1 Thursday, 2 June 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.26 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. Case IT-00-39-T,
8 the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 Mr. Tieger, before I give you an opportunity to continue the
11 examination-in-chief of the witness, I'd like to briefly address you, Mr.
13 Yesterday you asked for -- you at least suggested that a meeting
14 would take place between at least Mr. Harhoff and representatives of the
15 Registry. It was not entirely clear what that meeting would be about. If
16 you would be in a position just to write down four, five, or six small
17 points that would be on the agenda, that would be appreciated by those who
18 might attend such a meeting. So you're invited to do that.
19 At the same time, if financial issues would be among the items
20 on the agenda, I am informed that, still today, that it's likely that a
21 letter will be filed on matters related to financial aspects of being
22 represented by counsel, representing yourself, et cetera. So therefore, if
23 that would be one of the issues, perhaps you -- it's -- I think it's good
24 that you're informed that something in that respect is to be expected soon.
25 And I am informed about it because, as you may have noticed, I invited the
1 Registry to keep me informed on -- at least to keep the Chamber informed on
2 any information to be provided to you in relation to financial matters that
3 are linked to assignment or non-assignment of counsel.
4 So you're invited to draft at least an agenda so that everyone
5 is better in a position to see whether one could follow your suggestion,
6 yes or no.
7 Then, Mr. Tieger, are you ready to continue examination-in-
9 MR. TIEGER: Yes, of course, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Nielsen
11 into the courtroom.
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Nielsen.
14 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by
16 the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, of course, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, you may proceed.
20 WITNESS: CHRISTIAN NIELSEN [Resumed]
21 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Examined by Mr. Tieger: [Continued]
23 Q. Mr. Nielsen, at the conclusion of yesterday's proceedings, you
24 were addressing the document found at tab 2 of binder 1. Before leaving
25 that document, I'd like to ask you a couple of quick questions about that.
1 Before I do, I'd like to indicate to the Court --
2 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. We had a technical problem Mr.
5 MR. TIEGER: I understand, Your Honour. I just wanted to
6 indicate that we may not necessarily be moving through the binders
7 sequentially, so that there would be references to different binders at
8 different times, so that all three binders -- it would be helpful to have
9 all three binders at your disposal as we go through the examination.
10 Q. Mr. Nielsen, you had indicated that the document at tab 2
11 enumerated certain steps which might be undertaken -- which culminated with
12 the establishment of a Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs at the
13 republican level. Before we leave that document, let me ask you if the
14 document also indicates whether, whatever variant was -- or option was
15 adopted, there was some preliminary work, which should nevertheless be
17 A. Before I answer the question, if I may have the B/C/S copy of the
18 document because I am used to working off of the B/C/S copy of all of these
19 documents. Thank you.
20 As I indicated yesterday, this document that we are looking at
21 in -- I believe it's tab 2, does indeed enumerate several different options
22 for decentralising Internal Affairs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I
23 mentioned yesterday that there were two tiers contemplated in this
25 The main question that basically underlies this entire document
1 is, in fact, in what manner the Internal Affairs organs in Bosnia and
2 Herzegovina can provide for full security of the Serbian population of
3 Bosnia and Herzegovina. This was a particular point of concern for the
4 Serbs in MUP and, of course, for the SDS in the second half of 1991 and
5 early 1992, with respect to municipalities in which the Serbs were a
7 What is considered here are essentially two options, and I will
8 later proceed to discuss in respect of other documents how this was
9 actually done.
10 With respect to municipalities in which the Serbs were a
11 majority of the population in the municipality, the assumption in this
12 particular document is that the Serbs would be able to control the public
13 security station. I would like to state at this point that the public
14 security station was, according to the law in place at the time, the main
15 organ of the internal affairs organs in -- at the municipal level.
16 However, this left the problem from -- again, from the Serbian
17 perspective and from the perspective of the authors of this document, about
18 what to do in municipalities in which the Serbs were a minority. In this
19 particular case, they begin to contemplate ways in which the Serbs could
20 either form SJBs, that is to say, public security stations - that is the
21 B/C/S acronym for public security stations - in which they could take
22 control and provide for security in part of the municipality in which they
23 would conceivably then constitute a majority specifically within a part of
24 the municipality even though they were, in fact, a minority,
25 demographically speaking, at the level of the entire municipality.
1 The other things that are contemplated here are a coordination
2 with the Serbian autonomous districts that begin to exist as of September
3 1991. With respect to these autonomous districts, the Serbs believed that
4 the regional organs of security and internal affairs at the time in Bosnia
5 and Herzegovina – that is to say, the CSBs, the security services centres -
6 could be aligned particularly in areas where the Serbs were a majority with
7 the SAOs, and indeed the documents that I've examined do tend to show that
8 they proceeded to associate the CSBs with the SAOs.
9 Q. And for the benefit of the Court, that discussion of the document
10 can be found at the bottom half of page 5 of the English translation.
11 If I could ask you, Mr. Nielsen, to move to tab 3 of binder 1,
12 to a document entitled "Possibilities of organising a Serbian Ministry of
13 the Interior."
14 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honour, might it be -- might I ask
15 whether or not all the binders could be placed before the witness so he can
16 have them at his disposal.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that that would be a very practical
18 way of dealing with the matter. Then he has B/C/S and English versions
20 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. I don't have a problem with that, Your
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MS. LOUKAS: It seems imminently sensible.
24 MR. TIEGER:
25 Q. I think we can proceed meanwhile, Mr. Nielsen.
1 Does this document go on to discuss the last option addressed in
2 the document at tab 2, that is, the formation of a Serbian MUP?
3 A. Yes, it does. These two documents are, from an analytical point
4 of view, quite similar. Indeed, it seems very probable that whoever the
5 drafters or authors of this document in tab 4 are, that they have read and
6 given a lot of thought to the options that were laid out in the document
7 that we saw in tab 2. I'm sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say tab 3, rather
8 than tab 4.
9 The second document here, the one we're now looking at in tab 3,
10 is dated 17 October 1991. Like the document in tab 2, it is a document
11 that is anonymous; that is to say, there's nothing in the document or on
12 the document that informs us who the authors are. However, as is the case
13 with the previous document, the document is written from the perspective of
14 someone who is intimately familiar with the functionings of the Ministry of
15 Internal Affairs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the focus of the document
16 is, once again, mainly the security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and
17 the operation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs from a Serbian
19 The document here basically takes as its point of departure the
20 assumption that it is now unnecessary to contemplate the establishment of a
21 separate Serbian Ministry for Internal Affairs, as the title, of course,
22 suggests. Therefore, it actually takes as its part of departure the second
23 set, as I detailed in paragraph 37 of my report -- the second and more
24 drastic set of conclusions from the previous document.
25 I lay out in paragraph 40 in my report the four alternative ways
1 in which the authors of the document in tab 3 contemplate creating or
2 organising, as they put it, a Serbian Ministry for Internal Affairs. There
3 is one or two points that I would like to specifically draw the Court's
4 attention to here. Most prominently in paragraph -- in the first point
5 that I lay out in paragraph 40, the authors are referring to the Assembly
6 of the Serbian People and the Serbian government. As of the date of this
7 document, that is, the 17th of October, 1991, a Serbian government had not
8 yet been established by the Assembly, so in that way it is anticipatory of
9 events that would follow after this date.
10 You can group the four steps or alternatives contemplated in
11 this document into two groups. The first two alternatives that you see on
12 page 20 of my report in paragraph 40 are solutions or alternatives that
13 would essentially establish a Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs in
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina, but would allow it to cooperate to some certain
15 extent with the existing Socialist Republic Bosnia-Herzegovina Ministry of
16 Internal Affairs. This contrasts with the last two alternatives that are
17 contemplated in this document which are, in fact, based or would lead to
18 the establishment of a Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs that would more
19 or less be independent and would not at all cooperate or act together with
20 the existing Ministry of Internal Affairs.
21 Q. Now, does your --
22 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] -- is the place where it was
23 discovered a place that could provide us with indications about the origin?
24 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter apologises but did not hear
25 the beginning of Judge Hanoteau's question.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I apologise. I'll repeat the
4 You said that this document was a completely anonymous one, and
5 it was difficult to identify the person who drafted it. My question is as
6 follows: If one is aware of the place where this document was discovered,
7 could one draw the conclusion that such-and-such an institution or such-
8 and-such a person had, in fact, drafted the document? Do you know where
9 this document was, in fact, found?
10 THE WITNESS: I can tell the Court that, based on the ERN of
11 this document, I recognise this document as a part of what we in OTP have
12 referred to as the Sarajevo collection. This collection was recovered
13 previous to my arrival at OTP, and I'm not familiar with the exact details
14 under which it was collected. But I do know that it was collected from
15 primarily SDS offices that had been vacated when Sarajevo was integrated,
16 and I believe these documents were recovered first by the Bosnian
17 authorities and then later provided to OTP.
18 To more fully answer the question and because these two
19 documents are, I believe, very closely related, I would like to inform the
20 Court that in the case of the anonymous document that we already saw in tab
21 2, I personally was the person who gathered that document and brought it to
22 OTP, and that document I recovered from a binder located in the
23 headquarters of the RS intelligence services -- civilian intelligence
24 services in Banja Luka in 2002.
25 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 MR. TIEGER:
2 Q. Mr. Nielsen, you referred to the latter two options discussed in
3 the document at tab 3, that is, the steps that proposed -- or the options
4 that proposed independent steps. Were unilateral or independent
5 preparatory steps towards the establishment of a Serbian MUP taken by
6 Bosnian Serb police officials in 1991 and 1992?
7 A. Yes. Such steps were taken, and my report details several such
8 steps. It should also be stated that the thoughts, the contemplations, if
9 you will, with respect to the organs of internal affairs in Bosnia and
10 Herzegovina that we see in both documents that we have examined are quite
11 consistent with the conversations of leading Serbs in SR BiH MUP with SDS
12 officials during the same period, in the autumn of 1991.
13 Q. Can I turn your attention, then, to several of the tabs and ask
14 if those indeed reflect some of those preparatory steps. First, beginning
15 with tab 4 at binder 1. And before I direct your -- before directing your
16 attention to the fourth paragraph of that document and any other paragraph
17 you consider significant with respect to this issue, can you tell the Court
18 quickly what this document is.
19 A. This document is a document produced by the Serbian public
20 security station at Ilidza - that is a part of Sarajevo - in September
21 1993. And the purpose of the document is to provide a justification for
22 nominations for commendations for high orders, that is to say, awards,
23 medals, by the RS for functionaries of the Ministry -- of the Serbian
24 Ministry of Internal Affairs. And that is also, indeed, the purpose of the
25 subsequent couple of -- of tabs that also stem from 1993.
1 These documents discuss, as we see in paragraph 4 of tab 4, on
2 the first page, actions that the authors of these documents describe as
3 "illegal." These are retrospective documents which look at the actions and
4 dealings of Serbian members of the RS MUP, of the Ministry of Internal
5 Affairs of the RS, at times in 1991 and early 1992 at which they were still
6 employees of the -- of SR BiH MUP.
7 Some of the actions referred to in this document are illegal
8 meetings conducted by Tomislav Kovac, who was at the time, as the document
9 states, the commander of the police at the Ilidza Public Security Station.
10 Kovac is commended in this document for having organised "illegal" meetings
11 that helped organise the work of the Serbs within Ilidza and therefore
12 provide the foundation for the later establishment of an exclusively
13 Serbian police station, public security station, in Ilidza. Indeed Kovac
14 would, once the war commenced in Bosnia and Herzegovina -- Kovac would
15 become the chief of the public security station. And as we shall see
16 later, Kovac eventually became the assistant minister for the police within
17 the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the RS.
18 Q. And in addition to his commendation for organising illegal
19 meetings, does the document also commend him for arming the Serb people or
20 arming of Serbian people? And specifically I would refer you to page 4 of
21 the English translation, under the enumeration 1, with his name beside it.
22 A. That is correct. As we do see on page 4, Kovac is commended for
23 what Again, and I must stress this, the authors of the documents, who are
24 Serbian police officers in Bosnia-Herzegovina, themselves term "illegal
25 work and arming of the Serbian people." This commendation for Kovac, as
1 one can see on page 4 and page 5 of the document, includes commendations
2 for other police officers besides Kovac. And we see in this particular
3 document and in others like it the mention of illegal meetings, illegal
4 arming of the Serbian population, often in coordination with the Serbian
5 Democratic Party. And these documents are also consistent with the draft
6 annual report of the RS MUP for 1992 in which it was retrospectively
7 observed that the -- that Serbian police officers in the second half of
8 1991 and the early months of 1992 participated in, again, to use the words
9 of RS MUP, "the illegal arming of Serbs in SDS municipalities".
10 Q. Mr. Nielsen, you mentioned other police officers. If I could ask
11 you to turn to tab 7, which is an undated commendation for Sreto
12 Samardzija, which also mentions some activities in connection with Mr.
14 A. Yes. Sreto Samardzija, as we see in this document, was another
15 police officer who worked under the direction of Tomislav Kovac, also
16 referred to as Tomo Kovac, in Ilidza in 1991 and 1992. If we look at the -
17 - in the B/C/S it's the third paragraph of the commendation for Mr.
18 Samardzija. It says that: "Together with his commander, Tomislav Kovac,
19 Sreto Samardzija helped to arm the Serb nation or respectively to secure
20 places where weapons could be distributed to the Serb people in Ilidza."
21 Q. Okay. And does the document also indicate further on that he
22 coordinated tasks with the commander of the Nedzarici barracks?
23 A. Yes, that is correct.
24 Q. Further on in the commendation, it describes an incident at a
25 butcher shop in Ilidza. And if you could indicate quickly what that is.
1 A. That incident is described on page 2 of the translation -- of the
2 B/C/S original, that is, at the top of page 3 of the English version. This
3 describes a single incident in approximately March 1992 when a Serb came
4 into the -- a butcher shop, a Muslim-owned butcher shop in Ilidza, and
5 raised a pistol, then stated that "This is a Serbian Ilidza," and began to
6 shoot his weapon.
7 What the document tells us is that in connection with Tomo Kovac
8 or in agreement, rather, with Tomo Kovac, this person was found and was
9 concealed at a hotel so that he would avoid arrest. This is quite
10 significant, because at the time, as I have already told the Court, Tomo
11 Kovac was the commander of the public security station in Ilidza. That
12 would essentially be the number two position in a public security station.
13 His superior at the time, Edin Milivic is mentioned on this page. Edin
14 Milivic, who was a Muslim, was at the time the chief of the public security
15 station and had ordered his subordinates to apprehend and arrest Vlastimir
16 Jokovic, the Serb who had committed this act. Tomislav Kovac, despite
17 being legally subordinate to Milivic, is here stated to have aided and
18 abetted the concealment of -- or evasion of this particular person.
19 Q. And finally, does the commendation, among other things, indicate
20 that Mr. Samardzija took part in the disarming of what are called Green
21 Berets and the confiscation of 32 rifles and 2 police Land Rovers?
22 A. Yes, that is the case.
23 Q. Can you tell us what -- what happened to those items or what was
24 done with those items once confiscated.
25 A. According to this document, Tomislav Kovac and Samardzija
1 participated in an inspection of a particular Muslim settlement, and in the
2 course of -- of that inspection, they disarmed persons that are referred to
3 as Green Berets, Muslim paramilitaries, at the intersection of two streets
4 in Ilidza. On that occasion, they confiscated 32 rifles, 2 Land Rovers
5 that -- belonging to the police, and then they proceeded to hand over the
6 same confiscated materials to Serb members of the police and members of the
8 Q. And can I ask you to turn quickly to tab 10, the report on the
9 work of the Prijedor Public Security Station during the last nine months of
10 1992, and ask whether if in the first -- whether the first paragraph of
11 that document also indicates preparatory steps taken toward the
12 establishment of the Serbian MUP.
13 A. This document, which is the -- essentially the annual report for
14 the public security station in Prijedor, refers here in the first paragraph
15 to "work undertaken covertly during the months prior to the outbreak of
16 armed hostilities in the municipality." This particular paragraph refers
17 specifically to the establishment of what are called shadow police stations
18 and to covert arming and equipping of the personnel with assistance or
19 provision of arms specifically from the army, among other sources. These
20 weapons would usually be kept by the Serbian members of the police at their
22 Q. Binder 3 contains tab 63 - and I'd ask you to turn to that,
23 please - which is a CSB Trebinje report on the work of CSB Trebinje for the
24 period of April to December 1992. And do we see reflected in that document
25 further steps toward the establishment of a separate Serbian MUP?
1 A. Yes, we do. CSB Trebinje, that is, the Security Services Centre
2 at Trebinje, is an important example in understanding the establishment and
3 operation of RS MUP. In -- prior to April 1992, there was no Security
4 Services Centre at Trebinje, and indeed, if one consults the documents that
5 we've already seen in binder, in tabs 2 and 3, one of the points mentioned
6 there is the desire to establish a Security Services Centre at Trebinje in
7 order to provide better security for the population, in particular, the
8 Serbian population of Eastern Herzegovina. Prior to April 1992, Trebinje
9 was only a public security station, an SJB, and was subordinate to the CSB,
10 the Security Services Centre, located in Mostar.
11 What we see here at -- on the very first page of this document,
12 which, like the Prijedor document, is, in effect, an annual report on the
13 work of the CSB for 1992, is a retrospective look at what happened before.
14 We know from this document, and also from the draft annual
15 report for the ministry as a whole, that with the formation of the Serbian
16 Autonomous District of Herzegovina, SAO Herzegovina, in the late summer of
17 1991, that a coordination was made between the Serbs working in Eastern
18 Herzegovina in the MUP and the SDS-dominated SAO Herzegovina. In fact, the
19 chief of -- the man who would become the chief of CSB Trebinje, Krsto
20 Savic, referred to himself as the Minister of Internal Affairs of SAO
22 Here in this document, there's reference to the dispatching of
23 a special unit of -- formed from the Serbian police of SJBs from all over
24 Eastern Herzegovina to fight on the Dubrovnik front together with the JNA
25 at the time. What is stated more fully in the draft annual report of RS
1 MUP for 1992 is that this action in September -- September and October of
2 1991 took place unilaterally; that is to say, there was no attempt or any
3 communication from Trebinje to their superiors at the time in Sarajevo
4 concerning the dispatching of an armed unit of Serbian police to the
5 Dubrovnik front.
6 Q. And does the document also indicate that, in the third paragraph
7 in the English at page 1, that "In this period, the work of Muslim staff
8 and SJB was blocked, and orders by the official MUP in Sarajevo were
9 disregarded in preparation for a final cessation from the BH MUP. Along
10 this were speedy preparations for a newly organised Serbian ministry and
11 the formation of a CSB with its seat in Trebinje"?
12 A. That is correct. The document does state that. And that, in
13 fact, corroborates the information that we've also seen in the previous
14 documents that referred to Ilidza, where Mr. Kovac was praised in the
15 nominations for commendation for systematically reducing the number of
16 police officers of Muslim nationality in Ilidza prior to the war so that,
17 to quote the document, "the war began with only Serbian police officers and
18 two police officers of Croatian nationality." That is to say, by the
19 beginning of the war, there were no police officers of Muslim nationality
20 in Ilidza.
21 Q. Now, the Samardzija commendation that you discussed earlier
22 refers to the disarming of Muslims and handing over those items to members
23 of the SDS. Are there other documents that reflect the police connection
24 with members of the SDS? And specifically -- well, let me just ask you to
25 answer that question, and then I'll turn your attention to certain
2 A. Yes, there are other documents that make the connection between
3 the activities of the police during the second half of 1991 - of the
4 Serbian police specifically - during the second half of 1991 and the first
5 four months of 1992 with the SDS.
6 Q. Let me ask you to turn first to page -- to tab 57, which is also
7 found in binder 3. That's a work record for the period April through
8 December 1992 from the Romanija Birac CSB. And if I could direct your
9 attention to the first paragraph of the English translation at page 3,
10 which indicates as follows: "In the SDS organisation, which is at the
11 forefront of the action and measures for liberating the Serbian people, the
12 organs of internal affairs were, so to speak, the first to enter the
13 Serbian people's fight for liberation."
14 And if you could comment on that in connection with the earlier
15 question about the relationship between the police and the SDS during this
16 period of time and also any other aspect of the document that is relevant
17 to that issue.
18 A. On the first page of -- of the full body of this document, which
19 is the third page of the English translation, there is the passage that was
20 just quoted on the role of the SDS coordinating with the Serbian organs of
21 internal affairs already during the pre-war period. There's also a passage
22 on the same page a little bit further down in which - it's the second-to-
23 last paragraph on the page, on the English translation - which states that
24 "In the municipality where is the SDS was in power until the 1st of April,
25 1992, the way in which the public security station had previously been
1 organised was maintained; whereas, in the newly liberated municipalities,
2 there were various approaches to the formation of the SJB."
3 This observation for the region of the Romanija Birac CSB,
4 which was also known as CSB Sarajevo or CSB Serbian Sarajevo later, is an
5 assessment of the relationship between the SDS and the Serbs in SR BiH MUP
6 that is borne out by other reports from subordinate public security
7 stations in the CSB Romanija Birac area, and it is also borne out by
8 documents from other regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as by the
9 draft 1992 annual report for the ministry as a whole, all of which --
10 perhaps this would be an appropriate moment to note. All of these annual
11 reports focus on the period from April to December 1992, given that the
12 ministry was established in April, so in that sense they are also sometimes
13 termed nine monthly reports. But all of these reports also include a
14 significant retrospective component in which they describe what was done by
15 Serbian employees of the organs of internal affairs in these regions and
16 municipalities during the second half of 1991 and during the months from
17 January to -- January through March of 1992.
18 The other observation that I wish to make with respect to this
19 particular document is that the first paragraph identifies the struggle of
20 the -- for the liberation of the Serbian nation, and states that "The
21 organs of internal affairs were the first to enter into that struggle of
22 the Serbian nation for liberation." This claim is also a claim that is
23 consistently made by -- or in the documents of RS MUP, and it is a claim
24 that figures prominently, as well, in the draft annual report of the
25 ministry as a whole for 1992.
1 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you one question in this respect, Mr.
2 Nielsen. If you say that in the municipalities where the SDS was in power
3 until the 1st of April, you seem to assign quite a lot of importance to
4 that language. If I would say that in Country X the Socialist Party would
5 be in power, would that mean that they were in the position to form a
6 government or that really the party, rather than the government, would
7 exercise power?
8 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, in referring to that language,
9 specifically the language -- the phrase "municipalities where the SDS was
10 in power," I am merely using the exact term that is used by the Bosnian
11 Serbs themselves in their draft annual report.
12 What was the case, legally speaking, in the second half of 1991
13 and the early part of 1992 was that there was but one law on internal
14 affairs at the republican level. That was a law that had been enacted in
15 1990, and, of course, all police officers in all municipalities in Bosnia
16 and Herzegovina were bound by that law, regardless of which ethnicity or --
17 ethnicity, nationality, or party affiliation for that matter they
18 identified themselves with.
19 What emerges from the annual reports compiled by the Ministry of
20 Internal Affairs of the RS - and these are, of course, reports that are
21 compiled either at the very end of 1992 or at the outset of 1993 - is that
22 there were actions taken according to them during this period in -- that is
23 to say, before the establishment of an RS Ministry of Internal Affairs,
24 that were particular to municipalities in which the SDS controlled. And
25 these activities, roughly speaking, are the activities that are
1 contemplated in the -- not only the documents in tabs 2 and 3 on the
2 possibilities of organising a Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs, but
3 also later in the 19 December instructions distributed by the SDS in 1991.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
5 MR. TIEGER:
6 Q. Mr. Nielsen, can I ask you to turn next to tab 77 in binder 3,
7 which contains a report on the work of the Zvornik SJB for the year 1992.
8 If I could direct your attention to page 14 of that document, the second
9 paragraph after the heading "Measures and activities which were aimed at
10 the creating and functioning of the Republika Srpska MUP and data on
12 Does that indicate preparatory steps that were taken in the
13 early part of 1992?
14 A. Yes, it does. This particular page indicates that a small group
15 of employees - actually, the initial group is a group of six employees of
16 Serbian nationality of the public security station in Zvornik – was,
17 according to this document, in permanent contact with the steering
18 committee of the SDS. Now, that group of six persons we see later in the
19 document is then expanded, that is to say, more persons are recruited into
20 this group so as to proceed with the implementation of the plans initially
21 conceived by that group in coordination with the SDS steering board at the
22 municipal level.
23 This, once again, is a point at the municipal level here in
24 this document, particularly for SJB Zvornik, that is stated in the RS MUP
25 draft annual report at a macro level, that is to say, at the level of the
1 RS as a whole, where it's -- where the draft annual report for the ministry
2 informs us that smaller groups of Serb employees initially worked to
3 recruit other members of Serbian nationality before the war in order to
4 prepare for the creation of a separate and Serbian Ministry of Internal
5 Affairs in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
6 Q. Following the statement in the report that the initial group of
7 SJB employees was in permanent contact with the steering committee of the
8 SDS with the aim to prepare for detachment of the SJB, does it indicate
9 that, on the basis of received instructions, this group of employees
10 gathered support and prepared other SJB personnel of Serb nationality?
11 A. Yes, it does.
12 Q. Can we turn back now to --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one additional question in this
14 respect. The steering committee of the SDS, do you have any information on
15 the level on which this steering committee operated? What was that, on the
16 municipal level? Was that on the regional level? Was that on the
17 republican level?
18 THE WITNESS: I will just take a small moment to consult the
19 B/C/S here.
20 In the B/C/S original - and this is a fact that I believe is
21 incorrectly reflected in the translation - the B/C/S original refers to the
22 "glavnim odborom stranke SDS," the Main Board of the SDS party. Generally
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please guide us to the relevance B/C/S
25 page. Is that 084, last three digits?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And could you, then, please tell us
3 approximately where we find it and read it slowly so that we'll receive
4 proper translation of the specific portion.
5 THE WITNESS: The B/C/S portion -- I will just read the
6 sentence. It is after the A, lower case A, at the beginning of the
7 paragraph. It is the - first, second, third - third line, starting with
8 the three-letter word Vec, V-e-c.
9 THE INTERPRETER: "Already."
10 JUDGE ORIE: If you could please read that in B/C/S slowly.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
12 [Interpretation] "Already by the beginning of January 1992, a
13 group of six workers from the police station started to have permanent
14 contacts with the main committee of the SDS party with the aim to prepare
15 the separation of the police station in case a division came about, that is
16 to say, a division of the territory of the municipality into a Serb and a
17 Muslim part of the municipality."
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I ask you, Mr. Tieger, we very often
19 have heard about the Main Board of the SDS. Is that something, in the view
20 of the Prosecution, something different from the Main Committee, or is that
22 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, I am familiar with the fact that
23 the same words have been translated in a different manner. Of course, I'm
24 familiar with that in English; Mr. Nielsen is familiar with it in -- in
25 both B/C/S and English. His original translation was "Main Board." I
1 would have to check the documents in which the "Main Board" about which the
2 Court is inquiring has a corresponding B/C/S --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. TIEGER: -- to see if it corresponds directly with this.
5 But I think Mr. Nielsen can probably answer that question.
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note "board" would be
7 correct, as well. We just did not have the official translation.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Nielsen, from what you know, what is
9 presented often to this Chamber as the Main Board of the SDS, which was an
10 organ of the SDS, as far as I understood, in which leading persons of
11 municipalities would Meet. Is that, in your view, is it the same organ we
12 are talking about, as far as you know?
13 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I am not an expert on the internal
14 workings of the SDS party, however, I would like to observe that, as Your
15 Honour will be able to see, that in the particular B/C/S portion that I
16 just read, the word "Glavnim," "Main," is capitalised, which is usually
17 done to refer to a proper noun -- a proper and recognised body, as opposed
18 to any main board. This would have the connotation of being the Main Board
19 of the SDS. I can only speculate, but it is possible, if not probable,
20 that this particular reference, given the use of the capital "G," is a
21 referral to the Main Board to which Your Honour refers.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Although I do understand that it's
24 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.
25 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I'd like to turn your attention to two more
2 documents in connection with the police view of its relationship with the
3 SDS during the preparatory period and onward, first to tab 6 at binder 1.
4 As I believe you indicated earlier, this is another commendation-related
5 document, this time from the -- the station at the Blazuj. And if I could
6 turn your attention in particular to a couple of excerpts. First of all,
7 if you'd see in the document, there's further reference to Tomo Kovac as
8 one of the personalities in the succession of illegal preparations for
9 defence against what is called the restoration of Islam and subjecting of
10 the Serb people.
11 But further down, it refers to the SDS. And if you could
12 indicate to us whether those references that occur under the heading "Serb
13 Public Security Station of the Blazuj reserve militia," illuminate further
14 the police view of its relationship with the SDS.
15 A. The section of this document refers -- that I was just directed
16 to refers to the Serb Public Security Station and the Blazuj Serb militia.
17 The first mention that Blazuj is a constituent part of Ilidza municipality
18 and therefore was subordinate to the public security station at Ilidza, and
19 this is from the same series of -- of commendations that we examined a
20 little bit earlier.
21 Once again, the person in the centre of focus here is Tomislav
22 or Tomo Kovac, who at the time of the pre-war station was the commander of
23 the public security station in Ilidza.
24 According to this document, his arrival to the post of commander
25 in Ilidza signified a turning point in the organisation of the Serbs
1 working in Ilidza and at Blazuj. He played a very strong leadership role,
2 and according to this document he coordinated his work and the work of the
3 police in the -- of the Serbian police in Ilidza and at Blazuj with the
4 president of the SDS from the community board at Blazuj, Osijek, and
5 Rakovica. Those are other constituent parts of the Ilidza community -- or
6 municipality, rather.
7 Q. And in addition to close contacts with commanders and presidents
8 of the SDS and local communities, does the document indicate that earlier,
9 from the party's elections with the SDS, the station starting to be
10 organised in accordance with the directors of the SDS?
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. Let me next turn your attention, if I may, to tab 22 in the same
13 binder, which contains a report on the analysis of work of the SJBs in
14 1992, that is, in the public security stations on the territory of the CSB
15 Banja Luka. If I could turn your attention in particular to page 3 of the
16 English translation, the fourth paragraph. Does that further illustrate
17 the connection between the police and the SDS?
18 A. As we have seen in -- in a previous document, this particular
19 police report, which is, again, an annual report on the work of municipal
20 security stations on the territory of the security services centre of Banja
21 Luka, confirms that there was a close identification between the SDS party
22 and the Serbian employees of internal affairs organs, and that they shared
23 a goal, as the document terms it, of realising the creation of a Serbian
24 people's state.
25 MS. LOUKAS: Before we proceed further, if I might just indicate
1 - and view of the fact that the witness has facility in both the -- the
2 English and the B/C/S - it would be of great assistance, of course, to Mr.
3 Krajisnik if both pages of the English and the B/C/S were given so that Mr.
4 Krajisnik can also find the -- the relevant page efficiently.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I take it, Mr. Nielsen, that you would follow that
6 suggestion so as to enable the accused to follow the -- or you, Mr. Tieger,
7 if you point out certain pages. If I can assist, I will be glad to do so.
8 THE WITNESS: Of course, Your Honour.
9 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. And, Mr. Nielsen, your last comment was a reference, then, to the
11 beginning of the paragraph -- the beginning of the fourth paragraph on page
12 3, which states: "The aforementioned indicators are sufficient
13 illustration of the fact that the employees of internal affairs organs have
14 realised that this is a struggle for the creation of a Serbian people's
15 state and by adopting the SDS programme they have used all their abilities
16 to achieve this goal, although most of them are not members of any
17 political party."
18 A. Well, the -- the paragraph to which I was referring in the -- in
19 the B/C/S is the fourth paragraph on -- on page 2. It's labeled page 2 at
20 the top, 03246153 of the B/C/S document, and refers to the acceptance by
21 the majority of Serb employees of the organs of internal affairs in the
22 area covered by CSB Banja Luka of the SDS programme - "programme" being
23 capitalised in the original - although the largest number of these Serbian
24 police officers were not members of any political party, formally speaking.
25 Q. Thank you. Let me ask you to move as -- well, let's try to move
1 as quickly as we can through the preparatory steps toward the establishment
2 of the Serbian MUP. So let me next direct your attention to a document
3 discussed at paragraphs 54 through 58 of your report, I believe. And it
4 has been previously been introduced into evidence P415, the minutes of the
5 meeting held in Banja Luka on 11 February 1992.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I don't have that with me at this moment, Mr.
8 MR. TIEGER: The particular document, Your Honour?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. TIEGER: I can --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could it be put on the ELMO perhaps so that we can
12 follow at least the language.
13 MR. TIEGER:
14 Q. Mr. Nielsen, if you can tell us about the significance of this
15 meeting and its context in the steps towards the establishment of a
16 separate Serbian MUP.
17 A. The document we have in front of us is basically the minutes of -
18 - of a meeting held in Banja Luka on the 11th of February, 1992. The list
19 of attendees is written at the top, and without going into the function of
20 every person at the top of that document, they are all or were all at the
21 time leading Serb members of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of SR BiH.
22 I may just take the quick opportunity to return to Your Honour's
23 question, Judge Hanoteau's question, of yesterday referring to Dragan
24 Devedlaka, where I had the opportunity to consult with my own binders of
25 MUP documents and confirm that he was indeed a member of the State Security
1 Service at the time of this document and at the time of the intercept that
2 we listened to yesterday.
3 So all of the people who we see in the list of attendees here
4 would come to play prominent roles in the RS Ministry of Internal Affairs
5 once that was established at the beginning of April 1992.
6 The main purpose of this meeting, it appears from the contents
7 of it as a whole, is to discuss the way in which a Serbian Minister --
8 Ministry of Internal Affairs will actually be established. This is a
9 meeting that takes place only a few weeks before the Assembly of the
10 Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina pass what would become the Law On
11 Internal Affairs for the Ministry -- for the future ministry.
12 There's quite a lot of impatience exhibited in -- among the
13 members of this meeting with regards to the establishment of the ministry;
14 several of them state that the ministry should be established as quickly as
15 possible. One of the first speakers, the second speaker on the first page,
16 Mico Stanisic, was the person who would become the Minister of Internal
17 Affairs of the RS.
18 The key conclusions, as I state in my report, from this meeting
19 relate to the creation of a so-called Serbian council board. That would be
20 on -- the conclusions start on the fourth page of the translation and on
21 the sixth page of the B/C/S original. This involved having a Serbian
22 steering council within the ministry which would direct the acts of all the
23 persons within the ministry who are of Serb nationality and, in particular,
24 carry out the preparations necessary for the functioning of a Serbian MUP
25 after the adoption of the Constitution of the Serbian Republic of BiH.
1 On the first page of the document, as well, there is a reference
2 to the Council of Ministers in the statements of Mico Stanisic. Here it
3 says in the English - I now see the translation - "ministerial council."
4 However, I take it, based on my review of the documents, for that to be a
5 reference to the Council of Ministers that the Court is already familiar
7 This meeting was a one-day meeting, and I'll conclude my
8 observations on this document by noting that two days after the meeting
9 Momcilo Mandic, who was at the time an assistant minister in the SR BiH
10 MUP, sent a dispatch to the persons listed in paragraph 59 of my report
11 asking them to arrange meetings with leading personnel in their areas of
12 responsibility so as to implement the conclusions of this document.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could perhaps the B/C/S version of this document,
14 the relevant part, be put on the ELMO just for a second, because you --
15 MR. TIEGER: It's available --
16 JUDGE ORIE: It's some distance from the translation, so that at
17 least Mr. Krajisnik is able to see whether he would agree.
18 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, we had it available on Sanction. It's
19 on there now if that's helpful. We could try to turn to the appropriate --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. TIEGER: -- page, if that's what you had in mind.
22 I'm advised that's where it is.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, at least we can now see what it says in
24 the original.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. TIEGER:
2 Q. Very quickly, Mr. Nielsen, there was reference in the intercepted
3 telephone conversation between Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Zepinic that we heard
4 yesterday to a collegium, I believe, in the MUP. Can you just tell us
5 quickly what that was.
6 A. The reference that we heard yesterday in the intercepted
7 conversation between those two persons referred to instructions that
8 Karadzic was giving to Zepinic as the leading or top-ranked Serbian
9 employee at the time of the ministry to essentially ensure that the
10 employees of the ministry -- the leading employees of the ministry who were
11 of Serb nationality would meet daily, as it were, for coffee in the morning
12 to discuss the most-pressing issues for employees of Serbian nationality.
13 It is the case that Karadzic spoke very frequently, as I note in
14 my report, with not only Vitomir Zepinic, the deputy Minister of Internal
15 Affairs, but also with Momcilo Mandic, who was one of the assistant
16 Ministers of Internal Affairs. There is reference in these conversations
17 to these meetings, and this was a way in which Mr. Karadzic could make his
18 views known and ascertain whether those views were being followed or
19 implemented by Messrs. Zepinic and Mandic.
20 Q. Now, the document of 11 February 1992 refers to the Council of
21 Ministers. And to --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could -- if I just may interrupt. Could I ask you,
23 Mr. Tieger, to come a bit closer to the microphone and you, Mr. Nielsen, to
24 get a bit of distance from the microphone, because what happens is that you
25 have a very clear and loud voice, so you have to adapt all the time the
1 volume in order not to lose my hearing and for you, Mr. Tieger, to hear at
2 all what you say.
3 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, I will move closer to the
4 microphone and also speak more loudly. Thank you.
5 Q. Mr. Nielsen, as we saw, the minutes of the meeting of 11 February
6 1992 refer to the Council of Ministers' position that in the territory of
7 SR BH, which is under Serbian power, this power has to be felt.
8 Let me turn your attention, if I may, to another body of the
9 Bosnian Serb authorities, and that is the Bosnian Serb Assembly, and ask
10 you about reflections of the movement toward a separate Serbian MUP that
11 are reflected in the Assembly in the first few months of 1992. And if I
12 could first turn your attention to just before the break the Seventh
13 Assembly Session, on February 15th, 1992, which is already in evidence as
14 P65, I think binder 8, tab 88.
15 MR. TIEGER: I don't think we'll need to pull that out, Your
16 Honour. There's a brief -- relatively brief reference that I -- to a
17 portion of that Assembly session.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You intend to read it or --
19 MR. TIEGER: Well, let me first ask --
20 JUDGE ORIE: How are you going to --
21 MR. TIEGER: Let me first ask the witness if he's familiar with
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
24 MR. TIEGER: -- with that session and with -- in particular, with
25 any comments that bear on the movement toward the establishment of a
1 separate Serbian MUP made during that session.
2 A. Yes, I am familiar with that session, having read the entire
3 stenographic minutes of the session, and I do recall that several speakers
4 at the session made comments pertaining to the police in Bosnia and
6 Q. Let me turn your attention, just before we break, to the comments
7 of Mr. Vojo Kupresanin.
8 MR. TIEGER: And Your Honour, I'll have this put on the ELMO in
9 just a moment, but perhaps the most efficient way is for me to read the
10 comment and then have it put on.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We could do both, couldn't we? You read and
12 we look at it when it appears on the ELMO. But this should not refrain you
13 from starting to read.
14 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour,.
15 Q. First of all, Mr. Nielsen, who was Vojo Kupresanin, very quickly?
16 A. Vojo Kupresanin was one of the leading SDS politicians from the
17 Autonomous Region of Krajina in North-western Bosnia and Herzegovina at the
19 Q. And at that session, did Mr. Kupresanin state: "If this is a
20 Serbian republic, can it have any other police but a Serbian police? The
21 Serbian police should have their own insignia, they should have their own
22 symbols and their ties with Serbian history and Serbian tradition."
23 And then he goes on to say: "Are we Serbs? Are we going to
24 fight for the Serbian people or for some half-baked abstract goals?"
25 And he finally -- and he continues toward the latter part of his
1 comments: "To achieve result, we shall have to make some choices today.
2 Do we want a Serbian republic? Do we want a Serbian police? Do we want a
3 Serbian army?"
4 A. Mr. Kupresanin did make these comments at the Assembly session
5 that we are now looking at. This comment that he makes regarding the need
6 to establish a Serbian police and, for that matter, he also refers to a
7 Serbian army, he sees that - and this is a view that was widely held at the
8 time by the members of the Assembly of the Serbian nation - that in forming
9 a Serbian state, one would of necessity, in order for that state to be
10 viable, have to form a Serbian police force and a Serbian army.
11 If I may refer to the 19 December instructions with which I know
12 the Court is already very familiar. The police are also identified there
13 as one of the -- the three pillars, together with the army and the social
14 accounting service, for any Serbian state or Serbian republic to be viable.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Hanoteau will have a question for you.
17 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] In these minutes of the
18 Assembly, are there references to who said what? Is there anything like
19 that? Are these minutes of the Assembly something where we have references
20 to comments made by those present? Were there any comments?
21 THE WITNESS: Does Your Honour wish me to comment on this
22 particular session or on the sessions in general?
23 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] No. First of all, I'd like you
24 to tell me in general about the nature of these minutes. Is it just a
25 summary, or do we have actual comments from the people who participated?
1 Generally speaking, not with reference to this particular session.
2 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, generally speaking, these stenographic
3 records of the Assembly do list the person who is making the comments at
4 the time. This particular set of Assembly stenographic records actually
5 right after Mr. Kupresanin's comments, there is a few pages later, I
6 recall, a speaker where it specifically says "name not mentioned." It
7 seems to have been the practice of the stenographer at the time to take his
8 or her cue from the speaker of the Assembly, who would introduce each
9 speaker, but it does appear that sometimes if the exchange was particularly
10 rapid, as it I know sometimes also is in a courtroom, the stenographer
11 would not have the opportunity to make a note of the -- of the name. In
12 this particular case, the person who is not identified is subsequently
13 identified by Mr. Krajisnik as being Mr. Tosic.
14 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I do apologise. My question was
15 asked for the following reason: At that particular session on the 15th of
16 February, were there any dissenting opinions or was there a kind of
17 unanimity regarding this project about the Serb police, et cetera? Had
18 anyone voiced any reservations at least, or did anyone disagree?
19 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I do not recall from this particular
20 session any strong dissenting opinion about the formation of a Serbian
21 police. Rather, the discussion, if one proceeds to read what is around the
22 pages in which Mr. Kupresanin makes his comment, is a rather lengthy and
23 detailed discussion about the exact design, heraldic design for the coat of
24 arms for the Serbian state and the future Serbian police.
25 There also seems to be an opinion voiced by Mr. Kupresanin
1 himself and to the aforementioned Mr. Tosic in which Kupresanin explicitly,
2 and Mr. Tosic explicitly as well, criticise unnamed members of the Serbian
3 police or Serbian Assembly of behaving as "communists," or of not being
4 sufficiently proactive in their approach to the creation of a Serbian
5 police force.
6 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] And on that day, the 15th of
7 February, who chaired the meeting?
8 THE WITNESS: I have to consult the minutes. If I may use the
9 ELMO, I will put page 2 of the English original, which is actually the
10 first page of the actual debate, which state that the session commenced at
11 10.00 in the morning and that Momcilo Krajisnik, as president of the
12 Assembly of the Serbian People, presided over the session. And he did
13 certainly preside over this portion of the session in which Mr. Kupresanin
14 and Mr. Tosic spoke.
15 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, one follow-up question before we break,
17 please. It's directly on the heels and following Judge Hanoteau's
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
20 MR. TIEGER:
21 Q. And was the speaker who followed Mr. Tosic, President Krajisnik,
22 and he did say: "I fully agree with Mr. Kupresanin and Mr. Tosic"?
23 A. Yes, that is correct.
24 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It's time for a break. Before we adjourn, I'd like
1 to inform everyone in this courtroom that there would be an opportunity to
2 sit tomorrow in the morning. And since I know that it's often appreciated,
3 especially on Fridays, to sit in the morning, I'd like to know from the
4 parties and also from you, Mr. Nielsen, whether you would be available,
5 whether it would be possible to sit in the morning. And if not, would you
6 then also consider to start a bit earlier in the afternoon and to finish a
7 bit earlier? I leave it to you. And I'd like to hear from you after the
9 We'll adjourn until 25 minutes past 4.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 3.55 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 4.34 p.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'd first like to hear from the parties their views
13 on changing the schedule for tomorrow.
14 Ms. Loukas.
15 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, just in relation to that question, I
16 would prefer at this late stage not to change to the morning.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And a bit earlier in the afternoon? Would that be
19 MS. LOUKAS: I'm not adverse to that, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: So if that would be -- well, let's say, to start at
21 1.00 until 6.00 would be ...
22 MS. LOUKAS: That would be fine by me, Your Honour. I don't have
23 a problem with that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
25 MR. TIEGER: That's fine, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, there's just one further matter I
3 might indicate.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MS. LOUKAS: I was asked by Mr. Krajisnik to ask you: Your
6 Honour mentioned previously about Mr. Krajisnik producing a document, and
7 he just wanted to confirm that Your Honour would be expecting such a
8 document tomorrow, rather than today.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And "document" is a big word for just -- a
10 piece of paper just indicating what -- I mean, it's not a part of the
11 procedure. It's just to indicate what he'd like to discuss at such a
12 meeting. Yes.
13 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Registrar, I'd like to ask you to make
16 all the necessary arrangements to start one hour earlier tomorrow,
17 preferably at 1.00, and then to continue until, I take it, a quarter to
18 6.00, which is the usual time.
19 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I think the Court intended to ask the
20 witness if there was any issue with respect to his schedule that might
21 preclude that.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes, of course. I should have asked. So under
23 the condition, we fully agree, Mr. Tieger, it was not correct of me to take
24 a decision already. We'll ask him.
25 But before we ask the witness to come in, there's another matter
1 on my desk, and that's the decision on the fifth batch of 92 bis witnesses,
2 which I'd like to deliver right away.
3 This is a decision on the fifth batch of 92 bis witnesses. I'd
4 like to ask you, Mr. Registrar, to hand out to the parties a list showing
5 the names of the 92 bis witnesses who are not required to attend for cross-
7 I'll start already. The Chamber has already delivered decisions
8 on two witnesses of the fifth batch. I'll now specify what the Chamber has
9 decided in respect of each of the five remaining witnesses from the fifth
11 With respect to Witness Thornbury, the Chamber, in accordance
12 with the submissions of both Defence and Prosecution, has no objection to
13 the admission into evidence of the requested material; however, the
14 documents mentioned in the annexes are not admitted into evidence. Only
15 the authentication is relevant at this moment.
16 As far as Witness 606 is concerned, as you'll see in the
17 handout, only the transcripts are admitted into evidence. With regard to
18 the statements and their addendum, the Chamber requires some clarification
19 from the parties. The Defence has indicated that it would oppose the
20 admission of the statement and the addendum; however, the Chamber observes
21 that there are two statements, both signed on the 13th of October 2001.
22 Before making its decision, the Chamber would therefore like to receive
23 some clarification from the parties whether they are referring to one or to
24 both statements.
25 With respect to witness Sebire, the Chamber has followed the
1 submissions of the Prosecution and the Defence. As shown in the handout,
2 the Chamber has no objection to the admission of the requested evidence,
3 which meets the 92 bis admissibility requirements.
4 And finally, in relation to Witness Kahriman, the Chamber agrees
5 with the Defence that there should be an opportunity to put direct
6 questions to the witness. She deals with an unexplored area on which the
7 Defence seeks further clarification. The Chamber therefore requires
8 witness Kahriman, unlike the other witnesses, to appear for cross-
10 The associated material is not shown in the handout. The
11 documents relating to this witness shall be admitted into evidence, subject
12 to any further objections, at the time the witness is heard in cross-
14 The Chamber requires that the Prosecution submit the material
15 admitted through this decision to, as the decision reads, "Madam
16 "Registrar, unlike in the beginning we talked about Mr. Registrar, but we
17 take it that Ms. Philpott will deal with the matter. And then in due
18 course, Madam Registrar will assign exhibit numbers to those items and
19 inform the parties and the Chamber. I kindly ask Madam Registrar - but
20 that could also be Mr. Registrar - to file the handout under seal.
21 This concludes the Chamber's decision on the fifth 92 bis batch.
22 Then, Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Nielsen into the
24 [The witness entered court]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Nielsen, before we continue your examination as
1 a witness, how about your availability, especially tomorrow in the
2 afternoon, starting a bit earlier? Would that be possible for you?
3 THE WITNESS: Of course, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Registrar, I would kindly ask you
5 to make the necessary arrangements for a start tomorrow at 1.00, rather
6 than a quarter past 2.00.
7 And before, Mr. Tieger, I give you an opportunity to continue
8 the examination-in-chief, Judge Hanoteau would have a question for the
10 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, sir. In your statement,
11 earlier on you referred to illegal meetings organised at Ilidza between
12 police officers and the representatives of the SDS. If we look at
13 paragraph 28, page 86 of your report, we can see that you say "the
14 aforementioned illegal meetings."
15 I would just like to try and understand why you are describing
16 these meetings as "illegal."
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] As Judge Orie has just pointed
19 out, in the document which has been submitted to us, the reference is to
20 illegal meetings, as well. Why illegal? Can you give us a reason why
21 you're describing them as illegal? Does it mean that all meetings of
22 police officers were banned or all meetings involving members of political
23 parties were banned or what? Could you perhaps elaborate upon that a
24 little bit.
25 THE WITNESS: I can certainly elaborate on that; although, it
1 would help me if Your Honour could repeat the number of the paragraph to
2 which Your Honour is referring.
3 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] 68, page 28 of your report.
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 It is, indeed, a puzzling use of the word "illegal." Let me
6 explain. At the outset of the report, I referred to the November 1990
7 elections, which led the way for three essentially ethnically based
8 parties, the SDA, the SDS, and the HDZ, to come to power. And all of those
9 three parties agreed that they would henceforth divide the positions in the
10 Ministry of Internal Affairs among them. There was, therefore, no
11 disagreement among the three parties that consultations would take place on
12 a regular basis between the respective political representatives in those
13 three parties and the various high-ranking members of the ministry.
14 Whenever I use the word "illegal" in the report, as indeed is
15 the case in paragraph 68, Your Honour will notice that I do so in quotation
16 marks. That is to denote that I am not taking any position on the legality
17 or illegality of such meetings. Specifically the word "illegal" is the
18 word used by the author of that document.
19 In this particular case, there is, based on the laws in place at
20 the time, certainly based on the law of internal affairs and based on the
21 customary practice at the time, nothing illegal about such a meeting;
22 whereas, in other cases, such as distributing arms, that is also referred
23 to as being an illegal practice, that was indeed illegal based on the laws
24 at the time. But such meetings were, as far as I know, legal.
25 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] So there was no ban on
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 political parties bringing together civil servants in order to talk about
2 whatever they thought they should.
3 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of any such ban, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, please proceed.
6 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Mr. Nielsen, your report deals in some detail, beginning at
8 paragraph 73 to approximately paragraph 79, with some of the sessions of
9 the Bosnian Serb Assembly during the months preceding the split of the MUP
10 that addressed the imminent separation of the MUP and the establishment of
11 a separate Serbian MUP. Unless there is some reason to illuminate or
12 highlight or clarify any aspect of that, I'm going to turn your attention
13 next to a document that appears at tab 67 in binder 3, which is an SDB
14 report from Belgrade regarding the security situation in the area of Bihac.
15 But I leave to you whether we can move forward without comment at this
17 A. I do not see any need at this stage to comment more fully on the
18 passages that I quote from the Assembly in the aforementioned paragraphs
19 unless there are any specific questions about it.
20 Q. Well, in those paragraphs, among other things, you identify the
21 comments of Miroslav Vjestica, an SDS delegate from Bosanska Krupa, whose
22 comments from the 11th Session of the Assembly and, again, from the 12th
23 Session of the Assembly are quoted. Does the document shown at tab 67
24 reflect on the situation in Krupa shortly before the splitting of the MUP
25 and the establishment of a separate MUP?
1 A. Yes, it does. Let me first make a specific comment on Mr.
2 Vjestica's interventions in the Assembly. If the Court will turn to
3 footnote 108 on page 29 - excuse me - in my report, I refer to a comment
4 made by Vjestica, who was a strong proponent to the creation of a Serbian
5 police force in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in which he states that People's
6 Defence, that is to say, the army, the military, the SUP, which is the old
7 acronym for the Secretariat for Internal Affairs at the municipal level,
8 and the SDK are elements that need to be controlled in order to take power,
9 as he puts it. This is -- I just wanted to make that reference because I
10 noted earlier that those three institutions were mentioned in the Assembly
11 as institutions that needed to be controlled if a Bosnian Serb state were
12 to be established.
13 The document that we have in front of us in tab 67 is a document
14 produced outside of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was produced in Belgrade in
15 March of 1992 by the State Security Service of the Federal Secretariat for
16 Internal Affairs, the SSUP.
17 The authors are familiar with the deteriorating security
18 situation at the time in Bosnia and Herzegovina and are collating and
19 commenting on the information that they've been able to gather about that
20 security situation.
21 On page 7 of the English translation and on page -- well, it's
22 also page 7, B0031446 of the B/C/S original, there is a section
23 specifically devoted after Roman numeral III to Bosanska Krupa
25 The authors of the document state that the municipality at that
1 point -- they give some demographic figures, that it is 74 per cent Muslim,
2 24 per cent Serb, 2 per cent Yugoslav and remainder, and then go on to
3 comment on the security situation in that municipality.
4 In the first full paragraph in that section, which is on the
5 following page, it states that "The situation in the territory of the
6 municipality of Bosanska Krupa is quite tense." They refer to the
7 establishment of a reserve police of the Serbian Municipality of Bosanska
8 Krupa, approximately 200 persons, and refer also to the organisation of
9 other reserve and active components of the police from the territory of the
11 What I would like to direct the Court's attention to is the
12 second half of that paragraph in which it refers to the situation with
13 respect to the chief of CSB Banja Luka, who was at that time Stojan
15 The persons writing this report have been in communication with
16 Stojan Zupljanin and have been told by him that they are in a holding
17 pattern, as it were, with respect to the activation of the decision on the
18 adjoinment of -- of the Banja Luka region -- of the municipality of
19 Bosanska Krupa to the Banja Luka region, that is, the region of CSB Banja
20 Luka, and that they have been informed by Zupljanin that this decision will
21 not be implemented and will not be, essentially, advanced upon until the
22 law on the internal affairs of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and
23 Herzegovina takes place.
24 What this shows is that the -- first of all, it shows that there
25 is a Serbian police force that has been organised on the territory of
1 Bosanska Krupa already in March of 1992, and it also shows that the police
2 in Belgrade, the State Security Service in Belgrade, was aware that such a
3 -- not only that such a police force existed, but that there was an
4 implementation plan to join Bosanska Krupa police to Banja Luka. It needs
5 to be stated that as of the writing of this report per the 1990 Law On
6 Internal Affairs, Bosanska Krupa Municipal -- Public Security Station was
7 subordinate not to Banja Luka, but, rather, to the CSB in Bihac.
8 Q. Can I return for a moment to the --
9 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] If you don't mind, could we go
10 back to paragraph 74 of your report. You're referring to what happened at
11 the 11th Session of the Serb Assembly, and you say that Mr. Krajisnik and
12 Mr. Vjestica made two comments. Could you comment and tell us what was the
13 purpose of that session, and you simply quote three words that Mr.
14 Krajisnik had said. Could you perhaps give us a more complete analysis of
15 what he said.
16 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, as I recall the 11th Session of the
17 Bosnian Serb Assembly, which was held on 18 March 1992, a major topic of
18 discussion, although many individual points were discussed, as at all
19 Assembly sessions, was the impending establishment of a Bosnian Serb
20 republic. If Your Honour wishes me to comment in more detail on Mr.
21 Krajisnik's comments at that Assembly session, which I quote only briefly,
22 I would like to have the relevant passage in -- in the B/C/S made available
23 to me so that I can consult that.
24 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, may I take it that you have a copy of
2 the 11th, or do you not have it?
3 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour, I do not have it with me at the
5 MS. LOUKAS: I can indicate that I have.
6 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I don't, but my case manager does.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Your copy would have been as good, Ms. Loukas, as
8 the one of the case manager, but --
9 THE WITNESS: I have to state, Your Honours, that since Mr.
10 Krajisnik, as the speaker of the -- and president of the Assembly speaks on
11 very frequent occasions throughout the session, I would appreciate it if
12 any of the parties could guide me to the specific part of the transcript at
13 which that exchange – or at which that comment does take place. Otherwise,
14 it will take me some time to locate it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Hanoteau would also agree if you would look
16 at it during the next break, identify the portion relevant, perhaps read
17 it, and then answer the question put by Judge Hanoteau. Would that be a
18 practical solution? Yes.
19 So then I take it that you will keep the 11th Session in your
20 hands during the next break.
21 THE WITNESS: Oh, I will do that, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
24 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 MS. LOUKAS: And I can indicate for the benefit of all concerned
1 that it's at page 36 of the English version, where Mr. Vjestica speaks.
2 MR. TIEGER:
3 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I wanted to return just for a moment to a question
4 posed a few moments ago by Judge Hanoteau about the use of the word or the
5 phrase "illegal meetings" in those documents we looked at earlier. Now, I
6 understood you to say that there was no prohibition about which you were
7 aware of meetings between police officials and political officials as a
8 general matter.
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. To your knowledge, would it be illegal, however, to plan or plot
11 the dissolution of the existing joint MUP or the dissolution of the
12 existing state?
13 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, just in relation to that, clearly the
14 witness is not put forward by the Prosecution as some sort of legal expert.
15 And in -- in those circumstances, I would object to the question.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You'd say that --
17 MR. TIEGER: [Microphone not activated]
18 JUDGE ORIE: It's not quite clear to me, Ms. Loukas, whether you
19 say that this is a matter of common sense or that you would need legal
20 expertise to answer that question.
21 MS. LOUKAS: [Microphone not activated]
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone.
23 MS. LOUKAS: I'll adjust the microphone.
24 I'm saying that it is a legal question and it does require legal
25 expertise. The question is quite specifically: "To your knowledge, would
1 it be illegal to plan or plot the dissolution of the existing joint MUP or
2 the dissolution of the existing state?"
3 No, Your Honour, that's a question that calls upon not just
4 local constitutional legal questions but also in relation to international
5 law questions and what have you. And I would submit that the witness, who
6 is not put forward by the Prosecution as a legal expert, and certainly the
7 witness does not put himself forward as a legal expert, is not in a
8 position --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's clear, you say it should be an expert
10 who answers.
11 MR. TIEGER: Let me put the question this way, Your Honour.
12 Q. In the course of your review of MUP-related documents, do you
13 know whether or not Bosnian Serb police officials considered the
14 dissolution of the MUP or efforts towards the dissolution of the MUP or
15 efforts toward the dissolution of the state to be illegal?
16 A. Again, without taking a position on the legality or illegality of
17 that question and of any actions undertaken by Serbian employees of SR BiH
18 MUP prior to April 1992, I do wish to refer to paragraph 341 of my report
19 in which I note that the RS MUP annual report, the draft annual report,
20 described the recruitment of Serbian employees of SR BiH MUP to work on the
21 "illegal organisation of Serbian MUP" as well as the "illegal arming of
22 confirmed active employees for work in Serbian MUP." And I then go on to
23 state that in some parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbs had, with assistance
24 of Serbs in SR BiH MUP - that is to say, in the period preceding April 1992
25 - been "illegally armed" in municipalities controlled by the SDS.
1 In all three cases - I believe there are three cases there in
2 which I use the word "illegal" in that paragraph - that is the term used by
3 Bosnian Serbs who worked for RS MUP to describe their own activities.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
5 MR. TIEGER:
6 Q. Mr. Nielsen, you referred earlier to the Mandic dispatch of 31
7 March 1992, which this Court has already received in evidence as both P420
8 and P64 and 65, binder 11, tab 117. Was -- did that document mark the
9 separation of the joint MUP and the establishment of the separate Serbian
11 A. Yes. I believe that it is correct to state that if any one
12 single document can be identified as the document that marks the official
13 establishment and announcement of the establishment of the Ministry of
14 Internal Affairs of the Serbian Republic in Bosnia and Herzegovina, then it
15 is indeed this document, dated 31 March 1992 and sent by Momcilo Mandic out
16 to members of the ministry as a whole.
17 Q. Now, at the beginning of your testimony, we heard an intercept
18 between Mr. Zepinic and Dr. Karadzic, and you identified Mr. Zepinic as
19 leading Bosnian Serb official in the joint MUP at that time. Did Mr.
20 Zepinic, to your knowledge, share the commitment to the separation of the
21 joint MUP and establishment of a separate Serbian MUP?
22 A. It appears that already in the second half of 1991 Vitomir
23 Zepinic, who was the Deputy Minister of the SR BiH MUP and who was the most
24 senior or high-ranking Bosnian Serb in the ministry, began to lose the
25 confidence of the other leading Serbs in MUP and most significantly the
1 confidence of Radovan Karadzic, the leader of the SDS.
2 By the end of 1991 or at the end of 1991, Zepinic, together with
3 Mico Stanisic, the future Minister of Internal Affairs of the RS, was
4 appointed to the Council of Ministers, to which I referred earlier.
5 However, by the time of the formation of the Serbian Ministry of Internal
6 Affairs on the 1st of April, 1992, Vitomir Zepinic did not receive any post
7 in the ministry. He was, in fact, offered a post of coordinator between
8 the Federal Secretariat for Internal Affairs that I mentioned earlier in
9 Belgrade and RS MUP, but he declined this position, and shortly thereafter
10 he tendered resignation. The new Minister of Internal Affairs for the RS
11 was Mico Stanisic, who remained in that position until January of 1993.
12 Q. And if I could ask you to look quickly at binder -- at tabs 11
13 and 12 of binder 1. Do those tabs contain the resignation of Mr. Zepinic
14 to the president of the Assembly of the Bosnian Serb Republic in tab 11 and
15 a statement by Mr. Zepinic taken to -- or given to authorise officials of
16 the Bosnian Serb State Security Service in August of 1992?
17 A. Tab 11 is a letter signed by Vitomir Zepinic and sent on the 4th
18 of April, 1992, to the president personally of the Assembly of the Serbian
19 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in which he tenders his resignation.
20 Tab 12 is a statement given by Vitomir Zepinic in August 1992
21 when he was detained in Kula Prison right outside Sarajevo, and it is a
22 statement -- it is a statement that he gave to the representatives of RS
23 MUP at that time, in which he retrospectively comments on his activities
24 and the activities of others during that same period at the beginning of
25 April 1992.
1 Q. And does it, at least in part, reflect efforts by him to prevent
2 the ethnic separation of the special units of the police?
3 A. The special unit, singular, yes. In the Socialist Republic of
4 Bosnia and Herzegovina, there was only one special police unit that was
5 controlled by the minister himself, and that -- that unit was ethnically
6 mixed, as were all other units in SR BiH MUP.
7 In the statement in tab 12 to which I just referred, Zepinic
8 describes a meeting that he had with leading representatives of Serb
9 nationality in that special unit. It's on page 3 of the English, and I'll
10 try to locate it in the B/C/S. He describes it on page 203238739 of the
11 B/C/S, in which he tried to persuade the members -- these were actually
12 deputy commanders of the unit of Serb nationality. He tried to persuade
13 them that a joint or multi-ethnic special police unit should continue to
14 exist; however, after meeting with these persons to discuss that, he was
15 called to two other meetings, which took place at the office of Momcilo
16 Krajisnik, and at those meetings there were a number of leading Bosnian
17 Serbs present, both from the political side and from the police, who very
18 strongly persuaded Vitomir Zepinic to go back to the same police officers
19 with whom he had spoken and essentially tell them that they needed to leave
20 the joint special police unit and form a Bosnian Serb special police unit
21 within the context of the new ministry.
22 Q. Mr. Nielsen, let's move forward next to the functioning of the
23 now separate and Serbian MUP, and in that connection can I ask you, please,
24 to turn to tab 64 in binder 3, which is a record from the --
25 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I do apologise for taking the
1 floor once again, but I would just like to understand what the actual role
2 of that special police unit was. What was the purpose of that unit? Was
3 it of fundamental importance, or was it just any old service, or was it
4 really important, or was it because of this ethnic division -- what was the
5 reason? Could you shed some more light on it?
6 THE WITNESS: The special police unit that existed - and as I
7 stated, there was only one such unit in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the
8 period of SR BiH MUP - was essentially a paramilitary in the -- or special
9 riot police unit that could be used to quell unrest, rioting, essentially
10 handle tasks that were judged by the Presidency of SR BiH and by the
11 minister himself to be too difficult for the regular police to handle.
12 If I may be allowed, it would be roughly analogous to special
13 police units that exist for that purpose in the Netherlands, in all Western
14 European countries, and also in North America. However, it needs to be
15 stated that throughout the second half of 1991 and the early part of 1992,
16 there had been a vociferous debate within the ministry regarding the use of
17 this unit. In particular, there were allegations that had been made by the
18 Bosnian Serbs that the unit was being used unilaterally to carry out tasks
19 that the minister, who was a Muslim, Alija Delimustafic, desired without
20 proper prior discussion and agreement from the Croats and the Serbs in the
22 So the use of the ministry -- or the use of the special police
23 force itself was a topic of discussion, including at the Council for the
24 Protection of the Constitutional Order of Bosnia-Herzegovina. If one
25 examines the minutes of those meetings, one sees references to what should
1 be the procedure for authorising the use of such a unit.
2 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] And Mr. Zepinic in this report
3 that you've got here, this statement, rather, that has been quoted by the
4 Prosecution to some extent, does Mr. Zepinic explain what actually happened
5 at Mr. Krajisnik's office in the course of that meeting, when he tried to
6 convince him? Do we know anything else about that, how things went, what
7 was actually said? I'd really like to know that.
8 THE WITNESS: Mr. Zepinic, on the page of the statement that I
9 referred to previously does give a rather detailed account of that meeting.
10 It is the only such account that I am aware of. I've not seen any
11 description or mention of that meeting by other participants. Again, the
12 context here is that Mr. Zepinic is giving a statement to representatives
13 of the Bosnian Serb MUP, by whom he has been detained, at the end of August
14 1992 because he was at that point and indeed earlier, already in April,
15 being accused of being a traitor to the Serbian nation.
16 In the passage -- I'm not sure how much detail Your Honour
17 wants, but in the passage that Mr. Zepinic has written about those
18 meetings, it is interesting to note that he says that he was personally
19 called by Momcilo Krajisnik, who asked that he come to his office to attend
20 this meeting. When he went to Krajisnik's office, he found Radovan
21 Karadzic, Nikola Koljevic, Aleksa Buha, Franko Djeric [phoen], Miodrag
22 Simovic, Momcilo Mandic, Mico Stanicic, and Milanko Karisik, all present
23 there. Milanko Karisik, by the way, was himself a member; in fact, he was
24 one of the deputy commanders of the special police unit to which I
1 And according to Mr. Zepinic, and I quote: "Upon my arrival, I
2 was immediately attacked by all those present because of the meeting that I
3 had held with a special unit and because the division of the special unit
4 had been agreed earlier."
5 And then he goes on to say -- there's a -- there's a bit of
6 incompleteness and grammatical incorrectness in the original, but
7 essentially he says -- he was told that the division of the special unit
8 was now not possible if he -- because he had spoken to Vehbija [phoen] and
9 Maric, who were two other commanders, because those persons with whom he
10 had spoken were within the unitand given more authority and had a higher
11 status than Dragan Vikic [phoen], whowas a Croat, and Milanko Karisik, the
12 aforementioned Bosnian Serb.
13 He was also told that it wasn't correct that he hadn't reported
14 to the -- those present at the meeting about this meeting that he'd had
15 with Vehbija and Maric, both of whom are Serbs, because essentially this
16 was not along the lines of the agreement that had been agreed previously on
17 splitting the unit.
18 And then Zepinic says that: "I suggested that it would be most
19 correct if I immediately handed my irreversible resignation to the
20 president of the Assembly, Momcilo Krajisnik." And he states that he had,
21 in fact, offered a resignation to Momcilo Krajisnik two times before that
22 meeting but that they had not been able to agree upon that.
23 Again, I can keep going through the meetings, but the gist of
24 the – of it is that it was explained to him in no uncertain terms that he
25 had to go back to those two Serbs, Vehbija and Maric and get them to agree
1 to the unit being divided.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I would have one short additional question to this.
3 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [No interpretation]
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's the following: Under what circumstances was
5 this statement given? Was Mr. Zepinic a suspect? Was he a witness, a
6 potential witness? Was he -- and it says: "To authorised officials of the
7 State Security Service," and then it mentions a date. It doesn't say what
8 state, at least under those circumstances. Yes.
9 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, first of all, I would refer to
10 paragraph 83 of my report, in which I state that already in March 1992
11 Momcilo Mandic, who, in fact, would become deputy minister of RS MUP, had
12 publicly accused Vitomir Zepinic of being a traitor to the Serbian people.
13 He did that in Javnost, which was a Serbian newspaper in Bosnia-Herzegovina
14 at the time.
15 This document here refers to the National Security Service, that
16 it's a statement given to authorised employees of the National Security
17 Service. At the time of the statement, there is only one such service that
18 goes by that name in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that is the RS National
19 Security Service. One of the major changes after April 1992 was that
20 whereas the term for the secret service of the police had previously been
21 the State Security Service, the Bosnian Serbs in their 1992 law chose the
22 name National Security Service to refer to their new secret police service.
23 And I can also add that this statement is one of several
24 statements given at the end of August 1992 by Mr. Zepinic and that these
25 documents themselves were recovered from the archives of the RS
1 intelligence and security service.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Your answer suggests that he was suspected of being
3 a traitor, but were there any charges brought against him? Was he in
4 detention when he gave these statements? What -- could you ...?
5 THE WITNESS: As far as I know, Your Honour, he was indeed in
6 detention at Kula Prison --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: -- outside Sarajevo, which was a facility that was
9 controlled by the Ministry of Justice of the RS at that period of time.
10 I'm not aware that any formal charges were filed against him; however, I
11 can produce, if it interests the Court, a cover letter for these statements
12 because they were subsequently forwarded for consideration of criminal
13 charges. I'm not, however, aware that any such criminal charges were ever
14 filed against Mr. Zepinic.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. TIEGER:
18 Q. Mr. Nielsen, before we address or I ask you to address the record
19 from the session of the Serbian Ministry of the Interior expert board of
20 directors at tab 64, I wanted to return to an issue that was raised a
21 moment ago. You had discussed the "illegal meetings" and the illegal
22 arming of Bosnian Serbs by police officials, and a few moments ago you
23 discussed the objections to the use of the special unit that was made by
24 Bosnian Serb officials. Was one of those objections the use of the special
25 unit to search for evidence of illegal arming in Serbian villages?
1 A. Yes, that is correct. The Bosnian Serbs both in the police and
2 in the SDS alleged frequently - this is something that appears in a variety
3 of sources - they alleged it publicly in print media at the time, they
4 allege it in their conversations that they have on the phone, and they
5 certainly allege it within the ministry, and as I mentioned, at the session
6 for -- the sessions of the CPCO, the Council for the Protection of the
7 Constitutional Order.
8 They believed that this particular unit at the time was
9 systematically engaging in unwarranted and intrusive searches of Bosnian
10 Serb villages, that is to say, villages predominantly populated by Bosnian
11 Serbs in the greater Sarajevo area, with the specific intent, declared
12 intent of uncovering illegal caches of weapons.
13 Q. Now, I had indicated I wanted -- I was going to ask you to turn
14 to tab 64 - I believe you may have that in front of you at this point - as
15 we move forward to discuss the functioning of the Bosnian Serb MUP.
16 MR. TIEGER: That's tab 64 in binder 3, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Whilst Madam Registrar [sic] is finding the
18 relevant page, I would like to apologise for having overheard earlier
19 detention in Kula Prison because you said that five pages earlier, and I
20 missed it. I apologise for asking it again.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. TIEGER:
23 Q. Mr. Nielsen, can you tell us how -- what this document indicates
24 about the functioning of the Bosnian Serb MUP shortly after the Mandic
1 A. That document that we have in front of us in tab 64 is -- are
2 essentially the minutes from a session of the steering council of the
3 Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs held on the 14th of April, 1992. This
4 is the first such meeting of the leading Bosnian Serbs in RS MUP that --
5 for which we have a set of minutes.
6 There's a couple of quick points to note here. First of all, as
7 is apparent on the first page of both the B/C/S and the English versions,
8 they were meeting at the BiH MUP police academy or, as it was called,
9 School for Internal Affairs, which was located at a place called - excuse
10 me – Vraca immediately outside -- well, on the outskirts of Sarajevo. This
11 particular school had been used by the old ministry but had been seized by
12 the Bosnian Serbs on the 6th of April, 1992. It was henceforth for quite a
13 number of weeks - I believe well into June, between April and June - used
14 as the seat of the ministry, which is to say that in terms of controlling
15 and commanding units of the ministry and in terms of having meetings such
16 as the one that we see here on the 14th of April, this was the usual venue.
17 However, we will also see references in this document to the
18 location of certain senior members of the ministry at Pale, which was a few
19 kilometres away. And to the best of my knowledge, during the period from
20 April to June there were on any given day a large number of members of the
21 ministry, including the minister himself at -- at Vraca, and also other
22 members of the ministry present at Pale. But Vraca was universally
23 acknowledged by everyone, including the political leaders of the Serbian
24 Republic, as the seat of ministry.
25 What this shows is that the ministry has started to function,
1 and we see a variety of points being discussed, as one would expect, by the
2 participants with respect to the functioning of the ministry.
3 I would just note that if one is to -- were to compare the list
4 of attendees on this particular -- at this particular meeting with the list
5 of attendees at the 11 February meeting in Banja Luka, which we saw
6 earlier, I think the Court will see why the 11 February meeting is
7 indicative of who will be holding senior positions in the ministry at a
8 later date.
9 Q. Mr. Nielsen, let me ask you to turn your attention to an
10 interview with the minister himself, Mr. Stanisic, in October of 1992,
11 which is contained at tab 78 in binder 3.
12 Does Mr. Stanisic provide any insights into the functioning and
13 operation of the Bosnian Serb MUP during 1992?
14 A. Yes. In -- yes, he does. This is quite a long interview that
15 was given in Javnost, the newspaper to which I referred earlier, by Mico
16 Stanisic at the end of October 1992 in which he discusses extensively how
17 the ministry had functioned between April, when it was established, and the
18 time of the interview.
19 And in the interview, he states that although there were
20 problems present when the ministry was first functioned -- first
21 established, rather, he says - and I will just try to find the passage in
22 the - it's on page 2 of the translation, and it's the -- well, the original
23 is a one-page interview. It may be quite difficult to read for those
24 reading the B/C/S because it's in very small print.
25 But he's asked a question by the journalist: "Are there any
1 coordination problems between the organs of the Ministry of Internal
2 Affairs in various regions and districts, or respectively, is the work of
3 the service in these times of war completely centralised?" And he answers
4 that "Luckily for us the Ministry of Internal Affairs has really functioned
5 as a central organ and we have not had any kind of autonomous sentiments or
6 desires for separation among the service" -- "and we have not felt any such
7 sentiments among the members of the service." And he refers --
8 JUDGE ORIE: May I just interrupt you. When reading it, you
9 said that it had functioned; whereas, the official translation says "is
10 really functioning," which, of course, is not exactly the same.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed, Your Honour, you are correct. It
12 does say "is functioning as a central organ," and it is in the present
13 tense. You are absolutely correct.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed with your answer.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes. He then says that "At every meeting" -- the
16 term in B/C/S is "collegium" "every meeting of my collegium" which is
17 translated I know here as "meeting at department heads," that is what I
18 refer to as the steering council of the ministry -- "all the assistants,
19 undersecretaries and heads of security services centres from all areas were
20 present. It has never once happened that we were not all present whenever
21 the meeting was being held."
22 So looking at this interview and looking at the previous
23 document, this is one case in which he's stressing that -- that such
24 meetings were an important element of the ministry's functioning.
25 Ironically perhaps, as we see from the 14 April 1992 meeting, he himself
1 was not present at that meeting which I believed to have been among the
2 first such collegium meetings held.
3 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Would it be possible to go back
4 a little bit? I would rather do it now so that we do things in a
5 chronological order. And I would just like to go back to the witness
6 report and I'd like to ask the witness to refer to page 30, paragraphs 74,
7 75, 76, 77, and 78.
8 In this report, there are references to Mr. Krajisnik, precisely
9 at the time when this Ministry of the Interior was being set up. And I can
10 see here on page 30 that even before the actual setting-up of the Ministry
11 of the Interior, apparently there were discussions and debates within the
12 Assembly in the course of the 11th Session, more specifically, and if my
13 understanding is correct, on page 30, the first two lines read: "[In
14 English] Mr. Krajisnik asked the deputies to think seriously before the
15 next Assembly session about the best candidates in the regions for a
16 Serbian MUP."
17 [Interpretation] Since you seem to be fairly familiar with the
18 way in which these institutions worked -- well, I must admit that I'm not
19 all that familiar with this. If the Assembly was about to set up a new
20 ministry, how come does the Assembly of the republic have to worry about
21 the way in which this was to be organised, this new institution was to be
22 organised? The Assembly sets up an institution, and at that stage it would
23 be up to that institution, it seems to me, to take care of its own
24 functioning afterwards. Now, why does the president of the Assembly, the
25 speaker of the Assembly, ask its deputies to start thinking about who
1 should be the region representatives or whatever even before the actual
2 ministry is set up? Do you understand the gist of my question, even though
3 it's a bit long-winded? And could you clarify the actual role of the
4 Assembly and the role of the president of the Assembly on this specific
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, I do understand your question,
7 and I will do my best to answer it.
8 I have two observations. First, there is a legal role for the
9 Assembly vis-a-vis each ministry, including the Ministry of Internal
10 Affairs. And I can explain that role, but I do want to state that I don't
11 think necessarily that the instance that we are specifically focusing on at
12 the top of page 30 is an illustration of an exercise of the powers that I'm
13 about to describe. What I think -- the way I read that particular instance
14 is that Mr. Krajisnik, as a president of the Assembly, on that particular
15 occasion was reminding the delegates who were from all of the different
16 parts of the future Serbian republic to think seriously, as I state, and to
17 consult, as they were doing anyway and had been doing ever since the
18 November 1990 elections, with their municipal, local, and other boards in
19 terms of making proposals for who should be running -- who should be
20 appointed to which posts in the MUP.
21 I would note that, as I do at a much earlier stage in the
22 report,that Mr. Karadzic himself was quite fond of calling Momcilo Mandic,
23 Vitomir Zepinic and others and stating that, for example, I have talked to
24 a certainmember of the SDS in this or that municipality and they state that
25 an ideal person for the new commander of police or the new chief of the
1 public security station would be, and then they'd give a certain name. And
2 he will then give that name on to Vitomir Zepinic or Momcilo Mandic, or
3 others, and insist that they do their best to make sure that that
4 particular candidate is, in fact, appointed to that position.
5 Now, to return to the larger question. I think the appropriate
6 point of departure is to state that the Assembly was, of course, the organ
7 that had passed the Law on Internal Affairs that came into effect and was
8 used by the RS MUP. This law was passed on February 28th, 1992. The law,
9 however, was not the only legal instrument governing the relationship
10 between the Assembly and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Other legal
11 instruments that should be mentioned there are the Law on Government and
12 the Law on the Ministries, that came later, and of course there is the
14 According to the laws - and I believe we will have the occasion
15 to examine certain paragraphs in those laws - the Minister of Internal
16 Affairs, like all other ministers, was appointed by the Assembly. We see a
17 reflection of that in paragraph 79 at the 13th Session of the Bosnian Serb
18 Assembly where the Assembly nominates Mico Stanisic, almost unanimously, as
19 the Minister of Internal Affairs. Once he takes office, he, like all other
20 ministers, remains responsible, at least as long as peacetime conditions
21 obtain - matters will change a little bit in times of war - but in
22 peacetime conditions, Mico Stanisic and other members of the government, as
23 well as the Prime Minister, would be responsible to the Assembly. And
24 their work could be and was examined, scrutinised, criticised, praised, et
25 cetera, in the Assembly sessions, and there were often some very vocal and
1 vociferous debates, opinionated debates, in the Assembly regarding the
2 specifics of the work of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
3 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, we are close to a time for a break. I
5 don't know whether this would be a suitable moment or ...
6 MR. TIEGER: I would have one last question about the document.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it to you, yes.
8 MR. TIEGER:
9 Q. In the interview that you were looking at earlier, the interview
10 of Mr. Stanisic, does he indicate whether or not his orders were obeyed
11 during 1992? And it may be helpful to refer you back to the same section
12 of the interview that you were looking at earlier.
13 A. I'm just trying to locate the appropriate section of the
15 Q. And if it's helpful, you were referring earlier to the response
16 to the question: "Are there any coordination problems between the organs
17 of the Ministry of the Interior --"
18 A. Well, in the response to the same question in which he refers to
19 the meeting of the collegium, he states that "I want to state that we have
20 a very responsible behaviour of the members of our service, especially with
21 respect to any eventual non-compliance with respect to certain tasks or --
22 that they might undertake." But he says that "I think we are the only
23 ministry during this period in which we have excluded certain members from
24 our ranks, and that we did not do because they did anything that was
25 contrary to Serb interests but, rather, because they had done certain
1 things that were of a questionable character, which is really incompatible
2 with membership in our service."
3 And then he goes on to talk about the handful of cases in which
4 that happens. However, the overall gist, and I am indeed looking again for
5 the specific passage. Perhaps I can identify it on the break, if I'm
6 allowed to take this with me. But I do recall that in this interview he
7 specifically states that he did not have any problems with the enforcement
8 of his orders and the ministry at any point during the period from April to
9 October 1992.
10 Q. And just before we break - sorry, Your Honour - if you just could
11 turn your attention to the portion of the interview immediately before the
12 passage that begins: "I would also like to point out," the sentence before
14 A. Yes. He says: "In addition" -- that is, indeed, the sentence.
15 "In addition, it has not yet happened that any order that I have given, of
16 course, in agreement with the law, has been met with disobedience by any
17 executors on the complete territory of the RS."
18 It's a little bit difficult to translate the original there,
19 but the key word, the -- the key word in that sentence is that he says that
20 "None of the members of the Ministry of Internal Affairs have ever been
21 deaf to my orders," and, indeed, the by line at the very top of the
22 interview, right under the title "rule of law established," is: "We want a
23 ministry in which there could not be a single person who turns a deaf ear
24 to the legal norms of the RS."
25 So the gist of what he is saying is that not only has it not
1 occurred that anyone has turned a deaf ear to the legal norms of the RS;
2 they have, in fact, also been fully attentive with respect to the orders
3 that he's given in accordance with the Law on Internal Affairs.
4 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break until ten minutes past 6.00, but
6 not until after I have announced that we'll start tomorrow at 1.00 in
7 Courtroom II.
8 We'll adjourn for 20 minutes.
9 --- Recess taken at 5.51 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 6.14 p.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, please proceed.
12 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Your Honour, the Court had inquired earlier about the basis for
14 Mr. Zepinic's arrest during the break. We located and copied the decision
15 to render custody related to Mr. Zepinic's arrest, and I wanted to
16 distribute that. I've presented it to the Defence, and Mr. Krajisnik has a
17 copy, as well.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, is there any objection?
19 You want to have this in evidence, Mr. Tieger, or is it in
20 evidence already? Which might well have been the case.
21 MR. TIEGER: It is not, Your Honour. I would have indicated if
22 it had been. But because the Court inquired directly about it, I thought
23 it would be helpful to produce it, and the Defence appear to have no
24 objection to that in light of the Court's questions.
25 MS. LOUKAS: That's precisely correct, Your Honour. In light of
1 the Court's questions, I have no objections to the document.
2 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, Mr. Tieger, but help me out if
3 you can, this is to demonstrate the reason for the detention of Mr. Zepinic
4 when he gave his statement?
5 MR. TIEGER: That's correct, Your Honour. And I was going to
6 present it to the witness as well, of course.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But could I first ask you: This is a
8 detention order. The aforesaid person shall be counted from 1800 hours on
9 the 2nd of December, 1992, but the statement was given on the 27th of
10 August, which, of course, is a bit difficult to reconcile with the reason
11 why you present it.
12 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry, I -- yeah, I didn't mean -- and forgive
13 me for misspeaking. This is the document that is most closely -- the
14 document in our possession most closely related to that interview in
15 detention that was discussed earlier. The Court asked for questions about
16 whether or not -- about what the basis for detention was, and whether or
17 not any charges followed. This is the best document we can produce in
18 response to those questions.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's an explanation a bit different from
20 what it was, but -- well, let's just say that close to the time when he
21 gave his statement he was detained for the reasons set out in this
22 document. At least, if the witness would confirm that or if the document
23 could be accepted as ...
24 Yes, please proceed.
25 MR. TIEGER: And if a copy could be presented to the witness, in
1 that case.
2 MS. LOUKAS: Just one small comment in relation to the document,
3 if I may, Your Honours, and I've already indicated as such to the
4 Prosecution. It does seem to be a rather poor copy of the original. I'm
5 just wondering if it would be possible to attempt to find a better copy of
6 the B/C/S.
7 MR. TIEGER: It's certainly possible to attempt to find a better
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. TIEGER: And we'll be happy to do that, and hopefully we'll
11 be successful.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's, then, proceed at this moment.
13 MR. TIEGER:
14 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I want to give you just a moment more to look that
15 over, if you need to.
16 A. I'm ready to answer any questions about it.
17 Q. I don't know if you -- you're previously familiar with that
18 document or not, but can you tell us whether or not that sheds light on the
19 focus of basis for or reasons for or context of - and I know those are a
20 lot of possibilities, but I'm sure you can address the appropriate one -
21 for Mr. Zepinic's statement that was previously discussed.
22 A. Well, this is certainly not the document to which I was referring
23 earlier when I referred to the document that I had seen forwarding his
24 case, as it were, to other authorities or higher authorities, because that
25 document would have come from the same ERN range as -- as the statements
1 that -- or the statement that we were looking at earlier, as well as the
2 other statements. And I do not recall having previously read this
3 particular document. Despite the poor quality of the original in -- in the
4 B/C/S, the crucial paragraph explaining the detention decision is quite
5 legible; it's the first paragraph under "Rationale." And I can confirm
6 that it does state -- what the translation says that it says, that is to
7 say, that Zepinic allegedly recruited citizens of Serbian nationality to
8 serve in formations of the enemy's military. I would note that, as I
9 stated, Mr. Zepinic gave several statements at the end of August, on
10 consecutive days, in fact, to the national Security Service, and they
11 questioned him extensively on what he had been doing in enemy-controlled
12 Sarajevo during the summer, because he had not been on the territory of --
13 controlled by the Serbs for most of the summer. And they also asked him
14 questions about what he knew with respect to the Bosnian republic military,
15 et cetera.
16 That concludes my answer to the question. I do want to note
17 that in the -- as requested by the Chamber, in the break I did examine the
18 11th Session of the Assembly, and I'm prepared to explain that statement
19 about ethnic separation on the ground, having found it and read the
20 passages around it.
21 Q. And if you could proceed to do so, Mr. Nielsen.
22 A. Could I please also have a copy of the English so that I can make
23 reference to the Chamber to the correct pages because I only have the B/C/S
24 references in front of me.
25 Q. Well, the only copy I have is -- I only have one copy, Your
1 Honour. I'd like to follow it as we go through. Perhaps I can identify
2 the relevant passages and thereby retain the only copy of the 11th Session
3 that I have?
4 MS. LOUKAS: Well, in fact, I have two copies.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I see the parties are perfectly able to resolve the
6 matter so --
7 MS. LOUKAS: The only aspect of mine is that I've put -- no, I
8 only have little sort of occasional underlinings or what have you, but
9 nothing of any consequence, and orange Post-its on it.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that would not be a reason not to use it.
11 Please proceed.
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
13 What we see here on the very first full-text page, SA025712 of
14 the B/C/S, and on page 3 of the English version, is that there are two
15 items proposed by Momcilo Krajisnik in his capacity as president of the
16 Assembly for discussion at that session of the Assembly. The first is:
17 "Information on the last session of the conference on solutions for the
18 crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina," and the second point is: "Deputy's
19 questions," mostly relating to the first point.
20 After a very short introduction by the speaker and then a couple
21 of shorter interventions, you have a long speech by Radovan Karadzic that
22 starts on page 4 of the English translation and on page SA025714 of the
23 B/C/S version.
24 Having read that very quickly, again - it's been some months
25 since I last read it - the essential point is that Dr. Karadzic, having
1 recently returned along with others from the latest session of the ongoing
2 conference, international conference to resolve the crisis in Bosnia and
3 Herzegovina, gives all of the deputies an update about it, and it is a
4 rather upbeat but not wholly optimistic summary that he gives.
5 After his intervention, you then have the floor turning back to
6 the speaker, the president of the Assembly, Momcilo Krajisnik, which is on
7 page SA025725 of the B/C/S, and -- pardon me, you also have an intervention
8 by Nikola Koljevic. But the floor eventually turns back to Momcilo
9 Krajisnik, which is on page 12 of the English translation and, again, on
10 page SA025725 of the B/C/S.
11 Mr. Krajisnik states that the situation is not good and that the
12 job is not done yet and that there is still a long way to go before their -
13 - the goals can be realised. He then refers to the previous discussion,
14 mostly to Mr. Karadzic's summary of what has been accomplished at the
15 latest session of the international peace conference, and he -- but he
16 summarised by stating that the EU, the European community at the time, or
17 EC, rather, seems to have agreed to a division of Bosnia and Herzegovina on
18 ethnic principles. But that is not enough, he says.
19 And there is then a discussion of which maps -- there was some
20 disagreement at the peace conference between the SDA and the SDS
21 representatives about which maps would be used to actually implement that
22 ethnic division of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nonetheless, Mr. Krajisnik
23 views this as a positive step forward, because previously, he states, the
24 European community had very solidly been backing the SDA position and had
25 been resisting anything that would be an ethnic separation of Bosnian-
1 Herzegovinian territory.
2 I won't go through all of the points in his speech, but he does
3 state that he -- he states that "We have not budged from our position, as
4 we've explained it in previous Assembly sessions," that he is satisfied
5 that the – both the European Community and the SDA have realised that the
6 Serbs have made their position clear and that they are not going to back
7 down on the position as the Assembly has agreed to it. However, he
8 statements that the Muslims continueto insist that Bosnia and Herzegovina
9 should be internationally recognised and that it should be -- and he says
10 "they want it," it, that is Bosnia and Herzegovina, "to be a state."
11 And then comes the point that -- or part that I specifically
12 refer to, which is on page SA0255727 of the original and -- it is on page -
13 - at the bottom of page 13 of the English translation. And he says: "In
14 this respect, it would be good if we could do one thing strategically,
15 ethnic separation on the ground. This would begin to determine or to
16 confirm the territory, and when this territory has been determined, then it
17 remains for us to establish negotiations with the SDA and others how the
18 actual institutions will function."
19 So that is the particular passage from which I withdrew that
20 reference to ethnic separation on the ground.
21 I just want to make one very brief note that subsequently, on
22 page 25 of the B/C/S, which is page SA025736, at a later stage, Dr.
23 Koljevic, Professor Koljevic, who also played a very important role in the
24 Bosnian Serb state, says that much more -- "We will be able to do much more
25 when we have our own police." So that is, again, another important
1 reference to the police and the necessity of creating the police for the
2 proper functioning of a Bosnian Serb state.
3 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.
4 MR. TIEGER:
5 Q. And before you turn your attention away from the -- that
6 particular Assembly session, Mr. Nielsen, just to round it out, and
7 appreciating the fact that you could not include all relevant Assembly
8 references, if I could ask you to turn your attention to page 46 of the
9 English translation, which is shortly before the chairman proposes the
10 conclusion, and it's Mr. Krajisnik speaking.
11 A. I believe that's on SA025776 of the B/C/S.
12 Q. And is it correct that in addition to the remarks that you
13 addressed earlier, Mr. Krajisnik states: "I have realised that responsible
14 government should be established in Serbian Bosnia and Herzegovina. To
15 find the mechanisms for implementing the BH constitution, urgently form
16 MUP, National Defence, money-transfer systems, take the Serbian
17 territories," and then he goes on to list a number of other issues,
18 including financing and the problem of SDK.
19 A. Yes. This is reflected in the B/C/S original, and it is again
20 another reference to the three pillars that I mentioned earlier: A
21 military, the SDK system, the social accounting service, and the formation
22 of a police.
23 Q. Mr. Nielsen, turning back to your report, it addresses in quite
24 some detail the Law on Internal Affairs and the rule book. The -- your
25 discussion of the Law on Internal Affairs is reflected in paragraphs
1 roughly 91 through 169 of your report. And I have to double-check to see
2 if those are the precise references. That's correct.
3 And on the rule book, from paragraphs 170 through 182. Because
4 of the press of time and because of the detail in which you've discussed
5 both of those in the report, I'm going to move on to the next phase of the
6 functioning of the Bosnian Serb MUP, unless the Court has some specific
7 questions about the Law on Internal Affairs or about the rule book.
8 Perhaps before I do, is there any aspect of the rule book or the
9 -- the purpose and nature of the rule book that requires further
10 elucidation that is not covered in your report?
11 A. The RS rule book on internal organisation is a very long document
12 that's over 200 pages long. And as I state at the outset of the discussion
13 on the law on internal affairs, while the law determines the legal
14 organisational structure of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the actual
15 structure of the ministry and all of the kinds of rules and regulations
16 that would pertain to the day-to-day functioning of the ministry, to obtain
17 that, one has to turn to the rule book. It is an exhaustive document
18 describing in detail the functioning of everybody from the minister down to
19 the cleaning personnel in the ministry. It also discusses and explains how
20 various units of the ministry and various departments of the ministry
21 relate to each other, and it also moreover contemplates how many people are
22 needed to fill various positions and what their qualifications have to be
23 in order to be hired to those positions.
24 So that's -- that's essentially the significance of the RS rule
25 book. It bears mentioning that the RS MUP relied for most of 1992 on the
1 old rule book, which is from 1990, and I actually do not know when the RS
2 MUP rule book came into effect. We have several copies of it, but what one
3 does see in the documents is reference repeatedly in the autumn of 1992 to
4 the need to once and for all sit down and get the senior staff of the
5 ministry to approve the rule book. In the meantime, they were relying on
6 the old version.
7 I don't think that poses much of a problem, however, for any
8 analysis of the work of the ministry because, like the law, the rule book
9 was an only barely modified version of the 1990 document. Indeed at the
10 risk of generalising only slightly, one can say that most of the changes
11 between the 1990 and 1992 laws evolve erasing the word "Socialist Republic"
12 and replacing it with "Serbian Republic." So it is -- these are two very,
13 very similar documents, but I do discuss the few - and they are important
14 cases - in the section of the law where they differ.
15 I'll just mention one right now, which is, as I already referred
16 to earlier, that whereas there were nine Security Services Centres in the
17 old SR BiH MUP, there were five, and at different locations to some degree,
18 in RS MUP. And I can explain that when we get to the organisation of the
19 ministry per se.
20 Q. Now, your report addresses at paragraphs 223 through 227
21 reporting and communications of the Serbian MUP. In that connection, I'd
22 like to turn first to a document that has already been produced in evidence
23 at P529, tab 75, and also P64, P65, binder 11, tab 122. Those are the
24 minutes of the extended meeting of the Council for National Security and
25 the government of the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina held on 22 April
2 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, the Registry has a problem. If you
4 could provide a copy, because these numbers of binders are so huge that if
5 there is no forewarning for using them, P65 will not always be available.
6 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour. We'll do two things:
7 We'll provide that copy right now, and we'll also provide the Registrar
8 with the next --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. TIEGER: -- exhibit we'll be using.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. TIEGER:
13 Q. Mr. Nielsen, if I could direct your attention to agenda item 4,
14 which is headed "Conclusions and reports of the April 22nd, 1992, meeting."
15 Does that address reports in reference to the Ministry of the Interior?
16 A. In point 4 of the minutes here of this meeting, there are two
17 references in points 3 and 4 to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The
18 third point states that "The Ministers of Internal Affairs and National
19 Defence should submit every day reports on the situation on the ground and
20 on the establishment of possible accountability and the taking of
22 The fourth point states that "The Minister of Internal Affairs
23 is to deliver a daily report on the security situation on the territory of
24 SBiH." That is at that point the Serbian Bosnia and Herzegovina.
25 Q. And did the ministry take action around that time to ensure that
1 such reports were available?
2 A. Yes, it did.
3 Q. And can I ask you to turn to tab 43 of binder 2, which contains
4 an order of Minister Mico Stanisic to all CSBs of 16 April 1992. And can
5 you tell us quickly about that order, Mr. Nielsen.
6 A. This order, in fact, anticipates the decision taken by the
7 National Security Council several days later, so in that respect Mico
8 Stanisic as Minister of Internal Affairs was ahead of -- or anticipating
9 the National Security Council's decisions. He was, of course, also a
10 member of the National Security Council.
11 This particular document in tab 43 is an order from Mico
12 Stanisic to the five CSBs that have been set up in the RS. Those are
13 Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Trebinje, Bijeljina, and Doboj. And he is asking the
14 -- or rather, ordering the chiefs of those five CSBs to forward reports on
15 the -- on the number of -- of Serbian and non-Serbian employees who have
16 been employed at the Ministry of the Interior -- of Internal Affairs of the
17 Serbian republic. It is during this period that he sends a number of
18 dispatches out between the 16th of April and the end of April, not only
19 seeking this kind of information from the chiefs of the CSBs but, in fact,
20 asking them to report on a daily basis in order that he may be fully aware
21 of the security situation throughout the territory controlled by the RS or
22 the Bosnian Serbs at this point in time.
23 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Do we know what was done with
24 these reports? What did the Minister of Interior use these reports for?
25 THE WITNESS: There were two uses for these reports based on --
1 on my analysis of them. The first use was for the ministry itself and for
2 the minister himself personally so that they could be fully aware of the
3 situation in the field or on the ground and what was going on in all the
4 subordinate five Security Services Centres and that appropriate action
5 could be taken based on that information that they had obtained.
6 The second use of the report, which starts around this same
7 time, is that the most important information submitted by CSB Sarajevo,
8 Banja Luka, Trebinje, Bijeljina, and Doboj would be collated and put in a
9 daily bulletin of the Ministry of Internal Affairs that would then be
10 forwarded to the very top officials in the Serbian republic in Bosnia and
11 Herzegovina so that they could, as well, be appraised of the security
12 situation and of the ministry's activities. That report is the exact kind
13 of report that the National Security Council is seeking at the 22nd April
14 meeting that we just saw.
15 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] What you call "very top
16 officials," who are they?
17 THE WITNESS: The Prime Minister and the members of the
18 Presidency. Again, with the obvious understanding that the composition of
19 the Presidency varies between April and December of 1992, but it is
20 apparent from the draft annual report to which I referred earlier that both
21 the president of the government and the members of the Presidency at any
22 given time were receiving these reports.
23 MR. TIEGER:
24 Q. And perhaps we could turn to tab 23 of binder 1, page 23, in
25 connection with Judge Hanoteau's last question. And if it's helpful, Mr.
1 Nielsen, I'm looking at the section that immediately precedes number 2,
2 "Administrative and legal tasks," and it -- it actually falls under number
3 1, "Reporting and informing."
4 A. Yes. That would be page 23 of the English version of the
5 document and page FI201308 of the B/C/S version.
6 Q. Now, I believe Judge Hanoteau's question was, what was done with
7 those bulletins of daily events, and does this annual report indicate in
8 part what was done with those bulletins?
9 A. In the fourth full paragraph in the English version and the
10 second full paragraph of the B/C/S version on this page, it is stated that
11 "In order to inform about security problems," it actually says "security
12 problems" in the original or "the security problematic," "The president of
13 the Presidency and the president of the government of the RS --" sorry, I'm
14 mangling the original here because I'm translating it according to the
15 original grammatical syntax. But the essence, as it says in the English
16 version, is that "The president of the Presidency and the Prime Minister of
17 the RS received these bulletins of daily events and that it estimates that
18 about 150 issues of this bulletin were produced between April and the end
19 of the year."
20 It also says that in addition to this, the president of the
21 government, that is to say, the Prime Minister, received over 90 different
22 individual informations, that is to say, reports, and the president or
23 members of the Presidency received 80 different informations on the
24 security problems or security situation.
25 Q. Now, were some reports received by the -- by the republic level
1 of government in response to direct requests?
2 A. Yes, that is the case. I do want to note that this paragraph
3 that I've just cited is footnoted, and I would like to direct everyone's
4 attention to footnote 14 at the bottom of the page, which states that "The
5 reports that were mentioned were mostly from the field of the SNB," which
6 is the National Security Service and Crime. "Reports submitted to the
7 member of the Presidency and Republika Srpska should not be added since
8 some of them were prepared for both organs and for the officials."
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one additional question in this
10 respect: It seems, then, that -- and that did not appear from your
11 previous answer who would receive those bulletins -- that the information
12 given to the president of the Presidency to the members of the Presidency
13 seem not to be exactly the same. Is that a correct understanding?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour is correct. Upon reading this
15 paragraph again, it is clear that from this particular report it states
16 that "The president of the Presidency received the daily bulletins," not
17 all of the members of the Presidency, but that the members of the
18 Presidency did receive over 90 other reports on -- on various security
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I take it, then, that you wanted to say
21 80, because 90 was for the Prime Minister and 80 was for the Presidency and
22 its members.
23 THE WITNESS: You are correct again, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. In connection with requests for reports, can we turn next, first
3 quickly to a document that's already in evidence at P65, binder 12, tab
4 139. Those are the minutes from the government session of the Serb
5 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina held on 24 May 1992.
6 And does agenda item 2 reflect such a request?
7 A. The first point of agenda item 2 states that "It has been
8 concluded that the Ministry for Internal Affairs should prepare a complete
9 and exhaustive information," in the original, but it is a reference to
10 report, "on the security situation and the state of public peace and order
11 in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that should be prepared as
12 soon as possible." And it then goes on to state that "This report should
13 pay specific," or "particular", rather, "attention to questions of crime,
14 protection of state and private property of the Serb people, appearances or
15 manifestations of war profiteering and appearances of abuses of the
16 citizens of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as other
17 questions which are relevant for an evaluation of the political state and
18 attitude or conditions of the Serb nation."
19 Q. Turning to tab 59 of binder 3.
20 JUDGE ORIE: May I again ask one additional question. The issue
21 was reporting, and it was explained to us that the Prime Minister and the
22 president of the Presidency, and apart from that, also some reports were
23 sent to the members of the Presidency. Now, this document deals with the
24 government. This is a government meeting; is that correct? Which is, of
25 course, not exactly the same forum as we discussed before.
1 THE WITNESS: That is correct, Your Honour. However, I -- I do
2 believe that in referring to the reporting to the president of the
3 government any report that would be produced pursuant to a request of the
4 kind we see here on the 24th of May, 1992, would be addressed by the
5 minister who was in charge of composing that report to the president of the
6 government, and it would then be disseminated and discussed at the
7 government sessions. That was the usual practice.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Why was that not the usual practice for the
9 president of the Presidency, receiving reports which he would have been
10 expected to share with the members of the Presidency? Why is there a
11 distinction in this respect?
12 THE WITNESS: I am not an expert on the functioning of the
13 Presidency of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I'm not
14 in a position to answer the question of whether the aforementioned daily
15 bulletins that were given only to the president of the Presidency were
16 shared by him with other members of the Presidency or whether they were
17 kept to him himself. However, it is apparent from my examination of the
18 Presidency minutes in 1992, again, with a specific eye to understanding any
19 mentions of the police or organs of internal affairs at those sessions,
20 that the police and their -- the problems surrounding the police, the
21 conduct of the police, suggestions and orders that could be given to the
22 police, were frequently discussed at Presidency sessions.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
25 MR. TIEGER:
1 Q. If you could turn to tab 59 of binder 3. That contains an order
2 by Ministry of the Interior, Mico Stanisic, two days later, on the 26th of
3 May, 1992 to the Security Services Centre. And does that appear to be a
4 response to the government session of May 24th, and does it make explicit
5 reference to a request by the government?
6 A. It does appear to be a response to the previous order given by
7 the government to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The date of the
8 government session was, I believe, the 24th of May, that we were just
9 looking at, and this is only two days later, the 26th of May. And they are
10 referring -- in this case, we have the copy. The copy that I have, the
11 B/C/S copy, is the copy that was sent to CSB Sarajevo. There were copies
12 sent to the other four CSBs as well. And the introductory paragraph says
13 that, "It is necessary to urgently compose information for the government
14 of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that it is therefore
15 necessary to gather information or data on the security of people and
16 property on the territory of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and
18 And it then goes on to list what categories of information need
19 to be -- what categories of information need to be reported upon. This
20 certainly is a clear reference to the demand by the government for urgent
21 information on the security of people and property on the territory of the
23 I would note that on the second page of the B/C/S original, and
24 on page 3 of the translation, paragraph 5 or numeral V, special emphasis is
25 given to reporting on the theft of cars from TAS at Vogosca, the TAS
1 complex at Vogosca, and Ilidza is mentioned as well. These two questions,
2 the theft of cars from Vogosca, the TAS complex, and the theft, or alleged
3 theft I should say, of oil -- and there is, Your Honour, something missing
4 from the English translation because the original B/C/S number 5 does not
5 just say "Ilidza," it says "Ilidza" and then it says "theft of oil" in
6 parentheses. These were two questions that were frequently discussed at
7 the government, and they were, in fact, also discussed in the Assembly.
8 Q. And finally, Mr. Nielsen, before we adjourn, can I direct your
9 attention to -- or can I ask you a question about a document that's already
10 in evidence, the minutes of the government session of 31 May 1992. And can
11 you confirm from your own review of those minutes that they reflect that
12 the Ministry of the Interior has informed the government about the current
13 issues in the political and security situation in the republic, about the
14 degree of public order and peace, and about other issues of importance for
15 the safety in the republic?
16 MS. LOUKAS: If I might just have the exhibit number in relation
17 to that.
18 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry, I thought I had done that. P65, binder
19 12, tab 141.
20 Q. And I would direct your attention to agenda item 15.
21 A. Well, agenda item 15 certainly merits mentioning; however, I
22 would first, proceeding by numerical order, briefly just touch upon agenda
23 item 13, which is the decision on the problems of TAS at Vogosca. And I
24 only want to mention this very briefly because we just saw TAS in Vogosca
25 and the investigation of that situation mentioned by the Ministry of
1 Internal Affairs as well. Here it is the Ministry for Economics that's
2 also getting involved.
3 But to turn to agenda item 15, it says that the Minister for
4 Internal Affairs has informed the government on current questions of
5 political security –- of the political security situation in the republic,
6 the state of public order and peace, and other questions of interest to the
7 security in the republic. And it states that: "On this occasion, it was
8 stated that the government was not sufficiently informed on questions which
9 are of significance for its work, and especially on the state at the front.
10 It is concluded," or it was concluded,"that on all those questions the
11 government must be informed regularly, especially through the Ministry for
12 Defence, the Main Staff, and the Ministry for Internal Affairs in order
13 that it can act in accordance with its rights and authorities in the
14 composition of politics and positions, and in order to bring," or
15 basically, "in order to decide on corresponding resolutions in its
16 realisation." JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I see you're looking at the
17 clock. I do the same. We'll adjourn for the day.
18 The parties are expected to make further oral submissions
19 tomorrow on the issue of self-representation. We discussed that earlier
20 this week. Mr. Stewart then had no -- well, could not respond immediately
21 on the basis of a document he received only that morning.
22 MS. LOUKAS: I understand there was a question of some English
23 Authorities, or what have you, and some further --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. Well, the legal authorities included in
25 the submission filed last Tuesday, I think it was, by the Prosecution.
1 The Chamber has no preference on whether to deal with that at the
2 beginning of the hearing or at the end of the hearing, so perhaps it's not
3 necessary, if Mr. Stewart would deal with the matter, to be present at all
4 times. I leave it to the parties to agree on whether the beginning or the
5 end. The Chamber would like to hear how much time would be needed for
6 that, and this is not a promise that the time indicated will be granted.
7 We'll try to do it as efficiently as possible.
8 We'll then adjourn for the day. I again thank the interpreters
9 and the technical staff for their assistance.
10 We'll adjourn until tomorrow, 1.00, Courtroom II.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.06 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Friday, the 3rd day of
13 June, 2005, at 1.00 p.m.