Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 19345

 1                           Monday, 11 April 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [Stanisic Defence Opening Statement]

 4                           [The accused entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

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

 7     everyone in and around the courtroom.

 8             This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and

 9     Stojan Zupljanin.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             Good morning to everybody.  May we have the appearances, please.

12             MS. KORNER:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Joanna Korner,

13     Tom Hannis, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.

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

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

16     Ms. Deirdre Montgomery appearing for the Stanisic Defence this morning.

17     Thank you.

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

19     Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

21             Before we invite counsel for the first accused to open, I

22     understand -- well, the Chamber has one or two housekeeping matters, but

23     before we turn to that, we have been alerted that the OTP has a matter to

24     raise.

25             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, we do and we thought it right to raise

Page 19346

 1     it before the official start of the Defence case.

 2             It relates back to the evidence of Witness ST-210, who was the

 3     witness, the summary witness, who dealt with the police log-books, the

 4     KU log-books.

 5             Your Honour, during the course of his cross-examination, he was

 6     shown some documents which were subsequently exhibited on the basis that

 7     these -- that the documents which were criminal reports did not appear in

 8     the log-books, and ergo, the log-books were defective.

 9             Your Honours may recall, there was some discussion about this.

10     Mr. Olmsted who was dealing with the witness said that regrettably it had

11     been discovered just before the witness came to give evidence that one

12     page from the log-books, the Doboj log-book was missing.  It was

13     subsequently retrieved.  It has been translated and it's already added to

14     e-court.  The Defence and the Trial Chamber were notified on the

15     17th of February of this year, so after we closed our case, and it was

16     uploaded into e-court under 65 ter number 10493A, and indeed,

17     Your Honours granted leave for the corrected crime register to be

18     substituted.

19             Now what that showed was this, Your Honour, that four of the

20     documents which Mr. Zecevic put to him, which are 1D355, 1D356, 1D357,

21     and 1D362 all appear on that missing page.  And so the suggestion made by

22     Mr. Zecevic that they were not there is, in fact, as it transpires,

23     incorrect.

24             There were two further criminal reports which were Exhibit 1D360,

25     and 1D361, which, again, the suggestion was that these had been -- these

Page 19347

 1     did not appear in the crime register.  In fact, when a check was made, as

 2     we were reviewing the evidence after the close of our case, it was seen

 3     that they did, in fact, appear on the second page.  What had happened was

 4     that those two crime reports had simply omitted the KU number.

 5             Your Honours, we have sent this -- we sent a letter to

 6     Mr. Zecevic and Mr. Krgovic about this matter on the 15th of March and

 7     asked if they would be prepared to stipulate to this.  Your Honours, it

 8     is important because obviously we rely for a number of reasons on these

 9     KU registers.  And Your Honours, in fact, dealt with it, if I can just

10     refer Your Honours to -- or mentioned it.  Judge Hall started this by

11     saying effectively was it correct that these entries, therefore, that the

12     log-books were defective in this sense because these crime reports did

13     not appear.  And Judge Harhoff, at page 13769, stated:

14             "But the Presiding Judge's remark a while ago still stands,

15     namely, that evidence has been provided to show that the KU log-book in

16     itself is incomplete, to understand the full picture."

17             And I think this is accepted by the Chamber.

18             Well, Your Honours it is now clear that's not right.  Certainly

19     not as far as those documents are concerned.

20             We invited the Defence -- we've not had a response from

21     Mr. Krgovic, but we invited Mr. Zecevic to simply make an admission or

22     stipulation, as the Americans call it, that that was the case.  He

23     declines to do so.

24             So, Your Honours, there are three options.  The first is that we

25     can apply to re-call Witness ST-210, simply to deal with this, which

Page 19348

 1     seems to us to be a complete waste of time.  Second, we can take a

 2     statement from him under 92 bis and simply seek to put that in.  Or,

 3     third, Your Honours can simply take note of the fact although it's -- in

 4     a sense it's me giving evidence, but I'm showing Your Honours where it

 5     can be seen in the books.

 6             So those are the options in the absence -- of course, we can't

 7     force either Defence team to agree to this, but we would suggest that

 8     this is something that clearly needs to be dealt with in some form or

 9     another before the Defence case starts, if at all possible.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, did I understand your third option to mean

11     that a proper examination of the record would -- without the need for

12     anything else, solve the -- indicate that what appeared to be a problem

13     is not a problem.

14             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  Absolutely.  The trouble is, of course, if

15     one -- whoever -- if somebody for the purposes of the judgement would

16     just happen to be reading the actual transcript, they would be misled.

17     And provided all are satisfied with my explanation about this, so that

18     it -- and -- and obviously this record is here now, and it can be seen by

19     simply checking the documents, well, Your Honours, that seems to us to be

20     sufficient.  It would be preferable, and I understand Mr. Zecevic accepts

21     that, if we could get agreement from the Defence and the -- on both

22     sides.  But failing that, it seems to me that --

23             JUDGE HALL:  I'd certainly hear what Mr. Zecevic has to say on

24     this point.  But if I understand you correctly, it may that be it would

25     be sufficient for the -- this matter to abide such submissions as the

Page 19349

 1     Prosecution makes at the close of the case.

 2             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  What we don't want -- can I put it this way,

 3     we'd rather not have to waste time in our final brief or -- not so much

 4     time, but page numbers, because we will have a limit on how long the

 5     brief can be, on something which we would hope was agreed.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Well, let me hear whether Mr. Zecevic has had a

 7     change of mind since his last communication with you.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 9             I share the view of Your Honours that the -- this is more

10     appropriate for the closing submissions of the Office of the Prosecutor

11     than at this point in time.

12             Now, I'm not sure what -- what the Office of the Prosecution is

13     proposing.  If they are proposing to re-open their case, there is a

14     jurisprudence about that, and -- and they should apply for the -- for the

15     re-opening of their case.  If that is the -- if my understanding is

16     correct of the position of the Office of the Prosecutor.

17             However, Your Honours, the position of Defence doesn't change.

18     We still maintain our position that the KU log-books are -- for obvious

19     reasons and for a number of reasons are not sufficient for establishing

20     these facts.

21             The second problem is not only the KU books but this witness was

22     asked to prepare an annex to his statement where he was on the

23     instruction of the Office of the Prosecutor putting some numbers on the

24     number of criminal reports filed against -- where the victims are

25     non-Serbs and the perpetrators are Serbs.  And we say that this -- that

Page 19350

 1     that annex is flawed.  Therefore, there is no way that the Defence will

 2     stipulate to anything of the sort and we -- we maintain our position.

 3     And we will maintain it until the end of the case.  And you will hear our

 4     evidence about that matter.

 5             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours --

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry.

 7             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Do I understand you to essentially agree that,

 9     notwithstanding the -- what you have just articulated as to the effect of

10     the evidence that is at present before us, it is, at the end of the day,

11     a matter of what is made of that evidence and, therefore, it is probably

12     not necessary to re-call the witness but that the whole thing can be left

13     for, despite the reservations Ms. Korner may have about the -- how this

14     would add to the bulk of material that we would have to consider, that at

15     the end of the day it is still a question of argument between counsel for

16     Defence on one side and counsel for Prosecution on the other.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Definitely, Your Honours.  That is what I said at

18     the very beginning.  I just wanted to clarify my position why I say that.

19     Thank you, Your Honours.

20             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours --

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic, could I just ask, then, concretely

22     in respect of these, was it five documents, six documents, would it be a

23     problem for the Defence to accept that those were, in fact, in the

24     KU log-books, while you can still maintain that the general picture of

25     the KU log-books is still, in your view, that these books are

Page 19351

 1     insufficient?  With or without those six documents.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  With all due respect, Your Honours, I tried to

 3     explain.  It is the not problem with the KU log-books by itself.  It is

 4     the problem that the witness -- what -- looking at these KU log-books,

 5     not for this municipality but other municipalities, was preparing an

 6     annex and we say the annex is flawed.  And the Office of the Prosecutor

 7     relies on his findings as a summary witness reviewing the KU log-books.

 8             Your Honours, it is a very simple situation.  We are having as

 9     our witness the chief of the CSB Doboj, as you know.  And it's our first

10     witness and he will deal with this matter, I can guarantee that.

11             Thank you.

12             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honours, I'm sorry, Mr. Zecevic is -- and

13     I'm afraid, in our view, deliberately not answering the question.

14             It is a very simple question.  Whatever submissions we make about

15     the efficiency of these books or otherwise, does the Defence, having had

16     a chance to examine the documents which are exhibits, agree that those

17     six crime reports exhibited with the numbers that I have given are

18     actually in the KU book?

19             Everything else, I agree, is for submissions.  But that is a very

20     simple, straightforward question which I would invite Your Honours to ask

21     Mr. Zecevic and, of course, Mr. Krgovic.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, as I stated very clearly, I'm not

23     ready to stipulate.  And you will understand why I'm not ready to

24     stipulate once you hear the evidence that we are going to present,

25     Your Honours.

Page 19352

 1             And it is -- and after -- at the end of the day, this is a matter

 2     for the final submissions, definitely.

 3             Thank you, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, I suppose you'll say otherwise.

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... joint submission.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Could counsel assist on a matter which, we confess,

 8     we -- you probably said it and we just didn't get it.  Are these six

 9     documents already part of the evidence or not?

10             MS. KORNER:  Yes, they are.  They were all exhibited,

11     Your Honour.  They're 1D355 through to -- sorry, 355, 356, 357, 360, 361,

12     and 362.

13             They were all made exhibits on the basis, and it's very clear in

14     the transcript, I haven't bothered you with the references, on the basis

15     that these were not in the KU register.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So if I'm to understand this correctly, the only

17     issue that now remains is to whether these six documents were or were

18     not --

19             MS. KORNER:  Correct.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  -- in some of the log-books.

21             MS. KORNER:  They're shown -- four of them were in the first

22     page, which regrettably we had to go back and get because it hadn't been

23     copied.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  From which log-book?

25             MS. KORNER:  It's the -- does Your Honour want the exhibit

Page 19353

 1     number?

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  No --

 3             MS. KORNER:  It's the Doboj crime register.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Which is the KU log-book.

 5             MS. KORNER:  The KU -- I'm sorry, yea.  The KU log-book.  I'm so

 6     sorry.  Two of them were in fact already and could have been seen but the

 7     witness, I imagine rather taken by surprise -- in fact he does say at

 8     some stage, "I would like to a chance to review this."  And indeed they

 9     are mentioned in his report, and that's 1D360 and 1D361.  But obviously

10     giving evidence, it was rather [indiscernible].

11             As I say, all I'm asking for is that the Defence who have had the

12     opportunity -- we sent the letter on the 15th of March, appreciating that

13     Mr. Zecevic has had a lot to do recently, but we did ask for an answer.

14     My understanding was it isn't disputed.  It can be seen.  It is clear,

15     but he is not prepared to stipulate.

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, the KU log-book is also Exhibit 1D,

17     1D Exhibit, 358.  So, therefore, we offered also the KU log-book as our

18     exhibit.  And I don't really understand if all these exhibits are inside

19     the -- the material in this case, everybody can -- can, at the end of the

20     day, take its own conclusions after we finish presenting evidence.

21             Your Honours, if we start -- if we start stipulating on the

22     issues in this case, we can -- we can adjourn and meet after four months

23     from now, because I will have a number of issues that I would ask the

24     Office of the Prosecutor to stipulate at this point.

25             I don't really understand -- I don't understand the -- the

Page 19354

 1     reasoning behind ...

 2             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, the reasoning is that the transcript,

 3     if read, would be misleading.  That's why.

 4             And as it is misleading, we think the correction should be

 5     agreed.  It is not agreement or a stipulation to our case which -- as to

 6     what the log-books show.  Its relevance to the issues.  It's a simple

 7     stipulation to a factual matter.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Ms. Korner, now I think I begin to understand

 9     Mr. Zecevic's point.  Because, are you saying that, if these

10     six documents were accepted as actually having been properly inscribed in

11     that particular KU log-book, then the log-book would be completely

12     reliable and exhaustive.

13             MS. KORNER:  [Microphone not activated] ... I'm saying that that

14     is a matter of argument which we may or may not make at the end of the

15     case.

16             I'm simply saying that at the present time, you admitted these

17     particular documents or these particular documents were admitted on the

18     basis that they were not shown in the Prosecution log-book.  All I'm

19     saying is that they were admitted under -- and I'm not saying that --

20     that -- that it's done deliberately.  We didn't have the first page and

21     to that extent it was our fault.  But now that we do, now it's been

22     admitted into evidence, all I'm pointing out is that certainly four of

23     the documents -- in fact all six were admitted on a false basis; namely,

24     that they were not reflected in the log-book.  And all I'm asking for is

25     for a clear, simple, straightforward admission that if you look at the

Page 19355

 1     log-book, those criminal reports are recorded, which will save everybody

 2     an awful lot of time.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE HALL:  We -- we are grateful to counsel for seeking to

 5     enlighten us on this matter.  And it appears to us that -- what

 6     Ms. Korner has indicated as option 3 is the practical way forward.

 7             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honours, yes, I'm just sorry that -- that

 8     the Defence don't feel able to assist everybody in this court in this

 9     way.

10             Your Honour, there is one other -- or two other matters.

11             First is this.  Recently we provided to the Defence some

12     information relating to Dr. Nielsen, which came to the attention

13     Mr. Hannis and myself relatively recently.  We have been asking

14     Mr. Zecevic whether he wishes to deal with this matter at all, and, at

15     the moment, I understand he does not, but may file something later this

16     week.  I'm sorry again that it's not possible to deal with this orally,

17     if at all.

18             Your Honour, the difficulty raises is this.  They have now given

19     us their expert's report.  We would obviously wish to seek Dr. Nielsen's

20     take on it.  It's a very lengthy report.  We've, so far, not done that

21     because, obviously in case Mr. Zecevic wanted to raise anything, we felt

22     we ought to wait.  But because -- and we've been asking Mr. Zecevic for

23     some time now, because he hasn't, can I just say this.  We are going to

24     send him -- I'm not asking Your Honours to do.  This is simply so the

25     Court's informed.  We are going to send him Professor Bajagic's report to

Page 19356

 1     seek his comments on it.  We can't wait any longer because, subject to

 2     Your Honours' ruling on Mr. Zecevic's application for reconsideration, we

 3     haven't got that much time left.

 4             Your Honours, finally, we were given on Friday night -- four --

 5     well, no, I mean a total -- some more documents, some of which are not on

 6     the 65 ter list, to be used with Mr. Bjelosevic.  Four of them don't have

 7     translations.  And, Your Honours, I'm really sorry, but we have to know

 8     in advance what it is the Defence are going to use.  And it may well be

 9     that if this goes on, we will be saying, again, we will not be in a

10     position to cross-examine and the witness will have to go away and come

11     back again.  We've been given already a 150-odd documents for this

12     witness, so I'm -- we simply must have translations.  I shouldn't -- as I

13     say, some of these documents are not on the 65 ter list.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  If I may respond, Your Honours.

15             On the first matter, we intend to file a written submission

16     concerning this situation with Dr. Nielsen.  And I hope you will

17     appreciate that we were rather busy preparing the opening statement and

18     the first witness and, therefore, we couldn't -- we couldn't file that

19     earlier.

20             So this is -- this will be filed within next 24 to 48 hours.  And

21     we needed to check some of the information which the Office of the

22     Prosecution provided to us.

23             The second matter, Your Honours, we came in the possession of

24     these documents the day when we disclosed it to the -- to the Office of

25     the Prosecutor.  They're not on our 65 ter list.  We just disclosed it as

Page 19357

 1     a matter of courtesy that these documents have been received and we

 2     immediately disclosed to them the documents.  We sent the documents for

 3     translation.  Whether we are going to use those documents and if we are

 4     going to -- to ask leave to add them to 65 ter list remains to be seen.

 5     If we do, then -- then this -- then this opposition by Office of the

 6     Prosecutor would be -- would be justified.  At this point, I don't

 7     think -- maybe we are not going to use the documents.  We just disclosed

 8     them to the Office of the Prosecutor as a matter of courtesy.

 9             Thank you.

10             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honours, except that the e-mail that came

11     with them said, "These are documents we propose to use."  That's why I

12     raised it.  If they were simply disclosed to us, I wouldn't have

13     bothered.

14             JUDGE HALL:  So they over-spoke in the e-mail.

15             MS. KORNER:  Sorry?

16             JUDGE HALL:  They over-spoke in the e-mail.

17             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Your apprehension is --

19             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honour, I can only go on what I'm told.

20     I'm afraid I rather feel that it's an excuse rather than anything else,

21     but let's see where we go.

22             But, Your Honours, I'm just giving notice that if this goes on

23     like this, we will be seeking an adjournment before cross.

24             JUDGE HALL:  So we will see when we arrive at that point.  Thank

25     you.

Page 19358

 1             There are one or two housekeeping matters which the Chamber would

 2     wish to raise.

 3             The first relates to the witness Bajagic who is scheduled to

 4     testify on the 2nd of May, and the Chamber's preference is that he begins

 5     testifying on the indicated date.  And the -- as of Friday - I don't know

 6     whether things have changed after to this morning - there still remain

 7     two documents that remain to be disclosed, and we would ask the

 8     Prosecution if it accepts to have this witness begin on the 2nd of

 9     May even though it would be less than 30 days' from the last disclosure

10     of the complete material.  As for the decision on the expertise of

11     Mr. Bajagic, the Chamber notes Ms. Korner's statements at the Pre-Defence

12     Conference that the Prosecution does not dispute his expertise regarding

13     the MUP.  The Prosecution has, however, raised objections regarding

14     certain parts of his report which it submits lies outside of his

15     expertise, and it is noted the Prosecution would file its observations in

16     advance of the 2nd of May.

17             Accordingly, the matter of whether, and if so which, parts of the

18     report will be admitted into evidence will, as has been the practice up

19     to this point, be decided at the conclusion of the witness's testimony.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  If I may be of assistance, just an update on the

21     matter of translations.  The draft translations have been provided to the

22     Office of the Prosecutor.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

24             The second matter relates to the OTP request on the 270 new death

25     certificates and we give an oral ruling as follows.

Page 19359

 1             At the Pre-Defence Conference on the 4th of April, the

 2     Prosecution stated that it had obtained 270 death certificates in B/C/S

 3     which it would seek to add to the consolidated hyperlinked spreadsheet or

 4     proof of death database which the Chamber admitted into evidence by its

 5     decision of the 1st of February.  In order to be able to assess properly

 6     this matter, the Chamber directs the Prosecution to file a written motion

 7     which is to include:  One, English translations of all the materials the

 8     Prosecution requests the Chamber to consider; and two, an updated

 9     spreadsheet which includes the new material.

10             With reference to the Stanisic Defence submission on the

11     4th of April, that there remains pending an oral application by the

12     Defence to reconsider the Chamber's decision of the 1st of February, the

13     Chamber finds no record that such a request was ever made and therefore

14     need not further consider this submission.

15             The final matter -- sorry, you wanted to --

16             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... something about the

17     translations.  What we've done, all the death certificates are on the

18     same form.  So we're having one translated in full, and then for the

19     rest, all that will be translated are the details, the name, date of

20     birth, and so on and so forth.  Because to translate 270 documents

21     identical documents in full would, we hope, be somewhat otiose.

22             JUDGE HALL:  If I may say so, Ms. Korner, it appears eminently

23     sensible.

24                      [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

25             JUDGE HALL:  The -- of course, the -- each of these items would

Page 19360

 1     have to be linked to the spreadsheet.  That's the practical [Overlapping

 2     speakers] ...

 3             MS. KORNER:  Absolutely, yes.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  The Chamber is in receipt of the batting order for

 5     the first two months with estimates for the examination-in-chief and it

 6     would be useful for us to receive cross-examination estimates, especially

 7     for the witness who is scheduled to begin tomorrow.  And the -- that

 8     matter -- there's a usual segue into a related issue of which counsel may

 9     have been -- to which counsel may have been alerted, and it is this.  Up

10     to this point, we have been operating on the assumption that once the

11     Defence opens, that this trial will continue at the pace of five

12     hearings, five days a week.  Come the middle of June or thereabouts, it

13     probably wouldn't arise before that, two members of this Bench having

14     been assigned to another matter, it would mean that the hearing five days

15     a week in this once case would not be possible.  So it remains to be

16     seen, and the e-mail -- there is, I believe, an e-mail in circulation

17     inviting counsel in both cases with which we are concerned, their input

18     into how to stagger the presentation of the cases to accommodate the fact

19     that -- that Judges have overlapping duties.  But, as I said, we seem to

20     be clear for the first -- for the time being.  But this would arise come

21     sometime in June.

22             So unless there are any further matters, I would -- yes.

23             MS. KORNER:  Well, no, Your Honour, I was only going to say that

24     if it is in circulation, it hasn't circulated to us yet.  But, as regards

25     the estimate for the first witness, certainly the 20 hours proposed by

Page 19361

 1     Mr. Zecevic for his examination-in-chief and particularly in the light of

 2     the recent discussions about the Doboj log-books which I note, by the

 3     way, is not on the list of documents that the Defence propose to use, so

 4     I was interested to hear that Mr. Bjelosevic was supposed to be dealing

 5     with this.

 6             Your Honours, it will be exactly the same amount from the

 7     Prosecution.  I understand that Mr. Krgovic says that he is going to be

 8     an hour and a half with the witness.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

10             So we invite counsel for Mr. Stanisic to open.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.  In order to be very

12     precise, I will speak in Serbian.  Thank you very much.

13             [Interpretation] Your Honours, I shall start my opening statement

14     in this case by firstly speaking about the context surrounding the events

15     which are the subject of these proceedings.

16             In order to properly understand the causes and consequences as

17     well as the developments that took place in the territory of Bosnia and

18     Herzegovina during the period relevant to the indictment, the situation

19     must be put in a proper context.  The Prosecution spoke about the context

20     of the events in the indictment, firstly in the opening statement and

21     then during the entire Prosecution case.  The Defence believes that the

22     Prosecution described the context in overly simplified terms or, rather,

23     that their description of the context, whether deliberate or not, was

24     by -- based on the secondary phenomena and consequences of less important

25     processes that took place.  In that sense, the context was used to

Page 19362

 1     justify the conclusions and the theory of the Prosecution case.

 2             During the Defence case, the Defence intends to lead evidence

 3     which will paint an objective picture of the context based on the

 4     fundamental processes that took place in society, and by that I mean the

 5     former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, because we believe

 6     that this aspect of the case is the important background which will allow

 7     us all to better understand the events that ensued and that have since

 8     become the object of this indictment.

 9             I will take this opportunity to briefly outline some of the

10     significant social processes which, in the Defence's view, created a

11     context relevant for the understanding of this case.  As a federal union

12     of six republics and two autonomous provinces, both in the Republic of

13     Serbia, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was created during

14     the World War II or the National Liberation War as it was known in the

15     Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

16             Its social and political constitution was reflected in the name

17     of the state as socialist, in that the ideology was undoubtedly

18     Communist.  The social and political constitution was further

19     characterised by a mono-party system dominated by a party which was

20     initially known as the Communist party of Yugoslavia and thereafter as

21     the League of Communists of Yugoslavia.  The state consisted of several

22     nations which is why the aspects of nation and nationality were given a

23     lot of attention.  One of the underlying causes of that attention were

24     the historical events and conflicts between members of different ethnic

25     groups in the area, especially during the Second World War whose

Page 19363

 1     consequences were still fresh in everybody's member.  In a desire to

 2     overcome possible major problems, including the problem of time which

 3     would have been required to establish the guilt of individuals and groups

 4     for the events that had taken place during the Second World War as well

 5     as to eliminate the causes of such events, the Communist leadership of

 6     the state decided to make the leap of faith and establish a society based

 7     on the concepts such as were -- the brotherhood and unity of all the

 8     nations and nationalities that resided in the territory of the SFRY and

 9     similar equally empty phrases.

10             Besides offering practical benefits to the then-government, that

11     decision was in keeping with the Communist ideology which was based,

12     first and foremost, on class struggle and attachment to a class rather

13     than to an ethnic group or tradition.  Communist ideology disparages

14     national traditions and ethnic affiliations; i.e., it doesn't recognise

15     any of those because it advocates Communist internationalism.  In some

16     cases and in some parts of the state, that way of dealing with this issue

17     as adopted by the government and the party certainly required harsh

18     repressive measures during the first 10- or 15-year period after the end

19     of the Second World War.  After that period, any public display of

20     national ideology was subject to uncompromising criminal prosecution.

21             As a result, the problem of previous ethnic conflicts among the

22     peoples of the SFRY seemed to have been solved, and save for a small

23     number of dissents who continued to pursue the matter, the problem was

24     largely ignored by the official authorities.  However, the problem

25     continued to persist, and the memories of the events that had taken place

Page 19364

 1     during the Second World War were passed on among family members or in

 2     smaller local circles.  As is often the case, since the memories of those

 3     events were suppressed by force, i.e., by the state enforcement agencies,

 4     they became mystified in the collective memory of individuals and

 5     national groups.

 6             The entire political and legal system of the Socialist Federal

 7     Republic of Yugoslavia was based, as I've already said it, on a

 8     mono-party system in which the party played a regulatory role of sorts.

 9     I dare even say that it had a controlling role over any social, political

10     or economic processes that were taking place in society.

11             Let me explain this.  Through its local bodies and branches, the

12     League of Communists exerted its influence in all spheres of life.  In

13     that way, the party exerted a significant influence on the choice of

14     cadres for all positions.  I dare say in the local bodies of government,

15     municipalities and cities, all the way up to the Federation.  It also

16     influenced the choice of cadres in the economy, judiciary, state

17     administration, education, health system, military, and so on.

18             The situation changed in 1990, with the onset of democratisation

19     and the introduction of a multi-party system.  A large number of

20     political parties were created overnight.  They sprung up like mushrooms

21     after the rain, which is only understandable because the same kind of

22     processes were taking place across Europe during the period of

23     post-Communist transition.

24             However, the situation changed only on the face of it but

25     essentially it remained the same.  As illustrated and confirmed by

Page 19365

 1     numerous examples in recent past, by that I mean Iraq and Afghanistan,

 2     the introduction of a multi-party system and the democratisation of a

 3     society is a process and not a simple declaration of the fact.  Such a

 4     process, necessarily means that the population must be educated about the

 5     functioning and democratic principles.  It especially implies the

 6     creation of bodies and putting in place a structure compatible with such

 7     a democratic system.  None of that existed in the former Socialist

 8     Federative Republic of Yugoslavia.

 9             In some more developed parts where some sort of democratic

10     traditions were in place, like, for example, the Republic of Slovenia or

11     larger economic centres, the system started to undergo the process of

12     transformation, but if anything, the transformation was only skin deep

13     and purely cosmetic.  The structure of the political and legal system had

14     not changed nor was that objectively possible within such a short period

15     of time.  As a result, the HDZ and the SDS parties in Croatia and Serbia

16     respectively were given to play an identical role as the defeated League

17     of Communists before that.  All the other parties mostly served as

18     choreography.

19             I believe that it is a widely known fact that both Franjo

20     Tudjman, the HDZ leader in Croatia, and Slobodan Milosevic, the SDS

21     leader in Serbia, were proven Communists.  Tudjman as a JNA general and

22     Milosevic as a high-ranking party leader.  Since the two of them were

23     undoubtedly very close to the Communist ideology and they were also

24     rather familiar with the functioning of the League of Communists, the

25     respective parties that they headed were modelled after the League of

Page 19366

 1     Communists in terms of their organisation, structure, and functioning.

 2             Only a relatively low number of intellectuals at the time saw

 3     democratisation in the proper sense of the term, i.e., as a possibility

 4     to create institutions based on the rule of democracy, law, and free from

 5     party control in all segments of life and work.  Unfortunately, their

 6     numbers were low in the entire territory of the former Socialist

 7     Federative Republic of Yugoslavia and they were marginalised in every

 8     sense which made it impossible for them to fight against the populous

 9     parties and movements that ended up imposing themselves on the large

10     popular masses.

11             The emergence of democracy and the break up with Communism led to

12     the abolishment of all taboo topics, so the national issue which was

13     previously strictly controlled and carefully concealed, unfortunately

14     came to the fore.  All the leading parties in the republics displayed

15     very pronounced national self-awareness.  The surge of that national

16     awareness, which to a certain extent could be seen as a consequence and

17     product of the fact that the issue had been largely ignored as

18     non-existent by the Communist authorities for a number of years, did not

19     move things in a positive direction.  Unfortunately, quite the contrary

20     was true.  That national self-awareness assumed the characteristics of

21     national exclusivity and chauvinism.  One of the plausible underlying

22     reasons for that was the desire of all those parties to make themselves

23     popular, which was a reaction to Communism, and to give prominence to

24     those issues which had been either ignored or prohibited during the

25     Communist rule.  Since all the parties based their programmes on the same

Page 19367

 1     identical issues, their positions gradually became more radical in an

 2     attempt to attract the highest possible number of voters.

 3             In Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had been a known as a small

 4     Yugoslavia due to its specific characteristics, those tendencies resulted

 5     in even more pronounced consequences as citizens sided with their own

 6     national parties.  The reason for that probably lies in the relative

 7     underdevelopment of Bosnia and Herzegovina, even the backwardness of some

 8     of its parts, in the structure of the population, the history and the

 9     ostensible absence of any democratic traditions in the area.

10             It is already in evidence that the breakdown of the Ottoman

11     Empire after the Berlin Congress that took place in 1878 left Bosnia and

12     Herzegovina a rather underdeveloped state in the region.  It remained

13     underdeveloped as a short-lived protectorate of the Habsburg Monarchy

14     towards the end of the 19th century.  In 1907, it was annexed by the

15     Habsburg Monarchy which meant that the area was again occupied, although

16     under rather different principles in respect of the Ottoman occupation.

17     It can be said that only then, at the beginning of the 20th century, the

18     Habsburg occupation planted the seeds of democracy in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

19     However, that was again very short lived.  During the World War I, the

20     Habsburg Monarchy collapsed and after the end of the war, the territory

21     of Bosnia-Herzegovina became part of the kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and

22     Slovenians first and then Yugoslavia, and finally, after the Second World

23     War, Communists took power.

24             Since the national structure of the population of Bosnia and

25     Herzegovina was not homogenous, the only option to stand up against the

Page 19368

 1     League of Communists was to create a coalition of ethnic parties because

 2     without such a coalition, it was impossible to win a majority of votes in

 3     Bosnia and Herzegovina and beat the League of Communists at elections.

 4     Unfortunately, this type of coalition with victory over Communism being a

 5     common denominator of all the coalition parties was doomed from the very

 6     outset.  Namely, all those ethnic parties, just like the HDZ in Croatia,

 7     and the SBS in Serbia, were essentially anti-democratic, and as I've

 8     already stated, they mirrored the League of Communists and modelled

 9     themselves after it.  This was especially true of the HDZ of

10     Bosnia-Herzegovina which was undoubtedly part of the HDZ of Croatia, and

11     as such, it implemented the policies of the mother republic and its

12     leading party and it was directly subordinated to the party leader and

13     president of Croatia, Franjo Tudjman.

14             One of the instantly recognisable characteristics of all ethnic

15     parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina was the fact that they copied the work of

16     the League of Communists of Yugoslavia in the sense that each of them

17     wanted to grab as many resources for themselves and to take as much

18     control as possible over the institutions of power.  As I've stated

19     already, there were no democratic or structural mechanisms in place to

20     prevent them from doing so, because the system that existed and that was

21     inherited was based exclusively on a mono-party system.

22             A special problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina was the fact that

23     ethnic parties, or at least their original leaderships, or those that

24     were the first to join them, were mostly people with little or no

25     experience in the matters of politics or state administration.  In that

Page 19369

 1     sense, unlike the HDZ in Croatia, or the SBS in Serbia, where most of the

 2     members had joined from the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, the lack

 3     of competency was particularly pronounced among the ethnic parties of

 4     Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 5             Your Honours, I believe that during the Prosecution case you saw

 6     ample evidence testifying to that lack of competency among the people in

 7     leading positions.  Poorly educated people were appointed to responsible

 8     positions in the state apparatus, in political bodies and the state

 9     administration in general.  Even if there were any with higher education,

10     as a rule their educational background had nothing to do with the

11     positions to which they were appointed and the roles they played.  People

12     with no experience or knowledge were appointed to positions in political

13     institutions, municipalities, and the state administration.

14             During the Prosecution case, we were given as an example a

15     municipality where the president of the Executive Council, the chief of

16     the SJB and the chief of the Secretariat of National Defence were all

17     engineers.  I believe that they had degrees in either physics or

18     chemistry and they didn't have any prior work experience.  As you know,

19     the MUP -- the Ministry of Interior at the state level was not much

20     different in terms of its leadership.  A large majority of the Assembly

21     members, as you may be able to conclude from the evidence in this case,

22     in the Assembly of the Republika Srpska, for example, were novices to the

23     job.  Their discussions were often offensive, inappropriate and not very

24     productive either.

25             A very specific characteristic of Bosnia and Herzegovina of which

Page 19370

 1     you will hear more in the future, although there has been much evidence

 2     to that effect already in this case, is the fact that the three ethnic

 3     political parties deliberately or by chance polarised the population

 4     along the ethnic rather than political lines.  From the moment they were

 5     created, they considered themselves the only legitimate representatives

 6     of the ethnic group they represented and that is how they conducted their

 7     business.  The ultimate result of that is -- is that even now, before at

 8     this Tribunal, somebody's ethnic affiliation is often considered the same

 9     as their party affiliations.  If you're a Serb, then you're also the SDS.

10     A Croat is also the HDZ, and a Muslim is the SDA although it doesn't

11     necessarily have to be true.  Nor should this be indeed be the case

12     because an individual's political affiliations should depend on the

13     party's programme and the individual's preference and interests.

14             You have also heard that all smaller parties ceased to exist or

15     became marginalised as a result of that.  Whereas the SDA, HDZ and SDS

16     coalition which initially favoured party members as their candidates for

17     various positions given to them based on the -- the inter-party agreement

18     but later on, faced with a shortage of party members to fill those

19     positions, they started appointed individuals based on their ethnic

20     rather than party affiliations.  Primarily for these reasons, the legal

21     system and structures of power simply collapsed in the entire territory

22     of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia and particularly in

23     Bosnia and Herzegovina, as you will see.  As a result, laws were being

24     broken every step of the way and at all levels, from the Federation and

25     Republics to the municipalities.

Page 19371

 1             In Bosnia and Herzegovina this may be illustrated by various

 2     examples starting with the establishment of the SDA as an ethnic party

 3     and then other ethnic parties, although that was strictly forbidden under

 4     the laws then prevailing in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  The process culminated

 5     in October 1992, when, contrary to the valid constitution and the legal

 6     regulations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a declaration of independence of

 7     Bosnia and Herzegovina was passed by the SDA and HDZ members of the

 8     Bosnia and Herzegovina Assembly in the absence of the representatives of

 9     the Serbian people.  In one of his statements, Lord Carrington said that

10     that act, undoubtedly initiated by Alija Izetbegovic, was illegal.

11             Can we now play the video please.

12                           [Video-clip played]

13             "... have been in the majority.  And then the Muslims, who had a

14     very much higher birthrate than the Serbs became the predominant -- the

15     majority of the population.  And this, of course, was something very hard

16     for the Serbs to swallow, and they made it abundantly plain very early on

17     that they were not prepared to accept the situation in which there was an

18     independent Bosnia under the constitution which then prevailed, and

19     indeed under the institution that then prevailed, it was not -- it was

20     illegal for Izetbegovic to declare independence because any

21     constitutional change of that magnitude had to be agreed by all three

22     parties."

23             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24             During the Defence case, you will see how far-reaching the state

25     of lawlessness in Bosnia and Herzegovina was and how slowly but surely it

Page 19372

 1     led to legal and political chaos.  You will see that the impotence of the

 2     central powers in Sarajevo resulted in the regional associations of

 3     municipalities which had almost nothing to do with the central republican

 4     powers.  Some associated themselves with their mother states, like, for

 5     example, the community of Herceg-Bosnia, which was in the western part of

 6     Bosnia and Herzegovina, leaned on Croatia.  Some leaned on the Socialist

 7     Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, i.e., the Federation, like, for

 8     example, the Autonomous Region of Krajina in north-western Bosnia,

 9     whereas some existed on their own.

10             The impotence of the state apparatus and its structures top down

11     to the local level was partly due to the lack of competence of its

12     leaders who even if they had wanted to stop those processes, probably

13     simply didn't know how to do it.  This fact, which I consider extremely

14     important for the sequence of events that ensued, has already been

15     corroborated by ample evidence led during the Prosecution case.  The

16     Defence will lead other evidence to that effect.  When armed conflicts

17     started to take place in the atmosphere that I have just described, the

18     situation became absolutely unbearable and impossible for the functioning

19     of the state and its united powers, as you will see from the documents

20     and evidence we intend to exhibit.

21             And now led me say something about Mr. Mico Stanisic.  The

22     evidence that was led during the Prosecution case shows the following.

23             Mico Stanisic was born to an impoverished patriarchal family that

24     lived off agriculture and cattle breeding in Ponor village in Pale

25     municipality, some 50 kilometres south-east of Sarajevo on the slopes of

Page 19373

 1     Mount Romanija.

 2             MS. KORNER:  I'm very sorry to interrupt, Mr. Zecevic, but that's

 3     not evidence we led, and as I understand it, Mr. Zecevic is not calling

 4     Mr. Stanisic.  Is he saying that's evidence that's going to be given by

 5     somebody else?

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  No.  As I said, Ms. Korner, this is the evidence

 7     which you -- that you led in this case.  It's P2300, P23 [Microphone not

 8     activated] those are the exhibits in this case.

 9             MS. KORNER:  Well, I hear what Mr. Zecevic says, Your Honour.

10     We'll check that.

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Stanisic's family had

12     three children.  The only way for a poor family to give their children

13     education was to send them to military or police schools.  After having

14     enrolled in the police school in Sarajevo, Stanisic himself was a

15     hard-working student.  His hard work paid off and in the school year

16     1972/1973, he was proclaimed the best final-year student in all of Bosnia

17     and Herzegovina, based on his achievements.  He was also an active

18     athlete.  He trained judo, which made him popular and well-known in the

19     city of Sarajevo.  You will hear that he graduated from the secondary

20     police school as the best student in his generation.  After graduation he

21     signed an employment contract with the Ministry of Interior of the

22     Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and enrolled at the law

23     school in Sarajevo.  While studying, he also held a permanent job and the

24     cost of his education was borne by the Ministry of the Interior of the

25     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Page 19374

 1             The Defence will lead evidence to show that the colleagues always

 2     perceived Mico Stanisic as serious and hard-working.  Somebody who always

 3     carried school-books around and took any opportunity to revise.  You will

 4     also hear that he was a dedicated athlete and student, that he never

 5     drank and that he was never argumentative.  You will also hear that from

 6     the very start of his career, he was always seen as a man of strong

 7     principles and a professional who always did everything by the book and

 8     insisted on respect for the laws and regulations.  Also that he was

 9     sociable and that he socialised with members of all ethnicities, that

10     from the age of 15 he shared a room in the dormitory of the police school

11     with a Muslim and a Croat, his fellow students.

12             Nobody ever saw or heard him display any nationalist feelings nor

13     did he ever spoke offensively about members of any other ethnicity.  On

14     the contrary, he was considered a role model as the best member of the

15     youth organisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  In 1973, he had the honour

16     of being the first to carry the relay race baton which was traditionally

17     given to President Tito every year on his birthday, which was also a

18     national holiday known as the day of youth, a holiday which symbolised

19     the fraternity and unity of the peoples and the youth of Yugoslavia in

20     the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia.

21             After a while, Mico Stanisic left the police and joined the

22     business community as a successful manager of the Gradske Trznice

23     Trading Company which supplied the city of Sarajevo with food.  After the

24     victory of ethnic parties at the 1990 elections, despite the support he

25     enjoyed from the SDA, he left his position as company director because

Page 19375

 1     the support was conditional upon the shake-up of the staff.  He was not

 2     willing to be involved in that because he believed that the company was

 3     not a state property and that the only parameters of the company's

 4     success were its performance and profit.  From that moment on, he was in

 5     private business and together with his wife he opened several consumer

 6     goods shops.

 7             Towards the end of 1990, he joined the steering committee to

 8     establish the democratic party of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a true

 9     democratic party, where he worked together with the democratic parties of

10     Serb Yugoslavia.  That party was not an ethnic party nor did it have such

11     aspirations.  At the time, Professor Nenad Kecmanovic, a well-known

12     intellectual and dissident during the Communist rule, was earmarked as

13     the future party president.  However, Kecmanovic joined the party of

14     reformists led by the then prime minister Ante Markovic, while ethnic

15     parties started being registers and the picture changed.  Members of

16     different ethnicities, almost to the last, started joining their own

17     ethnic parties.  When the Prosveta association, the club of Serbian

18     intellectuals, which included Radovan Karadzic as its member, proposed to

19     establish a Serbian ethnic party, a large number of small parties with

20     majority Serbian memberships disappeared and their members joined the new

21     SDS party.  The party whose steering committee member was Mico Stanisic

22     experienced the same fate.

23             In July 1990, very soon after the establishment of the SDS,

24     Mico Stanisic clashed with SDS members, and in early Autumn 1990,

25     Mico Stanisic quit the political life and the party.

Page 19376

 1             In March 1991, at Vitomir Zepinic's proposal, Mico Stanisic

 2     returned to the MUP of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and

 3     joined as the secretary of the Sarajevo SUP.  Although no other than

 4     Momcilo Krajisnik's brother Mirko was his counter-candidate for the

 5     position, Croat and Muslim support was the decisive factor in

 6     Mico Stanisic's appointment.

 7             You will hear that on his return to the MUP of the Socialist

 8     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mico Stanisic continued to uphold his

 9     principles and insisted on the strict enforcement of the law, and that

10     because of such position, he clashed with certain structures within the

11     MUP of Bosnia and Herzegovina with respect to the illegal issuance of

12     identity cards and passports to individuals who were not BH citizens, and

13     he was eventually removed from the position as the chief of the Sarajevo

14     SUP.

15             After that, on 14th of February, Mico Stanisic was appointed as

16     an advisor to Minister Delimustafic.  During the Defence case you will

17     hear that the prime candidate for the post of the interior minister of

18     the Republika Srpska after the promulgation of the constitution and the

19     passing of the laws on internal affairs and on ministers and government

20     was Vitomir Zepinic.  However, his candidacy was withdrawn because of

21     suspicions that he had been involved in illegal dealings together with

22     Alija Delimustafic.  After that, Prime Minister Djeric appointed

23     Mico Stanisic as minister.

24             You already heard during the Prosecution case that he accepted

25     the appointment halfheartedly.  And let me quote Prime Minister Djeric

Page 19377

 1     who said at the meeting of the Assembly at which he explained his

 2     proposals for the ministers of the interior and foreign affairs, this is

 3     Exhibit P198, page 4, Prime Minister Djeric said that Assembly meeting:

 4             "I would like to stress that both candidates certainly appreciate

 5     the current position of the Serbian people.  I'm not saying that they

 6     have accepted the positions halfheartedly, but they have not refused

 7     them.  So much about that."

 8             Those were Djeric's words uttered at that Assembly meeting.

 9             Speaking about the events of the 1st of March and barricades in

10     Sarajevo, the evidence we will adduce will show that no MUP inspectors or

11     operatives ever implicated Mico Stanisic in the events, nor was anybody

12     in the MUP privy to information that Mico Stanisic had any role to play

13     in those events, contrary to the Prosecutor's allegations.

14             You will also hear that after his appointment as minister of the

15     interior of the Republika Srpska, Mico Stanisic continued to insist on

16     the consistent and strict implementation of the laws and regulations.  He

17     continued to be considered a man of principles when it came to enforcing

18     the laws and insisting on the professional work of the police.  He

19     applied these principles indiscriminately to his own work as well as to

20     the work of his associates.

21             Your Honours, I have noted the time.  It would be a good moment

22     for me to make a break here.

23             JUDGE HALL:  So we will resume in 20 minutes.  Thank you.

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

25                           --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.

Page 19378

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  We will -- may I continue, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, please, Mr. Zecevic.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.  We will have the video

 4     played, if we can have the transcripts given to the Trial Chamber and the

 5     Office of the Prosecutor.

 6             Madam Registrar?  It's our second video.

 7             [Interpretation] Your Honours, before the break, I said that you

 8     would hear during the Defence case that even after the appointment as

 9     minister of the interior of Republika Srpska, Mico Stanisic, he continued

10     to be considered a man of principles when it came to enforcing the law

11     and insisting on the professional work of the police and that he applied

12     his principles indiscriminately to his own work as well as to the work of

13     his associates.

14             To illustrate this, I will show you an authentic contemporary

15     video-clip depicting the parade of the Sokolac police on the

16     30th of March, 1992, under Mico Stanisic's supervision.  On that

17     occasion, he held a speech.  The video from Sokolac is 1D1 -- or, rather,

18     that is the transcript, whereas, the videos are 2D1.  And now we're going

19     to play the video.

20                           [Video-clip played]

21             THE INTERPRETER:  "[Voiceover] The text of the solemn declaration

22     will be read by the minister of the interior of the Serbian Autonomous

23     Region of Romanija, Zoran Cvijetic.

24             "I declare that I will perform the duty of an authorised official

25     continuously and responsibility [as interpreted], that I will abide by

Page 19379

 1     the Constitution of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and

 2     Yugoslavia and the law, and that will I protect the constitutionality of

 3     the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Yugoslavia, the

 4     rights, freedoms and security, and that I will carry out those and other

 5     tasks and assignments of an authorised official, even in cases when

 6     carrying out these tasks and assignments would bring my life into

 7     jeopardy.

 8             "The minister of the interior of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia

 9     and Herzegovina, Mico Stanisic, will address the members of the police

10     units of the Serbian Autonomous Region of Romanija.

11             "As of today, the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina has its

12     own police force.  The legality of our existence is provided by the

13     constitution of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the

14     Law on Internal Affairs which was recently adopted by the Assembly at its

15     session.  Moreover, the legality of our existence is based on the results

16     of negotiations of the three ethnic communities under the auspices of the

17     European community.  As of today, we will act as the police of the

18     Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which will carry out its

19     tasks and assignments professionally and not politically, as the MUP of

20     the old Bosnia and Herzegovina has done so far, in order to protect

21     property, life, body, and other securities of all citizens in the Serbian

22     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina equally.

23             "Members of the police, we are not involved in politics.  We must

24     carry out our tasks professionally.  For those reasons, long speeches do

25     not belong to us as of today.  Good luck.  Get to work in the interests

Page 19380

 1     of all who live in the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Thank

 2     you."

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4             As you could see, Your Honours, during his first official

 5     appearance as interior minister, Mr. Mico Stanisic insisted that the

 6     police had a duty to protect the lives and property of all - I stress the

 7     word "all" because that word was stressed by Mr. Stanisic in his speech -

 8     "of all citizens of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina."

 9             This is a rare example from that period, where the equality and

10     protection of all citizens is stressed.  As you all know already, that

11     period was characterised by incendiary nationalistic speeches by state

12     officials representing all the three national communities in Bosnia and

13     Herzegovina.

14             From the evidence adduced so far, you know that Mico Stanisic

15     attended the meeting of the collegium of the minister of Bosnia and

16     Herzegovina on the 1st of April, 1992, where the practical issues of the

17     division of the Ministry of the Interior were discussed.  The other

18     participants were representatives of all of three sides,

19     Alija Delimustafic's assistants.

20             Mico Stanisic participated in his capacity as minister,

21     Delimustafic's advisor, and minister of the interior of the Serbian

22     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

23             During the Prosecution case it was shown that Mico Stanisic had

24     met with Jusuf Pusina, chief of public security of the MUP of Bosnia and

25     Herzegovina, a member of the SDA, on the 3rd of April, 1992, to discuss

Page 19381

 1     possible options for a building that would house the MUP of Republika

 2     Srpska headquarters in the territory of the city of Sarajevo.  The next

 3     meeting was scheduled for the 5th of April, 1992, at Holiday Inn hotel in

 4     Sarajevo at 1330 hours, and in the meantime, Mr. Pusina was supposed to

 5     consult with President Izetbegovic about the headquarters of the MUP.

 6             On that day, when Mico Stanisic was waiting for the meeting to

 7     start, Pusina first informed him that he would not be able to attend

 8     because he was involved in an investigation into the murder of a Serbian

 9     policeman in the Novi Grad police station that had happened the night

10     before, and then an another piece of news arrived about a conflict in

11     Vrace and the killing of two Serbian policemen.

12             During the Prosecution case, you heard and saw a number of

13     exhibits and ample evidence that demonstrated Stanisic's dedication to

14     the establishment and functioning of the MUP in strict compliance with

15     the law when the MUP of Republika Srpska was being established

16     practically from scratch during an extremely difficult period.  You also

17     heard about his persistent work aimed at stabilising the situation in the

18     Ministry of the Interior of the Republika Srpska.  During the Defence

19     case, the Defence will present ample additional evidence to corroborate

20     this statement.

21             You will hear, furthermore, that in 1994, when he returned to

22     that position, he removed some leading individuals from the police and

23     that he -- that -- and that he tried to establish responsibility for all

24     crimes that had been committed, particularly war crimes, and that he

25     insisted on arresting perpetrators of war crimes.  You will hear about

Page 19382

 1     his fight against crime in general, which is why he clashed with the

 2     political leadership and that's why he was removed from his position for

 3     the second time.  Most particularly, you will hear the testimony about

 4     the moment when this Tribunal's indictment was served on Mico Stanisic in

 5     2005 and his reaction and attitude towards the indictment.

 6             During the Defence case, you will hear additional evidence about

 7     Mico Stanisic's work and efforts invested by himself and his closest

 8     associates to introduce the rule of law in the territory of the

 9     Republika Srpska.  His positions, actions and conduct are typical of a

10     man who does not wish to inflict harm upon anybody, or embarrassment.  On

11     the contrary, they show him as a serious and responsible civil servant

12     and state official who did everything in his power, at the expense of his

13     own personal safety and the safety of his associates, to protect public

14     order and security and offer protection to all citizens of the Republika

15     Srpska irrespective of their ethnic affiliation, which was his duty under

16     the law.

17             During its case, the Defence intends to demonstrate that there is

18     no evidence to corroborate the Prosecution allegations from the

19     indictment or a shred of evidence for any of the crimes the Prosecution

20     charges the accused, Mico Stanisic, with.  When I say that, I mean

21     Counts 4 through 11, and 17 through 23 of the indictment.

22             We intend to show that there is no evidence in this case that

23     Stanisic is individually criminally responsible, under Article 7(1) of

24     the ICTY Statute, for the crimes under Articles 3 and 5 of the Statute

25     with which he is charged in this indictment, and which he allegedly

Page 19383

 1     committed not directly but as a co-perpetrator, and which he aided and

 2     abetted and assisted in their planning, preparation or commission.

 3             Let me be quite open, Your Honours.  It is Mr. Stanisic's

 4     position that there was no joint criminal enterprise as described in the

 5     indictment or in any other way which he would have been a member of or

 6     whose common purpose he would have shared.  It is his position that the

 7     evidence adduced to date and that which is yet to be presented during the

 8     Defence case demonstrate that Mico Stanisic was not involved in any

 9     criminal activity, individually or in concert with others, or any sort of

10     conspiracy or criminal enterprise.  He fulfilled his obligations under

11     the laws in force at the time responsibly and as far as it was possible

12     for him to do so.  Furthermore, as minister of the interior, he did not

13     do anything impermissible or criminal, either through action or inaction.

14     Quite the contrary, in fact.

15             The joint criminal enterprise, as pleaded in the indictment,

16     which ties it in with the 24th of October, 1991, as the date when the

17     Assembly of the Serbian People in the -- in Bosnia-Herzegovina was

18     established, did not exist.  Or if such a joint criminal enterprise or

19     something similar did exist, Mico Stanisic was most certainly not a

20     member of that joint criminal enterprise.

21             Furthermore, in our submission, Mico Stanisic did not use

22     physical perpetrators for the commission of any crimes.  We will

23     particularly and specifically demonstrate that there is no evidence to

24     support the OTP contentions that, in the municipalities listed in the

25     indictment, and through his action, and inaction, Mico Stanisic did as

Page 19384

 1     follows.

 2             Under A, participating in the formation of the Bosnian Serb

 3     bodies and forces that implemented the forcible takeovers of the

 4     municipalities and participated in the crimes listed in this indictment.

 5             Under B, participating in the development of Bosnian Serb policy

 6     at the leadership level in order to secure the takeovers of the

 7     municipalities in the targeted territory and the forcible removal of the

 8     non-Serb population.

 9             Under C, communicating and coordinating with Bosnian Serb

10     political figures at the republican level, particularly Karadzic and

11     Krajisnik, as well as political, military, and police figures at the

12     regional and municipal levels, in order to facilitate the implementation

13     of the objective of the joint criminal enterprise.

14             Under D, commanding over members and agents of the RS MUP in

15     implementing the objective of the joint criminal enterprise.

16             Under E, assisting in the co-ordination of joint operations of

17     the Army of Republika Srpska and the MUP of Republika Srpska in support

18     of the implementation of the objective of the joint criminal enterprise.

19             Under F, facilitating the establishment and operation of camps

20     and detention facilities in which Serb forces beat, killed and sexually

21     assaulted non-Serb detainees.

22             Under G, failing, while under a duty under the laws and

23     regulations applicable to the Ministry of Interior, to protect the entire

24     civilian population within the areas under the control of Bosnian Serb

25     authorities, to take adequate steps to ensure that MUP -- that the RS MUP

Page 19385

 1     forces would act to protect the Bosnian Muslim, Bosnian Croat, and other

 2     non-Serb populations residing in those areas.

 3             Under H, encouraging and facilitating the commission of crimes by

 4     Serb forces against Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and other non-Serbs

 5     by not taking adequate steps to investigate, arrest, and/or punish the

 6     perpetrators of such crimes and thereby contributing to the maintenance

 7     of a culture of impunity in respect of such crimes, including by

 8     participating in sham inquiries concerning these crimes.

 9             Therefore we contest all these allegations from the indictment as

10     indicated above.

11             Furthermore, we intend to demonstrate the following:  That did he

12     not have the intent for the commission of any of the crimes listed in the

13     indictment, nor could he have considered them as foreseeable

14     consequences, that he did not have the criminal intent for any of the

15     crimes charged against him.  You will hear that, contrary to Prosecution

16     allegations, a certain number of victims listed in the indictment were

17     members of armed forces and not civilians.

18             And, of course, we also contest Mr. Stanisic's responsibility

19     under Article 7(3) of the ICTY Statute.

20             In our submission, the allegations in the indictment are

21     unfounded and incorrect, and the Defence will contest them during its

22     presentation of evidence, just as it did during the Prosecution case.

23     After all, it was for this reason that our client pleaded not guilty, and

24     our pre-trial brief details the underlying reasons.  During its case the

25     Defence intends to demonstrate that the Prosecution's allegations and the

Page 19386

 1     opinions provided by their experts, Prosecution experts, are erroneous

 2     and based on a lack of knowledge of the legal system in force in the

 3     Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, Socialist Republic of

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and on a

 5     complete and utter misinterpretation of relevant legal provisions.  We

 6     intend to demonstrate that such allegations are not based on knowledge of

 7     relevant issues but, rather, on a one-sided and therefore biased and

 8     erroneous interpretation of specific facts which were, for the most part,

 9     construed out of the relevant context and legal regulations.  We intend

10     to show that there is a significant difference between having knowledge

11     and expertise of a certain field and being merely informed of it through

12     quotations and analyses of selected documents.

13             To give you an illustration of it, let me quote what my learned

14     friend Mr. O'Sullivan had to say about it at some point during this

15     trial:

16             "If I went and designed a bridge after reading all the available

17     material about how to build bridges and without having the requisite

18     knowledge about bridge construction, I would not recommend that you cross

19     that bridge."

20             Your Honours, looking back, I'm sure that, generally speaking,

21     the Trial Chamber has a very clear impression and knowledge of the

22     Defence's position in this case, given that our position has been very

23     transparent and, most importantly, consistent from the start of trial.

24     What we have been maintaining from day one is what we will continue to

25     maintain throughout the Defence case.  As I said, the Defence position

Page 19387

 1     has not and will not change.  In our submission, Mico Stanisic did,

 2     indeed, do everything within his powers, obligations, and duties as

 3     minister of the interior to combat every type of crime.  You have ample

 4     evidence to that effect in the record and more will follow.

 5             But that is not all.  The Defence submits that not only did

 6     Mico Stanisic do what was required and necessary, but he did even more

 7     than that when the situation was such that it does not bear describing.

 8     You have seen and will see that, from day one, not only did he insist in

 9     his dispatches on the strict application of the laws and regulations and

10     professional conduct of MUP members, but that he kept repeating it

11     throughout his time as minister and took measures to have his orders and

12     dispatches implemented.

13             We will demonstrate specifically that did not amount to mere

14     correspondence, but that the MUP inspectors present in the headquarters

15     risked their lives at times to oversee the implementation of instructions

16     on the order of the minister and his assistants by going out into the

17     field and touring the same CSBs or SJBs, not once, but several times, to

18     make sure that they were implemented.  You will see that all his efforts

19     and persistence resulted in the situation taking a significant turn for

20     the better in the second half of 1992, and that these efforts taken by

21     the entire Ministry of Interior headed by him can by no means be

22     connected in the slightest with any alleged joint criminal enterprise or

23     the commission of any crime from this indictment.  Quite the contrary.

24     In this case, through a twist of circumstances, not only do we have

25     testimonies of witnesses from the Prosecution case and more to come in

Page 19388

 1     the Defence case, but we also have a large amount of contemporaneous

 2     documents, even originals, from the ministry of Republika Srpska, as well

 3     as copies of the same documents forwarded by CSBs to the territorial

 4     public security stations and follow-up letters checking if the

 5     instructions were being complied with.

 6             We submit that in such a situation nobody could have done more

 7     than had been done.

 8             Your Honours, the crimes are many.  The victims are many.  And

 9     all of us, including my client, feel it keenly.  However, on the other

10     hand, never lose sight of the fact that the situation in Bosnia and

11     Herzegovina in 1992 was everything but regular in every sense of the

12     word.  There was chaos and whirlpool of civil war, where former

13     neighbours, friends and kin killed each other in cold blood,

14     unfortunately.  Not even the best qualified and best organised police

15     forces in the world would be able to handle such situations in the

16     circumstances that are incomparably less extreme despite having fully

17     functional states that keep situations under control.  I will not be

18     citing examples here because you know them full well.  The important

19     thing here is to understand that at that point in time, in 1992, a

20     functional state simply did not exist.  The state was only in the making,

21     as was the state administration, including the Ministry of Interior.

22             As one of the Prosecution witnesses graphically put it, the

23     RS MUP had to be established and I quote, "by starting from the green

24     grass."  Meaning from scratch.

25             You will recall that on the issue of communications, the

Page 19389

 1     Prosecution put in everything they had to prove that there was normal

 2     communication with occasional interruptions until one of their witnesses

 3     explained the relations quite plastically in terms of figures.

 4     Specifically, that in normal times, the entire MUP traffic of dispatches

 5     in Bosnia-Herzegovina amounted to over 300.000 dispatches a year, and

 6     that in 1992, the RS MUP, at a time when armed clashes raged, had only

 7     8.570 of them all together.  The fact of the matter is that three CSBs of

 8     the RS MUP did not even exist before April 1992, that they were yet to be

 9     established and to be made to work at a basic level, that -- I -- I will

10     remind you that active policemen were by far a minority compared to

11     reservists, who were picked out and placed on the police reserve force by

12     Crisis Staffs or other organs wholly unrelated to the MUP.

13             In our submission, when all these issues are taken into account,

14     one can hardly point a finger and say that this ministry, or this

15     minister, did not do this and that in 1992 and had the ability to do so.

16     Surely the Trial Chamber will recall that on several occasions during the

17     Prosecution case, I underscored the fact that, from the very start, the

18     Defence left no room for doubt as to which witnesses would be called

19     during the Defence case, and that, aside from Defence experts, most of

20     them would be witnesses whom the Prosecution had placed on their

21     65 ter lists but did not call to testify.  I use lists in plural here

22     because these lists were amended on several occasions at trial, as we all

23     know, with new witnesses being added, others dropped, only to

24     subsequently reappear.  And the Prosecution did not call these witnesses

25     to testify.  Hence, the case will proceed just as I announced it.

Page 19390

 1             During the Defence case, the Chamber will hear two experts, that

 2     is, an expert on police matters who is a professor at a police academy.

 3     Therefore, a fully competent witness who will provide detailed

 4     explanations and clarifications of the legal provisions governing

 5     internal affairs in the relevant period, specifically the establishment

 6     of the MUP of Republika Srpska in Bosnia-Herzegovina; the way the MUP of

 7     the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina worked in 1990 to 1992; the

 8     duties, rights and obligations of MUP members and the ministry as a

 9     whole; the system of management within the RS MUP; the duties, rights and

10     obligations of the minister and other senior officials under the law in

11     force; the disciplinary and criminal responsibility of MUP members as

12     provided for in the regulations in force at the time, in terms of powers

13     to request, initiate, conduct, render decisions, and the appeals

14     procedure.  I mean the appeal in the disciplinary proceedings.

15             In particular, the expert sets out in his report a comparison

16     between the de jure and de facto situations in respect of all the

17     specific issues I mentioned above and addresses some of the conclusions

18     drawn by Prosecution experts.

19             In the supplement to his report, the expert addresses the only

20     two topics that are, in our view, material and relevant for this case and

21     which have to do with the report of the Prosecution's military expert.

22             The second expert of the Defence is also a university professor,

23     a demographer whose main area of study is precisely demography in

24     theoretical terms and, more specifically, the demography of

25     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Thus, a fully competent witness too.  What I mean to

Page 19391

 1     say is that the expert addresses in his report the history, mechanisms,

 2     reasons, and courses of migrations in Bosnia-Herzegovina over time and

 3     specifically during the period relevant to the indictment.

 4             Crucially, the expert gives a comprehensive view of the issue and

 5     provides explanations from the perspective of the entire population of

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina and not just individual groups, because, as we noted

 7     previously, and repeatedly, we believe that the type of report which

 8     relates to individual groups, which is the sort of report presented by

 9     the Prosecution, inevitably implies bias and means that the subject of

10     study is examined out of context.  Consequently, such a report runs

11     contrary to the basic principles of scientific methodology.

12             The Defence intends to call fact witnesses relevant to this

13     indictment.  They may roughly be divided into three groups, depending on

14     the issues they will testify to.  Two witnesses will testify about the

15     situation in the security services centres.  One of the witnesses was a

16     CSB chief and the other a chief of the CSB crime service.

17             In selecting witnesses, the Defence has primarily focussed on

18     members of the crime prevention administration and specifically the crime

19     service, because it is precisely this administration that is believed to

20     be in the best position to provide relevant information about the crimes

21     listed in the indictment.

22             The Trial Chamber will surely recall that under the Law on

23     Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska, the MUP of Republika Srpska of

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina was organised into five Security Services Centres;

25     namely, Trebinje, Sarajevo, Bijeljina, Banja Luka, and Doboj.

Page 19392

 1             You will also recall that, previously, the MUP of

 2     Bosnia-Herzegovina had had nine Security Services Centres.  In other

 3     words, of the CSBs that had existed before the conflicts in April and

 4     May of 1992, only the CSBs in Banja Luka and Doboj remained in the

 5     territory of Republika Srpska.

 6             Given that in terms of hierarchy the CSBs come directly under the

 7     MUP headquarters, the Defence intends to have the most competent witness

 8     possible, a CSB chief, present to the Chamber the way the centre worked

 9     before and after the split in the MUP and before and after the armed

10     clashes in the territory of that centre.  Since our choice was

11     significantly reduced due to the fact that, as I said, of the five CSBs

12     in the Republika Srpska, only two had existed before the split in the

13     MUP, and in view of the fact that Mr. Zupljanin is a co-accused in this

14     case, we were left only with the chief of CSB Doboj, who meets both these

15     criteria.  Therefore, our first witness will Mr. Andrija Bjelosevic,

16     chief of the state security centre during the time relevant to this case.

17             The area covered by CSB Doboj includes, among others, three

18     municipalities from the indictment; namely, Doboj, Teslic, and

19     Bosanski Samac.  Through his testimony and the documents we will present

20     during his evidence, the witness will explain in detail the situation in

21     the CSB area before the split in the MUP, the failure to operate as well

22     as the unlawful activity of the MUP of the Socialist Republic of

23     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  He will also explain the processes unfolding at the

24     time and state his reasons for attending the meeting in Banja Luka on the

25     11th of February, 1992.  He will give first-hand testimony of the

Page 19393

 1     relations between the Crisis Staffs and CSB chiefs.  He will testify

 2     about the actual state of affairs in CSB Doboj and his engagement in the

 3     army under the command of Colonel Lisica, as well as about the relations

 4     or the attitude of the army toward the civilian authorities.  The witness

 5     will also discuss the problems he confronted in his work during the armed

 6     clashes in 1992 and CSB's lack of control over the territory in the first

 7     several months.

 8             He will testify about his presence at the first RS MUP collegium

 9     meeting in Belgrade on the 11th of July and about all the other collegium

10     meeting he attended during the period relevant to the indictment,

11     including the issues and problems discussed at these meetings.

12             Furthermore, the witness will testify about the measures he took

13     to functionally unify CSB Doboj, about when the centre started to operate

14     properly, when it created a network with local SJBs on the ground along

15     the various lines of work, and about the measures of control and

16     supervisory inspection that were implemented in these SJBs.  He will also

17     discuss the resistance he met from local authorities on the issue of

18     appointments and removals of individuals in leadership positions in the

19     territory.  The witness will also testify about the supervisory

20     inspection and tours of CSBs by inspectors from the MUP headquarters on

21     several occasions in the autumn of 1992.

22             Finally, the witness will speak about the measures taken by the

23     CSB to file criminal reports for crimes committed against non-Serbs, to

24     impose disciplinary measures against certain members of the centre, and

25     reasons why such measures were not taken against other members of CSB and

Page 19394

 1     the subordinated SJBs.  This witness was interviewed by the Prosecution

 2     on more than one occasion.

 3             Witness Simo Tusevljak is also a professional policeman.  He had

 4     been working in the crime service of the city of Sarajevo SUP since the

 5     1st of September, 1990.  During that time, he was coordinator for general

 6     crime for the town of Sarajevo.  The witness will testify how, during

 7     this period, there was, at the same time, an upward trend in the number

 8     of crimes and a decline in the number of uncovered cases of crime and

 9     will give the reasons behind this state of matters.  He will further

10     testify about the makeup of the police personnel who were employed during

11     this period, and I mean with the MUP of the Socialist Republic of

12     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  You will also hear detailed information about

13     illegal arming and arms trafficking in the town of Sarajevo, and about

14     the deliberate coverup of these crimes by some of the MUP members.  He

15     will give evidence about the existence of a separate parallel system of

16     communications that the Muslim members of the MUP had together with the

17     paramilitary organisation the Green Berets, and about the situation in

18     Sarajevo on the 1st of March, 1992.

19             He will also testify about the events in Sarajevo in early

20     April 1992.  He will testify about his knowledge of the split in the MUP

21     and what sort of instructions existed in that regard.  From June 1992

22     onwards, the witness was chief of the crime service of the CSB Sarajevo

23     of MUP of Republika Srpska, Bosnia-Herzegovina.  He will further testify

24     about the situation in the field, the number of employees and stations,

25     police participation in combat operations, and measures taken to set up a

Page 19395

 1     crime service.  The witness will give evidence about the situation in the

 2     field and whether the CSB was able to control the stations in the field

 3     and, in particular, about the meetings with SJB chiefs and instructions

 4     given on these occasions.  In particular, the witness will speak about

 5     the situation in the stations across CSB territory and about the problems

 6     they confronted in their work.  The witness will give evidence about the

 7     work of the judiciary at this time and in that territory, and about the

 8     relations with the army.

 9             The witness will particularly speak about the criminal reports

10     filed against perpetrators of crimes, reports against MUP members, and

11     about the way in which KU registers were kept.

12             The next group of witnesses that the Defence will call are from

13     the MUP headquarters and they include the chief of the crime prevention

14     administration, Mr. Goran Macar who took up the position following the

15     month of July 1992, after Prosecution Witness ST-220 was removed.

16             As an experienced policeman, the witness will give evidence about

17     his work in the MUP of Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina as of

18     1977, about his acquaintance with Mico Stanisic, and about what his

19     opinion was of Mico Stanisic back then.  He will further testify about

20     his work in Sarajevo as chief for general crime as of 1990, that being

21     the position he held at the time of the events in early April 1992, and

22     about the way the Serbian Democratic Party treated him.  The witness will

23     give evidence about his joining the RS MUP and the positions he held.  In

24     particular, the witness will testify about the first review of the RS MUP

25     personnel in Sokolac on the 30th of March, 1992, a glimpse of which you

Page 19396

 1     saw in the video footage which he attended.  He will also speak about the

 2     early days of the crime sector administration and the number of

 3     inspectors he used to have in the administration back at the HQ.  The

 4     witness will give evidence about the establishment of this administration

 5     in Bijeljina and its initial relatively normal work in the autumn of

 6     1992, when inspectors were being dispatched into the field for

 7     supervisory inspection and in order to learn about the situation on the

 8     ground.  The witness will speak, in particular, about the tour of CSB

 9     Banja Luka in mid-November 1992 and about the visit of a group of

10     inspectors to SJB Prijedor which he headed, and I mean he headed the

11     group of inspectors.

12             The witness will further testify about the objective problems MUP

13     was confronted with due to the absence of records of MUP members, the

14     migration of the population in 1992, and the background to several orders

15     issued by the minister to remove those MUP members who did not deserve to

16     be on the MUP force, to downsize the reserve force and to place these MUP

17     members at the disposal of the VRS.

18             The witness will also give evidence about the first time that the

19     MUP HQ toured the CSB in Banja Luka in March 1993, and his conclusion

20     about the state of crime in that CSB at the time with reference to the

21     crime at Koricanske Stijene.  The witness will testify about the

22     initiative taken by the MUP to prosecute war crimes at a time when

23     Mico Stanisic was minister for the second time around.  The witness was

24     interviewed by the Prosecution and was on the Prosecution 65 ter witness

25     list as ST-118.

Page 19397

 1             Witness Dragan Andan was a police inspector of the RS MUP.

 2     Before the outbreak of armed clashes, he occupied a very senior position

 3     in the BH MUP as a senior inspector first-class of the police

 4     administration charged with public law and order.  His line of duty was

 5     to control the work of SJBs in East Herzegovina.  The witness will give

 6     evidence about the situation in the MUP of the Socialist Republic of

 7     Bosnia-Herzegovina and the ministry's collapse after the multi-party

 8     elections.  He will describe the examples of a number of SJBs across the

 9     territory of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  He will

10     testify how Muslim leaders of the MUP, Avdo Hebib above all, placed

11     ethnicity before profession, and how the split along the ethnic lines

12     within the BH MUP began as early as during the time of Minister

13     Muhamed Besic, who held this position before Alija Delimustafic.

14             He will testify about the barricades in Sarajevo on 1st of March,

15     1992, and the information available to the MUP of the Socialist Republic

16     of Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time about the organisers of barracks.  He

17     will give evidence about his knowledge of Mico Stanisic in relation to

18     this event, and what sort of man Mico Stanisic was reputed to be, as well

19     as about the reasons for Mico Stanisic's removal from the position of the

20     chief of the city of Sarajevo SUP.

21             The witness was in favour of keeping a united MUP and opposed the

22     split.  He will also testify about the dilemmas he faced in that regard.

23     How his dilemmas were dispelled and why he decided to flee Sarajevo and

24     when.

25             When he crossed over to the MUP of Republika Srpska of

Page 19398

 1     Bosnia-Herzegovina, he was posted to Bijeljina as an inspector.  He was

 2     dispatched from Bijeljina to try to sort the situation out in the

 3     SJB Brcko.  He will testify about the situation he found there and

 4     measures he took, as well as about conflicts with certain groups in

 5     Brcko.  He will also speak about his knowledge of the Luka prison and

 6     under whose authority it was.

 7             Following his time in Brcko, he was sent back to Bijeljina to

 8     sort the matters there, together with a team of the federal SUP led by

 9     Mico Davidovic, Prosecution Witness ST-142.  He will testify about the

10     situation in Bijeljina and the role played by Dusko Malovic's group.  He

11     spent sometime there as acting chief of the public security station, or

12     of the CSB, and has knowledge about the powers over the Batkovici camp

13     near Bijeljina; it's a military camp.

14             He will give evidence about the original way in which he set

15     about implementing the minister's order to downsize the police reserve

16     force.  He will further testify about how he prepared, organised and

17     reconnoitred the Zvornik area for the operation against the Yellow Wasps,

18     which was a success.  He personally arrested Zuco.  He will testify about

19     the praise he received from the minister for that and for preparing a

20     similar operation in Foca.  He will also testify about the reasons about

21     why it was aborted.

22             He will testify about the encounter with ST-171 and the subject

23     of discussions at the time in 1992.  He will testify about how a

24     disciplinary procedure was initiated against him and how he stopped

25     working in the MUP of Republika Srpska.  The witness will also give

Page 19399

 1     evidence about Mico Stanisic calling him in 1994 and asking that he

 2     rejoin the MUP to lead a team for combatting all manner of crime,

 3     including war crimes and arresting perpetrators of war crimes.

 4             The witness will testify that he was appointed police director of

 5     Republika Srpska in 2004, and that during the two years he performed this

 6     duty, 11 individuals were brought before this Tribunal, including

 7     Mico Stanisic.  The witness himself served Mico Stanisic with the

 8     indictment and he will testify to this event.  He was interviewed by the

 9     Prosecution and IPTF on several occasions.  He was proposed as

10     Witness ST-122.

11             Witness Milomir Orasanin is a 92 ter witness.  He is a

12     professional policeman.  He was an inspector in the MUP of RS of UZSK,

13     which is the administration for crime prevention.  He was one of the

14     inspectors from the administration headed by Goran Macar until

15     November 1992, when he transferred to the border police administration.

16     He will testify about knowing Mico Stanisic from the school days.  He

17     will testify about the sidelining of Serbian members of the MUP and

18     arming of the Green Berets in Novo Sarajevo, where he was chief of the

19     crime prevention department.

20             The arming escalated with the attack by the Green Berets on SJB

21     on the 4th of April, 1992.

22             He will give evidence about the situation in the RS MUP as he

23     found it in May 1992, when he joined the RS MUP, and about the problems

24     they faced.  The witness was present at a meeting in mid-1992 between

25     Mico Stanisic and some members of the crime prevention administration and

Page 19400

 1     will testify about what was discussed at the time and what it was that

 2     Minister Stanisic insisted on.  He participated in drafting the

 3     instructions on the deposit and war crimes.

 4             He will give evidence about his visit for supervisory inspection

 5     to Ilijas and Vogosca in May and about the situation he found there.  In

 6     June he went on a supervisory inspection visit to Skelani, Zvornik and

 7     Brcko.  He will testify about the situation he found there and about the

 8     supervisory inspection in the area of CSB Doboj in August.  He will also

 9     speak about the visits to SJBs in Foca, Rudo and Visegrad.  The witness

10     was interviewed by the Prosecution.

11             Nikola Milanovic is a 92 ter witness as well.  He is also one of

12     the crime prevention administration inspectors, Orasanin's colleague.  He

13     will testify about his acquaintance with Mico Stanisic and about his work

14     together in the SUP Sarajevo for the whole of 15 years.

15             He will testify about Mico Stanisic's attitude toward members of

16     other ethnicities.  He will speak about how he was pensioned off for

17     being a Communist and member of the Serbian People on two occasions, in

18     1991 and 1992, how he complained to the SDS president Karadzic about the

19     treatment he was accorded by the MUP of the Socialist Republic of

20     Bosnia-Herzegovina and what sort of measures Karadzic took in response to

21     that.

22             The witness wrote what was probably the first criminal report by

23     RS MUP, and against a Serb at that, for the crime of murder committed

24     against a Muslim in the Lukavica area.  He will testify about supervisory

25     inspection carried out in 1992 and the situation as he found it on the

Page 19401

 1     ground.  He was interviewed by the Prosecution on several occasions and

 2     was on their 65 ter list as ST-120.  Because of his impaired health, it

 3     was submitted that he should testify via videolink.

 4             The third group of witnesses are individuals who can provide

 5     information about specific events or issues which came to the fore during

 6     the Prosecution case and which remain a matter of contention between the

 7     parties.

 8             Witness Branko Vlaco retired from the MUP of the Socialist

 9     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina back in 1989.  He subsequently lived in

10     Vogosca where he kept a catering establishment at the time.  As the

11     conflict broke out he was in France on a temporary job, but since his

12     family resided in Vogosca, he returned right away.  The witness became a

13     member of the Vogosca Crisis Staff.  The Crisis Staff, or more

14     specifically, Zdravko Luketa appointed him warden of the reception centre

15     called Naka's Garage.  The reception centre was subsequently moved to the

16     location called Bunker, and to Sonja's cafe, called Kontiki.  The witness

17     will say under whose control these reception centres were.  After the KPD

18     Butmir department was set up at the location called Planja's house, he

19     was appointed warden of the department in Vogosca by virtue of a decision

20     issued by the Ministry of Justice on the 21st of July, 1992.

21             The witness will testify about how there was another individual

22     with a similar first name and identical last name who was a member of the

23     MUP.  The witness will also give evidence about how he joined the RS MUP

24     only on the 1st of October, 1992.  The witness does not have a passport

25     and there is a procedure pending against him before the High Court in

Page 19402

 1     Belgrade as well as a possible investigation in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  For

 2     these reasons he cannot appear before the Chamber and it was submitted

 3     that he should testify via videolink.

 4             The Defence intends to include two 92 quater witnesses, both of

 5     whom are from Bosanski Samac.  In the relevant period witness

 6     Stevan Todorovic was appointed chief of SJB Samac by the Crisis Staff.

 7     His testimony was partially admitted during the Prosecution case, and the

 8     portion of his testimony that the Defence intends to rely on is tendered

 9     under Rule 92 quater.  Todorovic's testimony is relevant to the role the

10     Crisis Staff played in his appointment, activity, reporting, and

11     responsibility.  The testimony is also relevant to the events alleged in

12     this indictment.

13             Witness Stoko Sekulic, also from Bosanski Samac, was a member of

14     the MUP before the armed clashes in March/April 1992.  He testifies about

15     the situation in the SJB after Stevan Todorovic took up his position as

16     the chief and about Stevan Todorovic's conduct during that time.  He was

17     appointed to the post of SJB commander in the summer of 1992 under a

18     certain degree of pressure from Todorovic.  He introduced a degree of

19     order into the work of the station whose functioning up to that point

20     left much to be desired.  The witness gives evidence about supervisory

21     inspection conducted by inspectors from CSB Doboj and the RS MUP.  He

22     also testifies about the army arresting Stevan Todorovic in November 1992

23     and the appointment of a new SJB chief thereafter.

24             Moreover, as you know, the Defence intends to adduce

25     895 documents from our 65 ter list to corroborate the statements that

Page 19403

 1     will be made or have already been made by witnesses or experts.

 2             Finally, Your Honours, we submit that Mico Stanisic is not a man

 3     who is capable of committing the crimes the Prosecution has charged him

 4     with.  At no point during his life has he exhibited any manner of

 5     intolerance, extremism, hatred, inclination to violence or indeed

 6     violence itself.  This transpires quite clearly from his conduct during

 7     the whole of 56 years of his life, from what he did and how did he it,

 8     and from what he said.  The facts thereof are either before you already

 9     or will be presented during the Defence case.  He is a man who has always

10     insisted on the consistent application of law and professionalism.  Crime

11     is the last thing Mico Stanisic would justify, regardless of who

12     committed it and what the motives were.  As he, himself, has said on

13     several occasions, his conscience is clear.  He has been saying from the

14     moment he was indicted that the Prosecution allegations and charges are

15     unfounded.  He asserts that these allegations and charges are without

16     foundation and utterly erroneous.

17             Mico Stanisic believes that the evidence that has been adduced so

18     far and that which has yet to be presented to the Chamber will give a

19     clear picture and completely answer all the charges against him, and that

20     at the end of this trial you will acquit him of these charges.

21             Thank you, Your Honours.  These were my opening statements.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you very much, Mr. Zecevic, for your

Page 19404

 1     opening remarks.  The Chamber has taken good notice of the evidence that

 2     you have accounted for and that will come to us in the next couple of

 3     months.

 4             There is one matter that I wanted to raise before we hear the

 5     Defence witnesses.  And as you will recall, it is a matter that we also

 6     addressed when the Prosecution was leading its witnesses; namely, the

 7     issue of whether the parties would be willing to offer to the Chamber

 8     copies of the witness statements to the extent, of course, that such

 9     statements exist.  You drew our attention to the fact that you will be

10     leading several witnesses who were originally scheduled as Prosecution

11     witnesses, and I suppose that for those witnesses, very likely,

12     statements do exist, taken by the Prosecution originally.  And maybe

13     there are, for those and for other witnesses, additional statements that

14     have been taken by you.

15             It is of assistance to the Chamber to see these statements before

16     we hear the witnesses so as to give the Judges a better idea of the

17     testimony that these witnesses will bring.  And we ask for this, not to

18     have those pieces exhibited and admitted into evidence, but, rather, as a

19     supplement and as a support to the accounts that you have made in your

20     Rule 65 ter submissions.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, the situation is as follows.

22     Concerning two 92 ter witnesses which we proposed, the -- none of them

23     gave a statement.  They have their -- their interviews given to the

24     Office of the Prosecutor.  We want to rely on that, and we offer that as

25     a part of the package.

Page 19405

 1             One of the witnesses gave an additional statement, and it's also

 2     a part of the package and it's already disclosed to Your Honours.  As all

 3     other witnesses, none of them gave any statements, although they were on

 4     the -- a majority of them were on the -- on the list of the Office of the

 5     Prosecutor, they never gave a statement to the Office of the Prosecutor,

 6     and, as far as I can remember, they were offered as viva voce witnesses.

 7             However, their interviews given to the Office of the Prosecutor

 8     do exist, and we don't see any -- any particular problem in disclosing

 9     these -- these interviews given to the Office of the Prosecutor to -- to

10     the Trial Chamber, except if maybe Office of the Prosecutor has something

11     in opposition to it.

12             MR. HANNIS:  Well, I have a concern and a question, I guess.

13             The interviews that were given to the Prosecution that did not

14     result in any statements being created were generally tape-recorded

15     conversations.  And you've seen or heard some of these transcripts of

16     those.

17             I guess I'm wondering out loud is the Defence saying that they

18     took no statements from any of their witnesses?  There are no witness

19     statements other than, I think, the one that has been disclosed?

20             If they have investigator notes or tape-recorded interviews of

21     their witnesses and they're willing to disclose those to the

22     Trial Chamber, then that would affect our position as to what we want to

23     do.

24             So no notes ...

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  We don't have any notes, nor recorded interviews.

Page 19406

 1     We relied on their interviews given to the Office of the Prosecutor and

 2     based on that, we spoke to -- to the witnesses.

 3             MR. HANNIS:  And took no notes or tape-recorded none of those

 4     conversations.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  No, none.

 6             MR. HANNIS:  Oh.

 7             Your Honour, we're in your hands.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE HALL:  So in that case -- thank you very much, Mr. Hannis.

10     In that case, we would be much obliged if the Defence would make these

11     transcripts available to the Judges before the witnesses appear.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE HALL:  So we take the break now and you will be ready with

14     your witness when we resume.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, yes, the witness is scheduled to come

17     tomorrow morning at 9.00, yes.

18                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

19             JUDGE HALL:  So we take the adjournment to 9.00 tomorrow morning.

20                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.02 p.m.,

21                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 12th day of April,

22                           2011, at 9.00 a.m.