1 Thursday, 20 January 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.13 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
6 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
7 Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 Good morning to everyone. May we have the appearances today,
11 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner and
12 Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
14 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, Ms. Tatjana Savic, and Dan
15 Beauchemin appearing for the Stanisic Defence this morning. Thank you.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours, Mr. Krgovic and
17 Miroslav Cuskic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Last week we had indicated that the
19 summary of a ruling that we had delivered would be followed by a fuller
20 oral ruling, which we now deliver.
21 The Trial Chamber now provides reasons for its ruling on the 10th
22 of January, 2011, denying the Prosecution's motion of the 23rd of
23 November, 2010. In this motion the Prosecution had requested
24 reconsideration of the Trial Chamber's 4th of November, 2010, oral ruling
25 admitting into evidence certain unsigned statements, referred to as
1 "Official Notes." The Defence jointly responded on 3rd of December,
2 2010, objecting to the motion.
3 The Prosecution argued that the Trial Chamber admitted the
4 Official Notes "for the truth of their contents." It submits that the
5 ruling was made "without an adequate finding of reliability of
6 voluntariness" thus contravening Rules 89(C) and 95. For these reasons,
7 it submitted, the ruling must be reconsidered. Alternatively, in order
8 to challenge the reliability of the Official Notes, the Prosecution
9 sought to add ST-238 to its Rule 65 ter witness list and sought to expand
10 the scope of ST-228's testimony.
11 The Trial Chamber recalls that it did not admit the Official
12 Notes for the truth of the matters asserted therein. Instead it admitted
13 the documents as evidence of the procedures followed by the investigators
14 at the Omarska camp while interrogating detainees and as proof of what
15 the investigators noted the detainees' declarations to be, not as free
16 and voluntary statements of the detainees themselves.
17 The Chamber also held that the issue of what weight to be
18 assigned to the contents, as outlined above, will remain a task for the
19 Trial Chamber at the end of the trial.
20 For these reasons, the Trial Chamber denied the motion in its
22 Thank you.
23 Yes, Ms. Korner.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, just to inform Your Honours in respect
25 of the witness who was here before Christmas was ill and never testified,
1 Your Honours, I am -- apologise, it's actually not much to do with the
2 Prosecution as such, but it appears now that having organised a videolink
3 from his country of residence, the witness yesterday faxed to VWS a
4 medical certificate which asserts that he is able to travel, and he is
5 very anxious to give evidence in person. In those circumstances, we feel
6 that it's only right and proper that rather than going to the expense and
7 trouble of a videolink, that the witness should be here to testify in
8 person on Monday, and those are the arrangements that have been made.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
10 So formally, I suppose, it is necessary for us to -- to reverse
11 the order that we would have made permitting the videolink, and, as I
12 recall, the issue was canvassed yesterday as to moving Monday's session
13 to the afternoon to accommodate a technician who had to travel.
14 So we would remain on Monday morning.
15 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] I had no idea there was
16 any such canvassing going on.
17 JUDGE HALL: It may have been out of -- I remember --
18 MS. KORNER: Yes.
19 JUDGE HALL: -- it was discussed but it may very well have been
20 out of court.
21 MS. KORNER: Right. Well, Your Honours know that --
22 JUDGE HALL: I am reminded that it was in fact in court.
23 MS. KORNER: It completely escaped me. But, anyway,
24 Your Honours, no, he will be here, I believe, on Sunday and so he can
25 testify on Monday morning.
1 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
2 Do you have a matter, Mr. Zecevic.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: No, Your Honour, I was -- I stood up [Overlapping
4 speakers] ...
5 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... could the witness be
6 escorted to the stand. Yes.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 JUDGE HALL: Good morning, Mr. Brown. Whereas you probably think
9 that - and I would be inclined to agree - it's otiose, I am obliged to
10 remind you that you are still on your oath.
11 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 WITNESS: EWAN BROWN [Resumed]
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]
15 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Brown.
16 A. Good morning, sir.
17 Q. I have a few more documents to show you related to the same topic
18 that we discussed yesterday.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have 1D266, which is Defence
20 tab 129.
21 Q. Mr. Brown, that is one of the documents that you received
22 yesterday during the break. It has been printed for you.
23 This is yet another order by the commander of Tactical Group 3,
24 Colonel Lisica. The date is the 11 November 1992 and it says here order
25 for the engagement of units of the Doboj CSB and the SJB Doboj. And it
1 goes on to say:
2 "Based on demonstrated need, I hereby order, number 1, 100
3 policemen shall be selected by the SJB Doboj," and then it goes on to
4 give a specific task that they should carry out.
5 And under item number 3, Colonel Lisica says that for the
6 execution of this order Andrija Bjelosevic, the CSB chief, and Obren
7 Petrovic, the SJB chief, shall be personally responsible to him.
8 Do you remember, Mr. Brown, and you will certainly agree with me,
9 that this is a clear-cut case of a subordination of the police to the
11 A. At face value it would seem that that is the case. Whether there
12 is some agreement prior to this or whether Colonel Lisica was operating
13 in some other way, I don't know. Whether this was referring to
14 exceptional circumstances at the front or any other agreement, I'm not
15 sure. I would have to see other documents surrounding that. But, at
16 face value, this document does appear to say that, yes.
17 Q. Thank you. And you can see under number 3 that the commander,
18 Colonel Lisica, says that the people from the police will be personally
19 responsible for the execution of this order, the CSB chief and the SJB
20 chief. If there was some sort of an agreement, I'm sure that this order
21 would not contain this item.
22 A. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.
23 Q. I accept that.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this document has been
25 MFI'd, and I propose to make it a proper exhibit, if there are no
2 MS. KORNER: Your Honours it's the same objection as yesterday.
3 This whole series of documents to do with Lisica and Bjelosevic, we're
4 asking for the proper provenance of them.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [No interpretation]
6 MS. KORNER: Sorry, can I just finish.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry.
8 MS. KORNER: The second matter is this. The witness has done no
9 more -- this could have been shown to another witness. I'm not sure
10 whether it was or not, nor am I sure why it was MFI'd at the time, but
11 this witness can't say anything except, "I see what it says here."
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yesterday, after the
13 end of the session, my whole team made an effort to re-check once again
14 whether some of the documents that I want to go through with this
15 document -- with this witness is, indeed, yes. This document, for which
16 Ms. Korner says it has no provenance, is in EDS. It's number 06201475.
17 So the reason that this document was MFI'd was her objection that this
18 document doesn't have proper provenance. However, it is obvious that
19 this document was in the hands of the Prosecution, because it's in EDS.
20 EDS is a place where the Prosecution puts documents. That's why I think
21 that the situation is simple and that MFI designation can now be dropped
22 and this can become a proper exhibit. Maybe the usher could help so
23 Ms. Korner can see the document. There is also the ERN number, and I
24 think that it is quite clear.
25 JUDGE HALL: So do I understand that this is not in the category
1 of -- of the document such as we discussed yesterday?
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, I -- I -- I don't think it's in
3 a category since it is in the electronic database of this Tribunal. So,
4 therefore, the provenance is from -- from this Tribunal. If -- if
5 Ms. Korner will maintain her -- her opposition or -- or suggestion that
6 we should now find out how this document was uploaded into the EDS, well,
7 then -- then I guess it would be the same situation.
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we've checked and that's right. So the
9 basis of my first part of my objection is not right. I'm not clear why
10 it was MFI'd last time but I don't think it was anything to do with me,
11 but in any event that's absolutely right. So from that basis we do -- it
12 appears we seize this document, although there was nothing to indicate
13 that on the copy that we were provided with, in which case my objection
14 obviously doesn't stand.
15 JUDGE HALL: And in terms of your second objection, it seems to
16 me that the stage we're at in the Prosecution's case, this being the
17 last-but-one witness, and it's a document on which the Defence wishes to
18 rely, we may as well admit it at this stage. Yes.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: So, it is my understanding that the document is
21 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, a brief observation.
23 This document belongs to the same group of documents, those which
24 were received from Republika Srpska. We discussed it yesterday. We
25 received it from the government, or, rather, republican secretariat of
1 Republika Srpska. So it's the same group of documents. We were lucky
2 enough to find this particular document inside EDS, but I'm rather
3 certain that all other documents that we used yesterday are also in EDS.
4 I'm going to return to this topic once I'm able to make additional checks
5 as to what is exactly in EDS.
6 Can we now have 1D00-0345.
7 Q. Sir, this is another document by Mr. Lisica. I assume it is
8 related to the previous document, because it has the same date. It's
9 tab 130.
10 The commander, Colonel Lisica, here orders to form a mixed
11 battalion as follows: A company of military police and a Doboj
12 police company and another police company from Teslic. And he appoints
13 as the commander the SJB chief, and as a deputy a lieutenant, which means
14 a military person.
15 Then under number 3, he defines the task, and further on says
16 readiness for the attack at 0700 hours on 12th November, 1992.
17 Sir, again, there is no doubt that this is a resubordination of
18 the police to the military because Colonel Lisica here even appoints as
19 the commander of this newly formed unit the CSB chief from Doboj?
20 A. He would appear to be issuing an order for a joint operation in
21 that area, yes.
22 Q. But a joint operation is under his command, isn't it? It's not a
23 joint operation by the police and the military. Here the police is
24 resubordinated, a commander of the new mixed unit is appointed, and it is
25 to him that Colonel Lisica ordered what to do and when to do it, right?
1 A. It's a joint operation in that there is military and civilian
2 police but I would accept that, yes, he is instructing as you -- as you
4 Q. Sir, the joint operation cannot be if it's the case of
5 resubordination. We have to agree about one thing. I hope that you will
6 agree with me that when members of the police are resubordinated to the
7 army, they lose, first, their status of authorised officials; and,
8 secondly, they gain the same rights and duties as any other military
10 Would you agree with that?
11 A. I would ask you to show me references that that is the case,
12 because I have not seen that that is the case.
13 Q. Sir, when I show you regulations, you tell me that are you not an
14 expert for legal issues.
15 MS. KORNER: Sorry, he has been asked -- either Mr. Zecevic shows
16 him or he doesn't. He has been asked by the witness to show them. He
17 can't make comments like that.
18 MR. ZECEVIC:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, if I were to show you relevant legislation
20 on which I base this particular claim of mine, would it help?
21 A. Yes, it would, sir.
22 Q. All right. We are going to prepare this, and I'm going to hand
23 it over to you.
24 Sir, if the commander, Slavko Lisica, ordered, first, to form a
25 mixed battalion; then he, de facto, brought the members of the military
1 and the members of the police into one unit, he appointed the commander
2 of that unit, he gave them a task, and he also determined the place and
3 the time of the attack, and now you tell me that this is a joint
4 operation. And I put it to you that in this particular case, the police
5 has been resubordinated to the army and there is no joint operation.
6 This is a military unit carrying out tasks defined by the commander of
7 the tactical group.
8 A. It's a joint operation in that there's a civilian and police
9 component. That's what I mean by joint operation. But I agree with you
10 that at face value this document, Colonel Lisica clearly believes he has
11 the authority to issue an order in order to place police under his
12 command, and he issues an instruction in that respect. And I accept that
13 that seems to be at face value what this document says. The background
14 to the operation, why that happened, any agreements that may have come or
15 his belief about why he could do that is something I can't comment. But
16 at face value, this document does appear to say that, yes, sir.
17 Q. Sir, thank you for your answer.
18 Now, a general question. So let us disregard this particular
19 example. When a member of the police is resubordinated to a military
20 commander, and you told us that this is possible to happen in the
21 British Army as well, although in exceptional cases. Then, do those
22 members of the police remain members of the police, or do they become
23 members of the military from that moment on, the moment of
25 A. They remain members of the police who happen to be -- but
1 conducting tasks with the military and placed under their command, in
2 that exceptional circumstance. But they remain a member of the police
4 Q. You really surprise me with this answer. If a member of the
5 police is resubordinated to the army, then he cannot be member of the
6 police anymore. Because, from that moment on, his superior officer from
7 the police cannot command him. He is from that point on commanded by a
8 military officer. That's the whole essence of the concept of
9 resubordination, isn't it?
10 A. But it doesn't follow that just because for a particular or
11 exceptional operation a police -- policeman or a police unit is placed
12 under a military command that they lose or suddenly become, in essence,
13 members of the army or that they lose their position within the police
14 force. In exceptional circumstances what normally would happen is once
15 the operation is finished they go back to doing what they normally do as
16 policemen. They don't suddenly chop and change. In my experience, when
17 policemen are subordinated in exceptional circumstances they don't
18 suddenly become in essence soldiers and lose or change in an instant only
19 to change back later. They remain within the police. And that would
20 seem to be --
21 Q. Mr. Brown, please focus on my question. I said during the time
22 of resubordination, whether it's one day or three months or two years,
23 doesn't matter, but during the resubordination to the military command.
24 Now you're telling me that this person in British Army remains a
25 policeman regardless of the fact that he had been resubordinated to the
1 military and that he receives his orders from the military. Is that what
2 you're telling me?
3 A. In my experience, yes, absolutely.
4 Q. All right. Then can you explain to me whether this member of the
5 military who is actually a policeman resubordinated to the British Army
6 for a particular operation, if he sees a case of theft that occurred
7 during this operation, does it mean that he still has duties and
8 obligations as a member of the police and then he has to pursue that
9 thief and arrest him or he has to stay in his formation and wait for
10 orders to -- for orders being issued by the military commander, the
11 commander to whom he had been resubordinated.
12 What is he to do in this situation?
13 A. I would expect that he has obligations as a policeman and he
14 presumably has obligations within any chain of command within the
16 Q. But, Mr. Brown, these two things are mutually exclusive. The
17 military commander tells him, Stand here and guard this, say, passage;
18 and if somebody comes along shoot him. And, at the same time, his duty
19 as a policeman is to go and arrest a perpetrator of a criminal offence.
20 So he has to do either one or the other.
21 What is a British policeman resubordinated to the military
22 command going to do, one or the other? He cannot do both. You have to
23 give me your answer. What is your opinion? What is this person going to
25 A. Well, I'm not really quite clear on the question, I have to say.
1 To be -- to be quite honest.
2 Q. I think that I haven't added anything to my question that I asked
3 you before and you gave the answer to that question, but you didn't give
4 a proper answer. I asked you one or the other, and you told me both.
5 Does that mean that you don't have an opinion on this issue,
6 or -- or you don't know the answer?
7 A. I'm not quite sure I understand your question. All I can say is
8 that -- that normally in my experience when police officers are
9 subordinated to the military, there is a planning process under which
10 the -- that subordination occurs with the limitations or expanse of that
11 subordination. But a policeman who is subordinated for a particular task
12 in the military, to my knowledge, remains a policeman, operates under
13 his -- his -- his regulations, and would be briefed up and made aware of
14 the regulations he was -- he was operating whilst he was attached to the
15 military. But he doesn't lose his status as a policeman. That's, from
16 my experience, what happens. And that goes with -- with other
17 subordinations. There's an -- there is invariably some agreement prior
18 to the subordination about the limits or expanses of that subordination.
19 Some of those can be simple issues of logistics, some of those can be
20 issues of discipline. But, in my experience, when police are working
21 under the military, if that is the case, they don't suddenly, in essence
22 just become soldiers for that period, subject to army law, and able to be
23 tasked exclusively by commanders and to operate under commanders. They
24 remain as police officers. And I would imagine -- I'm not an expert on
25 the British police, but they have obligations to uphold law and protect
1 citizens and the usual tasks.
2 Q. [No interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ...
3 A. If your point, sir, is that when a policeman is subordinated to
4 the military to all intents and purpose they become a soldier, full stop,
5 I would not agree with that.
6 Q. [In English] okay, fair enough.
7 [Interpretation] I accept that you're unwilling to agree.
8 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, I object to the comments like this.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I cannot see anything wrong with
10 my comment. I just said that the witness was unwilling to agree with me.
11 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry but it's a comment, and I repeat for about
12 the third time: Cross-examination is asking questions of the witness,
13 not making comments. Comments are final address.
14 JUDGE HALL: Let's move on, shall we?
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document into
17 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D410, Your Honours.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Sir, during your examination-in-chief, you commented on document
21 P1668 which is tab 56 of the Prosecution and your footnote is 329, and
22 355 is the other footnote. You commented on this letter written by the
23 commander, corps commander General Talic, and it is about the engagement
24 of the unit in late November at the Posavina front. Do you remember
1 A. Yes, I do, sir, yes.
2 Q. And you characterised it as a request, submitted by Talic with
3 which I disagree, since the request is about the acceleration of the
4 preparation and not about the engagement of police units.
5 Do you agree with me?
6 A. Well, I -- I do think it's a request or he is asking him to -- to
7 prepare and organise the police units of at least two battalions in
8 accordance with an expressed -- an expressed need. Presumably there's
9 been some prior discussion or expression of this need.
10 Q. Sir, this document makes no mention of any previous consultation
11 or agreement. It seems that no one document that I showed you and --
12 but -- and which was explicit about resubordination where you did not
13 suggest that there must have been some sort of agreement or something of
14 that kind although no indication of that was found in any of those
16 Do you agree with me?
17 A. Well, I think paragraph 1 says in accordance with the expressed
18 needs, General Talic has clearly expressed a requirement or a need have
19 this additional support. It doesn't say whether that was in a meeting,
20 in an instruction, in a discussion, but I would take it from the first
21 line that General Talic has --
22 Q. [In English] Has a need.
23 A. -- has expressed a need to have this additional support.
24 Q. [Interpretation] I agree with that.
25 After that document, on the following day we saw 2D119 which is
1 an order by Mr. Zupljanin about raising men for the unit to be sent to
2 the front which is tab -- tab 57, but there's no reason to display that
3 document now.
4 In essence, sir, when those two battalions, police battalions,
5 arrived on the 23rd or 24th of November in Banja Luka, because they had
6 come from the entire territory of the Krajina, because we're speaking
7 about a large number of police officers, two battalions after all, at
8 that moment, a police brigade was established. General Talic greeted
9 them and appointed the commander of that brigade. We even saw a video
10 here. I don't know if you had the chance to see the video recording of
11 that parade when the brigade commander, Mr. Peulic was appointed. Do you
12 know about that?
13 A. I haven't seen that video, sir, no.
14 Q. But you do know that General Talic appointed the commander of
15 that brigade and that commander was Colonel Peulic.
16 A. I wasn't aware of that, sir. The document, on 22nd November,
17 doesn't indicate that Peulic is the commander.
18 Q. Let me show you the document.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 2D118, which is tab 5 of the
20 Zupljanin Defence. Mr. Krgovic kindly let me have it.
21 Q. I didn't expect that you wouldn't know that, so I didn't prepare
22 for this. I apologise. But here's the document. There is obviously a
23 mistake with the dates because the year is 1993, which we can tell from
24 the incoming mail stamp, so the 2nd of January 1992 is not the correct
1 And here, the commander of the 1st Krajina Corps, Momir Talic,
2 orders that Colonel Dragoslav Djurkic be the commander of the police
3 brigade; whereas, the previous commander, Bosko Peulic is returned to his
4 previous duties. The handover of duties shall be completed no later than
5 4 January 1993.
6 Have you seen this document before.
7 A. No, I haven't.
8 Q. You didn't know then that the police brigade in the Bosnian
9 theatre was commanded by Bosko Peulic until another officer was appointed
10 commander of that brigade.
11 A. I wasn't aware of that sir. I know that the initial
12 establishment in November, end of November, had a different commander.
13 Whether there was a decision that, as this brigade was going to be going
14 into the corridor, a military officer might be more beneficial and
15 Colonel Peulic was placed in that position, I don't know. But I wasn't
16 aware that Colonel Peulic was the commander of this or appointed as the
17 commander of this, nor was I aware of what agreements may have been
18 entered into in order for that to occur.
19 Q. I'm not sure I understand what you say -- what you mean when you
20 say that initially it had a different commander. When it was lined up
21 for the first time in Banja Luka, the police brigade I mean, when it was
22 established, then General Talic arrived and we saw the video, that's a
23 Prosecution Exhibit. But I hope my learned friend will let me have it so
24 I can show it to you. And General Talic appointed Bosko Peulic commander
25 of that brigade on that occasion?
1 MS. KORNER: If it's an exhibit. If Mr. Zecevic wants to show it
2 he can call it up. I can't remember what the number is, but I'm sure his
3 team can tell him.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm surprised that
5 the gentleman who was an OTP expert has not seen the video, but we'll
6 prepare it now and we can show it in a couple of minutes and so acquaint
7 the expert with these facts.
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, again it's an improper remark, but as
9 Mr. Zecevic knows that video was only obtained very, very recently
10 indeed, so it's not surprising that Mr. Brown, who has not been a member
11 of the OTP for some years now, has not seen the video. If I had shown
12 him every piece of evidence that we had obtained in the last few years,
13 he would have been here for a week.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, I -- I meant no evil
15 and I really wasn't aware that the video was only subsequently ...
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, is it necessary to show the video.
18 The witness didn't know that Peulic was commanding the brigade but he
19 isn't challenging it as far as I know.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Microphone not activated]
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.
23 Your Honours, it was not my intention to show the video or these
24 documents because I thought it was an undisputed fact. However, the
25 witness --
1 MS. KORNER: It is undisputed.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: I think it is, yes. It is undisputed.
3 MS. KORNER: I'm just checking. I mean, certainly there is no
4 question it was Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic who commanded the brigade.
5 What I need to check is whether that was the -- it was originally
6 intended that he or somebody else should do it. But certainly he was
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I am really am a bit confused.
9 A short while ago the witness confirmed that according to his
10 knowledge the initial commander of that unit was another person and that
11 was my question to him. I'll give you the reference. I can refer to the
13 Page 17, lines 6 and 7, the witness's answer was the following:
14 "I know that the initial establishment in November, end of November, had
15 a different commander."
16 THE WITNESS: Well, from the establishment document from the CSB
17 on the 22nd November, Bosko Peulic is not annotated down as the
18 commander. Now whether that was, you know, a decision after that,
19 Colonel Peulic should be -- maybe it was more skilled or -- should be in
20 there, or whether General Talic decided to appoint him. I don't know. I
21 take it very much at face value that Colonel Peulic was the commander.
22 I've not seen the video and so I don't contest that at all. But the
23 document on the 22nd November outlining the -- which followed from that
24 document which is seen, outlining all the individuals and the structure
25 of that brigade has a Brane Pecanac as the commander. There may well
1 have been that what happened is there was a decision to change that.
2 That's all I'm saying.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Brown, when police units are resubordinated, they are
5 resubordinated in an organised manner. In other words, the police
6 officer is in charge of that unit. At the moment of resubordination to
7 the military he, as commander of the unit, and the whole unit are
8 resubordinated to the military and become part of the military
9 establishment, military structure.
10 Document 2D119 shows that the brigade command was appointed by
11 the MUP, but that doesn't mean a thing, because their commander is
12 appointed by the military because that unit is resubordinated to the
13 military and that unit is commanded by a military officer. You know that
14 Bosko Peulic is a military officer rather than a police officer
15 correct -- am I right?
16 A. Absolutely I know he was a military officer. But my point is
17 that, and I have so say that I'm not an expert in the workings of the
18 police brigade in the corridor in November and onwards, but it would seem
19 that there was an express need by General Talic which necessitated him
20 making requests to have this battalion or brigade formed. That was
21 accepted by the CSB, and what the CSB did was that they organised the
22 structure of that brigade as outlined in document D119 giving the whole
23 structure of that brigade and the command component and, at least at face
24 value from the document, appointing Brane Pecanac as the commander of the
1 Now what happened after that to make Colonel Peulic the commander
2 of the brigade, I do not know, and I take it at face value that there was
3 that change or that there was an appointment, but I don't know. All I'm
4 saying is that according to the document the CSB wrote, Colonel Peulic
5 was not at least the initial commander or at least according to that --
6 that individual document. But as -- again, I'm not an expert on the
7 police battalion structure. [Overlapping speakers] ...
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
9 MS. KORNER: Sorry, can I interrupt because really I think it's
10 only fair to the witness. The witness, having looked at the document,
11 it's 2D119, and I think it should be put up.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am not trying to
13 impeach document 2D119, but I do object to the way Ms. Korner interferes
14 with my examination of the witness. The witness and I absolutely agree
15 on the contents of document 2D119. There is no dispute there. That's
16 why I haven't shown it to the witness.
17 By the way, the witness has it in front of him anyway. But what
18 is in dispute is the issue of resubordination of this police brigade to
19 the military. That is the crucial issue I'm discussing with the witness.
20 Q. Sir, if General Talic appointed a military officer, a
21 lieutenant-colonel, Bosko Peulic, commander of this brigade, is this an
22 instance of resubordination of this brigade, to your mind then?
23 Resubordination to the military, that is.
24 A. It could be. But it could also be that the brigade lacked
25 certain skills and General Talic has offered Colonel Peulic up as the
1 commander. I don't doubt that if General Talic believes there's an
2 exceptional need to have a police brigade for operations in the corridor
3 that that brigade is to operate under his -- his corps. But clearly
4 there's been significant discussion, agreement, acceptance, consensus
5 involving the Ministry of Interior, the Krajina Corps, the CSB for this
6 brigade to be -- to be formed and dispatched to the corps. When it's
7 there, I don't doubt that it would have been subordinated to the corps
8 for operations there.
9 Q. Sir, Mr. Brown, on page 21, line 18 you said that there's been
10 significant discussion, agreement, acceptance, consensus involving the
11 Ministry of the Interior. We have seen two documents: General Talic's
12 request, and Mr. Zupljanin's order, which issued in his capacity as CSB
13 chief. These are the only two documents you cite in your report
14 concerning this matter. And, on the basis of these documents, you were
15 unable to determine whether there was discussion, agreement, and so on.
16 You may be able to assume that there was something of that kind, but I'm
17 sure you cannot claim it for certain.
18 A. Well, of course, I wasn't there, so I can't say for certain. But
19 the document -- document says in accordance with an order from the
20 minister of the interior on the basis of dispatch from the 1st Krajina
21 Corps with the consent of the minister of the interior and clearly this
22 is a CSB Banja Luka instruction, so I would -- I would assume that --
23 that that constitutes some kind of process of agreement and consent that
24 this -- and this occurs very quickly. The request is quite -- at least
25 General Talic's instruction, I don't know what went on prior to that, but
1 this seems to have happened quite swiftly, and we're talking about a
2 large unit, and we're talking about units coming from all over the
3 Krajina, and the brigade was formed. And was dispatched.
4 Now when I put all that together, I can only assume that this
5 sort of co-ordination was fairly significant and the dispatch of this
6 brigade was quite significant. So I may be wrong. I wasn't there. I
7 don't know what meetings were there, but my feeling is that with that
8 background that that type of consent was -- was agreed and accepted.
9 Q. Mr. Brown, you confirmed yesterday that you hadn't seen the
10 minister's orders. When I showed you an order of the minister, and we
11 had -- we had to print them during the break for you to review these
12 documents for the first time, the minister's order dated 15 May was at
13 stake, and we're talking about November. The minister's order is a legal
14 text. That's why things go so fast, because under the law, that is the
15 procedure. The police can be resubordinated to the military for the
16 execution of combat missions and that is why these things were done so
17 efficiently, because it's a legal obligation and it is set down by the
19 Apart from all these matters you discussed with Ms. Korner, my
20 learned friend asked you during the examination-in-chief some questions
21 about discipline. And then to her question you said that you had never
22 seen a document confirming the assumption that resubordinated MUP
23 officers can be held accountable before military disciplinary or
24 judiciary bodies. Do you remember confirming that to the Prosecutor?
25 A. I don't remember. I take that that's what I said. I -- I would
1 accept that I haven't seen documents that -- to that fact.
2 Q. Very well. In your report, sir, item 249, and footnote 354, you
3 cite a document which I would like to show you. It's 1D04-9050, tab 12.
4 I hope it is not in dispute that you have seen this document
5 earlier, sir.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] This is not the correct document in
7 English. 1D04-9050. The Serbian original is right but the English
8 translation is wrong. The tab number is 12.
9 MS. KORNER: That's 1D049054, tab 12. [Microphone not activated]
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] This is it.
11 Q. Sir, you must have seen this document before, since it appears in
12 your footnote 354, right?
13 A. Yes, I have seen it. I remember it, sir.
14 Q. Sir, this is a document of the 1st Krajina Corps. It was not
15 signed by Major-General Momir Talic but by one of his assistants because
16 it says "for the commander?"
17 Do you agree?
18 A. That's true, sir, yes.
19 Q. And this is about police members abandoning their positions;
21 A. It would appear to be, yes, sir.
22 Q. And it says in paragraph 2: "Immediately file criminal reports
23 for each individual and take other measures to inform the public,"
24 et cetera.
25 "Immediately file criminal reports for each individual ..."
1 Is that not implementing disciplinary or penal measures against
2 these members by the military?
3 A. I don't accept that that's what's happening. I think what has
4 happened is that the Krajina Corps has received this information from the
5 Main Staff. They're quoting it and sending it directly to the CSB and
6 with the intention that the CSB file criminal reports presumably in
7 relation to the list of men who are included on this report.
8 Q. Wait a minute, Mr. Brown. This document was sent to the CSB
9 Banja Luka to the command of the 1st Krajina Corps and the 43rd Motorised
10 Brigade. Isn't that right?
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Ms. Korner, please be so kind as to
12 get up and say whatever is that you have to say. Do not suggest anything
13 in other ways.
14 Q. Sir, this document is written by the command of the Krajina
15 Corps. They're writing from the forward command post, and the document
16 is being sent to the CSB of Banja Luka to the command of the 1st Krajina
17 Corps and the 43rd Motorised Brigade; isn't that right?
18 A. It would say that on the document, sir, yes.
19 Q. So on of basis of what did you conclude that this had been sent
20 to the CSB as an instruction for them to file criminal charges
21 immediately? And in your view how is it that the 1st Krajina Corps
22 command can order the CSB Banja Luka to file criminal charges against
23 their members?
24 A. My reading of this is that the forward command post at this time,
25 probably where General Talic was based, received some information from
1 the Main Staff. General Talic or whoever signed the document on his
2 behalf sends a copy of that to the 1st Krajina Corps, presumably for the
3 archive, because that is where the headquarters was based. The 43rd
4 brigade potentially, because maybe that was the unit that -- well, it
5 comes from Prijedor, is related to the Prijedor area, and it sent it to
6 the Banja Luka CSB. And I think it's sending it to the Banja Luka CSB
7 because it expects the Banja Luka CSB to immediately file criminal
8 charges on the individuals who fled.
9 General Talic hasn't sent this to the military courts or to --
10 to -- to the military disciplinary organs. He sent it is to the CSB
11 because I think that's where he expects individuals to take action
12 against the policemen who fled the front line or whatever they've alleged
13 to have done. Abandoned positions.
14 Q. Sir, it is certain that you did -- do not expect the commander of
15 the 1st Krajina Corps to file criminal charges. He is telling his own
16 subordinate units to do that; isn't that right? General Talic would not
17 be signing criminal reports, would he? I hope that is not what you are
18 trying to say?
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that is why I interrupted. I accept
20 that the -- the criticism that I shouldn't have interrupted in the way I
22 I do not know on what basis Mr. Zecevic is asserting that this is
23 not sent to the CSB for it to prosecute as Mr. Brown has said. If he has
24 a reason for asserting it, I think that ought to be put.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: All in due time, Ms. Korner.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Brown, please reply to my question. I have
2 put a question to you.
3 Oh, the question was whether you expect General Talic to be
4 signing criminal reports or do you expect General Talic to tell his
5 subordinate units, or rather, instruct them to file criminal reports
6 against members of the military who had abandoned their positions.
7 A. If your assertion is that General Talic is sending this to the
8 Banja Luka CSB and by sending that document that implies the Banja Luka
9 CSB is a subordinate unit to the corps, I would disagree with you.
10 General Talic, if he himself or his staff are made aware of criminal
11 charges of military figures in his command, I would expect him to
12 initiate a process to -- of -- of filing criminal charges through the
13 military judicial process. But, as I say, I think this is a document
14 that is sent to the Banja Luka CSB in the expectation that they should
15 investigate what had happened to individuals, individual policemen, and
16 that -- that to me is what this document is about.
17 Q. Sir, Mr. Brown, you will agree that it would be most logical for
18 military conscripts who abandoned their positions have their direct
19 superiors, the commanding officers of the units that they were in before
20 they had abandoned their positions would file criminal reports? I'm
21 talking about military conscripts. It should be done by their direct
22 commanding officers, not the corps commander, right?
23 A. Well, I guess if the corps commander receives information, which,
24 in this case, has happened through the Main Staff it could be initiated
25 by the corps commander. But if -- if conscripts from a battalion or a
1 brigade fled, you would expect the battalion to -- to initiate the
2 investigation process.
3 Q. Tell me something else. If that were true, actually I don't want
4 to speculate any further.
5 Tell me just one thing. It is a fact that as far as military
6 conscripts are concerned, it is the military judicial that is in charge,
7 right? For as long as they're in the army. Do we agree on that at
9 A. Yes, I believe that's the case. And I believe that was the case
10 in the RS Law on the Army.
11 Q. Thank you. Now, have a look at what it says here in this
12 document. "Attachment: List of military conscripts," that's what I'd
13 like to highlight, "reserve policemen who fled from their positions."
14 Mr. Brown, that is why I'm putting this to you, that
15 Commander Momir Talic is hereby ordering military units to file criminal
16 charges because he is acting the right way in accordance with the law.
17 He is treating reserve policemen who had been resubordinated to the
18 military as military conscripts. There's 71 of them, and, therefore,
19 they have to be held accountable before military courts because, as
20 military conscripts, they are responsible, not as policemen. Because
21 they abandoned a military unit.
22 Do you agree with me on that?
23 A. No, I don't agree with you, sir.
24 Q. Let's take things one at a time then.
25 What is it that you disagree with? Do you disagree with me
1 saying that they are military conscripts? These reserve policemen. Are
2 they military conscripts or not? Yes or no.
3 [In English] It's a simple question, Mr. Brown. Yes or no?
4 A. I don't know. I don't know from the attachment whether they are
5 policemen or whether they are conscripts, whether they're members of the
6 43rd Brigade, soldiers, or whatever. If all of them are policemen --
7 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, Mr. Brown, please, we are looking at a
8 document, both you and I are looking at this document. So far, you have
9 been making the following assertion to me. Since the heading of the
10 document says that members of the police had abandoned their positions,
11 you were saying that General Talic is writing to the CSB Banja Luka and
12 instructing them or suggesting to them that they should file criminal
13 charges against their members.
14 Now this is what I'm putting to that you, that that is not the
15 case. That he is providing information to the CSB but that he is
16 instructing his own subordinate units, the 43rd Motorised Brigade, first
17 and foremost, to file criminal reports against these reserve policemen
18 who had abandoned positions at a moment when they were resubordinated to
19 the military. At that point in time, they were military conscripts and
20 all of that is written in this document. Sir --
21 A. That is not my reading of the document, sir. My reading of the
22 document, as I said before --
23 Q. Very well.
24 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, it is the time that we would take a
25 break. Could we resume this exercise in 20 minutes?
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
5 MS. KORNER: Your Honours may I just raise the question of
7 I'm a little concerned that we may not even finish Mr. Brown
8 tomorrow morning. And, as you know, he is anxious to be able to leave
9 tomorrow. I was wondering, just in case we could possibly make
10 arrangements to maybe sit a little longer tomorrow. I don't know whether
11 that affects Your Honours' abilities to --
12 JUDGE HALL: Today you mean.
13 MS. KORNER: Well, either today or tomorrow.
14 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
15 JUDGE HALL: The Registry would -- we would see whether we can do
16 it tomorrow. It would be --
17 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... I hope it won't be
18 necessary, Your Honours. But as it -- and can I say this not a criticism
19 of Mr. Zecevic. I understand why this is going on a little longer, but
20 it's just a question of having it available, if necessary.
21 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Sorry, do I understand that the witness would
22 be available into the afternoon tomorrow?
23 MS. KORNER: I think so, Your Honour, yes. I think his problem
24 is from tomorrow evening.
25 JUDGE HALL: I see. Very well. Thanks.
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 JUDGE HALL: So we will request the Registry to make
3 arrangements, tentative, for a fourth session tomorrow to accommodate any
4 possible spillover. Thank you.
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 MR. ZECEVIC: May I continue, Your Honours?
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Brown, I think that you said towards the end
10 that did you not agree with the position that I presented in my last
11 question; namely, that these are reserve policemen who had fled from
12 their positions and that in this document the commander of the
13 1st Krajina Corps is treating them as military conscripts which is what
14 is written in the document itself. I think that your answer to that
15 question was not fully recorded.
16 A. Well, the document at the end says list of conscripts, reserve
17 policemen. But I think I made my position clear that I think
18 General Talic believes that the Banja Luka CSB is to initiate proceedings
19 against these individuals.
20 Q. Very well. Let us now look at the next page.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, are we going to leave this document?
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Oh, no, the second page of the document.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ah, right. Thanks. I have a question relating
24 to the document when you're finished.
25 MR. ZECEVIC:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, this is a list of these military conscripts
2 as Mr. -- as General Momir Talic says, who had abandoned their positions.
3 And this very list says "list of soldiers." I underline the word
4 "soldiers," who wilfully abandoned their positions between 13th of
5 September, 1992, and the 11th of October, 1992. Obviously, the command
6 of the 1st Krajina Corps considers them to be soldiers; and if they
7 consider them to be soldiers, as you said to me a moment ago, in that
8 case, as for taking disciplinary action again them, or bringing criminal
9 charges against them, it is the military commands that are in charge of
10 that, and appropriate organs of the military judiciary, right?
11 A. It says "soldiers" in the document. But if these individuals
12 were soldiers, I would not have expected General Talic to send that to
13 the CSB. There's no reference in this document to sending reports to the
14 military police battalion, to the military courts, to the investigative
15 military courts at all, and I stand by my position. I don't know why
16 they've put "soldiers" on there, but it would seem to me that on face
17 value this document is going to the CSB because they expect the CSB to
18 initiate some kind of proceedings against them, or investigation, I
20 Q. Sir, I think it's quite clear that they are reserve policemen we
21 saw that. Are you challenging the fact that the people on this list are
22 reserve policemen?
23 A. I don't know if they are reserve policemen. I'm assuming they
24 are because that's what the title of the document is about, so I'm not
25 challenging that they're reserve policemen at all.
1 Q. All right. Now, you claim that General Talic is mistakenly
2 calling them military conscripts on the first page and calling them
3 soldiers on this list. Again, mistakenly. And that although they are
4 military conscripts or soldiers, he is sending this to the CSB and
5 expecting them to bring criminal charges against them. Is that your
7 A. My reading of this document is that these are reserve policemen
8 who fled, the Main Staff has highlighted that, General Talic is sending
9 this to the CSB in order for them to action it, and that as reserve
10 policemen they don't fall within the Law on the Army or service rules and
11 that's why he's sending them to the CSB. I think I've stated that a few
13 Q. How do you explain the fact that he is calling them soldiers?
14 A. I can't explain, whether it's an error whoever has made the list,
15 I don't know.
16 Q. And at first he says military conscripts dash -- or, rather,
17 comma, reserve policemen. Is that a mistake too, I assume?
18 A. I can't say why they've put that, but the title of the document
19 relates to reserve policemen, and I'm assuming that this list is of
20 reserve policemen and the document is going to the CSB.
21 Q. Sir, you keep forgetting that, on page 1 of this document, we see
22 that this document was sent to the command of the 43rd Motorised Brigade
23 and the command of the Krajina Corps. I think that we've already dealt
24 with that?
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, don't you think that this is as far
1 as can you go with it.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours. I understand. Thank you very
4 Your Honour, just for the record, one of the exhibits in this
5 case is P1566. This the list of the -- the uncomplete list of the
6 members of the reserve force of police in -- in Prijedor for
7 September 1992, and I have identified during the break at least five of
8 the persons which appear on the list in this document, this military
9 document, which we are talking about. And I can give the references.
10 Those are the numbers in this document which we are looking right now are
11 numbers 22, 30, 62, 66, 70, and they correspond to numbers in P1566, 83,
12 104, 115, 85, and 142. And apparently, in addition, number 20, which
13 corresponds to number 50 in this -- in this case.
14 I'm notified that there are more, but I think this is sufficient.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: So, Mr. Zecevic, by this comparison, we are to
16 conclude that the -- at least some of the persons there on the first
17 lists we saw were, indeed, reserve police force members. Is that the
18 conclusion that you are suggesting?
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I don't -- I don't -- I don't -- I
20 don't challenge that all of them are reserve policemen. What I'm saying
21 is that the moment when they were resubordinated to the army, they lose
22 their position as the police officers and became military conscripts, or
23 soldiers, as the document says. That is the -- that this is the point.
24 Your Honours, can I have this document admitted?
25 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, therefore, 1D04-9050 will become
2 Exhibit 1D411.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: I have a question for you and a question for the
8 My question to you is if you are in possession of any evidence
9 that any of the persons, the 71 persons on the first list, were ever
10 prosecuted; and, if they were, by which authority?
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, not at this point, Your Honour, but I will
12 gladly endeavour to find the documents in that -- in -- in relation to
13 that, yes. If I can, of course.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Of course, that goes without saying. But, of
15 course, it would be interesting to see who actually took action on this,
16 whether it would be the civilian prosecutor or the military prosecutor.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand. I understand.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: My question to the witness is this. What do you
19 make of the fact that in the letter signed by someone in -- on behalf of
20 General Talic, first of all, what do you make of the fact that this was
21 brought to the level of Talic for him to sign the letter? Obviously
22 someone else signed it on his behalf but it seem to me that under normal
23 circumstances a -- an abandonment from the front line would be dealt with
24 by the 43rd Corps itself.
25 So my question is what are you able to infer from the fact that
1 this was now brought to the level of the Main Staff of the Krajina Corps;
2 secondly, what do you make of the fact that the Banja Luka CSB is
3 indicated as the primary addressee of this letter?
4 Is there any hierarchy to be inferred from the way in which the
5 letter was drafted among the two addressees?
6 THE WITNESS: Possibly answering your first question, sir.
7 It's clear that the flow of information has come from the
8 Main Staff to the corps. That's -- I think it's not come from below to
9 Talic. How the Main Staff got wind of that or under what process I'm not
10 sure, but it seems that General Talic's headquarters has received the
11 information so, in a way, I'm not surprised that General Talic is -- or
12 him or his staff are dealing with it. That's one issue. And second, I
13 think abandonment of a position is an important thing for a commander to
14 know, irrespective of what level. I would, you know, commanders don't
15 like to see that because it weakens their operations, their units. So in
16 a way I don't see that in any surprising.
17 In relation to the hierarchy, I can't say for sure but I would
18 suspect that the CSB are number one because they are the ones who have to
19 action it. I think the second distribution to the Krajina Corps
20 headquarters is probably for the archive. I don't think the forward --
21 well, the forward command post did have an archive but it was a
22 relatively small headquarters deployed to the corridor area to better
23 manage the operations there. So I think the second distribution is
24 probably for an archival purpose, and the 43rd Brigade may well have just
25 been a unit that the soldiers abandoned and so it may be that
1 General Talic is simply saying we're aware of this issue.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you for this answer.
3 What you are suggesting, if I understand you correctly, is that
4 the Banja Luka CSB is really the primary addressee and then the 43rd
5 Motorised Brigade is copied for their information. Is that a correct
6 understanding of what are you suggesting?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes. Now I'm not sure where the Prijedor unit was,
8 whether they actually abandoned from Prijedor or whether they're
9 informing them because the 43rd brigade invariably covered Prijedor from
10 its garrison. Well, that is my position, sir.
11 JUDGE HALL: If that is your suggestion, then my question is, if
12 this letter were to be sent to the 43rd Motorised Brigade for their
13 information, copied for their information, cc, however you want to put
14 it, would that appear like this, or would -- would you not have expected
15 that the authority to which this letter is sent for information would
16 appear at the bottom of the page, normally? It would say cc 1st Krajina
17 Corps, 43rd Brigade.
18 THE WITNESS: The corps didn't seem to use that all the time,
19 sir. I've seen instructions both with the distribution where it is here,
20 and I've seen distributions in a long list at the bottom of the document.
21 I'm not sure I can say one way or the other whether I would expect to see
22 it on a document like this.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: So your testimony is that it does occur
24 frequently like this?
25 THE WITNESS: I've seen documents like this, yes, sir. It tends
1 to be these smaller instructions, orders, information, where it's maybe
2 one or two addressees get placed at the front. If it's a very large
3 combat report that's going to every unit of the corps, it is often -- the
4 distribution is often at the back of the document. But I've seen both.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
6 MR. ZECEVIC:
7 Q. [Interpretation] One question in relation to the question put by
8 His Honour.
9 Sir, you remember that yesterday we discussed document 1D368 that
10 is your footnote 616. Tab 44. It has to do with guide-lines of the
11 military prosecutor's office attached to the Main Staff of the army for
12 setting the criteria for criminal prosecution.
13 Do you remember that we commented on that document yesterday?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. Now can we have it on the screens. It's page 11, I think, or
16 maybe 20. It 0760348. And at the beginning of the page is item 2. In
17 the document itself, it's page 9. Yes, that's the page. They just tell
18 me now that it's page 19. And in English, page 5.
19 Sir, here, in item 2, it says: "The criminal offence of wilfully
20 absenting one's self-from one's post and desertion from the armed
21 forces - Article 217 of the Criminal Code."
22 This relates to the topic we've just discussed, wilfully leaving
23 the post -- I don't want to go into details. It's -- it has to do with
24 the persons who took part that combat. Do you agree?
25 A. I would imagine it covers combat as well. It may be wilfully
1 abandoning your post in a way regarding a barracks or doing another
2 military activity, but, yes, I think it is abandonment of a military
4 Q. All right. You quoted this document in your report, footnote
5 616, so I think it isn't in dispute that this document envisages criminal
6 offences. Those criminal offences which, in the view of the highest
7 military prosecutor in the Army of Republika Srpska, the one attached to
8 the Main Staff, would fall within the jurisdiction of the military
9 judiciary. Isn't that so?
10 A. That's correct, yes.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 A. For military personnel, and military personnel are defined in the
13 service regulations as being members of the army, cadets, active and
14 reserve army members, I think. I'm not a legal expert.
15 Q. Absolutely; I agree with you.
16 I have just a few more questions for you. I want to clarify some
17 things in relation to some documents.
18 Sir, in your report, in footnote 333A, that's the first footnote
19 under the number 333, and you quote 1D04-9039, which is an order by the
20 5th Corps command dated 18th February 1992.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Tab number 9. I'm sorry.
22 Q. It's one of the documents that was copied for you, I assume.
23 Do you see the document?
24 A. I do, sir, yes.
25 Q. Under (a), it says that:
1 "Temporary check-points of the VP and the police shall be
2 established to carry out thorough inspections of persons and vehicles
3 entering and leaving and prevent any unauthorised circumstances and
4 transport of military equipment" and other things. You can see that?
5 I think that you used that in your report in order to illustrate
6 some things that you were saying about the check-points.
7 A. Yes. I think I would have to read my report again, but I think
8 it was a document referring to joint police/military check-points. In
9 this case, in Western Slavonia, I think.
10 Q. Sir, are you aware that in 1991, the MUP of the Socialist
11 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina carried out an action under the
12 code-name of check-point 91 throughout the territory of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina and in that action they acted together with the
14 members of the army, JNA at the time, and the members of the federal SUP,
15 and they controlled entry and exit motor vehicles, transportation of
16 military equipment and so on?
17 A. I'm not aware of that operation, sir.
18 Q. All right.
19 MS. KORNER: I'm so sorry, Your Honour. Could we have a date for
20 this operation.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Check-point 91.
22 MS. KORNER: Yes, sorry. I mean, when in 1991.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] It was throughout 1991. We heard
24 testimony about it in this case.
25 I seek to have this document admitted, if there is no objection.
1 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D412, Your Honours.
3 MR. ZECEVIC:
4 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, now that we are talking about check-points,
5 let us touch upon another issue. 1D04-9045. It is also a document that
6 you used in your report, the same footnote, 333, but C. Tab number 10.
7 It is an order by the command of the 5th Corps dated 9th of May,
8 1992. Are you familiar with this document? It is mentioned in your
10 A. Yes. I'd have to read it again. Unfortunately, there's a rather
11 large number of footnotes in my -- my document.
12 Q. Go ahead.
13 A. Could I see the second page, sir?
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Can he have the second page, please.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, I've read it now, sir.
16 MR. ZECEVIC:
17 Q. [Interpretation] All right. Can we have page one again.
18 This is an order by the command of the 5th Corps signed by the
19 commander Momir Talic. It was still called the 5th Corps at that time,
20 and after that it was called the 1st Krajina Corps. It relates to
21 movements of civilian vehicles in the zone of responsibility, and this
22 order comes from the archive of the command. And it says, third
24 "Military police organs and mixed forces of military police and
25 the MUP are controlling and regulating traffic at junctions and
2 And that pertains to the zone of responsibility of the 5th Corps.
3 You also spoke about this, about the fact that the members of the
4 MUP of the Serbian Republic of Krajina took part in some combat
5 operations together with the 1st Corps.
6 A. Yes, I think I was referring to MUP Krajina police in the
7 corridor a lot later than this. Here they're referring to, I'm assuming
8 because the corps still had a component in Western Slavonia, they're
9 referring to MUP and military police in the Western Slavonia or Krajina
10 area that the corps deployed. So the references to the MUP of the
11 SR Krajina but, yes, I talked in a different context about the MUP
12 Krajina being involved in combat operations in the corridor later in
13 1992. I'm not aware of what operations may have been conducted by the
14 corps and MUP Krajina in Krajina in 1991 and early 1992.
15 Q. Sir, this is a document dated the 9th of May, and in the very
16 first very sentence, it says:
17 "In the zone of responsibility of the 5th Corps."
18 It doesn't say north from Sava river, as we found in some other
19 cases, it pertains to the whole zone of responsibility of the 5th Corps.
20 And then in the third paragraph it says:
21 "Controlling and regulating shall be carried out by military
22 police organs and mixed forces of military police and the police of the
23 Serbian Republic of Krajina."
24 Do you agree with that? There is no specific instruction that
25 this should be in force only in that part of the zone of responsibility
1 of the 5th Corps which is in the territory of Croatia. This pertains to
2 the whole zone of responsibility of the 5th Corps. Isn't that so?
3 That's what you can conclude from this document.
4 A. Well, there is an ambiguity but it does have a wide distribution
5 so it may well be -- I mean, the focus seems to be a problem in -- in --
6 in the Krajina area. He is not -- he doesn't, I don't think I would have
7 to check again, he doesn't mention the MUP in Bosnia. But he does
8 mention the MUP in Krajina. But the order does say "zone of
9 responsibility," and it is a wide distribution, so he may be talking
10 about all his units in the corps.
11 Q. All right. Now, to be absolutely clear, the police of the
12 Serbian Republic of Krajina has absolutely nothing to do with the MUP of
13 Republika Srpska. Isn't that so?
14 A. I don't know. It's not an area, a relationship between the two
15 is -- is not -- is not one I know well. But I am aware that Mr. Martic
16 and, you know, was present in many meetings in 1992, but it's not an area
17 of my expertise that I'm aware, in terms of the relationship between the
18 two police organisations.
19 Q. So let us clarify this. The police of the Serbian Republic of
20 Krajina is the police that comes from a part of the Republic of Croatia
21 and which was headed by Mr. Martic. Isn't that so? That's the police of
22 the Serbian Republic of Krajina.
23 A. Yes, I believe that's the case.
24 Q. Sir, since they were members of the police, they had the police
25 uniforms. Do you know that?
1 A. I -- I would assume so. But, again, I can only say that I'm not
2 an expert on the MUP of the SRK.
3 Q. All right.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to have this document
6 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D413, Your Honours.
8 MR. ZECEVIC:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, another document related to the same topic.
10 It's 65 ter 10219. Your footnote 352. And tab 11.
11 This is a memo from the command of the 1st Krajina Corps dated
12 the 10th of June addressed to the MUP of the Republika Srpska Krajina.
13 You have obviously seen that document before because it forms a part of
14 your report. And in it, the command of the 1st Krajina Corps refers to a
15 cable of the 8th of June, in which the MUP of the Serbian Krajina informs
16 them that they had formed the volunteers unit and sent to the complement
17 of the 1st Krajina Corps, and now Mr. Talic tells them that they will
18 receive the unit on the 10th June at 1500 hours at the Manjaca training
19 ground. Do you agree with that?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. So this means that within the 1st Krajina Corps there was at
22 least one unit of the MUP of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, at least
23 from the 10th of June 1992 onwards.
24 A. Yes. I -- I assume that MUP Krajina passed some instructions to
25 the Main Staff saying, We have some volunteers that would be willing to
1 come to Bosnia, and that was passed to the corps. And the corps said
2 We're happy to have you, and you will be escorted here, and you can have
3 some training at Manjaca camp.
4 Q. But, sir, let us be very precise. It doesn't say here, We have
5 some volunteers. They say, We have formed a volunteers unit and are
6 sending it into your complement, the complement of the 1st Krajina Corps.
7 That's what is says here?
8 A. Yes, I suspect they offered that unit up and it's been agreed and
10 Q. So let us now return to the issue of the resubordination. The
11 MUP of the Serbian Republic of Krajina forms a volunteers unit and sends
12 it to the 1st Krajina Corps, saying, We are sending these volunteers unit
13 into your complement. So we assume that those people wear police
14 uniforms and they are members of the MUP of the Republic of Serbian
15 Krajina. And now, on the 10th of June, the 1st Krajina Corps accepts
16 this unit, and they say that they are going to take it and escort it and
17 deploy it into the -- in the planned sector, so you would agree that now
18 this unit becomes a part of the 1st Krajina Corps, a military formation?
19 A. Well, the issue of uniforms I can't comment on, whether they were
20 given combat uniforms by the corps I would imagine they were. I don't
21 know from this document what any agreements would be in relation to the
22 use of that volunteer unit. It may well have been that this is similar
23 to one of the paramilitary instructions which discusses, you know, having
24 volunteers integrated into the army, but clearly this volunteer unit is
25 placed in the corps as a unit of the corps. Whether they were dispersed,
1 whether they were kept as a volunteer formation, I can't say. But it's
2 clear that the MUP RSK have offered this formation up, it's been agreed
3 and accepted by the Main Staff, and they've been -- or they are to be
4 integrated into the 1st Krajina Corps. How that unit was used, what that
5 agreement was, what happened to the individuals in it, whether they
6 stayed as a formed unit or -- I can't say. But I accept your assumption
7 that these units are to be made available and placed in the 1st Krajina
9 Q. Sir, those people, although they are policemen of the Serbian
10 Republic of Krajina, when they were part of the 1st Krajina Corps, they
11 became soldiers of the 1st Krajina Corps; right?
12 A. They most probably did. I can't say for sure because I don't
13 what agreements were there, but they may -- most probably were volunteers
14 who were happy to come and fight presumably --
15 Q. All right.
16 A. -- in Bosnia.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we admit this document as well?
19 JUDGE HALL: Does it have to be separately admitted? It's a
20 footnote to the report.
21 MS. KORNER: Yes. I don't think it's on our 65 ter list, though,
22 and your order was we could only admit documents which were on our 65
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Ms. Korner.
25 Yes, admitted and marked.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D414, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, I'm -- just in order to be clear
3 about the significance of this last document that we admitted into
4 evidence, because I --
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, if I may --
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: I was unsure about what it was you really wanted
7 to prove here.
8 Is it the Defence position that these volunteers were
9 resubordinated, or -- or what?
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely. Absolutely,
11 Your Honour.
12 This is a police unit which was sent from the territory of
13 another country. It has nothing do with Republika Srpska. So the MUP of
14 this other country offered to the 1st Krajina Corps their own unit,
15 police unit, which would arrive there as volunteers. They came as
16 volunteers and they were resubordinated to the 1st Krajina Corps and, in
17 that moment, they became soldiers.
18 I say that this is a general principle. Every time when members
19 of the police, regardless of whether they are volunteers or regular
20 members, are resubordinated, they become soldiers. They cannot be, at
21 the same time, both soldiers and policemen. When they are
22 resubordinated, they are soldiers and they have all rights and duties as
23 any other soldier, and this is the position of the Defence. We give this
24 as an example.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, if they come from another country,
1 can they come as policemen? I mean, they are not policemen in the RS
2 they come as civilians in the RS and they are volunteers in -- in the RS
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I absolutely agree with you,
5 Your Honour. Absolutely agree. The legal principle remains unchanged.
6 It doesn't matter whether it's volunteers or whether it is a
7 resubordination in order to carry out a certain combat task. We've seen
8 it defined in regulations, and we are certainly going to explain that to
9 the Chamber in more detail.
10 And I also think that it is important to bear in mind that there
11 is also such a thing as a volunteer unit wearing police uniforms, a unit
12 that carries out combat activities in the territory of Republika Srpska,
13 at least from the 10th of June 1992 and which has absolutely nothing to
14 do with any of the accused.
15 So that's the second aspect that I want to bring forward. And
16 that's the reason why I seek to have it admitted.
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour --
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: We have admitted the document, all right. That's
19 not an issue. But maybe there is some uncertainty about the exact
20 meaning of resubordination and we may return to that.
21 But, you see, my understanding of resubordination of police units
22 into the army was that according to some agreements between the MUP and
23 the army, certain police units would be on loan for a limited period of
24 time from the police to the army for the purpose of providing assistance
25 to the army during the combat operation. And when that combat operation
1 was brought to an end, the normal sequence of events would have been that
2 the police unit would then return to its normal police functions within
3 the MUP. And that seems to me to be different from the situation where
4 some persons may be policemen, decide to leave the police and become
5 volunteers and sort of sign up as regular combatants and then be included
6 in the army after some military training.
7 But I -- I would be curious to learn what the -- the Defence
8 position is, really.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's very simple. I
10 agree with the Court that the issue of resubordination and the issue of
11 volunteers are two different issues. They are separate. A volunteer is
12 an individual who, by his own free will, places himself under the command
13 of a military unit, and it is fully regulated by the applicable laws. It
14 is all in our law library.
15 The issue of resubordination, contrary to your understanding, is
16 not an issue about an agreement or an approval or anything like that. It
17 is regulated by law.
18 Your Honour, the Supreme Commander is the president of the
19 Presidency. He may order, as you have seen in the documents, he may
20 order a police unit to be resubordinated to the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.
21 We have shown such a document yesterday in the courtroom.
22 The second in command below him, who can also give such an order,
23 is Ratko Mladic, the chief of the Main Staff. The constitution clearly
24 says that the President of the Presidency as the Supreme Command can
25 delegate his authority to him.
1 So this commander, Ratko Mladic, then issues a directive to army
2 units, the corps in the territory of Republika Srpska, to carry out
3 certain tasks, and then it is the corps which is authorised by law to
4 resubordinate police units if there is a need to do so. And that's what
5 they do.
6 And now comes the correct part of your understanding. At the
7 moment when they are resubordinated to the army, during the period that
8 they are resubordinated for carrying out certain task they become members
9 of the military, they enter the command structure of the military, and
10 they have no link with their domestic unit. That is, the Ministry of the
11 Interior. In such a moment when the military has no need for them
12 anymore, then they go back to their security station or the centre of
13 security services, and they continue to perform their tasks that they
14 normally perform as members of the police, which, in essence, they are.
15 And it goes on like that until the next moment, until the military has a
16 need to resubordinate them again and incorporate them into the military
18 This is the position of the Defence.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, I understand as much. And my reference to
20 an agreement was only meant to say that, of course, resubordination takes
21 place, according to the law. We are perfectly aware of that. But that
22 the normal sequence of events, when we have resubordination, is that
23 there is typically some sort of an understanding or agreement between the
24 police and the army commander in the local area.
25 But be that as it may, your answer seemed to confirm my
1 understanding that there is a significant difference between
2 resubordination of police forces, on the one hand, and the voluntary
3 signing up as soldiers by individuals who may or may not have had
4 previously employment with the MUP. And if you remember my initial
5 question about the document that we admitted as 1D414, my question to was
6 whether you would be of the opinion that the voluntary assignment of
7 individuals, whether in that -- whether in your understanding, that was a
8 resubordination, and you said yes. But now you're clarifying, and you're
9 saying that there is a difference, indeed.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will try to explain
11 very briefly.
12 That is why I showed the first document dated 18 February 1992.
13 That document shows that MUP units of the Serbian Republic of Krajina
14 jointly manned some check-points with the military police. It is our
15 position that, in that case, they resubordinated to the 5th Corps of the
17 On the other hand, this, from June, is some interim situation,
18 because, Your Honours, these are not individuals who sign up as
19 volunteers. It's an instance where the MUP of the Serbian Republic of
20 Krajina informs the Krajina Corps that they have established a unit they
21 are putting at their disposal; that is, a unit established by the MUP of
22 the Serbian Republic of Krajina. So we're not talking about the free
23 will of every individual. It's an existing unit. And I suppose that
24 this unit, at that moment, is integrated into the 1st Krajina Corps as a
25 volunteer unit because, at that moment, it was a unit from outside the
1 territory of the Republika Srpska. The Republika Srpska is in existence
2 and so is its army, and that is why this unit is being integrated as a
3 volunteer unit.
4 I don't know if I have been clear enough.
5 So it's not a clear-cut case, but I do agree that volunteers are
6 one thing and resubordination a different things altogether.
7 I hope that I was able to be of assistance.
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, you invited Mr. Zecevic to make the
9 speech and I understand the reason behind it. But I do feel that I
10 should say two things at this stage.
11 Firstly, his assertions we would say are not borne out by the
12 evidence that you have heard so as far. In particular, his assertions as
13 to what this document shows are inferences that he wants you to draw
14 which may or may not be correct from the terms of this document and which
15 he, himself, has no further information about, unless is he going to call
16 evidence later.
17 The third thing is this. This is the sort of evidence that the
18 witness should be asked about. Mr. Zecevic asserted earlier that the law
19 said that the moment there was resubordination, these police officers,
20 leaving aside volunteers from the RSK or whatever, became military
21 conscripts. Mr. Brown invited Mr. Zecevic to show him the law which he
22 had in mind, and Mr. Zecevic said he would.
23 Your Honours, we repeat that invitation, and we also suggest that
24 the proper person to ask these questions about is Mr. Brown and not for
25 Mr. Zecevic to make what he hopes will be the case.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, I think we would be failing in our
2 duty if we didn't ensure that we would have understood correctly what the
3 Defence position, as well as the Prosecution's position is, when we're in
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is not my
6 intention, nor do I have the time, to discuss legal matters with this
7 witness who is a military expert. I asked him the question several times
8 over and he replied he wasn't a legal expert.
9 I will give the references. It's the Law on the -- on Internal
10 Affairs, the Law on the Army, the Law on All People's Defence, and all
11 accompanying regulations for which, I suppose, I would need a couple of
12 days to put them all to the witness and I don't have those days. And
13 apart from that, the witness said himself he wasn't a legal expert.
14 So we will deal with these references and these matters when the
15 time comes.
16 MS. KORNER: No, but I'm asking, leaving aside the witness, I'm
17 asking that we be provided because this assertion has now been made twice
18 in the space of two hours with the relevant articles of the relevant laws
19 that Mr. Zecevic asserts and has asserted to the Trial Chamber deal with
20 his proposition to the witness.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, it goes without saying that I would
22 be making submissions on the subject, and I will cite all the relevant
23 laws which are, by the way, all stipulated in our law library.
24 May I continue with the witness, please.
25 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
1 MR. ZECEVIC:
2 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, we have briefly touched upon Manjaca based
3 on this document. In your report - please bear with me - you spoke about
4 POW camps and collection centres. You have touched upon these matters in
5 your report.
6 A. I have, sir, yes.
7 Q. The document I want to show you is 1D04-9443. That's tab 43.
8 Your footnote is 911.
9 A. Is that the right footnote?
10 Q. 911. I suppose you have seen this document before, because it's
11 as cited in one of your footnotes. It's dated 13 September, 1991. As
12 far as I can tell, this is an order about the establishment of this POW
13 camp, and these POWs are from the MUP and the ZNG of Croatia, and the
14 camp commander is appointed and the security of the camp is dealt with
15 and everything else that's necessary. Do you agree with that?
16 A. Yes. Could I see the second page, sir?
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see the second
19 THE WITNESS: And the following page. Is that possible?
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] The third page, please.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. We see that at this time, Colonel Talic was a deputy commander,
24 and he signed this order, didn't he?
25 A. Yes. I believe that's the case.
1 Q. So from this order, we can conclude that the POW camp at Manjaca
2 was established in September 1991; right?
3 A. That's correct, yes. It was initially established for the
4 operations that were ongoing in Western Slavonia, and I'm assuming that
5 the reference on the first page is to ZNG or Croatian prisoners that
6 the -- and maybe MUP prisoners that they had taken in operations there.
7 But initially the camp was established in that -- in that period.
8 Q. All right. And as we see, Lieutenant-Colonel
9 Stanko Baltic from the command of the 5th Corps of the JNA is appointed
10 camp commander.
11 A. That's correct, sir, yes.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please see --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: I seek to tender
14 this document.
15 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D415, Your Honours.
17 MR. ZECEVIC:
18 Q. [Interpretation] The following document is 1D04-9450, tab 50, and
19 your footnote is 912. It's a document from January 1992.
20 This is an order. You have seen this document too, because it's
21 cited in one of your footnotes. It's an order about the -- setting up of
22 a collection camp for prisoners of war in the facilities of the former
23 penal correction facility at Stara Gradiska. It's dated 7 January, 1992,
24 and signed by Lieutenant-General Vladimir Vukovic, the then-commander,
25 which we see on the following page. Do you agree with that?
1 A. Yes, I believe that was a prison in Stara Gradiska and that they
2 also used that, initially at least, for the operations that they were
3 conducting in Western Slavonia.
4 Q. I believe it is not in dispute that this collection centre for
5 POWs in Stara Gradiska, for a while, was also used to accommodate persons
6 deprived of liberty or taken prisoner during the clashes in
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?
8 A. Yes. I do know that certain prisoners were taken to
9 Stara Gradiska in the early part. I'm not sure that Stara Gradiska is
10 over the Sava river. I think it might actually be over the river. And I
11 don't believe that collection facility was used for that long probably
12 because of that fact. But I do know that a small number of prisoners in
13 the operations that happened in -- in the early -- late spring or early
14 summer of 1992, a small number did go to Stara Gradiska.
15 Q. Thank you. Unless there is an objection, I seek to tender this
17 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D416, Your Honours.
19 MR. ZECEVIC:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, I want to show you a document which is
21 already an exhibit in this case, P61.2, which is tab 51, and your
22 footnote is 913. It's an order by Ratko Mladic dated 12 June 1992 about
23 the treatment of prisoners of war.
24 Sir, it is not in dispute that pursuant to the order of the chief
25 of General Staff, Ratko Mladic, prisoners of war should be placed in POW
1 camps by the army, and these camps should have been established at corps
2 level; isn't that right?
3 A. Well, this is a document saying that prisoners of war camp should
4 be established in -- in -- at corps level, and it outlines the
5 guide-lines for those. There was clearly an already existing prisoner of
6 war camp in the corps at Manjaca at this time. I think Stara Gradiska
7 had already ceased to function. But clearly it wasn't the only detention
8 centre that was there. But this does seem to instruct at military level
9 there is to be a corps-level prisoner of war camp, which already existed
10 in the case of the 1st Krajina Corps.
11 Q. It's a fact, isn't it, that all corps - and there are documents,
12 I don't know to which extent you're familiar with them - the eastern
13 Bosnian and the Krajina Corps and others organised some brigades -- or,
14 rather, some brigades organised camps, too, such as the Birac Brigade
15 which organised a camp at Vlasenica. Then the Eastern Bosnian Corps had
16 one at Batkovici. Do you know that they had their respective POW camps?
17 A. I don't know in all corps, but I do know there was one at
18 Batkovici because certain prisoners, once Manjaca closed, were sent
19 there. I don't know from the other corps, however.
20 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, it's time again for the break.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Oh, yes, yes. I'm sorry, Your Honours. I will be
22 shortly finishing after we return. Thank you, Your Honours.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic, you may continue.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
4 Q. [Interpretation] Could we please see P1795, which is tab 20 of --
5 in the Prosecution binder.
6 The footnote in your report, Mr. Brown, is 669. And in the
7 examination-in-chief, you commented on this document with the Prosecutor.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see page 13 of the
9 Serbian text, and page 11 of the English text. The heading is (B)
10 security support.
11 Q. Sir, there's a section which you didn't comment for Ms. Korner.
12 It's the following paragraph:
13 "Devote special attention to security for and protection of
14 sensitive elements of combat disposition and facilities and achieve full
15 control and restrict movements of the population in the zone of
17 And then, in this order of the 1st Krajina Corps, signed by
18 Mr. Talic, it says:
19 "Prisoners of war and the bearers of enemy activity after
20 processing shall be escorted to POW camps and the military investigative
22 You remember that I intervened during the examination-in-chief to
23 explain the abbreviation VIZ?
24 A. Yes, I do, sir, I remember that.
25 Q. Since this order is dated 9 June 1992, it is clear that, as of
1 that day, Mr. Talic, as the commander of the 1st Krajina Corps, gives
2 instructions to subordinate units to take two categories of persons to
3 POW camps and military investigative prisons, because, as he said,
4 "prisoners of war and persons responsible for hostile activity."
5 Can you see that?
6 A. Yes, I can see that, sir.
7 Q. You will agree with me when I say that persons responsible for
8 hostile activity would possibly be those who organised rebellion, for
10 A. I wouldn't necessarily say so. It depends if you want to expand
11 on what you say organised rebellion. I am assuming he means people who
12 are involved in hostile combat activities, firing on his troop, that type
13 of activity as opposed to -- I mean someone who organises a rebellion
14 doesn't necessarily take armed action, do they, I assume. So I put this
15 within the confines of what he's -- his soldiers are doing which is to
16 conduct combat activities.
17 Q. That's precisely my point. The way I understand this document,
18 two categories are mentioned here. One category is prisoners of war and
19 that supposedly refers to persons taking part in combat activities and
20 who were taken prisoner by the units of the 1st Krajina Corps.
21 But what it says prisoners of war and persons responsible for
22 hostile activity. So these are two groups, two categories; those who
23 took direct part and those, who, in my opinion, did not take direct part
24 but engaged in some sort of hostile or enemy activity. Is that the way
25 you understand it too?
1 A. Well, he has clearly got two groups, he actually highlights two
2 groups, and whether he -- I mean, prisoners of war are invariably a
3 clearly defined category within the Geneva Conventions and whether he
4 believes that, you know, people who are firing on his troops need -- need
5 to find out and define whether they fall in that category or not, maybe
6 he is covering his [indiscernible]. I guess he is saying people who are
7 involved in armed actions against us are to be -- to be taken -- taken
9 Q. There's something else here that's very telling. He orders that
10 these two groups of people shall be processed by intelligence and
11 security organs of the units.
12 Do you agree?
13 A. Yes, he says that.
14 Q. Thank you. As an illustration, in case you agree, we'll see the
15 document I am about to show. 1D00-156, and that's tab 119 in the Defence
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Brown, just before we leave this document,
18 could I ask you to clarify a bit your answer to Mr. Zecevic's question as
19 to who might be encompassed by the expression "persons responsible for
20 hostile activity" because I thought that you said that those who were
21 prisoners of war would be enemy combatants, obviously. And then the
22 other group, which is called here in this order persons responsible for
23 hostile activity, would be people who had not engaged in direct armed
24 confrontation with the Serb forces.
25 And that leaves then the question about who might these persons
1 be. Could it be, for instance, also politicians; or members of civilian
2 groups? Who -- could it be civilians, really?
3 THE WITNESS: There's an ambiguity here, really, because it
4 leaves his subordinates open to say that that is people -- that those are
5 people who fall into that category. I mean, if you read that as a
6 subordinate, you could be under the impression that people suspected of
7 being involved in armed activities, whether they're actually firing on
8 his soldiers at the time, are -- should be brought into prisoners of war
10 Clearly the first category would be fairly easily discerned but
11 the second category seems potentially more wide one that allows for
12 individuals who are suspected of being involved in hostile activity,
13 whatever that could be, demonstrations, political activity, or, you know,
14 armed action but who don't fall within the category of prisoner of war.
15 So it seems rather general.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: May I continue, Your Honour?
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, please. Sorry.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
20 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, I didn't know if you had the chance to see
21 this document. I was unable to find it in your footnotes. It's a
22 document signed by Milutin Vukelic, assistant commander for morale, and
23 the date is 3 August 1992. It says:
24 "Request for the release of prisoners Zudija Ramic and Mile
25 Mandic." It says: "Request submitted."
1 It is sent or was sent to the 43rd MTBR and to the CSJB Prijedor.
2 Can you see that?
3 A. Yes. Can I just take a bit of time to read it? It's not a
4 document I've seen before.
5 Q. [In English] Yes, by all means, Mr. Brown.
6 A. Yes, I see that now, sir.
7 Q. [Interpretation] It says here:
8 "Pursuant to the request by the president of the FR of Yugoslavia
9 and the commander of the Main Staff of the Serb Republic of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina, it is vital to close as soon as possible the
11 investigation against Zudija Ramic, son of Dervis."
12 The commander of the General Staff of the army is General Ratko
13 Mladic at that point in time, right?
14 A. That's correct, sir, yes.
15 Q. And then further on instructions are being provided to give that
16 person the necessary documents, that he should be sent to the 1st Krajina
17 Corps and then they will facilitate his departure to Belgrade.
18 And then the second sentence is said:
19 "The investigation against the said person is to be closed and he
20 should be allowed to defend himself as a free man."
21 And in the last sentence it says:
22 "Complete this request by the 6th of August, 1992, and report in
23 writing to this command about all matters."
24 This has the form of an order, doesn't it?
25 A. Yes, it's an instruction. Doesn't say "order" but it's an
1 instruction from quite a senior level to have these individuals released.
2 Q. Thank you, sir. I would like to suggest that this document be
3 admitted into evidence as well.
4 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D417, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE HALL: I was bemused, Mr. Zecevic, at your choice of the
7 word "suggest."
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Brown, I am not going to show you any more
10 documents because I really should finish rather soon.
11 Mr. Brown, as for your expert report, you have based it, if I can
12 put it that way, and if I remember correctly you said that on the first
13 day and you repeated that to me as well, first of all, on a collection of
14 documents of the 1st Krajina Corps. This is a vast amount of documents
15 that you analysed, right?
16 A. Well, I'm not sure what your definition of "vast." It seemed
17 vast at the time. It was a lot. I'm not sure of the exact number, but
18 it was a lot.
19 Q. I don't know if you will agree with me, but the methodology that
20 you applied, actually, Mr. Brown, is that through these documents you
21 wanted to show, de facto, how the corps functioned at the time. Of
22 course, in a certain context, and you provided that context in the first
23 part of your expert report.
24 A. Well, yes. I wanted to see what the documents told me in a
25 particular period, and bearing in mind the limitations that I highlighted
1 at the beginning of my testimony and also in the report.
2 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
3 MR. ZECEVIC: May I continue?
4 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
5 MR. ZECEVIC:
6 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Brown, I hope that you will agree with me
7 that in order to view this subject matter fully, the one that you are
8 discussing, an appropriate methodology would be the following. First of
9 all, legal assumptions; and then the factual situation, and only then the
10 drawing of conclusions or the stating of your opinion, how things should
11 have been and how they actually were, in reality.
12 But I assume that that was not your task?
13 A. Well, I -- I would argue that in -- bearing in mind this is the
14 not the complete story of the Krajina Corps nor is it the complete story
15 of the 1st Krajina Corps. I would argue that in many respects I have
16 looked at some of the legal components and the framework components and
17 placed those alongside the documents that were -- the reports and
18 documents, contemporaneous reports and documents, produced by the corps
19 reflecting the picture that they saw and reflecting the issues that they
20 reported in their -- in their -- in their work. So I wouldn't
21 necessarily say that -- that the methodology I -- I -- wasn't in that
22 manner. But there are limitations to the report, and, you know, I fully
23 admit those.
24 Q. Sir, tell me, did you write this report by yourself?
25 A. I did, sir, yes.
1 Q. Sir, during the direct examination, you confirmed that your
2 expert report was primarily a military expert report, that you do not
3 have any special expertise with regard to Crisis Staffs. You said that
4 some other analysts in the OTP dealt with that particular subject matter.
5 Also, you said that legal subjects, orders, documents of the MUP, were
6 not the subject of your expert report; right?
7 A. When I say I'm not an expert on Crisis Staffs, it wasn't a
8 subject that I took an entirety and studied with a single focus.
9 Clearly, through the optics and the references in the Krajina Corps
10 report -- sorry, the Krajina Corps documents, I was aware, read, utilised
11 Crisis Staff material. So I became aware of Crisis Staffs, their
12 operations, and their linking to specific operations that the Krajina
13 Corps conducted. But in terms of its entirety, the establishment
14 process, the history, I'm not, but I did look at Crisis Staffs because it
15 was, to me, had an important bearing on the activities of the military at
16 that period.
17 But I do know that another analyst in a different analytical team
18 within the OTP conducted far more exhaustive work than I did on that. As
19 did another analyst in relation to the MUP, you know, when I was looking
20 at military issues another analyst on an analytical team looked at, in
21 detail, the issue of the MUP. I did utilise some MUP references and
22 documents in a similar way to the Crisis Staffs. But in both of those
23 areas I'm not an expert. I wouldn't profess to be.
24 I think had you another area in relation to legal issues, I
25 guess. Was that one? Legal issues and orders. Is that about the
1 military or the MUP?
2 Q. MUP.
3 A. The MUP. No, it's not an issue that I looked at in my report.
4 Obviously I utilised military regulations and laws, but again I'm not a
5 league expert. But in relation to the MUP, no, I didn't. So I agree
6 with you, there.
7 Q. So it would be fair to characterise your approach because there
8 is no dispute as regards the fact that you are partly speaking of the
9 effect of Crisis Staffs on the army, the JNA, and then also the
10 co-operation between military and police organs. So wouldn't it be fair
11 to characterise your point of view with regard to these matters as a
12 point of view from the side of the military, right? When I say "from the
13 side of the military," I'm saying on the basis of your insight into
14 military documents. That's how you interpreted these relations. Isn't
15 that right.
16 A. Well, sir, I hope that -- I'm a professional analyst by training
17 and by profession. And I was obviously also a military -- former
18 military officer fulfilling analytical functions predominantly within the
19 military. When I left, I continued to do analytical work here,
20 investigative work, and I continued to gain analytical professional
21 qualifications. So I -- my perspective is as an analyst, first and
22 foremost. Clearly the subject matter relates to the functioning,
23 predominantly, of the military in the Krajina area and the Krajina Corps,
24 and the vast bulk of material I utilised came from military documents.
25 So from that perspective I would agree with you, but at the heart of it,
1 I hope, maybe it is for others to decide, but I would hope that, you
2 know -- I would see myself as a professional -- a professional analyst.
3 In this case was working on a subject, a predominantly military subject
4 using predominantly military materials.
5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further
7 questions for you. That is all I had to ask you about.
8 THE WITNESS: I don't know if -- in all fairness to Mr. Zecevic,
9 he -- earlier in my testimony, he asked me about the issue of town
10 commands, and so I'd mentioned I think in my direct that it was a phrase
11 that I had seen only two or three times, and he asked me in relation to
12 the issue of Derventa and Donji Vakuf. This was -- seemed to be quite a
13 long time ago, and I -- but it was earlier on in the testimony, and
14 whilst referring to -- I think one of the questions was I wasn't aware of
15 the situation about the establishment of those town commands or military
16 commands in Derventa.
17 And I looked at a reference in my report and there was one
18 document which came up, one I hadn't remembered, which was a document
19 from the assistant commander for civilian affairs. The date is a couple
20 of days prior to the documents that you showed me, that makes reference
21 to -- there is a reference to town command once in a paragraph and it
22 makes reference to a meeting of the Crisis Staff, I believe, on the 17th
23 of June at which the issue of Donji Vakuf and Derventa were referenced,
24 and that a decision or it was agreed that, along with some municipal
25 figures and elements of the 1st Krajina Corps, that establishment of a
1 command would be formed in those municipalities. So I guess I'm -- I
2 have come across this document subsequent to the question that
3 Mr. Zecevic gave me, and maybe that sets the context behind why
4 Donji Vakuf and Derventa were treated in a slightly different way, and it
5 would appear, at least from that document, that an ARK Crisis Staff
6 decision agreed that this type of command organisation should occur in
7 those two areas.
8 So it was really just to follow up on -- in fairness to
9 Mr. Zecevic's questions.
10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
11 MR. ZECEVIC:
12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Brown --
13 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours I now have a follow-up
15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Brown I showed you 1D365. That is tab 1.
16 This is an instruction for carrying out civilian work in crisis areas and
17 the date is the 25th of November, 1991.
18 A. Yes, sir. But I think you also showed me a specific document in
19 relation to Derventa which was sometime in June 1992. And then I think
20 you went on to talk about a similar document for Derventa. And I can
21 give you the reference to -- the footnote reference in my report if that
22 would be of use.
23 Q. [In English] Yes, please.
24 A. It's footnote reference 847 and it's a document dated the 17th of
25 June with an ERN 01241627. That's the B/C/S. And an English 0190350.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, of course, I don't have the document here
2 but I'm going to review it. However, on the basis of what I can see from
3 your footnote 847 that you have just kindly provided to us, it pertains
4 to the 17th of June. However, the document that I showed you, 1D403,
5 which is an order of the 19th Partisan Brigade, obviously has nothing
6 whatsoever to do with this document, because that document establishing
7 the command of defence of Gornji Vakuf is dated the 13th of June. 1D403.
8 Please, could that be displayed. It is Defence tab 152.
9 Can you see it now, Mr. Brown? I assume that you remember. It
10 was only yesterday. The date of the document is the 13th of June. That
11 is to say, four days before this document that you are speaking of now.
12 And that is mentioned in your footnote. The command of the 19th
13 Partisan Brigade is establishing the command of the town of Gornji Vakuf.
14 Do you agree?
15 A. Yes. But I think I was possibly referencing the one you showed
16 me about Derventa. Was there one about Derventa as well? I mean, I only
17 flagged the document up as --
18 Q. Derventa is 1D404, dated 29th of August. However, that order,
19 sir, says that only military matters will be dealt with by the command of
20 the town from then onwards.
21 So we have a document whereby Colonel Lisica is abolishing the
22 town command, but we did infer that it did exist before that. However,
23 document 1D104 says -- 404, rather, says that it had been established
24 before that?
25 A. Yes, I think that's what sparked me. One of the questions you
1 asked me, or maybe in reference to one of my answers, was I wasn't sure
2 about how the Derventa defence command had been established. And in
3 coming across that document, I didn't spend a lot of time on it. It may
4 well have been that there had been this ARK decision, and then the
5 establishment of these two commands occurred. I only flag that up.
6 Q. Thank you. Unless you have something else to add, I think that
7 we have finished.
8 A. No, sir, thank you.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just a brief
11 observation. You will recall that yesterday we discussed the
12 documentation that was provided to us by the republican secretariat of
13 Republika Srpska in relation to the objections that Ms. Korner had to
14 that. 1D266 and 1D410, Defence tabs 129 and 130, are documents that we
15 are referring to today because during the night we managed to find those
16 documents in EDS. To our surprise, both of these documents very
17 explicitly and clearly, in accordance -- were in accordance with Rule 68,
18 so the Prosecution was duty bound to disclose these documents to us.
19 They had never been disclosed to us before. We will continue to look for
20 these documents in EDS; however, I have to say that we are now concerned
21 that, as the Prosecution case is drawing to a close, we are finding
22 documents that are in the hands of the Prosecution and that have not been
23 disclosed to us but that had been the duty of the OTP in accordance with
24 Rule 68. That is all I had to say, thank you.
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, we are bound by what turns up in the
1 searches that we do. We have checked for searches that we asked the --
2 the -- the unit to do on Doboj and the CSB. The documents -- I don't
3 know about the second one because I don't know what the ERN is. The
4 first document that Mr. Zecevic mentioned this morning did not turn up in
5 our searches. We keep a full record of the document that -- that we look
6 for in our searches. Clearly, if it had turned up in our searches we
7 would have disclosed it. It is why Rule 68 is a continuing obligation.
8 It's the limitations, I suppose, of the way the documents are scanned.
9 Doboj, in particular, is a -- is a difficult one to pull up all documents
10 relating to it.
11 I would resist any suggestion, and to be fair to Mr. Zecevic I
12 don't think he is making it, but if he is we resist it, that we are
13 deliberately withholding Rule -- material which we know to be Rule 68,
14 and indeed Your Honours will have seen that throughout the case under our
15 continuing obligation we find documents we disclose them.
16 JUDGE HALL: I was just going to add that the sheer volume of
17 documents with which we are dealing is that this type of thing is likely
18 to continue to happen.
19 And as you have said, Mr. Zecevic imports no malice on behalf of
20 the OTP in this regard. It's just a fact.
21 MS. KORNER: Well, I will take it that "we are now concerned"
22 doesn't reflect an allegation that we're deliberately withholding it.
23 Your Honours, can I assist on one other matter, though.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one moment, Ms. Korner.
25 Mr. Zecevic, just to make sure, these two documents are not
1 documents that have still the MFI status; right?
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Not -- not anymore. One of them, Your Honours,
3 1D -- yeah, was de-MFIed because found out that it was in the possession
4 of --
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: -- of the Office of the Prosecutor some time ago.
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I assist on one other matter,
8 which I think arose out of Judge Harhoff's question, as to whether the
9 list of deserters from the Prijedor police were ever prosecuted.
10 Your Honours, we did a search of the Prijedor police crime
11 register which, as you know, are exhibits in this case and the
12 prosecutor's office, the prosecutor's office log-book for Prijedor, and,
13 of course, the Defence can check this because they're exhibits, none of
14 the names appear in that book. We equally checked the military
15 prosecutor's log-book, Banja Luka area, and none of those names appear.
16 There are other documents, one of which is already an exhibit,
17 which appears to show -- this is subject to the names being those that
18 are in the -- this -- this list of deserters because, as Your Honours
19 know, sometimes identical names appear and it's not the same person.
20 Indeed, there was an objection to our Skrbic application on the basis
21 there was another an called Skrbic, so the same must apply. But it does
22 appear in P5.0511. I can't work that one out. I think that's one of the
23 log-books, that on the 30th of October there's a list of members of the
24 Prijedor Military Police Unit which were commanded by a man called
25 Trifunovic and eight of the names are the same as those on the deserters
1 list. So -- and, of course, the Defence can check this themselves, but I
2 thought, in order to answer the question ...
3 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
4 Mr. Krgovic.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
6 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Brown.
7 A. Good afternoon, sir.
8 Q. My name is Dragan Krgovic. On behalf of the Defence of Stojan
9 Zupljanin, I am going to be putting questions to you in relation to your
10 analysis and your testimony before this Court.
11 Now that we have the last answer you gave to Mr. Zecevic here,
12 may I ask whether you found anywhere any documents that indicated that
13 there was a town command in any other municipality apart from the ones
14 that you discussed with Mr. Zecevic?
15 A. In corps command documents, I don't believe I did. It isn't --
16 it isn't a command phrase that I was aware of. I am -- saw references,
17 of course, to Crisis Staffs. There's a defence command in Kljuc. And
18 there are obviously, as Mr. Zecevic has highlighted, some references in
19 relation to town commands, but it wasn't a common phrase that I -- I
20 remember from the Krajina Corps collection.
21 Q. When you looked at the documents from Kotor Varos, the documents
22 of the War Presidency, did you notice that at one point in time a town
23 command was established there?
24 A. No, I -- I don't remember that. It may be present. It's not
25 a -- it's been a long time since I looked at these documents, but it
1 wasn't -- it wasn't a reference I remember. It could be there, of
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
4 65 ter 10508. Tab 15 of the Zupljanin Defence.
5 Q. Could you now please have a look at this document, paragraph 1.
6 This is an excerpt of the minutes of a session of the Crisis Staff. We
7 are looking at paragraph 1, item 1, Colonel Peulic is being quoted, and
8 the second sentence says -- this is what Peulic did:
9 "In view of the developments in our area" he ordered that
10 everyone who can carry a rifle be mobilised.
11 A town command had to be formed and he appointed Captain Tepic as
12 commander. You know that Captain Tepic at the time was commander of the
13 Light Kotor Varos Brigade at one moment. Is it one and the same Tepic?
14 A. I would assume that that is him, sir, yes. Bearing in mind
15 Ms. Korner's point there are many people with similar names, but I
16 guess -- I guess this is probably him.
17 Q. And this document shows that Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic orders the
18 town command to be appointed and appointed its commander.
19 A. Well, it says it must be formed. Whether it was or how it was
20 formed or whether this is a discussion within the Crisis Staff that
21 that's his point of view, is -- is a possibility.
22 But, clearly, he feel there's a need for some kind of command in
23 the town, and he is making that point at item 1.
24 Q. I'm not sure what you heard in interpretation, but here, it's
25 quite clear in the document. It is clear that the town command had been
1 established and that a commander had about been appointed. That's what I
2 see in Serbian at least.
3 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] "With regard to development of
5 events in our area."
6 He ordered - I emphasise that - that anyone that can carry a
7 rifle must be mobilised. A town defence command must be formed and he
8 appointed Captain Tepic as commander.
9 Q. It's past tense here. It means that it had been done before;
10 isn't that so?
11 A. Well, I can only go on the translation in front of me. Where --
12 Colonel Peulic is briefing the Crisis Staff and there's clearly an issue
13 that needs to be resolved, presumably one in relation to mobilisation,
14 and he said a command must be formed.
15 Now whether he is within the grouping of the Crisis Staff putting
16 his position for agreement within the Crisis Staff and a town command was
17 formed, is one possibility. But at least from the translation here, it
18 says that he is indicating his point, briefing in the Crisis Staff. Now,
19 it may well have been agreed. I'm not sure, sir. And clearly he does
20 suggest the appointee.
21 Q. Maybe it's a language issue. But here it is quite clear that
22 Captain Tepic had already been appointed as the town commander. Isn't
23 that so?
24 A. I'm sorry, I can only go by the translation. I think it seems to
25 be him suggesting that -- that it must be formed and that Captain Tepic
1 should be its commander. That may well have happened. They may well
2 have agreed to that. At least at this stage I think he is voicing his
3 view that it must be formed and that -- that the captain should be placed
4 as its commander. It would not surprise me if that didn't happen, but at
5 least at this stage I think he is just briefing the Crisis Staff and
6 presumably expressing his position for agreement within that forum.
7 Q. Well, he doesn't form or present his opinion. He says that he
8 ordered that everything that -- carry a rifle should be mobilised and
9 that a town command should be formed. Isn't that so?
10 A. Yes. But there would seem to be two issues, one of the issue of
11 mobilisation and one of the issue of town command. It may well be that
12 as prior to this the mobilisation instruction had gone out in April and
13 reinforced in May that there were some people who were in Kotor Varos who
14 were not placing themselves -- or were not mobilising themselves, and he
15 is ordering that people should because that is what had come down through
16 the Presidency and the corps. But then there's a second issue of this
17 issue of town command, and I think he is voicing his opinion and voicing
18 who he thinks should command it. As I say, it may well have come about
19 and they may well have accepted that and -- it may well have been a town
20 command in Kotor Varos. But I think at this point what he is saying is
21 that he believe it should be formed.
22 Q. And then you can see from the agenda that this issue wasn't
23 discussed, so it is quite obvious that the Crisis Staff did not discuss
24 this topic. It was simply adopted. You can see in other items of the
25 agenda that was no further discussion of this issue. Mr. Peulic simply
1 informed the Crisis Staff that he had formed a town command and that he
2 had appointed Captain Tepic as town commander?
3 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
4 Sorry, Your Honours, I shouldn't do it like this. Could I just
5 ask counsel to point out the part where it says this was adopted.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Maybe it's an interpretation
7 question. I'm saying that Mr. Peulic simply informed them. They didn't
8 discuss it. This was simply a military order to form a town command.
9 There was no discussion of this issue and nobody stood up against it in
10 this situation. Nobody discussed the issue. That's what I'm trying to
11 say. That's what I claim. And I expect Mr. Brown to agree with me.
12 Q. You will agree with me, Mr. Brown, that, in this document we find
13 no discussion and no position to this order of Mr. Peulic?
14 A. Could I see the second page just to complete the document?
15 Q. [In English] Yeah.
16 A. Well, these are minutes I'm assuming, and minutes tend to be a
17 reflection of discussions as opposed to the verbatim annotation of what
18 was discussed. I accept your point, there is no reference in here that
19 Colonel Peulic's discussion was adopted. It doesn't reference that in
20 the minutes, but I'm assuming that because these are minutes those types
21 of issues were discussed in this forum. And as I say, I'm -- it may well
22 have been that everyone was in agreement and a town command was formed.
23 But I wasn't aware of that and I don't think that document necessarily on
24 its own says that.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Brown. In answer to question by
1 Mr. Zecevic, and also by the Prosecutor, on a number of occasions you
2 mentioned a document dated 28th of May. That's P376. Tab 12 in the
3 Prosecution binder.
4 You commented this document. So I'd like to ask you: Mr. Brown,
5 with regard to the relation between the military and the police, and the
6 engagement of the police in combat operations, there was a period at the
7 beginning of the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina where there were no
8 rules for the engagement of the police. Local military commanders
9 engaged local police forces in combat activities without any information
10 or any approval from the corps or from the Security Services Centre.
11 Have you come across such documents and could this be your
12 conclusion about this period?
13 A. I haven't looked extensively at police documents to be able to
14 comment on that. I can only say, for example, in relation to the ARK
15 decisions about drawing up plans for the confiscations of illegally-held
16 weapons that was passed down to municipalities and appeared to be acted
17 upon in places like Bosanski Novi, Kljuc, Prijedor, specifically
18 referenced. That there was a functioning chain of command and that local
19 police SJBs were reacting to that. But I'm not a MUP expert, and I'm --
20 I don't profess to have a detailed knowledge of how the various SJBs
21 functioned in detail. That wasn't within the remit of this report.
22 Q. This document by Mr. Zupljanin, especially if you read its second
23 paragraph, tells us that Mr. Zupljanin protests against certain actions
24 and forbids any action of the police without prior consent of the CSB in
25 Banja Luka and the relevant corps command. This obviously tells us that
1 there had been such practice before. There were police units that had
2 been engaged without the prior approval of the CSB or the corps command.
3 A. Yeah, well, clearly there was obviously an issue here which
4 necessitated Mr. Zupljanin accepting this instruction. So I would agree
5 there was obviously a problem that needs to be revolved. How widespread
6 that was or where it was, I can't say because I'm not a police expert.
7 Q. Surely you know that certain formations of the armed forces below
8 the corps level would often resubordinate the whole public security
9 stations to themselves, or they would even put the command of a brigade
10 inside a public security station. Isn't that so?
11 A. I haven't seen examples where brigades subordinate an entirety
12 complete public security stations, and I wouldn't necessarily draw an
13 inference just because a brigade command was inside a public security
14 that that somehow means the brigade commands that SJB. I have been
15 inside many police stations, hopefully on the right side, but as a
16 military officer. But I didn't mean to say that I commanded the police
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have P160, tab 6 in Stanisic
19 Defence binder.
20 MS. KORNER: Just before we move on, can I ask about the
21 Kotor Varos document that Mr. Krgovic showed the witness. Because if he
22 is assuming that it's an exhibit, it isn't. It's one of the ones that we
23 didn't get exhibited. 25th of June.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Then I would like the number to be
25 assigned. I also wasn't quite sure, but I think that now if Ms. Korner
1 confirmed it, obviously it should become an exhibit.
2 The previous document, not this one. It's -- just a moment.
3 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, it's document that was at the Defence
4 tab 15.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 10508.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, it was one that wasn't on our 65 ter
7 list when I dealt with them. We tried, I think, at some stage we
8 discussed whether this would be stipulated to by the Defence but the
9 discussions never reached fruition. So it's not an exhibit at the
11 JUDGE HALL: So we mark it now as an exhibit.
12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, I assume that you wanted to have
14 this document exhibited to show who actually established the town
15 command. And if I -- if my recollection is correct, you had the view
16 that this was Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic.
17 When I looked at the document, that, however, was completely
18 unclear to me. I couldn't see out of the document whether it was the
19 Crisis Staff that had established the town command or whether it was the
20 army man. So I guess we can admit it with this uncertainty, but ...
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Or, as Judge Hall suggests, as a fact that town
23 commands were, indeed, established regardless of who actually created
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I think that it
1 is obvious here in this document. It is obvious that it was Mr. Peulic
2 who formed the town command.
3 Maybe it's an issue of translation. We are going to double-check
4 it. Now I can't really see it on the monitor. I cannot follow
5 interpretation into English and maybe something is unclear. It seems to
6 me that a small part is missing in English translation.
7 JUDGE HALL: For myself, Mr. Krgovic, I would prefer to regard
8 your last observation as a submission, but we will see.
9 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
10 THE REGISTRAR: This will become Exhibit 1D132. I apologise,
11 thank you. Yes, 2D.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Now this is a short document about a meeting on the 28th of July.
14 Mr. Zecevic already showed you some conclusions. This was a meeting of
15 the top leadership of MUP, and I want to show you the presentation of
16 Mr. Zupljanin. Page 8 in English. The same in Serbian, in e-court.
17 Excuse me, it's 11th of July.
18 A. Sir, was this the one contained within the binder that
19 Mr. Zecevic gave me or the documents? Or is it -- I have a slightly
20 different one, but I -- I don't know if ...
21 Q. I don't think so.
22 A. I have one on the front page that says, "Report on some aspects
23 of the work done to date and the tasks ahead."
24 Q. No, that's not the document.
25 A. Oh.
1 Q. Take a look here.
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. Third paragraph from the top in your version where Mr. Zupljanin
5 "Because of the casualties (in Mrkonjic Grad, 20 active-duty and
6 reserve police members perished)."
7 And then he goes on to say:
8 "The role of the police has to be defined. Its direct engagement
9 in combat activities and related to this, the reinforcements. The army
10 wants the whole force to be engaged, to be resubordinated, and then
11 pushed to the front lines, and this has to be prevented."
12 In essence, this is similar to this letter sent by Mr. Zupljanin.
13 He is also highlighting the same occurrence. There is obviously a
14 problem in engagement the MUP units because it is happening contrary to
15 the law and without the approval of the CSB, right?
16 A. I'm not sure I -- I know -- at least not from the English
17 translation the phrase you have, "the army wants the whole force to be
18 engaged and has to be resubordinated, and then pushed to the front
19 lines." I don't read that from paragraph 3. I accept that clearly the
20 MUP were unhappy about involving police officers on the front line. At
21 least the general issue from there is. But that phrase that you use
22 about resubordination, pushing to the front line, whole forces being
23 engaged, I don't see that in paragraph 3.
24 Q. It seems that this sentence wasn't translated. I read it
25 correctly. I will read it once again: "The army wants to engage the
1 whole force --
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, could you first read the part that
3 is in the English translation so that we know where there is something
5 MR. KRGOVIC: Because of the casualties -- [Interpretation] I
6 will read it in Serbian.
7 "Because of the casualties (in Mrkonjic Grad ... in only one
8 operation 20 active-duty and reserve police members were killed). The
9 role of the police has to be defined, its direct engagement in combat
10 activities, and related to this, the reinforcements. The army demands
11 engagement of the whole force. They resubordinate them and then push
12 them to the most difficult parts of the front line, and this has to be
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can you read a little bit more?
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] "It is difficult to tell the exact
16 number of the members" --
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. It's okay. So we're -- in the
18 English it's one illegible sentence.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, it's quite a lot, I've just noticed,
20 and it's unfortunate, actually, because this document has been around
21 since the beginning of the case that hasn't come up before. I think we
22 better say we'll send it back for translation because if Mr. Krgovic can
23 read it, I see no reason why CLSS can't read it.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. So, Mr. Brown, this obviously tells us that the army would take
1 the whole force, resubordinate it, and then push it into combat
2 activities; right?
3 A. Well, from your translation the army is demanding that. I'm
4 assuming they are referring to when they do take policemen they put them
5 on the front lines, which the police are unhappy with. I don't read that
6 from your -- from your translation that the police have been in entirety
7 placed under the command of the army.
8 I don't doubt there was a problem, and I think there are many --
9 or a number of references, at least, that the police were unhappy about
10 their engagement on the front, I assume. After all, they're police
11 officers and maybe see themselves not as soldiers, and then there are
12 other references that -- echoing that. So I don't doubt there was a
14 Q. It says here "the whole force." They are talking about the
15 entire force.
16 A. Well, it could be, he is talking about when police forces are
17 sent to the front, the whole force meaning that force that's gone there.
18 Not necessarily the whole police force, the whole of the MUP, in the
19 whole of the Krajina.
20 Q. We are talking here about individual municipalities. So
21 Mr. Zupljanin is talking about individual municipalities. The way I
22 understand this document is that the army wants to engage the full
23 complement or the whole force from a particular police station to send
24 into combat activities. He is not talking about the whole of Krajina.
25 He is talking about individual stations of public security. That's my
1 understanding of this document, and would you agree with me that this is
2 the essence of his words, not the whole Krajina force but individual
4 A. Well, that may be what the army wants, and it may well have been
5 that municipalities, military commanders or Crisis Staffs or anybody else
6 wanted the engagement of the whole of the police SJB, but I don't see
7 that that, at least in the military documents I saw, that that happened.
8 Q. Mr. Zupljanin --
9 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, it's that time of day, yes.
10 So we must take the adjournment and we would resume tomorrow
11 morning at 9.00.
12 THE WITNESS: Sir, I wonder if I may be so bold to ask a personal
14 JUDGE HALL: Certainly, Mr. Brown.
15 THE WITNESS: I was asked by some former colleagues, one who
16 happens to currently work for the Registry, to go to a social evening for
17 a couple of people. Only one who works at the ICTY, and bearing in mind
18 your caveat about not discussing or chatting to individuals within the
19 Tribunal, or at least not with the OTP and the Defence, I wonder if,
20 clearly, I wouldn't discuss issues of the case but I wonder if I would be
21 able to go to that.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE HALL: You have, Mr. Brown, reminded yourself of the
24 original warning not to discuss the case with anyone, so with that in
25 mind, we see no difficulty with your so attending the social function.
1 THE WITNESS: I appreciate that, sir.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Friday, the 21st day of
4 January, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.