Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 26726

 1                           Thursday, 23 February 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

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

 7     Stojan Zupljanin.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.  Good morning to everyone.

 9     May we have the appearances, please.

10             MR. OLMSTED:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Matthew Olmsted,

11     Tom Hannis, and Case Manager Sebastiaan van Hooydonk, for the

12     Prosecution.

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

14     Slobodan Cvijetic, Denis Stoychev, Simon Levett, and appearing for

15     Stanisic Defence this morning.

16             MR. KRGOVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Dragan Krgovic,

17     Aleksandar Aleksic, Miroslav Cuskic, and Elayne Hannon, appearing for

18     Zupljanin Defence.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  Mr. Jovicinac, would you please confirm

20     that you are seeing and hearing us from your facilities in Belgrade.

21             THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Good morning, Your Honours.  This

22     is the Registrar from the field office in Belgrade.  I hope you can hear

23     me.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Registrar, could you try again, please.

25             THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink]  Good morning, Your Honours.  This

Page 26727

 1     is the Registrar from the field office in Belgrade.  I hope can you hear

 2     me now.  Can you hear me?

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  Thank you.

 4             Would the Court Officer please, first of all, invite

 5     Mr. Jovicinac to take the solemn declaration.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

 7     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 8                           WITNESS:  SRBOLJUB JOVICINAC

 9                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

10                           [Witness testified via videolink]

11             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, sir.  That solemn declaration imposes

12     upon you an obligation to speak the truth and should you fail to do so,

13     there are penalties which attach to your giving false or misleading

14     testimony.

15             On behalf of the Tribunal, I thank you for coming to agree to

16     testify to the Tribunal, and we are receiving you, of course, by way of

17     videolink from Belgrade.  The -- it is expected that your testimony would

18     be completed within the course of today, and the procedure of the

19     Tribunal is that there are breaks to allow the -- for technical reasons

20     but should you for any reasons need to take a break, if you would

21     indicate that to us, we would, of course, accommodate you.

22             The questioning on behalf of the Chamber at whose instances you

23     are called, will be led by Judge Harhoff, who -- to whom the camera will

24     soon switch and he sits at my left.  He will begin the questioning, and I

25     will now pass over to him so that he will ask the preliminary questions

Page 26728

 1     of you and then we would launch in your testimony.

 2             Judge Harhoff.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 4                           Examination by the Court:

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Jovicinac, could you please state your full

 6     name.

 7        A.   My name is Srboljub Jovicinac.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  And what is the date and place of

 9     birth?

10        A.   24 January 1949.  I was born in the village of Vrucinic in the

11     Novi Pazar municipality, in the Republic of Serbia.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, sir.  And what is your ethnicity?

13        A.   I'm a Serb.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

15             Mr. Jovicinac, what was your professional education?

16        A.   I finished primary school in the village of Vrucinic, and, after

17     that, I went to secondary textile technology school at Novi Pazar.  Then

18     I went to Banja Luka -- secondary military school in Banja Luka.  After

19     secondary school, I enrolled in law school and graduated in Banja Luka.

20     I'm a lawyer, and I passed my bar exam, and I have some modest experience

21     in the judiciary.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  Please tell us, when did you graduate

23     from law school?

24        A.   I graduated in 1986.

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

Page 26729

 1             Now, what was your occupation in 1992?  And what is it today?

 2        A.   In 1992, from August on, I was employed by the basic military

 3     prosecutor's office in Banja Luka.  And some two months or so later, I

 4     was appointed deputy military prosecutor.

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And what did you do before August 1992?

 6        A.   Before August 1992, I worked in Sarajevo for a while at the

 7     7th Army Command as a desk clerk in the military ombudsman's office.

 8             After that, I returned to Banja Luka.  I was appointed secretary

 9     of the second-instance housing commission of the 5th Banja Luka Corps.

10     From there, I went on to the training centre, but I couldn't give you the

11     exact date.  I forgot it.  There, I was a desk clerk for legal affairs at

12     the armoured units training centre, and I was also a teacher.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Right.  So, if I understand you correctly, you

14     began to work in August 1992 at the military prosecutor's office in

15     Banja Luka.  And then, a couple of months later, which would have been in

16     October perhaps, you were then appointed deputy military prosecutor in

17     Banja Luka.

18             That is correctly understood?

19        A.   Yes.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Very well.  Mr. Jovicinac, have you ever

21     testified before this Tribunal or before any other domestic court in

22     relation to the events that took place during the war?

23        A.   I have never testified before this Tribunal, but I was summoned

24     as a witness to the District Court of Banja Luka to give evidence in a

25     trial which, I suppose, is finished by now.

Page 26730

 1             I don't know how important it is to inform you that I had

 2     frequent contacts with the investigators of the OTP when they stayed in

 3     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Or, more precisely, in the region where I had

 4     responsibility or jurisdiction as a prosecutor.

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, sir.

 6             Now, let me tell you, then, a bit about the procedures that will

 7     take place for -- during your testimony here today.

 8             First of all, as the Presiding Judge just told you, you have been

 9     called to testify by the Trial Chamber.  That is to say, that you are not

10     a witness of the Prosecution, nor of the Defence.  The reason why we have

11     called you is that we have heard almost all of the evidence in this trial

12     against Mr. Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.  I don't know if can you

13     see the courtroom, but they would be seated to your left.

14             And the reason we have called you is that we are sitting back

15     with a few questions regarding the authority to --

16        A.   Yes, I see.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  -- investigate and prosecute reserve and

18     active-duty members of the police force for crimes committed during

19     resubordination to the army.  So this is main purpose of your testimony

20     today, to clarify a few of these questions.

21             We have assigned about one hour to the Chamber itself to put its

22     questions to you, after which you will be cross-examined first by the

23     Prosecution - and, again, if can you see the courtroom, they would be

24     sitting to the right - and, thereafter, the two Defence parties have been

25     given, all together, also one and a half hours.  This runs up to, all

Page 26731

 1     together, four hours for today.  And we hope that we can finish your

 2     testimony here before the end of the morning session, at a quarter to

 3     2.00.

 4             The proceedings run for 90 minutes at a time, after which we have

 5     to have a break because the tapes, the videotapes that record these

 6     hearings, have to be changed.  And during and after the cross-examination

 7     of the parties, the Judges may, at all times, also put questions to you.

 8             As you know, you have been accorded video testimony from Belgrade

 9     for good reasons, and -- but I just wanted to add to this that if at any

10     point you need to have a break, or you have questions to us, or to the

11     parties, then please do not hesitate to indicate this to the Registrar,

12     who is sitting next to you, and we will accommodate you accordingly.

13             And, lastly, Mr. Jovicinac, you must speak slowly and distinctly.

14     Please listen carefully to the questions and try and answer them as

15     concisely as you can.  And especially when the Defence counsels will be

16     cross-examining you, there's a risk of overlap because you both speak the

17     same language.  So, if you can, please observe a little pause between the

18     questions asked to you by the counsel and your response to them.

19             So that's all.  Do you have a question -- any question at this

20     point, Mr. Jovicinac?

21        A.   No.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Very well.  Let's get on with it then.

23             My first question to you, Mr. Jovicinac, is about the military

24     court in Banja Luka.

25             When was the military court established?  And can you tell us

Page 26732

 1     about the personal jurisdiction that the military court had; that is to

 2     say, over whom could it exercise its authority?

 3        A.   The military court in Banja Luka and the military prosecutor's

 4     office, too, were established pursuant to an Assembly decision that was

 5     taken in August 2002 [as interpreted].  Neither the military court, nor

 6     the military prosecutor's office starting working immediately because

 7     much time was required to find personnel and I can state with almost full

 8     certainty that the first activities began only in late September.

 9             As for the jurisdiction of the military court, under the laws

10     that were in force then, the military court had jurisdiction over all

11     criminal offences, the perpetrators of which were members of the

12     military.  It also had jurisdiction over criminal offences involving

13     prisoner of war as perpetrators of crimes.  It had exclusive

14     jurisdiction - I mean the military court in Banja Luka but also other

15     military courts - over criminal offences against the armed forces, as

16     well as criminal offences from chapter 15 which are -- is about the

17     security of the country and defence.

18             There was also a criminal offence from Article 136, if my memory

19     serves me well, and that was in chapter 16, about conspiracy to commit

20     criminal offences from chapter 15, as well as criminal offences against

21     the armed forces, that would be chapter 20.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  We'll get into more detail about that

23     in just a second.

24             Can I, just for the accuracy of your testimony, mention that on

25     page 7 of the testimony at line 4, you were quoted to say that the

Page 26733

 1     military court in Banja Luka was established pursuant to an Assembly

 2     decision taken in August 2002.

 3             I assume that the answer was that it was taken in August 1992.

 4     Can you confirm?

 5        A.   1992, yes.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Very well.

 7             Sir, do you remember when the military court heard its first

 8     case?

 9        A.   I don't think I can give you a reliable answer now.

10             The military court is an independent institution, as everybody

11     knows.  As a prosecutor, I didn't interfere with their business.  But, as

12     far as I remember, the first on-site investigations and the first actions

13     were taken in September after manning, after issuing decisions on

14     appointments.  But I believe that even these decisions date from

15     September.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, sir.  This is very helpful.

17             Mr. Jovicinac, as we are going to dwell a bit on the law, I

18     suggest that we have a look at some of the relevant provisions.  And

19     could ask the Registrar to call up Exhibit P1284.07, which, I hope, is

20     the Law on Military Courts from December 1976.

21             And if we could go to Article 13.  I think that would be on

22     page 2 of the English version.

23             Sir, do you have before you Article 13 of the Law on the

24     Courts -- on Military Courts in -- in a language that you can understand?

25             I see you're nodding, so I take it that you answer in the

Page 26734

 1     affirmative.

 2             Let's have a look at Article 13 or maybe even before.  Let's

 3     start with Article 12, which is the preceding article.  And Article 12

 4     reads that military courts can try cases involving criminal acts

 5     committed by military personnel, and also cases involving criminal acts

 6     committed by other persons, and those other persons are then further

 7     specified in Article 13.

 8             If we go to Article 13, we see that military courts can try

 9     civilians as well for a particular number of crimes.  And those crimes

10     are then listed up in the criminal law, which is Exhibit L11, I believe,

11     in the law library.

12             If we could call up that document and find Article 114.

13             Very well.  Mr. Jovicinac, do you have the criminal law in front

14     of you, and can you see Article 114?

15        A.   Yes.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Very well.

17             If the Registrar would assist us in going through these articles

18     rapidly, then the first thing we see is that Article 114 deals with

19     attack on the constitutional order.

20             And Article 115 deals with acceptance of capitulation and

21     occupation.

22             And if we turn to the next page, we see that Article 116 deals

23     with attack on the territorial integrity.

24             Article 117 deals with attacks on the independence of the states.

25             Article 118 is about prevention of the struggle against the

Page 26735

 1     enemy.

 2             Article 119 is about service in the enemy armed forces.

 3             Article 120 is providing assistance to the enemy.

 4             Article 121 is about weakening the military and defence strength.

 5             Article 122 deals with assassination of representatives of the

 6     highest state organs.

 7             And so on and so forth.  This goes on right until Article 156.

 8             Now this would imply that military courts can try these crimes

 9     even if they were committed by civilians.  But, sir --

10        A.   Yes.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  -- could you tell us if there is any legal basis

12     in these instruments for the military prosecutors to investigate crimes

13     allegedly committed by civilians other than these crimes which are

14     directed against the security and integrity of the state?

15             Could you, as military prosecutor, investigate and prosecute a

16     civilian who had committed, say, a war crime against a prisoner of war?

17        A.   A military prosecutor could launch an investigation against a

18     civilian who committed war crimes but if he did it in complicity with a

19     member of the military.  These crimes are explicitly listed as being

20     under the jurisdiction of military courts, and the prosecutor's office is

21     linked to the jurisdiction of military courts.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I see.  Maybe we could go back to the

23     Law on Military Court and have a look at that provision again.

24             If the Registrar could find Exhibit P1284.07 for us again.

25        A.   That's 12 and 13.

Page 26736

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes.  And we will proceed to Article 14 and 15 as

 2     well.  Very well.  Mr. Jovicinac, do you have it in front of you?

 3        A.   14 and 15.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes.  And if we could have the English version up

 5     on the screen as well of the rest of Article 13 and Article 14 and 15.

 6             Now, sir, you told us just now that the military courts could

 7     also prosecute a civilian who committed a war crime if that war crime was

 8     committed together with a member of the armed forces.

 9             Where do you find that provision; can you remember?

10        A.   Yes.  That's the case of connection.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes.  And in which provision do you find the

12     connection?

13        A.   I -- I can't find my bearings in this particular section.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Very well.  Look at Article 13 in the penultimate

15     paragraph.  Is that the provision that we're looking for?

16        A.   Yes, that's the provision.

17             However, in the first part of the paragraph, it speaks about the

18     civilians employed by the army.  And then it says crimes committing

19     during service or in relation with the service as well as for any other

20     criminal acts that may be committed as -- by them as co-perpetrators or

21     accomplices to servicemen.

22             If I may be of assistance, if military courts have exclusive

23     jurisdiction over military personnel, then other perpetrators who act as

24     co-perpetrators, then the military court also has the jurisdiction to act

25     in such instances as well.

Page 26737

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes, I believe you're right.

 2             Now, what if a civilian who was -- let's take the example of a

 3     policeman, for instance.  We know from the evidence in this trial that

 4     quite frequently police forces would be resubordinated for a certain

 5     period of time to the army, to assist the army in combat operations.

 6             If a resubordinated policeman commits a war crime while he is

 7     taking part in the operation together with soldiers of the army, who

 8     would then be authorised and competent to try this policeman?

 9        A.   Your Honours, this is a very delicate question.  I would like to

10     refer you to the provision of the Law on the Service in the Military - I

11     don't know exactly which provision that is - in which the command is

12     based on the principle of unity of command, or singleness of command, as

13     well as on the principles of subordination and singleness of command.

14             To simplify it, that would mean that all subordinates are obliged

15     to carry out all the orders issued by superiors.

16             The Law on Courts is always an explicit one.  Military courts try

17     military personnel for the crimes committed by them.  There is no

18     provision in the law, nor did I have an opportunity to encounter that in

19     practice.  The case law or the law have managed to draw a line between

20     these two issues.  On the one hand, you have a norm which says that the

21     military court can only try military personnel who committed criminal

22     offences.  On the other hand, you have a policeman who does not have the

23     status of a member of the military.  So I cannot give you an explicit

24     answer that it would be the military court who would have the

25     jurisdiction to try a policeman who committed a crime.

Page 26738

 1             However, if he did that as an accomplice of a member of the

 2     military, I can tell you, without hesitation, that it would be under the

 3     jurisdiction of the military court.  However, if we are talking solely

 4     about a civilian policeman, I really wonder whether the military court

 5     can act.  And I think that in such instances, a military prosecutor would

 6     declare himself disqualified because for any other structures other than

 7     the military the civilian courts have jurisdiction.

 8             Now, we have a situation that we have policemen who have been

 9     resubordinated.  Its duty is to carry out the orders from the superior

10     command in compliance with all the provisions governing the use of units

11     raises a question which, in my view, hasn't been resolved either in the

12     case law or in the legislature.

13             What I see as an important thing in such situation where you have

14     a combination of police and armed forces, if a crime is committed and

15     detected immediately and reported immediately, and if you have a civilian

16     mechanism initiated in terms of investigation or placing people in

17     custody, then that's a mechanism that cannot be stopped anymore.

18     However, as I said, I have some reservations whether this could be

19     processed by a military court.  To tell you the truth, I, as a military

20     prosecutor, would prefer to defer this kind of cases to the prosecutors

21     who have jurisdiction over the crimes committed by other individuals than

22     those --

23             MR. KRGOVIC:  I apologise.  There is an error in transcript.

24     It's page 13, line 6, because witness says something else.  He said --

25     [Interpretation] In Serbian he said -- and if he can repeat.  He said

Page 26739

 1     that:  Even if I, as a military prosecutor, would submit a request, the

 2     military court would declare itself not to have the jurisdiction.

 3             So if you could please clarify this with the witness.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic, unfortunately, you interrupted the

 5     translation of what the witness was saying.  I think you should try to

 6     avoid that.  Now we have an incomplete translation there.

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Jovicinac, I'm sorry for this interruption.

 8     But interpretation is a difficult thing, and if the parties or the

 9     witnesses speak too fast, overlap, then it is very difficult for the

10     interpreters to catch up.

11             Now, Mr. Jovicinac, could you please repeat what you said about

12     your inclination in case you were put before a -- a instance in which a

13     civilian policeman who had been resubordinated to the army would come

14     under your jurisdiction or not.

15        A.   If we are to go now into more details, let me tell you that if I

16     receive a criminal report, and if I am to carry out a serious check of

17     the allegations contained therein, pursuant to the Law on Criminal

18     Procedure, I have to find out whether this police unit was really

19     resubordinated to the army, whether it was placed under the military

20     command, and if the criminal report undoubtedly shows that he had

21     committed a crime, as a prosecutor, in view of the explicit norm from the

22     Law on Military Courts and their jurisdiction, I would defer it to the

23     jurisdiction of civilian courts.

24             If I made a mistake and launched investigation before a military

25     court, my view is -- and I'm quite sure that in that instance the

Page 26740

 1     military court would declare itself to have no jurisdiction and would

 2     defer the case to civilian courts because it involved a civilian

 3     policeman, and this is in line with the law governing the jurisdiction of

 4     military courts.

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you for this clarification.

 6             But please tell us the logic in this because it would perhaps

 7     seem logic that if a civilian policeman is resubordinated to the army,

 8     then, for the sake of the unity of the command, he is under the authority

 9     of the commanding officer of the army for the purpose of the military

10     operation.

11             Would it then not be logical to assume that this policeman would

12     also fall under the jurisdiction of the military prosecutor, if he

13     committed a crime during the time in which he was resubordinated to the

14     army?  Do you understand my question?

15        A.   Yes, I do.  The military prosecutor would have jurisdiction to

16     act against a civilian policeman for crimes that are exclusively within

17     the jurisdiction of military courts.  War crime does not fall into the

18     category of exclusive jurisdiction of military courts.

19             Now, what I see as an obstacle here, and I might have different

20     views or maybe I can agree with your line of thinking, but the law is

21     very clear here because every resubordination lasts for a limited

22     duration of time.  It's not a permanent status because status here is the

23     decisive factor in determining the jurisdiction.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  That seems logical, indeed.  But if a civilian

25     policeman is resubordinated to the army, even for a limited duration of

Page 26741

 1     time, then why wouldn't he have the same status as his brother in the

 2     army?

 3        A.   You know, that would mean that I would then embark on an area

 4     that I'm not very familiar with.  It was never a case that individuals

 5     were resubordinated but, rather, units as a whole, and every unit had its

 6     own superior commander who reported to a military commander.

 7             There is logic in affording this status to such personnel, but

 8     this is not provided in the law.  And you know that we must act in

 9     compliance with the law.

10             I am quite sure that if such a person would appeal such a

11     proceedings, that these appeals would be accepted on the basis of

12     wrongful jurisdiction.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Do you mean to say that appeals were made to

14     the -- to the military court or to the civilian courts?

15        A.   To the military court, of course.  But the decision would be made

16     by the supreme military court, not the one who conducted the proceedings.

17             If I requested an investigation with the basic military court,

18     the accused has a right to appeal such a decision taken by an

19     investigating judge, and then the chamber would decide upon them.  And if

20     we strictly adhere to the provision from Article 13 from the Law on

21     Military Courts, then this appeal, in my view, would be granted.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And the results of that appeal, in your opinion,

23     would be that the military supreme court would defer the case to the

24     civilian judiciary.

25             Is that correctly understood?

Page 26742

 1        A.   No.  The military court who conducted the proceedings would be --

 2     would proceed it to the supreme military court.  And then if we have a

 3     clash of jurisdictions, then it would be the supreme court who would

 4     render a final decision.  That is stipulated by the Law on

 5     Criminal Procedure.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Very well.  Thanks for this clarification.

 7             Let me move to some --

 8        A.   Excuse me, if I may add just one more thing?

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Please go ahead.

10        A.   Errors may occur in the course of the proceedings, but there is

11     always a higher instance that can remedy these mistakes in the previous

12     proceedings.

13             So, as far as I can remember, we had not had such a situation in

14     our practice, at all.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Very well.  Speaking about practice --

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Olmsted.

18             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I just noticed that his

19     answer to your last question was a little bit ambiguous.

20             You put the proposition to him on appeal would the case be

21     determined by -- I assume the supreme military court to defer a case

22     against a civilian police officer and then he, I think, was confused

23     about the issue of whether you meant the basic military court or the

24     supreme court.

25             So his answer "no," is, in that context, a bit ambiguous, at

Page 26743

 1     least the way I read it.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I thought I understood it correctly.  But let's

 3     go back to the question again.

 4             Mr. Jovicinac, there's some uncertainty about the answer that you

 5     just gave to me.

 6             The question was this:  If a civilian policeman who is

 7     resubordinated to the army for a limited period of time, and during his

 8     resubordination he commits a war crime, and for that war crime he is

 9     prosecuted by the military prosecutor but he appeals - he is unhappy with

10     the decision of the military court - and he claims he should have been

11     tried by the civilian court and he therefore appeals the jurisdiction of

12     the military court to the supreme military court, then what, in your

13     view, would the response for the decision made by the military supreme

14     court?

15        A.   If the supreme military court upholds the -- the appeal of the

16     accused, it would annul the decision of the first-instance investigative

17     magistrate and return the case to the first-instance military court for

18     it to defer it to the civilian court that has jurisdiction.

19             Furthermore, if that case -- sorry, that court that was seized

20     with the case did not agree with that, then -- that is, in case of a

21     clash of jurisdiction, then a higher court would have to be the one that

22     decides in such a case.

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  I hope it has become clearer now.

24             Let's move to some of the practice.  Did you ever have the

25     opportunity to prosecute active-duty or reserve policemen who had been

Page 26744

 1     resubordinated to the army for any crimes committed during their

 2     resubordination?  Was such a case ever put to you?

 3        A.   As far as I remember, there was one such case, or two.  I'm not

 4     fully certain.  But we were not aware of their resubordination.  It has

 5     been a long time, but if I remember correctly, an offence was committed

 6     outside the unit; that is, when the perpetrator was not with the unit.

 7             I cannot be more price now.  But there was one such case, or

 8     maybe two.

 9             I remember that I -- I did not agree with the legal qualification

10     of the offences and deferred it to the prosecutor's office that had

11     jurisdiction.  They accepted to investigate the case and acted upon my

12     request.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I'm not sure I fully understood your example.

14             Were you talking about an incident in which a person who turned

15     out to be a civilian policeman had committed a crime just outside the

16     premises, and the case was then put before you, but you deferred the case

17     back to the civilian prosecutor?  Was that what the example was about?

18        A.   Yes.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Very well --

20        A.   The offence was committed outside the context of combat.  It was

21     not a combat context.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I see.

23             Let's have a look at a few incidents in which, I believe, that

24     you were involved.

25             If the Registrar would be good enough to call up Exhibit 2D42 on

Page 26745

 1     the screen, please.

 2             Mr. Jovicinac, do you have the document in front of you?

 3        A.   Yes, yes.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  This is a dispatch issued by the deputy military

 5     prosecutor in Banja Luka, one Mr. Zoran Babic, dated 8th of March, 1993,

 6     concerning a case in which 12 suspects had been detained regarding a

 7     massacre of 80 civilians in the school of Velagici near Kljuc.

 8             Do you recall the incident?

 9        A.   Yes.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Do you know if any of the 12 suspects who are

11     listed here were policemen who had been resubordinated to the army?

12        A.   No.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  What is your answer?  You don't know; or do you

14     know that they were not?

15        A.   I have no such information.  Judging by their personal

16     information, they were all military conscripts serving with the

17     Military Post number 4630, Kljuc.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Right.

19             Now, a military conscript or, as the English translation goes, a

20     military recruit, could that be a policeman who had been resubordinated?

21     Is that how you would list a resubordinated policeman?

22        A.   A military prosecutor can give a description in such a document

23     based on the description that he received in the criminal complaint.  He

24     merely relates the information contained therein.

25             If the criminal report had qualified somebody as a civilian

Page 26746

 1     police officer, it would have been mentioned here.  And that person would

 2     certainly have been tried, together with everybody else, because he, in

 3     that case, would be a co-perpetrator.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Right.  My interest was, rather, to be able to

 5     determine whether, by the description of these gentlemen, one could

 6     determine their -- their -- their provenance.  If you take, for instance,

 7     the suspect number two, Mr. Krcmar, he is listed as a military recruit,

 8     and then his father and mother's name are mentioned.

 9             Could Mr. Krcmar be a resubordinated policeman, judging by the

10     description of him here?

11        A.   If I may read it all out, all the details.

12             It says:

13             "Ilija Krcmar, military recruit, father Gojko, mother Mila, born

14     in Jajce, on 3 March 1967, permanently residing in Kljuc at

15     92 Josipa Broza Street, student by occupation, currently military

16     conscript with Military Post 4630, Kljuc."

17             This does not allow for the conclusion that he is a police

18     officer, and it explicitly states that he was a student by occupation.

19     He was also a member of a military unit.  And the accused would certainly

20     complain in the course of the proceedings, and the investigative judge

21     would change this information.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

23             Let's have a look at another incident.

24             If the Registrar could pull up for us a document which has the

25     English ERN number 03056945 and the following two pages.  In B/C/S, it is

Page 26747

 1     ERN number 02063512 and also with the next two pages up until -3514.

 2             THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Sorry, Your Honours.  Please

 3     repeat the B/C/S ERN number.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I'm not sure that this is document that I was

 5     looking for.  What we have on the screen is 65 ter 2069.  That would be

 6     the next document.  So let's just stay with what the document -- with the

 7     document we have on the screen.

 8             And, Mr. Jovicinac, do you have it in B/C/S in front of you?  You

 9     do.  Have you seen the document, sir?

10        A.   Yes.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Very well.  Do you recall this incident?

12             The document is a decision issued on 6 December 1992 by the

13     investigating judge at the Banja Luka Military Court to remand in custody

14     for one month four persons who all seem to be related - they all carry

15     the name Gvozden - regarding an incident of the murder of eight Croat men

16     and women that took place on the previous day in the village of Sasina.

17             Do you remember the incident?

18        A.   I remember this incident.  This was the first serious case that

19     the military prosecutor's office received, although I wasn't a prosecutor

20     at the time, I was deputy.  But I think I was present during the

21     interrogation of one or two of these accused.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes.

23        A.   They --

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Could you tell us, Mr. Jovicinac, if, to your

25     recollection, any of the four accused, or suspects as they were at this

Page 26748

 1     time, were active-duty or reserve members of the civilian police who had

 2     been resubordinated to the army when they killed the eight Croat men and

 3     women in Sasina?

 4        A.   Well, to be completely honest, I don't remember that detail.  I

 5     think that all of them or somebody was a member of the military.  But the

 6     investigative judge didn't include this information.  There is no

 7     criminal report because we could tell then, so we don't know their

 8     status.

 9             If possibly one of them was a police officer, then, due to the

10     status of the others, if they were members of the military, then this

11     police officer would also be included in the investigation.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  We just have time enough to see if

13     we, once again, could try and pull up the other incident that I was

14     talking about.

15             Mr. Registrar, can you find ...

16                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Jovicinac, there's a problem relating to the

18     translation of this document.  So what I would do instead is just to

19     remind you of the incidents and ask you if you can recall it.

20             It was about the killing of a Croat priest from November 1992

21     where three persons kidnapped and killed a Croat priest in a mine outside

22     the village of Donja Ravska.

23             Do you recall the incident?

24        A.   If it has to do with Priest Matanovic [phoen], I really don't

25     know much about the case, but there were some government organisations

Page 26749

 1     and international organisations that came to see me.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Sir, this incident from November 1992 was the

 3     killing of a Croat priest called Ivan Grgic.

 4             If you cannot recall, then please just tell us.

 5        A.   No, I cannot remember.  Our prosecutor's office may have

 6     investigated, but I really cannot be sure.

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, sir.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Very well.

10                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  I was just contacted by the our

12     Legal Officer to determine whether we should enter document 65 ter 2069

13     into evidence, but I don't see the use of it.  We have the witness's

14     testimony on record, and I would not seek to tender or to have this

15     document admitted into evidence.

16             Mr. Jovicinac, I thank you very much.  At ...

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Judge Delvoie has an additional question to you.

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Jovicinac, you told us that you -- you

20     would -- or the military prosecution would refer cases about crimes

21     committed by resubordinated policemen to the civil authorities because -

22     and I -- it was about a particular case.  Because the offence, you said,

23     was committed outside the context of combat.

24             You remember saying that?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 26750

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE:  That raises the question whether the answer

 2     would -- would have been different, whether, in other words, the military

 3     jurisdiction would be competent if crimes would have been committed in

 4     the context of combat.

 5             Let's take a hypothetical example of members of a resubordinated

 6     police unit, while in combat on the front line, kill a group of elderly

 7     women and young children who were seeking shelter in the basement of a

 8     village house.  So clearly in the context of combat.

 9             Would you say that this would be something that would stay within

10     the military jurisdiction?

11        A.   Well, you see, initially I provided an answer to such a question,

12     a similar question, actually.

13             If the offence was committed in co-perpetration with members of

14     the military, then the military court would have exclusive jurisdiction.

15             However, if they committed the offence, and if they were

16     exclusively police officers, then I see no possibility for the military

17     court to -- to deal with the case simply because the perpetrators did not

18     have the status of members of the military.

19             There is some logic to it, but, of course, the law has precedence

20     over logic.

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Jovicinac, we've reached the point where we

24     would take our first break.

25             We will resume in 20 minutes, when the Prosecution - thanks -

Page 26751

 1     would be invited to put any questions to you arising out of the questions

 2     that the Tribunal has.

 3                           [The witness stands down]

 4                           --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.

 5                           --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Do I take it from what I see on the screen that the

 7     witness has not yet resumed his seat?

 8             Could the Court Officer please confirm this.

 9             THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink]  I was ...

10             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  So we will deal with the -- this

11     procedure by the -- very briefly, and then you can have the witness back

12     before the camera.  Thank you.

13             MR. OLMSTED:  And, Your Honour, just for the record, Mr. Hannis

14     has now been replaced by Ms. Korner.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Olmsted.

16             The Chamber has been notified of the joint request by the parties

17     for additional time for the examination of the Chamber witnesses Lisica

18     and Kovac.  The Chamber has considered this matter and decided that the

19     times for Lisica will remain the same as determined in the

20     Trial Chamber's scheduling order of the 15th of February.

21             With regard to Witness Kovac, the Trial Chamber has decided to

22     schedule an additional hearing on Friday, the 9th of March.  The

23     Prosecution will have one extra court session for the examination of this

24     witness, and the Defence will jointly have another session for the

25     examination of Kovac.  The Friday's session will end at 12.05.

Page 26752

 1             Thank you.

 2             So, Mr. Court Officer, you can have the witness back before the

 3     camera.  Thank you.

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Jovicinac, welcome back.  I would now invite

 6     Mr. Olmsted, counsel for the Prosecution, to put such questions as he has

 7     to you.

 8             Yes, Mr. Olmsted.

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10                           Cross-examination by Mr. Olmsted:

11        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Jovicinac.

12        A.   Good morning.  Greetings to you.

13        Q.   I first just want to ask you a question about your background.

14             Can you confirm that you were appointed military prosecutor for

15     the 1st Krajina Corps in May of 1993 and that you held that position

16     until 1996?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   May we have P1284.6 on the screen.  This is tab number 7,

19     Mr. Jovicinac, in your binder.  And I'm interested in decision

20     number 169, which is a RS Presidency decision on the establishment, seat

21     and jurisdiction of the military courts and military prosecutors'

22     offices.

23             Can you confirm that it's this -- this is the decision that

24     established the military courts and military prosecutors' offices?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 26753

 1        Q.   Now, when you arrived in the military prosecutor's office in

 2     August 1992, there was already a military prosecutor in that office;

 3     isn't that correct?  There was a Spasoje Pisarevic.

 4        A.   Mr. Spasoje Pisarevic.

 5        Q.   And just to confirm, he was already functioning as the military

 6     prosecutor when you arrived in the office; is that correct?

 7        A.   Well, let me tell you, in August and September, we had the

 8     process of establishing the prosecutor's office, procuring equipment,

 9     recruiting staff, appointing staff, et cetera.  Real serious work started

10     sometime toward the end of September, if I remember correctly, after such

11     a long time.  And I believe that first investigations were conducted in

12     late September or early October.  But I'm just relying on my memory.  I

13     cannot give you a decisive answer after such a long time.

14        Q.   Thank you for that.  But that's not my question.  My question

15     simply was that the military prosecutor, Mr. Pisarevic, he was already at

16     the office when you joined the office; isn't that correct?

17        A.   I cannot confirm fully because I don't remember a decree issued

18     to that effect.  But everybody knew that he was going to be appointed to

19     that post because the decision was made in that month.  However, one

20     cannot say whether the whole procedure can be conducted within the months

21     starting from the decree and his essential assumption of duties.  I

22     cannot confirm that.

23        Q.   Let's have on the screen L51.

24             Mr. Jovicinac, this will be tab 12 in your binder.  And this is

25     the RS Law on the Army, from June 1992.

Page 26754

 1             Sir, during your testimony, you mentioned that the military

 2     courts had jurisdiction over persons who were members of the army, as

 3     defined by law.  And I want to draw your attention to Article 3 of this

 4     law which appears to define who are members of the military; is that

 5     correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And can you confirm:  If a person does not fall within this

 8     definition, then the military did not have criminal jurisdiction over

 9     that person, unless, of course, that person committed one of the crimes

10     enumerated in Article 13?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And can you confirm that this definition does not include

13     civilian police who have been resubordinated to the military?

14        A.   No.  This definition does not include civilian police because the

15     establishment of civilian police is regulated by the Law on the Interior.

16        Q.   In other words, resubordination does not change the status of a

17     civilian police officer from that of a civilian to that of a military

18     personnel; is that correct?

19        A.   I said in my previous response that those police officers who

20     were resubordinated, either for a short or a longer period of time,

21     resubordinated to the army, have to carry out the orders of the military

22     commander in line with the principle of singleness of command and

23     subordination.

24             However, Article 13 of the Law on Military Court is explicit, and

25     it said that the military court has exclusive jurisdiction over military

Page 26755

 1     personnel.  Therefore, it is the status that determines the jurisdiction.

 2     And I would like to reiterate that, in practice, this issue hasn't been

 3     clarified either at the time of the former Yugoslavia, although I can't

 4     say that we had the same situation as we had in 1992 onwards.

 5             If I remember correctly, due to the fact that this question

 6     raises a whole set of delicate issues -- for example, if an investigation

 7     is launched and is conducted by military organs, would they be allowed to

 8     interview the police officers or not?  That is, for example, one of the

 9     questions.

10             Another question which is, in my view, also a delicate one, deals

11     with interconnectivity --

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please slow down due to the

13     complexity of his answers.  Thank you.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Jovicinac, the interpreters are having a little

15     bit of difficulty in keeping up with you.  So I would ask you to bear in

16     mind that what you say has to be interpreted and having regard to the

17     technical nature of the answers that you are giving.  Yes, thank you.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             MR. OLMSTED:

20        Q.   Now we see in this definition of military --

21        A.   I understand.  Thank you.

22        Q.   Thank you.  We see that this definition under Article 3 includes

23     reserve personnel while on military duty.

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm really sorry, Your Honours.  Perhaps the

25     witness should be allowed to -- I'm sorry.  I interposed with the

Page 26756

 1     witness.

 2             Perhaps the witness should be allowed to finish the answer to his

 3     question which wasn't recorded because he was asked to slow down.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, perhaps can you rephrase the question

 5     that -- where the witness was interrupted and asked to -- where the

 6     interpreters refer to the complexity of his answer.  The -- because as

 7     you would note from the transcript, the -- the answer that is recorded is

 8     incomplete.  I think that is the point that Mr. Zecevic is making.

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  Okay.

10        Q.   Let me then just reiterate my previous question which was:  Under

11     this law under Article 3, this tells us, as you've testified, under this

12     definition, subordinated police officer, resubordinated police officers

13     would not be military personnel.  And my question was:  That

14     resubordination does not change the legal status of police officers from

15     that of civilians to that of military personnel.

16             And part of your answer got cut off.

17        A.   In my understanding, they do not change their status.  The

18     provisions of Article 13 of the Law on Military Court, is the military

19     courts who have exclusive jurisdiction over military personnel who have

20     committed criminal offence.

21             If it happens that both a member of the military and a civilian

22     policeman commit a crime as accomplices, regardless of the policeman's

23     state being a civilian one, then the jurisdiction would be with the

24     military court.

25        Q.   Now, we see under this Article 3 definition that it includes

Page 26757

 1     reserve personnel while on military duty.

 2             So until a reservist begins performing his military duties, he

 3     was considered a civilian for purposes of criminal jurisdiction; isn't

 4     that correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   If you could take now a look at Article 9, which is on the same

 7     page for you, Mr. Jovicinac; but if we can turn to page 2 of the English.

 8             We see that this provision permits the army to be replenished by

 9     volunteers which are defined as persons joining the army at their own

10     request without war-time assignment.

11             Who would fall under this definition?

12        A.   This definition encompasses only those individuals who have no

13     war assignment but they expressed a desire to make their contribution to

14     combat.  Such individuals are requested to report with units, they are

15     registered, and upon arrival at the unit, they become members of the

16     military and are entitled to enjoy all the rights and benefits, as

17     prescribed by the law.

18        Q.   So this article would not apply to resubordinated police

19     officers?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   I now want to look at chapter 7, which is page 8 in your copy of

22     the document; page 9 in the English version.  And I want to focus your

23     attention to section 2 which is disciplinary liability.

24             And can you confirm that these were the disciplinary provisions

25     that applied to the military in 1992?

Page 26758

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And if you can look at Article 63, it states:

 3             "Military personnel who, during their service or in connection

 4     with their service, violate military discipline in an act of

 5     premeditation or negligence, shall be responsible for a breach of

 6     discipline or disciplinary offence."

 7             So by its terms, these disciplinary provisions only apply to

 8     members of the military; is that correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   These disciplinary provisions did not apply to members of the

11     civilian police who were resubordinated temporarily to the military;

12     correct?

13        A.   Correct.  They were not applied to police officers.  Disciplinary

14     responsibility of policemen is governed by the Law on Interior.

15        Q.   May we have on the screen P1284.7.

16             Mr. Jovicinac, this is tab 1; and this is, again, the Law on

17     Military Courts that you reviewed with Judge Harhoff.  And I would like

18     you to first take a look at Article 9 under this law.  And Article 9

19     which is page 2, I believe, both the B/C/S and the English version.  This

20     article defines who is military personnel or a military serviceman for

21     purposes of the military courts' jurisdiction.

22             And if you can look at items number 1 through 4 of the first

23     paragraph, these essentially contain the same definition as we found in

24     Article 3 of the Law on the Military; isn't that correct?

25        A.   It is correct.

Page 26759

 1        Q.   Now, item number 5 includes:

 2             "A civilian performing specific military duties."

 3             Can you tell us to whom that relates?

 4        A.   This relates to civilians performing certain duties connected

 5     with the defence.  They work at the Ministry of Defence and are involved

 6     in mobilisation and -- this is what this refers to.

 7             So if a civilian is carrying out a military duty, then this

 8     provision pertains to them.

 9        Q.   That provision would not apply to a civilian police officer

10     resubordinated to the military; correct?

11        A.   No.

12        Q.   And just to clarify, it would not apply; is that correct?

13        A.   If you allow me.

14        Q.   My question was I just wanted to verify your last answer.

15             This item number 5, that would not include civilian police

16     officers resubordinated to the military?

17        A.   No, it wouldn't.  As I see it, no.

18        Q.   Now, if you look at the second paragraph under this Article 9, it

19     states a civilian within the meaning of this law shall be considered a

20     person who, under the first paragraph, is not a serviceman or a prisoner

21     of war.  So a civilian police officer resubordinated to the military

22     would fall under this catch-all definition of a civilian; isn't that

23     correct?

24        A.   First of all, a police officer is not a civilian.  He has a

25     status of a policeman.  They have uniforms.  They have weapons.  They

Page 26760

 1     have their authority.  Therefore, they cannot be considered civilians.

 2        Q.   And I understand that, sir.  But will you agree that for purposes

 3     of this law, they would be -- they would fall under the category of

 4     civilians because they're neither a member of the military, nor are they

 5     prisoner of war?

 6        A.   I wouldn't agree with that.

 7        Q.   Well, then I'm going to have to ask you to clarify that because

 8     as you were testifying previously, when Judge Harhoff was asking you

 9     questions, you stated that if a police officer, I believe, committed a

10     crime under Article 13, they would be classified as a civilian and they

11     would be prosecuted by the military court based upon that.

12             Now you're telling us that they do not fall under the definition

13     or the definition of civilian for purposes of this particular law.  And

14     so could you please clarify.

15        A.   Please, a policeman can, in no way, be a civilian.  If he commits

16     a crime in complicity with a member of the military, he would be

17     processed by the military court as a policeman, not as a civilian.  He is

18     an official, and you cannot define an official in that way.

19             Now, this could lead us into a wide debate about how the law

20     defines the term "civilian."  It does not relate to policemen, but,

21     rather, to individuals who perform certain duties for the defence system.

22        Q.   Very well.  Let's move on and maybe we can clarify this issue as

23     we go along.

24             If you can look at Article 13.  And you went over this with

25     Judge Harhoff so I won't go over it completely with you at this point,

Page 26761

 1     but the first paragraph deals with instances where civilians commit

 2     particular crimes under the SFRY Criminal Code.

 3             Will you agree that if a civilian police officer committed one of

 4     these crimes that under this first paragraph, the military court would

 5     have jurisdiction?

 6        A.   If the offence comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the

 7     military court and the police officer has committed such an offence, to

 8     my mind, he would be tried by a military court.  Because, otherwise --

 9     otherwise I don't know how it could be done.

10        Q.   Now, after the first paragraph, we have three additional

11     paragraphs under Article 13 dealing with other instances in which the

12     military court had jurisdiction over persons who did not fall within the

13     definition of a military personnel.

14             And if we can look at the second paragraph, this concerns

15     civilians committing property and misconduct crimes against military

16     equipment or weapons; correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   So, in this instance, under this paragraph, the crimes are not

19     limited to those enumerated in the first paragraph, under the

20     SFRY Criminal Code?

21        A.   I do not understand the question.

22        Q.   And perhaps it is obvious from the provision itself.  But unlike

23     the first paragraph, this paragraph is not limited to certain provisions

24     in the SFRY Criminal Code, so it could also include crimes that were

25     perhaps covered by the Criminal Codes within the independent --or the

Page 26762

 1     individual republics?

 2        A.   Yes.  And provinces.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  If we can look at the third paragraph, this

 4     paragraph concerns civilians employed by the armed forces.  So who would

 5     that cover, civilians employed by the armed forces?

 6        A.   Those were civilians serving in the armed forces.  Furthermore,

 7     persons in the staffs of the Territorial Defence while they are carrying

 8     out military exercises.

 9        Q.   That would not include civilian police officers, whether or not

10     they had been resubordinated?

11        A.   No.

12        Q.   And, finally, in the fourth paragraph, this gives military courts

13     jurisdiction over prisoners of war for any ordinary crimes that they may

14     commit, as well as international war crimes; correct?

15        A.   Correct.

16        Q.   And by way of an example, if we can turn to P2377.  This is under

17     tab 5 [sic] of your binder.

18        A.   5 to?

19        Q.   This is tab 25.  P2377.  This is a decision by the deputy

20     military prosecutor for the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, dated

21     14 February 1993.  And we see in the first paragraph that the deputy

22     prosecutor states that the military has no subject matter jurisdiction

23     against this accused for the crime under Article 144 of the SFRY

24     Criminal Code, war crime against prisoners of war.

25             Then in the third paragraph, he gives his reasons.  The

Page 26763

 1     prosecutor explains that this case concerns a civilian person over whom

 2     the jurisdiction of the military court is not provided for under the

 3     Law of the Military Courts, Article 13.

 4             So, Mr. Jovicinac, here is a decision that is applying Article 13

 5     of the Law on Military Courts; correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   I want to return now to P1284.7.  This is the Law on the

 8     Military Courts.  And I want us to look at Article 15, which is on

 9     page 3.  And we can see that Article 15 concerns the situation where a

10     civilian and a member of the military co-perpetrated a crime.

11             Can you tell us what was the effect of this provision?

12        A.   This provision had the following effect:  It obliges the military

13     court to try perpetrators of crimes because a member of the military was

14     a co-perpetrator.  It follows from Article 13 that the military court had

15     exclusive jurisdiction over trying members of the military.

16        Q.   Well, let's take a look at this first paragraph under Article 15.

17             It states:

18             "If a serviceman and a civilian, exclusive of persons under

19     Article 13, paragraph 4, which is relating to POWs, had committed a crime

20     as accomplices, and if the trial of the civilian falls within the

21     jurisdiction of another regular court, this court will also try the

22     serviceman."

23             Doesn't this paragraph have the effect of giving the civilian

24     courts jurisdiction over crimes committed or co-perpetrated by members of

25     the military?

Page 26764

 1        A.   I don't think this is what it says.

 2        Q.   Okay.  Can you please interpret that paragraph then for us.  What

 3     do they mean by regular courts would have jurisdiction over the

 4     perpetrators?

 5        A.   Another regular court would be -- in plain language would be the

 6     civilian court that has jurisdiction.

 7        Q.   So as I read this provision in this plain language, the civilian

 8     court would have jurisdiction in this instance?

 9        A.   No.  Do read the last sentence here.  It says in this

10     paragraph that:

11             "This court will also try the serviceman."

12             That means the serviceman and the civilian.

13        Q.   And --

14        A.   It I'm referring to paragraph 3 of Article 15, the last sentence.

15        Q.   So if I understand you correctly, you are saying when they refer

16     to "this court," they're not referring to the regular court, but they're

17     referring to the military court, under your interpretation?

18        A.   No.  No.  Please.  We should read the entire paragraph.  As an

19     exception to paragraph 1 of this article, if a serviceman has committed a

20     crime of official misconduct and a civilian appears as a co-perpetrator

21     or an accomplice, a military court will try both the serviceman and the

22     civilian, if we are referring to paragraph 2.

23             If we read paragraph 3, then we see the following:

24             "If in connection with the commitment of a crime by servicemen or

25     by a person under Article 13 of this law and a civilian, and if one of

Page 26765

 1     them has aided or abetted the perpetrator after the commission of the

 2     crime, or if he did not report the preparation of the crime, the

 3     commission of the crime or the perpetrator, the trial shall fall within

 4     the jurisdiction of the court having jurisdiction over the perpetrator."

 5        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, I'm interested -- I'm sorry.  I'm interested in

 6     paragraph 1, not the second or third paragraph.  The first paragraph.

 7     And this -- that paragraph, the first paragraph --

 8        A.   All right.

 9        Q.   -- states that where you have a serviceman and a civilian, and

10     the civilian would ordinarily fall under the regular courts, the regular

11     court will also try the military serviceman; isn't that correct?

12        A.   No.  In such a case, the military court has exclusive

13     jurisdiction.  We read that in the last line of paragraph 1.

14        Q.   I would ask you to look at -- well, let me just read this to you.

15             This is from your interview --

16        A.   I'm sorry, excuse me.  No, no.  It was my mistake.  If a

17     serviceman and a civilian, exclusive of persons under Article 13,

18     paragraph 4 of this law, committed a crime as an accomplices or

19     co-perpetrators and if the trial of the civilian falls within the

20     jurisdiction of another regular court, this court will also try the

21     serviceman.

22             So, in such a case, the serviceman will be then held responsible

23     before a regular court rather than a military court.

24             I apologise.  I made a mistake.

25        Q.   No problem.  I just wanted to make sure we were clear on that.

Page 26766

 1              Now, if we could turn to Article 16, can you confirm that I

 2     interpreted this provision correctly.  This Article 16 addresses a

 3     situation where a member of the military commits a crime but then leaves

 4     the army before he is indicted by the military court.

 5             Can you tell us what the effect of this provision was?

 6        A.   If it's a criminal offence that falls under the exclusive

 7     jurisdiction of military courts, then he will be tried by a military

 8     court.  If not, and the indictment has not legal force yet, then he will

 9     be tried by a regular court, that is, a civilian court.

10        Q.   I just want to return to Article 15 one last time.

11             If we can have 65 ter 2069 on the screen.  This is the document

12     that Judge Harhoff had shown you.

13             And we can see from the first paragraph that the perpetrators are

14     suspected of committing murder under Article 36 of the BiH Criminal Code.

15     In your answer to Judge Harhoff, you mention that if one of these

16     perpetrators was determined to be a civilian, that the case would be

17     heard by the military court.

18             Now we've looked at Article 15 which deals with co-perpetrators

19     where there's servicemen and civilians co-perpetrating a crime.  Under

20     the -- Article 15, in fact, this case, if it involved both civilian and

21     military persons, would fall under the civilian court's jurisdiction,

22     under Article 15 of the Law on Military Courts; is that correct?

23        A.   No.  For this offence, since these persons are members of the

24     military and they can be tried exclusively by a military court, we're not

25     talking about aiding and abetting or anything.  We are talking about

Page 26767

 1     perpetrators.  Although the information isn't complete, it still follows

 2     from the preamble, that is, the first paragraph, that they are military

 3     conscripts, members of the 6th Krajina Brigade, which means that they are

 4     members of the military.  And they are suspected of having committed the

 5     crime of murder under Article 36, and so on.  So that the military court

 6     has jurisdiction even if, amongst them, there was a civilian or a police

 7     officer because under Article 13 of the Law on Military Courts, it is

 8     clearly stipulated that the -- that a military court has exclusive

 9     jurisdiction over crimes committed by members of the military.

10        Q.   Well, we understand that.  But we were talking about Article 15

11     of that law, which deals with co-perpetration.  And in those instances,

12     if it is an ordinary crime that doesn't fall under Article 13, the

13     civilian court has jurisdiction over it.  We could look back at

14     Article 15 which is P1284.7, tab 1.

15             Sir, do you need me to repeat the question?

16        A.   I understand your question.  Article 13, military courts try

17     civilians for the following criminal offences contained in the

18     Criminal Code of the SFRY.

19        Q.   Yes.  But I want to focus your attention on Article 15, which

20     deals with the issue of co-perpetration.  And I want to understand:  Does

21     this article apply to the case we look -- just looked at, if the crime of

22     murder was committed by both military personnel, as well as civilian

23     persons?

24        A.   There are no civilians here.  It follows from the preamble that

25     they are all members of the 6th Krajina Brigade, military conscripts.

Page 26768

 1     But I said a civilian would be tried by a military if one had been

 2     amongst them because an offence, and that falls under Article 36, is in

 3     the exclusive jurisdiction of military courts.

 4        Q.   Sir, I don't want to spend much more time on this, but Article 36

 5     is referring to the BiH Criminal Code and that does not fall under

 6     Article 13; isn't that correct?  Article 13 outlines the provisions of

 7     the SFRY Criminal Code.  Article 36 is from the BiH Criminal Code.  And

 8     it's ordinary murder.

 9        A.   Yes, Bosnia-Herzegovina.  This is qualified murder.

10             In this case, since the co-perpetrators were members of the

11     military and civilians, if a civilian court had jurisdiction over these

12     matters, then the members of the military would also be tried by the

13     court that has jurisdiction.  Although there's no logic in that, but what

14     can you do?

15        Q.   Now, I want to talk -- we've spoken about the Article 16 and its

16     effect on a member of the military who commits a crime and then leaves

17     the military service.

18             I want to talk about the reverse situation.  If a civilian police

19     officer commits a crime but then is transferred to the army, not

20     resubordinated but transferred to the army, did the civilian courts

21     maintain jurisdiction over that old crime that was committed by the

22     police officer when he was a civilian?

23        A.   A member of the military is tried by a military court for the

24     offences that he committed when he was a member of the military.  He

25     couldn't be tried for such offences by a military court, though, but by a

Page 26769

 1     civilian court where the proceedings were instigated.

 2        Q.   I now want to discuss with you the procedural process of becoming

 3     a member of the military.

 4             Can you tell us:  For a member of the police to become a member

 5     of the military, what had to happen?  What kind of process had to happen?

 6        A.   Under the laws and regulations in force, that person had to be

 7     discharged from his service, and that's under the Law on

 8     Internal Affairs.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I object to this line of

10     questioning.  I object to this line of questioning by the Prosecutor

11     because this goes beyond the matters that the Trial Chamber dealt with.

12     We're talking about courts' jurisdiction and possibility the integrity of

13     this witness.  But this is clearly beyond the scope of these -- of this

14     subject matter.

15             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honour --

16             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, perhaps it is necessary for you to

17     narrow your question to conform to the purposes limited -- limited

18     purposes for which this witness was called.

19             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, Your Honours, perhaps I could explain why I'm

20     asking this question.

21             We've established now through this witness that the military

22     courts prosecutor's office had jurisdiction over military personnel and

23     now I'm exploring at what point would a police officer become military

24     personnel.  What kind of -- I need to establish what the process is, and

25     then I can ask the witness at what point would that police officer become

Page 26770

 1     military personnel for purposes of the Law on the Army and the Law on

 2     Military Courts.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Jovicinac, I take it you understand what

 4     Mr. Olmsted has just explained.  So within that narrow compass, you may

 5     answer the question.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Well, the police officer had

 7     to be discharged from the force, then he must be registered as a military

 8     conscript by the draft office, and then sent to serve with a military

 9     unit.  On the day when he reports to that unit, he, effectively, becomes

10     a member of the military.  That would be it, in a nutshell.

11             MR. OLMSTED:

12        Q.   And it is at that point in time that if he committed a crime that

13     the military courts would exercise jurisdiction over him?

14        A.   Could you please explain to me whether you're referring to a

15     point in time before that person has reported to the unit or after that?

16        Q.   I'm referring to the point where they reported to the unit.  At

17     that point in time, when they've shown up to the unit to carry on

18     military duties, that is when the military courts and prosecutor's

19     offices had jurisdiction over that individual; correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   You've mentioned that once a person joins the military, that's

22     registered somewhere.

23             Can you confirm that that would be registered in the Vob 8 form,

24     as well as that individual's military booklet?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 26771

 1        Q.   And these documents, the Vob 8 form, as well as the military

 2     booklet, were the documents that the military police - and, if necessary,

 3     the military's prosecutor's office - would consult to determine whether

 4     they had jurisdiction over that individual; correct?

 5        A.   Yes.  If there is any suspicion or if any need arises for

 6     conducting a check, whether this individual is, indeed, a member of the

 7     military or not.

 8        Q.   May we take a look at tab 8 of your binder.

 9             This is 65 ter 30001.

10             Mr. Jovicinac, could you confirm with us this is what a Vob 8

11     register looked like back in 1992?  And perhaps we can turn to page 3 --

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Can you tell us at what level in the military hierarchy this

14     register was maintained?

15        A.   Each basic unit maintained such records.  And I mean by that an

16     independent battalion, regiment, and brigade.

17        Q.   And for each unit, this register would record all military

18     personnel for that unit, from the commander, all the way to the last

19     soldier, and included reserve soldiers as well; correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   A civilian police officer who was resubordinated to the military

22     would not appear in this register; correct?

23        A.   No, he wouldn't, at least that's what I think.

24             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, may this be admitted into evidence.

25     It's not only relevant to the issue of determining a status of a person

Page 26772

 1     but also it's relevant to a pending rebuttal motion that the Prosecution

 2     has filed.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, we object because the pending rebuttal

 4     motion deals with ABiH Vob forms and this has nothing to do with the --

 5     with the -- with the JNA or VRS Vob forms.  And this is not relevant at

 6     all.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, I find it strange that you would

 8     anticipate a document becoming relevant by the determination on a motion

 9     that has yet to be decided upon, so I would disregard that arm of your

10     argument.  But in terms of this document itself, having regard to this

11     witness's testimony, isn't the evidence that the -- what we are concerned

12     about, that this is -- this establishes the negative?  So how is this

13     relevant?

14             MR. OLMSTED:  You're absolutely correct, Your Honour.  It does

15     establish the negative.  However, the Prosecution feels that it would be

16     good to have an example of one of these registers on the record.

17             JUDGE HALL:  For what purpose?  We have -- you showed it to the

18     witness.  The witness has given an answer.  I see no utility at all to

19     this document as an exhibit.

20                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

21             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, the document will show that there are

22     no police officers listed in this register.  And, therefore, it

23     corroborates what the witness has been saying:  That civilian police

24     resubordinated would not appear in this particular register.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 26773

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Olmsted, if you were to prove that there were

 2     no policemen registered by way of the Vob 8 formulas, then you would have

 3     to show us all the Vob 8 formulas that would apply to the entire VRS and

 4     then show to us that in none of these any policeman was registered.

 5             But showing us one example wouldn't make the point.  I think we

 6     have the witness's testimony and that would suffice, would it not?

 7                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, point taken.  I'll retract the motion

 9     to tender this document.

10        Q.   If we can please look at P2344.  This is tab 3, Mr. Jovicinac, in

11     your binder.  And, sir, can you confirm that this is an example of a

12     military booklet, how it existed back in 1992.

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And if you can please turn to page 7 of your copy, and page 15 of

15     the English.

16        A.   Yes.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  I'm sorry, if we can go back two pages in the

18     English version.  I see the page numbers at the bottom don't correspond

19     with the pages in e-court.  That's right.

20        Q.   Now, according to this military booklet, this person's war-time

21     assignment was with the RS Ministry of Interior from the

22     4th of April, 1992, until the 30th of June, 1996.  Based upon this

23     booklet, Mr. Jovicinac, if this person was arrested during this period

24     for committing a crime which did not fall under Article 13, the military

25     authorities would have turned this person over to the civilian

Page 26774

 1     authorities - isn't that correct? - because, according to this booklet,

 2     he was a member of the civilian police?

 3        A.   Look, if we are talking about perpetrators and their arrests, if

 4     the military police or any other member of the military caught someone in

 5     flagrante, they would have been obliged to report this to the nearest

 6     police station so that they would come over and take over this

 7     individual, and there is reciprocity in that as well.

 8             If the police caught a military personnel committing a crime, it

 9     is their duty to call the military police to come over and arrest the

10     perpetrator for further interrogation.

11        Q.   Until a perpetrator of a crime was identified as a member of the

12     military, the civilian authorities maintained jurisdiction over that

13     case; correct?

14        A.   Correct.

15        Q.   So if an unknown perpetrator case was brought to you, you would

16     send it to the civilian authorities?

17        A.   If it is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of military

18     courts.

19        Q.   May we have 65 ter 1358 on the screen.  This is tab 16.

20             And we can see this is a report on crime trends for

21     September 1992 from the 1st Krajina Corps military prosecutor's office.

22     Can you confirm for us that this is one of your office's reports for the

23     month of September 1992?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   I would like you to turn to page 19 in your version, and we could

Page 26775

 1     turn to page 20 in the English.  The first paragraph, under

 2     Roman numeral IV, preventative activities, states that the military

 3     prosecutor's office consulted with the civilian courts, prosecutor's

 4     offices, Security Services Centres on the demarcation of jurisdiction.

 5             Do you see that in the first paragraph?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   To your knowledge, in the course of these consultations, did the

 8     issue of jurisdiction over crimes committed by the civilian police ever

 9     come up?

10        A.   I did not personally take part in this.  This was this initial

11     period that I mentioned before, but I think that if you arrive at certain

12     conclusions, I think that something is missing here.  Although, in spite

13     of that, I wouldn't be able to give you a more precise answer than this.

14        Q.   Well, let's look at the third paragraph then.  It states that

15     seminars were held on the subject of disciplinary responsibility of

16     military personnel with the most responsible officers of the

17     2nd Krajina Corps, air force, PVO, and with secretaries, judges and

18     military disciplinary prosecutors.

19             So can you confirm that the military prosecutor's office, as part

20     of its responsibilities, provided training on military disciplinary

21     responsibility?

22        A.   Look, this is what we call general prevention.  These seminars

23     were organised by units.  According to what I know, the military

24     prosecutor's office offered professional assistance.  These seminars were

25     even used at an opportunity to train the people collecting evidence about

Page 26776

 1     the perpetrators of crimes, about the detection of crimes, and that it

 2     was a useful exercise that the commands, in co-operation with the

 3     military prosecutor office, conducted.

 4             After such seminars, criminal reports became much better.  They

 5     contained more information and more compelling evidence which facilitated

 6     the whole process of prosecution.

 7             Now, let me go back to chapter 6.  No, this is chapter 4.  Where

 8     were we a minute ago?

 9        Q.   Yes.  We were looking at chapter Roman numeral IV.

10        A.   Yes, chapter IV.  Chapter IV.  I can't speak about the

11     intricacies, but I suppose that the then-prosecutor thought it

12     appropriate to maintain contacts with civilian prosecutors, as well as

13     representatives of the MUP so that, in a way, work and co-operation can

14     be improved.  And I'm talking about co-ordination between military and

15     civilian organ, specifically military police, military security,

16     civilian's police and civilian security services, because there are some

17     provisions that are common for all these entities in the

18     Law on Criminal Procedure.

19             As for the rest of it, I cannot give you any more of my opinion

20     because I wasn't involved in this.  But, nonetheless, I thought this was

21     a useful approach.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, is this a convenient point?

23             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE HALL:  When we resume, you would have 22 minutes left.

25             Mr. Jovicinac, we are about to take our second break.  We will

Page 26777

 1     resume in another 20 minutes.  Thank you.

 2                           --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  I don't know why I was waiting for the witness to be

 5     escorted inside.

 6             Mr. Jovicinac, we are back, and Mr. Olmsted is about to wind up

 7     his cross-examination.

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour --

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry.  Before you begin ...

10                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

11             JUDGE HALL:  In terms of the -- thank you.

12             In terms of the time left with this witness, when Mr. Olmsted

13     would have completed his cross-examination -- and, Mr. Witness, we have

14     already alerted you that we may -- that we would take a break at 1.45 and

15     continue for some time after that, so the -- we would -- when Mr. Olmsted

16     has completed his -- his cross-examination, we would then move to the

17     Defence, and we would then take a break at 1.45 at which time, and I say

18     this for those of us here, we would reconvene in Courtroom II, at -- in

19     an hour?  At 2.45.  Yes.  Thank you.

20             Please, continue, Mr. Olmsted.

21             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.

22             May we have 65 ter 1358 back on the screen.

23        Q.   This is tab 16, Mr. Jovicinac, in your binder.  And if we can

24     turn back to page 19 in your version; page 20 of the English version.

25             Sir, before the break, I was asking you some questions with

Page 26778

 1     regard to paragraph 3 under this preventative activities section of this

 2     document.  And paragraph 3 raises the issue of disciplinary measures and

 3     seminars and other consultations that the military prosecutor's office

 4     had on this particular issue.

 5             My question for is:  To your knowledge, did the issue of

 6     disciplinary measures against police officers resubordinated to the

 7     military ever come up in any of these discussions or consultations or

 8     seminars?

 9        A.   I attended some of these seminars, but there was no discussion

10     about initiating disciplinary procedures against members of the police,

11     for the simple reason that the police have their own rules governing

12     disciplinary responsibilities and the measures prescribed as sanctions

13     which are somewhat different from the measures and proceedings conducted

14     by military disciplinary court.  They are different from the police

15     disciplinary courts.

16             So, as far as I can remember, this issue was not debated, nor

17     ever tackled at all.  These seminars were organised by the commands, and

18     the prosecutor's office only rendered professional help.  As far as I can

19     remember, even some of the judges took part in those seminars in order to

20     offer their professional help, because the majority of the units was made

21     up of reservists which was not exactly -- category who were well versed

22     in rules and regulations.  All of this was done with a view to

23     strengthening the discipline and enhancing the military organisation, in

24     order to make it able of carrying out the tasks that it had to do.

25        Q.   One of the reasons that subordinated or resubordinated police

Page 26779

 1     units were commanded by a senior member of the police was for this very

 2     reason, to address any disciplinary measures against the police; isn't

 3     that correct?

 4        A.   No.  Please.  There is a by-law in the army which regulates

 5     military discipline.  It prescribes in very detailed terms the

 6     disciplinary measures that can be imposed on members of the military for

 7     disciplinary offences.  Let me be more clear.  Disciplinary measures can

 8     be pronounced either directly by a direct superior officer in line with

 9     his powers, and for disciplinary violations, proceedings have to be

10     instituted, which is followed by an indictment, because there is also a

11     military disciplinary prosecutor who presents his case before the

12     military disciplinary panel made up of three judges and a registrar who

13     is a professional organ, and --

14        Q.   Sir --

15        A.   -- this is described in great detail in the rules governing the

16     military discipline.

17        Q.   Thank you.  What I was after was not a description of the

18     military disciplinary procedures.  Unfortunately, we don't have time to

19     go into those details.

20             My question was fairly simple:  A resubordinated police unit had

21     a senior police commander at the head of that unit; isn't that correct?

22        A.   I cannot give you an answer to that question because I am not

23     familiar with the chain of command in the police force.

24        Q.   All right.  This document also mentions that Kamenica and Manjaca

25     prisoner of war camps were visited.  These were the two VRS POW camps

Page 26780

 1     under the 1st Krajina Corps' jurisdiction in 1992; isn't that correct?

 2        A.   As far as I know, that is correct.

 3        Q.   Were there any others?

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters didn't understand the witness.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] How do you mean?

 6             MR. OLMSTED:

 7        Q.   Other than these two POW camps, were you aware of any other that

 8     were -- fell under the 1st Krajina Corps' jurisdiction?

 9        A.   No.

10        Q.   Did you visit either of these camps in 1992?

11        A.   No.

12        Q.   When you were asked about Manjaca camp back during your 2002

13     interview, you stated you that you had no information about Manjaca camp,

14     it was not in your jurisdiction, and you were never consulted about it.

15             Do you maintain that position today?

16        A.   That is correct, yes.

17        Q.   May we have 1D411 on the screen.  This is tab 17, Mr. Jovicinac,

18     in your binder.

19             Mr. Jovicinac, this is a letter from the

20     1st Krajina Corps Command, General Talic, to CSB Banja Luka and the

21     43rd Motorised Brigade of the 1st Krajina Corps, dated the

22     16th of October, 1992.  And General Talic is forwarding a telegram he

23     received from the VRS Main Staff informing them that Prijedor police unit

24     members have abandoned their positions and fled back to their towns.

25             This was a pretty significant event in 1992 in which a large

Page 26781

 1     number of soldiers and police officers abandoned the front lines in

 2     Han Pijesak.  Do you recall this incident?

 3        A.   No, I don't recall that because that was not within the area of

 4     responsibility or within the area of jurisdiction of Banja Luka.

 5     Han Pijesak lies within the jurisdiction of the military prosecutor's

 6     office in Sarajevo.

 7        Q.   This telegram is sent to the CSB Banja Luka.  Was that because

 8     the civilian police had responsibility to investigate this matter, at

 9     least to the extent it applied to civilian police officers?

10        A.   That is something that undoubtedly arises from this telegram,

11     because they are their superiors.

12                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

13        Q.   Now, if --

14        A.   I don't know.

15        Q.   If -- if the crime that is determined that they committed in the

16     end was that of desertion under Article 217 of the SFRY Criminal Code,

17     then the CSB should file the criminal reports with the military

18     prosecutor's office; is that correct?

19        A.   Well, you see, we are going back to when I said that this was a

20     very delicate or sensitive issue.  It may amount to this crime alone.

21     However, if you look at the nature of the crime and those who may be its

22     perpetrators, as well as the decision governing military courts, the

23     question arises as to whether, based on the legal provisions in place,

24     the police can be held answerable under that law.

25             If they cannot held responsible, then such a crime does not

Page 26782

 1     exist.  It would be logical for that responsibility to exist.  However,

 2     truth to tell, this is the first time I'm seeing this and I'm hearing of

 3     this.  The military prosecutor's office had never received a case such as

 4     this one.

 5        Q.   Than was my next question.  You were not aware of receiving any

 6     criminal reports with regard to this incident?

 7        A.   Please.  Excuse me.  There is something I didn't pay attention to

 8     over here, if I am allowed to proceed?  Can I continue?

 9        Q.   Yes, please?

10        A.   Annexed here is a list of military conscripts; that's to say,

11     reserve policemen who had abandoned their positions.  In my

12     understanding, this would have had to be prosecuted before a military

13     court.  It reads, "A list of conscripts, reserve policemen."

14             This is the crucial line that can lean towards either side but it

15     is a -- an offence that comes under Article 217.  That is without doubt.

16        Q.   But it's clear that Talic, General Talic is seeking the CSB to

17     take action against these police officers.

18             MR. KRGOVIC:  I object to that.  Where is that?  Can you quote

19     it?  Where is this?  He asked CSB for that, or is it your

20     misinterpretation?

21             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, my question, and I will repeat it because I

22     believe I'm entitled to ask it.

23        Q.   Is that General Talic is expecting the CSB to take some action

24     with regard to these police officers; isn't that correct?

25             MR. KRGOVIC:  It's calling for speculation.  Where is that in

Page 26783

 1     this letter?  Can you quote it?

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, Mr. Cvijetic, could you assist -- I'm

 3     not sure I follow your objection because the document on its face would

 4     seem to bear no other logical meaning than the proposition that is being

 5     put by Mr. Olmsted.  What am I missing?

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE HALL:  After all, it is address -- it is from

 8     General Talic, addressed to CSB Banja Luka.  So what -- what am I not

 9     getting?

10             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, before the Defence get into this, I

11     think it's better that the witness not participate in this discussion.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

13             Mr. Jovicinac, could you remove your headphones for a second,

14     please.  Thank you.

15                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I, Your Honour?

17             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] You were not able to understand my

19     objection because I haven't made one.

20             Your Honours, the document clearly indicates that the Main Staff

21     orders the command of the 1st Krajina Corps to issue criminal reports

22     against the perpetrators of this crime.  We discussed this issue with a

23     previous witness and pointed to these quotation marks, because this is a

24     quote from a letter sent by the Main Staff.

25             So the Main Staff orders the command of the 1st Krajina Corps to

Page 26784

 1     file criminal charges against individuals, that names be published,

 2     et cetera.

 3             Now, the command of the 1st Krajina Corps proceeds only to send

 4     this for information to the CSB and the 43rd Mechanised Brigade, or what

 5     it's called.

 6             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honour, I understand that's the position of

 7     the Defence and that's the position that was taken by the Defence expert

 8     who, of course, never saw this document either.  But that is not the

 9     position of the Prosecution.  And as Your Honour has pointed out, it can

10     be open to that interpretation, and I'm -- the Prosecution's position on

11     its interpretation and that's what I'm exploring with this witness.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. -- it seems to me that you can explore

14     that -- the question as phrased is unobjectionable.

15             The -- could the Court Officer have the witness replace his

16     headphones, please.

17             MR. OLMSTED:

18        Q.   I apologise for that, Mr. Jovicinac --

19             JUDGE HALL:  But, Mr. Olmsted, would you bear in mind, having

20     regard to what Mr. Cvijetic explains and as you reminded us about the

21     position that they have taken, that the document is capable of other

22     meaning.  So you would -- the -- those nuances should be apparent in the

23     question that you put to the witness.

24             MR. OLMSTED:

25        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, as you testified earlier, it is clear that

Page 26785

 1     General Talic is sending this telegram he received from the VRS

 2     Main Staff to the CSB because he expected the CSB to take some actions on

 3     this; isn't that correct?

 4        A.   Well, to tell you the truth, I don't remember.

 5        Q.   Well, you would agree that it would be standard practice for

 6     General Talic to involve the MUP in any criminal investigation involving

 7     civilian police officers.

 8        A.   Yes.  You said that I testified about it earlier, and I don't

 9     recall testifying on this issue at all.

10        Q.   That's fine.  But my question is:  You would agree that it would

11     be standard practice for General Talic to involve the MUP in any criminal

12     investigation of civilian police officers.  That would be normal, under

13     the principle of reciprocity that you described earlier.

14        A.   Yes.  In situations such as this one, General Talic would --

15     well, now that I looked at page 2 of this document, there is a list of

16     soldiers who left their positions between 13 September and 19 October, 71

17     of them, without a list of civilian policemen.  So this was a mixed group

18     abandoning positions.

19             Under those circumstances, if there were civilian policemen among

20     them who deserted their positions, as well as the army, as well as

21     soldiers, then it was only natural that the MUP should be informed about

22     it and that co-ordinated measures should be taken as envisaged under the

23     Law on Criminal Procedure.

24        Q.   And, of course, the police hierarchy, the MUP, would still

25     maintain disciplinary authority over any of these 71 individuals who

Page 26786

 1     happened to be members of the police.

 2        A.   I disassociated myself from such a statement.  I distance myself

 3     from it.

 4             If you look at page 2 of this telegram, the list appended, it

 5     says the list of soldier who abandoned positions, who went AWOL.  Is this

 6     an error or not?  That I don't know.  But the annex says the list of

 7     conscripts, reserve policemen.  So there must be a link in between that

 8     is missing here.  Based on this list, I don't know if they are policemen

 9     or soldiers.  It says here, undoubtedly, quite clearly that these were

10     soldiers who abandoned their positions.  If they were soldiers, then they

11     fell within the sole jurisdiction of the military justice administration,

12     and it was the security organs or the military policemen who were

13     duty-bound to gather all the relevant information and evidence to compile

14     a criminal report and send it to the prosecutor's -- military

15     prosecutor's office with jurisdiction.  Evidently, there were policemen

16     among them who abandoned positions too, and since this act was committed

17     simultaneously, they were supposed to be criminally investigated by the

18     MUP.  And since they perpetrated this crime together with soldiers, it

19     would have been within the jurisdiction of a military court to prosecute

20     this case further, if this unit was resubordinated to the army.

21        Q.   And just to go back to my original question.  The MUP would

22     still, no matter what, maintain disciplinary authority over these police

23     officers, if this list, in fact, includes civilian police officers?

24        A.   Yes.

25             MR. OLMSTED:  I think we can perhaps clarify this issue of who is

Page 26787

 1     on this list, Your Honours, if I show this witness a couple of documents

 2     that we uncovered in preparation for this witness's testimony.  And if I

 3     can have leave to do that.  I would like to show -- first of all, I would

 4     like to have the witness take note.

 5        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, can you please turn to page 3 of your document

 6     with the list of 71 names, and if you could just take notes of the names

 7     under entries 2 --

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   If you please take a look at the names under entries 2, 4, 6, 7,

10     11, 12, 15, 16 and 18.

11             And now if you could take a look at tab 19.  This is

12     65 ter 30004.

13             And, sir, this is a list of military conscripts in the

14     Military Police Company securing the city and it's signed by military

15     police commander in Prijedor and it is dated the 30th of October, 1992,

16     so around the time of the document that we just looked at.

17             And if you look under entries 12 to 14, 16, 18, 19, 21 and 23,

18     those are, in fact, the names that we looked at in the previous document.

19        A.   Yes.  Yes, I suppose so.

20        Q.   So those individuals were members of the military.  They were

21     members of the military police, in fact?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Now, if can you please go back to tab 17 --

24             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, your time has expired.

25             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes.  And that's why I sought leave of this

Page 26788

 1     Trial Chamber just to explore this confusion over who is on this list.  I

 2     just have this last document to show him, and then I'm through.

 3             Your Honours, I wonder if we should tender that last document

 4     into evidence, however, because it does contain the names of certain

 5     individuals on this 1D411 and therefore provides some clarity to the

 6     issue of who these 71 individuals were.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, Your Honours.  I do object.  Because

 8     whatever Mr. Olmsted is trying to establish here, he is not establishing

 9     that because we cannot possibly identify by the names persons on two

10     lists.  First of all, this witness does not know anything about it.  The

11     second thing is there might be at least two -- two persons with the same

12     name, so we don't know whether this is the -- this one list refers to

13     another individual or the first list to another individual.

14             Therefore, I don't really see the -- the point of -- of admitting

15     this document, because it is inconclusive evidence all together.  Thank

16     you.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, Your Honours, that goes to weight and, of

18     course, argument.  With regard to whether they're the same individuals,

19     we would submit that they are.

20             JUDGE HALL:  But on what basis?  Taken at its highest, is it

21     possible to, just by comparing the two documents, arrive at the

22     conclusion that you would invite us to arrive at?

23             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, the documents are close in time.  They both

24     involve Prijedor, and the entries I just went through, there are nine.

25     So at least nine names are similar on the two lists.  And, therefore, we

Page 26789

 1     would submit -- and the military police platoon in Prijedor would have

 2     been under the 43rd Motorised Brigade.

 3             So we would say that that evidence collectively would establish

 4     that these are the same people.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 7                           [Defence counsel confer]

 8             JUDGE HALL:  So the previous document is admitted and marked,

 9     Mr. Olmsted.

10             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, if we can please look at tab 17 again --

12             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P2453, Your Honours.  Thank you.

13             MR. OLMSTED:  I apologise for that.

14        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, if you can look again at tab 17, again at the list

15     of 71 names.  And please take note of these particular names on that

16     document:

17             Entries 29, Mladen Timarac; 30, Nenad Ecim; 34, Radenko Lukic;

18     44, Dragan Jeftic; 66, Branko Knezevic; and, 67, Lazar Matijis.

19             And now if you can turn to tab 26 in your binder.  This is it

20     65 ter 30007.  What we have is a list of special police unit members

21     under the command of Miroslav Paras, who are sent to the Orasje front and

22     it's signed by the SJB Prijedor chief, Simo Drljaca, and it's dated the

23     25th of February, 1993.

24             And if you look at the names I just mentioned, if you look under

25     4, 5, 12, 13, 14 and 16, those individuals from the previous list were,

Page 26790

 1     in fact, members of SJB Prijedor; correct?

 2        A.   Yes.  I don't know if they were members or not.  In my view, the

 3     lists are incomplete because they should contain full name, first and

 4     family name, and father's name.  The fact of the matter is that these

 5     individuals can be found on both these lists and that goes to show that

 6     these individuals abandoned their positions with those other members of

 7     that military police company.  That is my understanding of it.

 8        Q.   And just to confirm, you have no recollection of any criminal

 9     reports filed against these members of SJB Prijedor for abandoning their

10     position.  You don't recall receiving any criminal reports?

11        A.   Neither from the military nor the civilian police.  No, I don't

12     remember.

13             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, we would like to tender this document

14     for the same reason as it provides clarity to the exhibit 1D411.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P2454, Your Honours.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, that concludes my questions.  I

18     forgot to seek to tender the document I showed the witness before and

19     immediately after the break which was 65 ter 1358, the report from the

20     military prosecutor's office from September 1992 that we talked about at

21     some length.  I would move to admit that into evidence as well.

22             JUDGE HALL:  We had noted that you hadn't so moved and we thought

23     you had wisely chosen not to tender it because it adds nothing.

24             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, Your Honours, we would disagree as it

25     establishes that the military prosecutor and military courts were

Page 26791

 1     involved in addressing issues of disciplinary -- discipline of military

 2     personnel, and -- in 1992, as well as visited the POW camps, as well as

 3     discussed jurisdictional issues with civilian and military authorities.

 4     And so in that way it corroborates what this witness has been saying

 5     about what he understood were the issues back in 1992 with regard to

 6     jurisdiction, disciplinary matters, and such.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  But that's all a part of the record, isn't it,

 8     Mr. Olmsted?

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  But the document itself is further evidence of that

10     and it corroborates the witness.  Obviously this witness -- this document

11     has been in the hands of the Defence for many years now, three or four

12     years, and therefore, there's no prejudice to the Defence and the

13     Prosecution would seek to tender it.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, may our objection be recorded as

15     well.  It's not the point whether this document has been in possession of

16     the -- of the Defence so how many years or something.  The point of the

17     matter is at which stage of the proceedings the trial -- the Office of

18     the Prosecutor is trying to tender it.  And what is the actual relevance

19     of this document?

20             Thank you.

21             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours I could not -- I didn't have time to

22     explore the entire document with this witness, but the witness did

23     authenticate it as a report from his office, and, therefore, we would

24     tender it in for other purposes for what the document states.  But in

25     particular for this witness, I explained the relevance for -- with regard

Page 26792

 1     to his evidence.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE HALL:  The Chamber is not persuaded the document should be

 4     admitted.

 5             I assume that Defence counsel have -- has decided how to divide

 6     up their work and the time.

 7             So, Mr. Krgovic, I see you on your feet.  I infer from that that

 8     you are beginning.  And I would remind you that you have 90 minutes to

 9     share between you.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. KRGOVIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

12                           Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Hello, Mr. Jovicinac.

14        A.   Hello.

15             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters note that we can barely hear

16     Mr. Krgovic.  He needs to come closer to the microphone.

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Can you hear me, Mr. Jovicinac?

19        A.   Yes, I can.

20        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, I will follow up on the last answer you gave to my

21     learned friend, Mr. Olmsted, when you said that you had no occasion to

22     see any of such criminal reports, either filed by the civilian police or

23     military police in relation to this event.  And the reason for that is

24     that, since this had happened in Han Pijesak, this incident did not fall

25     under the jurisdiction of your prosecutor's office; is that right?

Page 26793

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Based on the answers you gave to the Prosecutor, and also based

 3     on the interview you gave previously, in the area of responsibility of

 4     the 1st Krajina Corps covered by your prosecutor's office at the time

 5     when you started working, expect for Jajce, there were no other combat

 6     activities in 1992; right?

 7        A.   As far as I remember, there weren't any.

 8        Q.   And, as a result, you, through your daily work, had no occasion

 9     to come across this phenomenon of resubordination of the military -- of

10     the police to the military in combat activities because at the time it

11     simply didn't come across your daily activities.  It didn't happen.

12        A.   Correct.

13        Q.   Consequently, the answers given by you to the Prosecutor and the

14     Chamber were based on your logic and on your previous experience, and

15     also it was based on the documents shown to you by the Chamber and the

16     OTP; right?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   The answers you gave did not stem from a particular specific case

19     that you dealt with in your career, or they did not come as a result of

20     your participation in some legal work-shop or seminar where such topics

21     were discussed; right?

22        A.   Could you please repeat this.

23        Q.   Well, what I said was that the answers you gave -- perhaps my

24     question was simply too long.  You're right.  But the answers that you

25     gave to the Prosecutor and the Chamber did not come as a result of you

Page 26794

 1     personally dealing with a case, with a relevant case, or did not come as

 2     a result of your participation in the legal seminar where such topics

 3     were discussed.  You simply answered based on logic; right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, let us now go back to what the Prosecutor explored

 6     in the beginning of his examination, the notion of a conscript which is

 7     mentioned in a number of documents in the law and is also something that

 8     you came across in your practice.

 9             You will agree with me that policemen also constitute military

10     conscripts.  They also fall in that category of conscripts; right?

11        A.   Those policemen who are mobilised for combat, they also fall

12     under the category of military conscript; whereas, other policemen, who

13     are not mobilised, do not fall into that category.

14        Q.   So the reserve policemen do come under the category of military

15     conscripts; right?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   In --

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Excuse me, Mr. Krgovic.  How is it that from the

19     answer to the previous question you're able to conclude that reserve

20     policemen do come under the category of military conscripts?  Something

21     I'm missing there, obviously.

22             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there's a mistake in

23     interpretation.  My question was:  Reserve policemen fall in the category

24     of military conscripts.

25                           [Defence counsel confer]

Page 26795

 1                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 2             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours.  I

 3     didn't see this.

 4        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, can you please repeat your answer to my question

 5     whether policemen are also military conscripts.

 6        A.   A policeman is a military conscript as long as his name is in the

 7     military records in the Ministry of Defence.  Following --

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat the answer.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Witness.  Witness.  The interpreters ask you to

10     repeat the question, please -- to repeat the answer, please.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  The witness needs to speak

12     slower because the sound is blurred and we cannot tell whether he says

13     mobilisation or demobilisation.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All individuals who are in reserve

15     forces and who are in the military records of the

16     Secretariat for National Defence are considered as military conscripts.

17     Once the mobilisation is carried out, those who are mobilised for the

18     purposes of the military go into military units.  They become military

19     personnel with the same rights and duties as all other military

20     personnel.

21             As for military conscripts who were mobilised, or whose war-time

22     assignment is in the police, they acquire the status of a policeman, and

23     they have the same rights and obligations as other policemen.

24             A military conscript for as long as he is in the military records

25     of the Secretariat of the National Defence are considered as military

Page 26796

 1     personnel.  Secretariat does not mobilise only for the purposes of the

 2     military or police.  Secretariat also mobilises people for civilian

 3     defence and all other structures, and all military conscripts who are

 4     assigned to those structures fall under the rules and regulations that

 5     exist for those structures.  I hope I was able to clarify this now.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Again, I would remind you that the interpreters have

 7     to keep up with you, so please slow down when answering the questions,

 8     sir.

 9             Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

10             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   In the times of immediate threat of war, for somebody to become a

12     military conscript that person does not need to be in the military

13     records.  At military conscript is a person who is fit for military

14     service in the time of an imminent threat of war.  Therefore, that person

15     does not even need to be in the military records with the

16     Secretariat of National Defence.  He needs -- he will have automatically

17     the status of a military conscripts if it is in the immediate -- period

18     of the immediate threat of war?

19        A.   I do not agree with you.  Anybody who is fit for military

20     service, according to the Law on National Defence, is recorded in the

21     records of the Secretariat for National Defence.  And the secretariat, at

22     the request of military units or police, assigns such persons, issues

23     call-up papers and gives them their assignment.

24             This is my opinion.

25        Q.   I put it to you that you are not right and that what I said is

Page 26797

 1     the position taken by the supreme military prosecutor's office, and I

 2     will put documents to you showing this.  I'm also putting to you that

 3     given that you do not have any practical experience -- or, rather, you

 4     did not have experience with such cases back in 1992, you, as a result of

 5     that, did not give me the correct answer.

 6             Further on, Mr. Jovicinac, a policeman, once he is resubordinated

 7     and once he takes part in combat activities, is carrying out a military

 8     duty; right?  He is discharging a military duty.

 9        A.   In my answer, I said that this does have the characteristics of a

10     military duty.  However, when it comes to the jurisdiction of military

11     courts that revolves around the status, neither the case law nor the

12     theory, legal theory, ever dealt with this issue, even though what these

13     persons are doing has all the hallmarks of a military duty.

14        Q.   Sir, you will agree with me that when a policeman takes part in

15     combat activities and when he is attacked by an enemy soldier and killed,

16     he is considered a legitimate target.  He can fire, he can attack, and

17     the opposing side can treat him as a legitimate target without being

18     responsible for injuring somebody in the line of his official duties.

19     This is considered combat; right?

20        A.   Yes, that's absolutely right.  Not only as a policeman but also

21     as a member of the military.  He uses weapons in accordance with the

22     rules on the use of weapons within that military unit.

23        Q.   And when he is resubordinated to a military command, he has the

24     same rights and duties as all other soldiers of the unit, of his unit;

25     right?

Page 26798

 1        A.   I'm not sure what rights and duties you're referring to, but I am

 2     concerned that due to insufficient knowledge of that topic I could give

 3     you a wrong answer.

 4             What I know and what I was able to understand, such

 5     resubordinations do not fall under my jurisdiction.  That is considered

 6     command and control and the use of units.  And these are the topics that

 7     should best be directed by -- to somebody who deals with command and

 8     control and the command tactics.  I understood it that I was supposed to

 9     testify about the jurisdiction of military courts and military

10     prosecutor's office, and I did it to the best of my abilities.

11             Now, as to these rights and duties that you're referring to, I

12     would rather not deal with that.

13        Q.   Sir, when I put this question to you, what I meant to ask was

14     this:  If a policeman taking part in combat activities is wounded, he

15     would be entitled to the status of a war veteran and disabilities that

16     come with that; right?

17        A.   Absolutely.

18        Q.   If such a policeman were to be killed, his family would enjoy all

19     benefits as the families of a fallen soldier; right?

20        A.   Yes.  Not only in the cases where he is resubordinated and takes

21     part in combat with the unit, also if he is acting separate from the

22     unit.

23        Q.   Sir, you just mentioned a minute ago their status, whether they

24     had the status of a military conscript, their rights and duties, and so

25     on.  Those who lead the combat would have more experience, more knowledge

Page 26799

 1     about this than you; right?

 2        A.   Listen, I really don't want to put either you or myself in a

 3     delicate situation.  I said that the use of units and command and control

 4     is not something that a military prosecutor deals with, neither military

 5     courts deal with that.

 6             At any rate, what I know about resubordination is not sufficient.

 7     Resubordination could be put in place for a short period of time, for a

 8     long period of time.  It can also involve co-ordinated action, but I

 9     simply don't know enough about these matters.

10        Q.   Sir, let me show you a document.  Please look at my tab 19 in the

11     Zupljanin binder, which is P421 -- 411 shown to you by the Prosecutor.

12             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 1D411.  I apologise.

13             [In English] Tab 15.

14             THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink]  Could the counsel please say the

15     tab number.

16             MR. KRGOVIC:  Tab 15 in my binder.

17             THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Thank you.

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   You have just seen this document.

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   This is a letter from the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps

22     entitled:  "Abandonment of positions by police members, information";

23     right?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   In this letter, they speak of cases when police members abandoned

Page 26800

 1     their positions.  So this is the title of this document and this is what

 2     this document deals with; right?

 3        A.   Well, logically analysing it, yes.

 4        Q.   If you look at paragraph 2 -- rather, if you look at paragraph 1,

 5     Mr. Talic here quotes the document received by him from the Main Staff;

 6     right?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And in accordance with the title, he says here:

 9             "We are hereby informing you that the Prijedor police unit

10     members have abandoned their positions ..."

11             He speaks exclusively of them; right?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And, here in the attachment, General Talic says:  List of

14     conscripts, reserve policemen.  And he treats these reserve policemen as

15     military conscripts; right?

16        A.   I wouldn't agree with that because this list which is attached to

17     this letter as an entitled list of soldiers who had left their positions

18     from the 13th of September until the 10th of October, 1992, well, for me,

19     this document is simply incomplete.  And it is very difficult for me here

20     to give any solid explanation because the list was sent to the CSB

21     Banja Luka and to the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps and the

22     43rd Motorised Brigade; therefore, this document is incomplete.

23             It gives me some information, but I, as a prosecutor, would go to

24     great lengths to verify this.

25        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, Mr. Talic considered these policemen from the list

Page 26801

 1     to be soldiers.  And they were, indeed, soldiers during the time that

 2     they were resubordinated; right?

 3        A.   I'm telling you're again putting me in a position not -- in which

 4     I'm not able to comment this document.  It is contradictory.  The first

 5     page contradicts the second page.  And Mr. Prosecutor also showed me that

 6     in another list we saw members of the military police as well.  I can

 7     only give you an answer in principle.

 8        Q.   Sir, you cannot give me any answer at all because you have never

 9     encountered such an example in your work, nor did you have any contact,

10     either theoretically or practically, with the issue of the status and the

11     jurisdictions of military and civilian organs in the particular instance

12     when we talk about resubordination.  Am I right?

13        A.   I wouldn't comment on that.

14        Q.   You will agree with me that when we speak about the status of

15     resubordinated policemen, General Talic is more competent to explain

16     that, and we can see from this document how he described their status;

17     right?

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat his answer.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, Mr. Olmsted is on his feet.  I think I

20     anticipate [overlapping speakers] I think I anticipate what his objection

21     is going to be.

22             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, well, perhaps.

23             The term status is ambiguous.  I mean, this witness is talking

24     about status of the -- for purposes of the military court's jurisdiction.

25     And there's ambiguity in what Mr. Krgovic means -- if status for purposes

Page 26802

 1     of resubordination or what have you, so I think there needs to be clarity

 2     on that issue.  Plus I'm not sure that this witness is in a position to

 3     comment on General Talic's knowledge on a particular issue.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  That was the observation that I was about to make.

 5     It seems that the point that -- if I understand it correctly, that you

 6     wish to make by that question is really something that should be reserved

 7     for argument, Mr. Krgovic.

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in my opinion,

 9     whether the status of a member of any formation cannot be construed on a

10     case by case basis.  He is either a conscript - i.e., a soldier - or not

11     a conscript.  If someone is a conscript and enjoys some benefits as a

12     result of that, that's a debatable issue.  This is my response to the

13     objection.

14        Q.   Now, Mr. Jovicinac, can we go back to this question.  If someone

15     enjoys the status of a military conscript and if such person performs

16     military duties, and in the course of that commits a crime, would then

17     the military prosecutor and the military court be competent to prosecute

18     such a perpetrator?

19        A.   Provided he is a member of the military, yes.  That means that if

20     this person was mobilised for the purposes of military service and as of

21     the day of his reporting at the unit this is when his status of a member

22     of the military commences and consequently it is the military court that

23     has the exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute them, this is --

24        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

25        A.   Excuse me.  This is in accordance with the Law on Military Courts

Page 26803

 1     and I base my answers on that.  And also it is in line with the provision

 2     of the Law on the Army which also defines who members of the armed forces

 3     are.  I don't have the copy of this law in front of me.  I can't tell you

 4     exactly which provision is that, but I think that there is even some

 5     mention of the status of military personnel in the criminal law.

 6        Q.   All I'm asking you -- I'm sorry to interrupt you, I am asking you

 7     if a person is a military conscript and if he performs military duties,

 8     so both criteria are satisfied, does he fall under the jurisdictions of

 9     military organs --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the speakers please not overlap.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic, wasn't that question asked and

12     answered, answered by the witness by adding another criteria?

13             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honours, my

14     LiveNote is dead; therefore, I cannot see.

15        Q.   Sir, can you repeat the answer that you gave because it hasn't

16     been recorded.

17        A.   To your last question?  Yes.

18        Q.   What I asked you about the two criteria.  If someone is, (A) a

19     conscript, and (B) if he performs military duty according to these two

20     criteria, would he fall under the jurisdiction of military judiciary

21     organs, i.e., prosecutor's offices and courts?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   You said absolutely?

24        A.   Yes.

25             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, this is really a confusing issue.  I

Page 26804

 1     rose also at the same time that Judge Delvoie raised the issue.  This

 2     witness has a great length, both during Judge Harhoff's evidence, the

 3     Prosecution's questions explained this, and it has been asked and

 4     answered now at least on three occasions, and at that point, I think,

 5     Your Honours, we object.  I know this is not a typical objection in this

 6     Tribunal, but we object that these questions should not be continued to

 7     be asked of this witness.

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, in addition to these two that I mentioned, is

10     there any other requirement necessary?  I asked you only about the

11     category of those who are either conscripts and those who performed

12     military duties.  I'm sorry, did you understand my question?

13        A.   I really don't know.  You asked me this question at least four

14     times.

15        Q.   Yes, I see that you answered me.

16        A.   And I gave you at least four answers.  And I also answered the

17     same question to the Presiding Judge and to the Prosecutor.

18             So if you analyse what the performance of military duties

19     involves, I don't know what else can I add.  A military duty is a broad

20     notion, a very broad notion.  A military duty is the person who serves

21     the call-up papers.

22        Q.   Now, I'm going to suggest to you a number of military duties so

23     that we can check whether we think along the same lines.  So a military

24     duty is to take part in combat?

25        A.   Yes, under the command.  Organised combat under the command.

Page 26805

 1     Because according to the Law on the Army, the command implies that it is

 2     organised on the principle of unity of command, subordination, and

 3     singleness of command.  Everything beyond that scope cannot be considered

 4     a military duty.  And this goes from the commander at the top up to the

 5     last private.

 6        Q.   Guarding prisoners of war.  That's another military duty under

 7     the command; right?

 8        A.   I don't know.  If the camp was under the command of the army,

 9     then, of course, that's another military duty, and that's called guard

10     duty.

11        Q.   Standing guard or guarding a camp where the troops are billeted

12     in combat area.

13        A.   The guard and patrol duties is considered a military duty, even

14     if it happens in peacetime.  It is considered in the same way, no matter

15     whether we have peacetime or war time, and there is a criminal offence of

16     infringement of guard duty.  And it is punishable by law.

17        Q.   On the basis of your answers, sir, I put it to you that once the

18     police force is resubordinated to the army, number 1, it enjoys the

19     status of military conscripts; number 2, it carries out military duties;

20     and number 3, it falls under the jurisdiction of military judicial organs

21     and not civilian ones.  Do you agree with me?

22        A.   I cannot give you a decisive answer to that question.

23        Q.   Now, Mr. Jovicinac, when we speak about the competence to try

24     criminal offences, I'm sure that your office used the rules that were

25     used by the JNA and that were in force in the former Yugoslavia.

Page 26806

 1        A.   Article 12 of the Law on the Implementation of the Constitution

 2     of Republika Srpska stipulates that all the laws and by-laws and other

 3     enactments of the former SFRY and the former BH shall be implemented,

 4     pending the adoption of the Law of Republika Srpska.  Among other things,

 5     we applied the rules of engagement, the Law on Military Courts, the Law

 6     on Military Prosecutor Offices, and so on and so forth.  The

 7     Criminal Code of the SFRY was amongst them as well.

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown

 9     Exhibit L12.  That's tab 3 in the Zupljanin binder.  Although,

10     Your Honour, I think this is time for adjournment.

11             JUDGE HALL:  I was just going to suggest that because this is

12     going -- probably take a little time, and we must vacate this courtroom

13     for -- to be prepared for the trial to come up.

14             Mr. Jovicinac, we're about to take the break, as we indicated.

15     We will resume in an hour.  You will be escorted, conducted back to the

16     offices in Belgrade, but we will take a break, and Mr. Krgovic will

17     continue when we resume.

18                           --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.45 p.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 2.49 p.m.

20             JUDGE HALL:  So, Mr. Jovicinac, we return.  And I invite

21     Mr. Krgovic to continue his cross-examination.

22             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, can you hear me?

24        A.   Yes, I can hear you well.

25        Q.   The documents you have are application of the international laws

Page 26807

 1     of war and Geneva Conventions.

 2             Can you look at Article 36?  I said that it was L12.  Page 21 in

 3     e-court, in English.

 4             And, for you, it's page 35.  And it's tab 3 of the Zupljanin

 5     Defence material.

 6             Page 21 in Serbian in e-court.

 7             Mr. Jovicinac, 36, paragraph 3, it reads:

 8             "If it is established that a member of the armed forces of the

 9     SFRY," it has got to do with the SFRY, "the collected information and

10     evidence shall be submitted to the military prosecutor directly or

11     through the superior officer ..."

12             So, Mr. Jovicinac, this applies to any member of the armed

13     forces; is that right?

14        A.   Well, according to the text, it does.

15        Q.   Look at Article 38.  The composition of the armed forces.  And

16     that's page 36 and page 21 in e-court.  So it's the same page.  Or, I'm

17     sorry.  It is - give me a moment, please - Article 48.  Page 24 in

18     English and Serbian in e-court.

19             Under 1, where it speaks of the membership of the army, they

20     enumerate various branches, and you'll see that they mention police units

21     as well.  According to these regulations, the commander of a military

22     unit who is within his own AOR has the power to act upon all these

23     various violations of international laws of war; is that right?

24        A.   Yes.  But, you see, this area is prescribed by the

25     Law on Military Courts.

Page 26808

 1        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, you will most certainly know that the supreme

 2     military prosecutor's office, precisely in order to avoid any confusion,

 3     laid down guide-lines for the work of military prosecutors' offices in

 4     1992; is that right?

 5        A.   I am not aware of that.

 6        Q.   Let me show you, behind tab 19, document 2D10197.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, Mr. Jovicinac, again I would remind you

 8     to slow down and allow a gap between question and answer so the

 9     interpreters can keep up.

10             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 2D10197 doc ID for e-court.

11        Q.   And it is tab 19 -- or number 19 behind your tab.  Let me read it

12     out again.  2D10197.  Doc ID.

13             Sir, these are the guide-lines, issued by -- or, rather,

14     forwarded by the VRS Main Staff to, among others, your military post in

15     Banja Luka.  As you see, it says that it's been received in Banja Luka on

16     the 16th of October, 1992.

17             Did you have an opportunity to see this?

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can you turn the page, please.

19             [In English] Next page, please.

20        Q.   [Interpretation] There, Mr. Jovicinac, in the course of your work

21     in 1992, did you come across this document?

22        A.   No.

23        Q.   Let us discuss some of the dilemmas we had and the differences of

24     opinion.

25             Let us now look at -- or, rather --

Page 26809

 1             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have to first give

 2     an explanation.

 3             The document that I showed to the witness consists of, to all

 4     extents and purposes, the cover letter and guide-lines which have already

 5     been admitted so I would like to go back to Stanisic's document, 1D368.

 6     So that's the document I'll be referring to, and that's behind tab 7 of

 7     the Stanisic Defence.

 8        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, have a look, please, the relevant page is 15 in

 9     your binder; and for Their Honours, it's the English page 8 of the

10     document.  1D368.

11             Sir, have you found page 15?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   The penultimate paragraph.  The instructions from your superior

14     organ read:

15             "To all the commands of units which are duty-bound to investigate

16     into all cases," and I say "all cases of war crime and within the area of

17     their responsibility."

18             Can you turn the page now, please.

19        A.   I haven't found the portion you're reading.  Sorry.

20        Q.   Number 15.  Oh, that's the number that is on that relevant page

21     it's the typewritten number.

22             Have you found it?

23        A.   Yes, I have found the page.  But the relevant text, I can't find

24     it.

25        Q.   Look at the bottom of the page.

Page 26810

 1        A.   In order for the staff command to have -- to be fully apprised of

 2     the type and number of these crimes, all the commands of various units

 3     are duty-bound to engage in uncovering all sorts of war crimes, crimes

 4     against humanity and international laws of war.

 5        Q.   Yes, in the various territories that are within their area of

 6     responsibility.

 7             MR. KRGOVIC:  Next page, I think, is English 8.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Eight is on the screen, but ...

 9             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may of

10     assistance, in English it's page 8; and in Serbian, page 31 in e-court.

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 33.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  It is on the screen, Mr. Cvijetic.  But could you

13     point us to the relevant part of it?  I don't see it.

14             MR. KRGOVIC:  Can you scroll down.

15             [Interpretation] Can we scroll down a bit, please.

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It starts at the bottom of the

17     page and continues on the next page.

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] So that's the page starting -- the

19     paragraph starting with the words, "So that the command ..."

20             Can we have the next page in English, please.  We need page 9 in

21     English.  It reads -- well, it mentions all the various competencies of

22     unit commanders, that they should inform the closest military police

23     security and military judicial organs about any crimes they discover.

24             Further down, Mr. Jovicinac, the penultimate paragraph which

25     reads that the organs of the military police security organs and military

Page 26811

 1     judiciary organs will give priority in their work to these particular

 2     criminal offences so that the Main Staff and other relevant institutions

 3     would be notified as soon as possible and would be able to take measures

 4     within their competence, or within their jurisdiction.

 5        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, it follows from these guide-lines that I've just

 6     read out that in a unit's area of responsibility of a given brigade

 7     commander, it is the commander and the military judiciary organs of that

 8     territory that are -- that have jurisdiction to be seized of all the

 9     various cases of war crimes; right?

10        A.   Well, let me just tell you this:  Just by glancing at these

11     pages, I can tell you that this is nothing new when it comes to the work

12     of the military police and security organs and commanders.  This

13     procedure was used in all the different circumstances, and to tell you

14     the truth, I wasn't aware of these instructions.  That's number one.

15             Number two:  This does not release other organs from their

16     obligation to work on the various war crimes and to bring charges for war

17     crimes.  When it comes to the army, of course, it is within the

18     jurisdiction of the army.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Krgovic, I, too, am slightly confused about

20     this, because I'm not sure that I read out of this document the -- the --

21     the implications that you are mentioning to the witness.

22             Isn't this about information, about providing information to the

23     military authorities, including the military police, and the military

24     courts about crimes?  But from there, it doesn't follow necessarily that

25     the military courts have to assume jurisdiction and try these cases, does

Page 26812

 1     it?

 2             Isn't this only about information?

 3             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  These are

 4     instructions.  And if you look at the first couple of lines that I read

 5     out, you will see that it says there that they are duty-bound to work to

 6     uncover all manner of war crimes.  And these are their work guide-lines.

 7     That's what the title says, after all.

 8             Moreover, the penultimate paragraph also states that judiciary

 9     organs and military police have to give priority to this sort of crime.

10     This is an official document.  There is only one other part that I will

11     show to Mr. Jovicinac --

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But --

13             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, that --

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Please.  Mr. Krgovic, if you read on in that

15     paragraph, the text goes to say that the Main Staff and other competent

16     institutions are notified as soon as possible.  Which, again, suggest, at

17     least to me, that the main purpose here is that no crime is left

18     uncovered and -- but I'm not sure that this will necessarily imply that

19     the military judicial organs automatically have jurisdiction over all

20     crimes.  I mean, that would literally sink the military courts, wouldn't

21     it, if they would be seized of all crimes?

22             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you look at the

23     paragraph in the middle, the third from the top, the last line makes it

24     an obligation upon the military police to forward through the superior

25     command of the military police the documentation they have gathered to

Page 26813

 1     the nearest military prosecutor's office as soon as may be, and from that

 2     point on, the military prosecutor would be seized of the case; of course,

 3     in application of the law.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, my difficulty is that whereas, for your

 5     purposes, you may wish to engage the witness in a discussion on the

 6     effect of this document, the witness has said is he [indiscernible] so

 7     how --

 8             MR. KRGOVIC:  I agree.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  How far --

10             MR. KRGOVIC:  I agree.  I leave the topic.  I just have a couple

11     of questions.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Jovicinac, please revert to page 6 of these

13     instructions, which would be page 4 in English in e-court, and page 13 in

14     Serbian in e-court.

15             The paragraph in the middle, Mr. Jovicinac, which is the third

16     from the top in English.

17             I will read only the relevant part of it:

18             "The fact that a military recruit has not been listed in the

19     military records is not something that matters.  What matters is whether

20     he has the military duty and failed to respond to a general call-up ..."

21             So it isn't really necessary for a conscript to be listed in any

22     of the military records, right?  That's what arises from what I just

23     read?

24        A.   Please.  Well, you see, the Law on Defence in the chapter

25     regulating the work of the Secretariat of the Defence is duty-bound to

Page 26814

 1     provide information to all the conscripts -- on all the conscripts.  Of

 2     course, it is possible that some of them would fall through the cracks

 3     but they would not be relieved or released from their military

 4     obligation.

 5             What is stated here is a reflection of the supreme military

 6     court's decision II K 676/66, which clarifies certain issues.  But you

 7     see picking out a sentence here and there from the entire document is not

 8     going to lead us anywhere.  If you look at the title of this document,

 9     they are guide-lines for defining the criteria of prosecution.  For me,

10     the criterion cannot be any sort of guide-lines, only the law.  One can

11     be held accountable for a crime only where this crime is envisaged under

12     the law.

13             So this does not involve the war crime; rather, it applies to a

14     number of criminal offences that the army was burdened with in that

15     period of time.  This is what I can tell you after having glanced, like

16     avoiding military service, Article 214.  And for your information, there

17     were many such criminal reports based on this article.

18        Q.   Sir, I don't have much time.  My time is limited.  I'm sorry to

19     interrupt you and I see Mr. Olmsted is on his feet.

20             So you, sir, when it comes to this document and to the case law

21     of the supreme military court about people in the military records and

22     the need for them to be in the military records, you don't know about

23     this and you haven't seen that; right?

24        A.   No.  I speak on the basis of the fact that it is the duty of all

25     citizens --

Page 26815

 1             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, to be fair to the witness and to

 2     be -- not to mislead this Trial Chamber, the paragraph you were referring

 3     to starts out saying where certain documents aren't available, that they

 4     haven't been kept properly.  In those circumstances, then you can resort

 5     to this situation where perhaps you don't need to have Vob 8 or some

 6     other form of registry.

 7             So I think it is misleading to this witness to suggest that there

 8     doesn't have to be documentation of a person's military service.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Sir, when it comes to that, when it comes to the records, it is

11     debatable --

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic, would you allow me a follow-up

13     question to that.

14             Mr. Jovicinac, can you explain to me what a general call-up

15     means?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] General call-up or general

17     mobilisation means that the competent state organ who is authorised to

18     announce the general mobilisation due to the urgency and the threat posed

19     to the country -- means that all those who are fit for military service

20     and who have their war-time assignment, be it in the police or be it in

21     the civilian defence, have to respond.  And those who do not have their

22     war-time assignments and are fit for military service, also have to

23     respond.  Those who are not fit for military service are entitled to

24     respond as well, but they need to undergo certain procedure; medical

25     examinations, et cetera.

Page 26816

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So general call-up is a mobilisation of people

 2     who, due to that mobilisation, become soldiers.  Simply said.  Is that

 3     right?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And when I say "people," I could, as well, have

 6     said conscripts.  Conscripts become effective soldiers by a mobilisation

 7     order; is that right?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By responding and going to their

11     units.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Of course.  Now, if a police unit consisting of

13     people that are not in the military at that moment, that are not

14     mobilised, if such a unit is resubordinated, would you call that a

15     mobilisation or a general call-up, due to a general call-up?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm afraid I haven't quite

17     understood your question.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Let me put it in another way.  This

19     paragraph that was read to you about the fact that the -- I read the last

20     sentences:

21             "What is important is the fact that he has a military obligation

22     and that he has failed to respond to general call-up."

23             Okay.  My question is:  The situation of resubordination of a

24     unit of policemen, does that correspond to what is called a mobilisation

25     or general call-up, or is that something different?

Page 26817

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All persons who have their war-time

 2     assignment in the police, when there is a general mobilisation call-up,

 3     they have to report to the unit to which they have been assigned.

 4     They're duty-bound to respond in accordance with their war-time

 5     assignment.  They cannot simply say, I will remain in police and go and

 6     report to police.  They can only go to police if they had previously been

 7     given a war-time assignment in police.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  But that's what I mean.  People who have been

 9     given a war-time assignment within the police.  And being within the

10     police, being within a certain police unit, this unit, at a certain point

11     in time, for a short time, is resubordinated to the military for combat

12     reasons.  Would you then say that those policemen were in the military

13     due to mobilisation or due to a general call-up?  Or would you say they

14     were temporarily there due to a resubordination order?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is my belief that, pursuant to a

16     competent organ's order, they are resubordinated to the superior command.

17     They -- there must be an order stating that a civilian police unit is

18     being resubordinated to a military command.  It doesn't happen just on

19     its own.

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

22             JUDGE HALL:  [Microphone not activated] yes, please continue.

23             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, at the moment when the general mobilisation is

25     being declared in the period of immediate threat of war, all citizens fit

Page 26818

 1     for military service become conscripts; right?

 2        A.   I don't know.  You keep insisting on one thing all the time.  I

 3     have already responded to this.  I've already replied to that question.

 4             In an orderly society, all military conscripts are aware of their

 5     war-time assignment, and you know this full well.  They have to report to

 6     their commands, to their units.  They cannot pick and choose where they

 7     will report.  They have to report to where their war-time assignment is.

 8     Those who do not have such an assignment, they have to report to the

 9     Secretariat for National Defence to get their assignment.

10        Q.   I'm sorry to interrupt you.  You did not reply to my question.

11     My question was very clear.  When an immediate threat of war is declared,

12     when the general mobilisation is declared, all citizens fit for military

13     service become conscripts and are duty-bound to report in accordance with

14     their war-time assignments; right?

15        A.   Yes.  And in accordance with the law, of course.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, I would remind you that collectively

17     you have 37 minutes left.  Between the two of you, you have 37 minutes

18     left.

19             MR. KRGOVIC:  Your Honour, I have just one topic in relation to

20     the document tendered to Mr. Olmsted, so I would kindly ask for

21     additional five minutes to deal with that -- these two documents, the

22     list of police and soldiers.  Whatever it is.

23        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, when the Prosecutor showed you the lists with

24     persons who were first put on the police lists, and then later on, a

25     month or so later, they were put on the military police unit's lists, if

Page 26819

 1     somebody were to leave their position, then the competent command would

 2     initiate proceedings to change their war-time assignment so that instead

 3     of being assigned to the police units, they would be sent to the military

 4     units of the VRS; right?

 5        A.   Well, I can't really answer that question.  I don't know whether

 6     you're referring to the military police or civilian police.

 7        Q.   To the civilian police.

 8        A.   Removing civilian police from the war-time assignment, according

 9     to what I know, would mean that only the competent MUP organisation could

10     remove them from a war-time assignment.  It is a very complicated

11     procedure.

12        Q.   Let me just interrupt you.  Would you agree with me that the

13     command of the brigade to which that unit belongs would propose and

14     initiate the proceedings to remove them?

15        A.   That doesn't need to be necessarily the case.

16        Q.   Let me show you a document.

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown

18     2D07-1154 doc ID.

19        Q.   Which is tab 16 in your binder, Zupljanin Defence binder.

20             Here, Mr. Jovicinac, this is a police brigade that was in

21     Orasija [phoen], and they sent their regular combat report to the command

22     of the East Bosnia Corps?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Please look at the text.  After the introductory part it will be

25     the middle paragraph, the underlined paragraph.  Do you see that where it

Page 26820

 1     says:

 2             "During the day, the 3rd Battalion and the 4th Company of the

 3     3rd Battalion abandoned their positions.  It was proposed that reserve

 4     policemen be taken off the war-time assignment of the police and be put

 5     at the disposal of the Secretariats of National Defence of their home

 6     municipalities, with a request that they be immediately made available to

 7     the VRS war-time units."

 8        A.   Sir, I have already replied to this.  This a police brigade not a

 9     military brigade, and they are entitled to initiate something of this

10     sort.

11        Q.   Why don't you turn to the second page and see who the commander

12     of this brigade is?

13        A.   You know what?  I can't really go into who signed what.  I can

14     just see what it says at the top.  It says the police brigade, general

15     security services.

16        Q.   Well, it says here that it was signed by Bosko Peulic, a colonel.

17        A.   Well, I don't know who Bosko Peulic is and whether he commanded

18     that brigade.  If this was indeed a police brigade, then they had their

19     own commander.

20        Q.   And this is precisely the commander who is proposing -- I

21     apologise.  Please look at whom the police brigade is proposing this.

22     They are proposing this to the Command of the East Bosnia Corps.

23        A.   You know what?  I'm now going into issues that I'm not fully

24     familiar with, and they could make matters more complicated.  I would

25     rather not comment on this.  I think that this is yet another example of

Page 26821

 1     many things that I have seen here that were not done in accordance with

 2     the law.  This command is not competent to make such proposals to the

 3     commander of the corps.  Since this is a police brigade based on what I

 4     believe, they are only competent --

 5        Q.   Sir, if you cannot give us a clear answer then please do not

 6     speculate, so if you cannot give a precise answer --

 7        A.   Well, I can tell you what the law says, what the law provisions

 8     say.  I'm not speculating.  I apologise.  My answer was that the police

 9     cannot be removed from war-time assignment by whoever wanted to do so.

10     There was a procedure that regulated that.  I apologise for going fast.

11     The proposal had to be sent to the competent organ with a list of

12     persons, and then an order had to be issued for these people to be sent

13     to the Secretariat of National Defence who would then, in turn, reassign

14     them to other units.  That was the law specified procedure.

15        Q.   Now that we have touched upon this, the law also said that if

16     somebody was accused for a war crime carrying with it a prison sentence

17     of more than five years, such a person had to be put in detention; right?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And the military prosecutor's office, in all such cases, agreed

20     that detention be -- that these people be released from detention; right?

21        A.   I don't know.

22             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown

23     P1284.38.

24        Q.   Which is your tab 9.

25             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, may I inquire whether this is

Page 26822

 1     relevant to one of the topics?  This is --

 2             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Credibility.

 3             MR. OLMSTED:  I don't see how this deals with resubordinated

 4     police officers.

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, have you found the document?

 7             You personally here violated this law that you're invoking now by

 8     releasing from detention people who had committed heinous crimes in

 9     Velegica.

10        A.   Listen, a military prosecutor can give a proposal, and if it is

11     relevant to explain why I did what I did here, then I will do that.  It

12     is only an investigative judge or a criminal court chamber who can

13     release somebody from detention.  In this particular case, there was an

14     extraordinary situation where a unit out of protest had abandoned their

15     positions because their fellows had been detained.  And let me tell you,

16     that these persons had already been in detention previously.  And I don't

17     know based on whose proposal they had been released.

18             I, as a military prosecutor, at that point in time made an

19     assessment that this was a grave crime, a serious crime that was not

20     subject to the statute of limitations, and that it was much wiser to give

21     this kind of a proposal rather than accept that the entire brigade would

22     abandon their positions.  Somebody else can judge me for that, and I

23     personally think that you abused your position as Defence counsel by

24     putting this document to me.

25        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, this is your interpretation of the law; namely,

Page 26823

 1     that this is in accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure and the

 2     Law on Military Prosecutor's Office.

 3        A.   I haven't understood you.

 4        Q.   What you did here, the actions that you took in this particular

 5     case, do you think that this was in accordance with the Law on Criminal

 6     Procedure and the Law on Military Prosecutor's Office?

 7        A.   Are you implying that I violated the law?

 8        Q.   I'm asking you that.

 9        A.   No, I'm asking you.  And I don't have to reply to that.

10        Q.   If I am being accused here, then --

11             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Jovicinac, just give me a moment, please.

12             Mr. Krgovic, whereas, of course, it goes without saying that you

13     may ask questions to challenge the witness's credibility, the -- the --

14     the overriding issue of relevance is not unimportant even in terms of

15     questions of this nature.  Having regard to the witness's general

16     responsibility, whatever view you may have of this document, I don't know

17     how that assists the Chamber in terms of the issues with which we have to

18     deal.  You and the witness may be able to argue about this from now until

19     doom's day but nothing turns on this particular document and his views on

20     it.

21             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise.  I only

22     wanted to ask the witness -- since he had been giving us his

23     interpretation of regulations and laws, I wanted to ask him to give us an

24     interpretation of this particular case just as he had been interpreting

25     the powers that there were over the police.

Page 26824

 1        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, is this document you produced in keeping with the

 2     Law on Criminal Procedure and the Law on Military Prosecutor's Office?

 3        A.   Yes, it is.

 4        Q.   And the way you went about interpreting the law here is the same

 5     way you went about when you were interpreting the powers of the military

 6     police and the military prosecutor's offices; is that right?

 7        A.   No.

 8        Q.   That's the same line of interpreting that you have been using in

 9     this particular instance?

10        A.   No.

11        Q.   So your interpretation of various regulations governing military

12     prosecutor's offices and military police in a way that they did not have

13     certain powers is something that goes to show that you were not applying

14     the law the way you were supposed to?

15        A.   I don't know how far you can get with what you are pursuing here

16     but I was quite clear.

17        Q.   Can you answer my question?

18        A.   Well, I will not give you a yes or no answer.

19        Q.   Tell me, were you right here or were you not right in proceeding

20     the way you did?

21        A.   No, no, no.  I gave you a clear answer.  Performing a duty, the

22     duty of the police in combat, has all the hallmarks of military duty, and

23     it is only logical that it be treated that way.

24             However, the Law on Military Courts does not regulate issues in

25     this way.  It is up to you, of course, to introduce new case law and go

Page 26825

 1     about changing things.

 2        Q.   Please.  I'm here to put questions to you.  Your answer where you

 3     wanted to avoid the jurisdiction of a military prosecutor's offices over

 4     serious war crimes is -- was a way in which you as a military prosecutor

 5     wanted to protect yourself and your fellow judges from getting involved

 6     in these difficult crimes in -- in -- in times of war in

 7     Bosnia-Herzegovina?

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter didn't hear the witness's

 9     answer.

10             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Can you just tell me whether you agree with me on this score or

12     not?

13        A.   I do not.

14        Q.   Thank you.  I have no further questions of you.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic, you have 25 minutes and the guillotine

16     will come down when that time has expired.

17             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will do my best to

18     complete my examination within the 25 minutes.  But I do appeal to you

19     not to be too tight in that respect, since I do need 45 minutes to

20     examine the witness properly and, of course, you will be the judge of

21     that as well.

22                           Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Jovicinac, can you hear me well?

24        A.   Yes, I can hear you very well.

25        Q.   My name is Slobodan Cvijetic, and I am the Defence counsel for

Page 26826

 1     the first accused, Mico Stanisic.

 2             Let me put several questions to you by telling you what the case

 3     of the Defence is, and I will take it piecemeal, and then you will tell

 4     me if you agree with me or not.

 5             Mr. Jovicinac, in times of an imminent threat of war and other

 6     emergencies, the police can be used also for combat missions as part of

 7     the armed forces in keeping with the law.  Are you aware of this, and do

 8     you agree with this statement of mine?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Very well.  For the duration of these combat activities by the

11     armed forces, the police will be subordinated to the senior officer in

12     command of these operations, both the police unit and the police senior

13     officer who was subordinated or resubordinated together with them.

14             Do you agree with this statement of mine?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   During their participation in combat, they - and I mean these

17     policemen - no longer have the status of an authorised police official or

18     of policemen in general, and for the duration of their participation in

19     combat, they take part in these activities as military personnel.

20        A.   That I'm not aware of.  I'm not aware of that.

21        Q.   Sir, if you are not aware of that, then we have to discuss it.

22        A.   I'm not aware of the fact that their status as policemen, as

23     officials, ceased at that point because I simply haven't read it

24     anywhere.  So how can I agree with it if I haven't read it?

25        Q.   Wait for my question.  A traffic policeman who is a member of a

Page 26827

 1     police units and has been resubordinated to a military command, thus,

 2     joining, say, an action for breaking open the corridor, and in that

 3     action, he participates as military personnel, as a combatant, rather

 4     than a traffic policeman.

 5             Do you agree with me on that score?

 6        A.   Yes, I agree with what you say.  But he is still a policeman.

 7        Q.   Sir, while he takes part in combat, military regulations and

 8     rules apply to his participation in combat, do they not?

 9        A.   Well, believe me when I tell you that I'm not sure about it.  I

10     can't answer with a yes or no.  Now, can a brigade commander punish a

11     policeman by sending him to spend 30 days in prison at the front line?

12     That's not something I'm certain of.

13        Q.   Very well.  Wait for my question and an example.

14             If that same traffic policeman were to be issued with a hand-held

15     launcher by his military command and then ends up in front of a tank, he

16     has to obey the orders of his commander and destroy the tank; right?

17        A.   Well, of course.

18        Q.   If he should refuse to obey his commander's order, he will be

19     charged with insubordination and prosecuted by the military justice

20     organs with jurisdiction.

21             So am I right in saying that?

22        A.   Well, this is a crime that will fall within -- strictly within

23     the jurisdiction of military courts.  This is regulated by the

24     Criminal Code of the SFRY which has been adopted and taken on;

25     specifically chapter 20.

Page 26828

 1        Q.   In other words, you answered in the affirmative.  It will be the

 2     military justice organs having jurisdiction who will be prosecuting him.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Let us have a quick look at chapter 20.

 5             In your binder containing my material, under 3, you will have the

 6     Criminal Code of the SFRY.

 7             For Their Honours, it is a document that is indicated as L11 in

 8     the legal -- in the law library.  Page 93 in English; and page 88 in

 9     English -- in Serbian.  We start off with Article 201.

10             Mr. Jovicinac, have you found Article 201?

11        A.   Give me a moment.

12        Q.   Have you found it, 201?

13        A.   Yes, yes.

14        Q.   So this is the crime we're discussing which will be prosecuted by

15     the military court having jurisdiction in case of insubordination,

16     refusal to obey an order; right?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   I think there's 27 criminal offences in all, but we won't be

19     looking at them all.

20             If the competent military commander orders a policemen or several

21     policemen that they should stand guard next to a military facility, say,

22     the POW collection centre or a military depot, and they violate their

23     duty as guards by abandoning their post, which resulted in aggressive

24     consequences, yet again, it will be the competent military organs that

25     will be prosecuting them; right?

Page 26829

 1        A.   Well, you see, when it comes to collection centres, I'm not that

 2     sure.

 3        Q.   No, very well.  No need for that.

 4        A.   What did you mean exactly?  If we're talking about the guard and

 5     patrol duty, and this is something that is protected under the law --

 6        Q.   Article 209.

 7        A.   Yes.  There, violation of guard and patrol duty.

 8        Q.   Just tell us, will they be prosecuted by a military court if they

 9     violate these rules?

10        A.   If they are under the command of the army, then I think, yes.

11     They will prosecute them.

12        Q.   Please, wait for my question --

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Cvijetic, the examples that you intend to

14     give -- that you gave and that you intend to give fall under this chapter

15     20, criminal offences against the armed forces in the SFRY?  Well, then

16     I --

17             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No.  No, Your Honour.  These are

18     criminal offences against the armed forces.  Yes, chapter 20.

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yes.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And they are within the sole

21     jurisdiction of --

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  But the witness agreed to that this morning,

23     didn't he?  So what's -- what's the purpose of going through all those

24     examples?  He will answer yes every time.

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It is important because of the

Page 26830

 1     criminal offence that is to come.  We had a document whereby the

 2     Main Staff informed the 1st Krajina Corps of policemen having abandoned

 3     their positions wilfully.

 4        Q.   Can I ask the witness to look at Article 217 now.  Mr. Jovicinac,

 5     this criminal offence is also a crime against the armed forces, and if

 6     committed by policemen who are resubordinated to a military unit, then

 7     these policemen will be held responsible for a military court; right?

 8        A.   Let me accommodate you with one answer.  All the crimes against

 9     the armed forces fall within the sole jurisdiction of the military court,

10     regardless of who committed these criminal offences.  This is something

11     that I stated this morning.

12             As far as the report or notification that I read here, which is

13     incomplete, which does not clearly state whether this was resubordination

14     or not, well, you can't expect me to wave my magic wand and give you an

15     answer.  I can give you an answer -- as good an answer as good a document

16     that it was.

17        Q.   Please, witness, focus on my question.  Mr. Jovicinac, at the end

18     of this chapter, you have Article 238.  There, you have laid down the

19     requirements that have to be met in order for a disciplinary punishment

20     to be rendered.

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   If some of the criminal offences under this chapter for which you

23     say the sole jurisdiction lies within the military courts, if their

24     violation had insignificant consequences, then a disciplinary punishment

25     or measure will be rendered by the appropriate relevant commander or

Page 26831

 1     disciplinary authority.

 2        A.   Yes.  However, in that other case, you had a police brigade and

 3     the brigade -- the police brigade commander had the authority to impose

 4     disciplinary sanctions.

 5        Q.   Sir, you answered my question, but this was my question:  A

 6     disciplinary sanction which had to do with the performance of duty of

 7     a -- of a military commander, this is something that would lie within the

 8     jurisdiction of the military commander and the -- the -- the disciplinary

 9     authority, as indicated here.  Am I right?

10        A.   Yes.  Well, yes based on what is stated here.

11        Q.   Thank you.  I don't need anything further.

12        A.   If I may be allowed.  I don't want to -- I feel like I'm being

13     quizzed here.  What I said this morning I will repeat again.  The

14     disciplinary responsibility of policemen is different from the

15     disciplinary responsibility in the army only in the slightest of details.

16        Q.   Can you be disciplined yourself?  I will be putting questions to

17     you and you will have an opportunity to talk about it.  In fact, have you

18     broached my next question but please be patient.

19             The Ministry of Interior and their hierarchy, and the police as

20     part of the ministry, have their own regulations governing disciplinary

21     responsibility.  I suppose you do know about it, don't you?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Sir, I suppose you know that the Ministry of the Interior is an

24     organ of administration.  It is a state administration body.  Is that

25     clear?

Page 26832

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   The work of that organ is governed by the

 3     Law on State Administration, and where it comes to disciplinary

 4     responsibility, the minister has powers to issue rules governing

 5     disciplinary and material responsibility of MUP members.  I suppose

 6     you're aware of that as well.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   You see, in your binder, I have prepared for you the Law on

 9     State Administration, which is behind tab 19, and behind tab 18, you have

10     the very rules governing disciplinary responsibility.

11             Now, if you can listen to my question, and just tell me if what

12     I'm stating is true.  The Law on State Administration and the rule-book

13     on disciplinary responsibility do not contain a single disciplinary

14     infraction, either grave or light, that has to do with military duty and

15     performance of it.  They all have to do with their regular duties when

16     they're performing their regular, routine jobs as members who work

17     with -- for an administrative organ.  Do you agree with me?

18        A.   Yes, I believe you.

19        Q.   Sir, then it is obvious --

20             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours.  Your Honours, I don't see how he can

21     answer a question like that without reviewing the law and reviewing the

22     disciplinary rules.  I mean, he is putting a proposition to him and the

23     witness obviously doesn't deal with these laws or these rules --

24             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, but the witness has

25     answered my question.

Page 26833

 1        Q.   Let me briefly state right away that you will not find a single

 2     case of violating guard duty or anything else that has to do with

 3     performing military duty.

 4        A.   In the disciplinary rules, there is -- there are provisions

 5     dealing with violation of guard duty.

 6        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac --

 7        A.   It is there.  Just take a look.

 8        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, policemen perform guard duty even in the course of

 9     their regular police duties.  When performing their regular police work,

10     they stand guard in front of their police buildings, facilities,

11     et cetera.

12             Mr. Jovicinac, please look at tab 22 in your binder.  Have you

13     found the order --

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   -- which is document 2D118.  Tab 22.  The Stanisic Defence

16     binder.  Would you please read this order?

17        A.   I've read it.

18        Q.   Do you agree that it stems from the text that, pursuant to the

19     order of the commander --

20             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic, we have been reminded by the

21     Court Officer that this is a confidential document so you must phrase

22     your questions carefully.

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well.

24             Should we go into private session, because I will need to mention

25     some names?

Page 26834

 1                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May we resume, Your Honour?

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, yes.

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Sir, is it clear now --

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, you had asked for us to go into private

 7     session.  Yes, we may move into private session.

 8                           [Private session]

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 26835











11 Page 26835 redacted. Private session.















Page 26836

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4                           [Open session]

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   You have commented quite a lot with the Chamber, OTP, and

 8     Mr. Krgovic, the Law on Military Courts.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   You mostly commented on provisions of Article 13, and, to a

11     lesser extent, provisions of Article 9.  Would you please turn to tab 12

12     in the binder before you.  The Law on Military Courts can be found there.

13             For the sake of the Chamber and the e-court, this is P1284.07.

14     We need page 2 in both versions, the English and the Serbian one.

15             Have you found these two provisions, 9 and 13?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   In Article 13, it says that the military court shall try

18     civilians if they commit the crimes listed below; right?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   You will agree with me that these crimes fall under chapter 15 of

21     the Criminal Code, which is undermining constitutional order, and so on?

22        A.   Yes, yes, I know about this.

23        Q.   However, you will agree with me that the basic jurisdiction of

24     the military court stems from the basic characteristics of the

25     perpetrator of the crime, the capacity of the perpetrator.

Page 26837

 1        A.   Yes.  But in some cases, the nature of the offence also is

 2     relevant, and in some cases it is the two combined.

 3        Q.   Yes, I agree.  But you will agree with me that the main

 4     jurisdiction is the one that deals with the capacity, is the personal

 5     jurisdiction from Article 9?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Sir, this law was adopted in 1977 during peacetime.

 8        A.   Yes, correct.

 9        Q.   However, once the imminent threat of war was declared and the

10     general mobilisation declared, the circle of persons who became members

11     of the armed forces was significantly enlarged; right?

12        A.   You're more than right.

13        Q.   So when the general public mobilisation was declared, all persons

14     fit for military service in the age group 18 to 55 became members of

15     armed forces by responding to mobilisation and to call-up; right?

16        A.   Yes.  I've already explained that.

17        Q.   You said that in an orderly country there are accurate records,

18     and that all of these persons should have already been entered into

19     records as conscripts.

20        A.   Yes, right.  However, I said that the -- didn't absolve of

21     responsibility those who were not recorded because it was the mistake of

22     the organs, the fact that they were not recorded.  The citizens had to be

23     recorded, and the secretariats issued annual calls for all those who were

24     not recorded to make themselves known in order to be recorded.

25        Q.   Would you please open now tab 7.

Page 26838

 1             And, for the Chamber, let me indicate that this is it P1284.10.

 2     These are the guide-lines mentioned by Mr. Krgovic.  Would we -- could we

 3     go to page 3 in the English.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic [sic], would it be convenient to take a

 5     break at this point?  And I'm pretty sure you're near the end of your

 6     time, in any event.  But the Chamber would itself have some questions and

 7     counsel may have questions arising out of what the Chamber puts to the

 8     witness.

 9             So we would take a break now --

10             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honours.  And if the

11     witness could go over this document in the meantime, it will speed up my

12     examination, and I won't need more than 15 minutes bringing it all

13     together to the 45 that I mentioned earlier.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Of course you had mentioned 45, but the Chamber

15     hadn't agreed to that, but we will deal with that when we return.

16             Sorry, Mr. Jovicinac, you -- we aren't quite through with you

17     yet, and we have been sitting for an hour and 25 minutes, so we need to

18     take a break.

19             We will resume in 20 minutes, at which point Mr. Cvijetic will

20     wind up, and then the Chamber may have a few questions for you.

21             But he is inviting you, during the break, to glance -- to -- to

22     look at the document that he has just referred you to, so that that will

23     facilitate the questions he has when we return.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25                           --- Recess taken at 4.13 p.m.

Page 26839

 1                           --- On resuming at 4.37 p.m.

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before I put a

 3     question to the witness, I have a favour to ask you.  I have four

 4     questions and some documents, a total of ten minutes, not longer than

 5     that.  Would you please allow me that?

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Starting now.

 7             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, you have heard under what time constraints I have

 9     to work, so please turn to page 7 of the document.  It's page 5 in

10     e-court.  And in the English, and in the Serbian version, it's page 15.

11     So the English text, page 5; the Serbian text, page 15.  These are the

12     guide-lines.  If necessary I can repeat the number of the document.

13     Mr. Jovicinac, it's page 7 in your binder.  Do you see that?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   The middle paragraph, starting with the words:

16             "The issue of responsibility for failure to respond ..."

17        A.   Yes, I've read it.

18        Q.   In e-court, we need page 8 in the Serbian version.  Page 5 in the

19     English.  I think we've got it right now.

20             In that paragraph, you have a sentence which reads:

21             "It must be stressed that even persons who have a status of

22     refugees ...," da, da, da.  Would you please read it.

23        A.   I've read it.

24        Q.   Let us just make sure that the English version is right.  Page 5

25     in the English version.  Paragraph 2.  Yes, that's right.  We have it.

Page 26840

 1             Now, Mr. Jovicinac, this partially fits with what you have said;

 2     namely, that even the refugees who were not entered into military records

 3     as conscripts also become members of armed forces immediately as soon as

 4     the imminent threat of war is declared.  Do you agree with that?

 5        A.   I do agree.  But let me add something, by your leave.

 6        Q.   Please do not because you've heard how little time I have.  I

 7     have a right to put three more questions.  Please don't use up my time.

 8             Mr. Jovicinac, now we've reached the last topic, where I wish to

 9     establish with you exactly who falls under the term of a member of armed

10     forces and who is it that in the period of an imminent threat of war and

11     general mobilisation falls under the jurisdiction of the military justice

12     organs.  Therefore, in your binder, would you please turn to tab 43.  And

13     for us here, this is OTP 65 ter 10295.

14             Mr. Jovicinac, have you taken a look at the document?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Please tell me, have you heard of this group led by

17     Dragan Djordjevic, aka Crni, which committed some crimes in the territory

18     of which municipality?  I think it's Samac.  Yes.

19        A.   To tell you the truth, I know very little about this group.

20        Q.   All right.  I'm asking you this because your office of the

21     military prosecutor indicted them for crimes from 1992.

22             Would you please look at their personal data listed here.  Can

23     you confirm that all of them are from the Republic of Serbia?

24        A.   Based on this, it would seem that, yes, they are.

25        Q.   Sir, now this group of persons from Serbia were not recorded in

Page 26841

 1     the military records as conscripts.  They could not be found in the

 2     Secretariat for National Defence in the municipality of Bosanski Samac

 3     nor elsewhere in Republika Srpska, and it is obviously a group of

 4     volunteers who had come from Serbia to the territory of Samac

 5     municipality.

 6        A.   I suppose so.

 7        Q.   Now tell me, please --

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  Sorry, I have to object, Your Honours.

 9             First of all, the witness's answer is probably correct.  He is

10     supposing so because he's not familiar with this case nor is he getting

11     an opportunity to review this document.  In fact, in this document, it

12     states that these accused were members of the 2nd Krajina Corps.

13             So I'm not sure where the Defence is leading with this.  And I

14     don't want to see the witness misled on assuming that these persons were

15     not somehow members of the 2nd Krajina Corps, or basically the VRS.  And

16     I can give the references if Defence counsel would like.  On page 4 and

17     page 9 is stated --

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] My apologies.  You are running

19     ahead of my questions.  Why don't you wait for me to put these questions.

20     This is precisely what I'm about to deal with, what you have been

21     addressing here.

22             MR. OLMSTED:  My concern was you were putting, Your Honours --

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for your assistance, but

24     I will be dealing with these issues.  You don't need to assist me.  You

25     know how the saying goes in Greece, that you should be aware of the

Page 26842

 1     Danaans, even as they bring gifts.

 2        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, the -- what was the basis on which the Banja Luka

 3     prosecutor's office, that's to say, your office, on which this group was

 4     convicted?

 5        A.   In order to answer this question, I have to first have a look at

 6     the criminal report and see what it says.  Were they members of the army

 7     or not?

 8             I don't have that, and I can't answer the question.  I suppose

 9     that they were placed under the command.  I was able to answer the

10     question when it came to volunteers.

11        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, please wait for my question.

12             You didn't give an answer in the courtroom.  Rather, it was

13     during your interview with the Prosecution.  I apologise if you did, then

14     I overheard it.

15        A.   I answered that question when I was speaking to the Prosecutors.

16        Q.   Is -- if they placed themselves under the command of a military

17     unit as volunteers, then they came under the jurisdiction of your

18     military prosecutor's office; right?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Please have a quick look at tab 45 in your binder, which is on

21     the OTP list, 65 ter 10296.

22             Mr. Jovicinac, it transpires from this the military court assumed

23     jurisdiction and even convicted this group of people, did it not?

24        A.   Yes.

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in view of the

Page 26843

 1     context of the examination and the importance of this issue, I wish to

 2     tender this two documents into evidence.

 3             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, we would object.  As I mentioned

 4     before, the perpetrators in this case were military.  The victims were

 5     military, in fact, as well.  So it has nothing to do with the topics that

 6     are before this Trial Chamber with this particular witness.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic - we're inclined to agree,

 8     Mr. Olmsted - but before we rule what -- do you have anything to in

 9     response?

10             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, these are no

11     ordinary soldiers.  It is precisely this issue that we were discussing.

12     Not only those who are referred to in the Law on the Army and the Law on

13     the Military Courts are soldiers but all those who respond to the call-up

14     and participate in combat after an imminent threat of war and general

15     mobilisation were declared.  And this relates to the crimes committed in

16     1992, in a municipality which is mentioned in the indictment.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honour, the witness's testimony is quite

18     clear.  That if this involved members of the military --

19             JUDGE HALL:  We don't need to hear from you further, Mr. Olmsted.

20             No, Mr. Cvijetic, the documents are not admitted.

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well.

22        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, have you heard of a group led by

23     Veljko Milankovic?  I believe that it was called the Wolves from Vucjak.

24     Do you recall that unit?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 26844

 1        Q.   Do you know what sort of unit was it?

 2        A.   Based on what I know of it, it was a regular unit subordinated to

 3     the corps command.  It was under the command of the army.

 4        Q.   Very well.  Mr. Jovicinac, in order for us to arrive at the

 5     definition of a member of the armed forces, would you agree with me that

 6     a member of the armed forces is considered to be everyone who reports

 7     with a weapon and participates in resistance against the enemy?

 8        A.   I can agree with you, in part, because, at the outset, I did say

 9     that the definition of a member of the armed forces is regulated under

10     the Law on the Army and the Law on Defence.  I cannot take up any sort of

11     views outside of that, and I cannot either confirm or deny anything.

12     When it comes to volunteers, that, too, is something I clarified.

13        Q.   We will look at the a document, sir.  Look at tab 2 of your

14     binder, where you have the Law on All People's Defence.

15        A.   Which number is that?

16        Q.   Tab number 2.

17             For those in the courtroom, it is L1 in the law library.

18        A.   No, no.  This is the Law on All People's Defence of the SFRY.

19        Q.   That is precisely what we need, sir.

20        A.   No.  We can't go by this one.  There is the Law on the Defence of

21     the Army of the Republika Srpska, which was adopted on either -- in

22     either June or July of 1992, and I was basing my statements on that law.

23        Q.   Sir, would you please look at this law.

24        A.   No.  It was adopted before the military courts and military

25     prosecutors' offices were set up.

Page 26845

 1        Q.   Sir, we will discuss that issue.  But would you please consult

 2     this law, and I will tell you that this law was in application in

 3     Republika Srpska as well, precisely based on what you mentioned,

 4     Article 12 of the constitutional law on the application of the

 5     constitution.

 6             Please look at Article 91.

 7             For those in the courtroom, it is page 61 in English and 16 in

 8     Serbian.

 9             In para 2, you have the definition of who it is who makes up the

10     armed forces.  Do you see that?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Am I right -- in fact I quoted the provision.  And do you see

13     that, indeed, all those who take up arms and join combat are considered

14     to be a member of the armed forces.  Is that clear now?

15        A.   It's not clear to me because, I repeat, this law could be applied

16     up until the point when the Law on the Defence of Republika Srpska was

17     passed.

18        Q.   Listen --

19        A.   It was in June or July of 1992.  The Law on the Defence of

20     Republika Srpska does not know the construct of the Territorial Defence.

21        Q.   Sir, listen here.  You are not right.  Look at tab 60.  I have

22     prepared for you precisely the law you have been invoking, and it was not

23     passed in June.

24             So the first Law on National Defence was adopted by

25     Republika Srpska as early as in March of 1992, and apparently,

Page 26846

 1     Mr. Jovicinac, you're not aware of this.

 2        A.   Well, I can't know all these things by heart.

 3        Q.   Well, in that case, do not draw conclusions if you don't know

 4     about these things.  So please look at Article 104.

 5        A.   Please.  I am appealing to you, just as you are to me.

 6        Q.   Please look at Article 104.  It's L33.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  The time has come.

 8             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let me finish this off.  This is

 9     the last document, Your Honour.  The last document.

10        Q.   Please look at tab 60.  That's the Law on the National Defence.

11     It's under -- it's behind tab 61, I'm told.  Have you found it?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Look at the transitional and final provisions.  You will find

14     them at the end.  It's L33 for the courtroom.  And it's page 18 in

15     English.  In Serbian, it's page 15.

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we zoom in on Article 104.

17        Q.   Sir, is it clear now on the basis of what it is that the federal

18     law is applied?

19        A.   Why would this piece of legislation be applied if there is a

20     Law on Defence?

21        Q.   You are not clear on this issue.  That's for you to deal with.

22        A.   No.  We have a law in place which is in application.  Otherwise

23     we have some sort of a conflict in place.

24        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac, let me put to you what the Defence case is.

25             A policeman who is resubordinated as part of a -- of a police

Page 26847

 1     unit to the competent military commander within a given area of

 2     responsibility becomes a member of the armed forces, and his

 3     participation in that military unit is subject to military regulations

 4     where a crime or a disciplinary violation is committed by him, then, for

 5     as long as that person is resubordinated, he will be subject to the

 6     jurisdiction of military justice organs; is that right?  Do you agree

 7     with me?

 8        A.   For crimes that fall within the sole jurisdiction of military

 9     courts, yes.  However -- and that's article -- sorry, that's chapter 20.

10     That's the chapter that falls under the sole jurisdiction of the military

11     courts, and that's something that I have been stating at the outset.

12        Q.   Mr. Jovicinac --

13             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic, that's as far as we go.

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] My last question --

15             JUDGE HALL:  No, no.  You have had your last question,

16     Mr. Cvijetic.

17             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well.

18             Your Honour, then I have completed my examination.

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Sorry, Your Honours, just before

20     His Honour Judge Harhoff starts his examination, I wanted to tendered two

21     documents that I showed to the witness; namely, 2D07 --

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Can Mr. Krgovic repeat the number slowly,

23     please.

24             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And that's the document that is

25     directly connected with the document that was tendered by the

Page 26848

 1     Prosecution.  2D071154.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Tab numbers, please.

 3             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Tab 16.

 4             This is a document connected with the two documents showed by the

 5     Prosecution.  It indicates how the two individuals who were listed there

 6     as members of the civilian police ended up a couple of months later in a

 7     military assignment.

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, there hasn't been an established

 9     connection between this 29 December 1992 document and the October 1992

10     document.  And as I recall, this witness simply could not even comment on

11     this document.  He said that he has no background on command and control

12     within military units.  His expertise is on military prosecution and

13     court jurisdiction.  So he had really nothing to add on this, and I

14     believe there may be other witnesses that maybe the Defence can try to

15     tender this through.

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness also

17     didn't know anything about the two documents shown to him by the

18     Prosecution.  And the Prosecutor wanted to show how these two individuals

19     who were on this list ended up on the other.  And this document goes to

20     show that these very soldiers who were deserters were transferred to a

21     military unit.  And the document outlines a procedure.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Your Honour --

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic just to be clear on this, when you

24     say tab 16, you mean tab 16 of your binder or --

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, my binder.

Page 26849

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay, and the other one is what?  So tab 16

 2     and -- you're talking about two documents.

 3             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The other document is,

 4     Your Honour -- it's the cover page of the guide-lines, in fact, which is

 5     2D101917.  It is the cover letter.

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Tab?

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Tab 19.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] 17.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.  19, 17.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  I see.

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] This -- because the guide-lines are

12     already admitted, and this is a cover letter, which shows that the

13     guide-lines were delivered to the prosecutor's office where the witness

14     worked.

15             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, dealing with the guide-lines first,

16     as Defence counsel mentioned, the guide-lines themselves are in evidence

17     already.  And this witness said he never seen them before.  They were

18     never in his hands.  He really didn't feel he was in a position to even

19     comment on them, so I'm not sure how they've established a basis to admit

20     it through this witness.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Inasmuch as dealing with the guide-lines, inasmuch

22     as the guide-lines are in, for completion, no difficulty with the cover

23     page.  I just need the assistance of the Court Officer.  Together it

24     needs to be separately exhibited from the guide-lines of which it is a

25     constituent part.

Page 26850

 1                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 2             JUDGE HALL:  So it is admitted as a separate document.  I

 3     understand that for technical reasons -- [Microphone not activated] cover

 4     page.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Number 19.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Cover page.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  As exhibit 2D192 Your Honours.

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  And, Your Honours, with regard to the other

 9     document, I will reiterate that looking at it, and perhaps Mr. Krgovic

10     can point me to the place where it's -- even suggested that this has

11     anything to do with the police officers that are involved in that

12     October 16th document.  There's no mention of any police officer names or

13     where they were, whether they were at Han Pijesak or anything to do with

14     other issues.  So I don't see the connection between this document and

15     the document that has already been admitted as 1D411.

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] May I respond briefly,

17     Your Honours?

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE HALL:  So the first document is admitted and marked.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 2D193, Your Honours.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Jovicinac, we have one final question for

23     you, and then your testimony will be completed.

24                           Re-examination by the Court:

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But before I put my question, I should perhaps

Page 26851

 1     give you a bit of background for what I have in mind.

 2             The -- the topic that I wish to address with you is this issue of

 3     conscripts.  If I understand your testimony correctly, you told us that

 4     when a young man becomes -- reaches the age of 18, he is then enrolled on

 5     a list for potential military service, either immediately or at a later

 6     point.  This is in peacetime.  And, as of that moment, he is, in effect,

 7     a conscript.  He is on the list of conscripts.  Then in peacetime at a

 8     certain point, he will be called to serve his military duties, and then,

 9     after that, he will still remain -- remain on the list for the purpose of

10     a call-up in case of a war.  And on the lists of conscripts, he is

11     immediately given an assignment.  Let me stop here and just ask you if

12     that is correct correctly understood?

13        A.   Yes.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So if we are in peacetime, and we open the list

15     of conscripts, we will see that a whole number of young men will be

16     assigned to the army, some to the air force and so on, and then probably

17     a smaller number will be assigned to police duties; is that correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Then we proceed in time, and we go into a time

20     when, actually, there is a war, and so there's a call-up.  And for the

21     young man who was given police duty as his war assignment, he will

22     respond to the call-up and report to the police; is that correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Now, if this young man reports to the police and

25     becomes a member of the police force, and then during the war, at some

Page 26852

 1     point he and his unit are resubordinated to the army for the purpose of

 2     assistance in a combat operation, if this happens, he will do as he is

 3     told, and he will report to the army, together with his unit.  And he

 4     will there be under the instructions and the control and the command of

 5     the military commander; is that correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And here comes my question:  During the time when

 8     this young man is actually resubordinated to the army, is his original

 9     war assignment changed?  In other words, does he remain listed with his

10     war-time assignment to the police in the list; or, in the alternative, is

11     the list of conscripts changed, amended for this young man for the time

12     when he is resubordinated to the police?

13             Do you understand my question; and, if so, can you answer it?

14        A.   I understand the question.  In my opinion, his war-time

15     assignment does not change.  He is a member of the police which is

16     resubordinated to a military unit.

17             When there is no longer the need for resubordination, he shall,

18     together with his unit, return, again, to the jurisdiction of the MUP.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  And let me just clarify just to be

20     absolutely sure that I did understand you correctly:  The war-time

21     assignment given to the conscripts remains unchanged even if a person, as

22     we have discussed here, a young man whose war-time assignment was for the

23     police, even if at any point in time he is resubordinated to the army, he

24     still remains listed with his war-time assignment to the police; is that

25     correct?

Page 26853

 1        A.   That is correct.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  I have no further questions.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  [Microphone not activated] Mr. Olmsted, you have an

 4     application.

 5             MR. OLMSTED:  No, Your Honour, just to correct the record.

 6     Page 128 - where am I looking? - line 3, I'm pretty sure I heard

 7     Judge Harhoff say "resubordinated to the military."  It says in the

 8     record "resubordinated to the police," and this -- I think that needs to

 9     be corrected.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I may have misspoken, in which case I apologise.

11     Of course, I meant resubordination to the army.  Otherwise the sentence

12     doesn't make sense.

13             MR. OLMSTED:  Doesn't make sense.  Thank you, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Olmsted.

15             Mr. Jovicinac -- yes, Mr. Cvijetic.

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] In connection with the question

17     His Honour Judge Harhoff put to the witness, I would have one follow-up

18     question, precisely on this issue dealt with by Judge Harhoff.

19             JUDGE HALL:  No, Mr. Cvijetic, we're not going to go down that

20     road.  We're -- the witness has been co-operating with us the whole day.

21     What we have obtained by way of question and answer, we must be content

22     with.

23             Mr. Jovicinac, I thank you for you're agreeing to testify and for

24     being with us for what has been an extended sitting, and I apologise for

25     the many times that I mispronounced your name in the course of the day.

Page 26854

 1     We wish you well.  You are now released as a witness.

 2             Thank you, sir.

 3                           [The witness withdrew]

 4             And we take the adjournment to, I believe, it's next --

 5             MS. KORNER:  [Microphone not activated] just mention one matter

 6     and this is a joint Defence and Prosecution application and that is to

 7     reconsider your Ruling in respect of the time allowed for the next

 8     witness.  Your Honours will have seen how much longer today's witness

 9     took.  Let me assure you from personal experience next week's witness is

10     very difficult to stop, so I wonder if you would possibly build in -- the

11     possibility, can I put it that way, of an extra session on the second

12     day.

13             JUDGE HALL:  If I remember what we said this morning, I think we

14     made allowances for that.  And I am -- indeed we would have commented out

15     of court that today's experience, if that's an indication of what is to

16     come next week, that we -- we could see the -- thank you.

17             MS. KORNER:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE HALL:  So we're not unmindful of those practical

19     considerations, Ms. Korner.

20             So we take the adjournment, to reconvene in -- I expect we would

21     be in Courtroom III on the 1st of March, at 9.00 in the morning.

22             But before we rise, I thank the support staff, the interpreters,

23     the court reporters, and the security staff for their assistance in

24     facilitating this extended session, and, of course, the accused

25     themselves for their co-operation in agreeing to this.

Page 26855

 1             So we rise.  Thank you.

 2                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.17 p.m.,

 3                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 1st of March,

 4                           2012, at 9.00 a.m.