110617ED

Page 22323

1 WITNESS: SIMO TUSEVLJAK [Resumed]

2 [Witness answered through interpreter]

3 Examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]

4 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Tusevljak.

5 A. Good morning.

6 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, let's take a look at P997. Tab 23.

7 Mr. Tusevljak, this is a report dated the 27th of August. It's

8 signed by Sasa Blagojevic, the person who submitted the report. Are you

9 familiar with this person, Sasa Blagojevic, and if so, who was he?

10 A. I know him. He was an operative in the Security Services Centre.

11 He worked on crime prevention.

12 Q. Is this a report about his visit to the public security station

13 in Vlasenica? Did he go there on your instructions?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And what was his task?

16 A. Precisely what he wrote here. He went there to speak to the

17 chief of the crime prevention department and to assess the situation in

18 that department.

19 Q. You, as chief of the crime prevention police in the Security

20 Services Centre, did you send your inspectors to perform such visits in

21 public security stations or, more precisely, crime prevention departments

22 in public security stations? I'm speaking here of your line work.

23 A. Yes, in the second half of 1992, in the fall.

24 Q. Did all the operatives in all cases receive the same or similar

25 assignment like this one?

Page 22324

1 A. Yes. That was their assignment. They were supposed to assess

2 the situation in crime prevention departments.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have 930D1. It's tab 155.

5 Q. [Microphone not activated]

6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Microphone.

8 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry. Thank you.

9 Q. [Interpretation] This is a document dated the

10 28th of August, 1992, signed by CSB chief Zoran Cvijetic. The document

11 was sent to the public security stations in the territory of the

12 Security Services Centre.

13 Could you first confirm whether this is the signature of

14 Mr. Cvijetic?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Enclosed to this memo was the rules on disciplinary

17 responsibility of employees of the Ministry of the Interior of the

18 Serbian Republic under conditions of a state of war and the rules and the

19 form of IDs of authorised officials of Internal Affairs organs, and all

20 employees in all public security stations were supposed to be informed

21 about this. Do you remember these rules on disciplinary responsibility

22 promulgated towards the end of August 1992 in the state of war?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Do you remember whether disciplinary responsibility of the

25 employees of the MUP was made any harsher by these rules?

Page 22325

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you.

3 JUDGE HALL: I'm sorry, I heard the question, I heard the answer,

4 but I confess I don't understand it. Could you expand on that for me,

5 please, Mr. Zecevic. When you say --

6 MR. ZECEVIC: Of course, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE HALL: -- made any harsher by the rules. Could you get the

8 witness to expand on that, please.

9 MS. KORNER: Can I just point out that's a leading question.

10 "What change, if any, did this produce in the rules" is the proper

11 question.

12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I accept this.

13 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, do you remember what were the changes in

14 disciplinary responsibility envisaged by these rules on disciplinary

15 responsibility in the state of war?

16 A. As far as I know, the discipline and the behaviour of a policeman

17 in police stations had to be much stricter. This means that the

18 envisaged sanctions were much harsher. So many misdemeanours that would

19 normally be accompanied by removal to another post now became the

20 misdemeanours that would be accompanied by the removal from the service,

21 which means that those persons were fired from the MUP.

22 Q. Were there any changes in the procedure pertaining to the

23 disciplinary misdemeanours?

24 A. I cannot remember that. I don't remember the procedure and

25 whether there were any changes.

Page 22326

1 Q. Do you remember whether dead-lines to institute or complete

2 disciplinary proceedings were changed by this rule book?

3 A. I cannot remember that. I really haven't had a chance to look at

4 these rules for the past 18 years.

5 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you. I believe there is ample evidence in

7 the transcript already about the contents of this rule, and actual rule

8 instruction is an exhibit in this case. However, at this point, if

9 there's no objection, I would like to tender this document.

10 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D583, Your Honours.

12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. I would like to take a look at 122D1. It's tab 24.

14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, while we're waiting for the new

15 document, I thought you said that the rules to which this letter that we

16 have just admitted was already in evidence. Do you happen to have the

17 exhibit number of the rule?

18 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours, in just one second I will

19 provide you with that. May I continue, Your Honours, and I will provide

20 the exhibit number.

21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Absolutely. Please proceed.

22 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.

23 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, this is a document dated the

24 12th of September, 1992, signed by the chief of Security Services Centre

25 Zoran Cvijetic. It's on the following page. The document was sent to

Page 22327

1 the chiefs of public security stations. Can you first confirm whether

2 this is the signature of Mr. Cvijetic?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. This document is dated some 15 days after the previous document.

5 It comes about 15 days after the document that we just saw by which the

6 new rule book during the state of war was sent to public security

7 stations.

8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] And for Trial Chamber's

9 information, it's 1D54. This is instruction on disciplinary

10 responsibility during the state of war.

11 Q. In paragraph 2 of this document we find the following: First the

12 reference to the previous document by which the new rule book was sent on

13 the 28th of August, and then it goes on as follows:

14 "Among other things, this rule defines what constitutes minor and

15 serious dereliction of duty in the condition of war, as well as the

16 levels of emergency in the conducting of disciplinary proceedings. In

17 spite of these obligations, a certain number of SJBs have not taken this

18 problem seriously enough. The responsibility for this lies with the

19 chiefs managing these SJBs, who are authorised to do so by certain

20 rules."

21 And then we find the instruction that the SJBs who have not done

22 so yet are to analyse the potential involvement of employees in criminal

23 acts and other forms of dereliction of duty as defined by the law and to

24 inform by the 30th of September, 1992. And if there were no such cases,

25 a memo to this effect was also supposed to be sent.

Page 22328

1 Sir, do you remember whether on any of the collegium meetings in

2 the Security Services Centre these issues were discussed?

3 A. There were discussions on the collegium meetings by the chiefs of

4 the police departments. They spoke about the answers received from the

5 police stations. I assume that the first request sent by the chief of

6 the centre did not produce adequate response. And then in order to

7 [Realtime transcript read in error "Municipal Board"] amplify and

8 highlight the seriousness of this request, another request from the

9 centre and the Ministry of the Interior, another dispatch, was sent

10 15 days later.

11 Q. Just a moment, please, on page 7, line 1, we find "Serbian" or

12 "Serb," while what I said was "CSBs."

13 My question was whether you remember if any of those issues were

14 discussed on any of the collegium meetings. So this is merely to correct

15 the transcript.

16 And I think that a part of your answer was not recorded properly.

17 It says here on page 7, line 4, that you said: "I assume that the first

18 request sent by the chief of the centre did not produce adequate

19 responses," from the field. And then the "Municipal Board." I actually

20 don't understand what it says here, so I would like you to repeat the

21 answer but slowly. What was it that you wanted to say?

22 A. As we can see from this document, this dispatch, there was a

23 discussion at the collegium meetings in the Security Services Centre.

24 The subject of the discussion were the responses received from public

25 security stations. These responses were inadequate, and that is why the

Page 22329

1 chief of the centre sent another memo 15 days later, so that the chiefs

2 of public security stations would take their duties more seriously and

3 discharge their tasks in a more responsible manner.

4 And as we can see from this document, they were supposed to act

5 upon the new rules on disciplinary responsibility. And if they still

6 found among their employees policemen who had committed criminal offences

7 or were held responsible in some other way for such offences, they were

8 supposed to be removed from the service on the basis of the new rule

9 book.

10 Q. Thank you. Just to clarify this once more: In case that an

11 employee of the Ministry of the Interior committed criminal offences,

12 what proceedings would be instituted against him?

13 A. A criminal report would be submitted to the competent

14 prosecutor's office. His immediate superior, chief of the public

15 security station, was supposed to suspend him and institute disciplinary

16 proceedings against such an employee.

17 Q. Thank you.

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

19 propose to tender this document.

20 JUDGE HARHOFF: There's something that I do not quite understand

21 with this. What we saw in the previous document was that the chief of

22 the CSB of Sarajevo forwarded these new rules, the new rule book that

23 applied during war time, to all the SJBs under its jurisdiction, and then

24 only 15 days later the same chief of CSB finds it necessary to send out a

25 new dispatch to call for action because, as you say, the response wasn't

Page 22330

1 satisfactory. Now, two weeks is quite a short span of time, so what

2 happened? And was there some events in between that triggered this

3 second attempt by Mr. Cvijetic to remind the SJBs of their duties? I

4 would have thought that it would take longer time to discover that the

5 actions which the SJBs were supposed to take could lead to the conclusion

6 that SJBs weren't taking this seriously. I mean, you couldn't discover

7 that in only two weeks, could you?

8 So my question to you is whether there was any incident between

9 the first and the second dispatch that triggered the second dispatch? Do

10 you understand my question?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand the question. If

12 in this memo we find the reference to the dispatch of the

13 25th of July, 1992, it means that on the 25th of July, 1992, a dispatch

14 was sent requesting the removal of the employees who had committed

15 criminal offences. This means that the centre chiefs were supposed to

16 start doing this from the 25th of July onwards. It is very probable that

17 they invoked the lack of the rules on disciplinary responsibility.

18 So in this memo the chief of the centre references first the memo

19 of the 25th of July; that's more than a month before that. And then on

20 the 12th of September he highlights once again the duty of the chiefs of

21 public security stations without giving them a dead-line. He merely

22 states that they are supposed to deal with this problem in a more serious

23 fashion, the employees who are still employed in the Ministry of the

24 Interior and who had committed criminal offences. Which means that they

25 could not work in the ministry anymore, are supposed to be removed from

Page 22331

1 service as soon as possible in accordance with the law.

2 So nothing happened. There was nothing that made this following

3 dispatch -- there was nothing that caused the next dispatch to come so

4 soon after the first dispatch.

5 JUDGE HARHOFF: And that's what I did not quite understand, but

6 let's proceed.

7 JUDGE HALL: So the document is admitted and marked.

8 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm not going to object to the

9 admission of this document, but Mr. Cvijetic -- I'm obsessed by

10 Mr. Cvijetic, obviously. Mr. Zecevic only asked the question "do you

11 remember this" and never asked the actual question "did you see this

12 document at the time." I don't want to have to waste time going back

13 over this when I cross-examine, and I would be grateful if it could be

14 made clear before the document is admitted in short whether the witness

15 is actually saying he saw the document at the time. It may be important.

16 JUDGE HALL: Well, I suppose it is something that -- for tidiness

17 that should have been asked.

18 MS. KORNER: Yes.

19 JUDGE HALL: But it struck me that the obvious connection between

20 this and the previous exhibit --

21 MS. KORNER: As I say, Your Honour, I'm not -- this is a general

22 request that simply for each of these documents, which are not signed by

23 this witness and on the face of it there's no good reason why he would

24 have seen it at the time, it's important that each time Mr. Zecevic seeks

25 the admission of such a document we know for certain whether the witness

Page 22332

1 saw it at the time.

2 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand that, Your Honours, but that is

3 precisely why I asked the witness whether he recognises the signature of

4 the chief of the CSB. If Mr. Cvijetic would have been available - he

5 passed away - we would have called Mr. Cvijetic on the stand, but there

6 is no other way we can introduce the documents by the chief of the CSB

7 but through one of his employees.

8 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, as I say, I perfectly understand

9 and, as I say, I'm not objecting to the admission. I'm simply asking

10 that each time the witness is asked whether he actually saw the document

11 at the time, because clearly what was discussed is important, but so is

12 whether he saw the document.

13 JUDGE HALL: And as I did say in response to Ms. Korner's first

14 intervention, for completeness, it's a question that could be asked, but

15 I -- for myself, I would have thought that the witness's answers to the

16 document would have been sufficient to explain his familiarity and

17 therefore allow it in. But, as I said, for tidiness, you'd ask the

18 necessary question.

19 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours.

20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Witness, did you see this document at the

21 time?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I should have seen every one of

23 these documents because I was a member of the collegium of the centre

24 chief where the documents were drafted and then presented in the morning,

25 but to remember every piece of paper from 18 or 19 years ago and claim

Page 22333

1 that I saw it or didn't, that would be absurd that I should have such

2 memory and such recollection. But when I see a document which is in

3 front of me, I see that it's from the Security Services Centre and sent

4 to police stations. It was discussed in the centre chief's collegium

5 meetings in the morning and we had to report, for each department, which

6 documents were sent on behalf of the chief of the Security Services

7 Centre with his signature.

8 MR. ZECEVIC: Can we get the --

9 JUDGE HALL: A slight question -- well, I don't know if it's a

10 question of interpretation or what the witness intended to convey, but I

11 fully understand and appreciate what the witness has said about the

12 dealing with something that would have happened years ago and his

13 explanation as to the ordinary practice, but the word that was used in

14 response to the question was "I should have." Had he said "I would

15 have," then the rest of that answer would fall perfectly into place. But

16 I'm just wondering whether I am making too much out of the fact that what

17 came over the English was his choice of "should" as opposed to "would

18 have," because there would, in English, be a subtle difference in what is

19 intended to be conveyed.

20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Have you understood the question of His Honour?

22 A. No, I didn't understand. This is why I'm not sure what I was

23 supposed to have said. The interpretation was wrong. I said that all

24 these documents which I see now before me which were sent on behalf of

25 the Security Services Centre chief, that is to say, which he signed, and

Page 22334

1 it's obvious that his signature is here, they were all discussed and they

2 were presented at the morning collegium meetings which we held with the

3 Security Services Centre chief.

4 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. I'll have to make due with that.

5 Thanks.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: May we have the ...

7 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

8 JUDGE HALL: So the document is admitted and marked.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D584, Your Honours.

10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please show the witness

11 924D1.

12 Q. It is tab 177. Precisely in order to illustrate --

13 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] No translation.

14 MR. ZECEVIC: I have a translation on the monitor. I'm not sure

15 if you are missing something in your --

16 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Well, It must have come

17 in, because it wasn't there yesterday. It must have come in overnight.

18 MR. ZECEVIC: I think --

19 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Your Honours, I see -- I

20 mean, I'm sorry, we shouldn't do this.

21 I said to Mr. Zecevic no translation because I didn't have a

22 translation in my binder. It wasn't -- it's one of the new documents, I

23 think. I see there is a translation on the screen, so it must have been

24 uploaded into e-court sometime between when we last looked at it and

25 today.

Page 22335

1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, does that mean that this is one of

2 documents we didn't decide upon yet for their admission to the

3 65 ter list?

4 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm not sure, Your Honours, at this point. If you

5 just bear with me one moment, please.

6 Your Honours ...

7 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have a list of

9 12 documents which were pending translation as of yesterday which you

10 haven't decided upon. This document is not on that list, but I can read

11 the list just for the record, perhaps, so we have it in -- on the record.

12 It refers -- so the documents which are pending translations as

13 of 16th of June, yesterday, which are added to Defence 65 ter list and

14 which were not decided by Your Honours are: Document 938D1,

15 document 939D1, document 940D1, 941D1, 942D1, 943D1, 944D1, 945D1, 946D1,

16 947D1, 948D1, and 952D1. Therefore, this document has been -- has had

17 the translation before and it was --

18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, Mr. Zecevic is quite right, because

19 I've just seen that it is, in fact, one of the documents I'm looking at

20 that we don't object to. Some how or other the translation didn't get

21 into my binder, so I apologize for wasting the Court's time.

22 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Ms. Korner.

23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tusevljak, this is a document dated the

24 28th of September, 1992, and I think that it is precisely the one that

25 will explain and provide an answer to the question asked by Judge Harhoff

Page 22336

1 awhile ago.

2 This document was signed by the chief of station Malko Koroman,

3 or somebody did it for him. It was addressed to the Romanija-Birac CSB

4 and it says "reference your document number 01478/92 dated the

5 12th of September, 1992."

6 Please have a look at the previous document which we looked at,

7 1D584, under tab 24, so that you could -- so that we could compare them.

8 What is the number of that document and what is the date of that

9 document? I'm talking about 1D584 under tab 24.

10 A. This is the response of the police station Pale to the document

11 dated the 12th of September, 1992.

12 Q. Can you please read the number of the document and the date for

13 us, the one that's under tab 24.

14 A. The number of the document is 01-478/92, dated the

15 12th of September, 1992.

16 Q. Sir, have you seen this document before, the one we are looking

17 at now, 924D1 under tab 177?

18 A. This document was sent to the chief of the police department. It

19 says here "Drago," which means that I probably did not see it at the time

20 because my name is not recorded. But this was standard. The department

21 which received this document from the chief of centre also collected all

22 the responses so that the chief of centre could then send the report,

23 once it was amalgamated, to the Ministry of the Interior.

24 Q. When you say Drago, "it says here Drago," where do you see that?

25 Can you please clarify that for me.

Page 22337

1 A. It's handwritten by pencil in the upper right-hand corner of this

2 document.

3 Q. And which Drago does this refer to?

4 A. It refers to Drago Borovcanin who was the chief of the police

5 department at the centre.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for the sake of

8 completeness of this issue, I would propose that this document be

9 admitted into evidence as there are no objections from the Prosecution.

10 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D585, Your Honours.

12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we please now see

13 the document under tab 157, 933D1.

14 Q. This is a document dated the 23rd of September, 1992 --

15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.

16 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry.

17 Q. [Interpretation] The date on this document is the

18 23rd of September, 1992. It is signed by the chief of the

19 CSB Zoran Cvijetic. It was addressed to the public security stations in

20 the territory of this CSB. Can you confirm whether this is

21 Mr. Cvijetic's signature?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Have you seen this document at the time, in 1992, do you

24 remember?

25 A. Yes. The reason being that the chief of the centre has signed it

Page 22338

1 again and this was discussed at our collegium meetings.

2 Q. This document deals with the issue of difficulties on roads and

3 difficulties with communications equipment. Mr. Tusevljak, do you

4 remember -- you said that this was discussed but do you remember who or

5 what were the measures which were taken on the basis of this order and

6 this document in terms of improving the dispatch system or improving the

7 communications system in the territory of the Security Services Centre at

8 Sarajevo?

9 A. We can see here that this type of communication was only

10 requested in case of urgent information being transmitted, that is to

11 say, informing police stations. And the improvement was only that in a

12 way what I told you about on the previous days could be speeded up. Due

13 to difficulties with communication and the lack of adequate

14 communications equipment, the information we received or sent were many

15 days late. And, of course, if you have urgent information or something

16 that is current and you cannot forward it, if you lose time, then the

17 information loses its value completely.

18 Q. And the third paragraph says "in order to submit information to

19 the Public Security Station Ilidza, Hadzici, Rajlovac, Ilijas, and

20 Vogosca, the fax machines of the Ilidza SJB will be used." Does this

21 mean that dispatches would only be sent to the Ilidza SJB and then from

22 the Ilidza SJB it would be -- I apologise. Can you tell us what this

23 means, technically speaking? How were the dispatches communicated?

24 MS. KORNER: Well, the first question, Your Honours, should be

25 whether he knows this. In fact, a witness from the CSB dealing with

Page 22339

1 communications was actually called, and this document wasn't put to the

2 witness who was in a position to deal with it. He has to lay the

3 foundation for being able to deal with that question.

4 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, the witness confirmed that it

5 was discussed at the collegium meeting. We didn't have this document

6 when -- in our possession before and that is why we didn't show it to the

7 Prosecutor's witness who were called for the communications. I'm just

8 trying to establish the witness's knowledge about the problem that they

9 were facing, and he already testified about that, and the ways how -- how

10 the CSB tried to remedy the situation at the moment.

11 JUDGE HALL: Please continue, Mr. Zecevic.

12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Let me first ask you this, or ask you again: Are you familiar

14 with this problem and the resolution which was adopted? Was that a

15 resolution adopted at a collegium meeting?

16 A. Yes, I'm familiar with the problem and I know that we agreed at

17 the collegium that in this way speedier communication would be achieved.

18 And that means that if a dispatch was sent to Public Security

19 Station Ilidza, or a report perhaps, then the duty was either for these

20 other police stations, which are listed here, to come to the police

21 station in Ilidza to get the report there or the Ilidza SJB would

22 distribute the report or the dispatch to the listed police stations.

23 Q. This is the instruction from paragraph 4; however, it also says

24 here that these copied information should be distributed by relay to the

25 SJB. Can you explain to us what this expression "by relay" means?

Page 22340

1 A. It means that -- that the SJB Ilidza Police would take all

2 dispatches which are addressed to Vogosca, Rajlovac, and Ilijas and then

3 take them only to the Rajlovac Police Station. Rajlovac Police Station

4 would take their dispatch, the one addressed to them, and then bring the

5 others to Ilijas and Vogosca. Those from Vogosca had the obligation to

6 carry the remaining one to Ilijas. And this was how the response was

7 brought back as well. It means that dispatches were handed from hand to

8 hand to police patrols who had their vehicles.

9 Q. Thank you.

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

11 tender this document into evidence.

12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Witness, it's a bit unclear to me what the

13 type of information was which should be communicated through all these

14 means. Was it every dispatch that should be communicated immediately

15 through all available fax machines or was there any attempt to give

16 priority to certain kinds of information? I mean, I suppose that some

17 types of information were more important than others. And if there was a

18 difficulty in transmitting information from one station to another, I

19 suppose that what you would wish to do is to make some sort of priority.

20 But I don't see that here. This dispatch is only about the means of

21 communication but says nothing about the contents of the information or

22 the type of information. Did I understand this correctly?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The territory of the Security

24 Services Centre at the time was affected by war operations. On a daily

25 basis, the areas which were under the control of the Security Services

Page 22341

1 Centre were under attack. This is a period when perhaps 80 per cent of

2 the policemen were involved in active combat operations. The front lines

3 shifted on a daily basis and policemen got killed every day. This was

4 mostly information that was needed in order to carry out defensive

5 operations. That means that assistance was to be given to a certain

6 territory which was defending itself, or they informed us about the

7 number of policemen who had been killed or if anyone had been wounded,

8 and the like. That was the sort of information that was urgent and that

9 needed to be transmitted to the final user as quickly as possible.

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thanks. Please proceed.

11 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.

12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 933D1 shall be

13 Exhibit 1D586.

14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Let us have a look at the next document. This is 931D1, tab 196.

16 Mr. Tusevljak, this is a document dated the 31st of August, 1992.

17 An order signed by the chief of the CSB Zoran Cvijetic but signed for

18 him. Can you recognise whose signature this is?

19 A. This is signed by Cedo Nogo, who was an inspector from the crime

20 police department.

21 Q. From the police department where?

22 A. The police department of the Security Services Centre.

23 Q. This order orders some of the relevant police stations to send to

24 the Zvornik Public Security Station four policemen each, whereas

25 Novo Sarajevo SJB is to send eight policemen to Zvornik. Do you remember

Page 22342

1 that these employees were sent to the public security station in Zvornik

2 at the time?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Do you remember what was the reason for this and what was their

5 task over there?

6 A. I think that an action of the Ministry of the Interior was

7 carried out in Zvornik at the time. The task was disbanding and routing

8 the Yellow Wasps, and the assistance from the Security Services Centre

9 was requested at the time. And this is why there was this request for

10 the said employees to report to the SJB Zvornik as soon as possible.

11 Q. Do you know when this action relating to Zute Ose took place?

12 A. I don't know the exact date because I was not involved in this

13 action so I cannot remember the exact date, but I think it was around the

14 end of August or early September. I wouldn't know exactly.

15 Q. If I tell you that the action in Zvornik was carried out on the

16 30th of July and 1st of August, would that make it easier for you to

17 remember?

18 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, Mr. Zecevic, I pointed out yesterday that

19 this witness's recollection and his connection between events was a

20 matter of importance and he should not be led on any dates. And you've

21 just done it again.

22 MR. ZECEVIC: Just trying to find out if I can refresh his

23 memory. That is all.

24 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, A, there should be an application if

25 that's the case. Secondly, as I pointed out yesterday, and I made it

Page 22343

1 very clear, we are querying how the witness comes by some of his

2 knowledge and how he connects things together. And therefore he should

3 not be led in the fashion or helped out in a fashion that Mr. Zecevic has

4 just done.

5 JUDGE HALL: Standing on its own of course, Ms. Korner, you're

6 perfectly correct. But I'm wondering -- I thought - and please correct

7 me if I'm wrong - that the dates of these events were established

8 otherwise.

9 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I ask -- I'm not at all clear

10 whether the witness actually doesn't speak some English because he has a

11 great deal of dealings with internationals. But nonetheless, for these

12 purposes, I'll ask him to take his earphones off.

13 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Tusevljak, could you please remove your

14 headphones.

15 MS. KORNER: As I say, Your Honours, I think it's important if

16 there's really serious argument that he leaves court, because my

17 understanding is he does speak English. He's dealt with international

18 prosecutors, apart from anything else.

19 Your Honours, the point is this: We are going to be contending

20 that this witness's ability to give evidence about just about everything

21 under the sun is a matter that we're going to be cross-examining on.

22 And, therefore, how he's able to say what this is all about and whether

23 he's correct in that assertion is a matter of his credibility. And

24 therefore, as I pointed out yesterday when Mr. Zecevic gave him a date,

25 he shouldn't be doing that because we say that this witness's ability to

Page 22344

1 give evidence is not directly from his own knowledge, as he appears to be

2 asserting.

3 JUDGE HALL: Well, Mr. Zecevic, you've heard Ms. Korner's

4 concerns, and you will phrase your questions accordingly.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours, I understand. Can I establish

6 with the witness whether he speaks English, Your Honours?

7 JUDGE HALL: That would perhaps be useful, yes.

8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Do you speak English, Mr. Tusevljak?

10 A. Unfortunately, I don't speak English. But very often when

11 talking to persons from the international community when I presented

12 certain matters to them and when we talked, very often I had to explain

13 that I could not have tête-à-tête meetings with them for the simple

14 reason that I do not speak their language. During my education for

15 12 years I studied Russian and I knew Russian very well, but I've

16 forgotten that as well because I haven't been using it. So I don't

17 understand English. I never attended any course whatsoever. So

18 regardless of whether anyone believes it or not, I would sincerely be

19 very happy if you were right, if I did understand or speak English, but I

20 do not.

21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

22 document 65 ter 126D1. That is tab 13.

23 Q. Sir, this is a document sent to the command of the

24 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps to the commander personally, and it has to do

25 with problems of the members of the Ilidza SSJB, and the date is the 23rd

Page 22345

1 of November, 1992. In the signature it says "for CSB chief Zoran

2 Cvijetic." Can you tell us whose signature this actually is?

3 A. This is my signature.

4 Q. Did you send this document to the command of the

5 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Tell us, briefly, what is this about? What kind of problems

8 concerning the members of the Ilidza SSJB did you want to inform the

9 command of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps about?

10 A. This shows that in this document I am simply relaying the

11 communication sent from the Ilidza SSJB. In it they say that they were

12 mistreated by some units of the Army of Republika Srpska and that they're

13 asking for that to be brought to an end.

14 Q. And what was your request then to the commander of the

15 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?

16 A. It is obvious that it's only in the last paragraph that I say

17 "please take action in line with the above document." I mean, I'm

18 addressing those people from the command of the Sarajevo-Romanija corps.

19 "And place the said formations under control so that similar situations

20 do not arise in the future." And I'm asking them to get back to us with

21 some information, however, referring to the number of this document.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could this be admitted.

24 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.

25 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D587, Your Honours.

Page 22346

1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] For the Trial Chamber and the

2 Prosecution, this is a two-page document. So the first page is this

3 letter signed by the witness and attached is the document or letter sent

4 by the Ilidza Public Security Station. P842, tab 48, is the number of

5 this attachment as a separate document.

6 Could the witness please be shown 950D1, tab 174. Page 2,

7 please, could we have that on our screens.

8 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, before I put a question to you, after

9 Borislav Maksimovic was replaced as chief of public security station of

10 Vogosca, do you remember who was appointed chief of the public security

11 station?

12 A. Zivko Lazarevic.

13 Q. This document before us is dated the 14th of December and it is a

14 reply to a dispatch of the 11th of December. What is typewritten at the

15 bottom is "chief of SJB Zivko Lazarevic." Can you tell us whether you

16 have seen this document before and can you tell us what this document

17 refers to?

18 A. I have not seen this document because, yet again, as you can see

19 up here, it was sent to Drago Borovcanin. But it is evident that it has

20 to do with what was happening in that area, in that part of the Sarajevo

21 front line, and the chief of the public security station is informing the

22 chief of the centre that the police is involved in combat. Also it is

23 stated which policemen were wounded and also who engaged them in the

24 first place.

25 Q. Can you tell us, or, rather, can you give us an answer, or,

Page 22347

1 rather, clarify this last thing that you said, "engaged them in the first

2 place." What do you mean by that?

3 A. This shows that these policemen were engaged at -- upon an order

4 from the Vogosca Brigade.

5 Q. Thank you.

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

7 like to tender this document as well.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, the witness testified he hadn't seen

10 the document before. His answers about what it says are something that

11 any reader would determine for themselves. In any event, what's the

12 relevance?

13 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours. I withdraw my

14 proposal.

15 Q. [Interpretation] Let us move on to a different subject matter

16 now. Mr. Tusevljak, do you remember whether at some point in time during

17 1992 there was a vacancy advertised for admitting policemen into the

18 MUP of Republika Srpska, and if so, when did that happen?

19 A. I remember that this was advertised but I really cannot remember

20 exactly when it happened. I know that that was done because it was the

21 crime police that was supposed to be manned.

22 Q. Was it only the crime police that was supposed to be manned on

23 the basis of this vacancy announcement, or other police departments too?

24 A. Other police departments too. That's what I said -- meant.

25 Q. Since these documents haven't been translated yet, I'm going to

Page 22348

1 skip this and perhaps I'll ask you on Monday about all of this.

2 Sir, at the beginning of your testimony we looked at a report

3 from the beginning of July from Vogosca that was written up by the

4 operatives who had gone there to establish what the situation was. Do

5 you remember that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. In that document there was a proposal made by these operatives in

8 their report, namely that Brane Vlaco be appointed chief of the crime

9 police in Vogosca. Do you remember that?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Then I asked you about this gentleman and you gave us some

12 information. Tell me, do you remember what his real name was? His first

13 name?

14 A. Branislav, I think. Branislav Vlaco. His full name. Brane is

15 just a nickname.

16 Q. Do you know a person with the same last name but a different

17 first name, namely Branko Vlaco?

18 A. Yes, I met that person sometime during the course of the war in

19 1992.

20 Q. What do you know about this gentleman, Branko Vlaco?

21 A. I think he was a retired policeman and that at the beginning of

22 the war he was prison warden, or sometime during 1992, I don't know

23 exactly.

24 Q. The warden of which prison?

25 A. A prison that was somewhere in the area Vogosca.

Page 22349

1 Q. Do you remember, do you know, what the name of this prison was?

2 A. I don't know the exact name of that prison. I know it was

3 somewhere in Semizovac.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] For the Trial Chamber, these are

6 documents P1499, P1500.13.

7 Q. I'm going to show you a document, tab 96 [as interpreted].

8 683D1. Sir, the document is dated the 25th of May, 1992. It's the

9 Crisis Staff of the Serbian municipality of Vogosca. It's an order.

10 Tell me, did you know that there was a Crisis Staff in Vogosca?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Did you know who headed this Crisis Staff, who was its president?

13 A. The president was Jovan Tintor.

14 Q. Let us please look at paragraphs 1 and 3 of this order. In

15 paragraph 1 it is ordered to put into operation the municipal court, the

16 municipal misdemeanours court of the Serbian municipality of Vogosca, and

17 to start resolving top priority cases in the areas of security,

18 public law and order, and national defence. And in parentheses it says

19 to be implemented by Zdravko Luketa.

20 Tell me, do you know who Zdravko Luketa is?

21 A. No, I've never met the man.

22 Q. Tell me, the area of public law and order is under whose

23 jurisdiction, according to the law?

24 A. I cannot remember right now who established municipal

25 misdemeanours courts and what their jurisdiction was.

Page 22350

1 Q. Public law and order, was that under the MUP, or, rather, the

2 Ministry of the Interior, maintaining law and order?

3 A. That, yes. That was one of the basic duties of the Ministry of

4 the Interior.

5 Q. Paragraph 3 says:

6 "The public security station of the Serbian municipality of

7 Vogosca is to be immediately put into operation and all necessary

8 measures are to be taken to ensure that it functions properly."

9 In parentheses it says: "To be implemented by Slavko Draskovic."

10 Tell me, do you know who Slavko Draskovic is? Do you know him?

11 A. Yes, I know Slavko Draskovic. He was one of the top people in

12 the CSB Sarajevo before the war.

13 Q. Since this is the 25th of May, do you know whether

14 Slavko Draskovic was a member of the MUP of Republika Srpska?

15 A. That I don't know, whether he was a member of the MUP of

16 Republika Srpska. More than a month had elapsed since the MUP was set

17 up, so I really don't know whether he was a member at that time.

18 Q. Before hostilities broke out was there a public security station

19 in Vogosca?

20 A. Yes, that was one of the public security stations in the

21 territory of the town of Sarajevo.

22 Q. Tell me, what is your understanding of this order, paragraph 3,

23 to put into operation the public security station and to take measures to

24 ensure that it functions properly?

25 A. This is absolutely not in accordance with the Law on the

Page 22351

1 Interior, and the municipal authorities should not have anything to do

2 with police stations.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am aware of the

5 fact that the witness said -- actually, I didn't even ask him, I just

6 assumed that he hasn't seen the document before. But because of some of

7 the other documents that we already have in evidence, I would like to

8 tender this document, unless there are any objections by the Prosecutor.

9 I can also provide appropriate references.

10 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I would like you to adjourn that

11 question until after the adjournment. There's something I need to check

12 over the adjournment in respect of this document.

13 JUDGE HALL: So we take the break now, to return in 20 minutes.

14 MS. KORNER: And can I say that in our earphones and on the

15 screen was recorded tab 96, which caused some confusion because it isn't,

16 it's tab 90.

17 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry, it's tab 90 and I said tab 90.

18 MS. KORNER: Yeah, it came over as 96. That's okay.

19 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry.

20 [The witness stands down]

21 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.

22 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.

23 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, before we rise today, I would require

24 10 minutes to inform the Trial Chamber of the schedulings of the next

25 witness.

Page 22352

1 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.

2 MR. ZECEVIC: We have some information.

3 JUDGE HALL: And we trust the extended break, which we didn't

4 fully anticipate when we rose, was such that Ms. Korner has been able to

5 complete the checks that she required in terms of the application to

6 admit this document.

7 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Ms. Korner was able to do

8 it in five minutes and I've no objection to the document being exhibited.

9 [The witness takes the stand]

10 JUDGE HALL: So it's admitted and marked.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D588, Your Honours.

12 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.

13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tusevljak, let us take a look at document

14 684D1, tab 91. This is a document originating from the Crisis Staff in

15 Vogosca. It's dated the day after, the 26th of May, 1992. It's an order

16 signed by president of the justice department, Zdravko Luketa. And it's

17 an order sent to the warden of the prison in Vogosca.

18 First of all, tell me whether you have seen this document before.

19 A. No.

20 Q. You told us that you do not know Zdravko Luketa.

21 A. No, I don't know him.

22 Q. In paragraph 2 of this document we see the following:

23 "Twenty persons are left in the prison and are being operatively

24 processed. Their well-being shall be the responsibility of the prison

25 warden."

Page 22353

1 Being operatively processed, are you aware that some individuals

2 were being operatively processed in the prison in Vogosca?

3 A. No. On the 26th of May, 1992, we did not have crime prevention

4 police in Vogosca, so I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, being

5 operatively processed. I don't think that this was any operational

6 processing. I think this is just a word game. The person writing the

7 document probably thought that he was defining something while he wasn't.

8 Operative work is work in the field, not work with some individuals.

9 Anyway, there was no crime prevention police, which means that no

10 operative work could have been conducted at the time.

11 Q. Could you explain the phrase "operative work," somebody being

12 operatively processed within the framework of the crime prevention

13 police, what does it mean?

14 A. You learn that a criminal offence was committed. You undertake

15 certain operative measures and activities in order to shed light on this

16 offence. This entails performing informative interviews in the field,

17 carrying out certain checks in various registers, collecting all other

18 information. This is the essence of operative work.

19 Q. Is this operative work carried out by the inspectors of crime

20 prevention police?

21 A. Yes, mostly it's the inspectors of the crime prevention police.

22 And also, within their domain, members of other services. If we are

23 talking about criminal offences, then it is exclusively members of the

24 crime prevention police.

25 Q. If you remember, when was the crime police department formed in

Page 22354

1 the police station in Vogosca?

2 A. Sometime towards the end of July.

3 Q. Let us go back to the document at hand. According to you, who

4 was able to perform operative work on those 20 persons, could you tell

5 us?

6 A. I really don't know.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we find ourselves in

9 the same situation as with the last document. This document together

10 with another document tendered during the Prosecution case, P1494, makes

11 a whole, so I propose to tender this document into evidence. I do agree

12 that the issue of the nexus between this witness and this document is

13 somewhat unresolved. Maybe I should first ask Ms. Korner whether she has

14 any objection.

15 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I didn't object because of the

16 inquiries I made on the last occasion, but as Mr. Zecevic points out,

17 some of these documents came in through a witness who was more qualified

18 to deal with it than this one, and I'm not clear why a witness -- why a

19 document that was disclosed in 2006 is being put to a witness who can't

20 talk about it at all, other than to say he doesn't know what they mean by

21 "operatives." And, as I say, I let the last document go in, and it's a

22 matter for Your Honours if you think this is a proper way of dealing with

23 it. But it does seem to me that the proper witness ought to have dealt

24 with this.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 22355

1 JUDGE HALL: We appreciate, Mr. Zecevic, your wishing to connect

2 this with a document that's already in evidence, but we don't see how we

3 can accede to the present application to admit it at this stage through

4 this witness. So what we will do is mark it for identification pending

5 either a better witness coming in or I suppose it may be left to become

6 part of your bar table motion.

7 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you so much, Your Honours. I understand.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D589 marked for identification,

9 Your Honours.

10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have 953D1, tab 161.

11 Excuse me, 954D1, tab 162.

12 Q. This is a bulletin by Serbia municipality of Vogosca, prison

13 department, dated the 27th of September, 1992. It pertains to the

14 26th of September, 1992. It's signed by the prison warden Branko Vlaco,

15 and we see a signature.

16 Have you ever seen this document before?

17 A. No, this is a bulletin that had not been submitted to us.

18 Q. Have a look at tabs 163, 164, and 165, documents 955D1, 956D1,

19 and 957D1. Those are also bulletins pertaining to various dates, two

20 from July and one from August. And then tell me whether you ever saw any

21 of these bulletins. Was any of those bulletins sent to the Ministry of

22 the Interior or, more precisely, to the Security Services Centre in

23 Sarajevo?

24 A. No. We had nothing to do with this department. It was part of

25 the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska and I had no opportunity

Page 22356

1 to see this or to know anything about it.

2 Q. Sir, does the Ministry of the Interior have any jurisdiction, any

3 authority, over the prisons or other places where prisoners are kept?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 I'm going to show you another document. 960D1, tab 168. It is

7 another document originating in the prison department in Vogosca. It's

8 report on release of prisoners. It's dated the 9th of October, 1992, and

9 it's signed by the prison warden Branko Vlaco. Sir, have you ever seen

10 this report? Have you ever received this report in the Security Services

11 Centre in Sarajevo?

12 A. No. Just like the previous documents, we haven't received this

13 or any other similar reports.

14 Q. Was the chief of the public security station in Vogosca already

15 replaced in October? I'm referring to Branislav Maksimovic. He was

16 replaced by -- excuse me, I -- he was replaced by Zivko Lazarevic in the

17 position of the chief of public security station?

18 A. I think, yes. I think that the management personnel had already

19 been replaced at that point.

20 Q. Public security stations -- or, rather, what are public security

21 stations supposed to include in their daily reports sent to Security

22 Services Centres?

23 A. The reports included, first of all, the situation at the front

24 line relating to the engagement of police forces on the front line. All

25 those police stations were in the territory of intense combat activities.

Page 22357

1 After that there was a bulletin of events related to public law and order

2 and also to criminal offences whose -- which had been detected. So those

3 were the three main points in those daily bulletins. If there were any

4 extraordinary events, they also would have been mentioned in the

5 bulletin.

6 Q. In case a criminal offence was committed and the perpetrator was

7 arrested or detained, would this kind of information also be included in

8 the daily report?

9 A. This kind of information would have been included in the daily

10 report but also in a special dispatch sent to the Security Services

11 Centre.

12 Q. Does the same go for the situation in which persons would be

13 released from police detention?

14 A. If it was the police who made a decision on detention of three

15 days, there would have been information on detention first. After that

16 there should have been information on criminal reports submitted to the

17 local prosecutor, and then it would depend on whether the prosecutor

18 extended the detention or not.

19 Q. Thank you. Do you remember that at some point in October 1992

20 you received a report from Vogosca relating to the fact that

21 11 individuals were released from detention?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have 593D1, tab 172.

25 Q. [Microphone not activated]

Page 22358

1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

2 THE REGISTRAR: Microphone.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. This is a document originating in the Vogosca Brigade Command on

5 the 17th September, 1992. It's addressed to the Vogosca Prison,

6 attention of Brane Vlaco. Request 50 prisoners to work in the field.

7 It's signed by Commander Trifunovic. Do you know this officer of the VRS

8 named Trifunovic who belonged to the Vogosca Brigade?

9 A. No, I do not know him.

10 Q. Have you ever seen this document before?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Do you know that prisoners from the Vogosca Prison were taken out

13 to work in the field? Do you have any information, operative

14 information, did you learn anything from the report sent by the public

15 security station in Vogosca?

16 A. We received no information from the public security station in

17 Vogosca about these kind of activities. They never reported anything

18 similar to us.

19 Q. Thank you. I'm going to show you P1327, tab 100. Tab 100. Have

20 you ever heard of the name Planja's House?

21 A. [No interpretation]

22 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] We didn't get a

23 translation.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not in the war, only later on.

25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

Page 22359

1 Q. Could you repeat the answer.

2 A. I did not hear during the war for Planja's House. Only later on

3 when I was engaged in some other work did I find out about this name.

4 Q. When you say that you were engaged in some other work, what

5 exactly are you referring to?

6 A. I'm referring to my current job. I work in accordance with the

7 guide-lines from the prosecutor's office.

8 Q. On the first day of your testimony when I posed questions about

9 your career, I made an omission. I didn't ask you what is your current

10 job. So I think this is a good opportunity for you to explain what you

11 are currently doing.

12 A. I'm employed in the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska.

13 I'm co-ordinator for discovery and documenting of criminal offences

14 related to war crimes. My job is to co-ordinate activities of the

15 department for investigation of war crimes within the

16 Republika Srpska MUP with the prosecutor's office of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

17 district and cantonal prosecutor's office in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and

18 other police agencies in Bosnia-Herzegovina involved in investigation of

19 the aforementioned criminal offences, as well as the federal Ministry of

20 the Interior. I also assist in investigations of those criminal offences

21 conducted abroad. We had some cases in Norway, Sweden, United States,

22 currently one in Great Britain, and so on.

23 Q. Thank you. With this decision, the Serbian municipality of

24 Vogosca on the 8th of July, 1992, assigned the house of

25 Almas and Miralem Planja in Semizovac for use to the Ministry of Justice.

Page 22360

1 Were you aware of this at the time?

2 A. No.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please show the witness

4 document 587D1. It is tab 169.

5 Q. This is a decision, without a date though, signed by the minister

6 of justice, Momcilo Mandic, and it says:

7 "Decision. The detention department in Vogosca is hereby

8 established as part of the Ilidza Butmir Penal and Correctional Facility.

9 This decision will come into force on the day of issue."

10 Tell me, first of all, are you familiar with the

11 Butmir Correctional Facility in Ilidza?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. That penal and correctional facility in Butmir in Ilidza, did it

14 exist before the outbreak of conflict in April 1992?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And what kind of penal and correctional facility was that

17 Butmir facility in Ilidza?

18 A. It was a prison which was of the half-open type. That is to say,

19 prisoners who had committed minor offences were sent to it. These were

20 mostly traffic offences or crimes of economy or those who were prosecuted

21 for misdemeanours and were sentenced with prison sentences.

22 Q. Thank you. Tell me, do you know whether in the territory of

23 Bosnia-Herzegovina what were the penal and correctional facilities in

24 which persons served their sentences for more serious crimes?

25 A. It was the penal and correctional facility in Foca, then the one

Page 22361

1 in Zenica, in Doboj, and in Banja Luka. I think that these were the

2 facilities for the most serious crimes.

3 Q. But we are talking about the period prior to the outbreak of

4 conflict in April 1992; correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Thank you. Tell me, these penal and correctional facilities, the

7 four which you mentioned where persons served their sentences for more

8 serious crimes, as well as the Butmir Penal and Correctional Facility,

9 under whose jurisdiction had they been before the 1st of April, 1992?

10 A. Under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice.

11 Q. And those who were located in the territory of Republika Srpska

12 after the 1st of April, 1992, under whose jurisdiction were they?

13 A. Also under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice.

14 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, during this morning's examination - though I'm not

15 sure, as we have been talking for several days now - you mentioned that

16 you know that in Vogosca there was a department of the prison and you

17 mentioned a place or a name. Can you please repeat that for me? Where

18 in Vogosca was that?

19 A. That was in Semizovac, as far as I knew.

20 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Your Honours, could we ask

21 that be spelled.

22 Is that correct as it's come out on the screen?

23 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.

24 Q. [Interpretation] Awhile ago I showed you a decision of the

25 Serbian municipality in Vogosca on allocating Planja's House building to

Page 22362

1 the Ministry of Justice, and the decision says that the house of

2 Miralem and Almas Planja in Semizovac. Does that refer to the same

3 place, Semizovac?

4 A. Yes, it's the only place with that name in the territory of

5 Vogosca municipality, and I think that there's even no other Semizovac in

6 all of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

7 Q. Sir, do you know that Momcilo Mandic was the minister of justice

8 of Republika Srpska during 1992?

9 A. Yes.

10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would tender the

11 document 587D1, tab 169, into evidence if there are no objections.

12 MS. KORNER: Well, honestly, Your Honour, this could have been

13 put to the witness himself when he gave evidence. This witness knows

14 nothing about it.

15 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, perhaps the witness can take the -- his

16 phones off.

17 Your Honours, this document was found during the preparation of

18 our Defence case in Sarajevo. It was located in the office of criminal

19 support of defence teams for the State Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina. As

20 Your Honours will surely recall, there was a case before the state

21 criminal court, State Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina against Mr. Mandic and

22 some other persons who were in charge of various detention facilities at

23 the -- in the area of Sarajevo and so therefore we obtained this document

24 only after the 1st of February this year and therefore were unable to

25 present this document to Momcilo Mandic when he took the stand over here.

Page 22363

1 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honour, to contradict Mr. Zecevic,

2 you'll see it's one of our documents. It's got an ERN number.

3 Disclosed, batch 12, 2006 in response to a Rule 66 request. A Rule 66(B)

4 request.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: I wasn't aware of that fact. Sorry.

6 JUDGE DELVOIE: And, Mr. Zecevic, what is this document to show?

7 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, this is just to confirm that the -- that the

8 Ministry of Justice actually established the correctional facility in

9 Vogosca at Planja's House in Semizovac.

10 MS. KORNER: In fact, Your Honour --

11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Before -- sorry.

12 MS. KORNER: Sorry, can I just say, Your Honour, I seem to

13 recall - and I wasn't aware this application was going to be made, I

14 thought this was more of this has got nothing to do with us - I have a

15 feeling that Mr. Mandic was actually cross-examined about these matters

16 and had something to say about it. And I don't know, I'd have to go back

17 and check the transcript.

18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Before we go to that, Mr. Zecevic, is your

19 reading, and perhaps it's a translation issue, but is your reading that

20 detention department being established means a detention centre? The

21 detention -- first of all we didn't hear -- we didn't hear about what

22 detention centre is meant here. You made a long way to come to

23 Planja's House, but is this about Planja's House? And first of all, is

24 what is said here in English, the detention department is hereby

25 established, does that refer to detention centre or to a detention - I

Page 22364

1 don't know - service? Offices? Perhaps it's more clear in the Serbian

2 text.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I'm afraid -- I'm afraid perhaps it needs an

4 explanation. Every penal correctional facility has a part where the

5 people who are sentenced are serving their sentence, and at the same time

6 they have a part where the people who are in detention pending trial are

7 kept. And according to our system, there is certain different rules

8 which apply to one category, to the other category.

9 Therefore, my reading of this document is that this refers to the

10 establishment of the part of the KPD Butmir as a part for persons

11 awaiting trial, and that is called the Department of Detention. That is

12 my understanding. And I believe we have the evidence of Mr. Mandic to

13 that respect, that it was actually situated in Planja's House, as we see

14 from the document which I presented to Your Honours earlier on and

15 witness commented on it.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE HALL: The document may be admitted and marked.

18 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D590, Your Honours.

20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Let us please now look

21 at 1D339, which is tab 206.

22 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, this is a decision of the Ministry of Justice

23 dated the 21st of July, 1992, by which Branko Vlaco from Vogosca is

24 appointed warden of the detention department of the Penal and

25 Correctional Facility Butmir Ilidza located in Vogosca. It is signed by

Page 22365

1 Avlijas. Do you know who Radomir Avlijas is? Excuse me,

2 Slobodan Avlijas, rather.

3 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Can I ask where you see

4 that?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I know who Slobodan Avlijas

6 is.

7 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm sorry, maybe it's missing on the

8 translation, but it says it's an illegible signature. And I'm just

9 wondering how Mr. Zecevic is able to say it's Mr. Avlijas.

10 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I can clearly read the words which are

11 written on the original, and it says Avlijas. And I don't think that was

12 disputed before. This document is already admitted.

13 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] I'm just asking.

14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. You say you know who Slobodan Avlijas is. Just tell me, where

16 did he work in 1992 if you know, or, to be more specific, in July 1992?

17 A. At the Ministry of Justice of Republika Srpska, or the Serbian

18 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

19 Q. Please look at 1D189. It is tab 201. This is a document from

20 the public security station in Vogosca dated the 12th of December, 1992,

21 signed by the chief of the station, Zivko Lazarevic. It is a criminal

22 report addressed to the military prosecutor's office in

23 Sarajevo, Jahorina, in brackets, against Stanko Knezevic, and then his

24 personal information is noted. Employed as a guardian in the

25 Kula KPD Semizovac department, a Serb, et cetera, for the crime, as it is

Page 22371

1 with the criminal report, does one submit some attachments as well?

2 A. Yes. All the evidence that was obtained in the pre-trial

3 procedure, certificates of documents, reports, report from the site

4 itself, and so on. Statements that were taken from various persons, that

5 is to say, all the evidence that was gathered is an integral part of the

6 criminal report, its attachments, that is.

7 Q. Tell me -- just a moment, please. As a rule, when does the

8 on-site investigation take place?

9 A. As a rule, it is best to have it carried out as soon as possible,

10 that is to say, immediately after the incident itself. However, if the

11 situation does not permit that, then it can be done subsequently. The

12 important thing is to secure the scene so that it is not compromised in

13 any way.

14 Q. Tell me, why is that important?

15 A. It is important because the traces that can be found on the scene

16 become evidence before a court of law against the person who is charged.

17 Also, on the basis of the traces found, an unknown perpetrator is looked

18 for.

19 Q. Sir, as time goes by, is it possible for the traces of a crime to

20 disappear from the scene itself?

21 A. Absolutely. As soon as it is compromised, it is compromised.

22 And then other traces may be found, those that happened after the

23 commission of the crime. And that may have destroyed the traces of the

24 crime itself.

25 Q. Tell me, you mentioned reports, what reports do you mean? What

Page 22372

1 kind of reports were you referring to?

2 A. There is the forensic report that is done by the crime

3 technicians, the forensics people who deal with the traces found on the

4 scene itself. If some expertise was carried out, then we also have

5 expert reports. And also, along with the criminal report itself, there

6 is an official report attached, that is to say, the factual description

7 of the crime involved. The elements involved, the actual crime itself,

8 and the description on the basis of which a person has been deemed a

9 perpetrator of a crime.

10 Q. When you say expertise, what kind of expertise do you mean?

11 Could you please tell us that.

12 A. Different kinds of expertise may be carried out on the scene

13 itself; it depends on the crime involved. If it is fire or arson, then

14 that can be examined. Also there can be preliminary investigations as to

15 whether, for example, the samples of blood are human blood, and so on.

16 And then also all biological traces can be dealt with too. They are sent

17 to forensic labs, and then, of course, experts do their work there and

18 they submit the results to the crime police, whereas the crime police

19 submits that to the prosecutor's office and to the court.

20 Q. Sir, if a crime was committed with the use of fire-arms, is a

21 ballistics expertise carried out, as a rule?

22 A. Of course. If casings are found on the scene and if fire-arms

23 are found and if the suspicion is that they were used in the commission

24 of that crime, it is only natural that these fire-arms are examined in

25 order to see whether they are linked to the commission of that crime.

Page 22373

1 Q. If someone died during the commission of a crime, is there a

2 postmortem that is carried out?

3 A. According to the laws that were then enforce, or, rather, the

4 Law on Criminal Procedure that was then enforce of the Serb Republic or

5 the former law of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a

6 postmortem could be ordered only by the investigating judge concerned.

7 The police, therefore, could not request a postmortem. And the same goes

8 for exhumation. That is to say that this was exclusively under the

9 authority of the investigating judge and no one else.

10 Q. Tell me, finally, you mentioned statements, what kind of

11 statements are you referring to in terms of these attachments to the

12 criminal report itself?

13 A. These are statements of witnesses and of a suspect, if the

14 suspect is accessible to the organs of the Ministry of the Interior.

15 Q. My last question in this regard, Mr. Tusevljak: The Ministry of

16 the Interior, or, rather, the CSB Sarajevo, the crime police department,

17 did it send all these attachments along with criminal reports throughout

18 1992? I'm referring to the criminal reports that were filed.

19 A. The attachments that we had available were attached. Whatever

20 you had found, you sent further on to the investigating judge.

21 Excuse me. For instance, at that time, throughout 1992 all the

22 way up until the end of the war, in that area we did not have a single

23 doctor who was a forensic expert. There was another problem involved:

24 In many police stations there weren't any forensics to speak of, except

25 for the very basic things that I already told you about, photographing

Page 22374

1 the scene. These are problems that we came across not only in 1992 but

2 throughout the war.

3 Q. During 1992, when you filed criminal reports, did you also submit

4 all the attachments that you had in your hands?

5 A. Yes, absolutely.

6 Q. Thank you. Sir, I'm going to show you P1493, tab 105. Sir, this

7 is a document of the War Presidency of the municipality of Vogosca. The

8 date is the 6th of November, 1992, signed by Dr. Nikola Poplasen for the

9 War Presidency. And this is an order concerning the release of some

10 prisoners who would be exchanged for some other persons of Serb

11 ethnicity. It also says that this order shall be implemented by the

12 prison warden. On the left-hand side it says who this order was sent to.

13 In your view, to the best of your knowledge, such orders or such

14 documents, documents with this kind of content, were they submitted to

15 public security stations or, rather, the CSB, where you worked?

16 A. I can say that such orders were never submitted to the CSB where

17 I worked. Therefore, they were not submitted to the police stations

18 either because otherwise they would have been duty bounds to provide this

19 to us. That is to say, no, this was not sent to us.

20 Q. Sir, now that we are dealing with this particular subject matter,

21 tell me, this Penal and Correction Facility Butmir Ilidza, you know where

22 it was, don't you?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Was there a police station within that penal and correctional

25 facility?

Page 22375

1 A. There was a police station. It was the police station

2 Kula Novi Grad, but in the administration building of that penal and

3 correctional facility, not in the prison itself. In the administration

4 building that is by the very entrance, that is to say, the area that

5 prisoners were not kept in.

6 Q. Could you please explain this to us a bit more. Perhaps it's not

7 all that clear to everyone what this actually looked like. Let me ask,

8 you first of all: The penal and correctional facility in Butmir, what

9 did it consist of?

10 A. Within the compound of that prison, when you enter through the

11 gate, on the right-hand side there was this administration building. It

12 was right there. And then as you go on, along the wall there was the

13 prison itself, that is, where only prison guards entered and where the

14 prisoners were kept. The administration building was, in fact, the

15 building for the prison administration.

16 Q. Let's just clarify this a bit. Was there a fence or wall within

17 this penal and correctional facility that separated the part of the penal

18 and correctional facility where the prisoners were from the

19 administration building itself?

20 A. Yes, there was a wall.

21 Q. This wall, did it have a door, an entrance?

22 A. Well, yes. Through that door one entered this confined area.

23 And that door was kept locked.

24 Q. Was there any security at that door?

25 A. Well, there should have been. There is no prison without

Page 22376

1 security.

2 Q. Do you know whether it existed or not?

3 A. I never entered that part of the prison, but there had to be

4 security there. It was impossible for there not to be any security

5 there.

6 Q. If there was security, who was providing that security? Who

7 worked on that?

8 A. The prison employees. There's no one else.

9 Q. The prison employees. Which ministry was in charge of these

10 prison employees, that is to say, persons employed in penal and

11 correctional facilities?

12 A. The Ministry of Justice.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

15 588D1. Document 205.

16 Q. Sir, this is a document of the Ministry of Justice dated the

17 13th of June, 1992, sent to Kula Butmir, taking over detained

18 individuals, minister of justice, Momcilo Mandic. Have you ever seen

19 this document?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Can you give us an explanation as to why it says

22 Police Station Kula Butmir?

23 A. No, because I've never seen this. I don't know why it says that.

24 Q. The police station Kula, was it within the CSB Sarajevo?

25 A. Yes. That was a police station. It was the

Page 22377

1 Sarajevo-Novi Grad Police Station. It was not the Kula Police Station.

2 That is to say, there never was any such name, officially,

3 Kula Police Station.

4 Q. So this police station that was in the administration building,

5 as you told us, of the Penal and Correctional Facility Butmir, did it

6 pertain to the Novi Grad municipality of Sarajevo?

7 A. Although this is the municipal area of Ilidza, it then pertained

8 to the police station of Novi Grad because it is this area that is

9 territory of Novi Grad.

10 Q. Do you know what was the reason that the public security station

11 of Novi Grad was situated in the administration building of the

12 Penal Correctional Facility Butmir?

13 A. Because it was the only available space. In that area there were

14 only privately-owned houses. This was the only location where the police

15 would have been accommodated.

16 Q. And the last on this issue: Bearing in mind that this public

17 security station was subordinated to the Security Services Centre, did

18 this police station have any authority over the persons who were detained

19 in the Penal Correctional Facility Butmir?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have now P591D1.

23 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, I don't see this is an exhibit.

24 Is Mr. Zecevic not asking for it to be exhibited?

25 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, obviously the witness said he never saw the

Page 22378

1 document. I don't see any nexus between the document and the witness.

2 It was signed by Mr. Momcilo Mandic. And I'm perfectly fine with the

3 testimony that we have on the record.

4 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, there's been no nexus between

5 any of the other prison documents and this witness, but they've been

6 exhibited. It's up to Mr. Zecevic, but I'm going to ask for it to be

7 exhibited in cross and it seems to me it's more sensible that it's

8 exhibited at this stage so we know what we're talking about.

9 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, in some of the cases we didn't have the nexus

10 I explained why I thought that this -- that the admission of this

11 document would be helpful to the -- to Your Honours. Now, in this case I

12 don't see that it would add anything else to the testimony that we have

13 already on the record.

14 JUDGE HALL: I must confess that personally I'm surprised at the

15 Prosecution's application at this stage because I -- it didn't appear to

16 me to be, for the reasons Mr. Zecevic has given, something that would be

17 admissible through this witness. But if it is a document which

18 Ms. Korner has now given notice that she intends -- to which she intends

19 to return, then I suppose the sensible and practical thing is to enter it

20 at this stage.

21 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm sorry, I objected to the last one

22 because it should have been shown to Mr. Mandic and wasn't. And

23 Your Honours overruled that. And there was absolutely no nexus between

24 what the witness said and that document. This document, we would

25 suggest, is just as important, perhaps not -- the Defence aren't very

Page 22379

1 happy with it, and we are therefore saying --

2 JUDGE HALL: You persuaded us, Ms. Korner.

3 MS. KORNER: Right.

4 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. Can we have the document admitted then.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, exhibit number is 1D591.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Sir, while we are discussing this document, in order to satisfy

8 the curiosity of Ms. Korner: Does the minister of justice have any sort

9 of authority over the members of the Ministry of the Interior?

10 A. No, none whatsoever. These are two separate ministries.

11 Q. Thank you. The document on the screens goes as follows:

12 Republika Srpska, Ministry of Justice, list of employees at the

13 Butmir KPD, penal and correctional facility, the date is the

14 30th of September, 1992.

15 Then it says Minister Momcilo Mandic, and there are 122 persons

16 listed in the document.

17 Do you know the persons listed under numbers 1 and 2?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Number 1, Radoje Lalovic. What did he do at the time?

20 A. I think he was the warden of the prison, the warden of the penal

21 correctional facility.

22 Q. And number 2, Soniboj Skiljevic?

23 A. I think that he was the assistant chief of department.

24 Q. Have you ever seen this document before?

25 A. No.

Page 22380

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do not intend to

3 tender this document. However, if Ms. Korner is of different opinion, I

4 will be glad to oblige her and I'm going to tender this into evidence.

5 JUDGE HALL: What end, Mr. Zecevic? You said you didn't -- you

6 yourself have no -- see no need to tender it, but why do you think it

7 would be helpful for the case as a whole?

8 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I personally don't know, Your Honours, but

9 Ms. Korner intervened before for the document which was for KPD Butmir

10 and now in this document we know who are the chief and his deputy, so

11 perhaps for some reason it is important for Ms. Korner. Again, this

12 document --

13 JUDGE HALL: But that was the only -- your question was the only

14 reason why you had this called up and shown to the witness?

15 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, that is correct.

16 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Well, let's move on.

17 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.

18 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, do you know what Mr. Radoje Lalovic was

19 doing in the second half of 1992? Was he transferred from the Penal

20 Correctional Facility Butmir?

21 A. As far as I know, he left the penal correctional facility for

22 Bijeljina. I don't know what he did there.

23 Q. Thank you. After the departure of Mr. Lalovic, who became the

24 warden of the Penal Correctional Facility Butmir, if you remember?

25 A. I think that Soniboj Skiljevic was appointed and that he remained

Page 22381

1 in this position until the end of the war. I don't think anybody else

2 was appointed to this position in the meantime.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have 65 ter 601D1. 184.

4 It's tab 184.

5 Q. Sir, this is a certificate originating from the Ministry of

6 Justice, dated the 3rd of January, 2007. It pertains to

7 Soniboj Skiljevic. And in item 2 we see that he worked in the Butmir

8 Penal and Correctional Facility as counsellor and head of the admission

9 and discharge department from the 2nd of June, 1976, until the

10 3rd of April, 1992. And as the head advisor to the director and

11 assistant director of the re-education service from the

12 4th of April, 1992, until the 31st December, 2006. Do you know that

13 Mr. Soniboj Skiljevic worked all this time in the

14 Penal Correctional Facility Butmir from 1976 to 2006?

15 A. I'm not aware of that. I met Mr. Skiljevic sometime in the

16 second half of 1992 in the penal correctional facility when he was

17 appointed warden. I hadn't known him before. So I cannot speak about

18 where he worked and how long he worked there.

19 Q. Thank you. I think that you said that he worked in the

20 Penal Correctional Facility Butmir until the end of the war.

21 A. Yes, he was the warden from the fall until the end of the war and

22 also after the war.

23 Q. You said the fall, the fall of which year?

24 A. The fall of 1992.

25 Q. Thank you.

Page 22382

1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have now 21D1. It's

2 tab 124.

3 Q. [Microphone not activated]

4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Excuse me.

6 Q. Sir, this is a decision by the minister of the interior dated the

7 8th of August, 1992. It pertains to Mane Djuric and his temporary

8 appointment to the post of the chief of the SJB in Vlasenica. Can you

9 confirm that Mr. Mane Djuric was provisionally appointed to the post of

10 the Vlasenica SJB in August of 1992?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Sir, did you ever receive a similar appointment pertaining to

13 your new position?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. The decision that you received, did it contain the same text as

16 this one? I'm referring to the printed part of the document, so to

17 speak.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So was it a standard form?

20 A. Yes.

21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have 961D1, tab 204.

22 Q. Sir, this is an identical document bearing the date the

23 1st of April, 1992, Ministry of the Interior, signed by Mico Stanisic.

24 Is this the form that I just mentioned?

25 A. Yes.

Page 22383

1 Q. You can see that this form contains no personal data. We don't

2 know to whom it pertains. Are you aware that similar forms existed in

3 the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska in 1992?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Take a look at the signature on this document. Is this a genuine

6 signature or a facsimile of a signature?

7 A. I think this is a facsimile of a signature. I say this because

8 in the school at Vrace I saw many similar decisions.

9 Q. Now, when we say a facsimile of signature, could you explain what

10 exactly that is.

11 A. This is probably stamp and signature of Mr. Stanisic that was

12 imprinted on all the decisions.

13 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Something turns on whether

14 it's a facsimile or manual signature, Mr. Zecevic?

15 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, that is correct. I wanted to ask that

16 question, and that is precisely what I asked, but the witness's answer

17 was differently recorded.

18 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, did you hear the question posed by

19 Judge Hall? The question was: Is this a facsimile, that is, a stamp

20 containing the signature of a person, or is this a genuine signature by

21 this person?

22 A. I think it's a stamp that was made on the basis of a genuine

23 signature of a person.

24 Q. Based on what, you say this?

25 A. I think that in my archive I have my own decision, and that