Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 175

1 Thursday, 17 May 2001

2 [Evidentiary hearing]

3 [Open session]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 10.12 a.m.

6 JUDGE WALD: Good morning, counsel, the accused, technical staff.

7 We will begin today's Rule 115 hearing by having the registrar call the

8 case, please.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-95-16-A, the Prosecutor versus

10 Zoran Kupreskic, Mirjan Kupreskic, Vlatko Kupreskic, Drago Josipovic, and

11 Vladimir Santic.

12 JUDGE WALD: Thank you, Madam Registrar. I will now ask for the

13 appearances for the various accused, their counsel, and for the

14 Prosecution. Would you begin with the Prosecution, please.

15 MR. YAPA: May it please Your Honours, I'm Upawansa Yapa,

16 appearing for the Prosecution with Mr. Norman Farrell, Mr. Bill Smith.

17 Mr. David Leese, he's the case manager for the Prosecution today.

18 JUDGE WALD: Thank you.

19 MR. YAPA: One other matter we wish to mention at this stage; it

20 may be necessary to join in another member of the Prosecution team in the

21 course of the day. I would seek Your Honour's permission to do that.

22 JUDGE WALD: Yes, you have that.

23 MR. YAPA: Thank you.

24 JUDGE WALD: We'll begin with the counsel for the accused. We'll

25 begin with -- go ahead.

Page 176

1 MR. RADOVIC: [Interpretation] Ranko Radovic, Defence counsel for

2 Zoran Kupreskic.

3 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Good morning, Your Honour. I'm Jadranka

4 Slokovic-Glumac, Defence counsel for Mirjan Kupreskic.

5 MR. PAVKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. I am

6 Petar Pavkovic, Defence counsel for Vladimir Santic.

7 MR. ABELL: Good morning, Your Honours. Anthony Abell appearing

8 on behalf of Vlatko Kupreskic, together with my learned co-counsel

9 Mr. John Livingston.

10 MR. CLEGG: I am William Clegg, and I appear with --

11 THE INTERPRETER: Mike, please. Microphone, sorry.

12 JUDGE WALD: Microphone, please.

13 MR. CLEGG: I'm sorry. My name is William Clegg, and I appear

14 with Goranka Herljevic for Drago Josipovic. I apologise to His Honour

15 Judge Vohrah, I'm afraid he's quite unable to see me --

16 JUDGE VOHRAH: That's all right.

17 MR. CLEGG: -- and I am him. He has the advantage and I have the

18 disadvantage.

19 JUDGE WALD: Well, you'll be able to hear each other. All right,

20 I think we have the appearances now.

21 I'm going to make a few preliminary remarks about how we'll

22 conduct the hearing, also to apprise you of the Appeal Chamber's decision

23 on a few of the very late filed motions so you'll know how, how we intend

24 to proceed, and after that, we will begin with the calling of the Defence

25 witnesses.

Page 177

1 Now, as you know, the purpose of today's proceeding is to hear the

2 testimony and to enable the Prosecution which has asked for the right to

3 challenge the credibility of witnesses whose statements and whose exhibits

4 have been admitted into evidence already by decisions of the Appeal

5 Chambers following the filing of an application by counsel for Vlatko

6 Kupreskic to admit additional evidence under Rule 115.

7 In our decision which was issued on 11th April 2001, the Appeals

8 Chamber admitted into evidence the statements of four witnesses. Now,

9 when I refer to some of these witnesses by pseudonyms - because I will get

10 to the point of the protective conditions in a few minutes - but the

11 statements of four witnesses who were then identified, one of them is

12 AVK 4 and, Mr. Lazarevic, and there were two other witnesses that the

13 Defence -- that Mr. Kupreskic desired, and we admitted their testimony.

14 Those other two witnesses in this proceeding will have pseudonyms, so I'm

15 not going to mention their names out loud. And we admitted the

16 accompanying exhibits, which were then identified as ML1, 2, 3, MT1, 2,

17 IC1, and 2, but which will have new designations which have been accorded

18 to you by the registrar's sheet here so that you will know how to refer to

19 them. We will give you, as they appear, the pseudonyms for the witnesses

20 who will be testifying by pseudonym.

21 We said in our decision that the admission was without prejudice

22 to any determination of the weight that would be afforded to the evidence

23 and we ordered an evidentiary hearing. Now, the Prosecution desired a

24 right to cross-examine some of the witnesses by whom the statements had

25 been proffered and also to submit some evidence in rebuttal. The Appeals

Page 178

1 Chamber considered that, having admitted the statements and exhibits, that

2 the Prosecution be given some right to subject the makers of the

3 statements and exhibits to scrutiny so that we could determine the

4 weight.

5 I would emphasise here, however, that we do not view the 115

6 hearing as a mini trial or a trial in which all doors are open to bring up

7 matters which are not directly relevant to the testimony of the witnesses

8 who will be heard. Thus I caution both the Prosecution and the Defence,

9 when it comes time to hear Prosecution rebuttal witnesses, that the

10 rebuttal and the cross-examination should be limited to matters which the

11 witnesses have actually testified to or which directly impugn their

12 credibility, not the much broader area for cross-examination that Rule 90,

13 in the ordinary trial, permits, where one side may, having the witness on

14 the stand, use it as an opportunity to enhance that person's own case. We

15 will limit cross-examination to matters which directly affect the

16 testimony of the main witness or impugn his or her credibility.

17 In its Prosecution notice of cross-examination material, the

18 Prosecution stated that it wanted to cross-examine three of the witnesses

19 whose testimony was admitted in our decision. That was what was then

20 referred to as AVK 4, Mr. Lazarevic, and one of the other witnesses who

21 will be testifying under a pseudonym today. For that reason, in our

22 Scheduling Order issued on the 11th of May, we invited Vlatko Kupreskic's

23 Defence to call these three witnesses, and it's our understanding that

24 they will be testifying today.

25 In the same Scheduling Order, the procedure for this hearing was

Page 179

1 set out. We said that in relation to each witness, counsel for Vlatko

2 Kupreskic would have one hour for the examination-in-chief. The

3 Prosecution would have one hour for cross-examination. Mr. Kupreskic's

4 counsel would have ten minutes for cross - I'm sorry - for redirect

5 examination.

6 Now, as far as the counsel for other appellants besides Vlatko

7 Kupreskic, they may ask to cross-examine the witness if the witness's

8 testimony implicates them directly in their case, but that testimony would

9 be more limited, obviously, than one hour. But if the witness directly

10 implicates another appellant, then the counsel for that appellant may ask

11 to cross-examine the witness.

12 At the close of the testimony of Vlatko Kupreskic's witnesses who

13 appear here, the Prosecution, we have said, has the right to present

14 evidence in rebuttal, again limited to the issue of the credibility of the

15 witness. We have put a limit on that of three hours. That includes

16 cross-examination of those rebuttal witnesses.

17 We are aware that the Prosecution has submitted for our

18 consideration a large number of written statements pursuant to 92 bis. We

19 have also received an objection to some of those from counsel for Mr.

20 Kupreskic. I want you to know that we will not rule on the admissibility

21 of the 92 bis statements during this hearing, but you will receive a

22 written decision on those very shortly thereafter. There simply has not

23 been time for us to make all of the due consideration that's necessary.

24 But you should have a decision on those exhibits, as well as anything else

25 that remains outstanding, and I'll get to that within a week to ten days

Page 180

1 so that we can close up this phase.

2 Now, let me move on to the protective conditions. Counsel for

3 Mr. Kupreskic, Vlatko Kupreskic, filed a request for protective measures

4 under Rule 75 of the Rules for two of the three witnesses that will be

5 appearing today. We have decided that he has made out a sufficient case

6 so that the two witnesses, whose names, obviously, I will not mention

7 during the open part of the hearing but who will be given pseudonyms by

8 the registrar as they appear, will be heard in closed session. There is

9 also a request for three of the rebuttal witnesses to be given protective

10 measures. Because of the confidentiality necessary under closed session

11 rules for the two -- for the three -- two, I'm sorry, two Kupreskic

12 witnesses, the three rebuttal witnesses will also be heard in closed

13 session.

14 The exhibits which relate to the Prosecution witnesses which have

15 been submitted, or the Defence witnesses, including the 92 bis statements,

16 will be also deemed, for the present, confidential.

17 If during the course of the hearing on the witnesses who are not

18 heard in closed session either counsel for Mr. Kupreskic or the

19 Prosecution considers it necessary for the Court to go into private

20 session for a particular portion dealing with the protection of

21 third-party witnesses, et cetera, I caution that they must make such a

22 request.

23 Now, this hearing has been listed for two days. It's my fervent

24 hope that we will be able to finish by midday tomorrow, but we will have

25 to see. Let me give you our proposed work schedule. We're running -- we

Page 181

1 started a little bit late, but hopefully within the next few minutes we

2 can call our first witness, and we would go then until that witness is

3 concluded, which may be in the vicinity of 12.30 or so, and take a lunch

4 break. We may have to take a, I'm told, a 10- to 15-minute break

5 somewhere in the middle because the translators have to change their tapes

6 every two hours.

7 From 12.30 to 1.30 or thereabouts will be our break, and from 1.30

8 till 3.30, approximately, or whenever the next witness is done, we'll take

9 a short break again to accommodate the translators, and then we will go

10 till the vicinity of 5.00, or if we finish earlier, in order to complete

11 the three Defence witnesses today. Tomorrow morning we will begin at 9.30

12 and go for the three hours until we have completed.

13 That's my optimistic schedule. I sincerely hope we can adhere to

14 it. I emphasise again, we are not in a second trial. We are here to test

15 the credibility of those witnesses which we have already decided are

16 worthy of having their testimony admitted under Rule 115.

17 Now, to close out, let me just tell you briefly what will ensue

18 after this hearing and then we'll move into it, because I know that there

19 are several still pending motions out there in this case.

20 Now, a decision -- number one, a decision on all pending Rule 115

21 applications relating to transcripts or interviews of Witness AT will be

22 rendered within the next ten days. Any other outstanding motions under

23 Rule 115 or similar applications for additional evidence will also be

24 decided within those ten days.

25 A decision, as I said before, on the 92 bis statements that have

Page 182

1 been proffered here will be rendered at the same time, and finally, we

2 will proffer a final briefing schedule for the appeals briefs and oral

3 arguments. At the same time, we will accompany it with a cumulative list

4 of all the additional evidence which, as of that time, has been admitted

5 under Rule 115 with the identification designations that we will expect

6 people to use when referring to it in the appeals briefs.

7 Now, with that, I believe we can call our first witness. Now, am

8 I correct, Mr. Abell, that the first witness will be a closed session

9 witness?

10 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, that is indeed correct. The second

11 witness will not be.

12 JUDGE WALD: I understand that.

13 MR. ABELL: The third witness will also be a closed session

14 witness.

15 JUDGE WALD: I understand that.

16 Now, Madam Registrar, are we ready to go into closed session for

17 the first witness, and will you tell us the pseudonym?

18 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, just before --

19 JUDGE WALD: Yes.

20 MR. ABELL: -- we move into the witnesses, may I just indicate

21 that at an appropriate stage later today, I would like to briefly make an

22 oral submission expanding on what I said in our motion filed on the 14th

23 of May, that is, Monday of this week, which is titled "Appellants'

24 response to Prosecutor's evidence 92 bis statements."

25 JUDGE WALD: Yes, yes. I intended to offer you that opportunity.

Page 183

1 My notion would be that during the Prosecution's rebuttal phase, which

2 will come after the Defence witnesses, then they will make a proffer of

3 the -- they have already, but of the 92 bis statements, and I will give

4 you and the Prosecution a brief period in which to make whatever remarks

5 you wish to make --

6 MR. ABELL: Yes.

7 JUDGE WALD: -- about those, and as I said, a written decision

8 will be tendered after the hearing on that.

9 MR. ABELL: I'm grateful for that, but can I just say so that it

10 can perhaps be considered over the luncheon adjournment, it may save time,

11 but what I am going to develop in my oral submission is what is set out in

12 paragraphs 4 and 5 of our motion, that is -- and I don't want to develop

13 it now and take up time by developing it now --

14 JUDGE WALD: No.

15 MR. ABELL: -- expressing concern that we received rebuttal

16 evidence as late as we did and dealing with whether we should deal with

17 it, in the circumstances, tomorrow. I don't want to raise it now, but I

18 will want to raise it later on today, perhaps.

19 JUDGE WALD: All right. We'll hear you on that matter.

20 MR. ABELL: I'm very grateful, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE WALD: Are we ready to go into closed session with the

22 witness?

23 MR. ABELL: Indeed.

24 JUDGE WALD: Then, Mr. Abell, you can proceed as soon as the

25 witness comes in and takes the oath.

Page 184

1 [Closed session]

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Pages 184-287 redacted closed session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 288

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 --- Recess taken at 3.02 p.m.

8 --- On resuming at 3.19 p.m.

9 [Open session]

10 [The witness entered court]

11 JUDGE WALD: We are reconvened now, and our next witness will

12 testify in open court.

13 Mr. Lazarevic, will you please recount the oath that's put before

14 you.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

16 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

17 WITNESS: MIRO LAZAREVIC

18 [Witness answered through interpreter]

19 JUDGE WALD: Thank you. You may be seated and get your headphones

20 adjusted so that you're comfortable in testifying, and then Mr. Abell will

21 begin the questioning and later on you'll be cross-examined by the

22 Prosecution.

23 Mr. Abell.

24 MR. ABELL: Thank you, Your Honours.

25 Examined by Mr. Abell:

Page 289

1 Q. Is your name Miro Lazarevic?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Mr. Lazarevic, I'm going to ask you a number of questions in the

4 time allotted to me. Please do your best to concentrate on my question

5 and try to keep your answer brief and to the point. All right?

6 A. I understand.

7 Q. Is this correct, that you have been a policeman for your entire

8 adult life? Is that correct?

9 A. No. I've been a policeman since 1987.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 A. Until that, for a while I worked in the economy.

12 Q. Thank you. And did you start work in 1987 in Vitez?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. At the police station in Vitez?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Now, before October of 1992, is this correct: Muslims and Croats

17 would work side by side together in the same police station?

18 A. Yes. There was a period, I don't remember exactly for how many

19 days it lasted, that neither worked, and then the Croatian and Serb

20 employees, policemen, returned, and then after that also the Bosniak or

21 Muslim policemen returned to work. I think this was in May or maybe June

22 of 1992, and I'm not sure exactly how many days this lasted.

23 Q. After that, did everyone return to work together?

24 A. More or less everyone. Those I knew. I was in the crime police

25 department; they all returned.

Page 290

1 Q. Thank you. Now, can you help me about this: When the first

2 conflict occurred in Ahmici in October of 1992 and in that area, did that

3 cause a change at the Vitez police station?

4 A. Yes. After that conflict, after that conflict in Ahmici, I didn't

5 work for two or three days, and then I was called to return to the police

6 station, and only the Croats and some Serb policemen returned. I don't

7 know, maybe one or two were of Serb ethnicity. And we continued working,

8 whereas the Bosniaks did not return. The policemen who used to work in

9 that police station before the conflict, among the Bosniaks, did not

10 return.

11 Q. Now, the Bosniaks or the Muslims, where did they work from,

12 please, then, after this split in October of 1992?

13 A. I think that a police station was formed in Stari Vitez, that is,

14 in another part of town, one or two kilometres away from this police

15 station where I worked.

16 Q. And the Croat police and the -- those Serb police officers who

17 remained with the Croats, where did they work from?

18 A. From the same police station, which was in the building where the

19 police was before the war. Ever since the building was erected, the

20 police has been there, and it is still there today.

21 Q. So the Croats and the Serbs remained in the police station they'd

22 always worked in; the Bosniaks a different police station, in Stari

23 Vitez. Have I got that right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you. Just so that we know, just a matter of detail so that

Page 291

1 we know, you are what, in fact, by -- you are what? A Serb?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Thank you. Did this split have an effect on the posts which had

4 formerly been held by Bosniaks, by Muslims?

5 A. This split had the effect that until that conflict - I don't know

6 the exact date - but we all belonged to a unified police force of

7 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And then with the split, after that I think it was

8 the Croat Republic of Herceg-Bosna that was proclaimed, and thereby,

9 within the framework of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, the police

10 was established with its own organisational structure.

11 Q. What happened -- what I wish to get at, Mr. Lazarevic, is this:

12 What happened about the vacancies or the posts which had been filled by

13 Muslims before the split?

14 A. For a while they remained vacant, because before that split there

15 was five, six, or seven of us, and only three or four remained, I think.

16 Q. What effect did the short staffing and the vacancies have on the

17 quality of administration within Vitez police station?

18 A. In the police there's always a shortage, and when that becomes

19 extreme, there is more work for those who remain. Some specific jobs,

20 like crime technician, for that post you need to have at least two men,

21 and we only had one. Before that, one was a Croat, one was a Muslim. Now

22 we were left with only one technician who goes to collect traces on the

23 scene of the crime, and he actually had to be on duty for 24 hours. And

24 the effect was similar on other posts, such as those held by inspectors

25 and the like.

Page 292

1 Q. Again, my question was really dealing with the administration and

2 paperwork. What effect did the short staffing have on the quality and

3 accuracy of the paperwork within the police station?

4 A. Throughout that period, in fact, there was a lot of improvising.

5 Not much attention was paid to paperwork. I think it was in Travnik the

6 police administration had only just been formed. That was the police

7 institution superior to us. And as far as I can recollect, they had two

8 or three men and they were supposed to prepare for us the administrative

9 part, but this didn't really function as it would normally function in

10 regulated countries.

11 Q. Were there inaccuracies in the paperwork?

12 A. There were quite a number of omissions and errors. I would really

13 have to look at a particular document to be able to tell you with

14 precision. I can't remember now any particular cases.

15 Q. We'll come to specific documents in due course, Mr. Lazarevic.

16 Help me about this, would you: Who was the head in Vitez police station?

17 A. For which period do you mean?

18 Q. After the split, from October 1992 onwards.

19 A. Mirko Samija, until the end of 1993, I think.

20 Q. Thank you. The period I'm going to be concentrating on is really

21 October 1992 until the second conflict, 16th of April, 1993, all right?

22 What was your job during that time?

23 A. I was an inspector for commercial crime, but as we were short of

24 staff, I did other things as well. I was the most experienced among all

25 the people working in the crime police at the time.

Page 293

1 Q. Were you intending to stay in that post, inspector of commercial

2 crime, or was there talk of a move for you?

3 A. I was told by the chief at the time, Mirko Samija, that he had

4 certain plans to strengthen the crime police, and he inquired about

5 certain people. I knew some that he asked me about. That was the

6 procedure, as information on crime activity of all persons in the Vitez

7 area were in my department, and if he wanted to engage someone, to employ

8 someone, he would come to see me and ask me whether that person had any

9 criminal record, whether he was ever suspected of any crimes, and things

10 like that. And on that occasion, he told me that he would appoint me as

11 chief when this new man arrives, as, by years of service, qualifications,

12 I was the most experienced, and that he would look for another inspector

13 for commercial crime.

14 Q. So have I got this right: You were looking at a possible

15 promotion from inspector commercial crime to chief?

16 A. That's what the chief told me. I never actually got a decision of

17 appointment.

18 Q. That's the next thing I was going to say. Did anything actually

19 happen? Did you ever actually get that promotion?

20 A. Never officially. I never got any document telling me that I

21 ceased to be an inspector for commercial crime and that I had been

22 appointed the chief.

23 Q. All right. Who, if anyone, was being spoken of as a possible

24 candidate to fill your post?

25 A. The last person mentioned was Vlatko Kupreskic. Before that, some

Page 294

1 other names were mentioned. I don't know whether I need to mention them.

2 Q. I'm not going to --

3 A. I know the name of one at least.

4 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Did he fit the criteria in

5 the sense that he was someone with no criminal record, wasn't suspected of

6 any illegal activity?

7 A. Yes, he did fulfil those requirements.

8 Q. Was he in work?

9 A. I know that he owned a company called Sutra. I'm not sure whether

10 that company was in his name or in his wife's name. I know that before

11 the war he worked in a factory in Vitez. It was called Vitezit. That is

12 where I met him.

13 Q. Did you consider that Vlatko Kupreskic might be a good candidate

14 for that inspector's job vacancy, potential vacancy?

15 A. Yes. Can I explain?

16 Q. Yes, just briefly.

17 A. I had a case linked to Vlatko's company. There were some

18 financial irregularities and I frequently had to go to Vitezit, to

19 Vlatko's company where he worked. He was head of the financial service

20 and I would take some documents linked to that case. They did not relate

21 to Vlatko's work but to other segments of that company. That is when I

22 met him, and he impressed me as a qualified person who understood

23 economics. This was a large company with a large number of employed. He

24 was a good economist.

25 So I believed that he would be a good choice if he were to come to

Page 295

1 the police station.

2 Q. Did he -- was he approached with a view to him coming to the

3 police station at Vitez?

4 A. I did not directly contact him, but the chief told me that he had

5 taken upon himself to get in touch and approach Vlatko.

6 Q. Was he offered the inspector's job, as far as you are aware, at

7 that stage or not?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Did he agree to do it at that stage or not, or don't you know?

10 A. I think he agreed, but I don't know how firm his decision was to

11 stay there permanently. He probably wanted to have a go at it and see how

12 it would work, because for him this was something quite new, as it was for

13 me when I moved from the economy to the police. Those are two worlds.

14 Q. Was there any particular job that needed to be done at the police

15 station towards the end of 1992, early 1993?

16 A. Every year an inventory is made in police stations, so it was

17 supposed to be done that year, too. And an added reason for it was that

18 Mirko Samija had become the chief of that police station - I think it was

19 towards the end of summer of 1992 - and no handover and takeover of duty

20 had been done between him and the previous chief. And he wanted to know

21 how the inventory stood and everything else so as to know what he had at

22 his disposal, and if any shortages should be found, he wanted to make sure

23 what the situation was when he took over.

24 Q. Now, who was appointed to conduct that inventory?

25 A. I remember that Vlatko was there, I'm sure of that, and I think

Page 296

1 also Slavko Franjic and Muhamed Trako.

2 Q. Very well. Now, can you help me about this, please: I want you

3 to have a look at a document which has some dates on it which is -- was

4 ML1.

5 MR. ABELL: And I'm just trying to see what it is on the new

6 list. It is AD 4/3. I hope that's correct. Could he please be given

7 that in his own language. It should be at page 1429 in the filings, if

8 that helps at all, and you, Your Honours. Yes.

9 Q. Do you recognise that document, Mr. Lazarevic?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. It is an official certificate, and does it state that Vlatko

12 Kupreskic, giving his date of birth and his -- the name of his father and

13 place of birth, was working at the police station in Vitez from the 18th

14 of January to the 23rd of February, 1993, as inspector for commercial

15 crime, and that he voluntarily left his job at the police station in

16 Vitez; is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And does that document emanate from the Vitez police station?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Thank you. Now, what took place from the 18th of January to the

21 23rd of February, please?

22 A. I don't know exactly what you mean. In relation to what?

23 Q. What work did Vlatko Kupreskic do in the police station between

24 the 18th of January and the 23rd of February of 1993?

25 A. In those days, I think that was the period also when the inventory

Page 297

1 was done. I know that the inventory making took a long time, and as I was

2 not a member of the commission, I cannot tell you exactly the dates when

3 it started and when it ended.

4 Q. Very well. To the best of your knowledge, did Vlatko Kupreskic do

5 any other police work whilst he was at Vitez police station, apart from

6 work on the inventory?

7 A. Apart from that, there is a customary procedure when there is a

8 newcomer. He has to familiarise himself with the regulations, especially

9 somebody who had nothing to do with policing. That was probably the first

10 time for him to see the Criminal Code, what the powers of the police are,

11 what the methods of work of the police are. All this is literature which

12 a person starting employment is given to study and read.

13 Apart from that, new employees, and I think also Vlatko, should

14 anything happen that needed to be -- for which an on-site inspection was

15 required, it was customary for him to go there, but not to be the leader,

16 but simply to familiarise himself through the work of the others how that

17 is done.

18 I remember only one such case. I remember a few details from

19 those -- that wartime period. They may be even bizarre. I know that he

20 went to see a fire, I think it was. I remember he was all dressed in

21 white with a white coat and white trousers. He was dressed in pure white,

22 and in the case of a fire, one has to see where it started, one needs to

23 enter the building, and one gets dirty. So when he returned to the police

24 station, we told him that we always wore old clothing because we never

25 knew what could happen, whether we would have to wade through mud or enter

Page 298

1 into a burning building.

2 Q. Very well.

3 A. And usually those coming from high-level institutions dress up

4 when they come to our stations, not knowing what awaits them.

5 Q. It may be obvious from what you just said, but on that occasion

6 was he wearing any form of uniform, Mr. Vlatko Kupreskic?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Did you ever see --

9 A. At the crime department --

10 Q. Yes, go on.

11 A. As I was saying, at the crime department of the police, we never

12 wore uniforms during that period of time that you are asking me about.

13 Q. Did you ever see Vlatko Kupreskic wearing any type of uniform

14 whatsoever?

15 A. I don't remember. When the conflict broke out, I was at a

16 checkpoint, but I don't remember whether Vlatko passed through that

17 checkpoint. In those days, everybody wore uniforms. It was after the

18 16th of April, so practically speaking, all men wore uniforms in those

19 days. I was at one of the checkpoints at the entrance to the town, but I

20 don't remember whether Vlatko passed through that checkpoint.

21 Q. I'm asking about the period at the police station, when he worked

22 at the police station between the 18th of January and the 23rd of

23 February. Did you ever see him wearing any kind of uniform whatsoever?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Thank you. Now, did you carry on being inspector of commercial

Page 299

1 crime during the period we're concerned with, 18th of January to 23rd of

2 February?

3 A. I still had the paper to the effect that I was an inspector for

4 commercial crime. I never received any other decision.

5 Q. To your knowledge, did Vlatko Kupreskic do any work as an

6 inspector in commercial crime? In other words, did he investigate frauds

7 and commercial crime, to your knowledge, at all?

8 A. No. I think I would have known that. He was not able to do that,

9 though he had various other skills. He was able to inspect financial

10 documentation and do investigations of that kind, but he was not familiar

11 with other types of police work, starting, for example, with the way how

12 to write a report or -- I don't think that he knew in what situations one

13 could perform seizures, confiscations of documents and things like that,

14 so I don't think that he was able to do that.

15 Q. Would he have needed training to become an inspector in commercial

16 crime?

17 A. Yes. Before the war, we had courses, various forms of training

18 which lasted for several months, or it was on the basis of the experience

19 of other people who previously worked on that kind of assignments, they

20 would gain adequate experience.

21 Q. Did Vlatko Kupreskic go on any course or receive any training to

22 become an inspector in commercial crime?

23 A. No. At that time there were no such courses.

24 Q. Apart from attending a fire, what other work were you aware of

25 that Vlatko Kupreskic, if any, did at the Vitez police station between 18

Page 300

1 of January and 23rd of February, when he left?

2 A. As I have already indicated, there was this inventory that took

3 place. I don't know how important it is, but I know that he was often on

4 the phone in connection with his work, that he sometimes applied to have

5 additional leave because of his work in the Sutra shop. As regards police

6 work specifically, I don't think that he did anything in particular,

7 except for the inventory that I already mentioned.

8 Q. Thank you very much. Now, you've mentioned his work, and it may

9 be obvious from the way you've just put it, but what do you mean when you

10 say "his work," in other words, Vlatko Kupreskic's work? What was his

11 real work?

12 A. You mean in the police?

13 Q. Well, you say he was on the phone relating to his work. What was

14 his work?

15 A. Oh, I see. As I have said, I don't know who was, officially

16 speaking, the owner of the Sutra shop, but I know that he did most of the

17 work in the shop, in that business, and I know that in that shop he was

18 able to earn the same amount of money in one day as we did in one month,

19 for example.

20 Q. So it was --

21 A. I'm really not sure about the exact amount.

22 Q. Well, don't worry about the exact amount of money that he was

23 earning. But when you talk about his work, therefore, you're talking

24 about work in relation to his Sutra shop?

25 A. Yes.

Page 301

1 Q. Thank you. Now, can I ask you this as well: Your job, did it

2 involve you working in the police station, in an office, or did it involve

3 you being out and about a lot, in the period of time --

4 A. It depended. Both at the police station and also outside the

5 station.

6 Q. Did you ever see Vlatko Kupreskic at the police station in the

7 uniform of the HVO?

8 A. No, I don't remember that I did.

9 Q. Did you ever see Vlatko Kupreskic at the police station in a

10 camouflage jacket or camouflage uniform?

11 A. No. As far as I can remember, no.

12 Q. Did you ever see Vlatko Kupreskic at the police station, talking

13 to Mario Cerkez?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Let's be clear about this. If you saw Mario Cerkez, would you

16 recognise him?

17 A. I would, yes. I knew Mario Cerkez very well from before, because

18 I used to play basketball at the same club as he did, so I knew him from

19 our young days.

20 Q. So you knew him, and knew him to recognise, in 1992, 1993?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Thank you. Did you ever see Vlatko Kupreskic working at the Vitez

23 police station after the 23rd of February of 1993?

24 A. No, I didn't.

25 Q. Did you ever see Vlatko Kupreskic working at the police station

 

Page 302

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

14 and the English transcripts.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 303

1 before -- well, in 1992?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Now, there are two earlier statements that you made which I'd just

4 like you to see, please, in your own language. They are AD 5/3 and AD

5 6/3.

6 MR. ABELL: And if it assists Your Honours, they are filed at

7 page -- I think it's 1721 and 1719. I hope I read the handwritten

8 pagination correctly. It's very elegant, but it's difficult to read

9 sometimes.

10 Q. Could you see each of those statements, please. Do you have

11 them? One is written on the 8th of August of 1998 and the other on the

12 4th of April, 2000. Do you recognise those two statements?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And have you signed each of those statements?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Are they true?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Thank you. I want to show you now a document which was produced

19 at the trial of Vlatko Kupreskic by the Prosecution.

20 MR. ABELL: I have copies. I don't believe it's ever been filed

21 by the Prosecution in relation to these proceedings, so I have some

22 copies. I'm afraid they're not very clear, but it's the best that can be

23 done with the material available.

24 Could, please, the witness have a copy. And again, I'm afraid,

25 but they are in the Serbo-Croat language. But it's a list. I don't think

Page 304

1 it's going to be a great difficulty. I'm sure we can manage.

2 Q. Take a moment to look at the document. If you'd read out the

3 title, in your own language, please. Read out the title of the document

4 in your own language.

5 A. Here it says "subject matter - information," and then further on,

6 "in relation to your document," and then probably reference is made to a

7 document from the Travnik police administration. Information is supplied

8 concerning the situation with the human resources at the Vitez police

9 station.

10 Q. And the document appears to be dated the 28th of December, 1992,

11 is that right, first page?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And we see -- it's a list of names, and are there occupations next

14 to the names?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Above number 1, can you help me about this: Read that sentence,

17 please.

18 A. "Reference to your document 03/9/111/182/92 of the 22nd of

19 December, 1992. We are hereby supplying you the information on the number

20 of employees of the police station in Vitez."

21 Q. Now, look, please, at number 55, the last name. Does it say

22 Vlatko Kupreskic?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And then what does it say?

25 A. It says: "An operative officer for prevention of crime of special

Page 305

1 state interest. Inspector --" I cannot read the text very well. Probably

2 "first-class inspector" or something to that effect.

3 Q. Thank you. Well, now, to your knowledge, did Vlatko Kupreskic

4 ever hold such a job as that?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Firstly, did he work in 1992 for the Vitez police station?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Secondly, would a job such as the one described there require

9 training?

10 A. I never did this kind of work, nor was this type of work ever

11 within the competence of the civilian police, from the time I was employed

12 in 1987 up until today. And it is my assumption that for the purposes of

13 this type of work, one should have appropriate training and knowledge,

14 because for every type of police work there is a special training.

15 Q. Had Vlatko Kupreskic ever undertaken any such special training?

16 A. Not to my knowledge, and I don't know where it would be possible

17 for him to undertake such training. I don't think it existed at the time,

18 any such institution which would have been in charge of this type of work.

19 I only have the general title of the work here, but I never saw any

20 staffing table with adequate job description and everything that falls

21 into that type of work. I believe this kind of work was once secured by

22 the State Security Service, but I'm not sure. It's just judging from the

23 title of the work that I think that it was under their jurisdiction.

24 Q. Can you help me about this: I think you were shown this document

25 very recently, apart from today. Do you have any recollection of seeing

Page 306

1 this document at the time it purports to have been created, in other

2 words, December 1992?

3 A. No. This is not a document of the department where I used to

4 work. I had nothing to do with the drafting of this document. I can see

5 that it was signed by the commander, Mirko Samija, and I'm sure that I

6 didn't see this document, nor was there ever any reason for this document

7 to be shown to me personally.

8 Q. As far as you're concerned, is the entry on number 55 accurate and

9 correct, or inaccurate and incorrect?

10 A. In my opinion, it is incorrect that Vlatko did this kind of work.

11 I don't know whether he ever received an official paper, decision to that

12 effect. I don't know whether that job existed on the staffing table. I

13 was never contacted in respect of this type of work, that is, state

14 security work. I don't know that he was ever involved with this type of

15 work.

16 Q. Thank you. Now, I want you to help me. I want you to look at one

17 or two other entries in this document to see if you can see if there are

18 any other inaccuracies in the document, and it may be quicker if I do it

19 this way. Look at number five, would you, first page, entry number five,

20 Ivo Perkovic, is it?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do you know Ivo Perkovic?

23 A. Yes, I know him.

24 Q. What was his job --

25 A. He was already working when I arrived.

Page 307

1 Q. What is the job description down there for him?

2 A. Operative officer for patrol services, sector leader.

3 Q. Is that accurate or inaccurate?

4 A. Police officer of a higher rank. As far as I know, he was always

5 an operative duty officer. The work here, as it is specified here,

6 involves the field work, patrol work specifically. And while I was in the

7 police station, Ivo was always a duty officer at the police station, that

8 is, the officer who never actually leaves the station.

9 Q. So to be clear about it, to answer my question, my question was,

10 is that, as far as you're concerned, an accurate or inaccurate job

11 description for him on the document? Accurate or inaccurate, please.

12 A. In my view, this is an inaccurate job description.

13 Q. Thank you. Look at, for example, number 21, Viktor Grbic [sic].

14 A. Grgic.

15 Q. I'm so sorry. Do you know that person, Mr. Grgic?

16 A. Yes. He is still working at the police station in Vitez.

17 Q. What's his job description there?

18 A. Junior police officer.

19 Q. Is that accurate or inaccurate for the job you knew him to be

20 doing at the police station?

21 A. I am sure that this is an incorrect piece of information, for the

22 simple reason that Viktor Grgic at that time was only 15 or 16 years old,

23 and he could not be a police officer --

24 Q. How old was he?

25 A. -- at the time. He was attending secondary school for police

Page 308

1 officers. He was either 15 or 16, I'm not sure.

2 I know that he was in the first or the second form of the police

3 academy, that is, the secondary police school. And the war had already

4 started in Bosnia and Herzegovina, so he must have interrupted his

5 schooling to become a policeman, and he came to the station.

6 So because of his age, he was not able to work as a police

7 officer. He never wore a uniform, but he helped the administration staff

8 with records and papers in order to gain some experience in police work

9 which would eventually, in future, help him with his further education.

10 Q. So the answer is that's an inaccurate job description, is it, I

11 think you just told us?

12 A. Yes.

13 MR. ABELL: I want this, please, to be put on the overhead

14 projector. We've only very recently come by it because of the material

15 that was filed very recently by the Prosecution. It's still on yellow fax

16 paper. Could it be put on the overhead projector.

17 Q. Is that an identification card or document?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. For Viktor Grgic?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Is that the Viktor Grgic, number 21 on the list?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Does it show his date of birth as January the 27th --

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. -- 1977?

Page 309

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. We can work out what it is you just said, he would have been in

3 his mid-teens in 1992.

4 MR. ABELL: Thank you. I wonder if that could be made an exhibit,

5 Your Honours. Perhaps we can catch up at the end of the day on the

6 documents that have been exhibited. There have been one or two that have

7 been put in.

8 Q. The next one, please, number 24 on the list, Nikola Vrvilo?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Do you know Nikola Vrvilo?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. What does it say her job is there?

13 A. It says an operations duty officer at the police station, a senior

14 police officer.

15 Q. And what was her job in fact?

16 A. The job that is described here is a job that is carried out at the

17 police station, but I think that he was a sector leader, that he did

18 something outside the police station. And at some point in time he was a

19 manager of some sort for the traffic section of the police. I don't know

20 exactly whether it was, but I'm sure that he was not an operations officer

21 and that he did not actually physically sit at the police station.

22 Q. So again, for speed, you're -- compressing what you're saying,

23 that is another wrong entry, job description entry?

24 A. Yes, as far as I can remember.

25 Q. Thank you. Look now, please, at number 48 on the last page,

Page 310

1 Slavo --

2 A. Slavko Franjic, yes.

3 Q. Did you know him?

4 A. Yes. I knew him very well.

5 Q. And what is his job description down there?

6 A. A serious administrations officer for conducting administrative

7 proceedings.

8 Q. What job did he actually do?

9 A. The job that is actually stated here, it is a civilian type of

10 work. It's not a job for a uniformed member of the police. I don't

11 exactly know what it was that Slavko did, but he was with the uniform

12 police. I don't know exactly what kind of job he had there.

13 Q. Is that accurate or inaccurate, so that we understand what you're

14 saying?

15 A. I think that Slavko Franjic didn't do this type of work. I don't

16 think anyone did, for that matter.

17 JUDGE WALD: Mr. Abell, I hesitate to interrupt you --

18 MR. ABELL: Yes.

19 JUDGE WALD: -- but I'm only apprising you of the fact that, by my

20 accounts, you've got about ten more minutes.

21 MR. ABELL: I'm very grateful.

22 JUDGE WALD: Because we want to finish this witness today. I'm

23 sure everybody wants to finish it.

24 MR. ABELL: I understand.

25 JUDGE WALD: And everybody else. Even at that, we'll be here

Page 311

1 until almost 6.00 so --

2 MR. ABELL: I understand. I'm very grateful.

3 JUDGE WALD: Okay.

4 MR. ABELL: Thank you, Your Honour. I think I'm on course, if I

5 may say so. Famous last words.

6 Q. And again, so I've given examples there, number 5, 21, 24, and 48,

7 are four, according to you, wrong, inaccurate, job descriptions, and

8 you've already spoken about number 55, Vlatko Kupreskic, and said that in

9 your opinion, that it is an inaccurate job description.

10 Help me about this, please: As somebody who's worked in that

11 police station since 1987 and through the period of 1992 to 1993, would

12 you place any reliance whatsoever on that document as proof that Vlatko

13 Kupreskic worked in the post alleged in the document, inspector first

14 class to do with special state crimes?

15 A. No.

16 Q. I know you say you've never seen the documents until very

17 recently, weren't aware of it. Can you assist as to what the purpose of

18 such a document with inaccurate entries might be, or can't you?

19 A. As far as I can see, this is merely a reply which was sent by our

20 police station to the administration department in Mostar via police

21 administration in Travnik, and reference is made to that document here.

22 So the document in question which is stated here, the document of the 22nd

23 of December, probably contains information as to the purpose of this

24 document. Judging from the document like this, I really cannot say.

25 There is only a number here.

Page 312

1 Q. Very well. Can you help me about this: We've seen two documents,

2 really, which seem to suggest two different jobs in the police station for

3 Vlatko Kupreskic: one inspector commercial crime, and you say, as far as

4 you're concerned, he never did that job; and one as inspector first-class,

5 crimes of special state interest. So according to the documentation we've

6 seen, there seem to be two jobs at the same time. As far as you're aware,

7 was he doing either of them?

8 A. As far as I am aware, he wasn't doing any of those things

9 officially. But as I said before, I was sort of briefing him on what

10 economic crime is, but he didn't have any specific, concrete tasks to

11 investigate anyone or undertake any other police activity.

12 Q. Now, can you help me about this: Number 34 on that list is

13 someone by the name of Abdullah Abdic.

14 [Defence counsel confer]

15 MR. ABELL:

16 Q. Are those both full-time jobs, on the face of them? I'm so

17 sorry. I moved on to Abdullah Abdic, and I'm just reminded by my learned

18 junior that I should have asked you this. The two inspector jobs, as far

19 as on the face of them, are they both full-time jobs?

20 A. I don't know what you mean by "full time."

21 Q. Well, are they both -- are they the sort of jobs you would expect

22 one person to be doing both of them, or not?

23 A. These are two entirely different jobs, by definition, and it's

24 quite certain that one person could not be doing both jobs at the same

25 time.

Page 313

1 Q. Thank you very much. And what about if a person was working

2 anyway at their own shop, the Sutra shop?

3 A. Then particularly so.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 A. He couldn't be --

6 Q. Thank you. Now, Abdullah Abdic, do you know him? Does his name

7 ring a bell with you or not?

8 A. I see him on this list. I don't remember some of the people on

9 this list; others I do. But I do know, for instance, that in this

10 period - I don't know exactly when - five or six persons of Bosniak

11 ethnicity started working in the Vitez police station as policemen, so

12 Abdullah Abdic is probably one of them.

13 Q. To your knowledge, did you ever meet him?

14 A. By name, I'm afraid I can't remember that I ever spoke to him.

15 It's possible. Policemen come to see us in the crime police department if

16 we need them or they need us, but I do not remember Abdullah Abdic coming.

17 Q. Yes. So you have no recollection in particular of meeting that

18 individual?

19 A. I cannot remember by name. Maybe if I were to see him, I might be

20 able to recognise him, but just by name, no.

21 Q. One final thing. Maybe you've already answered it, but just to

22 make sure. To your knowledge, did Vlatko Kupreskic, at any stage whilst

23 at the police station at Vitez, do anything that could be described as

24 intelligence collection for the police?

25 A. As far as I know, no.

Page 314

1 Q. And help me about this, please: Why, as far as you are aware, did

2 Vlatko Kupreskic leave on the 23rd of February? You've told us you didn't

3 see him working at the police station after that. Why did he leave? And

4 indeed that's the last date, according to the certificate, that he worked

5 there, 23rd of February of 1993. Why did he leave?

6 A. I think it was because of his duties in the company. I think that

7 the chief told him repeatedly that it was impossible to coordinate the

8 two, and he probably realised that and he left the police. So he

9 terminated his employment voluntarily.

10 JUDGE WALD: I think your time is up, Mr. Abell.

11 MR. ABELL: And that was my last question.

12 JUDGE WALD: Very good. I believe that we will now have

13 cross-examination by -- will it be Mr. Farrell or will it be another

14 representative?

15 MR. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honours. It's Bill Smith, and

16 I'll appear for the Prosecution.

17 JUDGE WALD: All right, Mr. Smith.

18 MR. SMITH: Your Honour, perhaps if I can just ask that we go into

19 closed session for one moment.

20 JUDGE WALD: Yes. We're going into private or closed session for

21 just a few minutes here.

22 [Closed session]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

Page 315

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 315 redacted closed session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 316

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [Open session]

20 Cross-examined by Mr. Smith:

21 Q. Mr. Lazarevic, good afternoon. My name is Bill Smith and I'm here

22 on behalf of --

23 A. Good afternoon.

24 Q. I will be asking you a few questions about what you remember about

25 the police station back in 1992.

Page 317

1 A. Very well.

2 Q. You mentioned that Vlatko Kupreskic's name came up at the end of

3 October 1992 in relation to being an investigator of economic crimes.

4 A. No, not at the end of October. I don't think that I mentioned the

5 end of October at all linked to Vlatko Kupreskic in 1992.

6 Q. Sorry. I meant the end of 1992.

7 A. The end of 1992? I said to the effect that somebody was needed,

8 and towards the end of that year Mirko Samija inquired with me what kind

9 of a man he was, whether he had any criminal record, and that sort of

10 thing.

11 Q. And was it Mr. Samija's, the commander's, recommendation that he

12 be employed as an inspector for commercial crime, or did you raise him as

13 a candidate first?

14 A. Mr. Samija decided who would be employed, and I was just assisting

15 him in the sense that he should not admit somebody who had a criminal

16 record. Since Mr. Samija, though he was a judge, he started working only

17 three or four months previously, and I had the records about all persons

18 who had been punished or who had been charged or suspected of any

19 misdemeanours in Vitez municipality.

20 Q. And when Mr. Kupreskic first started to work at the police

21 station, it was on the basis of his being an inspector for commercial

22 crime. He was going to take over your job; is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And what type of work does an inspector for commercial crime do?

25 I assume it's an investigator in relation to financial dishonesty.

Page 318

1 A. Yes. According to the Criminal Code that was in force then, and

2 according to the new one too, there are a group of criminal offences

3 related to the economy. They are abuse of power, fraud, and there's a

4 whole list, illicit trade, et cetera.

5 Q. And so for that particular job there would be two types of

6 experience or qualifications required to do it well, and that would be

7 investigative experience as well as an understanding of accounting and

8 finances; would you agree?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Even though Mr. Kupreskic didn't have the experience, the

11 investigative police experience, he was still employed at the Vitez police

12 station for the purpose of being an investigator in relation to financial

13 crime, initially?

14 A. Yes. The same applies to me. I too had no police experience in

15 1987 when I started working. I used to work in a socially owned company,

16 where I worked in the financial department. And when I transferred to the

17 police station in Vitez, it was only then that I became familiar with

18 police work.

19 Q. So in a sense, we all have to start somewhere, and he was going to

20 learn on the job; is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And it was at some later time that the inventory came up. At some

23 later time after he was employed, then it was discussed that, "Look, an

24 inventory needs to be done. You would be a good man to do it because of

25 your experience in accounting and auditing," is that correct?

Page 319

1 A. Not me, but that Vlatko could do the job well, not me, though I,

2 too, before the war and after the war did do inventory work at times. Not

3 always.

4 Q. And the inventory that was to be done at the police station was a

5 regular thing, and it would be done on at least a yearly basis; is that

6 correct?

7 A. Every year, yes, with the final date being the 31st of December, a

8 list is made of the inventory belonging to the police: vehicles, the

9 building, money, the entire property and assets of the police.

10 Q. And you mentioned when Mr. Kupreskic started working at the police

11 station, that he spent his first days acquainting himself, I think, with

12 the law, the procedure, and the type of work that he would be doing in

13 financial crime investigations; is that correct?

14 A. Yes. I wouldn't say the first days. When he came, I would tell

15 him roughly what the job was about, what offences we were responsible for,

16 when you -- police can carry out a search, when documents can be seized,

17 when the police may take people into custody on the basis of judicial

18 decisions, and things like that, things he had probably never encountered

19 before.

20 We had certain handbooks to assist us regarding the methods

21 applied in police work. I gave him those books. I don't know how much he

22 read. And in those books, there was quite a detailed description of how

23 the police should act.

24 Q. And how long after he was employed at the police station as a

25 financial investigator did it arise that he would be a suitable person to

 

Page 320

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

14 and the English transcripts.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 321

1 do the inventory?

2 A. When the chief said that an inventory had to be made, he probably

3 immediately proposed him as he had come from the economy, and this was

4 usually done by people who had skills in accounting and making these

5 inventory lists. I didn't take part in designating the commission, but I

6 was told that Vlatko was coming.

7 Usually every sector appoints somebody, somebody from the crime

8 police, from -- somebody from the administration and somebody from the

9 uniformed police. Usually one would come from each of these departments,

10 and one of them would be the commission chairman. And I think that year,

11 Vlatko was appointed to represent the crime police in that commission.

12 Q. And for how long had he been working in the crime police before he

13 was put forward or started the inventory? How long had he been working in

14 the police station?

15 A. Not long. I really don't know. I can't remember those details to

16 be able to tell you with any certainty how many days this was.

17 Q. But just so that we're clear about this, the purpose of his

18 employment wasn't to do the inventory; it was to become a criminal

19 investigator for financial crime.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And I think you said earlier that the inventory needs to be done

22 by someone that works at the police station, not someone from outside; is

23 that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You mentioned that Mr. Kupreskic in the early days when he first

Page 322

1 started at the police station as a financial investigator, he wouldn't

2 conduct the complete investigation himself. He wouldn't -- couldn't do

3 searches and seizures, et cetera, but he would more analyse documents and

4 perhaps prepare criminal cases in relation to financial fraud, et cetera?

5 A. Yes. He certainly in that period could not be in charge of any

6 particular case alone. I don't remember all the cases from that period so

7 I can't tell you, but I am 100 per cent sure that he could not have been

8 in charge of any particular case.

9 Q. And you also mentioned that he -- on one occasion he went to the

10 scene of a fire in a suit, and people at the police station told him not

11 to wear that type of clothing because, obviously because of the hygiene,

12 the fact that his clothes would get filthy; is that correct?

13 A. Yes, yes.

14 Q. And you remember making a statement to the lawyers in this case on

15 the 24th of July, 2000?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And in that statement you mention that Mr. Kupreskic, he performed

18 other work that wasn't of any real significance on a few occasions. Do

19 you remember saying that?

20 A. That is what I mean when I said not significant, because he

21 went -- if he went to the scene, he went with other colleagues just to see

22 how those investigations are conducted. And they are not important from

23 the standpoint of the police because he is not in charge of the

24 investigation. But I happen to remember this particular scene.

25 I can't go back to that whole period. So many things happened

Page 323

1 during the war, so I cannot ascertain or maintain with certainty about any

2 other events. It just so happened that I have remembered this one with

3 his white suit.

4 Q. And you were there with him on this occasion?

5 A. No. No, no, I wasn't.

6 Q. You were in the police station when he came back from attending

7 the scene of the fire?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And did he tell you what he did at that scene of the fire?

10 A. No. No, the other colleagues told me. I remember Zoran Strukar

11 was the crime technician. I can't remember which inspector it was,

12 whether it was Anto or Franjo, but I spoke with Zoran. As he is a crime

13 technician, he examined the area, and he told me that Vlatko was wearing a

14 suit and that he didn't really get close to the scene.

15 Q. And this was an arson and a deliberate fire; is that correct?

16 A. I don't remember now. It was a long time ago. I don't remember

17 the building or anything.

18 Q. And what was his purpose of being there? I mean, he's -- you

19 mentioned that he was employed as a financial crime investigator. What

20 was the purpose for him being at the scene of a fire?

21 A. All of us inspectors in the crime service, whether we're working

22 on financial or other crimes, have to know how to carry out an on-site

23 inspection because we have duty service. This always existed in the crime

24 police, now and before the war and always, as inspectors are sometimes on

25 duty, and they have to know how to conduct an investigation which need not

Page 324

1 necessarily be linked to economic crime.

2 Q. So on that particular case, he was there in relation to an

3 investigation of general crime, not financial crime?

4 A. Not to conduct the investigation, but simply to see how it is

5 done, how it should be done, how the police behaves when a fire breaks

6 out, what the police should do, so that perhaps sometime in the future, in

7 a few months, it's usually two months -- I, for instance, started working

8 independently only after working for three months, and I did the kind of

9 investigations at first that were not so important, and later on as I

10 gained more experience, I would take on increasingly responsible jobs

11 independently.

12 Q. And on what -- you mentioned there was a few occasions, and you

13 remember specifically the occasion when he attended the scene of a fire.

14 What other occasions or occasion do you remember him assisting the police

15 in its work? And you mentioned that in your statement. I'm just

16 wondering why you stated that. What other jobs did he do?

17 A. When you said "other jobs," in relation to what? I don't

18 understand.

19 Q. In your statement, you say that on a few occasions, Vlatko

20 Kupreskic assisted the police, and you remembered one occasion where he

21 attended the scene of a fire. When you made that statement, what other

22 occasions were you referring to, or is it the case that you know that he

23 was involved in other investigative-type work, but you can't pinpoint it

24 now exactly what he did?

25 A. I don't know. I cannot remember. And when I mentioned other

Page 325

1 occasions, it might be inventory work. If you have that statement,

2 perhaps I should look at it and see because when I said "other jobs," did

3 you mean financial crime or what? I don't know. I gave three

4 statements. I claim they are truthful, correct, but I can't remember now

5 what you -- exactly you're referring to.

6 Q. I'll just ask this one last question on this topic, but if I just

7 read out the passage in the statement, and then firstly if you could say

8 whether you agree to it, and then if you agree to it, what you meant by

9 it.

10 You've stated, "The idea both Mirko Samija and I had was that

11 Vlatko Kupreskic in due course might take over my job and I would be

12 promoted. However, that is not how it worked out. Vlatko Kupreskic was

13 committed to a future with the Sutra company and in fact the only real

14 work of significance that he carved out for the police was the inventory.

15 The reason I say `work of real significance' is that on a few occasions he

16 did assist us with other work. By way of example, I remember one occasion

17 when he came with us to the scene of a fire."

18 What other occasions do you remember that he assisted you or the

19 police with other work?

20 JUDGE NIET0-NAVIA: [Realtime transcript read in error "Judge

21 Vohrah"] Mr. Smith, sorry, do we have that statement?

22 MR. SMITH: Yes, we do, Your Honour. It's --

23 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Realtime transcript read in error "Judge

24 Vohrah"] Do we?

25 JUDGE WALD: Do we.

Page 326

1 MR. SMITH: Yes, you do. I apologise.

2 JUDGE WALD: Is it in the Prosecution's bundle?

3 MR. SMITH: It's in the Defence filing, and it's marked 1429,

4 1428, to 1425. We have copies for Your Honours, if you would like.

5 MR. ABELL: If I can assist, it's in the Rule 115 filing, if that

6 helps.

7 MR. SMITH: Your Honours, we do have copies if you would like.

8 JUDGE WALD: I think that would probably be helpful because,

9 although it may be in the filings, there's so many of them that it's --

10 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Realtime transcript read in error "Judge

11 Vohrah"] For the transcript, I'm not Judge Vohrah.

12 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, I apologise.

13 MR. SMITH:

14 Q. Do you remember making that statement?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Can you remember now what other types of things he did, other than

17 the inventory and attending at the fire?

18 A. I don't remember, but it is customary. That is the procedure if

19 something happens, for instance, there might have been a traffic accident,

20 for a new man to go to the scene. I don't remember whether Vlatko had

21 such an occasion. There must be some documents somewhere for me to look

22 at to jog my memory. I happen to remember this particular case because he

23 was wearing this white suit; otherwise, I probably wouldn't have

24 remembered that, either. Whether there were other cases, I simply cannot

25 recollect.

Page 327

1 Q. If you can help us understand the layout of the Vitez police

2 station. This is after the conflict in October 1992, after it had become

3 an HVO police station with the majority of the staff there being Croats,

4 was it -- did the police just occupy the ground floor or the first floor

5 of that building?

6 A. No, it was not an HVO police. I think that the Croatian Republic

7 of Herceg-Bosna had been declared. HVO is a military organisation, and

8 the police belonged to the civilian authorities. We were civilian police

9 still, and after several months, maybe sometime in March or April 1993, it

10 was only then that we received a special kind of police uniform. There

11 were no longer old police uniform but new types of police uniform. We

12 never wore any military insignia whatsoever.

13 Q. In any event, you were -- after the conflict in October 1992, two

14 police forces were quite distinct. One was the Bosniak police force and

15 one was the Croat police force, that operated within the concept, the

16 legal structure of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna; is that

17 correct?

18 A. No, the Bosniak force didn't belong to that structure. They

19 didn't recognise Herceg-Bosna.

20 Q. If I could just interrupt. The police force that you were with,

21 the civilian police, was in the structure of the Croatian community of

22 Herceg-Bosna; is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. How many people were working in the police station after the

25 conflict in October? You referred to a document earlier where

Page 328

1 you -- there were 55 names, and it outlined a number of the people that

2 worked in the police station. Was it about that number that worked in the

3 police station after October 1992?

4 A. No. I didn't mention that document. I saw it here only. I can

5 give you information about the crime department as to how many people they

6 were. As regards other employees, they were in charge of the head of the

7 section, so he was the one who signed the document. Everybody was

8 responsible for their departments. There was this uniformed police. I

9 don't know how many policemen in uniform there were. There was the

10 administration department, and they had a certain number of employees, and

11 so on and so forth. I know that as regards the crime police, there were

12 four of us, three inspectors, and up until the arrival of Vlatko

13 Kupreskic, yes, there were three of us. So after October 1992, three

14 inspectors, including myself, remained, and one crime technician.

15 Q. And the three inspectors -- is it three inspectors plus Vlatko

16 Kupreskic?

17 A. That was in October, and Vlatko came in January 1993.

18 Q. And did you all work in the same area, the same room?

19 A. There were three offices. Two had a connecting door in between.

20 There was the crime department, where Zoran was, and another office with

21 the chief and inspector for commercial crime, and an office with

22 inspectors for general crime working in it. And there was an

23 administration officer, a clerk who was in charge of keeping the records

24 and typing work.

25 Q. Did you and Vlatko Kupreskic work in the same office?

Page 329

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. In the same room?

3 A. Yes, in the same room.

4 Q. And you mentioned that your job took you out of the police station

5 on a number of occasions. Was most of your time spent outside the police

6 station or within it?

7 A. I think that in those days, I was mostly inside the police

8 station. Only from time to time, when there were onsite investigations,

9 one hour or two, but after that, I would be back, and I stayed most of the

10 time in the police station.

11 Q. And Vlatko Kupreskic's work, was that mainly spent inside the

12 police station or outside it?

13 A. Inside the police station. As regards the commercial crime, the

14 work was generally done inside the police station. But the economy was

15 very weak in those days. Only certain seizures of documents would take

16 place from time to time, but they would be handed over in the police

17 station and not actually on the location itself.

18 Q. And you mentioned that the wage that the civilian police earned

19 was quite small compared to the wage that Vlatko -- you believed that

20 Vlatko Kupreskic earned as a result of his business. In your testimony

21 you said that you felt that he would earn more in one day than perhaps you

22 would in one month. Is that correct?

23 A. Yes. Well, that is what I said a moment ago, but I'm not a

24 hundred per cent sure. But in view of what I knew, I think that he could

25 earn much more at the Sutra business than at the police. The salaries at

Page 330

1 the police were very low at the time.

2 Q. So as far as you know, Vlatko Kupreskic didn't accept the job at

3 the police station for financial reasons, because it wasn't a very good

4 financial arrangement for him. He accepted the job for some other

5 reasons; do you agree?

6 A. No. As far as I know, he was unable to carry out both his

7 obligations with the Sutra business and the police. His work at the Sutra

8 business was time-consuming, and the station chief would tell him from

9 time to time that he should dedicate himself more at the police station.

10 But he wasn't able to do that, so that was the reason why his employment

11 was terminated, by mutual consent.

12 Q. And you stated in your examination that you believed that he

13 worked at the police station from the 18th of January to the 23rd of

14 February, 1993.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And you couldn't tell us exactly the dates that he worked on the

17 inventory.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And if you worked in the same office as him, why can't you tell us

20 exactly the dates that he worked on the inventory?

21 A. I did the inventory two years before that, so it was ten years

22 ago, and it would be very hard for me to remember when it was exactly when

23 I did the inventory. It may have been in January. But if you should now

24 ask me about the date and whether I worked on the inventory every day, I

25 don't think I would be able to answer that question. It's very difficult

Page 331

1 for me to remember exactly when Vlatko did it. You know, compared to

2 other events that were taking place at the time, for me it was a rather

3 insignificant event, and I'm trying hard to remember those events. The

4 only reason I remember that particular inventory was because it lasted for

5 very long. The person who was in charge of the warehouse at the police

6 station came to see me and told him [as interpreted] that Vlatko was being

7 too picky about it and that he was spending too much time working on

8 that. I told her that I had nothing to do with it, that it was actually

9 the chief who appointed him to that job.

10 Q. In any event, you didn't see him conduct the inventory, did you?

11 A. What I saw was -- for example, during the inventory, the

12 commission is in charge of inspecting all of the rooms and offices in

13 question, so the same happened with my office. So whoever happened to be

14 in the office had to be present at the inventory taking so that everything

15 could be coordinated, and I was, for example, responsible for the state of

16 affairs until the next inventory took place.

17 Q. So the answer to my question is that you didn't see him do the

18 inventory; do you agree? Just yes or no.

19 A. No, no, I don't agree with you. I saw him when he did the

20 inventory in my office, because I had to be present while he was doing

21 it. Because he had the list from the previous year with him, stating what

22 particular items were there, for example, for the 1st of December, 1992,

23 and what items were in my office on the 31st of December, 1991. So he was

24 supposed to compare that with the present state of affairs. I don't know

25 what it was, what kind of items there were - the filing cabinet, the

Page 332

1 curtains - and I had to be present as he was doing the inventory.

2 Q. Apart from your office, you didn't see him perform the inventory

3 around the rest of the police station or in the warehouse; is that

4 correct?

5 A. Not in the warehouse, but, for example, in the adjacent office,

6 the one next to mine, the door was always open, I mean the office where

7 the typist was and the inspectors for general crime. Those two offices

8 were connected. It was like one very large room with one door connecting

9 two separate offices.

10 Q. Thank you. And you referred my learned friend to a certificate

11 that states that on the 18th of January to the 23rd of February, it's

12 recorded that the police administration in Vitez - that's ADA/4 - that

13 that's when Vlatko worked as an inspector for commercial crime. Now, you

14 typed out that certificate yourself, didn't you? You made that

15 certificate.

16 A. No. It was issued by the Vitez police administration, and the

17 document was signed by the head of the department. I didn't have

18 authority to sign the document. But the certificate was compiled on the

19 basis of my records. I was in charge of keeping records for every

20 employee. It was a very small logbook with relevant information taken in

21 for all employees so that salaries can be paid out and so that the years

22 of service are adequately recorded and counted. So I was in charge of

23 taking care of that, and I never thought that it would be necessary for

24 the Court. I just thought that one day it might be necessary for the

25 purposes of pension and things like that.

Page 333

1 Q. Sorry. I don't want to interrupt you, but if you can just answer

2 the specific question, because we have a short, short time to have some

3 questions.

4 And the certificate -- the documents on which the certificate was

5 based, did you bring them to The Hague with you? The information from

6 which the certificate was based, did you bring it to The Hague?

7 A. No. No.

8 Q. Where is the information that supports this information on this

9 certificate? Where is this logbook?

10 A. I think it's with the police administration in Vitez.

11 Q. After -- the last act that Vlatko Kupreskic did at the police

12 station in terms of task, do you agree that that was the filling out of

13 the inventory report and the completion of the inventory, and then he left

14 the police station? Is that correct? Is that the last thing he did at

15 the police station?

16 A. I don't know exactly when the inventory was completed. Do you

17 know? Can you tell me?

18 Q. Well, firstly I'll just ask you the question. Was that the last

19 thing that you remember he did at the police station, was complete the

20 inventory report?

21 A. Yes. If my memory serves me right, he completed that.

22 Q. And did he continue to work as a criminal financial investigator

23 after the completion of that inventory?

24 A. No, as far as I can remember, but I'm not sure. I don't think he

25 did.

Page 334

1 Q. The document that you referred to earlier, which is the -- perhaps

2 if I show it to you. It's the document dated the 12th of February - it's

3 number 22 - 1993. It's the inventory report by Vlatko Kupreskic. And

4 I'll just show it to you and see whether or not you've seen it before.

5 MR. SMITH: It's tagged as MT 2, but the Prosecution has a better

6 translation of it, because the Defence copy was a summary translation.

7 And we also have copies for Your Honours.

8 JUDGE WALD: Is this one of the filings that you gave us

9 previously or not?

10 MR. SMITH: I believe not, Your Honours. It was one of the

11 Defence filings, but it's in a summary translation form. Defence filing

12 from last September.

13 Q. Have you got that report in front of you?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... 12th of February, 1993?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And at the bottom of the report it's signed by Vlatko Kupreskic,

18 and it encloses two inventory lists, or one inventory list is attached to

19 it, but it mentions that there are two inventory lists attached.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And do you agree that the report relates to the process in which

22 the inventory was conducted?

23 A. Yes. That's what it says here.

24 Q. So in fact, the report was completed on the 12th of February,

25 1993, and as far as you believe, that was his last -- the last act that he

Page 335

1 did, he exercised at the police station, and yet you say that he continued

2 to work at the police station until the 23rd of January [sic], 1993 in

3 your certificate. What other work did he do after the filing of the

4 report?

5 JUDGE WALD: Excuse me, Counsel. Do you want to -- I think the

6 transcript is carrying that until the 23rd of January. Is that --

7 MR. SMITH: Sorry. That's my mistake, Your Honour. I mean the

8 23rd of February, 1993.

9 Q. Do you understand the question, the inventory report is finished

10 on the 12th of February --

11 A. Yes, yes.

12 Q. -- and you have him listed as working until the 23rd of February.

13 What work did he do after completing the inventory, or do you know that?

14 A. I don't remember that he did anything in particular. I don't

15 remember these dates. I have never seen these documents before. I don't

16 remember him doing anything in particular after he had completed the work

17 with the inventory.

18 Q. But on your records, you still have him recorded as working there

19 doing something other than the inventory; is that correct?

20 A. Yes. He came to work, yes, he did. I have him in the records,

21 that is, he is in my records until the chief, Mr. Samija, told me to

22 strike him from the records. Even if he didn't come to work for several

23 days, I don't think it was important. It was some kind of improvisation,

24 you know. I don't remember how it really went in those days.

25 MR. SMITH: I'd now like you to look at the Prosecution exhibit in

Page 336

1 the trial, Your Honours, P378, which is document number 10.

2 JUDGE WALD: Where we would find that?

3 MR. SMITH: Your Honours, we have copies coming for you -- to you

4 now. If the English could be placed on the ELMO.

5 Q. Mr. Lazarevic, do you have a copy of the report in front of you

6 dated the 22nd of February, 1993?

7 A. Yes, but it's in English.

8 Q. We now have the B/C/S version coming to you. Have you seen a copy

9 of this report before? This is a report compiled on an inspection of the

10 Vitez police station by the assistant chief of the operation service for

11 criminal investigations of the Travnik police administration.

12 A. This document was issued by the Travnik police administration and

13 not the police station at Vitez where I worked.

14 Q. That's correct. And you mentioned that the Vitez police station

15 in the reorganisation after October 1992 came under the administration of

16 the Travnik police administration. Do you agree?

17 A. Yes, yes. That is correct.

18 Q. And at that stage, did you remember Anto Simic to being in the

19 Travnik police administration? Yes or no.

20 A. No, I don't remember.

21 Q. In that report, it states that there was a visit to the Vitez

22 police station on the 19th of February, and Anto Simic and Anto Rajic, who

23 is the head of the section for the prevention of crimes of particular

24 state interest, they inspected the Vitez police station, coming down from

25 the Travnik administration. Were you at the police station on the 19th of

Page 337

1 February, 1993?

2 A. I assume I was. I don't know. I may have gone out on some task

3 or something, I don't know.

4 I just wanted to mention, I don't know what kind of translation

5 you have received. My translation is that it was a review, and here it

6 says that it was an inspection, which is completely different in meaning

7 and it implies a tour of all the premises and everything, so that could

8 have been only carried out only with the chief or some other superior

9 officer.

10 Q. In this report, it states that Anto Simic and Anto Rajic, who is

11 the head of this prevention of crimes of particular state interest in

12 Travnik, met with Mirko Samija about the staffing in the police station,

13 and it appears as a result of that discussion with Mr. Samija, it states

14 that the function of officer for the prevention of crimes of particular

15 state interest is being formed -- performed by Vlatko Kupreskic. Are you

16 aware of that conversation with Mirko Samija and Mr. Simic and Mr. Rajic?

17 Yes or no.

18 A. No.

19 JUDGE WALD: Mr. Smith, I just want to interrupt you to remind you

20 that you've got about 10 minutes more. I know you want to go into private

21 session for some -- and we really can't give you much leeway here

22 because --

23 MR. SMITH: I don't think I'll discuss that topic, in light of the

24 time.

25 JUDGE WALD: All right, all right. Okay.

 

Page 338

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

14 and the English transcripts.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 339

1 MR. SMITH:

2 Q. Did you know Mr. Anto Rajic?

3 A. I met him sometime during the war. I believe it was in 1993.

4 When the conflict erupted in the area of Travnik, Anto Rajic came to Vitez

5 as a refugee. I didn't know him before that. And in late 1993 when the

6 police administration in Travnik was reestablished, he was supposed to

7 work there but in Vitez where Samija and Simic worked.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 A. And he was later on the chief of that particular police section.

10 It all took place in late 1993.

11 Q. Now, in February 1993, did he tell you, or did you learn through

12 someone else, that he had the position of leader of the section of

13 prevention of crimes of particular state interest in the Travnik

14 administration, which is the parent body of the Vitez police station? Did

15 he tell you that or did you learn of that by any other means? Yes or no.

16 A. You see, I was not familiar with the staffing of the police

17 station in Vitez, let alone with the staffing of the police administration

18 in Travnik. It was above us. It was a piece of information that simply

19 wasn't accessible to me. I wasn't aware of it.

20 Q. I don't mean to rush you, but if you could just listen to the

21 question and answer it as specifically as you can, that would be helpful.

22 The document is dated the 22nd of February, 1993, and it states

23 the information that Vlatko Kupreskic performed this particular job of

24 crimes of particular state interest was recorded -- or that information

25 was obtained on the 19th of February, 1993. Is that why the date of the

Page 340

1 23rd of February, 1993, appears on your document as to the time that

2 Vlatko Kupreskic finished at the police station, because it was a day

3 after this document had been produced?

4 A. No. I am not familiar at all with this document. I couldn't have

5 known of this document because I didn't know about the meeting, either.

6 And I'm sure that on the 23rd of February, and I have records for all

7 other employees at the time, that Vlatko Kupreskic left the police

8 station.

9 Q. Did you think it would have been a good idea to bring those

10 records here to the Tribunal today? Did you think of your own accord or

11 did your lawyers ask you to bring your records as to when he worked at the

12 police station to the Tribunal? Yes or no.

13 A. No, I didn't think about it. I never thought that, even then when

14 I kept those records, nor later did I think that this would be something

15 of particular importance, except for what I have already said, that it

16 might come in handy to someone when he retires and for his salary.

17 Q. But you have got access to those records and you can obtain those

18 records. As far as you know, they're still in Vitez and they can be

19 brought to the Tribunal. Yes or no; do they still exist?

20 A. Yes. When I was drafting that certificate, I looked at the

21 record.

22 Q. Mirko Samija was the commander of the Vitez police station. He

23 would be in a better position than you, do you agree, to know what jobs

24 particularly every person did in the Vitez police station in 1992 and 1993

25 because he was the commander?

Page 341

1 A. That depends. He probably knew about all the significant events

2 affecting the police station. We're divided into departments. He didn't

3 enter into the details. A chief in a department might be better informed

4 on certain events of lesser significance than the chief of the whole

5 police station.

6 Q. But bearing in mind that he employed Vlatko Kupreskic, do you

7 agree that he would be in a better position to say what position he, in

8 fact, occupied - yes or no - than you?

9 A. I don't know. I doubt that. Regarding the actual position, he

10 told me exactly. I know what he told me, that it was the position of

11 inspector for economic crime, so I don't see that it would be any

12 different.

13 Q. I apologise. Who told you that Mirko Samija or --

14 A. The chief.

15 Q. -- [Previous translation continues]...

16 A. Mirko Samija.

17 Q. And Mr. Anto Rajic, does he still live in Vitez or in Central

18 Bosnia at the moment?

19 A. No, no.

20 Q. Is he still alive today?

21 A. As far as I know. I know that he moved to Croatia, maybe two or

22 three years ago, I don't know exactly. And I don't even know exactly

23 which town he moved to. I wasn't so close to him to maintain contact with

24 him after he left the police station. As far as I know, he went to

25 Croatia. He is by training a forestry engineer, something like that, so

Page 342

1 that he is not doing police work at all, as far as I know. But I'm not

2 certain of any of that.

3 Q. And that's the case, isn't it: Anto Rajic, who appears to have

4 the job of the section leader of the prevention of crimes of particular

5 state interest in February 1993 at the parent body, at the Travnik police

6 department, he only had the qualifications as a forester, study and

7 experience as a forester, but he did not have any qualifications as a

8 police investigator, nor did he have any qualifications in relation to

9 law; and yet on this information that appears in this document, it appears

10 that he held that position of the leader of the section of prevention of

11 crimes of particular state interest. You agree that that was -- that is

12 Mr. Rajic's qualifications, a forester, before the war?

13 A. Let me tell you, before the war those State Security Services,

14 people with different profiles were engaged before. Some of them didn't

15 have university education or anything. I am totally unfamiliar with that

16 kind of work, the work done by the state security. I don't know whether

17 they need experts of various qualifications, whether they have any

18 particular training or anything. My experience with him throughout the

19 time I worked in the police was that they would come to us, ask

20 information about certain individuals, whether they had been convicted,

21 who they are related to. They look into our records. They don't even

22 tell us what is involved. And by law, we were duty-bound to provide that

23 information, so that I never really knew what those people were doing nor

24 what kind of qualifications they needed to have.

25 Q. So when you say in your statement that Mr. Kupreskic doesn't have

Page 343

1 the experience or the qualifications for the job of an officer or

2 inspector for the prevention of crimes of particular state interest, that

3 really doesn't apply in relation to what was happening in Central Bosnia

4 in 1992, if it is the case that Anto Rajic did, in fact, hold that

5 position?

6 I didn't receive a translation.

7 A. I'm afraid I didn't understand that. Could you repeat it, please.

8 JUDGE WALD: Witness, would you repeat that.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.

10 JUDGE WALD: Witness, would you please repeat just your answer to

11 the last question. The translators didn't receive it.

12 A. I did not understand the question put to me by the lawyer.

13 JUDGE WALD: Okay.

14 A. By the Prosecutor.

15 JUDGE WALD: Before you repeat it, I'm reminding you of the time,

16 but go ahead and repeat this question.

17 MR. SMITH: Thank you.

18 Q. If it is the case that Mr. Anto Rajic in fact held the position of

19 officer or the leader for the prevention of crimes of particular state

20 interest in Travnik, as the document purports to say, then the fact that a

21 person in 1993 or 1992 hasn't got the particular experience that you would

22 expect someone to have for that position doesn't mean that they wouldn't

23 occupy it or a position of that type.

24 A. I'm quite certain that a person without experience could not be

25 able to do that job. However, as to whether he can be appointed

Page 344

1 schematically to a particular post, that is something else.

2 MR. SMITH: I have no further questions, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE WALD: Thank you.

4 I believe now, Witness, we will have redirect, and it says ten

5 minutes here, but really no more than 12.

6 MR. ABELL: Very well, Your Honours.

7 Re-examined by Mr. Abell:

8 Q. Mr. Lazarevic, you were asked some questions about Mr. Samija who

9 was your chief. Samija, my pronunciation is not good. Is he still alive?

10 A. No.

11 Q. When did he die, please?

12 A. He was killed at the end of December, I think, 1993. Either end

13 of December 1993 or beginning of January 1994, I'm not quite sure.

14 Q. Thank you. You've been shown this letter which was admitted in

15 the trial, P378. Do you still have it in front of you? Do you still have

16 it in front of you?

17 A. Could you repeat the number, please.

18 Q. P378 in the top right-hand corner.

19 A. Yes, I have it.

20 Q. Thank you. Before you were shown it today, had you ever seen it?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Do you know Anto -- I'm so sorry, do you know Anto Rajic?

23 A. At the time I didn't know him. He is not from Vitez, he's from

24 Travnik. But I met him when the conflict had already broken out, I told

25 the Prosecutor that, when the conflict broke out in Vitez. First the

 

Page 345

1 conflict started in Vitez and then in Travnik. And then maybe in

2 mid-1993, it was only then that I met this man.

3 Q. Did he have the job described in that letter, in the first

4 paragraph, or not, to your knowledge?

5 A. I don't know who was doing what in the Travnik police

6 administration. I never went there. I've never been there. So as to

7 avoid any confusion, we still have a Travnik police administration, but in

8 those days it was a police body that was superior to the Vitez police

9 station. And in that period, I never went to Travnik to that police

10 administration, nor do I know who was doing what. I do know Anto Simic

11 because I'd known him from before the war, a policeman.

12 Q. Yes. But Vlatko Kupreskic, as you've told us, did some work in

13 the Vitez police station. Did he do any work in relation to what is in

14 the second paragraph, officer for the prevention of crimes of particular

15 state interest? Did he do that job?

16 A. I don't know that he did anything that could be described in this

17 way. I don't know how this word has been translated for you. Here it

18 says that he was acting. That can mean that he was employed. That need

19 not be actually doing that work because the term need not necessarily mean

20 that he had any daily tasks in that area. He may just have been appointed

21 to that position.

22 Q. Help me about this: I showed you, when I was last asking you

23 questions, that list of employees, and number 55 on that list describes

24 Vlatko Kupreskic in a similar way. You told us that was wrong. Do you

25 understand that that was inaccurate?

 

Page 346

1 A. Yes, yes.

2 Q. As far as you are concerned, is that still inaccurate?

3 A. Yes, as far as I am aware.

4 Q. Thank you. So as far as you are concerned, what is said in this

5 letter that you've now been shown, P378, is that accurate or inaccurate,

6 as far as you know and are concerned, about Vlatko Kupreskic?

7 A. As far as I know, this is inaccurate.

8 Q. Thank you. The certificate that you were asked about, which is

9 our AD 43, which shows him, that is, Vlatko Kupreskic, as leaving the

10 police station on the 23rd of February -- I think you still have that in

11 front of you.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Why did he leave the police station, as far as you are concerned?

14 A. I've already said - I don't know how many times - because he

15 couldn't coordinate his work in the Sutra company with his police work.

16 Q. During the period of time that we are concerned with, from late

17 1992 up until April of 1993, were you working as the inspector for

18 commercial crime?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Thank you. And were you doing that full time?

21 A. Yes. That is the only decision on employment that I had at that

22 time.

23 Q. And can you assist us in this way: Can you think of any reason

24 why it may be that on the certificate that I've just been asking you

25 about, AD 43, it has Mr. Kupreskic down as inspector for commercial crime?

 

Page 347

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

14 and the English transcripts.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 348

1 Can you think of any reason that should be, that job title, if it's

2 inaccurate?

3 A. Because the certificate was issued on the basis of my records, and

4 as far as I was aware, he was inspector for commercial crime, and that is

5 what I put there. I had the exact dates when he started working and when

6 he stopped working, and nothing was -- nothing else was ever mentioned

7 until quite recently. All I knew was that he was an inspector for

8 commercial crime. Other people, like Mirko Samija, is no longer alive.

9 We have a new chief now. So it was I who issued the certificate because I

10 was the one, the only one, who had the necessary information.

11 Q. Who physically dealt with payment for Mr. Vlatko Kupreskic for his

12 work? Was it you or was it someone else? Just don't give a name at the

13 moment if it's not you. You or someone else?

14 A. It wasn't me. There was a particular person who paid out salaries

15 to everyone, and that wasn't me. If you need the name ...

16 Q. I'd like you to write the name down, if you would, on a piece of

17 paper. That may be the best way of doing it.

18 JUDGE WALD: Are you winding down, Mr. Abell?

19 MR. ABELL: Yes, I am.

20 Q. You were asked some questions about the inventory, and it was

21 suggested to you, well, did you ever see him doing any inventory work.

22 Let's be quite clear about this: Did you see him compiling the inventory

23 list or working on the inventory?

24 A. What I said to the Prosecutor: I saw him when he came into my

25 office, I do not recall seeing him somewhere else, because an inventory

Page 349

1 had to be made of my office as well as all the other in the police

2 station.

3 Q. And did he do an inventory of your office?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Thank you. Is there --

6 MR. ABELL: No, that deals with it. And that is, in fact, my last

7 question, I'm pleased to say.

8 JUDGE WALD: Thank you. Do the Judges have any questions? No

9 questions.

10 All right, thank you very much, Mr. Lazarevic, for coming to

11 testify before us, and we appreciate your sharing your information with

12 us, and we wish you good luck in your future. Perhaps the usher will

13 escort ...

14 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, could I raise something very briefly?

15 JUDGE WALD: Well, let's let the witness get out of the room.

16 MR. ABELL: Of course, of course. But I just wanted to indicate

17 that there was something I wanted to raise.

18 [The witness withdrew]

19 JUDGE WALD: What is it?

20 MR. ABELL: It should be in private session, if that could be

21 done, please.

22 JUDGE WALD: Will it take very long?

23 MR. ABELL: No, it won't, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE WALD: All right. Let's go into private session.

25 [Private session]

Page 350

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Pages 350-356 redacted private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 357

1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.47 p.m.,

2 to be reconvened on Friday, the 18th day of May,

3 2001, at 9.30 a.m.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25