch

13 sent on the 7th of October by saying the following: That the individuals

14 who had been escorting the convoy, members of the Prijedor SJB, were

15 currently carrying out war assignments. And then they say that they had

16 provided certain additional information, et cetera.

17 Now, in the context of all these documents, tell me this: Number

18 one, the case, KTN, was open, it was registered, and the police

19 obliged -- is obliged to carry out their work constantly with a view to

20 detecting the perpetrators; is that right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Number two, it has been noted that the civilian police, in view

23 of this information, has no competence over members of the military at

24 that point in time; is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

Page 14270

1 Q. It has also been noted, and it is a fact, that this case would

2 never be closed unless the individuals who are in the army come to the

3 jurisdiction of the civilian police and be brought in subsequently.

4 That's the normal procedure, isn't it?

5 A. Yes, it is.

6 Q. In your professional opinion, what would you, as a prosecutor, do

7 in a situation like this? You have information that certain suspects are

8 under the jurisdiction of the military. What would your task as a public

9 prosecutor be in this particular case?

10 A. In this particular case, I would notify the military prosecutor,

11 or I would even defer the report to the Military Prosecutor's Office. So

12 I would resort to either of the two options.

13 Q. Can you tell me this: Since the military security organs, on the

14 basis of dispatch sent by Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic, were aware of the

15 incident -after all, it was published in international and local media -

16 tell me, what is the role of the military prosecutor in this specific

17 case as well as security organ, since they knew that the suspects from

18 Prijedor were in the ranks of the army? What would their duty be under

19 the circumstances?

20 A. The military authorities should have done something which would

21 be identical to the -- what would be done by the civilian police.

22 Q. In other words, the military authority knew what had happened,

23 they knew that the potential suspects had been sent from Prijedor to

24 Han Pijesak to join the military on someone's order.

25 So what was the security organ of the army doing in that

Page 14271

1 situation?

2 A. The security organ should temporarily arrest these individuals,

3 put them in custody, and subsequently transport them as soon as possible

4 to the military police. After operational processes of these suspects,

5 they would be brought before the military prosecutor.

6 JUDGE HARHOFF: But to follow up on this answer that you just

7 gave.

8 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Maybe you were proceeding to that same issue, I

10 don't know. But, Mr. Pantelic, you looked as if you were moving on to

11 something else.

12 But before we do that, my question to you, Mr. Kovacevic, would

13 be: If the military police would arrest some members of the armed forces

14 who had just been resubordinated to the army but having committed the

15 crime at Koricanske Stijene while they were still policemen and, thus,

16 under the jurisdiction of the public prosecutor, would the military

17 prosecutor then continue to prosecute and investigate, or, rather, the

18 other way around, investigate and prosecute the perpetrators, since they

19 were now under the army's jurisdiction; or would he refer them back to

20 the public prosecutor, assuming that it would fall under the public

21 prosecutor's jurisdiction since the crimes were committed at a time when

22 the perpetrators were policemen?

23 Can you clarify that?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is not at all simple to

25 explain.

Page 14272

1 In view of the fact that members of the police were also members

2 of certain structures of the armed forces on the ground, what I want to

3 say is that some of those individuals who were in the escort could have

4 been, as per establishment and as a reserve police officer, a member of

5 the military unit deployed somewhere on the front line. Under such

6 circumstances, there is no doubt that it was -- it would be the military

7 prosecutor who would have jurisdiction over such individuals, and there

8 is no dilemma about that whatsoever.

9 Therefore, the military prosecutor, in this particular instance,

10 should establish the deployment, as per establishment, of each and every

11 individual, or, rather, their assignment, prior to their being sent to

12 carry out these military missions in and around Han Pijesak. Once they

13 established that, then it is to be decided whether this particular

14 perpetrator of the crime was a member of the armed forces as a reserve

15 police officer and whether he was under the command of the military

16 authority or not.

17 So, the entire reserve police force, the special police units,

18 and all other police structures - I mean individuals from these

19 structures - could have been members, as per establishment, of combat

20 units of the Army of Republika Srpska.

21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you for this clarification.

22 Could I just ask you directly if, to your knowledge, any attempt

23 was made by the police to relieve the public prosecutor's office of

24 jurisdiction over this crime by resubordinating and transferring the

25 perpetrators from Koricanske Stijene to the armed forces?

Page 14273

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is difficult for me to speak,

2 sir, about somebody else's decision taken within certain structures

3 relating to sending someone to the battle-field in order, perhaps, to

4 thwart the conduct of certain proceedings. That seems to be -- me to be

5 highly unlikely. It is possible, but incredible. Because, under such

6 circumstances, these individuals would be exposed to death or sustaining

7 injuries. Therefore, I very much suspect that anyone would agree to

8 that. He would rather flee from the army in order not to be sent to the

9 zone of combat operations on the front line and, thus, avoid being killed

10 or injured. They would try to find their way out of such a situation

11 which, undoubtedly, could have led to their death.

12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.

13 Back to you, Mr. Pantelic.

14 JUDGE DELVOIE: If I -- if I may, I have -- I have a question for

15 the witness as well. But before that, I would like to be sure about the

16 document that is referred to in the document on the screen, where it is

17 said:

18 We sent the information which you had requested for all the

19 policemen who escorted that convoy in your document number 11-12-16 dated

20 26th of September, 1992.

21 Do we know what that information was? Do we have that document?

22 Does anyone, a public prosecutor or Defence knows -- know what

23 information that is?

24 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, you're referring to the

25 22 September 1992 dispatch that Chief Drljaca says he sent to the CSB? I

Page 14274

1 do not believe we have that document. So we're -- we have to draw

2 inferences from this particular dispatch.

3 MR. PANTELIC: We are in even a worse position.

4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Then I'll ask my question anyhow.

5 MR. PANTELIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... in the hands of OTP.

6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness, I seem to remember that you said, I

7 think during examination-in-chief, that you asked for the name of all the

8 policemen who were escorting the convoy but that you never got that list.

9 You never got a reply on that request. Is that right? Do I remember

10 that well?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you do.

12 I'm sorry, Your Honours, I stand corrected. Not the policemen.

13 I asked -- submitted a request for a checkup of individuals --

14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Okay, thank you.

15 And, now, as you were asked a series of hypothetic questions, I

16 would ask one -- I would add one to that. Here, it is said:

17 "We hereby inform you that a policemen ... who escorted the

18 convoy from Prijedor to Knezevo ... are at present on

19 War Commissions [sic] ..."

20 And this would then be the reason to hand over the jurisdiction

21 on -- on these people to the military prosecutor. But wouldn't one

22 expect or -- or request, anyhow, the names of those -- those people who

23 were escorting -- the people who were escorting and the people, if any,

24 who were resubordinated to the military, as information from somebody one

25 knows that was involved in the Koricanske Stijene incident and that one

Page 14275

1 could perhaps suspect of covering up or covering the perpetrators?

2 Would you not have asked for those names and just be satisfied by

3 the response, They're not longer here, they're somewhere else?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is difficult for me to answer

5 such a hypothetical question.

6 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Witness,

7 you're --

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably --

9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness, you're answering hypothetical

10 questions all the time, the last 20 minutes.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Yes, I apologise,

12 Your Honours.

13 Since I am expected to give my personal assessment of the

14 situation, that is to say, whether the names of the perpetrators were

15 known by someone who sent this letter to Mr. Simo Drljaca, and then

16 Mr. Drljaca is responding in this manner. I don't know if this

17 information was known to the seeker of the information. All I can do is

18 to repeat what is stated herein, which says in line 3, second sentence:

19 "In our document number 11-12-16, dated 22nd September, 1992 ..."

20 We've lost the document. Now it's all right.

21 "... we sent the information that you requested for all the

22 policemen who escorted the convoy in question."

23 And I honestly don't know whether all the information was

24 provided, in order to be able to give a direct answer to your question.

25 In the criminal, legal sense and for purposes of operative work,

Page 14276

1 at least in our system, just a name and surname are not enough to

2 identify a person. What I'm trying to say is that along with a name and

3 surname, we need the mother's maiden name, date of birth, and all the

4 personal details that are necessary to identify the perpetrator of a

5 crime. All these details would be necessary for me to be able to say

6 that whoever requested this information knew the identity of the

7 perpetrators.

8 JUDGE DELVOIE: But --

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if this is clear.

10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, it is. But by all means you confirm that

11 all the information, although you asked for it as well, it was never

12 provided to you, as a public prosecutor?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. We did not receive it.

14 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] Thank you.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 Q. [Interpretation] Now let us wrap up this topic.

17 Members of the crime prevention service, or CSB Banja Luka in

18 this correspondence with Prijedor, do not have any jurisdiction over

19 military authorities and persons who are in the army. As far as they're

20 concerned, this is an open case but they are unable to act?

21 A. That's right.

22 Q. Now, please tell the Trial Chamber: Who is authorised to send

23 these people from Prijedor to Han Pijesak? Is it the police who would

24 send them or is it the competent military unit that issues an order for

25 transfer?

Page 14277

1 A. I believe the competent military body is in charge of

2 transferring a person to a military unit, to a certain position.

3 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, this witness is entitled to his

4 opinions, but this -- this witness is not a member of the police. He

5 is -- there's been no foundation laid that he would know anything about

6 the policies of resubordination between the RS MUP and the VRS. But,

7 obviously, he answered the question.

8 MR. PANTELIC: Oh, come on. Okay.

9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacevic, please, did you ever serve in the

10 army?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Do you have the rank of reserve officer?

13 A. Yes, I do.

14 Q. Do you know, both as a prosecutor and as a man who has been

15 through all these military structures, who and when orders an individual

16 to be sent to a certain military position?

17 A. Yes, I think so.

18 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions on

19 this topic. But I do have other questions.

20 Q. Now, look, please, at this series of events. First of all, in

21 August 1992, this really heinous crime, you saw the documentation shown

22 you by the Prosecutor. Then we have certain actions by the district

23 prosecutor in Banja Luka in 1999. And, finally, trials before the

24 BH state court in Sarajevo in 2008, 2009, and 2010, judgements included.

25 This is the series of steps and actions in relation to

Page 14278

1 Koricanske Stijene?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Twenty years is the time it took to gather all the legal elements

4 and take action, and you worked in a prosecutorial position at the time,

5 with the proviso that at a certain point in your tenure, jurisdiction

6 changed?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Now, as a professional and a man who lived this period, tell me,

9 In 1992 and 1993 in this wartime turmoil, was it possible to take all

10 this action that was ultimately taken seven years later in peacetime?

11 Were you able to work in the same way, with the same results, in 1992 and

12 1993 as after the war?

13 A. It was very difficult to work in 1992 and 1993. It was not

14 possible to achieve the same quality of work that we were able to achieve

15 in peacetime, under normal circumstances. Such serious crimes with very

16 grave consequences could hardly be expected to be dealt with quickly,

17 with an efficient outcome, and that the perpetrates be brought to justice

18 quickly.

19 Q. But we would agree that the operative officers in CSB Banja Luka,

20 under the circumstances, did everything to document the crime, and

21 created a basis for eventual closure of the case 18 years later?

22 A. Yes.

23 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Now let's look -- let's look at

24 P1567.

25 Q. While it's coming up, we have to deal with serious problems in

Page 14279

1 documentation. You saw yourself that there are dispatches missing,

2 elements are missing, and even parts of the case file are missing.

3 First of all, tell the Trial Chamber when the case file was

4 opened in the prosecutorial office, the KTN file? It has a cover, it has

5 a folder.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. It's usually cardboard -- a cardboard folder?

8 A. We had cover files, although it was not exactly cardboard. There

9 were shortages of everything, including paper.

10 Q. On the inside of this cover, there must be a list of every

11 document put in, every enactment, every communication with anyone?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. As a prosecutor, it's your responsibility and your duty to make a

14 record of certain actions. You tell your assistants -- your assistants,

15 Please put it in the agenda that we have to do this and this and this in

16 November 1992.

17 It's your duty?

18 A. Under normal circumstances, yes.

19 Q. And the acronym for these actions by the court is EV, short for

20 record.

21 A. Yes. EV, or "skontro, [phoen]" SC.

22 Q. And when you came here to testify, the Prosecution did not show

23 you the folder of the file. They showed you some documents from the

24 file, but the prosecutorial official file is -- the folder is something

25 you haven't seen?

Page 14280

1 A. Do you mean the basic prosecutor's office or the district one?

2 Q. The basic one.

3 A. No, I haven't seen that one.

4 Q. So we don't have that folder of the file opened in

5 September 1992, and we can only guess what was in it and what wasn't in

6 it. All that we were able to reconstruct was from the documents shown us

7 by the Prosecutor; right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Now let's go to page 32 of this document to try to assist the

10 Trial Chamber by explaining all the stages that Banja Luka went through

11 in 1992 and 1993 that affected this case.

12 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, we need the next page.

13 The page after this. The ERN number ends in 497. Now, could we zoom in

14 on the third paragraph.

15 Q. Why is this document important? This is a document from 1999,

16 where the chief of the CSB Banja Luka, Mr. Sutilovic, says in

17 paragraph 3:

18 "Due to the conditions and circumstances under which this centre

19 worked at the time, especially the events related to the

20 Operation Septembar 1993 and Hurricane, and several incursions by the

21 SFOR into the centre who removed a lot of documentation from this centre,

22 we hereby inform you that we no longer have the criminal report with its

23 attachments."

24 Now, tell the Trial Chamber, this Operation Septembar 1993, was

25 it carried out by certain bodies in the army against civilian

Page 14281

1 authorities? Was the building of the CSB Banja Luka surrounded? Did

2 they go in? Was it a kind of military putsch?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. And it's during these operations that certain documentation was

5 removed from CSB Banja Luka, as this letter says?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Now, later on, there was also another Operation Hurricane in the

8 same centre. Documents were removed, tampered with, manipulated. During

9 this operation, too, there was a responsibility that a lot of

10 documentation disappeared?

11 A. Yes.

12 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, certainly Defence counsel can -- this

13 document has been admitted into evidence - and certainly Defence counsel

14 can make whatever arguments they want at the end of the trial - but how

15 can this witness comment on anything that happened to police files?

16 Unless this witness has personal knowledge of this. Otherwise we're just

17 simply reading a document to this witness.

18 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. In these conversations with your colleagues, with policemen, with

20 prosecutors, did you discuss this, that papers were removed, that they

21 were abused, that they were used in various scandals, et cetera? Tell us

22 what you know.

23 A. The purpose of this Operation Septembar 93, and probably

24 Hurricane as well, was, for these military structures, an element in the

25 army.

Page 14282

1 Q. A very specific question: Were documents removed?

2 A. Yes, they were removed. And the purpose of Septembar 93

3 operation was to remove certain documentation. The army wanted to take

4 some documents for their own reasons.

5 Q. Excuse me. And as cherry on the top, the SFOR came later and

6 removed even more documents. You were an eye-witness. And now, if we

7 look at the prosecutions, when was it first -- when did it first become

8 possible to collect evidence and documents in order to prosecute these

9 crimes?

10 A. Well, the full picture of the events during the war needed to be

11 clear first, and it was towards the end of the war, or, rather, when

12 peace was concluded in 1996 and onwards. That's also the time when

13 military units were disbanded, police units, et cetera.

14 Q. That's when the documents were gathered?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And in the same period, Mr. Kovacevic, Stojan Zupljanin had held

17 absolutely no post in the police?

18 A. No. At the time, Stojan Zupljanin did not.

19 MR. PANTELIC: It's time for break, Your Honours?

20 JUDGE HALL: Yes.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, thank you.

22 [The witness stands down]

23 --- Recess taken at 12.08 p.m.

24 --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.

25 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, while the witness is coming back in,

Page 14283

1 Mr. Pantelic tells me he's got about 15, 20 minutes left, and then I

2 have, I think -- it's hard to say, but it could be upwards of 45 minutes

3 of re-examination to cover the issues raised by Mr. Pantelic as well as

4 by Mr. Zecevic.

5 We have the witness on stand -- the next witness on stand by.

6 Because he is a protected witness, I understand there's a 15,

7 20-minute time-period where the system has to be switched over. May that

8 witness be excused for the day?

9 JUDGE HALL: Yes, that seems to me the most practical course.

10 [The witness takes the stand]

11 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, while we still have this document in front of us,

13 which has a certain number of pages, let us use this opportunity to

14 clarify an answer you gave to my colleague Mr. Olmsted.

15 It's a minor thing, but it is my duty to clear up this issue with

16 you.

17 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] It's about page 14180 of the

18 transcript; the date is 3rd of September, 2010.

19 Q. My learned colleague Mr. Olmsted asked you to interpret an

20 Official Note made by Radovan Sukalo, who was a crime technician. This

21 document was from 1992. And according to Mr. Sukalo, the investigative

22 judge had not been at the on-site investigation at Koricanske Stijene.

23 It may have been just an omission by my learned colleague

24 Mr. Olmsted, who did not show to you page 35 of the document we have.

25 It's in an Official Note made in 1999 by Mr. Zdenko Tesanovic. It is --

Page 14284

1 he's a anti-sabotage protection technician. And here it is stated that

2 Jankovic, Jevto, who was the investigative judge of the basic court in

3 Banja Luka who was there at the on-site investigation.

4 Can you see that? It's somewhere in the middle of the page. It

5 mentions inspector Markovic, and the on-site investigation was headed by

6 Jevto Jankovic and so on.

7 A. Yes, I see that.

8 Q. We have some other examples. Buhovac is speaking about it. Also

9 we can see it in the criminal report by the CSB Banja Luka, where this

10 topic is discussed.

11 So, first of all, do you remember this in your conversations with

12 your boss, Mr. Pantic? Had he told you anything about a investigative

13 judge being there on the on-site investigation site?

14 A. Well, I do remember that a commission was established, including

15 a significant number of people, crime technicians, experts, and I think

16 this commission also included my boss, Mr. Pantic, as well as

17 Jevto Jankovic, the investigative judge. The commission was established

18 for the very purpose of gaining insight into all the aspects, both legal

19 and other aspects, of the case we're talking about.

20 I believe they may have gone to the site, although I'm not sure

21 about that. At least a part of the commission. Whether Mr. Jankovic

22 went, I don't know. It is possible.

23 Q. That's fine. My question was: If you remember, tell us.

24 Now, the OTP investigator, when you were interviewed in 2003,

25 showed you notes that accompanied the criminal report. And part of the

Page 14285

1 notes were notes taken by two policemen from Knezevo who explained what

2 they knew about the whole affair. You spoke about whether you received

3 their notes and so forth.

4 But what I'd like to clarify now is the following: Are you aware

5 that, at a later stage, the investigative judge did take a statement from

6 the two policemen, Milovanovic and Brkic?

7 A. I really have no recollection of whether a statement was taken

8 from them at a later stage. But, in any case, the investigative judge

9 could have, as part of the on-site investigation, carry an interview with

10 the two individuals about the statements they've given, especially in

11 view of the fact that these two persons were reserve policemen from the

12 Skender Vakuf area.

13 So when I asked for or recommended certain investigative actions

14 to be taken, when I asked the investigative judge to do that, for

15 instance, to interview the victims, this investigative action was

16 something that was delayed, and, therefore, Mr. Jankovic should have done

17 it urgently. And as a part of these interviews, set of interviews, one

18 could find, most probably, statements by these two policemen.

19 But because of this possibility of delaying the statements by the

20 victims, I assume the interrogation of the two policemen was not

21 recommended either. But, in any case, Jevto Jankovic, the investigative

22 judge, could have taken statements or could have interviewed the two

23 policemen and notify me about these statements, even had he taken those

24 statements in the area of Skender Vakuf.

25 By taking the statements from the two policemen, he would have

Page 14286

1 achieved something, but it wasn't done. Maybe because at the time the

2 two of them were, for instance, somewhere on the front lines. So the

3 recommendations related to what investigative actions needed to be taken

4 would have been delayed because the victims needed to be interviewed

5 immediately, without delay, and taken care of in one way or another.

6 Q. Let us clarify the role of the judicial organs in this case.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Pantelic, please.

8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic, microphone.

9 MR. PANTELIC: Ah, sorry, I do apologise.

10 Q. [Interpretation] What we're trying to do now is clarify the role

11 of the judicial organs in the case of Koricanske Stijene incidents.

12 We have a memo that you forwarded to the investigative judge,

13 Jevto Jankovic, a memo that has been discussed here. You've looked at

14 the document. And the date of the document is September 1992. And in

15 this document you are asking for eight persons, all eight persons, to be

16 interviewed. You stated you were submitting relevant documentation for

17 these persons. Then you attend the interviews on the 16th and the

18 17th of September, the office of the investigative judge. And then,

19 finally, on the 24th -- on the 24th of September, the investigative

20 judge - and this is ten days after you've sent a request - he then sends

21 it back to you to make a decision.

22 It must have been possible for the prosecutor's office to take

23 some additional steps later on, to ask for some information, to carry out

24 some activities in relation to this case; am I right?

25 A. Yes. We could have, in some form, at some later stage.

Page 14287

1 Q. And it is also a fact that the prosecutor's office did not take

2 such actions, based on the documentation we have seen.

3 A. Well, yes. The prosecutor's office did not do anything at a

4 later stage. It did not try and hurry up the activities of those.

5 Q. Let us state it like this: The prosecutor's office did not have

6 an active role, did not exert pressure. We will not now go into why this

7 could be only speculation, but that is the fact, isn't it?

8 A. The fact is that the prosecutor's office does not have an active

9 role at that stage. There are some actions that a prosecutor could have

10 taken, but one cannot speak about some really active role that would have

11 critically changed the situation.

12 Q. Let us now move to the case of -- we're talking about document

13 2D71. It's a document related to Vrbas case. In that case - and I'm

14 asking you this question in your capacity of a prosecutor - for any

15 investigative actions to even start, one must go into expertise of

16 various aspects of the on-site investigation. All this needs to be done.

17 Do you agree with me?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Now why is that important? It is important to identify the

20 victims and thereby set the framework, the time-frame work and other

21 conditions; am I right?

22 A. Yes, of course.

23 Q. And, of course, the investigation has to wait before the forensic

24 results are obtained, and only then one can start looking for potential

25 perpetrators; am I right?

Page 14288

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Unfortunately, these victims got killed in front of the

3 Manjaca Military Camp, and this camp was, as we know, disbanded at --

4 about that time, in November 1992, and it was impossible to find

5 eye-witnesses or any witnesses of the crime, and I'm talking about

6 victims here. However --

7 MR. OLMSTED: [Previous translation continues] ... the evidence is

8 not that the camp was disbanded in November of 1992. Just clarify that.

9 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. You can tell me whether -- was it in end of November, beginning

11 of December?

12 A. Yeah, it was in late 1992. I don't know precisely.

13 Q. That's fine. Now let us look at this case file. Let's see what

14 we have here.

15 The case is still active. It has forensic foundations. So we

16 have the foundations. What is necessary is to do -- to carry out further

17 activities with a view to specify who the perpetrators were?

18 A. That's correct.

19 Q. Whereas, in Koricanske Stijene case, you, the prosecutor, make a

20 suggestion, recommendations for the activities that need to be done.

21 Now, I don't see similar activity here in relation to the Vrbas River

22 case.

23 Mr. Kovacevic, let me give you options: I don't remember, you

24 know, you don't know. What I'm saying here is there is no act from the

25 public prosecutor sent to the investigative judge ordering him to take

Page 14289

1 certain actions. Have you sent such a document to the investigative

2 judge?

3 A. I don't remember sending such a document because the initial

4 document relevant for Koricanske Stijene was related to the victims.

5 Q. I apologise. I must specify that I'm discussing the River Vrbas

6 case. There were eight victims found in the river who, according to some

7 indications, were killed in front of Manjaca camp.

8 So do you remember having sent an order to the investigative

9 judge to take certain actions?

10 A. No, I don't think so. I don't remember having done that.

11 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at page 19 of this

12 document. The following page, please.

13 Q. As can you see, on the 31st of December, 1992, the chief of

14 department, Mr. Tegeltija, reports that through forensic investigation,

15 some analysis was obtained, and here it is stated who the victims were:

16 Mr. Crnalic, Krak, Bozic, and so on. Can you see that?

17 A. Yes. Yes, can I.

18 Q. In legal sense, in criminal investigation sense as well, what do

19 we have here? At the end of 1992 -- I personally would like to see cases

20 being completed in five days. However, we know how the real situation

21 was. And what we have here is victims having been identified, and only

22 then one can start looking for witnesses and so on. But the factual

23 situation is the following: Nobody's left at Manjaca, so one cannot find

24 them. Am I right?

25 A. Yes, you're right.

Page 14290

1 Q. So, make it very -- let us make it very clear for the

2 Trial Chamber. From the human point of view and professional, it would

3 be terrible if we would know that something terrible had happened and

4 nobody acts upon that, but here we can see that foundations were laid and

5 then that -- those foundations help us come to justice.

6 Now, justice comes slowly. But do we agree that the forensic and

7 crime department police of the CSB Banja Luka actually did whatever they

8 could under the circumstances?

9 A. Well, under the circumstances, I would agree with you. They did

10 what they could.

11 Q. Okay. Now, please, I'm coming to the conclusion of my

12 cross-examination, and it is my duty to put to you the central question.

13 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] We need P1567, page ... page 53 of

14 the Koricanske Stijene file.

15 Q. Before I put to you this last question of mine, there's one

16 procedural -- procedural issue we have to clarify, and it is the

17 following:

18 On the 29th of September, 2003, you gave a statement to the

19 investigator of this Tribunal, Mr. Grady. On page 18 of the Serbian

20 version, we can see you were shown two Official Notes relating to

21 policemen from Knezevo. And then he quoted to you or told you the

22 internal ERN number - for Milovanovic, it is number 0214-1510 - saying

23 this for the transcript.

24 We claim that in document P1567, so -- in that document, the

25 statement that had been given by Milovanovic is marked as 0105-6486. The

Page 14291

1 number I --

2 MR. OLMSTED: Before we confuse the witness with ERN numbers on

3 documents, the ERNed -- a document could be ERNed more than once, and the

4 English translations might have different ERNs depending on it. And I

5 think that's a -- really a technical issue that this witness is not going

6 to be able to comment on.

7 But unless you can -- you can assert that he was shown a

8 different document, I'm not sure this is going to get us anywhere.

9 MR. PANTELIC: It is absolutely not my intention. It's just my

10 intention to clarify for the record, to have clean situation for -- for

11 the further submissions. That's why. So I'm not challenging anything.

12 Everything is fine. But I need to do that for the record.

13 Q. [Interpretation] Let me repeat. You were shown the statement

14 that bears, as last three digits, 510, and in this case, in -- in the

15 file, we have the other one with last three digits 486.

16 Now, why am I insisting on that? Because, following the

17 documents that follow -- that accompanied the criminal report, which are

18 numbers 510 and then 511 and 512, all those documents were shown to you

19 in 2003. From that, one can see that they were grouped together, these

20 documents. Now, this other number that ends with 486, that system of

21 numbering creates a confusion.

22 Sow did gave -- you were interviewed by Paul Grady, and he did

23 show you the two documents that we just discussed?

24 A. Yes, I remember that, but I said even then that I don't remember

25 that these statements were in accompanying papers.

Page 14292

1 Q. No, I was just asking about numbers. You understand me about

2 that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Let us move on.

5 On the screen we can see a document from year 2000 issued by the

6 district public prosecutor's office that was in charge of the case; is

7 that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And it's sent to the CSB Prijedor; am I right?

10 A. Yes, you're right.

11 Q. This document, and we will see that on the following page, was

12 signed by Vlado Mandic, who was deputy public prosecutor, your colleague?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. This Vlado Mandic, in year 2000, states in the final segment of

15 the memo in the Serbian version, he is saying, We are convinced it is not

16 correct that information cannot be obtained. We are aware that police

17 members escorted the convoy --

18 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Could we please turn the page of

19 the Serbian version.

20 Q. And then he says in some independent newspapers there are

21 information being published, information is being gathered by the

22 prosecutor. But you will agree with me that he is here, rather actively,

23 addressing the CSB Prijedor?

24 A. Yes, one can make such a conclusion.

25 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, please, we heard about what the period was at the

Page 14293

1 time. But as a professional and as a prosecutor, with all due respect to

2 the then-prevailing circumstances, could you have done something more

3 about this case? Could you be more active in the spirit of the standards

4 that we can see from this letter? Can you tell me this as a human being.

5 A. Well, to tell you the truth, in hindsight, the circumstances were

6 extremely difficult. And when one looks upon this entire event in that

7 time-frame, I could have demonstrated a more active involvement in the

8 sense that Mr. Mandic, the district deputy prosecutor, showed.

9 But, to put it simply, I'm sorry, as -- as a human being, for not

10 seeking more details. But it seems to me that nothing would have

11 changed. The effect would perhaps be the same. But as I said, as a

12 human being, I think that I omitted to cite certain things that I should

13 have done that would be implied by the nature of things and which

14 Mr. Mandic properly did in his letter.

15 So I say I am sorry that I didn't write my letter in the same

16 fashion.

17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kovacevic. I have no further questions for you.

18 MR. OLMSTED: May I proceed, Your Honours?

19 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.

20 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you.

21 Re-examination by Mr. Olmsted:

22 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, I first want to talk about Koricanske Stijene and

23 address some of the issues that was raised by Mr. Pantelic.

24 Did the police ever inform you that the perpetrators of the crime

25 at Koricanske Stijene were members of the military?

Page 14294

1 A. The police never informed me about that.

2 Q. And we looked through this case file which was transferred to the

3 district prosecutor's office in 1999. Was this case ever transferred to

4 the Military Prosecutor's Office?

5 A. It wasn't transferred to the Military Prosecutor's Office, given

6 that the military prosecutor offices were abolished. A reform of the

7 military judiciary was carried out, and I think that they were abolished

8 in 1998 as part of the overall reform and revamping of the judicial

9 system in Republika Srpska.

10 Q. Well, the military court and prosecutor's office existed from

11 September 1992 through the remainder of the conflict. During that

12 time-period, was this case ever transferred to the Military Prosecutor's

13 Office?

14 A. I have no information to that effect.

15 Q. Until a case is transferred from the civilian prosecutor's office

16 to the Military's Prosecutor's Office, it remains a case within your

17 jurisdiction; is that correct?

18 A. Well, for this particular crime that the perpetrators were

19 reported for, there was no dispute that the civilian prosecutor was

20 responsible in terms of dealing with the report.

21 Q. Now, I know you've probably grown tired of all our hypothetical

22 questions, but I do want to ask a couple. And perhaps to clarify some

23 matters.

24 I want you to -- you to think of this scenario: We have a

25 civilian police officer who commits a crime of murder, for instance, but

Page 14295

1 he's a civilian police officer. There's no question that he is civilian.

2 Now, after he commits that murder, a few weeks later, he is temporarily

3 assigned to a war unit along the front lines.

4 Now, after his wartime assignment, he returns to his civilian

5 police responsibilities. When he returns to his civilian life, can you,

6 as a civilian prosecutor, prosecute him for that murder that he committed

7 before he went to the front lines?

8 A. Well, we need to have precise information relating to this

9 hypothetical career moves, let's put it that way, that, first, he was a

10 civilian, then he joined an army unit, then he left the army unit. What

11 I want to say is we need to have this exact information in order to be

12 able to establish who is responsible for conducting prosecution.

13 Q. And assume, for purposes of my hypothetical, that the information

14 is exact. So this is in fact what is determined: That he was civilian

15 when he committed the crime; then he just temporarily was assigned to the

16 front lines; and then he came back and he is a civilian again.

17 Can the civilian prosecutor's office then prosecute him for that

18 murder he committed while he was a civilian?

19 A. There is such a possibility. But, as I said, this information is

20 crucial, and they have to be relevant and verified; that is to say, that

21 he was seconded to the army in a lawful way, that he was discharged from

22 the army, in a lawful way, et cetera. This is key information that would

23 determine what the answer to your hypothetical question would be.

24 Q. Now, let's assume that it's determined that he was civilian.

25 Now, he's gone off to the front lines for a few weeks. In the meantime,

Page 14296

1 can the civilian prosecutor's office open an investigation against this

2 person for that civilian crime? Is there anything that stops the

3 civilian prosecutor from doing that?

4 A. He has to have information that at the time of the commission of

5 the crime this particular individual was a civilian.

6 Q. Now, let's leave that hypothetical aside. I want to you give a

7 different hypothetical now.

8 We have a civilian police officer who commits, again, a murder as

9 a civilian. A few weeks later, he joins the military, and he stays with

10 the military. It's not temporary; he stays with the military.

11 Who has jurisdiction to prosecute him for the crime he committed

12 while he was a civilian?

13 A. Let me clarify one thing: The jurisdiction for conducting

14 proceedings against civilian - and it's absolutely clear to everyone - is

15 civilian judiciary. However, when one changes one's status, that is to

16 say, if somebody joined a military unit and he is needed there, the

17 civilian judiciary cannot have any jurisdiction over a member of

18 military. It cannot address his command or whoever with a request to

19 discharge this soldier so that he can be arrested and placed in custody.

20 That would be possible only if the security organs, or, rather, the

21 military police, establishes this fact and deals with the whole case,

22 operationally and in the sense of criminal investigation, and then

23 forward it to the Military Prosecutor's Office.

24 If the military prosecutor determines that at the time of the

25 commission of crime he was a civilian, in the army there's a variety of

Page 14297

1 ways to strip someone of his status of a member of the military

2 personnel, and, thereafter, this case is referred to the civilian

3 judiciary for further processing. First of all, to the court; and then

4 to the --

5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the last word.

6 MR. OLMSTED:

7 Q. First to the court and then to the ...? We didn't catch the end.

8 A. Either to the court, if he is in detention, because of the

9 deadline set down by the law; and, if, in the meantime, his status is

10 being resolved and he is no longer a soldier, he is placed in civilian

11 detention and he comes under the jurisdiction of the investigating judge.

12 At that point, the civilian prosecutor becomes involved.

13 Q. Thank you. Now, in this hypothetical, the police officer

14 committed the crime while he was a civilian. Now he's -- in a military

15 unit. Whose responsibility is it to inform the military prosecutor that

16 they have a criminal amongst their ranks?

17 A. That's a difficult question. First of all, such an individual

18 cannot join any army unit on their own initiative, whether he be a

19 criminal or not a criminal. No one can join the army on their own

20 initiative. They have to have certain status, whether they have work

21 obligation, whether they were a reserve police officer, et cetera. So

22 there is an established procedure for people to be assigned to war units

23 and thereby change their status.

24 What was your question?

25 Q. Yes --

Page 14298

1 A. I'm sorry.

2 Q. That's fine. Let's assume that the military doesn't know that

3 this person who's now joined the military had committed a crime while

4 they were a civilian, a serious crime like a murder. So they have now

5 this murderer amongst their ranks, but they don't know it.

6 Whose responsibility is it to inform the military prosecutor that

7 this -- this civilian had committed a crime?

8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Olmsted, I think we are going --

9 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Hold on, Mr. Kovacevic, please.

11 I think we are going a bit too far here. I mean, at the moment

12 when these gentlemen were transferred or resubordinated from the police

13 to the army there was at the most, perhaps, a suspicion, and there was

14 certainly no conviction for having committed the crime at this point.

15 And I just wonder if I may address your line of questioning in

16 general, how useful it is to pursue this matter. Because I think the end

17 result was, and we know this as a fact now, that the case was eventually

18 assumed by the public prosecutor.

19 So if ever the military prosecutor had any action in this case,

20 it was very short and very brief; and the case, as I said, ended up with

21 the public prosecutor, so -- and that's it.

22 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour. I see your point, and I'm

23 going to move on.

24 Q. Just one more series of questions with regard to the

25 investigation into the Koricanske Stijene matter. And I want you to base

Page 14299

1 this on your experience as a prosecutor.

2 As a prosecutor, who would you have expected the police to

3 interview to find more evidence about this crime? We've talked -- we

4 already know that they interviewed the victims. But who else?

5 A. Potential suspects and eye-witnesses. And other witnesses,

6 potential witnesses.

7 Q. What about members of the police leadership at SJB Prijedor?

8 A. The duty of the SJB Prijedor, given that these individuals were

9 from their territory, was to undertake all measures with a view to

10 detecting and establishing the identity of the perpetrators, of

11 questioning them, arresting them under the regulations then in force, and

12 bringing them into custody, bringing them then before the investigating

13 judge. And the rest was supposed to be taken care of by the prosecutor

14 and the court.

15 Q. Well, I'm going to move on to another topic entirely.

16 Now, on Friday, you were asked a number of questions by

17 Mr. Zecevic regarding the functioning of the military courts and the

18 prosecutor's office in 1992.

19 MR. OLMSTED: If we could have on the screen Exhibit 1D367.

20 Q. And this is a report by the 1st Krajina Corps Military

21 Prosecutor's Office, dated 19 September 1992. And if we can turn to

22 page 2 of both the B/C/S and the English, Mr. Zecevic drew your attention

23 to the second paragraph under Roman numeral II, entitled: "Review of

24 Crime Trends," where it says that a few thousand cases were currently

25 being resolved.

Page 14300

1 To put that into some context, I would like to draw your

2 attention to what is written a few paragraphs below that, where it

3 states:

4 "The largest number of cases related to the avoidance of military

5 service described under Article 217 of the SFRY Criminal Code and other

6 crimes against armed forces."

7 Mr. Kovacevic, do you recall that desertion was a major issue for

8 the military in 1992?

9 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't know -- Your Honours, with all due respect,

10 I don't see how does this come out of my cross-examination. I posed a

11 very specific question concerning this -- this statistical data and

12 never, ever mentioned some other crimes. I concentrated on what is

13 relevant in this case, and I would kindly ask that Mr. Olmsted be

14 instructed accordingly. Thank you.

15 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, I would like to respond, but could we

16 ask the witness to take off his headphones before I give you an argument

17 on why this is relevant.

18 JUDGE HALL: Does he speak English?

19 MR. OLMSTED: I think very little.

20 JUDGE HALL: In your view, that would be sufficient; he doesn't

21 have to be escorted from the courtroom?

22 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Olmsted.

24 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, the Defence argument -- and perhaps

25 Mr. Zecevic can explain to me if I get it wrong, but as I understand it

Page 14301

1 the Defence's argument in this case is that the crimes charged in our

2 indictment were crimes that fell within the jurisdiction of the military

3 courts and then that the military courts were inundated with these cases

4 and unable to process them.

5 Now, the Prosecution's position is that crimes charged in the

6 indictment are largely cases that fall within the civilian jurisdiction.

7 And at any rate, the military courts were not inundated with criminal

8 reports of the crimes that we charge in the indictment but, rather, were

9 processing ordinary or typical crimes that you would expect them to be

10 prosecuting in times where they have military actions, which would

11 include these particular types of crimes, crimes involving a failure to

12 report to military duty or desertion.

13 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic.

14 MR. ZECEVIC: But, Your Honours, I -- I clearly showed to the --

15 to the witness, again, what is relevant, that the military judicial --

16 judicial organs were involved and were actually conducting the -- or

17 processing the cases of the -- of the war crimes and crimes against

18 humanity.

19 Therefore, those are the questions. I didn't went [sic] any

20 further than that. Now, if Mr. Olmsted wants to show what else were the

21 military organs doing, I don't see how is that relevant. That was the

22 point of my objection, Your Honours, at this very beginning.

23 JUDGE HALL: As I understand Mr. Olmsted's response, it is in the

24 context of the Prosecution's case that this is being asked -- that --

25 that the question is being asked. And this document appears to

Page 14302

1 specifically explain what the military courts were primarily concerned

2 with. So it appears to me that the question is permissible.

3 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour. The witness can put back

4 on his headphones.

5 Q. I apologise for that, Mr. Kovacevic.

6 Again, I want to refer you to the paragraph which points out that

7 the largest number of cases relates to the avoidance of military service

8 under Article 217 of the Criminal Code.

9 Do you recall that desertion was a major issue for the military

10 in 1992?

11 A. Well, I suppose it was.

12 Q. Well, were you aware that a significant portion of the criminal

13 cases processed by the Military Prosecutor's Office in 1992 and beyond

14 pertained to the crime of desertion?

15 A. Well, I suppose so. I suppose.

16 Q. Now, Mr. Zecevic also asked you a number of questions regarding

17 the military court's jurisdiction over war crimes, or at least

18 war-crime cases. Are you aware of any cases brought, in 1992 or 1993,

19 against Serb civilians for committing war crimes against non-Serb

20 civilians, regardless of whether it was before a military court or a

21 civilian court or otherwise?

22 A. I can't remember that there were such cases.

23 Q. In practical terms, if, in 1992, the police reported to your

24 office a crime committed by a Serb civilian that had the elements of a

25 war crime or crime against humanity, what would your office have done

Page 14303

1 with it?

2 A. I believe that I already said that if that was a case of

3 aggravated murder, according to Article 362, paragraph 5, the police in

4 charge should file a criminal report. This does not have to be only the

5 police. A state organ can file such a report as well, provided they have

6 this kind of information. Then, through intelligence work on the ground

7 with the assistance of police, we established the elements relevant for

8 the criminal report.

9 And I think that would be the answer to your question.

10 Q. In 1992, did you ever receive any instructions from

11 Prosecutor Pantic on how to process criminal reports charging crimes

12 against humanity or war crimes?

13 A. Well, we didn't receive any special instructions and guide-lines

14 because, at the time, it went without saying that for this type of crimes

15 the military judiciary would have jurisdiction, for the crimes committed

16 against civilian population and international law. So everybody

17 understood that, should such incident happen, these cases would be

18 processed by the military judiciary.

19 And I think that even at one of our staff meetings - I'm not

20 sure - we discussed, to a certain extent, this issue of jurisdiction and

21 that it was established then that it would undoubtedly be the military

22 jurisdiction.

23 Q. Do you recall, was that meeting in 1992, 1993, or can you give us

24 any idea?

25 A. I'm not sure, but it was at the beginning of my term of office.

Page 14304

1 1993, perhaps. I'm not sure.

2 Q. Mr. Zecevic showed you four criminal reports against unknown

3 perpetrators for Article 172, causing general danger crimes against

4 non-Serb victims.

5 MR. OLMSTED: For the record, these cases have been assigned

6 exhibit numbers 1D371, 1D372, and 1D373, and 1D374.

7 Q. And in order to save time, I want to hand you hard copies of

8 these four exhibits.

9 Now, keep them in order because that's the order I want to

10 discuss them in. And I first want you to take a look at the one that's

11 on top. One -- Exhibit 1D374. And do you notice that it has a K-U or

12 KU entry number 3566/92? Do you see that?

13 A. /92, yeah, you're right.

14 Q. And if you can look at, now, 1D372, we see that it has a KU entry

15 number of 3567/92.

16 A. Yes.

17 MR. OLMSTED: And if we can have P1574 on the screen, please.

18 Q. This is the Banja Luka Basic Prosecutor's Office KTN log-book for

19 1992.

20 MR. OLMSTED: And if we can turn to page 29. Are we on page 29?

21 It was too small for me to see. Yes. Okay. And if we can now -- if we

22 can go look -- zoom in to entries 2346 and 2347. They're on the

23 right-hand page, I think a little bit towards the bottom. We need to

24 zoom in a little bit more because it's quite small on the screen. There

25 we go.

Page 14305

1 Q. We see that -- we see the two KU entry numbers for these two

2 unknown perpetrator cases in the third column, is that correct, under

3 entries 2346 and 2347?

4 A. [No verbal response]

5 Q. Do you see that?

6 A. Yes, 2346, and 2347.

7 MR. OLMSTED: Now, if we can just scroll up really quickly to

8 show the heading of column 9.

9 Q. Well, we see in column 9 -- first of all, before we do, we see,

10 in the ninth column, we see the date -- dates 24 September 1992 and

11 21 September 1992.

12 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could just scroll up so he can see the

13 heading for column number 9.

14 Q. Can you confirm that those are the dates that the prosecutor's

15 office sent requests to the police to collect needed information, under

16 column 9?

17 A. If it says here - and it does - that this request was sent to the

18 police, then it must have been sent.

19 Q. Now, column 16 - and we talked a little bit about this during

20 your examination - is where the name of the perpetrator, if identified by

21 the police, would be recorded along with the KT entry number to which the

22 case was transferred; is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And if we look at the first entry, 2346, we don't see anything

25 written in column 16. So does this mean that this case remained an

Page 14306

1 unidentified perpetrator case?

2 A. Probably. That means the perpetrator was not detected.

3 Q. Now, if we look at the entry for 2347, we see, in column 16, a

4 date which appears to be the 29th of May, 2000, and then something

5 written underneath it. Can you tell us what happened to this particular

6 case?

7 A. Yes. The case was sent to the district prosecutor's office in

8 Banja Luka in May 2000 because jurisdiction had changed.

9 Q. Now I want you to look at Exhibit 1D371. And if you can see that

10 it has -- yes, that's the third one in your pile. You can see that it

11 was a KU entry number of 3709/92.

12 MR. OLMSTED: If we can turn -- please turn to page 35 of the

13 KTN log-book. And if we can -- yes, we don't need to call up the

14 criminal report because he has that in front of him.

15 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, in that case, I would need the tab number,

16 please, from my list.

17 MR. OLMSTED: I apologise, I don't have that. You admitted it

18 into evidence. It's 1D371, admitted.

19 This is not ...

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, 371.

21 MR. OLMSTED: Now, if we can go to page 35 of the KTN log-book,

22 which is P1574. And if this is page 35, if we can go to the left-hand

23 page and look at entry 2454.

24 Q. And we can see in column 3 it has the KU entry number 3709/92

25 written in it. Now, according to this entry, was the perpetrator in this

Page 14307

1 case ever identified by the police?

2 A. I cannot see further in the register. Something is missing.

3 It's very close up. We need to zoom out a little. And now zoom back in

4 again, please, a little.

5 Q. Now you can see the whole entry -- or the whole line for the

6 entry.

7 Now --

8 A. Something is missing like -- we need to see the end of the last

9 page. There's nothing there.

10 All right. No? So it's not there. There is no entry that the

11 perpetrator was identified. It's not entered. That means he was not

12 identified.

13 Q. Finally, if we can look at Exhibit 1D373.

14 MR. OLMSTED: And while you're looking at that, if we can turn to

15 page 44 of the log-book. And this is the last one.

16 Q. If you look at Exhibit 1D373, we can see that it has a KU entry

17 number of 3925/92.

18 MR. OLMSTED: But, again, if we can stay -- there seems to be

19 miscommunication between me and -- I want to keep on the log-book. If we

20 can turn to the log-book and turn to page 44 of the log-book. The

21 witness has the criminal report in front of him, so we don't need to call

22 it up.

23 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, but I don't seem to

24 understand the relevance of this redirect examination. Because if my

25 learned friend wants to show that it's -- that these -- that these

Page 14308

1 criminal complaints have been recorded with the Office of the Prosecutor,

2 we're going to stipulate that. I don't -- if, however, the idea is

3 that -- to show that there is un -- that the -- that the perpetrators

4 were not found, I don't -- it's probably me, I didn't understand that the

5 that the -- that the OTP case was -- actually had anything to do with the

6 results of the work of the police in 1992. If we are talking about

7 the -- the statistics of the -- or the results of the work of the -- of

8 the -- of the police in 1992, then, perhaps this would be relevant, but I

9 don't think that that was the -- that is the Prosecutor's case.

10 Thank you.

11 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, Mr. Zecevic tendered through this

12 witness over the Prosecution's objection these criminal reports that this

13 witness knew nothing or very little about. I want the witness to help us

14 figure out what happened to these cases through a document that he is

15 familiar with, which is this KTN log-book. I can explain further, but I

16 need to ask that the witness's headphones be removed, and I can explain

17 the relevance in the context of the entire case.

18 And, at any rate, this is my -- this is the last entry I want to

19 go through because it was the last criminal report.

20 JUDGE HALL: And you do appreciate that it's time to take the

21 adjournment?

22 MR. OLMSTED: Yes. And I think we can do this in one minute, if

23 I'm allowed.

24 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed. One minute.

25 MR. OLMSTED: If we can please zoom in -- again, please take the

Page 14309

1 criminal report off the screen and just focus in on the log-book. And if

2 we can please look at entry number 3925. We have to be on page 44.

3 And if this is page 44, if we can just -- it's going to be on the

4 left-hand page, and it's 3925.

5 Is this page 44? This is it not page 44. This is page 44?

6 Then, Your Honours, I will finish up with this one, I think, at

7 the beginning of next session. And work out the technical problems.

8 JUDGE HALL: So the witness has to return tomorrow?

9 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours. I have, I think, about 20 more

10 minutes, maybe less.

11 JUDGE HALL: Well, we take the -- we rise now and take the

12 adjournment to -- I believe we're in Courtroom I tomorrow at 9.00.

13 [The witness withdrew]

14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,

15 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 7th day

16 of September, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.