1 Friday, 22 October 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
6 everybody in and around the courtroom. This is case IT-08-91-T, the
7 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Good morning to everyone.
9 May we have the appearances, please.
10 MR. HANNIS: Good morning, Your Honours, for the Office of the
11 Prosecutor I'm Tom Hannis along with Selma Sakic and Crispian Smith.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours, Slobodan Zecevic
13 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for
14 Stanisic Defence this morning. Thank you.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For Zupljanin
16 Defence, Igor Pantelic and Aleksandar Aleksic.
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. And if there are no housekeeping
18 matters, could the witness be escorted back to the stand, please.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE HALL: Good morning, to you, Mr. Planojevic. I remind you
21 that you are still on your oath.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
23 JUDGE HALL: Sorry. Good morning to you, sir. I remind you are
24 you are still on your oath.
25 Mr. Hannis, you may continue.
1 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.
2 WITNESS: DOBRISLAV PLANOJEVIC [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 Examination by Mr. Hannis: [Continued]
5 Q. Mr. Planojevic, before I start with my questions, just a couple
6 of things. First, I have to complement you. Yesterday, you did such a
7 good job of following the transcript on the screen before continuing your
8 answer, but actually since I'm speaking in English and you are speaking
9 in Serbian, it's not so important that you do it with me, but when you
10 are asked questions on cross-examination if will be more important for
11 you to wait for the transcript, and I understand from the interpreters
12 that you can actually answer a little more quickly and not have to watch
13 the transcript so much. It's just between question and answer. Thank
15 And when we left off we had talked about April 4th and 5th. I
16 need to try and speed up a little bit because I have a time-limit, so
17 I'll try and ask you to keep your answers short where possible, and if
18 you need more time to elaborate, please let me know.
19 I want to ask you if on April 5th or 6th you and some of your
20 fellow Serbian policemen went to the community centre in Vraca?
21 A. I think I need to explain how we set off that night. I won't
22 take long, I'll give you a shortened version, if I may, on the 4th of
24 Q. Please, thank you.
25 A. Well, briefly, I was trying to understand what was going on that
1 night. Around 11.30, that is 2330, I was informed that Jusuf Prazina,
2 who was later one of the leaders of a military formation in Sarajevo, had
3 broken into the police community centre and set up his headquarters there
4 and later on the special unit had his headquarters there as well.
5 I was also informed at the same time that at the police station
6 where I was commander, some 30 armed Green Berets had forced their way
7 into the police station, that they had broken open offices, and safes and
8 then taken away what they wanted to. That all went on in the presence of
9 the executives of other police stations.
10 Still during the same night, I also found out that in
11 Novo Sarajevo a policeman was killed who, by mere chance, came to that
12 station to file a criminal report, he was a Serb. The shift commander
13 who was also a Serb was knocked senseless with rifle-butts and both of
14 them were take downstairs to the basement. One of them, whose name was
15 Petrovic, was killed by a shot fired in the back of his head, whereas the
16 other survived. His name was Lazar Bojanic and he told me everything
17 about it. When he came to, Lazer Bojanic, that is, he went to see -- or
18 went to the urgent medical ward, and on the way there he saw Ismet Dahic,
19 the chief of the police station of Stari Grad, in Sarajevo, as well as
20 Sakib Puskar. He was one of the chiefs of the Green Berets.
21 I asked Suad Kadric over the phone who was at the police station,
22 and I said that he was at the station in the evening to withdraw the Serb
23 police officers from the ground to the station and mind them so that none
24 get killed. He did that and in the morning some maybe as many as 10
25 people came to see me in my apartment.
1 The same night I called up Sinisa Karan who was at Dolac Malta
2 and he was the chief of the crime prevention service at the same station,
3 I called him to come to my apartment. He called me up later and said
4 that the cross roads Dolac Malta was blocked and that there was shooting
5 so that he couldn't pass. He said that the Green Berets were shooting,
6 or rather that they had blocked the crossroads.
7 At the city SUP, the situation was the same, the Green Berets had
8 forced their way into the premises, Sreten Zukovic was shot. He worked
9 at the city SUP, he was a Serb, and according to his words, it was by
10 mere chance that he survived. The man lives in the Netherlands these
11 days and still suffers consequences from happened. And now I would move
12 on to the part when we left.
13 Q. Thank you, I can see that you have a very good memory for detail,
14 but could you please tell us what happened after the ten or so people
15 came to see you in your apartment and what you did next?
16 A. We sat in cars and had long-barrelled weapons with us and we set
17 off for Vraca. Upon arrival, that's the local commune which is the
18 lowest level socio-politico organisation. I found some police officers
19 there and I mentioned that -- their three names, I believe it was the
20 three of them who were there, and others too. There was
21 Mirko Vuzolo [phoen], Ratko Novcic, and Radislav Milenkovic.
22 They said to me that Momo Mandic and his brother had gone to the
23 school to have the students come out in order to make room for the Serb
24 Ministry of the Interior. At 1.00 we met into front of the local commune
25 offices and some police officers who hailed from Pale, some of those who
1 were with me, they asked whether they could go to see their families, and
2 I let them go.
3 We drove them to Tilava, which is perhaps 10 kilometres from
4 Vraca in the direction of Jahorina, so they could go to Pale on a
5 forest-path. They couldn't go by way of Sarajevo because there was
6 already shooting. Some five of us returned from Tilava to Vraca. Upon
7 arrival at Vraca we saw that nothing was happening and being hungry and
8 it was afternoon around 1.00 we decided to go back to my apartment, which
9 we did.
10 Q. Did you ever go to the Vraca school on April 5th or 6th?
11 A. I set off on the 4th and I explained what was happening.
12 Q. No, I understand, but did you ever go to the school itself or
13 only to the community centre?
14 A. No, I never entered the school compound. On the 5th, there was
15 fighting but I expected that it would cease because I hoped that we would
16 be able to enter the school compound peacefully. We spent the night in
17 my apartment and on the 6th we all went back to Vraca, but my brother
18 informed me that my wife wasn't well, she was pregnant at the time, and I
19 drove those four or five people up to the school at Vraca and continued
20 to Rogatica because my wife was there with her parents.
21 I had to leave because she had problems with her pregnancy. And
22 that's just a short account since we are short of time.
23 Q. Okay. And when did you actually join your colleagues in what
24 became the RS MUP?
25 A. I arrived at Pale on the 13th privately to see what was
1 happening, and I was in contact with Cedok Jajic [phoen] on that day. I
2 had to go to Pionirska, that's in the outskirts of Sarajevo. And he
3 asked me to see what was happening there because a reserve police station
4 which later became a regular police station, and upon returning I
5 informed him truthfully that there was nothing going on there. That was
6 the 16th, I believe, it was a Friday, and we agreed that I should come
7 back on Monday and join them at Vraca. At the time I was offered to be
8 the chief of the centre, which was in Pionirska, but I wouldn't accept it
9 due to my family commitments.
10 I arrived at Vraca on the 19th of April, and as of that day I was
11 a -- I was in my position there.
12 Q. And when you say you were offered the position as head of centre,
13 you mean the CSB for Sarajevo, the job that Zoran Cvijetic held later on?
14 A. No, that's Centar municipality. So it's not the Centar of
15 security services, it's the Centar municipality.
16 Q. So the job you were offered was to be the chief of Centar
17 Sarajevo SJB?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And instead you were given the job of assistant minister for
20 crime prevention and detection?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You say you started your work on the 19th of April?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Where was that, in Pale?
25 A. No. I went to the Vraca school and until early June I was there.
1 I'm not sure of the exact date, but my office was there at the school.
2 Q. And as I understand from your interview, you held that position
3 as assistant minister until approximately the 21st, 22nd of July, 1992?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. During those three months or so how many occasions did you have
6 to actually meet with and speak with Mico Stanisic, if you recall?
7 A. As far as I remember, we met three times in that time-period. I
8 suppose that I should elaborate when and on which occasions.
9 Q. Yes. But before you do, let me ask you a question. Did you know
10 Mico Stanisic before April of 1992? And if so, how did you know him?
11 A. In the police secondary school we were the same generation in
12 1972, 1973. We worked at the city secretariat until my departure to
13 Novo Sarajevo or until his departure to the economy. I believe that
14 somewhere around 1985 he left the police to work in the economy. We knew
15 each other well and we did judo, so on the occasion of police games we
16 travelled to competitions together.
17 Q. So if you can begin, then tell me about the first time during
18 your tenure as assistant minister that you had a meeting or discussions
19 with Mico Stanisic?
20 A. Well, I can't remember the exact date but it would have been in
21 early May. I believe it was in the evening hours when the then minister
22 arrived, Cedo Kljajic and I were present in my office, I think, and I
23 think it's worth mentioning that during that conversation we requested
24 that Momo Mandic, although there was no decision to that effect, he acted
25 as a deputy minister, and we asked Mr. Stanisic that he be removed from
1 the headquarters of the ministry. We explained to Stanisic that people
2 with a shady past were around Momo Mandic, I'm referring to
3 Branislav Vuletic, I believe his first name was Branislav, and
4 Zeljko Skrba and they had reputation for stealing.
5 I don't have to retell that conversation, but in essence, once we
6 stated our reasons, the minister promised us he would do all he could to
7 remove Momo. I believe only seven days elapsed and after that I never
8 saw Momo on the premises again. Certainly not in the offices. And that
9 was our first contact.
10 Q. And this took place in Vraca at the school?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. These two men you mentioned as having a shady past, Mr. Vuletic
13 and Mr. Skrba, what kind of criminal activity did you understand them to
14 be involved in?
15 A. As far as I know, they engaged in theft, car theft and other
16 kinds of theft. It isn't documented but there was intelligence to that
18 Q. And did you have information at that time when you had this
19 conversation with Mr. Stanisic about Mr. Mandic having a group of men,
20 maybe as many as ten men, involved in taking cars from the TAS factory in
22 A. At that time mass theft from TAS hadn't yet begun. And I don't
23 know that Mandic had these ten people to steal as many cars.
24 Q. Do you remember being interviewed in 2004 by representatives of
25 the Office of the Prosecutor in Banja Luka on the 8th and 9th of June,
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. At page 51 of the English transcript, let me read an answer you
4 gave and ask if you remember saying this, first of all. At line 28:
5 "And for that reason that's why we asked the minister to come and
6 we asked Momo to be expelled from the ministry, but at that time he had
7 already organised groups of, like, 10 -- groups of like 10 criminals who
8 would take Golfs to Belgrade."
9 Do you remember saying that back in 2004?
10 A. I don't remember giving a statement like that, but that could
11 only happen later, not at the time we had our conversation. I know that
12 Biljana Plavsic said at the Assembly that Momo organised that, but to my
13 mind he couldn't have had ten people. However, referring to the period
14 around the 1st of May, I believe that 270 Golfs were taken to the federal
15 part of Sarajevo in all, but not as early as that.
16 Q. You and Mr. Kljajic were concerned enough about Mr. Mandic and
17 these associates and their activities to ask to have him removed --
18 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis --
19 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry. I didn't see.
20 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm really sorry to interrupt, but I believe that
22 the last part of the answer was not recorded. The previous answer "I
23 believe that 270 Golfs were taken to the federal part of Sarajevo in
24 all," and then he explained what happened to the rest of the cars and
25 that wasn't recorded.
1 JUDGE HALL: Thank you Mr. Zecevic.
2 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I would prefer to deal with these
3 matters, unless it's something that's necessary to have up on the screen
4 now, by the usual process of having the tapes listened to and it
5 appearing in the final transcript.
6 JUDGE HALL: Except, Mr. Hannis, that if in terms of the -- to
7 have the witness's answer complete at this point, it may as well be dealt
8 with now. I assume that Mr. Zecevic has only arisen because it is not
9 insignificant, the part that is not recorded. So if the witness could be
10 invited to repeat his answer.
11 MR. HANNIS: The difficulty, is, Your Honour, I'm going in the
12 dark because I don't know what was said or not said. I don't know how
13 they ask the question, but I will certainly ask the witness.
14 Q. Based on what you've heard Mr. Zecevic say, can you tell us if
15 there was something additional you said and repeat it now?
16 A. Is that a question for me? I had intelligence that 270 Golfs had
17 been taken to the federal part of Sarajevo until that time; whereas, the
18 remainder were still in stock at TAS. That's what I said.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
20 MR. HANNIS:
21 Q. Thank you, witness. Now, I was asking you about your request
22 along with Mr. Kljajic that Mr. Mandic be removed from the Ministry of
23 the Interior because of his association with these shady -- with these
24 persons with what you described as a shady past and engagement in theft.
25 Did you learn that upon leaving the Ministry of the Interior he had been
1 appointed the minister of justice?
2 A. Yes, I knew that.
3 Q. What was your reaction to that? Did that cause you any concern,
4 that somebody that you didn't think was appropriate to be a policeman
5 because of his association with those types of gentlemen you described
6 becoming the minister of justice? Did you express concern to the prime
7 minister or anybody else?
8 A. Well, who was I to express concern. I had been expressing
9 concern privately for a long time, but there was really no time to think
10 about such things.
11 Q. Okay. Tell us then, if you will, about the second time you had a
12 conversation with Mico Stanisic in that April to July time-period when
13 you were assistant minister?
14 A. As far as I remember it was early June. There was an order to
15 transfer the special unit whose headquarters was at the school at Vraca
16 and to relocate all executive personnel so that they may devote
17 themselves to operational work in the area of Pale and Jahorina. So they
18 were meant to move from the school.
19 A number of police officers from -- who were members of the
20 centre were concerned that the Defence line could be broken, and there
21 was some confusion, and I thought it appropriate to contact the minister
22 and try to persuade him to keep at least part of that unit at the school.
23 That's what I did. I went to Kosuta, as far as I remember, and I
24 explained why I had come and that at least one platoon should remain. I
25 believe that he accepted my reasons and that a platoon stayed behind at
1 Vraca for the peace of mind of the people. Although, it was his opinion
2 that most of the personnel should be dealing with the armed combat, which
3 is indeed their duty under the law.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Page 11, 24 I would suggest that the witness
5 repeats his answer because it was recorded quite contrary to what he
7 MR. HANNIS:
8 Q. Witness, the last part of your answer was recorded that:
9 "Although it was his opinion that most of the personnel should be
10 dealing with the armed combat, which is indeed their duty under the law."
11 And it's being suggested by Mr. Zecevic that what you actually said, and
12 it seems logical, was that it was his opinion that most of the personnel
13 should be dealing -- should not be dealing with armed combat; is that
15 A. Yes, that they should go about their regular business. That's
16 what I said. And the regular business was public law and order, crime
17 enforcement, and so on.
18 Q. Regular police work?
19 A. Policing, yes.
20 Q. Thank you. And I think you said there was at least one other
21 conversation during that time-period, can you tell us about the third
22 one, when and where was that and what topics did you discuss?
23 A. Already during this conversation we touched on some subjects and
24 another conversation was casual. I told you that we had met, if I
25 remember correctly, I think it was during the departure from Bistrica,
1 it's a hotel on Jahorina. So at the exit we met, it was an incidental
2 encounter so, if you would like me to, I can describe it for you.
3 Q. Yes, please, and if you recall, approximately when this was?
4 A. It's difficult for me to remember. It could have been in the
5 second half of June. Judging by the chronology of events, I think that
6 it should have been in the second half of the month of June. What I
7 remember as striking was that Mico had a German Shepherd dog with him and
8 I told him that he reminded me of a historical figure. This is why I
9 remember that. This was more of a joke, and he told me that he was a
10 friend as opposed to some other people. Maybe these jokes weren't that
11 funny after all, but as I say, this is why I remember the incident.
12 Q. Just out of curiosity, what historical figure were you referring
14 A. It is well known that Josip Bros during the Second World War,
15 maybe it's somewhat inappropriate but our conversation was really true.
16 Q. Tell us what you talked about on that occasion?
17 A. We did not really talk much on that occasion. I told you that at
18 Kosuta on the second occasion, perhaps we touched on some other subjects,
19 whereas on this particular occasion we didn't discuss anything important.
20 Q. My misunderstanding then. Could we go back to the second
21 conversation in early June at Kosuta, what additional topics did you talk
22 about other than keeping some of the special unit at Vraca?
23 A. Let me go back to the first conversation as I think it's
24 important, perhaps it wasn't clear from my first statement what we talked
25 about when. On the occasion of our first meeting in Vraca, inter alia,
1 even though there was not so much crime at the time, I was aware that
2 without the use of armed force, I could not make any arrests, and
3 therefore I asked the minister for his approval to engage my special unit
4 if there was anything more serious and he said that there would be no
5 problem if there was something that you couldn't resolve on your own, and
6 I think that he then forwarded that to Karisik, that he told him that
7 when I contacted him that I could use this special units. So I suppose
8 as we touched on this, that you would return to this topic, so I thought
9 I should mention it.
10 On the occasion of the second conversation, as I had been absent
11 from the ministry seat from the 8th to the 27th of May, as I got a child,
12 my wife gave birth to my son in Belgrade and I was there looking after my
13 son, and as some of the cars had been taken away from people who had
14 stolen them, I told him that we would have to investigate this, somebody
15 would have. Though it was not just police, but also Territorial Defence
16 at the school in Vraca, they would come there to have breakfast and to
17 spend the night. And in this conversation the then minister told me, all
18 right, do what you can, however, be careful and let us finish with the
19 combat, and what we cannot do now, try to document all the traces, make
20 notes, and then we'll resolve it at a proper time. So I think this is
21 what you were interested in.
22 Q. During that conversation, did you talk to him about any other
23 particular crimes -- I am sorry, before I start that question, I want
24 to ... Yes, in the last part of your answer, you were talking about it
1 "Though it was not just police but also Territorial Defence at
2 the school in Vraca, they would come there to have breakfast and spend
3 the night. And in this conversation then the minister told me, all
4 right, do what you can ..."
5 Are you talking about the Territorial Defence people at the
6 school in Vraca came to Kosuta? I'm not clear what you are referring to
8 A. You didn't understand me properly.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: I didn't want to raise it before because I
10 understand that I'm frustrating you, Mr. Hannis, but the whole answer
11 between lines 9 and 21 was misinterpreted entirely. Or well,
12 misinterpreted, the actual meaning what the witness wanted to say was not
13 recorded. That is perhaps the reason.
14 MR. HANNIS: One of my great regrets in life so far is not having
15 learned B/C/S and this is very difficult. We have interpreters,
16 professionals in the booth to do this job. I understand Mr. Zecevic's
17 frustration in hearing things that he knows or believes are not right,
18 but when he raises this, I don't know how to deal with it other than to
19 ask the witness to repeat his whole long answer.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: I am sorry, it has nothing to do with my
21 frustration, I was just, I see that you are confused with the answer and
22 you are confused with the answer because it wasn't recorded as it was
23 said. So maybe the witness should be instructed to speak slower so the
24 interpreters will have the time to properly pick up what he said and
25 translate that. Thank you. And interpret that.
1 JUDGE HALL: And if I may add, the witness himself from the last
2 thing he said, it is obvious that he is -- that the confusion is -- that
3 there's reason for the confusion, let me put it that way. So although
4 it's time consuming, Mr. Hannis, there seems to be no alternative but to
5 go back to the question and ask the witness, as Mr. Zecevic has
6 suggested, to speak slowly so the interpreters can accurately convey what
7 he intends to say.
8 MR. HANNIS: I'll do that, Your Honour. And I trust the
9 interpreters will do as they usually do, request the witness to slow down
10 if they are having difficulty.
11 Q. On the occasion -- well, let me break it down into a couple parts
12 because I want to address part of your answer. At the beginning you
13 mentioned talking to the minister about wanting to engage the special
14 unit sometimes for the needs of your job as assistant minister for crime
15 prevention and detection, and you said you asked the minister for his
16 approval and he said there would be no problem. Is it correct that the
17 Minister Stanisic is the person who had authority to decide when and how
18 a special unit could be used?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now let me go to the second part of your answer. You were
21 talking about on the occasion of the second conversation and you
22 mentioned you had been absent for about three weeks from the 8th to the
23 27th of May because your wife had given birth to your second child; is
24 that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And then the answer is put in the transcript as saying "... as
2 some of the cars had been taken away from people who had stolen them, I
3 told him we would have to investigate this." Is that correct, you are
4 telling Mico Stanisic about some of the problems with the stolen cars?
5 A. Yes, the cars were seised from the thieves and left at the school
6 complex, and then they disappeared from there. And that was why because
7 the members of the Territorial Defence would come to the complex to have
8 breakfast, and I'm not certain but maybe they also slept there, I wanted
9 simply to have some order and to register the people entering and exiting
10 and then to try to find out who had stolen these two cars, so that was
11 the essence.
12 Q. Okay. So in connection with those cars you had some suspicion
13 that you thought it might have been somebody from the Territorial Defence
14 that had taken them?
15 A. It could have been police as well, because the police was also
16 not immune to such actions, but I thought that there should be some order
17 and that we should have records about who was entering, which had not
18 been the case until then.
19 Q. In your conversation though, I take it that from your interview
20 in 2004 that you expressed concern about more than just a couple of
21 stolen cars, that you had a concern that crime was widespread and that
22 you weren't getting all the information about that; is that correct?
23 A. I remember now. I apologise, I'm under stress somewhat even now.
24 It's possible that on the occasion of our third meeting we discussed
25 about the issue of Batica, I'm not certain. When I say Batica, I mean
1 Vlahovic, I cannot remember his first name. It was a man for whom I had
2 information which I received in Belgrade that he was committing certain
3 crimes in the area, down in Grbavica which is below Vraca. Do you need
4 any clarifications about how I received this information and how the
5 conversation between me and Stanisic was developing?
6 Q. Yes, let me ask you a couple of specific questions. This person
7 that you refer to as Batica, was he also referred to sometimes as Batko?
8 You'll have to answer out loud?
9 A. Perhaps I'm confusing them, I think it's one in the same person.
10 Batko, yes.
11 Q. I understand he was a former boxer?
12 A. It was how he introduced himself. In the beginning of the war,
13 he was on camera wearing a Serbian cap and this is something I remember
14 as striking. He was a short man and it was said that he had engaged with
16 Q. And is it fair to say in some ways he was sort of a one-man crime
17 wave, alleged to have been involved in a number of rapes, armed
18 robberies, killings?
19 A. There were some indicia, and I can tell you how I came to this
21 Q. Please do.
22 A. Well, the first information, I was in Belgrade and I met with a
23 friend of mine, Goran Vuksanovic who used to work in Sarajevo before, and
24 he told me that this Batko had been in Belgrade and that he heard him
25 talk about carrying out liquidations in the Sarajevo area. So upon my
1 return from Belgrade, I thought it appropriate to interview a man who was
2 a Sarajevo native who was from my department, Zoran Mihajlovic, I knew
3 him before the war and he was well versed in this area and I wanted to
4 ask him if he knew anything about this.
5 He told me that rumours were going about that Batica would take
6 people from their apartments and probably as no one could report that
7 these people had gone missing, that had not reached us as yet at that
8 point. Thinking about the problem, and he was a member of paramilitary,
9 there were always 10 or so problematic people and he was a deviant
10 personality, mentally, as far as I knew, and I then mentioned this to the
11 minister. I asked him what should be done about this man, it should be
12 investigated, this whole matter.
13 In the conversation we agreed that we should alert the army
14 because he was a member of the armed forces. The minister on his part
15 said that he would call the Main Staff, and he told me please follow this
16 and see whether anything will really be done about that.
17 Q. Who -- in the first part of your answer you said he was a member
18 of paramilitary and then you said later on that you and the minister
19 agreed that you should alert the army because he was a member of the
20 armed forces. Those seem to be inconsistent. What was your information
21 that he was actually a member of the armed forces?
22 A. He used to go into combat and he was wearing a uniform. It's
23 difficult to distinguish now what was the army and what were the
24 paramilitaries. Probably both are correct. This is why I'm confusing
25 them. Whether he was a member of the army or a member of a paramilitary
1 unit, but he was a member of armed formations that used to go into armed
2 combat. If he ever really participated in combat indeed.
3 Q. Did you follow the situation with him? Do you know -- well,
4 first of all let me ask you, do you know if Minister Stanisic actually
5 called the army or the army Main Staff about Batko?
6 A. I don't know that. But if you want another clarification,
7 because there was another person that I discussed the subject with, maybe
8 you will get a more complete picture.
9 Q. We will come to that conversation in a little bit. Let me ask
10 you this question: Do you know if Batko was ever arrested or detained
11 after this conversation with the minister?
12 A. I think that the man disappeared for ten or 15 days and he was
13 not in the area at all, this Batko, I mean. And when he appeared, the
14 army arrested him, when I say the army, I know exactly that he was in
15 Lukavica in prison there and I'm not sure for how long he was detained,
16 but later on I heard that he had been released once again.
17 Q. And that release was also in 1992? He wasn't detained very long;
19 A. No, no, not for long.
20 Q. Okay. Let me turn to a couple of other individuals for a moment.
21 Did you know Stojan Zupljanin in 1992? And if so, can you tell us when
22 and how you first met him?
23 A. I met Stojan Zupljanin at a collegium in Belgrade. It was on the
24 11th of July, 1992. Until then I had not seen him physically.
25 Q. Did you have any personal dealings with him in 1992 other than
1 seeing him at that meeting in Belgrade on July 11th?
2 A. No, I did not have any dealings with him until that time, I mean
3 direct dealings.
4 Q. And after that in 1992, any dealings?
5 A. Well, we would meet later even when we went skiing on
6 Mount Jahorina during the war, I mean, and also in Pale we would meet
7 each other, and I think that perhaps since September 1993 we also met in
8 Banja Luka.
9 Q. Where were you working in 1994, if I may ask?
10 A. In state security service which was then called the National
11 Security Service.
12 Q. Did you know or did you hear about Mr. Zupljanin being appointed
13 Internal Affairs advisor to the president of the RS in 1994?
14 A. Yes, I heard, but I really couldn't tell when that was.
15 Q. Thank you. I want to ask you about Branko Djeric, the prime
16 minister of the RS from April or May until about November of 1992. Can
17 you tell us when and how you first met him?
18 A. I have known Mr. Branko Djeric for a long time, long since the
19 war. We were born close to Rogatica, both of us, and we practically know
20 each other from our native village. Later on he was a professor at the
21 faculty of economy in Sarajevo and we met on several occasions and we
22 were on quite good terms with each other.
23 Q. Could you tell us about your first meeting with him in 1992 after
24 you were in your position of assistant minister?
25 A. We met at the Bistrica hotel. It was the seat of the government
1 and therefore also the seat of the prime minister. I got there to have
2 coffee, because one could come by and have a drink, with the professor
3 and neighbour and friend Vaso Dragovic, and they were colleagues because
4 they worked at the same faculty. And then Vaso also called professor or
5 rather Prime Minister Djeric to join us so that we could have coffee
6 together and we did that.
7 Q. What did you discuss at that first meeting?
8 A. I think about problems, there was quite a lot of confusion which
9 was normal considering the conditions, nothing was functioning, there
10 were large-scale thefts already and many other things were going on. I'm
11 not certain if it was on that occasion, but it probably was, that I
12 proposed that the government should put something in writing for its
13 part, so that it would allow the police to be more efficient. I believe
14 that the government needed to make some decisions and take some measures
15 which would regulate certain areas.
16 May I continue?
17 Q. Yes, please.
18 A. As Djeric was a scientist and not well versed with state
19 administration, he asked me to try and jot down what these decisions
20 could be and how they should be formulated. I accepted this. I found
21 Slobodan Skipina believing that he was a man who was good in writing,
22 that he would know how to formulate it well, and so we wrote a memo
23 together, it had about four points and the essence was that the
24 government should take certain decisions, primarily I think to make a
25 list of strategic goods that were in stock, then who could have them at
1 their disposal so that we could have record of that because there was oil
2 and wheat and so on in reserves, but nobody knew what the stocks were
3 because the records had been left in the federal part. So in this memo,
4 we wrote down what the government should do and later on I brought it to
5 him. I'm not sure how long after that.
6 Q. I don't know if you indicated, do you recall when that first
7 meeting took place, approximately?
8 A. It was probably also in May, but it's difficult to place
9 everything within a precise time-frame. Sometimes I can't say the exact
10 date because certain later connotations that the events had, but
11 sometimes it's just approximately. I suppose it was in May.
12 Q. Okay. I understand that. You mentioned getting together with
13 Slobodan Skipina to write up these recommendations. That's the Slobodan
14 Skipina who was the head of state security in the RS MUP at the time?
15 A. Yes, yes, he was the chief of national security at the time.
16 Q. And do you know why -- why Mr. Djeric would be talking to you two
17 or, well, I guess talking to you rather than to the minister Mr. Stanisic
18 himself about this?
19 A. I suppose because we were in such a situation where we talked but
20 perhaps he could give you a proper explanation. It was an informal chat
21 and these were problems that I was directly responsible for, I mean, the
22 crime. And probably this was also one of the reasons why.
23 Q. Yes, you mentioned in your earlier answer that one of the things
24 you discussed at that first meeting was the large-scale thefts. Did you
25 have any other discussion in your meetings with Mr. Djeric in 1992 about
1 any other kinds of crimes?
2 A. I think that when I brought him this paper it was probably in
3 early June or thereabouts, that I also touched on this again because it
4 all happened within ten days, the conversation with the minister and then
5 when the prime minister. I mentioned Vlahovic once again and I believed
6 that we would have to go all the way up to the state leadership perhaps
7 in order to resolve this problem. I think that it was perhaps four or
8 five days after my conversation with the minister, not more. And I
9 touched on this subject as well and he asked me what should be done, and
10 I told him well, the minister would call the guys at the command, but
11 perhaps it would be good if the state leadership should intervene or
12 perhaps you, as the prime minister, should also call the command.
13 In my presence, but I cannot be certain whether he called
14 directly the then president Radovan Karadzic or whether he called the
15 command, but he made a phone call and he requested that the issue be
16 resolved. And soon after that, as I told you, the arrest took place and
17 therefore I did not continue to follow this problem anymore.
18 Q. Thank you. And you're referring to Batko or Batica?
19 A. Yes, yes, I told you Vlahovic, Batko.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. HANNIS: Next if we could show the witness Exhibit 1D46.
22 Q. Mr. Planojevic, on your screen in a moment will be a document I
23 think you saw during proofing. It's an order dated the 15th of May,
24 1992, from the Minister Mico Stanisic about forming war units in the RS
25 MUP. Do you recall having seen this?
1 A. Yes, but I forgot my glasses, so take my apologies, but I hope
2 I'll be able to read it even without. Anyway, I know the document.
3 Q. If we can go to the second page in both English and B/C/S --
4 MR. HANNIS: I see --
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] If I may.
6 MR. HANNIS: -- Mr. Cvijetic is kindly donating his glasses to
7 the witness.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was reading last night and yet I
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will recognise
11 that this is not the first time. I have a pair that I rent out to
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: For a small price.
14 MR. HANNIS:
15 Q. Okay. Could you look at item number 9, I don't know if you can
16 see the number 9 on the B/C/S version?
17 A. Yes, I can see it. It's okay.
18 Q. And my English translation says in order to command and control
19 the overall forces of the ministry, a staff shall be established
20 comprising, and the following list of people. We see assistant ministers
21 for crime, police, communications and crypto-protection, materiel and
22 finance are members. I take it assistant minister for crime, that was
23 you; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do you remember being informed that you were going to be a member
1 of this staff?
2 A. Possibly I was informed subsequently. From the 8th of May until
3 the 27th I was absent. Somebody, possibly Cedo Kljajic, related this
4 order to me in a conversation when I returned from Belgrade which would
5 have been in late May early June and informed me that I was a member of
6 that staff.
7 Q. Am I correct though that you in your administration never had
8 occasion to command anyone in combat in 1992?
9 A. No, I didn't command anyone nor did I know how to do that.
10 Q. If we could look at the top of the page, there's item number 7,
11 it talks about the use of the ministry units in co-ordinated actions with
12 the armed forces. Do you remember reading that paragraph before?
13 Actually that entire item number?
14 MR. HANNIS: If we could go to the top of the B/C/S page.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can see it, yes, I'm reading it.
16 I can't give you a precise answer. I may have read it. It's been a long
18 MR. HANNIS:
19 Q. Having read it now, can you tell us if that description of how
20 coordination between the MUP and the army would take place in connection
21 with combat actions is consistent with your experience of how it actually
22 happened in 1992? If you had any knowledge or experience about how it
23 actually worked.
24 A. I know how it was supposed to be because we all had defence plans
25 and the defence plans outlined what should be done in any situation,
1 whether they were extraordinary circumstances, imminent threat of war, in
2 case of imminent threat of war, or war, the units are resubordinated to
3 military commands and combat would be carried out in co-ordinated action
4 with the armed forces.
5 When I say resubordination, that means that they are placed under
6 the command of the units to which they belong. The police, and I'm
7 speaking about a small number of members before the war, even if we were
8 to take all of them together, I wouldn't -- they wouldn't be -- they
9 couldn't make up a division.
10 And you asked me how it all worked. As far as I know, there were
11 problems. At the beginning there was no military really. It was
12 established on the 12th or the 15th of May. There wasn't much combat,
13 but there were some ad hoc skirmishes and some fighting. So at that
14 moment there was nobody to resubordinate to. When you were attacked, you
15 would seek to protect your own life and that was it. But I heard from
16 colleagues because I didn't get involved except when I had to, and I
17 think I stated that I may have taken part in combat once or twice. The
18 police would be placed in the most inconvenient places. We would say
19 that we would be set up because we were susceptible to being cut off and
20 destroyed and that's when -- that was a problem.
21 So the minister insisted that the police not be sent to combat
22 whenever it could be avoided, but instead the reserve forces would take
23 over and the police would be involved in combat only when strictly
24 necessary and unavoidable and otherwise should go about their regular
25 policing work.
1 Q. Thank you. That's all I have on that document.
2 MR. HANNIS: Next I'd like to show you Exhibit P568.
3 Q. Mr. Planojevic, the next one coming up on the screen is a
4 document that you will recognise dated the 5th of June, 1992, from you to
5 the CSB centres. Can you tell us what that is?
6 A. This is what we call a dispatch in our lingo, but if we consider
7 the way it was dispatched, it can be considered a letter because a
8 dispatch has to be encrypted and sent over dedicated lines, but this was
9 sent out through couriers and by telefax and that is not really how it
10 should be. So we can see it as a letter.
11 Q. And the substance of this was directing the CSBs to do what? If
12 you can just give me a short summary.
13 A. Well, as it says here, by the end of May there has been a surge
14 of crime against property, but also war crimes and all members are
15 ordered to combat this energetically, and then it says how they should go
16 about it, conduct on-site investigations, and if they were unable to
17 implement radical measures such as placing somebody in custody and so on,
18 that evidence should be collected and once the conditions are ripe, the
19 perpetrators should be prosecuted.
20 Q. And you mentioned that it says that there had been a significant
21 increase in property crime and war profiteering and it says "and
22 especially in war crime"; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. HANNIS: If we could put up on the screen 1D84, and what I'd
25 like to do, if it's possible, is to have the B/C/S versions of both the
1 current exhibit and 1D84 so the witness can do a comparison?
2 Q. The next one that's going to come up, I hope, on the right side
3 of your screen is also -- appears to be the same dispatch or letter from
4 you to the CSB.
5 MR. HANNIS: And if we could scroll to the bottom on the left so
6 we can see the signature block and the signature of -- actually, I need
7 to see the signature block and the signature of both pages.
8 Q. Do you recognise the signature on either one or both of those?
9 A. I think that both the signatures are mine. The letter D is a bit
10 funny, but the last name as written here Planojevic is certainly my
11 signature. The D is a bit strange though.
12 Q. And you'll see in the typewritten block above the typewritten
13 signature, in the document on the left we see the B/C/S word Za, Z-a,
14 appears twice in that block but only once in the one on the right, so
15 these appear to be two different documents; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you help us with that? Did you sometimes prepare duplicate
18 originals because they had to be transmitted to different locations by
19 different means?
20 A. Possibly. This happened because, as I said, that we use couriers
21 because communications lines were down and there wasn't a sufficient
22 number of copies, so it was retyped. Mico Orasan [phoen], Petko Pekic,
23 who all when they went to the field took some copies with them for every
24 police station, because sometimes the chief of the centre was unable to
25 contact the police stations because there were no communications lines.
1 That may have been the reason. And there is really -- I don't see why
2 anybody would try to make a forgery. So possibly there wasn't a
3 sufficient number of hard copies, so that's why it was retyped.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Planojevic, just looking at these two
5 versions it strikes me that the signatures seem to be quite different.
6 Are they really yours, both of them?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Planojevic certainly is my
8 signature, but the D, I'm not sure about that. If you look at the last
9 letter of my signature, I believe you will see that it's the same and I
10 write it in a particular way. Here the left-hand signature begins with a
11 D and I believe it's the same on my identity card. Planojevic certainly
12 is my signature, but the D, again, is strange, as if it were not my
13 handwriting, but then why should anybody ...
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: That's a different question but I mean, I'm sure
15 that you would be able immediately to recognise a handwritten signature
16 as being yours, and so my question is just if you can recognise both of
17 these signatures as being yours written by yourself because they appear
18 to be very different?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I answered you a minute ago. I'm
20 convinced that Planojevic is my signature, I'm not sure about the D. Now
21 I can't really --
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well.
23 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
24 Q. Just one more question, I guess, before the break, if I may.
25 Just from looking at these two documents, is there any way you can tell
1 how either one of them was transmitted? There's nothing on there
2 indicating delivery information, is there? There's no fax header on it
3 or there's no delivery stamp on the bottom? There's no way to tell, is
5 A. We were functioning under the given circumstances. It was hard
6 to come by a typewriter and there was no protocol department, there was
7 no stamp. So we had to make due with what we had and that's how we went
8 about it. We tried to do as much as we could under the circumstances.
9 What you say is correct, in a well-organised state that would not be
10 permissible, but we had to start from scratch.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. HANNIS: This is a good time for the break for me, if it's
13 convenient for Your Honours.
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes. We rise and return in 20 minutes.
15 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 10.47 a.m.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 MR. HANNIS:
19 Q. Welcome back, witness. I want to ask a few more questions about
20 the dispatch that's on the screen. In your administration for crime
21 prevention and detection in 1992, did you maintain any kind of
22 communications log-book for in-going and out-going documents?
23 A. While I was head of the administration I don't remember that
24 there was one. Maybe when we moved from Vraca to Kalovita Brda, maybe
25 there was something like that but I'm not sure.
1 Q. And I note on this document there's no Registry number, if that's
2 the correct term. I know we see on some other MUP documents that there
3 will be a number usually above the date line, you know what I'm talking
5 A. Yes, yes, I know. There should be something like that under the
6 rules of clerical work.
7 Q. With regard to your work in the ministry as an assistant
8 minister, was there a rule or requirement about copying the minister or
9 informing the minister about dispatches sent out by you as an assistant
10 minister, and/or about documents that you received?
11 A. The minister should be informed of everything important,
12 everything essential.
13 Q. Do you know if he was informed about this dispatch that you sent
14 out? And if so, how was that done?
15 A. I cannot say with certainty whether he was informed, but one copy
16 should have been sent to the minister.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. HANNIS: If we could next show the witness Exhibit 1D85.
20 Q. However these two documents may have gone out, it appears that
21 your message did get out to the field at least in some places. You'll
22 see 1D85 is a document, a dispatch dated 8 June 1992 from the CSB in
23 Banja Luka to all SJBs under that centre. And it's basically forwarding
24 your dispatch that we were just looking at. Have you seen this before?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And you see this one has what I've been referring to as a
2 Registry number above the date line?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And to the right of that I have in parentheses "dx," it's my
5 understanding that's some kind of designator regarding the urgency of the
6 document; correct?
7 A. Yes, yes.
8 Q. Do you recall now what "dx" stood for?
9 A. It stands for urgent. There is just one level above this, very
10 urgent, which was required to be delivered within two hours. And this is
11 the second most urgent dispatch. This -- the Banja Luka centre obviously
12 had an intact encryption centre because in Banja Luka there had been no
14 Q. Do you recall what the time limit was for delivering an urgent
16 A. I'm not sure. A day, two days maybe.
17 Q. That's all right. I think we've got some communication witnesses
18 who have talked about that and will talk about that.
19 During your time as assistant minister for crime prevention, did
20 you receive reports from the field from any SJBs or CSBs during that
21 April to July time-period.
22 A. I don't remember receiving any documents except if it was handed
23 to me personally. Cedo Kljajic and me stayed for some time -- were in
24 Vraca, but everything went to Kosuta at Pale.
25 Q. And you moved from Vraca to Pale when, approximately?
1 A. Probably around the 5th of June or between the 5th and the 7th of
2 June. I think that was the period.
3 Q. And when you were in Pale, did you receive any reports from the
4 field and from your interview I'll mention a couple of specific locations
5 to see if that refreshes your memory, Bratunac and Sekovici?
6 A. I had contacts which were physical with people. They would come
7 to see me. There was a man from Bratunac. I think his name was Makso.
8 He was an experienced investigator and he would come to consult me about
9 what to do and how. He would bring some notes about on-site
10 investigations for me to inspect whether they were good, and from
11 Sekovici, I think there was Goran --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the last name.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Once again for purpose of
14 consultations to exchange experiences with me.
15 MR. HANNIS:
16 Q. I'm sorry, the interpreter asked if you could repeat the last
17 name of the second person. Goran?
18 A. Pilipic. P like as in Pale, he would also come to see me for
19 consultation and to exchange experiences. Other forms of communication
20 were not operational, [indiscernible] nothing.
21 Q. So if I understand correctly, you were getting oral reports from
22 these men, not written reports?
23 A. Orally and also records of on-site investigations. This Makso
24 came to see me so that I could check if it was all, if there was anything
25 else that needed to be recorded because there was no one else he could
1 rely on. There were few people who were dealing with these matters in
2 the field and I knew that he was doing it well so I told him that there
3 were no problems, but I told him that he would have to involve judges in
4 the on-site investigations whenever possible, especially if there were
5 any cases of war crimes, and that they should always try to involve
6 someone from the medical profession, the doctors, so that they would
7 provide the descriptions. This is what I suggested to him during the
8 conversation. As for the rest, I could see that he had done it well. I
9 apologise. Yes, I understand. I sent some inspectors to provide
10 assistance because they were more experienced.
11 Q. During your time as assistant minister, did you ever receive in
12 writing any reports or Official Notes about any war crimes?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you ever receive any oral reports about war crimes?
15 A. Just let me think for a bit. On one occasion I set off for
16 Ilijas. I was explaining to you that I was in Vogosca and Ilidza, and so
17 I was going in the direction of Ilijas. One of the police officers
18 recognised me, I think he was called Cedo, and he was working somewhere
19 in the Sarajevo area. And he mentioned one Mico, he said that rumours
20 were going about that he would enter houses and it was possible that he
21 would take people away. I think that this was a man who was not a local,
22 he had come from somewhere in Serbia. So this is an oral report that I
24 Q. During your three months or so as assistant minister, I think
25 you've already answered this in part, you were aware of massive car
1 thefts from the TAS factory in Vogosca?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And did you personally go to Vogosca or send some of your workers
4 there to try and do something about it?
5 A. Individuals did go there. Perhaps on the first or 2nd June I
6 went there in person to Vogosca, Ilidza, and Ilijas. On that occasion, I
7 also held a meeting in Vogosca with the people who were most responsible
8 including the president of the Executive Board and brigade commander for
9 the area. The chief of the station was not there because he had been
10 wounded by a local criminal, and so a lower-ranked commander from the
11 station was there. So I told him briefly about all problems. I told him
12 that I was coming from the level of the state with all authority, that I
13 was authorised by the state leadership and the ministry, and that
14 something had to be done about this, especially as concerned the car
15 thefts and the misappropriation of other more important goods or
17 The TAS and Pretis compounds were secured by the army at the
18 time. I think that the commander was one Major Skipina. It's
19 interesting that while we were still at the meeting, this Skipina came
20 along and told his commander Vukovic that one Pena, who was a local
21 criminal, had taken away I believe 10 or 20 Golfs on that very day.
22 I insisted with the commander because the army secured it that
23 this had to be resolved on that day. However, judging by his conduct, I
24 understood that he did not have sufficient courage to get involved with
25 this. And so I wouldn't take up much time, upon my return two or three
1 inspectors tried to organise something because I think there was just one
2 man from the crime prevention administration and he was well versed in
3 the job, but he couldn't do anything because I think there were many
4 so-called intervention units there. So from the administration level
5 immediately after this it went.
6 I apologise, when I was coming back from Ilidza, I just remember
7 that now, there was one platoon of Special Police or I came along their
8 commander, I met him somewhere on the road between Vogosca and Ilidza.
9 His name Brdaric or, rather, Brdar, Zlatko Brdar, and I asked him where
10 he was going. He told me that one platoon had been sent in order to
11 maintain some order in this area, that is to say, in Ilidza. So upon my
12 return, I'm not sure whether it was 3 or 4 or 5 people from the crime
13 prevention administration with all instructions about what they should
14 do; however, not much time passed, maybe 2 or 3 days at the most, they
15 returned and told me that they were threatened down there and they did
16 not dare to stay down there any longer.
17 Q. And who were those individuals by name, if you recall?
18 A. One that certainly went there was Simo Tusevljak, Milos Civcic as
19 well, perhaps Nikola Milanovic.
20 Q. Do you recall who they said they were threatened by and in what
21 way they were threatened?
22 A. One Boro Radic, he was a local, well, a man with a shady criminal
23 past and he was the head of an intervention unit. They were deployed at
24 a park. There was also another group mentioned which was not from the
25 Vogosca area at all, they had come from somewhere else, and this
1 Boro Radic also wounded Boro Maksimovic, the chief of the station, when
2 the other tried to do something. That happened before. And the chief of
3 the station was already on sick leave at the time.
4 Q. When you say Boro Radic was the head of an intervention unit,
5 what formation did that intervention unit belong to? Was it to the army,
6 to the police, was it a paramilitary, do you know?
7 A. They were recorded as army so they were comprised by armed
8 formation, but I don't think they were under anyone's command and that
9 the commander Vukota couldn't order them anything. They were in the
10 park. At the time they had their own security and they were independent.
11 I only think that they would be involved when they needed to join the
12 combat but otherwise they wouldn't stand anyone ordering them.
13 Q. A question about jurisdiction if you know the answer, who would
14 have the authority to arrest and prosecute Boro Radic, whatever formation
15 he belonged to, for the crime of shooting a police chief? Would that be
16 the army, the police, both, do you know?
17 A. Essentially, not even in peacetime or in war time civilian police
18 could not arrest military personnel. According to the law, if he would
19 be found while committing the crime, he would be taken to custody and
20 then handed over to military organs. That would be in peacetime. In war
21 time it was implied that if a state functioned properly, that the army
22 and the military prosecution organs should deal with that.
23 Q. As a practical matter, if a policeman observed an army member
24 committing a crime, a serious crime like a crime against life and limb in
25 front of himself, could he not detain that person and then hand them over
1 to the military authorities?
2 A. That's correct, according to peacetime regulations, probably that
3 also pertained to war time but I'm not sure because we had no regulations
4 at the time, but I know that according to defence plans it was so because
5 a state of war had not been declared, one should have acted in the same
7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Could we next show the witness
8 Exhibit 1D106.
9 Q. So you've told us about I think you said this was in early June
10 when you first went to Vogosca and met with Major Skipina and others and
11 then your men came back in a few days saying that they had been
12 threatened. This next document is a report dated the 12th of July about
13 events, I think, between 3 and 10 or -- between the 3rd and the 12th of
14 July. Do you recall seeing this before?
15 A. You showed me this document. I had not seen it before, but this
16 is not the group that I had in mind. Later on they went there again. I
17 think it was Milenko Karisik and Nikola, as far as I remember. It was
18 the second occasion in which they went there, not the first one for which
19 I said three or four of them went there.
20 Q. No, I understand. I agree.
21 MR. HANNIS: I would like the usher to assist me in handing you a
22 hard copy, I think it will be easier to work with.
23 Q. Yes, that's the point I want to make. This was a second effort
24 to deal with some of the problems in Vogosca. If you look at the last
25 page, I think you did mention the names of those two persons who were
1 trying to deal with the situation and who wrote this report. Did you
2 know them and who they worked for?
3 A. You mean Karisik and Ljubinko Mitrovic?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. Yes, they were employees of the crime prevention service.
6 Q. At what level? With the administration or with an SJB or the
8 A. I'm not certain anymore because within the centre throughout the
9 month of May they had no operatives, no places were filled and we tried
10 to overcome this situation. They would try to find people by going out
11 into the field, people who could do the work, and I think that it's
12 possible that in July they had already left the level and that some men
13 had already been organised as part of the centre. So it's probably that
14 they were at the centre level, I suppose, then under the command of the
15 centre chief already.
16 Q. And just to be clear, this Karisik is Milanko with an A and he is
17 not the same person as Milenko who was head of the special unit am I
19 A. Yes, yes, that's another man. Milanko and Milenko, they are
21 Q. Thank you. You remember when you looked at this during proofing
22 this was another effort to try and sort out the problem from the cars
23 being stolen from the TAS factory, and it mentions that there was a
24 meeting organised with some of the locals and that the chief,
25 Mr. Maksimovic, was not there and returned on the 9th of July. It
1 mentions that Nikola Milanovic, that's on page 2 for you, it's the bottom
2 of page 1 of the English, came to Vogosca and he was reported to by these
3 two gentlemen who wrote this report. Milanovic worked for you in your
4 administration; correct?
5 A. He was in the administration, yes.
6 Q. And then at the top of the second page in English and I think in
7 the middle of your second page, it mentions that Dobro Planojevic arrived
8 in Vogosca and that these two gentlemen met with you and told you about
9 what they had observed and that you agreed that a crime service should be
10 set up with certain persons named there, including Brane Vlaco and
11 others. Do you remember? It's on the back, yeah, it's two-sided.
12 A. I can only see it now, so can you please bear with me for a
13 moment so that I can have a look.
14 Q. Certainly. Take your time.
15 A. Believe me, I don't remember this but it's obvious that it did
16 take place because people wouldn't have imagined it.
17 Q. Even though you don't remember it?
18 A. I apologise, actually, they reported to me. They came up and
19 told me this and they agreed that a department should be formed down
20 there. But it wasn't down in Vogosca but rather in Pale.
21 Q. For the purpose of investigating the situation of the cars stolen
22 from TAS or at least partly for that purpose?
23 A. Are you asking me this as a question?
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. Not only for that reason, but to try and deal with the situation
1 in general. It wasn't only the Golfs that were a problem.
2 Q. What were some of the other problems?
3 A. Well, there was citizens property and then that policeman told me
4 that some 10 kilometres away those Mice guys were appearing, and the
5 situation had to be improved in all respects. There was theft and stuff.
6 Q. Also the problem with the police chief being shot?
7 A. I really didn't know how that happened because that man wasn't in
8 the area of Vogosca. I don't know how the shooting came about. He was a
9 Karate fighter and I heard that this Boro shot, that there was a quarrel,
10 and this Boro guy went for treatment and he was away for a month or so.
11 Boro, although he was a station chief, never really appeared. I didn't
12 see him throughout the war.
13 Q. If you look at the -- I'm sorry.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, just for the clarity of transcript.
15 There might be a problem later on because the witness uses Boro for both
16 the chief of the police station and for the criminal who committed the
17 shooting because they actually are both Boros, so this would need to be
18 clarified. I am sorry for interrupting.
19 MR. HANNIS: No problem.
20 Q. Which Boro was the Karate fighter?
21 A. Both. But Boro Maksimovic was wounded.
22 Q. Thank you. I think that clears it up.
23 A. So Boro Maksimovic who was a station chief was wounded.
24 Q. If you could look at the third page of the document you have
25 there, and we see that there was a meeting, the chief called for the 10th
1 of July apparently, and at that meeting people expressed strong criticism
2 of the MUP and the CSB, and the chief said the only appropriate -- the
3 only people appropriate for work were members of the police of the
4 Vogosca public security station. And then Chief Maksimovic said:
5 "Almost every one of his police employees had stolen a Golf,
6 which can be seen, but they would return them if anyone ever asked them
7 to do so."
8 Did you know about this? Did Karisik and Mitrovic tell you about
9 this or did you -- I think you said you had not seen this report before,
10 but did you learn about that statement by the SJB chief in Vogosca?
11 A. As you see, this was written on 12 July. On 11 July the
12 colleagues were in Belgrade and I stayed until the 18th or 19th. Upon
13 return on the first working day upon my return, I handed in my
14 resignation. So I haven't seen this particular document before, but I
15 think that Boro's statement says it all, there's no need for me to
16 comment about them being -- being good police officers.
17 Q. The Brane Vlaco who is mentioned as being proposed to be part of
18 the crime service that was going to be set up is listed as a current
19 employee of the Sarajevo CSB. We've heard evidence about another
20 Brane Vlaco who was associated with the prison in Kula I think. Is this
21 a different man? Do you know both of them? It's on page 2 for you.
22 A. I know both. Brane Vlaco who worked on white-collar crime in the
23 city SUP. He was the one who was -- who they were proposing for the
24 position in crime prevention and detection. He went to the SDK and later
25 on became the director of the Raiffeisen Bank. Another Brane Vlaco is a
1 man whom I know from the pre-war special unit. I believe this is about
2 him. And I told you I had seen that man on 8 June at Kalovita Brdo. He
3 told me that somebody had made an appointment for him to meet the
4 minister, and, as I understood it, he was to become the deputy chief or
5 the commander of the Vogosca station.
6 After 20 minutes or half an hour of the conversation, somebody
7 called him on that phone at headquarters from Vogosca saying that there
8 was fierce fighting going on in Vogosca so he sat in his car and drove
9 back. I don't know what later happened to that man, whether he ever
10 actually took up his position in the police hierarchy.
11 Q. This report on the first page you'll see it appears directed to
12 the SRBH minister of the interior, and then it says chief of the Romanija
13 Birac CSB Sarajevo. From your knowledge at the time would this report
14 have gone to the minister?
15 A. I believe that he was informed because we can see his name there,
16 so I can assume as much.
17 Q. And at the time the theft of cars from the TAS factory was a hot
18 topic in the Ministry of the Interior, was it not?
19 A. Well, this was actually being tackled very seriously because we
20 had already come by a floppy disk with the stock, so we -- and we knew
21 how many cars this was about. And the government also discussed that
22 later. However, I believe that this remained topical throughout the war.
23 There were also seizures on the border or in police stations, but I
24 cannot speak about the final outcome.
25 Q. Thank you. Next I want to go to the 11th of July and a meeting
1 in Belgrade we've mentioned before.
2 MR. HANNIS: Can we bring up Exhibit P160.
3 Q. Mr. Planojevic, you know the meeting I'm referring to. You
4 attended that meeting; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And your name appears in this document with comments that you
7 apparently made at the time. Have you seen that --
8 MR. HANNIS: And, I guess for your convenience if we could show
9 the witness page -- first of all page 19 in the B/C/S, page 18 of the
10 English. I'm not sure I have the right page in B/C/S.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: It's page 16 in the B/C/S.
12 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: And it's on the monitor.
14 MR. HANNIS: Yes, I'm sorry, 19 is the e-court page number. It's
15 numbered 16 at the top in B/C/S. Yes, that's it.
16 Q. At the bottom, that's your name, at the bottom of the B/C/S page?
17 MR. HANNIS: And if we could then turn to the following page in
18 the B/C/S.
19 Q. You looked at this before, and do you have any disagreement with
20 these remarks being attributed to you? Is this basically what you said
21 at the meeting? Talking about the importance of reporting crimes,
22 et cetera?
23 A. Yes, that's basically it.
24 Q. I think the next to the last item it mentioned that it was --
25 that the documenting of war crimes is a priority. Is that what you said
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. Thank you. Now, after this meeting on the 11th of July, did you
4 have another occasion to speak with Mico Stanisic that we haven't talked
5 about in detail before?
6 A. Upon returning from Belgrade when I resigned, there was a clash
7 and that's probably what you are referring to.
8 Q. I am. Can you tell us where that meeting took place and who was
10 A. That was at the Bistrica hotel. One of the personnel officers
11 behind the counter, or rather behind the bar of the hotel. There was
12 Mr. Mico Stanisic, who was minister, and Momcilo Mandic and I also
13 entered that room.
14 Q. And can you tell us briefly what that conversation was about?
15 A. After the collegium in Belgrade I stayed with my family until
16 Monday. It must have been the 18th or the 19th. Upon arrival at Pale, I
17 was informed that the minister wanted to see me and that I should report
18 to him urgently. They told me that he was at the Bistrica hotel and as I
19 said, at the front desk they told me where he was to be found. I entered
20 the room, I greeted the minister and Momcilo Mandic, and I said I'm
21 reporting to you. I don't need to go into all the details so I'll give
22 you a digested version.
23 The minister asked me angrily where I had been for several days
24 and how dare I be absent for that long and some expressions were used
25 that I don't care to repeat now, and I replied in an irritated fashion,
1 possibly impolitely, and there was an exchange between the two of us.
2 Among others, he said the situation in your area is such and such and I
3 said to him that I had warned everybody of my commitments to my family
4 when I took over my position. And he said well you spend more time in
5 Belgrade than I. And it escalated to the verge of a physical fight. But
6 Momcilo Mandic stood between us and before leaving the room I only
7 uttered a few swear words and I said that I wouldn't -- that I wouldn't
8 hear of that whole department or of the crime situation ever again. And
9 this is a -- this would be it in a nutshell because I don't want to take
10 any more of your time.
11 Q. Do you happen to know why Mr. Mandic, who was then the minister
12 of justice, was present for this meeting?
13 A. That was not a meeting, sir. I simply reported to him. They
14 were sitting there informally, Momo and Mico, so why shouldn't he be
15 sitting there because we were -- we belonged to the same generation and
16 we had known each other very long.
17 Q. Okay. I understand.
18 A. Could I add an additional explanation. Yes? I told to the then
19 minister that he was more in Belgrade than I and that would resurface
20 later, but that was said in anger because I had only seen him three times
21 in that period. I actually shouldn't have said that to him because
22 probably I spent more time in Belgrade than he. At the very beginning of
23 the war, his family was in Herceg-Novi, I just wanted to add that because
24 you may see a contradiction there and perhaps you would ask questions
25 about it.
1 Q. Thank you for that. So that was, I think, you said on the 17th
2 or 18th. When did you actually have your last day on the job as
3 assistant minister? Did you attend at another meeting later that week
4 before you officially left?
5 A. The minister's collegium was called because I insisted that
6 somebody must be appointed as new head of the administration. So in two
7 days this collegium took place and I attended it. That's when I was
8 officially relieved of duty.
9 Q. Do you know who took over your job?
10 A. In essence, the minister asked me who is your deputy. He did so
11 at the collegium. I didn't have a deputy and the only executive staff
12 was the coordinator Goran Macar, and the minister told him at that
13 meeting to start acting in my position until the matter is resolved.
14 Q. Thank you. So after the 20th or 21st, 22nd July when this
15 meeting was held, what did you do then? Were you no longer working for
16 the MUP? Did you try to retire? What did you do?
17 A. Well, I asked for a consensual termination of service, but then I
18 knew that the army could mobilise me. However, on -- during a later
19 conversation, the minister told me not to be a fool and not to ask for
20 termination of service. He told me to have some rest and then we would
21 see what we would do. So for a month or two for my private obligations
22 because my mother-in-law had gone missing in Sarajevo, and I contacted
23 some of my colleagues in the federal [indiscernible]. Several times a
24 week I would have telephone conversations with them, so that was what I
25 was mostly doing.
1 I'm not sure whether it was in September when Dragan Kijac
2 offered that I should move to the national security sector and that's how
3 I started working there. Probably that was in September. Though you
4 won't find any documents about that, about my request to terminate
5 service or my re-assignment. I don't think such documents exist.
6 Q. Dragan Kijac in September was the head of the state security of
7 the RS MUP; is that right?
8 A. He was the head of the national security sector, it was called
9 the national security but essentially that was the state security
11 Q. Thank you. I forgot that the name changed at some point. And he
12 had taken over the job that previously had been held by Slobodan Skipina?
13 A. Yes, Slobodan Skipina was first and after him Dragan Kijac came
14 to this position.
15 Q. What was your job or position within the national security when
16 you first started?
17 A. At the beginning there were some thoughts to establish an
18 administration for subverting the economic base of society, so basically
19 that was white-collar crime at the fiscal level. On my insistence this
20 administration was never established there for practical reasons. Then
21 there was another idea to have the administration for secret surveillance
22 and we had started that, I had selected a number of men, but this
23 administration for objective reasons never really came into being.
24 We did not have sufficiently educated personnel, we had no
25 premises, so basically I was working as an inspector up until the 1st of
1 July, 1994.
2 Q. And what happened then on the 1st of July 1994, just in terms of
3 your work career?
4 A. The head of service appointed me as the chief of the national
5 security sector at the Sarajevo centre.
6 Q. When did you eventually retire from the Ministry of the Interior?
7 A. I retired twice. The first time on the 30th of May, 2000.
8 Q. Then I take it you came back since you said you retired twice.
9 Tell us about that?
10 A. Yes, I came back. After a verbal conflict with a colleague where
11 prime minister was also present in 2000, I just left demonstrably. I
12 judged that is just the kind of person I am and then ten months later I
13 returned again to be the head of the same service, and then I retired on
14 the 31st of December 2004. And after that I found employment somewhere
15 else after a year.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, I want to jump around a little bit and ask you
17 about some individual episodes or incidents of certain crimes that I
18 think you have some knowledge of based on your interview in 2004. You
19 mentioned a policeman and I have a hard time pronouncing this name, I
20 think it's Plajavaljecic [phoen]. Do you know who I'm talking about?
21 A. Mladen.
22 Q. Yes. Can you tell us about him and what experience you had with
24 A. I just mentioned it in passing as an example, I said that
25 policemen also used to steal. It was an incident, I think somebody took
1 something from somebody else and because I learned of this, I asked
2 through Cedo Kljajic that such people be dismissed from police. Cedo did
3 that, probably through the commander, and very soon this man began to
4 work for the military police.
5 Q. I take it this happened during 1992, and if so, can you tell us
6 approximately when?
7 A. Probably in May or June, later on I think that he left and went
8 somewhere abroad. It was certainly not after June.
9 Q. And Cedo Kljajic at that time was head of public security in the
10 RS MUP?
11 A. Yes, yes, he was the main man for public security.
12 Q. Okay. You also mentioned in that interview in 2004 a Muslim
13 couple, I think, named Dilberovic and something that happened to them in
15 A. They were not Dilberovic. I'll help you.
16 Q. Please do.
17 A. Those who committed this act were Dilberovic. As I was up at the
18 seat, and we slept there practically, in the evening one of the police
19 officers from my previous station called me and told me that in the area
20 of Lukavica, which is again one of the suburbs of Sarajevo, a crime had
21 taken place and that two persons had killed a Bosnian couple in a very
22 gruesome way. I believe that the murder was committed with a knife.
23 I ordered that they be brought in and that the case should be
24 closed and that they should be prosecuted.
25 Q. And was -- do you know if that was done, was a report written up?
1 What further action was taken?
2 A. They were taken into custody on the same evening and as I
3 explained to you Zoran Mihajlovic, whom I had known for a long time and
4 he was frequently close to me, I told him that he should follow that and
5 that the criminal report should be sent promptly, that was within three
6 days. So they were detained because we were allowed to detain someone
7 for up to 12 hours, I believe. And I suggested to him to resolve this
8 with the chief of the centre and Zoran came back and told me, well, Zoran
9 actually just waved his hand and he said, you should try to see about
10 this. And I told this to Zoran and Zoran wrote a decision, I believe I
11 signed it, and after two days there was also a criminal report which had
12 been drawn up and we handed everything over to the prosecutor's office.
13 So these were a man and wife. They were the perpetrators. And also
14 another man and wife had been killed.
15 Q. Perpetrators were Serbs and the victims were non-Serbs?
16 A. Yes, they were Bosniaks, Muslims.
17 Q. And you mentioned that Zoran Mihajlovic had come back to you
18 after trying to resolve it with his chief of centre. That chief of
19 centre at the time would have been Zoran Cvijetic?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And do you know why he wasn't able to get it resolved with his
22 chief? Get it processed through his chief?
23 A. I gave a statement at the time, but I was a bit careless and I
24 think this is noted in the comments, perhaps because these were Muslims
25 and this is part of my explanation, but this was my conclusion which was
1 unfounded. When you think about it now, they didn't have a single man in
2 the administration. I think it was the beginning of May or the end of
3 April I'm not sure, but immediately at the outset Zoran had come from the
4 civilian sphere and he wouldn't have been able to draft that neither in
5 terms of contents nor formally, and he couldn't have seen it done. That
6 was probably the reason and that was why this Zoran Mihajlovic did
7 everything that was necessary and these people were then brought in as
9 Q. I understand. But that's not what you said in 2004; right? You
10 offered an assumption in 2004?
11 A. Can you please read it? Yes, yes, it says there I'm explaining
12 now, I did it in an unfounded way and it was something that I assumed and
13 to assume something and then charge somebody with it. If you read my
14 statement you can say, well, I can conclude that that - I think that's
15 how it's formulated - that this was the reason, but whether it was proper
16 to draw such a conclusion well, and also considering, as I'm telling you
17 now, that it was only in June and the question is whether they had a
18 single man at the centre in June who was in charge of tasks of this kind.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, but I lost the LiveNote.
20 MR. HANNIS: How long ago?
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Just this minute.
22 MR. HANNIS: I'll just pause for awhile.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: It's back, thank you very much.
24 MR. HANNIS: No problem.
25 Q. The assumption that you stated in 2004 was that you thought
1 perhaps Mr. Cvijetic thought that Serbs should not be detained for
2 killing Muslims, that's what you said then; right? And you made it clear
3 that that was only an assumption?
4 A. It depends how one understands it. Another matter that is very
5 important. In 2004 I was interviewed as a suspect, right, so all my
6 focus was directed at trying not to incriminate myself. Thinking how I
7 came into the position to be on such a list was something that I had to
8 keep in mind. I wasn't really concentrated. When someone sends you
9 messages you have to be cooperative or you may lose your job and to be so
10 concentrated to be able at every moment, this is something that you have
11 to take into account at all times. And also what I could observe in such
12 conditions in war time, when there were hundreds of issues that I had to
13 keep in mind pertaining to my family and everything else that was going
14 on around, was I subjective in my observations? Of course I was. Could
15 I always be objective when I judge something? People, you have to take
16 this into even in most normal circumstances a man cannot -- two or three
17 of us will interpret one thing differently, we'll all see it differently,
18 this is why I say please do not take me to task for this.
19 If I said I assumed then, please, don't use these assumptions
20 because this is something very serious, and when I said that I did not
21 take into account any one in my surroundings, I was just focusing on
22 myself. So please try to understand me. Don't think that I'm trying to
23 lie. As I was doing all of this you can see what I was doing, when it
24 was difficult to do it, I stated everything now. Why do I think that it
25 was exactly how it was done? I will tell you. And when I assume
1 something, I won't go into any more assumptions.
2 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Planojevic, I will remind you to remember the
3 interpretation, and you are speeding up again, so if you could pace
4 yourself in terms of your answers. And Mr. Hannis.
5 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE HALL: This is on at least three occasions in the course of
7 today you have -- and the reason why I didn't intervene earlier is
8 because I wasn't sure how to say it, I'm not sure how to say it now, but
9 I'm not entirely satisfied that you have been proceeding correctly with
10 what appears to you to be an inconsistency between the witness's
11 testimony and his previous statement. So the -- I'm just bringing it to
12 your attention. I'm not purporting to make any ruling now but just bring
13 it to your attention. I'm not purporting to make any ruling now, I'm
14 just bringing it to your attention to conform the manner in which you
15 approach this to the rules of procedure.
16 MR. HANNIS: I'm listening, Your Honour, and I hear what you are
17 saying. I really have one particular area in his prior statement from
18 2004 that I want to have an extended discussion with him about near the
19 end, and I want to bring to your attention some jurisprudence from this
20 Tribunal because I know with the witness ST-215, I had a discussion with
21 your Judges about what use could be made of a prior inconsistent
22 statement. I have some authority where I will try to persuade you that
23 it's appropriate for me to -- if I ask him and he confirms having said
24 something different previously than he says now, that I may be entitled
25 to ask you to accept that prior statement not only for evidence of
1 impeachment but also perhaps his substantive evidence depending on what
2 showing I can make. But that's something I'm not at yet and I will get
3 there, but I think that's the only other time I will ask a question about
4 his prior transcript. And a specific reference therein.
5 Q. Witness, do you remember a man named Ivan Curak - I'm not sure
6 I'm pronouncing that correctly - who was detained?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can you tell us who he was and when that happened?
9 A. It was probably in May. It was one of the assistants of the
10 interior minister, he was actually chief of one of the administrations
11 and retired at the time when this happened.
12 Q. And where did this take place?
13 A. In May, as I've told you. I think it was in May 1992.
14 Q. I'm sorry, my question was where?
15 A. Oh, where. In Vraca within the school complex.
16 Q. And what happened to him? What did you see happen?
17 A. He was brought in to the ground floor with a rifle and a pistol.
18 When he was searched the weapons were found. He was from Grbavica, he
19 lived down there. So he was in the duty room, and when I came along I
20 could see that the late Malovic had hit him and I reacted. I asked him
21 what this was all about, and he said here he was found with weapons and
22 he had a sniper sight on his gun because he was a hunter, but knowing the
23 man, I knew that he was not a sniper. I'm not sure who was the duty
24 officer, I said stop this, I told Malovic to leave the room, he grumbled
25 a bit but he left. And this Curak was after that taken to Pale and after
1 that he was exchanged. I'm not sure after how many days, so that was the
2 gist of the conversation.
3 Q. When you say the late Malovic, are you referring to
4 Dusko Malovic?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Who you knew to be the commander of the Special Police platoon
7 from Sokolac?
8 A. He appeared only then. They were a combat unit, some 20 to 30
9 men, and they were holding a line right behind the school, but they slept
10 at the school. That is, their positions were right behind the school.
11 I'm not sure how many there were.
12 Q. And Mr. Curak was a non-Serb?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Thank you. We talked about the thieving policemen that you
15 referred to Mr. Kljajic. Who in 1992 in the RS MUP had the power or
16 authority to remove a policeman for something like looting or thieving;
17 do you know?
18 A. In practice it functioned the following way: The commander would
19 say don't come in anymore because there weren't any rules and regulations
20 to rely on or none that would be the foundation for launching
21 disciplinary proceedings. And you didn't even have a stamp to put on a
22 decision. So it was taken care of as we went along. You would have him
23 return his equipment and weapons and tell him don't come in anymore.
24 Q. And if the person to be removed or punished was an SJB chief, who
25 in the RS MUP had the authority to punish or remove him?
1 A. That's up to the minister or a person authorised by the minister.
2 But at that time real removals, if you understand it in legal terms,
3 there was no such thing because there weren't any underlying regulations
4 or rules.
5 Q. But as a practical matter, it could happen and did happen on
6 occasion that SJB chiefs were removed or replaced; yes?
7 A. I don't know of any such instance while I was there.
8 Q. Okay. Fair enough. And I assume that your answer would be the
9 same if the question were, who had the authority or power to remove a CSB
10 head or an assistant minister? That would be the minister; right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you. Just two or three miscellaneous questions before I
13 get to the end. Did you ever see a group of Red Berets under the command
14 of a man who was nicknamed Charlie?
15 A. I saw Charlie and there were about three or four armed men always
16 around him. He used to move about in a Pinzgauer vehicle.
17 Q. And where did you see Charlie and his men?
18 A. He used to come to Pale and he was billeted up there maybe at
19 Kosuta or below Kosuta there are some apartments, I believe that he was
20 billeted there. But they only stayed briefly. There was internal strife
21 among them and it resulted in physical conflict. They shot at each other
22 and after awhile they were no longer to be seen there.
23 Q. Do you remember approximately when they were there in 1992?
24 A. It must have been May. Whether they went into June, I'm not
25 sure, so I suppose it was at the latter half of May.
1 Q. Thank you. Did you personally have any experience with anyone
2 who you later learned was a member of what was known as the Yellow Wasp?
3 A. That has to do with my return from Belgrade. When I was crossing
4 from Serbia to the RS at a place called Karakaj, the road didn't go
5 through Zvornik but it went over Sapor and through Sekovici and on to
6 Pale. There was a check-point at Karakaj where it later became clear, at
7 least to me, the Yellow Wasps checked everything, or all traffic, all
8 passengers, and we had to wait there.
9 Combat vehicles would escort us there because there were frequent
10 attacks. That's why the combat vehicles were there. There was a man
11 with long hair. He said that he was a journalist and he interviewed
12 people, and he saw me in a new car and said, well, thank God, here is a
13 new car coming back from Belgrade, and I asked him what do you mean? He
14 said, well all the new cars that go to Belgrade never come back, they
15 stay there. So I was curious to know how he knew that and then he pulled
16 out a notebook and started giving me the information of how many cars he
17 had seen crossing the border without ever returning.
18 I introduced myself to him as the assistant minister for crime
19 prevention and detection, asked him whether he would give me that
20 information, that notebook, and he agreed. Do you mean that incident,
21 and I'm talking about with regarding the Yellow Wasps?
22 Q. Yes, yes. Do you remember hearing his name?
23 A. He introduced himself but I only remember him saying that he was
24 a journalist. And he had long hair down to his shoulders and he wore
25 boots. He was all dressed very smartly like an army officer. I sent one
1 of my men down there, but on the following day there was my clash with
2 the minister and I believe that inspector of mine never returned, either.
3 He went on to Denmark or the Netherlands.
4 Q. Okay. Two short questions before the break. What kind of car
5 did you have?
6 A. A Golf.
7 Q. This would have been then on about the 17th of July?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. This is an appropriate point for the
10 break, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes, we return in 20 minutes.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.
15 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours. I'd requested to address
16 one procedural matter before the witness is brought in, if I may.
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Hannis.
18 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. And also I think Your Honours have been
19 alerted that there's a request for 20 minutes at the end the session
20 concerning other procedural matters.
21 I wanted to advise the court that I expect that on one area of
22 questioning I have remaining with this witness cornering Dusko Malovic
23 and the special unit that his answer will be substantially inconsistent
24 with something he said in his statement in 2004, and I would propose
25 because based on proofing and what's in the proofing note he agrees that
1 he said what he said in 2004, but he says something different now, he
2 recognizes it's different, and I want to put on the record what he said
3 before by reading it out and then asking him if he can explain or what
4 his explanation is for why what he is saying today is different. And
5 then depending on what his answer is, asking him some questions about
6 that explanation.
7 JUDGE HALL: Do I understand you when you adumbrated this earlier
8 to say that there is jurisprudence which holds the Trial Chamber can
9 accept the previous inconsistent statement instead of the live testimony?
10 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. And may I bring that to your
12 JUDGE HALL: I would be very interested to see that.
13 MR. HANNIS: And let me do a little introduction. Oral evidence
14 remains the primary and normal standard. And in accordance with the
15 principle of orality that is expressed in Rule 89(F), prior statements of
16 a witness should not be tendered into evidence where relevant portions
17 thereof have been read out and entered on the record. So that's why I
18 propose to enter it on the record.
19 But your question is about whether that can substitute for viva
20 voce testimony. It has been emphasised that a contention that viva voce
21 testimony bars the admission of previous statements is incorrect as a
22 matter of law. Citing a decision in the Seselj case, first of all a
23 decision on the accused's submission 403 dated 4 November 2008 at
24 paragraph 8, "Prior statements of a witness may be admitted into evidence
25 when the party calling the witness intends to impeach their credibility,
1 even where the witness also provided viva voce testimony." And the
2 citation for that is "Seselj Decision on the Prosecution's Oral Motion
3 Seeking the Admission into Evidence of Three Written Statements," it's
4 dated 11 September 2008, at paragraph 9.
5 "A Trial Chamber may exercise its discretion to admit a witness's
6 previous inconsistent statement as hearsay evidence for the truth of its
7 contents provided that it is relevant and sufficiently reliable to be
8 accepted as probative." The citation for that is Popovic et al., "A
9 Decision on Appeals Against Decision on Impeachment of a Party's Own
10 Witness," 1 February 2008, at paragraph 31.
11 "And ultimately the decision as to whether a particular piece of
12 evidence will be admitted for the purpose of assessing a witness's
13 credibility and/or for the substance therein must be left to the Trial
14 Chamber's discretion," again citing that September 11, 2008 Seselj
15 decision and the Popovic decision.
16 JUDGE HALL: Well, obviously something to which careful
17 consideration would have to be given, but do I understand you to be
18 saying that as a part of where you are now headed with this witness is
19 that you would be seeking to impeach him on a portion of his testimony?
20 MR. HANNIS: Just what I anticipate his testimony is going to be
21 about one particular topic concerning Dusko Malovic and his special unit
22 providing security for the minister in 1992.
23 JUDGE HALL: But aren't there certain conditions precedent to the
24 calling party being able to do that, Mr. Hannis?
25 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honours, I don't think the precedent here
1 is so clear about whether in the past in the early days when I was here,
2 I understood sometimes it was necessary for a party to show that the
3 witness was hostile and ask leave of the Court to lead the witness and
4 treat him as hostile. But -- and I don't have the authority on that in
5 front of me, but it was my understanding and impression that that has
6 been watered down some and that there is not an absolute bar against a
7 calling party impeaching their own witness, particularly given the
8 circumstances of these kind of cases where often times the witnesses we
9 are calling are people who were members of the formations and either
10 co-workers or subordinates or superiors of some of the people who are
11 charged in the joint criminal enterprise. It's a factor we say that goes
12 to weight.
13 JUDGE HALL: Do we need to hear from Defence at this stage or
14 should we wait to see what the application is and then hear what your
15 response is? Because --
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Whatever pleases the Court.
17 JUDGE HALL: Because it strikes me at this point your response
18 may be premature in that we are in the realm of --
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Anticipation.
20 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Yes. So perhaps we could see where Mr. Hannis
21 is and then we would hear from the Defence.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Yeah, well, I was just -- whatever -- of course
23 whatever pleases the Court. I just wanted to use the opportunity, maybe,
24 because the witness is not here, and I think that might be more
25 appropriate that we discuss this without the witness being present, but
1 whatever is the Court's suggestion, I will gladly accept. Thank you.
2 JUDGE HALL: Well, I don't know how near Mr. Hannis is to the --
3 to what he wishes to do, but even -- it still seems to me that he would
4 have to lead the witness up to a certain point before he makes his
5 application. The witness could always be excused while we pursue this.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, thank you very much.
7 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honours, and what I'm trying to do is lay
8 a foundation for the argument I want to make when I make my anticipated
9 application. And it's not something, as I see it, that you need to rule
10 on today or next week or even, but I want to put in the record the
11 necessary elements for me to be able to fashion my argument about why I
12 think you should give more weight to a prior out-of-court statement than
13 perhaps what he's going to say under oath today about a certain issue.
14 But I'm not going to be able to make that argument if I can't ask him is
15 that what you said before and why is what you are saying now different
16 and what are the reasons for that difference.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, just briefly, we do object that this
18 be put on the record because so far the principles that were applied in
19 this courtroom was that the witness statement was provided to the witness
20 to refresh his memory and give a comment.
21 JUDGE HALL: That is what I was alluding to. You would recall
22 that when I mentioned to Mr. Hannis earlier, the way that he had put
23 certain inconsistencies to the witness was not the way we had been doing
24 it heretofore, and that is precisely the background on which I was
25 relying, that the -- what we have said, as you have correctly articulated
1 it, Mr. Zecevic, is that the witness has shown the statement and then
2 asked for -- and then an appropriate question is phrased so what is --
3 and what doesn't end up being put into the record is the previous
4 statement which may or may not be consistent and which may or may not --
5 there may or may not be an explanation for it.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: That's correct.
7 MR. HANNIS: This situation, I think is slightly different
8 though. This is based on proofing and what's in the proofing note is
9 that it is not going to refresh his memory because he is going to say,
10 yes, I said that in 2004 but that's not correct, and it doesn't refresh
11 my memory.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE HALL: Yes, so could we have the witness return to the
14 stand, please.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 JUDGE HALL: The -- unless it wasn't clear, Mr. Zecevic, it seems
17 to us that the first stage would be for counsel -- the calling counsel to
18 refer to him in that manner, to confront the witness with the apparent
19 contradiction, then we go on from there.
20 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Q. Welcome back, Mr. Planojevic. Just a couple of remaining
23 MR. HANNIS: I'd like to show the witness Exhibit P732.
24 Q. Coming up on your screen in a minute, Mr. Planojevic, is a
25 document, I don't know you've seen before, but it's a decree on awarding
1 of commendation and it lists a number of commendations for a number of
2 members and units of the RS MUP. It's, I think, in 1993, and I want to
3 ask you if you can comment on a particular item. If we go to page 13 of
4 the English and it's page 9 of the B/C/S. And number 139 in this portion
5 of the list, these are persons and units that are receiving a metal for
6 the services to the nation and number 139 appears to be you,
7 Dobrislav Planojevic, chief of SNB administration. Can you tell us about
8 that, did you receive such an award or not?
9 A. I was nominated for the award, but I wrote a letter expressing my
10 unwillingness to receive it and I demanded to be taken off the list.
11 Q. To whom did you write and what was the nature of your
12 unwillingness to receive that award?
13 A. Well, the president decorates people by decree, I was nominated
14 by my colleagues from the SNB. I thought that it wasn't the time for any
15 commendations or awards and therefore I was unwilling to receive one.
16 Actually, I may have written a sentence saying that one day I may give --
17 give an explanation.
18 Q. Thank you. And who was the president at the time that you wrote
20 A. It was Mr. Radovan Karadzic.
21 Q. Do you still have a copy of that letter or note that you wrote?
22 A. I don't have anything.
23 Q. Thank you. Now, the last subject I wanted to cover with you is
24 Dusko Malovic and his Special Police platoon.
25 MR. HANNIS: If we could show the witness Exhibit P984. This is
1 at tab 25.
2 Q. This is a payroll slip for the special platoon from October 1992.
3 You've already mentioned Dusko Malovic earlier in your testimony.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And in proofing we looked at some photos and you recognise some
6 people that you knew as being members of his special unit. Looking at
7 this list of names, do you recall any of these individuals as persons
8 that you knew in 1992 as being a part of that Special Police platoon,
9 besides Dusko Malovic?
10 A. I said that I knew and I do know Boban Kezunovic, Nenad
11 Stuparusic, Rajko Paunic, Danko Arbinja, Milenko Ecimovic, Zoran Jolovic,
12 Predrag Bartula; he was a man who trained kickbox, though I never saw him
13 in this unit. And that's it.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I think this is still marked as MFI
16 and I would request that it be now non-MFI'd. I think any other
17 objections to it go to weight.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't really see the nexus between this witness
19 and the document, and I believe, if I correctly remember, the reason why
20 it was MFI'd was precisely that it was shown again to the witness who
21 didn't know anything about it except that can read the context and the
22 names, knowing some of the individuals.
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, my argument is this document appears
24 regular on its face and consistent with other payroll documents that
25 we've seen, had authenticated and admitted into evidence. The connection
1 that this witness give us is several of those individuals named on there
2 were people he knew in 1992 as being members of the unit named therein,
3 and therefore I think any other objection to it should only go to weight
4 and not admissibility.
5 JUDGE HALL: So Mr. Zecevic's recollection is incorrect in terms
6 of the way that this document -- the reason why this document was only
7 marked for identification previously?
8 MR. HANNIS: Honestly, Your Honour, I can't speak to that. I
9 don't recall who it was first showed to and where it got the number.
10 JUDGE HALL: My own recollection is that -- other payroll -- my
11 own recollection accords with yours, Mr. Hannis, in terms of how other
12 payroll lists have been dealt with.
13 MR. HANNIS: I know many of those payroll documents were dealt
14 with whom we had somebody who was on the list who said yes, that's me,
15 and I was in that position in June 1992 and got paid, but we haven't
16 brought anybody in from the special platoon but this is the next best
17 thing I would argue.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE HALL: By majority, Judge Harhoff dissenting, we agree to
20 have the document admitted and marked. And I see Mr. Hannis shares my
21 reluctance about how we non-MFI'd, I've never heard it expressed that
22 way, or de-MFI a document, but whatever we do it is now entered as a
23 regular exhibit.
24 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. Perhaps I should request that it
25 be promoted to a full exhibit. I don't know. We'll find some term.
1 Thank you.
2 Q. Mr. Planojevic, were you aware of or do you know who by
3 individual names or by title of units -- during 1992 who provided
4 security, personal security for the Minister Mico Stanisic?
5 A. Mr. Prosecutor, we discussed this two or three times and you got
6 angry because of my statement when you offered me to sign the document
7 which I gave as a suspect. What's in that document is true. I claim
8 that I saw these men in the presence of Mico Stanisic only on two
9 occasions. Let me explain. If I remember properly, I think it was just
10 then when we set off for that collegium meeting in Belgrade, we were
11 travelling through Caparde, and there was an escort, vehicles that were
12 escorted, he passed me by and the escort included 3 or 4 cars. I
13 recognized some of the men, including Malovic, who were in full gear and
14 they were the escort which was always provided on that section of the
15 road. There were also combat vehicles to boot. And as for
16 Mico Stanisic, I could conclude that that was him.
17 And the other occasion was in 1994 at the collegium in Pale again
18 as his escort. That was another occasion when Mr. Mico Stanisic was the
19 minister, Malovic came to the collegium with him. And he was present, I
20 think that his position then was a higher inspector because throughout
21 the collegium meeting he was present. That is what I saw and what I said
22 under the oath which I had already given. This is the only thing that I
23 accept as true. I think I have told you enough.
24 Q. I understand that, but -- well, I have to discuss this with you
25 now in court in front of the judges, so I understand clearly your
1 position now is that at no time in 1992 other than this one occasion
2 where you're saying some of the men of Malovic were providing an escort
3 along that dangerous section of the road on one occasion; is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You recall that you were interviewed by representatives of the
6 Office of the Prosecutor on June 8th and 9th, 2004, in Banja Luka?
7 A. I recall.
8 Q. And as you've reminded us, you were interviewed as a suspect at
9 that time; right?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. The OTP representatives were attorney Julian Nicholls, an
12 investigator named Christophe Klebek, K-l-e-b-e-k, and a Nicolas Sebire,
13 S-e-b-i-r-e. Do you remember that, it was three men?
14 A. Yes, yes, I remember.
15 Q. And as -- at the beginning of the interview, you remember they
16 told you you were a suspect and they informed you of the rights you had?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. They told you that you were not a target of an investigation?
19 A. How can I be a suspect if I'm not targeted. If I know anything
20 about law, I find this to be illogical. There are many illogical things
21 about this, Mr. Prosecutor. There are hidden messages which one does not
22 see but which do reach you when you are a suspect.
23 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, LiveNote has been lost, they are trying
24 to reconnect. It may take a minute we are told.
25 MR. HANNIS: Okay. Thank you. Perhaps while that's going on, I
1 could have the usher hand the witness a copy of his interview from 2004.
2 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: What page are we at, Mr. Hannis?
4 MR. HANNIS: In the interview right now I'm just going to ask him
5 a question on page number 1.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Okay.
7 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, I have learned that even in the Tribunal
8 a lawyer's minute has longer than 60 seconds, so although you've
9 indicated that the OTP only requires 20 minutes at the end of the day's
10 sitting to deal with whatever matters they wish to raise, I'm going to
11 read that as half-hour and excuse this witness at 1.15.
12 MR. HANNIS: I think that's probably wise, Your Honour. I always
13 tell my friends to take a lawyer's estimate of time and multiply it by
14 two or three.
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE HALL: We understand that the problem is not being
17 corrected as quickly as we thought it would have been, but could we go on
18 with the left-hand screen which is still working? Do counsel have a
19 problem with that?
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Well honestly we do, but if there's no other way
21 there's nothing we can do about it, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE HALL: The reason why I ask is because having regard to
23 what Mr. Hannis has indicated what he is going to do, I was thinking that
24 the inability of counsel to highlight and that sort of thing may have
25 presented a problem, but if it isn't, we go on.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: That is precisely the problem that we have because
2 we cannot highlight it in the LiveNote, but if it's not possible, I guess
3 we need to go on.
4 MR. HANNIS: Well, I know if I were the one in the
5 cross-examination seat at the time, I would want to wait until it's on,
6 but if Mr. Zecevic is okay with me going on, I will. But I know that if
7 our shoes were reversed, I would -- I really rely on it a lot.
8 JUDGE HALL: That's what I suspected and that's why I made the
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Maybe I can be of assistance, Your Honours. Since
13 it is obvious that my cross-examination will not start today obviously,
14 then I will have enough time to -- when I receive the original transcript
15 I can highlight it so then we can continue. Thank you.
16 JUDGE HALL: You are ahead of us, Mr. Zecevic. Yes, Mr. Hannis,
17 please continue.
18 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
19 Q. Mr. Planojevic, you didn't have a lawyer at that interview, but
20 you were aware that you had the right to have one and you said you were
21 okay to proceed without one; correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Did those three men treat you appropriately, respectfully,
25 A. Yes, except for some questions which were leading and so on, so
1 when you are giving an interview, you can read it in two different ways.
2 So if they ask you isn't it so, it's normal that you will once say yes it
3 is, or it's also normal that I would state my opinion, which does not
4 have to be correct, my conclusion does not have to be correct.
5 Q. Okay. Well, do you agree that you said something different about
6 Dusko Malovic and his men and their role as security escorts for
7 Mr. Stanisic in 1992? What you said then is different than what you are
8 saying now?
9 JUDGE HALL: Sorry to interrupt, we understand that LiveNote is
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, I can confirm that.
13 JUDGE HALL: I trust everybody it's back?
14 MR. HANNIS:
15 Q. Mr. Planojevic, if we could, I'd like you to go to page 92 in
16 your transcript?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. HANNIS: And in English Your Honours, I'm going to start at
19 page 88. I would indicate that the immediately preceding three or four
20 pages in the interview are a question about the July 11th meeting and the
21 witness is asked to identify each of those attendees who are listed, if
22 he knew them and how he knew them, et cetera. And beginning at the
23 bottom of 88, Mr. Sebire asked this question:
24 "Were there any personal escorts from any of the attendants we
25 have already mentioned, were there any driver's, secretaries?"
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Which line are you at?
2 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, at line 33 on page 88 in the English.
3 And now I'm going on to page 89.
4 Mr. Planojevic's answer was:
5 "Mico was never walking without an escort and at least four
6 guards, and when he was going through RS there were at least three --"
7 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic is on his feet.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: That is precisely my objection, Your Honours. That
9 the witness has his copy and Mr. Hannis can ask him without citing the
10 contents of his interview in the -- on the record.
11 JUDGE HALL: I think, Mr. Zecevic, that Mr. Hannis was correct
12 when he earlier said that this isn't like the refreshing memory
13 situation, so to that extent, I was -- I was in error in agreeing with
14 you on that point. But in as much as there is a contradiction that he is
15 putting to the witness, then it doesn't matter and it may be of
16 assistance to -- although the witness has the advantage of having it in
17 front of him, it may be of assistance for Mr. Hannis to continue as he is
18 doing now to read into the record the precise passage which he is, in his
19 submission, is contradictory.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: But, Your Honours, if I may just briefly address
21 this. It is my understanding that the procedure we adopted in this court
22 was that the counsel for who calls the witness can impeach the witness on
23 the contents of its previous statement, but the impeachment goes to the
24 credibility. It doesn't go to the context of his previous statement.
25 Now, Your Honours, if the case is that not only it does refer to
1 its credibility but also to the contents that my friend or the party
2 calling the witness wants to rely first on the contents of the statement,
3 plus to put the issue of credibility of the witness before you, Your
4 Honours, then we have a problem because it is -- it is that party's
5 witness, Your Honours. If this -- if this is true, the Prosecutor could
6 have called this witness as 92 ter and give his contents of his
7 statement, whatever it is, as a document.
8 Now, they choose call him viva voce and in my understanding the
9 only relevant, the only relevant testimony would be his viva voce
10 testimony and not the other contents of his previous statement.
11 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, it seems to me that there are a number
12 of separate considerations which you are advancing contemporaneously and
13 it seems to me that first thing -- that the problem, which is probably
14 the wrong word, but the problem has to be dealt with sequentially, and
15 the first step would be for the witness to be referred specifically to
16 what appears to be a contradiction and see what his explanation is and,
17 depending on his answer, then we go on from there.
18 It may be that there is a perfectly logical, reasonable, and dare
19 I say innocent explanation which the witness may have for what counsel
20 perceives to be a contradiction but that has to be established, I would
21 have thought, first of all, as to whether it is a contradiction. That
22 having been done, then the next stage would be the challenge to the
23 witness in terms of the correctness or otherwise of the testimony, the
24 viva voce testimony as contrasted with the earlier statement, then comes
25 the point where you seem to be. The arguments as to what the Chamber is
1 to make of that at the end of the day. But I think that things have to
2 be done in that order.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand and appreciate, Your Honours, thank
5 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, I trust I haven't confused.
6 MR. HANNIS: No, Your Honour. I think -- I'm agreeing with you.
7 I think precisely that's what needs to be done and what I'm trying to do.
8 I would indicate just -- it's come to my attention that there was a sort
9 of a related discussion about this topic on the 8th of October 2009 at
10 page 1093 in connection with witness ST-181, where Judge Harhoff was
11 talking about the situation and kind of the difference between a hostile
12 witness which has certain connotations in common law verses perhaps
13 calling them an adverse witness.
14 But this is what I'm trying to do, I'm trying to lay the
15 foundation. I need to put this in the record and, as you say, there may
16 be an explanation that will clear it all up and explain why what's said
17 today is really not different or if it is different, there's an
18 understandable reason why it's different. But we can't do that until we
19 see the difference between what's said today and what was said then, and
20 so if I may, I'd like to read the rest of the answers on this topic.
21 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, in as much as we are up against the
22 clock, should we -- aren't we in a position where we would be best
23 advised to postpone this fascinating exercise until we resume next
25 MR. HANNIS: Well, I'm sort of reluctant to give the witness five
1 or six days to think about an explanation for why there's a difference.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I just assist. I'm here for the
4 administrative matter, but it simply -- it will not take more than 20
6 JUDGE HALL: Very well, please proceed, Mr. Hannis.
7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. I'm not sure where I left.
8 Q. "And when he was going through the RS there were -- there were at
9 least three vehicles escorting him, so at least ten men. I assume that
10 he also came there with that escort."
11 Nicolas Sebire:
12 "Do you know if his escort was formed comprised of police
15 "In the beginning, chief of his escort was a Abazovic, Goran,
16 before the war he was in a special unit of BiH Ministry of the Interior;
17 and his driver was Jasarevic, Zoran, all professional police officers.
18 Question from Sebire:
19 "Sorry, Jasarevic or Jasarovic?
20 "Jasarevic," says the interpreter.
23 Mr. Planojevic:
24 "Da. So whenever he was going on some trip most often, I would
25 see late Dusko Malovic.
1 Nicolas Sebire:
2 "He was a member of the escort?"
4 "Yes, especially in those first two or three months of the war.
5 Dusko Malovic, he had a group of something between 20 and 25 men, and
6 they were all from Sokolac. And Zoran Cvijetic, as a head of the centre,
7 brought those guys and Mico took them from Zoran."
8 Nicolas Sebire:
9 "And this group of 10 to 20 men -- sorry, 20 to 25 men, were they
10 assigned to any special unit?"
12 "In the beginning that was a like a combat unit that came with
13 Zoran Cvijetic to Sarajevo. So for the first month they were protecting
14 the line and they were participating in combat, combat activities. After
15 that a certain number of men from that unit were taken by Mico, and I
16 don't know the exact number but there were usually around 10 of them.
17 When I was telling you that I visited minister in Kosuta, three or four
18 of those guys were sitting in his cabinet wearing full gear, fully
19 equipped. I didn't like it, I didn't like them being present during the
20 meeting because I wanted to talk to him in private. But he said 'you
21 speak freely because let them stay in.' Because I got an impression that
22 he was also afraid of me so that he didn't want to let them go, which was
23 really ridiculous to me."
24 And I think that I'll stop there.
25 Mr. Planojevic, you heard what you said in 2004 during that
1 interview. Can you explain to the Judges why your answer today is
2 different from what you said in 2004?
3 A. Mr. Prosecutor, we are not talking only about today. When you
4 offered me to sign the statement, I also said that it wasn't right. And
5 now Your Honours, you try to decide whether what I say in my statement
6 can be true. I said that in the first days that they were a combat unit,
7 which is true. I believe that they lost their last man in late June in
8 combat around Dobrinja, I believe his name was Glavonja because they went
9 to the funeral because of the death of that man. So they were in combat
10 almost until the end of June.
11 And if you look at my statement that I only had three contacts
12 with the minister and that I had never seen him anywhere, that this is
13 contradictory to what is stated here. Could I have said then that these
14 people, and I was focused on myself at the time, not minding much what I
15 was saying about others, and I say with full responsibility that I saw
16 these people only one time with Mico Stanisic. They were not really his
17 security detail. They were his escort, making sure that he could pass.
18 I spent time at Vraca and whenever I went to -- from Vraca I went
19 either to Rogatica or to Belgrade. I never once did I see the then
20 minister. So I cannot say that they were constantly with him, securing
21 him. I can say that the people until the end of June were in combat
22 around Grbavica and Vraca. I saw him on the 9th of July, probably, when
23 they were his escort. I was in Belgrade for awhile and I said that I
24 only once again saw Mico Stanisic in October, we went to his birth place
25 and I went into combat. I didn't have an official position. Since that
1 was the birth place of Mico Stanisic and we met, Abazovic and Jasarevic
2 were with him then. That was in October. This is really the truth. If
3 somebody were to analyse the whole statement and reads what it is stated
4 here, it's all correct, but analyse the whole content, my movements, my
5 contacts with the minister, even if it is true, I am in no position to
6 assert that because I wasn't able to observe any of this.
7 Mention is made of Kosuta. As far as I know they did go to
8 Kosuta occasionally to rest, and I said that there were apartments there.
9 And I cannot state with certainty that they were in the lobby because
10 there is a front desk and possibly the people were there. I am not sure
11 about that. Everything else is something I stand by even now. And this
12 is really the whole truth. And imagine a position when you are faced
13 with three people and they tell you that you are a suspect and as for the
14 law, well, let me not go into that.
15 So what I'm saying now I really stand by it. And if I -- if I
16 can be proven wrong when saying that I was at a place or not, I will
17 accept that. And I signed a statement but when we spoke at Nedzarici I
18 didn't even see the statement. In May or June when we spoke, I arrived
19 from Pale in the evening at 7.00 or 8.00, and I was told that I would get
20 a digested version of my statement and that I should be prepared for an
21 interview for the following morning. At 8.00 p.m. the interpreter, whose
22 name I forget, brought me an envelope with 150 pages. To read that
23 you'll need four or five hours, even without thinking about everything
24 you said. I did skim through it and said that I had some minor
25 objections and some minor remarks. And how did it all come about?
1 Before I set up contact with the lawyers I pointed out the fact
2 that this isn't true, I did so through the interpreter, didn't I,
3 Prosecutor? But then I -- my feeling was that the Prosecutor didn't want
4 to talk about that with me, and on the following day he said that I had
5 been talked into that by my lawyers. It is my impression that the
6 Prosecutor wanted me to come here to talk about that. Well, anyway, this
7 is what I had to say.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Hannis, please forgive me for being perhaps a
9 bit confused here, but since you are raising the issue of a
10 contradiction, I would be grateful if you could clarify to me just where
11 the contradiction is between the part that you read from his statement in
12 June 2004 and what he has now explained, just to be sure that we are on
13 the same line of understanding.
14 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm not sure that I have fully understood.
16 MR. HANNIS: Yes, I understand what he is saying now in 1992 the
17 only time he saw Dusko Malovic and any of his men providing any kind of
18 security or escort for the minister were when they were part of the group
19 that was in the convoy traveling with the minister along a stretch of the
20 road between Pale and Belgrade when the minister was going to the meeting
21 on July 11th, 1992. And I think what he said in 2004 is quite different
22 from that. Do I need to -- should I point out to you where I think it's
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, I'm trying to understand the importance of
25 this contradiction because if it is only a question of the occasions in
1 which the witness may have observed Mr. Malovic and the accused
2 Mr. Stanisic together, then I wonder what the significance of that.
3 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, it is and has been a contested issue
4 in this case the exact function of Dusko Malovic and his unit and to whom
5 they were subordinated, and we've heard some evidence about that from
6 several witnesses.
7 JUDGE HALL: In any event -- sorry -- in any event, Mr. Hannis,
8 you've put the previous statement to the witness and he has given an
9 explanation. Can you take this any farther? If at all there's anything
10 left of this, mustn't this abide the end of the case in submissions and
12 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. I think now that I have that in
13 the record and we've heard his explanation, I have the arguments I want
14 to make and can make about whether or how much weight you should give to
15 this versus that.
16 JUDGE HALL: Oh, I thought that -- I misunderstood you, I thought
17 that your next step would have been to invite us to substitute the --
18 but, thank you for that clarification.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness, I have one precise question in this
21 regard for you. In the 2004 statement, you were giving an account of a
22 very precise incident, if I may call it like that, in Kosuta.
23 "Three or four of those guys," you said, "were sitting in his
24 cabinet wearing full gear, fully equipped, I didn't like it, I didn't
25 like them being present during the meeting because I wanted to talk to
1 him in private. But he said you speak freely because let them stay, let
2 them stay in because I got an impression that he was also afraid of me,
3 that he didn't want to let them go away and it was really ridiculous to
5 This is a very precise account with impressions and whatnot. And
6 when I take what you said now about this, it is "mention is made of
7 Kosuta. As far as I know, they did not go to Kosuta occasionally to
8 rest. They did go to rest and I said that there were apartments there
9 and I cannot state with certainty that they were in the lobby, because
10 there is a front desk, et cetera."
11 That first account of the incident of what happened in the
12 cabinet of the minister and your impression you didn't like it, but you
13 thought he was afraid of you, is that true or was that made up in 2004?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that Abazovic was certainly
15 sitting there in full gear. Abazovic, mind you, I don't think that he
16 was ever a member of this unit and he was inside. I think Zoran also,
17 and I don't know who was the third one, but that was what I didn't like.
18 But by inertia I responded like that. Not knowing at the time and what
19 did it mean to me then and what does it mean to me now, who was Mico's
20 escort, whether it was one way or another I didn't believe this to be
21 important, and I tried on three or four occasions to explain this to
22 Mr. Prosecutor.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: So this is true that there's no contradiction
24 between what you said today and what you said there on that particular
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
3 JUDGE HALL: So, Mr. Hannis, are we at an end of this issue and
4 we can excuse the witness until the court resumes?
5 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. I think I would only have one
6 other question and I can do that now or I can do that when he comes back.
7 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner had indicated 20 minutes.
8 MR. HANNIS: So I think we better let her go.
9 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Planojevic, as would have been explained to you,
10 your testimony is so expansive that it's going to occupy several court
11 days, and again we've reached the point where we must take the
12 adjournment for today to make the courtroom available for other work.
13 Now, Monday, which would have been the ordinary day of
14 resumption, is a holiday on the -- this Tribunal's schedule, observance
15 of United Nations day. But for certain administrative reasons, this
16 trial is unable to -- we are unable to resume on Tuesday or Wednesday, so
17 when we rise in a quarter of an hour, we will not be resuming this trial
18 until Thursday afternoon of next week and the -- although you are sworn
19 as a witness and what I -- the cautions that I gave you yesterday still
20 apply, I understand that arrangements have been made to permit you to
21 travel back to your home and be returned in time for next Thursday, so we
22 wish you a safe weekend and we will resume, as you would have heard
23 Mr. Hannis say, he expects to wrap up his examination-in-chief shortly
24 after you come back on Thursday afternoon. So the usher would now see
25 you from the courtroom. Thank you, sir.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, there are just two matters. One
4 requires us to go into private session very briefly. It's the shorter of
5 the two.
6 [Private session]
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: We are back in open session, Your Honours.
8 MS. KORNER: If I can preface this by saying this is a very
9 Friday afternoon application request. Your Honours will recall that Your
10 Honours order that the Defence today provide us with the information
11 relating to the three witnesses who were due to come next week and
12 whether they now would stipulate to the adjudicated facts. One of them
13 was witness ST-50 and the adjudicated fact to which he was to speak is
14 fact 1326, where the last four lines were crossed out during the course
15 of Your Honours consideration of that fact. And that's all that the
16 witness was to speak to because the rest of the fact was left in.
17 There was some confusion about whether or not it could be agreed
18 by the Defence. However, it then was pointed out when we looked at the
19 fact that those same four lines which were crossed out in fact 1326,
20 appear uncrossed out in fact 1327. And we wouldn't have the temerity to
21 suggest that the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing when
22 looking at those two facts, but the reality is, Your Honour, the -- we
23 had decided -- we had actually noticed or the lawyer who was dealing with
24 this particular set of facts had noticed that. We decided that, as we
25 didn't really know what you intended, that we had better on the side of
1 safety and line up the witness to deal with that particular fact. Or
2 that part of the fact which you had crossed out even though it wasn't
3 crossed out in the next fact. And can I say equally when we were writing
4 out the adjudicated facts, the right hand didn't know what the left hand
5 was doing either as it repeated the same part.
6 So for safety's sake -- the Defence position on this is well
7 we've got the fact anyhow, so you don't need us to agree it one way or
8 another and you don't need the witness. Well, I think what we need to do
9 is to be reassured that that's right. And for Your Honours to decide
10 whether or not we have got the fact or we haven't.
11 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise, Ms. Korner. Page 84, line 25, did
12 you say fact 1326 or 1236?
13 MS. KORNER: I hope I said 1326.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: There could be a rather simple solution to this.
15 The question is, hearing what Ms. Korner said, does the Defence agrees
16 that the Chamber takes judicial notice of this adjudicated fact, the one,
17 the complete one?
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, that's precisely the matter.
19 You have ruled upon this and the contents of the fact are just in two
20 facts instead of one.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: So therefore the four lines which Ms. Korner is
23 talking about of the fact 1326 are already admitted by your decision as a
24 part of the fact 1327.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: And the Defence has --
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Therefore, there's no -- those are exactly the same
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: And the Defence has no problem with that?
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, we want to keep it as this so we can
5 challenge it. We don't need to stipulate because it's already there and
6 there's no need for --
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: I fully understand the difference between -- that
8 you are making now between agreed facts and adjudicated facts.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: That's correct.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: So if we don't have to go into the question for
11 ourselves is there a contradiction between the two, and what did we mean
12 to decide, and you agree with this being an adjudicated fact taken notice
13 of by the Chamber, then problem solved. Then it is an adjudicated fact,
14 not an agreed fact.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, it is an adjudicated fact. We confirmed
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, what I think what I heard Mr. Zecevic
18 say, before we can go any further, is so we can challenge it. So if
19 there is a challenge to this adjudicated fact, which hasn't emerged yet,
20 but if there is a genuine challenge then we will still call the witness.
21 And, therefore, we are in effect saying if the Defence don't agree this,
22 then we will call the witness to deal simply with the part that was
23 crossed out. He does not deal with the beginning of that fact 1326, but
24 if there's a challenge to what's said on the 17th of August, a group of
25 more than 80 Muslim men who were being detained in a school were
1 transferred by police officers in camouflaged uniforms, then we will call
2 the witness.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, I think this is a situation that is a
4 situation for numerous adjudicated facts. The Defence doesn't -- I
5 didn't hear the Defence say they are challenging it.
6 MS. KORNER: Well, that's -- I thought I heard Mr. Zecevic say
7 then we can challenge it.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, they can challenge it but that doesn't mean
9 they do it. They can challenge all of the adjudicated facts but that
10 doesn't mean that they are already doing it, and I take it that if the
11 Defence doesn't say today we are challenging it, that is because they
12 don't know yet whether they have reasons to challenge it or not. That
13 goes for all adjudicated fact.
14 So if it is an adjudicated fact, it's an adjudicated fact among
15 what, a thousand other ones, and if it is challenged, we'll hear that it
16 is challenged and we hear, we take it, and that's for reasons of
17 fairness, that the Defence let us know about the challenge as soon as
18 they know they will challenge.
19 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour -- sorry.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: It seems that I have spoken a little bit on my
22 own, Mr. Zecevic. So it is the Chamber's decision that the four lines
23 are denied as adjudicated fact. It was an oversight. In one fact we
24 didn't accept it and it was an oversight to accept it in the other one.
25 So the decision is it is a denied adjudicated fact. And then the
1 question stands, do you agree to stipulate on it or don't you, and if you
2 don't, then Prosecutor has to call the witness.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, let me try to understand now. So in fact,
4 the fact 1327 that we have right now is not actually the adjudicated
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Correct.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: So the four lines of the fact 1327 now should be
8 also deleted? Well, then you will have to give me a minute to discuss
9 with my members of the Defence.
10 MS. KORNER: That's fine because Mr. Zecevic has to let us know
11 about the other as well, so we'll just take it in the normal way. He
12 doesn't have to tell us straightaway.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. Thank you very much, thank you. That's --
14 that's -- I appreciate your help, Ms. Korner. Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. And that brings us to the end of the
16 week's work and we trust that everyone has a safe weekend, and I remind
17 you that we resume in the afternoon of the -- next Thursday in this
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.
20 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 28th day of
21 October, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.