Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 27921

 1                           Friday, 7 November 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good morning, Madam Registrar, and everybody.

 7     Could you call the case, please.

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

 9     IT-05-88-T, The Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic, et al.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.  All the accused here.

11     Prosecution is Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye.  The Defence absentees

12     are Mr. Nikolic, Ms. Nikolic, Mr. Krgovic, and Mr. Sarapa.  All right.

13             Let us get rid of this from our table.  Mr. Lazarevic,

14     Mr. Gosnell, you will recall your motion for admission of documents from

15     the bar table filed on the 16th of October.  You will also recall,

16     Mr. McCloskey, that you filed your response on the 31st of October not

17     objecting to such admission.  We are, therefore, granting the motion.

18             Mr. Zivanovic, I am sure that although it is Friday, you will

19     still recall your motion of the 20th October, 2008, in which you asked

20     the -- requested the Trial Chamber to grant you leave to file the motion

21     for admission of evidence from the bar table at the end of your case, and

22     that's in view of the decision of the Trial Chamber confirmed by the

23     Appeals Chamber to reopen the Prosecution case and to hear the testimony

24     of the communications expert, Mr. Rodic, during that stage of the

25     proceedings and not during Miletic's case as now scheduled.

Page 27922

 1             The Prosecution responded on the 3rd of November and not

 2     objecting to your motion.  In view of that, we hereby grant the motion.

 3     That disposes of two motions.

 4             Good morning to you, Professor.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Welcome back.  We were discussing, actually,

 7     whether there is a way --

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  -- to try to finish with your testimony today, but

10     I am not that optimistic.  We'll try.  We'll try.  By the way, we'll be

11     sitting as follows; there is a change in the schedule:  We'll be sitting

12     90-minute sessions instead of 100-minute sessions, and we'll finish at

13     3.00 instead of half past 3.  So the break, lunch break will be at 1.30

14     to -- from 12.30 to 1.30.

15             Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.

16             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours, and good morning.  Good

17     morning, everyone.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good morning.

19                           WITNESS:  BRANISLAV RISTIVOJEVIC [Resumed]

20                           [Witness answered through interpretation]

21                           Examination by Mr. Lazarevic: [Continued]

22        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Dr. Ristivojevic.  I would like to

23     continue where we left it off.

24        A.   Good morning.

25             MR. LAZAREVIC:  May I proceed, Your Honour?

Page 27923

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  I wasn't receiving interpretation, but the

 2     reason was I was on the wrong channel.

 3             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   We already spoke in great detail about the way the criminal

 5     matter was regulated, and let's talk about the proceedings and legal

 6     matter, and how was that regulated in Republika Srpska from the year 1992

 7     to the period that we had in mind, that is 1995?

 8        A.   We said that at the level of the Socialist Federative Republic of

 9     Yugoslavia, there was a singular source of authority on the procedural

10     legal matter; i.e., there was one law on legal proceedings.  It was

11     adopted by Republika Srpska in 1993 to the full with some minor changes,

12     which were not important for my report.

13        Q.   Very well.  Let's now go to 4D206, which is under your tab 10.

14             And as for the rest, we will just mention them.  This is the law

15     on criminal procedure which was published on 30th December in 1993 in the

16     Official Gazette of Republika Srpska.  You've already told us that these

17     amendments, the law on criminal procedure is something you did not

18     consider too relevant for your report.

19        A.   Just like in the Penal Code, these were the changes that -- and

20     amendments that was due to hyperinflation.  The value of the money was

21     devaluated, and that's why periodically amendments were made to make

22     adjustments to the new value of the currency.

23        Q.   And now I am going to just mention them.  The exhibits that

24     contain certain amendments to the law on criminal procedure, these are

25     4D376 - I don't think that we should call them up on e-court - 4D376 is

Page 27924

 1     the first exhibit, and we also have 4D413, which refers to the

 2     application of the Law on Criminal Procedure in conditions of an

 3     immediate threat of war or state of war.

 4             In your expert, in paragraphs 36 and 37 of your report, you dealt

 5     with these documents that contained amendments.  Did these amendments

 6     have any bearing on the topic of your expert report?

 7        A.   They did not have any specific bearing.  One of the matters was

 8     the shortening of the deadlines in the criminal procedure given that

 9     there was a state of war.  Some legal remedies were either added or

10     abolished, but that all was not of any importance for my report.

11        Q.   And now, I would like to move on to the regulations that

12     regulated the organisation of courts.  And first of all, let's look at a

13     document under your tab 12, which is -- I apologise.  Its seems that I

14     have been speaking too fast.  The exhibit number is 4D373.  This is a

15     decision on the competence of courts in criminal matters, and the date on

16     the document that you will see --

17             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Let me just repeat for the

18     record.  This is 20 May 1992.  That's the date on the document.  Let's

19     look at Article 1 of this law.

20        Q.   Could you please tell me what this law regulates in this article?

21        A.   It says here that lower courts have subject matter re:

22     jurisdiction to conduct legal proceedings in the first instance.  The

23     lower courts would correspond to what is known as municipal courts in the

24     neighbouring states, for example, in the state of Serbia.

25        Q.   Very well.  Under your tab 3 is the following document.

Page 27925

 1             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] This is 4D183.  This is a

 2     Decision on the Establishment, Seat, and Jurisdiction of Military Courts

 3     and Military Prosecutor's Offices.  Let's look at Article 1 of this

 4     decision first.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Lazarevic.

 6             MR. LAZAREVIC:  It is the wrong document, obviously, in the

 7     e-court.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Speaking for myself, I find it to be much easier for

 9     me to follow your question and evidence of the witness if you indicate

10     what part of the report you are dealing with in addition to the exhibit

11     numbers in the future.

12             MR. LAZAREVIC:  All right, Your Honour.  I'll try to organise

13     this in such a way.

14        Q.   [Interpretation] We have the decision before us.  First of all,

15     let's look at Article 1 of this decision.  What does Article 1 regulate?

16     Which courts are established hereby?

17        A.   This article deals primarily with the establishment of first

18     instance military courts in Banja Luka, Sarajevo, and Bijeljina, as well

19     as the supreme court in Sarajevo as a Court of appeal or second-instance

20     court.

21             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Your Honours, just to mention that these are

22     paragraphs starting from 3.9 of the expert report.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] And now, let's look at paragraph 2 of this

24     decision.  Can you please tell me where were the regional military

25     Prosecutor's offices established?

Page 27926

 1        A.   They were established with the corps commands in the same cities

 2     where the first instance military courts were established, which means in

 3     Banja Luka, Sarajevo, and Bijeljina; and also, a senior military

 4     Prosecutor's Office was established with the Main Staff of the army of

 5     the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The name, the official

 6     name was the senior military Prosecutor's office.

 7             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] The next document I would like us

 8     to look at is under your tab 14, and this is exhibit number P420, the law

 9     on military Prosecutor's Offices, dated 13 December 1993.  Could we

10     please look at Article 1 of that law.

11             MR. LAZAREVIC:  I apologise.  It appears we don't have

12     translation of this particular document.  It was a P document, and we

13     were of the impression that this whole law is translated in English, but

14     it appears that only certain parts were translated, so I will go through

15     relevant articles with the witness by reading portions of this document.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Ristivojevic, can you now look at Article 1.

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Since, unfortunately, we don't have a translation of this

19     article, could you please read Article 1 very slowly, and it will be

20     recorded.

21        A.   "The military Prosecutor's office prosecutes perpetrators of

22     crimes which are under the jurisdiction of military courts.  It also

23     undertakes certain measures to protect the interests of the community and

24     uses legal means to protect the constitutionality and legality in the way

25     prescribed by this law or other laws or regulations."

Page 27927

 1        Q.   Very well.  We've just read out from Article 1 of this law.  It

 2     seems that this regulates the activity of the military Prosecutor's

 3     office?

 4        A.   Yes.  Actually, I would say the jurisdiction of the military

 5     Prosecutor's office.

 6        Q.   Well, I would like to ask you with regard to this law, there is

 7     another article that you deemed relevant for your report, and that is

 8     Article 7 on the same page under paragraph 2 entitled "Jurisdiction and

 9     Authority."  Just for the record, could you please read Article 7?

10        A.   "The right and duty of the military Prosecutor's office is to

11     prosecute perpetrators of crimes which are subject matter of military

12     courts for which are prosecuted ex officio, and with this regard they are

13     also duty-bound to do the following:  Under 1, undertake the necessary

14     measures to detect crimes as well as their perpetrators and to start the

15     initial criminal proceedings; under 2, issues a request for criminal

16     investigation to be carried out; under 3, issues the indictment and

17     represents the state before the competent military court; and under 4,

18     lodges an appeal against court decisions and also files the legal

19     remedies against final court decisions."

20             The next paragraph reads: "The military Prosecutor discharges

21     other duties and exercise the other rights that are within his purview

22     under the law."

23        Q.   Thank you very much.  What I wanted to ask you with this regard

24     is this:  This Article 7, is this the elaboration of the duties and

25     authorities of the military Prosecutor's office?

Page 27928

 1        A.   Yes, it is a detailed elaboration of Article 1.

 2        Q.   I would like to move on in this document, P420, which also

 3     contains the Law on Military Courts that was issued on the 30th of

 4     December, 1993.

 5             We will be talking about paragraphs 3.11 to 3.14 of your expert

 6     report --

 7             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] And the pages in e-court that I

 8     would like to call are 4 in B/C/S and page 1 in the English version of

 9     this document.  Let's first look at Article 1 of this regulation.

10        Q.   In keeping with Article 1 of this regulation, how were military

11     courts defined and regulated?

12        A.   Military courts are defined like regular courts as courts that

13     shall try military personnel as well as other individuals for the

14     criminal acts stipulated by this law.

15        Q.   Let's now move on to Article 8 of this law.  Could you please

16     tell me what this article defines?

17        A.   It defines military personnel, and a reference is made here to

18     the Law on the Military.

19        Q.   In order to clarify this, let's please look at document 4D372,

20     which is under your tab 15.  This is the Law on the Army dated 1st June,

21     1992.  I would like us to look at its Article 3, please.

22             In keeping with Article 3 of the Law on the Army, which was

23     referred to by the previous law with regard to the definition of military

24     personnel, could you tell us how "military personnel" is defined

25     according to Article 3 of the Law on the Army?

Page 27929

 1        A.   According to Article 3 of this law, the military personnel are

 2     the following:  Soldiers, cadets at military academies, active members of

 3     the military, and reserve members of the military while on military duty

 4     in the army.

 5             The next paragraph of the same article defines active members of

 6     the military as officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers under

 7     contract.

 8        Q.   Very well.  Now, I would like to go back to the Law on Military

 9     Courts, which is under your tab 14.  This is P420.

10             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up page 2 in

11     both B/C/S and English versions of this document, and I would like us to

12     look at Article 13 of this law.

13        Q.   I believe we have both documents in e-court.  Can you tell me,

14     what does Article 13 of this law stipulate, and can you please give us

15     your interpretation?

16        A.   This is one of the exemptions just like Article 1, which speaks

17     about the jurisdiction of military court when it says certain crimes

18     committed by other individuals can be tried by a military court as well.

19     Therefore, Article 13 says that in the event of other individuals -

20     called "civilians" here - act as co-perpetrators or accomplices of the

21     perpetrator, they all fall under the jurisdiction of a military court.

22        Q.   Very well.  In your report, you also made reference to articles 9

23     and 11, which stipulate the organisation and jurisdiction of military

24     court, but would I would not like dwell on that particular part.

25     However, let us look at Article 10, last paragraph.  Can you tell us what

Page 27930

 1     Article 10 stipulates in its last paragraph.

 2             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] That's page 5 in B/C/S and page 2

 3     in English in e-court.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This paragraph of Article 10 lays

 5     down the jurisdiction of military courts to try all crimes committed

 6     against prisoners of war and the jurisdiction of military courts in terms

 7     of establishing the status of prisoners of war.

 8             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   And the last that I would like to ask you with regard to this law

10     is Article 56.  It's on page 9 in B/C/S and page 8 in English in

11     e-court -- I apologise, in English version.  Paragraph 3 and 4 are of

12     particular interest for this case.  In what way does Article 56 define

13     the entities that have jurisdiction pursuant to the Law on Criminal

14     Procedure?

15        A.   The Law on Criminal Procedure is applicable to a military court,

16     as well, pursuant to the first paragraph of this article.  In paragraph 2

17     of this article, individual jurisdictions are being governed pursuant to

18     the Law on Criminal Procedure which are entrusted to certain procedural

19     entities.

20             According to paragraph 2, the duties and powers exercised in

21     regular courts are -- within the purview of the Ministry of the Interior,

22     when it comes to trials conducted by military courts, shall be afforded

23     to security organs and the military police.  The duties and powers of

24     public prosecutors in the trials conducted before regular courts shall be

25     afforded to military Prosecutors in the trials conducted by military

Page 27931

 1     courts.

 2        Q.   And can you tell us whether the MUP organs have any sort of power

 3     in the proceedings before military courts?

 4        A.   No, they do not.  And I said this is pursuant to paragraph 2, as

 5     I said a minute ago.

 6        Q.   As for the content of the powers, they are described in more

 7     detail in paragraph 3.14 of your report.  We are not going to go into

 8     that in detail, and it deals with the powers relating to the Law on

 9     Criminal Procedure.  I would just like to draw the attention to the

10     documents used in your report, which are 4D381 and 4D212, but we shall

11     perhaps deal with that later.

12             Now, let me ask you this:  At the request of the Defence, you

13     reviewed the indictment.  I'm talking about paragraph 3.24 in your

14     report.  I am speaking particularly about the crime relating to the

15     Kravica warehouse.  The indictment states that the direct perpetrators of

16     that act were members of the special police brigade, a member of the

17     Bratunac Brigade, and one civilian.  That's what the indictment says.

18     Tell me, in this particular instance, which court would have exclusive

19     jurisdiction to conduct a trial, a criminal proceedings?

20        A.   In this particular situation, exemptions stipulated by Article 13

21     would be applied, and I'm referring to the Law on the Military Courts.

22     Given that in this group of individuals cited as direct perpetrators of

23     this crime, there were military personnel involved or, rather, one member

24     of the army.

25        Q.   So the court that would have jurisdiction would be which?

Page 27932

 1        A.   Most definitely a military court would have jurisdiction.  And,

 2     of course, the military Prosecutor's office would be in charge of

 3     prosecuting the case.

 4        Q.   Very well.  Can we define the territorial jurisdiction of a

 5     military court in this situation?

 6        A.   In this particular instance, the territorial jurisdiction would

 7     be that of the military court in Bijeljina.  However, I have to put

 8     forward a reservation pursuant to Article 9 of the Law on Military

 9     Courts.  Territorial jurisdiction of military courts is determined by the

10     president of the republic at the proposal of the Minister of Defence.  I

11     have not received this law within the materials that I had reviewed; and

12     therefore, I was unable to establish precisely the territorial

13     jurisdiction of respective military courts.

14             My conclusion in my report was drawn on the basis of the

15     territory covered by the indictment.  The closest military court in this

16     case was the military court in Bijeljina.

17        Q.   At any rate, would the MUP organs have any powers in preliminary

18     proceedings and criminal proceedings conducted by a military court?

19        A.   Regardless of which military court we are talking about, the one

20     in Bijeljina or any other court, members of the MUP would not have any

21     powers or jurisdiction in criminal proceedings.  As we said, these powers

22     and this jurisdiction in criminal proceedings conducted by military

23     courts are -- fall within the remit of security organs and the military

24     police.

25        Q.   Right.  Let us now move on to a part of your report --

Page 27933

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Lazarevic, if you exhausted this issue.

 2     Professor Ristivojevic, if there had been no military that participated

 3     in Kravica, for example, what court would have had the jurisdiction then,

 4     if the crimes were -- had been committed only by this special police?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Pursuant to item 38 on the

 6     application of the Laws on War --

 7             JUDGE KWON:  [Previous translation continues]... what page?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please give me a moment to find it.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Page 5 in English.

10             MR. LAZAREVIC:  No.  It's P409, Your Honours.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me just see.  That's P409.

12     Yes.

13             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Yes, that's tab 30 in your binder.

15        A.   Article 37 speaks only about military personnel by saying that

16     military courts have jurisdiction over them.  Article 38 introduces the

17     jurisdiction of military courts for all perpetrators.  That's how it

18     reads.  It makes no distinction between various statuses of individuals.

19     It further says that the proceedings are going to be conducted according

20     to the law on military procedure, the Law on the Military Prosecutor's

21     Office, and the Law on Military Courts, and finally, the Law on Military

22     Courts during the state of an immediate threat of war or war.

23             In the Law on Military Courts, there is no explicit stipulation

24     of the jurisdiction of military courts relating to non-military

25     personnel, but rather, this jurisdiction is laid down under Article 38 of

Page 27934

 1     these regulations.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  I'm not sure Professor Ristivojevic followed my

 3     question, and I don't think P409 is the relevant material.  Professor, my

 4     question was what court, civil or military court, would have had

 5     jurisdiction if these certain crimes are committed only by the police,

 6     special police resubordinated or not?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.  I'm not talking about

 8     resubordination.  These regulations were drawn in 1978, and they relate

 9     to military personnel.

10             JUDGE KWON:  So put it simply.  You talked about the example of

11     Kravica house.  According to the indictment, there were one military

12     personnel who participated.  Because of that, you said the military court

13     would have had jurisdiction.  If he was not there, what court would have

14     the jurisdiction?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I repeat, the Law on Military

16     Courts explicitly introduces this jurisdiction but only when it refers to

17     non-military personnel.  We would have to construe these acts.  Article

18     38 refers to military personnel.  In 1992, the president of the Republika

19     Srpska issued an order on the application of the Rules of Laws of War

20     applicable to members of the police and the military as well.  In other

21     words, he introduced in the armed forces of Republika Srpska.  Therefore,

22     my conclusion was that all members of the armed forces were under the

23     jurisdiction of military courts in the event of the breach of

24     international law.  Therefore --

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  Laws of war.

Page 27935

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Therefore, we need interpretation

 2     of these regulations because at the time when these regulations were

 3     adopted in 1988 [Realtime transcript read in error, "1978"], police was

 4     not part of the armed forces [as interpreted]; only the army and the

 5     Territorial Defence were part of the armed forces.  In 1992, the

 6     president of Republika Srpska equalised the police and members of the

 7     army and afforded them an equal status of member of armed forces.

 8             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   I apologise.  We have a minor problem with the transcript.  It's

10     page 14, lines 5 and 6.  You were talking about the year 1988, whereas it

11     says here 1978.

12        A.   Yes.  That's when the laws on the application of the laws of war

13     were adopted.

14        Q.   And you also were talking about members of the armed forces

15     rather than of military personnel, as it is said here.  Well, I think

16     we've cleared that up now, and I'd like to move on to another area or,

17     rather, a continuation of what we've been discussing.  Paragraphs 325 to

18     327 of your expert report, which is to be found on pages 21 and 22 in the

19     B/C/S version and page 16 of the English.  And there, you refer to the

20     decision to proclaim an immediate threat of war and state of war, and

21     documents are mentioned there, 4D527, P425, and 42219 --

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel repeat these numbers more slowly,

23     please.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Lazarevic, you need to repeat the numbers more

25     slowly please.  Thank you.

Page 27936

 1             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, very well.  I'll repeat

 2     that.  The documents that we -- or rather, you used in your report are

 3     4D527, P425, and 4D219, and we're relating to paragraphs 3.25 to 3.27

 4     [Realtime transcript read in error, "325 to 327"] of your expert report.

 5        Q.   I'd just like us to take a look first of all -- 3.25 and 3.27 are

 6     the last numbers of the paragraphs there.  Yes.  That's how it should be

 7     now.  It's been recorded properly.

 8             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Now, let's just look at P425

 9     first on e-court.

10        Q.   It's tab 22 in your set of documents.  It's a Decision on the

11     Declaration of a State of War in the Skelani Municipality of the 14th of

12     July, 1995.  This document is self-explicit; it's self-evident, but just

13     to note the time.  When on the Srebrenica-Skelani municipality a state of

14     war was in fact proclaimed, can you tell us the date?

15        A.   The 14th of July, 1995.

16        Q.   Can you tell me by looking at point 6 of this decision what it

17     regulates with respect to the state of immediate threat of war?

18        A.   The state of the immediate threat of war ceases to be effective

19     with the passing of this decision.

20        Q.   Very well.  Thank you.  Now, I'd like us to look at a few

21     documents which came before this particular document, the one we've just

22     been looking at, and it is in your -- in tab 24 of your report, and it is

23     a document numbered P10.

24             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] So can we have that put up on

25     e-court, please.

Page 27937

 1        Q.   It is a decision to appoint a civilian commissar for the

 2     Srpska-Srebrenica municipality dated the 11th of July, 1995; and I'd like

 3     to look at point 4 of this decision, to appoint a civilian commissioner.

 4     Does it give authorisation to the civilian commissioner with respect to

 5     the treatment of prisoners of war?

 6        A.   Yes, it does.  According to point 4, the commissioner shall

 7     ensure that those who fought against the army of Republika Srpska, such

 8     persons should have -- should be treated as prisoners of war.

 9        Q.   And now, if we look at the next point, point 5, which says

10     decisions by the civilian commissioner shall be binding for all civilian

11     authority organs in these Serbian municipality of Srebrenica, my first

12     question in that relationship is this:  To whom are these -- to whom is

13     this binding?

14        A.   Well, I understand this point in the following way, that the

15     civilian organs of authority, that is to say state administration and

16     similar organs, are duty-bound to follow the decisions of the civilian

17     commissioner.

18        Q.   All right.  Thank you.  And now purely territorially, let's see

19     what this is all about.  What territory does this refer to, what

20     municipality?

21        A.   Well, the title says it all.  It says the decision refers to the

22     Serbian municipality of Srebrenica.

23        Q.   All right.  Fine.  Thank you.  And while we're on this topic, may

24     we take a look at the next document which you have in your binder.  It is

25     number 25, and it is document 4D379, which is a decision on the

Page 27938

 1     appointment of the War Presidency for Srebrenica municipality, Skelani,

 2     of the 14th of July, 1995; and it was published in the Official Gazette

 3     in August 1995.

 4             Tell me now, please, when the War Presidency was being

 5     established for the Srebrenica-Skelani municipality, did that mean that

 6     the authorisations of the civilian commissioner ceased to be effective,

 7     the civilian commissioner that we talked about a moment ago and his

 8     powers and authority?

 9        A.   Yes.  That is how I understand the relationship between these two

10     decisions.  When the new appointments were made, they meant that all

11     previous authorisations ceased to be effective.

12        Q.   And we are, of course, referring to the territory on which the

13     state of war was proclaimed, and we've already had an opportunity to see

14     this on the basis of document P425; isn't that right?

15        A.   It refers to the Srebrenica-Skelani municipality in the heading

16     of this document here.

17        Q.   All right, fine.  And while we're on the subject of the

18     proclamation of the state of war, I'd like us to look at the next

19     document, which in your documents, in your -- documents, it'll be found

20     in tab 26.  And it is document 4D525, the Law on the application of the

21     law of governing military courts and the military Prosecutor's office

22     during a state of war, and perhaps we could look at Article 2 there.  Can

23     you tell me what Article 2 of this law stipulates?

24        A.   Article 2 of this law stipulates the following:  That during a

25     state of war, so-called military courts for special wartime situations

Page 27939

 1     may be convened.

 2        Q.   All right.  Fine.  Now, let's look at Article 4 and what that

 3     article stipulates.  Let's look at paragraph 1 first and then paragraph

 4     2.  Can you tell us what that provides for?

 5        A.   It provides for the fact that the military Prosecutor during a

 6     state of war has the same authorisation.

 7        Q.   What does paragraph 2 of the article state?

 8        A.   It stipulates, as was set out in the previous article, that in

 9     proceedings before a military court, when there's a state of war, the

10     security organs and the military police shall have the same authority.

11        Q.   All right.  Fine.  Let's now move on to Article 8, para 2 of this

12     law.  Who, according to this article, has the authority to set up special

13     military courts?  There are two terms used there, "a military court for

14     special situations" and "extraordinary military courts."  Are they the

15     same courts?

16        A.   I think it is one and the same court in Article 8, and for some

17     reason the legislator used two terms.  But it is my opinion that it is

18     one and the same court, which is always an extraordinary court as is

19     stipulated in Article 8.

20        Q.   And who is in charge of establishing this extraordinary military

21     court?

22        A.   According to this article, it is established or convened through

23     an order by the commander of the unit of the level of a brigade or

24     regiment along with agreement from the corps commander -- with prior

25     agreement by the corps commander, or that court can be established by the

Page 27940

 1     corps commander himself or, rather, the Main Staff of the army of

 2     Republika Srpska.

 3        Q.   Let's move on to Article 10 now of this law and look at paragraph

 4     3 of Article 10, which provides for the possibility of the court trying

 5     employees of the Ministry of the Interior.

 6             Now, where do you see the importance of this particular

 7     provision?

 8        A.   This provision explicitly states or speaks about the authority of

 9     the court-martials or extraordinary courts for members of the Ministry of

10     the Interior and determines and stipulates that the trial chamber of such

11     a court-martial shall include on the panel of judges there should be a

12     member of the command of that particular MUP unit to which the policeman

13     being tried belongs.

14        Q.   I would just like to say that in paragraphs 3.29 to 3.32 of your

15     expert report deals with this particular topic.  Now, let us look at

16     another document, which is related to the court-martials, and it is tab

17     27 of your documents, and it is document 6D166.  It is an order by the

18     commander of the Main Staff of the VRS dated the 30th of July, 1995.  And

19     I'd like us to look at page 3, point 17, which is to be found on page 4

20     of the English version.

21             Tell me now, please, what is the importance of point 17 as you

22     see it, the -- with respect to the establishment of court-martials for

23     extraordinary military courts?

24        A.   Point 17 in itself is more of a declarative nature rather than

25     stipulating a law to follow, and that means that it lends impetus to the

Page 27941

 1     duty -- it reinforces the duty which the officers have with respect to

 2     setting up a military court and court-martials, and --

 3        Q.   Now, with respect to court-martials, these extraordinary courts,

 4     you have had an opportunity of analysing quite a number of documents.

 5     Did you come across any information according to which a court-martial

 6     either at the level of a regiment, brigade, corps or Main Staff was in

 7     fact set up?  Have you found a document with an example like that which

 8     would confirm that?

 9        A.   In the documents that I reviewed, my answer would be no.

10        Q.   Now, let us look at another document, one more document which is

11     linked to this topic.  It is in tab 28 of your documents, and it is

12     document 4D357 which is a document of the MUP of Republika Srpska dated

13     the 18th of August, 1995.

14             And I'd like us to look at paragraph 3 of that particular

15     document which begins with the words "pursuant to the provisions of

16     Article 2 of the Law on Implementation of the Law on Defence ..."

17             Tell me now, please, what does this document say in relation to

18     the subject we've been discussing, that is to say the possibility of

19     having court-martials try persons belonging to the Ministry of the

20     Interior?

21        A.   The Ministry of the Interior pursuant to this document reminds

22     all members of the ministry that they are part of the armed forces.  It

23     also reminds them of the possibility of establishing special military

24     courts in special circumstances.  Why?  Well, because those courts --

25     those court-martials can make only -- can issue only one sentence, and

Page 27942

 1     that is the death sentence, and I assume that the minister feels bound to

 2     emphasize this to the members of the ministry of the authority of these

 3     courts and their right on the panel of judges or Trial Chamber of such a

 4     court-martial, that one -- at least one judge -- or rather, one judge

 5     should be from the command of the unit to which the person being tried

 6     belongs, that is to say, the policeman being tried belongs.

 7        Q.   Very well.  [In English] The translation, that reference was made

 8     to this court as extraordinary military court or court-martial, so just

 9     to make sure that we are talking about one and the same court, just in

10     order to have this in transcript.

11             [Interpretation] Very well.  I would like us to move on to the

12     next chapter of your report, which refers to the responsibilities in

13     respect of the international humanitarian law and treatment of prisoners

14     of war.  You already told us that the law of Republika Srpska envisaged

15     all the rights ensuing from the international humanitarian law and law on

16     customs of war.

17        A.   Yes, in chapter 16.

18        Q.   The next document that I would like us to see is P28, and in your

19     binder it is under tab 29.  These are the guidelines to determine

20     criteria for criminal prosecution, which were compiled by the military

21     Prosecutor's Office affiliated with the Main Staff of the VRS in October

22     1992.  You've already had an occasion to analyse this document, and you

23     have mentioned it in your expert report.

24             What is the nature of this document in your opinion?

25        A.   With regard to its legal nature, I should say that this document,

Page 27943

 1     firstly, repeats and reiterates and then additionally elaborates the

 2     already-existing law.  In other words, its primary intention is to

 3     explain to those who will be involved in criminal prosecution, the

 4     elements of the crimes that they are supposed to prosecute.  The purpose

 5     of the document, as it says in its heading, is to -- unification of the

 6     policies of criminal prosecution - that's part of the heading - and the

 7     introduction of this document.

 8        Q.   Who is this the document intended for primarily?  What was your

 9     conclusion when you first saw this act?

10        A.   This document is primarily intended for the military judiciary

11     his, as it says in the introduction, and the document goes on to break

12     down and say the officers, the military officers, the officers in charge

13     of units and institutions, the military police, security organs, and so

14     on and so forth.

15        Q.   Let's now look at just one portion of this document on page 15

16     and on page 16.  First of all, can we please look at the very end of page

17     15 and the beginning of page 16 in your copy, and we're talking about

18     pages 31 and 33 in e-court; and in English, the page numbers are 7 and 8.

19     And now we can see the parts starting with "all commands of the units are

20     duty-bound to ..." So whose obligation was it to implement the procedures

21     to detect crimes against humanity and international laws in keeping with

22     these guidelines?  Please focus on pages 15 and 16.

23        A.   According to these guidelines, the unit commands are duty-bound

24     to work on the detection of cases that involve crimes against humanity

25     and the international law in their respective zones of responsibility.

Page 27944

 1        Q.   Who should be informed or conveyed information about any such

 2     crimes detected in keeping with these guidelines?

 3        A.   If a crime is detected and illucidated, according to these

 4     guidelines, it is the organs of the military police that should be

 5     informed, the security organs, and the military judiciary organs that

 6     should be informed.

 7             MR. LAZAREVIC:  I am going to be moving on to a slightly

 8     different topic.  If we can have a break right now and then proceed.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment, because we do have a problem.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  No.  We prefer if you could start with the other

12     topic, and then we stop at 10.30 as scheduled, please.  Thank you.

13             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Okay.

14        Q.   [Interpretation] Very well.  And now, I would like us to move on

15     to a new document, which is the regulations on the implementation of the

16     international laws in the SFRY.  It's under your tab 30, and it is

17     Exhibit number P409.  So the implementation of the law -- war law.  Let's

18     look at chapter 2, item 21.

19             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]  It is on page 16 in B/C/S, and

20     in the English version, it is page 15.

21        Q.   And the title of this chapter is "The Responsibility for the Acts

22     Committed by Subordinates."  My question to you about this item 21 is

23     this:  Does it make the officer of the unit of the Ministry of the

24     Interior responsible if such a unit was resubordinated to a VRS unit in

25     combat?

Page 27945

 1        A.   Item 21 of this regulation speaks about the military officers as

 2     persons who are responsible for the violations of the law on the customs

 3     of war.  If we were to dwell upon a strict linguistic interpretation, we

 4     may find ourselves in a situation which seems to be illogical to a

 5     certain extent, at least to me.  It would seem that only military

 6     officers would be deemed responsible for the acts committed by their

 7     subordinates as has been regulated by this item 21.  And that at the same

 8     time, there are some other types of commanders, for example, police

 9     commanders, who would not have the same responsibility for the acts

10     comitted by their subordinates.  That would actually introduce two

11     different standards in the war law.  It seems to me that the strict

12     linguistic interpretation should not be applicable here because it is

13     wrong.  What should be the only criteria -- criterion for the

14     interpretation of this regulation is the fact that -- that a certain

15     commander has subordinates, i.e., men under his command to whom he issues

16     orders or not.  It seems to me that the proper way to interpret this

17     provision should be to the -- for this regulation to also make the police

18     unit commander responsible for the acts of his subordinates.  In my view,

19     this would be the only logical interpretation of this regulation.

20             By applying pure linguistic interpretation, we would end up with

21     a rather illogical solution.  There is one more reason why a pure logical

22     interpretation should not be used here, is the fact that in 1988 when

23     these regulations were passed, the police was not part of the armed

24     forces, and that very fact shows that the legislator was not forced to

25     look at the police commander when drafting this law.  It is very

Page 27946

 1     difficult for me to believe that the proper interpretation would be only

 2     linguistic and that the only persons that would be relevant here would be

 3     only military commanders.

 4        Q.   Obviously, we are talking about the year 1995, and you've already

 5     told us that the regulations were passed in 1988?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And that the Law on National Defence, i.e., the law on Defence

 8     which was passed on the 29 November, 1994, the units of the Ministry of

 9     the Interior became part of the armed forces of Republika Srpska, and

10     that was made official at the time?

11        A.   Yes, but the validity of the provisions of the international war

12     law was adopted even sooner.  The president of Republika Srpska extended

13     those provisions to the members of the police.

14        Q.   We are talking about compliance with the provisions of the

15     international war law?

16        A.   Yes, we are talking about that, and we are talking about the

17     application of this law on police members as well.

18        Q.   And now I would like to analyse Article 21 and break it down into

19     three parts.  We are talking about the commander of a police unit

20     resubordinated to the commander of the unit in whose area of

21     responsibility such a unit is engaged in combat.  What would be the

22     responsibilities or the obligations of such a commander when they learned

23     that their subordinates are prepared to commit an act that constitutes a

24     violation of the international war law?

25        A.   My opinion is that he should undertake measures in order to

Page 27947

 1     prevent such violations.

 2        Q.   Let's now look at a different situation.  What would be the

 3     responsibility or obligation of a -- the commander of a police unit who

 4     were to catch his subordinate red-handed in the commission of an act that

 5     constitutes a violation of the war law?

 6        A.   Item 21 does not specify anything about the very commission of

 7     such an act, but the only logical interpretation that arises from the

 8     fact that the military officer is duty-bound to prevent any violation of

 9     the provisions of the war law which is underway, so obviously it arises

10     from that, that they would be duty-bound to prevent any violation of the

11     war law underway.

12        Q.   And now, just one more situation.  If the commander of such a

13     unit -- let me first ask you this:  Would the commander of such a unit,

14     and we are referring to a unit of the Ministry of the Interior

15     resubordinated to a military unit, would such a commander be in charge of

16     launching the proceedings of instituting an investigation, would such a

17     commander be in charge and responsibile for that in a situation like

18     this?

19        A.   When it comes to the instigation of criminal proceedings, there

20     is no responsibility for that.  Such responsibilities are regulated

21     clearly by the Law on Criminal -- on Military Courts, as we have already

22     said it.

23        Q.   And what would be the obligation of an officer who is not

24     responsibility for investigating -- instigating an investigation?  We're

25     talking about the same situation.

Page 27948

 1        A.   The last sentence in the first paragraph speaks about that very

 2     clearly.  He would be a -- responsible and duty-bound to report the

 3     perpetrator to the military officer in charge, and I quote from the text

 4     of the regulation.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  I understand you wish to have the break now.

 6             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Well, now it's time, anyway.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Okay, we'll have a 30-minute break.  Thank

 8     you.

 9                           --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

10                           --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.

12             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Dr. Ristivojevic, while we are still on

14     paragraph 21, I would like to ask you a few more questions regarding

15     this.  You already spoke about the linguistic and logical

16     interpretations.  Generally speaking, how a commander of a police unit or

17     a commanding officer fits into the definition and provisions contained in

18     paragraph 21?

19        A.   In my view, the very fact that a commander has certain men

20     subordinated to him, something that should stem from that fact is his

21     obligation with regard to the procedure and the acts comitted by his

22     subordinates if they are -- indeed, they are subordinates, if he is

23     entitled the issue orders to them.  In that case, the interpretation of

24     the provisions of item 21 should, in my opinion, be such that a police

25     unit commander should undertake measures to prevent acts committed by his

Page 27949

 1     subordinate which constitute breaches of the laws of war.

 2        Q.   What is the situation or, rather, the obligations of a commander

 3     with regard to those who are not his subordinates?  Does he have the same

 4     obligations?

 5        A.   In my opinion, concerning the individuals who are not his

 6     subordinates and to whom he cannot issue orders, such an obligation would

 7     not exist.

 8        Q.   Very well.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment, Mr. Lazarevic.  Mr. Vanderpuye.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I just wondered if my

11     colleague could clarify just for the record whether or not the answer

12     that was given in relation to his last question related only to this

13     particular document or provision or was a more general question.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.

15             MR. LAZAREVIC:  It was a more general question.  My colleague

16     can, of course, operate in his cross-examination he wishes to.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Let's proceed.  Thank you.

18             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Just for the record, this subject has been dealt with in

20     paragraph 4.7 to 4.8 in your report.

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  4.9.

22             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Now, tell me, who has jurisdiction in this situation to conduct

24     proceedings i.e., the situation in which an officer is not empowered to

25     conduct such proceedings, of course, if faced with the violation of the

Page 27950

 1     international laws of war?

 2        A.   Can you please repeat the question?  I am not sure I understood

 3     it.

 4        Q.   Let's look at item 38 of these regulations.  You already spoke

 5     about this.  Let us just establish who has the jurisdiction to conduct

 6     proceedings pursuant to item 38.

 7        A.   It is military courts who have jurisdiction to conduct

 8     proceedings for the violations of the international laws of war.

 9        Q.   Let's look now at item 51 on page 25 in B/C/S and also page 25 in

10     English in e-court.  Can you tell me, pursuant to item 51, what are the

11     duties of members of the armed forces when they capture members of the

12     enemy armed forces?

13        A.   In accordance with item 51, they are duty-bound to spare their

14     lives and to treat them humanely.  At the same time, this item provides

15     an obligation for members of the armed forces to prevent the prisoner

16     from escaping and to undertake all measures with a view to taking the

17     prisoner to a safe facility as soon as possible and hand it over to a

18     designated officer.

19        Q.   What is the situation concerning any other individual taken

20     prisoner in a combat zone?

21        A.   Pursuant to item 51, they should be treated in the same fashion.

22        Q.   Pursuant to item 51, who has the jurisdiction to establish the

23     identity and the status of prisoners?

24        A.   According to paragraph 2 of this item, specially designated

25     military organs have these powers.

Page 27951

 1        Q.   Do we have an explicit definition of these organs?

 2        A.   No, not under this item.

 3        Q.   Let us now move on to item 213 of these regulations.  It's on

 4     page 57 in B/C/S and page 63 in English.  It's entitled "The Initial

 5     Capturing," and it's called 2 -- and item 213 is entitled "Capture."

 6     Pursuant to this item, what are the obligations of officers with respect

 7     to the safety of their own unit when they are in the process of capturing

 8     members of the enemy forces?

 9        A.   In accordance with paragraph 2 of this item, the officer shall

10     take all measures of precaution in order to ensure the safety and

11     security of his unit.

12        Q.   How do you understand "...undertakes the measures to ensure the

13     safety and security of his own unit"?

14        A.   This item does not elaborate in detail what these measures

15     specifically are, but rather, says "all measures," and I'm quoting, "all

16     measures of precaution."

17        Q.   Let me ask you this:  The provisions of item 213, are they

18     applicable to MUP members or a commander of a MUP unit in a situation

19     when they are resubordinated to a military unit in which the zone of

20     responsibility they carry out tasks?

21        A.   I believe that this item establishes an obligation incumbent on

22     such an officer.

23        Q.   Very well.  Let us now move on to item 217 of these regulations.

24             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] It's on page 58 in B/C/S and on

25     page 64 in English.  It governs the issues of evacuation of POWs.

Page 27952

 1        Q.   Tell me, when POWs are evacuated, in what situations?

 2        A.   According to this item, immediately upon capture, the POWs - as

 3     it says here - must be evacuated from the combat zone.

 4        Q.   The lists of POWs are to what point regulated according to this

 5     item as something that has to be done?

 6        A.   Either during the evacuation itself or until their arrival in a

 7     camp outside the danger zone at the latest.  This is when the lists of

 8     evacuees, POW evacuees should be compiled.

 9        Q.   Let us now look at the next document dealing with the same

10     matter.  I would just like to mention that this whole subject --

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please repeat the numbers of

12     the items again.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Lazarevic, the interpreters would like you to

14     repeat the number of the items again.  If you look at the transcript, you

15     see exactly where they couldn't follow you, lines 2 and 3 on page 32.

16             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   This whole area is covered by items 4.11 to 4.21 in your expert

18     report.

19             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at document 4D184

20     in e-court, and that's an instruction on how to treat POWs dated 13th of

21     July, 1992.  It was published in the Official Gazette of the Serbian

22     people in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

23        Q.   That's your tab number 31.  In your view, what does this document

24     represent?

25        A.   This is an order issued by the president of the republic on the

Page 27953

 1     application and observance of the Law of War by the Armed Forces.  The

 2     Minister of Defence is thereby instructed to issue such guidelines, and

 3     these are these instructions or the guidelines signed by the Minister of

 4     Defence in June 1992; and therefore, he had fulfilled his obligation.

 5        Q.   I'd now like us to look at point 1 of this set of instructions,

 6     and could you tell us what that regulates?

 7        A.   I regulates the following:  That in dealing with captured

 8     persons, the treatment of captured persons, the rights and duties

 9     pursuant to these instructions incumbent upon members of the army and

10     members of the police force, they apply to them.

11        Q.   Let's look at point 4 -- 4.1 of these instructions, or para 1.

12     It says there that:  "Captured persons shall be taken to reception

13     centres as determined by a senior officer with the rank of company

14     commander or by a person holding an equal or higher position before the

15     start of combat activities."

16             Tell me now, please, in view of this provision, does it relate to

17     the officer of the MUP unit who is resubordinated to the unit and the

18     area of responsibility of that unit?

19        A.   In my opinion, this provision should be interpreted in the

20     following way:  It should be understood that it is binding upon the

21     officer with the rank of company commander or by a person holding an

22     equal or higher position in the army and not as applying to the police

23     because the planning and preparation of combat activities is something

24     that comes under the army's remit, not the police.

25        Q.   Thank you.  I'd like us to go through some more documents

Page 27954

 1     referring to prisoners of war, and the first document is in tab 32 in

 2     your papers.

 3             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] And it is P3035, document P3035,

 4     a document of the Drina Corps command dating the 15th of July, 1993.

 5        Q.   And let's just take a look at the bottom half of this document,

 6     which is point 2 or para 2, and it starts with the words "With the aim of

 7     strengthening responsibility ..." et cetera.  What is your interpretation

 8     of the importance of this document, please?

 9        A.   I feel that paragraph 2 of this document, in order to strengthen

10     responsibility, et cetera, is of a declarative nature, just like some of

11     the ones we saw earlier on, the purpose of which is to raise the level of

12     awareness about the need to respect war law.  Furthermore, this document

13     instructs the units to elect persons within the units who are going to

14     study the provisions of International War Law and making them the

15     soldiers in the army familiar with those provisions.

16        Q.   Right.  Thank you.  Now, let's look at the next document.  It is

17     tab 33 in your set.

18             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] And it is document P3034.

19        Q.   While we're waiting for the document to come up on e-court, it is

20     another set of instructions to the Bratunac Brigade about conduct with

21     prisoners of war of the 17th of July, 1993.  Quite obviously, this is two

22     days after the previous document that we were just looking at, so this is

23     a document issued two days later.  Let's look at the bottom half of the

24     document first, and it is the last paragraph beginning with the words:

25     "Each prisoner of war should be isolated and taken to a place of safety

Page 27955

 1     and guarded and then inform the command of the brigade and ask the

 2     military police to take over the prisoners."

 3             Now, let's go on to the second page of this document and look at

 4     the first paragraph there, which begins: "During the time that prisoners

 5     spend in the military police and come under the jurisdiction of the

 6     security organs, humane conditions should be furnished," et cetera, et

 7     cetera.

 8             Tell me now, please, we've just seen this document, so under

 9     whose authority do the prisoners of war come as can be deduced from this

10     set of instructions from the Bratunac Brigade?

11        A.   These instructions were compiled in order to put into effect the

12     previous one and -- concerning the Drina Corps, as is stated in paragraph

13     1, and on -- in paragraph 1 of page 2 of these instructions, the

14     prisoners, as it says, during their stay in the military police

15     facilities come under the jurisdiction of the security organs.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Now, the next document is to be found in tab 34 of

17     your set of documents, and it is instructions of the security

18     administration about the arrest and escorting of prisoners of war dated

19     the 15th of April.

20             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] It is document P196.  I'd like us

21     to look at page 2 of that document, point 2 of page 2.

22        Q.   Tell me now, please, in keeping with this document, who

23     determines the locality at which the POWs are to be collected in?

24        A.   According to this document, the Drina Corps command, the

25     localities behind the front where POWs are to be collected is determined

Page 27956

 1     by the commands from battalion level upwards.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  And who provides their security and interrogates

 3     POWs?

 4        A.   Later on in this paragraph, we see that the location where POWs

 5     are collected must be such that the prisoners are fully secured as well

 6     as the people from the security organ, from the intelligence organ and

 7     military police organ, engaging in interrogation and guarding the POWs.

 8        Q.   All right.  Fine.  Now the next document I'd like us to look at

 9     is tab 36 in your set, and it is P3025.  It is an order for active combat

10     activities of the command of the 1st Bratunac Brigade dated the 5th of

11     July, 1995.

12             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] May we have page 5 displayed of

13     this document.

14        Q.   You can see there that it says the area of collection for POWs,

15     and Pribicevac is mentioned.  Is that in keeping with the previous set of

16     instructions issued that we looked at a moment ago?

17        A.   I think it is.  And according to this order, as it says, The

18     security organs, military police shall determine the location for the

19     collection of POWs and their security.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Now, bearing in mind all the legal provisions that

21     we've looked at so far as well as these documents, and there are some

22     more documents that you deal with when writing your expert report, on the

23     basis of all that, can you tell us what your position is with respect to

24     the responsibilities of the Ministry of the Interior vis-a-vis prisoners

25     of war, and I mean specifically to the members of the Ministry of the

Page 27957

 1     Interior taking part in combat activities and are resubordinated to the

 2     military command in whose area of responsibility these combat activities

 3     are taking place?

 4        A.   All members of the armed forces are duty-bound by International

 5     War Law and its provisions in the sense of having the responsibility of

 6     taking POWs but saving those persons' lives, that they should act in a

 7     humane fashion towards the POWs, treat them humanely, and when they

 8     provide security for POWs from these documents, it would follow that

 9     those duties have been given over to the security organs and the military

10     police, that they are in charge of providing security and all the other

11     stipulations.

12        Q.   In your expert report, you put forward your opinions about that

13     and substantiate them with a number of MUP documents and police documents

14     for the crossing of borders, and they relate to the period of May and

15     August of 1995, from May to August, and I'm referring to paragraph 4.22

16     of your report, and the documents are contained in the footnote, in

17     footnote 37, in fact.  Now, I'd just like -- no, footnote 57.  I meant --

18     misspoke.  Thank you.

19             I'd like us to go through three documents that are

20     characteristic, the first of which is 4D435 [Realtime transcript read in

21     error, "4D35"], and it is in tab 38 of your set.  Those are the minutes

22     about the handover and takeover of persons and money between the police

23     station for the border crossing control at Ljubovija -- I'm sorry, the

24     number is 4D435 of the document, 4D435, and the date of the document is

25     the 26th of July, 1995.

Page 27958

 1             In your set, as I said, it's to be found in tab 38.  I think you

 2     have the document in front of you.  What can you tell us about this

 3     document?  What kind of document is this?

 4        A.   It's the minutes about the transfer of people and money between

 5     the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia and the same

 6     ministry of Republika Srpska.  Specifically, it deals with the border

 7     control police station at Ljubovija and the border control police station

 8     in Bratunac.

 9        Q.   Tell me now, please, does this refer to individuals who

10     potentially can have the status of POWs?

11        A.   Well, to all intents and purposes, judging by what it says here,

12     that would probably be the case.

13        Q.   The next document is tab 39, document 4D434.  It is an official

14     note of the police station, the border control police station, with the

15     same date, and the same individuals are mentioned as in the previous

16     document.

17             Tell me, please, what is the link between this document and the

18     previous document in your opinion?

19        A.   The official persons who signed the previous minutes on behalf of

20     the border control police station in Bratunac, now, with this official

21     note, they recorded the same event and said that they had executed that

22     task.

23        Q.   All right.  Now, let's look at the third document in this set.

24     It is tab 40.

25             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Document 4D433.

Page 27959

 1        Q.   It is a certificate signed on the one hand by officials from the

 2     border control police station in Bratunac, on the one hand, and on the

 3     other, the representative of the Bratunac Brigade Momir Nikolic.

 4        A.   Yes, I see that.  It is a certificate certifying that the police

 5     station is confirming that it handed over the persons and property to the

 6     Bratunac Brigade.

 7        Q.   According to this and the other documents that you analysed, what

 8     were the duties of the Ministry of the Interior vis-a-vis persons who

 9     potentially had the status of prisoners of war?

10        A.   According to these documents, such persons were handed over to

11     the army of Republika Srpska, persons and property, the persons and

12     belongings found on them.

13        Q.   All right.  Thank you.  Now, I'd like to move on to the fifth

14     chapter of your report, dealing with the procedure for criminal

15     responsibility and disciplinary action for members of the interior in

16     armed conflicts.

17             Let's look at tab 41 of your set and document 4D136, the law

18     governing internal affairs, the consolidated text.

19             MR. LAZAREVIC:  We don't have a full translation of this, but

20     relevant of these paragraphs have been translated, and we have hard

21     copies of this for the Court.  Oh, we already have it.

22        Q.   [Interpretation] It is a law that was in force on basic

23     provisions that were in force in 1995, and it contained all the

24     amendments that had been made to date to the law, and I'd like us to look

25     at articles 103 to 107, which means pages 9 and 10 in the B/C/S, and in

Page 27960

 1     English, I think we'll be able to find them on the first page, page 1 of

 2     the English.

 3             Do you have it before you, Article 103?  This is about

 4     disciplinary responsibility of the MUP officials.  In keeping with

 5     Article 103, who is in charge of disciplinary measures instituted against

 6     members of the MUP?

 7        A.   According to Article 103, the person in charge is the minister or

 8     an official authorised by the minister.

 9        Q.   And let's also look at Article 104.  What does this article refer

10     to?  Could you please be so kind and tell us?

11        A.   This article regulates or, rather, prescribes the breaches of

12     discipline for which an employee may be held responsible for, but they

13     are not the only ones.  It says in paragraph 1, in addition to the

14     violations of duty, there are some other violations that may be

15     constituted violations of duties, and then he goes on to list 11 of them.

16        Q.   Very well.  Let us now go back to Article 54 of this law, just

17     for the illustration and to see whether this is the only article of this

18     law which deals with the issue of criminal proceedings.

19        A.   Yes.  According to Article 54 --

20        Q.   I apologise.  It is page 6 on B/C/S on e-court.  You have in

21     front of you Article 54, don't you?  But just for the article to appear

22     on e-court, I had to mention the page number.  It is page 6.

23             You had an occasion to look at this law.  Is this the only

24     paragraph or, rather, article of this law that deals with the issue of

25     criminal responsibility, the criminal responsibility of the members of

Page 27961

 1     the MUP?

 2        A.   Yes.  Article 54 lists or, rather, says that in case criminal

 3     proceedings are instituted in addition to other proceedings for the use

 4     of firearms or other means of coercion, the ministry shall be duty-bound

 5     to provide such an employee with adequate legal assistance or legal aid.

 6        Q.   Very well.  And now I have two somewhat broader questions with

 7     regard to the criminal and disciplinary responsibilities.  Could you

 8     please explain the difference between disciplinary responsibility as

 9     opposed to the criminal responsibility?

10        A.   The difference arises from the type of crime or transgression

11     that the person is being held responsible for.  Criminal responsibility

12     arises from the commission of an act of crime, whereas disciplinary

13     responsibility arises from breaches of discipline.  We are talking about

14     two completely different types of transgressions and two completely

15     different types of proceedings to establish somebody's guilt or

16     responsibility.

17             When it comes to crimes, crimes are punished by sentences or

18     convictions, which is not the case in disciplinary cases.  That's why the

19     proceedings in disciplinary cases are more lenient.  Disciplinary

20     proceedings are not hardly for courts but, rather, in the ministry itself

21     within the organ of executive power, and there are other differences, but

22     these would be the most important ones.

23        Q.   Very well.  I believe we've heard enough about that.  I would

24     like us to look at Article 5(6) of your expert report, which deals with

25     reporting.  Paragraph 5, item 6 of your expert report.  I apologise,

Page 27962

 1     paragraph 5, item 6.

 2             Very well.  This item refers to the notion of reporting and

 3     commission of a crime.  You define this duty and this issue as defined in

 4     your report.  What -- in other words, what is understood by the term of

 5     "reporting of a crime"?  Are there any situations when the failure to

 6     report a crime constitutes a crime in its own right?

 7        A.   In criminal -- in the criminal legislation of the former SFRY,

 8     this issue was regulated in the same way.  We are talking about a

 9     classical crime of a failure to report a crime.  To this very day, when

10     new laws have been passed in the state that has been created and contains

11     all the elements that are necessary, this provision is very much the same

12     as it was before.  This means that that obligation still exists for all

13     the citizens only in terms of the gravest of crimes; and for the

14     authorised officials, that obligation is somewhat further-reaching.  The

15     authorised officials, according to the legislation of the former SFRY,

16     were duty-bound to report crimes for which a sentence envisaged by the

17     law was five years imprisonment or longer, which are prosecuted ex

18     officio.  The citizens were always duty-bound to report only the gravest

19     of crimes for which the envisaged penalty was death penalty.

20        Q.   What are the forms of reporting of a crime?

21        A.   The legislation has not envisaged any particular form of

22     reporting of a crime.  It can be a verbal complaint or a written

23     complaint.  Both would suffice.

24        Q.   And just a few more questions to end this part of my

25     examination-in-chief.  What conditions have to be met for a report of a

Page 27963

 1     crime to be complete and considered to be duly filed?

 2        A.   A crime is reported, i.e., the report thereof has been duly filed

 3     if that report, irrespective of its form, is filed with either the

 4     authorised or non-authorised state body.

 5        Q.   Can this also be applied to the officer in the Ministry of the

 6     Interior of a unit engaged in combat and resubordinated to the unit in

 7     whose zone of responsibility they are deployed?

 8        A.   This may be applied to all authorised officials, for example, the

 9     provision of Article 199 of the Penal Code of the former Socialist

10     Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, which spoke about the failure to

11     report a crime, truth be told, only in terms of authorised officials.  At

12     the same time, the provision of the republican law - and I'm referring to

13     the law of the socialist republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in its

14     Article 185 - spoke about citizens in its first paragraph and about

15     authorised officials in its second paragraph.

16             I repeat, these were typified provisions in the criminal case of

17     all the republics and autonomous provinces, and they could be found more

18     or less in the same form with some possible linguistic and style -- and

19     differences in style.  The elements were the same, however.

20             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Dr. Ristivojevic.  I

21     have no further questions for you in this examination-in-chief.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Lazarevic.  Mr. Zivanovic.

23             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

24                           Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:

25        Q.   Good afternoon, Dr. Ristivojevic.

Page 27964

 1        A.   Good afternoon.

 2        Q.   My name is Zoran Zivanovic, and I appear on behalf of Vujadin

 3     Popovic in this case.  I will kindly ask you to answer some questions

 4     with regard to your report and with regard to your testimony that we

 5     heard the day before yesterday and earlier today.

 6             I will start with last things first, and that is the Law on

 7     Military Courts; to be more precise, it's Article 56.  This is P420, page

 8     9 in the B/C/S version and page 8 in the English version.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   If I understood you properly, you said that this provision of the

11     law, the powers and authorities that the MUP had in accordance with the

12     Law on Criminal Procedures have been transferred to the security organs

13     and the military police.  Did I understand you properly?

14        A.   According to the Law on Criminal Proceedings, MUP organs had some

15     duties and authorities, and they exercised those in the -- and it is the

16     military police organs and the security organs who exercise the same

17     duties before the military courts or the organs of military judiciary.

18        Q.   When you say that they exercised these duties before military

19     courts, are you referring to the pre-trial stage or the trial stage?

20        A.   My interpretation is that all these duties and rights that the

21     MUP organs have, according to the Law on Criminal Proceedings, are

22     transferred on to the security organs and the organs of the military

23     police.

24        Q.   And now I would kindly ask you to read, i.e., to help us read the

25     provision.  I would skip bullet points 1 and 2.  For a better

Page 27965

 1     understanding, I am talking about Article 56, paragraph 2, bullet point

 2     3, which reads: "The duties and authorisations of the organs of the

 3     Ministry of Internal Affairs by security organs of the army of Republika

 4     Srpska and the military police within the prescribed -- the main

 5     activity."

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Now, could you please tell me whether this means that they

 8     discharge these duties and authorities that would normally belong to the

 9     MUP only within the their own purview or, as you've told us, i.e., as

10     I've understood it, that all the authorities are transferred on to the

11     organs of security and military police?

12        A.   Within their remit, which is defined by the rules [Realtime

13     transcript read in error, "roles"] of service of both of these organs,

14     and I've looked at both of these, and I've established that in principle

15     they covered the authorities, the Ministry of the Interior, in criminal

16     proceedings.  I did notice some minor differences; for example, the Rules

17     of Service of the Military Police do not provide for the authority of the

18     military police to order a 72-hour custody, but I can see that in the

19     Rules of Service of the Security Organs.

20        Q.   Just for a better understanding, it seems that we have a minor

21     error in the transcript.  On page 44 line 24, it says "roles of service"

22     whereas I believe that you said "rules of service"?

23        A.   Yes.  Let me just see.  Yes, it is rules of service.  Yes.

24        Q.   Does it imply that the organs of the interior still maintain the

25     powers that go with -- without the scope of the responsibility of

Page 27966

 1     military police?

 2        A.   I think that that could be construed in that way.

 3        Q.   Could you please now tell me, how did you establish the scope of

 4     responsibility - and I'm going to ask you now only about security organs;

 5     we are not talking about military police at the moment - how did you

 6     establish what their scope of responsibility was within which these

 7     powers were deferred under this law?

 8        A.   According to the Rules of Service of Security Organs, that is how

 9     I established the scope of responsibility.

10        Q.   I believe that you have quoted a provision that relates to the

11     fact that security organs participate in preliminary criminal

12     proceedings, if you'll recall that, or if you can define for us this

13     scope?  It could be more convenient for us rather than reading the whole

14     provision.

15             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Maybe we can have some assistance from my learned

16     colleague.  If he's referring to certain provisions, I believe it would

17     be fair just for all of us to follow what particular -- what particular

18     provision he's referring to.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

20             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I am not referring to any

21     particular provision at this moment.  I am just asking the expert witness

22     to tell us briefly what is the scope of responsibility of security

23     organs.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As item 7 of the rules --

Page 27967

 1             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Can we now look at this document?

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment.

 4             JUDGE PROST:  Mr. Zivanovic, you said you were asking a general

 5     question, and then the witness responded with a specific reference to

 6     item 7 of the rules, and I'm just wondering if we could at least identify

 7     what rules that he is referring to.  Thank you.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Rules of Service of Security

 9     Organs.

10             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at this rule.  That's

11     Prosecution exhibit P407.  I think it's on page 7 or 8 in B/C/S and on

12     page 8 in English, if I am not wrong.

13        Q.   Were you referring to this item?  In English, it's on the

14     previous page.  It starts on page 7 and then continues on page 8.  Can I

15     now ask you to look at page 5 of these rules in B/C/S and page 6 in

16     English?

17             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.  I don't see we have

18     -- I think we're going to have it shortly.  It's page 6 in English.

19        Q.   You would agree with me that Chapter 1 of the Rules on the

20     Service of Security Organs refers to their competence and that it defines

21     their scope of responsibility?

22        A.   Yes.  It's entitled "The Competence and Task of Security Organs."

23        Q.   The first part speaks about the competence.  Would you agree?

24        A.   Yes, I would.

25             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at the next page

Page 27968

 1     in both versions, please.

 2        Q.   Now we can see the B/C/S version, and it says here that the tasks

 3     of security organs are defined herein below.  Do you agree with me that

 4     the competence of security organs is one thing and the tasks of security

 5     organs is something different?

 6        A.   I would agree with you that -- that these two notions differ in

 7     the name.  One is called "The Tasks," and the other is called "The

 8     Competences."  However, by interpreting the task, I am not part of the

 9     competence or, in other words, that the tasks are, strictly speaking,

10     divided from the competences or separated from the competences.  I do not

11     share that opinion, and I would like to refer you to the title of this

12     chapter, which puts both competences and the duties in one sentence.  By

13     a systemic interpretation of this law and its contents, my conclusion

14     would be that such strict division cannot exist and that one cannot say

15     that the tasks do not stem from the competences.  I couldn't accept that.

16     I would, rather, say that we are dealing here with two notions of

17     different levels or degree of generality.  The second one is more

18     specific and is incorporated in the first one, which in my view is at a

19     higher of level of generality.

20        Q.   In view of your answer, can we now look again at the competences

21     of security organs and to see to what extent the competences differ from

22     the tasks and to what extent this is just an elaboration of some general

23     principles?  Therefore, let us look at the previous page in both versions

24     of the documents.

25             You see that under item 1, and you can read it out loud if you

Page 27969

 1     prefer that, it says here that -- under item 1: "The competences

 2     encompass the duties of state security issues that are placed within

 3     their competence and which are aimed at undermining and toppling the

 4     constitution of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia and threaten the

 5     country's security.  If such an activity is carried out in the armed

 6     forces or against the armed forces from within the country or from

 7     abroad, and also for the purposes of detecting and preventing activities

 8     aimed at breaching the secrecy of the plans in preparation of the armed

 9     forces the country's Defence..."

10        A.   You are reading item 1 of the competences?

11        Q.   Yes, I am.

12        A.   Excellent.  Now, if you look at item 6 of the task, you will read

13     more or less the same, detecting and finding the activities aimed at

14     undermining, et cetera, and it ends, in other words, what I said

15     previously by a systemic interpretation of this document.  I understand

16     the task to be an elaboration of competence.  We are dealing with two

17     notions of different degrees of generality.  For that reason, they are in

18     the same chapter because the latter is the elaboration of the former.

19     That is my opinion.

20        Q.   Since you mentioned item 6, can you please look at the sentence

21     that -- the very beginning of item 6 --

22             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] And can we please now go back

23     again one page.  That is B/C/S, page 6, and English, page 7.

24        Q.   It says here:  "Security organs are responsible for..."

25        A.   Yes.

Page 27970

 1        Q.   How do you understand this in view of the tasks listed below

 2     including the one that you have just quoted?

 3        A.   Well, we've been responsible for, if you make a linguistic

 4     analysis, is that means that somebody is responsible for the execution of

 5     these tasks.  It is their duty and obligation.  Let's say that would be

 6     the interpretation of the language used in the document.

 7        Q.   I'm sorry.  Can we now move to the next page and look at item 7

 8     that you mentioned and see if we can make certain distinctions in the way

 9     that you interpret it.

10        A.   Yes, in the way I interpret it.

11        Q.   Item 7, I think that on the previous page in English, it says:

12     "The security organs take part..."  First of all, we had item 6

13     stipulating their responsibilities, and now item 7 says:  "The security

14     organs take part in the following..."  Do you see any substantive

15     difference between the two?  If you do, can you explain to us how you

16     understand that?

17        A.   Let us start from the purely linguistical meaning of the word

18     "taking part in."  That means that they participate or take part in the

19     tasks listed herein below from (a) to (f).

20        Q.   If we go back to the competences of security organs, can you

21     identify any of these tasks in which security organs participate within

22     their competence?

23        A.   It says, "... explicitly that they take part in the protection

24     and prevention of serious crimes ..." For example, proposing measures of

25     security and self-protection.  Let me just find where the

Page 27971

 1     "self-protection" is.  6 -- 3, item 2 says that within law they have the

 2     duty, item 2, within their competence they are obliged to provide

 3     assistance to self-protection, subject 7(d) --

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters kindly ask the witness to slow

 5     down, please.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we are to embark on a detailed

 7     analysis, and we might draw a number of conclusions --

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Either I or you draw the attention of the witness

 9     to slow down, please.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.  I'm sorry.

11             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   You have quoted these provisions within the competences, and you

13     mentioned that they provide certain assistance in self-protection, et

14     cetera.  Under item 1, their scope of responsibility and competences is

15     stipulated; however, I am interested in something else.  You have given

16     us a linguistic interpretation of the word "responsible for."  Are you

17     aware that that has a certain meaning in military terms?  Does it have

18     any significance where the security organs are responsible or where they

19     participate?

20        A.   Are you referring to the question whether there is any military

21     document stipulating and defining these two terms?

22        Q.   No.  I am asking you whether you are aware that these two terms

23     have military indications and, hence, military consequences.  If

24     something is stipulated for a subject or an entity to be responsible for

25     or on the other hand just to participate in, is there any difference?

Page 27972

 1        A.   You mean between being responsible for and taking part in.  I

 2     believe that there could be a difference between the two, but can you

 3     please tell me more closely what you're asking me about.  If I understood

 4     you correctly, you're asking me whether there was any military law

 5     defining these two terms, if I understand you correctly.

 6        Q.   I didn't want to -- if you don't know about any such documents, I

 7     am not insisting on it.

 8        A.   I don't know.

 9        Q.   Let me ask you something else.  Do you know whether these tasks

10     that we have seen under item 7, are these tasks carried out by security

11     organs above by somebody's orders, or do they do that on their own

12     initiative and independently?  If you don't know, please say so.  I am

13     not going to insist on this.

14        A.   If you are referring to some internal relations in the army, who

15     is issuing order to whom, and whether there are any military rules

16     defining this matter; did I understand you correctly?

17        Q.   You know, I am interested to hear how you understand this

18     provision and how it was reflected in your expert report.  However, I'm

19     not insisting on going into specific regulations governing this matter.

20        A.   I included it in my report in the way I understand it.

21        Q.   One more thing.  Do you believe that those who drafted these

22     laws, i.e., the military courts, when you look at Article 56 where it

23     says that the MUP tasks are to be carried out by the military police and

24     army of Republika Srpska within the prescribed competence, if we omit the

25     word "tasks" and if they are, according to this definition, separate from

Page 27973

 1     the competence --

 2        A.   I understand your question.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment.

 4             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Can we just briefly make sure about Article 56

 5     that my learned colleague is referring at.  Of what particular law or

 6     rules or whatever is he talking about?

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

 8             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I do apologise.  I forgot to

 9     state that it is Article 56 of the Law Governing Military Courts that I'm

10     referring to, para 2.3.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have understood your

12     question, and my answer is this:  I think that the legislator here in

13     this particular case had no need to mention both concepts for the reasons

14     I've already stated, and that is that I think that we are dealing with

15     two terms, different levels of generality of which one is contained in

16     the other, subsumed in the other, and the second one is an elaboration of

17     the first one.

18             In other words, it is my opinion that the word "tasks," as you

19     put it, has not been omitted for any particular purpose, that the

20     military organs, organs of the military police, do not have the tasks

21     that are provided for in the Rules of Service in Criminal Proceedings.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Haynes.

23             MR. HAYNES:  Can we just have a 65 ter number.  A lot of these

24     regulations have very similar titles, and to save us all running through

25     several regulations looking for Article 56.

Page 27974

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, I thank you for that.

 2             MR. HAYNES:  And could they just slow down a bit.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Law is a very complicated matter.  So let's slow

 4     down a little bit, and I think the point made by Mr. Haynes is a very

 5     valid one.  Of course, the 65 ter number is there, but in order to be

 6     able to follow better during the testimony itself, I think it's better if

 7     you refer to the 65 ter number, too, and that applies across the board to

 8     everyone, please.  Thank you.

 9             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  The 65 ter number for this particular document is

10     P420.

11        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Ristivojevic, we're going to dwell on this

12     Law Governing Military Courts for a while longer, and in order to do

13     that, let's look at another provision of the law, which is Article 65.

14     What I'm interested in is this:  In light of your expert report and your

15     analysis and findings --

16             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I'd like us to look at page

17     10 of the B/C/S and page 9 of the English version going on to page 10

18     thereto.

19        Q.   You've read Article 65, have you?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Well, could you then please tell me, what role does the organ of

22     security have in the tasks set out as being every superior officer's duty

23     to carry out?

24        A.   I think that in Article 65, the superior officer is duty-bound to

25     take certain steps, to take on certain obligations and duties, which

Page 27975

 1     naturally come before a criminal act is reported, once he learns of such

 2     a criminal act having been committed.  In my opinion, they are similar to

 3     a certain extent to the duties and obligations governing criminal

 4     proceedings.  But in this case, they do not emanate strictly from a

 5     criminal procedure but are based on logic, I think.  So if a superior

 6     officer has the duty of reporting a crime that has taken place, that it's

 7     quite natural and normal that he would seek as much information about

 8     that crime before he reports it.

 9             Now, the superior officer won't always have a clear-cut situation

10     in front of him, that is to say, a crime and all the pertinent elements

11     so that he can hand them over to the military prosecutor in a complete

12     set, so to speak.  So I suppose or I interpret Article 65 as applying to

13     a situation in which the superior officer has suspicions of a crime and

14     doesn't know everything -- all the details of it.  So I think he does

15     have the responsibility to inform himself about the crime as Article 65

16     stipulates and then to go on and fulfill his duty of reporting the crime.

17     But I do not think that these are duties and obligations which are

18     strictly enumerated in the Law Governing Criminal Procedure or, rather,

19     let me put it this way:  I do not think that Article 65 expressly

20     introduces the duty of each superior officer to conduct an investigation

21     in the sense of the provisions of the Law on Criminal Procedure.  I think

22     that that is set out in Article 64.  That task is given to the

23     investigating judge of a military court as Article 64 stipulates.

24        Q.   Yes, I think that's quite clear because here it just says that he

25     should take steps to, not to conduct an investigation.  So it says the --

Page 27976

 1     every superior officer is obliged to take steps to, et cetera.

 2             Now, tell me, what is the situation like or does this law in

 3     article -- have you found an article in the law which in fact states that

 4     the superior officer is duty-bound to take into custody anybody looking

 5     at this Law Governing Military Courts?  If a person is found in the act

 6     of committing a crime, is the superior officer duty-bound to arrest that

 7     person, or if that person holds other people's lives in jeopardy, et

 8     cetera?

 9        A.   In Article 65, I do see that it allows for that possibility

10     because it says to take action to prevent the perpetrator from going into

11     hiding or fleeing.

12        Q.   Let us now look at Article 68 in that regard.

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Does Article 68 define this in more precise terms?

15        A.   Yes, because it takes on the measures stipulated in Article 65

16     and goes on to define them more precisely.

17        Q.   I'd now like us to look at another document.  It is the Law on

18     the application of the Law Governing Military Courts or the Law Governing

19     the Military Prosecutor's Offices During a State Of War, 4D525.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  Judge Prost is drawing my attention that it's time

21     for the break.

22             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Sorry.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  And this time, this will be the lunch break, so

24     we'll have one hour restarting at 1.30.  Thank you.

25                           --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

Page 27977

 1                           --- On resuming at 1.35 p.m.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, I recognise Mr. McCloskey.

 3             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, Mr. President.  Good afternoon.  Good

 4     afternoon, everyone.  Just a couple of short preliminaries that

 5     Mr. Gosnell and I have on some matters.  If the Prosecution could seek

 6     your permission to reply to the Borovcanin motion on SDS minutes on -- by

 7     November 18th, which is the due date for the large joint motion on a

 8     similar topic.  The SDS minutes motion is due on Monday.  The bigger

 9     joint motion is due November 18th, and they are very closely related, I

10     think, and so it would be helpful if we could just respond one time.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Any objection to that, Mr. Gosnell?

12             MR. GOSNELL:  No objection from our side.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Yes.

14             MR. JOSSE:  We'd ask for exactly the same leave as the

15     Prosecution.  We will respond to the motion -- the joint motion on the

16     18th -- by the 18th of November if given permission.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Is that fine with everybody?  Okay.  Judge Kwon?

18     You have no problem.  No, no, permission granted.

19             MR. JOSSE:  Thank you.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Gosnell.

21             MR. GOSNELL:  Just one additional preliminary, Mr. President.

22     This is to advise the Chamber that we are withdrawing two witnesses.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  Just let me follow you because I have the -- okay.

24     We have Josipovic --

25             MR. GOSNELL:  That's correct, Mr. President --

Page 27978

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  -- Jovic -- and Jovic.

 2             MR. GOSNELL:  And -- Professor Jovic.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS: [Overlapping speakers]

 4             MR. GOSNELL:  We are in discussions with the Prosecution as to

 5     how to deal with the Jovic report.  We believe we can deal with it in a

 6     fashion that won't involve calling him as a witness.  In fact, we're

 7     committing to that now, so we are withdrawing those two witnesses.  So

 8     Professor Ristivojevic is our last oral witness.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Yes.

10             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Mr. Ristivojevic, we stopped off discussing the law and

12     application of the law governing military courts and the Law on the

13     Military Prosecutor's Office During a State of War, and that was exhibit

14     4D525.

15             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] So may we look at the second page

16     of that document -- well, we can see the first page, too, but go on to

17     the second.  In fact, what I am interested in is Article 2 -- or, rather,

18     para 2 of that article and you've already discussed that.

19        Q.   I think you said, if I understood you correctly and please

20     correct me if I'm wrong --

21             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] That -- Article 2, please.  We're

22     dealing with Article 2, so may we have that pulled up on e-court on the

23     previous page, I believe.  Article 2.  Yes, it's there in the English.

24     We've got that, and we now have it in the B/C/S.  No?  I don't -- no,

25     that's not the right one.  Here we have it in Serbian.  Article 4, para

Page 27979

 1     2, and it's on the second page in the B/C/S.  That's fine, thank you.

 2        Q.   If I understood you correctly, you said that this provision

 3     excludes the authority of the Ministry of the Interior and the

 4     authorisations that they usually have under the Law on Criminal

 5     Proceedings when it comes to crimes that come under the jurisdiction of

 6     the military courts, but the others are exempt, right?

 7        A.   Are you talking about the Law on the implementation of the Law on

 8     Military Courts and the Law on the Military Prosecutor's Office during a

 9     state of war?  This is a new one.  We haven't discussed that yet.

10        Q.   I think we did bring it up on page 18 and 19.

11        A.   I see.  So you're not referring to our discussion; you're

12     referring my statement, my report?  Well, if you're referring to Article

13     4...

14        Q.   Yes, I am.

15        A.   So the first and second paras of Article 4 state that the

16     military prosecutor shall have the authority vested in -- by law in the

17     public Prosecutor, and in criminal proceedings for criminal acts falling

18     under the jurisdiction of the military Court, the security organs have

19     that.  And in my opinion, it repeats what the Law Governing Military

20     Courts states; that is to say, it establishes their relationship within

21     the frameworks of the Law on Criminal Proceedings.

22        Q.   Let's try and make this clearer.  Can you tell us whether that

23     means in your opinion that the organs of the interior retain their

24     authority and competences and that the security organs of the military

25     police are just given some of their -- passed on some of their

Page 27980

 1     obligations?

 2        A.   No.  Article 4 states what the military prosecutor has a right

 3     to, there is a military prosecutor given the Law on Criminal Proceedings,

 4     and on the other hand the military police and its jurisdictions.  So they

 5     are given those authorisations.  So the law in fact repeats what it's

 6     already said but deals with a state of war, and the previous article,

 7     Article 56, refers to regular situations, peacetime, and this one

 8     addresses a state of war, in my opinion, that is.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

10             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Could you speak a little slower because we seem to be

12     overlapping.

13        A.   Would you like me to repeat?

14        Q.   Yes, and speak slower, please.

15        A.   Article 4 of this law states the following:  That in proceedings

16     before military courts during a state of war and the duties that the

17     public Prosecutor would be performing is now performed by the military

18     prosecutor, and those duties that would fall to the organs of the

19     Ministry of the Interior are now -- now fall to the military police

20     organs and security organs.  In other words, what holds true before

21     military courts when there's no war on will hold true for military courts

22     when there is a state of war.  The same would apply.

23        Q.   Let's read out para 2 now.  Let's leave the first paragraph

24     relating to the military prosecutor out for the moment.  As far as I can

25     see, it says the following: "In criminal proceedings for criminal acts

Page 27981

 1     falling under the jurisdiction of the military courts, the security

 2     organs of the army of Republika Srpska and the military police shall have

 3     all the authority vested by" -- I'm afraid I can't see the rest of the

 4     text there.

 5             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Next paragraph [In English]

 6     B/C/S.  [Interpretation] We have it now.  Thank you.

 7        Q.   Let me repeat.  "In criminal proceedings for criminal acts

 8     falling under the jurisdiction of the military courts, the security

 9     organs of the army of Republika Srpska and the military police shall have

10     all the authority vested by law in the organs of the interior during a

11     state of war."

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   I understand that by this provision the security organs are given

14     the authorities that the organs of the interior normally have during a

15     state of war.  Am I right?

16        A.   Yes.  And the Law on Criminal Procedure in a state of war, you

17     remember that we talked about that, the application of this law during a

18     state of war narrowing down some deadlines and eliminating right to some

19     legal remedies.  You remember that we have spoken about that.  Here, the

20     legislator talks about the authorities of the regular courts in a state

21     of war and draws a parallel between the crimes for which the military

22     courts are authorised and the duties of organs in a state of war.  There

23     is a logic there, and I don't see a problem.

24        Q.   Do you agree with me that the organs of the interior have certain

25     authorities, not only under the Law on Criminal Procedure but also under

Page 27982

 1     the Law on Internal Affairs?

 2        A.   I believe that you will find this in Articles 41 to 52 of the Law

 3     on Internal Affairs.  What I'm trying to say is this:  Regular courts

 4     don't cease to exist or operate during a state of war; hence, this

 5     provision and that's why he speaks about the authorities of the Ministry

 6     of the Interior during the war, because all the courts operated during

 7     the war.  This does not exclude the existence of regular courts or their

 8     work during a state of war.

 9        Q.   This is the application of the Law on Military Courts?

10        A.   Yes, but there is no particular criminal procedure that is

11     applied by military courts, and that's why by Article 4, the legislator

12     drew a parallel with this because there is just one criminal procedure

13     that is valid before regular courts and military courts in the state of

14     war.  This is my interpretation.  I am not saying that you do not have a

15     different interpretation.  Don't get me wrong.  I am not trying to

16     deprive anybody of their right to a different opinion, but this is my

17     opinion.

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please slow down.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Please slow down.

20             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   In other words, do you draw a conclude from this provision that

22     the security organs are being given even those competences and

23     authorities that the organs of the interior have even outside the state

24     of war?

25        A.   Outside of the state of war?  How shall I put it?  Given -- just

Page 27983

 1     bear with me.  I need to think.  I believe that the organs of the

 2     interior under the Law on Criminal Procedures have powers outside a state

 3     of war when there is no war.  These powers arise from this Law on

 4     Military Courts, and I'm talking about the military police and the organs

 5     of security.  This Article 4 speaks about the same courts only

 6     functioning under the state of war.  That's the way I understand this

 7     provision.  That's how I understand this law.

 8             In my view, this speaks about the Law on Criminal Procedure under

 9     the state of war, and this law differs slightly from the Law on Criminal

10     Procedure.  There are very slight differences there.

11        Q.   And the powers as they are provided for herein during the state

12     of war also apply to the powers that are prescribed by the law on the

13     application of the Law on the Interior during a state of war.  We have

14     already spoken about that law.

15             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.  This is 1D -- this

16     is 1 -- 413.  I apologise.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think that these two laws

18     speak about same powers at all.  In the Law on the Application of the Law

19     on Internal Affairs Under the State of War, a possibility is given for

20     the police units to be used in combat, and the Law on Criminal Procedure

21     is something different.  These are two different things.

22             As I was reading, the Law on Internal Affairs Under the State of

23     War, I did not notice any special powers of the police in the criminal

24     proceedings in a state of war.  This law speaks only about the

25     application, i.e., the use of the police units in combat.

Page 27984

 1             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Very well.  Maybe it would be good if we could clarify the term

 3     "criminal proceedings."  Could you please explain, under our laws and

 4     regulations, what is the meaning of criminal proceedings; i.e., could you

 5     please explain or give us the precise moment when the criminal

 6     proceedings begin, i.e., from which moment on would this provision be

 7     applied?

 8        A.   From which moment?

 9        Q.   It says in the criminal proceedings?

10             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Can my colleague be more specific about which

11     particular rule he's talking about, which particular article he's talking

12     about.  I am having problem following what my colleague is referring at.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  I am sure Mr. Zivanovic will comply.

14             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  It is the same article 4, paragraph, second.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  Is that sufficient?

16             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] It's on this page.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my view, this applies to all the

19     powers that in criminal proceedings belong to the Ministry of the

20     Interior.  So we are talking about Article 148 dealing with pre-trial

21     proceedings as well as with the articles applying to trial stage.  The

22     organs of the interior and the military police organs can be compared to

23     see what powers belong to whom.  I did it only superficially, and I

24     notice that the military police organs did not have the right to military

25     custody of 72 hours arising from Article 96, but both can deprive from

Page 27985

 1     freedom a person who is suspected of having committed a crime.  I don't

 2     see any difference in Article 4 between the two, so whatever exists under

 3     the law on criminal proceedings, in criminal proceedings before military

 4     courts under -- in a state of war is -- are powers that belong to the

 5     security organs and the military police.  This is my interpretation.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Could the witness please slow down.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.

 8             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   In other words, you believe that this provision does not apply

10     only to criminal proceedings but also pre-trial proceedings?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   I would now kindly ask you to look at the law which you have

13     already mentioned --

14             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] The exhibit number is 4D413.

15     This is the Law on the Application of the Law on Internal Affairs During

16     a State of War.  I believe that we can -- I believe that this is on

17     page -- I apologise, if you could just bear with me.  I believe it's page

18     6, but I'm not sure.  Page 4 in e-court.  [In English] English version,

19     fourth page.  Previous page, third.  That's page 8, English page 8 --

20     7 -- 9, 9.  Sorry.

21        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Ristivojevic, looking at Article 2, may we

22     conclude that the provisions of the Law on Internal Affairs and

23     provisions of other laws and regulations that regulate internal affairs

24     are also applied during a state of war unless provided for differently by

25     this law?

Page 27986

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Could you please look at Article 5.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   There are some measures here, which the ministry may take.

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Tell me, please, are these some powers that might be applied in

 7     preliminary proceedings?

 8        A.   Some of these measures?

 9        Q.   Yes.

10        A.   Limiting or banning movement of assemblies of people in certain

11     public areas, limiting or banning public gatherings, limiting or banning

12     crossing at certain localities, introducing different regimes of traffic

13     for certain vehicles.  I am reading.  Just a moment.  Yes.  Some may be

14     applied.

15        Q.   Let's look at bullet point 10, for example, banning of movement

16     of persons liable for military service without the appropriate permit

17     issued by the military command.  This looks like one measure that the

18     Ministry of the Interior applies.  Does this belong to the scope of

19     powers that we have just discussed, that the organs of the interior do

20     exercise during a state of war?

21        A.   Yes.  This is something that a member of the Ministry of the

22     Interior may apply, a ban on movement and similar things.  These are some

23     limitations or restrictions of the rights and freedoms that apply to

24     people, and they are applied by the Ministry of the Interior.  At least,

25     that's how I understand this article.

Page 27987

 1        Q.   Very well.  I am now going to move on to another article that you

 2     have already spoken about, which is Article 14 of this same law.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And this article applies to the use of police units in combat.

 5     First of all, I wanted to ask you whether you think that this provision

 6     of Article 14 excludes the possibility for police units to be used

 7     independently, i.e., not to be resubordinated to the VRS while

 8     participating in combat?

 9        A.   In my opinion, those police units which are used in combat may be

10     used only as units resubordinated to the army of Republika Srpska, and

11     they are resubordinated to them in order to be engaged in combat.

12        Q.   Could you please tell me, what is the significance of paragraph 2

13     of this article where it says that these police units shall be under the

14     direct command of a commander who is a member of the MUP?

15        A.   This means - in my opinion, at least - that -- the interpretation

16     of the wording is very clear.  The word "direct command" means that they

17     should be commanded by a commander who is a member of the police, of the

18     MUP.  I don't see any need for me to provide any other interpretation.  I

19     believe that the wording is clear enough.  The words "direct command"

20     speak for themselves.  This is their first in-charge who is a member of

21     the Ministry of the Interior.

22        Q.   Do you understand it as something that should be done or must be

23     done?

24        A.   It must be done.

25        Q.   In continuation, it reads that: "For the period of

Page 27988

 1     resubordination to the army, they maintain their formation and cannot be

 2     disintegrated or separated."

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Can you explain this?  What is the significance that you see in

 5     this provision?

 6        A.   In my view, that means that members of a specific police unit

 7     cannot be separated and attached to other units - for example, military

 8     units - but rather, the unit should be used in combat area in its, what

 9     we call, initial formation.  That is how I read this.  That is to say,

10     you cannot take a police unit and assign two members to one unit, three

11     members to another unit, et cetera.  Instead, the unit must be used in

12     its original form.

13        Q.   This paragraph also says that this refers only during the period

14     of their resubordination to the VRS.  Do you understand this as something

15     that necessitates a definition of the duration of resubordination of MUP

16     units to the VRS?

17        A.   Do you mean that an order must precisely specify the period of

18     time?

19        Q.   I suppose so.  You can define a period of time in different ways.

20        A.   As I read it, I would say, pursuant to Article 3, that these

21     units will take part in combat activities.  So I understand it that they

22     are resubordinated for as long as combat activities are in progress, and

23     that is in compliance with the task that they had been given of taking

24     part in combat.  Once there are no combat activities and their engagement

25     is terminated or fulfilled - I don't know what the proper military term

Page 27989

 1     is - I understand it that they would go back to their home base, so to

 2     speak, and that is to the Ministry of the Interior.

 3             But please do not take my word for granted.  When I am using

 4     these military terms, I am not sure how you say and you would term the

 5     end of combat operations in proper military wording.

 6        Q.   I would just like to remind you once again to keep it slow,

 7     please, because I think we are having problems with the transcript.

 8             Can we now look at paragraph 3 of this article, which reads that:

 9     "Police units resubordinated to the army of Republika Srpska in a certain

10     zone shall be used only for combat tasks established in advance by the

11     commander-in-chief or the Minister of the Interior."

12             Do you understand this to mean that this provision explicitly

13     directs a limited use of these units, i.e., that they may only be used

14     within combat tasks that had been pre-set?

15        A.   Yes, I believe that one could construe it in that way.  Yes.

16             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now look at Exhibit

17     57.  That's Prosecution Exhibit 57.  It's an order dated the 10th of

18     July, 1995.

19        Q.   If I understood you properly, you believe that this order

20     suggests that this unit has been resubordinated to the Drina Corps of the

21     VRS?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Could you please tell me now, do you see anywhere in this order

24     that it has been resubordinated to anyone?

25        A.   Yes, I understand what you're asking me.  I do not see this

Page 27990

 1     specific word "resubordinate" after reading this order, as you did.

 2        Q.   Can you tell me, please, under item 5 of this order, it states

 3     that the unit commander is "obliged upon their arrival at the destination

 4     to make contact with the Corps Chief of Staff General Krstic."  Would you

 5     understand this part as an order to effect resubordination?

 6        A.   Yes, that's how I would interpret this.

 7        Q.   Do you see a definition in this order of a specific combat task?

 8        A.   Yes.  I see it in the preamble of the order, and that's a combat

 9     task.

10        Q.   But you overrule -- rule out the possibility for this unit to be

11     used independently concerning that we are talking here about combat

12     activities?

13        A.   Will you please repeat the question.

14        Q.   Do you rule out the possibility, although I think you already

15     answered this, for this unit to be used in combat operation only by being

16     resubordinated?

17        A.   Yes, this is how I understand the law.

18        Q.   I am going to ask -- show you an order 1D316 --

19             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] I am not sure whether it's in

20     e-court already.  If it's not, I would like this -- to show the document

21     to the witness.  It's 1D316.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.

23             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Your Honours, maybe we can clarify the

24     transcript.  I believe that there is some ambiguity in the question and

25     the answer that the witness gave.  So can my colleague, please, go again

Page 27991

 1     through question which was on page 69, line 11.  Because the answer was

 2     "Yes, this is how I understand the law," and line 15 -- right here on

 3     line 15 to line 17, this -- the way the question is posed, and the answer

 4     could cause some confusion.

 5             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   I can put the same question to you, but I think you did

 7     understand it.

 8        A.   Yes.  Please ask the question again.

 9        Q.   Do you rule out the possibility for a police unit to be used in

10     combat operations without being resubordinated to the VRS?

11        A.   According to the Law on Internal Affairs in a State of War, only

12     two kinds of units are being established for combat operations and are

13     being used in such a way that they become resubordinated to a military

14     unit in which the zone of responsibility they execute a combat task.

15        Q.   Thank you.  I am going to show you a very short order.  It hasn't

16     been translated, and it's not in e-court, so you're going to see it on

17     ELMO.

18             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  There is no translation --

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Now, I hear that this is in e-court, 1D316.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  For that number, we have the transcripts.

21             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  1316, 1D1316.

22        Q.   [Interpretation] I think you will be able to see it on your

23     screen as well.  This is an order dated the 30th of March, 1995.  It's

24     addressed to the special police brigade command, and it says that the

25     first detachment of the special police of Jahorina be dispatched to carry

Page 27992

 1     out a combat task in Konjevic Polje, i.e., to fight the infiltrative,

 2     subversive, and terrorist groups.  In paragraph 2, it is stated that the

 3     police forces staff of the public security centre Zvornik shall control

 4     and run the entire MUP forces in the course of carrying out a combat task

 5     on the Zvornik-Vlasenica road in order to cut off this road, and --

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   I'm going to repeat.  In order to cut off the road and preclude a

 8     possible passage of Muslim units from Srebrenica.  And in paragraph 3, it

 9     says, The centre for training of service dogs will give two -- two guide

10     dogs and two service dogs to the 1st detachment of the special police.  I

11     understand that this police unit was sent to take part in combat

12     activities without it being resubordinated to the VRS.  Do you understand

13     it in the same way?

14        A.   Well, let me tell you how I understand it.  I see that the police

15     forces staff is going to run the forces during the execution of the task.

16     The order does not specify who is in command of these units.  They

17     received this order from the Minister of the Interior.  I do not see

18     which army unit they are subordinated to, and I don't see who is

19     commanding this unit.  It's not written in this order.

20        Q.   How do you read this term "managing" or "running the entire MUP

21     forces during the combat task"?  Can this be done without a command

22     function?

23        A.   I am not an expert in expert terminology and expert rules.  All I

24     know is what an ordinary and average person who served in the army knows,

25     but I cannot make the distinction between command and control.  But it is

Page 27993

 1     a fact that the unit to which this police unit is subordinated is not

 2     identified -- or, rather, resubordinated.

 3             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Your Honours, I believe it would be fair towards

 4     the witness to show him Article 13 of the Law on Implementation of the

 5     Law on Internal Affairs.  It's 4D413, Article 13, second section.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Are you going to do that,

 7     Mr. Zivanovic, yourself?

 8             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Sorry.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what it says in Article 13.

10     That's what it says.  Control.

11             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Now, tell me, some police units, when they are sent on

13     assignment, do they have their commander?

14        A.   When speaking of police units sent out for combat activities,

15     they have a commander who is a member of the MUP.  So I can't speak in

16     general terms for the whole of the police force.  I am addressing this

17     particular situation.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Let me ask you something else now.  We have had

19     opportunity to see here in this courtroom - whether you've seen it or not

20     and there's no need for us to bring it up on our screens - but we saw

21     that all the units that were within the framework of the Drina Corps -

22     that is to say who were subordinated to the Drina Corps - on a daily

23     basis sent out regular combat reports and reported to the superior

24     command - that is the Drina Corps - about what was going on that day with

25     respect to combat and combat activities.

Page 27994

 1             Now, my question to is this:  Have you ever seen a combat report

 2     of the special police brigade which was sent to the command of the Drina

 3     Corps with contents like that or similar contents?

 4        A.   I can't --

 5             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Before -- I believe it's far outside from the

 6     scope of his expert report.  And furthermore, regarding combat report of

 7     the special police to Drina Corps's command, I don't know whether there

 8     is this proposition that any sort of report was sent to Drina Corps from

 9     the special police brigade.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.

11             MR. LAZAREVIC:  There is no basis for this question.

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you.  Let's take them one by one.

13     Do you wish to comment --

14             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  -- or shall we refer it straightaway to the witness

16     and he will tell us whether it's within or without the parameters of his

17     expertise?

18             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Yes.  The witness testified about the

19     resubordination of special brigade of police to the Drina Corps command,

20     and one of the acts of subordination is reporting to higher command or

21     superior command, and I would just like to have information whether the

22     witness ever seen such a record or not.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Well, you would know whether you have seen one such

25     report or not, so if you could provide us with your answer, please?

Page 27995

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Now, in the documents that I

 2     reviewed for my expert report, I don't remember having seen anything like

 3     that.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.

 5             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Tell me, please, did you ever see that this unit or some other

 7     unit, MUP unit, during this operation - that is to say, during this time

 8     period, which was the subject of your expertise - did it submit any

 9     reports to the Ministry of the Interior or the staff of the police forces

10     or anything like that?

11        A.   No, no.  I don't think so.  I don't think I came across anything

12     like that.

13        Q.   I am now going to show you another document.

14             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Exhibit P62.

15        Q.   As you can see, this is a report that the centre for public

16     security for the centre of Zvornik on the 13th of July, 1995, addressed

17     to the MUP of Republika Srpska and the police headquarters in Bijeljina,

18     and you can see that the person is reporting on the combat activities on

19     that particular day.

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Now, would you focus your attention on paragraph 2 of the

22     document where it says:  "We have no cooperation or assistance from the

23     army of Republika Srpska in sealing off and destroying a large number of

24     enemy soldiers, so that a lot of problems can be expected until the

25     operation is completed, because the MUP is working alone in this

Page 27996

 1     operation, and both the area and the number of Muslim soldiers are

 2     large."

 3             Tell me now, please, do you gain the impression from that

 4     paragraph that this particular MUP unit that took part on the 13th of

 5     July in those actions was subordinated to the army of Republika Srpska?

 6             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Your Honours --

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.

 8             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Can we be more -- can my colleague be more

 9     specific about which MUP unit he's referring at?  Can this be seen from

10     this document?

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

12             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  It is -- it reads in the second line of the first

13     paragraph:  1st Company of special PJP -- CJB Zvornik.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And your question was whether I

16     conclude what from this report?  That the unit --

17             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   That the unit was resubordinated to the police of Republika

19     Srpska in view of the second paragraph where it says that they are acting

20     alone in this operation and that they are receiving no assistance or

21     cooperation, et cetera.

22        A.   What I can conclude from this report - if I've understood this

23     correctly, that it is a report - is that the police unit in question

24     mentioned in the second sentence, that they have a combat task and that

25     they are alone in carrying it out.  Now, whether it was resubordinated or

Page 27997

 1     not cannot be seen from this order.  All we can see is that they have

 2     suffered losses, that they are working alone, that they are receiving no

 3     assistance, but not whether they are subordinated or not.  Perhaps they

 4     received a combat assignment to work on their own.  I can't know that.

 5     All I can see is what it says in this report here.  So I can't really

 6     answer your question as to whether or whether they were not

 7     resubordinated on the basis of what it says here in this report.  This is

 8     a report, right?  You said it was a report.

 9        Q.   In your opinion, a letter of this kind -- is this the kind of

10     letter you would send to your superior?  Because these are very real

11     problems on the ground that the unit is confronting or confronted on that

12     particular day.

13             MR. LAZAREVIC:  [Previous translation continues]... of the expert

14     report and the expertise of this witness.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

16             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  I withdraw this question.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  [Microphone not activated]

18             MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   I am going to ask you just one more thing, and it has to do with

20     the prisoners.  You have read a lot of provisions, both military and

21     civilian, and I wanted to ask you in view of the fact that you read the

22     Rules of Service of the Security Organs, as well, and other rules and

23     provisions, whether you can or whether in reading through the Rules of

24     Service of the Security Organs within their remit or within the scope of

25     their tasks, did you find any provision which addresses conduct towards

Page 27998

 1     prisoners of war?

 2        A.   In the Rules for Security Organs, I found no such provision.

 3     There is one in the Rules Governing the Military Police, but not in the

 4     security organ rules and regulations.

 5        Q.   But you say you found it there.  Did you find it any other legal

 6     provision that you read while preparing your expert report?

 7        A.   To be quite frank, I don't think that I found the mention of

 8     security organs in any of the laws.  Perhaps the Law on Defence has this

 9     term, refers to that, but I don't think so.

10             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I have no further

11     questions.

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you Mr. Zivanovic.  Mr. Ostojic.

13             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

14                           Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:

15        Q.   Good afternoon, sir.  My name is John Ostojic, and I represent

16     Ljubisa Beara in this case.  I have several questions for you.

17     Unfortunately, I don't believe I'll be able to finish today, and thank

18     you for your patience.

19             Sir, first, I want to know if you have a distinction in the term

20     "combat action" or "task" versus "combat operation"?

21        A.   Whether there is a distinction between combat action and combat

22     operation, is that what you're asking?

23        Q.   No, not really.  Actually, in your report you use, if you look on

24     22 -- on Section 21, actually, you use the term "both combat tasks" and

25     "combat activities," and I just don't know if you make a distinction

Page 27999

 1     between the two.

 2        A.   I don't make a distinction.  And I read -- I'm reading Article

 3     12, which talks about combat tasks, and Article 13 refers to combat

 4     activities.  So I am not well-versed in military terminology, so -- and

 5     I'm not sure whether the two concepts have different meanings in military

 6     terminology.  I don't distinguish between that myself.

 7        Q.   So you're not a military expert, correct?

 8        A.   Well, no.  I couldn't actually refer to myself as a military

 9     expert.

10        Q.   Help me understand.  What expertise do you have, sir, other than

11     reading the statutes and giving you us your view on what the law or

12     statutes might be?

13        A.   You mean what the subject of my expertise was, whether it was the

14     legal order, provisions, laws, that kind of thing, handbooks, manuals,

15     and individual legal documents, that kind of thing.

16        Q.   Now, in looking at the introduction section of your report, which

17     is on page 1, you talk about how you're going to discuss the issues and

18     relationships between the VRS and the MUP, and you state that you looked

19     -- reviewed some documents.  I don't have the list of the documents, but

20     I did locate your report --

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Could you slow down, please.

22             MR. OSTOJIC:  I will.  Thank you.  And I apologise.

23        Q.   And are all the documents that you reviewed those that are

24     reflected either in the body or in the footnote of your report, or were

25     there other documents that you reviewed as well?

Page 28000

 1        A.   You mean whether I mention -- refer to a document in my report

 2     without mentioning it in the footnote?  I don't think so.  I think all

 3     the documents I used are mentioned in my footnotes.

 4        Q.   Let me try it this way.  Were there any other documents that you

 5     reviewed that you did not include or cite in your report?

 6        A.   Ah, I see.  Yes.  For example, I saw the Law on the Gathering of

 7     Information About War Crimes from Republika Srpska, but I didn't consider

 8     it to be relevant, for example, for the topic of my expert report because

 9     it provides for the obligation that all information on war crimes be

10     handed over to state organs, but that is covered by the criminal code,

11     which states that if you do not inform about crimes, you will be held

12     responsible, so there is an example.

13             And there were documents that I wasn't able to find; for example,

14     there is an order which mentions the rules governing the state security

15     department [as interpreted], which I haven't had a chance to see, which

16     says that the president of the republic enacts a set of rules governing

17     the security organs, but I wasn't able to find that document myself.

18        Q.   Okay.  Well, in looking at your task or in the introduction part

19     at the very least, you talk about issues of relationships between the VRS

20     and MUP, as I said.  Did you ask for and did you receive documents from

21     the MUP on or about June and July of 1995 to actually be able to see what

22     the situation was and to apply those facts to the law that we can all

23     basically read ourselves, as you have done for us today.  Have you done

24     that?

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  One moment before you answer the question.

Page 28001

 1     Mr. Lazarevic.

 2             MR. LAZAREVIC:  I'm sorry.  One small correction for the

 3     transcript.  It's on page 79, line 11 [sic], "governing the state

 4     security organs."  This is what the witness said, and I cannot see this

 5     in the transcript.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  We'll attend to that in due course.

 7             Do you still remember the question?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you ask that again but be

 9     briefer.  What did you say?  Did I from the ministry what?

10             MR. OSTOJIC:

11        Q.   I'll ask the question.  Thank you.  Did you look at the documents

12     from the MUP sources from June and July of 1995 in order to make an

13     application to your interpretation of the law?

14        A.   Not from the police.  I didn't ask the police for anything.  I

15     received it from the Defence team.  I received documents that I was

16     supposed to study and analyse.  Is that what you're asking me?

17        Q.   Yes.  I didn't expect you to go directly to the police, but did

18     you get documents relating to the MUP activities in June and July of 1995

19     to review from any source?

20        A.   I do have some few documents.  Perhaps you could specify which

21     you mean.  If you mean reports, I didn't see any reports, neither did I

22     receive any reports.  Now, if you mean a set of some other documents

23     which relate to the activities of the police or conduct of the police, I

24     didn't receive anything specially along those lines if that's what you

25     have in mind.  Nobody provided me with a set of documents from the police

Page 28002

 1     station or something like that for me to review and analyse, no.

 2        Q.   Okay.  We'll go some of the reports a little bit later, but let

 3     me ask you this.  You mention on 2.2 of your report, and you use the word

 4     "independently" and "as an independent unit," and it references,

 5     obviously, the 10th of July, 1995, order from Tomo Kovac that you just

 6     recently discussed, and I think it's P57.

 7             MR. OSTOJIC:  So if we can just bring that up on the e-court, it

 8     might assist.

 9        Q.   Do you have that document, sir?

10        A.   Yes.  This is it here.

11        Q.   Now, if you look at this document, you see where it uses the word

12     "independent unit," correct?

13        A.   Yes, yes, in point 1.

14        Q.   And we know from your report that you have an interpretation of

15     that.  Would that have been an appropriate place, if you know, if there

16     was going to be an actual resubordination by the various MUP units to use

17     the word "that they will be resubordinated" as opposed to saying that

18     they're going to be an independent unit as it plainly states?

19        A.   I can't arrive at that conclusion on the basis of my

20     interpretation of this order.  I said what the word "samostalan" or

21     "independent" meant, independent in relation to the other units of the

22     Ministry of the Interior, and I am reading item 5 as an order to

23     resubordinate to this officer -- that the police unit should be

24     resubordinated to this particular officer.  That's how I understand it.

25        Q.   And we'll get into resubordination a little later.  But now

Page 28003

 1     looking at this document, can you tell us if anyone in the VRS was

 2     advised of this order and decision to send out MUP units?  Do you see on

 3     the top left-hand corner to whom this order was addressed, or in the

 4     centre page, I think, with the B/C/S.

 5        A.   According to the addressees I don't see that.  I just see - 1, 2,

 6     3, 4, 5 - 7 instances to whom these was addressed.  The command of the

 7     special police brigade, staff of -- et cetera, staff of the Vogosca,

 8     staff of the -- no, there's is no military unit listed there.

 9        Q.   Now, does that surprise you at all?

10        A.   Well, I cannot say whether I am surprised or not.  I don't know

11     how to answer that question.

12        Q.   Okay.  In 2.2 of your report, you also use the word "temporary"

13     as you do often, actually.  At 4.21, you use it again, and then you use

14     it basically in your conclusion at 6.3 when you discuss these combat

15     activities, if you will, and I'll let you catch up there.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   I think in 6.3 you use the word "finished."  Now, this assignment

18     is always, in nature, temporary, correct, if a MUP unit was to be

19     resubordinated to a VRS corps or unit?

20        A.   That's how I understand the Law on the Implementation of the Law

21     on Internal Affair During a State of War.  For as long as the combat task

22     is in progress, the unit is resubordinated.

23        Q.   And because you tell us that it's -- the MUP unit is independent

24     from all the other MUP units, would it be fair, then, that no one from

25     MUP would be able to during these combat activities be involved or order

Page 28004

 1     this special MUP unit that was purportedly resubordinated, no one from

 2     the MUP can command or give orders to them?

 3             MR. LAZAREVIC:  It's a compound question.  It should be split in

 4     at least two.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Ostojic.

 6             MR. OSTOJIC:  No comment, Mr. President.  I think he can

 7     understand it, but if the Court wants me to --

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's see --

 9             MR. OSTOJIC:  -- break it down, I will.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's see if it is compound for him or compound --

11             MR. LAZAREVIC:  "Involved" or "order" are two different concepts.

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, but I think the witness -- we have got an

13     intelligent guy here who can answer the question.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am going to repeat again or make

15     reference to the Law on Internal Affairs During a State of War.  A police

16     unit is to be resubordinated to a military unit in whose zone of

17     responsibility it is carrying out a combat task.  And I understand it, it

18     is being commanded by the unit in whose zone of responsibility it is

19     being engaged in a combat activity.  This is how I understand the law.

20             MR. OSTOJIC:

21        Q.   Well, you know, you've used a lots of logic in your report and

22     you have in your testimony.  The logical extension, sir, would it not be,

23     that someone from -- let's hypothetically say from the Zvornik public

24     security station, a fellow by the name of Dragomir Vasic, he would not be

25     able to intervene in any of the combat activities, correct?

Page 28005

 1        A.   What do you mean by the word "intervene," please?

 2        Q.   Can be involved in --

 3        A.   That's what you said.

 4        Q.   I know I said it.  Can he be involved in any way, since we've

 5     assigned this special unit and there's is a deputy commander, it's been

 6     clearly defined which units will be participating in these combat

 7     activities.  Could someone from a public security station or centre of

 8     public security, can they order or send any orders to that special MUP

 9     unit that's purportedly subordinated to the VRS?

10        A.   As I read the law, the resubordinated unit is commanded by the

11     military unit, and I'm repeating this for a third time, in whose zone of

12     responsibility it is carrying out a combat task.  So I understand this to

13     mean that this military unit to whom the police unit is being

14     resubordinated is giving it commands in terms of how it's going to carry

15     out its combat task.

16        Q.   If we look at 2.7 of your report, and we're kind of moving along,

17     you state: "Such a situation lasts as long as it is required by the

18     combat task for the purpose which the MUP unit has been sent."  Then you

19     go on to say: "This MUP unit is practically outside the regular system of

20     command of the MUP."  Do you see that?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Now -- and I know you talk about in another section in your

23     report about specificity and precision.  Is the specificity and precision

24     as to both time and place of the combat activity?

25        A.   Do you mean that it is necessary for a combat activity to be

Page 28006

 1     precisely defined?  Yes.  And.

 2        Q.   Just [overlapping speakers] --

 3        A.   Let me just find the order.  Here it is.  An order issued by the

 4     president of the Republic in terms that henceforth the main MUP staff

 5     should give more precise definition of the engagement of MUP units in

 6     combat.  It says there had been some problems with regard to the

 7     engagement to the engagement of some MUP units.  I don't know what

 8     problems and difficulties they are referring to.  I can only make an

 9     assumption, but it's not up to me to do so.  However, he is ordering this

10     to be defined more precisely and accurately, and it probably means what

11     specific tasks this unit is going to be engaged in.  According to what I

12     saw in this order --

13        Q.   We'll get into that order especially when it comes to -- wait --

14     I know, but --

15             MR. LAZAREVIC:  The witness has just referred to certain

16     document.  I believe that for the clarity of the record, we should have

17     the number of this document at least.

18             MR. OSTOJIC:  And that's exactly why I was trying to cut him off

19     so we could at least get the date of the document if nothing else.

20        Q.   Sir, you were referencing -- you said you found an order, and it

21     was an order issued by the president of the republic, and then you go on

22     to give your opinion on it.  Just give us the date of that document or if

23     you have an exhibit number in the top right-hand corner, that might help

24     us all follow.

25        A.   The 20 -- P8, P8.

Page 28007

 1        Q.   Okay.  Now, in a situation where the goal of the combat activity

 2     ceases, is it that point in time that the special MUP unit is no longer

 3     resubordinated to the VRS?

 4        A.   My interpretation of the law is that resubordination lasts as

 5     long as the combat task lasts.  In my view, at that point resubordination

 6     should cease, and the unit should return to its regular police duties.

 7        Q.   And that's the way I read it, as well, sir.  Well, the task here

 8     that you testified about as reflected on the 10th of July, 1995, order,

 9     which is I think is P57, is clearly defined, is it not?  That's in the

10     introductory paragraph before the words "I hereby order".

11        A.   Yes, yes.

12        Q.   And the task that's clearly defined there is to "crush the enemy

13     offensive."  Do you see that?

14        A.   Yes, yes.

15        Q.   Okay.  Well, sir, do you know that as of July 11th and 12th of

16     1995, there was no enemy offensive in the Srebrenica sector?

17        A.   Let me tell you, sir, about the events in Srebrenica.  If you'll

18     allow me, maybe I can give you an answer.  As for the events taking place

19     in Srebrenica in 1995, I only have the knowledge that every average

20     person following the media has.  I really don't know when an enemy

21     offensive started or ended.  It should be up to military experts to

22     explain to you and give an answer to you about when an offensive starts

23     and when it ends.  As I say, I have the knowledge of an ordinary news

24     reader.

25        Q.   I appreciate that, but, sir, you're giving expert evidence here

Page 28008

 1     telling us that a unit was resubordinated to the VRS.  You're relying on

 2     a document, P57, dated the 10th of July, 1995, and you've read the law,

 3     and it's pretty clear that the resubordination, if any, ceases

 4     immediately upon the completion of a combat task or assignment, correct?

 5        A.   That is how I understand the law, i.e., that while a unit is

 6     engaging a combat task and was subordinated to a military unit in whose

 7     zone of responsibility it is carrying out the task, it is for that period

 8     outside of the command system of MUP, and it receives orders from the

 9     army.  Once the task is completed, the unit returns to the MUP.

10             I honestly cannot tell you in military terms when an enemy

11     offensive starts and when it ends.  If that is your question, I believe

12     that you have to put it to a military expert, but please don't take it on

13     me.

14        Q.   Okay.  Now, looking at this P57, there were five specific

15     identified parts of the MUP that were going to participate in this combat

16     activity that was well-defined; and I could read through them, but I

17     think we see them:  (a), the 2nd special police detachment from Sekovici;

18     (b), or 2, the 1st company of the PJP special police unit of the Zvornik

19     SJB, but it may be CJB; 3, the mixed company of RSK, which is Republika

20     Srpska Krajina; the fourth one is the RS MUP forces, but those were, were

21     they not, from the Trnovo battlefield, just so we can define it a little

22     clearer, correct?

23        A.   Allow me just to read it, please.  In paragraph fourth, it says,

24     The withdrawal from the Trnovo battlefield shall be done during the

25     night, et cetera, et cetera.  So are you asking me whether all these

Page 28009

 1     units mentioned under item 2 were in Trnovo?

 2        Q.   Let me just try to get a couple of questions out, and then

 3     obviously the last one is the training -- or the company from the

 4     training camp on Jahorina, right?  Those are the ones listed, and we can

 5     read them even though we may not agree to it.  What would the 5th company

 6     of the Zvornik CJB -- they weren't listed in this order, and they would

 7     have no involvement whatsoever in any combat task or assignment, correct?

 8        A.   I can only tell you what's written in this order.  However, as to

 9     who took part in the execution of the combat task, I really cannot tell

10     you.  You are asking me about facts.  I don't know the facts.  I reviewed

11     this order, and that's all I can tell you about.  Any facts not contained

12     in this order are beyond my scope.  According to this order, these units

13     were assigned to take part in a combat task.

14        Q.   Okay.  And we'll get to the 5th company of the Zvornik CJB

15     probably next week, sir, but thank you for that.

16             MR. OSTOJIC:  Can we have P58 on e-court, please.  And as it's

17     being brought up, just for the record, it's a document dated the 22nd of

18     April, 1995.

19        Q.   And you have that document, sir, correct?

20        A.   Yes, P8.

21        Q.   In the first paragraph, it talks about Main Staff on the -- with

22     respect to the army.  Do you see that?

23        A.   Yes.  It's addressed to the Main Staff and the MUP.

24        Q.   Well, here in this order dated the 22nd April, 1995, it says that

25     "the Main Staff of the army shall define precisely and concisely that

Page 28010

 1     which they may need from the MUP, if at all."  Does it not?

 2        A.   That's how I read item 2, that in the future they're going define

 3     their requests more precisely.

 4        Q.   [Previous translation continues]... 1995 order, which is P57.

 5     Now, this was not done by any request of the Main Staff or any army unit,

 6     the request to have this special MUP unit come on board and help, if they

 7     will.

 8             MR. LAZAREVIC:  It's a call for speculation.  I'm sorry.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Ostojic.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is pure guesswork.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Exactly.  I think you can move to your next --

12             MR. OSTOJIC:

13        Q.   Well, have you seen --

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  I think you can move to your next question.

15             MR. OSTOJIC:

16        Q.   Have you, sir -- when you reviewed the documents, sir, have you

17     seen anything prior to this July 10th, 1995, order that you reviewed and

18     analysed and gave evidence on which would suggest that the Main Staff of

19     the VRS requested this MUP unit or any MUP units, for that matter?

20        A.   So, have I seen an order asking the police to give them any unit,

21     and that is the order from the VRS Main Staff.

22        Q.   [Previous translation continues]... touch on a couple of topics

23     that I'm sure we are going to plush out next week.  Do you know if the

24     MUP units ever had collection centres or detention centres in the summer

25     of 1995?  And this goes in relation to your testimony on POWs.

Page 28011

 1        A.   Do I know if the police --

 2        Q.   Do you know if they held or had control of any collection centres

 3     or detention facilities in June of 1995 or at any time in that summer?

 4        A.   In the documents that I reviewed, I haven't come across any such

 5     thing, no.

 6        Q.   Well, you interpreted the law -- thank you.  You interpreted the

 7     law a little bit for us on who has the right and who should maintain --

 8     maintain the POWs.  I want to show you a document, which is 4D245.  No,

 9     I'm sorry.  I want to take that back.  It's 4D119.  Thank you.  It's a

10     document dated the 23rd of June, 1995, sir.

11             And just because we only have a couple of minutes left, sir, but

12     I think you could really glance at it.  It's about 2 paragraphs long.

13     This is a letter from the deputy minister Tomislav Kovac from the MUP,

14     correct?

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  One moment.

16             MR. LAZAREVIC:  I would really like to know how this document

17     relates to prisoners of war.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Ostojic.

19             MR. OSTOJIC:  I mean, they're dealing specifically in that

20     paragraph with collection centres, and I think if we simply read the

21     third and fourth line, they're turning over certain people in the

22     hundreds and thousands, for that matter, but I don't understand the

23     objection, and I think that it's unfounded.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  [Microphone not activated]

25             MR. LAZAREVIC:  This deals with military conscripts, which were

Page 28012

 1     sent from republic of -- well, at that time, Federal Republic of Serbia

 2     and Montenegro, which were sent to Republika Srpska -- sent back to

 3     Republika Srpska.  This has nothing to do with prisoners of war.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  I think I will give you the weekend and even after

 5     that to mull about this very difficult and complex question.  Maybe you

 6     will go straight to your next question when we reconvene on Wednesday.

 7             In the meantime, just so that Ms. Fauveau knows exactly where she

 8     stands, how much longer do you think you have?

 9             MR. OSTOJIC:  About an hour, Mr. President.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Mr. Bourgon.

11             MR. BOURGON:  About 30 minutes, Mr. President.

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  That's one session.  Ms. Fauveau, nothing?

13             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No questions.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Mr. Josse.

15             MR. JOSSE:  Very unlikely to have any questions.

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  And Mr. Haynes.

17             MR. HAYNES:  30 minutes to an hour.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  So we are talking of maximum two hours and a half.

19     And you, Mr. Vanderpuye?

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I don't expect to

21     exceed half an hour -- 15 minutes to half an hour.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  So Tuesday -- Thursday, I suppose, you

23     should be in a position to start.  Okay?  Thank you.  Wednesday,

24     Wednesday we are going to dedicate the whole day -- yes, would you like

25     to go home over the weekend and come back?

Page 28013

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [In English] Yes, yes.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  You see how I read minds?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With your permission, I would like

 4     to go home over the weekend.  I already have a flight scheduled at 5.00,

 5     and I'll be back.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you.  And the important thing is

 7     that you do not communicate with anyone on the subject matter of your

 8     testimony.  Thank you.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.

10                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.00 p.m.,

11                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 12th day of

12                           November, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.