Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8698

 1                           Monday, 7 October 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around the

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, could you call the case please.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case number

 9     IT-04-75-T, the Prosecutor versus Goran Hadzic.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

11             May we have the appearances please, starting with the

12     Prosecution.

13             MR. STRINGER:  Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.  For

14     the Prosecution, Douglas Stringer, Matthew Olmsted, Sarah Clanton,

15     Thomas Laugel.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.  Mr. Zivanovic, for the Defence.

17             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  For the Defence of

18     Goran Hadzic, Zoran Zivanovic and Christopher Gosnell.

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.  Before we bring the witness in, there

20     are a few oral rulings.

21             First one, Trial Chamber is seized of the Prosecution motion

22     concerning MFI document P1641 filed on 17 September 2013.  The Defence

23     did not file a response to the motion within the required time-frame.

24     The Chamber considers that the Prosecution has now laid sufficient

25     foundation for MFI P1641 to be admitted into evidence.  Pursuant to


Page 8699

 1     Rules 54 and 89, the Chamber hereby grants the motion and the Registry

 2     shall take any necessary action to implement this decision.

 3             On September 18, 2013, the Chamber asked the Prosecution to

 4     consider whether Exhibit P2091, which had been admitted under seal,

 5     needed to be remain confidential.  Prosecution responded on the same day

 6     that it did not need to remain under seal.

 7             Does the Defence object to Exhibit P2091 being made public?

 8             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  No, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

10             The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to change the status of

11     Exhibit P2091 from confidential to public and to take all other necessary

12     and appropriate measures to implement this order.

13             And the last one.  On the 25th of September 2013, the Prosecution

14     requested the Trial Chamber's leave to add the exhibit list -- to the

15     exhibit list the 1977 Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia.  The

16     Prosecution avers that this document will assist Witness GH-169 in

17     explaining the various crimes that fell within the jurisdiction of the

18     SAO SBWS.  According to the Prosecution, it experienced difficulty

19     locating a copy of the document.

20             In the view of the Defence, no good cause has been established

21     for the addition of the document to the exhibit list at this late stage

22     of the proceedings because the 1977 Criminal Code of Serbia is readily

23     available from several different public sources.  The Defence also argues

24     that it would be prejudiced by allowing the document to be added to the

25     exhibit list.


Page 8700

 1             The Prosecution requests leave to file a reply.  In the proposed

 2     reply, the Prosecution argues that none of the public sources cited by

 3     the Defence contain a version of the 1977 Criminal Code as it existed in

 4     1991 with all the amendments up to but no further than 1991.

 5             The Trial Chamber is of the view that the Prosecution has not

 6     demonstrated good cause for the requested amendment.  Nor is the document

 7     of sufficient importance to justify the late addition.  The Trial Chamber

 8     therefore finds that it is not in the interests of justice to add the

 9     document to the Prosecution's exhibit list.

10             Accordingly, the Trial Chamber hereby grants the request to file

11     the reply and denies the Prosecution's motion to add the document to its

12     exhibit list.

13             The witness may be brought in.

14                           [The witness entered court]

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Good morning, Witness.  Thank you for coming --

16     thank you for the coming to The Hague to assist the Tribunal.

17             First of all, do you hear in a language you understand?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do.

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Olmsted, I suppose we have a pseudonym sheet

20     for the witness?

21             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Mr. President.  It's 65 ter 6494.

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

23             Mr. Witness, on the screen you will see an information sheet with

24     your name and date of birth.  Could you please tell us whether what is on

25     the sheet is correct?

 


Page 8701

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  It's correct.  Thank you very much.  You are

 3     about to make the solemn declaration by which witnesses commit themselves

 4     to tell the truth.  I have to point out to you that by doing so you

 5     expose yourself to the penalties of perjury should you give false or

 6     untruthful information to the Tribunal.

 7             Could I ask you now to make the solemn declaration.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  We cannot hear the witness.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Usher, is there a problem with the witness's

10     microphone?  The interpreters tell me that they cannot hear the witness.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Shall I repeat?

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yes, please.

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

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

15                           WITNESS:  GH-169

16                           [Witness answered through interpretation]

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you very much.  You may be seated.

18             Mr. Witness, as you have protective measures so as to conceal

19     your identity to the public, we will not call you by name.  I refer to

20     you by "Mr. Witness" or "Witness" or "sir" or whatever without calling

21     your name.  You understand?  That's for your own protection.

22             Mr. Olmsted, your witness.

23             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And at this time the

24     Prosecution tenders 65 ter 6494 into evidence under seal.

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted and marked.

 


Page 8702

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P3021 [Realtime transcript read in error

 2     "P2031"], under seal, Your Honours.

 3                           Examination by Mr. Olmsted:

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15             THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  We have no translation.  That's because the

17     interpreters can't hear.

18                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  The technicians will come and check what

20     is happening.  We'll wait a few minutes.

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness try again?

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Witness, could you say "test, test," into the

23     microphone?

24             THE WITNESS:  Test, test.

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  I don't think it works.

 


Page 8703

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  We can proceed, I think.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Olmsted, I'm told we can proceed.

 3             MR. OLMSTED:

 4        Q.   Good morning, sir.  Let's try this again.

 5        A.   Good morning.

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Olmsted, I don't know whether that is part of

 7     the problem, but this is a voice and face distortion so you should close

 8     your microphone when the witness is answering.

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you for reminder, Mr. President.

10        Q.   Sir, I first want to go over your background.

11             MR. OLMSTED:  So let's perhaps go into private session,

12     Your Honours.

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Private session, please.

14                           [Private session]

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)


Page 8704

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11 Pages 8704-8705 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 


Page 8706

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22                           [Open session]

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)


Page 8707

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12                           [Private session]

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)


Page 8708

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11 Pages 8708-8714 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 


Page 8715

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10                          [Open session]

11             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

12             MR. OLMSTED:

13        Q.   Sir, we're in open session, so please be careful with your

14     answers.

15             MR. OLMSTED:  If we could have on the screen L23; this is tab 4.

16        Q.   And what we have in front of us is the Law on Temporary

17     Jurisdiction of Courts, dated 9 October 1991.  Sir, are you familiar with

18     this law?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And we see there are basic courts for Vukovar and for

21     Beli Manastir.  Could you tell us what was the territorial jurisdiction

22     covered by those two basic courts?

23        A.   Territorial jurisdiction, well, basically the territory of

24     Baranja was covered by the basic court, and the basic court in Vukovar,

25     temporarily in Dalj, covered all the rest, Slavonia, Western Srem.  Later

 


Page 8716

 1     on, these were four municipalities that were established in that area.

 2        Q.   Just to clear up the record, which court had jurisdiction over

 3     crimes committed in Baranja?

 4        A.   The basic court in Beli Manastir.

 5        Q.   Now what was the criminal subject matter jurisdiction of the

 6     basic courts?

 7        A.   The basic courts have general jurisdiction, and they try all

 8     crimes where a sentence of a maximum of up to 10 years can be pronounced.

 9     All other jurisdiction is in the hands of the district courts, as they

10     were called in our previous system.

11        Q.   And unfortunately, I cannot show you any criminal codes at this

12     stage, but can you give us some examples of the crimes that would fall

13     within the jurisdiction of the basic court; in other words, crimes where

14     the sentences were up to a maximum of 10 years?

15        A.   Well, say, theft, minor bodily injury, grave bodily injury, but

16     without any qualification elements, for example, that death was not the

17     result.  And then traffic related accidents.

18        Q.   What about rape?

19        A.   Rape?  If there were no qualification elements, then that would

20     fall under the jurisdiction of the basic court.  If the rape resulted in

21     death or was carried out in a particularly humiliating way or if it

22     resulted in grave bodily injury, then it would be dealt with by the

23     higher court.

24        Q.   And what about voluntary manslaughter?

25        A.   Voluntary manslaughter would fall under the jurisdiction of the


Page 8717

 1     basic court.  If the prosecution would set out that way.  However, that

 2     happened very rarely, that the prosecutor would call a killing voluntary

 3     manslaughter from the start.  Usually that would refer to the end of the

 4     proceedings.  Usually, the prosecution would start out by asking for a

 5     maximum, and then only at the very end maybe it would turn out to be

 6     voluntary manslaughter, mitigating circumstances in terms of the

 7     indictment, but at the very end.  However, theoretically, it could happen

 8     that the prosecution would indict someone for voluntary manslaughter.  It

 9     would be dealt with by the basic court, or, rather, the municipal court

10     before the war.

11        Q.   And just one more example, if I may.  Aggravated theft.  Who had

12     subject matter jurisdiction over that crime?

13        A.   Aggravated theft also fell under the municipal courts, or,

14     rather, the basic courts.

15        Q.   If we can return to this law, it indicates that there was a

16     higher court with a temporary seat in Beli Manastir.  Can you tell us

17     what territorial jurisdiction did that higher court exercise?

18        A.   The higher court had jurisdiction over the entire territory of

19     Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem.

20        Q.   And you've already mentioned that this higher court had first

21     instance jurisdiction over crimes where the sentences could exceed

22     ten years.  Did they also exercise appellate jurisdiction?

23        A.   Yes.  It was also the second instance court for all the decisions

24     of the basic courts.

25        Q.   And this law further indicates that there is a regional court.

 


Page 8718

 1     Can you tell us what the territorial jurisdiction of that regional court

 2     was?

 3        A.   We also called it the supreme court because, in fact, that's what

 4     it was.  So that was the highest court in that territory.  Basically, it

 5     was an appellate court for the decisions of the higher court in

 6     Beli Manastir.

 7        Q.   And who was president of, I'll use your terminology, the supreme

 8     court?

 9        A.   Milos Vojnovic.

10        Q.   And did the supreme court exercise any first instance

11     jurisdiction over crimes?

12        A.   No, no.  The supreme court never exercises any first instance

13     jurisdiction.

14             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, perhaps we should move into private

15     session for my next couple of questions.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Private session, please.

17                           [Private session]

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)


Page 8719

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11 Pages 8719-8720 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 


Page 8721

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11                           [Open session]

12             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

14             MR. OLMSTED:

15        Q.   Sir, were the prosecutors' offices in the SBWS organised in a

16     manner similar to the -- to the court system?  In other words, did they

17     have these three levels?

18        A.   That's correct.  The organisation of the prosecutor's office

19     followed or mirrored the organisation of the courts, so we had a lower

20     prosecutor's office organised for Vukovar, based in Dalj; we had the

21     basic prosecutor's office in Beli Manastir; a higher prosecutor's office

22     in Beli Manastir; we had the municipal prosecutor in Vukovar based in

23     Dalj.

24             However, the prosecutor's office is organised a bit differently.

25     There is strict subordination among prosecutors, wherein the district

 


Page 8722

 1     prosecutor stands above all the other prosecutors in the district.  He

 2     always has the possibility of taking a case from a lower-ranking

 3     prosecutor and deal with it himself.  And lower-ranking prosecutors are

 4     duty-bound to execute the orders of higher-ranking prosecutors.  This

 5     kind of subordination does not exist in courts.

 6        Q.   And at the -- the highest level, at the supreme court level, if

 7     we can maybe draw that parallel, who was the -- the highest prosecutor at

 8     the time in 1991?

 9        A.   You mean by name?

10        Q.   Yes, please.

11        A.   Milorad Trosic.

12        Q.   This is not mentioned in this particular decision, but I think

13     when we were looking at the appointments we saw there was also magistrate

14     courts, one in Beli Manastir and another in Vukovar.  What was their

15     jurisdiction?

16        A.   Could you repeat the question?  I didn't understand.  Which

17     courts?

18        Q.   I'm referring to the magistrate courts.  We looked at the

19     appointments of judges and prosecutors and on that were appointments as

20     magistrate judges.  Can you tell us what jurisdiction the magistrate

21     courts had in Vukovar and Beli Manastir?

22        A.   Could you please put the decision on the screen?

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zivanovic.

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)


Page 8723

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted).  This is L31; this is tab 8.

18        Q.   And I'd like to draw your attention to the decision on the

19     election of lay judges in Vukovar lower court, dated 24 October 1991.

20     Could you tell us what was the role of lay judges?

21        A.   As far as very minor criminal offences were concerned, they were

22     dealt by a single judge, such as libel, insults, et cetera.  The rule

23     was, however, that there were two juror judges and a presiding judge.

24     Juror judges would be appointed to that position and together with the

25     judge they would lead these proceedings.  But since they were not legal

 


Page 8724

 1     professionals, their role was considerably less significant.  But in

 2     pronouncing the verdict, they were on an equal footing as the

 3     professional judge who led the proceedings.  They participate in the

 4     vote, et cetera.

 5        Q.   Did lay judges perform any investigative functions?

 6        A.   No, none.  They participate in the deliberations, in hearings,

 7     and they participate in the judgement.  But they have no official

 8     function.  They are regular citizens who are appointed by decisions as

 9     this one, as lay judges, and they represent some kind of civilian control

10     over the justice system.

11             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, we have to make a redaction on

12     page 26.  I am not sure if you saw that.  Can I give the cite in open

13     session?

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  No, then we should go to private session.

15                           [Private session]

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)


Page 8725

 1   (redacted)

 2                           [Open session]

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

 4             MR. OLMSTED:

 5        Q.   Sir, just a couple of final questions regarding these

 6     appointments of lay judges.  Did the system of lay judges exist prior to

 7     the conflict, in other words, in the republics in the SFRY?

 8        A.   Yes.  Yes.  That's directly taken over from the previous period,

 9     just as the entire legal system.

10        Q.   And if we could look at the lay judges appointed pursuant to this

11     decision, there are 16 of them.  Did you know any of these lay judges?

12        A.   I don't think so.  I don't think so.  Maybe I knew someone by

13     sight, but I certainly didn't know any of them personally.

14        Q.   If we could just look at their names.  Can you help us out with

15     the ethnicities of these lay judges?

16        A.   I suppose they're all Serbs, judging by the names.  But sometimes

17     Serbs and Croats have very similar names and surnames.  You cannot be

18     sure on the basis of the name alone.  But considering the way lay judges

19     were elected at that time and judging by the places they come from,

20     Borovo Selo and Dalj, it's almost certain that they are Serbs.

21        Q.   What criminal codes applied in the Serbian district of SBWS in

22     1992 and -- 1991 and 1992?

23        A.   There was the former federal criminal code that was applied, and

24     the Federal Law on Criminal Procedure, it was also applied, as well as

25     the Law on Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Serbia.

 


Page 8726

 1        Q.   Now, what kinds of crimes fell within the SFRY criminal code?

 2        A.   Well, the criminal code of the SFRY covered those crimes that

 3     threatened federal values, single market, defence, the army, and such

 4     things.  The rest -- oh, yes, and there was a general section that

 5     elaborated certain theoretical principles such as what it means to be an

 6     accomplice, what is legitimate defence, what is involuntary manslaughter.

 7     And there was a separate section dealing with crimes against the army,

 8     threatening the constitutional system, crimes against the single market,

 9     the economy, et cetera.

10        Q.   And with regard to, if I may use the term "ordinary crimes,"

11     nonfederal crimes, crimes that aren't against the army or the state - for

12     instance, ordinary murder, ordinary rape - what code regulated those

13     types of crimes?

14        A.   The republic criminal code.

15        Q.   And in 1991 and 1992 within the SBWS, what republic criminal code

16     was used for these ordinary crimes?

17        A.   The criminal code of the Republic of Serbia.

18        Q.   At some point did the RSK promulgate its own criminal code?

19        A.   In 1993, I believe a separate criminal code was adopted for the

20     Republic of Serbian Krajina, but I am not sure about the year.  Maybe it

21     was passed later.

22        Q.   And how did the criminal provisions in the RSK criminal code

23     compare with those from the Serbian criminal code?  Were there

24     significant differences in the crimes and the provisions of the crimes?

25        A.   No, there were no significant differences.


Page 8727

 1        Q.   Sir, under the applicable criminal procedures and criminal code,

 2     who had a duty to report a crime about which they had information?

 3        A.   As far as the duty to report was concerned, all employees of

 4     state agencies had the duty to report any crime they had knowledge of.

 5     Even regular citizens had the moral obligation to report crimes, if not

 6     the legal obligation, but they only rarely could be held liable for

 7     failing to report.  They could be held liable before a court of law if

 8     they did not report a crime that carried the death penalty, for instance.

 9     There is a legal provision that says a citizen should report any crime

10     they had knowledge of, but there was no penalty envisaged for failing to

11     report.

12        Q.   Were there any criminal penalties for a public official who

13     failed to report a crime?

14        A.   Yes, yes, there were.  Under the law, they were required to

15     report any crime they gained knowledge of and criminal penalties were

16     envisaged in case of failure.  But that was in theory.  I don't know that

17     it ever happened in practice.

18        Q.   And what public officials would that provision apply to?  Could

19     you tell us who would be encompassed within that criminal provision?

20        A.   It encompassed all appointed office holders, from ministers,

21     presidents, chairmen, heads of units, secretaries, down to ordinary

22     employees of the state authorities.  It encompassed even officials and

23     staff in certain organisations which were not directly part of state

24     administration.  They were independent organisations but they had certain

25     public authority, such as the land register.


Page 8728

 1        Q.   At the time in 1991 and 1992, was there a crime for abuse of

 2     office, abuse of public office?

 3        A.   Yes, there was.  And I believe it exists to date.  Although I've

 4     heard rumours that it would be abolished.

 5        Q.   And what sorts of abuses were encompassed by this crime of abuse

 6     of office?

 7        A.   Well, abuse of office was a crime that a public official could

 8     commit if they abuse their position for personal gain or to financially

 9     prejudice another person or perhaps to benefit in a non-financial way or

10     violate somebody else's rights.

11        Q.   And if I could just do one more with you.  Under the applicable

12     criminal laws in 1991 and 1992, did a person have a duty to render aid to

13     someone in a life-threatening situation?

14        A.   Yes.  There was a separate article of the law that required every

15     person to assist a person whose life was directly threatened.

16        Q.   I would now like to turn to criminal procedures that existed in

17     1991 and 1992, and I'd like to begin with the role of the police.  Could

18     you explain to us, under the criminal procedures, what was the role of

19     the police with regard to crimes?

20        A.   In the criminal procedure of the police, the main role of the

21     police is to conduct pre-indictment proceedings.  The police detects

22     crimes and perpetrators, attempts to shed light on the circumstances of

23     the crime, and so on.  They detect the crime, detect the perpetrator, and

24     turn over the perpetrator to the instances which are to deal with the

25     perpetrator from then on.


Page 8729

 1        Q.   And whose responsibility was it to secure a crime scene?

 2        A.   The police.

 3        Q.   Turning to the prosecutor, under the criminal procedures as they

 4     existed at the time, what was the role of the prosecutor in the criminal

 5     justice system?

 6        A.   The prosecutor was always the one who initiates prosecution.

 7     Once he finds out that a crime has been committed, the prosecutor has

 8     several options.  He can require more information and more action by the

 9     police to find the perpetrator, and the investigating judge can also

10     require more investigation to be conducted to provide a better picture of

11     the crime.

12             When we say "investigation" in our legal system, "investigation"

13     is a term applied only to an identified perpetrator.  If the perpetrator

14     was unidentified, we called it "investigative action" or

15     "pre-investigation proceedings," which boiled down to attempts to find

16     out how the crime was committed and who was the perpetrator was.  That

17     was done by the police in conjunction with the prosecutor's office.

18     Whereas investigation was a procedure wherein the prosecutor's office

19     makes a request to conduct an investigation, the investigation is

20     conducted by the police, and their aim is to find evidence that could be

21     usable in court.  So they would make appropriate records of interviews,

22     forensic expertise, and generally prepare material and evidence that

23     could form a basis for a trial.  What the police did before was more of

24     an informal attempt to collect information and could not be used in

25     court.


Page 8730

 1        Q.   And you mentioned that the prosecutor -- prosecutor's office

 2     makes a request to conduct an investigation.  To whom does the prosecutor

 3     make that request and then who conducts that investigation at that stage?

 4        A.   The investigation is carried out by the investigating judge of

 5     the competent court.  The prosecutor's office may submit a formal request

 6     to conduct an investigation to the investigating judge or may make a

 7     request for certain investigative action such as an autopsy or other act.

 8     If the investigating judge does not agree with the request for an

 9     investigation, he may ask for some investigative action to be conducted

10     against a certain person, and once some more evidence is collected, an

11     investigation is started, including actions which were proposed in the

12     original request from the prosecutor's office.

13        Q.   And you mentioned I think earlier in your testimony on-site

14     investigations.  Who is responsible for conducting on-site

15     investigations?

16        A.   On-site investigation is a criminal investigative procedure where

17     certain evidence is registered on the crime scene relative to the

18     perpetration of a crime, and it all depends on the type of crime.

19     On-site investigation is conducted in many situations.  As a rule, the

20     police is responsible for securing the crime scene, but depending on the

21     crime there would be scenes of crimes officers, there would be the

22     police.  And if it is a serious crime, there would be the investigating

23     judge, the prosecutor, et cetera.

24        Q.   And you mentioned the police.  Did the SUP in Vukovar have a --

25     forensic technicians back in 1991?


Page 8731

 1        A.   Yes, it did.  It had forensic technicians who had worked on that

 2     job before the war as well and they were very qualified.

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9        Q.   I don't think that's necessary.  But you said the 18th.  Could

10     you give us the month?

11        A.   18 November.  After the fall of Vukovar, we were able to use the

12     services of the prewar pathologist.

13        Q.   And just one final question before our break.  After the

14     investigative judge conducted a criminal investigation upon the request

15     of the prosecutor, what was done with the results of that investigation?

16        A.   After conducting an investigation or investigative procedures, he

17     submits all the material to the prosecutor's office, and the prosecutor's

18     office then decides whether to issue an indictment, abandon the case, or

19     perhaps ask for additional investigative procedure.

20             MR. OLMSTED:  Mr. President.

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you, Mr. Olmsted.

22             Mr. Witness, we will take our first break now, 30 minutes.  We'll

23     come back at 11.00.  The Court Usher will escort you out of the

24     courtroom.  Thank you.

25                           [The witness stands down]


Page 8732

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Court adjourned.

 2                           --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

 4             MR. STRINGER:  Excuse me, Mr. President.  While the witness is

 5     being brought in, just for the record to reflect that the Prosecution is

 6     now joined by legal intern, Ms. Sepideh Tabatabaei.

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Olmsted.

10             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Mr. President.

11        Q.   Sir, I just have one more procedural question for you.  Under the

12     criminal procedures that existed in 1991 and 1992 in the SBWS, for how

13     long could the police detain a person without a court order?

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could the witness please

15     repeat his answer.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Three days.

17             MR. OLMSTED:

18        Q.   And in order to obtain a court order to extend detention, what

19     did the police or prosecutor have to establish?

20        A.   It was only the investigating judge that could extend detention

21     at the request of the prosecutor's office, and it could be decided on

22     only if the legal requirements were met; that is to say, if there was a

23     possibility of the suspect escaping or concealing evidence or if there

24     was a danger of repetition of crime, and if the crimes involved were very

25     serious, in cases when the law said that detention was compulsory.  In

 


Page 8733

 1     such cases, the prosecutor's office would file a request with the

 2     investigating judge and the investigating judge could order detention of

 3     30 days.  In our system, a pretrial detention could not go on for longer

 4     than six months.  Once the indictment was issued, then there would be a

 5     special procedure and detention could be extended.

 6        Q.   And were there any criminal penalties for unlawfully detaining a

 7     person?

 8        A.   Yes.  There was also a separate crime that involved illegal or

 9     unlawful detention.

10        Q.   Did that law apply to police officers or other public officials?

11        A.   Yes.

12             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, just to be safe, I think I better

13     approach the next topic in private session.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Private session, please.

15                           [Private session]

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)


Page 8734

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11 Page 8734 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Page 8735

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6                           [Open session]

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 9             MR. OLMSTED:

10        Q.   Sir, did anything happen to the Catholic church that was near the

11     court building?

12        A.   Yes.  During one night, I cannot say exactly what the time was,

13     say it was November or December, it was blown up.  Literally leveled to

14     the ground.  We were so nearby that when I came to the office, I saw that

15     the windows were shattered because of the detonation.

16        Q.   You say this may have happened in November or December.  Could

17     you tell us, was it after the fall of Vukovar?

18        A.   I think it was before, but I'm not quite sure.

19        Q.   And what were you able to conclude from the extent of the damage

20     as far as how it was perpetrated?

21        A.   It was a pretty big church; that is to say, a pretty big

22     building.  There had to be a lot of explosive involved.  Craters full of

23     explosives.  It wasn't something that could be brought in just in a bag.

24        Q.   And was there any talk around Dalj as to who destroyed the

25     church?

 


Page 8736

 1        A.   Perhaps a month or a month and a half later, it was said that it

 2     was done by Arkan's Men.

 3        Q.   Did the courts and prosecutors' offices within the SBWS fall

 4     under a ministry within the SBWS government?

 5        A.   Arkan's Men?

 6        Q.   Let me repeat the question.  I'm moving on to a different subject

 7     entirely.  The courts and prosecutors' offices in the SBWS, did they fall

 8     within or under a ministry of the SBWS government, and if so, what

 9     ministry?

10        A.   The Ministry of Justice or, rather, the judiciary.

11        Q.   And who was the minister of justice for the SBWS at the time?

12        A.   The minister of justice was Mr. Vojislav Susa, who was, I think,

13     the deputy municipal prosecutor in Vinkovci before the war.

14        Q.   And was there a member of the judiciary who communicated

15     regularly with Mr. Susa?

16        A.   I am not someone who was in a position to follow these contacts.

17     I think - I'm convinced - that he had constant contact with

18     Jovan Ajdukovic, Milos Vojnovic, Milorad Trosic, and perhaps with

19     Slobodan Kovacevic.

20        Q.   And why do you believe he had constant communication with

21     Mr. Ajdukovic?

22        A.   Because Mr. Ajdukovic, in addition to having been appointed judge

23     of the regional court, I think he still held the position of assistant

24     minister of justice.  At least that's what I heard from him.

25        Q.   And what was the responsibility of the minister of justice with

 


Page 8737

 1     regards to the courts and prosecutors' offices?

 2        A.   The Ministry of Justice was, first and foremost, supposed to

 3     create conditions for the functioning of the judicial system; that is to

 4     say, create financial and technical conditions for the judiciary system

 5     to function, to follow how the system was working, to take certain

 6     measures, to promote the system and so on.  The Ministry of Justice is

 7     not the direct superior of the courts, so it cannot change decisions or

 8     something like that, but it had some powers in this organisational field.

 9     As I said, creating financial and material system for the system to

10     function properly.

11             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, if we may go into private session.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Private session, please.

13                           [Private session]

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)


Page 8738

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11 Pages 8738-8753 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 


Page 8754

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5                           [Open session]

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  And if we could have on the screen P104.  This is

 9     tab 7.

10        Q.   Sir, this is a report that's a little bit difficult to read.

11     It's from the 1st Military District command security organ to the SSNO,

12     dated 18 October 1991.  And the report provides, it looks like in the

13     first paragraph, information on killings and other crimes committed by

14     Arkan, Stricevic, and their units against Croat individuals.

15             Sir, how does this information compare to the rumours or

16     unofficial information that was circulating around the region?

17        A.   Not only unofficial.  There is also what Mr. Zavisic said at that

18     meeting and that fits into this, so I believe that there is a great deal

19     of truth there.  Maybe not all of it but most of what is contained in

20     this report is probably true.

21        Q.   And if we could look at another one of these.

22             MR. OLMSTED:  This is P115.111, tab 6.

23        Q.   This is a report from the provincial SUP of Vojvodina, dated

24     18 October 1991.  And if we can look at the second paragraph, we see that

25     again this report is about criminal activities of the units led by


Page 8755

 1     Stricevic and Arkan.  But if I could draw your attention to the part that

 2     mentions:

 3             Because there is no enemy, members of Stricevic's space police

 4     are targeting with greater frequency Serb houses, which they search for

 5     nonexistent radio transmitters.

 6             Do you know what Serbs were being targeted for these kinds of

 7     searches?

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21                           [Private session]

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)


Page 8756

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11 Pages 8756-8765 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 


Page 8766

 1   (redacted)

 2                           [Open session]

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 5             MR. OLMSTED:  And if we could have P2518 on the screen.  This is

 6     tab 1.

 7        Q.   And a moment ago you testified about the jurisdictional issues

 8     concerning crimes committed by prisoners of war.  What we have in front

 9     of us is the SFRY Law on Military Courts.

10             MR. OLMSTED:  And if we could turn to page 3 of both the original

11     and the English version.

12        Q.   I would like to show you paragraph 4 of Article 13, which states:

13             "Prisoners of war shall be tried by military courts for all

14     criminal offences committed as prisoners of war as well as for crimes

15     against humanity and international law," and then it references

16     Articles 141 to 146 of the criminal code of the SFRY.

17             Now, how this paragraph, this provision of the Law on

18     Military Courts compare to your own recollection with regard to

19     jurisdictional issues pertaining to prisoners of war?

20        A.   That's precisely what I've been saying.  It is the military court

21     and the military judiciary who would be in charge of trying or

22     prosecuting prisoners of war.  Certainly not us.

23             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, I'll -- we'll have to go back into

24     private session.

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Private session, please.

 


Page 8767

 1                           [Private session]

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)


Page 8768

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4                           [Open session]

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 7             MR. OLMSTED:  May we have on the screen 65 ter 1510.  This is

 8     tab 17.

 9        Q.   What we have in front of us is a decree promulgating a law on

10     military courts.  It's signed by Goran Hadzic and it's dated

11     24 February 1993.  First of all, were you aware that the RSK promulgated

12     a law on military courts?

13        A.   It was probably promulgated, but at that time I didn't know about

14     it.

15             MR. OLMSTED:  If we could turn to page 4.

16        Q.   I want to draw your attention to the last paragraph of Article 11

17     which pertains to prisoners of war.  Can you tell us, how does this

18     paragraph compare to the one that's found in the SFRY Law on Military

19     Courts?

20        A.   It's practically the same provision.  Nothing has changed.

21     Prisoners of war are tried by military courts for all crimes committed as

22     prisoners of war, including all violations of international laws of war,

23     and it invokes the criminal code of the SFRY.  It was practically

24     copy-pasted.

25             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, may this decree be admitted into

 


Page 8769

 1     evidence.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted and marked.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P3022, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 5             MR. OLMSTED:

 6        Q.   Sir, were you aware of a meeting of the SBWS government at the

 7     Velepromet facility in Vukovar on or about the 20th of November, 1991?

 8        A.   Much later.  At that time I wasn't aware of it.  And when I say

 9     "much later," I mean years later.

10        Q.   I would like to play a video for you.  This is tab 19, P1731.

11     And first I'm just going to show you a still shot of the video.

12                           [Video-clip played]

13             MR. OLMSTED:

14        Q.   Now, first of all, can you identify the two persons that appear

15     in this video image?

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21        Q.   I would like to play this video and then ask you some questions

22     about what is said.

23                           [Video-clip played]

24             THE INTERPRETER: "[Voiceover] This is the first session of the

25     government held in our future capital of our Serbian region of Slavonia,


Page 8770

 1     Baranja, and Western Srem.  Regarding the conclusions, apart from the

 2     ones related to the normalisation of life and the establishment of a more

 3     or less normal situation, there is one basic conclusion:  That the

 4     prisoners, Ustashas with blood on their hands, must not leave the

 5     territory of the Serb region of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem.  And

 6     they cannot be driven to Serbia since Serbia is not a state at war.

 7             "Also, the troops that assisted in the capturing connected with

 8     the rest of the," unclear, "these were not the soldiers who were

 9     captured.  Those were paramilitaries.  So they can only be put on trial

10     by these people here, that is to say, the people of our Serb region,

11     which is recognised and has its court.  We even have a second instance

12     court.  The third instance might possibly be on the federal level, on the

13     Yugoslav level, but we have our regional court and our municipal court.

14     Consequently, we have agreed with the military authorities that those

15     Ustashas remain in some of our camps here in the vicinity of Vukovar.

16     Since one group was already taken to Sremska Mitrovica, I undertook to

17     return these people here.  If they can't -- if they can be named people

18     at all.  To return them and to have them put on trial to find out which

19     ones are guilty and those who are not shall normally be released so they

20     can join us in the reconstruction of our town.

21             "Question:  How do you estimate the total number of these members

22     of the Croatian paramilitaries?  There were different figures available.

23     200 surrendered two nights ago, approximately 1.000 today in the Borovo

24     complex.  What numbers are we talking about?

25             "Goran Hadzic:  I believe the number is close to 3.000,


Page 8771

 1     approximately 3.000 of mainly uniformed Ustashas.  Although there are

 2     still many hiding among the civilians."

 3             MR. OLMSTED:  All right.  That's fine.  We'll stop it there.

 4        Q.   Sir, I want to go back and ask you a few questions about what

 5     Mr. Hadzic said during this interview.

 6             First of all, Mr. Hadzic mentions that the SBWS government

 7     reached the conclusion that prisoners, Ustashas with blood on their

 8     hands, must not leave the territory of the Serbian district of SBWS and

 9     cannot go to Serbia proper.  First of all, in 1991 or 1992, were you

10     aware that this decision had been made by the SBWS government?

11        A.   No.

12        Q.   Mr. Hadzic then states that the Croat prisoners can only be put

13     on trial in the SBWS, which has its own municipal and regional court, and

14     that the third instance court might possibly be at the federal level of

15     Yugoslavia.  First of all, when he refers to municipal courts, what is he

16     referring to?

17        A.   I suppose he meant basic courts, lower courts.  The one in

18     Beli Manastir and ours in Dalj.  But I'm just guessing.

19        Q.   You used the term "municipal courts" a couple of times today.  Is

20     that the term that was used for the basic courts prior to the conflict?

21        A.   That was indeed the name.  Municipal courts we have renamed basic

22     courts.  We renamed district courts into higher courts, and these terms

23     were used before we introduced the terms "basic" and "higher."

24        Q.   In 1992 -- or 1991 or 1992, did the SFRY have any court at the

25     federal level that exercised appellate jurisdiction over crimes committed


Page 8772

 1     in the SBWS?

 2        A.   There was the federal court but there were no grounds for that

 3     court to deal with cases from the district.  We had our own provisions,

 4     our own laws, we had our own supreme court.  There was absolutely no

 5     basis for transferring the case and the case to continue in the court of

 6     another state.  I don't think that's legally feasible.

 7        Q.   You mentioned there was a federal court.  What court are you

 8     referring to and what was that -- what was the role of that federal

 9     court?

10        A.   The federal court was very limited in its functions.  After so

11     many years, I have difficulty recalling individual features because every

12     republic had its own supreme court which did the bulk of this work.  I

13     believe the federal court appeared on the scene in very rare situation as

14     a corrective factor and perhaps in resolving disputes between federal

15     units.  But I'm saying this very roughly.  I can't remember the details.

16     This court certainly did not play any part very often.

17        Q.   Did the laws applicable at the time allow for a case -- criminal

18     cases brought before the SBWS courts to be appealed to another republic,

19     such as the Republic of Serbia?

20        A.   No.  There was no such possibility that was regulated by law in

21     that way.  We had our own system of three instances, and all proceedings

22     that would start before our courts would theoretically end before our

23     courts as well.

24        Q.   Then during this interview a little bit further on, Mr. Hadzic

25     states:


Page 8773

 1             "We have agreed with the military authorities that these Ustashas

 2     remain in some of our camps here in the vicinity of Vukovar."

 3             Sir, could you describe for us what the atmosphere was like in

 4     the Vukovar area after the fall of the city?

 5        A.   Well, in the territory of Vukovar, if you are referring to the

 6     town itself, there was no atmosphere because there were practically no

 7     people there.  There was no electricity, no water, telephone lines, there

 8     were no conditions for any kind of normal life, so there were hardly any

 9     people there.  However, as for the territory of the region Slavonia,

10     Eastern Srem, of course, the atmosphere was heated because of the war

11     propaganda at the time, all the things that were done by the war

12     propaganda machines.  There were hardly any people who were indifferent

13     at the time as they saw images of major crimes and they would be revolted

14     by what they saw happen at the time.  So I believe that on that basis it

15     would also be very hard to imagine any kind of fair and proper trial.

16        Q.   Mr. Hadzic further states in this interview:

17             "Since one group was already taken to Sremska Mitrovica, I

18     undertook the task of bringing those people back, if we can call them

19     people."

20             Sir, were you aware that Croats from Vukovar were taken to

21     detention facilities in Serbia?

22        A.   Yes, I am aware of that.

23        Q.   Without explaining the basis of your knowledge at this point, can

24     you tell us which camps in Serbia you were aware of?

25        A.   I heard about Sremska Mitrovica, as already mentioned.  Then also

 


Page 8774

 1     the area around Zrenjanin was mentioned.  I think that even Nis was

 2     mentioned.  Although, as far as Nis is concerned, I didn't hear about

 3     that later on, but at the time it was being mentioned.

 4        Q.   And did the courts in the SBWS have the capacity or the

 5     jurisdiction to try prisoners kept at these Serbian detention facilities?

 6        A.   No.

 7             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, perhaps we should go into private

 8     session now.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Private session, please.

10                           [Private session]

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)


Page 8775

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11 Pages 8775-8782 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 


Page 8783

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.00 p.m.,

15                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 8th day

16                           of October, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25