1 Monday, 30 July 2001
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.30 a.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Baly, you are to continue with your
7 cross-examination. Before you do so, let me say that, regrettably,
8 Judge Fassi Fihri is still indisposed. Judge May and I will continue in
9 accordance with the provisions of Rule 15.
10 MS. BALY: Thank you.
11 WITNESS: DUSAN LAKCEVIC [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Cross-examined by Ms. Baly:
14 Q. Now, Doctor, you looked at a number of establishments which
15 related to the running the Keraterm camp, and in particular, you looked at
16 some documents that led you to conclude that it was the Crisis Staff that
17 established the camp. Would you agree with that?
18 A. I agree. I do agree.
19 Q. And the tasks of security and interrogation of inmates were
20 delegated, if I could use that word, to the Prijedor Police Station.
21 Would you agree with that?
22 A. Partly, because the interrogation of persons who were in Keraterm
23 camp was given to combined teams of highly professional personnel, which
24 were the state security police officers, the Banja Luka Corps military
25 team, and the Banja Luka Security Services Centres, but I agree with you
1 that the Prijedor II police station did get the task of interrogating
2 these individuals.
3 Q. And you looked at a number of documents from which you concluded
4 that there was a hierarchical structure at the Prijedor Police Station.
5 That's right, isn't it?
6 A. That is correct. And that includes the commander of the police
7 station for the security facilities, deputy, two assistants, the officer
8 of duty, and everything else I mentioned. These would be lower-ranking
9 police tasks and activities that pertain to this station, such as the role
10 of drivers and so forth.
11 Q. And can you just clarify, please, which documents you looked at in
12 order to derive that conclusion? You referred in your report to the duty
13 rosters for the 5th and 6th of June, 1992, which are Exhibits D41/1 and
14 D42/1 in these proceedings. Were they the documents that you looked at?
15 A. Yes, but you did not mention one very important bylaw, which is a
16 rule of internal organisation, which is -- which covers the maintenance of
17 law and order, and there it says that the commander of the police station
18 for the security of public facilities also controls and commands the
19 police station. Then he controls the implementation of tasks on the part
20 of security, that is, persons who are engaged in security tasks, that is,
21 security facilities and persons, assigns tasks, and monitors the
22 implementation of legal provisions, and in case of any violations,
23 prosecutes it, and disciplinary measures.
24 He is also responsible for the law and order in the station. This
25 provision is completely adopted from the rules of the internal
1 organisation and systematisation of the job classification of Bosnia and
2 Herzegovina, and during the wartime it was applied by the Ministry of
3 Internal Affairs of the Republika Srpska.
4 I assert here with full responsibility, because I also gave
5 evidence in the Prcac case in Omarska, that there are only four types of
6 ranks in this police station. It's under 28, commander; under 35, deputy
7 commander; two assistants under 38; and the policemen under 53 for
8 security of facilities and persons.
9 It is very interesting to see what the conditions or what the
10 requirements are for a police officer to be employed for security
11 facilities. He has to have had a four-year police schooling or some
12 equivalent --
13 Q. Just, can I just stop you there? You've answered my question.
14 Thank you.
15 A. Thank you, too.
16 Q. The point is that it was the duty rosters from the 5th and 6th of
17 June, 1992, that is, Exhibit D41/2 and Exhibit D42/1, from what you looked
18 at to conclude that there was a hierarchical structure in Prijedor at the
19 Prijedor police station; that's right?
20 A. That is correct. That is correct.
21 Q. Sir, do you have a copy of Exhibit D41/1 and D42/1 with you?
22 A. You mean the duty roster?
23 Q. Yes, for the 5th and 6th of June.
24 MS. BALY: All right. Sir, now, can you point that document on
25 the ELMO, please.
1 Q. Well, it appears, Doctor, that the copy you have been shown is
2 equally as difficult to read as the copy that I have. Can you tell me
3 where it is in that document that the precise roles are set out, that is,
4 for the commander, the deputy commander, and the assistant commander?
5 A. That would be superfluous because the activities and tasks of the
6 commander of the police station, his deputy, and his assistants, and even
7 police officers who are on security tasks, are defined by the rules on
8 internal organisation and job classification of the Republika Srpska, that
9 is, the previous rules of the Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia and
10 Herzegovina. Therefore, this duty roster would, would be superfluous; in
11 other words, it would be superfluous to identify these jobs.
12 But there is -- something else is important. If you look at the
13 patrolman or people on security tasks, there would be a patrol duty
14 roster, an order in which the commander, his deputy or assistants would
15 assist for a particular day, which special particular tasks are to be
16 executed, and when the shift is over --
17 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. The question was, where in the
18 document is it set out. Is the answer, it isn't set out in the document?
19 A. At the end, it states "Commander, Deputy Commander, and Assistant
20 Commanders," and then there are signatures.
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Baly.
22 MS. BALY:
23 Q. The point is, nowhere in that document does it specify exactly
24 what the roles of those persons who occupied those positions are. It
25 doesn't set that out in that document, does it?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. That is correct. But there is no need for it either. I don't
2 know if you understand me. I wonder if you would just follow me.
3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... just try to -- to interpret
4 what you've said. What you've done is applied the regulations as you
5 understand them to this document, and you have assumed that the roles were
6 the same. That's what you've done, isn't it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. That document itself does not -- is specific to the police
9 station. It's not specific to Keraterm camp. Would you agree with that?
10 A. But Keraterm camp is emergency security of -- facility, and when
11 you talk about the emergency or extraordinary security, that means that a
12 plan of security is drawn up for that, and all the rules which are set out
13 in these rules of internal organisation, all its provisions are
14 implemented within that plan.
15 Q. The point is that that document refers very generally to the roles
16 of the police at any other station, that is, at the hospital, at Keraterm,
17 at the post office, at the bank. Any other station is just referred to
18 very generally in that document; correct?
19 A. That is correct. But I said, and please try to accept it, that
20 for each facility there has to be a security plan in which a commander
21 will define the security situation, the number of policemen engaged, the
22 shifts, either 12- or 24-hour shifts, the way of the policemen's arrival
23 at work, their leaving work, the communication lines and so on.
24 Q. Let me stop you there. The point is, you have not seen such a
25 plan for Keraterm camp. You are assuming that it must have existed.
1 That's correct, isn't it?
2 A. That is correct. That is correct. And I did not see it. But the
3 rules on the public security in Articles 142 to 146 expressly provides
4 that the leader of -- the top official has to provide a plan of security
5 and has to notify the personnel involved in security about their tasks and
7 Q. So if the rules say that this must be done, you are assuming that
8 it was done; is that right?
9 A. That is a realistic and logical line of reasoning and that is also
10 my conclusion.
11 Q. In any event, that document, the duty roster for the police
12 station, is the document that you realise upon in order to conclude that
13 there was no hierarchical structure at the Keraterm camp. Now, can you
14 answer that yes or no, please?
15 A. Excuse me. I did not understand you very well.
16 Q. Well, if we read your evidence and your report together, you have
17 concluded from the document, that is, the duty roster for the 5th and 6th
18 of June, 1992, that -- you've concluded from that document that there was
19 no hierarchical structure at Keraterm camp. That's what you've concluded;
21 A. Yes, but this, if I may say - and I'm just expanding and
22 elaborating now - as of 26, I was able to review some additional documents
23 and that the rules of internal organisation and job classification is
24 silent about the -- either the shift commander, which is what the accused
25 Dosen is alleged to have been, and the accused Kolundzija.
1 And I also assert here with full responsibility that the official
2 note which you showed me -- I have to apologise to the Trial Chamber here
3 and to you, Madam Prosecutor, and also to the Defence counsel. On
4 Thursday when you showed me this official note, I had been giving evidence
5 for five hours and I was quite exhausted at the end of that, and due to my
6 full -- due to my health and my age, I said that I did not use it, but I
7 did use it you can say -- we can see in page 5, line 4 of my expert
8 finding and opinion. And now I am prepared to tell you and I'm prepared
9 to answer in regard of the accused Dosen and in the case of the accused
10 Kolundzija and the accused Sikirica that they could not have been, in the
11 case of Sikirica, chief of security, and that the others could not have
12 been shift commanders, and I'm prepared to give full explanation about it.
13 Q. Well, I think you have, sir, and just let me try and summarise.
14 What you've said is because the rules are silent, because the rules do not
15 refer to the term "shift commander," that that position did not exist. Do
16 you agree or disagree with that?
17 A. Yes, but I have two additional arguments.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, would you just answer the question as
19 simply and as shortly as possible. We do have another phase in the
20 examination: re-examination, when your counsel would be in a position to
21 ask you for further explanations. So would you answer the question as
22 precisely as possible.
23 A. Thank you for your warning.
24 But my position and my opinion is based on the subrules which
25 regulates the organisation and job classification, and that one is silent
1 on those two jobs, those two duties: the shift commander and the chief of
2 security. That's argument number one, the first piece of evidence that I
3 can cite.
4 Also, my practical experience which I have had at the Institute of
5 State Security in the former SFRY when, as a member of a team, I travelled
6 to correctional centres around Yugoslavia and had an opportunity to see
7 and to hear when a guard in a correctional centre permits a convict to
8 light a cigarette or go to the canteen, that he addresses him as, "Thank
9 you, Commander," even though he is a simple guard. That means that this
10 act of goodwill, small as it may be but big enough for a convict, is
11 translated into a commander rather than guard because the guard could be
12 considered too low, perhaps.
13 Also, the third argument that also contributed to my position both
14 in terms of the Dosen Kolundzija and now Sikirica, too; they all had
15 these -- performed these acts of goodwill. For instance, a phone call.
16 One such phone call is enough for --
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: That is enough, Dr. Lakcevic. I think you have
18 given the three explanations.
19 Ms. Baly.
20 MS. BALY: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. Now, let's forget about terminology for a moment. Do you agree
22 that the guards who were deployed to Keraterm camp worked in shifts?
23 A. I agree.
24 Q. How many guards per shift?
25 A. There were 15 to 17 guards.
1 Q. So having --
2 A. Or ten; it depended. In other words, I cannot give you a precise
3 figure, but somewhere within the range of ten to 15.
4 Q. So, sir, the fact is that during these times, there was a
5 hierarchical structure that ran through the police and was translated in
6 practical terms at the Prijedor Police Station, and it was the Prijedor
7 Police Station that deployed the guards in shifts to Keraterm camp. And
8 in light, sir, of the tightening of the police structure, the police
9 hierarchical structure at that time, surely, sir, among those guards in
10 each shift there must have been someone who was in charge of the shift?
11 That's the case, surely, sir, isn't it?
12 A. No. There are no firm proofs for that. In fact, on the contrary.
13 I assert that there are only guards because the police, as the executive
14 organ, has to have strict rules, and this should have also been set out in
15 the duty roster such as the one for the 5th and 6th of June. I believe --
16 Q. Let's put aside the rules for a moment. As a matter of common
17 sense, as a matter of common police culture and practice, surely there
18 must have been someone among those guards who was giving orders to the
19 other guards and to whom the other guards would report? As a matter of
20 common police sense, it follows, doesn't it, sir?
21 A. No, no. I cannot agree with you on that. First of all -- and
22 I'll give you a very brief explanation why I can't.
23 Q. Well, I think you've given an explanation as to what your view
24 was, and the point is, you disagree with me on that point. Let's move to
25 another point.
1 The role of those who were exercising security was -- you agreed
2 on Thursday would include to protect the inmates and to ensure that they
3 didn't escape. That's what you agreed with on Thursday, correct?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. You said also in your evidence on Thursday that they would play
6 some kind of a role in terms of the arrest of the inmates. Do you
7 remember giving that evidence?
8 A. I did not say that they would play a role in the arrest of
9 detainees. That I cannot say. I am certain that that I did not say.
10 Q. Let me just see if I can assist your recollection. You said at
11 point 12 on page 5438 of the transcript, you said this: "We have a report
12 here indicating that the Omarska and Keraterm reception centres, in
13 contravention of the usual practice, are constantly secured by the police
14 officers. They are providing physical security to these facilities. In
15 addition to this, they also carry out other tasks related to the arrests
16 of person who are of interest for reasons of security."
17 Do you remember giving that evidence?
18 A. But I would now have to correct myself if that is indeed what I
19 had stated, because people who are on security tasks were not there. In
20 fact, I said that at first the military brought in about 600 inmates, and
21 people who were on security tasks were not involved in bringing them over
22 in -- or in releasing them from the Keraterm. If I had indeed said so, I
23 must withdraw it.
24 Q. Thank you. Did they play any part, that is, the guards in the
25 camp, in terms of the interrogation of inmates that was going on in the
2 A. This security detail is such that it cannot engage in even the
3 simplest tasks such as -- such as gathering information pursuant to
4 Article 151.1 of the law, because they do not know the procedures of
5 conducting interviews, especially not such -- they have no psychological
6 knowledge needed for such a subtle task. So they are no match for such
7 types of tasks and did not engage in them.
8 I also said that the teams were composed from the Banja Luka
9 Security Services Centre, and in the Prcac case, one of them actually
10 detailed the method of how it was done.
11 Q. Yes. Putting aside the actual questioning that went on, did the
12 guards play any role in terms of facilitating the interrogation? That is,
13 for example, calling out those who were to be interrogated from a list and
14 making sure that they were taken for interrogation. Did that occur?
15 A. That is a question that may require a two-part answer. First off
16 that the team of investigators -- that the investigators from the team
17 said themselves, "Please bring in the first five interviewees," or if this
18 team from the Banja Luka Security Services Centre had some priority
19 interviewees, then they may have asked for those. But he is only -- the
20 guard is only following the orders of the superior; in other words,
21 bringing in a particular person, meanwhile, all the time following the
22 rules of -- that are the same for -- internationally, and it has to be a
23 procedure that does not threaten the life or existence or health of an
24 interviewee. But the fact that five persons were brought to be
25 interviewed to one of the investigators' room in itself to me does not
1 mean that there was any breach of rules.
2 Q. What about the role of the guards in transferring the inmates,
3 say, from Keraterm to Omarska or Trnopolje? I mean, they would be
4 involved some way in effecting such a transfer, wouldn't they?
5 A. According to the rules on public security, it is stated quite
6 explicitly that persons guarding buildings and facilities cannot leave
7 them. Therefore, I can assume that they were engaged only to the gate, up
8 to the gate. And beyond the gate, it was other people. Also, these rules
9 and regulations on guarding certain facilities explicitly state that such
10 facilities cannot be abandoned.
11 Q. Thank you. And just, by the way, on that point in terms of the
12 transfer of prisoners from Keraterm camp, you gave some evidence on two
13 occasions on Thursday to the effect that on the 27th of May, 1992, the
14 Crisis Staff ordered that all prisoners from Keraterm were to be
15 transferred to Omarska and that that, in fact, did take place. Do you
16 remember giving that evidence?
17 A. Yes, I remember that. I found that in documents.
18 Q. And so it was your evidence that on the 27th of May, all of the
19 prisoners from Keraterm were transferred to Omarska. And I think you even
20 used the words, "I emphasise, all prisoners were transferred."
21 A. Excuse me.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: There seems to be a technical problem. Could it
23 be addressed.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, a technical problem.
25 MS. BALY:
1 Q. Sir, should I repeat the question for you?
2 A. I would appreciate that.
3 Q. And so it was your evidence that on the 27th of May, all of the
4 prisoners from Keraterm were transferred to Omarska, and I think you even
5 used the words, "I emphasise, all prisoners were transferred." That was
6 your evidence. Do you recall that?
7 A. I recall that. As for this statement of mine, my testimony, it is
8 based on evidence from the case itself that was made accessible to me.
9 Whether this was actually carried out or not, that I cannot say. That is
10 to say that I trusted the evidence in this case.
11 Q. So you relied on the document to conclude that, in fact, on the
12 27th of May, the prisoners were in fact transferred, that is, all of them,
13 to Omarska. That's what you relied on.
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. So would it surprise you to learn that that, in fact, did not take
17 A. I would not be surprised. As a matter of fact, Defence counsel,
18 Mr. Petrovic and Mr. Rodic, told me that it's a bit debatable whether it
19 was that way then. However, I took this document -- what I'm trying to
20 say is that this is supposed to be an answer to your question as well, and
21 that is that, in a war situation, the relationship between a policeman and
22 his superior becomes stricter. I mean, you asked me about this on
23 Thursday. You asked me to explain what this order meant, a tightened
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Baly, you are saying that his evidence was
1 that all prisoners were, in fact, transferred on the 27th of May, or is it
2 that his evidence was that according to the information that he had
3 gathered from the documents that he read, all prisoners were to be
4 transferred? One has to be fair to the witness.
5 MS. BALY: Yes.
6 Q. Let me quote, if I could from the transcript. The question at
7 page 5443 was this: "And on the basis of this decision --" it's referring
8 to the Crisis Staff decision -- "did these prisoners of war later transfer
9 to Omarska?"
10 A. Yes. Pursuant to this decision on 27 May, 1992, all, and
11 I emphasise all, prisoners of war were transferred to
13 And then again at page 5448, the question was asked: "What did the Crisis
14 Staff decide?"
15 A. The Crisis Staff decided to transfer all the
16 detainees from Keraterm to Omarska.
17 Q. On 27th May 1992, was this decision of the Crisis Staff
18 implemented, that is, to transfer all the detainees from
19 Keraterm to Omarska?
20 A. Yes.
21 That was the evidence you gave on Thursday. The question I'm
22 asking you today is that is it your view that in fact on the 27th of May,
23 all of the prisoners were transferred?
24 A. Logically, linguistically, and legally, if we were to interpret
25 the decision that way, then it would be the 27th, and I abide by this
1 document. However, now it would be an illusion, and I don't see why that
2 would be important, but then it's not for me to say, to say whether all
3 were transferred or not.
4 What is important here is what I already said by way of my expert
5 opinion, and that is the question related to the accused Dosen and his
6 role, whether he was a superior or not, and --
7 Q. The point is that documents can be wrong. Would you agree with
9 A. Possibly. However, if one says the 27th and, due to certain
10 circumstances, it could not be carried out then but, say, five days later,
11 we have to take those circumstances into account, as well. However,
12 probably through some report on the work of the Public Security Station of
13 Sarajevo, this --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Of Prijedor, interpreter's mistake.
15 A. -- it should be noted that the prisoners were not transferred on
16 the 27th but, say, on the 1st or 5th of June.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... you've gone
18 as far as you can.
19 MS. BALY: Yes, I'll move on.
20 Q. Let's get back to the role of the guards at the camp. It is, of
21 course, fundamental that guards at the camp must not ill-treat the
22 detainees themselves. That's fundamental, would you agree?
23 A. I would agree that they cannot and should not disagree. I also
24 mentioned the convention against terrorism which in article 10 states
25 explicitly that all of those who interrogate certain persons, military
1 personnel or police personnel, have to be trained for that. And I'm
2 telling you now that work is being done on that, but before, it was not
3 the case. The guards that were brought in to Keraterm, some guards that
4 were brought in did not undergo any kind of police or security training.
5 However, that does not give them the right as human beings to not act in a
6 humane way towards persons who were detained in Keraterm.
7 Q. Sir, under their duty, irrespective of their human inclinations,
8 surely, sir, it's their duty not to ill-treat those whom they have in
9 their care. Now, please, can you agree or disagree with that statement?
10 A. Yes, I agree.
11 Q. And in accordance with their duty, they must not allow and,
12 indeed, must prevent to the extent that they can any subordinate they may
13 have from ill-treating any of the detainees. Can you agree or disagree
14 with that statement?
15 A. You are right, but --
16 Q. Thank you.
17 A. -- they do not have any subordinates. They did not have any
19 Q. Put aside that fact, assuming that they did have subordinates,
20 you'd agree with that?
21 A. Judgments are not based on assumptions. I have no comment,
23 Q. Thank you. They're fairly basic tasks, in any event, aren't they,
24 not to ill-treat detainees? It's a basic task. There's nothing
25 complicated about it. Do you agree or disagree?
1 A. I agree that they should not ill-treat persons who are in the
3 Q. What I'm putting to you is that there's nothing difficult or
4 complicated about that duty, is there? It's a very basic, fundamental
5 duty, isn't it?
6 A. Yes, yes.
7 Q. And --
8 A. It is so clear that there's no need to emphasise it,
9 over-emphasise it.
10 Q. No. And there's certainly no need to have a security plan in
11 place in order to carry out that duty, is there?
12 A. There has to be a security plan for other reasons, that is to say,
13 to assess the security situation, the number of persons, et cetera, and
14 within that framework, that which you are referring to right now.
15 Q. Yes. But I'm not referring to the other reasons, I'm only
16 referring to the duty not to ill-treat the detainees. That does not
17 require any security plan in order to comply or implement that particular
18 duty, does it?
19 A. I agree.
20 Q. Now, the reserve police who were deployed at that time, that is,
21 back in 1992, were drawn, I think you said, from two sources. Firstly,
22 they were retired active policemen who had come back to perform certain
23 duties, or they were persons who had been drawn from the military. They'd
24 received -- persons who had military training; correct?
25 A. You're not right when you're saying that they were employed. That
1 meant that they had a job, a permanent job. They were just assigned to
2 the police station to carry out a certain kind of work.
3 Also, I think that your question was taken out of the context of
4 my expert opinion where I said how they were assigned. But I did not say
5 at any point that there was a single retired policeman in Keraterm as a
6 reserve policeman. As a matter of fact, I'm saying that all of those who
7 were in Keraterm were outside the force and did not undergo any kind of
9 Q. I understand that. I'm just -- the point that I'm making is that
10 those who were deployed, not necessarily in Keraterm but at that time,
11 included those two categories; correct?
12 A. Yes. I can confirm that, what you said, because in the case of
13 Prcac, he was a policeman. He was a forensic technician. And then when
14 the conflict broke out, he became active again. But that's a different
15 matter altogether.
16 Q. That's a different matter, so we won't go down that track. But
17 the point is that these -- these persons were actually paid for the work
18 they did. So they were employed, weren't they?
19 A. No. No. That is a compensation they get instead of the salary,
20 the wages they would get in a company. Or if they had no employment
21 previously, then they're given compensation because they would be doing
22 something as freelancers.
23 However, we cannot use the word "employed," because "employed"
24 means a person with full-time employment. Here he was assigned to
25 security work. And that is also recognised in documents, please, that
1 time spent on a reserve police force is considered as time spent on
2 military drills and exercises. That's it. Even when working on security
4 Q. In any event, those that were there got money for what they did,
5 for performing their duties. That's correct?
6 A. Yes. They got money while they worked on security.
7 Q. Thank you. And just getting back from -- getting back to where
8 these people were drawn from, it's the case that they weren't just -- they
9 wouldn't take just anyone. Anyone from the street could not just come and
10 act as a reserve police officer at that time, could they?
11 A. I would not agree with you. And this expression that you used,
12 "from the street," it cannot be used that way, because this was a public
13 manifesto, a public announcement that all able-bodied men of military age
14 had to report. And then they reported, as specifically referring to
15 Dosen, they reported at the local commune, that is, the lowest
16 socio-political level - this is below the municipality - and then they
17 assigned them.
18 It was not from the street, because when people are engaged in
19 security affairs there has to be a certain kind of order, a certain
20 procedure. It has to be done in a certain way, and that's as it was here.
21 Q. You had to have been an active policeman who had had some service
22 as an active policeman or you had to have done military training in order
23 to become a reserve police officer. That's what you said in your report,
24 sir. Agree or disagree?
25 A. Yes. Yes, in part. In part I agree. However, circumstances
1 actually prevail, and it depends on the situation whether that will be
2 observed or not. There is always an active policeman in Omarska and also
3 a reserve policeman, and then that is a different professional situation.
4 It did not exist here, though. The situation was such -- well,
5 this is the way things were done. I'm not sure it absolutely had to be
6 that way. I'm not sure whether there could have been a better
7 organisation and whether active policemen could have been brought there as
8 well, whether it could have been handled differently. However, we see
9 that this Crisis Staff did decide that these should be men who then were
10 assigned there ad hoc. And in order for me to be a reserve policeman,
11 after doing my military service, I would have to be entered into the
12 police structure, and I would have to gradually get appropriate training.
13 The accused Dosen, and this also refers to Sikirica and
14 Kolundzija, they did not go through this kind of training and they were
15 not on these lists of reserve policemen.
16 Q. The authorities accorded some weight to the fact that persons
17 were -- had received military training. That appears to be the case.
18 Would you agree with that?
19 A. In part, because -- actually, there is a document when Dosen did
20 his military service. However, security culture belonging to the police,
21 which involves a wide range of authority, should not be put into the hands
22 of people who are inappropriately or insufficiently trained or educated.
23 Generally speaking and also specifically from a police point of
24 view, I've also said Dosen, Sikirica, and Kolundzija, had they refused to
25 carry out a task, they would have been held accountable by a military
1 court, and they would have been sentenced to more than the lady doctor who
2 was sentenced to eight years.
3 Q. All right. Let me stop you there. In terms of military training,
4 anyone undertaking military training, and that would include the accused
5 Damir Dosen, would be trained in the importance of correct treatment of
6 civilians; correct?
7 A. In part I could agree, because in the army, I am a soldier doing
8 my military service, and I came to train in military activities. And in
9 the army, this relationship is not defined to such an extent; that is to
10 say, military interest is not represented in the police. The situation is
11 different because, through communication with persons, there is
12 interesting security information that is obtained and that is a different
14 Q. Sir, surely in military training, recruits, whatever they're
15 called, would be trained in the proper treatment of civilians and indeed
16 the proper treatment of prisoners. Agree or disagree, please.
17 A. I could not say that military training is of decisive importance.
18 As far as Dosen is concerned, I think that it is family upbringing that is
19 more important, and we heard that he did certain things that were in the
20 domain of goodwill.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Dr. Lakcevic, please answer the question that was
22 asked. The question was, "Surely military training recruits, whatever
23 they are called, would be trained in the proper treatment of civilians
24 and, indeed, in the proper treatment of prisoners. Do you agree or
25 disagree with that?" And let us just have a simple answer, not a
2 A. I agree.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Move on, Ms. Baly.
4 MS. BALY: Thank you.
5 Q. And can you just agree or disagree with some more propositions,
6 please, without expanding unless you absolutely have to. They would also
7 receive training in the use of weapons; agree or disagree?
8 A. They were being trained. It's not that they passed certain
9 examinations so that I could say whether they actually were trained or
10 not. They were being trained. They were in the process of being trained.
11 Q. Thank you. They would be trained in the importance of following
12 orders and the importance of, in fact, giving orders; in other words, the
13 importance of the army hierarchy, superior/subordinate army hierarchy.
14 Would you agree or disagree with that?
15 A. I think that the question is a leading one, and I don't think it's
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not for you to determine. That is
18 entirely out of order. It is for the Chamber to determine that.
19 A. I do apologise.
20 May I just say one thing? I already answered in this respect that
21 Dosen, Kolundzija, and Sikirica did not have the status, the official post
22 of persons in superior positions -- persons of superior positions. So
23 that's an answer to this question, too.
24 MS. BALY:
25 Q. All right. That's your answer, then. What about training in
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Geneva Conventions? Did they receive some training in what the Geneva
2 Conventions require?
3 A. I'm sorry, who are you referring to?
4 Q. I'm referring to those persons who received military training.
5 Did they get some training in the importance of respecting the Geneva
7 A. An ordinary soldier, no.
8 Q. You know that Damir Dosen completed his military training and that
9 he was, in fact, reportedly a very good soldier. You know that, don't
10 you, sir?
11 A. I heard about that.
12 Q. And you also know that he signed the solemn declaration which is
13 Exhibit D26/2 in these proceedings. You know that, don't you?
14 A. I know that, and I gave my comment concerning that in my expert
15 opinion, what I think about the signing of the oath, et cetera.
16 Q. Yes, I'll come to that in a moment. But what flows, sir, from the
17 fact that he was deemed or designated an authorised officer? What flows
18 from that?
19 A. The authorised official, including a reserve policeman in the case
20 of emergency security, has the same treatment as a regular police officer
21 de jure, but in practice, I think there is a wide discrepancy there. For
22 instance, if Kolundzija were to come to Sikirica and they both had signed
23 a solemn oath and are not professionally trained, and I do see that they
24 had to have carried out the orders, the military type of orders, so if
25 you -- if they showed their military ID, if they showed it to the
1 person --
2 Q. Please stop there. So on its face, the fact that the accused were
3 designated an authorised officer gave the accused the same duties or power
4 as an ordinary policeman; that's the effect of it. Would you agree or
6 A. In part. In regard of Keraterm, yes, but outside of that, no.
7 Q. Thank you. You say in your report at page 12 that your view is
8 that the solemn declaration signed by the accused Damir Dosen was a
9 coerced declaration. That's what you said in your report. What I'm
10 asking you is why you say that.
11 A. Just a moment, please. I did not say coerced, but that is what it
12 can be interpreted as because you will either sign it or you will be sent
13 to the military tribunal. So he decided to sign it, which is quite
15 Q. You never asked him why he signed it, did you?
16 A. I was not in the position to interview Dosen.
17 Q. So you just assumed that it must have been coerced. That's what
18 you did, isn't it?
19 A. That is a general statement, and that is sort of what stands to
20 reason, that the person who is not professionally trained is taken in to
21 carry out a certain type of assignment, and I agree with that and what you
22 stated. But there is some psychological coercion involved there which
23 underlies his signing of the declaration.
24 Q. In any event, sir, he signed the declaration, he was provided with
25 a uniform and a weapon, he was certainly physically equipped to act as a
1 policeman, and he worked alongside others who were similarly equipped, and
2 he was paid to perform his tasks. Would you agree with that statement?
3 A. Yes, I would.
4 Q. And in addition, he had received military training and had been
5 reportedly a very good soldier. What I'm suggesting to you, sir, is that
6 having regard to all of those circumstances, the accused was, indeed,
7 equipped to perform the very basic tasks that he was required to perform
8 at Keraterm detention centre.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's a clear enough question, Dr. Lakcevic.
10 Can we have a simple answer.
11 A. One could say yes as regard the physical security, but not more
12 complex tasks within the police competences.
13 MS. BALY:
14 Q. Now, let's turn to some of the other tasks that he may have been
15 required to perform at Keraterm. You gave some evidence on Thursday about
16 the accused's responsibility for the conditions in the camp. Let me just
17 see if I can have your responses to these questions. The accused in the
18 camp would have some responsibility overseeing access to food and access
19 to water that the inmates received. Would you agree with that?
20 A. No, because access to food, I don't -- it -- I don't find it clear
21 enough what it means, access to food.
22 Q. Well, if food was brought into the camp, wouldn't those who were
23 guarding the inmates in the camp have some responsibility over who
24 received access to that food and indeed to water in the camp?
25 A. I agree with you.
1 Q. And wouldn't it be the case that those engaged in those duties
2 would have some responsibility to ensure that injured prisoners received
3 some treatment?
4 A. Their duties would have been to inform the health centre by
5 telephone or the police station commander, that is, the Prijedor II police
6 station. And it could have been done cumulatively; in other words, both
7 could have been informed. The Crisis Staff had organised the Keraterm
8 camp and was duty-bound to organise and involve various subjects in order
9 for this camp to be able to function in an organised way and fulfil its
11 Q. And the same would apply in terms of the guards allowing the
12 inmates out of their rooms in order to receive fresh air and exercise;
14 A. I can accept that in part. Any camp or prison clearly defines
15 periods of time - two hours in some cases, some others may have different
16 rules - for fresh air. In other words, it is prescribed to guards when,
17 at what time they can let people out. And these are the so-called house
18 rules that regulates distribution of food, when the food would arrive, and
19 also other criteria such as sanitation, food, electrical power, water, and
20 of course, medical assistance.
21 Q. Just say there were no house rules. Wouldn't it be a basic
22 function of the guards, if there were no house rules, to allow the inmates
23 out of their rooms to receive some air and take some exercise?
24 A. Excuse me. Somebody within this structure has to designate how
25 this issue of fresh air is to be regulated. My position is that somebody
1 from the Prijedor II police station decided about the time period and the
2 circumstances under which the doors to the rooms could be opened and so
4 Q. Well, you never saw such a designation, did you? You never saw
5 such a document setting out what those house rules were, did you?
6 A. Right. I never saw it. But these rules could also be verbal
7 ones. In other words, they could be verbal orders.
8 Q. And you were never privy to whether there were any verbal orders
9 actually in existence, were you?
10 A. No. I'm not aware of it.
11 Q. And, sir, wouldn't it be the case that if, say, the authorities
12 provided inadequate food, then it would be the responsibility of the
13 guards, in their ordinary duties, to allow visitors to come to the camp
14 and bring food?
15 A. Someone who is superior to the guards has to decide on that. They
16 themselves are risking -- I would agree with them as a humanist, but he
17 would risk violating or clashing with the rules, the house rules or other
18 regulations governing the facility. And I believe that it was Dosen,
19 Sikirica, and Kolundzija, did such things, which I personally would have
21 Q. But your personal view is that in doing such things, they in fact
22 breached their duties. That was your view on Thursday. Is that still
23 your view today?
24 A. I still think that, because in the police you have the principle
25 of subordination, and the orders of the superior have to be carried out,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 provided they're not criminal acts. And the rules of behaviour has to
2 be -- have been harmonised with other legislation.
3 Q. Sir, doesn't it seem odd to you that if the guards in the camp
4 assisted the prisoners in terms of those very basic needs, that they would
5 be in violation of their duties? Doesn't that seem quite bizarre to you?
6 A. There's nothing bizarre in times of war, unfortunately.
7 Q. Thank you. Now, moving on, you gave some evidence about a
8 document which is D39/2, which was a document issued or dated the 16th of
9 July this year, which certifies that the accused Damir Dosen was engaged
10 as a reserve policeman without any leading function. Do you recall that
11 document and giving some evidence about it?
12 A. I remember.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Rodic is on his feet. Mr. Rodic, yes.
14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] My apologies for interrupting my
15 learned friend. Can we please see the document or can the witness please
16 see the documents that he's asked to comment on?
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let the document be shown. That's D39/2.
18 MS. BALY:
19 Q. Now, sir, let's just look at that document. It was issued at the
20 request of the accused's attorney, and in the document, it says that, "It
21 shall serve in the proceedings conducted before The Hague Tribunal and may
22 not be used for any other purpose."
23 I was wondering if you could assist us, sir, as to why that would
24 be, why it couldn't be used for any other purpose.
25 A. In the former Yugoslavia and in the current republics, the case is
1 the same. The certificates issued are for very strictly defined
2 purposes. So this was asked -- he -- the Defence counsel had made a
3 request, and the police station commander did exactly like he was supposed
4 to do. I think he did what was right.
5 Q. But then why, sir, couldn't it be used for any other purpose
6 except for entering into evidence?
7 A. Because the counsel asked for the certificate for very strict
8 purpose. In other words, if he was -- if it was used -- for instance, had
9 Dosen been injured or something, then it would be then sent to the social
10 care institutions for regulating his disability or things like that.
11 Q. The other document that you gave some evidence about, which was
12 Exhibit D20/2, was a document that was obtained in a similar fashion and
13 is also dated the 16th of July, and it refers to Damir Dosen's role as a
14 soldier. Do you remember that document? I don't have it here.
15 MS. BALY: I wonder if the witness could be shown that document.
16 Can I have a look at that document? Is that D20/2?
17 Q. You have D20/2 before you, sir. That's a document that refers to
18 the accused Dosen's role as a soldier. Sir, that document, that is,
19 D20/2, doesn't have the same restriction as the other document, does it?
20 In fact, it says that, "The document has the character of a public
21 document for the purposes of Article 171, paragraph 3, of the General
22 Administrative Procedure Act and shall serve as a proof." That's what it
23 says, that document, doesn't it?
24 A. No. Because here it states for proof, that means that Rade
25 Aleksic, the chief -- and the Defence counsel may have omitted, they could
1 have added for the -- providing evidence at The Hague Tribunal. In other
2 words, The Hague Tribunal could have been added, but here it is -- it says
3 evidence of proof.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't know what turns on that point.
5 MS. BALY: I'll move along, then.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: And you've been going for some time. How much
7 longer do you intend to --
8 MS. BALY: I intend to finish before or at the break, if I may.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, okay.
10 MS. BALY:
11 Q. Let's go back again to the document D39/2, regarding the accused
12 as a reserve policeman. That document doesn't refer to the birth date of
13 the accused Damir Dosen, does it?
14 A. At the moment, I don't have access to that document.
15 MS. BALY: Can it be given back to him, please.
16 Q. It doesn't refer to the birth date of the accused.
17 A. As regards the military, the Ministry of Defence.
18 Q. No, sir. I'm asking you to look at the document that talks about
19 his role as a reserve policeman, and it's quite simple: It doesn't refer
20 to his birth date, does it?
21 A. It does not. Do you need an answer why it doesn't?
22 Q. No, I don't need an answer why. It doesn't define the term
23 "leading function," does it?
24 A. No. The leading function is not used.
25 Q. It's not defined.
1 A. No leading function.
2 Q. The question is, it doesn't say what a leading function is. It
3 doesn't define the term "leading function," does it?
4 A. I completely agree with that.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 A. And it should have been more specific.
7 Q. It doesn't refer to the accused's role in Keraterm camp at all,
8 does it? Specifically, I mean.
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. It refers to the Public Security Centre at Prijedor as the CJB
11 when in fact at that time it was known as the SJB. That's correct, isn't
13 A. You just sort of caught me off guard. Yes, you are right.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 A. The centre of the Security Services was in Banja Luka, but this is
16 the Public Security Centre. You are right.
17 Q. Thank you. And it does not reference the -- perhaps I'll rephrase
18 that. It does not refer to any records that may have been used in
19 preparation for the document, does it?
20 A. That is correct. Even though this is not usual, the usual
21 practice, to say -- to quote what documents form the basis of this, but in
22 that case, it would have been complete had it been referred to.
23 Q. Certainly on the other document dated the 16th of July, the
24 records that were used in preparation for that document were referred to,
1 A. The military is much more organised in that respect than the
2 police in terms of issuing certificates and documents of that kind. In
3 fact, such certificate is -- can -- forms -- this type of document can be
4 bought as a form in military bookstores.
5 Q. All right, sir. But taking into account all of those factors that
6 I've -- you've agreed with me on in relation to the role -- the document
7 that refers to Damir Dosen's role as a policeman, you couldn't give it
8 much weight, could you? Would you agree or disagree with that
10 A. I completely agree with that.
11 Q. Thank you. Finally, finally, sir, the commander of the police
12 station at Prijedor was the person with the authority to punish
13 subordinates in Keraterm camp who committed crimes or breaches of duty.
14 That's your evidence. Is that correct?
15 A. Excuse me, I did not hear you well. To whom does the right to
16 punish refer? The security or -- to punish the security personnel, is
17 that what you're referring to?
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just repeat the question.
19 MS. BALY:
20 Q. The question was, sir, the commander of the police station at
21 Prijedor was the person with the authority to punish subordinates in
22 Keraterm camp who committed crimes or breaches of duty. That's your
23 evidence. Is that correct?
24 A. No, because according -- if we, if we have this physical security
25 which is under the police commander, in our jurisdiction, not unlike in
1 England, the police does not have the right to implement the provisions of
2 criminal called law. They can only forward their complaint to the next
3 level for investigation, and then it would be referred to the public
4 prosecutor for instituting proceedings.
5 So the commander of Prijedor II police station did not have the
6 right to punish. He is duty-bound to report on a breach of discipline to
7 the ...
8 Q. The whole system of punishing those who breach discipline relied
9 upon every particular officer in their particular position doing what
10 they -- taking what reasonable measures they could in order to ensure that
11 that -- the person who had committed the breach was indeed punished or
12 disciplined. Would you agree with that general proposition?
13 A. Yes, with a small clarification. As I said, this is when it -- it
14 refers to the active police officer on duty. That would be done by the
15 security services centre, and the commander of the public security station
16 would file such a report.
17 However, because we have reserve police officers here, the
18 punishment is not the same. The procedure is not the one that is applied
19 to the regular officer. If the breach is more serious, such a police
20 officer would be relieved of duty and would be referred to the military
21 defence office, and as a rule, this office would send such a person to the
22 front line.
23 Q. Let me just put, finally, this proposition to you: The chain of
24 reporting such breaches had to start with the one who observed the breach;
25 correct? Because those superiors who were not there couldn't know about
1 anything untoward unless they were told by those on the ground; correct?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. Thank you, sir.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Rodic, are you going to re-examine?
5 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I may have about 15
6 minutes at the most, so I think we can proceed after the break.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We'll take the break now.
8 Dr. Lakcevic, we are going to adjourn for half an hour. We will
9 resume at 11.30. During the adjournment, you are not to discuss your
10 evidence with anybody, including the members of the Defence.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 --- Recess taken at 11.00 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 11.30 a.m.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Rodic.
15 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Re-examined by Mr. Rodic:
17 Q. Dr. Lakcevic, I shall try to make my re-examination as short as
18 possible, so I would kindly ask you for your cooperation. I shall put
19 specific questions to you, and could you please keep your answers short as
21 A. Thank you.
22 Q. As for your conclusions during your testimony and also when you
23 drafted your expert opinion, did you base them on documents and
24 regulations concerning police work?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. During the examination-in-chief, you said that daily assignments
2 of police work in the Prijedor II Police Station is the key document for
3 the work of this police station for a given day. In practice, are the
4 rights and rules of the shift commander, the deputy, the policeman, et
5 cetera, are they all regulated in such a document or in laws?
6 A. No. They are not regulated by laws either. They are regulated by
7 bylaws, and that is the rules on the internal organisation and job
8 classification of the Serb republic.
9 Q. In that document, it is precisely stated which facilities are
10 provided with security and which members of the police take part in
11 guarding these facilities. Is it necessary -- in this daily duty roster,
12 is it necessary to describe their duties specifically?
13 A. No, it is not necessary.
14 Q. If there is a post of shift commander, do you agree with me that
15 he should have greater responsibility than the other guards, and thereby
16 it should be expected that such persons hold a higher rank within the
17 police force, which would also be expressed by way of a higher salary in
18 their favour?
19 A. Yes, I agree.
20 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I would like the usher to show the
21 witness document D56/1 briefly. This is a payroll of the Prijedor II
22 Police Station for the month of July 1992.
23 Q. Do you see the beginning of this document by the name and surname
24 of -- names and surnames of the first three persons on that list, do you
25 see the posts they hold? Please, just wait before answering.
1 Can you tell us what these designations by the name mean?
2 A. They mean, number one, Jokovljevic Ranko, deputy commander, it
3 says ZK for smene komandir, that is, deputy commander; then Plavic Rajko,
4 PK, that is, assistance commander, pomocnik komandir; then Grujic Boro,
5 assistant commander, abbreviated as PK, pomocnik komandir. And also
6 there's a difference in salaries. The deputy has 13.000, as far as I can
7 see, and the two assistants have 11.000 respectively, whereas all others
8 have 9.300 dinars.
9 Q. Thank you. What about inspectors, investigators, regardless of
10 whether they belong to military or civilian security, state security, in
11 the police hierarchy, are they considerably above policemen, especially
12 ordinary policemen?
13 A. That is certainly so. At least four or five steps are involved,
14 to put this figuratively.
15 Q. Thank you. You already said that you used documents that were
16 introduced by the Defence when giving your findings when you spoke about
17 the 27th of May and the transfer of detainees from Keraterm to Omarska.
18 Did you read this information in the report of the police station or,
19 rather, the report of the Public Security Station of Prijedor?
20 A. Yes, yes.
21 Q. In that report it is said that on the basis of the decision of the
22 Crisis Staff on the 27th of May, 1992, all prisoners of war were
23 transferred to Omarska and then new ones were brought in, regardless of
24 whether they were captured during armed conflict or were brought in on the
25 basis of other operational procedures. Do you base your findings on these
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Thank you. Also, in the police report for the first six months
4 published in June 1992, it was mentioned, inter alia, that the police
5 guarded vehicles that transferred persons from Keraterm. In your opinion,
6 as for this transfer, in addition to policemen, members of the reserve
7 force of the Prijedor II police station, could the security have been
8 provided by policemen from other police stations as well?
9 A. Yes, that was possible.
10 Q. Regardless of the arms and services where a military conscript
11 does his military service, if such a person is later assigned in terms of
12 his military obligation in -- is assigned to the military police, does
13 this person have to undergo police training as well in order to know what
14 legal authority he has as a policeman?
15 A. Yes. This is explicit.
16 Q. As for the accused Dosen, when he responded to his call-up, since
17 he is a military conscript, was assigned to the reserve police force, is
18 it customary in such a situation to sign the oath?
19 A. Yes, yes.
20 Q. First of all, had the accused Dosen not responded to the general
21 mobilisation call-up, would he have to suffer certain sanctions because of
23 A. Yes. He would have been held criminally responsible by the law
24 and criminal procedure, and this is a grave breach as it was carried out
25 in times of war, and that would involve very severe punishment.
1 Q. Also during cross-examination, my learned friend from the
2 Prosecution showed you a certificate that was issued by the police station
3 Prijedor II in which it is stated that in the critical period of time, the
4 accused Dosen did not have any leading duties or posts in the police.
5 My question is the following: The information from this
6 certificate, is it contained in the official records of the police station
7 that issued that certificate?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Also, the document that was issued by the Ministry of Defence, the
10 military department in Prijedor, with all the information relating to the
11 accused Dosen, his military service, the arms and services he belonged to
12 during his military service, his ability to carry out military service in
13 the military department, is there also a military file of his which is
14 also an official document, an official record?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. Thank you. In conclusion, I would like to ask you one more
17 thing. In keeping with legal regulations concerning police work, who
18 gives orders concerning emergency security?
19 A. Orders concerning emergency security are issued by the head of the
20 public security police station, in this case of Prijedor, or the commander
21 of Prijedor II police station, because powers are transferred in that way.
22 Q. One more question. A person who issues an order for emergency
23 security, does such a person exercise control and supervision over how
24 this emergency security is carried out?
25 A. That is correct. Yes, such a person does so.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have just completed my
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Rodic.
5 Dr. Lakcevic, that concludes your testimony, and you are
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for everything.
8 It was an honour for me to be here to answer questions, both those put by
9 the Prosecution and those put by the Defence. Thank you once again.
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Petrovic, your next witness.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to take
13 this opportunity to inform you that we have two more witnesses. One is a
14 fact witness and the other one is an expert witness, a psychiatrist. So I
15 would like to suggest that we first call the fact witness. I would not
16 like to state this person's name publicly. I would kindly ask for
17 protective measures; namely, I would like to ask for a pseudonym and for
18 face distortion. Since this is a person who is an ethnic Muslim who lives
19 in a third country, who for a certain period of time was in Keraterm, and
20 for all these reasons, he has concerns for his own security and safety.
21 So I would kindly ask the Court to grant him the protective measures that
22 he is seeking.
23 If you need any additional clarification or explanations, I stand
24 ready to provide it.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: The application is granted.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the next witness will be
3 Witness DR.
4 MR. LAWRENCE: May I --
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, certainly.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone for the
7 speaker. The microphone is not on.
8 MR. LAWRENCE: The microphone's on, but I wasn't speaking into
9 it. There are one or two matters that I would like to raise with the
10 Court at a convenient moment. They won't take very long.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We'll bear that in mind.
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
15 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone to the witness, please.
17 WITNESS: Witness DR
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could we please move
20 into closed session briefly.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, closed session.
22 [Private session]
25 [Open session]
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Was there someone else with you when you were arrested?
3 A. There were two or three young men in the same car.
4 Q. Where were you brought to exactly when you were arrested?
5 A. I was taken to the military police building behind the Keraterm
7 Q. Can you describe to us briefly what this building looked like?
8 A. A small, like, prefabricated building with a few rooms.
9 Q. Were you questioned in this building?
10 A. I was questioned there.
11 Q. Can you tell us what you were asked in that building?
12 A. They asked me what my year of birth was, where I was born, my
13 father's name, my mother's name, my name, where I was during the attack on
14 Prijedor; things like that.
15 Q. Can you remember what the man who interrogated you looked like?
16 A. I can't. There were a few men there, not only one.
17 Q. Did these men wear military uniforms?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did they perhaps have certain ranks?
20 A. I did not notice.
21 Q. Can you tell us approximately the time when this happened, which
23 A. The end of July.
24 Q. After the interrogation at the military police building, where
25 were you taken to?
1 A. I was taken to Room number 1 on the front side of Keraterm.
2 Q. Approximately how much time did you spend in Keraterm?
3 A. Twelve days. On the twelfth day, I was released.
4 Q. Did you know a person nicknamed Kajin from before the war?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. How well did you know this person?
7 A. Well, as a man from town, nothing more than that. Just as Kajin,
8 that's all.
9 Q. Did you ever socialise with him or did you ever have any other
10 kind of relationship with him?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Can you tell us how your family found out that you were in
14 A. When I came to Keraterm the first day, one of the guards walked up
15 to me, and he said to me that he was my sister's schoolmate, and he said
16 to me, "Do you want me to call your family and tell them where you are?"
17 Q. Did he ask you to make a phone call or what?
18 A. No. He just asked me what the telephone number was, and he said
19 that he would call my home, that he would call my parents.
20 Q. Do you know whether he actually did that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. After a few days, did you contact your family once again?
23 A. Two or three days later, yes. I actually rang my home.
24 Q. Can you explain to the Honourable Trial Chamber under which
25 circumstances you made a telephone call to your home.
1 A. That day, Kajin walked up to me and said, "You want to ring your
2 home?" And I said, "Yes, if I can." And he took me to some scales near
3 the exit out of Keraterm, and that is where he gave me a telephone so that
4 I could ring my home.
5 Q. Did you actually phone your home? Who did you talk to and what
6 was this telephone call about, if you remember?
7 A. I talked to my mother, and I told her not to worry, not to be
8 upset. And I told her to bring me some things and some food to Keraterm,
9 some clothing and food.
10 Q. Did you get something, any of these things that you asked your
11 mother to send to you?
12 A. During this time that I spent there, 11 days and the 12th day, on
13 three occasions I got food and clothes.
14 Q. Can you tell us how these deliveries were made to you of the stuff
15 that was sent to you by your family?
16 A. My brother-in-law would bring it to the gate. He did it three
17 times. And then from the gate, the guards would bring it to the room or
18 in front of the room, and that was handed to me.
19 Q. Later on, did you learn whether everything that was sent to you
20 actually reached you?
21 A. Yes. Everything that had been sent to me reached me, including
23 Q. Did other men who were detained in the same room with you also
24 receive packages?
25 A. They did. Not all of them, but some did.
1 Q. Can you tell us approximately how many people from among those of
2 you who in that room at the time you were in Keraterm?
3 A. Seventy to 80 per cent of the people.
4 Q. Did you share what you received with other people who were
5 detained with you there?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. During this period of time that you spent in Keraterm, about ten
8 days, you said, did you ever see Damir Dosen issuing any orders to anyone,
9 either to the guards or to the people who were detained there?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you perhaps see Damir Dosen mistreat anyone, beat anyone, or
12 attend beatings administered by others?
13 A. No, I did not see it.
14 Q. Did you see Dosen talking to persons who were detained at
16 A. Yes, I did see that on several occasions.
17 Q. What did these conversations look like, if you were able to see?
18 A. They were just regular conversations, and I noticed on a couple of
19 occasions that they were laughing and making jokes.
20 Q. Do you remember the day when Keraterm was closed down?
21 A. I do.
22 Q. Can you tell us what happened, based on your own recollection.
23 A. On that day, I don't know the exact number of buses that arrived
24 and the police from the SUP in town, I don't know who was calling people
25 out by names, but as we were being called out, they would proceed to board
1 buses, and then we were bused to Trnopolje.
2 Q. Were these police from the Prijedor SUP involved in your
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. On that day, did you perhaps see Damir Dosen, Kajin, in Keraterm?
6 A. No.
7 Q. During the period after Keraterm, did you ever hear from anyone
8 anything -- saying anything bad about Kajin?
9 A. No, I did not.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] For the last question, can we
11 please move into the private session.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
13 [Private session]
13 Page 5568 – redacted – private session
20 [Open Session]
21 MR. RYNEVELD: Oh, I see.
22 THE REGISTRAR: -- we're still in private session on the
24 MR. RYNEVELD: Somehow I thought I had said something
25 inappropriate or something --
1 THE REGISTRAR: No.
2 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. Where was I?
3 Q. So, sir, you don't know how many shifts there were, that just
4 people were coming and going. Now, you were placed in Room 1 upon your
5 arrival; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And, sir, is it fair to say that the people in Room 1 were
8 generally people from the Prijedor area? You knew many of those people?
9 A. They were from Prijedor. Not from the centre of town, from the
10 surrounding areas. I did not know all of them, but I knew quite a number
11 of them by sight.
12 Q. Were you interrogated at all, sir, during your brief stay at
14 A. Only when I was brought to that building where the military police
15 was and on the day when the camp was getting closed, when I was being
17 Q. Were you taken upstairs to Keraterm and interviewed or
18 interrogated by some official at Keraterm?
19 A. I was taken to the upper floor and I was interrogated by two men
20 who probably were security officers from the SUP in town, because those
21 were the types of -- the uniform that they were wearing.
22 Q. Yes. But that was on your last day. That was the date of your
23 release, was it?
24 A. I cannot recall whether it was the last day or the next to last
25 day, but it was around there.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that the people in Room 1 with whom
2 you were, were deemed to be not extremists? Did you hear anything about
3 that while you were there?
4 A. No, I did not.
5 Q. During the 10 or 11 days that you were there, were you aware of
6 any beatings taking place in the camp?
7 A. On the first or second day after I was brought there, actually,
8 the night, two men were taken out that one night.
9 Q. Out of your room or a different room?
10 A. From my room.
11 Q. And did you see them when they came back?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What was their condition when they returned?
14 A. I saw one of them because he was close to me, and the other one
15 was a bit farther away, so I could not observe what he looked like. And
16 they also came back during the dark. He had several bruises.
17 Q. Did they tell you what happened to them?
18 A. I didn't even ask them, because I thought that I would be called
19 out, too, but I wasn't.
20 Q. Why were you afraid that you, too, would be called out? Was that
21 a common experience during the time you were there?
22 A. That was the only incident that happened during my stay there.
23 Q. How about other rooms? Did you hear that prisoners were being
24 taken out of other rooms while you were there?
25 A. No, I did not hear.
1 Q. Were you -- were the doors -- I'm sorry. Were the doors locked at
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And did Kajin have keys, on his shift, to lock the doors to your
5 room? Do you recall?
6 A. I cannot tell you, because I did not see that.
7 Q. Finally, sir, when you were called out, do I understand you
8 correctly that names were written -- were read from a list and then you
9 were loaded onto buses? Is that what I understood you to say?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And do you know who would be reading out those lists, whether the
12 soldiers or the guards? Who would be reading out the lists so you would
13 know to get on the buses to be taken to Trnopolje?
14 A. These were people from the Prijedor SUP, from the town. They were
15 wearing different type of uniforms than the guards did.
16 Q. Thank you, sir.
17 MR. RYNEVELD: Those are my questions.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Ryneveld. Witness DR, that --
19 Mr. Petrovic.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, no, Your Honour. No, no
21 questions. This is all I have.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
23 Witness DR, that concludes your testimony, and you are released.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Petrovic, your next witness.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Our next witness
2 is the last witness we have. This is Dr. Dusica Lecic-Tosevski, a
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, let her be called.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
8 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
9 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 WITNESS: DUSICA LECIC-TOSEVSKI
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.
12 Examined by Mr. Petrovic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] [No translation].
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone to the counsel, please.
15 A. My name is Dusica Lecic-Tosevski.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Can you tell us what is your title, academic title.
18 A. I am a doctor of medical science, psychiatrist, and the associate
19 professor of psychiatry at the school of medicine, University of Belgrade.
20 I'm also head of the stress clinic at the Institute of Mental Health in
22 Q. Can you tell me what is your specialisation?
23 A. [Previous translation continues]... of the personality disorders
24 unit, and now I am, as I said, the head of the stress clinic which was
25 established in 1994 at Institute of Mental Health. Nowadays I'm dealing
1 with traumatised persons and who have experienced either war or civilian
3 Q. Can you tell us whether you are active in the International
4 Psychiatric Association and other professional associations?
5 A. Yes, I am a member of associations, psychiatric associations, and
6 I'm also president of the section on preventive psychiatry of the Royal
7 Psychiatric Association as well as a member of one of the six
8 operational -- six committees of the WPA, World Psychiatric Association,
9 or committee -- operational committee on sections.
10 Q. I wouldn't take you into any details about your publications, but
11 can you tell us whether you're one of the co-authors of the New Oxford
12 Textbook on Psychiatry?
13 A. [Previous translation continues]... chapter on personality
14 disorders on New Oxford Textbook on Psychiatry published in the year of
16 Q. Can you tell us whether you had given evidence before this
17 Tribunal earlier?
18 A. [Previous translation continues]... I've been invited to be an
19 expert witness for the accused, Mr. Todorovic.
20 Q. Before we move on to what is the essence of your expert report,
21 could you tell us, in principle, what classifications of diagnosis did you
22 use in your expert report?
23 A. [Previous translation continues]... diagnostic --
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Baly.
25 MS. BALY: The court reporter just requested that I convey through
1 Your Honours that they're having some difficulty because the witness is
2 not pausing before she answers.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Dr. Lecic, you have to pause between
4 questions and answers to allow the interpreters to interpret.
5 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. I would like to ask you to please repeat the answer. What
8 diagnostic methods and classifications did you use in your opinion?
9 A. I used two classifications, two contemporary classifications. The
10 first one is DSM-IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association,
11 and the second one is ICD-10 published by the WHO, World Health
13 Q. Can you tell us, did you have an opportunity to carry out an
14 interview with the accused Damir Dosen and to apply the methods that you
15 have mentioned and to apply them to your expert opinion as concerns Damir
17 A. Yes, I have had the opportunity.
18 Q. Can you tell us, what instruments did you use to arrive at your
19 diagnosis which you submitted in the report that you compiled and that was
20 distributed to the parties in the courtroom today?
21 A. My diagnostic was triple, or rather, it consisted of three things.
22 First I have used the structured clinical psychiatric interview, then I
23 have used the DSM-IV classification and its operational criteria for
24 psychiatric disorders, and third I used a few tests for measuring clinical
25 symptoms, stress, depression, and personality. If you wish, I may mention
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 what are these tests.
2 Q. Madam Lecic, we'll come to that, but before we do, I would like to
3 ask the usher's assistance, please, to distribute documents that I have.
4 If they can be distributed both to the Trial Chamber and to the witness,
5 and I believe that my learned friends already were provided with a copy of
6 the document.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] These are the documents that the
8 expert witness had available to her when drafting her expert report.
9 We have five separate documents. If he can please distribute all
10 of them. And all of them, I think, are already in the possession of my
11 learned friends from the Prosecution.
12 Q. Could you please take a look at the documents that the usher just
13 gave you, and could you tell me whether these are the documents that had
14 been made available to you when you were working on your expert opinion.
15 A. Yes. I have seen all these documents, and they were helpful for
16 my diagnostic.
17 Q. Before I ask you about your expert findings, could you please tell
18 us how the accused Damir Dosen, the subject of your interview, behaved
19 during that interview.
20 A. [Previous translation continues]... at the beginning, and this
21 tension gradually decreased during the course of the interview. However,
22 during the whole interview hours, he --
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Dr. Lecic, I think there is missing from your
24 answer the first part. On the transcript, it just says "... at the
25 beginning," so could you just repeat your answer.
1 A. Mr. Dosen was very tense at the beginning. Would that be enough?
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's enough, yes.
3 A. However, during the whole course of the interview, he from time to
4 time became very excited and was showing high level of emotions.
5 Actually, he was crying, especially when speaking about the loss of his
6 first baby, the loss of his father who died during his detention, about
7 the experiences in Keraterm, and when he spoke about his children.
8 He also manifested many vegetative signs or, rather, bodily signs
9 of his tension and excitement, like changing the colour of his face, like
10 trembling, changing the tone of the voice, and different other vegetative
11 signs that could be observable.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just another correction, you -- did you speak of
13 "changing" the colour of his face, or change "in" the colour of his face?
14 A. Changing.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Changing?
16 A. Changing. He became red --
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
18 A. -- during the interview. He had hot flashes, and he was sweating.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. On the basis of the tests and interviews you carried out, what is
22 your diagnosis?
23 A. [Previous translation continues]... complex diagnostics, I reached
24 the following diagnosis: Post-traumatic stress disorder of a chronic
25 type, generalised anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder of a
1 recurrent type. All these disorders are from the so-called axis 1 of the
2 DSM-IV classification. He also filled all criteria for dependent
3 personality disorder, which is classified in the axis 2. And on the axis
4 4, he manifested multiple polymorphous stress factors, intense stress
5 factors, which are listed in my report and which were verified by the
6 traumatic events questionnaire.
7 Q. First of all, I would like to go back to the first part of what
8 you said. What can you tell us about the stress of the accused?
9 A. The accused has experienced multiple traumas and multiple
10 stressors, and the first one, the most intense one, was when he lost his
11 first baby and which was, which was very disturbing for him and especially
12 for his wife. And then during the situation in Keraterm, I think it was
13 on the 25th of July, when he manifested signs of the acute stress
14 reaction. He then vomited, cried, was very disturbed, experienced intense
15 horror, threw away his pistol, and had a sort of panic attack or, rather,
16 acute stress reaction.
17 After that, during the -- his military service or when he was
18 taken to the military service, in the training, when he was drunk, he hit
19 his arm by bullet. He said it was by accident, which was very traumatic
20 for him, too. And also during the time of his military service or combat
21 in Brcko and Gornji Vakuf, he acquired a serious virus infection with very
22 high temperature because of which he was taken to the hospital. He was
23 very weak and he had very many body somatic sensations. He was given a
24 penicillin injection and experienced allergic reaction due to penicillin.
25 After that, he experienced panic attack and had all the symptoms of
1 intense stress.
2 All these symptoms were the introduction into a full-blown
3 post-traumatic stress disorder which he experienced later on in 1994, and
4 then he was hospitalised because of these symptoms, which was documented
5 in the papers I was given by the counsels.
6 It may be seen in these documents that he was treated because of
7 the stress-anxiety condition and also because of the reactive depression.
8 Those were the diagnoses. But in the description of the stress-anxiety
9 condition, all the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder were listed,
10 although by different name, but the symptoms were there, and he was
11 treated by high doses of antidepressants, antipsychotic, and sedatives at
12 the time.
13 After that, he was very -- he was excused from military service
14 for some time, and he was completely socially and professionally
15 incapacitated and could not work because of the intense symptoms that he
17 Q. Can you draw a distinction between acute stress reaction on the
18 one hand and PTSD on the other?
19 A. Acute stress reaction and PTSD are similar disorders which are
20 consequences of intense trauma. The differences is only in the course, in
21 how long they last - acute stress reaction is shorter - and in the
22 intensity of symptoms. Most frequently, acute stress reaction is an
23 introduction to the full-blown manifestation of post-traumatic stress
24 disorder, which is a serious disorder.
25 Q. If I'm not mistaken, you actually listed 30 traumas in your expert
1 opinion, if I'm not mistaken, 30 traumas that you identified in the case
2 of this subject. Can you identify all of them for us?
3 A. [Previous translation continues]... measures the -- rather, first
4 identifies the traumas, the stressors that the patient has been exposed to
5 and then measures the level of disturbance, and Mr. Dosen has experienced
6 multiple stressors, about 30 out of 80 that can be measured by this
7 questionnaire. All those stressors he experienced on a very intense
9 Q. What can you tell us about the personality of the accused Damir
10 Dosen on the basis your own findings?
11 A. On the basis of the clinical interview and the longitudinal
12 assessment of his personality, as well as on the basis of the
13 questionnaires, psychological tests that I've been using, Mr. Dosen
14 manifests dependent personality disorder, which is -- which can be
15 described by his passive, obedient behaviour, his very low self-esteem,
16 his insecurity, and his complying to the orders and wishes of others in
17 order to be accepted and supported.
18 All the time and most of his life he has manifested the wish to be
19 supported by other people. He also has very high respect for authorities
20 and for dominant figures. One of the most important authorities in his
21 life was his father, and his wife is also dominant figure in their married
22 life. He would do many things to please the others in order to be
23 accepted, as I said.
24 He also manifests low level of energy, very low aggressive
25 potential. Actually, he retroflects aggression towards himself.
1 Therefore, he has depression and does not manifest aggression. And he
2 also has obsessive personality traits, which means that he is prone to
3 cleanliness, that he's prone to organising order around himself, and also
4 being -- wants to be in control of himself, which is also manifested by
5 his ambivalence towards the others and his insecurity.
6 Q. We have already referred to the attitude Damir Dosen has towards
7 authority. Do you perhaps have some interesting examples to show
8 everything you said in terms of authority?
9 A. One of the interesting signs of his respect for authority I saw
10 when he told me how he behaves in the Detention Unit. He told me that he
11 feels and shows respect to those figures that were authorities before the
12 war in spite of his awareness that they are alike and they are the same
13 under the same conditions. But he still feels -- feels them as authority
15 He also manifested the same behaviour towards me during the course
16 of the interview. He wanted -- he was insecure in what he was doing, and
17 he was all the time asking questions and wanted support and felt insecure
18 that he was doing well during the course of the interview.
19 By respecting the authorities, he wants authorities to take
20 control of his life and to take responsibility for the major areas of his
21 life because of his dependency and passivity.
22 Q. You had questionnaires and other means at your disposal, and you
23 also estimated the aggressiveness of the accused. What are your findings
24 in that respect?
25 A. On all the tests that I applied, the level of aggression was
1 extremely low, unlike -- which was quite unusual in my experience. And
2 also very low was his narcissism or -- which was manifested -- which is
3 manifested by his low self-esteem and insecurity.
4 Q. The man that we are discussing and as you saw him, does he have
5 the capacity to organise other people, to be their leader in any way?
6 A. I don't think he has. He has the ability to comply with the
7 orders but not to lead the others. He doesn't have the necessary
8 aggressive potential and the necessary personality traits for the position
9 of a leader.
10 Q. According to what you saw and according to your own findings,
11 would that man be capable of voluntarily perceiving the torture of
12 others? How could he react to that if that were to happen? In other
13 words, are there any sadistic traits in his character?
14 A. No. I have not observed any aggressive nor sadistic traits in his
16 Q. For example, could you imagine a person described in such a way as
17 a man who committed a killing or some other grave crime?
18 A. No, I could not.
19 Q. Can you tell us something about the importance of the heredity
20 factor in the case of the accused who was the subject of your examination?
21 A. Psychiatric heredity is very important in the case of the accused.
22 His grandmother, his father's mother, developed severe depression with
23 psychotic features and has committed suicide by hanging. And also, his
24 aunt, his mother's sister, has committed suicide during the war by jumping
25 into the well.
1 It is well known in psychiatry that those persons who have suicide
2 in their family are at risk for developing depressive disorders, which the
3 accused has already developed, and they -- he might also develop more
4 severe depression in the future, with potential suicidal risk.
5 Q. Can you tell us something about the influence of this ailment that
6 you diagnosed in the case of the accused over the family? He is separated
7 from them now, but he lived with them, and then now what can the influence
8 be at the present?
9 A. Mr. Dosen has two sons, one of seven years and the second one of
10 13 months. The first son has obviously identified with his father and is
11 manifesting the similar symptoms. He's very anxious. He's worrying about
12 his body, about his -- he has fear of death and sickness all the time,
13 which is the case with the accused.
14 His younger son is sucking his thumb and is manifesting rocking,
15 and rocking means moving left and right before falling asleep, and this
16 symptom is a symptom of disordered, abandoned child.
17 Q. In conclusion, I would kindly like to ask you to put all of this
18 together, everything that we have been discussing, and what would your
19 prognosis be with regard to the ailment that you diagnosed in the case of
20 Damir Dosen?
21 A. At present, Mr. Dosen can't foresee his future, and it's part of
22 his depression that he is manifesting now. He's obsessed by his symptoms
23 and by his present condition at the detention unit.
24 As I already said, he has developed serious disorders, and by
25 being predisposed due to his heredity and due to his contributing
1 personality factors, he might develop more serious disorders in the
2 future. Of course, it depends on the prospect of his future. In any
3 case, I think that he needs treatment.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that would complete
5 the examination-in-chief. I would also like to ask that Dr. Lecic's
6 report be admitted into evidence as well as the five documents that were
7 distributed to the Court and to the parties in the courtroom. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, they are admitted, and may they be given
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the expert report will be Exhibit
11 D41/2, and the remaining five documents will run from D42/2 to D46/2.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much.
13 Is there any cross-examination?
14 MR. GREAVES: No questions, thank you.
15 MR. LAWRENCE: No questions.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, yes. Ms. Baly.
17 Cross-examined by Ms. Baly:
18 Q. Doctor, in order to prepare your report and provide your opinion,
19 you relied upon the interviews you conducted with the accused, the results
20 of the tests that you conducted, and his previous medical psychiatric
21 records from 1995 and 1996. Is that the total of what you relied upon?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did you familiarise yourself with the indictment in this case or,
24 in other words, the charges that the accused is facing?
25 A. Yes, I did. And I have noted it at the beginning of the report.
1 Q. Did you interview any of the members of the accused's family?
2 A. Should I make a pause or should I just respond to you immediately?
3 Q. You can respond now.
4 A. No, I didn't.
5 Q. Did you conduct any interviews with any of the accused's former
6 colleagues or, indeed, his employers, including those from the military or
7 the police?
8 A. No, I didn't.
9 Q. Now, you say in your report that the accused learnt that the
10 International Tribunal accused him in 1994, and you say he was anxious
11 about it but was convinced that he is not guilty. Now, the question I
12 have is, when was it that the accused discovered he was the subject of
13 investigation or allegation by the Tribunal?
14 A. I'm not sure I quite understand the question. As far as I know,
15 he learnt that he was accused in 1994, as I have noted in the report.
16 Q. So it was in 1994 that he found out he was accused?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you. Turning now to the various stressors that you've --
19 that you outlined, the first stressor that you indicated was when he --
20 the unfortunate loss of his baby. Correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Following that was the incident that took place on the 25th of
23 July, 1992, at Keraterm camp, correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Following that was his -- the incident in 1993 when he hurt his
1 arm during his military service, correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Following that there was also in 1993, I think, some
4 combat-related stress?
5 A. I think it was in 1994.
6 Q. All right.
7 A. Okay.
8 Q. And after that there were the two occasions in 1995 and 1996 when
9 he had to receive some treatment?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. There was never any report of any other stressors in Keraterm
12 during 1992, apart from the stress that took place on the 25th of July,
13 1992. That's correct?
14 A. When I mentioned these four or five situations, I didn't speak
15 about the stressors or traumas that he has experienced. They were
16 rather -- they were multiple and they measured, as I said, about 30 of
17 them. I was speaking about the situations that he had manifested
18 symptoms, that he himself had symptoms of the acute stress reaction and
19 post-traumatic stress disorder.
20 Q. So they were his stress reactions, those specific occasions that
21 you've just -- that you outlined?
22 A. Yes.
23 MS. BALY: I note the time.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Baly. You do have a number of other
1 MS. BALY: I do. Not a great deal, but --
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. In that case, we'll take the adjournment,
3 Dr. Lecic, for an hour and a half. We'll resume at 2.30. During the
4 adjournment, you are not to discuss your evidence with anybody, and that
5 includes the members of the Defence.
6 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.00 p.m.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 --- On resuming at 2.30 p.m.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Baly.
3 MS. BALY: Thank you.
4 Q. Now, Doctor, can I get back very briefly, please, to these stress
5 reactions that were reported to you by the accused. The reaction that he
6 reported to you involving Keraterm camp was the reaction that he had
7 related to the incident that occurred around the 25th of July, 1992;
8 that's correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Following that, there were the reactions in 1993, and I think you
11 said a full-blown reaction which occurred in 1994.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And then there was the hospitalisation in 1995 and in 1996.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And following those reactions, the only other reported reactions
16 were the ones that he's experiencing now while he's in custody; correct?
17 A. As reactions, yes, but I've also described his behaviour in 1997
18 and 1998 while he was incapacitated because -- and dysfunctional because
19 of his symptoms that he had.
20 Q. In terms of the reactions, would you say that his reactions and
21 his full-blown stress reaction in 1994 and then requiring treatment in
22 1995 and 1996 could be related to the fact that in 1994 he learnt that he
23 has under investigation by this Tribunal?
24 A. I think that was only one of the contributing factors.
25 Q. And what about his stress reactions now while in custody? Do you
1 think that has anything to do with the personal jeopardy in which he now
2 finds himself in?
3 A. As related to post-traumatic stress disorder, no, but as related
4 to his depression, which is a complication of his basic disorder,
6 Q. After the closure of the Keraterm camp, the accused was able to
7 carry on as a worker. In fact, I think you reported in your report that
8 he worked as a guard at the police station.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And that, in fact, at that time, he was suspended because he
11 didn't want to go to the front line.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So from that fact, it's fair to conclude that at that time, he was
14 able, had no difficulty asserting himself in refusing to go to the front
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, let me ask you just about one of the tests that you relied
18 upon. This was the test -- the SCL-90-R test. Now, that test, if I
19 understand your report correctly, involved administering a test to the
20 patient in relation to a number of symptoms and then comparing the test
21 result to the normal or the ordinary person's results; is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The -- in terms of the scores, the higher -- if a patient scored
24 higher than the normal result, then that patient would be suffering more
25 markedly from that particular symptom.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And vice versa.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So that if they scored lower than the average person, they would
5 suffer less from that symptom?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And now, you relied quite heavily on the results of that
8 particular test; is that correct?
9 A. I wouldn't say quite heavily.
10 Q. Well, Doctor, you did rely -- in terms of determining the
11 personality profile for the accused, you relied on those results?
12 A. Not regarding the personality profile. This is the test for
13 measuring the symptoms. Clinical symptoms, not personality dimensions.
14 Q. But don't the clinical symptoms relate to the personality of the,
15 of the subject?
16 A. They can be a result of personality pattern, but they are not
17 necessarily related to personality.
18 Q. In any event, you in your report took the raw data that you
19 obtained from the tests that you'd administered upon the accused and
20 created a bar graph?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And was it your intention, Doctor, to plot or to put into a graph
23 the results of the tests as they applied to the accused?
24 A. The graph that I --
25 Q. Yes.
1 A. -- enclosed? Yes.
2 Q. Could you just have a look, please, at the graph that you enclosed
3 next to your report and also the raw scores that are also annexed in a
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Isn't it, isn't it the case that what you've plotted in terms of
7 that graph is actually the results of the normal or control person rather
8 than the patient?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Just look, please, if you would, at the first bar for
11 somatisation. You see there the raw score for the normal person --
12 A. Yes, yes. I made a mistake.
13 Q. So what you've actually plotted there is --
14 A. Yes, that table would be correct. This is the normal profile.
15 Q. The table is for the normal profile?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Not the accused?
18 A. Yes, yes. The graph.
19 Q. The graph.
20 A. The table is for the accused.
21 Q. The table is actually for both?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The graph --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- was incorrect. You've plotted the wrong scores?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Let's put the table aside, then, and let's -- I mean, I'm sorry,
3 let's put the graph aside and concentrate, then, on the table. You've
4 said -- and your interpretation of the scores as they appear, I think, at
5 page 9 of your report under the paragraph that deals with the results of
6 that particular test.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You'll see here for the score of somatisation --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- the patient scored 150, and the normal person -- well, 85 is
11 the normal score. So from that you've concluded that his score, that is,
12 the accused, was high?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. The next one for obsessive compulsion, the same applies, and the
15 same with interpersonal sensitivity, correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. The same for depression?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The same for anxiety. Look, please, if you will, at hostility.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You'll see there at the table the normal patient or the normal
22 person scores 47, and the patient you've said scored 55.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Which is higher than the normal?
25 A. A little higher, yes.
1 Q. You see, if you turn to your report, final sentence, you've said,
2 "He has low hostility dimension showing that he is not prone to
3 aggressive behaviour." So in fact, Doctor, this patient scored higher
4 than the normal person for hostility, and therefore, if you apply your
5 test, he in fact was more prone to aggressive behaviour than the normal
7 A. Psychiatric diagnostic is very complex, and this is one of the
8 factors that I've taken into account when, when discussing his hostility
9 and aggression. Hostility on this table is very little above the
10 normality. I didn't put other standards for the patients. Actually, he
11 has, one could say, a little bit above the normal, but we can't conclude
12 that he has high hostility because we take these scores only as
13 dimensions, not as numbers. And when we look at them together, then we
14 make the profile of the patient.
15 Q. But in any event, he did not score lower than the normal person.
16 He in fact scored higher, and yet in your report you've reported that he
17 has a low hostility dimension.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Well --
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Doctor, what are the other factors that would
21 account for your conclusion, that would stand in --
22 A. The other factors are his high somatization, his high obsessive
23 compulsiveness. And a person who has high somatization, depression,
24 obsessive compulsiveness and interpersonal sensitivity has some form of
25 hostility, but this patient, since he has a high depression and other
1 factors, retroflects hostility toward himself, as I said in my previous
2 report. And it has also been shown in another test, in another graph
3 before this one, called MCMI, and if you want to look at it, it's the
4 number 6, which is very, very low.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Baly.
6 MS. BALY:
7 Q. In any event, the accused, you say, in your view was not capable
8 of any leadership role.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In 1999, he acted as a -- he was employed as a guard at a
11 discotheque. That's right, isn't it?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In such a position, isn't it the case that he would have to deal
14 with, for example, unruly and possibly inebriated, drunk individuals who
15 may well have been aggressive?
16 A. I suppose so.
17 Q. He would have to assert himself and in fact issue some kind of
18 orders to those people, to expel them, that kind of thing, wouldn't he?
19 A. Yes, probably.
20 Q. He would have to assert himself and break up any altercations or
21 fights that may occur?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. He would have to assert himself in, for example, preventing the
24 entry of persons who shouldn't -- who shouldn't enter, who shouldn't be
25 allowed to enter the discotheque?
1 A. Yes. That will be description of the job.
2 Q. And so in 1999, that's just prior to his being arrested, he was
3 able, at least in that position, to act in some kind of a leadership
4 position; correct?
5 A. I wouldn't call it a leadership position. I would call it a job,
6 which he could have done because of his physical strength.
7 Q. Which may have involved him asserting himself in terms of being a
8 leader; correct?
9 A. I wouldn't agree, again, with being a guard being equal to being a
11 MS. BALY: Thank you.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Petrovic.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no more
14 questions. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Dr. Lecic, that concludes your testimony, and you
16 are discharged.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this concludes our
20 list of witnesses that we intended to call at this phase of trial, and I
21 would only like to tender the three documents. This is the school
22 certificate, his employment record, and the certificate from the SDS.
23 These three documents would conclude the written material that we would
24 like entered in evidence.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... you are
1 closing your case and that's your list of witnesses.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's your case. And you want to have those
4 documents tendered. Yes, they will be.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I can offer these
6 three documents. And may I also ask that the Prosecution also be given a
7 set of these documents, because these documents have not been distributed
8 to the Prosecution so far.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. The documents may be given numbers.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the certificate on education for
11 metallurgic on third degree is document D47/2. The membership document of
12 municipality of committee of Prijedor dated 24th of March, 2000, is
13 document D46 -- 47, D48/2. And the employment document, municipality of
14 Prijedor, is document D49/2.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Sir Ivan, you had some matters to raise.
16 MR. LAWRENCE: Yes, if I may. Firstly, perhaps I ought to say, I
17 don't know what's wrong with His Honour Judge Fassi Fihri, but whatever it
18 is, we -- I think everybody here would want him to have a speedy recovery,
19 and perhaps you'd give him our good wishes.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I certainly will pass on your wishes.
21 MR. LAWRENCE: Thank you. I wonder if you could give me some
22 indication of when we might expect the report of the governor of the
23 detention centre that you ordered as to the behaviour of the accused
24 whilst they've been in custody.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: The senior legal officer.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, the registrar will make inquiries about it
3 immediately after the hearing, and I imagine it should be ready fairly
5 MR. LAWRENCE: Thank you. Thirdly, I wonder if I might
6 respectfully ask the Court when we might expect the Court's ruling on the
7 98 bis application. Your Honours heard our submissions, I think, on the
8 21st of June, and it would be of great assistance to those of us that are
9 defending the next defendant if before we went into those matters, we knew
10 what basis Your Honours' ruling might have been, and particularly since we
11 have to give the Prosecution our list of witnesses by Friday, and that
12 may, to some extent, be affected. Obviously I can provide a list of all
13 of the 58 witnesses who my learned predecessor indicated to the Court
14 might be coming, but that would involve them in an enormous amount of
15 time. And if it is possible to cut that list down to practical numbers,
16 then, of course, I'd be happy to do that.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: The position, Sir Ivan, is that the decision has
18 been written and it is with the interpreters. Let me just consult with
19 the senior legal officer.
20 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's with the translators, and the
22 information is it's -- it is back from the translators. We have to get it
23 to Judge Fassi Fihri, but we, we believe that as a pragmatic matter, we
24 could let you have a copy to read.
25 MR. LAWRENCE: Thank you very much.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
2 MR. LAWRENCE: I'm grateful. Whilst I'm on the subject of rules,
3 I understand from my learned friend that our Rule 68 application for more
4 Prosecution disclosure is going to be responded to today or tomorrow, and
5 I'm grateful to that. That might assist the Court.
6 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. If not before four, then certainly first
7 thing in the morning.
8 MR. LAWRENCE: Thank you very much.
9 Two matters which I do seek the assistance of the Court. First
10 is, I wonder if the Court would permit me exceptionally, if I thought it
11 necessary to do so, and I don't make that commitment at this moment, to
12 open the case for Kolundzija quite shortly. I'm aware that my predecessor
13 opened the case and therefore has, in a sense, according to the rules -
14 but I think the rules are subject to your discretion - burned our boats.
15 But it was five months ago on the 19th of March when he did that. He
16 referred to a number of matters such as the 1389 battle between the
17 Ottoman Empire and King Lazar, the battle of Kosovo in 1847, the reforms
18 of Caliph Sultan Mehmmed II in 1820, the causation of wars on civilisation
19 fault lines, and the plight of the Japanese Americans, all matters which I
20 don't propose to rely upon in the presentation of the case, and it does
21 occur to me that if I can...
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we'll give you leave to make a short
24 MR. LAWRENCE: I'm most grateful. I think it will be of some
25 assistance rather than to the contrary if I can do that. I'm grateful.
1 And finally this: We keep referring to that roster document,
2 which is important, particularly for the Defence, but the Prosecution have
3 placed some reliance upon it, on I think the 5th or 6th of June, 1992, at
4 Prijedor police station, and there was some cross-examination this
6 That copy is a pretty bad one. I've seen the original, and I
7 think that my predecessor has the original, and I think it is in the
8 Bel-Air Hotel. What has happened is that my predecessor has many
9 documents in various boxes which he asked the hotel to hold securely and
10 for matters of confidentiality has allowed nobody to go near. And I think
11 he was quite anxious that he should be allowed to come back to The Hague
12 and to Bel-Air and sort out those matters which were purely confidential
13 and those matters which were part of the trial process. And it may be my
14 fault, which I hope the Court will forgive me, but I haven't encouraged
15 that process to take place.
16 As a result, what is now the position, I think, is that somewhere
17 in a room in the Bel-Air Hotel is that document, and the Bel-Air Hotel
18 take the view that it's entirely a matter of confidentiality between my
19 predecessor in the Defence of Mr. Kolundzija and them. That is to say,
20 they are his private documents. He's given them very strong
22 I wonder if it's possible for the Court to provide some kind of a
23 written order that might be expected to bear with the authorities at the
24 Bel-Air Hotel which would enable me to visit the room and see if I can
25 find the original of this document, which ought to be before the Court and
1 would be much more legible and much more useful than the very bad copy
2 which the Court has seen presented to it several times.
3 The Court may think it is not a matter of great importance, in
4 which case I will accept what the Court has to say, but if the Court does
5 think it may be of some importance and significance, I'd be very grateful
6 if the Court could consider giving me some kind of a ruling that I might,
7 at any rate, show to the manager of the hotel and, as it were, relieve him
8 of the burden of confidentiality to one of the former residents of the
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, Sir Ivan, it seems to us to be essentially
12 a matter between your predecessor and yourself. We are reluctant to get
13 involved with the Bel-Air Hotel. If, however, you approach your
14 predecessor and ask him to give instructions, then that would be one way
15 forward. If it doesn't yield any result, you could then come back to us.
16 MR. LAWRENCE: Well, I can tell the Court that we have, of course,
17 pursued that line. It hasn't, hitherto, resulted in anything
18 constructive, mainly, I think, because my predecessor's been away or not
19 easily contacted. Several efforts have been made, particularly by my
20 learned co-counsel, Mr. Ostojic, who actually lives in the same town or
21 city in the United States, and so he has made several efforts. But we are
22 approaching the stage in the trial now where we can't really afford to
23 hang around any longer, if I may be permitted to use that phrase.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Why don't you make another effort during the
25 break through Mr. Ostojic, and if that doesn't yield any result, then we
1 can immediately see what we can do at the beginning of the next session.
2 MR. LAWRENCE: I'm grateful.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Any other matters?
4 MR. RYNEVELD: Not as far as the Prosecution is concerned. Thank
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: In that event, we are adjourned until Monday,
7 August 27, at 9.30.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.03 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Monday, the 27th day
10 of August, 2001, at 9.30 a.m.