1 Thursday, 22 November 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning to everybody.
7 Mr. Registrar, will you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is case number IT-04-83-T, the Prosecutor versus Rasim Delic.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 Could we have the appearances for today, starting with the
13 MS. SARTORIO: Good morning, Your Honours.
14 Laurie Sartorio for the Prosecution, assisted by Alma Imamovic,
15 our case manager.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Sartorio.
17 And for the Defence.
18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good
19 morning to my learned friends from the OTP. Good morning to everyone in
20 and around the courtroom.
21 Vasvija Vidovic and Nicholas Robson this morning on behalf of
22 General Rasim Delic. Our case manager is Lana Deljkic.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.
24 Before I turn to the witness, let me just say that, unfortunately,
25 Judge Harhoff is involved in another case this morning, and we are forced
1 to sit pursuant to Rule 15 bis.
2 Good morning, sir.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me remind you that you are still bound by the
5 declaration you made at the beginning of your testimony, to tell the
6 truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth. Good.
7 WITNESS: EDIN SARIC [Resumed]
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.
10 MR. ROBSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Robson: [Continued]
12 Q. Good morning, Mr. Saric. I hope I won't be too long with you this
14 If we could start off by briefly returning to two documents that
15 we looked at yesterday.
16 MR. ROBSON: Please, could we bring up Exhibit 858 onto the
18 Q. Mr. Saric, this is a document that we looked at several times
19 during the course of your testimony. We can see that it is a report dated
20 the 23rd of July, 1995, going from the 3rd Corps Military Security Service
21 to the General Staff Security Administration.
22 And we can say, first of all, you explained in your evidence that
23 you didn't prepare this document, and you hadn't seen it before; is that
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And we can see, from the first paragraph of this document, it
2 explains that in the course of combat operations on the 22nd of July,
3 1995, the El Mujahedin Detachment captured 11 enemy troops; and below that
4 we can see the names of three of those troops are mentioned. Is that so?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, what I'd like to ask you about is on -- it's on the second
7 page in the English version, and it's the second-from-bottom paragraph on
8 the B/C/S version.
9 What this says, in this paragraph, it notes the El Mujahedin
10 Detachment does not allow the aggressor soldiers to be taken over. Do you
11 see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. ROBSON: Now, if we can put this document away and turn to
14 Exhibit 859 that we have also looked at during the course of Mr. Saric's
16 Q. Now, we see here another document from the 3rd Corps Military
17 Security Service to the General Staff Security Administration, and we can
18 see that it's dated the 25th of July, and it was received at the security
19 administration on the 28th of July.
20 Do you remember seeing this document, Mr. Saric?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And do you recall, Mr. Saric, that you actually prepared this
23 document that was sent to the security administration?
24 A. Could I please have a look at the last page of this document?
25 MR. ROBSON: If we could please turn to the last page in the B/C/S
1 version, it's on page 4 in the English version.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I'm the author of this
4 MR. ROBSON: Okay. If we could please return back to the start of
5 this document.
6 Q. Now, in the sequence of documents that the Trial Chamber has seen,
7 this was the next document that was sent to the General Staff Security
8 Administration concerning the captured Serbs.
9 MR. ROBSON: If we could just slowly click through the pages in
10 B/C/S, just so that we could refresh the witness as to what's contained in
11 this document, and if we could move to the next page, please.
12 It's not necessary for the witness to read the whole content, but
13 just for him to see what the document consists of.
14 Q. So, Mr. Saric, we can see that this is a substantial document
15 containing a lot of detailed information; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. ROBSON: If we could return back to page 1 in the B/C/S
18 version of this document.
19 Q. Would you agree with me, Mr. Saric, that nowhere in this document
20 that you prepared does it actually say when the interviews took place with
21 the Serb prisoners?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Yesterday, during your testimony, we ascertained that there is no
24 mention of any mistreatment towards the Serb prisoners in the document.
25 What I would like to ask you is this: Without you providing any
1 details of the dates that these Serb prisoners were interviewed and this
2 information was obtained, would you agree with me that anybody reading
3 this document could gain the impression or understand from the document
4 that interviews had taken place at some stage after the 23rd of July, when
5 the first document about these Serb detainees was sent?
6 A. Yes.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do I understand what you mean, that it would have
8 taken place after the 23rd or immediately before the 23rd?
9 MR. ROBSON: After, Your Honour. I'll clarify that with the
11 Q. So, Mr. Saric, we saw that the first document in the sequence of
12 the documents was sent on the 23rd of July. This document was sent on the
13 25th of July and received by the security administration on the 28th.
14 On the face of this document, from looking at it, it's possible
15 that someone reading the document could understand that the Serb detainees
16 were interviewed subsequent to the first document being sent on the 23rd
17 of July; in other words, it could have been later on the 23rd of July, it
18 could have been the 24th, or even the 25th of July?
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would like to understand why you say so, sir.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is my
22 position: We cross-referenced the dates on these documents to see when
23 they were actually produced. We shall realise that those are roughly --
24 not roughly, but in fact quite certainly the very dates that Mr. Robson is
25 referring to. We are talking about the time period between the 23rd and
1 25th of July, 1995, meaning the dates these reports and documents were
2 produced are the 23rd, 24th, or the 25th of July, 1995.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand all that, but you're still not giving
4 me any reason why, on a reading of this document, the impression is given
5 that the interview took place sometime after the 23rd or after the
6 document of the 23rd. I'll tell you why I don't understand.
7 I understand this document to be a document reporting to the
8 General Staff what the 3rd Corps received from the 35th Division, and that
9 the document of the 23rd was a document from the 35th Division.
10 Now, this document says: "In the interview with the captured
11 aggressor's ..."
12 Now, I haven't read this whole document. These exhibits are
13 flipped through quickly. We don't read them through, but it says here in
14 the first paragraph: "In the interview with the captured aggressor's
15 soldiers, the 35th Division of the Army learned the following
17 Now, you are not telling the recipient of this document when the
18 35th Division did the interview, but you are telling him of what the 35th
19 Division found. Yes, what the 35th Division learned. Therefore, the
20 interview, to the reader of this document, is that the interview could
21 have taken place shortly before the report from the 35th Division was
22 written. That's as best I can understand it. I don't understand why you
23 say "after the 23rd."
24 The reader may not know when the 35th Division did the interview,
25 but the impression left with the reader is that it took place before the
1 report was given to you at the 3rd Corps shortly after the interview.
2 Otherwise, how do you report on an interview that has not yet taken place?
3 That's why I asked you the question right at the beginning and you
4 said you were going to clarify, so I still don't understand your logic,
5 the two of you.
6 MR. ROBSON:
7 Q. Mr. Saric --
8 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Robson, if you occasionally
9 looked towards me, you would notice that I wanted to intervene. I'd also
10 like to add that I find this somewhat problematic, especially with regard
11 to the fact that Mr. Robson is asking questions on the witnesses rather
12 with regard to possibilities rather than facts. I think we should focus
13 the questions on facts.
14 MR. ROBSON: If I could just, first of all, go back to the
15 question that I put to the witness. As I understood the witness's answer,
16 he wasn't saying that the interview did take place after the 23rd but he
17 allowed that possibility, that it could have.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's just what I can't understand, how it could
19 have taken place after the 23rd. The reader of this document -- sorry.
20 The reader of this document is not given, at least on this first
21 page, the date when the 35th Division conducted the interview. Okay?
22 But what the reader is told here, he is told that what is being
23 reported by the 3rd Corps is what the 3rd Corps received from the 35th
25 Now, what the 35th Division reported to the 3rd Corps could only
1 have taken place shortly before the report, not after the report.
2 How can you report about something that has not yet taken place?
3 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, what I'm trying to explore with the
4 witness, and if he doesn't know the answer, I'd be very grateful if he
5 tells us so.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, but --
7 MR. ROBSON: But on the face of these two documents, the documents
8 do not exclude the possibility that the Serbs were approached on two
9 different occasions: The first occasion which was altered in the first
10 document, the 23rd --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Show us those two possibilities from the document.
12 Refer us to a writing in the document which gives that impression because,
13 otherwise, we don't understand.
14 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, I can't give testimony about the -- I
15 don't wish to testify about the documents. What I'd like to do is just
16 deal with this point; and if you're not satisfied, I'll move on.
17 But what I'm trying to explore with the witness, I'll put this in
18 a question.
19 Q. Mr. Saric, in the first document that we saw, dated the 23rd of
20 July, it stated that the El Mujahedin Detachment did not allow the
21 aggressor soldiers to be taken over, and we can see that there was very
22 limited information in that document.
23 We then have a document which was sent to the General Staff
24 Security Administration two days later, containing a lot of detailed
25 information. What I'm trying to --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry. I would like to understand what is the
2 limited information in the first document and what is the detailed
3 information in the subsequent document which is not there in the first
5 MR. ROBSON: Well, Your Honours, we can look at the documents and
6 ascertain that.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: But ask him questions. Show us the details in the
8 subsequent documents that are not there in the first document.
9 MR. ROBSON: Okay.
10 Q. Mr. Saric, let's have a look at Exhibit 858, please.
11 MR. ROBSON: If we can just scroll down a little in the B/C/S
12 version, please.
13 Q. Mr. Saric, we can see that this is a one-page document. Would you
14 agree with me that the information contained in this document about the
15 Serb prisoners is restricted to the paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, which gives
16 some brief information about the dates of birth of the prisoners, what
17 their position is within the army, what their profession is, and maybe
18 some other small pieces of information?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. ROBSON: And now if we can have a look at Exhibit 859, please.
21 Q. In this document, we can see that it starts off by giving similar
22 information about the three named Serb prisoners: Their dates of birth,
23 position within the army, some other information.
24 Then the document goes on to, if we go --
25 MR. ROBSON: If you could have a look at the B/C/S version.
1 Q. It explains about the line of defence that was controlled by the
2 Prnjavor Brigade.
3 MR. ROBSON: If we can turn over in the English version, please.
4 Q. It then goes on to explain who the military commanders are within
5 that brigade. It explains how various military units were -- what they
6 were comprised of.
7 MR. ROBSON: If we can turn over in the B/C/S version.
8 Q. Is that correct, what I've said so far, Mr. Saric?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. The document then goes on to explain about Howitzers being
11 positioned near to a school, there is information about Chetniks manning
12 trenches, and then you can see there's information about desertion amongst
13 the Serb forces and so on. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And then we can see that there's a lot of detailed information
16 about Dr. Branko Sikanic. He explains about the medical facilities in the
17 area, and he goes on to explain about the general situation existing in
18 the Ozren-Vozuca area; is that so?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So what we can see here, Mr. Saric, is that there was a lot of
21 detailed information that just wasn't present in the that initial short
22 report on the 23rd of July.
23 What I was trying to explain -- or what I was trying to put to you
24 was that somebody reading this subsequent report, because there is no date
25 mentioned as to when this detailed information was obtained, could obtain
1 the impression that subsequent information had been obtained from the Serb
3 MS. SARTORIO: I object, Your Honour, before the answer, because,
4 again, this is calling for sheer speculation, asking this witness what
5 someone else thinks.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.
7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to answer
8 this objection.
9 In keeping with Rule 94 (H) -- it seems there is no
10 interpretation. All right.
11 Your Honours, in keeping with Rule 94 (H), I think, we are
12 expected to put our case to the witness and hear what the witness has to
13 say. Therefore, this is precisely what we, the Defence, have been doing,
14 and we are expecting an answer from the witness. It's not about eliciting
15 speculation. It's about hearing the witness's opinion with regard to our
16 case in this particular instance.
17 The Chamber can choose what its position is regarding certain
18 documents when deliberations start. It may rate one document more and
19 another document less, in terms of probative value. However, it is our
20 responsibility to put our case to the witness in relation to each and
21 every document.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, this witness, as I understand, is not an
23 expert witness, and Madam Vidovic is saying that it is not about
24 speculation. It's about hearing the witness's opinion with regard to your
1 Now, Judge Lattanzi has just said a little earlier that the
2 question is being speculative and can we stick to facts. Any amount of
3 speculation can come into where this information comes from. We don't
4 know whether this report by the 3rd Corps to the General Staff is a
5 combination of the report from the 35th Division and other reports,
6 because there are all people, Karadzic, who are mentioned here, who are
7 not mentioned outside, Vukmanovic, Popovic, Cikorac.
8 They are all mentioned here, and we don't know where this
9 information comes from. So there is any number of speculation as to why
10 this report is longer than the other report.
11 I do think this question is speculative, and I uphold the
13 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'll just ask one question which doesn't
14 call for speculation, and then I'll move on.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 MR. ROBSON:
17 Q. Mr. Saric, in relation to the second document we've seen, dated
18 the 25th of July, are you able to help me: Is there any reason why you
19 didn't include the date of when the interview with the Serb prisoners,
20 which resulted in this detailed information, was not included in the
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't understand "which resulted in this detailed
23 information," unless you're asking for the dates when the various
24 information was obtained.
25 MR. ROBSON:
1 Q. Mr. Saric, you obtained information; and as a result of receiving
2 that information, you produced a document dated the 25th of July. You did
3 not include, within that report, details of when the interview or
4 interviews were conducted with those named Serb prisoners.
5 Are you able to recall, is there any reason why you did not
6 include details about when those Serb prisoners were interviewed?
7 A. Yes. The only reason that no information regarding the date the
8 interviews were conducted with these POWs was included in my report, or at
9 least my initials appear on the face of the document, is probably that the
10 security organ of the 35th Division didn't include that information in
11 their own report which they sent to us.
12 Therefore, I was in no position to speculate on the exact dates of
13 those interviews. Information that had reached us from the 35th Division
14 was copied from the report and forwarded to the Security Administration of
15 the General Staff.
16 Q. Are you able to recall - and if you can't, please say so - did you
17 receive information on two occasions from the 35th Division about these
18 Serb prisoners before you prepared the report dated the 25th of July?
19 A. I don't remember. I see that there are two documents here;
20 however, I truly cannot recall.
21 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, I'm going to move away from this
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I ask the witness a few questions on this
25 Can we put on Exhibit 858, please. Could we put Exhibit 858 on
1 the screen. Okay. Thank you.
2 You may proceed now. I don't have any questions, as I see where
3 this document comes from.
4 MR. ROBSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 If we could show the witness Exhibit 694, please.
6 While we're waiting for the document to appear, if I could just
7 explain that this is a report dated the 19th of October, 1995.
8 Q. Mr. Saric, would you agree that we can see that this is a document
9 from the 3rd Corps Military Security Service to the General Staff Security
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. ROBSON: If we could look at the last page in B/C/S, please,
13 and page 6 in the English version.
14 Q. We can see that, in the signature block, the document is from Agan
15 Haseljic. Can you confirm that you are the author of this document,
16 Mr. Saric?
17 A. The author of this document, judging by the initials, is me.
18 However, it was signed by the head of the security service of the 3rd
19 Corps, Colonel Agan Haseljic.
20 Q. We can see his name is on the document here.
21 MR. ROBSON: Could we please revert back to the first page.
22 Q. Now, if you could look at paragraph 1, could you confirm for us
23 that in this document, Colonel Haseljic is reporting to the General Staff
24 Security Administration that, in the liberation of Vozuca, the 3rd Corps
25 of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina captured a total of 39 aggressor
1 soldiers and three female civilians in the period between the 10th of
2 September and the 5th of October, 1995?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. It then goes on to say that all captured aggressor soldiers and
5 civilians were taken to the Zenica Reception Centre and were interviewed;
6 is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you remember this document? Are you familiar with it?
9 A. Yes, I am.
10 Q. Now, if you'd like to look through the document in detail, if
11 you'd like to scroll through it or see a hard copy, then please say so.
12 But can you confirm for us that, within this document, there is no
13 mention that any of the aggressor soldiers or civilians were held by the
14 El Mujahedin Detachment?
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we turn over the page in the English, please.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can see, there is no
17 such a mention made.
18 MR. ROBSON: Perhaps if we could show the last page in the B/C/S
19 version, just so that he can look through that page and confirm that
20 there's no information there. The second page, I beg your pardon, in the
22 Your Honours, I think it's probably better if I give the witness a
23 hard copy so he can check that thoroughly.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When going through this report, one
25 can state that there is no mention or description, for that matter, of any
1 captured aggressor soldiers being held at the El Mujahedin camp.
2 MR. ROBSON:
3 Q. And, again, can you confirm that there is no mention within this
4 report that any of those aggressor soldiers or civilians were mistreated
5 by anybody at all?
6 A. In this report, it is not mentioned.
7 Q. Thank you. Now, the final issue I'd like to deal with deals with
8 events in September 1995.
9 From your testimony that you gave yesterday, Mr. Saric, as I
10 understand it, you did not interview any Serb prisoners of war that had
11 been detained by the El Mujahedin Detachment, with the exception of Mile
12 Gojic; is that correct?
13 A. It is.
14 Q. And you interviewed Mr. Gojic at the Reception Centre at Zenica KP
15 Dom; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. ROBSON: Please, could we look at Exhibit 671.
18 While we're waiting for the report to -- the document to appear,
19 if I could just state for the record that this is a report dated the 1st
20 of October, 1995. It's headed: "Results of interview with prisoners of
21 war Mile Gojic and Nebojsa Banjac."
22 If we could just look at the final page in the B/C/S version.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Saric, I don't see your initials on this document. Do
24 you know, were you the author of the document or were you involved in it
25 at all?
1 A. The author of the document is my work-mate, Mehmed Siljak. I can
2 see that by the initials. I was present on another occasion when the war
3 prisoner Gojic, Mile, was interviewed, and I also spoke to him during a
5 MR. ROBSON: If we could return back to the first page, please,
6 and if I could ask you to look through the document briefly.
7 Q. Again, if you'd like to see a hard copy, I'd be happy to give you
8 a copy.
9 MR. ROBSON: Perhaps we can do that, as the version on the screen
10 is rather illegible.
11 Q. Now, you've had a chance to read that document. I know you didn't
12 prepare it, but could you confirm for us that nowhere in that document
13 does it state that either Mile Gojic or Mr. Banjac sustained mistreatment
14 at the hands of the Mujahedin?
15 A. Again, you're asking me about something I didn't have much to do
16 with; however, from this report, it is clear that that was not the case,
17 or rather, that the two prisoners of war were not mistreated or tortured,
18 at least there's nothing of that sort mentioned in the document.
19 Q. Thank you. And in your evidence yesterday, you were asked about
20 Mile Gojic, and you commented upon the fact that he converted to Islam.
21 You were asked by the Prosecutor if you knew why that was, and
22 your response, as I recall, was that it was through fear. Do you remember
23 saying that?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. And would you agree with me that nowhere in this report does it
1 state that Mile Gojic was placed in the situation of fear, which caused
2 him to convert his religion to Islam?
3 A. I would agree with you.
4 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, we can put this document away, and I'll
5 turn to another document relating to Mile Gojic. It's Exhibit 779.
6 Q. Now, Mr. Saric, we've seen this document before. Can you confirm
7 that this is a report concerning a visit by members of the El Mujahedin
8 Detachment to Mile Gojic, and the report is dated the 6th of November,
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. In your evidence yesterday, you told us that you were the author
12 of that report.
13 MR. ROBSON: And if we can look at page 2 in the B/C/S version and
14 the final page in the English, please.
15 Q. If I recollect your testimony well, you told us that this document
16 was a little bit strange or unusual. Can you confirm that we can see that
17 the signature block has a line through it in the B/C/S version?
18 A. Yes, it does. That is precisely what I mentioned yesterday, I
19 believe. I said that the initials were mine, and that we find there the
20 name of the assistant commander for security, Colonel Agan Haseljic.
21 However, the name and title are crossed out, and I believe I mentioned
22 that yesterday.
23 Q. Yes. We can see that there's no signature. But can you also
24 confirm that if we look at the document, there is no stamp or markings to
25 indicate that this document was ever sent or received?
1 A. Yes. One can see that it is missing.
2 Q. And would you agree with me that for us to be certain that this
3 document was sent, it would have to bear either the signature of
4 Mr. Haseljic or somebody signing for him?
5 A. Yes, I agree. It should be signed and stamped.
6 Q. So it may be that in looking at this document, in fact, all we're
7 looking at is a draft or a working document; is that right?
8 A. Very or highly likely.
9 Q. And one last point on this document. It was put to you by the
10 Prosecutor, when you were asked questions about it, that this document
11 indicated that Mr. Gojic and the other Serb detainees had been held from
12 the 17th of September up until the 5th of November, and you were asked to
13 comment about that.
14 Now, if I could direct your attention to the first paragraph of
15 this document, please.
16 MR. ROBSON: If we could go to the first page in English as well,
18 Q. Now, if we look towards the bottom of the first paragraph, would
19 you agree that this report shows that Mile Gojic was captured by members
20 of the El Mujahedin Detachment on the 17th of September, 1995?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. ROBSON: And if we can go to the second page in the English
23 version, and I believe it's still on this page in the B/C/S version.
24 Q. Can you see, if you look down through the document, that it states
25 quite clearly ...
1 MR. ROBSON: And, Your Honours, we're looking five lines down from
2 the top.
3 Q. ... it states that on the 30th of September, 1995, together with a
4 group of captured aggressor soldiers, Mile Gojic was taken to the Zenica
5 Centre for the Reception of Prisoners of War? Do you see that?
6 A. I see it in the English; however, I don't see it in the B/C/S.
7 Oh, now I do. Yes, it's there.
8 Q. So, in fact --
9 A. Yes, the fifth line.
10 Q. So, in fact, would you agree with me that this document clearly
11 shows that Mr. Gojic and the other aggressor soldiers were released on the
12 30th of September and not the 5th of November, as was suggested to you in
13 your examination-in-chief?
14 A. Could you please repeat your question?
15 Q. I think you've already confirmed this document clearly shows that
16 Mile Gojic and the other aggressor Serb soldiers were released on the 30th
17 of September.
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, we can move away from this document,
20 and I'll turn to my final document. For this, if we could go into private
21 session, please.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
23 [Private session]
11 Pages 5981-5983 redacted. Private session
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
4 As a general comment, just to avoid confusion, may I suggest that
5 we use the word "author" with reference to the person who signed the
6 document, and "drafter" with reference to the person whose initials appear
7 on the left.
8 MR. ROBSON: Yes, Your Honour, I'll bear that in mind.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
10 Madam Sartorio.
11 MS. SARTORIO: Yes, I have a short redirect, Your Honour.
12 Re-examination by Ms. Sartorio:
13 Q. Mr. Saric, with regard to that last document that you were shown,
14 - and I won't mention any names so we don't have to go into closed
15 session - but after the signing of the agreement and the release of those
16 persons, did you ever hear from any one of those persons again?
17 A. No, never.
18 Q. Okay. Now, during the course of your duties, did you use the
19 packet system of communication, if you know what that is?
20 A. Yes. As far as I know, I do know what that means.
21 Q. And if you use the packet communication system, would that --
22 would there be a stamp or a signature that would be on the document that's
23 transmitted electronically?
24 A. There has to be a signature, that much is certain. I'm not sure
25 about the stamp, though.
1 Q. So the signature is encrypted, it goes through the system? That's
2 your opinion, that's your testimony?
3 A. You see, in order for a document to be sent through the system in
4 an encrypted form, it would have had to be signed by the chief of the
5 military security service; otherwise, it could not have been passed along
6 in that form.
7 Q. Okay. I understand that. But on the receiving end, when
8 something is sent through the packet system, can you see a signature on a
9 document on the receiving end?
10 A. I assume not. I assume.
11 Q. Thank you. Now, you were asked some questions on
12 cross-examination about - and, again, I'm not going to name names - but
13 about interviews with females. You stated at one time --
14 MS. SARTORIO: Maybe we should go into closed session. Sorry.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
16 MS. SARTORIO: Sorry, Your Honour.
17 [Private session]
11 Pages 5986-5988 redacted. Private session
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 I understand the question of documents; but unless I know or the
21 Chamber knows from which document that was not previously put in, the
22 question arises and then the question still remains: Why ask the question
23 now? Why wasn't it asked in chief? That's my question, Madam Sartorio.
24 MS. SARTORIO: My response, Your Honour, is that -- and again I
25 don't -- I'm not comfortable arguing about this in front of the witness.
1 Perhaps the witness could remove his headphones. Would that be
2 appropriate or not?
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: The witness is asked to remove his headphones.
4 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I believe the witness mentioned or
5 indicated that he understands English.
6 MS. SARTORIO: All right.
7 Well, the implication of the cross-examination is that because
8 certain information was not contained in reports, that there's no
9 information that goes up. That is what this redirect is addressing. So
10 it's a direct question in direct response to --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that. I understand that, Madam
12 Sartorio. What I don't understand is why address that through an
13 interview that you had when the witness arrived in The Hague, before the
14 witness took the witness stand, and that which took place between you and
15 him at that time was not put before court in chief.
16 MS. SARTORIO: I'll just ask him the question direct, then.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Ask the question direct.
18 MS. SARTORIO: Okay.
19 Q. Sir, at the time, back in 1995, in July, August, and September, if
20 you had known that POWs were in the custody and detention of Mujahedin or
21 El Mujahedin Detachment members, would this have caused you concern?
22 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Madam Sartorio, I'm having
23 trouble with this question. It's not the question of whether or not it
24 flows from the cross-examination, because, of course, there is a link to
25 the cross-examination. But you are not asking the witness on what he
1 would have done but on a possible concern he may have had, and I'm having
2 problems with this question.
3 MS. SARTORIO: Yes, Your Honour. I think maybe there will be a
4 follow-up question, depending on his answer.
5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But maybe you could invert the
6 order of your questions. Maybe you could go directly to the facts and
7 maybe not to the possible concerns he may have had.
8 MS. SARTORIO: Because the fact is, in response to what Your
9 Honours suggested that we ask what he had done, perhaps that is -- I'll
10 ask that question, Your Honour, first, if that is acceptable.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: Yes.
13 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. Thank you.
14 Q. Sir, in 1995, in July and August and September, if you had known
15 that POWs were in the custody and detention of Mujahedin or El Mujahedin
16 Detachment members, what action might you have -- would you have taken?
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.
18 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I object. We've heard from this witness
19 that he knew that the prisoners of war had been in detention or in the
20 hands of Mujahedin. We've heard that from him, so perhaps Prosecuting
21 counsel could rephrase the question or ask a different one.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic [sic] -- I'm so sorry. I'm sorry to
23 her, in her absence.
24 Madam Sartorio, you heard what the objection was. Can you respond
25 to the objection, please?
1 MS. SARTORIO: Well, I believe he knew after the fact.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: After which fact?
3 MS. SARTORIO: After the fact that they were in the custody. I'm
4 asking him if he knew -- the question is: When he found out or the minute
5 he found out they were there, what action he would have taken. I think
6 the documents show he may have known -- well, strike that.
7 I just don't -- at this point I'm asking the question --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio, if you stuck to the facts, you'd
9 probably not be having these difficulties.
10 MS. SARTORIO: I'm not having difficulties, Your Honour. I wanted
11 to ask the witness some questions about general knowledge, and that's
12 where I started.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: But this witness told you that he knew that these
14 people were in Livade, in an El Mujahid Detachment detention centre.
15 Is that so, sir? Is that what you said? That's right.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, that's precisely
17 what I said.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: You can ask him based on that fact.
19 MS. SARTORIO: I will, Your Honour. May I proceed? Thank you.
20 Q. Sir, when you found out the prisoners were in Livade, in the El
21 Mujahedin Detachment detention centre, did you take any action to try to
22 get them removed?
23 A. They were POWs that I was to interview, and that's all I wanted to
24 know about them. What I was supposed to do was to inform my superior, if
25 he didn't already know. But I don't think it's possible that he would not
1 have known because this is an area that he was in charge of monitoring, I
2 mean developments in that area. Therefore, I believe that what I did was
3 the most I could have done, considering the situation. Anything else
4 would have been within someone else's remit.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio, would it be convenient to carry on
6 with this topic after the break? We are already five minutes into the
8 MS. SARTORIO: That's fine, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do so, can we just inquire after Madam
11 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, she's in the Defence room, and I'm told
12 that she's feeling better, but she felt extremely dizzy a moment ago and
13 that's why she had to leave the courtroom.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's hope she gets better and she can join us when
15 we resume at quarter to 11.00.
16 Court adjourned.
17 --- Recess taken at 10.20 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 10.46 a.m.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me just say to you, Madam Vidovic, that I hope
20 you are better. Please, if you at any stage feel the Trial Chamber must
21 stop, please say so; or if you want to go out, feel free to go out.
22 Mr. Robson, are you still cross-examining, or are you done?
23 Madam Sartorio, yes, you were asking questions.
24 MS. SARTORIO: I was. Thank you, Your Honour, just a few
25 questions more.
1 Q. Sir, the last question I asked you is if you did anything when you
2 learned the POWs were in the custody of the El Mujahedin, and you said
3 that you did the most that you could, considering the situation.
4 "Anything else would have been within someone else's remit." That
5 was your answer. Do you remember giving that answer?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. My next question to you is: Regardless of the fact that you --
8 well, strike that.
9 You claim that you did all that you could that was within the
10 realm of your job duties; but outside that, personally, were you -- did
11 you have concern about POWs in the custody of the El Mujahedin?
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.
13 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, first of all, I wonder if some sort of
14 time frame could be put on this question, if indeed it's appropriate,
15 because this witness has explained that he has seen prisoners of war who
16 were detained by the Mujahedin on a number of different occasions.
17 So the prosecuting counsel has asked, "When were you concerned?"
18 I think it's right that we put some sort of -- establish some sort of
19 basis as to when it is that we're talking about.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio.
21 MS. SARTORIO: I'll put a time frame, Your Honour, but I think I
22 prefaced all of these questions with "July and August and September of
23 1995." I put that to the witness, and I'll ask the question again.
24 Q. Sir, in July, August, or September of 1995, did you have personal
25 concern if you knew that POWs were in the custody of El Mujahedin or
1 members of the El Mujahedin Detachment?
2 A. Personally - I mean personally, which means I'm talking about
3 myself - I was concerned, but it turned out, at least when I saw them,
4 when I interviewed them, that they had been treated fairly.
5 Q. Okay. But my next question is: Personally you were concerned.
6 What was this concern based on?
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.
8 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I don't know how this arises out of the
9 cross-examination, and therefore I object.
10 MS. SARTORIO: I think we've already covered that objection, Your
11 Honour. I'm asking him what information he had, and what his concern was
12 based on.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, Madam Sartorio, as much as the Chamber doesn't
15 want to interfere, but what does concern us is that you're asking the
16 witness about his personal concerns and not what he did in his capacity as
17 an operative within the system. I'm not quite sure what his personal
18 concerns have to do with the case.
19 MS. SARTORIO: Well, I totally agree, Your Honour, that his
20 personal concerns aren't directly relevant to the issues in the case.
21 It's what his personal concerns are based upon that may be relevant in the
22 case. Information may be relevant to the case.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, but --
24 MS. SARTORIO: What he could and couldn't do is based on what he
25 told us, the constraints in his position. They're two different -- there
1 are two different concepts here.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: But shouldn't you have -- okay. Shouldn't you have
3 solicited that information while you were leading the witness?
4 MS. SARTORIO: Well, I'm not sure, Your Honour, how to answer that
5 question without going back over the direct, but this has come up in
6 response to the direct attack on -- or the direct confrontation on
7 documents that didn't contain information. I'm asking him about
8 information that he may have had outside of the documents. So I believe
9 it's directly relevant and in direct response to the cross-examination.
10 I will accept --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: It may be, but I'll tell you what my concern is.
12 You were aware of those documents, and you were aware that those documents
13 that went up didn't have the information that was in the documents that
14 came to him. So why you didn't deal with them yourself at that time, I do
15 not understand, and now you want to deal with them because they were
16 raised by cross-examination.
17 MS. SARTORIO: That's what redirect is about, though, Your Honour,
18 is responding to points that are raised during cross-examination.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, points that are raised during
20 cross-examination that were unforeseeable to you.
21 Okay. Anyway --
22 MS. SARTORIO: I'll --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- ask the question. Let's just hear what the
24 answer is.
25 MS. SARTORIO:
1 Q. Sir, with regard to your personal concerns, can you tell us what
2 those personal concerns were based upon?
3 A. My personal concerns, which is the way you term it, were based on
4 rumours that I had heard up to that point, but nothing official. The
5 treatment, allegedly, was like that, well, what shall we call it,
7 However, any persons I spoke to, upon their arrival in the POW
8 Reception Centre, told me that this had, in fact, not been the case. I
9 even had an organised form of cooperation with some of those, which is
10 what we discussed earlier on.
11 Q. Okay. One more question, sir: Did you have a conversation with
12 Mr. Vlajcic with regard to the POWs being in the custody of the El
13 Mujahedin Detachment?
14 A. Given the fact that Mr. Osman Vlajcic, my boss, was in charge of
15 and monitoring the Mujahedin issue, and given the fact that we had
16 received official reports on the names of POWs being held in their
17 detention, we spoke about the right way to interview them once they were
18 brought into the POW Reception Centre in Zenica.
19 We also said that I would probably be needing assistance, someone
20 being seconded to me, one of my associates, operatives perhaps, to help me
21 conduct interviews, since I would hardly have been able to handle all of
22 that myself. Some of the documents show just that, show Siljak, my
23 associate, as being a person who helped me, who quite physically did me a
24 favour, because he agreed to interview some of those prisoners.
25 As for any other activities or issues, I don't remember us ever
1 discussing anything else.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MS. SARTORIO: I have no further questions.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Sartorio.
6 Questioned by the Court:
7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have two questions to ask this
9 First of all, about Mile Gojic, Witness, if I'm not mistaken, you
10 told us during the cross-examination today that in September 1995, the
11 only prisoner whom you interviewed was Mile Gojic. Could you confirm
12 this, please?
13 A. Your Honour, I'm doing my best to remember exactly what I said
14 about POW Mile Gojic. I do know for sure that I spoke to that man. I was
15 there, and there's a document indicating that. This information was then
16 passed on to the security administration.
17 I do have to point out that I spoke to other POWs as well.
18 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] During that same period?
19 A. You see, it's very difficult for me. It has been a long time. I
20 can't remember if it was at the same time. But if he was brought in
21 together with a whole group of POWs, then it must have been at the same
22 time. There would have been no reason for me not to if they were all
23 there already, but I do believe that there should exist documents
24 indicating just that.
25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] One other question still with
1 regard to that POW.
2 During the cross-examination, you were shown a document. I
3 believe it was Exhibit 671, and this document does not show that this
4 prisoner was mistreated. You confirmed that this document does not reveal
5 any mistreatment, nor does it show that he was afraid. Do you remember
6 that this morning?
7 A. I remember, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yesterday, during the
9 examination-in-chief, you said that during the interview with that person,
10 you made sure or you verified whether or not he was afraid. Do you
11 remember that?
12 You spoke about what you personally noticed, but I'd like to
13 explore this issue in greater depth. I'd like to know what was exactly
14 was he afraid of?
15 A. Your Honour, I'll try to be brief.
16 As far as I remember from this place and time, since that
17 interview happened almost 17 -- sorry, 12 or 13 years ago, there were
18 rumours about that unit which caused fear among the members of the Army of
19 Republika Srpska, and I could see the same fear with this prisoner of war.
20 Allegedly, as far as I can recall, these Mujahedin treated their
21 prisoners of war inhumanely, and they applied different types of torture.
22 However, when interviewing this man, he himself stated and said that he
23 received quite a different treatment.
24 Had he mentioned anything concerning any potential torture that he
25 may have undergone, I am convinced that would have been noted down in the
1 report. He expressed some fear based on the rumours of which I knew, too,
2 in Zenica, for example, but I was never able to see that for myself.
3 I don't know whether I was sufficiently clear.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.
5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes, sufficiently clear.
6 Thank you.
7 MR. ROBSON: I apologise for interjecting, Your Honours. It's a
8 matter of translation.
9 On page 39, at line number 4, it's been recorded in the transcript
10 that the witness said: "Allegedly, as far as I can recall, these
11 Mujahedin treated their prisoners of war inhumanely."
12 Madam Vidovic tells me that, in fact, what the witness said
13 is: "Allegedly, as far as the rumours went, those Mujahedin treated
14 their," et cetera. So I don't know whether it's necessary to clarify
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, the witness is nodding. Can you just say, in
17 words, was mean by your nod, so that it goes on the record, sir?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said the latter.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a few questions for you.
20 Can we have Exhibit 779 on the screen, please. Can we have the
21 last page on both languages, please, the signature page. Can we see the
22 signature page on the English. Sorry. Thank you so much.
23 Sir, there's been a lot of talk about the fact that this document
24 is not signed and that where the author is supposed to have signed, it's
25 crossed out by a line.
1 But there are words in brackets below that, and I would like you
2 to tell me what they signify, where it says: "Certified by signature and
4 A. Your Honour, I can explain that. Below the first and last name
5 and this gentleman's title, since he was supposed to sign the information,
6 the report, it says: "Certified by signature and stamp," which points to
7 the fact that this should have been so.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, if that had been so, does that make this
9 document a working document or a true document that went out?
10 A. Going by what I can see, I think this is a draft, a working
11 version I prepared myself.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: And a working version that is certified by a stamp
13 and a signature?
14 A. No, not certified. You can see that.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you've just said to me now, when I asked you
16 the question, "What do those words mean," you said it must have been
17 signed and stamped. You said it must have been so.
18 A. Precisely, Your Honour. It should have been so. I suppose this
19 is a working draft, since there is no full signature by an officer and
20 there is no stamp.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, I hear that. I can see there is no signature
22 and I can see there is no stamp. Now, tell me, what do these words mean,
23 the words in brackets?
24 A. I believe the Prosecutor asked me whether I know what "packet
25 communication" means. In such an encrypted message system, inter alia, in
1 the signature block where the authorised officer was supposed to sign, and
2 in this case it would be Colonel Agan Haseljic, assistant commander for
3 security, it should always be stated that it was certified by signature
4 and stamp. It was an integral part of the system of sending out messages.
5 In the encrypted -- rather, in the packet communication, the
6 person receiving could not receive neither the signature nor the stamp.
7 However, the sender, the person in charge of sending the document, was not
8 allowed to send it without signing it and stamping it first.
9 That's what the thing is about.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: And if that is the case, then it means it is a
11 document that did get sent, but it got sent through the encrypted system.
12 Is that what I understand you to say?
13 A. Your Honour, let me try and clarify.
14 I am not certain whether this document was sent or -- this was a
15 working version. It may have been sent in a different form with a
16 signature and stamp.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me put my question slightly differently.
18 You accept that if the document is sent through encrypted
19 mechanism, the person receiving it will receive a document without a
20 signature and a stamp. Now, if that is the case, and let me just ask, was
21 this document sent by encrypted mechanism, if we look at the first page?
22 Now, can you look at it and tell us whether it was sent by
23 encrypted system?
24 Could we see the full page, the top part of the full page in the
1 Are you able to say, sir?
2 A. Your Honour, I truly cannot discuss here the way of sending
3 documents, especially electronic sending of documents and receiving, since
4 I am very unfamiliar with that field. I suppose, had it been received,
5 there should have been a reception stamp. I suppose so.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, I was asking you whether this document, when
7 you look at it, is it a document that was sent by encrypted mechanism?
8 Are you able to say so, or are you not able to say so, sir?
9 Are you able to tell us, by looking at it, whether it was sent by
10 encrypted mechanism?
11 A. I cannot confirm anything with any degree of certainty.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You can't confirm anything. So if a document sent
13 by encrypted mechanism reaches the addressee without the signature of the
14 author and the stamp, on what basis do you call this a working document?
15 There are two possibilities here: It could be a working document,
16 or it could be a document sent by encrypted mechanism.
17 Now, my question to you is: On what basis do you call this one a
18 working document?
19 A. Your Honour, my assumption that this is a working version is based
20 on the fact that, in place of the signature block, there is a slash, a
21 line where the signature should have been. We don't have a complete
22 signature, which makes me doubt -- or rather, suspect that this is a
23 working document.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you realise that the words in brackets are not
25 crossed out?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me turn to another topic.
3 Sir, you were shown documents during cross-examination which were
4 reports coming from the lower units to your unit, mentioning various
5 maltreatments to either prisoners of war or civilians; is that correct?
6 A. I would kindly ask Your Honour to repeat your question.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: You were shown documents that reported some
8 maltreatment to varying degrees of prisoners of war and civilians, coming
9 from the 35th Division to the 3rd Corps?
10 A. No. I have never seen, personally, such documents.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. You were shown documents from the 3rd Corps,
12 going to the General Staff, which did not mention any maltreatment of the
13 prisoners of war?
14 A. According to the professional line of work I performed, I received
15 and I was receiving such documents, but only to the extent of the nature
16 of my work and my need to report on events.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me ask you again. You were shown documents
18 that were drafted by you, going to the General Staff, which did not
19 contain everything that you had been told in the reports that you received
20 from the lower units; am I right?
21 A. Yes. Everything I received from the subordinate unit was
22 included. I endeavoured to include everything to the maximum extent
23 possible, including the part pertaining to any inhumane treatment.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you tell us one inhumane treatment that you
1 A. I don't know of such cases, personally.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'll leave, then, that topic.
4 Let me ask you something. The Trial Chamber received evidence
5 from one of the prisoners of war, who told us that you told him virtually
6 what to write in his statement, and specifically told him not to say that
7 the El Mujahedin Detachment maltreated him. Do you have any comments to
8 make on that?
9 A. Yes. I don't think that is correct. That was not my modus
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. There is testimony to that effect.
12 A. Irrespective of that, I stand by what I said. I claim that it is
13 not true.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
15 Any questions arising?
16 MS. SARTORIO: Just one, Your Honour, one question arising from
17 Judge Lattanzi's question.
18 Further re-examination by Ms. Sartorio:
19 Q. With regard to the treatment of Mr. Gojic, you stated that he was
20 treated differently. Well, sir, my question is: Isn't it a possibility
21 that he was treated differently because he claimed he would convert?
22 A. Could you please be more specific? Where?
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.
24 MR. ROBSON: I object, Your Honour. Prosecuting counsel earlier
25 on raised an objection about questions which invited the witness to
1 speculate, and I would submit that this is a similar situation. The
2 Prosecuting counsel is asking the witness: "Isn't it a possibility he was
3 treated differently?" It's not inviting him to comment on the facts of he
4 saw or heard. It's speculation.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio.
6 MS. SARTORIO: Well, Your Honour, he claimed that the witness --
7 his opinion was the witness converted out of fear, and it stems from the
8 witness's own response earlier. So it's a follow-up from that. I can
9 rephrase the question, perhaps.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: There's a problem in that that's his opinion,
11 actually. It's not fact. There could be any other or anybody else could
12 have another opinion as to why he converted.
13 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. I have no further questions, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any questions from you, Mr. Robson?
15 MR. ROBSON: Yes, Your Honour.
16 Further cross-examination by Mr. Robson:
17 Q. Mr. Saric, you were asked questions about the document relating to
18 Mile Gojic.
19 MR. ROBSON: Before we turn to that document, if I could please
20 ask the witness to be shown Exhibit 553, which was shown to the witness
22 Q. Mr. Saric, do you remember being shown this document yesterday?
23 MR. ROBSON: Perhaps if we can scroll to the bottom in the B/C/S
24 version and go to the second page in the English document.
25 A. Yes, I do remember it.
1 Q. If you could look at the initials in the B/C/S version, you may
2 not be able to see it on this copy here. But if I can pass you the hard
3 copy, am I right in saying that you accepted that you were -- oh, no,
4 there's a comment at the top that -- were you the author of this document?
5 A. No.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's an exhibit already?
7 MR. ROBSON: It's an exhibit, yeah.
8 Q. Now, what I want to ask you about is: If you can look at the top
9 of the B/C/S version, would you agree with me that here we can see that
10 this document has been sent crypto-protected via the packet communications
12 A. Yes, one can see that.
13 MR. ROBSON: We can scroll to the top in the English version,
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: How do you see that? You were not able to see it a
16 little earlier when I asked you the question.
17 MR. ROBSON: Exactly, Your Honour, and that's what I'm trying to
19 Q. Can you explain to Their Honours how you can tell this has been
20 sent by packet?
21 A. I'll try.
22 Your Honour, in the upper right-hand corner, there is a
23 rectangular stamp. There, you can see clearly that the document was
24 received, and you can see the last name and the first letter of the name
25 of the operative who received it, the person working with the system. It
1 all points to the fact that this was, indeed, sent via that type of
2 communication. You can see that.
3 MR. ROBSON: And if we could go back --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon. Does it show that it was sent
5 via that type of communication, or does it show that it was received, that
6 stamp? How do I see, from this stamp, that it was sent via that
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have something
9 underlined here inside the stamp. It says: "Received."
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. But how does that say, therefore, that it was
11 sent via the crypto-protected mechanism?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because, as far as I can remember,
13 the principle in order was that once a document is received, it had to be
14 received in this specific manner.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... sent.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: That is proof of receipt. It is not proof of the
18 mechanism of sending, and I want to find out. You said, and let me read
19 it to you --
20 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interject. But this is
21 exactly what I was just going to explore with the witness, so if you
22 perhaps will allow me.
23 If we can go back so we can see the B/C/S version in its entirety.
24 Q. Now, Mr. Saric, at the top of this document, we can see that there
25 is a heading. There is a bold line which goes horizontally across the
1 page; and at the very, very top of the document, we can see that there's a
2 serial number. Do you see that?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. And is it the case that we can tell that this document was sent by
5 the packet system because there is information above that bold horizontal
6 line, and what we can see there is that there is information about the
7 date that it was sent --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't see any information above the bold line.
9 Can we bring it down?
10 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, it's in the English version as well.
11 It's above the bold line.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: But you called our attention --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You've called our attention to the B/C/S side, so
15 I'm looking at it. Anyway, carry on.
16 MR. ROBSON: Okay. Your Honour, obviously the type is a little
17 bit faint on the B/C/S version. It's captured in the English version.
18 Q. So, Mr. Saric, we can see that above that bold line, there is
19 information there, which gives details about a file number, although
20 certainly we can see there's a number "K300M70B." We can see the date the
21 document was sent, the time it was sent, and also there's a number which
22 should be the number of the packet machine that sent this document.
23 Would you agree with me that this is information which shows that
24 this particular document was sent by the packet system?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And then you specifically mentioned the stamp which we can see on
2 the right-hand side. You told the Trial Chamber that this indicated it
3 had been received. So somebody had received this from the packet system
4 and stamped it to show receipt. Would you agree with me that "KZ" is an
5 abbreviation which means "crypto-protected"?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where is --
7 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, the stamp is not in the English version,
8 so you've got to look in the B/C/S version, in the top right-hand corner.
9 Perhaps if we could have a close-up again of that stamp, it says
11 Q. Mr. Saric, do you know what that means, "KZ/OSVB3, BROJ K"?
12 A. I'll try to clarify for you. I think I do. It is an acronym for
13 "Crypto-protection of the organ of the security service of" probably "the
14 3rd Corps," "Number," and then "K."
15 Q. So what we can tell from this document is that the document was
16 sent at a particular time and date; and from the stamp in the right-hand
17 corner, we can see that it was received, and somebody has signed that as
18 sufficient proof. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 MR. ROBSON: And, finally, if we could please have a look at
21 Exhibit 779, and if we could focus on the top of this document in the
22 B/C/S version, please.
23 Again, if we can just scroll to the top in the English version,
24 just so we can make sure we can see all the information there.
25 Q. Would you agree with me that on this document, we do not have the
1 horizontal line with all of the information that we could see in the other
2 document, and certainly there's no stamp indicating receipt. Is that so?
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. So on the face of this document, as we look at it now, this would
5 indicate that it has not been sent by the packet system?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Saric.
8 MR. ROBSON: I have no further questions.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
10 Thank you, sir. That brings us to the conclusion of your
11 testimony. The Chamber takes this opportunity to thank you for coming to
12 testify. You are now excused, and you may stand down. Thank you very
13 much. Travel well back home.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio.
17 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you. Your Honour, Mr. Kyle Wood will be
18 handling the next witness.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Wood.
20 MR. WOOD: Yes, Mr. President. The Prosecution calls Zaim
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 [The witness entered court]
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please make the declaration.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
1 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2 WITNESS: ZAIM MUJEZINOVIC
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may be seated, sir.
5 Good morning to you.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning to you, too.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may be seated.
8 Yes, Mr. Wood.
9 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 Examination by Mr. Wood:
11 Q. Could you please tell the Court your name, for the record?
12 A. Zaim Mujezinovic.
13 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, have you ever testified before in the
14 International Tribunal?
15 A. Yes. In February 2005, I testified in the Hadzihasanovic case.
16 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, during 1993, what job did you have?
17 A. In 1993, I was a military police battalion commander in the 3rd
18 Corps of the BH Army.
19 Q. Prior to 1993, had you ever had any particular training in regards
20 to military policing?
21 A. In the former JNA training system, I had first attended the
22 Reserve Officers College in Bileca, and then I joined the Military Police
23 Training Centre in Pancevo.
24 Q. For how long were you commander of the Military Police Battalion,
1 A. From the 1st of December, 1992, to June 1997.
2 Q. After 1997, what was your job?
3 A. It was in June or July 1997 that I was transferred; and for a
4 while, I served as the Military Police Battalion commander in the General
5 Staff of the BH Army, and then I became deputy commander in that same
6 battalion. Finally, I became deputy commander in the battalion for
7 logistics of the Joint Command of the Federation.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could I ask you to speak a little more slowly, sir.
9 It looks like the interpreters are struggling to keep pace with you.
10 Thank you.
11 MR. WOOD:
12 Q. Are you presently in the military, sir?
13 A. No, I'm retired.
14 Q. What rank did you hold in 1995, sir?
15 A. Captain, Second Class.
16 MR. WOOD: May the witness please be shown what's been marked for
17 identification Exhibit 00817, please.
18 Q. Sir, do you --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Wood, is this document marked for
20 identification as an exhibit already?
21 MR. WOOD: It's my information that it's been marked for
22 identification as an exhibit, but not yet admitted, Your Honour. Marked
23 for identification 00817 is what I've been told is the proper name for
24 this document.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
1 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Now I understand.
3 MR. WOOD:
4 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, have you seen this document before?
5 A. Not in this form.
6 Q. Can you explain to the Trial Chamber what this document is, what
7 affect this document has, what this document is doing, in particular in
8 regard to the first paragraph?
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.
10 MR. ROBSON: Yes, Your Honour. This document has not been put on
11 any of the exhibit lists which has been sent to the Defence.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm told it's marked for identification.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Your Honour.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's an exhibit marked for identification 817. It's
15 already in the system.
16 MR. ROBSON: Yeah, okay. If it's not necessary to put documents
17 marked for identification on the exhibit list, then I --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know either.
19 MR. ROBSON: If it's a procedural issue, I don't know what the
20 answer is. But I know that previously we've had documents marked for
21 identification, and they've been clearly put upon the exhibit list which
22 has been sent to the Defence.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Exhibit list for a specific witness?
24 MR. ROBSON: Yes.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Wood.
1 MR. WOOD: I was just trying to find in my e-mail, Your Honour. I
2 did notify the Defence that I would be adding this to the exhibit list.
3 We did circulate an exhibit list first. This document came to my
4 attention. I notified them later, via e-mail, that we would --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: What's the date of the e-mail, sir?
6 MR. WOOD: That's what I'm trying to confirm. My case manager is
7 looking at that as well.
8 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, if I could assist. I can confirm that
9 we did receive an e-mail on the 15th of November, saying that there was an
10 intention to add the document to the list, but then we subsequently
11 received an updated exhibit list and it made no mention of this particular
13 So, really, I think it's just a procedural question for the Trial
14 Chamber to decide whether or not the Prosecution is entitled to use the
15 document with this witness, in that the latest version of the exhibit list
16 did not contain the document on it.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Wood.
18 MR. WOOD: I believe the Defence has been put on sufficient notice
19 that the Prosecution would be showing this document, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I understand, the argument of the Defence is
21 that the Prosecution, in their e-mail, mentioned the intention to do so,
22 but didn't do so, the intention to add the document, but didn't add it in
23 the updated exhibit list that was sent subsequently to them.
24 Are you able to address that point? That's the point that is
25 being raised with you, sir.
1 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour. The subsequent exhibit list that was
2 sent was to make minor corrections to other exhibits. This had not been
3 added to that because I felt it sufficient that I had notified them via
4 e-mail that I would be showing this already. Certainly, it should have
5 been added to that one that was distributed second, but the fact remains
6 this is a document that the Defence is familiar with.
7 This is a document that I specifically told them I would be
8 showing to this witness. I believe they've had sufficient notice for this
9 document to be shown and for this witness to comment upon it.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: What's the wording of the e-mail? We haven't got
11 this e-mail now. You're saying the e-mail mentioned the intention to send
12 you this document or to send it as a list, or I'm not quite sure what your
13 e-mail said. I'm not sure whether the e-mail was telling you specifically
14 that the Prosecution is going to use this document, or what did it tell
16 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I have the e-mail in front of me, and it
17 says: "I write to inform you that I am adding PT2797 to the exhibit list
18 for Zaim Mujezinovic, whose name appears in this document."
19 That was on the 15th, and then I believe it was either yesterday,
20 or the day before, we received the revised exhibit list. It didn't
21 contain it.
22 I mean, all I can say is that when we receive these revised
23 exhibit lists, it's common for documents to drop out and for new documents
24 to go in. But, generally, we take it or understand it that that is the
25 final version, listing the documents the Prosecution will use.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: If the e-mail says: "I'm writing to inform you
2 that I am adding this to the exhibit list," I don't know what need there
3 is still. It doesn't tell you of an intention to do so. It tells you
4 that it is doing so, and that's probably the reason they didn't add it in
5 the subsequent list, because they told themselves they'd notified you of
6 it already. Now, I don't know.
7 You see, the internal workings of how you give each other notice,
8 the Chamber is not very familiar with.
9 MR. ROBSON: No, Your Honour. As I say, normally it's understood
10 that the final version of the exhibit list that's sent to us will contain
11 all the documents to be used with a particular witness in court. If you
12 believe that the Prosecution has given sufficient notice, then so be it.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, from the wording of this e-mail, yes. Okay.
14 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic --
16 MR. WOOD: Perhaps it would be easier if we just moved to the
17 second page of this document.
18 Q. I draw your attention particularly to the second-to-last name
19 written in bold there. Whose name is that, sir?
20 A. Mine.
21 Q. And what is the rank that's listed for you?
22 A. Senior Captain.
23 Q. Now, you had a chance to look at this document, the first page of
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: We didn't. We would like to see the first page.
1 MR. WOOD: Yes. If we could go back to the first page, so we can
2 see from the English.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Scroll down the English.
4 MR. WOOD: We can see, for example, that this says "Order,"
5 commending individuals listed below. The list continues on to the second
6 page, where you said your name appears.
7 Q. Do you remember being commended for your acts or your activities
8 in December 1995?
9 A. Yes, I do remember that. There was an order on my commendation. I
10 got it as a document of the 3rd Corps, but this probably followed the
11 original order written by the command of the BH Army -- of the General
12 Staff of the BH Army.
13 MR. WOOD: And if we go to the second page just one last time,
14 Your Honour.
15 Q. And at the bottom of the page, can you see whose name appears to
16 have signed this document?
17 A. General Rasim Delic.
18 Q. And do you recognise that signature, sir?
19 A. I assume so.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: You assume that you recognise it? The question
21 was: Do you recognise the signature?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.
23 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers this exhibit into evidence, Your
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
1 please be given an exhibit number. I guess it will stay as Exhibit number
3 THE REGISTRAR: That's right, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
5 MR. WOOD:
6 Q. Now, Mr. Mujezinovic, I want to ask you some more questions about
7 the Military Police Battalion.
8 Could you please explain to the Court, who was your superior in
9 1993, as a commander of the Military Police Battalion in the 3rd Corps?
10 A. In 1993, I was the MP Battalion commander. My direct superior was
11 the corps commander. That was General Enver Hadzihasanovic at the time.
12 Q. Who was your direct superior in 1995, sir?
13 A. My direct superior, the corps commander, was General Sakib
15 Q. Now, sir, as a Military Police Battalion commander, did you report
16 to anybody else in the chain of command?
17 A. In keeping with the rules governing the military police, the MP
18 Battalion commander had the responsibility of reporting to the organ in
19 the 3rd Corps Command that was their technical superior; organ, in this
20 case, chief of the Military Security Service of the 3rd Corps.
21 Q. And who was that person in 1993, sir?
22 A. I don't know exactly. But from the time the corps was set up, the
23 sequence of chiefs was as follows: Tadija Brekalo, Agic Nasib,
24 Ramiz Dugalic, Ekrem Alihodzic, Agan Haseljic; and, finally, when the
25 corps ceased to exist, the acting chief was Muharem Zijaja [phoen].
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.
2 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I rise to deal with a matter of
3 translation, and I believe it will be cropping up quite frequently during
4 the course of this witness's testimony.
5 At page 60, line 10, the witness referred to a "technical
6 superior." I'm informed that the better translation is "professional
7 superior." This is a point that has cropped up previously during the
8 course of the hearing. I wonder, maybe this should be clarified.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you have any comment to make, Mr. Wood?
10 MR. WOOD: Certainly, I have no comment about whether the
11 translation is proper or correct, Your Honour. I can indicate that I will
12 get into this more fully with the next document that I intend to show the
13 witness. Perhaps this will shed light on the question.
14 From what I understand, "professionally" is probably acceptable,
15 but that's something for the witness to answer.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Witness, is it technically or professionally,
17 this person who was your superior?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Expert, expert superior.
19 MR. WOOD: Your Honour, I apologise.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] If I may, if I may help, in the
22 French translation, the term "professional" was used as well.
23 MR. WOOD: I think this might be cleared up as soon as I show the
24 next document, Your Honour.
25 So if the witness could be shown that, Exhibit -- I'm sorry,
1 document P04054.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: P0 ...?
3 MR. WOOD: P04054.
4 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, do you see that document, the first page of that
5 document, on the screen in front of you?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. And we see in the English that it says: "The Rules of Service for
8 the Military Police of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Bosnia and
9 Herzegovina." Are these the rules that you used during your career as the
10 commander of the Military Police Battalion?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. WOOD: Especially in light of the confusion that arose
13 earlier, if I could have the witness shown page 8 in the Bosnian version
14 and page 7 in the English version. As the computer gets there, I can tell
15 Defence and the Chamber that I'm particularly looking at 7 and 8.
16 Q. In particular, especially in light of the confusion about whether
17 "technical" or "professional" is correct, I would draw your attention to
18 paragraph 8, Mr. Witness.
19 Does this paragraph fully explain how it is that you had what
20 amounts to two superiors as a military police officer?
21 A. The chapter is entitled "Command and Control Over and Military
22 Police." This defines the relations in the command-and-control system,
23 the relations that prevailed within that system.
24 If you read paragraph seven, which reads: "The military police is
25 commanded and controlled by the senior officer of the military unit or
1 institution incorporating the unit of the military police, to which it is
2 attached." So what that means is --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Slow down.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What that means is my superior, in
5 that sense, is the commander of the 3rd Corps, the superior of the MP
7 If you look at paragraph 8, it defines the subordination or
8 superior status in professional or technical terms, which means that the
9 superior of the Military Police Battalion was the chief of the Military
10 Security Service of the 3rd Corps.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry. Can I interrupt? Not you, Witness; I
12 want to interrupt the interpretation.
13 I don't see an alternative in paragraph 8, but the interpretation
14 says "professional or technical terms," and we are trying to resolve this
15 difference between "professional" and "technical." Can we stay with one
16 term, please, interpreter.
17 THE INTERPRETER: That's fine, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine. The term I see on paragraph 8 is
19 "professional." I don't see "technical."
20 Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wood.
21 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers this exhibit into -- or this
22 document into evidence, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.
24 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I don't object to it going in with it
25 being an exhibit, but I'm told by Madam Vidovic that this is already in
1 evidence as an exhibit.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I thought so, too.
3 MR. ROBSON: It may be 586. It may be.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: 586. Yes. I think we have referred to this
5 document several times. If the Registrar could help us check 586, please.
6 MR. WOOD: As I understand it, Your Honour, only certain pages of
7 it are admitted into evidence. I will be asking the witness more
8 questions about this document. I believe it's appropriate at this point
9 that the entire document be admitted into evidence.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's just find out what 586 contains.
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Chamber is being advised that Exhibit 586 is
13 the entire document, sir.
14 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Would you like to place on record what
16 to do with this one?
17 MR. WOOD: As long as it's in evidence as Exhibit 586 -- do I have
18 that number right? Is it 586?
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: 586, yes.
20 MR. WOOD: I'll refer to that instead, and perhaps it would be
21 best if 586 be brought up itself document P04054.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: May we please have 586 on the screen.
23 MR. WOOD: And as that is coming up, I do have some more questions
24 for the witness that is aside from this.
25 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, you've told us that you were the commander of the
1 Military Police Battalion in the 3rd Corps. If you could please tell the
2 Trial Chamber, what other military police formations were there in the 3rd
4 A. In terms of establishment, the military police units that were
5 within the 3rd Corps were categorised as follows: There were platoons
6 that existed within 3rd Corps brigades; then there were military police
7 companies in the brigades, I'm sorry, mechanised ones, motorised ones; and
8 operations groups and divisions that were part of the 3rd Corps as well.
9 Directly within the 3rd Corps Command, there was the MP Battalion,
10 of which I was commander.
11 Q. I see in your --
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a problem here. I'm
13 sorry. I have a problem when certain expressions are being used.
14 Up to now, we've been talking of the 3rd Corps Military Police
15 Battalion. During this trial, during the testimonies that we've heard
16 during this trial, we have heard "Military Police Service" within the 3rd
17 Corps. So I want to be clear about how things are called. The entity you
18 were aware of, was it a military police battalion of the 3rd Corps, or was
19 it a military police service, or was it a military police unit of the 3rd
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In terms of formation, it was called
22 "Battalion of the Military Police of the 3rd Corps."
23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 MR. WOOD: I do have some questions that will probably illuminate
25 this issue a little more, Your Honour.
1 I take note of the time. Is it an appropriate time for the Court
2 to take a break?
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is, indeed, if it is convenient for you.
4 MR. WOOD: It is, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
6 We'll take a break and come back at half past 12.00.
7 Court adjourned.
8 --- Recess taken at 12.04 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Wood.
11 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. Now, just before the break, Mr. Mujezinovic, we were discussing
13 the various units and exactly what "military police service" meant, rather
14 than "military police battalion."
15 Given that most of us in the room, and perhaps watching, aren't
16 experts on the military formations, and so on, it might be helpful for you
17 to explain, for example, what exactly is a military police battalion and
18 what its strength would be, what a platoon would be and its strength, and
19 a company and what it's strength would be in terms of manpower?
20 A. A military police battalion is an establishment structure
21 comprising the following elements: The MP Battalion Command, the platoon
22 in charge of military police investigations, two military police
23 companies, one traffic and one logistics company.
24 Q. And how many men would be in a battalion at full strength,
25 Mr. Mujezinovic?
1 A. Around 500.
2 Q. How many men would be in a platoon at full strength?
3 A. A platoon would have between 30 and 40 men.
4 Q. How many men would be in a company at full strength?
5 A. Between 80 and 100.
6 Q. You mentioned, in your answer before, that the brigades, for
7 example, would have a military police formation. What would be the
8 strength of the formation of the military police unit at a brigade?
9 A. In infantry and similar brigades, military police units were
10 organised as military police platoons. As for motorised or mechanised
11 brigades, military police units were organised into companies.
12 Q. Was there a military police unit that was typically assigned to a
13 unit that had the strength of a detachment?
14 A. In principle, there was no need to organise military police units
15 within detachments. Should the situation in the field require such a
16 thing, and if the superior commander assessed that a part of the military
17 police should be resubordinated to the detachment, it was possible, in
18 view of the establishment, but a separate order was needed.
19 Q. In order to understand the relationship between the Military
20 Police Battalion and those units on the brigade level and lower, could you
21 please tell the Trial Chamber what, if any, command-and-control authority
22 you had, as commander of the Military Police Battalion, over the units in
23 the brigades, for example, the military police units?
24 A. Absolutely none. The Military Police Battalion commander could
25 only command those units and officers which were a part of his own unit.
1 Q. Now, we discussed a little bit earlier a document that has
2 subsequently been identified as Exhibit 586.
3 MR. WOOD: I wonder if 586 could be brought up again on the
4 screen, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's on the screen already.
6 MR. WOOD: I see that it is. I was watching the transcript.
7 Q. Now, I know this is a different form than what I showed you, but
8 does this appear to be the rule book governing your operations during the
10 A. I can only see the cover page, and there is nothing that can be in
11 dispute there.
12 MR. WOOD: Perhaps if we move forward in the document a little
13 bit, maybe two or three pages. That's probably sufficient.
14 Q. Now, seeing this document, does this look like the book that you
15 used as a military police battalion commander during 1993 and 1995?
16 A. Yes, it looks that way.
17 Q. And what does this book say about the role of the military police,
18 in terms of crime prevention and detection?
19 A. Here, we have a narrow definition of the assignments of military
20 police units within the area that is under their control, defining their
21 obligation to undertake measures and procedures with a view of preventing
22 certain criminal activities and to physically secure the command post and
23 other vital elements within the system of command and control.
24 Q. What role, specifically, did the military police have in
25 investigating crimes, for example?
1 A. For example, one thing that was done by the Military Police
2 Battalion, in terms of investigations, is as follows: When information is
3 received on a crime committed in a certain area, the duty service of the
4 MP Battalion notifies the competent investigative military judge and sends
5 out a patrol to the scene.
6 At the scene, the police patrol cordons the area off; that is, the
7 area where it is believed that the crime had been committed. They also
8 conduct interviews with eyewitnesses, if any, and they gather other
9 evidence on the alleged offence.
10 Once the military investigative judge is present, he takes over of
11 all investigating procedures and activities.
12 Q. Is that where the role of the military police ends in the
13 investigation of a crime?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What role, specifically, did the Military Police Battalion have in
16 investigating crimes?
17 A. The same as the one I've described.
18 Q. What was the area of responsibility of the Military Police
19 Battalion of the 3rd Corps?
20 A. The area of responsibility of the 3rd Corps is also the area of
21 responsibility of the military police of the 3rd Corps. I also have to
22 say that lower-ranking units, that of brigades and divisions, had their
23 own respective zones. The territorial competence, in terms of
24 investigating, was with the units of the military police within those
25 brigades or divisions active in the area.
1 The Military Police Battalion was used in such activities to
2 assist, or if those units which have the territorial competence, and I
3 mean the military police, are not equipped sufficiently. In that case,
4 the battalion would undertake the whole investigation.
5 Q. Speaking of the military police, in general, was there any other
6 organ in the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina who had jurisdiction or authority
7 to investigate crimes committed by ABiH soldiers?
8 A. As far as I know, there was no special organised unit which
9 could investigate such circumstances.
10 Q. So, then, the primary responsibility for investigating crimes
11 rested with the military police; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, referring to the document before you again, what does that
14 document say about the role of the military police in dealing with
15 prisoners of war?
16 A. The military police is tasked with transporting prisoners of war
17 from the unit which had captured them to the Reception Centre for
18 Prisoners of War.
19 Q. And what does the rule book say, the document in front of you,
20 what does it say about the role of the military police in military
22 A. The military police, as well as all other organs of command and
23 control, were tasked to ensure that at their respective levels of duties
24 and obligations, to carry out control of the implementation of the
25 military disciplinary measures prescribed.
1 MR. WOOD: If the witness could please be shown document P02749,
3 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, do you see that document in front of you, or the
4 first page of that document?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. And could you please tell the Court whose signature that is at the
7 bottom of this first page?
8 A. Mine.
9 MR. WOOD: Now if we could move to the second page of this
11 Q. And I'll ask, Mr. Mujezinovic, have you seen this document before?
12 A. I don't remember this document in its original regarding this
13 period; however, in terms of content and form, I believe it is authentic.
14 The role of the document was to clarify the role of military
15 police units in implementing prescribed military disciplinary measures.
16 MR. WOOD: If we could move to page 2 in the B/C/S, and that is
17 page 4 in the English.
18 Q. I'll draw your attention, in particular, to the second paragraph.
19 MR. WOOD: I'm sorry. I guess we're already on page 2 in the
20 B/C/S, but page 4 in the English, the second paragraph, which explains
21 that the military police had a specific obligation to submit disciplinary
23 Q. Is that consistent with what you recall of your obligations during
24 1993 and 1995?
25 A. Yes. The procedure was as follows: In situations in which a
1 military police patrol from the 3rd Corps or an authorised official, or
2 whoever it was that was in the field and was a member of the battalion,
3 realises that there was a breach in terms of military discipline, the
4 Military Police Battalion submits a report to the commander of the unit
5 from which the person who had committed the crime is.
6 That is where our duties cease, and the commander of that unit is
7 the only person responsible to implement disciplinary measures.
8 Q. And was there a similar rule book that governed military
9 discipline in 1993 and 1995?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And, generally speaking, sir, could you tell the Trial Chamber
12 whether what's written in this document, that is, P02749, does this
13 accurately reflect the proper procedure for military discipline in 1993
14 and 1995?
15 A. I focused only on the obligations of the units of the military
16 police. This document includes a more detailed instruction on the
17 implementing of the measures pertaining to military discipline.
18 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers document P02749 into evidence,
19 Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Document P02749 is admitted into evidence. May it
21 please be given an exhibit number.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 867.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
24 MR. WOOD:
25 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, continuing on the issue of military discipline,
1 if a soldier had been found to have assaulted a prisoner of war, would
2 that have been a matter for military discipline or the military courts?
3 A. It depends on the degree of the assault or maltreatment. If it
4 entails criminal responsibility, it cannot be seen as a breach of military
6 Q. If a soldier under the jurisdiction of the military police had
7 been found to have murdered a prisoner of war, would that have been a
8 matter for military discipline?
9 A. No. There is criminal liability entailed.
10 Q. And just following up on your previous answer about assault, how
11 serious would the assault have to be for it to be a criminal matter versus
12 merely a disciplinary matter?
13 A. I am not a lawyer. However, I know that the law defines types of
14 criminal responsibility, and we also have military disciplinary measures
15 and responsibility defined; therefore, that is all I can tell you, in
16 terms of detail.
17 MR. WOOD: Could I have the witness be shown Exhibit P01052,
18 please -- or document P01052.
19 Q. I draw your attention particularly to the second bullet point
20 under ordinal number 1.
21 Mr. Mujezinovic, have you seen this document before?
22 A. I don't remember it from the date when it was created; but as part
23 of these proceedings, I remember this document.
24 Q. And focusing on that second bullet point, where it
25 mentions: "Instigate disciplinary proceedings against all perpetrators of
1 disciplinary violations at the 3rd Corps Military Disciplinary Court."
2 Can we conclude, from this document, that the Military
3 Disciplinary Court was functioning at this time, sir?
4 A. We can conclude that there was a military disciplinary court at
5 the level of the 3rd Corps.
6 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers P01052 into evidence,
7 Mr. President.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: P01052 is admitted into evidence. May it please be
9 given an exhibit number.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 868.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
12 MR. WOOD:
13 Q. I want to ask you a little bit more about the functioning of the
14 military police.
15 MR. WOOD: If document P01893 could please be shown to the
17 Q. So we can see from the document, sir, that this says: "3rd Corps
18 Military Police Battalion." Was this a document that was produced by the
19 unit of which you were the commander?
20 A. In terms of content and form, this document corresponds to the
21 documents produced by us. It was signed by an authorised official from
22 the Military Police Battalion.
23 Q. Now, I see that at the top it says "Official Note." Can you
24 explain to the Trial Chamber when a document like this, called an Official
25 Note, would have been produced?
1 A. In cases when we have gathered certain information from any source
2 which, in our view, could be treated by the military police, then such an
3 Official Note is drafted as a first step.
4 Q. And to whom is such an Official Note directed? Who is it sent to?
5 A. The note is sent to the Military Security Service of the 3rd
7 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers P01893 into evidence,
8 Mr. President.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: P01893 is admitted into evidence. May it please be
10 given an exhibit number.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 869.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
13 MR. WOOD: Next, could the witness be shown document P01990,
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: P0 ...?
16 MR. WOOD: P01990.
17 Q. Do you see that document in front of you, sir?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. And is this similar to the document we saw before? This one
20 says -- it's been translated into English as "Official Record." Is it the
21 same as an Official Note that would have been produced when a particular
22 incident occurred?
23 A. Yes. It is the same type of document, the same title, "Official
24 Note," and the procedure is the same as in the previous case.
25 Q. So we can see from the document that on 19 March 1995, the
1 El Mujahedin Detachment security organ passed on information that one
2 civilian person was creating problems.
3 Can we conclude from this, sir, that the security organ of the
4 El Mujahedin Detachment called on the Military Police Battalion for
5 assistance in this case?
6 A. We can conclude that the patrol of the military police attended
7 the scene following a request made by an official from the El Mujahedin
9 Q. And why wouldn't the El Mujahid Detachment's own military police
10 unit have handled this situation?
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.
12 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, that's a leading question. We've heard
13 no evidence from this witness that the El Mujahedin Detachment had its own
14 military police unit. It's been suggested that there was.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Wood.
16 MR. WOOD:
17 Q. Did the El Mujahedin Detachment have its own military police unit,
18 Mr. Mujezinovic?
19 A. Neither the El Mujahedin Detachment nor the other detachments
20 within the ABiH did not have military police units, in terms of
22 Q. So if they had a problem that called for the use of military
23 police, who would they have to rely upon?
24 A. There were two mechanisms they could rely on. The first one was
25 by contacting directly the duty officer of the Military Police Battalion,
1 which operated around the clock, in case of similar situations, and the
2 same goes for units and civilians. The other would be to follow it up the
3 chain of control and command and to notify the person in charge of
4 security in the unit, who would then contact the chief of security of the
5 3rd Corps and request that the Military Police Battalion be sent.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just interject, Mr. Wood.
7 Sir, did the El Mujahedin Detachment have a security organ?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As per establishment, in
9 detachments, there were assistant commanders for security.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would you like to answer my question now?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The El Mujahedin Detachment
12 had a security organ through the security system.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
14 You may proceed, Mr. Wood.
15 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. Where would this document have been sent, this Official Record?
17 A. To the Military Security Sector of the 3rd Corps.
18 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers document P01990 into evidence,
19 Mr. President.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Document P01990 is admitted into evidence. May it
21 please be given an exhibit number.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 870.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
24 MR. WOOD: Could the witness please be shown document P02335,
1 Q. Now, while we're waiting, Mr. Mujezinovic, I see that in your last
2 answer, at page 77, line 9, you say: "... to the Military Security Sector
3 of the 3rd Corps."
4 Now, it's just a matter of terminology, but is "Military Security
5 Sector" the same as "Military Security Service"?
6 A. The service is a broader concept, and the sector is a narrower
7 form of organisation, but it's the same organisation.
8 Q. Now, turning to the document in front of you, sir, do you
9 recognise this document or at least the form of it?
10 A. Yes, I recognise the format.
11 MR. WOOD: And if we could go to the last page of the B/C/S
12 version, the Bosnian version.
13 Q. There's a signature there, sir. Can you please tell the Trial
14 Chamber whose signature that is?
15 A. Mine.
16 Q. Now, going back to the first page - and I apologise for whipsawing
17 us back and forth here - but going back to the first page, you say you
18 recognised the format.
19 Could you please tell the Trial Chamber what this report is and
20 how often you would write reports like this?
21 A. The Military Police Battalion had to report on a monthly basis to
22 the Military Security Service of the 3rd Corps on all of its activities,
23 including any criminal reports filed over that period.
24 Q. Now, looking at that part, in particular at the bottom of the
25 page, we see there, under the "Criminal Code of the Republic of BiH":
1 Article 181, Endangering public traffic; Article 217, Forging documents.
2 MR. WOOD: This list goes on to the second page if we could show
3 that, the subsequent page, in both versions.
4 Q. Taking a look at that list, sir, would you characterise this
5 particular report for this particular month as characteristic of the types
6 of criminal activities and reports that you would file or that were filed?
7 A. Yes. The number of criminal reports is average, and this is more
8 or less the procedure that we followed for all our criminal reports.
9 Q. And when you say "criminal reports," what would constitute a
10 criminal report? Would that be a report that was simply drafted or one
11 that was sent on further down the line?
12 A. This is something that was simply drafted, documented, and
13 forwarded to the relevant court for further processing.
14 Q. So, the cases that are noted in this table, these refer -- do
15 these refer to criminal reports that had been drafted and forwarded to the
16 appropriate criminal court?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And where would this -- where did you send these reports to, after
19 you drafted them, Mr. Mujezinovic?
20 A. Having drafted these criminal reports, they would be forwarded to
21 the appropriate court. A copy would also be forwarded to the Military
22 Security Service of the 3rd Corps.
23 Q. Thank you, sir. Perhaps you misunderstood my question.
24 This particular document that we're looking at here, after you
25 drafted this document, where would you have sent it?
1 A. To the Military Security Service of the 3rd Corps.
2 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers document P02335 into evidence,
3 Mr. President.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Document P02335 is admitted into evidence. May it
5 please be given an exhibit number.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 871.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
8 Yes, Mr. Wood.
9 MR. WOOD: Could the witness please be shown document P02531,
10 document P02531. If we could see the end of this document, the final page
11 of it in the Bosnian version, please.
12 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, do you see that document in front of you?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, we can see from the document that your name is typed, but
15 then the word "Za" is written and then there's a signature. Is this your
16 signature, sir?
17 A. No.
18 Q. And do you know who it was who signed this?
19 A. Based on my memory, I assume it to have been Dzemal Muharemovic,
20 who was one of the company commanders. I was probably away, and he was
21 authorised to sign documents on behalf of the commander.
22 MR. WOOD: Let's move to the first page and have a look at the
23 document in closer detail.
24 Q. I'll ask first, Mr. Mujezinovic: Have you ever seen this document
1 A. I don't remember, but the format is right.
2 Q. And just glancing over it, and knowing the circumstances in which
3 it was signed and so on, do you have any reason to doubt its authenticity?
4 A. No, none.
5 MR. WOOD: Prosecution offers document P02531 into evidence,
6 Mr. President.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Document P02531 is admitted into evidence. May it
8 please be given an exhibit number.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 872.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 Yes, Mr. Wood.
12 MR. WOOD: I want to move to a different area now,
13 Mr. Mujezinovic.
14 MR. WOOD: In doing that, I would like the witness to please be
15 shown document P02479.
16 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, do you recognise this document or at least the
17 format of this document?
18 A. I recognise the format. This is a report by the Military Police
19 Battalion, sent to the Military Security Service of the 3rd Corps.
20 Q. And I see, at least in the English, it says "Daily Report." Is
21 that reflective of how often the report would have been filed with the
22 Military Security Service?
23 A. The MP Battalion was supposed to send daily, weekly, and monthly
24 reports to the Military Security Service. Whenever this was required,
25 there were also interim reports about some special circumstances
2 Q. Sir, there's a -- you mentioned earlier that one of the
3 obligations of the Military Police Battalion was to secure facilities; is
4 that correct?
5 A. To secure vital facilities, those vital to the command-and-control
6 system of the 3rd Corps. So the answer is "yes."
7 Q. Now, in this document, sir, could you please tell the Trial
8 Chamber what is mentioned about the activities of the 3rd Corps Military
9 Police Battalion in securing any facilities?
10 A. Specifically, the MP Battalion, based on this report at least, was
11 securing the command post of the 3rd Corps, but it was also patrolling
12 alongside with a military police company belonging to the 35th Division.
13 That's in the first section, which talks about the crucial tasks
14 or activities, or main tasks. It talks about certain activities. That's
15 what this report reflects.
16 Q. And I want to draw your attention in particular to item A, where
17 in the English it says: "The unit focuses its activity on the zone of
18 responsibility," and then it ends with, "in the sector of Luke village."
19 Is this the command post that you are speaking of that the
20 Military Police Battalion was in charge of securing?
21 A. The MP Battalion did one thing: It physically secured the command
22 post of the 3rd Corps. There was no other form of activity, because there
23 was the MP company that was territorially in charge of other things. The
24 only thing that this unit did was to physically secure the command post of
25 the 3rd Corps.
1 Q. And when you say "the command post of the 3rd Corps," are you
2 referring, sir, to what is in this document, in the sector of Luke
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers document P02479 into evidence,
6 Mr. President.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Document P02479 is admitted into evidence. May it
8 please be given an exhibit number.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 873.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 Yes, Mr. Wood.
12 MR. WOOD: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
13 I'm moving now into an area that involves some protected
14 witnesses. I will endeavour not to say their names, so if the next
15 document could be exhibited under seal. If the Trial Chamber believes
16 that we go into private session, I'm at your discretion for that.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 6043-6048 redacted. Private session
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 Yes, Mr. Wood, you may proceed.
10 MR. WOOD: If I could move to Exhibit -- or document P02681.
11 Q. Do you recognise the form of this document, Mr. Mujezinovic?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. And when would a document like this have been produced?
14 A. When these persons were being brought in - and this is something
15 that the military police could do for a variety of reasons - on such
16 occasions, a document is produced that is normally described as a transfer
18 Q. If we could just clear up one thing. If you could explain to the
19 Trial Chamber what the initials "CZPRZ" at the top of the Bosnian version
20 of this document is.
21 A. "POW Reception Centre." That is the abbreviation.
22 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers this document into evidence,
23 Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Document 2681 is admitted into evidence. May it
25 please be given an exhibit number.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 875.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
3 MR. WOOD: And I have one final document to show. That is
4 document P02721.
5 Perhaps we need to see the second page of the B/C/S, if there is
6 one. Yes.
7 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, do you recognise the form of this document?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. And under what circumstances would this sort of document have been
11 A. When there is a hand-over of POWs, or other persons from the units
12 that the person who had committed a crime comes from, in that case the
13 military police would first draft a report on the hand-over, and they
14 should also include a full list as well as the route to be taken. That
15 should be concluded with an Official Note, and the report submitted to the
16 security organ of the 3rd Corps, so the Security Service of the 3rd Corps.
17 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber whose signature is at the bottom
18 right-hand portion of this document?
19 A. It is rather illegible, but I believe it could be Zakir Alispahic.
20 Q. And the signature on the other -- directly across from that, on
21 the left -- lower left-hand side of the document?
22 A. I see that it says "Aiman."
23 Q. And according to this format and to the procedures, who is the
24 person who would have signed that portion of this document?
25 A. The left or the right one?
1 Q. The left side.
2 A. The person who is commanding the unit can authorise someone to
3 carry out the hand-over.
4 Q. So when you say "unit," that would mean, in this context, the unit
5 in whose custody the POWs are before the hand-over?
6 A. That is correct.
7 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers document P02721 into evidence,
8 Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Document P02721 is admitted into evidence. May it
10 please be given an exhibit number.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, Exhibit number 876.
12 MR. WOOD: And I just have a few more questions, Mr. Mujezinovic.
13 Q. As a member of the 3rd Corps Military Police Battalion, did you
14 ever receive any information about murders that took place in a place
15 called "Bikosi"?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did you ever receive information, in your capacity as commander of
18 the 3rd Corps Military Police Battalion, about the mistreatment of POWs in
19 a place called "Livade" or what's referred to as "the Kamenica camp"?
20 A. No.
21 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution has no further questions at this time,
22 Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
24 Mr. Robson.
25 MR. ROBSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Robson:
2 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Mujezinovic. My name is Nicholas Robson, and
3 I'm representing General Delic. I'll be asking you some questions.
4 So, Mr. Mujezinovic, the background to your military career is
5 that in April 1992, you became the commander of a military police platoon
6 within the Zenica District Defence Staff; is that correct?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. And then, in September 1992, you were promoted to commander of a
9 military police company within the Zenica District Defence Staff; and
10 then, finally, in December 1992, you became the commander of the Military
11 Police Battalion within the 3rd Corps. Is that so?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 Q. Turning to the time that you became the commander of the Military
14 Police Battalion within the 3rd Corps, is it right that in December 1992,
15 the Military Police Battalion was actually established at that point, and
16 effectively it started from scratch?
17 A. That is correct. There was an order by the commander of the 3rd
18 Corps forming the Military Police Battalion. It was a brand-new unit.
19 Q. So it was a brand-new unit. Is it right that there was no
20 structure in place; and then, over a period of time, the structure was
21 established that you told us about today: The battalion command, the two
22 companies, the traffic section, logistics, et cetera?
23 A. That is correct. It took quite some time for the unit to become
24 harmonised with the regulation that was in place, due to a number of
25 circumstances that were in place at the time.
1 Q. You mentioned it took some time for the unit to become harmonised
2 with the regulation that was in place. The regulation that you're
3 referring to is the Rules of Service for the Military Police of the Armed
4 Forces of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina; is that correct?
5 A. No. I meant to say that it be harmonised with the prescribed
6 establishment; however, the rule book defines our sphere of activity. When
7 I say "to harmonise it with establishment," it should include that the
8 order of the command of the 3rd Corps defines the structure. Therefore,
9 through a Defence office, we had to secure personnel and equipment, so
10 that we could fit the battalion within the existing establishment.
11 When such establishment is put in place, preconditions are met, so
12 that the battalion can actually follow the rule book on the work of a
13 military police battalion.
14 Q. And is it correct that the Military Police Battalion was
15 constantly evolving throughout the war?
16 A. Yes. The MP Battalion suffered, so to say, at least three to four
17 changes in terms of establishment. Usually, such recommendation was made
18 with a view to trying to reconcile that with the situation and
19 possibilities that existed in the field.
20 Q. And am I right in saying that, even by the very end of the war,
21 the Military Police Battalion had still not established all of the
22 functions that it was required to have to meet the needs set down by the
23 rules of service for the military police?
24 A. The MP Battalion, from the very first moment until the end, never
25 managed to fulfill the preconditions, in terms of establishment, 100 per
1 cent. Primarily, I mean the equipment, since circumstances were such, and
2 the army existed within those circumstances.
3 What was particularly lacking was anti-sabotage equipment,
4 documentation means, and other regulation of establishing responsibility;
5 for example, to take fingerprints, et cetera.
6 There were also personnel problems, since within the Army of
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina there were no institutions in place, in the sense that
8 personnel was not particularly or specifically educated to perform the
9 tasks of military police officers.
10 Q. So just to pick upon one of the points you mentioned, the Military
11 Police Battalion lacked the technical means to discharge its duties
12 properly; is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And am I correct in saying that the Military Police Battalion was
15 staffed by members that lacked proper training and experience to properly
16 carry out the role as a military police officer?
17 A. The principle of bringing up to strength depended much on any
18 previous experience when military police was engaged. It all had to go
19 through the competent defence office. We could also request that
20 personnel changes be made within the 3rd Corps, so as to get people from
21 other units which had certain officers with a degree of military police
23 Another way would be to educate the existing personnel, following
24 the instruction and curriculum of the security sector of the 3rd Corps.
25 Q. Now, in general terms, can you tell us, if at all possible, when
1 the Military Police Battalion was formed in December 1992, what sort of
2 proportion of the members of the battalion had some sort of relevant
3 previous experience or training?
4 A. It is difficult to address that in general terms. However, I dare
5 say that there were very few people, especially officers, who had had any
6 sort of knowledge or experience in military police work.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would that be a convenient time?
8 MR. ROBSON: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
10 Sir, we haven't finished with you. If you could please come back
11 tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning.
12 Court will adjourn until tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning.
13 Court adjourned.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Friday, the 23rd day of
16 November, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.