1 Friday, 23 November 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, everybody, once again.
7 Mr. Registrar, will you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good morning, Your Honours. This is
9 case number IT-04-83-T, the Prosecutor versus Rasim Delic.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 Could we have the appearances, starting with the Prosecution.
12 MS. SARTORIO: Good morning, Your Honours, and everyone.
13 Laurie Sartorio and Kyle Wood for the Prosecution, assisted by
14 Alma Imamovic, our case manager.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 And for the Defence.
17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good
18 morning to my learned friends from the Prosecution, to everyone in and
19 around the courtroom.
20 Vasvija Vidovic and Nicholas Robson appearing today on behalf of
21 General Rasim Delic, together with our assistant, Lana Deljkic.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 And how do you feel today, Madam Vidovic?
24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Much
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
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 took and you made at the beginning of your testimony, to
6 tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth.
7 WITNESS: ZAIM MUJEZINOVIC [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. Mujezinovic. We're going to return back to the
13 Rules of Services for the Military Police of the Armed Forces of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina, a document we looked at yesterday.
15 Your Honours, if we could please look at Exhibit 586.
16 Q. While we're waiting for the exhibit, can you confirm,
17 Mr. Mujezinovic, that this document was in force throughout the war, once
18 it was introduced in used in 1992?
19 A. Yes. This document was in force the whole time.
20 MR. ROBSON: If we could look at page 2 in both versions, please.
21 Q. We can see here that the first chapter of the rules deals with the
22 sphere of activity and the tasks of the military police.
23 Would you agree with me that if we look at paragraph number 1, we
24 can see that the tasks of the military police included uncovering and
25 preventing criminal activities involving members of the armed forces, and
1 also it involved dealing with criminal offences within the jurisdiction of
2 the military courts?
3 A. Yes, that is correct.
4 MR. ROBSON: And if we could look at the next page in the B/C/S
5 version, but keep the same page here in the English.
6 Q. If you could look at paragraph number 2, could you confirm that
7 what this paragraph talks about is that in matters of investigation in the
8 pre-trial stage of proceedings, the military police are to be fully
9 autonomous where members of the armed forces are suspected of being
10 perpetrators of criminal offences?
11 A. Yes. That's what the rules read, and that's how things were in
12 the field.
13 Q. Now, what I'd like to do is turn to the chapter on command and
14 control that you touched upon yesterday.
15 MR. ROBSON: This can be found at page 5 of the English version
16 and page 6 of the B/C/S version.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson, may I just interrupt you for a short
19 MR. ROBSON: Yes.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I forgot at the beginning to mention that we still
21 continue pursuant to Rule 15 bis. Thank you very much.
22 MR. ROBSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: For the same reason as yesterday.
24 MR. ROBSON:
25 Q. So from paragraph 7, which you discussed yesterday ...
1 MR. ROBSON: If we can perhaps turn over into the next page in the
2 B/C/S version.
3 Q. ... in terms of command and control, we can see that the military
4 police is commanded and controlled by the senior officer; in other words,
5 the commander of the unit to which the military police was attached. Is
6 that correct?
7 A. It is commanded by the commander of the unit, the part of which
8 the relevant military police unit is.
9 Q. And the commander of the unit was responsible, therefore, for
10 issuing certain orders to the military police, such as the use of the
11 military police in combat activities?
12 A. That is correct. It was only the commander of that unit who could
13 use the unit of the military police, in the full sense of the word, during
14 combat activities.
15 Q. So in respect of your particular military police unit, the 3rd
16 Military Police Battalion, in that case it was the 3rd Corps commander
17 that was responsible for issuing such orders?
18 A. That is correct, only the 3rd Corps command -- commander.
19 Q. And although it was the decision of the commander of the unit
20 whether or not to use the military police in combat activities, the
21 assistant commander for security was able to propose to the commander of
22 the unit the use of the military police in combat activities; is that so?
23 A. That is correct. These are his authorities -- or rather, the
24 scope of his authority and what he can do.
25 Q. Now what I'd like to do is turn our attention to paragraph number
1 8, which you told us yesterday provides that, in professional terms, the
2 military police was headed by the senior officer of the Military Security
3 Service of the unit to which the military police was attached.
4 Just so we're clear about it, this senior officer of the Military
5 Security Service normally went by the title of "Assistant Commander for
7 A. In different intervals, he was called "Assistant Commander for
8 Security" in the corps, or "Chief of Security" within command of the 3rd
9 Corps; however, it was the same scope of authority.
10 Q. So in addition to the military police being under the command and
11 control of the commander of the unit, there was a professional line for
12 reporting and ordering of certain tasks, and what I'd like to ask you
13 about is the sorts of tasks that the assistant commander for security
14 could order to the military police.
15 Is it right that the assistant commander for security could order
16 the Military Police Battalion -- unit, I should say, to, for example, go
17 to a crime scene or to carry out investigation of certain matters?
18 A. He could. He had the authority to send a part of the military
19 police unit to the scene to carry out an on-site investigation and other
20 matters belonging to the pre-trial stage of proceedings.
21 Q. And the assistant commander for security would not need the
22 approval of the commander of the unit in order to direct the military
23 police unit to go and carry out these sorts of tasks?
24 A. No. The commander of the military police unit [as interpreted]
25 was a subordinate professional organ; therefore, he needn't necessarily
1 ask for his consent when issuing such an order.
2 Q. Would you --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. The witness said "the commander of the
4 military police unit." Should it be "the commander of the Military
5 Security Service unit"?
6 MR. ROBSON: That's what I heard, Your Honour, in my headphones.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could you please clarify that, Mr. Robson.
8 MR. ROBSON:
9 Q. Witness, could you just clarify a point? Did you say that the
10 commander of the Military Security Service was a subordinate professional
11 organ and, therefore, he didn't necessarily ask for consent from the
12 commander of the unit when issuing such an order?
13 A. It is somewhat confusing. Perhaps it has to do with the matter of
14 languages. In any case, he was never commander of the Military Security.
15 What you had was Assistant Commander of the Corps for Security, or Chief
16 of the Security Service within the Command of the 3rd Corps. Those were
17 the full titles of the organ or the person that was professionally in
18 charge or superior to the commander of the military police unit of the 3rd
20 That person could order the use of a part of the MP Battalion in
21 exercising certain investigative tasks, without prior consultation or
22 approval on my part, since I was commander of the Military Police
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, that's throwing a little spanner in the works.
25 MR. ROBSON: I'll just clarify that.
1 Q. So, he wouldn't need your approval to direct certain investigative
2 tasks; but, similarly, he wouldn't need the approval of the commander of
3 the unit in order to direct the military police to carry out certain
4 investigative tasks as well?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. And would you agree with me that for serious criminal matters,
7 rather than instructing the military police to carry out activities, the
8 assistant commander for security could direct members of the Military
9 Security Service to gather information and to deal with the matter?
10 A. Yes. In implementing investigative tasks, the chief of military
11 security had the authority to make use of some people from within his own
12 service or people from the military police, according to what he saw fit
13 to implement those tasks. He did not necessarily need to turn to members
14 of the military police alone.
15 Q. Thank you. Now, I'd just like to turn our attention to military
16 police units at the level subordinate to the corps level.
17 It's right to say that there were military police units within
18 each division and within each brigade?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. Yesterday, you told us that the number of military police officers
21 within a brigade would depend upon the size of the brigade. So, in some
22 instances, there could be a company of military police or there could be a
23 platoon. In respect of the 328th Brigade, do you know what sort of
24 military police unit was attached to that unit?
25 A. As far as I can recall, there was a military police platoon, since
1 it was a mountain brigade.
2 Q. And what you told us, a moment ago, about the principles of
3 command and control and reporting, that also applies at the brigade level
4 as well; and by that, what I mean is that the brigade commander exercised
5 command and control over the brigade military police unit. Is that right?
6 A. Yes, it is. The Rules of Service defined the relationship. The
7 principal is absolutely the same. Commander of the MP platoon is
8 subordinate to the brigade commander within which that military police
9 unit is.
10 Q. And in professional terms, the military police unit would report
11 to the assistant commander for security within the brigade?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. And, again, it follows that the commander of a brigade could order
14 a military police unit within his brigade unit to carry out activities
15 which required the use of force in order to make sure that criminal acts
16 were stopped and the perpetrators were found and discovered; is that
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. Now, in terms of the reporting that you made to both the commander
20 of your unit and the assistant commander for security, in the statement
21 that you gave to the Office of the Prosecution, you said that you would
22 report to the commander on operational issues. How often would you report
23 to him?
24 A. It depended on the situation. As far as regular activities went,
25 without significant combat operations, in principle, we would have
1 briefings twice monthly with the corps commander. When there was
2 immediate combat activity, the briefing to the corps commander was done
3 according to the situation. Most frequently, it was once a day.
4 Q. And it's right that you would also report to the assistant
5 commander for security. Would you report to him on a daily basis?
6 A. To the chief of security, we would forward written reports, daily,
7 weekly, and monthly reports. And upon his request, in principle, at least
8 once a month, there was oral briefing or reporting on the activities of
9 the MP Battalion.
10 Q. I'd now like to turn to a rather different issue, and that is the
11 obligation of the military police to file criminal reports.
12 MR. ROBSON: And, again, if we can look at the document that's on
13 the screen in front of us, what I'm interested in is paragraph number 6,
14 which it may be on this page in the English, and I believe it's on page 3
15 in the B/C/S version.
16 Perhaps we can just scroll to the top. I think what we're going
17 to have to do is go to page 3 in the English version as well.
18 Q. So we can see that paragraph number 6 is within a new chapter,
19 chapter number 2, which is headed "Tasks of the Military Police," and what
20 paragraph 6 says is: "In line with the sphere of their activity, the
21 military police shall carry out the following tasks."
22 MR. ROBSON: What I'm interested in is the task at part F, which
23 is at page 4 in the English version, and it's at page 5 of the B/C/S.
24 Q. Now, in talking about the military police, "F" deals with
25 prevention and further detection of criminal activity, and what it says
1 is: "In line with their legally authorised power, they conduct
2 investigation work in pre-trial proceedings when the perpetrators of the
3 crimes are members of the armed forces or other civilians but only in
4 cases where the object of the crime is military property or if these are
5 crimes within the competence of the military courts."
6 Mr. Mujezinovic, are you familiar with this paragraph?
7 A. Yes, I am.
8 Q. And would you agree with me that what this does is it provides an
9 obligation on the part of the military police to investigate criminal
11 A. Yes. The military police had the authority and obligation to
12 undertake these activities.
13 Q. And in respect of that, I'd now like to consider the powers of the
14 military police.
15 MR. ROBSON: So if we could please turn to page 6 of the English
16 document and page 8 of the B/C/S version, and it's paragraph 11 that I'm
17 interested in.
18 Q. So we can see here a heading "Chapter 4, Powers and Services of
19 the Military Police."
20 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, I believe that there's a -- that the
21 number 11 is missing out. If you look slightly above the heading, you can
22 see that chapter 10 precedes this. If we look at the B/C/S version, it
23 should follow that chapter 11 comes after the heading.
24 Q. Is that so, Mr. Mujezinovic?
25 A. The sequence -- in terms of sequence, yes.
1 Q. So paragraph 11 provides that: "In carrying out the duties of
2 their service, members of the military police implement the following
3 measures and actions."
4 Here, we can see a list of the powers of the military police, and
5 it's right, isn't it, that the third entry here refers to filing reports?
6 A. Powers of the military police were organised in a way to secure
7 the legality when we conducted our activities. Filing reports would
8 understand filing both disciplinary and criminal reports in such cases
9 when the relevant military police units established that the circumstances
10 under which a criminal offence was committed is of that level.
11 Q. Exactly. And if we can now look at paragraph 15, which carries on
12 from what you've just mentioned.
13 MR. ROBSON: This is at page 7 in the English and page 9 in the
15 Q. We can see here that this paragraph states: "The military police
16 file reports: When a person refuses to comply with a caution, refuses to
17 be identified, commits an infringement of military discipline or a serious
18 disturbance of the peace, endangers the safety of traffic on the roads,
19 commits a crime which is prosecuted ex officio, and also when detaining
20 and bringing into custody."
21 Now, my question is: Would you agree, from what we've just seen
22 and from these rules, that there was an obligation on all military
23 policemen to gather information about crimes that had occurred that either
24 involved members of the armed forces or fell within the jurisdiction of
25 the military courts?
1 A. In principle, it is the same, whether they were committed by
2 members of the army or whether they are under the competence of the
3 military courts. Only under those circumstances, members of the military
4 police have the power and duty to collect security-related information in
5 order to have a full scope of investigative and pre-investigative tasks.
6 Q. We've talked about the duty on the military police to file a
7 criminal report. Yesterday, in your testimony, you said that the military
8 police was required to prepare a criminal report and follow it -- forward
9 it to the relevant court.
10 Would you agree with me that, in fact, the military police was
11 obliged to send the criminal report to the competent district military
12 prosecutor and not to the military court?
13 A. Yes, that's what I meant. The competent prosecutor assesses the
14 validity and the basis of the criminal report, and forwards it up the
15 chain perhaps by opening a file, a case against the perpetrators for which
16 the file or report had been submitted.
17 Q. And in terms of sending a criminal report to the competent
18 district military prosecutor, is it correct that the authorised officers
19 of the military police were required to do this independently, without any
20 further approval from their professional or superior command?
21 A. The professional superior organ needn't necessarily be consulted
22 on these activities. In yesterday's presentation, I tried to clarify the
23 procedure relating to communicating -- to the communication between an
24 official, an authorised official, and an investigative judge.
25 The investigative military judge had the authority to direct the
1 investigation in keeping with the law and perhaps to provide specific
2 instruction to the authorised official of the military police, so that a
3 potential crime could be fully documented.
4 Q. The question that I put, and just to clarify it, a military police
5 officer didn't need approval before he filed a criminal report with the
6 district military prosecutor, did he? If he saw that a crime had been
7 committed, he could do that immediately?
8 A. No. He didn't need an approval.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I get clarification? Would he not need, in any
10 case, to report to - I must make sure I get the correct title - to report
11 to the chief of the security service within the command of the 3rd Corps?
12 I'm not saying "seek approval," but to report, just to report that
13 such-and-such a thing has happened, and "I've sent a report to the
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When a report is submitted, the
16 chief of the Military Security Service had to be informed. That was an
18 MR. ROBSON: If we could turn to document D704, please.
19 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, can you confirm that what we have in front of us
20 is a document headed: "Report for August 1993", dated the 3rd of
21 September, 1993, from the 3rd Corps Military Police Battalion to the 3rd
22 Corps chief of security? Is that so?
23 A. Yes. By format, it's a document implying the drafting of a report
24 about the activity of the Battalion of the Military Police.
25 MR. ROBSON: If we could please look at the last page in both
1 documents, just to see who the author was.
2 Q. We can see that the document bears your name. Is that your
3 signature, Mr. Mujezinovic?
4 A. Yes, it's my name and my signature.
5 MR. ROBSON: If we can return back to the first page in both
6 documents, please. If we can go to the bottom of the page in English, and
7 that's good in the B/C/S.
8 Q. We can see here a heading. It says: "Number 3. Application of
9 military police measures against members of the BH Army."
10 Would you agree with me that within this section, what you're
11 doing is providing information to the 3rd Corps chief of security about
12 the actions carried out by the Military Police Battalion?
13 MR. ROBSON: If we could go to page 2 in the English, please.
14 Q. You're explaining the numbers of army members that have had their
15 identity checked, you're informing him about the numbers of people that
16 have been brought into detention, and also you're talking about
17 check-points and the stopping of military and civilian vehicles. Is that
19 MR. ROBSON: Perhaps if we can just go to the next page in the
20 B/C/S, and to the top there.
21 A. That is correct. This is a form of reporting of the MP Battalion
22 of the 3rd Corps to the chief of security of the 3rd Corps, where, more or
23 less, it's done by services and by authorities. This is a report about --
24 to the chief about measures and activities undertaken by the battalion in
25 the month. That is the subject of the report.
1 Q. Okay.
2 MR. ROBSON: If we could turn our attention to the next section,
3 which is headed: "Number 4. Criminal and disciplinary reports."
4 Q. Would you agree that we can read in this section that 24 criminal
5 reports were submitted by the Military Police Battalion to the District
6 Military Prosecutor's Office?
7 A. That is correct. You can see from the report that these are 24
8 criminal charges against a total of 32 persons.
9 Q. And if we look at the next paragraph down, we can see that
10 included within those criminal reports, there were two reports for war
11 crimes against the civilian population; is that so?
12 A. You can see that from the report, yes.
13 Q. So from this report, we can conclude that in August 1993, the
14 Military Police Battalion were filing criminal reports against members of
15 the ARBiH, and also that they did file criminal reports for war crimes as
17 A. That is correct, both criminal reports against persons and for
18 which action are -- the responsibility lies with the military courts.
19 MR. ROBSON: We can put this document away, and I'd like to show a
20 similar document, which is E871.
21 Your Honours, before I do that, please, could I tender this
22 document for admission.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Document D704 is admitted into evidence. May it
24 please be given an exhibit number.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit 877.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
2 MR. ROBSON: E871.
3 While we're waiting for the document to come up, I can just
4 explain that this is a report on criminal reports and requests for
5 disciplinary procedure filed in the month of July 1995.
6 Q. Can you confirm, Mr. Mujezinovic, that this report is dated the
7 28th of July, 1995, and it went from the 3rd Military Police Battalion to
8 the 3rd Corps Military Security Service?
9 A. In form, it's a document or a report made by the 3rd Corps MP
10 Battalion with [as interpreted] the chief of the security of the 3rd
12 MR. ROBSON: And if we can go to the last page in both documents
13 again, just to see who the author is.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is meant by "with the chief of the security of
15 the 3rd Corps"? You're dealing with the form of the document, and I don't
16 understand how part of the form of the document includes the chief.
17 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour --
18 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, can you clarify that? The question I'd asked you
19 was: "Could you confirm that it went to the Military Security Service of
20 the 3rd Corps?"
21 MR. ROBSON: If we can return back to the first page while we
22 clarify this issue, please.
23 Q. Could you answer the Judge's question?
24 A. Yes. It's a document or a report that the MP Battalion sent to
25 the chief of security of the 3rd Corps.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: That makes better sense. What do you call this
2 part of speech? The word "with" didn't make sense.
3 MR. ROBSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 And if we could please go to the last pages in both documents
5 again, just to ascertain the author.
6 Q. In the B/C/S version, we can see that it bears your name,
7 Mr. Mujezinovic. Is that your signature?
8 A. Yes, it's my name and my signature.
9 MR. ROBSON: Returning back to the first page, please, it's the
10 first paragraph of the document that I'm interested in.
11 Q. We can see that it states: "In the period between 1st of July,
12 1995 and 30th of July, 1995, the Services Department of the 3rd Military
13 Police Battalion filed, before the competent prosecutor's offices in
14 Zenica, 27 criminal reports against 31 persons ..."
15 And then, in the second paragraph, it states: "During the same
16 period, the Services Department of the 3rd Military Police Battalion filed
17 21 requests for disciplinary action against 24 persons."
18 So, once again, this document shows that during July 1995, the
19 Military Police Battalion was filing criminal reports with the competent
20 District Military Prosecutor's Office; is that correct?
21 A. It's correct. In accordance with the authority of the military
22 police, you can see that both criminal and disciplinary charges were
24 Q. So we've seen two of these sorts of documents. Were these sorts
25 of reports being sent every month, setting out the numbers of criminal
1 reports that had been filed?
2 A. Yes. The MP Battalion was obliged to draft a monthly report about
3 submitted or filed criminal charges, or initiated requests for the
4 establishment of disciplinary responsibility.
5 Q. The document we looked at for August 1993 talked about 24 criminal
6 reports against 32 people, and this document for July 1995 talks about 27
7 criminal reports against 31 people. Are these sorts of numbers of
8 criminal reports being issued each month typical?
9 A. It's hard to talk about an average number of filed charges.
10 Depending on the general situation, the number of criminal acts would
11 increase. So, in principle, it was 30 to 40 such charges.
12 Q. Thirty to forty such charges per month; is that what you mean?
13 A. More or less. Because like I say, it's very hard to say that, in
14 view of the circumstances in which all of that was happening, especially
15 in situations that were conditioned by the general environment.
16 Q. And before we move away from the issue of sending criminal
17 reports, in respect of military police at the brigade level, would you
18 agree with me that it would be wrong for somebody to suggest that the only
19 duty of the military police at that level was to simply collect
20 information and to send it to their professional superior, the assistant
21 commander for security?
22 A. No, that was definitely not their only duty. Units at that level
23 of military police had the same duties and authorities as military police
24 units of a higher rank. So, that MP unit also physically had to provide
25 security for the brigade command. They had to patrol in certain areas.
1 And, of course, along with all of that, they had to gather data on
2 specific criminal acts.
3 Q. You say it wasn't -- it definitely was not their only duty. They
4 had the obligation to file criminal reports, didn't they, if they
5 discovered that a crime had occurred?
6 A. Of course, that was their duty.
7 Q. And, again, staying at the brigade level --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I just ask: Did they also have the duty to
9 submit criminal reports to the military prosecutor where crimes had been
11 THE WITNESS: [No verbal response]
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I see you're nodding your head. For the sake of
13 the record, could you please say in words what you mean by nodding the
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The military police unit was
16 obliged to pass on the report to the authorised prosecutor's office; and
17 at the same time, provided a copy of the report to the assistant security
18 commander of the brigade in which he was active.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
20 MR. ROBSON:
21 Q. And in relation to the military police at the brigade level, if a
22 situation occurred where a military police officer found out that a crime
23 had taken place, and he sends a report to his superior only, the assistant
24 commander for security, would you agree with me that his duty to
25 investigate did not cease; he still had the duty to continue to gather
1 evidence and then submit a criminal report?
2 A. That is correct. His duty was still to continue to collect
3 evidence and complete the report; and, of course, the security organs
4 needed to be expertly directed and instructed, if the situation required
6 Q. Thank you. I'd now like to turn our attention to the Military
7 Security Service.
8 Now, if I could refer you to another document, which is the Rules
9 of Operation for the Military Security Service in the Armed Forces of the
10 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
11 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, it's Exhibit 585.
12 Perhaps if we can go to the next page in the B/C/S version.
13 Q. So, here, we can see the cover. Were you familiar with these
14 rules, Mr. Mujezinovic?
15 A. In the expert sense, I'm not familiar with this rule, because it
16 deals with the procedure of the Military Security Service and not that of
17 the military police.
18 Q. Okay. We can see that it is dated September 1992.
19 MR. ROBSON: And if we can -- Your Honours, this document is a
20 little bit different from my version.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why don't you work with the version that is before
22 the Court.
23 MR. ROBSON: Yes. If we can go to the first page of both
24 documents. I apologise.
25 Okay, very well.
1 Q. We can see that, from the top of the document, that these rules
2 were issued by the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina;
3 is that right?
4 A. I assume that it is. As I said, I was not in the position to use
5 this rule or to apply it in everyday activities.
6 MR. ROBSON: Okay. If we can refer to paragraph 27, please, which
7 is at page number 7 in the English and page 10 in the B/C/S version.
8 Q. Paragraph 27, we can see that: "Authorised officers of the
9 Military Security Service have the right and duty to undertake prescribed
10 measures and actions vis-a-vis individuals, groups, and organisations," et
12 You see that, Mr. Mujezinovic?
13 A. Yes. Yes, I see the text.
14 MR. ROBSON: And in this connection, if we could now look at
15 paragraph 31, which is at the bottom of the page in the B/C/S, and it's on
16 the next page in the English.
17 Q. If you could just take a look at that paragraph, do you agree that
18 this paragraph provides that, in order to carry out the tasks in his
19 field, an authorised officer of the Military Security Service is entitled
20 to check the identity of members of the armed forces?
21 A. I agree that's what it says in the rule.
22 MR. ROBSON: Then if we can go into paragraph 32 in the B/C/S,
23 it's the same page in the English. It's the next page in the B/C/S
25 Q. Here, it provides that: "In matters concerning criminal offences
1 within the jurisdiction of military courts and which are prosecuted
2 ex officio, authorised officers of the Military Security Service may
3 arrest a suspect and bring him immediately before an investigating judge
4 of the military court or the nearest military command or unit."
5 You see that, Mr. Mujezinovic?
6 A. Yes. Yes, I see that.
7 Q. And, finally, in this connection, paragraph 33 provides that: "An
8 authorised officer of the Military Security Service and military police
9 may arrest military personnel or workers serving in the armed forces if
10 caught in the commission of a criminal offence."
11 Would you agree with me that this, these rules, clearly provide
12 that both members of the Military Security Service and the military police
13 have powers to arrest people, if it appears that a criminal offence has
15 A. Yes, I agree with you.
16 MR. ROBSON: Remaining with this issue, if we could look at the
17 chapter dealing with the Military Security Service in criminal
18 proceedings, which is at page number 9 in the English. I believe it might
19 be the next page in the B/C/S. It's paragraph 40 that I'm interested in.
20 Q. So, here, we can see the title.
21 MR. ROBSON: If we can move to the next page in B/C/S, please.
22 Q. Here, we can read that it says: "When there is reasonable
23 suspicion that a criminal offence triable by military courts has been
24 committed, officers of the Military Security Service must take the
25 necessary measures to find the perpetrator of the criminal offence, to
1 prevent the perpetrator or his accomplice from going into hiding or
2 escaping, to uncover and protect the evidence and exhibits which can serve
3 as evidence, and to gather all the information useful for successful
4 conduct of the criminal proceedings."
5 Now, yesterday, you were asked by the Prosecutor if there was any
6 other organ in the ARBiH that had jurisdiction to investigate crimes.
7 Would you agree that from looking at these rules, it's clear that
8 members of the Military Security Service also had the possibility and
9 obligation to take steps to arrest and investigate crimes?
10 A. My response, yesterday, referred to a specially-organised unit,
11 whose main task would be to implement these activities in terms of
12 collection of data. The authorities of the Military Security Service were
13 greater than the authority of the military police, so that the Military
14 Security Service had an absolute duty to compile the necessary data, to
15 document everything, and to submit a criminal report.
16 As part of that, they could use, but did not necessarily have to,
17 members of the military police who were subordinated to it along the
18 professional line. It had to -- it could, but it didn't have to, act in
19 cooperation and coordination with organs of internal affairs. It could,
20 but did not have to, use the other organs within the Military Security
21 Service. The main task was to document and file a report.
22 Q. Yes. And in connection with what you've just said, if we can look
23 at paragraph 41, this provides that: "On the basis of the information
24 gathered, officers of the Military Security Service in the command of the
25 brigade, or a corresponding or higher ranking officer in the Military
1 Security Service, shall submit a criminal report to the competent military
2 prosecutor's office."
3 So this confirms what you just said, that members of the Military
4 Security Service also had the obligation to file a criminal report?
5 A. That is correct.
6 MR. ROBSON: And then, finally, before we leave this document, if
7 we can briefly look at paragraph 42.
8 Q. Here, it states: "When the perpetrator of a criminal offence is
9 unknown..." --
10 MR. ROBSON: I beg your pardon. It's on the next page in the
11 B/C/S version.
12 Q. So if you could just take a look at this paragraph, would you
13 agree that from this paragraph, even when a perpetrator is unknown, an
14 officer of the Military Security Service is still required to file a
15 criminal report with the competent military prosecutor in cases against an
16 unknown person?
17 A. Yes. In cases when you could not establish the perpetrator and
18 the criminal act was committed, the person investigating the act, in this
19 case organs of the security service, would need to submit a report
20 according -- or against an unidentified person, meaning that the
21 perpetrator was not known.
22 Q. Okay. I'd like to move away from this issue and now discuss the
23 matter of discipline.
24 I believe you told us yesterday, in your evidence, that it was the
25 duty of the commander of a unit to impose disciplinary measures against
1 members of his unit. Is that so?
2 A. Yes, pronounces disciplinary measures for specific disciplinary
3 violations pursuant to the rules relating to military discipline.
4 Q. And it follows that the commander of one unit could not discipline
5 members of a different unit; however, in such circumstances, the
6 commander, who sees that a disciplinary matter has occurred, should notify
7 the commander of the other unit responsible for the soldiers in need of
8 discipline. Is that correct?
9 A. That is correct. He is not authorised to carry out disciplinary
10 measures. This is the authority only the superior commander within the
11 command-and-control system.
12 Q. In such a situation where one commander finds out that matters
13 have occurred where disciplinary steps should be taken, where the people
14 carrying out those matters are not his subordinates, the commander should
15 take steps to notify the commander, the other commander, that his
16 subordinates have been carrying out activities which require disciplinary
17 measures; is that right?
18 A. In principle, there are two ways in which a commander of that unit
19 should act. The first would be on the basis of collegiality, to inform
20 the unit commander in writing that his perpetrators have committed a
21 certain disciplinary violation in order to carry out steps.
22 Secondly, he was duty-bound, in his eventual reports to superiors,
23 to suggest that disciplinary violations were committed in another unit in
24 order that the system of command and control -- or through the system of
25 command and control, certain disciplinary measures could be taken.
1 Q. I'd like to show you a document now.
2 MR. ROBSON: It's P2099. This is a document that we looked at
3 yesterday, I believe.
4 My colleague is telling me that we didn't.
5 Q. Now, the copy is not so good. So if you have any difficulties,
6 please let me know. Would you agree that what we can see here is a
7 document from the 3rd Corps Military Security Department, and it's dated
8 the 23rd of May, 1995?
9 A. This is not a document from the security sector of the 3rd Corps.
10 This is a document of the MP Battalion of the 3rd Corps.
11 Q. I see that now. I realise my error.
12 MR. ROBSON: If we can look at the second page in both the B/C/S
13 and English versions, so we can ascertain the author.
14 Q. We see here that your name appears on the document. Is that your
16 A. Yes, it is.
17 MR. ROBSON: If we can return back to the first page, please.
18 Q. I think it is correct to say that this is a document from you,
19 providing information to the 3rd Corps Military Security Service.
20 If we can look at what it's about, in the first paragraph, it
21 states: "In accordance with the order of the 3rd Corps commander,
22 03/1-217-943, of the 23rd of May, 1995, commanders of units are held
23 responsible for resolving request for initiating disciplinary action.
24 "After the disciplinary procedure has been finished, the original
25 unit, more precisely the commander of the unit, needs to form the 3rd
1 Battalion of the Military Police of the aforementioned disciplinary
2 measures taken after requests for initiating disciplinary responsibility
3 that were submitted by the 3rd Battalion of the Military Police."
4 We can see, from the second paragraph, that you go on to say
5 that: "The 3rd Battalion of the Military Police has so far sent 20
6 requests for establishing disciplinary responsibility of members of the
7 3rd Corps units."
8 Could you just explain to us a little about this document? Is it
9 correct that what's happened here is that you have notified commanders of
10 certain units that they should carry out disciplinary measures in respect
11 of members of their units? Is that right?
12 A. In keeping with the order of the corps commander and the rule book
13 on military discipline, as well as the Rules of Service for the Military
14 Police in its part pertaining to the authority of the military police,
15 where it is stated that it can submit reports, the MP Battalion submitted
16 requests to initiate disciplinary proceedings to the unit commanders, the
17 members of which had committed a certain disciplinary breach.
18 The commanders of these units, in keeping with the corps
19 commander's order, had a duty to inform back the MP Battalion on the
20 measures they undertook against the people who had criminal --
21 disciplinary reports submitted against them. It is all contained in this
23 Q. And it appears from this document that certain units had not
24 reported back to you about disciplinary measures taken, and we can see
25 that from paragraph 3, and there you list the units; is that so?
1 A. Yes. The units and perpetrators are specified.
2 MR. ROBSON: And if we can turn to the next page in English,
4 Q. We can see that one of the units to which you had sent a request
5 to issue disciplinary measures and had not reported back to you as to
6 measures taken, at number 5, is the El Mujahedin, or "the El Mujahidir
7 Squad," as it says; is that correct?
8 A. Yes, it is.
9 Q. And it appears the El Mujahedin Detachment commander had been
10 informed to carry out disciplinary measures in respect of someone
11 called "Emir Imamovic"; is that right?
12 A. He was notified by the submitting of the criminal -- of the
13 disciplinary report, and in keeping with the corps commander's
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is the person that the El Mujahedin Detachment was
16 supposed to discipline Emir Imamovic?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
19 MR. ROBSON:
20 Q. Can we conclude from this document, dated May 1995, that the
21 commander of the El Mujahedin Detachment was not following the order of
22 the 3rd Corps commander to impose disciplinary measures and report back to
23 the Military Police Battalion?
24 A. I cannot say that he did anything wrong, but he did not report
25 back. He may have issued a disciplinary measure, but he never reported
1 back on it, which leads me to conclude that there were no disciplinary
2 measures imposed.
3 Q. If we can remember the name, Emir Imamovic, and that this document
4 was sent on the 22nd of May, 1995.
5 MR. ROBSON: If we could turn to document P2472 [Realtime
6 transcript read in error "P2742"], please.
7 Your Honours, I tender this document for admission.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: P2099 is admitted into evidence. May it please be
9 given an exhibit number.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit 878.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
12 MR. ROBSON: 2472. Your Honours, this does not look like the
13 correct document.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. Now, the transcript gives two numbers. First
15 it said "2742," and now it says "2472." Which number do you want?
16 MR. ROBSON: It should be 2472.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: 2472.
18 MR. ROBSON: This is the correct document.
19 Q. So we can see here, Mr. Mujezinovic, that this is a document
20 addressed to the Command of the El Mujahedin Detachment. It's dated the
21 2nd of August, 1995. It's from the 3rd Corps Military Police Battalion.
22 MR. ROBSON: If we could just look at the final page, please, to
23 ascertain the author.
24 Q. We can see that your name appears on this document. Is that your
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 MR. ROBSON: If we can return back to the first page, please.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we just find out who signed on the left before
4 we move?
5 MR. ROBSON: Yes.
6 Q. Could you answer that, please?
7 A. Commander of the Services Department, Samir Saric.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Security Services Department?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Services Department, which was
10 part of the MP Battalion that I commanded.
11 MR. ROBSON: If we can revert back to the first page, please.
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] What is the meaning of this
13 signature on the left of the document?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He authorised the text. It is a
15 subordinate unit, which in the full sense of the word is the true author
16 of this document.
17 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 MR. ROBSON:
19 Q. If you could take a look at the first paragraph when it appears,
20 Mr. Mujezinovic.
21 Is it right that this is a document from you to the Command of the
22 El Mujahedin Detachment, in which you refer to the 3rd Corps commander's
23 order of the 3rd of May, 1995, and you request -- and you make him
24 responsible for solving a request for starting a disciplinary procedure?
25 A. That is correct, in keeping with the Rules of Service of the
1 Military Police and pursuant to the corps commander's order.
2 Q. And if we look at the person that the request is -- who is the
3 subject of the request, it's Emir Imamovic. So this is the same name that
4 we saw in the last document.
5 Is it so that when you wrote to the El Mujahedin in August 1995,
6 the reason was that -- the reason for that was because they had failed to
7 comply with the request that the commander made in May 1995, some two
8 months prior?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you recall if the El Mujahedin Detachment ever reacted to this
11 document from you?
12 A. I don't remember.
13 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, if this document could please be
14 admitted into evidence, and I think it's an appropriate time to break.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 The document is admitted into evidence. May it please be given an
17 exhibit number.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 879.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 We'll take a break and come back at quarter to 11.00.
21 Court adjourned.
22 --- Recess taken at 10.16 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.
25 MR. ROBSON: Thank you.
1 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, before the break, we were talking about
2 disciplinary measures; and still on this topic, I'd like you to look at
3 Exhibit 867.
4 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, this was a document we saw yesterday.
5 It's headed: "Status and role of Military Security Service and military
6 police organs in disciplinary matters."
7 Q. Witness, can you please confirm that this document is dated the
8 2nd of November, 1995?
9 THE WITNESS: [No verbal response]
10 MR. ROBSON: And if we could just look at page -- yes, if we can
11 look at this page.
12 Q. Can we see that it has your name on it towards the bottom of the
14 A. Yes, my name and my signature.
15 Q. And when you were questioned about this document yesterday, you
16 explained that what we can see is this is a letter with which a document
17 was forwarded to various units.
18 The document bears the title: "Document of the Military Security
19 Administration with instructions for actions of Military Security Service
20 and military police organs in disciplinary matters."
21 Do you remember discussing this document? This was a -- do you
22 recall mentioning this document and explaining what the purpose was of
23 forwarding on to the units the document that I mentioned?
24 A. I remember it. The role was to clarify the specific procedures in
25 relation to my unit and the military police, in general, in certain
1 disciplinary cases, and it went for the whole of the Army of
3 Q. And if we look at the list at the bottom of this page, which shows
4 us who the document was delivered to, would you agree with me that it was
5 not sent to the El Mujahedin Detachment?
6 A. Yes. I don't see that it was sent to the El Mujahedin Detachment.
7 Q. And if you're able to help us, is there any reason that you're
8 aware of why it wasn't sent to the El Mujahedin Detachment?
9 A. No.
10 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, this document can be put away, and I'm
11 going to turn to the issue of the El Mujahedin Detachment.
12 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, you were asked some questions about this
13 detachment yesterday, and you were asked if it had a security organ.
14 Is it correct to say that you were not familiar with the structure
15 of the El Mujahedin Detachment?
16 A. I wasn't familiar with the structure of the El Mujahedin
18 Q. And can you help us: Are you able to confirm that the
19 El Mujahedin Detachment did not report to the Military Security Service of
20 the 3rd Corps or to any other unit of the ARBiH?
21 A. I cannot confirm that for the simple reason that I didn't have
22 either information or documents available or on any potential
23 correspondence between the security organ and some other structure.
24 Q. If the El Mujahedin Detachment had been a regular ARBiH unit,
25 falling well within the system of command and control, it should have
1 filed a daily report on security matters; is that correct?
2 A. I am truly not familiar with the correspondence or the mutual
3 responsibilities of different security organs within the chain of command
4 and control; therefore, I cannot answer that.
5 Q. I'd like to show you two documents on the same issue.
6 MR. ROBSON: If we can first of all bring up Exhibit 873, please.
7 Q. This is a document that we looked at yesterday.
8 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, to save some time, I can explain that
9 it is a daily report authored by Mr. Mujezinovic, dated the 29th of
10 August, 1995.
11 If we can just quickly look at the last page in this document.
12 Yes, we can see.
13 Q. Can you confirm that that's your name and signature at the bottom
14 of the page there?
15 A. Yes, I can confirm that.
16 Q. Now, I'd like to discuss page number 9 in the English version with
18 MR. ROBSON: If you just bear with me, it's at -- I believe it's
19 page number 4 in the B/C/S version.
20 Q. Do you see there a heading which states: "Engagement of military
21 police unit on day of report"?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. So would you agree with me that in this daily report of the 29th
24 of August, 1995, you are providing information about how the Military
25 Police Battalion has been tasked on that particular day?
1 A. Yes, that is correct. From the report, one can see what the
2 activities were of the Military Police Battalion on the day of reporting.
3 MR. ROBSON: If we can turn to the next page in the English
4 version, please.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do, is there any reason why the numbers
6 are cancelled?
7 MR. ROBSON:
8 Q. Can you answer that, Mr. Mujezinovic?
9 A. Perhaps I should ask you for a further clarification. Which
10 numbers do you have in mind exactly?
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: You can see: 7, crossed; 18, crossed; 57 crossed;
14 87, crossed. All of them, just look at them.
15 If you look at the B/C/S, too, they are crossed and other numbers
16 are written next to the crossed numbers, which actually makes this English
17 version not a true copy of the B/C/S.
18 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'm not focusing on this specific
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand, but I'm asking a question. I'm just
21 saying this English version is not a true copy of the B/C/S because there
22 are two numbers in the B/C/S, and whereas there's one in the English
23 version. That's all I'm saying, and I don't think the Court will be
24 inclined to admit this document unless it is corrected.
25 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, this was a document that was tendered by
1 the Prosecution and admitted yesterday.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Has it been?
3 MR. ROBSON: Yes, it's an exhibit.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: We will have to query that. But, anyway, are you
5 able to tender an explanation why the numbers are crossed over?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose that this was a previous
7 report; but in the course of two or three days, the figures were
8 different. However, the categories of engagement were the same.
9 Therefore, I presume that the previous report from the day before was
10 copied and then the old figures were crossed out and some additional
11 numbers written by hand, reflecting the situation on the day of this
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed.
14 MR. ROBSON: If we could bring up the next page in the English
15 version, please. The B/C/S version can remain as it is.
16 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, can you see a heading which states: "Entrance
17 and Exit Control Service checked IDs of the following persons."
18 Do you see that? It's in the middle of the page.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And below that, we can see a list of names, some of which appear
21 to be the names of military units. Am I right that saying that what we
22 can see here is a list of locations where the Military Police Battalion
23 carried out identity checks during the course of the 29th of August, 1995?
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a problem. The heading says "following
25 persons." Now you're saying "locations."
1 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'll explore that.
2 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, can you read out the heading, the second heading
3 down that we can see on the B/C/S document? It begins with "Kroz."
4 Can you explain what this section is?
5 A. "The Entrance and Exit Control Service checked the IDs of the
6 following number of persons," and then what follows are the facilities
7 secured by the MP Battalion, as well as four military police units in the
8 divisions and military police platoons within brigades.
9 This is, for example, the security system in item 1, in which the
10 3rd Corps Command is involved. A number of persons were asked to check --
11 to have their IDs checked. For example, there's a figure of 80 at Zening
12 facility secured by the MP Battalion. There were no IDs checked; at KP
13 Dom, 17 people; Rudar hotel, 12; and so on and so and so forth.
14 Q. So all or most of these locations are places at which subordinate
15 units of the 3rd Corps were located; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And would you agree with me that on this list ...
18 MR. ROBSON: And if we can scroll down in English, please.
19 Q. ... it shows that no identity checks were carried out at any
20 location held by the El Mujahedin Detachment; is that so?
21 A. There is no facility mentioned in this report where the
22 El Mujahedin Detachment was stationed.
23 MR. ROBSON: If we can just look in the next page in English, just
24 so Their Honours can see the entire section.
25 On this same issue, if we can look at Exhibit 874, please.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before you leave this exhibit, Mr. Wood, why
2 is this English version not identical to the B/C/S document?
3 MR. WOOD: Your Honour, I've been informed that we will get a
4 revision of the English, and we can submit that when it's complete.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that. It doesn't answer my question.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: The question is: Why is this one, why was it not
8 properly done in the first place?
9 MR. WOOD: I can't answer that, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: What do you want us to do with this exhibit now?
11 MR. WOOD: Well, I believe it's already been admitted; and as I
12 indicated, the Prosecution will submit a final translation of this
13 document. I see that it does say "Draft translation." We will submit
14 that as soon as a final translation is available.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 Yes, Mr. Robson.
17 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have another question that I
18 would like to ask to the Prosecution.
19 Yesterday, did we have a look at those pages where all these
20 numbers are, or did we see other pages of that document?
21 MR. WOOD: I directed the witness's attention to other pages of
22 this document, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Well, it means that next time,
24 when a whole document is tendered into evidence, we'll have to check the
25 whole document and check whether both versions are identical.
1 Thank you.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge.
3 Yes, Mr. Robson.
4 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, I've asked to turn to Exhibit 874. I
5 believe it may be a document that is under seal.
6 I'm not going to be referring to anything that's confidential; but
7 if the Court would wish us to go into private session, then we can do so.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry.
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you want to go into private session? I don't
13 know what questions you're going to ask, sir.
14 MR. ROBSON: It's certainly not going to be anything confidential;
15 but I can see the Registrar is concerned, so, yes, please, let's go into
16 private session.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
18 [Private session]
11 Page 6095 redacted. Private session
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
1 MR. ROBSON: 876.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are we in open session?
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
5 You may proceed, Mr. Robson.
6 MR. ROBSON: Thank you, Your Honour. I'm just waiting for the
7 document to appear on the screen.
8 The document is the correct one in English, but I think it's the
9 next page in the B/C/S. Thank you.
10 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, we saw this document yesterday. It's dated the
11 19th of October, 1995, and it has the heading: "Hand-over of members of
12 the so-called 'VRS' from Detachment El Mujahedin." Do you see that?
13 A. Yes, I see it.
14 MR. ROBSON: Just scroll down in the English version.
15 Q. We can see from this document that one of the persons that signed
16 it was Zakir Alispahic; is that so?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, this is a document of the 3rd Military Police Battalion, and
19 what it states in the first paragraph is: "On the 29th of September,
20 1995, based on an agreement with the Security Body of the El Mujahedin
21 Detachment, 3rd Battalion of Military Police took over ten members of the
22 so-called 'VRS.'"
23 Do you see that?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. So this document speaks of an agreement. If the El Mujahedin
1 Detachment had a security organ that was properly established within the
2 professional line of command in the security chain of the ARBiH, would you
3 agree that there would be no need for any agreement?
4 A. In a proper command-and-control system, there is an order, not an
6 Q. Exactly. So if the El Mujahedin Detachment fell properly within
7 the command-and-control system, then a superior command would simply order
8 the El Mujahedin Detachment to hand over these Serb detainees; is that
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. This document suggests that there was some process of negotiation
12 taking place. Would you agree that this document suggests that the
13 relationship between the El Mujahedin Detachment and the 3rd Military
14 Police Battalion -- or the 3rd Corps, I should say, was one of
15 cooperation, rather than one of a superior/subordinate relationship?
16 A. Any detachment or military police battalion could not be in a
17 superior/subordinate relationship. But if the Corps Command had issued an
18 order to the El Mujahedin or to the MP Battalion, then it would have to
19 say in this document: "Based on the order of the 3rd Corps, the hand-over
20 was executed," and so on and so forth. So the MP Battalion could not
21 issue orders to any detachment, but the Corps Command could.
22 Q. And from the document --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. I would like to understand this answer.
24 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I was just going to elaborate, and
25 please feel free to expand after I've asked the question.
1 Q. So the Military Police Battalion could not have issued any orders
2 to the El Mujahedin Detachment. That's clear. But from this document --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: That is not clear to me. That is not clear to me.
4 MR. ROBSON:
5 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, are you able to clarify your earlier answer?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe, first of all, let me raise the question I
7 wanted to raise with the previous answer first.
8 You're saying, sir, "any detachment or military police battalion
9 could not be in a superior/subordinate relationship." Do I understand
10 that your military police battalion was not in a superior/subordinate
11 relationship within the army?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. You do read English? Can you see the answer
14 at line 18 of page 43 what it says?
15 You are recorded as having said, "any detachment or military
16 police battalion could not be in a hand-over was executed," suggesting
17 that your unit was also not in a superior/subordinate relationship.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was probably not specific enough.
19 The Military Police Battalion within the B and H Army composition
20 could not order any other formation which was also within the B and H Army
21 to take any steps. It had authority -- it went along the vertical line.
22 The Corps Command that -- that line went from the Corps Command to the
23 Military Police Battalion, and then towards other units of the corps as
25 I'm speaking about the situation when I, as the battalion
1 commander of the military police, could not order anyone within the system
2 except my direct subordinate -- subordinates to undertake certain steps.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: But to my question: Do I understand you to say
4 that the Military Police Battalion stood in a superior/subordinate
5 relationship within the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: That corrects that problem.
8 You may proceed.
9 MR. ROBSON:
10 Q. And from this document, we cannot see that any superior unit has
11 ordered the El Mujahedin to hand over the Serb detainees; instead, it
12 talks about the process of agreement.
13 As I understood your evidence earlier, if the El Mujahedin
14 Detachment had been properly within the command-and-control system, you
15 could have expected to see here something saying: Based on the order of
16 the superior unit, the El Mujahedin Detachment was ordered to hand over
17 the Serb detainees. Is that correct?
18 A. It's correct. Mr. Alispahic did have the order -- actually, if he
19 did have the order, then at the top of the document Mr. Alispahic would
20 have to note that this was done on the basis of an order and not on the
21 basis of an agreement.
22 Q. Okay. While we're on this document --
23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] My apologies, but there's still
24 some confusion in my mind.
25 From the answer given from the witness, from the answer that you
1 gave, sir, to Judge Moloto, I understood that the 3rd Battalion of
2 Military Police could not issue orders to the El Mujahedin Detachment, and
3 that the orders should come from the 3rd Corps commander. Did I
4 understand you well?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. You understood me
7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Consequently, in the relationship
8 between the security organ of the El Mujahedin Detachment and the 3rd
9 Battalion of the Military Police, it would have been normal to have an
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Talks and agreements, yes.
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Microphone not activated]
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone, please, Your
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Microphone, Judge.
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Could you please repeat your
17 answer, Witness, please?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the security organ, while the
19 unit and the Military Police Battalion would talk about and agree on
20 certain activities.
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson, how much longer are you still going to
24 MR. ROBSON: Just about ten to 15 minutes.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 MR. ROBSON: I anticipate about ten or 15 minutes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're virtually two hours against the
3 Prosecution's one hour 20 minutes.
4 MR. ROBSON: I'll be as brief as I can.
5 Q. So, Mr. Mujezinovic, if I can just clarify that.
6 If we can put the El Mujahedin Detachment to one side, and if we
7 talked about another detachment falling below the 3rd Corps, I may be
8 speaking hypothetically here, the other detachment having a security
9 organ, it's right, isn't it, that through the professional line of
10 reporting, the Military Security Service of the 3rd Corps could order the
11 security organ of that other detachment to carry out certain actions. Am
12 I right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So there wouldn't be any process of talking or agreement between
15 the 3rd Corps Military Security Service and the security organ of that
16 other detachment?
17 A. No, there wouldn't. The Military Security Service is a superior
18 organ, and in that case can issue an order both to that unit's security
19 organ or to the Military Police Battalion.
20 Q. So based on what you've just said, the Military Security Service
21 could issue an order. In this document here that talks about the
22 El Mujahedin, there is no process of ordering the El Mujahedin to hand
23 over, is there? Would you agree that this is unusual?
24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'm sorry once again, but I'm
25 still having trouble understanding.
1 You can't go from a relationship between two organs, on the one
2 hand, a unit, and, on the other hand, the Military Police Battalion, you
3 can't move from that to a relationship between other entities, the unit,
4 on the one hand, and the Military Security Service, because the last two
5 organs are different from the first two.
6 So please, Mr. Robson, so that the Chamber can understand and so
7 as to avoid any confusion, could you please ask questions while talking
8 about the same kind of relationship at the same level, please.
9 To clarify what I've just said: Here, we're not talking about the
10 Military Security Service; we are talking about the Military Police
11 Battalion. So please remain focused on the same organs and on the same
13 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'm just picking up from where the
14 witness last gave us his answer. He stated that the Military Security
15 Service of the 3rd Corps could issue an order through the professional
16 lines to the security organ within a subordinate detachment, at least
17 that's how I understood his testimony.
18 What I am asking him is that: If the El Mujahedin Detachment had
19 been correctly within the system of reporting, let's call it, below the
20 3rd Corps, then similarly the Military Security Service of the 3rd Corps
21 could have issued an order directly to the security organ of the
22 El Mujahedin Detachment.
23 That's what I'm trying to clarify, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I don't agree with you. If you
25 allow, Mr. Robson, I will turn directly to the witness and ask him a
2 Mr. Robson presented an assumption to you, and he talked about the
3 relationship between one unit and the Military Security Service; and on
4 the basis of your testimony, I think it appears clearly that the military
5 security organ of the unit, including the detachment, is subordinated to
6 the military security organ at the highest level. That I understood.
7 However, I still have a problem, because here in that document, we
8 are talking about another relationship, a relationship between a unit, to
9 be more specific the El Mujahedin Detachment, and the Military Police
10 Battalion. Therefore, as regards the assumption presented to you by
11 Mr. Robson as regards a different unit, i.e., not the El Mujahedin
12 Detachment but another unit belonging to your army, I would like to know
13 if the security organ of the unit could receive an order from the Military
14 Police Battalion.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 MR. ROBSON:
18 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, if I can ask you again, this document speaks of a
19 security body of the El Mujahedin Detachment. You have told us that the
20 Military Security Service of the 3rd Corps had the ability to issue orders
21 directly to subordinate units through the professional line.
22 My question is: If the El Mujahedin Detachment had been
23 functioning as a regular unit of the ARBiH, could the Military Security
24 Service organ have issued an order to the security body of the
25 El Mujahedin Detachment and simply ordered them to hand over these Serb
2 A. Yes. The security organ of the 3rd Corps could, through the
3 command-and-control system, issue an order to the security organ of the
4 detachment to hand over the prisoners of war.
5 Q. And in such a situation, there would not be any need for any
6 agreement to take place; is that right?
7 A. An agreement within the command-and-control system of an army?
8 Well, there shouldn't be one.
9 Q. Just before we leave this document, I have a quick question for
11 The document talks about the hand-over of members of the VRS and
12 that the hand-over took place on the 29th of September, 1995.
13 Can you explain for us why the document bears the date the 19th of
14 October, 1995? Would I be right in saying that you would expect the hand
15 over document to be signed contemporaneously at the time and date that the
16 hand-over actually occurred?
17 A. An integral element of the hand-over should be a list of the
18 persons handed over, which should be kept by both sides. I cannot comment
19 on the difference between the dates, since I know nothing about that.
20 Q. Would it be usual for a hand-over document to be prepared on the
21 day that the hand-over actually takes place?
22 A. Yes, that is standard procedure.
23 Q. So we could have expected that the date at the top of this
24 document would have been the 29th of September, 1995; is that so?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Are you aware of any situations where members of the military
2 police subsequently returned back to a place or unit where a hand-over
3 occurred for -- to sign a retrospective hand-over document?
4 A. No, I don't remember any such thing.
5 MR. ROBSON: I'll move on to a new issue and try and deal with
6 this as quickly as possible.
7 Q. Would you agree with me that during the war in Central Bosnia,
8 there were a lot of men from countries outside of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
9 such as from North African countries, Turkey, the Middle East, and other
11 A. I agree.
12 Q. And was it common for these men to be collectively referred to
13 as "Arabs"?
14 A. It was a common term used by various people because they more or
15 less looked alike.
16 Q. Some of these men from foreign countries would work in Central
17 Bosnia for humanitarian organisations and other organisations as well; is
18 that right?
19 A. Yes. In Central Bosnia, there were several organisations within
20 which a number of foreign citizens worked.
21 Q. And would you agree that apart from the El Mujahedin Detachment,
22 there were other Mujahedin groups that existed in Central Bosnia?
23 A. As far as I can recall, there were.
24 Q. Do you recall where any of those other Mujahedin groups were
1 A. I don't know any specific details since I wasn't there, but I
2 heard of some parts of Travnik, towards the area of the 7th Corps, there
3 were some.
4 Q. And is it right that sometimes, if a person gave a report to the
5 civilian police that a crime had been committed by an Arab, the civilian
6 police would often simply say that the crime had been committed by a
7 member of the El Mujahedin Detachment, without carrying out any further
9 MR. WOOD: Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Wood.
11 MR. WOOD: I'll have to object to that. Mr. Robson is asking
12 this -- a question of this witness for which he has no professed
13 competency to answer. He's asking about the civilian police, if the
14 civilian police discovered something, they would have reported it a
15 specific way. This witness is a military police officer. I don't believe
16 that he would have direct knowledge about this, and I believe that any
17 answer he would give in that regard would be irrelevant.
18 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, perhaps I can clarify that with the
19 witness. I certainly would not ask him to speculate. I'm only asking him
20 to answer based on his knowledge.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: But I do think you are asking a speculative
23 MR. ROBSON: Okay.
24 Q. As a member of the -- as the commander of the 3rd Military Police
25 Battalion, did you have any dealings with the civilian police in Central
2 A. Yes, we did.
3 Q. Did you ever receive information from the civilian police about
4 Mujahedin members?
5 A. I think I saw a note somewhere in which a theft was reported. The
6 civilian police forwarded it to us for further processing, since the
7 perpetrators were members of the El Mujahedin Detachment.
8 Often, such information was not verified, since the easiest thing
9 was to merely state that someone was a member of this and that military
10 formation so as to avoid their further authority in the matter, without
11 corroborating anything by any documents which would serve to prove that
12 the given person was a member of a unit.
13 Q. And focusing on the members of the Military Police Battalion,
14 again, would military police officers, if they received information that a
15 crime had been committed by an Arab or a foreigner, would they often
16 simply say it was committed by a member of the El Mujahedin Detachment,
17 without carrying out any further inquiries?
18 A. Members of the Military Police Battalion, first and foremost, on
19 the spot had to establish the circumstances under which the crime had been
20 committed. They were also supposed to conduct eyewitness interviews and
21 to try and determine the identity of the perpetrators by trying to gain
22 certain information on how those people looked, behaved, and similar; and
23 then to follow up that investigation by trying, if possible, to establish
24 whether that person or persons were members of the El Mujahedin
25 Detachment, or any other unit for that matter.
1 In the final stage, provided all this has been established, if
2 that person was indeed a member of the army, then legal steps are taken.
3 Q. And sometimes was it -- let me show you a document that the
4 Prosecution used yesterday.
5 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, it's P1990.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's not an exhibit?
7 MR. ROBSON: It's Exhibit 870.
8 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, this document, when it appears, it's an official
9 record dated the 19th of March, 1995, from the Military Police 3rd
10 Battalion, and it refers to a person by the name of Dragutin Botic.
11 Can you remember this document from yesterday?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. What we can see from this document is that the 3rd Military Police
14 Battalion was summoned to the premises of the El Mujahedin Detachment, and
15 that was in response to a request for assistance from the detachment
16 itself; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, it is.
18 Q. We can see that the man mentioned, Dragutin Botic, had been
19 created problems for the detachment and that the Military Police Battalion
20 took him away.
21 Now, if we look at paragraph 2, can you confirm that when the
22 Military Police Battalion took Mr. Botic away, they recorded the physical
23 condition that they found him in, didn't they? We can see that they
24 recorded the injuries that he had to his face?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. So does it follow from this that in such a situation, when persons
2 were handed over to the military police, it was common practice for the
3 military police to record the physical state of the person that they took
4 over; and if they saw injuries on the person, they would record that on a
6 A. Yes, it is a duty.
7 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, this document can be put away.
8 If we can briefly turn to P2705.
9 While we're waiting for the document, I can explain that this is a
10 daily report of the 3rd Police Battalion, dated the 7th of October, 1995,
11 and it's sent to the -- it was sent to the Military Security Service of
12 the 3rd Corps.
13 If we can just turn to the last page in the B/C/S version.
14 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, we've seen a number of these reports now. Can
15 you confirm that that is your name and signature at the bottom of this
17 A. It is my name, but the signature is not mine.
18 Q. Has somebody signed the document for you?
19 A. Yes. The person who was authorised to sign on behalf of the
20 commander, Dzemal Muharemovic, he was the commander of the logistics
22 Q. Okay.
23 MR. ROBSON: What I'm interested in, in this document, is page
24 number 5 in the English version, and in the B/C/S I believe it might be
25 page number 3. It's page number 2. I apologise. If it can be brought
1 down in the B/C/S.
2 Q. Do you see there a heading which states -- well, perhaps you can
3 read out for us what the heading says exactly.
4 A. "Engagement of desk officers of the 3rd Battalion of the Military
6 Q. Now, paragraph C, can you confirm that what this talks about is
7 that the Zenica military prosecutor received documents in connection with
8 criminal proceedings of the 23rd of September, 1995, which the 3rd
9 Military Police Battalion instituted against Sefik Bijelo, a member of the
10 El Mujahedin Detachment; is that correct?
11 A. Yes. It is clear from this portion of the report.
12 Q. So from this document, can we conclude that in October 1995, the
13 3rd Military Police Battalion did submit at least one criminal report
14 against members of the El Mujahedin Detachment to a competent military
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, if this document could please be
18 admitted into evidence.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
20 please be given an exhibit number.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 880.
22 MR. ROBSON: And if we could refer now to Exhibit 872.
23 While we're waiting for the document to appear, if I could explain
24 that the document we're about to see is a report from the 3rd Military
25 Police Battalion to the Military Security Service of the 3rd Corps, dated
1 the 7th of September, 1995.
2 If we can just scroll to the bottom of the page in the B/C/S
3 version, and if we can go to the second page, please, to ascertain the
5 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, we can see that it bears your name. Is that your
7 A. No, it's not.
8 Q. Do you know who signed the document for you?
9 A. Commander of the Logistics Company, Dzemal Muharemovic.
10 MR. ROBSON: And if we can return to the first page, please.
11 Q. This report refers to members of the El Mujahedin Detachment. It
12 refers to criminal acts that they are purported to have carried out.
13 Are you able to explain, if there was information that criminal
14 offences had been carried out by members of the El Mujahedin Detachment,
15 and information about their identities were known, were steps taken to
16 investigate further and arrest these members of the El Mujahedin
18 A. Judging by the document I have before me, I can tell you that this
19 is an -- this is information rather than a report. It involves things and
20 acts committed within the area of responsibility of the 7th Corps.
21 The purpose of forwarding the information was to coordinate the
22 activities with the security sector of the 3rd Corps. That means that the
23 MP Battalion did not have territorial jurisdiction or competence for this
24 particular situation; therefore, they asked that the military security
25 sector of the 3rd Corps, via the security service of the 7th Corps, that
1 they intervene in order to establish who the perpetrators of the acts
2 mentioned here are.
3 Q. So from this document, we are unable to tell whether or not
4 further steps were taken to investigate and arrest the persons mentioned
5 within this report?
6 A. Based on this document, I can't tell you that.
7 MR. ROBSON: Okay. If we can put this document away, and if I can
8 turn to events in September 1995.
9 Q. Can you confirm that at no point on the 11th of September, 1995,
10 or any other date, did you receive a call from or information from the
11 328th Brigade that your military police unit should come and collect
12 prisoners of war?
13 A. No. There was no information, order, or call.
14 Q. Can you also confirm that you did not receive information from any
15 source that members of the El Mujahedin Detachment had been involved in
16 serious crimes during the Ozren-Vozuca action in September 1995?
17 A. I did not receive a single piece of information of that nature.
18 Q. Now, according to what you told the Office of the Prosecution when
19 you were interviewed on the 6th of November of 2007, very recently - and
20 this is at paragraph 65 - you stated: "I must say that I did not have any
21 information about prisoners of war being mistreated in the camp of the El
22 Mujahedin Detachment."
23 Do you remember saying that?
24 A. I do remember having said that, and I stand by it.
25 Q. And we've seen, from at least one document and today just a moment
1 ago, that criminal charges have or had been filed against members of the
2 El Mujahedin Detachment.
3 Can we conclude that if you had received information that members
4 of the El Mujahedin Detachment had been involved in serious criminal acts,
5 you would have taken steps to investigate the matter and file a criminal
6 report against them?
7 A. Had I received such information, first of all, I'd inform the
8 chief of security of the 3rd Corps, and I believe we would coordinate our
9 activities from that point onwards.
10 Q. Very briefly, I want to ask you about Maline and Bikosi, because
11 yesterday the Prosecutor asked you if an investigation was carried out
12 into events in the village of Maline/Bikosi.
13 My question is: If an investigation had been carried out by a
14 unit subordinate to you into events occurring at those locations, you
15 would not necessarily know about such an investigation, would you?
16 A. If it was my direct subordinate, that unit, that is, I would have
17 to know about it, not in other cases [as interpreted].
18 MR. ROBSON: I'm told that the transcript didn't capture your
19 answer correctly.
20 Q. Did you say: If it was not a direct subordinate, you would not
21 have to know about it?
22 A. That's right. If it is a directly subordinated unit, I have to
23 know about it; if it's not, then, of course, I don't have to.
24 Q. And if an investigation into events in Maline/Bikosi had been
25 carried out by the Military Security Service, rather than the military
1 police, again you didn't have to know about such an investigation?
2 A. No.
3 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, no further questions. Thank you for
4 the additional time.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
6 Mr. Wood.
7 MR. WOOD: If the witness could be shown Exhibit 867 again,
9 Re-examination by Mr. Wood:
10 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, a question was put to you about the distribution
11 list that we see at the bottom of the first page there, directly adjacent
12 to your signature.
13 Do you see "the 328th Brigade" on this distribution list?
14 A. No, I don't.
15 Q. Do you see "the 329th Brigade" on this distribution list?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Do you know why those units wouldn't have received this document
18 as well?
19 A. I don't. My signature was placed here to confirm the authenticity
20 rather than to authorise the text.
21 MR. WOOD: I would like to bring another document up, Your Honour.
22 Given the time, it might be appropriate to just do this after the
23 break. I see it's around noon already.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
25 We'll take a break and come back at half past 12.00.
1 Court adjourned.
2 --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Wood.
5 MR. WOOD: On reflection, Your Honour, I've come to the conclusion
6 that the Prosecution has no further questions at this time.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 Questioned by the Court:
10 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 Witness, I would simply like to ask you if you could confirm
12 whether I have understood correctly, whether the El Mujahedin Detachment
13 did not have a security organ, a military security organ, or did the
14 El Mujahedin Detachment have such an organ?
15 A. I cannot state with certainty that it did have an organ; but
16 according to establishment, it should definitely have had a security
18 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] And did the El Mujahedin
19 Detachment have a military police service?
20 A. No.
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you for your answer.
22 And now I would like to have a better understanding with regard to
23 the chain of command and control with regard to possible violations,
24 because here we are dealing with simple allegations, and I emphasise,
25 allegations of violations of these various rules, rules that we looked at
1 this morning that seemed quite complete, and, well, especially during a
2 period of war there is a significant risk that such rules not be complied
4 If a subordinate unit did not fulfill its duties, its obligations
5 to investigate, for example, to verify and to control its soldiers,
6 namely, the command of the unit with regard to his subordinates, again
7 within the unit, whose duty was it to take steps should this happen?
8 A. The security organs were the first that needed to point out the
9 fact that certain -- a certain unit was not sanctioning violations or
10 certain acts; and on that basis, the security service would need to
11 compile all the information, and, then, along the line of command, insist
12 that the commands take measures in terms of punishing the perpetrators.
13 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So if I've understood you
14 correctly, if I followed correctly the examination and cross-examination,
15 this went up to the command -- the commander of the 3rd Corps, this line
16 of command and control. We looked at some of the orders, and now I'm
17 interested in some of the possible omissions.
18 With regard to such omissions, could we go all the way up to the
19 line of command and control, in fact higher up than the 3rd Corps?
20 A. I really wouldn't know that, because the level that I was at
21 practically ended with the 3rd Corps commander.
22 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you, and I have one last
23 point of clarification.
24 Witness, you, yourself personally, did you have a duty to
25 investigate whenever a crime was notified to you, when you were informed
1 of a crime that had been committed, to investigate simply on the basis of
2 rumours; in other words, notice of this crime or information about this
3 crime did not come from an official source?
4 A. In the eventuality that certain information was acquired about a
5 committed violation, it was my duty to make an Official Note and inform
6 the Military Security Service of the 3rd Corps about this.
7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes. But what I'm interested in
8 is knowing whether, in order for you to begin an inquiry or an
9 investigation, did the information have to come from an official source or
10 was it enough for the information to come from any source, whatever
11 source, even if it was not official, even if there were only rumours, in
13 A. Exclusively from an official source.
14 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge.
16 Now, sir, can I just find out from you, what kind of misdemeanor
17 or -- let me back off.
18 How would you categorize a failure or refusal to hand over
19 prisoners of war by a unit? Would you categorize that as something that
20 calls for disciplinary action or would you categorize that as a crime?
21 A. If it was a strict refusal of an order, then in any case it would
22 be categorized as a criminal offence. If a unit refused and there was an
23 order that it had to carry out, then it would be a criminal offence
24 categorized as a refusal to carry out an order.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, if it was reported to you, that is, your unit,
1 that a particular unit is refusing to do so, what steps will you take?
2 A. The principle is the same again; meaning, inform the chief of the
3 3rd Corps Military Security Service, ask him for further instructions, in
4 terms of taking measures, because the military police, or specifically the
5 MP Battalion, did not have the authority to enter the composition of a
6 different unit and carry out, thereby, any investigations or other
7 actions, without having an order for that from the Military Security
8 Service of the 3rd Corps.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I saw this morning, on your rules and duties and
10 tasks, that both the Military Police Battalion and the security services
11 organ had the right, if a member of the army commits a crime, to arrest
12 him, and you did tell us that you didn't need anybody else's permission to
13 do so, didn't you?
14 A. Yes. But the rule states that if at the point of time when the
15 act was committed, or according to absolute information that the person
16 did carry out said criminal offence, we established that the military
17 police is authorised to carry out the arrest or to submit a report.
18 So the military police would find a person at a certain location
19 carrying out a criminal act, then they would have the authority to arrest
20 him, hand him over to the prosecutor whose jurisdiction that was, and they
21 would also have the right to submit a report or file a report.
22 But to enter a unit and then carry out an investigation without
23 the chief of the security service having issued an order for that first,
24 or approved the security organ of that unit to allow the entry to the
25 members of the military police, without that, without those steps, this
1 would not be possible.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, sir, I am finding your answer very difficult
3 to understand. I'm putting to you a situation where a unit refuses.
4 Now, you're telling me that you need to get an order from a
5 superior, ordering the person who's refusing to allow you. He's refusing.
6 He's being obstinate. You have to make sure that law and order is
8 A. Yes, absolutely. Law must be observed, but refusal of an order
9 has to be based on law or an order.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, this person just says, "I refuse."
11 A. But he didn't refuse that to me. I don't know. I never had --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's why I'm asking you, sir, what do you do?
13 You get that report. What would you do? Surely, from the answer you've
14 given, I can see two possibilities. Well, I see two possibilities coming
15 from the answer you gave and the way I understood your tasks and duties
16 this morning.
17 The way I understood your tasks and duties this morning, you don't
18 need anybody's order, you can go and investigate, and arrest. But you are
19 saying, in your answer, you would need an order from a superior.
20 I would expect you to say, "If I got that notice, I would approach
21 my superior for an order to enable me to go and do the search," wouldn't
22 you. Wouldn't you do that? Wasn't that what you ought to do?
23 A. That is what I said.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: But you're saying you can't do that without an
25 order coming up, you know, as if the order must just come. But isn't it
1 incumbent upon you to go and ask for that order, if indeed you must get
3 A. If I have the information, yes, then it's up to me to request such
4 an order.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: And if subordinate units then don't report to you,
6 because according to what you told us, you never received any report of
7 the El Mujahedin Detachment breaking the law, did I hear you correctly in
8 your evidence?
9 A. Yes.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: And now we have heard evidence that there are some
11 times when they have refused to hand over POWs and handed them over much
12 later, and the surprising thing is that you say you never received this
14 A. In the chain of command, we didn't have the option of receiving
15 information like that. The Military Security Service, along its own line,
16 practically had that information, in terms of capture, detention, and all
17 the other activities.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: And based on the rules and regulations that we saw
19 this morning that govern them, would they also then have the duty to go
20 and investigate under those circumstances and arrest the person who was
21 refusing to hand over?
22 A. Yes, they did have that duty.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: And if a subordinate unit did not carry out that,
24 let's say they go and ask for POWs and the POWs are not handed over and
25 they say, "There's nothing we can do," and they leave it there, how would
1 you categorize that behaviour by that subordinate unit that doesn't carry
2 the matter any further?
3 A. As disobedience, non-observance of orders.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
5 Any questions, Mr. Wood?
6 MR. WOOD: No, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson?
8 MR. ROBSON: Just one, Your Honour.
9 Further cross-examination by Mr. Robson:
10 Q. As I understand your evidence, Mr. Mujezinovic - and this is in
11 respect of a question by Judge Lattanzi - in theory, according to
12 establishment, the El Mujahedin should have had a security organ; however,
13 is it the case that, in fact, you don't know whether or not that
14 detachment had such a security organ?
15 A. I don't know, and I personally never had any contacts with anyone
16 from the El Mujahedin Detachment, so I really cannot say if there was a
17 security organ there.
18 MR. ROBSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 Thank you, sir. That brings us to the end of your testimony.
21 Thank you so much for coming to testify. I hope you have a pleasant trip
22 back home.
23 You are now excused, and you may stand down. Travel well.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Wood.
2 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution next calls Mr. Muris Hadziselimovic.
3 [The witness entered court]
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please make the declaration.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
6 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
7 WITNESS: MURIS HADZISELIMOVIC
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
10 Good afternoon, sir. You may be seated.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon. Thank you.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
13 Yes, Mr. Wood.
14 Examination by Mr. Wood:
15 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Hadziselimovic. Could you please tell the
16 Court your profession?
17 A. Good afternoon. I am Muris Hadziselimovic. At the moment, I'm
18 the chief prosecutor in the Cantonal Prosecutor's Office of the
19 Zenica-Doboj Canton.
20 Q. Can the Trial Chamber assume from that, then, sir, that you're
21 trained as a lawyer?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you please tell the Trial Chamber the training you received,
24 the legal training?
25 A. I completed law school in Banja Luka.
1 Q. And what year was that, sir, if you don't mind saying?
2 A. In December 1984.
3 Q. Thank you, sir.
4 You told the Trial Chamber you're currently the chief prosecutor
5 at the Zenica-Doboj Cantonal Prosecutor's Office. What job did you have
6 in 1993, sir?
7 A. In 1993, March 1st, I assumed the duty of deputy prosecutor in the
8 Zenica District Military Prosecutor's Office; and that entire year, I
9 carried out those duties until 1996.
10 Q. And what job did you hold starting in 1996?
11 A. First, I was deputy of the Higher Public Prosecution Office in
12 Zenica; and then from mid 1997, I was deputy municipal public prosecutor
13 in Zenica.
14 Q. And after that, sir, starting in 1997?
15 A. From 2001, I was the municipal public prosecutor in Zenica, until
16 the 22nd of March, 2004, when I was appointed to the duties that I am
17 currently carrying out.
18 Q. And just briefly, sir, could you explain to the Court, what are
19 your duties as the chief prosecutor of the Zenica-Doboj Cantonal
20 Prosecutor's Office now?
21 A. According to the Law on Criminal Procedure, I was the person
22 authorised to find out and prosecute perpetrators of criminal acts.
23 Together with me, I had two deputies in the prosecutor's office and 22
24 cantonal prosecutors. All of them had the option of representing me
25 before courts and in investigations before the prosecutor's office.
1 I was the chief of the prosecutor's office; and in that role, I
2 contacted all the organs, state and other organs, and I can also appear in
3 proceedings before courts.
4 Q. Now, I see that the way it's been translated, at least, you're
5 speaking in the past tense, that you were the person authorised and so on.
6 Just to clarify, you still hold this position, chief prosecutor;
7 is that correct?
8 A. Of course.
9 Q. Now, we've had some names of various courts appear in the
10 transcript here, and I wonder if you might explain to the Trial Chamber
11 what the Higher Public Prosecution Office is, where you were in 1997, and
12 the Zenica-Doboj Cantonal Prosecutor's Office, where you are now; that is
13 to say, what is the relationship between those two courts [sic]?
14 A. Courts or the prosecutor's offices? It's not clear.
15 Q. Courts -- I'm sorry, prosecutor's offices, yes.
16 A. The actual jurisdictions are practically the same. The Cantonal
17 Prosecutor's Office, within the current organisational system, has a
18 broader authority, while the district jurisdiction is almost the same. I
19 will try to explain that.
20 The Higher Public Prosecution Office in Zenica had local
21 jurisdiction for several municipalities, and the municipalities more or
22 less were Zenica, Zepce, Zavidovici, Maglaj, and a part of Tesanj; and
23 then Kakanj, Visoko, Breza, Travnik, a part of the Vitez Municipality,
24 Bugojno, Donji Vakuf, and Jajce. The actual jurisdiction was for graver
25 criminal acts, such as war crimes and homicides, or grave criminal acts
1 committed in relation to property.
2 The Cantonal Prosecutor's Office, according to the current
3 structure, organisation, and the law, has local jurisdiction over all of
4 these mentioned municipalities, just like the Higher Public Prosecution
5 Office, except for Travnik, Bugojno, Donji Vakuf, and Jajce.
6 As I said, the actual jurisdiction was much broader, because we
7 are the only ones who can prosecute perpetrators for all kinds of the
8 criminal acts that are laid down in the Criminal Code of the Federation of
9 Bosnia and Herzegovina.
10 Q. Is there such a thing now as the Higher Public Prosecution Office?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did that institute exist in 1993 and in 1995?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You mentioned that you were in the Zenica District Military
15 Prosecutor's Office in 1993. What was the territorial jurisdiction of the
16 Zenica District Military Prosecutor's Office and of the Zenica District
17 Military Court in 1993 and 1995?
18 A. It more or less coincided with the jurisdiction of the Higher
19 Public Prosecution Office or the Higher Court in Zenica, but I don't know
20 exactly. I'm not sure when the District Military Prosecutor's Office was
21 formed with its seat in Travnik, because from that point on those types of
22 cases were taken over by that prosecutor's office and the court in
23 Travnik. The rest, of course, the ones in the free territory, there was
24 the local or the territorial jurisdiction of the District Military
25 Prosecutor's Office.
1 Q. So speaking of --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry.
3 When you say "from that point," are you referring to time; and if
4 so, when? What is the time?
5 You said: "From that point on, those types of cases were taken
6 over by the prosecutor's office." Which point is this?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It does have to do with the point in
8 time, but I cannot tell you precisely as of what date it is. I don't know
9 whether it was in 1993 or 1994. That is why I cannot tell you what the
10 year was. However, I know that from that point on, cases were taken over
11 by the District Military Prosecutor's Office in Travnik.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
13 MR. WOOD:
14 Q. Speaking specifically of Zavidovici Municipality, in whose
15 territorial jurisdiction did Zavidovici Municipality fall in 1993 and
17 A. As regards local jurisdiction over Zavidovici Municipality, it was
18 possible that both the Municipal Public Prosecutor's office as well as the
19 Higher Public Prosecution Office be competent, as well as the Higher
20 Military Prosecutor's Office.
21 Q. Speaking exclusively of the District Military Prosecutor's Office
22 in 1993 and 1995, was Zavidovici Municipality within the territorial
23 jurisdiction of the Zenica District Military Prosecutor's Office?
24 A. Yes, it was.
25 MR. WOOD: If I could have the witness shown, please --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before he gets shown something, you sort of
2 alluded to the fact that at least three courts, the Municipal Public
3 Prosecutor's Office, as well as the Higher Public Prosecution Office and
4 the Higher Military Prosecutor's office, had concurrent jurisdiction.
5 Are you talking of concurrent jurisdiction in terms of crimes or
6 in terms of area?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Territorially speaking, all of them
8 were competent. Their jurisdictions differed, though. That is why it
9 couldn't happen that they interfere with each other's jurisdictions.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: What was the difference in jurisdictions?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For example, the division of
12 jurisdictions between the Higher Public Prosecution Office and the
13 District Military Prosecutor's Office was in the fact -- or rather, in who
14 perpetrated a crime. If it is a serviceman, then it was under the
15 competence of the Military Prosecutor's Office who would institute
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: What do you mean by "servicemen"? Service in what?
18 Sorry. This is how the interpreter said it: "If it is a serviceman, then
19 it was under the competence of the Military Prosecutor's Office..."
20 Service in the municipality, service in the state, service in
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Servicemen as soldiers with the Army
23 of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In some cases --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Then you're saying, if it was a serviceman
2 in the army, it would fall under the Military Prosecutor's Office, right,
3 and then the others? Civilians would fall under the other courts?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, depending on the perpetrators.
5 MR. WOOD: If Your Honour is satisfied.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, please proceed.
7 MR. WOOD: If Exhibit 25 could be shown to the witness, I believe
8 this might help to illuminate this issue as well, Your Honour.
9 Q. And I want to draw your attention in particular to Article 6,
10 which is on page 2 of both.
11 If you could take a look at Article 6, please, Mr. Hadziselimovic,
12 does that describe the subject matter jurisdiction of the District
13 Military Prosecutor's Office -- I'm sorry, of the courts, that is?
14 A. That is correct. We have here the subject matter jurisdiction of
15 the courts, and it tallied with the subject matter jurisdiction for all of
16 the prosecutor's offices that were in existence.
17 Q. Other than the District Military Prosecutor's Office, was there
18 any other institution or organisation that had the competency to prosecute
19 crimes committed by military service members in 1993 and 1995?
20 A. District Military Prosecutor's Offices and the courts were the
21 only ones competent to establish the identity and prosecute perpetrators
22 of crimes, provided the perpetrators are soldiers, army members. There
23 was one exception, though, regulated by the law as well as by the
25 If a person is a member of the army, and if there is a civilian
1 involved as an accomplice, in that case the Higher Military Prosecutors
2 Office and the Higher Court were competent. That was the only exemption
3 from the general rule.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which higher court, high military court or just a
5 High Civilian Court?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was no higher military court.
7 The Higher Court or the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office.
8 MR. WOOD:
9 Q. Speaking more specifically about your time as a district military
10 prosecutor, could you please tell the Trial Chamber your primary duties as
11 district military prosecutor from 1993 until 1996?
12 A. The basic duty was to prosecute criminal offenders. In that
13 regard, we applied all possible procedural-legal issues. We could, for
14 example, initiate an investigation by applying for it to be opened. It
15 would be conducted by an investigative judge of the District Military
17 After that, or rather, once the investigation is completed, we
18 wouldn't have to make the so-called "prosecutor's decision." We could
19 abandon further investigation, or we could also choose to have an
20 indictment issued. Should that happen, the main hearing would be
21 scheduled immediately, and it was our duty to present the indictment
22 during the main hearing.
23 Once a judgement would be handed down by the Bench, we could
24 appeal their decision, and it was also one of our duties, or obligations
25 rather, or one of our competences, if you wish.
1 Q. Who was your superior or what was the title of your superior when
2 you were in the District Military Prosecutor's Office?
3 A. I was deputy district military prosecutor. My superior was the
4 district military prosecutor. That was his title.
5 Q. How many other deputies were in the office?
6 A. Throughout the existence of the District Military Prosecutor's
7 Office, there were four deputies; however, some people left, some people
8 came on board. Perhaps at a given point, there may have been only three,
9 and then four again. But, in any case, there were three to four deputy
10 prosecutors at any given time working on an equal footing.
11 Q. You said, sir, on page 75, at lines 23 and 24, that you could,
12 "for example, initiate an investigation by applying for it to be opened."
13 Was there any other way that investigations were opened or
14 conducted, independent of whether or not you asked for them to be opened?
15 A. According to the then law on criminal procedure, there was no
16 other way. The exclusive jurisdiction of the investigative judge was to
17 conduct investigations.
18 Q. What was the involvement of the military police or any police
19 authorities in this process?
20 A. Their role in a criminal proceedings was the so-called "pre-trial"
21 or rather, "pre-investigative" part of the proceedings. They would have
22 to conduct all investigative procedures. They would have to complete a
23 file, and send it to the competent district prosecutor's office.
24 Q. And when that file came in to the district prosecutor's office,
25 how in any way was it recorded?
1 A. Anything that would come in to the district prosecutor's office,
2 all correspondence that was delivered was registered. We had a registry.
3 Then the district military prosecutor would go through the mail
4 and the reports, and he would do the so-called "allocation." He would
5 decide on which type of books each of the items would be registered; and
6 then, again, that would be done by the registry office.
7 If there was a criminal report in question, they would put it in a
8 particular logbook, thus registering that report, and that would be the
9 end of the procedure.
10 Q. You mentioned that they would put it in a particular logbook. How
11 many logbooks did the District Military Prosecutor's Office in Zenica
13 A. There was only one logbook, but I don't know how many logbooks
14 have been used up during the time the district military -- the district
15 prosecutor's office was in existence.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a clarification on the previous answer you
17 gave, sir.
18 You said, "If there was a criminal report in question, they would
19 put it in a particular logbook, thus registering that report, and that
20 would be the end of the procedure."
21 Would it not be for you, then, to investigate and determine
22 whether to prosecute, or to go to the investigative judge to investigate
23 whether there is a case?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps you have
25 misunderstood me. I was merely talking about registering documents. The
1 procedure would then be that the district prosecutor would task a
2 particular deputy with a given number of cases, which then they would
3 process further.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. I just needed that to be clarified.
5 You may proceed.
6 MR. WOOD:
7 Q. What sort of data --
8 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Excuse me. I was just waiting
9 for the interpretation to be complete.
10 I'd like to remind you that there is a slight lag between the
11 English and the French.
12 I would like to put a question to the witness. Sir, did you have
13 an obligation to prosecute or was it only an option that you had?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I ask for a clarification? Does
15 it pertain to me, personally, as deputy, or to something else?
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] To the office as a whole, your
17 office, and I'm talking about the prosecutor's office, the military
18 prosecutor's office.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as each individual case goes,
20 each of the deputies that was tasked with a certain case had a freedom to
21 choose whether to prosecute further or whether he should state that either
22 there was no criminal offence or that it was not committed by that
23 particular person, and then the proceedings would cease.
24 Occasionally, consultation was needed with the district
25 prosecutor, since he was the person responsible for the overall
1 jurisdiction. It could happen that once we would notify the district
2 prosecutor, he would be dissatisfied with our decision, and then there
3 would be a discussion, during which he could say that his decision was
4 final; and if it was contrary to ours, he could order us to do what he
5 wanted us to.
6 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, but I wanted to ask
7 you something else.
8 If a suspect was still a suspect, if there were still suspicions,
9 would the District Military Prosecutor's Office be obliged to prosecute a
10 suspect or did it only have the ability to do so?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to say I fail to understand
12 your question fully. Could you please clarify?
13 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] On the basis of suspicions, and
14 when you continued to have suspicions, were you obliged to initiate
15 proceedings, or could you simply decide to not pursue the proceedings, to
16 bring them to an end? Did you have that option?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We acted in accordance with the law.
18 If there was a criminal offence committed, we would initiate a
20 If I understood correctly, well, I'll try to answer. If there is
21 a suspect against whom proceedings are instituted, and if that person is
22 still free and continues to commit crimes, I believe you asked me whether
23 we would be under an obligation to prosecute him. I have to tell you that
24 during that period, the prosecutor's office did not have the technical or
25 legal means to deal with the issue of detecting crimes. We would merely
1 follow up on criminal reports or reports of the military police, and even
2 the civilian police could submit their own report to us.
3 It means this: It was our duty to follow it up if there was a
4 criminal report or a report on a crime committed.
5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you. That does clear
6 things up, the last part, the last sentence of your answer.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Wood.
8 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Now, getting back to the criminal reports that are filed and the
10 logbook, could you please tell the Chamber what sort of data would be
11 recorded in the logbook when a criminal report would come in; that is,
12 come into the Zenica District Military Prosecutor's Office?
13 A. Let me try to delineate. The entry logbook would be the one
14 registering everything, all correspondence that would come to our office.
15 What was important was who sent it and when it was received. Based on the
16 prosecutor's decision and based on his allocation, it would then be
17 registered in a different logbook called "KT logbook," including all
18 information that would be found in the given criminal report.
19 If that is what you meant, I can tell you that each criminal
20 report would receive a number, a file number; also, first and last names
21 of suspects would be included; then the relevant legal law -- the relevant
22 article of the law and the crimes that the suspects are suspected of
23 having committed; then also the name of the victim, if there was any; the
24 time and place of the act.
25 Those were the columns important for the first round of
1 registration. That would include the data from the criminal reports. All
2 other data that would be registered would have to do with any activities
3 on the part of the prosecutor's office.
4 Q. You mentioned there was an entry logbook and there was a KT
5 logbook. Were there any other logbooks in use at the time?
6 A. Of course. The KT logbook would include criminal reports
7 submitted against adult perpetrators and identified adult perpetrators;
8 then there was a KTN logbook which would only refer to perpetrators which
9 had not been identified at the moment the criminal report was submitted;
10 then there was the KTA logbook, and this would include reports on an
11 event, but the perpetrator of which was unknown. At the outset, we
12 wouldn't know whether the act committed is indeed an offence.
13 Q. For the sake of clarity, then, were all criminal reports, received
14 from any agency, logged or recorded in one of these three logbooks: KT,
15 KTN, or KTA?
16 A. Yes. I can also tell you that there was a KTM logbook for minors;
17 however, there were very few. Minors were not military conscripts;
18 however, we had such a logbook as well. The criminal report would have to
19 be recorded in either of the books, in one of them.
20 Q. What about when results of an investigation came back from an
21 investigative judge, would those also be recorded in one of these
23 A. Certainly. It was the KT logbook.
24 Q. And if you could tell the Trial Chamber, please, why was it
25 important that this, these criminal reports and this particular data, be
1 recorded in this particular way?
2 A. It was our legal obligation to have all criminal reports
3 registered into the books, and it was also regulated by our internal
4 regulation. Everything received by the prosecutor's office had to be
6 Q. Mr. Hadziselimovic, what criminal codes were in effect in 1993 and
7 1995; that is, what criminal codes were you prosecuting under in 1993 and
9 A. It was the Criminal Code of the Republic of Bosnia and
10 Herzegovina, and the Criminal Law taken over from the Socialist Federal
11 Republic of Yugoslavia.
12 MR. WOOD: If we could bring up Exhibit number 2, please.
13 Q. Do you see that document in front of you, sir?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And looking at the first page of it, can you determine what
16 precisely this document is?
17 A. It's the Criminal Law of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and
18 Herzegovina, taken in 1992 by the Presidency, and it was applied as the
19 Criminal Code of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
20 Q. Did this Criminal Code include, for example, any war crimes?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Did this Criminal Code include any offences involving deaths or,
23 for example, murder?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. WOOD: If we can go to page 36 -- I'm sorry, page 22 of the
1 English, page 18 of the B/C/S, and in particular Article 36.
2 Q. Is this the statute under which you would prosecute a murder?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. WOOD: And this can be put away now, Your Honour.
5 If we could see Exhibit 3.
6 Q. Do you recognise what this document is, sir?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What is it?
9 A. It's the Criminal Code of the Socialist Federal Republic of
10 Yugoslavia, which, I repeat, under a decision of the Presidency of the
11 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was taken as the law in force.
12 Q. Were there any statutes in this Criminal Code involving war
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And can you recall generally what articles war crimes would cover
16 within this statute, this Criminal Code?
17 A. These articles from 141 to 149 or 150. I don't know exactly.
18 Q. So just to clarify, sir, these two criminal codes that I showed
19 you, they were both in effect concurrently in 1993 and 1995?
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. And these criminal codes would also have applied to military
23 A. Yes, of course.
24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Witness. Did you not
25 have a military criminal code?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We didn't.
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 MR. WOOD: If we could, in this document, go to page 69 in the
4 English, page 66 in the Bosnian. Scroll down to Article 142 in the
5 English, or perhaps go to the next page if that's necessary. I see it
7 Q. Now, we can see in Article 142 that this says: "War crimes
8 against the civilian population." Can you tell the Trial Chamber
9 generally, sir, what was the difference between a war crime that would
10 have been charged under Articles 142 to 149 of this Code and a murder that
11 would have been charged under the Criminal Code of the Republic of Bosnia
12 and Herzegovina?
13 A. The key thing or the way to differentiate is that for an act that
14 constituted a war crime, you could charge someone who committed that in a
15 specific time period, and for Bosnia and Herzegovina that was from the 1st
16 of January, 1991, until the signing of the Dayton Accords on the 22nd and
17 the 23rd of December, 1995. So somebody could be suspected of having
18 committed a war crime for that in any form in that period.
19 Secondly, an important fact was that these acts could mainly have
20 been perpetrated by military personnel, members of the army, of course
21 also by members of some other formations. Although in the articles
22 itself, this is not stated because maybe you can see who, in committing
23 the rules or violating the rules, so it's not specified. It doesn't say
24 military personnel committing these acts.
25 The practice was that such criminal acts could have been
1 perpetrated only by members of military formations, in the broadest sense
2 of the word. Of course, there were those who, as civilian officials,
3 could also have perpetrated such criminal acts.
4 The third important thing was that the citizens of those who had
5 been injured parties, who were either citizens or members of the injured
7 So these are the three categories under which it would be
8 determined if a specific act would be treated as a murder, or a war crime,
9 or a murder as part of the commission of a war crime.
10 Q. What, specifically, was important about the status of the victims
11 or the injured party in the determination of whether a crime was a war
13 A. Specifically, the fact that they were in a subordinate position in
14 the territory that was under the control of any military formation or
15 authority, civilian authority, if we're talking about the population of
16 different ethnicities or that was of a different ethnicity from those
17 actually executing the authority, and most frequently that was the case.
18 For example, the territory under the control of the Army of
19 Republika Srpska, what the significant thing here would be that there were
20 Bosnians or Croats there who could be the subjects of the perpetration of
21 a war crime. So we would have different ethnic groups involved here.
22 Q. Is ethnicity the only determining factor about whether something
23 would be a war crime?
24 A. No. It wasn't the only determining factor, but it was a crucial
25 factor. In the broadest sense, this was the civilian population which was
1 protected under the Geneva Conventions, which were being applied in Bosnia
2 and Herzegovina. So any acts or treatment in relation to them, if it
3 contravened the Geneva Conventions, would imply that this would be under
4 or covered by this article of the criminal law.
5 Q. You mentioned civilian population and the Geneva Convention. Did
6 that also apply to prisoners of war, for example?
7 A. Of course. I think that there was a decision by the Presidency of
8 the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where it was stated that all the
9 Geneva Conventions were to be applied in the territory of Bosnia and
10 Herzegovina, including those that referred to prisoners of war.
11 MR. WOOD: Mr. President, I'm at a position now where I was about
12 to explore this a little bit further by showing an additional document.
13 I see that it's 1343. I don't know if this is an appropriate time
14 for the Court to break. But I'm just thinking, the amount of time it
15 takes to load the document itself, we might not have time for the
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Unfortunately, we haven't finished with you, sir.
18 You'll have to come back on Tuesday, the 27th of November, at quarter past
19 2.00 in this same courtroom. Unfortunately, we are not going to be
20 sitting on Monday, so you'll have to come on Tuesday.
21 Court adjourned until to Tuesday.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 27th day of
24 November, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.