110621ED

Page 22493

1 that he was a member of the Republika Srpska army, then we would inform

2 the military prosecutor and the military judge, and they would take over

3 the entire case file" against "us."

4 And you were asked some further questions. And then you were

5 cross-examined about this at page 8113, please. And at line 9 the

6 question was:

7 "Sir, I'm talking about war crimes and I think I've made that

8 clear both yesterday and today. You just indicated you recalled that, so

9 I'd like to ask you this: In the light of the cooperative relationship,"

10 that is, between you and the military, "were you ever asked by the SRK,"

11 that's the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, "to provide assistance in any of

12 their police investigations?

13 "A. Some parts of my crime technology were put at the disposal

14 of the military prosecutors and investigating judges of the

15 Romanija-Sarajevo Corps. I'm talking about equipment, not personnel.

16 "Q. Was that for the investigation of allegations of war crimes

17 against members of the SRK?

18 "A. No.

19 "Q. Sir, do you recall between 1992 and 1995, one single

20 instance in which you came upon or undertook an investigation of war

21 crimes against a member of the SRK that you had to refer to the military

22 prosecutor?

23 "A. No. As far as war crimes go, no."

24 Was that answer correct, Mr. Tusevljak?

25 A. Yes.

Page 22494

1 Q. And isn't it right that the only war crimes that you were

2 interested, and your service, in investigating was where the Serbs were

3 victims, not the Muslims and not the Croats?

4 A. Are you referring to our investigations in 1992 to 1995 or today?

5 Q. I'm sticking to 1992, 1992. I have insufficient information

6 about what you did between 1993 and 1995, but in 1992.

7 A. I looked at the log-book that you showed me. And if you paid

8 attention, it starts in November of 1992. This means that what I talked

9 about on the first day, that the Sarajevo CSB, that is, the

10 Sarajevo Romanija-Birac CSB, didn't have its own forensics police formed

11 which would have been able to deal with any sort of work seriously.

12 Q. No, no, I'm sorry. No, let's stop there. I am going to come

13 back to the book, but I want to do that under a different heading. My

14 question to you --

15 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm terribly sorry, 16, 2, was translated as

16 forensic police or recorded as forensic police. I think the witness said

17 something else. I don't know what forensic police is as a matter of

18 fact.

19 MS. KORNER:

20 Q. Can you -- sorry, Mr. Tusevljak. You said the CSB

21 Sarajevo-Romanija didn't have its own forensic police formed. Can you

22 just repeat, forensic what?

23 A. Crime police, not forensic.

24 Q. All right. Now, the only question I'm putting to you at the

25 moment - I'm going to come back to the book - is that the only war crimes

Page 22495

1 that you actually spent any time investigating properly were those where

2 Serbs were alleged to be the victims? So you either agree with that or

3 you don't agree; that's all it requires.

4 A. No. And I can give you some examples now. The report against

5 Jadranko Jeberovic [phoen] for the murder of Bosniaks and Croats; a

6 report of Predrag Djurovic, I believe that's what he was called, for

7 raping a Bosniak woman.

8 Q. Right, is that the one -- yeah, stop, stop for a moment. Is that

9 the one we looked at yesterday?

10 A. No.

11 Q. All right. Go on, then.

12 A. I think -- actually, I know that there were four or five such

13 reports in the territory of the Ilidza SJB, when Bosniak people were

14 killed.

15 Q. Right.

16 A. That's what I can recall at the moment. These people weren't

17 reported for war crimes, but they were reported for aggravated murder by

18 the police stations, not the centre but by the police stations.

19 Q. All right. Anything -- any others? Can you recall any of the

20 names?

21 A. I can't. I know there was such but I can't remember the names.

22 We also talked about that man in closed session, a man who is alive, and

23 this was in Vogosca in 1992 --

24 Q. I'm coming back to that one. That's all right. I appreciate the

25 one you're talking about.

Page 22496

1 A. I believe that there was a case in the Ilijas SJB, actually, that

2 there were such reports in the Ilijas SJB. That's the information that I

3 obtained based on the reports that were sent to us.

4 Q. Did you personally ever carry out or take charge of during 1992

5 any investigation in the Sarajevo area that's covered by the CSB into

6 crimes committed against Muslims or Croats?

7 A. Not me personally. I was chief of the department, so I didn't

8 lead investigations. That was the time when we were establishing the

9 service -- actually, trying to establish the service.

10 Q. And I want to deal very briefly with your -- and before I move on

11 to a different topic, with your area of expertise. We established

12 yesterday that at the time of these events you had been in the MUP for

13 about three years. Had you yourself -- or did you yourself conduct any

14 disciplinary proceedings during 1992?

15 A. Not me personally.

16 Q. So any knowledge that you have - because you were asked a huge

17 number of questions about disciplinary proceedings - is not your own

18 personal knowledge?

19 A. I didn't conduct these disciplinary proceedings, but both at the

20 collegium of the CSB we discussed disciplinary proceedings. At that time

21 I wasn't a disciplinary judge. I didn't participate directly in

22 disciplinary proceedings, except at collegiums when they were discussed.

23 Q. Did you yourself ever, during this period, make appointments,

24 appoint police officers to jobs?

25 A. No.

Page 22497

1 Q. I want to move, then, please, to the composition of the police,

2 and that is before the split in the MUP. And you dealt with this at

3 page 22196 and that was on Wednesday. -196 following. You explained

4 that in 1991 there was a major escalation in the commission of crime in

5 the town of Sarajevo. That meant, didn't it, that police officers had to

6 be drafted in from other areas to try and control this outbreak of crime?

7 Would you accept that?

8 A. No. That's not what I was referring to at all.

9 Q. No. I understand. But do you agree that as a matter of

10 principle, and from documents we've seen, that it's not uncommon if

11 there's a sudden increase in crime levels in every police force in the

12 world for police officers to be brought in to deal with that?

13 A. That wasn't the case in Sarajevo. In the crime police which

14 dealt with the prevention of these types of crime worked only crime

15 policemen or inspectors from Sarajevo. And I talked about a group that

16 was formed in the city SUP in Sarajevo and which was composed of crime

17 employees from the territory of the town of Sarajevo, and they weren't

18 operatives who would have come from other areas.

19 Q. That's -- you -- I appreciate you say you formed a crime -- an

20 operative group to deal with the outbreak, but all I'm asking you at the

21 moment is: Are you saying that as you describe it the bringing in of

22 people into Sarajevo who didn't know Sarajevo had nothing to do with the

23 outbreak of crime?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Well, you're saying it was -- I'm afraid it was a bad phrasing of

Page 22498

1 a question by me, actually. I apologise.

2 Are you saying that when you say "no," they were not drafted in

3 to help with the outbreak of crime?

4 A. Yes, they were not there to deal with that.

5 Q. You complained - and indeed that's the only complaint that you

6 made, and when you were interviewed by us a few weeks ago - was that they

7 didn't appear to know their way around Sarajevo. Do you agree with that?

8 A. I agree with that, but this was in the context of our

9 conversation, that is, when I talked about the fact that there was a

10 change in the ethnic composition of the police; and then as an example I

11 told you - and I can repeat this - that on one occasion when I was in

12 charge of a raid --

13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... yes --

14 A. -- in the territory of Sarajevo -- may I continue?

15 Q. No, because I can summarise this much quicker than you can tell

16 us the whole story again. You were going to lead a raid on some

17 well-known catering facilities in Sarajevo and you said everybody knows

18 where those facilities were but somebody stood up, and so did a number of

19 others, and said where were they. Is that right?

20 A. Yes, which was nonsense.

21 Q. Well, if you had people who came in from outside Sarajevo, it was

22 highly likely, wasn't it, that they wouldn't know where these premises

23 were?

24 A. Yes, but the problem was that these people weren't from Bosnia,

25 they were from Sandzak.

Page 22499

1 Q. You never mentioned that, did you, when you were interviewed,

2 this business of them coming from Sandzak?

3 A. I believe I did.

4 Q. Well --

5 A. I'm sure. I might have said from Serbia, Sandzak, but I'm sure

6 that I mentioned it. Anyway, I'm mentioning it now.

7 Q. Yes, I know you are. And I'm asking you why you didn't mention

8 it in interview, because I can assure you, you didn't. And as you know,

9 Ms. Savic was there throughout taking notes. Why didn't you mention it

10 then when you were being interviewed?

11 A. At that time we discussed several issues, and as for whether I

12 mentioned it or not, one word doesn't mean anything. I know that at the

13 time I said that these people weren't familiar with Sarajevo, and we were

14 discussing precisely that the ethnic composition of the police in

15 Sarajevo had changed and that was all.

16 Q. Apart from them not knowing where these catering facilities are,

17 what other complaints do you have about the new people who were brought

18 into Sarajevo from Sandzak as police officers?

19 A. Do you know how many of my friends who were Bosniaks that had

20 graduated from faculties of law, who'd completed secondary school, who

21 were from Sarajevo and who were unable to come and work in the police?

22 Q. So your other --

23 A. They were decent, honourable people, and they knew both the town

24 and they knew about what was going on in town.

25 Q. So your other complaint is that they got jobs that you said that

Page 22500

1 Bosniak friends of yours should get?

2 A. Of course. Somebody from Sarajevo should have been doing it, not

3 from Serbia, in Sjenica, where none of us want to go and work in Sjenica

4 or Novi Pazar or anywhere.

5 Q. All right. Now, you dealt with, also, the number of inspectors.

6 Just let me find the -- yeah. You were asked at page 22211 -- or

7 20211 [sic] how many operatives, how many inspectors, were you there in

8 the sector which Mr. Macar was the chief in 1991, or the chief of the

9 department. And you said you had about eight inspectors.

10 Do you remember saying that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. You see, at various times you kept on talking about a hundred

13 people under your command as chief of crime prevention. The actual

14 number of inspectors even at the height of the MUP was only eight, wasn't

15 it, in total?

16 A. No. You misunderstood. I can explain if you like.

17 Q. Well, I'm sorry, what did I misunderstood?

18 A. The Sarajevo city SUP is a special organisational unit, actually,

19 it's secretariat of the interior of Sarajevo city. It's a special unit.

20 At the level of Sarajevo there was a security services centre of Sarajevo

21 which was the superior unit. The head of the sector in Sarajevo's SUP

22 was Jozo Leutar. First it was Idriz Hodzic, and then --

23 Q. No, no, stop. You explained all this before and I don't want an

24 explanation again, please.

25 What did I misunderstood about the numbers? I'm telling you what

Page 22501

1 you said, you had eight inspectors. At various points during your

2 testimony about after -- what happened afterwards, you said that you

3 should have a hundred people working for you.

4 Now, what did you mean by a hundred people?

5 A. Eight inspectors in the Sarajevo SUP is a unit for co-ordinating

6 work at the level of Sarajevo city. The eight inspectors co-ordinate the

7 work of ten units of the crime police in public security stations. In

8 each of these stations, you have Novi Grad, 20 inspectors; Ilidza,

9 12 inspectors; Stari Grad, 10 inspectors; Novo Sarajevo, 20 inspectors;

10 Centar ... so one inspector for each 10.000 citizens. The security

11 services centre covers 20. In its own units, the security services

12 centre of Sarajevo had hundreds of inspectors.

13 When I talked about the Sarajevo Romanija Birac centre, they

14 copied the internal structure from the security services centre of

15 Sarajevo. This is a different level. It's not the same as

16 Sarajevo's city SUP. I talked about that. I talked about the number of

17 inspectors required to keep the centre working and functioning properly

18 over the 22 municipalities that belonged to us, to Romanija-Birac. At

19 the time, I had two or three inspectors. So that is the difference.

20 If I may further assist you. In Sarajevo city SUP, as far as the

21 general crime unit was concerned, there was the sector which I mentioned

22 at some point. We had white collar crime -- a special white collar crime

23 unit that had about 20 inspectors. There was the forensics unit, also

24 comprising between 20 and 30 forensic experts. We had four

25 in-department, we had anti-sabotage department, where, again, quite a

Page 22502

1 number of people worked. This is just a single segment, when I talk

2 about the eight inspectors in the general crime unit, and they were busy

3 mainly with co-ordination work.

4 Q. Right. The actual level -- well, first of all, when you're

5 talking about a hundred people, you're now talking about, are you, the

6 CSB Sarajevo which then was renamed the Sarajevo Birac when it became

7 Serb? That, you say, should have had a hundred people working in the

8 crime prevention department. Is that right? Is that what you're saying,

9 please?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Right. Is the -- a number of people in the -- in each of the

12 departments regulated by the - sorry, just going to see what it's

13 formally called - the rule book on internal organisation?

14 A. Yes, that's how it should be.

15 Q. Right. Were you using the rule book for 1990?

16 A. You mean when the war broke out or before?

17 Q. Yes, for the most of 1992, did you still exist on the old 1990

18 rule book from the BiH MUP, the joint MUP?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Did that specify for the Sarajevo CSB crime department 28 people

21 including the chief?

22 A. 28, I can't remember. But according to the 1990 rules, it should

23 have been a lot more.

24 Q. All right. Finally on -- sorry. Yes?

25 A. Look, if you have a head of unit, if you have five units under

Page 22503

1 him, or departments, that's another five managers, which adds up to a

2 total of six people. Now, if you have two or three inspectors per team,

3 per unit, and if you know that the general crime unit then had all these

4 different inspectors for property-related crime, for sexual offences, for

5 aggravated theft, robbery --

6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... yes --

7 A. -- and then you have the investigations team, the search team, so

8 it would have been impossible.

9 Q. All right. You don't agree with that. All right.

10 Now I want, finally, to ask you, just before we move on to the

11 events that led to the split, you talked at page 22 -- 22200 about the

12 shipments of arms you had stopped on two occasions, both, you said,

13 Bosniaks; do you remember?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. But you also, didn't you, were aware of illegal arming being

16 carried out by Serbs?

17 A. Yes, but weapons were seized in those cases too, and I was

18 personally involved in such instances.

19 Q. Absolutely. But you -- again, I'm only putting it to you because

20 you didn't mention that when you were testifying earlier. There was, was

21 there not, illegal arming going on, on all sides?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Right. Now, I want to deal with the -- shortly, with the events

24 which led to the split. Would you agree with these words: That it's

25 difficult to make people who are not -- who were not present during these

Page 22504

1 events understand what happened. Nothing was black or white. It was all

2 complicated.

3 Would you agree with that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. The way you described the events was, effectively, on or around

6 the 4th of April there were attacks on Friday, the -- that would be the

7 4th, I think. I'll just check my calendar. You said, That evening when

8 I came home from work, that was the Friday --

9 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry, can we have the reference, please.

10 MS. KORNER: Yes, sorry. 20217.

11 Q. "When I came home from work, attacks had already started against

12 all police stations in Sarajevo. These attacks were being carried out by

13 the Green Berets and the Patriotic League."

14 Is it your contention, Mr. Tusevljak, that that is how matters

15 began in Sarajevo, the beginning of April?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. All right. Do you remember the attack on the police school in

18 Vrace?

19 A. Yes, I do. I think it occurred on the 5th of April. But that

20 was no attack on the Vrace school but, as far as I understand, based on

21 an agreement -- I wasn't involved, myself. I can only tell you what I

22 know, what I have direct knowledge of. The special units of the

23 Serbian MUP were supposed to establish a base in that school and that was

24 it.

25 Q. Regardless of whether or not there should have been an agreement

Page 22505

1 about the split, isn't what actually -- the split in the school, wasn't

2 what actually happened was that the special units under Milenko Karisik

3 and Mladen Mladic under -- to name just a couple, actually attacked and

4 took over the school?

5 A. No. Mladen Mladic, never heard of this person before. It

6 certainly wasn't someone from the MUP.

7 Q. You've never heard of the brother of Momcilo Mandic?

8 A. The younger Mandic brother, but he was assistant head-master in

9 that school.

10 Q. All right. You talked about this, the first casualty being the

11 policeman at the police station on Novo Sarajevo. You weren't there for

12 that, were you?

13 A. No, I wasn't.

14 Q. And were you aware that the police station was attacked by people

15 wearing masks?

16 A. People wearing masks, I read the statement of the duty officer

17 Lazar Bojanic, who was taken prisoner on that occasion and beaten. That

18 person in his statement provided a detailed description of what had gone

19 on during his shift. He provided a detailed description of the telephone

20 calls with Ismet Tahic, the then-commander of the Stari Grad Police

21 Station, and members of the Patriotic League and the Green Berets --

22 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... yes --

23 A. -- based on that, in order to be able to talk about this it would

24 be exceptionally useful to have Lazar Bojanic's statement here, who was

25 the duty officer at that police station at the time. If we could do

Page 22506

1 that, things would become a lot clearer. All I could do would be to

2 paraphrase the statement to the extent that --

3 Q. When did you read the statement?

4 A. The first time I read it was sometime in 1992. Nevertheless, I

5 went back to it recently because this case, murder, is still being

6 processed. The whole case file is with me.

7 Three or four months ago I picked it up, read through it again

8 because I had received certain materials that support our criminal

9 report. All of this I immediately submitted to the relevant prosecutor,

10 all of this being the reason I now know more about it.

11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness, do you remember that the question

12 was simply: Are you aware of the fact that a police station was attacked

13 by men wearing masks? I really don't understand what you're talking

14 about. Please answer the question.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There weren't just men wearing

16 masks attacking that police station, but men not wearing masks.

17 MS. KORNER:

18 Q. Well, would you agree with -- did you read the article in

19 Oslobodjenje that came out about all these events shortly afterwards?

20 A. No.

21 Q. All right. You say you read all the case file. Were there, in

22 fact - and this is simply yes or no - 50 men, around 50, who were wearing

23 masks? I understand you're saying that they weren't just men, but were

24 there around 50 wearing masks?

25 A. I can only say that the witness did not see 50 men wearing

Page 22507

1 masks --

2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... well, how many did he see?

3 A. -- meaning my answer is no.

4 Q. How many masked men did your -- the witness statement you read

5 say were there?

6 A. He saw about four or five of them who entered the station. About

7 two or three of them took the duty officer and Pero Petrovic down to --

8 Q. No, no, we've heard the story over and over and over again. You

9 don't have to tell it to us again.

10 I just want to know: Does he say four or five were masked?

11 A. I never said how many were wearing masks. I'm telling you how

12 many entered the police station.

13 Q. Yes, all right. Well, I'll move on from that.

14 By the 6th of April, Novo Sarajevo had been taken over by the

15 Serb MUP, hadn't it?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Right. Well, can I ask you, this is probably the final document

18 before the break, please, to have a look at a record of a conversation

19 which is Exhibit P1500.08, and I'm afraid it's pre-1F in our list.

20 Now, no doubt as a result of your job, and probably before,

21 you're aware that conversations were being intercepted during this

22 period. You knew that, didn't you, Mr. Tusevljak?

23 A. No, I didn't know that.

24 Q. Well, wait a minute. Are you saying you didn't know in 1992 or

25 you don't know it now?

Page 22508

1 A. I know now because I see transcripts being released. Back in

2 1992, I did not know that telephone conversations were being intercepted.

3 This was something that was being done by the State Security Service and

4 it had nothing to do with us.

5 Q. All right. Well, this is a conversation that was intercepted on

6 the 6th of April, 1992, between Danilo Veselinovic - you know who he is,

7 don't you?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And Jovan Tintor, and you know who he is?

10 A. Yes.

11 MS. KORNER: And if we go, please, in the English to the third

12 page and to the --

13 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. Your Honours, I have to object. This

14 is the other conversation between two people. Obviously the witness was

15 not -- was not a part to that conversation nor was he present during the

16 conversation. I don't know how can he comment on the --

17 JUDGE HALL: Well, could we have a question first. I, too, am

18 curious as to how Ms. Korner is going to make this link.

19 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. I believe that Ms. Korner can pose the

20 question about the events and get the answer from the witness without

21 showing the conversation of two other people.

22 JUDGE HALL: Well, she can go ahead and show him, but let's have

23 a question and then we can ascertain -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

24 MS. KORNER: Mr. Zecevic, of course, wasn't here for the

25 wonderful Mr. Orasanin, who -- to whom I posed the very self-same

Page 22509

1 intercept and the very self-same question.

2 Can we go, please, to the third page in English, and I believe

3 it's the same in B/C/S. No, second page in B/C/S.

4 Q. Now, the first thing that Mr. Veselinovic talks about is: "This

5 morning we seized the airport."

6 And Mr. Tintor asks him: "Is the airport ours again?"

7 And: "Everything is good."

8 Do you remember the airport being taken by the Serb forces on the

9 6th of April?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Well, when do you say the airport was taken?

12 A. It was never taken by the Serb forces.

13 Q. The airport never came under the control of the Serb forces; is

14 that what you're saying to the Court?

15 A. Yes. The airport was taken by the JNA, not the Serb forces.

16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... right.

17 A. There's a difference there, an enormous one.

18 Q. Quite right. Technically there's a difference between the JNA

19 and the Serb forces because the VRS had not yet been formed. So let me

20 rephrase the question.

21 Was the airport taken over by the JNA on the 6th of April?

22 A. Well, I don't know the exact date. But when the airport was

23 taken -- and that's why I can speak about this, when the airport was

24 taken, I was together with the two assistant centre chiefs,

25 Vlatko Beckanovic, I think that was the person's name, and

Page 22510

1 Slobodan Kukobat. They came to see me at Nedzarici and we were all off

2 to the airport so that they could carry out an on-site investigation

3 because two police officers had been killed belonging to the airport

4 police station. That is why I know the airport was taken.

5 At one point in time when we arrived, the three of us, too, were

6 taken prisoner by the JNA, therefore --

7 Q. Sorry, Mr. Tusevljak, I'm really -- I'm sorry, neither I nor the

8 Court, I'm sure, are interested in what investigation you were carrying

9 out at the airport. All I'm asking you about is the date. Now, was the

10 airport, as according to Mr. Veselinovic, seized - and I'll -- you'll

11 note he used the word "we" - on the 6th of April?

12 A. No, I don't know. Meaning I don't know. I absolutely don't

13 know.

14 Q. Is there any reason of that you know of to doubt Mr. Tintor or

15 Mr. Veselinovic saying, "This morning on the 6th of April we took over

16 the airport"? Is there anything you know that contradicts this?

17 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe the witness answered that he doesn't know

18 the answer. And contradicting the speech between two other people whom

19 he is not the party, I don't know how it can be relevant at all.

20 MS. KORNER:

21 Q. The question is: Do you know of any information which would

22 suggest that this conversation is inaccurate?

23 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, the witness should be able to read the whole

24 conversation in order to be able to respond to that question.

25 MS. KORNER: Well, I'm perfectly happy -- Your Honours, I see the

Page 22511

1 time. I will hand over the copy of the whole conversation, which he can

2 look at, at the break.

3 JUDGE HALL: Yes, and we would take the break now.

4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one moment.

5 Ms. Korner, it would be helpful if you could indicate, after the

6 break, at which point we should have gone out of private session --

7 MS. KORNER: Oh, yes --

8 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- the moment we forgot, so that we can lift.

9 MS. KORNER: I'll do that.

10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.

11 [The witness stands down]

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

13 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.

14 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, while the witness is ushered in, I do

15 have another objection to this. During the break, I checked.

16 Your Honours, the questions which Ms. Korner is posing to the witness

17 presume that this is in fact the conversation between Mr. Tintor and

18 Mr. Veselinovic, and it has never been authenticated. We don't know

19 whether it's Mr. Tintor and Mr. Veselinovic. It was introduced through

20 the witness who brought the -- SD-155 and who only brought the

21 transcripts of this conversation. And it has never been authenticated by

22 either of the persons who were party to this conversation. Therefore, I

23 don't see any basis to pose a question on stating that this is the

24 conversation between so and so. Thank you.

25 [The witness takes the stand]

Page 22512

1 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, these are admitted in evidence through

2 the witness that -- I think Mr. Tusevljak better keep his headphones off

3 for a moment -- through the witness that Your Honours heard from.

4 Your Honours will recall we had a number of discussions about whether

5 people could recognise voices on the tape and we were told not. They've

6 been entered into evidence. We're entitled to assume, barring any

7 evidence to the contrary, that the people say who -- that the people on

8 the transcripts are those who were actually speaking. I can, if

9 necessary, get hold of the tape and play it to this witness, who no doubt

10 is familiar with Mr. Tintor. But, Your Honours, at the moment, as I say,

11 we went through this on a number of occasions; there is no basis for

12 suggesting that those shown on the transcripts are not the people who

13 were speaking.

14 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, without, I -- to save me the -- going

15 back through the transcript, could you remind me of the question that the

16 witness was about to answer when the objection was taken before the

17 break, please.

18 MS. KORNER: About the airport. Your Honours, it was whether he

19 had any information to suggest that the airport was not taken over by the

20 JNA, described by one of the participants in this conversation as us.

21 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. The reason why I asked to be reminded

22 about that is that before Mr. Zecevic had made his objection, my own

23 reaction was that what -- I'm not sure I see the point of asking this

24 witness that question --

25 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, the --

Page 22513

1 JUDGE HALL: -- because he isn't a party to the conversation.

2 Apart from the -- putting aside for the moment the point that Mr. Zecevic

3 has just raised now, but even assuming that the persons on the tape are

4 who they are, so what? in terms of the question that you're putting to

5 this witness.

6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that's the context for the main point

7 that I'm showing him this intercept for. Your Honours, I dealt with

8 this, as I say, with Mr. Orasanin the other day. It's entirely to do

9 with the date that Novo Sarajevo Police Station was taken over.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 MS. KORNER: And the context of that is at the same time the

12 participants to this conversation are talking about the airport.

13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mrs. Korner, do you need this intercept to ask

14 the question whether he has any information to the contrary?

15 MS. KORNER: About?

16 JUDGE DELVOIE: About the 6th of April.

17 MS. KORNER: The airport or Novo Sarajevo?

18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yeah.

19 MS. KORNER: No, no, I don't. I was trying to put it in to show

20 the co-existence of two events, one of which can be proved by other

21 evidence and that's the JNA's occupation of the airport.

22 JUDGE DELVOIE: And the other one -- the other one being?

23 MS. KORNER: The Novo Sarajevo -- the conversation goes on

24 that -- can we have it back again at the bottom of the page, Mr. Tintor

25 says:

Page 22514

1 "Now we just need to take, what is with the police station in

2 Novo Sarajevo?

3 "That's already seized."

4 Your Honour, the whole context is --

5 JUDGE HALL: Please continue. Please proceed.

6 MS. KORNER: Sorry. Your Honours, can -- just before I do that,

7 I've been asked to indicate -- Your Honours asked me to indicate where we

8 can stop the private session that took place earlier this morning,

9 page 6, line 13. After that, nothing appears which needs to be -- needs

10 to have been in private session.

11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.

12 MS. KORNER:

13 Q. Right. You've had a chance, Mr. Tusevljak, to read the whole of

14 the transcript?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And I've had to cut what's been a rather protracted exercise

17 rather short. Do you see that after talking about the airport Mr. Tintor

18 says:

19 "What's happened with the police station in Novo Sarajevo?"

20 And Mr. Veselinovic says:

21 "That's already ... seized."

22 And then it goes on. I don't need to trouble you with the rest

23 of the conversation.

24 What makes you say, Mr. Tusevljak, that by the 6th of April

25 Novo Sarajevo was not in the hands of the Serbs?

Page 22515

1 A. Not before and not after.

2 Q. Sorry, I didn't follow that. What do you mean "not before and

3 not after"?

4 A. The Novo Sarajevo Police Station, the building, was at no point

5 part of the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska, not before the

6 6th of April and not after the 6th of April.

7 Q. Novo Sarajevo, as we've seen from the map that you actually drew,

8 fell into the part of Sarajevo that was being occupied by the

9 Bosnian Serbs, didn't it?

10 A. Only a part of Novo Sarajevo municipality. Most of Novo Sarajevo

11 municipality was under the forces of the BH army throughout the war. And

12 if you have a map, I can show that for you.

13 Q. Right. Well, we're going to come back to maps and what was --

14 So you're saying, are you, that Novo Sarajevo SJB - and I'll show

15 you a document from there in a moment - was not in the same building as

16 the old MUP building; is that what you're saying?

17 A. What do you mean by the old MUP?

18 Q. Well, you've just said that Novo Sarajevo Police Station was

19 never seized, and as I understood what you were saying is that the

20 building was not seized. Is that what you're saying?

21 A. Seized when? There wasn't an attempt to seize it, let alone it

22 being seized. Never. What do you mean by that? What do you mean it was

23 seized? I don't understand. Would you please explain.

24 Q. Right. Let's try and get what should have been a really simple

25 question answered. In 1992 on the 6th of April, was there already a

Page 22516

1 Serb -- a Serbian MUP Novo Sarajevo SJB?

2 A. No.

3 Q. All right. When did, in your opinion, the Novo Sarajevo Serbian

4 MUP SJB come into existence?

5 A. Sometime in mid-April.

6 Q. All right. And when it came into existence, are you saying that

7 it was in a building that was not the building that had been the

8 SJB Novo Sarajevo pre-April 1992?

9 A. Yes, it was in a different building.

10 Q. Right. Okay. I think we've now established that.

11 MS. KORNER: Would Your Honours give me one moment.

12 Q. Now, were you aware of the sequence of events that led to the

13 establishment of the Bosnian Serb MUP?

14 A. If you're referring to the preparations for forming the MUP, I

15 didn't know anything about that.

16 Q. Well, were you aware that at the end of March 1992 the Assembly

17 passed the Law of Internal Affairs?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Did you not read the gazette at all?

20 A. No. I wasn't obliged to read the Official Gazette.

21 Q. Were you aware on the 31st of March Momcilo Mandic, as the deputy

22 minister, sent a telegram to all CSBs and SJBs, saying that the Serbian

23 MUP would start operating from the 1st of April?

24 A. I read that dispatch only after the 4th of April. I didn't

25 receive it that day.

Page 22517

1 Q. When did you read it?

2 A. Sometime after the 4th of April, 1992.

3 Q. Yes, well that covers a multitude of sins. In 1992 itself or

4 more recently?

5 A. In 1992.

6 Q. Right. On the 31st of March, did you know about the Serb police

7 in Ilijas all wearing the blue uniforms surrounding the SJB and

8 preventing people from entering?

9 A. No.

10 Q. You never heard anything about that?

11 A. No.

12 Q. All right. Now, finally, just before we move on to what happened

13 afterwards, is it your contention that the events in Sarajevo were

14 started by the Muslims?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. All right. Well, I'd like you to have a look, please, at

17 something that was said by somebody you know in the Assembly.

18 MS. KORNER: Could we have document P199, 13B of the list of

19 documents.

20 Q. This is a record of the Assembly meeting that was held in - I've

21 forgotten where it was now - Pale, I think, in July of 1992 over two

22 days. And I'd like you to have a look at something that was said by

23 Mr. Prstojevic.

24 MS. KORNER: Which is at page 65 in English, and in B/C/S it's

25 page 67. And maybe -- I think, actually, it's probably 68 if you count

Page 22518

1 the cover page. Yes, sorry, it's page 67 -- sorry, page 67 at the top,

2 not 68, sorry, 67 in B/C/S. All right.

3 Q. You knew who Mr. Prstojevic is/was, don't you?

4 A. [No interpretation]

5 Q. Sorry, no translation.

6 A. Yes, I did. I met him during the war.

7 Q. All right. He's telling the Assembly in July:

8 "Mr. President, honourable MPs, I have decided to say a few words

9 and to ask a few questions that I'm being asked by the citizens of

10 Sarajevo. Namely, when the Serbs started the uprising in Sarajevo and

11 when they seized control over certain territories ..."

12 Do you know to what Mr. Prstojevic was referring when he said

13 "when the Serbs started the uprising in Sarajevo"?

14 A. I don't know. You should ask him. I don't know what he meant.

15 Q. And then when he went on later in that speech:

16 "Moreover, we didn't know Mr. Karadzic was alive during the first

17 couple of days. When we learnt that he was alive and when he visited us

18 in Ilidza and encouraged us, the Serbs from Sarajevo retained control

19 over the territory and even extended their territory in some areas,

20 driving the Muslims out of the territories where they'd actually been a

21 majority."

22 Do you agree with that, that the Serbs drove out Muslims from

23 places where they'd been in the majority?

24 A. I don't know. I wasn't involved at the time. But you skipped

25 the sentence that says that at that moment there was no government or it

Page 22519

1 wasn't known where it was then. You just skipped that sentence in the

2 transcript.

3 Q. Yes, does that make a difference to you?

4 A. Well, it means that no organs of the authorities of

5 Republika Srpska had been formed at that time. There was no government

6 and nobody knew where the government was. The local Crisis Staffs and

7 local politicians did what they did.

8 Q. Yes. I'm merely dealing with what you said, Mr. Tusevljak, that

9 it was effectively the Muslims who were responsible for the outbreak of

10 violence in Sarajevo, the uprising, if you like, whereas Mr. Prstojevic

11 seems to think it was the Serbs. Do you agree with Mr. Prstojevic?

12 A. I don't agree with Mr. Prstojevic, clearly.

13 Q. And just one other matter that I should have dealt with before.

14 Earlier today you were talking about -- when I was asking you about

15 investigation of crimes committed by Serbs against non-Serbs - sorry -

16 you mentioned an incident in Ilidza. Do you remember that?

17 A. You have to remind me.

18 Q. You said, if I can, as usual, find my pieces of paper, this. And

19 this was at page 17, bottom of 16, page 17 of today's transcript.

20 "... the only war crimes you actually spent any time

21 investigating properly were those where Serbs were alleged to be the

22 victims?"

23 And you said you didn't agree. You mentioned somebody called

24 Jadranko Jeberic [sic], the report of Predrag Djurovic. And then you

25 said: "... four or five such reports in the territory of the Ilidza SJB

Page 22520

1 when Bosniak people were killed."

2 Were you referring to an incident involving a man called

3 Sinisa Milic, also known as Mongo?

4 A. I don't know. I think that he was investigated by the SJB, but I

5 think that this man was killed at the very beginning of the war. He was

6 killed somewhere. And I was referring to Davor Draskovic and some others

7 who committed these crimes. But I think that Sinisa Milic was killed

8 right at the beginning of the war. Whether he was being processed, I

9 don't know, because probably after he died nothing was done.

10 Q. What do you mean by the beginning of the war?

11 A. I mean the first months of the war. I don't know when exactly he

12 was killed, but I know he was killed in the first months. And I think

13 that we were processing him about weapons smuggling. I think we even

14 filed a report.

15 Q. Were you not processing him for shooting dead 22 Muslim men in

16 cold blood?

17 A. I don't know about that. If such an investigation was done, it

18 would have been done by the Ilidza SJB at the beginning of the war.

19 Q. And this being on the 12th of June, do you know anything about

20 that?

21 A. No, I don't.

22 Q. In front of, unfortunately, some people from UNPROFOR?

23 A. I don't know. I wasn't personally involved in the processing.

24 Whether the Ilidza SJB did that, I don't know. I personally wasn't

25 involved.

Page 22521

1 Q. Did you know Mr. Ceranic?

2 A. Ceranic?

3 Q. Yep.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Was he the chief at that stage of the SNB at the CSB Sarajevo?

6 A. I don't know whether it was him or Dragan Kijac. First it was

7 Kijac, then Ceranic came. And before that, Ceranic was the chief of the

8 SNB in Ilidza.

9 Q. All right. Now, I want you, please, to deal -- or I want to deal

10 with, please, the subsequent events, really. Now, you told us at

11 page two-hundred and -- sorry, 22.222 that you first of all went up to

12 Vrace physically; is that right? Then went to Nedzarici.

13 A. Yes. I lived in Nedzarici.

14 Q. Yes, I know. You told us that. And then you went up to Vrace

15 again, did you not, when you were given the role of co-ordinator?

16 A. Yes, sometime in the beginning of May. It was in May.

17 Q. And you were asked to look at, please, the document which is in

18 the Defence bundle, so you probably got it, which is 1D575, tab 149.

19 Now, I want to make it -- I want to make sure that what came out

20 and what came across is accurate. Are you saying that this is not a list

21 of people who were actually under your command - if I can put it that

22 way - but a list of people that you were looking for?

23 A. Yes. These people were not under my command.

24 Q. Right. Well, let's have a look just for a moment. We see the

25 Novo Sarajevo SJB, the Vrace Operative Group. Are you saying that those

Page 22522

1 are simply -- that's simply a list of people that you were making -- that

2 you wanted to find?

3 A. It's a list of people who reported at these SJBs.

4 Q. Right. So you're saying, are you, you managed to establish that

5 at the Novo Sarajevo SJB something that you've called the Vrace Operative

6 Group was reporting?

7 A. This was a proposal of the 15th of May, 1992. You can see that.

8 And it contains names of operatives. And it was probably then that I

9 became co-ordinator, and this is probably a proposal about how to

10 organise these operative groups.

11 Q. But weren't all these people people who came for the -- were

12 under the -- under your authority as part of the crime prevention

13 departments at each of these police station? For example, if we look at

14 the second page in English and B/C/S, Pale, Mr. Micic.

15 A. Yes, both in 1992 and before he was chief of the crime police

16 department, Sejdo Palin [phoen].

17 Q. But then I don't understand the note at the end, if you forgive

18 me. If you didn't know where these people were, or if they've just

19 turned up these police stations and weren't under your command, as it

20 were, why were you saying - can we look at the last page in English,

21 please, and the second page in B/C/S - under "note," these "operates are

22 currently on sick leave." On sick leave from where?

23 A. We didn't say. That's what's written. But Vasiljevic, Zeljko

24 was wounded in Vrace and he was being treated in Belgrade, and

25 Sreten Risticevic had been beaten up in Sarajevo at the town SUP by the

Page 22523

1 Green Berets and he was receiving treatment at my parents'.

2 Q. I'm sorry, what I'm trying to get at is: Where were they on sick

3 leave from?

4 A. Nowhere. Nobody asked for that. That was just what was written

5 down. They couldn't have asked for sick leave and they didn't need it.

6 At that time the term "sick leave" didn't exist as it existed under

7 normal circumstances or in a normal health care system.

8 Q. All right. You see, I'm suggesting to you that these are people

9 that came under your authority and that's why this list was, not that you

10 were looking for them, but they were there. And the reason I'm going to

11 put that to you is because of what you said -- or what was said, to be

12 accurate, in the Milosevic trial.

13 MS. KORNER: Could we have up again, please, the testimony.

14 Q. Now, this document, do you agree, was shown to you by

15 Mr. Tapuskovic in the Dragomir Milosevic trial? Do you agree? Or if you

16 don't remember, say so.

17 A. I don't remember.

18 Q. All right. I'll take us all to the part. It's page 8047.

19 Now, it hadn't been translated for that trial, apparently. And

20 we'll see there that Mr. Tapuskovic asks you, on the previous page, to

21 have a look at it. And you answered:

22 "Could you tell us who wrote this document?"

23 I'm sorry, no, the question was:

24 "Witness, could you ... look at it, look at the heading, the

25 date, what is this, and could you please tell us who wrote this document?

Page 22524

1 "A. Well, the heading says Serbian Republic of Bosnia and

2 Herzegovina, the Ministry of the Interior ... The date is the

3 15th of May ... It's a list of operatives in the territory of the city of

4 Sarajevo, and ... on this list, Simo Tusevljak is listed as the

5 coordinator for the territory of the city of Sarajevo."

6 So do you agree that's obviously the same document?

7 A. Probably, unless there's another one.

8 Q. And then next page, 8048, you were asked by Mr. Tapuskovic:

9 "Can you please tell us who drafted this document?"

10 And you said:

11 "This document was drafted by my chief at the time."

12 Was that -- is that right, it was drafted by your chief?

13 A. I suppose so, because the ministry's in the header.

14 Q. And then the Judge, who I think was the Presiding Judge for the

15 trial, after Mr. Tapuskovic asked for this document to be exhibited,

16 said:

17 "You didn't tell us what the document is exactly. What is this

18 document ... how do you interpret this document?"

19 Mr. Tapuskovic said in your presence and in, presumably, Serbian,

20 as I don't believe he speaks English:

21 "Well, you see, this document contains a list of operatives doing

22 the kind of work that Mr. Tusevljak described. We have groups for Vrace,

23 for Kula, for Ilidza, for Vogosca, for Pale. I didn't think it was

24 necessary for us to read all of it but at any rate these are the people

25 who were under his control, and they were working to shed light on the

Page 22525

1 crimes that he mentioned to us."

2 Now, did you hear Mr. Tapuskovic say that?

3 A. I don't remember that.

4 Q. Well -- because if you had heard it you would have said, "No,

5 that's wrong," wouldn't you?

6 A. I'm telling you, I don't remember it. I wasn't paying attention

7 at all. I don't pay attention to the comments that you make to each

8 other. I don't remember. I said it then and I'll repeat: This is just

9 a list of operatives in the territory of the city of Sarajevo, if you

10 look at it and if you look at the Law on Internal Affairs or any other,

11 and I was appointed after this as chief of the department in the Romanija

12 Birac CSB, and the SUP of the city of Sarajevo didn't exist as a part of

13 the RS MUP.

14 Q. Well, you see, the reason I suggest you're saying that is because

15 it somewhat contradicts your continued assertion that you had no manpower

16 that enabled you to carry out the job during those early months of the

17 conflict. Those, in fact, were people, weren't they, who came under your

18 control and were available to you from the very beginning of matters.

19 That's right, isn't it, Mr. Tusevljak?

20 A. No. No.

21 Q. Now, because you said, you see, again very shortly after you were

22 shown this document, page 22235 I think:

23 "We didn't have operatives. We didn't have people who had the

24 expert knowledge in order to do the jobs ..."

25 And that's your case, isn't it? That's why you say that no

Page 22526

1 investigations were carried out or able to be carried out into the many

2 crimes against non-Serbs that were committed within the area of

3 responsibility of the CSB Sarajevo. That's right, isn't it,

4 Mr. Tusevljak?

5 A. It's true, they didn't have the men. But I said nothing about

6 the investigations.

7 Q. Well, okay. You're saying you didn't have the manpower. Are you

8 saying you could still carry out investigations?

9 A. The security services centre crime police had not been set up

10 yet. For that reason, at the headquarters we had no investigations. You

11 can tell that if you look at the log which starts on -- in November 1992

12 and not before.

13 Q. Yes. I'm going to come on to that. But you had in each of the

14 SJBs that fell under your command, didn't you, crime police, crime --

15 people whose job it was to investigate crime?

16 A. Whatever the crime police had been set up in public security

17 stations, they would be under the command of the head of that department

18 in his turn appointed by the head of the police station. They launched

19 certain investigations but there are reports about it.

20 Q. I want you to have a look, please, first of all, at a chart of

21 the SJBs that came under the CSB Sarajevo, which you had a look at when

22 you were interviewed. Sorry, I'm just trying to find the page.

23 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I do apologise. I thought I'd

24 grappled with the new numbering, but I seem to have lost it again. Yes,

25 it's -- actually, it's P879 and it's tab 58.

Page 22527

1 Q. All right. Well, that's not terribly helpful. It may be

2 easier -- no, that's not -- all right.

3 Now, you've seen this one before, haven't you?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And do you agree that those are the SJBs which reported to the

6 CS -- or came within the area of responsibility, I suppose is a better

7 way of putting it, of the Romanija-Birac CSB?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And just very quickly while we're on the chart, we see that the

10 SNB sector of the CSB, as you rightly say, originally Dragan Kijac and

11 then replaced by Predrag Ceranic. Do you agree with that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Now, of the SJB chiefs, can you just -- can we just go through

14 them, please, the people that you knew. Mr. Saric at the centre

15 Sarajevo, was he a police officer before the war, the conflict?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Mr. Kovac at Ilidza?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Mr. Jovanovic at Novo Sarajevo?

20 A. He came to the police in 1991 for the first time as far as I

21 know.

22 Q. So a little junior to you, but certainly an officer before the

23 war.

24 Mr. Glavas at Hadzici?

25 A. Yes, police officer before the war.

Page 22528

1 Q. Mr. Mitrovic at Olovo?

2 A. Yes, likewise.

3 Q. Okay. I think probably the simplest is, because we asked you

4 this earlier, of these 20 SJBs, which of them had as chief of the SJB

5 someone who had not been a police officer before April 1992?

6 A. I don't know, as I said. I just knew the commanders and chiefs

7 from the area covered by the Sarajevo SUP. As for the other areas not

8 belonging to the Sarajevo SUP before the war, as I said, I didn't know

9 those men and I had no idea what they were doing.

10 Q. All right. Just identify which ones they were, please.

11 A. Vlasenica, Han Pijesak, Rogatica, Sokolac, Skelani, Bratunac,

12 Milici, Sekovici, Visoko; these are the stations that didn't

13 belong [Realtime transcript read in error "that belonged"] to us, and I

14 knew no one there, not a single employee until the beginning of the war.

15 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe the witness -- perhaps you can clarify

16 with the witness. I don't want to ...

17 MS. KORNER: Clarify what?

18 MR. ZECEVIC: 49/9, "these are the stations that belonged to

19 us ..."

20 MS. KORNER: Oh --

21 MR. ZECEVIC: And I think --

22 MS. KORNER: No, he said the opposite.

23 MR. ZECEVIC: -- he said the opposite.

24 MS. KORNER: I heard him say the opposite as well.

25 Q. I think you said these were the SJBs that did not belong to the

Page 22529

1 CSB Sarajevo before April 1992; is that right?

2 A. No. I said those were the stations that did not belong to the

3 Sarajevo SUP. There's a difference there.

4 Q. I see. All right. But those -- it's those stations that you

5 know nothing about -- the heads of those stations?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. All right. Now I want you to look, please, at a second chart,

8 which is, I believe, P-- oh, sorry, 20189, 65 ter number, at tab 57.

9 Now, you were shown this by Mr. Zecevic -- or the first version

10 by Mr. Zecevic and you made certain corrections which, to the best of our

11 ability, we have incorporated into the second version.

12 Now, do you agree that that is the set-up of the CSB

13 Romanija-Birac during the course of 1992?

14 A. Well, from July on, roughly speaking, although this kept

15 changing.

16 Q. Now, I accept -- can I say, I accept entirely that there were

17 changes and additions to the personnel, particularly in your department.

18 And to the best of our ability, as you see, we have put in the dates when

19 these people came there. But do you agree that, as you say, as of July

20 this is accurate information?

21 A. Yes, roughly speaking.

22 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, without - [microphone not

23 activated] - we want to come back to it --

24 Q. Sorry, you want to say something else?

25 A. Where you see the forensic technicians, it reads "inspectors,"

Page 22530

1 but that is a difference. They're not inspectors. They don't run

2 investigations. They're forensic technicians, and we had a strict

3 division there. They don't interview people. They simply go to a crime

4 scene to gather any traces, evidence, that sort of thing. So it's a huge

5 difference.

6 Q. Yes, I accept that. And which do you say are the crime

7 technicians there where erroneously we put "inspector," now I see, yes,

8 Mr. -- yeah, under there.

9 MS. KORNER: Well, with that caveat, Your Honours, may I ask that

10 this be admitted into evidence and marked?

11 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

12 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I object. First, Your Honours, I was asked

13 by Ms. Korner during the proofing that I showed this or similar document

14 to the witness. And the witness made a lot of changes on the document

15 and I provided a copy to Ms. Korner, and I don't have my copy. And

16 neither the witness had the opportunity to look at this document and then

17 comment about it, because he made a number of changes to that document.

18 Therefore, I'd -- first of all, I don't know if all the changes would

19 have been made which he made; and second, the document should be given to

20 him perhaps to study it better in order to give his comments to the

21 document.

22 JUDGE HALL: So as I understand it your objection is not to the

23 admission in principle. It is that it is not -- it's probably premature,

24 that there's something that should be done --

25 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct, Your Honours. I don't object to

Page 22531

1 the admission of the document because it just lists the people who were

2 members of the CSB during the time.

3 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, that's why I gave him the

4 opportunity to look at it and he said with that exception, that they're

5 not inspectors. We made all the changes that we could decipher, if I can

6 put it that way, but I'm perfectly happy to have it marked for

7 identification at this stage, give a hard copy to the witness, and

8 tomorrow morning he can come back and tell us again if there's any

9 further changes he thinks need making.

10 MR. ZECEVIC: That's a perfectly --

11 JUDGE HALL: Yes, so we can proceed in that manner. Yes.

12 So the document is admitted but marked for identification -- or

13 the document is marked for identification, sorry.

14 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P2355 marked for identification,

15 Your Honours.

16 MS. KORNER:

17 Q. Having dealt with that document that you were asked about, I want

18 to look, please, at some of the payroll lists for some of the stations

19 that -- SJBs that came under your authority.

20 And can we start, please, with 20190, which is in tab pre-1C

21 [Realtime transcript read in error "31C"].

22 Now, this is not -- in fact, as we can see, this deals with

23 Novo Sarajevo. And it's not a full list, but it's actually a list,

24 according to this, of those who were omitted from the initial payroll

25 from the month of April 1992 by a mistake.

Page 22532

1 MR. ZECEVIC: Could you please -- I'm sorry, could you please

2 call the tab number, I don't --

3 MS. KORNER: Sorry, it's very -- it's pre-1C. It's the third

4 document in the list.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. It's recorded "31C."

6 MS. KORNER: Oh, I'm sorry. Pre as in p-r-e. Sorry about the

7 numbering.

8 Q. Now, Novo Sarajevo, can you tell us, please, did you know these

9 officers, first of all, Mr. Subotic?

10 A. Him and Drago Jugovic both, these being the only two men I knew.

11 Q. Did you know Mr. Slavko Aleksic?

12 A. The only Slavko Aleksic I met was the one we called "The Duke."

13 I met him during the war at Grbavica. I'm not sure if it's the same

14 person. It doesn't say here, does it?

15 Q. Well, can I show you, please, a photograph and see if you can

16 recognise him. If I can find out where it is.

17 MS. KORNER: Would Your Honours forgive me.

18 [Prosecution counsel confer]

19 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]

20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Ms. Korner, please.

21 MS. KORNER: Oh, sorry. We'll have to leave the photograph and

22 come back to it.

23 Over the page, please. Or is it all on one page? It is in

24 B/C/S.

25 Q. So you knew Mr. Subotic, Mr. Jugovic, and those are the only two

Page 22533

1 you knew. Were they members of the crime police?

2 A. No. Mirko Subotic worked with me in the Sarajevo SUP.

3 Drago Jugovic was with the traffic police of the Sarajevo SUP and that's

4 why I know them.

5 Q. All right. Well, let's look, please, at another document which

6 is 20191, pre -- the tab is pre - p-r-e - 1C.

7 MR. ZECEVIC: That's 1D.

8 MS. KORNER: Sorry, 1D. Thank you.

9 Q. Presumably you're familiar with these payrolls, are you not,

10 Mr. Tusevljak, these type of payrolls?

11 A. Yes, I know the type of payrolls. But I've never seen this

12 specific one before.

13 Q. All right. It's a list for Ilidza, April 1992.

14 MS. KORNER: I think we need to pull down the thing. I'm sorry

15 about the way it was photographed. Presumably it was in a book, as you

16 can see. Can we just highlight that. Highlight the top bit, please,

17 zoom in, I mean. April 1992.

18 Q. It shows Mr. Kovac as the chief; is that right?

19 A. Yes, that's what it says.

20 MS. KORNER: Can we go, please, to the third page of this

21 document, and this is April. Preferably the right way up.

22 Q. After number 81 can you read out what it says, please, if you can

23 read it.

24 A. Department for fighting crime and crime prevention.

25 Q. Right. So is that your department that we're talking about?

Page 22534

1 A. Yes. When the security services centre was set up, this

2 department belonged to the -- not the service as such but the station,

3 because the station was part of the centre.

4 Q. Yes, quite. Does that show on the face of this document that it

5 had a chief and operatives between numbers 82 to 93?

6 A. Yes, but not all of these are operatives.

7 Q. Well, what does that mean?

8 A. In the month of April 1992 those of us who had left Sarajevo

9 stopped receiving our salaries. We no longer received our salaries from

10 the republican secretariat of the interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

11 This is a one-time financial subsidy to those police officers who had

12 left Sarajevo. You can see that each received 25.000 dinars, the same

13 amount for each and every one. You can see who reported in April,

14 because they were somewhere in the area covered by the Ilidza Public

15 Security Station, and if they were there they received the 25.000 dinars

16 specified here. The list was drawn up for that purpose, in order to give

17 financial support to these men. It doesn't mean that they were actually

18 performing these activities, these jobs, at the time.

19 Since Ilidza was a police station that remained in the hands of

20 the Serbian MUP, the building itself, we have some operatives here who

21 even before the war worked in that police station in addition to all

22 these others who reported.

23 Q. Yes. Of course you have to say that, don't you, because on this

24 list of people that we see there, they all appear on the list that we

25 looked at earlier which you said were the disappeared operatives, don't

Page 22535

1 they?

2 MS. KORNER: Let's have up for a moment -- I don't know whether

3 we can do it side by side, the document which is the Defence

4 document - I'll just give the number again - it's 1D575.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, this is tab 149, but I don't see the basis to

6 say that the witness said were the disappeared operatives?

7 MS. KORNER: He says these were people that were not working

8 during the month of April. That's what his list is about.

9 MR. ZECEVIC: I must say I don't recall that, but perhaps maybe

10 we can clarify.

11 MS. KORNER: I think he's just said it a moment ago as well.

12 Sorry.

13 MR. ZECEVIC: It's okay --

14 MS. KORNER: Yes, he said it -- sorry.

15 MR. ZECEVIC: If you say so, I believe you now. It's --

16 MS. KORNER: It's page 54 --

17 MR. ZECEVIC: I might have missed --

18 MS. KORNER: Yeah, okay.

19 Q. Right. Those are exactly the same --

20 MS. KORNER: Sorry, we need the second page in -- anyway, down

21 there, we can see it -- sorry, sorry, go back to the first page in B/C/S.

22 Q. Those are the same people, aren't they, in slightly different

23 order but the same people?

24 A. Yes, but I don't see Milorad Susic; Stankic, Miri [phoen];

25 Ranko Sajic, I don't see them on this 15th of May list,

Page 22536

1 Jamir [phoen] Dragan. So at one point they appear on the lists of the

2 crime police and then as early as May they're gone.

3 Q. Sorry, I don't follow that. Oh, you mean those people. I'm

4 sorry, yes, I see. But on what possible basis, Mr. Tusevljak, do you say

5 that these payments to these men do not reflect work they did throughout

6 April?

7 A. Well, because you'll find my name on one of these payrolls for

8 April - I think it's the crime police one. I received my salary, too,

9 the 25.000 dinars, and that was the only way for me to receive it, but as

10 my entire family had fled by this time and had become refugees. There

11 was no free bread or free potatoes or anything like that.

12 Q. So you're saying out of the kindness of its heart the MUP paid

13 all these people something to compensate them for April even though they

14 weren't working?

15 A. Yes, for the most part all those who reported to the MUP got this

16 amount.

17 Q. All right.

18 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, I see the time.

19 JUDGE HALL: Well, we have another five minutes, Ms. Korner.

20 MS. KORNER:

21 Q. All right, then I'll show you one more document. Could you have

22 a look, please, at 2192, please, the payroll list for Sokolac.

23 MS. KORNER: We can take off the other one. Second page.

24 Q. Mr. Borovcanin; Predrag Cajic; Mr. Cobovic, Veljko; were they all

25 part of the crime investigation department?

Page 22537

1 A. Yes, they probably were, in Sokolac.

2 Q. And you would say, would you, that these payrolls are not

3 evidence that any of these people worked at that time?

4 A. This only proves that they received the salary. These are

5 employees of the Sokolac Police Station who had been employees in the

6 crime service before the war. They never left their station.

7 Q. So at least in Sokolac they were operating throughout, were they?

8 A. They were operating then or not -- I wasn't in Sokolac in April.

9 I didn't go to Sokolac until August perhaps, so I don't know whether they

10 were operating or not operating. I was in Nedzarici at the time. This

11 was in April. I can't say with certainty that they were operating or

12 that they were not operating.

13 Q. Well, you see, it may be that I misunderstood the tenor of your

14 evidence, Mr. Tusevljak, in which case I'll stop taking you through this

15 rather tedious exercise of having a look at payrolls. You're not saying,

16 are you, therefore, that no crime police were operating anywhere in

17 Serb-held territories in the Sarajevo area?

18 A. Yes. If you understand what I mean, if I understood the question

19 correctly, some stations functioned and in some police stations it didn't

20 function at all.

21 Q. And you don't know one way or the other, do you, which police

22 stations it was functioning in and which it wasn't?

23 A. Well, if you show me the list, I can tell you where operatives

24 existed and where there were no operatives at all.

25 Q. Right. Well, have a look, please, at one last one which is --

Page 22538

1 it's 212 -- 65 ter number is -- sorry, 02127. I'm not sure why.

2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mrs. Korner, the previous, one you're not

3 tendering that one?

4 MS. KORNER: Oh, sorry, Your Honour, I meant to tender it. Yes,

5 please. I forgot.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, first of all I don't know what was the nexus

7 between the -- this witness and the document, the second -- the document

8 is a fresh evidence, so I believe that that requires, according to the

9 ruling of Your Honours, the Office of the Prosecution to establish

10 certain facts. And I believe the witness said he never saw the document

11 before.

12 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, my understanding -- first of all, can I

13 say that of course he says he didn't -- and I accept that, that he

14 probably didn't see the documents before, but he says he knows these

15 people who are members of the crime -- shown as members of the crime

16 police, and the reason that I'm putting them in now and seeking to tender

17 them is to go to the credibility of his assertions, which I understood to

18 be the case, certainly, that the -- that the assembled might of the

19 CSB Sarajevo through its component SJBs did not have members of the crime

20 police working in the early months of the conflict. And I'll check, but

21 I have a feeling that this document, the one for Sokolac and indeed the

22 one for Ilidza, which I should have asked for as well, but I was just

23 moving through a whole series, are relatively new ones. I'll just check

24 on when we acquired them.

25 Your Honours, could we do that -- I see what the time is now.

Page 22539

1 Could we just do that over the break?

2 JUDGE HALL: Yes.

3 Before we rise, I -- I'm advised it is necessary to issue a

4 formal order lifting the confidentiality of the transcript from

5 pages 6 -- from page 6, line 13, onwards, which I now do.

6 So we take the break now and resume at -- in 20 minutes.

7 [The witness stands down]

8 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.

9 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.

10 JUDGE HALL: While the witness is on his way back in, I am

11 reminded by the Court Officer that in terms of the order that was made

12 just before we took the break about lifting the confidentiality, that it

13 should be made clear that that also extends to the audio files.

14 MS. KORNER: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Your Honours, may I also,

15 before he comes in -- well, firstly we need to return to a ruling on the

16 objection raised by Mr. Zecevic. Secondly, could I ask that there's

17 ten - well, I say ten minutes because I think it may take that - to raise

18 something that needs discussion as a result of something that was said

19 this morning. So I will finish cross-examination, if not tomorrow, very

20 early - touch wood - very early on Thursday morning, as I indicated

21 before.

22 Your Honours, so our application is these documents, and indeed

23 I'm going to be showing some more to the witness, should be admitted on

24 the basis that they are relevant to the assertions he's made about the

25 operation of the crime police, and they go to his credibility.

Page 22540

1 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if all these documents go for the

2 credibility of the witness and not for the truth of its contents, we

3 don't have the objection.

4 [The witness takes the stand]

5 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, that's the difficulty. Of

6 course it goes to the truth of the contents. We say these payrolls are

7 records -- that they don't make much sense otherwise, are records of

8 payments made for work done and therefore contradict what he says or

9 appears to be saying about the existence of crime police during those

10 early months. So it's not really a truth of the contents, it's whether

11 it advances our case. Truth of the contents is different --

12 JUDGE HALL: Yes, I follow you, Ms. Korner.

13 Mr. Zecevic, the distinction which you now make, in other

14 contexts that makes -- is easily recognisable, but having regard to

15 these -- the nature of these documents, the "truth" is presumed, but the

16 limited purpose for which the Prosecution is using them is in terms of

17 credibility. So I don't think we need to concern ourselves with that

18 distinction here, if you follow me.

19 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours, but the ruling of Your Honours

20 is that this is a fresh evidence. This obviously then is a fresh

21 evidence which the Office of the Prosecutor is trying to introduce. That

22 is what Ms. Korner says just right now, we are advancing our case.

23 Now, if that is a fresh evidence, then according to the ruling

24 and the existing jurisprudence the Office of the Prosecutor has a certain

25 threshold to meet before these documents can be admitted. That is

Page 22541

1 simply -- this is the decision of this Trial Chamber.

2 JUDGE HALL: Yes, I'm reminded about that, Mr. Zecevic, but I'm

3 wondering whether if it were only the question of credibility, this

4 wouldn't present a problem. But I'm wondering whether the -- because

5 the -- allowing their use to test credibility is only possible on the

6 assumption that these are accurate and truthful records makes it

7 necessary to invoke the ruling to which you -- to which you have

8 referred. That's my question.

9 MR. ZECEVIC: But, Your Honours --

10 JUDGE HALL: Or am I being overly subtle or overly complicated?

11 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, perhaps it's my wrong understanding,

12 Your Honours. If the -- perhaps I can explain how I understand. If the

13 document is introduced for the credibility of the witness, that means

14 that the Office of the Prosecutor would not rely on that document in

15 their submissions, they will only say: This witness so and so was not

16 telling the truth because this document was presented to him, this

17 document was presented to him, and so on and so forth, so you cannot rely

18 on the credibility of the witness's testimony. That is my understanding.

19 Now, if, however, this will be the basis for Office of the

20 Prosecutor to submit that there has been -- unlike the testimony of the

21 witnesses and unlike other documents which we presented, that there has

22 been a sufficient number of police officers based on these documents,

23 then it is definitely fresh evidence. And if they wanted to establish

24 that, they could have established that in the -- during the case of the

25 Prosecution. Therefore, that is my understanding and that is why I think

Page 22542

1 the Office of the Prosecutor needs to meet threshold to be -- to have

2 these documents admitted.

3 JUDGE HALL: I fully understand what you're saying, Mr. Zecevic.

4 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.

5 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, I think there's a missing link,

6 as it were, in what Mr. Zecevic is saying. Firstly, you could only

7 challenge the credibility of a witness using a document which you

8 believed to be true, because you should not be challenging the

9 credibility of a witness on a document you did not rely on the contents

10 of. Secondly, a number of these documents had been used by the Defence

11 themselves. Thirdly, it's no good saying "we didn't prove this as part

12 of our case." We asserted throughout that there were effectively

13 sufficient people to do the investigations because they were doing other

14 investigations, and it's only when a witness comes along and says - which

15 cannot be anticipated - in terms -- not just the general "everything was

16 chaotic," but that "we did not have sufficient manpower to carry out

17 investigations," that we're entitled to challenge that assertion through

18 these documents. And obviously to that extent it bolsters our case. But

19 we don't know what these Defence witnesses are going to say. So that's

20 the situation, Your Honours.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE HALL: The Chamber's of the view that the relevance of this

23 material only becomes patent because of the witness's testimony. And as

24 Ms. Korner has correctly pointed out, the Prosecution would not have been

25 in a position to anticipate this; and therefore, in the circumstances, we

Page 22543

1 agree that it could be admitted and marked, and we so order.

2 MS. KORNER: Then, Your Honours, could I ask, please, that the

3 documents which have a 65 ter number 2010 -- sorry, I say that again,

4 20191 and 20192 be admitted.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I -- of course I object, and I

6 strongly suggest that the ruling that you just made is -- departs from

7 the previous oral ruling of this Trial Chamber. Because if it's the

8 fresh evidence, Your Honours, there are other options for the Office of

9 the Prosecutor. They can ask for rebuttal, they can ask for a re-opening

10 of their case, but the fresh evidence it must be treated in accordance

11 with the jurisprudence, and that was the decision of this Trial Chamber.

12 Now we are having a different situation. And I'm afraid I would -- we

13 would have to consult, but I might be -- I might be asking for a

14 certificate on this matter, Your Honours. This is a very important

15 matter for the presentation of the Defence case. Thank you very much.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may I just say one word about this.

18 It's not fresh evidence. It's evidence that we've been using, both

19 sides, throughout the course of the case, these payrolls, for different

20 aspects. Therefore, if a witness comes along and says - as this witness

21 has - the crime police during the early months were not in existence and

22 therefore couldn't operate, it must be right that documents which are

23 used to challenge that assertion should be placed into evidence.

24 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Ms. Korner, we've gone over this ground and

25 raked and re-raked it. And no doubt we would be invited to re-visit it

Page 22544

1 again. But for the time being the last application you made in terms of

2 the -- of those documents mentioned at lines -- page 64, lines 11 and 12,

3 we make the like order.

4 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much.

5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, therefore document 20191 shall be

7 Exhibit P2356 and document 20192 shall be Exhibit P2357. Thank you.

8 MS. KORNER:

9 Q. Mr. --

10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

11 MS. KORNER:

12 Q. Now, Mr. Tusevljak, I just want to be sure I understand this. Is

13 it --

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE DELVOIE: 20190 was not tendered?

16 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour, I'm coming back to that. I was

17 dealing with that for a different purpose.

18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.

19 MS. KORNER:

20 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, do I understand you to say that it is your case

21 that the payments that we see all over these documents for April are

22 simply, if you understand the expression, ex gratia payments made by the

23 MUP to help out Serbian police officers?

24 A. Mainly, yes. That was the first time that we received the

25 25.000 dinars. That was in May. We hadn't received any salary in

Page 22545

1 February or in March in the police in Sarajevo, which was a part of the

2 Republic of B&H.

3 Q. However, that is not your contention, I take it, for salaries

4 paid in May; in other words, in May if a salary was paid, that was to

5 people who had actually worked in May?

6 A. I believe that the salary for May was the same for everybody,

7 both the active and the reserve police staff. It was the same. I think

8 there was no difference in the amount of the salaries. That's my

9 opinion. I can't really go into that because I didn't make the decision

10 on the payrolls and I didn't make a decision on who was not to be paid.

11 That was not my job. I don't know what else I can say about this.

12 Q. No, no, I think you misunderstood, or it's possible it's a

13 translation difficulty. Regardless of what they got paid, people who

14 were paid in May or for work done in May, that was for actual work

15 performed. It was not an ex gratia payment?

16 A. I really can't comment on that.

17 Q. Well --

18 A. I have no idea.

19 Q. Well, Mr. Tusevljak, you're the one who's been making these

20 assertions about nobody being able to work, so I want to show you some

21 payrolls for May if I may now. Let's see if you can help on those.

22 First of all, can you look at the payroll which is 20195 at tab 2D,

23 although it's a slightly different point here that I want to make.

24 Now, do you agree that appears to be a payroll for May for Kula?

25 A. Yes, that's what it says.

Page 22546

1 Q. So there was a distinction made between Kula and Novo Sarajevo

2 station, wasn't there?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And are the people who are being paid here criminal inspectors,

5 four of them I think, plus an analyst?

6 A. Yes, at that moment, yes.

7 Q. And do you know those people there?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. So in May of 1992, Kula had an operating criminal investigation

10 department?

11 A. At the police station with these people, yes. They all should

12 have been working, but I think Rajko Gluhovic never worked either in Kula

13 or in Novo Sarajevo, and I think Mirko Ljuboje wasn't working at all then

14 either because he was at the police station in Vojkovici.

15 Q. All right. But -- wherever they were based at the time. And

16 according to this they were paid different salaries?

17 A. Yes. This was based on level of education. It was university

18 education, secondary education, or post-secondary education. It didn't

19 go based on position but based on the level of education.

20 Q. And do you recognise the signature? It says "nacelnik," and

21 there's a signature -- "chief," sorry.

22 A. No.

23 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I ask that this document be exhibited

24 for two reasons. The first is - and I'm not clear that it was actually

25 an assertion made by the witness, it's right to say, but certainly

Page 22547

1 Mr. Zecevic - that Kula didn't exist and there was Novo Sarajevo. And

2 secondly, the assertion as to crime police working.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I object. I don't want to explain

4 the assertions of the witness. The witness gave his testimony. This

5 document was never disclosed to the Defence. Now -- before, I mean, it

6 was announced for this witness. So as I said before, this is -- this, in

7 our opinion, is intolerable that during the Defence case the Office of

8 the Prosecutor is allowed to lead evidence and advance their case like

9 they're in the -- during their OTP case. Therefore, I strongly object.

10 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm told - and it may be -- - that

11 this was disclosed in 2009 in batch 78 under the number 0665-2364 through

12 to -2666. And we've given it ...

13 JUDGE DELVOIE: What is the document we're talking about right

14 now?

15 MS. KORNER: It's the one on the screen, Your Honours.

16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yeah, and the tab number, is that --

17 MS. KORNER: Oh, the tab is 2D.

18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Still 2D. Thank you.

19 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, that's one of the two documents we

21 admitted a few moments ago; right?

22 MS. KORNER: No.

23 JUDGE DELVOIE: No?

24 MS. KORNER: So, Your Honour, this is a Kula document. You

25 admitted earlier the documents in relation to the other police stations.

Page 22548

1 This is Kula for May.

2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Sorry, it's 2D. Sorry about that.

3 MS. KORNER: That's quite all right.

4 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, Mr. Zecevic, there is obviously a difference

5 in opinion as to whether this is or is not fresh evidence. But I would

6 have thought that according to Rule 90(H), I think it is, the

7 cross-examining party is required to put its case to the witness, in any

8 case. So I wonder whether this is really as you say, to be classified as

9 new evidence, so fresh evidence, in the sense that you seem to use this

10 phrase.

11 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may, according to the

12 jurisprudence of this Tribunal, the fresh evidence are: Material that

13 was not included on the OTP's 65 ter list, material not admitted during

14 OTP case in chief, material tendered by the OTP when cross-examining the

15 Defence witness. So, in my opinion, this definitely -- each of these

16 documents qualify hundred per cent as a fresh evidence, and that is our

17 position.

18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes --

19 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm not disputing the 90(H), of course.

20 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, but obviously the implications of what you

21 have just read out to me is that the Prosecution or the cross-examining

22 party would be barred from providing any new witness -- any new evidence,

23 and that is clearly not the intention of the Rules.

24 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, with all due respect, the --

25 I'm not saying they should be banned all together, but this is

Page 22549

1 exceptional circumstances when they can -- when they can introduce the

2 fresh evidence. That is -- that is the nature of the jurisprudence in

3 this Tribunal. Otherwise, Your Honours, we prepared the Defence case

4 based on the case to answer. If that case changes, like it changes in

5 this situation, how are we supposed to give our defence to that?

6 JUDGE HALL: But in any event, Mr. Zecevic, returning to the

7 document at issue now, whereas we fully understand your position on these

8 documents generally, now that the matter of disclosure is out of the way,

9 because I confess that that would have caused me some concern had it not

10 been previously disclosed, this is assimilated to the position of the

11 earlier documents we admitted, isn't it?

12 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I still don't have the confirmation

13 from my assistants about the disclosure of these documents. What I have

14 as a note is that the document was never disclosed to us before. Perhaps

15 it might be the -- we -- Your Honours, it will take us some time because

16 it might be a different ERN number, because that is the only way how we

17 can check the documents.

18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I just --

19 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't know what kind of search engine or the

20 facilities the Office of the Prosecutor has, but we don't.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, can I ask, for the moment, until

23 the Defence have had a chance to confirm it, that it be marked for

24 identification so that we can move on and perhaps return to this

25 tomorrow.

Page 22550

1 JUDGE HALL: Yes.

2 MS. KORNER: Or at the end of the day.

3 JUDGE HALL: So we'd so mark it.

4 MS. KORNER: Yes. I'll repeat again: The number under which it

5 was disclosed was 06665-2364 [sic] in a range that goes up to 2666, and

6 it was in 2009, batch 78. So I hope that assists.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, therefore 65 ter number 20195 shall

8 become P2358 marked for identification. Thank you.

9 MS. KORNER:

10 Q. All right. On the same topic, and then we'll move on to

11 something different, could you have a look, please, at 20198 at tab 2G.

12 This is apparently a payroll for May for Vogosca. And if we look

13 at the first page, at numbers 26, 27, and 29 -- it's a bit I think --

14 yes. Thank you very much.

15 Does that show them as members of the criminal investigation

16 department?

17 A. If you have a closer look, 26, 27, 29, you will see that they are

18 crossed out. It's crossed out. It says: Paid according to the payroll

19 of national security. 26, he left, so he wasn't paid at all. And then

20 29, Slobodan Govedarica, paid according to the payroll of the Pale SJB.

21 Q. Yes --

22 A. Meaning no one, none of these persons from the Vogosca Police

23 Station, in May received a salary, and this document demonstrates that in

24 no uncertain terms if you look closely.

25 Q. Sorry?

Page 22551

1 A. If you look closely.

2 Q. It shows they were paid by other places; is that correct?

3 A. No. It shows they were not on the payroll of the Vogosca Public

4 Security Station. Zivko Lazarevic now works for the national security.

5 Stanko Borovcanin, also crossed out, he used to be chief up until

6 April 1992 for that same police station, but it reads here he left. He's

7 no longer there. Slobodan Govedarica was paid by the Pale SJB.

8 Therefore, as I said, there are no crime police in Vogosca.

9 Q. Thank you. Can you go over the page, please, to number 35.

10 Nebojsa Lazic, criminal inspector, 50.000, signed for.

11 A. Nebojsa Lazic. I never heard of anyone like that working at the

12 Vogosca Police Station.

13 Q. Well, it appears, according to you, this is an accurate payroll

14 because these people, who you knew, who -- went elsewhere. All you can

15 say about this gentleman is you've never heard of him?

16 A. Yes, never.

17 Q. All right. Can we look, then, please, at one different one,

18 then. Could you look, please, at 20197, tab 2F. This is Rogatica for

19 May. And we need to go, I think, to the second page at numbers 36 and 37

20 and -- well, 36 and 37, inspectors, and at 38 a criminal technician. Did

21 you know Mr. - I think it's Zoranovic - and Mr. Perkovic?

22 A. No.

23 Q. But do you agree it would appear that Rogatica in May had at

24 least two people or three people working in its criminal investigations

25 department?

Page 22552

1 A. I think this is again a payroll. I think Rogatica at the time

2 was still not in the hands of the VRS. There was fighting going on there

3 throughout. I really don't know. I don't know these people from this

4 period, and I said that Rogatica was not under the Sarajevo SUP. Their

5 heads and the chiefs were people I didn't know back then. I did meet

6 some of them in the latter half of 1992 when we started organising

7 meetings.

8 Q. Yes. Well, whether you knew it or not - and I'm not quite clear

9 what the fact is that Rogatica was still being fought over has to do with

10 this - I'm suggesting to you that if one looked at the payrolls for all

11 of these SJBs that one would find that they had people working in the

12 criminal investigation departments in May. Do you understand that? Do

13 you understand, Mr. Tusevljak, that is the suggestion that I make to you,

14 that you are wrong when you say there was no criminal investigation

15 department during this early period?

16 A. No. I'm not saying that these people weren't inspectors, but as

17 for that department dealing with crime-related business at this point in

18 time indicated here, I'm certain that that was not the case.

19 Q. All right. Can we move then, please, to the general topic of

20 communications. Now, again I want to make sure that we understand what

21 you're saying. Are you saying that during the period up until

22 July of 1992 the CSB Sarajevo was not communicating with any of the SJBs?

23 A. No, that's not what I'm saying.

24 Q. All right. Well just can you tell us, please, shortly, what you

25 are saying about communications with the SJBs within your area of

Page 22553

1 responsibility.

2 A. I never worked in the communications department or had anything

3 to do with communications at all. What I do know is that there were

4 problems when I came to the security services centre. The dispatches

5 that were sent to the subsidiary stations from the centre were late. The

6 same thing applied to the reports. As for everything else, the method of

7 communication that was used by the communications centre, what equipment

8 was used, what technology was used, is something that I can't tell you

9 about because I understand nothing about it.

10 Q. No -- yes, I understand that, and I'm not asking you about the

11 technical equipment. What I'm asking you is -- and I'm asking you, for

12 example, because of something you said at page 22241. You were asked:

13 "The CSB Sarajevo Romanija-Birac, did it have any communication

14 with the public security station of Ilidza?"

15 And you said:

16 "No. There was that communication that I drew for you," in other

17 words, it was put to you that if someone from the CSB traverses

18 160 kilometres to get to Ilidza.

19 So are you saying there was no communication except by

20 dispatch -- by courier?

21 A. More often than not it was by courier. We did consider a

22 document which showed that at one point in time a telefax line was being

23 used and it was down to Ilidza to use their courier service to forward

24 the dispatches to the stations in their area, Pale to the stations in

25 their own area, and then Sokolac and Zvornik and whatever else. I can't

Page 22554

1 quite remember.

2 Q. Well, yes, all right. That's fair enough. Can I say, I'm not

3 suggesting that in many areas communication was not difficult during this

4 period. But it is not right to say, is it, that there was no

5 communication, in other words, orders going from the CSB and reports

6 being received from the SJB -- sorry, I'll start that sentence again. It

7 got a bit lost. Sorry.

8 You're not suggesting, are you, that the CSB could not send

9 orders or dispatches to any of the SJBs under its authority during the

10 period April until July?

11 A. Again, the dispatches that we sent or received were forwarded in

12 a variety of ways to the police station by courier or whatever else, but

13 we always had situations where the dispatches were late.

14 Q. Look, this is a simple question. As I say, I accept that there

15 may well have been problems and things were late or even went missing,

16 but it is not the case, is it, that the CSB was unable to send its

17 dispatches or orders to any police station, any SJB?

18 A. Well, if we wrote them, we sent them. But I don't know how.

19 Q. Right. Equally, it was possible, wasn't it, for each of the SJBs

20 within the area of responsibility of the CSB Sarajevo to send its reports

21 to the CSB?

22 A. First of all, you must know that in April there is no established

23 centre. In May, you still don't have an established centre. The centre

24 first began to get off the ground sometime in June. Therefore, there was

25 no address that the police stations could use to send their reports to,

Page 22555

1 as far as the security services centre was concerned.

2 Q. Right. I'm going to ask you to have a look, please, at the

3 communications log-book of the Ministry of the Interior, which is

4 Exhibit 1428, tab 1A.

5 Now, are you familiar with this book, Mr. Tusevljak?

6 A. No, I've never seen it.

7 Q. Now, to begin with, is this right, the MUP headquarters and the

8 CSB Sarajevo shared the same premises in the Vrace school?

9 A. They were there in the Vrace school but not with these guys. I

10 don't think so.

11 Q. Sorry, which guys?

12 A. The school at Vrace had several buildings. If you look at where

13 the minister was and his services, it was in the same place where the

14 centre chief was.

15 Q. I see. All right. It was -- I see what you mean. So it was a

16 different building within the complex that made up Vrace; is that right?

17 A. Yes. You may not be familiar with the earlier entries which

18 is -- which deal with a -- the dispatches or the documents sent out by

19 MUP headquarters to the various places and received, but I want you to

20 have a look, please, at item number 74 - but it turned into the Sarajevo

21 book at some stage, apparently - at -- it's, in English, at the fifth

22 page. Let's just check if it is in the -- in B/C/S it is -- it's quite

23 difficult to tell, I'm afraid. It's got at the top 0339-2402, if that

24 helps.

25 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, the -- at page 75, line 24, the

Page 22556

1 answer is:

2 "Yes."

3 And then the sentence beginning: "You may not be familiar ..."

4 is the question.

5 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.

6 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

8 MS. KORNER: Oh, sorry.

9 Q. Is that a dispatch from the SJB Milici reporting on those killed,

10 missing, and mutilated in the Birac area sent apparently on the

11 16th of July to be received by you, Mr. Tusevljak?

12 A. I don't see a date here. It was sent to me, that much is

13 certain, but I can't see a date. It was probably sometime in July.

14 Q. I think --

15 A. I can't really see the date. It says Milici Public Security

16 Station, report on --

17 Q. Yeah, it appears -- well, you're right. And I'm not quite sure

18 where the date comes from, but certainly the date is on the following

19 entry of the 15th of July. So we can see the previous -- it's somewhere

20 between the 14th and the 15th because at number 72, if we go back one

21 page, we'll see the date there.

22 Did you get a dispatch from the Milici SJB reporting on people

23 killed in Birac, missing and et cetera?

24 A. Probably. That's what it says. And my signature should be

25 somewhere there too.

Page 22557

1 Q. Well, we can't see a signature, unless that's your signature

2 above there.

3 And just for these purposes can we look at a few more entries

4 that appear to be for you.

5 MS. KORNER: At number -- well, probably 107, please, which we'll

6 find in the B/C/S at page 3, 0339-2407. And the English at page 10.

7 Q. Is that the instruction that was sent to the SJBs of the meeting

8 that you had with the crime heads in Sokolac?

9 A. Well, I see here that 107 is dispatch to call a meeting for

10 Sokolac. It was a dispatch that was sent out in order for a meeting to

11 be called.

12 Q. Yes, doesn't it read at 107:

13 "Scheduling of meeting of the CJB crime department and CSB in

14 Sokolac"?

15 A. Yes, a meeting that we had.

16 Q. And the book contains a large number of entries, which I don't

17 want to take you through because it's going to take a long time, that

18 relate to investigations into the Tas factory thefts in Vogosca. Would

19 you agree that that took up, certainly in 1992, a great deal of your

20 time?

21 A. Based on the requests that we received from the RS Assembly and

22 MUP. And you see that there were no crime police at all in Vogosca. So

23 I only have these two operatives and I couldn't expect them to do ten

24 jobs at the same time.

25 Q. Yes. The question was: Do you agree it took -- the

Page 22558

1 investigations into the thefts at the Tas factory took up a lot of your

2 time?

3 A. Of course. The crime police took some time to investigate that.

4 Q. We'll come back to that later. So certainly by July no -- would

5 you agree, absolutely no problem in communications with anybody?

6 A. By July?

7 Q. By July.

8 A. Well, you see that I only received the first dispatch on the

9 15th of July.

10 Q. Well --

11 A. What about my communications? Where are my dispatches?

12 Q. Well, you -- you can go through all of the book if you want to,

13 Mr. Tusevljak, but are you suggesting that even in July you couldn't

14 communicate with your SJBs -- your crime police in the SJBs?

15 A. What I'm saying is there were ongoing difficulties with the

16 communications. The communication lines were not working properly as

17 they would have in normal circumstances.

18 Q. Well, still on the subject of communications, and I'm going to

19 show you some other documents probably tomorrow now, you drew this map

20 when you were interviewed in Sarajevo and you were asked to draw further

21 maps by Mr. Zecevic or to mark further maps, I should say accurately. I

22 want to see, because it's quite difficult to see the perspective in some

23 of those maps, whether you agree with this one.

24 Could you have a look, please -- what was the -- it's

25 65 ter 20207, tab 42A?

Page 22559

1 Now, the difficulty about the maps that you were looking at is it

2 didn't show places like Pale and whatever. What we have attempted to do

3 here - and have a look at it and see if you agree, and if necessary you

4 can take the map away with you overnight in hard copy - is indicate by

5 the red line that goes down the left of the page there the front line.

6 To the left being -- of that red line being the ABiH or Croat-held areas;

7 to the right, the Serb areas. And then you'll see we've indicated the

8 other areas which were part of the front lines. Have a look at that and

9 see whether you agree with that.

10 A. I don't know which period this was in.

11 Q. 1992.

12 A. It changed the most in 1992.

13 Q. Well, I'm suggesting that this is --

14 A. I'm sorry. When I'm looking at this now, it turns out that all

15 of Hadzici was under the BH army.

16 Q. No. It's meant to indicate that part of Hadzici was part of the

17 Serbian republic, do you see?

18 A. Not this small an area.

19 Q. You --

20 A. It's the same situation with Trnovo. I'm not sure about that

21 part of Rogatica because I was never there, and I'm not sure about that

22 part of Srebrenica, Bratunac, Vlasenica because I wasn't there either.

23 And I'm not sure about the area towards Kladanj, Olovo, Vares, Breza,

24 Visoko, Kiseljak because I was never there either.

25 Q. All right. What I'm trying to indicate - and let's see if we can

Page 22560

1 get at it this way, rather tediously - is that from where you were based

2 in the Lukavica barracks -- or, not barracks, next to -- in the

3 electro -- or next to the Lukavica barracks, you could travel to Pale, to

4 Sokolac, to Han Pijesak, and further up without any difficulty?

5 A. Yes, except to Pale because you had to cross Trebevic and that

6 was difficult because of combat operations. So you had to travel down

7 the macadam road that I described.

8 Q. Yes. But otherwise, as it were, you had, I suppose, to use an

9 expression that we've heard over and over again, a corridor through which

10 you could travel?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Well, thank you. That's all I wanted to get at.

13 And as far as the snipers are concerned, any Muslim snipers that

14 there were, were based in, as it were, Sarajevo itself, weren't they, the

15 town?

16 A. In Sarajevo and also where Ilidza bordered on the other side,

17 from the line of Mount Igman, there was constant sniper fire on

18 Kotorac Donji, Kotorac Gornji, that part of Butmir, Novakovice, Kuce.

19 This wasn't towards the inner area of Sarajevo but the outside, and the

20 situation was same towards Visoko, Breza, and so on. There was snipers

21 that were shooting from Sarajevo. And it wasn't just snipers, it was

22 also Brownings and other weapons.

23 Q. Yes, but you were up in the hills, weren't you, whereas the

24 snipers were down in the valley of Sarajevo, the Muslim-held areas of

25 Sarajevo? Leaving aside Igman. Leaving aside Igman. But from where you

Page 22561

1 were.

2 A. That's not correct.

3 Q. Isn't it?

4 A. That's not correct, no.

5 Q. Where do you say the Muslim snipers were in connection to where

6 you were?

7 A. I wasn't on the Muslim side, but I know where the Serbian victims

8 were. And since I know the town of Sarajevo very well, just as I said

9 about the areas where I'd never been, I don't know them. At the

10 separation line in Grbavica, which goes along the Miljacka River, on the

11 one side there are 12- and 13-storey residential buildings as are on the

12 other side. Further on, Gola Brda is a place that was under the control

13 of the BH army the whole time, and from that position they targeted the

14 Vrace-Lukavica road. Mojmilo hill is another position that was under the

15 control of the BH army the whole time and they constantly targeted the

16 Lukavica-Kula road or the positions or Serbian villages in Nedzarici.

17 Q. All right --

18 A. Also, if you go towards Vogosca, this position or this recurrent

19 theme that the Serbs were on the hills and somebody was defending

20 themselves from the city is simply not true. In our official report

21 which we filed - and I'm not going to name names now - but we filed it

22 against responsible people, people who were responsible for the sniper

23 activity from Sarajevo, if you ever get the opportunity, I have that

24 official report and I can show it to you, and you'll see the victims of

25 these snipers on this side. This entire case file is with the Bosnian

Page 22562

1 prosecutor's office --

2 Q. Stop. I'm sorry, Mr. Tusevljak, for a number of reasons.

3 Firstly, we need some time to discuss. But secondly, the only point that

4 I'm raising with you - and I can see you disagree with me - is that when

5 you allege that you could not travel to these places because of snipers,

6 that that cannot be right.

7 A. No, it's not correct. Our roads ran across Mount Trebevic, and

8 the defence line with the Serbian army was under this road, was 2 metres

9 under this road. This means that the defence line ran along that road.

10 And travelling down that road was always a matter of life and death.

11 Q. All right. We'll leave it there, thank you very much, for today.

12 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, if I may, I'd like to raise just one

13 matter.

14 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Tusevljak, again we have certainly procedural

15 matters to deal with before we rise for the day, so the usher will escort

16 you out before we rise. And we will resume your cross-examination

17 tomorrow morning.

18 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]

19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

20 MS. KORNER: Can I ask that he be handed the CSB chart that

21 Mr. Zecevic wants him to look at which was MFI'd.

22 [The witness stands down]

23 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, what I -- what I wanted to raise is

24 the question of intercepts and their probative value. Today I was the

25 one taken by surprise when Mr. Zecevic said that there was no evidence