Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 20156

 1                           Wednesday, 4 May 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Could the Registrar please call the case.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  This is case

 7     number IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and

 8     Stojan Zupljanin.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             Good afternoon to everyone.  May we have the appearances please.

11             But before I do that, I note for the record that we reconvene

12     under Rule 15 bis, Judge Harhoff being involved in another matter that is

13     concurrently sitting with this case.

14             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.  And good afternoon, Your Honours.  I'm

15     Tom Hannis, along with Belinda Pidwell and Crispian Smith for the

16     Prosecution.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Slobodan Zecevic,

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

19     Stanisic Defence this afternoon.  Thank you.

20             MR. KRGOVIC:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Dragan Krgovic

21     appearing for Zupljanin Defence.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  And if there is no reason to delay us,

23     would the usher please escort the witness back to the stand.

24             MR. KRGOVIC:  And Aleksandar Aleksic who has just appeared in the

25     court.

Page 20157

 1                           [The witness takes the stand]

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Good afternoon, Professor Bajagic.  Before

 3     Mr. Zecevic resumes his examination-in-chief, I remind you you're still

 4     on your oath.

 5             Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 7                           WITNESS: MLADEN BAJAGIC [Resumed]

 8                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 9                           Examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]

10        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Bajagic.

11        A.   Good afternoon.

12        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, yesterday towards the very end of the session we

13     discussed paragraphs 145, 146, and 147 in relation to Article 27 of the

14     Law on Internal Affairs.  Tab 32, footnote 42.3 [as interpreted].  P530

15     is its number.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have the

17     Law on Internal Affairs on our monitors, please.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry, can I get those binders with

19     the tabs?

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Sorry, I apologise.  Thank you for

21     having reminded me.  P530.  So Exhibit 530, tab 32, footnote 142.3.  We

22     need Article 27 and 32.  That is page 4 in the Serbian text and I think

23     it is page 4 and 5 of the English text.

24        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, yesterday on page 20145, -146, and -147, you spoke

25     about these matters.  You do recall that we mentioned some examples in

Page 20158

 1     terms of regulations of municipal authorities that were according to the

 2     law submitted to the Ministry of the Interior.  Do you remember that?

 3        A.   Of course I do.

 4        Q.   And you explained to us then, and we also showed that on

 5     different examples, what kind of regulations this involved; right?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Sir, since I have demonstrated the context, I would like to show

 8     a few documents that I would like you to comment upon.  I would like you

 9     to say a few words about the nature of these documents.  Tab 16.

10     65 ter Defence 626D1.  Let us just wait for the English translation.  We

11     see it now.

12             Mr. Bajagic, this is a document of the local organ of government

13     from that time, the Crisis Staff of Sanski Most.  The date is the

14     31st of May, 1992.  The form is that of an order.  And we see that it was

15     also submitted to the public security station.  We see that under

16     number 3.

17             Bearing in mind everything that we discussed beforehand, the

18     provisions of the law, can you give us your comment regarding the nature

19     of this document?  When I say the nature of this document, I mean from

20     the point of view of the Ministry of the Interior and its functioning.

21        A.   This document, as we can see, is an order that the Crisis Staff

22     of the Serbian municipality of Sanski Most, therefore an executive organ,

23     is sending to several institutions.  It cannot be one of the examples

24     that we've already demonstrated in relation to Article 27 of the

25     Law on Internal Affairs because this does not involve sending a document

Page 20159

 1     that involves an initiative or a proposal regarding a certain problem.

 2     This, rather, is a direct order from a municipal organ of government to

 3     various entities, including the public security station, that should act

 4     in accordance with that order.  So we are not looking at it in the

 5     context of Article 27 of the law; rather, this is an order issued by the

 6     Crisis Staff to the public security station as the lowest-ranking organ

 7     in the Ministry of the Interior.

 8        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, in your view, this kind of order of a local organ of

 9     government to the local public security station, is that in accordance

10     with the law or has that kind of situation been envisaged by the

11     Law on Internal Affairs?

12        A.   Such orders are not in accordance with the

13     Law on Internal Affairs and not with -- they are not in accordance with

14     other laws that were in force at the time either.

15        Q.   In your view, public security stations or organs, do they have a

16     duty based on the law and regulations pertaining to Internal Affairs?  Do

17     they have to act in accordance with such orders?

18        A.   No.  Public security stations and other organisations on a

19     territorial basis do not have the duty to act in accordance with such

20     orders.

21        Q.   In paragraph 146 and the footnote pertaining to that paragraph,

22     and that is footnote 179, you list a number of documents by way of an

23     illustration to the effect that such orders were implemented directly

24     after all.

25        A.   Yes, these are documents that I have singled out of a large body

Page 20160

 1     of documents that I researched in order to illustrate my previously

 2     presented position.  As for all of these documents listed in 179, they

 3     show that the local government organs, that is to say at municipal levels

 4     and higher, issued orders to organi units of the

 5     Ministry of the Interior, and in one of these documents, they were

 6     exactly -- actually dealing with personnel matters, which is in direct

 7     contravention of the Law on the Ministry -- on Internal Affairs.

 8             As we can see, these are the last two documents that are listed

 9     here; its decision on the appointment of commanders in the Prijedor SJB

10     and the decision on the appointment of the commander of the Omarska SJB.

11     Actually, such decisions made by Crisis Staffs as municipal executive

12     organs are absolutely not in accordance with the Law on Internal Affairs

13     of the Serb Republic of BH that was in force at the time.

14        Q.   All right.  Tell us what was in accordance with the law.  Can you

15     explain that briefly, the procedure involved?

16        A.   In accordance with the law, these appointments can be made by the

17     head of the centre of security stations with the agreement of the

18     ministry headquarters, and it meant that there should be accompanying

19     documents, namely clearance related to the candidate, and other

20     documents.

21        Q.   In these two cases, did you have any -- any parameters that would

22     indicate that the chief of the CSB was aware of this, of these orders or,

23     rather, decisions?

24        A.   Since I analyse these two documents that we are speaking about

25     specifically, nowhere can we see from these documents that the chief of

Page 20161

 1     the CSB that involved the territory of these two public security stations

 2     was aware of the appointment of these persons or that he gave his

 3     consent.  These two documents clearly show that it was only the municipal

 4     organs of government that carried out this appointment.  Once again, I

 5     say that it is not in accordance with the law that was in force.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would

 8     like to tender this document.

 9             MR. HANNIS:  I do have an initial objection.  The last two

10     documents spoken about, I believe, are 65 ter 0084D1 and 0107D1; is that

11     correct?  The two Prijedor appointments.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, I don't have the reference.  I have the

13     reference in the footnotes.  Footnote 179.

14             MR. HANNIS:  Yes, and I'm looking at that.  Is that the

15     appointment of the commanders in Prijedor SJB and the appointment of

16     commander for Omarska SJB?

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  That is correct, yes.

18             MR. HANNIS:  The footnote lists those both as being dated

19     11 May 1992, at least in my English translation of the report.  And the

20     documents themselves in e-court seem to be 11 May 1993.  And therefore if

21     they're May 1993, I object as they're outside the scope of our indictment

22     period, and therefore I think they're not relevant.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  But there is a misunderstanding.  I will check in

24     the original, also it says 1992.  And I will check these documents during

25     the break, and I'll come back to that.  What I was offering --

Page 20162

 1             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, I've looked at the originals in e-court

 2     and they do say 1993.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Hannis, I tendered the document

 4     from tab 16.  626D1 is its 65 ter number.

 5             MR. HANNIS:  If that's the document regarding Sanski Most

 6     Crisis Staff, I don't have an objection to that.  But I understood you to

 7     be talking now about footnote 179 and the appointments of the chief for

 8     Prijedor SJB and Omarska.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I was making -- I'm sorry, I need to explain.

10     I showed this document to the witness, the witness commented on the

11     document, then I was making a relation between this document and the

12     number of documents listed in his footnote 179.  And then the witness

13     mentioned these two documents and we continued talking about that.  But

14     what I'm offering is this particular document.

15             MR. HANNIS:  No objection to the Sanski Most document.  Only to

16     note, Your Honours, that it is a document that appears the Defence had at

17     the beginning of the Prosecution case and could have and should have been

18     shown to one of the Sanski Most witnesses who testified here in the

19     Prosecution case.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

21             No doubt that last point, Mr. Hannis, will be the subject of a

22     Prosecution submission much later on.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, document 626D1 will become

24     Exhibit 1D536.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, are you through with this line of

Page 20163

 1     questions?

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  There is a question by way of clarification which I

 4     wish to put to the witness, and it is this:  And here I'm going to rely

 5     heavily on the assistance of the interpreters to convey the concepts that

 6     I'm trying to separate.  And it is this:  I'm familiar from my own

 7     experiences and I'm sure is isn't peculiar to my country, it's probably

 8     universal, that decisions such as appointments like this could be

 9     irregular but nevertheless valid.  Do I understand, Mr. Bajagic, that you

10     are saying that these appointments were merely irregular or that they

11     were wholly invalid or illegal?

12             Do you understand the distinction I'm making?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wasn't specific.  These

14     appointments were not in accordance with the law, so they were unlawful.

15             JUDGE HALL:  But could they, notwithstanding that they were

16     unlawful, in your view be effective?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course such unlawful

18     appointments have an effect.  They simply show that the

19     Ministry of the Interior could not establish a single chain of running

20     that organ.  Of course, proposals and initiatives regarding certain

21     candidates could come from municipal organs of government, but they

22     cannot authoritatively make appointments by way of their own decisions.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

24             Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, could my volume please

Page 20164

 1     be turned down?  It is very disconcerting.  It's too loud.  I do

 2     apologise.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Can you hear well now?

 5        A.   No.

 6        Q.   Can you hear now?  Now?

 7        A.   I can hear you but it's very loud.  I can hear this echo.

 8             It's okay.  Never mind.

 9        Q.   Is it better now?

10        A.   Again it's loud, but never mind; I don't want to make a problem.

11     Obviously not much can be done.

12        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, when you answered His Honour's questions, the

13     questions put by Judge Hall, the honourable presiding judge, you said

14     that that was not in accordance with the law.  Which law did you have in

15     mind when you said that, please?

16        A.   I meant the Law on Internal Affairs of the

17     Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, of course.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Bajagic, while preparing this expert report, did

19     you come across any other situations in which such decisions or similar

20     ones made by local government organs were made and sent to public

21     security stations?

22        A.   The examples I referred to in footnote 179 of my expert report

23     are but a few documents in relation to the sea of documents that I found

24     when writing this expert report.  I would like to draw your attention to

25     footnotes in other parts of the report that also indicate that municipal

Page 20165

 1     government organs very often with regard to different questions issued

 2     immediate directions and orders to public security stations.  As in the

 3     case of the documents from footnote 179, that is not in accordance with

 4     the Law on Internal Affairs of the Serb Republic of BH which was passed

 5     in 1992, as we know.

 6        Q.   Do I understand correctly that you are actually saying that this

 7     was the de facto situation?  Is this understanding of mine correct?

 8        A.   In part of my expert report I analysed the de facto situation on

 9     the ground with regard to the organisation and the functioning of the

10     MUP.  All I have previously said is -- has to do with this situation:

11     The relations that existed between the ministry and the individual

12     organisational units in the territory of the Serb Republic of BH.

13             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at the following

14     document, tab 15, 65 ter 614D1.

15        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, I'm going to show you another document, one that is

16     not cited in the footnotes of your expert report.  This is a conclusion

17     of the Crisis Staff of the Prijedor municipality signed by its president,

18     Dr. Stakic, and it's about the method of calculation and payment of

19     salaries in enterprises, organisation, and communities for the month of

20     May.  Here's what I would like to know:  If you have any comment about

21     this document, especially paragraph 2 of item 4 of this document, then I

22     would like to hear it.

23             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thanks for scrolling, or, rather,

24     turning the page.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document is one of those I

Page 20166

 1     spoke about.  This is about the payment of salaries pursuant to the

 2     decision of the Crisis Staff of the Prijedor municipality.  These

 3     salaries are also those of the members of the SJB.  This activity of the

 4     municipal authorities is also not in compliance with the Law on

 5     Home Affairs [as interpreted] because the MUP, as a centralised body of

 6     public administration, had a unified manner of paying salaries

 7     internally, from the top down to the lowest organisational unit.  Members

 8     of the MUP, by virtue of taking up employment with the ministry, were

 9     entitled to receive salaries under the law in this unified manner.

10     Although it is not a bad thing that the municipal authorities should take

11     care of persons too, but still this is not in compliance with the law,

12     because municipal authorities, without any previous agreement, are not

13     entitled to pay salaries or nor do they have the right to request

14     certificates, as we see in this paragraph.

15             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Bajagic, do you know which local authorities in

17     1992 in the territory of the RS or, more broadly speaking, in

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina were created, and possibly if you know the sequence?

19        A.   Until the war broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina, at the level of

20     local authorities in that system there were Municipal Assemblies and

21     their Executive Boards as their, well, executive bodies.  And the system

22     that prevailed in the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, from the

23     beginning, that is, April, Crisis Staffs began emerging.  But then

24     pursuant to a decision of the highest authorities of the state, they were

25     transformed into War Presidencies.

Page 20167

 1             Finally, which means in late June, I believe, but let me not

 2     speculate - you can find exact information in my expert report - these

 3     War Presidencies, also pursuant to a decision of the highest authorities

 4     of the state, became war commissions.  Such names of these local

 5     authorities were finally abolished by decisions of the highest state

 6     authorities, and what existed later on were Executive Boards.

 7             That's what I can say about that level of authorities.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Is it -- about the payment of salaries by the

 9     municipality authorities rather than by the ministry, is it -- would it

10     be in your line of question to ask why they did so?  Why the

11     municipalities did pay salaries?  Where normally I would say it's not a

12     natural thing to do, for authorities to pay things they don't have to

13     pay.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  By all means I will.

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  You are going to ask that?

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  Go on.

18             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, please tell me, when you said Executive Boards, did

20     you mean the Executive Boards as the executive bodies of the

21     Municipal Assemblies or something else?

22        A.   I meant the executive bodies of the Municipal Assemblies.

23        Q.   Thank you.

24             You heard the question of His Honour Judge Delvoie.  What, in

25     your opinion or as a result of your survey, was the reason for the fact

Page 20168

 1     that the salaries for members of the SJBs were paid by local authorities

 2     rather than the central authorities, as it should be under the law, as

 3     you said?

 4        A.   Without going into everything that characterises the functioning

 5     of the MUP of the Serb Republic in 1992, it was not only the matter of

 6     salaries, but many other matters concerning the functioning of SJBs.  The

 7     executive bodies of the municipalities tried to deal with them, which, as

 8     I said, is not in compliance with the Law on Home Affairs.  My conclusion

 9     is that the municipal authorities tried to exert influence, unlawful and

10     unconstitutional influence, on SJBs and other local authorities.  In

11     other words, Crisis Staffs at municipal level tried to influence the work

12     of the SJBs to a very high extent.

13             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, may I just intervene.  Regarding the

14     transcript at page 12, line 24, it's translated as:  "... is not in

15     compliance with the Law on Home Affairs."  I wonder if that was meant to

16     be "Internal Affairs" because that's the term we've always been using.

17     And I want to be sure there's not some other law about home affairs that

18     we haven't heard about.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  No, no, no.  What the witness says was

20     Internal Affairs.

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  But then, Mr. Bajagic, if this is some sort of

22     conflict between the municipal and territorial or the state level, I

23     would expect that the ministry would also pay the salaries and that the

24     people would have been paid two times.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  Or, rather, I didn't deal with

Page 20169

 1     the matter of paying out salaries to members of the MUP separately.  I

 2     didn't focus on that topic in my expert report.  But if we are talking

 3     about this, we must bear in mind the territorial fragmentation of the

 4     Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time.

 5             Very often, especially in the first six months, it was impossible

 6     to have communication even by courier between the ministry and the -- all

 7     the territorial units, from the CSBs down to the SJBs and police

 8     stations.  In such a situation, to my mind, there should again be some

 9     way of exchanging information about that or some sort of approval of the

10     ministry to the Executive Boards to pay salaries.  We don't see

11     Mr. Stakic referring to any sort of communication with the MUP, possibly

12     making a proposal or launching an initiative, which would be his right

13     under Article 27 of the law.  But instead, the Executive Board passed

14     this decision independently, without consulting anyone.

15             This is what I can say.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  But then the basic situation was that without the

17     municipality taking care of it, people wouldn't have been paid, which

18     makes the situation, rather than a conflict between the central and the

19     regional level, another kind of situation by which the municipality took

20     care of something the ministry couldn't take care of.  And wouldn't that

21     mean that they must have been communicating somehow to know whether the

22     salaries were paid or not?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think that anybody received

24     double salaries at the time, both from the municipal bodies and from the

25     ministry.  I suppose, with a high degree of certainty, that all employees

Page 20170

 1     did receive salaries but possibly with some delay on the ground.  I

 2     haven't found a document stating that anybody received their salary from

 3     two sources.  The MUP certainly took care of its members, the MUP

 4     headquarters, I mean.  But for these very problems, the salaries arrived

 5     at the lowest organisational level with delay.

 6             That's what I can offer by way of explanation.

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] Sir, you mentioned the establishment of

10     war-time commissions.  I'll show you a document from tab 5, 65 ter 443D1.

11        A.   I apologise, could you repeat which tab it is?

12        Q.   Tab 5.

13        A.   Thank you.

14        Q.   This is a decision of the Presidency.

15             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see the second

16     page.

17        Q.   We see Radovan Karadzic's name in the signature block; he was

18     president of the Presidency.  The document is dated 10 June.  On page 1,

19     we saw that it's a decision about the establishment of

20     war-time commissions in municipalities during the imminent threat of war

21     or the state of war.

22             Could you please comment Article 2 briefly, then Articles 5 and 6

23     of this document.

24        A.   Having spoken about the names of the executive authorities in the

25     municipalities of the Serb Republic of BH as of the beginning of the war

Page 20171

 1     and the introduction of the state of the imminent threat of war, I said

 2     that they were first called Crisis Staffs, then War Presidencies and

 3     finally war commissions.  This is a decision, and its a document signed

 4     by the president of the Presidency, Radovan Karadzic, on the

 5     10th of June, 1992.  It's a decision on the establishment of

 6     war commissions in the municipalities of the Serb Republic of

 7     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  At the level of each municipality, as we see in

 8     Article 2, they shall consist of a state commissioner and four members

 9     from the ranks of the most influential citizens within the Crisis Staff,

10     the economy, and the ruling party.

11             Article 5 of this document reads:  "On the day when the

12     war commissions are constituted, they will supersede Crisis Staffs ..."

13             And Article 6 of this decision, could we please see it?  The

14     decision on the establishment of War Presidencies is abolished.  That

15     decision was adopted on 31 May.  Which means that only ten days later,

16     ten days after the decision to establish War Presidencies, this decision

17     to abolish both the Crisis Staffs and War Presidencies was taken, and it

18     was decided to establish war commissions.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Tell me, if you know, whether in the former organs of

20     authority, territorial organs, republican commissioners were involved in

21     them?

22        A.   What do you mean specifically?

23        Q.   Sorry about that.  As for the Crisis Staffs and War Presidencies,

24     did they include the republican commissioner as well?

25        A.   No.  Crisis Staffs and War Presidencies functioned only at the

Page 20172

 1     level of local government.  There were only representatives of the local

 2     government there.  It's only from the 10th of June onwards, when the

 3     decision was made to establish war commissioners from the republican

 4     level, it was envisaged to send commissioners who would, together with

 5     those most prominent members at local level, the four of them, would

 6     exercise executive authority in a municipality, in a way.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this document in this

 8     form is not an exhibit yet.  We have a version of this document with an

 9     identical text, I must say, in our law library and it is L65.  I don't

10     know whether the Trial Chamber believes it is necessary to have this

11     document admitted as well because it has a seal and the signature of the

12     president of the Presidency.  I leave the matter to the Trial Chamber,

13     whatever you deem appropriate.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Could you assist me, Mr. Zecevic.  When you say the

15     document with the identical text is in the law library, what's the

16     difference between -- was there a --

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  It's -- it was -- it is in the law library because

18     it has been printed in the Official Gazette.  That is the only reason.

19     This is the original decision, and what we have in the law library is a

20     reprint of that decision in the Official Gazette.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, I understand.

22             MR. HANNIS:  That's just what I was going to say, Your Honour.

23                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

24             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Hannis.

25             MR. HANNIS:  That's what I was going so say.  L65 is the

Page 20173

 1     newspaper edition of the Official Gazette version of the same document.

 2     I have no objection.  The contents are the same.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  I don't know that we need both.  We have it in the

 4     law library already.  That's ...

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  I don't think we need both; I was just --

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, thanks.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: -- trying to get the assistance from the

 8     Trial Chamber.  And, of course, the other position of the Office of the

 9     Prosecutor.

10        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, I'm going to show you the next document.  That is

11     tab 12; 65 ter number is 474D1.

12             Mr. Bajagic, this is another document that is not referred to in

13     the footnotes of your report, but I have most certainly shown it to you

14     during your proofing and you are familiar with the document.  These are

15     minutes from a joint session of the Presidency of the Serb Republic of

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Government of the Serb Republic of

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina held on the 1st of July, and we see who the attendees

18     are:  The president of the Presidency is there, the speaker of the

19     Assembly, the prime minister, and some ministers as well.  What I am

20     particularly interested in is page 5, the last paragraph.  I would like

21     to hear your comment, if any, with regard to that.

22        A.   If I understood you correctly, it is the paragraph that starts

23     with the words [B/C/S spoken], "furthermore," "in addition to that."

24     Bearing in mind what is mentioned here as a conclusion, it is stated that

25     the members of the Presidency and the Government of the Serb Republic of

Page 20174

 1     BH --

 2             MR. HANNIS:  I apologise.

 3             Your Honour, may I intervene at this moment.  I just want to

 4     indicate that I have an objection to the witness commenting on this

 5     particular document.  It's the minutes -- purported to be the minutes of

 6     a joint meeting of the government and the Presidency.  However, there's

 7     no stamp, there's no number at the beginning of this document.  There's

 8     no seal.  It's typewritten.  I'm not sure if it's complete or official.

 9     In addition, this witness is a police expert, and the subject matter of

10     this paragraph does not appear to pertain to police matters.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, first of all, a number of --

13     Office of the Prosecutor already admitted exhibits as well as some of

14     Defence exhibits already admitted in this case which are the minutes of

15     the meetings of the Presidency, of the extended Presidency, of the

16     government, or the joint meetings between the Presidency and the

17     government have been already admitted.  None of them has any signature or

18     any stamp, which is only normal because it's the -- it's the minutes.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Could we deal with the second part of the objection

20     first which may make the first part irrelevant.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Okay, okay.  Your Honours, the witness commented,

22     and I can give a reference if you would bear with me, but maybe you will

23     recall when I explain.  The witness explained in his expert report the

24     situation about -- and yesterday, as a matter of fact, during the -- at

25     the very end of his testimony -- end of session yesterday, about the fact

Page 20175

 1     that there has been two particular periods in 1992 concerning the

 2     constitutional settings of Republika Srpska.  Namely, the first period

 3     until September 1992 and then the amendments to the constitution have

 4     been introduced and then the situation changed as so-called, let's call

 5     it the second period.

 6             Now, this paragraph over here directly talks about this -- about

 7     these facts, and that is why I think that the witness can give comment on

 8     this, Your Honours, because it's a part of his expert report.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, but I could see the argument about the document

10     itself.  What I am not clear on, and I think that this is what I

11     understand Mr. Hannis' intervention to be, what makes the witness who is

12     at present on the stand any more competent to comment on this than

13     anybody else picking up the document and reading it?

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  It doesn't.

15             MR. HANNIS:  In addition, Your Honour, my additional objection is

16     that this is a document that should have been shown to Dr. Djeric,

17     Milan Trbojevic, or Momcilo Mandic, who are all listed as being present

18     at this meeting and you who have all been here and testified in this

19     case.  And as far as I know, it was not shown to any of those three.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I really have a problem with this

21     objection.  First of all, if I had this document, I would have surely

22     shown it to these witnesses which Mr. Hannis has mentioned.  Of course.

23     There is no -- there should be no doubt why should I be withholding the

24     document which is actually in my favour from the Office of the

25     Prosecutor or --

Page 20176

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, I don't know that we need a response to

 2     that particular objection, because again, as with an earlier observation

 3     that Mr. Hannis made, this is a matter for argument at some later stage.

 4     So I don't know that you need to respond specifically to that.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  But I come back to the question of the document in

 7     relation to this witness.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, the only nexus I see between this witness and

 9     this document is the fact that the witness, as expert, talks in his

10     report, and I can -- if you bear with me two more minutes, I will give

11     you the specific references in his expert report where he talks about

12     this specific situation in the Republika Srpska in the context which,

13     according to the witness and his expert opinion, does have a very

14     significant impact on the functioning of the Ministry of the Interior.

15             MR. HANNIS:  But, Your Honour, he can't bootstrap in this

16     document that way by the fact that he talked about it in his expert

17     report.  We've objected to his expert report on the grounds that many of

18     the subjects he talks about are outside the scope of his expertise.  He's

19     been called as a police expert, not an expert on the government or the

20     constitution or the interpretation of the laws.  And now he's trying to

21     get him to be allowed to testify as an expert on the matters that we say

22     were not proffered as his area of expertise and where -- which it hasn't

23     been shown he has the requisite expertise to make such a comment.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE HALL:  Without anticipating the ultimate decision that the

Page 20177

 1     Chamber would make as to whether this witness is deemed competent to

 2     speak to matters outside of the confines of him being a "police expert,"

 3     which the Chamber has already accepted, we would allow the question to be

 4     asked as Mr. Zecevic has asked it in as much as the -- as the document

 5     has, and we take Mr. Zecevic at his word, been referred to in the

 6     witness's report.

 7             But Mr. Zecevic, as I said, this is without prejudice to the

 8     ultimate decision that the Chamber will take as to whether we will accept

 9     that portion of the witness's purported expertise.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  I fully understand that, Your Honours.  Thank you

11     very much.  Just for the record, it's paragraph 222 of the expert report

12     where he is dealing with this matter.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Hannis, you have a third observation?

14             MR. HANNIS:  Sorry, Your Honour, I was just going to ask if I

15     could have a reference, and ...

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, I had put a question to you, you started answering.

18     Could you please continue your answer, please.  Thank you.

19        A.   One of the conclusions of this joint session of the Presidency

20     and government is as stated in this paragraph, that it is indispensable

21     to centralise authority as much as possible.  I believe that it refers to

22     the Serb Republic of BH, and I link that to the decision of the

23     10th of June and the establishment of war commissions and war

24     commissioners vis-ā-vis each and every municipality.

25             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, I'm sorry, I have a further objection

Page 20178

 1     regarding this now upon reviewing the transcript.  At page 17, line 23,

 2     Mr. Zecevic said:

 3             "Mr. Bajagic, this is another document that's not referred to in

 4     the footnotes of your report, but I have most certainly shown it to you

 5     during your proofing ..."

 6             If he's shown it to him in his proofing and it's not in his

 7     report, it should have been in his proofing note that he gave to us, and

 8     he didn't.  That's another reason I object to using this document with

 9     this witness at this time.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I provided the proofing note, and I

11     can probably read where I said that among others, witness will be able to

12     comment on a number of documents which are not a part of his footnote.

13     And then Mr. Hannis asked me what documents do I have in mind on our

14     65 ter list or the announced documents, and I specifically said announced

15     document, announced documents.  That the witness can comment on the

16     announced documents.  And this is announced document, as you know, it's

17     tab number 12.

18        Q.   [Interpretation] Sir, can you give us your comment --

19             JUDGE HALL:  Just a moment.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Sorry.

21             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  Judge Hall said just a

22     moment ago, at page 21, line 10:

23             "Without anticipating the ultimate decision the Chamber would

24     make about whether this witness is deemed competent ... we would allow

25     the question to be asked as Mr. Zecevic has asked it in as much as the

Page 20179

 1     document has, and we take Mr. Zecevic at his word, been referred to in

 2     the witness's report."

 3             The document has not been referred to in his report.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  But, Mr. Hannis, Mr. Zecevic never said that.  He

 5     said he referred to the situation.  But it is confusing, I admit.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  We move on, Mr. Zecevic.  We -- obviously the number

 7     of things that Mr. Hannis has flagged means that you must move carefully.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] I have only one question:  Do you have any

10     comment on the last sentence of this paragraph on page 5?

11        A.   A conclusion was to reconsider the position of the Serbian

12     autonomous region and the necessity for certain changes to the

13     constitutional system of the Serb Republic of BH.  I know that as a

14     result an initiative was launched and finally new amendments were adopted

15     to the Constitution of the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in

16     September.

17        Q.   When you say amendments to the Constitution of the Serb Republic

18     of Bosnia-Herzegovina, can you please look at document 44, your footnote

19     236.2 in conjunction with paragraph 223.  That's document L86.

20             Sir, is this the Official Gazette that contains the amendments

21     that you have just mentioned?

22        A.   Yes.  These amendments were published in this particular

23     Official Gazette.

24        Q.   The amendments are dated what, according to this?

25        A.   The decision to promulgate these amendments was adopted by the

Page 20180

 1     Assembly of the Republika Srpska on the 14th of September, 1992.

 2        Q.   The previous document, can you remember which date it had?  And

 3     I'm referring to the minutes of the joint session of the government and

 4     the Presidency.

 5        A.   Yes, that was 10th of July, 1992.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Sir --

 7             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, I thought that was the 1st of July.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Sir, you said 10th of July.  Can you please look again at

10     document tab 12, 474D1.

11        A.   No, the 1st of July.  But you called up a number of documents

12     from July and that is the reason why I made this mistake.  So it was the

13     1st of July, 1992.

14        Q.   Sir, can you -- but let me ask you this first:  Do you know if a

15     state organ in May of 1992 requested the Crisis Staffs to be abolished?

16        A.   I believe that in the course of the analysis of the document I

17     had an opportunity to see something to that effect, but I don't remember

18     exactly which state organ was in question.  I'm sure I saw that kind of

19     initiative, but I cannot remember any details now.

20        Q.   If I were to tell you that the Government of the Republika Srpska

21     was that body, would that --

22             MR. HANNIS:  Objection.  That's leading.  The witness says he

23     can't remember which, and now he's telling him which one it is.

24             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Hannis, I am trying to refresh

25     the witness's memory.  This document is anyway already in evidence.

Page 20181

 1     Therefore, there is no dispute whatsoever.  And we already commented on

 2     it several times.

 3        Q.   Sir, bearing in mind your expert report, specifically paragraphs

 4     220, 221, 222, 223, 228, can you give us a kind of summary of your

 5     opinion that would help us to understand what kind of standpoint you took

 6     in these specific paragraphs?  Briefly, please.

 7        A.   The Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina ever since the

 8     promulgation of the constitution in March of 1992 until the

 9     aforementioned constitutional amendment already had within its system

10     autonomous regions and Serbian autonomous district.  In view of the

11     situation on the ground in the first half of the year, at least up until

12     July, we can see that the central organ of authority in the

13     Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina had difficulties to operate in

14     compliance with the law and the constitution.  The original constitution

15     stipulates that the territory of the Serbian republic was unified, but it

16     is said in the law that these autonomous region districts would be

17     recognised within the first six months of the functioning of the

18     Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

19        Q.   Sir, can you please slow down because obviously you're not

20     understood properly.  When you said that the autonomous regions in

21     compliance with the constitutional law were to be recognised or, I don't

22     know which specific term you used, can you please say what you

23     specifically had in mind?  And can you please speak slowly in order to

24     allow the interpreters to interpret everything that you say.

25        A.   All the rules and regulations were designed with the aim to have,

Page 20182

 1     as of September 1992, the Serbian autonomous region and the

 2     Serbian autonomous districts on the course of abolishment.  So from

 3     September 1992, the legal system of the Serbian Republic of

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina did not recognise any longer the Serbian autonomous

 5     regions and autonomous districts.

 6             I think that would be the crux of the matter and my response.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, it's time for the break.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Bajagic, you wanted to ask a question?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, while I was perusing the

12     binder that I have in front of me, I just tore a piece of paper, and I

13     just wanted to glue it before we start the next session.

14             JUDGE HALL:  So we resume in 20 minutes.

15                           [The witness stands down]

16                           --- Recess taken at 3.42 p.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 4.05 p.m.

18                           [The witness takes the stand]

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Is the headphone situation a bit better now?

21        A.   I can only hear you as you speak but not through the earphones.

22        Q.   You'll be assisted.

23             Can you hear me now?  We are close enough to speak as we are, but

24     is it fine now?

25        A.   Yes, I can hear you through the earphones now.

Page 20183

 1        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, subparagraph 3 bears the headline of your expert

 2     report MUP in times of an imminent threat of war and war.  Specifically

 3     239, paragraph 239, details the legal provisions and regulations which I

 4     suppose you thought were important.

 5             Can you please comment on the paragraph.

 6        A.   On the first day of my testimony, I spoke of the relevant legal

 7     provisions important for the workings of all the state agencies in the

 8     Serbian Republic of BH, and I mentioned a whole variety of legislation

 9     including the constitution as well as some bylaws and laws which were

10     adopted at the time of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

11             As I state in paragraph 239 of my expert report, these include

12     the Law on the All People's Defence of the SFRY, the rules of the army of

13     the SFRY in part, and the strategy of the All People's Defence and Social

14     Self-Protection.  The Constitution of the SRBH as well as all the

15     system-related laws which were taken on for the purposes of

16     Republika Srpska envisaged that in addition to this legislation, also in

17     force would be the laws of the SFRY, if necessary, and where these are

18     not contrary to the Constitution of the SRBH.

19             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, for the record I want to indicate the

20     Prosecution's ongoing objection to this witness, who's a police expert,

21     testifying about these matters which appear to relate to the

22     constitution, the Law on All People's Defence, and other matters which we

23     say are beyond his area of expertise.  There's nothing to indicate in his

24     CV or his work history that, I haven't even seen, he did his mandatory

25     military service.  So we say this is subject matter outside the scope of

Page 20184

 1     his expertise and would like to have on the record our continuing

 2     objection.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  May I continue, Your Honours?

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, please.  For the record, Mr. Hannis's objection

 5     is noted.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Sir, can we have your comment on paragraph 253 of your report and

 8     footnote 275.  In other words, paragraphs 252, 253, and footnote 275.  If

 9     we can have your brief comments on these.

10        A.   Bearing in mind the fact that the Law on the All People's Defence

11     of the SFRY and the strategy of ONO and DSZ were in force within the

12     legal framework of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the

13     Ministry of the Interior of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina

14     was able to engage in certain activities in accordance with these laws.

15             In paragraph 252 of my report, I invoked an order issued by the

16     minister of the interior wherein he, in keeping with the laws in force

17     and the decision of the Presidency of the Serbian Republic of

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina, declaring a state of an imminent threat of war in the

19     Serbian republic, ordered that all the authorised officials of the

20     Ministry of the Interior should be organised into war units for the

21     purposes of defending the areas of the Serbian Republic of the BH.

22             Furthermore, in paragraph 253, I go on to analyse the order, and

23     what I highlight in particular is item 3 of that order, which reads:

24             "In conducting combat activities, the units of the

25     Ministry of the Interior shall be subordinated to the command of the

Page 20185

 1     armed forces, but the units of the ministry shall be under the direct

 2     command of employees or members of the ministry."

 3             As we can see, these two paragraphs deal with this general

 4     statement of mine and with the order issued by the

 5     Ministry of the Interior.

 6             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, if I could make an intervention in the

 7     transcript.  At page 29, line 3, it says:

 8             "In conducting combat activities, the units of the

 9     Ministry ... shall be subordinated ..."

10             I note in the report, the English translation, at paragraph 253

11     at page 95, translates it as:  "While carrying out combat operations."

12             So it's important to the Prosecution if we can have a

13     clarification from CLSS either now from the interpreters in the booth or

14     officially in writing later on as to whether or not the term in Serbian

15     means combat activities or combat operations, because it may become

16     important later on to know which it is.

17             JUDGE HALL:  So the appropriate request would be made.  But I

18     confess, Mr. Hannis, that but for your intervention, I would have myself

19     considered the terms as interchangeable.  But you may have an argument,

20     but we'll see.

21             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

22             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Sir, in order to assist the Honourable Chamber and my learned

24     friend Mr. Hannis, let's have a look at the document which is behind

25     tab 55.  As we said, it's your footnote 275, and the document is 1D446.

Page 20186

 1     Yes, go ahead.

 2        A.   Yes, it's in these two paragraphs 252 and 253 that I invoked the

 3     document you've just shown me.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have item 7 shown, please.

 6     Item 7 and 8 of the document.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I?

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Let me first put a question to you.  In paragraph 253 of your

10     paper, you say, in the third sentence - I suppose this is an error - you

11     say in the third line of what should be item 3 of point 7, I suppose.

12        A.   Yes, yes.  Precisely so.  In the third sentence of item -- just

13     as you've put it now.

14        Q.   [Microphone not activated]

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, you've commented on this paragraph in your report,

18     and we have it there.  What I'm particularly interested in is hearing

19     your explanation of item 8, paragraphs 1 and 2.

20        A.   Item 8 of the order, as we can see, addresses the performance of

21     regular duties and activities of the Ministry of the Interior and its

22     members, and states that the provisions of the Law on Internal Affairs

23     and other regulations in force of the Serbian republic must be strictly

24     adhered to in the performance of these duties.

25             So it all has to do with the performance of duties and activities

Page 20187

 1     of the Ministry of the Interior which fall within its purview as defined

 2     by the law; whereas, in the last and penultimate lines it is stated that

 3     in military activities, military regulations and rules should be

 4     enforced.  In other words, in such situations where members of the

 5     Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska participate in military

 6     activities, that military rules and regulations shall be applicable to

 7     them, rather than the rules that would normally apply to them when they

 8     discharge their regular duties.

 9             In the second part of item 8 it is stated that any violation of

10     regulations and issued orders shall be subject to severe punishment and

11     result in appropriate disciplinary and criminal sanctions.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Can we have your comments on paragraph 255 of your

13     report in connection with what you've just told us.

14        A.   Paragraph 255, which relates to a number of paragraphs that I've

15     already discussed based on the order we've just discussed and the laws in

16     effect, I concluded that members of the Ministry of the Interior in the

17     relevant period which took part in combat activities together with the

18     army had to be subordinated to the relevant senior officer or command in

19     the territory where the combat activities were carried out.

20             Of course, what I also analyse here is the fact that it is said

21     that they would be under direct command of an official of the

22     Ministry of the Interior.  Now, the fact that officials of the

23     Ministry of the Interior were duty-bound to act in an organised fashion,

24     duty-bound by the laws in effect, regardless of the tasks placed before

25     them, and that somebody had to take them to the command to which they

Page 20188

 1     were being re-subordinated.  Up until the moment when a unit of the

 2     Ministry of the Interior arrived within the area of responsibility where

 3     military activities were carried out with their respective superior and

 4     until such time as they report to the commanding officer in that area,

 5     from that point on they are all re-subordinated to the military command

 6     and from that moment they become conscripts, rather than officials or

 7     members, of the Ministry of the Interior.

 8             In other words, for as long as they are being re-subordinated,

 9     they are treated as conscripts and must abide by all the valid military

10     laws and regulations.  And it is in that sense that a broad explanation

11     was provided on the issue in this paragraph.

12        Q.   At the point in time when members of the MUP are re-subordinated

13     to the army and for the duration of their re-subordination, do they --

14     are they divested of the powers that they normally have as authorised

15     officials?

16        A.   From the moment they are re-subordinated up until the moment they

17     return to their home MUP units, in other words, during that time they are

18     re-subordinated to the military command, in that period of time they do

19     not have the capacity of authorised officials; rather, they are under the

20     command of military organs.

21        Q.   You say that they are not there in the capacity of authorised

22     officials.  For the duration of their re-subordination, they also do not

23     have the obligations and duties that they normally have whilst working

24     within the Ministry of the Interior; is that right?

25        A.   I think that this conclusion could be drawn from my earlier

Page 20189

 1     comments.  They do not have the obligations and duties that they have

 2     when discharging peacetime activities.  So, number one, they don't have

 3     the duties and obligations that arise from the remit of the

 4     Ministry of the Interior; and, second, they do not have these inherent

 5     duties and obligations to perform them.

 6             And this clearly follows from the order that I referred to in my

 7     expert report.

 8        Q.   Could you please just slow down a bit.

 9        A.   I do apologise.

10        Q.   You will have to repeat your answer because it's quite unclear

11     because of course they could not follow what you were saying.

12             So, while they are re-subordinated, do the members of the MUP

13     have duties and powers that belong to them on the basis of their work, I

14     mean, in their capacity of employees of Ministry of the Interior and that

15     belong to them on the basis of the Law on Internal Affairs?  Just answer

16     slowly, please.

17        A.   Members of the Ministry of the Interior do not have these powers,

18     duties, and responsibilities on the basis of the Law on Internal Affairs

19     in all situations when they are subordinated to a military command.  So

20     then the Law on Internal Affairs does not apply to them; rather, it is

21     only legal regulations.

22        Q.   You say legal regulations.  What regulations do you mean?

23        A.   Well, I most certainly mean the Law on Defence, the

24     Law on the Army, and other legal documents that are in force in the

25     military system.

Page 20190

 1        Q.   You meant military legal regulations; right?

 2        A.   Yes.  Those that regulate that entire subject matter that has to

 3     do with members of the armed forces.

 4        Q.   Sir, let us try to illustrate this so that we would be done with

 5     explaining this issue once and for all.  And it's a rather controversial

 6     issue.

 7             Members of the Ministry of the Interior, while they are

 8     re-subordinated to the military, do they have the authority to detain,

 9     arrest, a person?

10        A.   Members of the Ministry of the Interior, while they are

11     subordinated, do not have the authority to take such measures.

12        Q.   Members of the Ministry of the Interior, when they carry out

13     their regular tasks in accordance with the Law on Internal Affairs, do

14     they have such authority then?

15        A.   When members of the Ministry of the Interior carry out their

16     regular tasks which belong to the purview of the

17     Ministry of the Interior, then, among other powers, they have the powers

18     that you just referred to.

19        Q.   When they exercise these regular powers and authority that they

20     have - I think that you have already spoken about this, but please remind

21     us once again:  Do they have the right to use force, including in some

22     cases the use of fire-arms, in accordance with the

23     Law on Internal Affairs?

24        A.   Just like members of any police force in the world, the members

25     of the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska in that period of

Page 20191

 1     time and in accordance with the Law on Internal Affairs had the right,

 2     according to law, to use an entire set of such instruments of force, that

 3     is to say when all legal requirements are met, including the right to use

 4     fire-arms.

 5        Q.   In accordance with their regular duties and responsibilities and

 6     powers in line with the Law on Internal Affairs, do members of the

 7     Ministry of the Interior have the duty and obligation to go after a

 8     perpetrator of a crime once they have learned of the commission of that

 9     crime?

10        A.   But of course.  One of the duties of the Ministry of the Interior

11     is to prevent and control all forms of crime, so they have that duty as

12     well, to pursue persons who commit crimes and ultimately bring them to

13     justice.

14        Q.   If such a member of the Ministry of the Interior, with all these

15     powers that you have explained to us just now that he or she has within

16     his own regular duties, rights, and responsibilities, is re-subordinated

17     to the army, and while he is re-subordinated to the army he sees that a

18     crime is being committed, is it the duty of that individual to act then

19     in accordance with the Law on Internal Affairs and the powers vested in

20     him on the basis of that law or not?

21        A.   Such a member of the Ministry of the Interior does not have the

22     right to exercise the powers that are derived from the

23     Law on Internal Affairs.  He is then re-subordinated.  And therefore

24     while he is re-subordinated he has lost these powers and does not have

25     the right to apply them in such situations.

Page 20192

 1        Q.   From that point of view, a member of the ministry who is

 2     re-subordinated to the army and while he is re-subordinated to the army,

 3     while combat operations are underway, in your view is he fully equal to

 4     other members of the military and the armed forces?

 5        A.   He is fully equal to all military conscripts, or, rather, members

 6     of the armed forces, in terms of rights and responsibilities and duties.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Let us now go back to this document just briefly, the

 8     one that's in front of us.  That is your tab 55.  I hope you still have

 9     it in front of you.  We have commented upon paragraphs 7 and 8; please

10     bear that in mind because of my next question.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  I would like the witness to be shown tab 40.

12        Q.   That is your footnote 187.2 [as interpreted], otherwise it is

13     document L, number 1.  L001, rather.  That is the

14     Law on All People's Defence.

15             I would like to have a look at Article 104, subparagraphs 5

16     and 6.

17             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] It we could have it on the monitor,

18     please.

19             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, can I confirm:  The transcript says

20     footnote 187.2.  I don't see a reference to --

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  178.2.

22             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

23             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I am afraid that the English

24     translation that we see is not appropriate.  This is the translation of

25     some other law into English.  I'll give you the ERN number of that

Page 20193

 1     document that I have in Serbian.  0046-1906.  The Serbian version is

 2     right.  Yes, yes.  That's the right translation, but we now see

 3     Article 106 and we actually need 104.

 4        Q.   Sir, a moment ago we looked at this order that you referred to in

 5     your footnote 275 in relation to your paragraphs 252, 253, and onwards.

 6     As we said, it has to do with point 7.

 7             Tell me, in your opinion is this order in correlation with

 8     Article 104 of the Law on All People's Defence that we see before us?

 9        A.   I've already said that in the legal system of the Serb Republic

10     of Bosnia-Herzegovina the Law on All People's Defence of the SFRY was in

11     force.  This is not only in correlation.  As a matter of fact, the order

12     that I referred to in that footnote is directly related to Article 104

13     which says that in war time, in times of imminent threat of war and in

14     other emergencies, the police may be used for carrying out combat

15     activities for the armed forces in accordance with the law.

16             Also, the other part of the order is directly related to

17     subparagraph 2, where it says:

18             "During its engagement for combat activities in the armed forces,

19     the police shall be re-subordinated to the officer in charge of the

20     combat activity."

21             That is to say, the unit that that military officer commands.

22        Q.   While we still have this law in front of us, I would like to ask

23     you to comment on Article 105 and your paragraph 248.

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic, before we come to that, I would like

25     to ask -- I would like to ask the expert the following:  You said,

Page 20194

 1     Mr. Bajagic, when re-subordinated, the police officer stops to be an

 2     official -- an authorised official.  Stops to be a police officer

 3     basically; right?  Being an official -- an authorised official is an

 4     official capacity, and I suppose that the police officer has to know

 5     exactly when this official capacity of his stops and when it starts

 6     again.  So my question is:  How does that happen?  How does the police

 7     officer know that now he is not a police officer anymore, or he has not

 8     the capacities of such a position?  And how -- and what tells him that as

 9     from this moment on he is again a police officer?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I give a somewhat broader

11     illustration.  A unit of the Ministry of the Interior gets an order to

12     travel, if it's a case of travel, and to report to a military officer.

13     From that moment onwards, they are subordinated to him.  The officer who

14     was in charge of the unit that will be re-subordinated in its entirety

15     will probably inform every member of the ministry, and as authorised

16     officials they probably learn of that beforehand.  They have to learn of

17     all situations when they can exercise their authority and their powers.

18     When a person is first employed with the Ministry of the Interior, he or

19     she becomes familiar with their rights and responsibilities.  So every

20     member of the Ministry of the Interior as soon as he arrives and as soon

21     as his immediate officer re-subordinates himself and his entire unit to a

22     military officer, then the said person knows that he does not have the

23     rights and responsibilities that he had under the Law on Internal Affairs

24     until they go back to that organisational unit from where they had left

25     when they became re-subordinated to a particular military unit.

Page 20195

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, I asked you to comment on paragraph 248 of your

 4     report, of your research, in connection with Article 105 of the

 5     Law on All People's Defence.

 6        A.   As I was analysing the strategy of All People's Defence and

 7     Social Self-Protection and in connection with the

 8     Law on All People's Defence, as I stated in paragraph 248, I observed an

 9     interesting fact.  Let me just state before that the two laws implied

10     that the armed forces of the SFRY at the time were constituted by the

11     army and the Territorial Defence.  The interesting fact that I observed,

12     and which is defined also by Article 105 of the Law on People's Defence,

13     is that in the event of an imminent threat of war and in other

14     emergencies, the duties of maintaining public law and order as well as

15     other activities pertaining to the field of social self-protection may

16     also be performed by the Territorial Defence.

17             Therefore, under the law, the Territorial Defence is empowered to

18     carry out some specific tasks in such circumstances which would normally,

19     in peacetime, be carried out by the Ministry of the Interior.

20             I hope that my explanation was sufficient.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, before you move on, if I could have a

23     clarification.  The transcript says it was a comment on paragraph 248 in

24     connection with Article 105, and in English my paragraph 248 is talking

25     about the strategy of the ONO.  Is that correct?  So it's the strategy on

Page 20196

 1     All People's Defence as opposed to the Law on All People's Defence?

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  Perhaps the witness can answer.

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] Can you explain the relationship between the

 4     Law on All People's Defence and the strategy of All People's Defence?

 5        A.   Well, the strategy of All People's Defence and

 6     Social Self-Protection is fully within the spirit and meaning of the

 7     Law on All People's Defence.  Article 105 of the law regulates the

 8     matters that I've just referred to, which matters are repeated at page 58

 9     of the document entitled, "Strategy of All People's Defence."  In other

10     words, the strategy paper has merely reiterated the norms and constructs

11     put in place by the Law on the All People's Defence.

12        Q.   Perhaps this would be the right moment to go back to an issue or,

13     rather, a document, and we'd like to have your comments on it.  It's

14     tab 21.  The document number is 1D257.  [Microphone not activated]

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Microphone, please.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.  Sorry.

18        Q.   [Interpretation] It's a dispatch from the MUP of the

19     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina dated the 8th of April, 1992,

20     signed by O. Jasarevic.  It is addressed to all and related to the

21     dispatch from the Ministry of National Defence of the Socialist Republic

22     of Bosnia-Herzegovina, dated the 5th of April.

23             Can you comment on the document, please.

24        A.   The document also defines the issue of subordination in general

25     terms.  However, in relation to the Law on the All People's Defence and

Page 20197

 1     strategy, it is quite the inverse, quite the opposite, because the law

 2     states that police units are to be subordinated to military officers;

 3     whereas this particular document places it quite in the inverse, that all

 4     the forces should be subordinated to the Ministry of the Interior, and

 5     it's referring to the public security stations.  Not only they, but all

 6     those who have anything do with the ministry in any way, including the

 7     category of volunteers and other conscripts.

 8             In other words, the order such as this one is in violation of all

 9     the legal provisions, because none of the laws envisage that any forces

10     may be subordinated to the Ministry of the Interior; rather, it is quite

11     the opposite, that the members of the MUP and the MUP itself may be

12     subordinated to armed forces.

13             In my view, this is quite a surprising document.  The conclusion

14     that I can draw from this is that, generally speaking, the Ministry of

15     the Interior, the central authority in Sarajevo, because we are talking

16     about the 8th of April, is used to make armed forces.  So the armed

17     forces are made out of the Ministry of the Interior.  That's the

18     conclusion that I can draw on this document.

19        Q.   I have a couple of questions on this.  Sir, we were able to see

20     the relevant legal provisions that you mentioned in your report and among

21     them was the Law on the Ministry of the Interior of the

22     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  If I'm not mistaken, yesterday

23     we analysed the Law of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina from

24     1990 and the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska or

25     Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1992.

Page 20198

 1             In your view, does the Law of the Socialist Republic of

 2     Bosnia-Herzegovina concerning the issue of Internal Affairs contain any

 3     sort of legal basis that would provide the order such as this one that we

 4     have before us legality?

 5        A.   What I'm telling you is not an assumption.  I'm quite certain

 6     that the Law on Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of

 7     Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1990 did not envisage situations such as this one

 8     and did not confer any powers for this course of action to be taken.  In

 9     that context, this specific order is completely unlawful in terms of this

10     particular law and all the other legislation that was in force in the

11     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

12        Q.   Sir, do you have any knowledge about the work -- or, rather, do

13     you have any knowledge arising from the research that you made for this

14     report that in the territory of the Socialist Federal Republic of

15     Yugoslavia there were cases where, quite inversely, as you put it, armed

16     formations were subordinated to the police?  Do you know of any such

17     cases?  And if you do, tell us what you know.

18        A.   But of course.  In the first part of my expert report, there was

19     a dispatch from the SJB Bratunac which was cited in this expert report

20     which I compared with the situation in Croatia, in the

21     Republic of Croatia, in 1990 and 1991.  As I was reviewing a multitude of

22     documents for the purposes of this report and in general as I was

23     researching contemporary security systems in Europe and worldwide, I know

24     that the National Guards Corps, as an armed formation, emerged outside of

25     the legal framework of the Republic of Croatia and yet became part of the

Page 20199

 1     organisational structure of the Ministry of the Interior of the

 2     Republic of Croatia as the security system in Croatia was being set up on

 3     its recognition of independence internationally.  So it became part of

 4     the Ministry of the Interior as a force that was created completely

 5     outside of it, and this was a gradual process within the

 6     Republic of Croatia.

 7        Q.   [Microphone not activated]

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Microphone, please.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.  I'm sorry.

11        Q.   [Interpretation] Let us now go back to tab 40; 178.2 is the

12     footnote, and it's document L001.  The Law on All People's Defence.

13     Articles 104, 105.  I'd like you to help us if you can, Mr. Bajagic, to

14     explain paragraph 2 of Article 104, which reads -- in particular what I'd

15     like you to specify is the authorised official in charge of combat

16     activity.  I know that this is outside the scope of your expertise, but

17     perhaps you can be of assistance.

18             MR. HANNIS:  Well, having heard that concession, I want to put on

19     the record my objection to having him comment on it.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   In that case, I'll show you document 23, which is 1D406.

22        A.   Yes.  May I?

23        Q.   Pause there, please.  Document 23, tab 23.

24             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have page 2.

25        Q.   This is a document of the 1st Krajina Corps dated the

Page 20200

 1     1st July, 1992, which is entitled, "Determination of Areas of

 2     Responsibility Order."  It's signed by General Momir Talic.

 3             I'm interested in the reference to the police in the penultimate

 4     paragraph.  Can we have your comments on it.

 5        A.   This order of the command of the 1st Krajina Corps says that in

 6     carrying out combat activities, all the police special forces shall be

 7     placed under the command of the commander of the area who will decide on

 8     how to employ them or engage them.  So this is part and parcel of the

 9     order and is fully consistent with the other documents that we looked at,

10     namely the Law on All People's Defence and the strategy of ONO and DSZ.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown

13     document 14.  65 ter -- or, rather, 1D409.  I think it's been MFI'd.

14        Q.   Sir, what we see here is coming from the command of the

15     1st Battalion of the Serbian army, Osmaci, the 5th of November, 1992.

16     It's an order signed by commander Bosko Djuricic.  It reads that:

17             "Due to the serious situation on the front line, until further

18     notice the Osmaci civilian police will not perform duties at the

19     check-point or any other type of assignments except at a front line

20     position."

21             Based on what I have just read to you, can you draw any collusion

22     whatsoever as to whether here we have a case of re-subordination of the

23     police to the army in line with the rules and regulations that we had

24     just seen a minute ago or not?

25        A.   We see in this document once again that the civilian police,

Page 20201

 1     i.e., members of the ministry, are being placed under the command of a

 2     platoon commander probably in order to be engaged in combat assignments.

 3     So basically we are facing here a case of re-subordination and they are

 4     given a totally different set of tasks under the platoon commander's

 5     direction.

 6        Q.   Let us now move on to a different subject.  Sir, paragraph 312, I

 7     believe we mentioned it earlier.  312, 314, and 316.

 8        A.   Yes.  So from paragraph 312 onwards through a number of the

 9     paragraphs that follow, I addressed the issue of certain provisions of

10     the internal organisation of the Republican Secretariat for

11     Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of B&H from 1990, which in the

12     course of 1992 was in force and applied to the Ministry of the Interior

13     of the Serbian Republic of BH.

14             In a number of paragraphs, I specifically dealt with the area

15     relating to the tasks of road safety.  And having analysed the set of

16     rules from 1990, I realised that from the top of the ministry all the way

17     down to the very bottom, that is to say, SJB via CSB, there were specific

18     organisational units that were in charge of planning, organisation, and

19     implementation of the tasks that have to do with road safety in the

20     broadest of terms.

21             So I recognised that within security services centres there were

22     special police stations dedicated to road safety, and this set of rules

23     says that at the level of the public security service, as one of the main

24     ministry departments, there was a separate section dedicated to road

25     safety.  This is what I commented on in the paragraphs mentioned above.

Page 20202

 1        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, in your opinion, concerning these members of the

 2     Ministry of the Interior who were involved in very specific tasks such as

 3     road safety and similar, were the rules on re-subordination applied to

 4     them as well in line with the law and pursuant to the order issued on the

 5     15th of May, 1992?

 6        A.   Yes, provided they find themselves in a situation in which they

 7     have to carry tasks in a co-ordinated action, and within the system of

 8     re-subordination, to a military unit.  In other words, regardless of what

 9     kind of organisational unit we are talking about, what kind of tasks

10     members of the MUP perform in peacetime, none of them was ever exempt

11     from the possibility of re-subordination.  While they were carrying out

12     co-ordinated actions in 1992, they had to abide by the rules of the

13     relevant ministry.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we haven't had an

15     afternoon session for a long time; if you would be kind to remind me,

16     when do we have to take the second break?

17             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, at 5.20.  But if this is a convenient point, we

18     could take the break now.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  It is, Your Honours.  Thank you very much.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

21                           [The witness stands down]

22                           --- Recess taken at 5.18 p.m.

23                           --- On resuming at 5.43 p.m.

24             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, if I could, just before the witness is

25     brought in, I wanted to put two things on the record.  Concerning my

Page 20203

 1     continuing objection regarding this witness on certain matters, I just

 2     wanted to bring to your attention a couple of items.

 3             He testified as an expert in the Popovic case.  And on

 4     October 9th, 2008, at transcript page 26889 in that case, he was

 5     addressing the Court and said:

 6             "My expert report has to do with the scope of authority the

 7     Ministry of the Interior.  I'm not a lawyer by profession and I'm not

 8     competent to study any details that have to do with criminal law or any

 9     other body of law, for that matter.  I can only share with you what I

10     know about certain provisions on disciplinary measures in the

11     Law on Internal Affairs.  However, I do not dare delve any deeper than

12     that since I believe I'm not sufficiently competent."

13             He also said, at page -- transcript page 26898, when Judge Kwon

14     asked this question:

15             "What do you mean by normal circumstances, under normal

16     circumstances?  For example, in special circumstances such as the case of

17     resubordination, is that police officer tried to be -- is to be tried by

18     the military court or by the civilian court?"

19             Answer from Mr. Bajagic:

20             "If we are talking about resubordination, we said that they no

21     longer have a police authority, they are regarded as members of the army

22     and I believe they [sic] would be military courts who would be in charge

23     of such MUP members."

24             Judge Kwon:

25             "Do you think you can fine the reference for your statement in

Page 20204

 1     the rules or the laws?"

 2             "A.  I did not analyse any documents of the sort.  I did not deal

 3     with the structures or [sic] court or criminal law in my report, but I'm

 4     sure that there are documents but I wouldn't know anything about them, I

 5     wouldn't be able to quote any."

 6             And just one more.  At page 26901:

 7             "I can't answer competently to your two questions.  Yourself,

 8     Your Honour, have noticed that your questions are rather broad and I am

 9     really not competent to deal with anything that has to do anything with

10     the system of courts and criminal responsibility."

11             He goes on to say, at line 14:

12             "I analysed the police and everything else until the moment of

13     resubordination.  At the moment when Mr. Borovcanin was resubordinated, I

14     did not go on analysing his responsibility because it falls under the

15     domain of some rules and regulations that exist in the army.  I know the

16     army has its own courts, but I really never dealt with the details

17     thereof."

18             Based on that, Your Honour, we would again ask you to limit this

19     witness into going into areas beyond his field of expertise.

20             And finally, the second matter I wanted to address with you

21     before the end of the day, before we begin cross-examination:  We still

22     have the matter pending regarding the Defence's submission concerning

23     Christian Nielsen.  And before I start my cross-examination, I would

24     request that you make a decision on that, because it affects what I do on

25     cross-examination.  If there's still some lingering matter on that, then

Page 20205

 1     I may have to address issues with this witness about Christian Nielsen

 2     and his report that otherwise I would forego.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, first and foremost, there is quite a

 4     significant difference between the scope of the expert testimony in

 5     Borovcanin and here.  That's one thing.

 6             The second thing, the second thing is that this particular

 7     testimony is very much limited to situation in 1992.  The situation in

 8     1995 which was dealt with in the Popovic case is quite a different matter

 9     altogether, because in the meantime there has been changes of laws which

10     I would gladly go through with the witness if you want me to, but I don't

11     think that's relevant.  But now Mr. Hannis's comments are actually

12     relying to the situation which is in 1995 and not in 1992, and I don't

13     really see a basis for this objection, therefore.

14             JUDGE HALL:  It seems to me that the -- of course the Chamber

15     remains very much alive to the basic objection the Prosecution has to

16     the -- as to the scope within which this witness can testify as an

17     expert.  But although in none of his responses did I understand

18     Mr. Zecevic to articulate it in this way, it seems to me that one of the

19     practical difficulties is -- looking at the report in its entirety, is,

20     as it were, navigating between the -- because of this subordination

21     business, between the military situation and the police situation.  All

22     that means is that -- from my point of view, is that when the Chamber

23     comes to make the decision, as it must, as to the regard or the -- that

24     it has and the reliance it would place on this witness's testimony --

25     expert, if in the Chamber's view -- well, in the -- anything that he says

Page 20206

 1     which the Chamber finds to fall completely beyond the pale of his

 2     expertise would, of necessity, have to be disregarded.  So it's an

 3     exercise which can't be avoided, and that's the only solution that

 4     strikes me that's open.

 5             Yes, could we have the witness back, please.

 6             Sorry, on the Nielsen matter, Mr. Hannis, we are not unaware of

 7     the urgency of that.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Just one thing I would like to raise while we are

 9     waiting.  We just received today, after we entered the courtroom, the

10     mail by the Office of the Prosecutor announcing additional documents for

11     cross-examination of this witness.  Now, of course I understand that

12     there is -- there is a need to amend the list, but the way how this was

13     done, particularly stating it may also use any document referred to in

14     Bajagic expert report, any document referred to in Christian Nielsen

15     expert report, all RS government sessions of 1992, all RS Presidency

16     meetings' minutes, plus any documents used by Stanisic Defence, and so on

17     and so on.  I don't -- I honestly don't think that is the standard that

18     we followed during the Office of the Prosecutor case.

19             We were supposed to list all the documents in the table and

20     provide with the ERN numbers or whatever, 1D or exhibit numbers, to the

21     Office of the Prosecutor, to the Trial Chamber.  I'm just making an

22     observation on this because I think it would be only fair that we have

23     the very same standard for both parties in this case.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE HALL:  I haven't seen the communication in question.  But

25     looking -- I suppose it means they were being extremely careful or

Page 20207

 1     extremely lazy, one or the other.

 2                           [The witness takes the stand]

 3             MR. HANNIS:  I plead guilty to being both, actually, Your Honour.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  May I continue, Your Honours?

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, please.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you.

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, we have an hour left for today.

 8     Your subparagraph 5, entitled "Rights, Duties, and Responsibilities of

 9     the Minister of the Interior", these are paragraphs 335 through 352.  In

10     these paragraphs you state the rights and duties, and I have no special

11     reason to comment on that.  Additionally, I believe it's sufficiently

12     clear and very transparently explained.  But there is a number of

13     documents in your footnotes that you cite, and I have selected some

14     additional documents about the same subject matter that is dealt with in

15     some documents that you cited.  At this point of the examination, I would

16     like to go through these with you.

17             Please go to tab 53, and your footnote is 399.  That's linked

18     with your paragraph 342.  It's P4 --

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  P546.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Tell me, Mr. Bajagic, what's the importance of a timely

22     information for the work of the Ministry of the Interior, in your

23     opinion?

24        A.   The issue of information is very important for the activities and

25     the functioning of both the ministry headquarters and all its

Page 20208

 1     organisational units.  And I mean both ways; from the headquarters to the

 2     lowest organisational units, and the other way, from the lowest

 3     organisational units, through the CSBs, to the individual administrations

 4     and the ministry headquarters.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  The document that we see here, does it deal with

 6     these matters?

 7        A.   Yes.  As we can see, this is an order which is one of the

 8     possible types of documents that the minister or the ministry

 9     headquarters can send to other organisational units.  The entire order is

10     about establishing as good a communication system as possible for it to

11     be used for information purposes.  All CSBs and SJBs are given orders

12     about the provision and installation of telephones and the submission of

13     the telephone numbers to the ministry headquarters.  All that for the

14     purpose of improving communication between the ministry headquarters and

15     the territorial organisational units.

16        Q.   Thank you.

17             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

18     tab 52, which is P545.

19        Q.   This document is not cited in the footnotes of your report, but

20     please to comment on it briefly.  What is it about?

21        A.   This dispatch signed by the minister of the interior is also

22     about information.  The organisational units mentioned as addressees,

23     that is the CSBs, are warned that they are duty-bound to submit a daily

24     bulletin by a certain time, bulletin about the events of that particular

25     day.  So this dispatch is about sending or forwarding information.

Page 20209

 1             Moreover, it is mentioned in this dispatch that the CSB chiefs

 2     are duty-bound to inform the lower-ranking organisational units about

 3     these matters?  It means that all chiefs down to the SJB centre -- down

 4     to the SJB level must be acquainted with their duty to submit information

 5     about the events in their territory.

 6        Q.   Let me digress a little now.  Please take a look at your

 7     footnote 13.  That's 1D78.  It's a document that you commented on

 8     repeatedly, and I believe that we did so yesterday as well.

 9             Do you remember this document?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   We've already analysed it.  What I'm interested in now is the

12     last but one paragraph of the document.  That's under tab 24; I apologise

13     for not mentioning that earlier.

14             Yesterday when we spoke about the division of the MUP, we spoke

15     about this, about the establishment of a federal MUP, as it were, and so

16     on.  I'm especially interested in your comment about the last but one

17     paragraph of this document.  It starts with:  "Also due attention ..."

18        A.   This information originated from the collegium of the Ministry of

19     the Interior of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina held on the

20     1st of April, 1992.  The paragraph you referred to says that at this

21     collegium meeting due attention has been paid to the financing of the

22     newly-established ministry, and the ministry in question is the

23     Ministry of the Interior of the Serb republic, which funding shall not be

24     below the existing level.

25             Probably this ministry and its members will be funded in the same

Page 20210

 1     way as was the case with regard to the same ministry of the

 2     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 3             A system of electronic data processing is also mentioned here.

 4     This is something that's done for the entire ministry, and also the --

 5     the school or training institution for MUP members, which is very

 6     important.  We can see from this text that much attention was paid at

 7     this meeting to the functioning of the newly-established Ministry of the

 8     Interior of the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 9        Q.   Could you please explain the following:  Due attention has been

10     paid to the further function and co-ordination of some joint activities

11     and services such as the ELP, the system of communications, the schools,

12     et cetera.  That's what it says here.  In your opinion, when this -- when

13     you read a joint services, as it says here, what exactly is meant by

14     that?

15        A.   The Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist Republic of

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina and the newly-established Ministry of the Interior of

17     the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina should have some joint services,

18     among others, a school for training.  That school had for decades

19     functioned as the training centre to Vrace in Sarajevo, for

20     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic, just one moment, please.

22             Mr. Bajagic, I go back to the previous paragraph and your answer

23     to that.  You said, "funded in the same way."  My question is:  Funding

24     by whom?  If we read this, what is meant here?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When this dispatch was being

Page 20211

 1     drafted, that is, on the 1st of April, 1992, we can only speak about one

 2     budget and that is the budget of the Socialist Republic of

 3     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Probably that single budget of the

 4     Socialist Republic of BH must contain some earmarked funds for the

 5     functions of the newly-established ministry.

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  That's all for the moment.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] Sir, apart from the school you have just

 9     mentioned and the issue of funding, which is certainly important, one of

10     the joint services was meant to be the communications system; is that

11     your understanding too?

12        A.   Yes.  The communications system and some other things which

13     aren't specified here.  But most certainly the system of communications

14     and electronic data processing.  So this entire system should have been a

15     joint one.

16        Q.   While you were working on your expert report and preparing for

17     your research, were you able to establish that any of these joint

18     services took off the ground?  Did this funding ever function in --

19     between the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the

20     Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992?

21        A.   Everything mentioned in this dispatch, and it had to be

22     harmonised to become a single system, did not really function after the

23     1st of April.  The school wasn't used by both MUPs, nor was a single

24     communications service set up.

25        Q.   We have seen from these documents that sometime in late April

Page 20212

 1     faxes were requested and so on.  While you were preparing for your

 2     research, were you able to assess to what extent the communications

 3     system in the MUP of the RS was functional, at least indirectly, based on

 4     the documents you studied?

 5        A.   I had the opportunity to see a number of documents that deal with

 6     this very issue, and I was able to conclude that the MUP of the

 7     Serb Republic of BH, when it comes to information and communications, had

 8     to work under very difficult conditions.  Many documents show that it

 9     wasn't possible to go about these things as considered normal, under

10     normal circumstances.  The ministry headquarters, the CSBs, and in some

11     situations the communication between the CSB and its SJBs was disrupted

12     and difficult, so the general situation reflected on that aspect too.

13        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, when did the establishment of the MUP of

14     Republika Srpska in fact begin?

15        A.   The Ministry of the Interior of the Serbian Republic of

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina was de jure constituted by the relevant law which came

17     into force on the 31st of March, 1992.  And as for the factual situation,

18     the Ministry of the Interior of the Serbian Republic of BH, under very

19     difficult circumstances, only began to work in early April 1992, without

20     equipment and materiel that were necessary.

21             Therefore, one could say that the means that the ministry

22     headquarters or the Ministry of the Serbian Republic of BH were left in

23     Sarajevo and that the ministry headquarters therefore found itself in a

24     rather complex and difficult situation considering everything that is

25     necessary for a ministry to become fully functional.

Page 20213

 1        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, did you reach this conclusion while doing the

 2     research relating to the project while you were writing your expert

 3     report, that is to say, the report you have submitted to us here?

 4        A.   Yes.  This is a conclusion that imposed itself as a natural one.

 5     Once we consider my overall responsibility to study the functioning and

 6     organisation of the Ministry of the Interior, and I really drew such a

 7     conclusion at the time while I was analysing specific documents and also

 8     when I had an overview of everything that is included in my expert

 9     report, there were countless moments when I reached the conclusion during

10     the analysis of documents that were available to me.  At such moments, I

11     became convinced of these facts and I came to such a conclusion.

12        Q.   Thank you.  I would now show you a document which is under

13     tab 54.  It's your footnote 396.  65 ter 5D1.  Mr. Bajagic, this is one

14     of your documents from your footnote relating, as we have seen, to

15     paragraphs 341 and 342 of your report.  Could you just briefly comment on

16     this document for us, please.

17        A.   We see from this document that the headquarters of the ministry

18     specifically, but like in countless other situations, addresses with this

19     act all organisational units on the ground about urgent submission of

20     information, in this case the number and form or type of weapons, also

21     communications equipment, number and type of motor vehicles, and all

22     other materiel and technical equipment.  My conclusion would be that in

23     this case the ministry headquarters reacted because it did not have daily

24     communication and perhaps did not have answers to instructions that had

25     already been issued, therefore it once again insisted on the necessity to

Page 20214

 1     send the information listed in this dispatch.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Unless there are any objections, I

 4     would propose that this document be admitted.

 5             MR. HANNIS:  No objection.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this will become Exhibit 1D537

 8     [Realtime transcript read in error "357"].

 9             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   I will show you another document linked with this one just

11     because it is curious, in my own view at least.  It's tab 81, and the

12     document is 47D1.  I said as a matter of curiosity because ...

13             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, I was just interjecting because I wanted

14     to confirm the Exhibit number.  My transcript says 1D357, and I thought

15     we were already at a higher range.

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  I heard 537.  I think the Registrar read "537."

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, it should be 1D537.

18             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  I guess we are all tired at the end of the day, so

20     these mistakes happen.

21        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, the previous document we looked at

22     was issued on the 20th of April.  This one dates from December 1992.  And

23     could you please give us a brief commentary.

24        A.   Considering the time-period, or, rather, the dates when the

25     previous dispatch was sent and the date of this document, this is really

Page 20215

 1     a matter of curiosity because more than half a year has passed and the

 2     ministry headquarters once again felt the need to send a dispatch

 3     concerning the very same issues.  So this is once again a request to

 4     submit the list of all available materiel and technical equipment and a

 5     report on the amount of confiscated valuables and so on.  So in spite of

 6     a rather long period, the ministry headquarters probably, as can be

 7     concluded, did not have ordered records, did not have feedback from the

 8     lowest organisational units, and once again had to send out a dispatch of

 9     this kind.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Unless there are any objections, I

12     would propose that this document be admitted into evidence as well.

13             MR. HANNIS:  No objection.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this will be Exhibit 1D538.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Just a moment.

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic, just one moment, please.

18             Mr. Bajagic, the previous document was a dispatch from the

19     minister in the beginning of his functioning as a minister of the

20     interior of Republika Srpska; yes?  And this one is at the end of the

21     first year of his functioning as such, right, at the end of the calendar

22     year, I mean; right?  What --

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  Precisely so.

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  What -- on what is your conclusion based that

25     there is a link between the two in that way that this December dispatch

Page 20216

 1     shows that the April dispatch had not the effect the minister wanted it

 2     to have?  Does this dispatch show that there was no sufficient response

 3     to the April one?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When we review these two documents,

 5     we can draw multiple conclusions.  It is certain that the system of

 6     internal communication and reporting about significant issues was

 7     difficult, and I have already said so.  Of course, or, rather, probably,

 8     in some situations there was even no reaction of the kind that the

 9     ministry headquarters expected from certain organisational units on the

10     ground.  But both documents show that the system of information was

11     functioning with difficulties.

12             I don't know how else I could judge the situation, considering

13     the dates on which the one and the other dispatches were sent.  It is

14     even not important whether the issues raised are exactly the same and

15     also the necessity to report about these issue, but we can see that

16     essentially the communication is not what could be expected, that is to

17     say perfect, for such an important state administration organ as a

18     Ministry of the Interior is.

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Well, obviously the content of the dispatches are

20     not really the same; there is a significant other issue at stake here in

21     the December one.  But as far as the, let's say, the inventory of

22     technical materiel is concerned, couldn't I just conclude that the April

23     one is a kind of starting inventory and this is a

24     end-of-the-year inventory, nothing else?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I answer?

Page 20217

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yes, of course.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I rather understand the dispatch

 3     that we see on the screen now, dated the 13th of December, as an effort

 4     to collect all the relevant information from the ground so that only then

 5     the administration charged with that at the ministry headquarters could

 6     make the annual analysis of the situation concerning the equipment and

 7     materiel that the ministry has in all its sections and departments.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, did the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska

11     in Bosnia and Herzegovina and also the Ministry of the Interior of the

12     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina have an administration for

13     materiel and finances?

14        A.   Yes, we saw that from the chart which we had an occasion to see

15     here, and also from the law and rule-book on the organisation of the

16     ministry from 1990 which was still in force both for the MUP of

17     Republika Srpska during 1992, that there was an administration for

18     financial matters which was a part of the public security service.

19        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, as a rule, I mean, as it should be, the materiel and

20     technical equipment in the Ministry of the Interior, are they to be

21     obtained through central supply system or in some other way?

22        A.   In the Ministry of the Interior in particular, as one of the most

23     sensitive state administration organs, the procurement of materiel and

24     technical equipment necessary for the functioning of the ministry is

25     always carried out in a centralised manner, and the administration which

Page 20218

 1     we mentioned always has to monitor that.

 2        Q.   When you say always and it's always the administration that is in

 3     charge of that, do you mean as a rule or generally speaking always, even

 4     during war time?

 5        A.   I think that this is the rule.  As a rule and according to the

 6     rules, the finance administration should be in charge of that.

 7        Q.   In case it is not so regulated, the centralisation of the

 8     procurement of materiel and technical equipment, could it happen that one

 9     organisational unit buys one kind of devices, communication devices or

10     equipment, and another a different kind, and then perhaps it would not be

11     possible for them to communicate between each other?

12        A.   Under normal circumstances, that is not possible.  Of course, one

13     should take into account that it is impossible for the MUP organisational

14     units which are outside the ministry headquarters, that is to say they

15     are territorially divided, that they should have their own assets and

16     their own accounts.

17             It is always something that has to be taken care of in these

18     units that the funds for the procurement of materiel and technical

19     equipment should be used in a legal manner, probably as regulated by

20     relevant decisions and documents.  But it's practically impossible that

21     one organisational unit should buy one communication system and another

22     organisational unit a different system.  In such a case, the system of

23     communication would not function because it wouldn't be compatible.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Now that we are discussing this, Mr. Bajagic, I

25     believe that in several places throughout your report you concluded that

Page 20219

 1     due to the situation on the ground -- let me just find the relevant

 2     paragraphs, please.  Perhaps you will be able to help me.  You concluded

 3     that due to the situation on the ground, for a number of reasons, we have

 4     discussed some of them today, the Ministry of the Interior could not

 5     function as envisaged and in accordance with the law.  For example, 257,

 6     and so on.  But there are several instances where this is discussed.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Now, I have to ask you whether what you told us now about

 9     centralised procurement and so on perhaps contradicts what you claim in

10     your report.  I'm not sure if you're following me.

11        A.   I understand that the Ministry of the Interior was working under

12     difficult conditions, and I often stated in my report what the problems

13     were and what were the reasons for such a situation.  As for the issue of

14     procurement itself, I said under normal circumstances it should be done

15     in accordance with the principle which I explained, but particularly in

16     my --

17        Q.   No, no.  Then it was a misunderstanding.  I thought that you

18     meant this generally.

19             Mr. Bajagic, we have some time left for today.  I would like us

20     to comment upon the fourth part of your expert report, that is to say,

21     disciplinary infractions and criminal responsibility of RS MUP staff in

22     1992.  Paragraphs 365 onwards.  And particularly the rules on the

23     disciplinary responsibility of employees of the MUP during 1992; that is

24     from 415 through 436.  That is to say, practically at the very end of

25     your report.

Page 20220

 1             In this section, do you deal with the rules on disciplinary

 2     responsibility of employees of the MUP in a war time situation?

 3        A.   Yes.  That's the name of the rules; namely, rules on the

 4     disciplinary responsibility of employees of the MUP of the Serb Republic

 5     of BH in war.  This entered into force on the 19th of May, 1992.

 6        Q.   [Microphone not activated]

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Microphone, please.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Sorry.  Thank you, Your Honour.

10        Q.   [Interpretation] You said here what the characteristics were of

11     these instructions, particularly paragraphs 432, 433, 434.  So I would

12     like to ask you to clarify for us each and every one of these paragraphs.

13     432, 433, and 434, respectively.  If you could give us your comment,

14     please.

15        A.   When we analyse this subject matter and the provisions of the

16     rules on the responsibility of MUP employees in Republika Srpska in war

17     time, we have to bear in mind the fact that it was adopted on the

18     19th of September, 1992.  In this relation, ever since its adoption, this

19     was regulated until September and later on, by these rules too, by

20     various regulations of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I'm

21     primarily referring to the Law on the Internal Organisation of the

22     Republican Secretariat for Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of

23     Bosnia-Herzegovina because it is only in that, way by cross-referencing

24     and analysing these documents, certain conclusions can be reached.

25        Q.   These rules, this set of rules --

Page 20221

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps we can have it placed on

 2     the monitor.  It is footnote 397.1.  The tab number is 97.  1D54.

 3        Q.   Sir, in the Ministry of the Socialist Republic of

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina there was a system, if I may call it that, of

 5     disciplinary commissions?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   When I said disciplinary commissions, I meant disciplinary

 8     prosecutors and disciplinary commissions.

 9        A.   Yes, precisely.  I think there were 11 such commissions, one in

10     the secretariat, that means the ministry headquarters, and ten such

11     commissions in various centres of the security services.

12        Q.   The Law on Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of

13     Bosnia-Herzegovina, we have seen it and we have commented upon it, we saw

14     how similar it is to the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska.  In

15     accordance with that, the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska,

16     did it envisage the same thing, this system of disciplinary prosecutors

17     and commissions?

18        A.   As opposed to the situation that we had in the Ministry of the

19     Interior?

20        Q.   I am asking you about the law from March 1992.  I'm not talking

21     about the rules.  I'm talking about the law from March 1992, the Law on

22     Internal Affairs.

23        A.   Well, this subject matter was regulated in a different way,

24     because some things that have to do with disciplinary responsibility were

25     completely -- were regulated in a completely different way as compared to

Page 20222

 1     the previous period, the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 2        Q.   Very well.  These rules from September 1992, did they shorten

 3     disciplinary proceedings as such?

 4        A.   The duration of disciplinary proceedings was shortened

 5     significantly.  At the same time, there was no statute of limitations.

 6     So there was less possibility of not having all cases resolved, all that

 7     were undergoing this process.

 8        Q.   [Microphone not activated]

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Microphone, please.

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   In paragraph 434, you are also talking about persons who may

13     launch an initiative for starting disciplinary proceedings.  Can you give

14     us your comment.

15        A.   Yes.  This is what my comment would be:  According to the Law on

16     Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, an

17     initiative to initiate disciplinary proceedings could only be launched by

18     high-ranking officials.  But the Law on -- of the Serb Republic of

19     Bosnia-Herzegovina seriously increased that number, namely that all

20     employees had this right to start disciplinary proceedings.

21        Q.   When you say law, you mean the rules, don't you?

22        A.   Yes, I apologise.  I mean the rules, from September 1992.

23        Q.   Tell me, according to these rules, the first-instance

24     disciplinary organ was the head of what?

25        A.   The first-instance disciplinary organ was the head of, say, the

Page 20223

 1     centre of the security services.

 2        Q.   And what about the second-instance organ?

 3        A.   The second-instance disciplinary organ, as I said in

 4     paragraph 432, was the minister of the interior.

 5        Q.   Very well.  At the moment when disciplinary proceedings are

 6     initiated, is a particular measure imposed on the member of the MUP

 7     involved in these disciplinary proceedings?

 8        A.   The legal regulations that are referred to in this expert report

 9     indicate that certain disciplinary measures or, rather, certain measures

10     are envisaged when disciplinary proceedings are initiated.  It depends on

11     the gravity of the offence involved.

12        Q.   Is one of the measures that you're talking about now suspension?

13        A.   Of course.  Because that means that a person is completely

14     suspended from the duties a particular member carried out within the

15     ministry until then.

16        Q.   In your expert report, paragraph 365, that has to do with

17     disciplinary criminal responsibility, et cetera, I think that in this

18     part -- I'm sorry.  I'm going to rephrase.  Perhaps you're going to

19     remember where it was that you dealt with this, where you used these

20     documents, where you refer to them in your footnotes.

21             Do you know that in 1992 there were some orders of the Ministry

22     of Republika Srpska whereby a decrease was asked for in the reserve force

23     and to have a different kind of correlation involved between the active

24     duty and the reserve force?

25        A.   Of course.  There are several dispatches from the ministry

Page 20224

 1     headquarters were -- dealt with this matter.  You can find that in

 2     different footnotes and different paragraphs in my report, and I cannot

 3     remember exactly which ones they are right now.

 4        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, do you remember that while preparing for this

 5     research of yours do you remember some decisions or, rather, orders of

 6     the ministry whereby all members of the Ministry of the Interior who had

 7     criminal records, et cetera, that what was asked for was that something

 8     be done about this?  If you remember, what was that?  What was supposed

 9     to be done?

10        A.   Yes, there were five or six or even more dispatches that support

11     my statements to that effect made in different paragraphs, and you can

12     see these documents in my footnotes.  The ministry headquarters sent

13     orders and other instructions to the organisational units of the MUP

14     throughout the territory.  What was unequivocally asked for in these

15     documents was, as one of these dispatches says, was to deal with those

16     members who had possibly committed some criminal offences, not only from

17     the outbreak of the war onwards but also in the previous period, and that

18     such persons be dealt with, that is to say that legal action be taken.

19     What I understand that to mean is to initiate criminal proceedings

20     against them and to expel them from the Ministry of the Interior and also

21     that such persons should urgently be made available to the Army of the

22     Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

23             I don't know if that explanation is sufficient.

24        Q.   Yes.  I've actually found the paragraph.  I'm a bit tired by now,

25     and my colleague helped.  It's paragraph 383 --

Page 20225

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, if you're moving on to something else,

 2     it's just on --

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I'm not moving, Your Honours.  I have a

 4     couple of additional questions.  But definitely I will not be able to

 5     finish today.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  So we should take the adjournment at this point.

 7             And we are scheduled to resume, I believe, in Courtroom II

 8     tomorrow morning at 9.00.

 9                           [The witness stands down]

10                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.58 p.m.

11                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 5th day

12                           of May, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.