1 Friday, 28 January 2005
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call
6 the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Case
8 number IT-01-47-T, the Prosecution versus Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Could
11 we have the appearances for the Prosecution, please.
12 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
13 Honours, counsel, and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the
14 Prosecution, Matthias Neuner and Daryl Mundis, assisted today by Andres
15 Vatter, our case manager.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we have the
17 appearances for the Defence, please.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. President, good day,
19 Your Honours. On behalf of General Enver Hadzihasanovic, Edina Residovic,
20 counsel, and Muriel Cauvin, legal assistant. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we have the
22 appearances for the other Defence team.
23 MR. DIXON: For Mr. Kubura this morning, Mr. Rodney Dixon and
24 Mr. Nermin Mulalic. Thank you, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. The Trial Chamber
1 would like to greet everyone present. This is our 172nd day. I'd like to
2 greet the members of the Prosecution, Defence counsel, some of whom are
3 missing, the accused, and everyone else in and around the courtroom.
4 We will be continuing with the cross-examination of a witness
5 today. He must be waiting, and I will now ask the usher to bring him into
6 the courtroom.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Neuner.
8 MR. NEUNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning everybody
9 in and around the courtroom. I just want to make a short announcement
10 while the witness is coming to the courtroom. The Prosecution intends to
11 use two new documents this morning. My colleague Mr. Mundis has announced
12 yesterday that this might occur. I have exchanged yesterday also mobile
13 telephone numbers with the Defence counsel and I have made two calls in
14 order to do everything possible to give advance notice that documents are
15 coming, and this morning my understanding is they have been delivered as
16 late as when we assembled here in the courtroom. I just want to give
17 notice about this fact. Thank you.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honour. If I can confirm that we have
20 this morning received two new documents. I know my learned friends were
21 under some time pressure, but the first time I did manage to get these
22 documents was this morning, and I've been able to look at them now for the
23 first time, and on first glance we will wish to address Your Honours on
24 whether these documents can be shown to the witness or not at the
25 appropriate time. So we would ask at that stage if the witness could be
1 asked to leave the courtroom so that we can submit to Your Honours what
2 our position is on those documents. Thank you, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Good day, sir. I'd
4 like to ask you to leave the courtroom for a few minutes because there is
5 a procedural issue that we have to deal with first. The usher will escort
6 you out of the courtroom.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to
9 Mr. Dixon, the Prosecution has told us that yesterday during the hearing
10 the Prosecution said that they would be presenting new documents. The
11 Prosecution has said that yesterday evening, they tried to contact the
12 Defence by phoning their mobile number. Apparently they weren't able to
13 reach you, and you only received the documents in question this morning.
14 So that's the situation.
15 Mr. Dixon.
16 MR. DIXON: Your Honour, if I can advise that we did receive
17 mobile messages very late last night but those messages didn't refer to
18 which documents would be regarded as the new ones. In fact, Mr. Neuner
19 said at that stage he did not know which were the documents he was going
20 to use today. So the first time we found out about these documents was
21 this morning. That's when he knew exactly which documents would be used.
22 And I've only been able to briefly look through them now.
23 My proposal would be that Mr. Neuner should, when the appropriate
24 time comes in his cross-examination, if he does wish to still use the
25 documents, to submit to Your Honours at that point what the reason is for
1 wanting to show the document. If it's credibility, on what basis he
2 wishes to challenge the credibility of the witness and/or if it is memory
3 refreshing. Perhaps it's premature to consider the question now. I have
4 some questions to ask the witness on behalf of Mr. Kubura, and then
5 Mr. Neuner will proceed, and based on the answers the witness gives,
6 perhaps that would be the right time to break and discuss whether these
7 documents can be shown to the witness.
8 Thank you, Your Honours.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, all the -- we are
10 aware of the fact that the Prosecution wasn't able to abide by your
11 decision with regard to the new documents and provide them 24 hours in
12 advance. For the sake of the transcript, I would like to say that
13 although my mobile was on throughout the night, we did not receive any
14 messages in the course of the night. We saw the documents five or six
15 minutes [Realtime transcript read in error "months"] ago when they were
16 given to us and for this reason I fully agree with the suggestions made by
17 my learned friend, namely that we should first have a look at the
18 documents and then hear from the Prosecution about the reason for which
19 they want to use them and then we will state what our position is. Thank
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Before I give the floor to
22 the Prosecution again, as far as the new documents are concerned, as you
23 know, we rendered an oral decision stating that new documents could only
24 be used to check a witness's credibility or to refresh a witness's memory.
25 These are the only two reasons for which we said that the documents that
1 the Prosecution had after the end of the Prosecution's case could be used.
2 They can be used either to test the credibility of a witness or to refresh
3 a witness's memory.
4 We also added that if the Prosecution wanted to use such material,
5 we wanted these documents to be disclosed at least 24 hours in advance.
6 Defence counsel examined the witness yesterday about certain issues not
7 contained in the written summary, and as a result, the Prosecution only
8 realised that these issues would be addressed yesterday afternoon. For
9 this reason, it was difficult to respect the 24-hour notice since the
10 problem arose yesterday afternoon.
11 Defence counsel, Mr. Dixon, told us that as far as testing the
12 witness's credibility is concerned, it would be best to wait to hear the
13 questions and answers before using the documents, if necessary. It's not
14 necessary to use them before since we will wait to see whether there are
15 any new elements that arise.
16 Yesterday the witness answered certain questions, and that is the
17 situation we are in now.
18 Is there anything that the Prosecution would like to say before
19 the Judges discuss the issue?
20 Yes, Defence counsel.
21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Just for the sake of the
22 transcript, I would like to say that on page 4, 11 -- 10 and 11, instead
23 of "five to six minutes," it says "five to six months." So I would be
24 grateful if that could be changed.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This will be done.
1 I will now give the floor back to the Prosecution. You have heard
2 what the Defence has said, and I will now give you the floor.
3 MR. NEUNER: I'll try to be brief. I just want to say that the
4 examination-in-chief was concluded -- of the witness Fehim Muratovic was
5 concluded at around 4.00 yesterday afternoon, which is already within the
6 24-hour time frame. I personally was then leaving the courtroom and was
7 approaching both Defence counsels and it is true I only exchanged with
8 Mr. Rodney Dixon a mobile telephone number, and I called him at some point
9 tonight when a selection of documents had not been done. I -- Mr. Dixon
10 ensured to me that I could call late, and I indeed did so. And I did call
11 Mr. Dixon this morning and gave him all the documents which have been
12 selected, and this is actually the final selection.
13 The two new documents which had been selected had been disclosed
14 to the Defence. I will state the date and everything later.
15 I can ensure, Your Honours, that these two documents relate to
16 issues which have not been covered by the Defence summary which the
17 Prosecution had received in advance of Mr. Muratovic's
18 examination-in-chief. They relate exclusively to the guerrilla unit, and
19 the fact that Mr. Muratovic would talk about the guerrilla unit was not
20 known to the Prosecution prior to yesterday's examination-in-chief. So
21 therefore, the Prosecution is aware about the 24-hour deadline and has
22 tried to do its best by putting the Defence counsels on advance notice as
23 much as possible.
24 I was also, when I was coming in this morning, consulting with our
25 case manager, Mr. Andres Vatter, and he told me though there was time
1 available, there is at this late stage no possibility to store the
2 documents into the usual facilities because at this late stage in the day,
3 it would have been highly unlikely that the Defence counsels would have
4 opened the disclosure box. So for this reason, the actual disclosure
5 occurred, as was stated by my learned friends, in the courtroom.
6 Thank you very much.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Judges, having deliberated,
10 we decided that when the credibility of a witness was at stake or
11 refreshing a witness's memory was at stake, in such cases we could grant
12 leave to present new documents. It would be best to start with the
13 cross-examination, and we will see what the situation is as the witness
14 provides his testimony. Although the document wasn't examined in detail
15 by the Defence, they weren't in a position to do so, but nevertheless, I'm
16 sure that given the fact that they are so professional, this will allow
17 them to assess the situation. They will be able to assess the situation
18 since they have the document. They've had it for a few minutes. I don't
19 know whether the document is long or not, but if it's quite brief, they
20 won't need a long time to assess the document and to be in a position to
21 put pertinent questions since after the Prosecution has put its questions
22 to the witness and after we've heard the witness's answers, you will have
23 sufficient time for additional questions that relate to the document.
24 Mr. Usher, could you call the witness into the courtroom, please.
25 [The witness entered court]
1 WITNESS: FEHIM MURATOVIC: [Resumed]
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, you had to wait for a few
4 minutes but there was an issue we had to deal with, a minor issue we had
5 to deal with. We will now continue with your testimony, which should be
6 completed today, rest assured. Without wasting any more time, I will give
7 the floor to the Prosecution for their cross-examination.
8 Mr. Neuner, you may take the floor.
9 Mr. Dixon.
10 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours. We have a few questions for
11 the witness.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. We were focused
13 on the Prosecution, and I had forgotten about you, but I'm glad to give
14 you the floor. And in addition, you have additional time to ask
16 Cross-examined by Mr. Dixon:
17 Q. Good morning, Mr. Muratovic. I'm going to ask you a few questions
18 on behalf of Mr. Amir Kubura from the 7th Brigade.
19 Sir, you said yesterday that you had certain problems from March
20 and April 1993 onwards with - and these are your words - "small groups of
21 foreign nationals." You referred to one group called the Turkish
22 guerrilla and another group which you referred to as the El Mujahedin
23 group; is that right? If you could just give a yes for the purposes of
24 the transcript.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Could you please confirm, sir, that from your investigations the
2 members of these groups, the foreign nationals that you referred to, none
3 of them were ever part of any brigade of the 3rd Corps of the Bosnian
4 army, nor were they commanded by any brigade, including the 7th Muslim
5 Brigade. Is that right?
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. Mr. Muratovic, you weren't here for the trial up until now, but
8 Their Honours have in the course of the trial heard mention made of a
9 guerrilla platoon that was part of the 7th Muslim Brigade. It is an
10 Anti-Sabotage Platoon consisting of local Bosnian soldiers, and some
11 documents have been referred to in that regard.
12 I want to ask you, given your evidence yesterday, and just so
13 there's no confusion for Their Honours, the Turkish guerrilla unit that
14 you referred to, that has nothing to do with the guerrilla platoon in the
15 7th Brigade or any other guerrilla unit within the Bosnian army; is that
17 A. That's correct. The Turkish guerrilla group had absolutely no
18 relation to the guerrilla or, rather, the unit that was also called
19 guerrilla unit and was part of the 7th Muslim Brigade, as far as I know.
20 The guerrilla group from the 7th Muslim brigade was composed of local
21 people from Zenica and the surrounding villages and places. There was the
22 town guerrilla and the mountain guerrilla, that's what they called
23 themselves, and they had absolutely no connection with this guerrilla
24 group that we have mostly been discussing.
25 Q. Yes. Thank you, sir. I have no further questions.
1 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Dixon. Since
3 Defence counsel has completed examination, I will now give the floor to
4 the Prosecution for their cross-examination.
5 Cross-examined by Mr. Neuner:
6 Q. Good morning, Mr. Muratovic. My name is Matthias Neuner. I am
7 appearing here along with my colleagues on behalf of the Prosecution. I
8 will put a couple of questions to you, and the aim is not to confuse you,
9 but if you don't understand a question, please ask me to repeat it or
10 rephrase it and I will try to do so. Do you understand this?
11 A. Yes, yes. I understand.
12 Q. In the military security organ of the 3rd Corps, you testified
13 yesterday you started as a clerk. When exactly did you start your duties
14 as a clerk, and at what point in time were you appointed to the post of
15 assistant commander of counter-intelligence staff and security affairs?
16 Please just state the dates.
17 A. Like I said yesterday, the military security service of the 3rd
18 Corps in the course of 1993, particularly in early 1993, was a service
19 that was evolving. Formally we had an establishment within the unit. We
20 had all the allocated posts, but most of us who worked there were not
21 professionals by our qualification, so everybody did everything. I
22 entered the service in mid-March 1993. Specifically, the
23 counter-intelligence assistant, the post that I began, began in mid-August
24 1993. My colleague Osman Vlajcic was the assistant chief for
25 counter-intelligence affairs.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. I have to ask you --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: I started doing this
3 job in July, not August.
4 MR. NEUNER:
5 Q. Just to confirm again, in July 1993, you were no longer a clerk
6 within the military security organ, but from July 1993 onwards, you were
7 assistant commander of counter-intelligence staff and security affairs in
8 the 3rd Corps organ for military security. Just say yes if it is so.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Is there an interpretation
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] It's not an interpretation
12 problem, but my colleague is relying on the testimony of the witness or
13 the statement of the witness, because the witness never said that in July
14 of 1993 he left the service. He said that in the first quarter of 1994,
15 he moved to the duty of deputy -- assistant commander for
16 counter-intelligence. So we believe that a question which is actually not
17 based on a previous answer by the witness is inadmissible.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but the Prosecution has the
19 right to put to the witness questions and to hear from him which duties he
20 performed and exactly what he did. If there is any doubt about exactly
21 what his duties were, then now is the proper time to clarify that. So I
22 believe that the Prosecution has a right to ask these questions.
23 I personally did not understand quite what exactly we're
24 discussing here, but please continue.
25 MR. NEUNER:
1 Q. Let me start from scratch, from anew. Mr. Muratovic, you were a
2 clerk from mid-March 1993 in the military security organ of the 3rd Corps?
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. Until what time did you remain in that post?
5 A. I was a member of the military security service practically until
6 the end of the war in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
7 Q. What I'm trying to clarify is you said yesterday you were a clerk
8 first and at some point in time you became, within the MS, military
9 security organ of the 3rd Corps, at some point in time you were moving up
10 to the position of assistant commander of counter-intelligence staff in
11 security affairs. When were you no longer a clerk but when did you
12 perform the new function as assistant commander of counter-intelligence?
13 Just state a date, a point in time, please.
14 A. As I said yesterday, all of the duties that I mentioned are as --
15 are within one of the organs. These are just separate parts of one and
16 the same organ.
17 In the beginning, I was a clerk for security within the organ, but
18 in the beginning everybody did everything. All of us in the organ
19 performed all of the duties in accordance with the specific orders from
20 our superiors. However, later, in order to respect the establishment of
21 classifications, we were allocated to certain posts. I cannot recall the
22 exact dates, but what I'm saying is that in the first quarter of 1994, I
23 was appointed to this post assistant commander for counter-intelligence
24 affairs -- counter-intelligence.
25 Q. And on that new post, from the first quarter of 1994 you remained
1 throughout the war; is that correct?
2 A. No, that is not correct. And there was some other changes there,
3 too. A long time has passed since then. There were many events. So at
4 this point in time, especially under these circumstances, I'm not able to
5 give you a specific answer about all the duties that I performed.
6 Q. I understand that, but can you just tell the Judges, did you stay
7 in the military security organ of the 3rd Corps throughout the war,
8 without giving the exact duties which you performed there?
9 A. Yes. I stayed in the security organ of the 3rd Corps, except for
10 the last four or five months of the war when I moved to the post of chief
11 for housing affairs of the 3rd Corps.
12 Q. How many staff members were in the military security service of
13 the 3rd Corps in March 1993 when you came? Just state a number.
14 A. In the beginning, there weren't too many of us. I think there
15 were perhaps four or five people at the most.
16 Q. And you stated yesterday that with the arrival of Mr. Dugalic,
17 Ramiz Dugalic, which was at about the same time, the number of staff
18 increased. Until June 1993, approximately how many more members did join
19 the staff?
20 A. When I came to the military security service, there were two
21 people dealing with security matters in that service and also a person who
22 performed the duties of secretary in the organ. When I came, this number
23 increased by three people. I can't really be precise. In June, there
24 were three more people, so there were five of us at the most.
25 Q. The military security organs from the brigades within the 3rd
1 Corps area of responsibility, did they usually report to your 3rd Corps
2 security -- military security organ or did they also bypass and send
3 reports upwards to the military security administration of the Supreme
5 A. The military hierarchy, the command and control system in the
6 military is of a gradual nature. The organs from the lower units, from
7 brigades and independent battalions, could not communicate directly with a
8 command that was higher than the corps command. So they were directly in
9 communication with us.
10 Q. So if a military security organ of a brigade would assemble
11 intelligence information, the exclusive channel to send this information
12 upwards was the channel to your organ, the military security organ of the
13 3rd Corps?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. Let me turn now to Bugojno. On what day in mid-August 1993 did
16 you go to Bugojno?
17 A. I think that it was on the 16th of August, 1993.
18 Q. You testified yesterday, on page 28 and 29, that before you went
19 there, and I quote you now: "The chief of security had previously been
20 present there in Bugojno." Do you recall approximately how many days
21 before you yourself went to Bugojno did Mr. Dugalic visit the town?
22 A. As far as I can recall, this was perhaps two weeks before we went
23 there. From ten days to two weeks, to 14 days. That was the time period.
24 Q. Before Mr. Dugalic left for Bugojno, I understand at the beginning
25 of -- approximately at the beginning of August 1993, did he tell you why
1 he went there?
2 A. Mr. Dugalic was my superior officer, so he did not have to tell me
3 why he was going to Bugojno. He did not have that obligation.
4 Q. I understand that. How long did he stay in Bugojno?
5 A. I don't remember.
6 Q. You said you were in Bugojno on the 15th of August -- excuse me,
7 16th of August, 1993. Who was the first person you met in -- once you
8 arrived in Bugojno?
9 A. When I came to Bugojno, it was logical that I would meet with my
10 colleague in the local unit at the command of the 307th Brigade. So I met
11 the assistant commander for security of that brigade.
12 Q. Can you, for the benefit of the record, state his name, please.
13 A. Mr. Enes Handzic.
14 Q. And you testified yesterday you spoke to somebody from the 307th
15 Brigade. This is Mr. Enes Handzic? Just to clarify.
16 A. Yes, it's the same person.
17 Q. Did you speak to somebody else while you were in Bugojno?
18 A. When I was in Bugojno, I also had a meeting with a person from the
19 Operations Group, Mr. Kemal Dzafic, the assistant commander for security.
20 And we also tried to have a meeting with the commander of the municipal
21 defence committee of Bugojno, Mr. Vlaho Jelic.
22 Q. In the -- you testified at length about the conversation with the
23 military -- with the -- with your colleague from the 307th Brigade. What
24 did you discuss with Mr. Kemal Dzafic, if I may ask?
25 A. The same topics that I discussed with Mr. Handzic I also covered
1 with Mr. Kemal Dzafic; the current situation in Bugojno, the treatment of
2 the prisoners, the possibility of transferring those persons to Zenica, to
3 the POW centre. These were the questions that we talked about.
4 Q. And what were you told by your colleague from the OG?
5 A. His answers were the same as those by Mr. Handzic. He told me
6 about the same problems regarding the transport of those individuals to
7 Zenica. He briefly talked about the situation in the town of Bugojno, the
8 situation with the prisoners of war in the places where they happened to
9 be accommodated at that time, and so on.
10 Q. What did he say about the situations of the prisoners of war in
11 the temporary detention facilities in Bugojno?
12 A. Yes, he did.
13 Q. What did he say? What did he tell you? Like everything was going
14 fine or there were certain problems? You mentioned yesterday already
16 A. From Mr. Enes Handzic and from Mr. Dzafic I got the same answers;
17 that the prisoners of war were mostly doing fine except for this one
18 incident where some members of the 307th Brigade whose families were
19 killed by members of the HVO in the village of Vrbanja who broke into one
20 of those centres which happened to be at the furniture salon. They
21 attacked five or six members of the HVO. One of them was killed, died,
22 and the others were given medical treatment.
23 Q. Do you recall from your conversations at about what point in time
24 in August 1993 did this incident occur with the furniture salon? Was this
25 briefly before you talked to them or did your colleagues tell you it was a
1 week or two weeks before you talked to them?
2 A. I don't remember that. It would be very difficult for me to tell
3 you exactly when this happened, but it was before we arrived at Bugojno.
4 I don't know how many days before our arrival it was, though.
5 Q. Did they mention the name of any victims who had been beaten or of
6 the person who died to you?
7 A. Yes. They told me the name of the person who died.
8 Q. Do you still recall that name, please?
9 A. No. No, I don't. But I mentioned that name in the report that I
10 drafted once I returned from Bugojno. I did note down his name, but I
11 really do not remember now what his name was.
12 Q. You said yesterday that upon your return to Zenica you sent this
13 report to your superior. Is this Mr. Dugalic, just for clarification?
14 A. When I went to Bugojno with my colleague, Mr. Dugalic happened to
15 be sick, and he was at home recuperating. I addressed my report to the
16 commander of the 3rd Corps.
17 Q. And did you ever receive a response from the commander of the 3rd
18 Corps in relation to that incident?
19 A. I never received a written response, but in a conversation that I
20 had with him, the commander said that what we did up there was well done,
21 that we did a good job.
22 Q. I don't understand. You were reporting to Mr. Hadzihasanovic that
23 a person had died and that people were beaten in the furniture salon. I
24 don't understand why this can be considered a good job. Can you explain?
25 A. No. We didn't understand each other. The thing that happened in
1 the furniture salon was not a good thing, but it was a good thing that
2 steps, legal steps, were taken against the persons who committed what they
3 did against the members of the HVO, because those people who entered the
4 furniture salon and beat up those HVO members were punished. The
5 commander of the local unit and the assistant security commander took the
6 appropriate legal steps vis-a-vis those persons in accordance with
7 regulations of the 3rd Corps and in accordance with the competencies that
8 they had out in the field. And that was to punish all forms of military
9 disciplinary violations or any other criminal acts.
10 Q. I understand you were told by your colleagues in Bugojno that
11 such legal steps had been taken. Did you yourself verify that information
12 by visiting the furniture salon, for example, or visiting the detained
13 perpetrators or suspected perpetrators of the incident while you were in
15 A. During my stay in Bugojno, I didn't go to any of the places where
16 the POWs were held, but I also had no reason to doubt anything that my
17 colleagues had told me. These were professionals, people who performed
18 their jobs in a responsible way. So there was no need for me to check
19 that. They had no reason to conceal anything or to lie in their
21 Q. Are you aware that a trial against these two perpetrators was ever
23 A. Yes. They were brought before the military disciplinary organ in
24 Bugojno and were punished. That's what the report said that we received.
25 Q. When did you receive that report? About, approximately.
1 A. We received an oral report when we were in Bugojno. At that time,
2 we were told that the legal proceedings were under way and that these
3 persons were in detention, in military detention in Bugojno, these two
4 persons who beat up the members of the HVO.
5 Q. Do you know the name of the potential perpetrators? Were you told
6 these names but you have simply forgotten since it's so much time ago?
7 Were you told while you were in Bugojno the names of the perpetrators?
8 A. I assume that they told us what the names of those people were,
9 but it didn't mean anything to me, so I really don't know what their names
11 Q. I understand from your testimony in the last minutes that there
12 was quite a frequent exchange about the military security situation in the
13 temporary detention facilities in Bugojno or about the situation there
14 between the military security service of the 307th Brigade and the 3rd
15 Corps military security organ in August 1993. Is this correct?
16 A. When we were there, of course we talked. When we went to Bugojno
17 as well as during the visit of our chief to Bugojno, we talked to those
18 people, and that's quite logical.
19 Q. But after you went back to Zenica, you also received information
20 about the situation in the temporary detention facilities in Bugojno, or
21 did any information stop? I'm just asking you, did you receive reports,
23 A. We would receive sporadic reports. They were not regular reports,
24 but occasionally we did receive reports.
25 Q. I want to ask you my last question about Bugojno, about the
1 transfer of detainees from temporary detention facilities in Bugojno. You
2 said yesterday there was a convoy. Can you please state whether the
3 convoy was finally at a later point in time reaching Zenica or whether
4 only a few members from the detention facilities, the few members,
5 detainees from this detention facilities did go to the KP Dom Zenica or
6 can you state that no detainees from the detention facilities in Bugojno
7 ever came to the KP Dom Zenica? Just to clarify.
8 A. The convoy did not leave Bugojno. And I mentioned several reasons
9 for that. The vehicles were inoperative, then also the initiative by the
10 local Croat intellectuals.
11 Q. I understood that, but my question was directed to since the
12 convoy obviously did not reach Zenica, did at some later point in time
13 detainees from the detention facility were transferred to Zenica, fewer
14 detainees? That's my only question.
15 A. As far as I know, the transfer never took place.
16 Q. I want to talk now about the dual line of command in the -- or by
17 the 3rd Corps organ for military security.
18 You testified yesterday that when security threats occurred in the
19 3rd Corps area of responsibility, such a dual line of reporting by the 3rd
20 Corps military security organ was in use; is that correct?
21 A. The dual chain of command was not used only in such cases. The
22 line of command in the military security service is dual regardless of the
23 situation out in the field. We have expert command, and we have the
24 command line, command -- chain of command, and that is how it is in
25 peacetime and in wartime. That is how it is in our service and in all the
1 military security services in all the countries of the world.
2 Q. So you informed the 3rd Corps Commander, and you informed the
3 security administration of the Supreme Command, which was based in
4 Sarajevo; right?
5 A. That is correct. The military security administration was the
6 expert organ which issued orders to us in the 3rd Corps. So without the
7 permission of the security administration in the staff, we were not able
8 to take any steps.
9 Q. If you wanted to relay information to the Supreme Command in the
10 besieged town of Sarajevo in 1993, what technical means did you use to
11 send reports, to send information there?
12 A. In the building of the 3rd Corps Command, there was a
13 communications centre. I am not a technical person, so I don't know how
14 this was done, but I assume that this was done through radio
15 communications and it would be an encrypted line.
16 Q. As you just explained, such information would, one way or another,
17 in encrypted form reach the Supreme Command in Sarajevo. Would you agree
18 with me that certain information could go to Sarajevo but the transfer of
19 troops from the besieged capital, for example to the 3rd Corps area of
20 responsibility, was far more difficult at the time, if not impossible?
21 A. At the beginning, in the course of 1993, transferring troops of
22 any kind from Sarajevo was impossible and it wasn't done.
23 Q. So would you, therefore, agree with me that in order to address
24 security threats in the 3rd Corps area of responsibility, the 3rd Corps
25 had to essentially rely on its own manpower?
1 A. Apart from the 3rd Corps, there were forces in the free territory
2 of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Apart from the forces of the ABiH and the 3rd
3 Corps and apart from the forces of the 1st Corps that were surrounded in
4 Sarajevo, there were other forces in the territory, and there was the five
5 -- the 5th Corps, the 6th Corps, the 1st Corps. So such communications
6 weren't completely impossible. It was possible to transfer some forces
7 from one area to another area.
8 Q. But effectively, security threats occurring in your area of
9 responsibility were primarily dealt with the available troops in the 3rd
10 Corps area of responsibility. Isn't at that true?
11 A. In Zenica and its surroundings from the very beginning of the
12 aggression on our country until the last day when some sort of agreement
13 was signed, there were permanent threats. Initially we only relied on our
14 own forces in our area.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, just for the sake
16 of the transcript, on page 21, line 11, after the word "staff" the words
17 "the Supreme Command" are missing. That's what the witness said. It
18 says "staff", but it doesn't mention the Supreme Command. The witness
19 said "the Supreme Command Staff."
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for that correction.
21 MR. NEUNER:
22 Q. So you said, "Initially we only relied on our own forces in our
23 area." From the perspective of the military security service, does this
24 mean if you have intelligence information you as the military security
25 service have an interest to apprise your commander with that information
1 since he is in charge of forces to solve that security threat?
2 A. It should have been like that, but the security organ and the
3 intelligence organ makes assumptions about the situation, which doesn't
4 mean that these assumptions are fully correct, fully accurate. So they
5 don't have to inform their commanders on all cases, because informing
6 superiors about all such assumptions might just create confusion. I don't
7 know if you have understood what I'm trying to say.
8 Q. What I wanted to say is you had certainly an interest to solve
9 security threats in your area of responsibility, and you collected
10 information on how big, how small the threat was. And you also said that
11 basically the available troops were those from the 3rd Corps area of
12 responsibility. So my only question was did you inform the 3rd Corps
13 commander, according to your own assessment, adequately in 1993 about
14 security threats occurring in your area of responsibility?
15 A. As I have said, when I arrived in the organ at the beginning of
16 1993, I worked as an official. I was an official and informing the corps
17 commander wasn't something that was done at my level. There were others
18 who would be involved in such matters or who perhaps didn't act in this
19 way, so I couldn't really answer that question.
20 Q. I want to switch to the guerrilla. You testified to my learned
21 colleague that the Turkish guerrilla unit was different from the guerrilla
22 unit the 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade. What do you know about the
23 guerrilla units or groups within the 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade?
24 A. Well, I wouldn't like there to be any confusion [Realtime
25 transcript read in error "conclusion"]. The term "guerrilla" doesn't mean
1 it was a guerrilla unit, not at all. At the beginning of the war, since
2 the men had watched a lot of TV or films, they probably gave such names to
3 their units, perhaps to have an effect on the other side. I don't know
4 what the reason was, but that unit was not at all different from other
5 units in the 3rd Corps. The guerrilla that was in the 7th Brigade was
6 nowhere different from other units in the 3rd Corps. But in the case --
7 that was not the case for the Turkish guerrilla group which was composed
8 of foreigners.
9 Q. I understand that.
10 MR. DIXON: Sorry, Your Honour. Could I just clarify something in
11 the transcript before it goes off the page, and that is on page 24, line
12 4, the witness said, "Well, I wouldn't like there to be any confusion,"
13 not "conclusion." So if that could just be corrected. Sorry to
14 interrupt. Thank you, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.
16 MR. NEUNER:
17 Q. Do you know who commanded the guerrilla -- I call it group now,
18 the guerrilla group within the 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade in 1993?
19 A. I don't know who commanded the so-called guerrilla group. That's
20 not what I would call it. In any event, it was a man from that area,
21 Zenica or the surroundings. I don't know exactly where he was from. But
22 the men in that unit were local men from that area.
23 Q. Can we switch now to the so-called Turkish guerrilla. Was this
24 Turkish guerrilla stationed in Zenica or where was it stationed?
25 A. The Turkish guerrilla group was stationed in the nursery building.
1 They broke into that building. It was in Travnicka Street, in Travnicka
2 Street in Zenica.
3 Q. According to the information you collected, this group had a
4 leadership, you said. Was the leader of this group a person called Kemal
5 Turcin or Kemal the Turk?
6 A. That's how he called himself.
7 Q. What do you know about this Kemal Turcin?
8 A. Given what I've heard about him, this was a criminal. He had
9 committed certain crimes in the territory of Turkey, and at the beginning
10 of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, he found refuge in Bosnia. He fled
11 from the law in Turkey.
12 Q. And about his activities on the ground in Zenica, do you know
13 anything? What did he do in Zenica?
14 A. Well, he and the entire group mostly committed illegal acts, not
15 to say crimes. This involved trafficking goods, fuel, cigarettes,
16 ammunition, weapons. Criminal acts. And in spreading panic among the
17 population. So they were involved in black marketeering. They, in a
18 certain sense, terrorised the civilian population in Zenica.
19 Q. Do you have any information whether this group was also stationed
20 in Arnauti, or was in Arnauti another group stationed? This is a village
21 about 12 kilometres east of Zenica.
22 A. I know exactly where the village is located but I don't know if
23 the group were stationed in Arnauti. As far as I know, they were
24 stationed in Travnicka Street in the nursery building and in a supermarket
25 that was next to the nursery school.
1 Q. So you said you know that village and you don't think that this
2 unit was stationed there. Which unit was stationed there in Arnauti? I'm
3 referring to a unit of foreigners.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. There is perhaps
5 a translation error. I heard that this group was in a nursery school and
6 in English I can see that it says a supermarket. So were they in a
7 supermarket or in a nursery school?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, in the nursery school and
9 the building of the supermarket next to the nursery school. So they were
10 in these two buildings. These were the two buildings they used and they
11 were next to each other.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And where were they? Were they
13 in the nursery school or in the supermarket?
14 A. In the nursery school and the supermarket.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In both these buildings. Very
17 MR. NEUNER:
18 Q. Before I ask you the question about Arnauti, can you just state,
19 please, how many people were in the Turkish guerrilla, according to your
21 A. We were never able to establish the number exactly since these
22 were mobile groups. Some of them were in that area, but they would
23 circulate in the area, so I couldn't say how many men there were in that
25 Q. You said also that at some point in time you arrested the entire
1 leadership of this guerrilla group. Can you give the approximate date
2 when you arrested or the military security service arrested the entire
3 leadership? You said that on page 25 of yesterday's transcript.
4 A. As I said yesterday, towards the end of 1993 and at the beginning
5 of 1994. Please don't insist on the exact date because I can't really
6 remember the date. A lot of time has passed since then. But having
7 monitored this group for a number of months, we asked the Supreme Command
8 Staff or other security service to tell us what we should do with these
9 people. We were told that they should either be placed under the control
10 of the ABiH or that they should be arrested. Since they refused to be
11 placed under the control of the ABiH, the 3rd Corps military police
12 battalion took action and the leaders of that group were arrested. They
13 were processed by the civilian organs. That was at the end of 1993 and at
14 the beginning of 1994, more or less. And that is when that group ceased
15 to exist in the territory of Zenica. The remaining men from that group
16 were Bosniaks, and they had been in the group for certain benefits that
17 they had received. People were starving in the area of Zenica at the time
18 and they would receive flour, sugar, oil, et cetera. But these local men
19 then joined the regular units of the ABiH.
20 Q. You just said that "these local men joined the regular units of
21 the ABiH." Do you have any recollection about how many local men,
22 approximately how many local men you're talking about, and which ABiH
23 units did they join?
24 A. I wouldn't know. I really don't know how many such men there
25 were. But this included the 7th Muslim, the 314th, 303rd. Those were the
1 units that were in the area of Zenica at the time, and they joined these
3 Q. So the local men who were for a certain period of time in the
4 Turkish guerrilla did stay in Zenica and joined the 303rd and probably, if
5 you're talking about the 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade, you're talking, I
6 assume, about the 2nd Battalion of the 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade, and
7 the 314th, the battalion of the 314th, who was stationed in Zenica; is
8 that correct? Just say yes --
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. Thank you very much. Did the military security service of the 3rd
11 Corps ever receive any documents, any requests from this guerrilla unit in
12 1993? Did somebody from this unit approach the military security service
13 of the 3rd Corps and ask for something, request something?
14 A. I'm not aware that there were any requests made.
15 Q. Were you personally, in 1993, dealing with the threat posed by
16 this Turkish guerrilla or was a colleague of yours dealing -- within this
17 military security organ dealing with the Turkish guerrilla? Who was the
18 responsible person for the Turkish guerrilla within your service?
19 A. As far as I recall, from the month of June 1993, the
20 counter-intelligence jobs in the security service or the work with those
21 foreigners was performed by my colleague, Osman Vlajcic. I don't know if
22 they contacted him. I really don't know.
23 Q. I want to talk a little bit about the Mujahedin unit, or first of
24 all about the foreigners, the so-called Mujahedin. At the time you were
25 arriving in mid-March 1993, what was the knowledge within your service,
1 the military security organ of the 3rd Corps? What was the knowledge of
2 this unit about this -- these people? Where were they based?
3 A. At the time, we practically had no information about these people.
4 We knew that they were there in that area, moving around, that new people
5 were appearing amongst them every day, but we didn't really know exactly
6 what the situation was and nobody was entrusted with dealing with them or
7 finding out what this was all about.
8 Q. Who was the responsible person in your unit at the 3rd Corps
9 military security service who from then on dealt with the problem of the
10 -- problem -- with the Mujahedin? Did you deal with them or ...
11 A. As I said in the beginning, from March 1993 to approximately June
12 1993, we all did everything. So we acted in accordance with tasks issued
13 by superior commanders.
14 From June 1993, we all received specific tasks and our own area of
15 activity. So Mr. Vlajcic was in charge of the counter-intelligence within
16 the organ.
17 Q. You said yesterday - this is page 23, line 20 - "In April 1993, we
18 sent an inquiry to the security administration of the Supreme Command in
19 order to find out how to deal with the problem of the Mujahedin." What
20 response did you receive -- or first of all, do you recall at what point
21 in time did you send that request out? Was it the beginning of April or
22 was it the end of April 1993, when the Supreme Command was contacted?
23 A. Let me clarify this first. When I say we sent out an inquiry, I'm
24 talking on behalf of the organ. I did not personally do that. This was
25 done by my superior commander. The inquiry was sent out in early April
2 Q. And are you familiar with a response by the Supreme Command?
3 A. The Supreme Command centre replied to the effect that we should
4 try to find out who these persons were to try to identify them, to see
5 where they were coming from and which channels they were using to get to
6 Zenica, how many people there were, what were their intentions, in view of
7 the fact that this was something that was completely unknown to us. They
8 spoke a foreign language, we didn't know the people, we were not familiar
9 with their customs; we simply didn't know anything about them.
10 Q. And that reply, to the best of your recollection, came within a
11 short period of time after your service had sent out the initial request
12 or it took some time to get this response?
13 A. I really am not able to respond to that question. I don't
14 remember how much time passed.
15 Q. You said yesterday at the beginning you couldn't get -- you tried
16 to infiltrate these people - I'll just leave it there - but you basically
17 didn't succeed at the beginning or you had problems with doing this. Are
18 you aware that there were locals staying with this unit or locals staying
19 with these people, local Bosnian people?
20 A. In the beginning, this wasn't so. Later, when the unit stationed
21 itself where it did, then the local population joined the unit. In my
22 personal opinion, the reason why these people joined that unit was of a
23 social or economic nature. As I said, these people who entered the
24 Turkish guerrilla did that because of certain benefits. They received
25 food from the unit. The same thing applied to this other unit, the El
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Mujahedin, that group of people. People joined them because of that
3 Q. You said earlier and later when they were stationed. Can you just
4 inform the Trial Chamber what -- to approximately what time period are you
5 referring by "earlier," and what do you mean by "later" when they were
6 stationed? What time period are you talking about?
7 A. In the beginning, when I say, I mean specifically when I joined
8 the military security service in March 1992, you could already see them
9 there in the streets, and you can see them moving around the town. When I
10 say that they were stationed, then I'm talking about the autumn of 1993.
11 Q. So the comments, the last comments you made about the presence of
12 these foreigners, you were talking about the presence of these foreigners
13 in Zenica; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: It was March 1993 and
16 not March 1992.
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. Page 31, line 9, it
18 said 1992, but it should state 1993, March 1993. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 MR. NEUNER:
21 Q. You were talking yesterday on page 26 about the headquarter of the
22 Mujahedin in Zenica. Was this building located on the premises of the
23 company Vatrostalna in Podbrijezje or are you referring to another
25 A. I mean that place. I mean the administrative building of the
1 Vatrostalna company in Podbrijezje. This is a suburb of Zenica.
2 Q. If I may ask you, before these people, the Mujahedin, moved in,
3 was this building used by or as a headquarter of the Frankopan Brigade,
4 headed by Zivko Totic in early 1993, or was this another building?
5 A. The command of the Jure Francetic HVO Brigade was in that
6 building, but when these people came, these foreigners, the building was
7 empty. It was abandoned. So they entered a building that was empty.
8 Q. To the best of your recollection, when did the Jure Francetic
9 Brigade abandon that building in 1993? Was it around the 8th June time
10 period or earlier?
11 A. I don't remember exactly, but I believe that it was in mid-1993.
12 Probably in the month of June, but I don't remember exactly.
13 Q. According to your information, how many Mujahedin were moving into
14 that building?
15 A. That was practically impossible to establish. The numbers
16 fluctuated continuously. They were not stationed in one place. In the
17 beginning, they were in Mehurici, in the Bila valley, so that every day
18 they would be going back and forth from there. It was very difficult to
19 determine how many there were. We invested a lot of effort to try to
20 establish exactly how many of them there were, but we were never
21 successful in that.
22 Q. Can you inform the Trial Chamber how far that building or
23 headquarter in Podbrijezje was away from the 3rd Corps headquarter? How
24 many kilometres, approximately?
25 A. Approximately ten to 12 kilometres.
1 Q. Were there any ABiH units stationed in Podbrijezje or was the --
2 were the Mujahedin the only force stationed in that part, in that suburb
3 of Zenica?
4 A. As far as I know, there were no B and H army units there where the
5 El Mujahedin group was, the one that had taken up that facility.
6 Q. I didn't ask for the same premises but for Podbrijezje as such,
7 for the suburb or -- how far, to your recollection, was the next ABiH unit
9 A. I'm thinking. It was the command of the 314th Brigade that was
10 about eight to nine kilometres from that location.
11 Q. And you said yesterday that you tried to intercept telephone
12 conversations. Were you referring to the intercepting of telephone
13 conversations in Mehurici or were you referring to the intercepting of
14 telephone conversations in Podbrijezje headquarter or both?
15 A. I was thinking of the telephone calls from the command of the
16 group, from -- in Podbrijezje.
17 Q. What was the outcome -- or when did the interception of telephone
18 conversations start, approximately?
19 A. I am not able to say. I wasn't performing those duties at the
20 time. This was already from June until the end of 1993, and that was
21 already the area of responsibility of Mr. Vlajcic.
22 Excuse me. Can I add something else?
23 Q. Please.
24 A. This is the application of methods and means of the military
25 security service. So this is something that is secret. And the
1 application of these methods is something that only the person actually
2 working on that task would be familiar with, because if more people knew
3 about it, there would be the danger that the attempt to acquire
4 information in this way would fail.
5 Q. I appreciate that explanation. Did you perform any -- were you
6 involved in any surveillance, in any counter-intelligence relating to this
7 group? Was this also part of your tasks?
8 A. No, I was not involved in any tasks like that.
9 Q. My last question is you said you stayed throughout the war in the
10 3rd Corps area of responsibility. Are you aware that at the end of the
11 war an order was given by the Supreme Command to -- with regard to the
12 documentation or the dissembling of documentation about this group and
13 that this documentation should be handed over to a committee of the 3rd
14 Corps? Are you familiar with any such order? I'm referring to the time
15 period December 1995 now.
16 A. No, I'm not familiar with that order.
17 MR. NEUNER: At this point in time, the Prosecution has no further
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It's half past
20 10.00. We will have our technical break and we will resume at about five
21 to eleven.
22 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will now resume, and I will
25 give the floor to the Defence for re-examination.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We have
2 a few questions for this witness.
3 Re-Examined by Ms. Residovic:
4 Q. Good morning, Mr. Muratovic.
5 A. Good morning.
6 Q. My learned friend asked you whether, after you had filed a report
7 on the visit to Bugojno, you had any contact with the commander and you
8 said that your chief was ill at the time and that you sent that to the
9 commander. Could you tell me, within your security service in the 3rd
10 Corps, who usually contacted the commander?
11 A. In the 3rd corps security service, my chief, my superior officer
12 alone had contact with the commander.
13 Q. Given the fact that he was ill, was the fact that you contacted
14 him an exception? Was this a rule? Is this how the members of the
15 service would communicate with the commander?
16 A. Well, when I contacted the commander, this was an exceptional
17 circumstance, but since we had assessed -- since the report on Bugojno on
18 the situation of the POWs was such, this is how we decided to proceed at
19 the time.
20 Q. When your chief returned from sick leave, who continued to have
21 contact with the commander as of that date?
22 A. Only my chief did.
23 Q. You were in the security organ of the 3rd Corps. You said that
24 there were security organs up to the level of battalions. Whose duty was
25 it primarily, whose responsibility was it if they found out that ABiH
1 members had committed a crime of any kind to investigate the matter and to
2 institute proceedings against the perpetrators if the perpetrators were
4 A. It was the organ's duty to report on such events if it happened in
5 the zone of responsibility. It was the duty from the organ of that
6 battalion. And this information is then forwarded to the corps security
7 organ and then we propose further measures to be taken.
8 Q. When you obtain information, when you -- when you obtain
9 information through investigating the situation on the site and to
10 determine that the relevant organ from a subordinate unit took all
11 measures that it should have taken in accordance with the law and the
12 orders issued, when you determine that that is the case, is it necessary
13 for you to check what was subsequently done or is this something that is
14 the responsibility of the organ in accordance with the law?
15 A. It's the organ in the unit concerned that is involved in the
16 matter, and I really don't see why we should have to check anything in the
17 service, because the organs in those subordinate units would have no role
18 in that case. There would only be an organ in the corps or the Supreme
19 Command that would be involved in those matters. If we had any doubts as
20 to the work of the organs in subordinate units, this is what the situation
21 would be like.
22 Q. You said that in June there were about five of you in the 3rd
23 Corps security organ. I assume that this organ developed and that there
24 were more members towards the end of the year, but even if there were --
25 or if there had been three times as many of you, would you have been in a
1 position to check on all the criminal proceedings instituted against ABiH
2 members throughout the territory of the 3rd Corps? Would this have had a
3 purpose and would it have at all been possible?
4 A. Well, if we had a look at the number of criminal reports filed or
5 the number of proceedings instituted and compared that to the number of
6 people working in the 3rd Corps security organ, this would have been
7 impossible to do, especially when the roads were blocked, territory was
8 cut off and enemy lines were in the vicinity.
9 Q. Mr. Muratovic, you mentioned the chain of command, and you
10 [Realtime transcript read in error "I"] mentioned the expert line which
11 meant that you had to provide information on all measures taken, and you
12 also mentioned the line of command responsibility. My learned friend
13 asked you about the possibility of troops or units leaving Sarajevo that
14 had been encircled and going to other areas. In your opinion, was there
15 the possibility of the units leaving Sarajevo, and did this affect the
16 line of command in the 3rd Corps and any other units?
17 A. No. This has no effect. I'm not sure I've really understood what
18 you are asking me.
19 Q. Even though ABiH units which were deployed in Sarajevo that had
20 been encircled, even though those units couldn't leave, did this in any
21 way affect your responsibility to provide the security administration of
22 the Supreme Command with information that you obtained?
23 A. No. We had this responsibility and this duty wasn't diminished,
24 and we acted in accordance with our responsibilities. As far as all the
25 events in our zone of responsibility are concerned, we provide the Supreme
1 Command Staff security administration of all such information, and we
2 requested that they provide us with instructions for further action.
3 Q. Did the blockade of Sarajevo in any way change the responsibility
4 you had to follow the instructions that the security administration gave
5 you with regard to how you should act after you had obtained information
6 of interest to security or, rather, after you had obtained information
7 about crimes committed?
8 A. The blockade of Sarajevo in no way affected the duty we had to
9 inform on everything that happened in our territory.
10 Q. There's a mistake in the transcript. 37, page 37, line 9. The
11 word "I" appears instead of "you." I apologise for interrupting you.
12 Given that dual line of command and whether there was a blockade
13 or not, were you able to provide the corps commander with information
14 gathered in the security organ, information that you had to forward to the
15 security administration?
16 A. We didn't provide all the information we obtained. The methods of
17 the security service was not something that we communicated fully to the
18 3rd Corps, because if we had provided them with all the information we
19 had, this could have been counter-productive and certain measures might
20 have been taken that would not have been appropriate.
21 Q. So that I'm quite clear about this, when you carried out your
22 work, would you, for example, also be involved with members of the
23 commands of subordinate units or the commander of the corps? Could they
24 also be processed by your organ if you believed that this was necessary?
25 A. Yes. That was part of the field of the work of the security
1 service. They also had to control the command officers, and certain
2 proceedings had also been instituted against high level officers in the
3 ABiH, against brigade commanders, et cetera.
4 Q. To be quite clear about this, you said that this might create
5 confusion and that certain measures might be taken. If you provided all
6 such information to the commander, would the work that you did have any
8 A. No, none at all.
9 Q. Thank you. I only have one more question for you which has to do
10 with your response. You said that you had arrested the leaders of Turkish
11 guerrilla group and you said that the Bosnians that were with them were
12 assigned to other units. Tell me, if there were any doubts, if there was
13 suspicion that these Bosnians had also committed crimes, were measures
14 taken against them or were they granted an amnesty if you suspected that
15 they had committed crimes?
16 A. All the orders we received from the 3rd Corps Commander stated
17 that the law was the same for everyone, for our local people and for
18 foreigners who committed crimes. I could provide you with hundreds of
19 examples when our people -- when people were starving in Zenica and in the
20 free territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, wherever the ABiH was present, I
21 can provide you with examples where people were held to account for having
22 stolen ten kilogrammes of flour. Disciplinary measures taken against
24 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Muratovic.
25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no further
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dixon.
3 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours. We have no questions arising
4 from the cross-examination by the Prosecution. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As far as I'm
6 concerned. I have a few questions for you.
7 Questioned by the Court:
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] First of all with regard to the
9 two guerrilla groups, in the sense brigade, in response to a question put
10 to you by Defence counsel, you said that these groups were composed of
11 people from the town or of men from the mountain. As far as you know,
12 because apparently you are a counter-intelligence specialist, as far as
13 you know, these men who were in the guerrilla groups, did they have
14 uniforms or not?
15 A. Yes, of course they had uniforms to the extent that this was
16 possible for us. It was at the beginning of the war, 1992 and 1993. I
17 don't know how you see the ABiH in that period, but to the extent that it
18 was possible, the men wore uniforms that they had been given by the units
19 or that they had obtained in some other way.
20 A. These weren't guerrillas. It was a unit just like any other unit.
21 It could have been called some sort of a company or a battalion, or they
22 could have given them a name such as El Mujahedin, but these men were
23 local men. There were no foreigners. The commander was a local man, and
24 all the men were from the territory of Zenica or from the surrounding
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Thank you. Very well. They had uniforms. In relation to the
2 battalion or platoon, what was their specific mission when compared to
3 other units? Did they have a specific mission which would have justified
4 the use of the term "guerrilla"?
5 A. Well, on the whole the tasks they had were the same, but since
6 these men were quite courageous, so to say, they were volunteers that the
7 commander could always rely on when it was necessary to go into action or
8 to oppose enemy action. Well, these men were, after all, courageous men.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said that they were
10 courageous men, and they must have had particular missions to accomplish.
11 Does that mean that these were high-risk missions, and were these missions
12 that were to be carried out in the enemy's depth?
13 A. Well, at the time, all the tasks were risky tasks. As to tasks in
14 the depth of enemy territory, I couldn't really say anything about that.
15 I didn't have such information at my level that these were high-risk
16 tasks. If the enemy penetrated the line, these were the men who would
17 first mount a defence of the free territory.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I'm following what you are
19 saying, when there was an operation, an attack, let's say, they were at
20 the front line.
21 THE INTERPRETER: The witness's answer was not audible.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are you certain of that?
23 A. Yes, I'm sure of that.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll move on to another subject
1 You spoke about two groups, the Turkish guerrilla group and the
2 Mujahedin group. At the very beginning, perhaps there was some
3 translation errors, but I noted this down: "We infiltrated our men in the
4 Turkish guerrilla group," and then when the Prosecution put questions to
5 you, you said that you tried to infiltrate men into the group. Could you
6 be clear and solve this ambiguity. Had your service infiltrated the
7 Turkish guerrilla group or did you try to infiltrate your men in the
8 guerrilla group? Can you see the difference?
9 A. Yes, I see the difference. I said that, and I was not talking
10 about men from the service but people who worked for the service. I said
11 that we managed to infiltrate our associates into the Turkish guerrilla
12 group and we tried to infiltrate them in the other El Mujahid group and we
13 were not successful in doing so. We tried to infiltrate them in the other
14 group. Towards the end of autumn, because we had infiltrated our men into
15 this first group, the leaders were arrested as a result of this action and
16 this group then eased to exist.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I'm following you correctly,
18 does this mean that the infiltration into the guerrilla group resulted in
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And does that mean, if I have
22 understood you correctly, that at one point in time there were within the
23 guerrilla group Bosniaks who had close contact with you and they could
24 participate in various actions with the Turkish guerrilla group, and given
25 the methods that you were applying, you were aware of what was happening.
1 A. The Turkish guerrilla group couldn't have been used for the needs
2 of the ABiH since they didn't want to place themselves under the control
3 of the army. But through these men we found out what their intentions
4 were. We obtained the information we needed in order to deal with the
5 group. We found out about their strength, the weapons they had, about the
6 areas they were deployed, about the accommodation used by the leaders,
7 about the location of their flats, et cetera.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you're saying
9 that thanks to the fact that men had infiltrated them, you knew about
10 their strength, the weapons they had, about the accommodation they used,
11 et cetera.
12 In response to a question from the Prosecution who asked you how
13 many of them there were, you weren't able to provide with us a number and
14 now I see that you're saying that you knew how many of them there were.
15 So how many of them were there?
16 A. I don't know how many there were. I'm still standing by what I
17 said that we don't know how many there were. The approximate number of
18 the Turkish guerrilla members was known but not for this other group, El
19 Mujahedin. We never managed to establish exactly how many of them there
20 were in spite of all our efforts and insistence to find out.
21 Q. Very well. As far as the Turkish guerrilla group is concerned -
22 I'm not talking about the Mujahedin right now, I'm talking about the
23 Turkish guerrilla group - how many of them were there?
24 A. I don't know.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You don't know. In response to
1 a question, you said the end of 1993, beginning of 1994, you were given
2 two possibilities; either to place them under control or to arrest them.
3 That's page 27, line 11. Can you confirm that at your level or at the
4 level of ABiH, at the level of the 3rd Corps, the issue of these members
5 of the Turkish guerrilla or the Mujahedin resulted in the idea that they
6 should either be placed under control or arrested. Could you clarify this
8 A. From the level of the security service of the 3rd Corps, an
9 inquiry was sent to the B and H army Supreme Command security services
10 administration about what to do about these people since they were
11 creating problems in the town both for civilians as well as for the
12 reputation of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. People, when they saw
13 somebody in uniform, they would think that they were members of the army
14 of B and H but they were in fact not members of the B and H army. After a
15 certain period of time, I don't know exactly after how long, we received a
16 response that they needed to decide whether they would place themselves
17 under the control of the 3rd Corps or the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina
18 or whether they needed to be dealt with, whether they had to be arrested.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And my final question: You said
20 that they were tarnishing the reputation of the army given their conduct
21 and that they really presented you with a problem, and you have already
22 said that these members of the Turkish guerrilla group committed crimes.
23 I'm quoting you. You mentioned trafficking, black-marketeering,
24 trafficking in weapons, spreading panic among the population, et cetera,
25 terrorising the population, et cetera. You described what these men did.
1 How can you reconcile the fact that there were men who committed crimes
2 and later you placed them in the army or you wanted to put them under the
3 control of the army? Could you clarify this issue. If you can't, just
4 say that the question is too complicated and that you can't answer it.
5 I'll repeat the question. You said that these men committed
6 crimes and then it was necessary to solve the problem by making them join
7 the army. One could come to the conclusion that the army was going to
8 have delinquents among its troops. How would you explain this?
9 A. I understood the question. I understand what you're saying.
10 Placing them under the control, this group, the Turkish guerrilla group, I
11 don't know how many people there were, perhaps there were 50 or 100, I
12 said that the majority of the group comprised of Bosniaks, people who were
13 there for purely economic reasons, for social reasons, in order -- they
14 were there because they were receiving food. All of these people are
15 innocent. All the Bosniaks did not violate the law. However, their
16 complete leadership, the leadership of the unit, it turned out that these
17 were some ten people, I'm not sure exactly how many there were, it's clear
18 that by placing them under the control, they would be then subject to the
19 laws and then they would have had to be processed for their deeds.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As we don't have
21 much time, I have one last question for you. You have just said that in
22 this group there were innocent Bosnians who had to be put on the right
23 path, in a certain sense, and you said that they had not done anything.
24 You said that it was only the leaders. Shouldn't these Bosnians, as far
25 as you know, given the fact that a state of war had been declared,
1 shouldn't these Bosnians had been in army units? How is it that they were
2 not in the army since there was a decree law according to which anyone fit
3 for military service would be automatically mobilised into the army?
4 Could you clarify this for us.
5 A. The 3rd Corps had over 30.000 members, people who were mobilised,
6 and it's clear that in the territory of about some 2 to 300.000 people -
7 this was a joint territory - it's clear that you would have some 50 or 100
8 people who would try to evade their mobilisation duty and join other
9 groups. In the beginning, this was easier because they simply concealed
10 themselves inside these groups.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As far as you know - and this is
12 my last question - when the leaders of the Turkish group were arrested,
13 the Bosnians who were with them, were they assigned to units?
14 A. Yes. The majority passed into the composition of the 303rd,
15 314th, and the 7th Muslim Brigade.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Very well. Does the
17 Prosecution have any questions that arise from the Judge's questions?
18 Further cross-examination by Mr. Neuner:
19 Q. You stated again that you didn't know the numbers of foreigners in
20 the Mujahedin unit, the exact numbers. Are you aware that already in 1993
21 there were some lists of members of the so-called El Mujahedin detachment
22 and that such lists contained up to nearly 190 names? I'm referring to
23 foreigners as well as local names. Are you aware whether any such lists
24 were existing in 1993?
25 A. I don't know. I don't know.
1 Q. So you will therefore probably also not know that such lists
2 contained a kind of letterhead, 3rd Corps, and stating basically --
3 mentioning the 3rd Corps on top of such lists? You don't have such
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the witness said he
6 doesn't know, so it's not correct.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Residovic, you would like to
8 make an objection, but the document has been admitted as an exhibit. I
9 did not specifically question the witness about Mujahedin. I put to him
10 one question about their numbers, and he said that he didn't know. The
11 Prosecutor would like to go a little further and is asking him whether
12 he's aware of a list existing. Is that your objection or is this a
13 tactical objection? I would like to know what this is about.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, this is not a tactical
15 objection. I just would like to say that the witness said that he didn't
16 know that there was any such list, and after such a response, you cannot
17 put additional questions about a list.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. He said that he
19 doesn't know about the list and he doesn't know their number.
20 MR. NEUNER:
21 Q. Turning to the guerrillas, you said you didn't know the numbers of
22 the Turkish guerrilla group. On the other hand side you said you
23 infiltrated this group. You found out -- let's say the military security
24 service of the 3rd Corps infiltrated this group. The military security
25 service found out about where the commander was accommodated, how many
1 weapons, that the majority of the members were local Bosnian members. If
2 you have all these details available in the military security service,
3 wouldn't that imply that the military security service was also aware
4 about the absolute numbers of these people? If you know details about the
5 apartments or about the accommodation of the leadership, then before you
6 get such details, and if you have members in this unit infiltrating the
7 unit, you will know how many members are in this unit or not.
8 A. I am not ruling out the possibility that somebody knew how many
9 there were. I personally did not know how many of them there were. I
10 didn't know how many members there were in the Turkish guerrilla.
11 Q. I understand that. You talk about the supermarket or nursery
12 being a kind of accommodation for the command or -- was this actually the
13 accommodation of the command or was this the accommodation of the whole
14 unit? Were these a kind of barracks or -- can you please explain?
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I didn't ask any questions about
16 the supermarket or about the nursery school. I asked him to provide a
17 more precise answer awhile ago, but in my direct questions that I put to
18 the witness just a minute ago, this is not an issue that I raised.
19 MR. NEUNER:
20 Q. The Presiding Judge was asking you questions relating to
21 operations, combat operations, of this Turkish guerrilla group. To the
22 best of your recollection --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, I didn't ask any questions
24 about the combat operations led by the Turkish group. I asked a question
25 about the guerrilla group that was part of the 7th Brigade. I don't want
1 this to be confused, otherwise Defence will be on their feet to object.
2 My question was about the guerrilla and the 7th Brigade, not about
3 the Turks. I wanted to state that in order to avoid having the Defence
4 object, which would have resulted in a waste of time. Please go ahead.
5 MR. NEUNER: Thank you for this clarification. So I withdraw that
7 Q. The Turkish -- you said that you talked about the local members of
8 the -- within the Turkish guerrilla, and you said that they were innocent,
9 so to speak. How did you personally know that these local members within
10 the Turkish guerrilla did not violate the law? On what basis do you say
11 they are innocent?
12 A. Members of the Turkish guerrilla could be seen around town, and it
13 was more or less known who committed these illegal acts, who was doing the
14 smuggling, reselling fuel, who was intimidating the civilian population.
15 This was something that the local people did not participate in.
16 Q. You said the law was the same for everyone. So it was applied for
17 local people and for foreigners. Did you personally, with the work of the
18 military security service of the 3rd Corps, come to the stage that the law
19 was also applied against the Turkish, the leadership of the Turkish
20 guerrilla? Were any legal proceedings instituted?
21 A. They were handed over to civilian organs, and I don't know what
22 happened to them after that.
23 Q. Do you know what charges or what criminal reports were filed by
24 the military security service of the 3rd Corps organ in relation to the
25 Turkish guerrilla?
1 A. They were not members of the army, and military security did not
2 issue charges against them. They were handed over to the civilian organs
3 who then dealt with them.
4 Q. I wasn't asking for charges. I was asking for criminal reports to
5 be filed by the military security service of the 3rd Corps. Since you had
6 infiltrated the group, you had knowledge -- you had gained knowledge about
7 the group, were some criminal reports filed, to your knowledge? Or maybe
8 there weren't any filed.
9 A. Like I said, they were handed over to the civilian bodies, to the
10 civilian judiciary bodies, and they then dealt with them further.
11 Q. Along this line I just want to ask if foreigners are stationed in
12 the 3rd Corps area of responsibility and you in the military security
13 service received reports about potential crimes committed by foreigners,
14 so brigade or military security services of brigades are sending reports
15 upwards to the military security service ...
16 MR. NEUNER: My learned friend has asked questions regarding this.
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I've heard a few
18 questions now and I was paying careful attention to your questions and
19 what the Prosecution has now asked about brigades, about prosecuting
20 individuals, et cetera, has nothing to do with the questions that you put
21 to the witness.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Neuner. I didn't ask
23 any questions about this. He answered a previous question and said that
24 when these people were arrested, they were transferred -- or they were
25 handed over to the civilian police who dealt with them, and I believe that
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 he has answered the question.
2 MR. NEUNER: The Prosecution has no further questions. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Defence counsel.
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you very much.
5 Further examination by Ms. Residovic:
6 Q. Mr. Muratovic, you said that for several months you surveilled
7 this Turkish guerrilla group before you submitted an inquiry to the
8 military security administration about taking further measures; is that
10 A. We first sent an inquiry to the administration asking them what to
11 do. They instructed us to take certain steps which we did vis-a-vis these
13 Q. After you monitored this group, infiltrated it, and when you found
14 out certain things, after that did you ask the military security
15 administration about what you were supposed to do? When you provided them
16 information about their numbers, the command cadre, actions and so on.
17 A. In the expert sense, the military security administration organ is
18 superior to us, so everything that we did in relation to anyone else
19 within the area of responsibility of the 3rd Corps was something that we
20 had to have permission for from the administration of the military
21 security service of the Main Staff.
22 Q. You've already told us what kind of information you received and
23 how you found out what was necessary. Were you able to ask for permission
24 for an operation before you found out everything that you received back
25 from your associates or information you got through other methods? Before
1 you compiled all of this information were you able to embark upon an
2 operation which you eventually carried out?
3 A. Theoretically we could have asked for that, but it wouldn't have
4 made any sense. Only after we had compiled all of the information through
5 different means could we then embark on the operation itself.
6 Q. I assume we had some -- you had some kind of plan. I'm not sure
7 how you do that in the security services. So who had to approve your plan
8 of activity in relation to the guerrilla or anyone else that you were
9 planning to take steps against?
10 A. The chief of the security service administration of the Main
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dixon.
14 MR. DIXON: Only one small follow-up clarification.
15 Further cross-examination by Mr. Dixon:
16 Q. I think you have made this clear already, but just so we can all
17 be sure. Could you confirm that it was common throughout the Bosnian army
18 for various brigades to have specialised units within those brigades that
19 would perform specialised tasks on the front lines, such as doing
20 reconnaissance work or anti-sabotage work, and that those units had
21 different names depending on the brigade. Is that right?
22 A. Yes. That was the practice. Those units were usually called
23 manoeuvering units, and they were of that type. And these were units
24 which were always prepared to combat certain enemy activities. Such a
25 unit in the 7th Muslim Brigade was called like that. It was called
1 guerrilla. At that point in time it seemed like a good idea to the people
2 who were in that specialised unit to call themselves that, and that is
3 what they did.
4 Q. And it would be correct, then, that there were other similar units
5 in other brigades with different names performing the same kind of tasks;
6 is that right?
7 A. Yes, that is right.
8 Q. Thank you, sir.
9 MR. DIXON: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Sir, this concludes
11 your testimony. Thank you for having come to The Hague, and thank you for
12 having answered the questions put to you by the Defence, by the
13 Prosecution, and by myself. On behalf of the Chamber, I wish you a good
14 trip home and all the best in your career in the ministry where you work.
15 I will now ask the usher to escort you out of the courtroom.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll be calling the second
19 witness into the courtroom. The Defence said that they needed 30 minutes
20 yesterday. We'd best make sure that the witness doesn't have to stay over
21 the weekend. Perhaps we will be able to complete this witness's testimony
22 by 1.45 p.m.
23 Mr. Registrar, we're in courtroom II, and I've noticed that
24 courtroom III is available. Why are we in courtroom II since courtroom
25 III is available? I'm taking this opportunity to put this question to
2 Very well. Technical measures are being taken in courtroom III.
3 This is why we could not use it. But we'll be in courtroom III next week.
4 Mr. Registrar, I hope that the usher is aware of the fact that he
5 should bring the second witness into the courtroom. Do you have any news?
6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
7 [The witness entered court]
8 WITNESS: RAGIB HADZIC
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good day, sir. I would first
11 like to make sure that you are receiving the interpretation of what I'm
12 saying into your own language. Please say that you hear me and understand
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I hear you and understand you.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have been called here as a
16 witness for the Defence to testify about certain events that you may have
17 been familiar with in 1992 and 1993. Before you take the solemn
18 declaration, I would be grateful if you could tell me your first and last
19 names, your date of birth and place of birth.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Ragib Hadzic. I was born
21 on the 6th of July, 1950, in Vlasenica, in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are you currently employed, and
23 if so, what is your job?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have a private business. I am a
25 private --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. In 1992 and 1993,
2 did you hold a position of any kind; and if so, what was your position and
3 for which legal body did you work?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I worked for the municipal
5 prosecutor's office in Zenica and in the higher court or, rather, later in
6 the cantonal court in Zenica.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Have you already
8 testified before an international or national court about the events in
9 your country in 1992 and 1993 or is this the first time?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please read out the
12 solemn declaration that the usher will show you.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
14 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You may sit down.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the Prosecution?
18 MR. WAESPI: I hate to interrupt at this point, but the witness
19 said, and it's recorded like that, that his name was Mr. Ragib Hadzic and
20 not Hodzic, but I may be wrong, because in the 65 ter summary it says
21 Hodzic, and that plays a big role in our searches. I'm just wondering
22 whether the Defence could clarify because then we could make some
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll ask the witness to spell
25 his name.
1 Could you please spell your name for us and that will clarify the
2 issue immediately.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a mistake that is often
4 made. My name is Hadzic, the second letter in my surname is A.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So in your passport
6 or on your identity card your name is spelt with an H and A and not with
7 an O; is that correct?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Defence wrote
10 your name with an O.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] A mistake was obviously made. We
12 didn't check it. It's correct to say that Mr. Hadzic worked in the
13 prosecutor's office and he will only be talking about one subject that
14 relates to Dusina.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This could have
16 caused problems for the Prosecution when searching electronically for
17 information because HO wouldn't have yielded the same result as HA.
18 So you have been called here as a witness for the Defence and I
19 would like to provide you with some information about the procedure that
20 will be followed here. You will first have to answer the questions put to
21 you by the Defence, and they will be conducting what we call the
22 examination-in-chief. Once this stage has been completed, which should
23 not take more than 30 minutes, the Prosecution, who are to your right,
24 will conduct what we call their cross-examination. The questions put to
25 you in the course of the cross-examination must relate to the questions
1 put to you in the course of the examination-in-chief. The difference
2 between these two systems is that in the course of the
3 examination-in-chief you must not be asked leading questions. On the
4 other hand, the Prosecution is allowed to put leading questions to you.
5 As you can see, matters become complicated here.
6 After this stage has been completed, Defence counsel may ask you
7 additional questions that relate to the questions put to you by the
8 Prosecution. The three Judges who are sitting before you may also ask you
9 questions at any point in time if they believe that it is necessary, but
10 as a rule the Judges prefer to work for the -- wait for the parties to
11 have completed their examination before intervening. As a rule, when the
12 Judges ask questions, the purpose of our questions is either to clarify
13 witness's answers or because we believe it is in the interest of justice
14 to fill some of the gaps we have noted in the questions or in the answers.
15 When the Judges ask questions -- after the Judges have asked questions,
16 the parties have the right to ask the witness additional questions.
17 Defence counsel will be the last to take the floor and they may put any
18 questions they believe necessary to a witness after the Judges have put
19 their questions to the witness.
20 I would also like to point out that as you have taken the solemn
21 declaration, this excludes the possibility of giving false testimony. And
22 secondly, there is a provision that is applicable in this system and
23 perhaps in certain other countries, when a witness answers a question, if
24 the witness believes that his answer could be used at a subsequent date
25 against him, in such a case the witness may refuse to answer the question.
1 If this happens, but this is very exceptional and we have never had such a
2 case to date, if this happens, the Chamber can compel the witness to
3 answer the question but the witness is granted a form of immunity. This
4 is a very specific measure.
5 Without wasting any more time, I will now give the floor to the
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
8 Mr. President.
9 Examined by Ms. Residovic:
10 Q. Good day, Mr. Hadzic.
11 A. Good day.
12 Q. When you hear my question, I would like you to pause slightly so
13 that my question could be interpreted. I will also do the same thing when
14 I hear your response, and in that way Their Honours and our learned
15 friends in the courtroom can follow what you are saying. Did you
16 understand me?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Could you please tell me what your qualifications are.
19 A. I completed the Faculty of Law in Sarajevo in 1975.
20 Q. You told the Presiding Judge that you worked during the war --
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Was this in 1975 or 1985? We're
22 not sure. We heard 1985 but the transcript says 1975.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The transcript has it right. I
24 graduated on the 26th of November in 1975 in Sarajevo.
25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. You said that you worked in the basic court and then you worked in
2 the superior and then in the cantonal prosecutor's office of Zenica.
3 Could you please tell us whether at some point during the war you stopped
4 working in the prosecutor's office and worked in other duties. And if
5 this happened, could you please tell us, how long were you away from the
6 prosecutor's office during the war?
7 A. Yes, I did have a short break when I was mobilised and sent for
8 work duty. I performed the task of director of the centre for the
9 Institute for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity and
10 International Law, and this lasted from the summer of 1993 until April
12 Q. Since you spent a large amount of time in the prosecutor's office,
13 could you please tell me what was the area covered by the higher
14 prosecutor's office in Zenica?
15 A. According to the pre-war organisation of the judicial services in
16 Bosnia and Herzegovina, the superior prosecutor's office and the superior
17 court covered the municipalities of Zenica, Kakanj, Zavidovici, Zepca,
18 Travnik, Vitez, Busovaca, Gornji Vakuf, Donji Vakuf, Bugojno, and Kupres.
19 Q. Could you please tell me, the superior prosecutor's office, was
20 that responsible for the prosecution of persons for all criminal acts or
21 were its jurisdictions connected to the gravity of those crimes?
22 A. According to the general regulations, the superior prosecutor's
23 office prosecuted persons who committed crimes for -- which were to be
24 punished up to ten years in prison. And then the higher such bodies
25 prosecuted persons who had committed crimes punishable by sentences of
1 over ten years.
2 Q. Mr. Hadzic, who was the prosecutor in the high -- in the superior
3 prosecutor's office?
4 A. When I took upon -- that duty took upon myself, up to June 1997,
5 the superior public prosecutor was Sulejman Kapetanovic.
6 Q. When you were working in the prosecutor's office, what were the
7 regulations that you applied in your work?
8 A. Up until 1978, we applied the Law on Criminal Procedure of the
9 former SFRY, which was taken over as the republican law of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992 by a decree of the Presidency. The criminal
11 law of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the general parts of the criminal law of
12 the former SFRY, which were also applied to -- as republican law. And
13 also we applied other regulations from the law of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
14 Q. Mr. Hadzic, we would just like to clarify one thing which is in
15 the transcript here. Perhaps it's just a misstatement. Can you please
16 tell us up until when this Law on Criminal Procedure was applied.
17 A. Up until the Law on Criminal Procedure of the Federation of Bosnia
18 and Herzegovina was adopted.
19 Q. And when was this?
20 A. This was in 1998. I apologise. I made a mistake.
21 Q. My colleagues are warning me. I would like to repeat some
22 questions because the competency of the basic and the higher prosecutor's
23 office remained a little bit unclear. So could you please tell me now,
24 what was the basic prosecutor's office responsible for and for which acts
25 was the higher prosecutor's office responsible?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. The criteria was the sentence. The basic prosecutor's office
2 prosecuted persons which could be sentenced up to ten years of
3 imprisonment. The higher prosecutor's office prosecuted persons for more
4 serious crimes, punishable by ten years or more.
5 Q. Mr. Hadzic, during the war could you please tell me the basic and
6 the higher prosecutor's office, who was under their jurisdiction?
7 A. They had jurisdiction over civilians and over military persons
8 only if they committed criminal acts in some kind of collusion or jointly
9 with civilians.
10 Q. Mr. Hadzic, do you know whether, besides these prosecutors'
11 offices, the basic and the superior offices in the area of Zenica and a
12 broader area, was there any other prosecutor's office that was active; and
13 if so, what were their jurisdictions?
14 A. During the war there was also the district military prosecutor's
15 office which was responsible to the military court in Zenica, and its
16 jurisdiction included only military personnel and only civilians for very
17 specific crimes. As far as I recall, we are talking about criminal acts
18 committed against the arms -- armed forces in such cases.
19 Q. In order to use the fact that you worked in the prosecutor's
20 office and on that basis so that we could find out a little more about the
21 role of the prosecutor, could you please tell me when and based on what
22 did the prosecutor, in accordance with our regulations, issue or initiate
23 proceedings? Based on what information would he be able to start acting
24 in accordance with the law?
25 A. The prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings based on formal
1 criminal charges, an act, a document that somebody, most often it would be
2 the police, informed them that something had been committed that could be
3 a criminal act. They could also initiate formal proceedings based on
4 information received from some other sources. This was defined by law in
5 such a way by saying that the prosecutor had been informed that a crime
6 had been committed. This means that there were two possibilities based on
7 which the prosecutor would assess the grounds for initiating criminal
9 Q. Let's start from this second option. Could you please tell us
10 what was the role or the responsibility of the prosecutor when he had been
11 informed or when he learned information about indications existing of a
12 criminal act being committed. What was then the prosecutor duty bound to
14 A. He was obliged to check the grounds for the information that he
15 received, which means that he was obliged to determine, according to law,
16 the authenticity and reliability of the facts and information that he had
17 learned. This was usually done through the organs for internal affairs.
18 The received information was checked and specific orders were given to the
19 interior -- the service for internal affairs. They were told who they
20 were supposed to interview, possibly which cases or items they needed to
21 deal with, and then after that this list would be completed.
22 Q. If the prosecutor received a formal criminal charge, what were his
23 duties and what was the procedure that he followed in such a case?
24 A. If the material that came along with the criminal charges provided
25 sufficient grounds for the prosecutor to conclude that there was reason to
1 believe that a criminal act had been committed, then the prosecutor
2 launched an investigation. He would formalise the charges, which under
3 that law was called a request to conduct an inquiry. He would pass that
4 on to the investigative judge and specify, first of all, the act
5 constituting a criminal act, would provide his opinion of the legal
6 qualification, and then he would instruct the investigative judge what
7 actions he needed to take, and then at the end of the investigation he
8 would decide to prosecute or not. If the material was not of sufficient
9 quality to provide enough grounds for reasonable grounds to believe that a
10 crime had been committed, then the prosecutor was obliged to complete
11 that, to complete the missing facts or materials which would then be
12 sufficient for reasonable grounds to believe, or he would conclude that
13 there were no grounds to believe that a criminal act had been committed.
14 Q. What would the prosecutor do once he received formal criminal
15 charges, which as you say would not indicate that there were reasonable
16 grounds, or when the assembled material did not indicate that there was
17 sufficient grounds to believe that a criminal act would be -- had been
18 committed, what would the prosecutor then do with all of these documents,
19 this material?
20 A. If after the material was checked the material did not indicate
21 that a criminal act had been declared, then in case of charges, a formal
22 decision, a formal act would be adopted rejecting the criminal charges.
23 There was specific reasons based on which you could reject criminal
24 charges. If we're talking about the second option that we discussed, that
25 the prosecutor had learned or found out through informal channels about a
1 criminal act possibly be committed, then this would simply be filed. The
2 material would be filed and the case would be considered closed.
3 Q. If the prosecutor assessed that the material at his disposal,
4 given to him by the police, from a court or from the plaintiff did not
5 point to a criminal act being committed and the prosecutor noted that by
6 filing the material or rejecting the charges, in that case would this be a
7 legally binding decision about a certain incident or event, or would the
8 prosecutor have the option to review the case once additional evidence had
9 been submitted?
10 A. Yes, of course. A formal ruling to reject the criminal charges
11 would be the act of one side in the proceedings. And it doesn't have the
12 res judicata or power. It doesn't have the power of a matter having been
13 ruled upon. Each new fact or piece of evidence indicating the contrary
14 from the conviction of the prosecutor would then be sufficient to continue
15 proceedings in that case under legal procedures in force. After a case
16 was filed, which we kept a record of through a general kind of ledger, it
17 would in that case also be enough to hear of a new fact or for some new
18 evidence to come so that this case could then again be reopened.
19 Q. Mr. Hadzic, could you please tell me who, according to our law,
20 handled the overall pre-trial procedure?
21 A. The pre-trial procedure was exclusively handled by the prosecutor,
22 and it was his responsibility entirely.
23 Q. When the prosecutor requested that an investigation be carried out
24 and an investigative judge accepted this by a decision, who would then be
25 in charge of handling the formal proceedings?
1 A. The law on criminal proceedings of Bosnia and Herzegovina from
2 1978 was based on a judicial inquiry. So after the ruling to carry out an
3 investigation was carried and then all the responsibility for that case
4 would be borne by the investigative judge or by the court.
5 Q. When you told us all the different places where you worked, you
6 said that you had moved to the superior prosecutor's office and then to
7 the cantonal prosecutor's office. What would be the competence of the
8 Zenica cantonal prosecutor's office, and when was this office established?
9 A. The Zenica cantonal prosecutor's office was established in 1997
10 when cantons were formed as special administrative units within the
11 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina based on the constitution of the
12 Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. These prosecutor's offices inherited
13 the jurisdiction of the former higher prosecutor's office. Then there was
14 some newly formed municipalities, Jug, Tesanj, Maglaj, Zavidovici, Zepca,
15 Zenica, Kakanj, Breza, Visoko, Olovo, and I think that that is all. This
16 was all part of the canton.
17 Q. When this canton prosecutor's office was formed, were there any
18 military prosecutor's offices in existence at the time? What happened to
20 A. The organs of the military judiciary, the military prosecutor's
21 office and the military courts were abolished when the war ended, when the
22 immediate threat of war had ceased, and all the organs of the district
23 military prosecutor's office and the military courts became part of the
24 higher cantonal -- Zenica canton prosecutor's office and the higher court.
25 Q. Mr. Hadzic, when you said that if a prosecutor found out some new
1 facts or received some new material he would be able to review a certain
2 case on which he had already ruled upon earlier or which was ruled upon by
3 some other prosecutor who was evaluating that material. Could you please
4 tell us whether you personally were ever in a situation where you had to
5 reassess a decision of a colleague of yours in a case where there was not
6 enough grounds to believe that a criminal act had been committed?
7 A. Not only did I review the decisions, my own decisions, but also
8 the decisions of colleagues whose cases I had inherited. This was nothing
9 unusual or new. It is quite normal that if some new fact or circumstance
10 surfaces, to continue the criminal proceedings, because the basic
11 procedure of work of the prosecutor's office in Bosnia and Herzegovina is
12 consistency, because the prosecutor is obliged to carry out criminal
13 proceedings in any situation where he had a sufficient quantity of
14 evidence pointing to a criminal act being committed. So for us, these
15 were guidelines in the prosecutor's office which were not debatable.
16 Q. Mr. Hadzic, tell me whether among those cases there was a case
17 from January 1993 which concerned the events in Dusina.
18 A. Yes, there was such a case.
19 Q. Tell me how and for what reason were you in a position to reassess
20 decisions taken by your colleague from 1993?
21 A. When the trial of General Blaskic commenced before this Tribunal,
22 there was speculation among the public that a crime had been committed
23 against the civilians in Dusina and that prisoners had been killed, that
24 human shields had been used, et cetera. And at a -- at a meeting -- at an
25 advisory meeting, we decided to examine all the archives of the district
1 military prosecutor's office in Zenica, and we decided that if there were
2 any cases that contained interesting information in that respect, we
3 decided that we should re-examine this, re-examine events and the
4 circumstances that prevailed when these cases were dealt with. We decided
5 to re-examine information that wasn't familiar at the time.
6 Q. I also received a case from 1993. There were a few attachments
7 included which had to do with initial information on the events in Dusina
8 at the time of the conflict between ABiH units and HVO units.
9 Q. The documents that your colleague had from that period, given what
10 you realised when you examined the case, were the documents such that he
11 believed that there was no reason to institute proceedings or had
12 proceedings already been instituted?
13 A. As far as I can remember, the documents consisted of the
14 following: There was information from the security service in Zenica; an
15 examination of 12 or 13 bodies that had been taken to the Zenica hospital
16 morgue; there was the record of the investigating judge - I think that was
17 the judge of the district military court, Vlado Adamovic - there was photo
18 documentation that had been made by the forensics expert; there were the
19 findings, the results of the paraffin glove test; and I think there was an
20 external description of the bodies. That was all the material in the
21 case, and my colleague who worked on the case in 1993 did not believe that
22 this material indicated that a crime had been committed.
23 Q. Did you take any additional steps to reassess the decision of your
24 colleague from 1993?
25 A. Yes, because there was information according to which something
1 had happened in Dusina. I contacted the military archives and asked for
2 documents that related to that period, the end of January 1993. I then
3 requested that the organ of the -- of interior affairs find out where some
4 inhabitants from Dusina were located, and I requested that they be
5 interviewed with regard to the circumstances we were interested, with
6 regard to whether civilians had been killed there, women, children, and
7 the elderly, to find out whether prisoners had been killed, whether human
8 shields had been used, to check the information that we were receiving at
9 that time.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the Prosecution.
11 MR. WAESPI: I don't want to interrupt the flow of the witness,
12 but because cross-examination will be limited, we hope that he can go over
13 the weekend. If it could be made clear that everything the witness is
14 talking about he did not in 1992 or 1993, he did after the Blaskic trial
15 judgement triggered this new assessment. So it was after 1999. So
16 everybody is clear about that.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Could you ask the witness
18 when he started re-examining the -- the file. This should be contained in
19 the transcript, because we're not quite sure of the date.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Hadzic, please tell me when you started to -- when did you
22 exactly start to reassess the case?
23 A. I said that when the trial of General Blaskic started, in the
24 course of his trial. That was perhaps in 1999 or in the year 2000. I
25 can't remember exactly.
1 Q. And in the course of that year, in accordance with the
2 authorisation that the prosecutor had, you re-examined everything that
3 took place in 1993, and you re-examined the decision taken by your
4 colleague from 1993.
5 A. Yes, that's quite correct.
6 Q. Did you receive from the ABiH or the MUP the material that you had
8 A. Yes. I received from the archives of the ABiH all the material
9 that related to that period, and I received from the MUP a report on an
10 interview with I think three or four Croats. And having examined all the
11 material that I had, I came to the conclusion that a war crime had not
12 been committed in the village of Dusina.
13 Q. Did you come to that conclusion having re-examined all the
14 material that your colleague had in 1993, the court records that he had
15 been provided with and all the material, all the information that you
16 subsequently obtained about the event?
17 A. Yes. I compiled an official report in which I explained all the
18 facts that I had obtained, and I provided a brief analysis of those facts
19 and drew my conclusion. It is true that at one point in time -- well,
20 there was the body of an old man among those bodies. I think he was 77 or
21 78 years old. So he wasn't a soldier. He wasn't someone fit for military
22 service according to the law. But when I analysed the part of the
23 material, the documents that I had received from the military archives, my
24 conclusion was that this was collateral damage. Unfortunately, it was
25 collateral damage. He was a civilian who happened to be in the area of
1 combat. As far as I can remember in the report that I compiled, my
2 conclusion was that the authorities, the HVO, were far more responsible
3 for his death than anyone else, because if they had expected a conflict to
4 break out and everything points to the fact that a conflict was expected
5 because there was a series of provocations in the wider Dusina area, and
6 therefore it was their duty, it was their responsibility to move the
7 civilians to a safe place.
8 Q. My last question, Mr. Hadzic, is as follows: The decision you
9 took, was it taken on the basis -- or the decision you took on the basis
10 of the additional information, was it identical to the decision taken by
11 your colleague in 1993? And your colleague also assessed all the material
12 that was accessible to him at the time.
13 A. Yes, my decision was identical to his decision, but I had more
14 voluminous material. I had heard the direct testimony of inhabitants from
15 the village of Dusina, so we came to the same conclusion.
16 Q. Thank you very much.
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no further
18 questions for the witness.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Before we have our
20 break, does the other Defence team have any questions for this witness?
21 MR. DIXON: No, Your Honours. We don't have any questions for
22 this witness. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It will be best to
24 have our break now, and we will start with the Prosecution's
25 cross-examination after the break.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 It is now 12.25, and we will resume at about five to one.
2 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will now resume, and I give
5 the floor to the Prosecution.
6 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Cross-examined by Mr. Waespi:
8 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hadzic. I just want to clarify a few points
9 with you, and perhaps while I'll ask my first question to you, a few
10 exhibits could be distributed. I won't need all of them but just a few of
11 them. And in fact, the first one I want to talk about would be P332.
12 Everyone in the courtroom is quite familiar with this one because we have
13 discussed it a number of times. It's somewhere in the middle of it.
14 Unfortunately, we didn't have time for tabs. P332.
15 But first let me ask you, Mr. Hadzic, while that's being done, the
16 report --
17 MR. WAESPI: Yes, Mr. President. I'm sorry we couldn't
18 accommodate you further. It's a bundle of different exhibits, and the
19 first one I'm going to talk about is in the middle, the cover sheet to the
20 military district court.
21 Q. Mr. Hadzic, let me ask you something before. You said you looked
22 at these, the file, the documents, whatever, and you made a report. Can
23 you tell us first, when did you start to look these files? Can you tell
24 us the day or the month or certainly the year after, you know, the Blaskic
25 trial triggered this new review? Tell us, when did you start looking into
1 this whole thing, if you can.
2 A. I couldn't provide you with an exact date or the exact month. As
3 far as I can remember, it was around 1999 or 2000, but it's important to
4 point out that my final conclusion bore the date when the work was
5 completed on that case. What I know for sure, and that enables me to tell
6 you when the approximate time was, this was when the trial of General
7 Blaskic started.
8 Q. And who asked you, you specifically, to deal with this issue, if
9 you recall?
10 A. I've already said. Given the media coverage in general and given
11 what was said in the press about General Blaskic's trial, there was an
12 advisory meeting of the cantonal prosecutor's office, and a decision was
13 reached according to which previous cases that were in the archives should
14 be re-examined. There was no official request. We assessed that these
15 were rumours that had reached the prosecutor's office and it was
16 sufficient to make the prosecutor's office want to focus once more on a
17 case that had already been dealt with and completed.
18 Q. Now, your report, if you recall, when did you file the report and
19 to whom did you file or address your report?
20 A. It wasn't a report of any kind. It was an official record. This
21 was a document compiled by the prosecutor who commented, who provided his
22 final comments on a case. There was no special report, because this is
23 the usual procedure followed in the prosecutor's office. A case is either
24 filed in the archives and it's completed, or judicial investigations are
25 launched, judicial processes instituted, and perhaps a formal indictment
1 is brought.
2 Q. Just to clarify, I'm talking about your work product. Sometime
3 after 1999, six years after the event, this work product, you call it just
4 final comments. You drafted that; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And how big was it, how many pages?
7 A. A full two pages, I think. A full two pages.
8 Q. And to whom was it addressed?
9 A. It wasn't addressed to anyone. As I have said, the work on the
10 case had been completed. And in order to know the reason for which the
11 work had been completed, it was necessary to have some sort of comment
12 made by the prosecutor who was involved in the case. I was the prosecutor
13 involved in the case. I analysed the material that I had at my disposal.
14 I came to the conclusion that there were no grounds upon which one could
15 institute proceedings. I compiled an official record stating the reasons
16 for which I had drawn that conclusion, and that was the end of my work on
17 the case.
18 Q. And where is the report now, or the two-page analysis?
19 A. It's in the archives of the cantonal prosecutor's office in
21 Q. So we could retrieve it at any time?
22 A. That wouldn't a problem at all.
23 Q. And you would assist us in finding that paper?
24 A. If it's necessary for me to assist you, yes, but if I went to the
25 prosecutor's office, I would be going there as a private individual. I no
1 longer work in the prosecutor's office.
2 Q. Now, you talked about that, unlike your colleague in 1993, you
3 had, I believe you said, "direct testimony of inhabitants of the village
4 of Dusina." Now, did you -- I understand from your testimony you did not
5 attach any witness statements to your final analysis; is that correct?
6 A. Witness statements were taken and recorded in the police, and
7 these statements are part of the case. There are certain attachments
8 included in the case. There is the initial police report on the arrival
9 of these bodies in the Zenica hospital morgue towards the end of January
10 or the beginning of February, and there were attachments included with the
11 report. And there was the material that I had collected and my final
12 comment. This was part of the material I had gathered, and there was --
13 there were the documents from the military forces archives. There were
14 the statements of three or four inhabitants of Croat nationality from
15 Dusina. They had spoken about the events in Dusina at the end of January
16 in 1993.
17 Q. I'll come to those witnesses in a moment. Let me just try to
18 understand something looking at this exhibit which is in front of you,
19 Prosecution Exhibit 332, dated 1 February 1993. Was that this report or
20 the -- the file you had seen when you reassessed the incident in --
21 sometime after 1999? Do you remember having seen this document? And it's
22 only the cover page. You know, you'll see the annexes, and I take it you
23 have seen the annexes as well, if you have. So my question is: Was that
24 provided to you when you assessed the work of your colleague from 1993?
25 A. Since it says the district military court here, I don't believe
1 that this is the document I had. I don't believe that I had this specific
2 document, but I did have a report from the MUP, from the security services
3 in Zenica, which was addressed to the prosecutor's office. But I'm not
4 sure about this document, because the address here is different.
5 Q. Well, then perhaps it's time I asked you the name of the colleague
6 that was concerned with the case in 1993. Who was the person whose work
7 you reviewed six years later?
8 A. In the military prosecutor's office, I think there were seven
9 deputies. I really can't remember who worked on that case in 1993.
10 Q. But that -- his name would be contained in the file which is in
11 your office, or in your former office?
12 A. Yes. It had to be, and it would have to be entered in the
13 register where the case was entered, and it also had to be stated on the
14 cover page.
15 Q. Let me ask you, you said that you reviewed his work product and
16 that you did more than he did. So just going back to what your colleague
17 did, having assessed his job, do you remember whether he went to the crime
18 scene in Dusina at that time to conduct an on-site investigation?
19 A. No. If you look at this material, this is a report about
20 identification of bodies which were brought to the dissecting room of the
21 Zenica hospital after the conflict in the village of Dusina, after the
22 clearing of the terrain after the combat operations. My colleague did not
23 go to Dusina. I myself didn't go either for one simple reason: As a
24 prosecutor, I was just asking for facts to be re-checked to determine in a
25 different way whether a crime had been committed in Dusina.
1 Q. And you're confident to say that also your colleague in 1993, or
2 anybody else connected to him which would have been reflected in his work
3 product, did not go to Dusina?
4 A. In the material that I had, there was no information about that.
5 And to respond to the second part of your previous question, I did go into
6 a slightly broader investigation than my colleague did in 1993. That's a
7 fact, because the reports or the information that we were receiving,
8 information that there were casualties for no reason in the village of
9 Dusina, for us this was sufficient reason to re-examine that case and to
10 re-check whether this information, these reports that we were receiving
11 were correct or not.
12 Q. Thanks for your answer, and I want to come to your role in a
13 moment, but let me go back to your colleague of 1993. You said you didn't
14 see any record of a visit to the possible crime scene, and you also told
15 us at the end of your testimony this morning and after the break as well
16 that you interviewed some people from Dusina. Now, your colleague in
17 1993, he did not interview people, inhabitants from Dusina; is that
19 A. Let us first clarify one thing. I did not directly speak with the
20 inhabitants of Dusina. I instructed the police to find several survivors
21 from Dusina who were accessible and to interview them. And based on the
22 statements that they give to the police, I as prosecutor would evaluate
23 whether there were grounds to continue with the proceedings.
24 I don't know if my colleague did the same thing in 1993. I know
25 what I found in the case file.
1 Q. And in the case file, you did not see any record of any
2 interviewing of witnesses by your colleague or by the MUP or by the
3 military; is that correct?
4 A. No. There were no subjective pieces of evidence in the case file.
5 There were no witness statements or not -- no information about possible
6 witnesses either.
7 Q. And in your knowledge as a prosecutor, expert in this field, if he
8 had interviewed any witnesses or anybody else at that time, would that
9 have been reflected in the file, in the record, the dossier?
10 A. Everything that is done has to be in the case file.
11 Q. Now, let me ask you about an intriguing comment you made this
12 morning at the end and the information you had about what happened in
13 Dusina. Now, in your recollection, and you were quite specific about
14 provocation and other military activities, in your recollection, were HVO
15 soldiers taken captive on that day, on the 26th of February, 1993, by the
16 ABiH army? January. I'm sorry.
17 A. Which HVO soldiers are you thinking of? This question is not
18 clear to me.
19 Q. Well, I'm merely asking you, because you displayed some knowledge
20 about the military activities, whether the ABiH army who was present in
21 Dusina has captured HVO soldiers. In reviewing these documents - and you
22 said you had access to the military archives - did you see any HVO
23 soldiers, perhaps also civilians, Croat civilians, I don't know, being
24 captured in or around Dusina on that day in January 1993?
25 A. I don't know about civilians. As far as captured HVO members,
1 yes, there were such cases. I mentioned that part of the material which I
2 compiled later was also a videotape in which when we played it you could
3 see the medical or the ambulances are bringing over together wounded HVO
4 soldiers and wounded ABiH army soldiers. What specifically interested me
5 here was the cause of death of these persons who had been brought to the
6 dissecting department of the Zenica hospital. That was the part that I
7 was interested in.
8 Q. Now, let me come to other possible avenues which one could have
9 looked at when determining whether a crime was occurring. I believe you
10 said you interviewed -- or on your behalf witnesses were interviewed.
11 Now, you also told us that in Blaskic, or you followed perhaps the
12 Blaskic judgement. In deciding whom to interview or whom to ask to be
13 interviewed, did you look at the Blaskic record who testified in the
14 Blaskic case and who could have any information perhaps on what happened
15 to these HVO soldiers who were arrested? Did you check Blaskic witnesses?
16 A. First of all, work on this case didn't begin after the judgement
17 was passed in the Blaskic case but after the beginning of the trial.
18 Second, you must understand that we didn't have access, the security
19 services centre in Zenica did not have access to all witnesses, all the
20 inhabitants of Dusina, but there were several inhabitants who had come to
21 Zenica or its environs, and I asked that as many as possible of these
22 inhabitants from Dusina be found so that we could interview them. They
23 were found and interviewed, and based on the information that they gave, I
24 concluded what I concluded. So as far as the Blaskic case file, at that
25 point in time it wasn't of any particular interest to us.
1 Q. Now, did you interview survivors of these events if they were,
2 according to your information, in Dusina?
3 A. Yes. I asked that the inhabitants of Dusina village who happened
4 to be in the village who were the eyewitnesses to these events be
5 interviewed. That was my instruction to the police.
6 Q. Did you interview Ivica Kegelj, for instance? Was born 1957,
7 could have told you everything about what happened to these HVO soldiers.
8 Do you remember having given an assignment to interview him?
9 A. I don't think that you understood me at all. After the conflict,
10 the Croats from the village of Dusina dispersed. A large number of them
11 went to neighbouring Busovaca and generally to the areas which were held
12 by the HVO, so they were not accessible for us. I don't know where Ivica
13 Kegelj went. Since I knew this fact that all Dusina inhabitants are not
14 accessible to us, I asked that information be collected from those
15 individuals whom we did have access to.
16 Q. So you knew about the name of Ivica Kegelj and that he was a
17 survivor when you assessed your information?
18 A. No, no, no. I mentioned the name of Ivica Kegelj after your
20 Q. So you have never heard of him?
21 A. I do not remember him, no.
22 Q. Not to this day? How about --
23 A. I'm trying, but I really cannot remember, no.
24 Q. How about Zvonko Rajic [sic]? She was the wife of Mr. Rajic who
25 was present when her husband was killed in Dusina that day. Have you
1 tried to locate her? In fact, have you heard of the name of the wife of
2 Zvonko Rajic when you reviewed the work of your colleague?
3 A. No. Her name was not in the case file.
4 Q. And you also didn't hear that in the Blaskic trial, in open
5 testimony, she testified that her husband was taken away by an ABiH
6 battalion commander and then killed? You have not reviewed that
8 A. As far as you can believe newspaper articles now, I personally
9 officially did not have any such information, but this was all checked.
10 And if her testimony had pointed to the possibility that a criminal act
11 had been committed, I'm sure that the prosecutor would have continued the
12 proceedings along those lines.
13 Q. Who were the ABiH army units present on the 26th of January, 1993,
14 in Dusina?
15 A. You're asking for too many details. All this information I did
16 have through the documents from the archives, but I cannot recall all of
17 the units of the B and H army which were in the broader area of the
18 village of Dusina and in Dusina itself.
19 In any case, according to the material that I had, you could
20 easily reconstruct which units were there, but I myself don't remember
21 which ones.
22 Q. Have you interviewed any of the commanders who might have given
23 you information about what happened to these HVO soldiers who were
24 captured? Have you interviewed any commander?
25 A. Generally what I know about captured HVO members, not only from
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 that particular conflict but from other conflicts, too, most of them were
2 exchanged. In this specific case, what I was interested in was the
3 following: During the conflict in the village of Dusina, were there any
4 civilian casualties unjustified of -- by war? Were there any thefts or
5 looting or anything that would violate international law? Were any
6 prisoners killed? Were human shields used? These were the things that I
7 was looking at and the information that we were receiving. The cause was
8 to examine the cause of death of these people who had been brought to the
9 dissecting room of the Zenica hospital.
10 Therefore, I didn't need to speak with members of the army, of the
11 B and H army, because I had the correspondence amongst the units and the
12 commands from the archive. At that point, I was interested whether the
13 attack was planned, whether assault operations were planned, what was the
14 objective, and what needed to be done. I did not find an order which
15 would indicate that an attack was supposed to be carried out. But
16 chronologically, when you sorted the documents of the B and H army that I
17 had, you could see that this was a pretty sensitive area and that this was
18 part of some kind of general rule, a result of a series of tensions and
19 different incidents, open conflict between the HVO and the B and H army.
20 From the point of view of possible criminal responsibility, it was
21 necessary to see whether the attack was planned, and if it was planned,
22 was it carried out, and then during this assault operations, was there any
23 unjustified -- were there any unjustified casualties among the civilians.
24 So this was the topic of my interest in this particular case.
25 Q. Let me just sum up. In the situation where obviously something
1 has happened, and you referred to the report of the physical description
2 of the bodies, and we have no time to go into that; where you say you have
3 heard or read in documents that HVO soldiers were captured; third, that an
4 old man was collateral damage because he was unfortunate enough to be in
5 the area, you did not feel it necessary to talk to the commander on the
6 field to give you some information about what happened to these captured
7 HVO soldiers? You thought that wasn't necessary, six years after the
9 A. Six years after the event, I have to go back again to what I said
10 before. As far as the army was concerned, I had official documents, and
11 the subjective explanation of a commander, some commanders, or all
12 commanders at that point was not relevant to me because I was interested
13 in the consequences. This was a military conflict in which two armed
14 formations clashed.
15 Please allow me to finish. This was a military conflict in which
16 two armed formations clashed, in which, unfortunately, soldiers do have
17 the right to kill each other and wound each other, unfortunately, but the
18 death of this gentleman who was about 70-odd years old and whose body was
19 brought to the dissecting room of the Zenica hospital, to me personally,
20 when I was analysing the case file, was interesting because he was not a
21 military conscript and because in his case, when the paraffin glove test
22 was conducted on him, there were no traces of gun powder found on his
23 hands. In all the other cases, these traces were found. To me this was
24 proof that they took part in the military conflict and that they carried
25 weapons and that they fired them. And earlier I said that unfortunately
1 soldiers from opposing sides have the right to kill and wound each other.
2 On the other hand, the cause of death of this elderly gentleman, my
3 assessment in that case was that unfortunately he happened to be in a
4 combat zone. The civilian authorities were the ones who were supposed to
5 take care of the security of civilians. And if combat operations are
6 imminent, then the military organs in that area are responsible. So in
7 this case, the elderly gentleman died in the area of responsibility of the
9 Q. Anyway, let me ask you, if you recall, who told you about the
10 circumstances under which this old man died? Can you give us a name?
11 A. No one spoke about the circumstances to me in which this elderly
12 gentleman - I think his surname was Kegelj died. No one told me anything
13 about the circumstances.
14 Q. That's your job to find out.
15 A. Well, look, when I asked the police to determine the cause of
16 death for these individuals and to establish the other facts that I was
17 interested in - I won't repeat everything - the murder of civilians,
18 children, women and -- et cetera, when I requested such information, I
19 asked them to determine the cause of death of this elderly gentleman, Mr.
20 Kegelj. But you must understand the circumstances, the conditions under
21 which we were living at the time. It was still very difficult to reach
22 the territory under HVO control, which used to be Herceg-Bosna. It was
23 difficult to talk to people there, locate them, bring them to testify, et
25 Q. Let me just clear this one point up. Dusina wasn't at that time
1 under HVO control, and we have even people from Zenica, from the municipal
2 protection, who went there the day after. Have you heard about that?
3 That they went to Dusina late January 1993 to collect the bodies.
4 A. Well, that's the duty of the civilian protection, to clear up the
5 terrain. And if anyone went there, they went there in an official
6 capacity, that's for sure.
7 Q. Let me ask you: How many times did you have collateral damage, in
8 your words, in those days, those months you were concerned with? Was that
9 something normal or was that something unusual?
10 A. Any civilian casualty is an unusual casualty, and I wouldn't
11 comment on the context of your question, but there was a lot of collateral
12 damage in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And as far as the cases that I worked
13 on myself, I never came across something that would lead me to such a
15 Q. So that would be something unusual. Wouldn't you then try to do
16 whatever you can to resolve this issue? Question number one; and second
17 question: Who is the first person you want to ask about any military
18 action who would have led to collateral damage? Who is the person you
19 want to know about? Question number two.
20 A. Your first question is -- could you please repeat it.
21 Q. The first question is: Wasn't that something unusual, then, if
22 it's the first time you heard about that? So I take --
23 A. Let me answer the first question immediately. When I examined the
24 file, when I examined the attachments to the file, I noticed that among
25 those who had been killed - these were young people - I noticed that there
1 was an elderly gentleman among them, and I tried to determine the causes
2 of his death. I tried to look into the matter. I did everything that I
3 could do in accordance with the law, and I did everything that I was
4 supposed to do within my service. But everything I did pointed to the
5 fact that this elderly gentleman, Mr. Kegelj, had died in the course of an
6 intense conflict.
7 I've already commented on my official record. I have said that
8 the others had gunpowder traces on their hands. That means that they were
9 involved in the fight, as I have already said. Unfortunately, soldiers
10 have the right to kill each other, and unfortunately those are the
11 consequences of each and every war.
12 Q. Exactly. And the responsibility for causing collateral damage,
13 that's the military. Would you agree with me?
14 A. Absolutely. I do agree with you. And in my comment with regard
15 to the death of Mr. Kegelj, I said that I held the HVO authorities
16 accountable for his death. Since they had been expecting a conflict to
17 break out, they did not try to move civilians out of the area in which
18 fighting was going to take place. That was my conclusion. And when fire
19 is opened indiscriminately, it's impossible to control the directions that
20 bullets will be fired in.
21 Q. And the basis for all these conclusions, quite elaborate, are the
22 documents. You did not talk to the military commander. For instance,
23 Mr. Serif Paskovic, who was the 2nd Battalion commander, has documents
24 which you may have seen revealed. You did not talk to Mr. Serif Paskovic;
25 is that correct? I believe you said it before. You had not contacts with
1 the military command, just to confirm it.
2 A. That's correct, but you're forgetting the role of a prosecutor.
3 Up until the law on criminal proceedings, which is now in force in
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Prosecutor did not conduct an investigation. He
5 didn't have the right to interview anyone. The Prosecutor would receive
6 information via organs whose responsibility it was to provide him with
7 information. As for an official investigation, all the subject, if
8 evidence was presented, collated by the investigating judge.
9 I as the prosecutor didn't have the authority to summon anyone to
10 an interview. As far as assessing whether it would be necessary to speak
11 to some of the unit commanders, if I had believed that there were elements
12 indicating a crime had committed, then I'm sure such a person would have
13 been interviewed, either as a suspect or as a witness.
14 Q. You said this morning, and I quote you, "A prosecutor's duty is,
15 quote, He's obliged to check the grounds for the information in relation
16 to authenticity and reliability of facts so he can assess whether there
17 are sufficient grounds." Of course you have a duty, a duty and the
18 authority to ask, request more information if the investigating judge
19 doesn't do his job. Isn't that correct?
20 A. No, you're not on the right path. The investigating judge only
21 starts working after the prosecutor has determined that there are elements
22 indicating that crime has been committed. He formulates a request for an
23 investigation, which is then forwarded to the investigating judge. The
24 investigating judge then has to interview the suspect, and then he has to
25 take a decision on implementing an investigation, carry out the
1 investigative measures that the prosecutor has requested and he believes
2 that should be carried out, and then he forwards this to the prosecutor.
3 What was done was done in the pre-trial phase. It means that the
4 information that we received was checked in order to determine whether
5 there were grounds for suspicion and whether there were grounds for making
6 a request to carry out an investigation. The investigating judge was at
7 the site. He was in the Zenica hospital, and he identified these bodies.
8 That's the only thing that he did.
9 Q. Let me just quote what you just told us. You said that, "The
10 investigative judge, in implementing an investigation, he has to carry out
11 the investigative measures that the prosecutor has requested." So if you
12 receive a file from the investigative authorities about the collateral
13 damage case and you don't see any attempt to talk to the military
14 commander on the ground, especially since he has been mentioned now in the
15 Blaskic trial as being the killer, perpetrator, by an eyewitness, surely
16 you would refuse to even give an assessment before the investigative judge
17 does his job. Am I not correct?
18 A. You haven't understood me. According to the procedure, according
19 to the criminal procedure -- well, this procedure is quite different.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Defence counsel.
21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Since I examined the witness for
22 32 minutes and the -- my colleague has been examining the witness for 43
23 minutes, I would like to know whether my learned friend will be asking for
24 more time so that we can know whether this witness will be completing his
25 testimony today or not.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Because in theory, we
2 should adjourn in four minutes' time. How much more time do you need?
3 MR. WAESPI: I believe I'm about to finish. Perhaps five minutes,
4 with your leave, Mr. President.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I continue? The investigative
6 judge only gets involved in the criminal procedure after the prosecutor
7 has made a request for an investigation, and this is the third time that I
8 will repeat this. This is the third time I will try to clarify this.
9 Although this raises a number of legal issues, the prosecutor makes a
10 request for an investigation when he believes that the material he has at
11 his disposal provides grounds upon which one can draw the conclusion that
12 a certain individual committed a crime.
13 When investigating this case, my task was to determine whether a
14 war crime had been committed in Dusina and to determine who the
15 perpetrator was. The conclusion I reached was that a war crime had not
16 been committed in Dusina and this is why an official investigation was
17 never launched. So please don't try to involve the investigating judge in
18 this matter. In this case, the investigating judge didn't play any role
20 Q. Let me just finish on this point and overall. If this was indeed
21 a war crime, who would be the possible suspect? Although you said it was
22 the HVO, but let's assume for a moment that these HVO prisoners were kept,
23 captured by the ABiH soldiers, as military documents which I'm sure you
24 have looked at indicate, and these people were killed, executed, not
25 collateral damage but executed, who would be the primary suspect of this
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If these individuals --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute.
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The question is leading. The
6 question is not leading, but my colleague is not correctly referring to
7 the army documents. None of the army documents states that these
8 individuals who were killed had been captured. In the army documents,
9 what is stated is quite different, and you are aware of the fact because
10 all three documents have been admitted into evidence. So it's not
11 possible to suggest things to the witness if they have no grounds in the
13 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, first of all, I did not say that it
14 happened like that. I said let's assume that it happened, number one.
15 And second, we have evidence that the HVO soldiers were captured on that
16 day. I think it's five to six. There are at least three documents that
17 suggest that, contemporaneous documents. So I'm asking him because he
18 claimed that these HVO soldiers were, you know -- or the HVO was
19 responsible for these elderly men. I'm asking him just in his capacity
20 who the usual suspect would be in a case like that.
21 A. Well, if we're discussing this as a hypothesis, if we assume that
22 these seven individuals were captured alive and after they had been
23 disarmed they were killed, then first the immediate or direct perpetrator
24 would be responsible and then his superior. So that's an assumption. But
25 based on the documents that I had, these individuals died in combat. They
1 were killed in combat. When examining these bodies, there are no traces
2 of violence, either while they were alive or either after they had been
3 killed. The cause of death was an entry and exit wound in the case of all
4 of them, apart from one individual who had been wounded in the head, and
5 that was probably the result of the explosion of a shell, a hand grenade,
6 or something like that.
7 So according to the documents that I had, these individuals were
8 killed in combat. When they were killed, they were armed. They had been
9 opening fire at army members, and there were no civilians, no women or
10 children who -- who were killed subsequently. That's what I managed to
11 establish on the basis of the material that I had. Those are the
12 conclusions that I reached.
13 Q. And the witnesses you talked to to come to this conclusion would
14 be mentioned in your two-page assessment?
15 A. The witness statements that the police had recorded are contained
16 in the file, and I interpreted these statements in my report, but these
17 original statements are in the file, because I didn't reach this decision
18 off the top of my head.
19 Q. Just to conclude, because you mentioned this report about the
20 physical description of these bodies and the belief, you said, that they
21 had an exit wound -- an entry wound and an exit wound. How many entry
22 wounds and exit wounds do you remember that these bodies had, if you
24 A. First of all, I didn't say that. I didn't mention entry and exit
25 wounds. I talked about gunshot wounds. My conclusion is based on what I
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 found based on the findings of the doctors. The forensic processing of
2 the bodies or -- indicated that there were no gunpowder rings at the entry
3 wounds - now I am mentioning them - which would indicate that they had
4 been shot at from close range.
5 Q. Yes, I wasn't asking about that, although we can come to that in a
6 second. I was asking about for these bodies, because you talked about
7 these entry wounds - at least that's what the transcript says - do you
8 recall, because you were interested about the cause of death, you said, do
9 you recall how many bullets penetrated or at least reached these bodies?
10 Just whatever you recall. Was it just one or was it more?
11 A. I described in detail what I recall. I recall this grave injury
12 to the head. I know that according to the medical findings I established
13 that the cause of death was a small calibre firearm. I don't know how
14 many wounds there were on each individual body. I cannot remember that.
15 But the photographs taken of these persons exist, and they were
16 photographed according to all forensic rules and regulations, proper
17 records and exhibits were made. But I really cannot recall how many
18 wounds each individual body had sustained.
19 Q. But it's possible that there were bodies among these bodies which
20 had multiple, I mean five and more, exit and entry wounds on both sides of
21 the body, meaning on the same side both exit and entry wound. Do you
22 remember that, having seen that?
23 A. For that part, I can only say that I looked at the medical
24 findings which were part of the case file. The doctor who examined the
25 bodies established the number of wounds, the location of the wounds, and
1 ultimately this is really not my job. This is not a legal but a medical
3 Q. So just to be sure, you don't remember a body which has been
4 riddled by bullets? You don't remember that?
5 A. No, I really cannot remember. I told you just a few of the most
6 striking details that stuck with me. I have been a prosecutor for over 20
7 years, and I've had more than 4.000 cases during that time, so -- many
8 more serious crimes that I had looked at, so ...
9 Q. Well, I would be looking forward to seeing these more serious
11 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President. I have no further
13 Re-examined by Ms. Residovic:
14 Q. Mr. Hadzic, in order to clarify the situation, the colleague asked
15 you several times whether you were aware that there were captured HVO
16 soldiers, and you replied that from the army documents you saw that there
17 were some captured HVO soldiers. Please, the documents that you found in
18 the case file and the documents that you compiled indicated and in what
19 manner did it indicate that these dead persons were amongst the captured
20 persons? Did you find any information or data which would indicate that
21 the persons who were killed were captured?
22 A. You mean that they had been captured first and then -- no, no.
23 There was no such data. Everything that I had in the case file indicated
24 that they were killed during the combat operations.
25 Q. You also said that you had a record by the investigative judge,
1 Vlado Adamovic, in the case file. Could you please tell me, when in the
2 earlier procedure, when does the investigative judge go out into the field
3 and who handles or who is in charge of this on-site investigation, and who
4 instructs all the relevant organs which actions are supposed to be carry
5 out in case of the procedure?
6 A. When we're conducting an on-site inquiry or any other procedure
7 which is in the presence of the investigative judge, then he's the one who
8 is in charge of the whole operations, and his instructions are binding on
9 all the parties who take part in that particular inquiry.
10 Q. If the prosecutor is also present or the civilian police or the
11 military police in that same inquiry, are they in a position to conduct
12 independent activities or must they behave in accordance with instructions
13 of the investigative judge?
14 A. They must behave in accordance with the investigative judge, and
15 they can also propose just that some activities are carried out, but it's
16 up to the investigative judge to accept that or not.
17 Q. How many times have you tried to clarify to my learned friend the
18 role of the investigative judge and the prosecutor in criminal
19 proceedings? This part which you reviewed, as well as that part which was
20 conducted by your colleague in 1993 when he received the material, was
21 this a formal procedure, an investigative procedure, or was this a
22 pre-trial procedure which was not in the formal investigation stage at
23 that point in time?
24 A. I was very precise in one of the last questions that the
25 Prosecutor put to me. What I did and what my colleague did from 1993 was
1 at the so-called pre-trial stage, which is not formalised in a court
3 Q. At that stage, during the pre-trial proceedings when the
4 prosecutor has all the material and is assessing and evaluating it, who is
5 the dominus litis? Who manages the procedure, and who instructs the other
6 organs to carry out other steps?
7 A. This would be the prosecutor. He's the one who's in charge of the
8 proceedings, and all the -- all the instructions that he issues to all the
9 other organs in the investigation are binding.
10 Q. Your colleague in 1993, when he had this material in his position
11 -- possession, if he had any doubts about the cause of death, would he be
12 the only authorised organ to request additional steps from other bodies;
13 state bodies, police bodies, or any other ones?
14 A. Only him and no one else, yes.
15 Q. When you assess, and at this point in time you did not assess that
16 you had enough -- sufficient grounds for formal proceedings, but when you
17 assess that there are sufficient grounds to embark on a formal procedure
18 and then this is handed over to the investigative judge, then who handles
19 the proceedings? Who calls witnesses? Who issues instructions about
20 further steps? Who is the person then who can ask other subjects to
21 contribute to a clarification of that matter?
22 A. Up until the -- from the point in time that an investigation is
23 initiated, the investigative judge is the one who is in charge. He's the
24 one who handles the case. The investigative judge calls witnesses,
25 questions them, questions the accused, orders inquiries, on-site
1 investigations. He issues other instructions. So he undertakes all the
2 investigative activities or instructs that they be carried out, up until
3 the point in time that the investigation is completed
4 Q. Thank you. I would just like you to wait until my question is
5 completely interpreted before you begin answering.
6 My colleague asked you several questions about the wounds and
7 injuries and I would like to ask you the following: When you looked at
8 the photographs and read the description of the wounds given by the
9 doctor, who is the only qualified person to do that, those injuries and
10 their description, were they any different or more unusual than other
11 injuries sustained in wartime that you had been able to see for yourself
12 or that you encountered in other cases?
13 A. There was nothing unusual about them. I would just like -- just
14 one second, I'm waiting for the interpretation to finish. There was
15 nothing unusual about those wounds, including their location. See, the
16 bodies were photographed naked. All the clothing was removed and then the
17 bodies were placed on the autopsy tables and photographed. So the
18 photographs were made according to the proper procedure, from several
19 angles, several positions. The doctor conducted an external
20 investigation, established the death and the causes of death; and for me
21 that was enough to believe that the wounds were gunshot wounds except for
22 this one very serious head wound. But even that, even though it was
23 extremely grave, was something that was usual in times of war.
24 Q. In several questions it was suggested that you could have done
25 more based on the information you had and the testimony from the Blaskic
1 case. The canton prosecutor's office in Zenica at the time when you were
2 reviewing this case, did it have access to the transcript from that case?
3 Was it possible to have something like that in Bosnia and Herzegovina at
4 the time or were you acting at the time based on information which was
5 sporadically published in the newspapers?
6 A. We decided to look at the archives of the earlier district
7 military prosecutor's office based on TV reports and newspaper articles.
8 We didn't have a transcript from the trial. We didn't have the
9 indictments. We didn't have any of the exhibits used in the Blaskic case.
10 At the time, we were not in a position to have something like that.
11 Q. And finally, my learned friend asked you whether you listened to
12 the testimony of Zvonko Rajic's wife who claimed that Serif Paskovic
13 killed her husband. I -- of course you responded to that question. What
14 I'm asking you now is the following: As a citizen of Zenica, are you
15 following the proceedings against Hakanovic, and do you know that Zvonko
16 Rajic's wife gave a completely different statement before that court than
17 the one she gave in the Blaskic case?
18 A. Yes, I am aware of that from information published in the press
19 about the Hakanovic trial.
20 Q. Thank you very much.
21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no further
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecution is on its feet.
24 MR. WAESPI: I think that was improper. I don't think
25 re-examination is time to ask leading questions, and she was testifying
1 and saying, you know, Were you aware... She could have asked, you know,
2 have you heard that she gave somewhere else testimony and then he could
3 have answered. I don't think that's proper.
4 MR. DIXON: Thank you. Your Honours, we have no questions for
5 this witness. Thank you.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As far as I'm
7 concerned, I would like to put some questions to you, but since we don't
8 have much time, I'll just put one minor question to you.
9 Questioned by the Court:
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One member of the Zenica police
11 force established a report on the state of the bodies. We could show you
12 this report. It was signed by Redzo Hadzic. Is this a relative of yours
13 or is this just a homonym? We could show you the document. The document
14 is number 333.
15 A. It's not necessary. I know the document in question. Mr. Redzo
16 Hadzic, unfortunately he has died in the meantime, was not a relative of
17 mine, but I can say that he was an exceptionally good forensics expert in
18 the Zenica security service, but we happened to have the same family name.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. There are no other
20 questions. Thank you for having come to The Hague to testify. We have
21 worked for a little longer than usual, but it was necessary to put all the
22 questions to you. I wish you a good trip home, and I will now ask the
23 usher to escort you out of the courtroom.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very briefly could the Defence
1 inform us of the schedule for next week.
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we go into private session?
3 I forgot to mention this earlier on.
4 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're back in open session,
20 Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're in open session. Today's
22 hearing is over. It is now 14.05. I apologise to the interpreters that
23 we worked longer than the time we were allotted, but there was no other
25 I am recalling everybody back on Monday for the continuation of
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 our hearing at 14.15 hours.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.05 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Monday, the 31st day of
4 January, 2005, at 2.15 p.m.