Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 1475

 1                           Thursday, 15 October 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning,

 6     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case IT-08-91-T, the

 7     Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning to everyone.

 9             May we have the appearances, please.

10             MS. KORNER:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Joanna Korner, Matthew

11     Olmsted, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Appearing for Stanisic Defence, Zecevic and

14     Mr. Slobodan Cvijetic.

15             MR. PANTELIC:  Good morning.  For Zupljanin Defence, Igor

16     Pantelic, Dragan Krgovic, Eric Tully, and Harriet Taylor.  Thank you.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

18             Could we have Mr. Djekanovic back on the stand, please.

19             MR. PANTELIC:  Just a correction to transcript, Ms. Harriet

20     Taylor, T like tango.  Thank you.

21                           [The witness takes the stand]

22             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Djekanovic, sir, good morning to you.  I remind

23     you that you're still on your oath.

24             Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

25                           WITNESS:  NEDJELKO DJEKANOVIC [Resumed]

Page 1476

 1                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 2                           Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic: [Continued]

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Djekanovic.  We left off -- we

 4     stopped yesterday for procedural reasons before we finished, so now we'll

 5     try very briefly to go through a few points that remain unclear after

 6     yesterday's examination, and I'll try to conclude as soon as possible.

 7     The same caution as yesterday, please speak more slowly for the

 8     interpreters.  I understand your nervousness and your desire to explain

 9     all these events, but please mind the speed.

10             I noticed in the transcript yesterday that perhaps because of

11     overlapping between us some things remained unclear.  When you spoke

12     about that lunch, which you went to attend, you went practically because

13     Pejic told you the command was there; right?

14        A.   Yes, Mr. Pejic suggested we go up there because he heard that

15     they were gathering there for some sort of social occasion, and I took

16     his advice, and Pejic and I went together.

17        Q.   On that day or perhaps the day before that attack happened with

18     the initial military success and then failure, and at that point none of

19     the military commanders from the municipality were in town, nobody who

20     could deal with the problem and that's why you went there?

21        A.   Correct.

22        Q.   And you went practically to see Peulic, who was the absolute

23     commander on the entire territory of Varos municipality?

24        A.   Yes, we went to see Peulic but we knew that the others were there

25     too -- I mean, I had been told that the others were there, the others in

Page 1477

 1     charge of command.

 2        Q.   And at that time Peulic as the officer leading military

 3     operations was the absolute commander in that region, there was a war

 4     going on?

 5        A.   Yes, he was the absolute commander.  I don't know if his force

 6     was called tactical group, but I knew that the municipal brigade had its

 7     own commander.  But still they were in effect subordinated to him.  He

 8     commanded all the military operations, he made all the decisions, and led

 9     all the military activity.

10        Q.   And in a certain way, because you were under the immediate threat

11     of war, he also had a decisive influence on you in view of the war?

12        A.   You couldn't say that he had decisive influence on us as civilian

13     authorities in areas of our competence.  You couldn't say that he ordered

14     us about or commanded our activities.

15        Q.   I'm talking now about military activities, combat operations,

16     control of territory in the area of combat operations.  And in that

17     sense, when you say that he was the absolute commander it's in that sense

18     that I meant it.

19        A.   Yes, yes, to the extent that we had any jurisdiction ourselves in

20     military things.  You know that we did not have any competence in

21     military operations.

22        Q.   You even mentioned that as far as combat operations are concerned

23     when you heard that there was an action planned to take place in town,

24     you had only been informed that the action had taken place?

25        A.   Precisely.  That happened often.

Page 1478

 1        Q.   And in this specific case concerning this attack, that was one of

 2     the complaints you made during that picnic, if I can call it that?

 3        A.   Yes, because it demonstrated the complete lack of coordination of

 4     these military operations, overlapping between units, all these things

 5     that created problems for our men, for the army.  And it was our good

 6     intention and suggestion that this kind of conduct should be redressed.

 7     Whether he really took note or appreciated what we said is another

 8     matter.

 9        Q.   Mr. Djekanovic, you gave an interview to the Prosecution twice,

10     in 2003 and now in March 2009; correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   On both occasions it was a suspect interview?

13        A.   Yes, on both occasions I was designated as a suspect and summoned

14     as such.

15        Q.   The latest interview in Sarajevo you gave in the presence of an

16     investigator, an interpreter, a Prosecutor.  Did you have the impression

17     that you were under pressure?  Were you anxious about your status and

18     possible criminal proceedings that could ensue in Sarajevo?

19        A.   At the end I signed my statement and agreed to state that I gave

20     it voluntarily, which is true; but it's also true that I gave that

21     statement as a suspect, that I had been summoned as a suspect, and that

22     is not contested.  And that certainly had an effect and has an effect on

23     my evidence and very frequently my inability to explain the problem the

24     way it occurred.  You have to say yes or no to many questions rather than

25     explain how it really was.  Of course somebody qualified can build the

Page 1479

 1     whole picture out of that, but I was not always able to say all I know

 2     about a certain event.  Very often I had to say just yes or no.  I was

 3     very often interrupted, et cetera.

 4        Q.   In other words, you were asked leading questions and you were

 5     asked to reply briefly and draw certain conclusions; correct?

 6        A.   I really would not like and will not comment here.

 7        Q.   And precisely because of this method and your status, you did not

 8     want to appear voluntarily as a Prosecution witness; is that correct?

 9        A.   No, I did not want to be -- to appear voluntarily as a

10     Prosecution witness.  Even before when I was invited by some other

11     parties to give statements, I did not agree.  I refrained from all of

12     that.  And I had been invited both in the Brdjanin case and in the

13     Krajisnik case, but by the Defence, not the Prosecution.

14        Q.   And as far as I was able to see, in your interview there are many

15     incomplete answers, many assumptions voiced.  You couldn't remember

16     always the dates, the event itself, all the details?

17        A.   That's true.  If you analyse my evidence over the past days, you

18     can certainly find dates that I had confused, the sequence of things

19     confused.  But I have to say again, after 17 years elapsed and under the

20     circumstances under which I live, it's very difficult.  I did not have

21     the will or the strength or the time to be honest to gather all the

22     information and to put things in chronological order.  Whatever I had in

23     terms of documents I gave to the Prosecution, but I had no time to

24     dedicate to some sort of personal project to gather more information.

25        Q.   But you never got a transcript from this latest interview, March

Page 1480

 1     2009?

 2        A.   It was videotaped, so I received the videotape.

 3        Q.   And you listened to that tape after you came to The Hague?

 4        A.   I did.  Not before I travelled, but here, yes.

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can I just consult my

 6     client for a moment?

 7             [Zupljanin Defence counsel and Accused Zupljanin confer]

 8             MR. PANTELIC:  In the meantime, Your Honour, just for the record

 9     and it should be corrected transcripts from 7th of October -- sorry, 7th,

10     I think -- anyhow, page 1068, line 24, 25, this witness said that

11     Zupljanin was the chief of Crisis Staff, but probably he meant that it

12     was a context of question of my learned friend Ms. Korner that he was a

13     chief of CSB.  Just to correct it or maybe I can clarify with the witness

14     if you wish.

15             MS. KORNER:  [Microphone not activated]

16             Sorry, Your Honour, I don't need the mike then -- I'm just asking

17     what line -- I've got page 1068 open.  Where do you say --

18             MR. PANTELIC:  24, 25.

19             Maybe it's 1069, sorry, it's my mistake.  24, 25.  Sorry.  I'll

20     correct it during the break.

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Which day was it?

22             MS. KORNER:  I've seen it, Your Honour, it's 1069, lines 8 and 9.

23     It says:  "Zupljanin was head of the Crisis Staff."

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mrs. Korner, on which day?

25             MS. KORNER:  On the 8th of October.

Page 1481

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 2             MR. KRGOVIC:  Can I clarify that with the witness or it's already

 3     fine?

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Djekanovic, just to remove one remaining

 5     unclarity.  At the beginning when you were talking about the Crisis Staff

 6     of the Autonomous Region Krajina, it remained on the record that Stojan

 7     Zupljanin was at the head of that staff.  In fact --

 8        A.   Of course not.  He was never the head of the Crisis Staff.

 9        Q.   Brdjanin was at the head of the Crisis Staff for a while.  I

10     think you say so?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Djekanovic.  I have no further questions for you.

13             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, before I begin my re-examination, in

14     the light of all the questions that were asked about the interview and

15     the suggestions that were made to the witness about the leading questions

16     and the like, may I formally now apply to have both interviews exhibited

17     so that Your Honours can look at the context of all questions and

18     answers.  I think there are about a dozen or so questions.  So it's the

19     interview of the 25th of March, which will be 65 ter 10119 and the

20     interview of the 12th of March -- sorry, 12th of June, 2003, 10118.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, you have something to say about that

22     application?

23             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence is

24     opposed to the admission of these documents.  First of all, they're not

25     on the 65 ter list, which means that in keeping with the instruction

Page 1482

 1     given by the Trial Chamber and the decision of the Trial Chamber they

 2     cannot be exhibited.  Second, using a suspect interview in the form of

 3     interview not in the form of statement, unlike other witness statements,

 4     would be inappropriate unless the Prosecution intends to impeach this

 5     witness and treat him as a hostile witness.  Since this is not the case

 6     here, I believe it would be inappropriate to use a suspect interview.

 7     And when I met with the witness, he did impart to me his impression that

 8     he was under pressure and that frequently in that interview he was giving

 9     some --

10             JUDGE HALL:  If I may interrupt you there, Mr. Krgovic.  You

11     can't give evidence, but having regard to your basic objection haven't

12     you made it an issue?

13             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] That's why I didn't show the

14     witness his interview, for those reasons.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, but by your questions you've made it an issue,

16     haven't you?

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, but only on

18     leading questions and that was confirmed by the witness.  That was his

19     impression of the way the interview led.  If the Prosecution claims there

20     were no leading questions, I have no problem with that.  I just asked the

21     witness about his impression without quoting from the interview.  He just

22     confirmed.  So if the Prosecution wants to --

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic, you said the witness confirmed.

24     Didn't he say:  I won't comment on this?

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] He said that questions were put to

Page 1483

 1     him in such a way that he had to answer yes or no, which means that

 2     that's the way questions were formulated.  He does not know the term

 3     "leading question" or what it means.  He was frequently interrupted

 4     during the interview.  He was not allowed to finish his explanations or

 5     state his position on certain issues, but right now during his evidence

 6     he did explain his position on many things and that is his evidence.

 7     Now, exhibiting the interview with a view to impeaching or discrediting

 8     this witness I don't think is appropriate.

 9             MS. KORNER:  I'm not actually seeking to impeach the witness.  I

10     am seeking to have this made an exhibit because of the large --

11             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, Ms. Korner, before you reply, I think

12     Mr. Zecevic also had something to say on this.

13             MS. KORNER:  Oh, I see.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence of

15     Mr. Stanisic is also opposed.  Among other things, I believe that it is

16     completely inadmissible after the completion of a cross-examination for

17     the Prosecution to tender new documents.  Essentially that would mean

18     that we have to go back to examination with these new documents and then

19     finish cross-examining the witness.  I don't think that's acceptable.

20             MS. KORNER:  The answer is there's no right to re-cross-examine

21     unless leave is sought.  The simple issue is this:  Mr. Krgovic in his

22     cross-examination raised with the witness the way he alleges the

23     interview has been conducted and he indeed went -- said even more in his

24     argument why it shouldn't go in.  It is, therefore, only right and

25     proper, and I'm afraid that's the result of cross-examination like that,

Page 1484

 1     that Your Honours have a chance to look at the interview, see how it

 2     went, what was said, and what the form of the questions were.  And I'm

 3     afraid that's what results when cross-examination is conducted in this

 4     way.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE HALL:  In the Chamber's view, this matter is more simply

 7     resolved than counsel on either side appear to understand it to be, for

 8     the simple reason that when the suggestions were put to the witness by

 9     Mr. Krgovic the witness at the end of it all says that it's something on

10     which he would not comment.  So, therefore, there is no evidence - and I

11     underline the word "evidence" in that regard - and the Chamber will

12     simply disregard that whole exchange between the witness and counsel.

13             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I'm sorry, I -- at one point he said

14     I'm not prepared to comment, but he was agreeing with all the other

15     suggestions that were being made about the interview.  In your interview

16     there are incomplete answers, many assumptions voiced, you couldn't

17     remember the dates, the event, or the details.  That's true.  And then

18     further down --

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Ms. Korner, in our view that does not constitute

20     any wrong techniques for interview on the part of the Prosecution.  I

21     mean, the only thing we have is an allegation made by counsel Krgovic

22     that it was all very leading.  And as far as we understand the witness's

23     answers, he wouldn't want to comment on whether he thought they were

24     leading or not.  And that's the end of the story, and hence our decision

25     to simply disregard the allegation made by Krgovic.

Page 1485

 1                           Re-examination by Ms. Korner:

 2        Q.   You -- let's deal with your interview, Mr. Djekanovic, because I

 3     am going to ask you about parts of it.  On the first occasion you were

 4     interviewed on tape, and you were given a copy of the tape.  Is that

 5     right?  Mr. Djekanovic?

 6        A.   I did receive a copy of the recording on the tapes --

 7             MR. PANTELIC:  [Previous translation continues]...  because there

 8     were two interviews and interview in Hague just for the record, please.

 9             MS. KORNER:

10        Q.   I said on the first occasion, in 2003, you had -- I didn't say

11     "interview in The Hague" - you were given a copy of the tape?

12        A.   Yes, I was given a copy of the tape immediately.  I was given six

13     or seven audio-cassettes, yes.

14        Q.   And indeed you had your own transcript prepared, or you prepared

15     your own transcript of what was said in that interview?

16        A.   Yes, I needed quite some time to listen to it slowly and to type

17     the text out myself and to -- well, it's a question of how acceptable it

18     is as evidence, but it is true that I did transcribe parts of it that

19     were written in Serbian.  I didn't type the bits that were in English,

20     but everything that was in Serbian I did type out for myself.

21        Q.   And as you've told the Court, you on the second occasion the

22     whole interview was videotaped, and you were given a copy of the

23     videotape immediately on the conclusion of that interview.  Is that

24     right?

25        A.   Yes, I've already confirmed that.  Yes.

Page 1486

 1        Q.   And you were also told on both occasions, weren't you, that if

 2     you wanted a lawyer present you could have a lawyer present?

 3        A.   Not entirely.  In the first interview or during the first

 4     interview I didn't know that I had the right to an attorney.  This was

 5     given -- told to me at the beginning of the questioning.

 6        Q.   Right.  And were you told that the choice was yours.

 7             "Q.  Do you wish to have a lawyer present for this interview?"

 8             And you said:

 9             "Right now in this phase of the proceedings, I don't see that I

10     can change anything."

11             Is that right?

12        A.   Yes, it is absolutely correct that I said that.

13        Q.   And on the second occasion do you agree that you had definitely

14     been told in advance you had the right to have a lawyer present?

15        A.   Even though the interview was conducted fairly recently, I

16     received a summons saying -- or that I was being questioned as a suspect

17     and that I was being interviewed in relation to the Zupljanin/Stanisic

18     case.  This is what it said on the summons that I received.

19        Q.   Did it tell you that you had the right to have a lawyer?

20        A.   I don't dispute that it was perhaps said even though this

21     interview took place fairly recently, a couple of months ago, I'm not --

22     I'm not disputing that even though I cannot remember exactly.

23        Q.   All right.  I want to now go back over some of the matters you've

24     been asked about in cross-examination first of all by Mr. Zecevic.  You

25     were asked about the community of Herceg-Bosna.  Do you remember that?

Page 1487

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And you identified the municipalities that you said belonged to

 3     that community, including that of Jajce.  Do you remember?

 4        A.   Yes, I remember that.

 5        Q.   Jajce in fact made an application, did it not, to join the

 6     Autonomous Region of Krajina?

 7        A.   I don't recall that detail.  Perhaps the Municipal Assembly of

 8     Jajce had submitted such a request.  I'm not talking about the

 9     municipality of Jajce as part of the former Socialist Republic of Bosnia

10     and Herzegovina, but I do not dispute that the Serbian municipality of

11     Jajce, including the municipality of Jezero, which is now part of the

12     Republika Srpska area did that.  But not the entire municipality of

13     Jajce.

14        Q.   Well, I'll just show you a document, which I'm not going to ask

15     to exhibit - it's purely to refresh your memory.  Could you have a look,

16     please, at -- what did you say the number was?  65 ter 10129.  That's a

17     document headed:  "The Assembly of the Serbian Municipality of Jajce,"

18     dated the 22nd of February, 1992, so some three -- two weeks after your

19     municipality had applied to join.  Request for admission into the

20     Autonomous Region of Krajina.  And then if we go down the document in

21     English, please, the following delegates were elected to the Autonomous

22     Region of Krajina Assembly.  And did you know those gentlemen who are

23     named there, Mr. Djekanovic?

24        A.   I only knew the first person, and I stand by what I first said

25     that this was the Serbian municipality of Jajce and not the entire region

Page 1488

 1     of the municipality of Jajce.  I know Dragan Milicic, I knew him then.  I

 2     still know him today.

 3        Q.   Can I say, I'm not disputing that it was claimed by Herceg-Bosna

 4     as well.  I'm merely pointing out that it also had links apparently with

 5     the Autonomous Region of Krajina.  All right, that's all I ask about

 6     that.

 7             MS. KORNER:  As I say, Your Honours, that was simply to remind

 8     the witness, so I don't want it exhibited or even marked.

 9        Q.   Next I want to turn to the question of communications, please,

10     and what you said to Mr. Zecevic yesterday.  And this is the transcript

11     at page 1426.  It was put to you by Mr. Zecevic that telephone lines were

12     also cut off, right, and you said:

13             "The greatest part of that period, no telephone communications

14     were available at all.  Only later did we establish one telephone line

15     through the post office in Banja Luka, but that was much later.  In those

16     first days we had no telephones at all.

17             "Q.  You mean to say there was one telephone line -- first of

18     all, at the beginning there was no communication with the outside world,

19     and then later one telephone line was established for the whole of the

20     municipality; correct?

21             "A.  Yes, I'm talking about the whole of the municipality.

22             "Q.  So your only means of communication, apart from your

23     physical ability or inability to leave the municipality and then only to

24     Banja Luka, was this one telephone that was made to work?

25             "A.  Yes, in that period, yes."

Page 1489

 1             And you confirmed the next page that was -- that in June and July

 2     you had no power, no telephone communication, and the fact that there was

 3     no electricity, et cetera.  Do you want to think about that for a moment?

 4        A.   I don't know what you're thinking of.  I know what was going on

 5     at the time.  I talked about the civilian telephone lines, and I didn't

 6     speak about the military or the police lines.  I don't know about that

 7     and don't wish to talk about that, but as for the fact that there were

 8     electricity shortages, telephone lines were cut off, we had to dismantle

 9     fuel pump in the Proleks plant in order to provide some kind of mechanism

10     to be able to pump water.  These are the difficulties that we were

11     encountering, but I don't really wish to speak about that in detail.

12        Q.   No, I am only interested in the phones.  Do you stick by your

13     answer, that in the whole of June and July there was no telephone

14     communication?

15        A.   I really cannot say whether it was throughout the whole of June

16     until that conflict broke out on the 11th.  There were conflicts over

17     those days and weeks, and they were gaining in intensity in Bosnia and

18     Herzegovina.  The problem with the electricity supplies were a broader

19     problem, not only a problem of the Kotor Varos municipality.  The Kotor

20     Varos municipality did have specific problems at the time -- a specific

21     problem --

22        Q.   All right.  Can you have another look, please, at document P87.

23     Okay.  Crisis Staff meeting 7th of July.  Can we move across the page to

24     the English, please.

25             Item 2:  Under this item all Crisis Staff members reported one by

Page 1490

 1     one on their activities in the course of a day.  The planned harvest

 2     programme in Kotor Varos municipality was upheld.  Reconnection of

 3     telephones for the needs of the public auditing services for Kotor Varos

 4     was authorised.  So, Mr. Djekanovic, you had a telephone line, didn't

 5     you?

 6        A.   I said that there was one telephone line that was provided, some

 7     kind of technical re-connection was done.  We didn't go into how this was

 8     done in order to make it possible for the public auditing service to

 9     work.  Some phones were put into service.  Later I know that telephone

10     lines were established again for some specific institutions.  I don't

11     know exactly technically how this was done.  All I know is that there was

12     one single telephone connection between Kotor Varos and Banja Luka, and

13     we proceeded on the basis of that.

14        Q.   It says "authorised."  Was it the fact that you were controlling

15     the use of the telephones, not that they weren't available or the

16     telephone lines?

17        A.   We were not controlling or were able to control this, but there

18     were requests to enable lines to function by making switches at the post

19     office switchboard so that they could work.  We did not have an unlimited

20     number of telephone lines at our disposal, and we did not authorise who

21     should have telephone lines or not.

22        Q.   All right.  Well, I'm not going to pursue this matter any further

23     either.  You've said to I believe it was Mr. Zecevic yesterday - I'll

24     just check that, it may be Mr. Krgovic - yes, it was Mr. Krgovic, this.

25     You were dealing with the -- what you describe as the people coming into

Page 1491

 1     town as refugees, and you said this:

 2             "In any case, nowhere were civilians removed by force."

 3             Again, is that an answer that you want to confirm -- sorry, I

 4     should say it's page 1457.  Mr. Djekanovic, is that the evidence that you

 5     want the Court to understand is right?

 6        A.   As for the population being removed from their homes by force and

 7     that they were forced to evacuate, I do stand by that.

 8        Q.   So you're saying at no stage in the whole of the conflict in

 9     Kotor Varos was there ever a time when people were driven out of their

10     homes in villages and put into camps - is that what you're saying? - and

11     prisons?

12        A.   There were individual people being arrested or detained, but as

13     for entire families to be removed by force from their homes or entire

14     families being arrested, I definitely say that nothing like that

15     happened.  A good part of the population came of their own initiative,

16     asking us to place them under protection briefly.  But this didn't last

17     that long, and they asked for transports to be organised for them to be

18     able to move on.

19        Q.   I just want to -- that's what you want the Court to understand is

20     your evidence about the events.  All right.

21             Next, you were asked yesterday by -- this was by Mr. Zecevic

22     about the Crisis Staff, and this is page 1411.  And the question was:

23             "When the Crisis Staff was formed, it became the sole authority

24     in the municipality, uncontested power; is that correct?

25             "A.  Yes.

Page 1492

 1             "Q.  When I say 'uncontested,' what I mean by that is that all

 2     the rights and duties for normal life in the municipality, the economy,

 3     the utilities, the schools rested with the Crisis Staff?

 4             "A.  Yes, all matters except for military matters.

 5             "Q.  In that sense you absolutely didn't require any instructions

 6     because the legal powers in that sense and the text of the law are very

 7     clear in terms of what are your powers, responsibilities, rights; is that

 8     right?

 9             "A.  Yes."

10             I want to understand, and I think the Trial Chamber need to

11     understand, Mr. Djekanovic, what you're saying about that in respect of

12     the police.  Is that answer intended to include the fact that you had

13     authority over the police in the sense of giving them instructions or

14     orders?

15        A.   I myself wanted to ask for an opportunity to respond to this

16     question.  It partially referred to the Crisis Staff decision to

17     introduce a curfew in the municipality.  These are all dates after the

18     11th of June.  Up until the 11th of June there was several Crisis Staff.

19     Each of the ethnic groups had their own Crisis Staff who were acting

20     within that segment of the population.  The Crisis Staff that I was at

21     the head of didn't exist at that time.  After the 11th of June it was

22     entrusted with the entire civilian power in the municipality of Kotor

23     Varos.  When I say "civilian powers," it means that we did have the right

24     to provide logistic supplies for the military, to secure fuel.  Often we

25     had to find ways to collect money, also to buy ammunition.  I do not

Page 1493

 1     dispute that we did that.  As for the use of units, I do not dispute that

 2     it was in the part of the powers of the municipality to deal with such

 3     decisions because they were problems that we were facing in the Crisis

 4     Staff, but the Crisis Staff could not decide on the use of police units

 5     or military units.  We -- the Crisis Staff that I was heading did not

 6     have nor is there any evidence that they had the power to order any use

 7     of the units.  We did suggest very often, and the suggestions would refer

 8     to such matters like that it was necessary to provide security for

 9     populations of a certain area.  The example is the village of Garici,

10     which was a joint suggestion of the Crisis Staff to secure additional

11     forces to secure that village, and that is where we met with the support

12     of the military and the police.  But again, we did not decide when some

13     military action would take place, how it would take place.  We did not

14     have such powers.  I state that with full responsibility, nor is there

15     any evidence that as the Crisis Staff we were able to do anything like

16     that.

17             MR. PANTELIC:  Sorry to interrupt, but I think -- I'm not

18     thinking, I'm sure, that the witness stated that Crisis Staff imposed

19     curfew in the municipality and that was a part of his -- I mean, its

20     authority.  So I should -- I think that my learned friend should ask him

21     again for the correction in transcript or maybe our witness can confirm

22     that.  He mentioned during his answer but it was not put in the

23     transcript you -- to the main issue that Mr. Djekanovic is speaking very

24     fast and that certain portion of his statement cannot go into the record.

25     And I kindly ask Mr. Djekanovic to please slow down for a half of speed

Page 1494

 1     so that we have everything precise in the transcript.  But this

 2     particular part where he said that Crisis Staff imposed curfew and that

 3     he was authorised -- and that Crisis Staff was authorised for that is --

 4     it isn't a part of particular transcript, which is quite important issue,

 5     I believe.

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Isn't it at page 18, line 11?

 7             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, that's a beginning of his answer, but later

 8     on, it should be around line 19 or 20, he expanded his response in regard

 9     to police authorities' curfew.  Sorry.

10             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I've raised over and over again now

11     what I say is an improper way of giving the witness the answer.  If it is

12     thought that something else was said, then the witness can be asked to

13     repeat what he said and not given the answer in this way.

14        Q.   Right.  Can we go back to the question I actually asked,

15     Mr. Djekanovic, which was this:  When you said what you said about the

16     powers of the Crisis Staff - and can we simply concentrate on the police,

17     forget about the military - were you saying that you could give orders to

18     the police?

19        A.   No, we could not issue orders to the police and there are such

20     minutes from Crisis Staff meetings.  They were shown here as well, where

21     it is clearly stated that the Crisis Staff is not authorised to interfere

22     in the jurisdiction of the police.  There are such minutes of meetings

23     here and they were shown here.

24        Q.   Yes, I agree.  I just want -- so that everybody's clear about

25     what you are saying.  So in relation to the document that you were shown

Page 1495

 1     about the curfew, you say that the powers of the Crisis Staff included

 2     imposing a curfew and the police obviously would have to carry it out.

 3     If the police, for whatever mad reason, had refused to carry it out,

 4     would you have had the authority to order them to carry it out?

 5        A.   No, I understand -- I don't understand the question sufficiently.

 6     We didn't have the need for something like that.  The member of the

 7     police was a member of the joint Crisis Staff, so we reached our

 8     decisions together.  At different points in time different organs make

 9     decisions relating to the crisis situation or the Crisis Staff.  We were

10     in a situation of imminent danger of war, and the situation which was

11     such that war was already being waged in the municipality -- in the whole

12     area of Bosnia-Herzegovina war was waging -- war was being waged --

13        Q.   Yes.  All right.  Okay.  I think you explained earlier, but the

14     point of a Crisis Staff, having the police and a representative of the

15     military attend, was to coordinate activities.  Is that right?  I think

16     you said that earlier on.  Is that right, Mr. Djekanovic?  A simple yes

17     or no will do.

18        A.   Members of the Crisis Staff were people in certain positions in

19     the executive arm of authorities in Kotor Varos.  Among them was the

20     chief of police and of course naturally it was the task of the Crisis

21     Staff to coordinate, to interlink, organise, and assume responsibility

22     for the civilian life in the territory of Kotor Varos.

23        Q.   Right.  Well, I think we've covered that and you've explained

24     your position.

25             I want to deal now with the special police as such.  And can we

Page 1496

 1     understand what your evidence is now about the special police.  First,

 2     did you ask for assistance from Banja Luka to take power on the 11th of

 3     June?

 4        A.   Yes, we asked for assistance from Banja Luka.

 5        Q.   From whom was that assistance sought?

 6        A.   We knocked on every door, the corps command, the police.

 7        Q.   Right.  Did Stojan Zupljanin, as head of the police, the CSB,

 8     supply you with assistance?

 9        A.   I don't understand the question at all.  I don't know if he

10     supplied us with assistance, but as help to the -- to our police one unit

11     from the Banja Luka police was sent.

12        Q.   Right.  And --

13             MR. PANTELIC:  Sorry.  May -- can you ask him again to repeat the

14     answer because it is not precise in transcript, line -- it's page 22,

15     line 4.  I don't give any details, so you can proceed.  Thank you.

16             MS. KORNER:

17        Q.   I'll repeat the question, Mr. Djekanovic.  Did Stojan Zupljanin,

18     as head of the police, the CSB, supply you with assistance?  Could you

19     tell us again what your answer is.

20        A.   The competent authorities of the police in Banja Luka sent one

21     unit to assist Kotor Varos.

22        Q.   Thank you.

23             MR. PANTELIC:  But witness -- witness said first army and then

24     police, so please ask him to confirm or not to confirm what he was --

25     said.  We have -- we have audio -- audio file here.

Page 1497

 1             MS. KORNER:

 2        Q.   Did you mention that the army sent assistance?

 3        A.   I said we knocked on every door.  We addressed the army, the

 4     corps, and the police for assistance, and I'm saying this with full

 5     responsibility.

 6        Q.   I understand that, but I'm asking you -- in fact, you did say

 7     that earlier and it's been recorded.  But I'm asking you now about

 8     whether the police sent assistance and you said twice:  Yes, they did.

 9             MR. PANTELIC:  He said simply and clearly:  CSB sended [sic] a

10     police in assistance to military unit, in assistance to military unit,

11     and to the police then.  That was his real answer, but okay, I will

12     clarify that with the audio files.  Thank you.

13             MS. KORNER:

14        Q.   I've asked you twice now and you've given the same answer twice,

15     Mr. Djekanovic, but I'm going to ask you for the third time:  Did the

16     Banja Luka CSB in accordance with your request for assistance send you a

17     unit?

18        A.   The Banja Luka centre of security services did send a unit, but I

19     have to add - and it's very difficult for me as a man who's between a

20     rock and a hard place, I'm aware of this - it's equally clear that others

21     sent help too to units, and there was a headquarters of this action.  The

22     main commander, the chief commander, of all combat and military

23     operations in Kotor Varos was Commander Peulic.

24        Q.   Yes.  Who -- I'm sorry, have you ever said this before to

25     anybody?

Page 1498

 1        A.   The question is whether anyone ever asked me.  No one ever put a

 2     question to me about who was the commander of military operations, who

 3     commanded the armed units in the municipality of Kotor Varos.

 4        Q.   We are talking about the special police, Mr. Djekanovic, and I

 5     want to understand what your evidence is at the end of this.  Are you

 6     saying that a unit known as the special police was sent from Banja Luka

 7     or not?  It's as simple as that.

 8        A.   For the umpteenth time I'm answering Your Honours within three,

 9     four minutes.  A unit from Banja Luka was sent.

10        Q.   No.  I'm asking --

11        A.   Which format, which size, I don't know.

12        Q.   No.  Was that unit known as the special police unit?

13        A.   To that question you can answer this way or that way.  In my

14     interviews you did not allow me to explain this.  Yesterday in my

15     evidence I said in that unit, for all I know, there were some

16     people - and I gave a few names and I thought over now it - there were

17     some people who had never been in the police, I'm talking about that unit

18     that arrived in Kotor Varos.  I mentioned Slobodan Dubocanin, who I

19     believed to be the head of that unit.  I know that he had never been in

20     the police before, and there was also his relative, a military volunteer

21     who had participated in the war in Slovenia, Damir Dubocanin, who also

22     for all I know had never been in the police.  There were also some other

23     people --

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Djekanovic, I wonder is that the criterion?

25     You told us at the beginning of I think yesterday that Savo Tepic when he

Page 1499

 1     was appointed head of the police in your municipality was never in the

 2     police before.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that post of the

 4     commander of the police is a case in point.  That happened often.  I

 5     don't know if that is reason, but for someone to be admitted into the

 6     police without first undergoing --

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  [Previous translation continues]... you said that

 8     doesn't prevent you to be in a police unit at a certain moment, does it?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's possible.  I'm not

10     challenging that.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

12             MS. KORNER:

13        Q.   You've referred to your interview and you said we wouldn't let

14     you explain --

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

16             MS. KORNER:

17        Q.   You've referred to your interview and you said we wouldn't let

18     you explain, so I'm going to take you through the parts, please.  First

19     interview in May -- I'm sorry, 12th of June, 2003, page 69 on the screen,

20     please.  Oh, it's 10118.

21             MR. KRGOVIC:  Your Honour, I think that we have decision that

22     this interview can be used, if I understand your decision correctly.

23             MS. KORNER:  No, the decision was I couldn't make it an exhibit

24     in this case.  I'm perfectly entitled now that he has raised the matter

25     to go through it with him, and I'm going to.

Page 1500

 1                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 2             MS. KORNER:  Oh, I'm afraid that my -- okay, it's page 70.  Is it

 3     on the screen?  Right.

 4        Q.   The context is there's been a break, and I may say on the page

 5     before it's said to you:  "If at any stage you feel you're too tired to

 6     go on answering questions please let us know straight away."

 7             And the context was you were looking at the Crisis Staff minutes

 8     of the 21st of June.  And you said -- and I -- you were asked whether --

 9     you'd reminded yourself before you came to the meeting, and you said --

10     right.

11             "No, what I meant is that I understood these issues better

12     because I was an active participant.  But it's entirely possible that I

13     do have a copy of these minutes ... we must say that when the undesired

14     events did occur, people were driven away, houses were left empty and

15     deserted.  And then looting began.  Destruction of property, destruction

16     of items in the house.  Especially the special unit of the police that

17     was stationed there acted badly."

18             And the investigator Mr. Dupas, who was interviewing you, said,

19     We'll talk about the special unit in a moment, and it goes back to

20     Brdjanin.

21             Do you agree, because you've got a transcript of this yourself in

22     your possession, Mr. Djekanovic, the first mention of the special police

23     unit in this interview came from you?

24        A.   The special unit, special police, that's what we called them,

25     whatever name anyone chose to gave [as interpreted] them.  I don't

Page 1501

 1     dispute that I mentioned this.

 2        Q.   Right.  Then on the next -- I'm not sure where the page is, page

 3     71.  Right.  You asked about the special unit.

 4             "Did you know Ljuban Ecim?"

 5             And you said:

 6             "I met him for the first time a couple of days after he first

 7     arrived.  I did not see him a lot, but I met him, yes."

 8             "Did you know Mr. Dubocanin?"

 9             And you said, yes, you knew him before.  And then you were asked

10     whether you knew he was a Crisis Staff -- a regional -- member of the

11     regional Crisis Staff.

12             "You say this special police unit was in Kotor Varos.  Who had

13     sent it to Kotor Varos?

14             "That was part of the activities that had to be put under some

15     kind of control, so this came I assume was ... co-ordinated from Banja

16     Luka, it was not under initiative.

17             "Do you mean it was sent from Banja Luka without any consultation

18     with you or your Crisis Staff?

19             "I'm not saying nobody asked us or consulted us, but we could not

20     decide who was going to participate in the units, in the take-over.

21     There was a need for the Banja Luka security services centre to become

22     involved" -- sorry, it's the next page, is it?

23             And then can we go to the page after that.

24                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

25             MS. KORNER:  Page 74 I'm told.

Page 1502

 1             Your Honour, I have no idea why the hard copy and the thing in

 2     the e-court are different page numbers.  No, no.  Page 72.  Yes.  Right.

 3        Q.   Page 72:

 4             "Q.  Did you ask the Crisis Staff and the CSB in Banja Luka to

 5     provide you with extra police manpower for the purposes of the take-over?

 6             "A.  We did ask for assistance to preserve control over

 7     everything, to prevent others from taking control.

 8             "Q.  Is what you're telling us in relation to this Crisis Staff

 9     meeting" --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Please slow down.

11             MS. KORNER:

12        Q.   -- "the men who got out of control?

13             "A.  The special unit of police, yes.  That's clear.  I mean, you

14     could see in many of the minutes of the Crisis Staff, I asked for it,

15     many of the other members asked for it.  It was a problem we needed to

16     solve because the assistance we had originally asked for just ended up

17     giving us a headache ..."

18             And as I say, there are endless other references to the special

19     police unit, Mr. Djekanovic, in this interview and the next.  Can we have

20     your final answer, please.

21             Are you saying this special unit was a special police unit sent

22     by Banja Luka, who then -- well, that's the first question.  Is that what

23     your evidence is or not?

24        A.   [No interpretation]

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please start again.

Page 1503

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Witness -- Mr. Djekanovic, sorry, the

 2     interpreters didn't catch your answer, so, please, would you repeat your

 3     answer.  Thanks.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My answer was that a unit was sent

 5     from Banja Luka, and I'm asserting here that we requested that

 6     assistance.

 7             MS. KORNER:

 8        Q.   Was the unit, the special unit, a special unit of the police as

 9     far as you were concerned?

10        A.   I could fall into a deep confusion if I tried to pretend that I

11     know how the unit was formed, what were its origins, and what was its

12     size.  I know that it arrived, that the centre of the security services

13     was involved, and I know that in the territory of Kotor Varos all

14     military units are now aside, were under the command of Mr. Peulic.  He

15     was the Commander-in-Chief of all these units -- in fact, every unit of

16     course had its own commander, its own command.  But the commander of all

17     military operations in the municipality of Kotor Varos was Mr. Peulic,

18     who was the commander of one of those military units, the biggest, the

19     best-equipped unit.

20        Q.   Look, I don't -- I'm not asking you how the unit was formed, what

21     its origins were, or what its size was.  Was there a special unit from

22     the Banja Luka CSB under the authority of Mr. Dubocanin who was reporting

23     to you at the Crisis Staff meetings?  That's all I want to know.

24        A.   You now sort of expanded the question, whether it was under the

25     command of Dubocanin and whether it was responsible to us.  I cannot

Page 1504

 1     answer in the affirmative.

 2        Q.   Not -- all right, one more time and then I will leave it,

 3     Mr. Djekanovic.  Was there a unit of the special police operating in

 4     Kotor Varos?

 5        A.   Everybody called it that, special police unit, and I have no

 6     reason to call it otherwise.

 7        Q.   We have looked at - and I'm not going to ask you to look at it

 8     again - endless Crisis Staff meetings dealing with the problems that were

 9     being caused by the special police.  Was it that group that was -- the

10     complaints were being made about and that Mr. Dubocanin told you was

11     going to leave Kotor Varos at the beginning of July?

12        A.   From my statement you can conclude that it is the way you put it

13     because I did not have the opportunity to explain in full all of the

14     problems that surrounded this matter.  We spoke a lot in the past few

15     days about those undesirable things and the people within that unit who

16     were out of control, not by the Crisis Staff but they were out of the

17     control of their own commands, and they did all sorts of things.  I never

18     contested that.  And the Crisis Staff certainly did demand that such

19     conduct by one part of the personnel be put an end to.  But not all of

20     the unit was like that, nor is it true that the whole unit was out of

21     control or that the whole unit, as you would like to have it, did these

22     things.  Yes, individuals did, and we opposed it clearly in the Crisis

23     Staff.

24             MS. KORNER:  Right, Your Honours, I know it's time for the break

25     but in light of the answer "from my statement you conclude it's the way

Page 1505

 1     you put it because I did not have the opportunity to explain in full all

 2     of the problems," I'm renewing my application to make these documents

 3     exhibits.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  We'll take the break now.

 5                           [The witness stands down]

 6                           --- Recess taken at 10.24 a.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mrs. Korner, you asked again for the earlier

 9     statements of Mr. Djekanovic to be admitted into evidence.  Let me give

10     you the result first and then the reasons afterwards.  The result is

11     negative.  We will not allow it to be admitted into evidence.  The

12     reasons are the following:  First of all, this interview was given by the

13     witness when he was a suspect, and that is the main reason why we think

14     that it would be ill-advised to allow it to be admitted into evidence.

15     There are too many caveats that surround a statement that has been given

16     by someone who was a suspect that it would be safe for the Chamber to

17     admit such statements into evidence.

18             Secondly, we understand that the reasons why you now apply for

19     the statement to be admitted was different from the reasons why you

20     applied the first time because the first application was made, as we

21     understood it, as an attempt to counter counsel Krgovic's allegations

22     that the statement had been given under pressure.  And for the reasons

23     that we explained, we simply disregarded that allegation.

24             Now the second time was for the purpose of supplementing his oral

25     testimony in court with the written material information that he gave

Page 1506

 1     about the identity of the special police unit and the actions in Kotor

 2     Varos.

 3             MS. KORNER:  No.  That's not right, Your Honour.  I accept the

 4     decision Your Honours have made, but just for the record, I applied

 5     because he said:  You didn't give me an opportunity to answer.  That's

 6     the reason I applied.  I repeated my application.  Not because of a

 7     supplement --

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  In that case, that just fortifies our decision,

 9     namely, that we ruled on that matter once, and we're not going to

10     reconsider it.  We thought that your second application was actually

11     founded in something different, namely, for the purpose of clarifying the

12     material evidence.

13             MS. KORNER:  No.  If I --

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But, let -- I mean, let's not go into a

15     discussion.  The ruling is clear.

16             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  The third reason why we thought it would be

18     unwise is that if we were to allow the statement to come in as such in

19     toto the entire statement, then we would probably have to allow the

20     Defence counsels to bring up certain other aspects.  Now the Defence

21     counsels have had the chance to put all the questions to the witness

22     relating to his earlier statements because they've had the statements in

23     advance and they've had the chance to read it and they could have used it

24     in cross-examination, but I suppose that the questions that the counsels

25     did ask in relation to his statements were asked under the premise or

Page 1507

 1     under the condition that these statements would not be admitted into

 2     evidence.  And if now we admit them, we think it would be only fair to

 3     the Defence counsels to actually give them a chance to review any

 4     questions that they might wish to put.

 5             So in order to simply avoid the issue of re-opening the

 6     cross-examination, we add that third argument to our decision.

 7             MS. KORNER:  Yes, Your Honours -- I understand, and I accept the

 8     decision that you've made.  Can I just say this:  It is almost axiomatic

 9     so that for the future we don't have the situation arising again, that if

10     suggestions are made about the way in which an interview is conducted,

11     either by counsel or by the witness himself, well, then it is only fair

12     that Your Honours should be able to see how the interview went.  So if

13     these suggestions are being made again, I will be renewing this

14     application.  It's axiomatic in the jurisdiction of which I come from and

15     I think Judge Hall comes from that if counsel ask questions and a lot of

16     questions or make suggestions about a document, the document is made part

17     of the evidence.

18             As I say, I accept your ruling on this occasion.

19             The second thing is that I don't know whether Your Honours are

20     aware that a witness who is treated as a suspect has rights which are not

21     given to other people who are interviewed, one is the presence of a

22     lawyer and one is the right not to answer questions.  Those are read to

23     him in each and every occasion.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  We are fully aware of --

25             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I won't take up any more time in this.

Page 1508

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And let me just, since you raised it yourself,

 2     remind both counsels as counsel from both sides, that of course the legal

 3     system that applies before this Tribunal is not a common law nor civil

 4     law.  It is a hybrid, and it is a system that applies and develops on its

 5     own premises and its own terms.  So you cannot always rely exclusively on

 6     answers provided in one or the other legal system because here we have to

 7     do things differently.  Now --

 8             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honour, you are just

 9     reading my thoughts.  That was the -- thank you so much.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  The issue relating to the material evidence which

11     we perhaps erroneously thought was behind your second application, we

12     intended to address that issue by allowing you, if you wish, to confront

13     the witness with whatever other parts of his earlier statements that have

14     to do with the issue of the special police unit.  Because it is obvious

15     that this issue is crucial to the evidence of -- given by this witness.

16     And so what we will do you -- will allow you to do once we have ruled

17     that the statements are inadmissible is to allow you to put up to the

18     witness further parts of his statements which supplements or maybe even

19     contradicts his oral testimony in court.

20             And for the record, I don't think that any doubt should be left

21     about the priority of evidence given.  It applies to both legal systems,

22     both the common law and the civil law, that's evidence given under oath

23     directly and orally before the Court prevails over written statements and

24     written evidence not given under oath.  So in both legal systems no doubt

25     remains that in the end it is the spoken word in the court in front of

Page 1509

 1     the Judges that will prevail.

 2             Now, if this information is supplemented in one way or the other

 3     by earlier statements made by the witness, then of course that goes into

 4     the final basis on which we will assess the probative value of the

 5     witness's testimony.

 6             So, Mrs. Korner, you will have another chance to put to the

 7     witness a couple of other parts if you wish; but otherwise, that's as far

 8     as we will go.

 9             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, can I say, I'm going to move on because

10     I'm anxious that Mr. Olmsted gets the chance to call the next witness.

11     Your Honours have in any event the transcript of the earlier evidence he

12     gave about the special police, and I don't think there's much point in

13     taking it any further.

14             So, Your Honours, I've just got one short topic further to deal

15     with.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Madam Usher, will you bring in the witness.

17                           [The witness takes the stand]

18             MS. KORNER:

19        Q.   Mr. Djekanovic, I just want finally to ask you about the meetings

20     or meeting you had with Stojan Zupljanin.  When you were testifying about

21     this on the 8th of October at page 1108 you had been asked about one of

22     the meetings of the Crisis Staff, and you were asked this:

23             "You had a meeting, did you, with Mr. Zupljanin?

24             "I don't recall details whether on the following day I held or

25     there was held.  I did have a couple of meetings with Zupljanin.  They

Page 1510

 1     were not overall official meetings.  You can see from the report that

 2     we'd entrusted the head of the police station, but I don't recall that on

 3     the following day a meeting with Stojan Zupljanin was held."

 4             And this was -- perhaps I better give the exhibit number of this

 5     meeting you're referring to.  I'll just find it.  P81 it was.

 6             "Will you did, however, have a meeting, didn't you, with Stojan

 7     Zupljanin and you said more than one meeting but after these killings?

 8             "After those killings, I did have meetings with Stojan Zupljanin.

 9     How many times, when, what the dates were I don't remember but there

10     weren't many such meetings.

11             "All right.  What were you saying to Stojan Zupljanin at these

12     meetings?

13             "I conveyed to him the positions of the Crisis Staff about our

14     remarks and information, about the conduct of individuals as part of the

15     special unit.

16             "What did you want him to do?

17             "We wanted him for the unit to be organisationally and structural

18     constantly under control, that it should not relax and it should not be

19     permitted for individuals to wilfully do the things that we had referred

20     to earlier.  In any case" -- oh, sorry.

21             "And how many meetings, and what was his response to that?

22             "In any case the event was" - this is your answer - "that he

23     would do everything that was in his power to prevent these people

24     behaving in the way that they did.

25             "Who did this?  Who was in command of the special unit?

Page 1511

 1             "At the beginning of yesterday's hearing I said I don't know

 2     exactly who it was.  According to my information it was Slobodan

 3     Dubocanin."

 4             Now, yesterday and today you appear to be saying that you only

 5     had one meeting, an informal meeting at a picnic at which Stojan

 6     Zupljanin was present and all you did was talk in general terms about the

 7     military in particular, and you never addressed any specific complaint to

 8     Mr. Zupljanin.  Which is right?  What you said last Wednesday or what you

 9     said yesterday and earlier today?

10        A.   I didn't say yesterday that the topic of the conversation with

11     Stojan Zupljanin was just the military.  I said that the topic were

12     co-ordination and the functioning and the overlap of the authority or the

13     powers, and I said that meeting was not only attended by Zupljanin but by

14     Peulic and by some other commanders of the units.  From what I remember

15     this is what I said.  I don't see that the first and second statements

16     are that different.  I did mention the conclusions of the Crisis Staff,

17     but it's also true that the topic was much broader than what can be

18     concluded from the answers during my first interview.

19        Q.   Can we just finally on this topic have a look at the second

20     interview at page 59, and it's 65 ter 1019 -- sorry, 10119.  And could we

21     go, please, to page 59 of 67.  Yeah.

22             In the middle of the page -- well, thank you very much.

23             "All we are really trying to establish is this:  At whatever

24     meeting you had with Stojan Zupljanin, did you tell him that the

25     behaviour of these murdering criminals had to be prevented?"

Page 1512

 1             The previous page it talks about the special police.

 2             "Yes.

 3             "And that effectively the members of the special unit had to be

 4     pulled out of Kotor Varos?

 5             "Very soon after that this happened."

 6             So is that right what you said in interview, you told him that

 7     the murdering -- the behaviour of these murdering criminals in the

 8     special unit had to be prevented?

 9        A.   Individuals from the special police and the special unit, yes.

10     This is what I said.  That was the topic of discussion at many Crisis

11     Staff meetings and you can see that in the minutes.  I cannot dispute

12     that here.  I mean, that is correct.

13        Q.   Yes.  Thank you.

14             MS. KORNER:  That's all I ask.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Djekanovic, thank you very much for attending.

16     That concludes your testimony.  You are now released as a witness.  We

17     appreciate your assistance, and we take note of your patience and the

18     personal inconvenience that you would have experienced having regard to

19     the breaks in your testimony.  So you may now return home, and we wish

20     you a safe trip.  Thank you.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22                           [The witness withdrew]

23             JUDGE HALL:  Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness?

24             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honour, sorry.  We are ready to call our

25     next witness.

Page 1513

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

 2             MR. PANTELIC:  In the meantime, Your Honours, if our clients at

 3     certain stage will be in situation to address the Chamber about the issue

 4     that I raised yesterday on 65 ter Conference about the actual state and

 5     conditions of their health and, you know -- if you think that it's

 6     necessary to be informed.  I mean, I'm not urging you now, maybe after

 7     this witness or whatever is convenient for this Trial Chamber.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9                           [The witness entered court]

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Good morning, Witness.  Will you please make the

11     solemn declaration.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

13     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.  Will you please tell us your name.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Milenko Delic.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Your date of birth, please.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 30th of March, 1959.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  What is your profession?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a notary now.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And your ethnicity, please?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a Serb.

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.  Did you ever previously testify

23     before this Tribunal in another procedure?

24             THE WITNESS:  [No interpretation]

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  No.  Thank you very much.  You may sit down.

Page 1514

 1             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2                           WITNESS:  MILENKO DELIC

 3                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 4                           Examination by Mr. Olmsted:

 5        Q.   Mr. Delic, I would first like to go over your legal background

 6     briefly.  You started your legal career as a judge at the Sanski Most

 7     basic court.  Is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes, yes.

 9        Q.   And how long were you a judge for?

10        A.   For two years approximately.

11        Q.   And could you tell us what those two years were, what years?

12        A.   1990, 1991, until late March 1992.

13        Q.   And kind of cases did you hear as a judge?

14        A.   Civilian matters -- civil matters.

15        Q.   And from your position as a judge, what was the next position you

16     held in Sanski Most?

17        A.   After that I was appointed as public prosecutor in the basic

18     public prosecutor's office in the municipality of Sanski Most.

19        Q.   And can you tell us approximately when you were appointed to that

20     position?

21        A.   It was towards the end of May 1992.

22        Q.   And who formally appointed you to that position of basic

23     prosecutor?

24        A.   I received a letter of appointment signed by the then-president

25     of Republika Srpska, Mr. Radovan Karadzic.

Page 1515

 1        Q.   And how long were you the basic prosecutor in Sanski Most?

 2        A.   Until the 10th of October, 1995.

 3        Q.   And after you left that position in Sanski Most, did you hold the

 4     position of deputy prosecutor in Banja Luka until 2004?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And then after that position, between 2004 and 2008, were you

 7     working for the district prosecutor's office in Banja Luka?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   As you are the first prosecutor witness to testify in this case,

10     I would like you to describe briefly the organisation of the prosecution

11     service and the courts in the Republika Srpska from April 1992 throughout

12     the rest of 1992.  First of all, according to the laws of the Republika

13     Srpska under which ministry of the government did the prosecutor's

14     offices and courts fall?

15        A.   The court prosecution offices were separate organs of the

16     judiciary branch of Republika Srpska.  They were organised at the basic

17     level, the level of basic courts and basic prosecutor's offices for the

18     region of the municipality.  There were higher courts and higher

19     prosecutor's offices, and they comprised several basic courts and

20     prosecutor's offices.  And then there was also the Supreme Court of

21     Republika Srpska and the republican prosecutor 's office.

22        Q.   Thank you for that answer, and it is relevant to our case, but my

23     question was in this 1992 time-period, there were the courts and there

24     was the prosecution service.  They fell within a ministry at the

25     Republika Srpska level, and which ministry was that?

Page 1516

 1        A.   These were organs of the judiciary and were under the authority

 2     of the Ministry of Justice.

 3        Q.   Okay.  Now we've just described the various levels of both the

 4     prosecution service and the court service so we won't cover that any

 5     further.  I want to move on to what kinds of criminal offences did the

 6     basic courts have first-instant jurisdiction over?

 7        A.   The basic courts were in charge of all the crimes somewhere in

 8     1992.  The law was changed and all the powers were transferred to the

 9     basic level, the basic courts and basic prosecutor's offices as far as

10     criminal matters were concerned.

11        Q.   And I would like to show you 65 ter Exhibit 2621.  And I'd like

12     you to take a look at the first decision.  It's marked -- I think it's

13     number 170.  Do you recognise that decision?

14        A.   Yes.  There is a title:  "The Decision on Real Jurisdiction on

15     Regular Courts in Criminal Cases."

16        Q.   And is this the decision that gave the basic courts and

17     accordingly the basic prosecutors jurisdiction -- first-instance

18     jurisdiction over all criminal offences in the Republika Srpska?

19        A.   Yes, that's precisely what's written in Article 1 of this

20     decision.

21             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, may this document be marked and

22     admitted into evidence?

23             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, admitted and marked.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P114, Your Honours.

25             MR. OLMSTED:

Page 1517

 1        Q.   Now, in 1992 what criminal codes applied to the territory of the

 2     Republika Srpska?

 3        A.   At that time the criminal code of the former SFRY was in effect

 4     and the criminal code of the former Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as

 5     far as substantive law is concerned.

 6        Q.   And which of those criminal codes applicable to the Republika

 7     Srpska in 1992 criminalised war crimes and crimes against humanity?

 8        A.   Those criminal cases were governed by the former criminal code of

 9     the SFRY.

10        Q.   Now, what -- we talked about the substantive criminal law.  What

11     criminal procedure code applied to the Republika Srpska as of April 1992?

12        A.   Yes, that was the Law on Criminal Procedure of the former SFRY.

13        Q.   Now, I'd like you to take us through the procedures for

14     investigating and prosecuting a criminal case that existed in the

15     Republika Srpska during the April to December 1992 time-period, and in

16     particular what were the roles of the police, the prosecutor, the courts

17     in this process?  Let me ask the question.  First of all, how were

18     criminal proceedings initiated?  What had to happen first before a

19     criminal case could begin?

20        A.   Most often the police would submit to the competent prosecutor's

21     office a criminal report, a criminal complaint.  In that criminal

22     complaint information would be given about the person suspected of having

23     committed a crime, with a brief description of the crime itself and the

24     legal qualification of the act.  And along with this criminal report

25     evidence would be submitted, be it documentary evidence such as witness

Page 1518

 1     statements or something else.

 2        Q.   You mentioned that mostly it was the police who submitted

 3     criminal reports to the prosecution office.  Who else could submit

 4     criminal reports?

 5        A.   A criminal report could be filed by any physical or legal person.

 6        Q.   But how often would that happen as far as the number of type of

 7     criminal reports where it was filed by someone other than the police?

 8        A.   Most often the police would file criminal reports.  Perhaps 90

 9     per cent of all criminal reports would be filed by the police.  The

10     remaining 10 per cent were filed by other persons.

11        Q.   Now, in the 10 per cent of cases where someone else filed a

12     criminal report with the prosecution office, who verified the allegations

13     in the criminal report?  Who collected any additional evidence necessary

14     to substantiate that criminal report?

15        A.   In those cases the competent prosecutor would ask the police to

16     conduct vetting and run checks, collect evidence and any information that

17     would be useful in conducting criminal proceedings.

18        Q.   And prior to a police officer filing a criminal report with your

19     office, what actions were the police supposed to take to investigate the

20     case they were going to bring to you?

21        A.   The police.  Depending really on what kind of case it was, the

22     police collected material evidence such as documents, would take

23     statements from witnesses who had the facts of the case.  It was not

24     unusual for investigative actions to be taken such as on-site

25     investigation, and that on-site investigation would be handled by an

Page 1519

 1     investigative judge with a team of scene-of-crime officers, and a

 2     forensic technician, and the prosecutor would frequently attend.

 3        Q.   Now, who was responsible -- who had the responsibility to

 4     identify and arrest perpetrators of crimes?

 5        A.   Well, it was primarily the task of the police to detect

 6     perpetrators and collect evidence relevant to criminal proceedings.

 7        Q.   And was it also the police who was responsible -- who were

 8     responsible for arresting perpetrators as well?

 9        A.   Yes, yes.  The police was duty-bound to arrest the perpetrator

10     and bring him or her before the investigative judge if that was

11     justified.

12        Q.   And what means did the police have at their disposal to locate

13     and arrest perpetrators during this time-period?

14        A.   The police had the human resources and the equipment to do that.

15        Q.   Did they also have informants in the field that allowed them to

16     identify perpetrators of crimes?

17        A.   Usually information is required about possible perpetrators, and

18     the police staff member would get such information from so-called

19     informers, people who cooperated with the police.

20        Q.   Now, if a prosecutor's office received a criminal report from the

21     police that lacked sufficient evidence to proceed with the case, what

22     could the prosecutor do?

23        A.   Usually the prosecutor would require additional evidence to be

24     collected, evidence and information that he could use in starting and

25     conducting criminal proceedings.

Page 1520

 1        Q.   And just to be clear for the record, the prosecutor would require

 2     additional evidence to be collected by whom?

 3        A.   Usually the prosecutor would turn to the police, although he

 4     could get certain documents from legal persons as well such as

 5     businesses, in certain criminal cases in which they believe legal persons

 6     such as businesses would have the documents required.

 7        Q.   Now, once the prosecutor's office has a sufficient criminal

 8     report and substantiating evidence, what is the next procedural step in

 9     the process?

10        A.   The next step would be for the prosecutor to submit a request for

11     investigation, and the whole case file would be put before the

12     investigative judge.  And the prosecutor would request the investigative

13     judge to conduct an investigation that would include certain

14     investigative actions.

15        Q.   Now, in order to conduct those investigative actions, what

16     assistance would the investigative judge require from the police?

17        A.   Usually investigative actions would include the questioning of

18     the suspect and witnesses.  For instance, if the suspect or a witness

19     would fail to respond to the court summons, the court could ask the

20     police to bring the person in by force.

21        Q.   And could the investigative judge also use the police to conduct

22     searches and seizures?

23        A.   Yes.  The investigative judge could also ask the police to do

24     that.

25        Q.   And what about assistance with forensic work, would that also be

Page 1521

 1     the responsibility of the police?

 2        A.   Yes, within the centre for public security, specifically in Banja

 3     Luka, there was a section for forensic expertise.  They would provide

 4     forensic expertise in different cases, such as ballistic expertise of

 5     weapons or dactyloscopic expertise or different expertise.

 6        Q.   Now, you mentioned earlier on-site investigations.  Are these

 7     types of investigations conducted typically before or after the criminal

 8     report is filed with the prosecutor's office?

 9        A.   Usually the on-site investigation would be conducted before, as

10     soon as a report of an event came, for instance that a body was found or

11     that a road accident had taken place.  The police would inform the

12     investigative judge and a prosecutor, and then the investigative judge

13     together with the prosecutor and a crime inspector and a crime technician

14     would come on site.  And the investigation would be led by the judge.

15     The purpose of that investigation would be to describe the incident as

16     accurately as possible and to find clues such as casing of ammunition,

17     something that could be subjected to forensic expertise and used as an

18     exhibit.

19        Q.   And after one of these on-site investigations were completed,

20     what happened?

21        A.   After that was done, the investigative judge would make a

22     protocol of the on-site investigation.  One copy would be given to the

23     police and one to the public prosecutor.

24        Q.   And when you as the public prosecutor received one of these

25     on-site investigation reports, what would you do?

Page 1522

 1        A.   In that case I as the prosecutor would require the police to take

 2     certain actions within their competence in order to find the perpetrator,

 3     to collect evidence, material evidence or witness statements if any on

 4     the facts that are needed for criminal proceedings.  And then I would

 5     further require if the perpetrator is found by the police that a criminal

 6     report be filed and that all evidence be placed before the prosecutor's

 7     office for further processing.

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  Let's take a look at 65 ter Exhibit 1117.  And

 9     perhaps if we just look at, yeah, generally the first page.

10        Q.   And my question for you is:  What generally is the set of

11     documents you're about to look at, if you could tell from the first page?

12        A.   From this first page you see that this is a document called

13     Criminal File in a Criminal Case Against an Unidentified Perpetrator.  It

14     cites Article 36, paragraph 1, which means that it's a murder.  In the

15     left top corner you'll see the number which designates the public

16     security station of Sanski Most and the number of the file and the date.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  Now, if we could look at page 8 of the English,

18     page 6 of the B/C/S.

19        Q.   Mr. Delic, is this an example of an on-site investigation report

20     by an investigative judge?

21        A.   You can see that this document is called Record of On-Site

22     Investigation.  In the left top corner you see the number designating the

23     court in Sanski Most, the number of the case and the date.  This copy is

24     bad.  You can't really read it, but this is a record of on-site

25     investigation.

Page 1523

 1        Q.   Did you attend this on-site investigation?

 2        A.   No, I can't see my name here.  I can see the name of the judge,

 3     Slavica Blagojevic; and you see the crime inspector, Mile Dosenovic; the

 4     forensic technician, Zoran Despot; the name of the doctor, Zarko Bubulj.

 5     I know this case because it was assigned to me -- I'm sorry, I received a

 6     copy of the record from the court.

 7        Q.   Could you tell us who were the victims, in particular, how many

 8     and what their ethnicity was?

 9        A.   There were four victims in this case:  Smajo Pasalic, his two

10     sons, and another relative.  They were Muslims.  And I knew Smajo Pasalic

11     before the war.  He kept a shop selling construction material in a place

12     called Ostra Luka.

13        Q.   To your knowledge, were the perpetrators of this crime ever

14     arrested or prosecuted?

15        A.   Not as far as I remember never.

16        Q.   Let's take a look at pages 5 and 6 of the English and page 4 of

17     the B/C/S.

18             Mr. Delic, just very briefly, can you tell us what this document

19     is, what's the purpose of this document?

20        A.   This is a letter I sent to the public security station at Sanski

21     Most asking them to collect any information and evidence and to file a

22     criminal report if they find the perpetrator of this crime.  That's after

23     I received the record of on-site investigation from the court.

24             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, may this document be marked and

25     admitted into evidence?

Page 1524

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit Number P115, Your Honours.

 3             MR. OLMSTED:  While we're at it, why don't we look at another one

 4     of these, 65 ter Exhibit 1118.  I'm sorry, it's Exhibit Number -- got it.

 5     Okay.

 6        Q.   Mr. Delic, is this another example of a criminal case file

 7     pertaining to an unknown perpetrator?

 8        A.   Yes.  You can see that this is the cover page of the criminal

 9     file of this public security station, Sanski Most, against an

10     unidentified perpetrator.  Again, this is murder, Article 36, paragraph 1

11     of the Criminal Code of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  The victim is Petar

12     Ivankovic and others.

13             MR. OLMSTED:  And let's please have a look at page 8 in the

14     English, page 7 in the B/C/S.

15        Q.   Mr. Delic, is this another example of an on-site investigation

16     report by an investigative judge in 1992?

17        A.   Yes, yes.

18        Q.   And did you attend this on-site investigation?

19        A.   Yes, and you see it in the record.  You see that I was one of

20     those who attended, and I remember this case.

21        Q.   Could you tell us who the victims were, what their ethnicities

22     were, and what their genders were?

23        A.   The victims were Croats, Petar Ivankovic, and there were three

24     others, three women.  I remember we got a report from the police that

25     there were three -- sorry, four bodies in the village of Kljevci; one

Page 1525

 1     male, three female.  And together with investigative judge Mira Dosenovic

 2     and crime inspector Zdravko Savanovic and medical doctor Nada Tadic, I

 3     went to the scene.  We did not find the bodies there.  On the way we ran

 4     into an old [Realtime transcript read in error "oiled"] man and asked him

 5     if he knew anything about that.  He could not give us any real

 6     information.  We spent some more time searching the area, but since we

 7     couldn't find the bodies we just went back.  And this is all written in

 8     the record.

 9        Q.   To your knowledge were the perpetrators of this homicide ever

10     arrested or prosecuted?

11        A.   Not that I remember.

12             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, may this document be marked and

13     admitted?

14             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P116, Your Honours.

16             MR. OLMSTED:

17        Q.   Let's go back to where we left off in the criminal investigation

18     process that existed back in 1992.  After the prosecutor requested the

19     investigative judge to conduct an investigation and once the

20     investigative judge had completed that investigation, what was the next

21     step?

22        A.   When the investigative judge completes an investigation, he

23     submits the case to the prosecutor.  The prosecutor would examine the

24     documents, and if there is sufficient evidence and suspicion that the

25     person committed a crime, then the prosecutor is obliged to issue an

Page 1526

 1     indictment.  Often it would happen that the investigation is not

 2     completed and that in that case the prosecutor would return the case file

 3     to the investigative judge, requesting additional work.  And in the event

 4     that the prosecutor concludes that there isn't sufficient grounds to

 5     suspect a criminal act, then he would state that there would be no

 6     official investigation pursued, in which case it would be suspended.

 7        Q.   Now, the procedures we've just gone through, how would they

 8     differ if the perpetrator was a member of the police?

 9        A.   The Law on Criminal Procedure applied to all persons who possibly

10     perpetrate a crime regardless of who the persons were.  The Law on

11     Criminal Procedure had to be applied equally in relation to any person.

12                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

13             MR. OLMSTED:  Just for the record, please note that at the

14     transcript on page 50, line 2, it says "oiled man," I think it was "old

15     man."

16        Q.   So, Mr. Delic, it was essentially the police's responsibility to

17     investigate their own crimes; is that correct?

18        A.   Yes, all crimes regardless of who the perpetrators were.

19        Q.   Under the criminal procedures we've discussed, what would happen

20     if the police suddenly failed to perform their functions under these

21     procedures?

22        A.   The procedure could not be completed.

23        Q.   I want to move on to another subject.  I would now like to

24     discuss the personnel changes in Sanski Most prosecutor's office and

25     basic court after April 1992.  Prior to April 1992, who was the basic

Page 1527

 1     prosecutor in Sanski Most?

 2        A.   Before April 1992 it was Mr. Suad Sapic [as interpreted].  His

 3     deputy was Mr. Slobodan Milasinovic.

 4        Q.   Could you tell us what the ethnicity of Suad Savic was?

 5        A.   He was a Muslim.

 6        Q.   And prior to April 1992 who was the president of the basic court

 7     in Sanski Most.

 8        A.   The president of the basic court was Mr. Adil Draganovic.

 9        Q.   And what was Mr. Draganovic's ethnicity?

10        A.   He was also a Muslim.

11        Q.   Now, other than Mr. Savic and Mr. Draganovic, were there other

12     non-Serb judges and prosecutors working in Sanski Most prior to April

13     1992?

14        A.   Yes, and two other judges, Enver Ceric and Nedzad Suljanovic.

15     They were both Muslims by ethnicity.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Counsel, we're coming -- it's time for the usual

17     break.

18                           [The witness stands down]

19                           --- Recess taken at 12.04 p.m.

20                           --- On resuming at 12.28 p.m.

21                           [The witness takes the stand]

22             MR. OLMSTED:

23        Q.   Mr. Delic, prior to the break we were discussing the non-Serbs

24     who were working for the prosecutor's office and the basic court prior to

25     April 1992.  Now, after April 1992 what happened to these non-Serb judges

Page 1528

 1     and prosecutors?

 2        A.   They -- employment was terminated.  I don't know exactly at what

 3     date, but I think it was in May 1992.  We had a meeting at the -- at one

 4     of the courtrooms in the court.  We were all present, judges and the

 5     prosecutors.  Vlado Vrkes attended the meeting as well.  At the time he

 6     was the president of the Sanski Most SDS party, something like that, and

 7     he was accompanied was several armed soldiers.  And he simply stated that

 8     persons of Muslim and Croat ethnicity could not work anymore.  And he

 9     also said at the time who would be the prosecutor, who would be the

10     president of the court.  He also said that Mr. Radovan Stanic was

11     appointed president of the court, and he said that I would be the public

12     prosecutor, my deputy would be Rajko Indjic, and so on.

13        Q.   Let me ask you some questions about what you just told us.  First

14     of all, at this meeting at the courthouse were the non-Serb judges and

15     prosecutors also present at that meeting?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And you mentioned that Vlado Vrkes, the president of the SDS,

18     arrived with armed guards.  Could you describe what kind of weapons those

19     guards were carrying?

20        A.   They had automatic rifles, and there was a combat vehicle, a

21     so-called three-barrel gun, and it was parked on the parking.  And there

22     were three heavily armed soldiers in camouflage uniforms that came with

23     the vehicle.

24        Q.   Now, you mentioned that Vrkes announced that the new president of

25     the basic court would be Radovan Stanic.  What is Mr. Stanic's --

Page 1529

 1             JUDGE HALL:  [Microphone not activated]

 2             MR. KRGOVIC:  Sorry -- I'm sorry to interrupt.  [Microphone not

 3     activated] Please ask witness to repeat, not me to say what was said,

 4     just to repeat his answer about the uniform and all things.

 5             MR. OLMSTED:

 6        Q.   Mr. Delic, did you hear the issue there.  I think the Defence

 7     would like you to repeat what you saw as far as what they were wearing,

 8     the uniforms of these soldiers that accompanied Vrkes to the courthouse

 9     that day?

10        A.   They had military camouflage uniforms, and they were equipped

11     with automatic rifles.

12        Q.   Now, you mentioned that Vrkes announced that Radovan Stanic would

13     be the president of the basic court.  Could you tell us what ethnicity

14     Mr. Stanic was?

15        A.   Mr. Stanic is a Serb.

16        Q.   And at this meeting did Mr. Vrkes tell you who had authorised

17     these removals and appointments?

18        A.   No.  He just said that this decision was made, and as of that day

19     on that's how things would be.

20        Q.   Prior to this meeting, were you ever asked whether you wanted to

21     be basic prosecutor, or did you ever apply for that position?

22        A.   There was no vacancy or any official vacancy announcement.

23        Q.   How would you describe the atmosphere at this meeting led by

24     Vrkes?

25        A.   The atmosphere -- just the presence of armed men for us made it

Page 1530

 1     uncomfortable.  People were mostly quiet.  There were no comments or

 2     anything like that.  They listened to the decision calmly.  It didn't

 3     take that long.

 4        Q.   Now, you've already testified that you received a formal letter

 5     from Radovan Karadzic appointing you as basic prosecutor in Sanski Most.

 6     How long after this meeting did you receive that letter?

 7        A.   A few days had passed, not a very long time.  It was just very

 8     short period of time, of a few days.

 9        Q.   And what about the other judges and prosecutors who were

10     appointed that day, did they also receive letters from the President

11     Karadzic regarding their appointments?

12        A.   I don't know about others, but I assume that it was the same.

13        Q.   Mr. Delic, are you aware what happened to Adil Draganovic after

14     he was removed from the position of president of the court?

15        A.   I heard that after a few days he was taken to the Manjaca camp

16     and that he spent a couple of months there, perhaps two or three months.

17     After that he was transferred to Germany, and he remained in Germany

18     probably as a refugee.

19        Q.   How well did you know Mr. Draganovic?

20        A.   I knew him well.  I began to work at the courts as a result of

21     his insistence, the Sanski Most court.  Before that I was working at a

22     bank in Prijedor.

23        Q.   To your knowledge had Mr. Draganovic committed any crimes that

24     warranted his placement within the Manjaca camp?

25        A.   I don't know that he ever committed any crime.  He was the

Page 1531

 1     president of the court for a few years before that.

 2        Q.   And the police never brought you a case against Mr. Draganovic,

 3     did they?

 4        A.   No, no criminal report or charges were ever issued against him.

 5        Q.   And what about Mr. Suad Savic, what happened to him after he was

 6     removed as the basic prosecutor in Sanski Most?

 7        A.   I think that he also spent a period of time at the Manjaca camp,

 8     just like Adil Draganovic.

 9        Q.   And again, to your knowledge had Savic committed any crimes that

10     warranted his placement within the Manjaca camp?

11        A.   I have no information that he committed any crime, and no

12     criminal reports were submitted against him for any kind of criminal act.

13        Q.   Now, after these personnel changes at the prosecutor's office,

14     was your office able to perform its basic duties as a prosecution office?

15        A.   As far as the circumstances permitted, the prosecution, I was

16     working, the judges were working, and this depended on how far the

17     circumstances, the war, and everything allowed us to do our job properly.

18     That is another matter.

19        Q.   If the police came to you with a criminal report, was your office

20     open for business?  Could it accept that criminal report?  Could it begin

21     the investigation, the prosecution?  Could the investigative judges

22     conduct on-site investigations, et cetera?

23        A.   Yes, yes.

24        Q.   I would like you to take a look at 65 ter Exhibit Number 641.

25             Mr. Delic, did you have an opportunity to see this particular

Page 1532

 1     document back in 1992?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   Now, this report is from the Sanski Most public security station

 4     and discusses several hundred arrests of non-Serbs beginning 27th of May,

 5     1992, and I want to draw your attention to the last sentence and in

 6     particular the last sentence of the second paragraph, which reads:

 7             "The offences in question are most often the offence of armed

 8     rebellion, smuggling and dealing in weapons, illegal arming, and

 9     possession of weapons, but reports are not being submitted because the

10     courts are not functioning."

11             Do you agree with this assertion, that in July 1992 that the

12     police could not file criminal reports?

13        A.   Criminal reports could be submitted, but as for how far the

14     courts were able to function, well, it's the case that their work was

15     made more difficult because of the shortages of electricity, lack of

16     fuel, and a general chaos caused by the war.  I mean, its definitely that

17     the -- our ability to do our work was hampered, but it was possible

18     nevertheless in spite of the conditions.

19        Q.   You mentioned the issue of lack of electricity during the

20     conflict.  Was that throughout the municipality, or did certain essential

21     entities within the municipality, did they have access to electricity and

22     other -- fuel and other things?

23        A.   Especially during the summer, in August.  I think for more than

24     two months there was no electricity at all, and from before that there

25     was no fuel.  The shops were closed.  The windows -- the shop windows

Page 1533

 1     were broken, smashed.  There were no articles.  The towns were blocked.

 2     At the exits to the town they had set up check-points, armed people --

 3             MR. OLMSTED:  Go ahead.

 4             MR. KRGOVIC:  Part of his answer is missing from the transcript

 5     especially when he mentioned the months so -- after -- "especially during

 6     the summer ..." and after that some part is missing.  So can you ask the

 7     witness to repeat the answer on this part.

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, it seems, he says that, "especially during

 9     the summer, in August, and I think more than two months there was no

10     electricity ..."

11             Is that sufficient?

12             MR. KRGOVIC:  He mentioned June and July, and after that August

13     so --

14             MR. OLMSTED:

15        Q.   Mr. Delic, could you just repeat for us which months were there

16     problems with electricity in Sanski Most?

17        A.   June, July, and August 1992.  So for more than two months in that

18     period there was no electricity at all, and I don't know if individual

19     institutions or facilities perhaps did have electricity.  But just

20     regular citizens did not have electricity in that period.

21        Q.   So it's possible that some institutions within the municipality

22     would have access to electricity and fuel during that time-period?

23        A.   It's possible that the most important institutions had, but I

24     really wouldn't have any precise information.

25        Q.   Who signed this report that is before you?

Page 1534

 1        A.   Could you scroll down so I can see the signature.  It's chief of

 2     the public security station, Mirko Vucinic -- Vrucinic, sorry.  V-r-u,

 3     Vrucinic.

 4        Q.   Do you recognise the signature?

 5        A.   I know the man.  I suppose that's his signature.  I mean, I know

 6     Mirko personally.  I don't know if that's his signature.  I suppose it

 7     is.

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, can we mark this document for

 9     identification?

10             JUDGE HALL:  It is so marked.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P117, marked for identification, Your

12     Honours.

13             MR. OLMSTED:

14        Q.   Now, during this 1992 time-period how frequently would you meet

15     with Chief Vrucinic?

16        A.   Not very often.  Two or three times.  I wouldn't know exactly,

17     but not often.

18        Q.   When you met, what would you discuss?

19        A.   The usual things that were foremost in everyone's mind at the

20     time.  I remember once we had that meeting at the municipality.  I got an

21     invitation, and Mr. Vrucinic was present there.  Mr. Rasula too.  There

22     were other people, and among other things they criticised my work, why I

23     do not prosecute persons who have been found to have illegal weapons.

24     And I tried to explain that in order to prosecute I must have information

25     who these people are, names, surname, which crime they are to be charged

Page 1535

 1     with.  They criticised me, specifically one gentleman who had come from

 2     Zenica, he was the most vocal in criticising me.  He said that I could on

 3     my own based on rumours and informal knowledge start proceedings, whereas

 4     I explained that criminal proceedings run along a certain procedure.  I

 5     have to have information about a particular person in order to take them

 6     into consideration, in order to prosecute.  We had a sort of verbal duel

 7     there, and after that I left the meeting, and I couldn't say what else

 8     they discussed after.

 9        Q.   You mentioned that Vrucinic and this person from Zenica were

10     complaining that you were not prosecuting illegal weapons cases.  Who

11     were the supposed perpetrators of those illegal weapons crimes?

12        A.   Vrucinic was present and this gentleman from Zenica was

13     criticising me more than others.  Those were Muslims who have been found,

14     allegedly, in possession of military weapons and that would be the crime

15     of illegal possession of weapons and ammunition.  And then I explained to

16     them that in order to prosecute any crime the prosecutor must have

17     specific information on the suspect, on the alleged crime, which weapon

18     was found, the number of the rifle, et cetera.

19        Q.   How many illegal weapons charges or criminal reports were filed

20     with your office in 1992 by the Sanski Most police?

21        A.   I remember one criminal report, my first after I assumed the

22     position of prosecutor.  It concerned a person of Muslim ethnicity by the

23     name of Kuzelj, last name Kuzelj.  An automatic rifle was found in his

24     possession with around 1.000 rounds, and the police filed a criminal

25     report against him.  And I submitted to the investigative judge a request

Page 1536

 1     for investigation, and that was my first case as prosecutor.

 2        Q.   Did you receive any other cases that you remember during the 1992

 3     time-period regarding illegal weapons?

 4        A.   I don't remember.  Perhaps one more, perhaps none.

 5        Q.   Let's take a look at 65 ter Exhibit 610.  Now, if you look under

 6     item 2 you see your name is mentioned -- misspelled but mentioned,

 7     "Milanko Delic."  Is this the meeting that you were describing just a

 8     moment ago attended by Rasula and Vrucinic?

 9        A.   Yes, that's the meeting of the coordination board to which I was

10     invited once.  That is the one that I attended, but I didn't stay until

11     the end.  You could say that I sort of quarrelled with them at the end.

12        Q.   Could you tell us what this Sanski Most municipal assembly

13     coordinating committee was, what it was supposed to be doing?

14        A.   It was something like a parastate board, in my view completely

15     unnecessary because the municipality had its own agencies, including the

16     Executive Board.  If you ask me, it was a completely unnecessary body.

17     What its role was, I really couldn't tell you.

18        Q.   Now, you mentioned that Nedeljko Rasula was present.  Did you

19     have many interactions with Mr. Rasula during the 1992 time-period?

20        A.   No, no.  I did not.

21             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, can this be marked and admitted into

22     evidence?

23             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, marked and admitted.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P118, Your Honours.

25             MR. OLMSTED:

Page 1537

 1        Q.   Now, before this you were discussing interactions with the chief

 2     of police Vrucinic and you mentioned this one meeting and I think you

 3     suggested there were also others.  During any of your interactions with

 4     Vrucinic did he ever complain to you, either in writing or orally, that

 5     the prosecution office, your office, or the courts were not functioning

 6     beyond this issue of not processing or not taking on these illegal

 7     weapons cases?

 8        A.   I don't remember that this gentleman, Vrucinic, had any

 9     objections or complaints against the work of the prosecution, at least

10     none that he shared with me.

11        Q.   As a basic prosecutor, who would you regularly have contact with

12     at the SJB Sanski Most?

13        A.   Most often I had contact with crime inspectors and crime

14     technicians, such as during on-site investigations; and then we discussed

15     which steps should be taken, which investigative actions.  And also when

16     a crime inspector handles a criminal report, sometimes, although not very

17     often, he would come to my office for a consultation usually about how to

18     qualify the criminal acts legally, which legal qualification to assign to

19     it.  But that didn't happen often.

20        Q.   Were there any non-Serbs among the police officers that you

21     interacted with as a basic prosecutor in Sanski Most in 1992?

22        A.   I'm not sure.  Perhaps, perhaps, but I'm not sure.  At least none

23     that I had contact with.

24        Q.   Now, once the conflict began in Sanski Most, what kinds of

25     serious crimes were being committed against the Muslim and Croat

Page 1538

 1     population in the municipality throughout 1992?

 2        A.   For instance -- let's say from end May to the end of 1992 there

 3     were rather a lot of murders.  You can see that from the KTN record book

 4     and from the protocols of on-site investigations.  That was a frequent

 5     occurrence.

 6        Q.   Were there also a number of rapes, grievous bodily injury,

 7     aggravated thefts during this time-period against non-Serb population?

 8        A.   Yes, there was one case of rape and theft was on a massive scale

 9     because at that time a large number of Muslims and Croats had left or

10     were leaving the municipality of Sanski Most, and there was a lot of

11     abandoned property, so that looting of that property was a frequent

12     occurrence.

13        Q.   And what about fires and explosions in non-Serb houses and

14     businesses, was that a frequent occurrence once the conflict began in

15     Sanski Most throughout 1992?

16        A.   Yes, yes.  There were cases of bombing of houses and other

17     buildings.  It usually happened during the night.  There were cases of

18     shooting at the houses of these persons and these things also usually

19     happened at night.

20        Q.   And how frequent were these crimes?

21        A.   It was frequent.  I don't have the data in front of me, but from

22     the log-book you can see because the police filed criminal reports

23     against unidentified perpetrators.  But in cases where perpetrators were

24     found, criminal reports would be filed against specific persons.

25        Q.   Now, how did the number of serious crimes targeting non-Serbs in

Page 1539

 1     Sanski Most after April 1992 compare to the number of such crimes before

 2     the conflict began?

 3        A.   Well, the difference is huge.  Before the war in Sanski Most the

 4     greatest incidence of crime was in the category of forest theft.  Before

 5     the war Sanski Most was an almost idyllic place where crime was rare, and

 6     you can see that best from the log-book, from April and May 1992, you can

 7     see the breakdown of criminal acts.  And then from May 1992 until the end

 8     of 1992 serious crimes appear such as murder, aggravated theft, robbery.

 9     All of these were extremely rare before.

10        Q.   And those crimes were mostly against the non-Serb population; is

11     that correct?

12        A.   Most often.

13        Q.   Now, when the police came to you with a criminal report would

14     your office record receipt of that report somewhere?

15        A.   Yes.  All the reports, all the submissions that reached the

16     prosecution office would be logged.

17        Q.   And which log-books would those criminal reports be logged into?

18        A.   If it was a criminal report against an identified person with a

19     name and surname, it would be put into the KT log-book, whereas reports

20     against unidentified perpetrators would be logged in the KTN log-book.

21     There was also a KTA log-book which was an auxiliary log-book, in which

22     we recorded other written filings.  And there was also a KTM log-book for

23     minors.

24        Q.   And I believe you've testified that it was the responsibility of

25     the police to identify the perpetrators.  Would there ever be

Page 1540

 1     circumstances in which the police could lawfully refuse to provide you

 2     with the name of a perpetrator of a crime?

 3        A.   I think that possibility did not exist in the law.  As soon as

 4     any information is obtained on the perpetrator, it is the duty of the

 5     authorities to draw up a criminal report and submit it to the prosecutor

 6     for further action.

 7        Q.   What legal consequences could a police officer face if he or she

 8     failed to report a criminal act or information concerning a crime to your

 9     prosecution office?

10        A.   I think that the criminal code even contains a stipulation that

11     non-reporting a crime constitutes a crime in itself.  So a person who

12     would fail to report a crime would open themselves to prosecution.

13        Q.   And could we take a look at 65 ter Exhibit 3436.

14             And, Mr. Delic, first of all, could you tell us what this

15     document is.  It's quite a large document.

16        A.   The Criminal Code of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the

17     Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  That was the law

18     applied -- the criminal code applied in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

19             MR. OLMSTED:  And if we could look at Article 188, paragraph 2,

20     that's on page 79 of the English and pages 86 and 87 of the B/C/S.  I'm

21     sorry, I must have the page -- I'm looking at the page number at the

22     bottom -- I'm sorry -- yes, it's page 97 of the English and page 84 of

23     the B/C/S.

24        Q.   Mr. Delic, is this the article you were referring to that

25     criminalises the failure to report a crime?

Page 1541

 1        A.   Yes.  Yes.  For instance, you see here in Article 188 it

 2     stipulates that non-reporting a crime or the perpetrator is a crime.  And

 3     that crime carries punishment up to the -- non-reporting a crime that

 4     carries the sentence of death.  Whoever has knowledge of the commission

 5     of such a crime and fails to report it shall be punished by imprisonment

 6     for a certain time.  And then in paragraph 2 and 3 you have other

 7     provisions, but non-reporting a crime in itself and non-reporting the

 8     perpetrator is qualified as a crime.

 9        Q.   Right.  And if we look at paragraph 2, does that one specifically

10     refer to instances where an official or competent person fails to inform

11     of a criminal offence, that he is at that stage negligent in his duties

12     and could face a criminal sentence?

13        A.   Yes, yes, right.

14        Q.   Now, does a police officer's obligation to report a criminal

15     offence vary depending on whether the perpetrator is a civilian or member

16     of the military?

17        A.   The law prescribed the duty to report any offender or perpetrator

18     of a crime, a crime that must be reported ex officio.  This caused

19     certain problems due to parallel jurisdiction with regard to perpetrators

20     who were in the military, the military authorities, the court and the

21     prosecutor would be in charge and for civilian perpetrators the public

22     prosecutor and the lower court would have responsibility.

23        Q.   Yes.  And what you're describing now is a jurisdictional issue,

24     whether the civilian courts would ultimately hear that case or the

25     military courts would hear that case.  However, did the police,

Page 1542

 1     nonetheless, if they discovered a crime, regardless of whether it was a

 2     military person or a civilian person, did they have a legal duty to

 3     report that crime somewhere?

 4        A.   Right, yes.  They could file a criminal report either to the

 5     military investigative authorities or the public prosecution office.  For

 6     instance, let's take one example.  If they submit a criminal report to me

 7     as a prosecutor for a crime committed by a person who is in the army, I

 8     would forward that criminal report to the competent military prosecutor.

 9        Q.   Let's take a look at 65 ter Exhibit 3437.

10             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honours just reminded me, yes, could we

11     please admit and mark 65 ter Exhibit 3436 into evidence.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, admitted and marked.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P119, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Counsel, I wonder if at any point all of these

15     laws will be batched into the legal library or whatever we have come to

16     call it in this trial, the whole bunch of public acts so that we don't

17     have to admit them into evidence.

18             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honour, that certainly is a possibility

19     and we are working with the Defence on a stipulated agreement on a law

20     library.  This -- the laws I'm talking about today are quite, of course,

21     central, the criminal code and the criminal procedure code.  So I think

22     they do need to be in evidence.  Whether we need to have them exhibited

23     or not, of course that's up to Your Honours.  I just -- I'm cognizant of

24     your prior ruling that anything that the Trial Chamber looks at needs to

25     be on the exhibit list, and I wanted to do that in an abundance of

Page 1543

 1     caution.

 2        Q.   Mr. Delic, could you tell us what this rather large document is?

 3        A.   I can see in front of me the Law on Criminal Procedure.

 4        Q.   And is this the Law on Criminal Procedure that was in effect back

 5     in 1992 in the Republika Srpska?

 6        A.   Yes, the law was in force then, yes.

 7             MR. OLMSTED:  Can we please take a look at Article 150, paragraph

 8     3, that is page 43 in the English and page 121 in the B/C/S.

 9        Q.   Now, Mr. Delic, if you could look at Article 150, the third

10     paragraph.  Is this the provision you were just discussing which allowed

11     the -- allowed a police officer to file a criminal report with your

12     office, and if it later turned out that that case belonged in the

13     competence of the military courts that your office could forward that on

14     to the military court?

15        A.   The provision talks about the manner of proceeding if one

16     receives a criminal report from somebody who is not an official source or

17     if I were to receive a criminal report that I believed I was not

18     authorised to deal with then I would send it to the organ that is

19     authorised.

20        Q.   Now, in the instance that you received a criminal report that you

21     later determined was in the competency of the military courts, would you,

22     nonetheless, record that criminal report -- your receipt of that report

23     in the log-books at your office?

24        A.   Yes.  Anything that is officially received by the prosecutor's

25     office must be registered in the adequate register, and this is also the

Page 1544

 1     procedure in the event of a criminal report that I believed I was not

 2     authorised to deal with.  It would also be registered under a certain

 3     number in the log-book and then it would be submitted to the organ that I

 4     believe would be authorised to deal with with that particular charge.

 5        Q.   And that would be the KT log-book if there was a known

 6     perpetrator and the KTN log-book if it was an unknown perpetrator; is

 7     that right?

 8        A.   Yes, yes.

 9        Q.   And just to be clear, once the police were able to identify one

10     of the perpetrators of a crime, that case would move from the KTN

11     log-book to the KT log-book; is that correct?

12        A.   [No interpretation]

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat his answer.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Delic, would you be kind enough to repeat

15     your last answer because the interpreters didn't get it.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The last thing that I was speaking

17     about is that in the event that the prosecutor's office received criminal

18     charges, which they believed they were not authorised to deal with, those

19     criminal -- that criminal report would be entered into the appropriate

20     log-book and then it would be submitted to the organ that the prosecutor

21     believes is authorised for further processing.

22             MR. OLMSTED:

23        Q.   And let me ask you again the question.  Once the police were able

24     to identify at least one perpetrator of a crime, if that crime was

25     initially recorded in the KTN log-book at that time, since there was a

Page 1545

 1     known perpetrator, it would move into the KT log-book.  Is that correct?

 2        A.   That is correct.

 3        Q.   Now, I'd like to show you 65 ter Exhibit 2500.

 4             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, given the size of this next document,

 5     a log-book, we did not translate the whole thing into English.  What we

 6     did is we translated the column headings and then the entries that we

 7     would like to discuss with this witness.

 8             Now, perhaps -- I'm sorry, I was just reminded.  Can we have

 9     Exhibit 3437 marked and admitted into evidence?

10             JUDGE HALL:  [Microphone not activated] -- admitted and marked.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P120, Your Honours.

12             MR. OLMSTED:  Now, perhaps Madam Usher could just flip through a

13     few pages of the B/C/S version for the witness so he can have a sense of

14     what he's looking at if it's possible.

15        Q.   Could you identify this document, Mr. Delic?

16        A.   This is the KT register.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  And maybe we could turn to the first page again.

18        Q.   And could you tell us is this the KT register for Sanski Most for

19     the cover 1992?

20        A.   Yes, it says register for 1991, 1992, and 1993, and 1994.

21             MR. OLMSTED:  Now may we turn to the next page, yeah.  And just

22     to show the Court and Defence that there is headings along the top of

23     this document.

24        Q.   I don't want to go through each one of these headings at this

25     stage, but there's a number of column headings and they're numbered 1

Page 1546

 1     through 46.  And could you just give us generally the purpose of these

 2     various columns.

 3        A.   The register contained the most important actions and decisions

 4     first by -- you would have the case number, then the date of receipt,

 5     then the person who sent the report, then the information about the

 6     person that was the subject of the criminal report, the name of the

 7     criminal act, the injured party, the actions taken by the prosecutor, and

 8     the date, and so on.

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, I should have mentioned this before.

10     Because this log-book contains the names of perpetrators as well as

11     victims, we ask that it not be published to the public, and then when we

12     do admit it that it be admitted under seal.

13        Q.   So, Mr. Delic, essentially this log-book tracked the progress of

14     a criminal case from its criminal report when it's first filed with your

15     office through its resolution.  Is that an accurate statement?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Now, prior to testifying today while you were here in The Hague,

18     did you have an opportunity to review the entries on this KT log-book?

19        A.   Yes, I did.

20        Q.   And did you also have an opportunity to review the indictment in

21     this case, and in particular, the schedules of the indictment that list

22     the particular crimes committed against the non-Serb population in Sanski

23     Most in 1992?

24        A.   Yes, yes, I did see that.

25        Q.   In performing that review, could you find any of the crimes

Page 1547

 1     listed in our indictment in this KT log-book?

 2        A.   I did see which criminal acts are involved, for example, a

 3     killing was reported, and I think there was a theft.  There was a seizure

 4     of a motor vehicle, maybe some kind of fraud.  I would really need to

 5     remind myself.  I think there were two murders.

 6        Q.   Yes.  And we're going to go over those particular crimes that you

 7     identified for us in a bit, but this is a different question.  I want you

 8     to focus on the indictment that you had an opportunity to review which

 9     charges very particular crimes occurring in Sanski Most in the 1992

10     time-period, and whether any of those crimes charged in our indictment

11     you could find somewhere in the KT log-book?

12        A.   I couldn't find them.

13        Q.   And just putting aside the KT log-book, after you reviewed our

14     indictment do you personally recollect any of the crimes charged in the

15     schedules of the indictment being brought to you by the police in the

16     1992 time-period to prosecute?

17        A.   I don't recall that there were any.

18        Q.   Now, let's return to the KT log-book.  Prior to testifying here

19     today --

20             JUDGE HALL:  Counsel, may I interrupt you briefly to inquire of

21     counsel for the Defence as to how much time we need to reserve today to

22     hear directly from the accused as to their complaints so that counsel for

23     the Prosecution would know how to -- at what point he should break.

24             MR. KRGOVIC:  Your Honour, ten minutes.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

Page 1548

 1             MR. OLMSTED:

 2        Q.   Mr. Delic, returning to the --

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Counsel --

 4             MR. OLMSTED:  Sorry.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  -- rather than embarking on what is not likely to

 6     result in a short answer, inasmuch as we are only 15 minutes before the

 7     break, would this be a -- would this not be a convenient point for us to

 8     hear from -- for your cross-examination -- for your examination to be

 9     interrupted?

10             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, that would be fine, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

12             Mr. Delic --

13             MS. KORNER:  May I also mention very briefly in one minute the

14     position about witnesses next week as well?

15             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Delic, you may have gathered from what has

16     passed between the Chamber and counsel that your examination-in-chief is

17     not completed, and you're going to be excused at this point but not

18     released to return when the Court resumes on Monday morning.  Now,

19     because you have been sworn as a witness in this matter, you cannot

20     discuss with counsel on either side -- you cannot have any discussions

21     with counsel on either side.  And in your discussions with anybody

22     outside of the courtroom it cannot relate to your testimony in here.  Do

23     you understand what I have said?  Yes, thank you.

24             So you are now excused until Monday morning.  And we trust that

25     you have a safe and restful weekend.  Thank you.

Page 1549

 1                           [The witness stands down]

 2             JUDGE HALL:  And while I'm on the subject of Monday morning,

 3     counsel may be disappointed to learn that we are in Courtroom I, and I

 4     would also remind parties that we have extended sittings Monday, Tuesday,

 5     and Wednesday.  Thank you.

 6             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honour, before we address the issue raised by

 7     the Defence counsel, since we've been discussing this 65 ter Exhibit 2500

 8     would it be possible for at least us to mark it for identification at

 9     this stage?  We could even move to admit it.  He's identified it.

10             JUDGE HALL:  You mean the log-book that we were just looking at?

11             MR. OLMSTED:  That's correct, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

13             MR. OLMSTED:  Of course under seal, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, admitted and marked.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P121, under seal, Your Honours.

16             Mr. Stanisic.

17             THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, despite all

18     of our efforts for this trial to proceed as efficiently as possible, we

19     are coming to a position questioning our physical endurance.  We are

20     spending the bulk of the day in the courtroom, and then we're waiting for

21     a long time for the transport.  We turn -- we return early.  We're unable

22     to take any air.  We're constantly in closed spaces and sitting in

23     chairs.  I'm personally trying to go through all of that.  I'm not

24     feeling any problems right now, but I was a sportsman, and I have

25     recommendation that once or twice a week at least I need to have some

Page 1550

 1     physical activity and be out in the open, the fresh air.  I'm afraid that

 2     we might be put into the position that we cannot really bare this pace

 3     and there might be some problems as a result of that.  Thank you very

 4     much.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 6             Mr. Zupljanin.

 7             THE ACCUSED ZUPLJANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I support

 8     what Mr. Stanisic has said.  A dungeon is a dungeon, a prison is a prison

 9     and all of that takes its toll.  So in spite of our physical stamina, in

10     view that these proceedings will not take a day or two, a week or two, a

11     month or two, but a year or so, that takes its toll.  We have to get up

12     at 6.30 to be ready in time to come here.  We spend a lot of time waiting

13     for half an hour or more in this small 2 by 2 room for the transport to

14     take us back.  When we go back to the prison it's already 4.00 or 5.00,

15     all the activities are over, we cannot go out for a walk, we cannot go

16     and have any kind of physical exercise.  And as I said, this is not going

17     to last for a day or two.  We would also like to actively participate in

18     the preparation of our defence.  We didn't understand that our role here

19     would be to be just wax dolls and to sit here and no contribution from

20     our side and just to stare blankly as things are going on.

21             The other thing is that you know that we are brought here in

22     handcuffs and special flak jackets, and we have injuries on our wrists

23     because of that.  And I would like to remind you that 12 times a day for

24     as long as the proceedings go on we are placed in handcuffs, 12 times a

25     day, brought into the courtroom, taken out of the courtroom.  Each time

Page 1551

 1     they're putting handcuffs on us so this can be a traumatic experience for

 2     us.

 3             The next thing that I would like to ask you is that regardless of

 4     the pace of work supported by this Tribunal, this also suits us because

 5     we're innocent people brought before proceedings here, I would kindly ask

 6     that you review the possibility for no proceedings to be held on Fridays.

 7     I'm coming out with this request because there is already the previous

 8     practice of having four-day proceedings for the accused coming from

 9     Herceg-Bosna, from Bosnia and Herzegovina, so four days would seem to be

10     a reasonable pace so that then we would be able to keep up with what is

11     going on.  We are exposed to constant stress because we are now again

12     facing past events, and I'm afraid that as a result of all these things

13     you will not have us here anymore.

14             The third thing is that I would like to remind you that in 1996 I

15     had a very serious traffic accident where I broke a vertebrae in my neck,

16     so for me it's very difficult and it causes headaches for me to have to

17     sit here for 80 minutes per session.  I would kindly ask you to review

18     these requests in full appreciation of the requirements for these

19     proceedings to proceed and to be completed, but we would still kindly

20     request that the Trial Chamber take into consideration our health

21     requirements and conditions and all of these matters that we have brought

22     to your attention.  Thank you very much.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Stanisic, Mr. Zupljanin, the Chamber has heard

Page 1552

 1     your complaints, and we will make the necessary inquiries of the

 2     responsible authorities and give a considered response at the earliest

 3     possible opportunity, sometime during the upcoming week we trust.  Thank

 4     you.

 5             Yes, Ms. Korner.  You have five minutes.

 6             MS. KORNER:  Yes, it won't take five minutes.  As regards next

 7     week, the witness whom we discussed yesterday will not be coming next

 8     week; however, we have discussed the matter with the -- both Defence --

 9     lead Defence counsel.  It's clear this witness will be going into Monday

10     in any event, and I think there's about -- I believe the estimate for

11     cross-examination is about two hours in all.  There are then two other

12     crime base witnesses -- one other anyhow.  We're going on to, I'm afraid,

13     a different municipality because of the ban.  And then on Tuesday or

14     Wednesday Ms. Hanson will testify subject to Your Honours' ruling on her

15     ability to testify to all, that is to say on the Defence motion.  And I'm

16     told that --

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And that would be on which day?

18             MS. KORNER:  It would be Tuesday or Wednesday.

19             We've been told by Mr. Zecevic that cross-examination of her is

20     likely to take a very long time, something in the region -- I think he

21     estimated -- I hope you won't hold it to me, but I think he said

22     something like six hours.  Yes, six hours.  I see Mr. Cvijetic nodding.

23     So that will easily take us into Thursday.

24             As regards Dr. Nielsen again with agreement by the Defence

25     because of the translation problem we're going to put him back until the

Page 1553

 1     beginning of December and move up witnesses who are affected by the ban,

 2     but it's been agreed that the Defence are not taking any point on that so

 3     that we don't have any gap.  I'm sure that by December Your Honours would

 4     have made a ruling on whether they can appeal.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 6             So we take the adjournment, and I wish that everyone has a safe

 7     weekend.

 8                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.40 p.m.,

 9                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 19th day of

10                           October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.