1 Tuesday, 15 December 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 10.26 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-08-91-T.
7 The Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin. Thank you,
8 Your Honours.
9 JUDGE HALL
10 everyone. Before I take the appearances as usual, it has been decided
11 that the delay caused by the IT problems today means that having resumed
12 at this hour we will sit until 11.50 and then take a 25 minute break and
13 sit for 90 minutes from 12.15 to 1.45.
14 Yes, may I have the appearances, please.
15 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours. On behalf of the Office of
16 the Prosecutor, I'm Tom Hannis, with our Case Manager, Crispian Smith.
17 And I would like to raise two or three procedural or administrative
18 matters before we have the witness in, if I may.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
20 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for
21 Stanisic Defence this morning, thank you -- and, yes, Mr. Bajagic is also
22 here. I'm sorry. Thank you, Your Honours, for reminding me.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For Zupljanin
24 Defence, Igor Pantelic. Thank you.
25 JUDGE HALL
1 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. The first matter concerns a
2 matter that's been pending before Your Honours, it's confidential, it
3 regards the issuance of a subpoena for a witness who is scheduled to
4 appear next year in January. Because of some difficulties in getting the
5 paperwork resolved, we wanted to change the appearance date set forth in
6 that subpoena from the 25th of January to the 28th of January.
7 JUDGE HALL
8 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
9 JUDGE HALL
11 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
12 JUDGE HALL
13 MR. HANNIS: The second matter relates to this witness.
14 Mr. Nielsen, when I spoke with him on Sunday before he testified, he'd
15 made a request of me if he could obtain an electronic copy of the B/C/S
16 transcript of Mr. Stanisic's suspect interview. He already has received
17 DVDs that are the video of that interview, but he indicated in listening
18 to the video, he is not sure about what is said in some of the B/C/S. He
19 has an English transcript, but he doesn't have the B/C/S transcript. I
20 was unable to give that to him before he began testifying. I would like
21 to provide it to him, but now that he is sworn as a witness, I'm nervous
22 about violating any rule about contacting the witness, and so I wanted to
23 bring that to Defence counsel's attention and your attention.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Give it to us and we'll give it to him.
25 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. That's what I was going to
2 And the third matter relates to the tendering of some documents
3 with Mr. Nielsen. There are about four documents that I showed him
4 yesterday which are not in his report and not already on the witness --
5 not already on the exhibit list, and I would like to tender those
6 separately because we will be giving a list to the Registry of the
7 documents in his report that are on our 65 ter list and we want to
8 tender, but these should be identified separately because they are not in
9 his report. And I can name those now or at the end of his testimony,
10 whatever is more convenient for the Court and the Registry.
11 JUDGE HALL
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours, well, the previous and the last.
13 I must say that I'm a bit concerned with the fact that the witness has
14 been provided with the interview of one of the suspects. I mean, if --
15 my understanding is that the expert witness should be pretty neutral in
16 the proceedings in order to be able to give a neutral expert opinion.
17 Now, the fact being that he has already been disclosed with the
18 English and the video, makes my objection to provide the Serbian copy
19 moot, so to speak. But I just wanted to raise my concern with that.
20 As concerning the last matter which Mr. Hannis raised, if I
21 correctly understand these four documents are on the 65 ter list? In
22 this case, we don't have any objections. Thank you very much.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE HALL
25 to -- I'm not sure that you phrased it as such, but this question of
1 providing the audio version of the interview to the expert witness, we
2 all in a sense shared the surprise articulated by Mr. Zecevic, but on the
3 other hand, recognising the witness's status as an expert and without
4 putting you on the spot as to -- in terms of asking whether this is
5 peculiar to this case and this witness, we see no objection to your so
6 providing him with the audio transcript in as much as Mr. Zecevic says he
7 has the other -- the video version already.
8 In terms of your -- the matter of the additional exhibits,
9 additional items to be tendered through the witness, you may so proceed.
10 The Defence raising no objection, these items all being on your 65 ter
12 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Let me deal with that first, and I'll
13 come back to the suspect interview. The 65 ter numbers for the documents
14 I wanted to tender now are 2368, 2370, 2371, and 2372. These were
15 appointments made on May 15th by Mr. Stanisic of Mr. Bjelosevic,
16 Mr. Jesuric, Mr. Karisik, and Mr. Zupljanin as members of that staff for
17 command and control of MUP war units.
18 JUDGE HALL
19 MR. HANNIS: Yeah, I was waiting to see if an exhibit number
20 would be assigned.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. The following documents will
23 be assigned the respective exhibit numbers: 65 ter 2368 shall be
24 Exhibit P455; 65 ter 2370 shall be Exhibit P456; 65 ter 2371 shall be
25 Exhibit P457; and 65 ter 2372 shall be Exhibit P458. I think I have one
1 more left. 65 ter 2371 shall be Exhibit P459. Thank you, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE HALL
3 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter P42372 shall be Exhibit P457 -- no? Yes.
4 Let me take that again, please. 65 ter 2368 shall be Exhibit P455; 65
5 ter 2370 shall be Exhibit P456; 65 ter 2371 shall be Exhibit P457; and 65
6 ter 2372 shall be Exhibit P458. Thank you, Your Honours.
7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Back to the matter of the suspect
8 interview, just to clarify, the expert witness previously had received
9 from us the video version, which includes audio, the video and audio
10 version of the suspect interview. He also has a copy of the written
11 transcript in English, and he had requested from me on Sunday a copy of
12 the transcript in B/C/S because he indicated in reading the English
13 transcript and listening to the audio sometimes there were portions in
14 the English that were listed as inaudible but he believed he could hear
15 them, and he wanted to see if the B/C/S transcript was substantially or
16 maybe more reflective of what was actually said than the English version.
17 And as regard your surprise and Mr. Zecevic's surprise about the
18 fact that he had received it at all, I will have to tell you internally
19 we had a discussion about whether or not we should provide it to him.
20 Based on my experience with expert witnesses in my home jurisdiction,
21 often times one of the first questions from a Defence attorney examining
22 an expert in a situation like this would be: Well, have you seen or read
23 the interview of my client in a situation like this. So we thought,
24 well, is it better for him to read it or not. In the end we decided,
25 well, we should give him the opportunity and then he can decide whether
1 he wants to read it or not and deal with questions about it as they come
2 up. That was how we decided.
3 I seem to recall in one of the other cases here that I worked on
4 that we did provide -- well, in one case I know the suspect interview was
5 performed by the person who turned out to be the Prosecution's expert.
6 It was a military general in the Milutinovic case. He was interviewed,
7 in part, by Mr. Coo who was proposed as a Defence expert, although in the
8 end he didn't -- wasn't allowed to testify as an expert, in part because
9 of the fact that he participated in the interview, I guess.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: So, Mr. Hannis.
11 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: The Bench is not allowing you to provide anything
13 you already provided the witness with. We are only assisting you in the
14 problem of communicating with the witness which during his testimony you
15 can't [realtime transcript read in error "can"] do. Okay. That's
17 MR. HANNIS: That's all I'm requesting. Thank you. And with
18 that I'm ready to have the witness come back in. And what we propose to
19 do is give that transcript to the Registry officer. Thank you.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: For the transcript, line -- page 6, line 9 is --
21 it should be can't -- "cannot do" and not "can do." Cannot do, "which
22 during his testimony you cannot do." Thank you.
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 JUDGE HALL
25 are still on your oath.
1 THE WITNESS: Of course, Your Honour.
2 WITNESS: CHRISTIAN NIELSEN [Resumed]
3 Examination by Mr. Hannis: [Continued]
4 Q. Thank you. Good morning, Dr. Nielsen. I apologise for the
5 delay. We've had technical difficulties this morning.
6 Before I return to the MUP annual report, which is at tab 80 in
7 your binder, and which is 65 ter number 279, I wanted to ask you two or
8 three general questions about subordination or resubordination of the
9 police. In your review of the documents, did you come across any
10 documents dealing with or describing resubordination of police units to
11 the military? Did you find any document, for example, that was a
12 decision or an order saying that a particular police unit or units were
13 going to be subordinated or resubordinated to the army for combat
15 A. Yes, I have seen a number of such orders throughout the period of
17 Q. And are those military orders or police orders?
18 A. Well, I wouldn't call all of those documents necessarily orders.
19 "Orders" refers to a particular kind of document, of course. What I have
20 seen are documents including orders but also including reports from the
21 field, that is to say, progress reports or status reports as well as
22 cumulative reports, such as the RS MUP draft annual report, and
23 quarterly, semi annual, and annual reports at the regional and municipal
24 level that clearly state that there were circumstances particularly for
25 combat purposes in which police units were subordinated to the command of
1 the Army of Republika Srpska. Those documents, of course the majority of
2 documents I've reviewed are police documents. However, I have also seen
3 a number of military documents that refer to such subordination from the
4 VRS's point of view, and my attention was directed to such documents by
5 my colleagues who were analysts in the military analysis unit.
6 Q. And in the event police were resubordinated, did military police
7 enforce discipline and make arrest of police members in the event that
8 violations of either the law or military discipline occurred?
9 A. There were incidents in which police members were indeed arrested
10 by members of the military. I have reviewed documents in which that was
11 the case. I would point out that the matter of who, as it were, had the
12 power or authority to arrest whom, was a matter of ongoing debate and
13 discussion between the RS MUP and the VRS.
14 This is reflected consistently in police documents, in military
15 documents that I have reviewed, and it is most certainly reflected in the
16 11 July 1992 meeting that took place in Belgrade and to which I referred
17 yesterday. It is referred to in the 17 July 1992 document that was
18 disseminated by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the RS pursuant to
19 the conclusions of the 11 July 1992 meeting, and I would like to
20 highlight that one of the conclusions was namely that the top hierarchy
21 of both the army and the MUP needed to meet as soon as possible to
22 discuss a whole array of issues that were emerging in the context of
23 their joint operations.
24 The general findings that I've been able to reach or that I was
25 able to reach when I was drafting this report on the relationship between
1 the RS MUP and the VRS are set out in pages 72 to 74 of my report, and I
2 would point out that resubordination again is consistently taking place
3 within the context of the 15 May 1992 order that was issued by the
4 minister, and which we discussed yesterday.
5 Q. Thank you. And in the example of Manjaca camp, which was, as I
6 understand it, a police camp, but guards were provided -- was a military
7 camp but guards were provided by the police. Who had the authority or
8 ability to discipline police guards at Manjaca, was that the army or the
9 police or both?
10 A. I also understand that Manjaca was -- for the duration of its
11 existence a military and not a police facility. As I mentioned
12 yesterday, the police did indeed take part in the guarding of the
13 facility at certain points during the summer of 1992, and that this was a
14 point of contention between the police and the military. And with
15 respect to who had the authority to discipline police guards if such
16 discipline were meted out, it is my understanding that police officers
17 performing duties that were not in combat zones or in combat activities,
18 and certainly guard duties at a military facility would not be normally
19 defined as combat activities, that they would most likely - this is again
20 my understanding - be subject to discipline according to police
21 procedures and not to army procedures if I such proceedings were
23 Q. Thank you. And one last question regarding the police and the
24 army. In the municipalities at that level where we are talking about
25 Municipal Crisis Staffs, did you see any documents reflecting police
1 being subordinated to the police -- being subordinated to the army at the
2 direction of the politicians in the Crisis Staff, or do you know?
3 A. As I believe the Court has been informed by the expert on Crisis
4 Staffs, and I concur with her findings based on my analysis of police
5 documents and Crisis Staff documents pertaining to the police, it is
6 extremely difficult from an analytical point of view to generalise by the
7 use of police by the Crisis Staffs because so much of what was done was
8 contingent upon the particular circumstances obtaining in a given
9 municipality or region.
10 However, I can certainly state that I have seen documents during
11 the -- my review of MUP and Crisis Staff documents pertaining to the MUP
12 that indicate that there were situations, cases, in which the Crisis
13 Staff leadership, and I remind the Court that the Crisis Staff leadership
14 included at the municipal level as a rule of thumb the chief of the
15 municipal public security station as well as representatives of the
16 political and military leadership in that municipality, in which it was
17 suggested, I don't know if I've -- I can say that it was ordered, but it
18 was certainly suggested and discussed frequently that the police and the
19 military would be conducting joint operations on the territory of that or
20 neighbouring municipalities in order to put down what was viewed by
21 Bosnian Serb officials as an attempted armed uprising.
22 Q. Thank you. Now, I'd like to return to the RS MUP annual report.
23 That's 65 ter 279. Tab 80 in your binder. And first look at page 8 of
24 the English, and I think that's page 11 of the B/C/S in e-court. Yes.
25 Looking in the middle of the page in the English, it's -- the
1 paragraph reads:
2 "In addition to other measures, pursuant to a request by the
3 organs of authority, the Security Services Centres and police stations
4 placed 6.176 police officers, mainly from the reserve force, at the
5 disposal of the army. This was a considerable help in combat activities
6 against the enemy."
7 First of all, my question is, the reference to a request by
8 organs, by the organs of authority, can you tell us who or what that is
9 referring to in this context?
10 A. I take it to be a reference to most likely the Presidency the RS
11 and perhaps also the government of the RS where precisely this issue was
12 discussed at meetings of both bodies during the summer of 1992. It
13 probably also refers to the aforementioned joint meetings of the VRS and
14 the RS MUP pursuant to discussions and orders that took place at the
15 Presidency of the RS and at the government of the RS on the issue of
16 personnel and on the issue of joint operations.
17 Q. Thank you. And the last sentence in the paragraph, maybe you can
18 help clarify for me. It reads in the translation:
19 "Although they did not take personal part in combat, it should be
20 stressed that the members of the police helped the Army of Republika
21 Srpska by capturing, pursuant to a request by military authorities, 2.484
22 and bringing in 6.985 draft Dodgers."
23 First of all, if you can read the B/C/S, is that an accurate
24 translation of what's written in the original?
25 A. Yes, I believe that to be a fairly accurate translation of the
2 Q. Okay. In the sentence where it says "they did not take personal
3 part in combat," who is the "they" referring to, is that the 6.176 police
4 officers mentioned right above? Or can you help us with that?
5 A. I think that certainly there's room for a bit of ambiguity here
6 in the document. When we have a personal pronoun such as "they" it
7 usually refers to the previous plural noun that's mentioned in the
8 context of that paragraph, so, yes, it does seem to be a reference to
9 those 6.167 [sic] police officers, most of whom stem from the reserve
11 I would point out that whatever "they" refers to here in this
12 particular document, it is absolutely the case that there were a number
13 of instances in which the police assisted the VRS in finding persons to
14 whom they referred as draft dodgers, persons who were of military age and
15 eligibility, conscripts as it were, but who were avoiding, for whatever
16 reason, military duty, and it may also be as this paragraph seems to
17 suggest, that some of the police that were, as a result of requests of
18 higher organs, moved or put at the disposition of the VRS participated in
19 such actions.
20 However, it also seems if we look at the sentence that this was a
21 considerable help in combat activities against the enemy. There's
22 obviously two possible ways of reading that. Did they, themselves,
23 participate in combat activity, or was their help in combat activity
24 provided in the way that they helped the VRS get up to full strength by
25 identifying these draft dodgers, as it were.
1 Q. And can you shed any light on the two numbers, the 2.484 and the
2 and the number of draft dodgers? That 2.484 appears to be a different
3 number or a different group than draft Dodger?
4 A. Actually, this is a good point now that I'm looking closer at it.
5 I mean, I read the B/C/S to say that they -- they caught 2.484 persons
6 and that they brought over 6.985 military draft dodgers.
7 Q. Thank you. I'd like next to go to page 19 of the English. And
8 it's page 27 of the B/C/S. Top of the page in B/C/S and near the top in
9 English. Paragraph reads:
10 "In this period, police stations provided help to state organs in
11 the implementation of certain measures (the so-called 'assistance') in
12 2350 cases. Apart from this, they helped and in the beginning
13 independently provided security for some of the collection centres. (530
14 police officers were engaged in these tasks.)"
15 First of all, in the context of this paragraph, do you know what
16 "assistance" in closed quotes refers to?
17 A. Not in this particular sentence.
18 Q. Thank you. And 530 police officers, I take it from this sentence
19 means that they were -- providing security means they were guarding
20 people at collection centres?
21 A. It says that they secured certain collective centres, yes, so I
22 take that to be another way of saying that they were guarding these
23 centres, and I would point out that, as I noted yesterday, the use of
24 police personnel to guard collective centres was a point of contention
25 within the RS MUP and it was one of the activities which the RS MUP
1 certainly, after 11 July 1992, increasingly sought to divest itself of;
2 that is, they sought to get out of the business, as it were, of guarding
3 detention facilities.
4 Q. In your report, you talk in some detail about this annual report,
5 so I'm just going to ask you a couple of more points that aren't referred
6 to specifically in your report. The next one is at page 23 of the
7 English and that's page 32 of the B/C/S. Near the bottom in B/C/S, near
8 the top in English. It has to do with communications. This is under the
9 section on reporting and informing.
10 You see second paragraph on the English page:
11 "On average 15 dispatches a day were sent to the centres and
12 other organs of the interior from the MUP headquarters and on average 16
13 dispatches a day were received."
14 "... other organs of the interior," what does that refer to in
15 this context?
16 A. Well, I read this as referring the centres -- refer to the
17 centres for public -- excuse me, the Security Services Centres, that is,
18 the regional organs of the MUP, and "other organs" I would read as
19 including, amongst other things, the public security stations at the
20 municipal level. It could also include, and I believe did include, the
21 border police, for example.
22 Q. Thank you. And you just mentioned the centres for security
23 services, you used the term "services" in the plural. Can you tell us
24 what that refers to with regard to the centres?
25 A. Yes. The Serbian acronym CSB
1 Services, plural, Centre. That is to say, the CSB is a unit,
2 organisational unit within the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in which
3 there are both tasks of public security and state security, or as it was
4 called after April 1992 in the RS, national security. In other words, at
5 the CSB
6 the two main services of Internal Affairs in the RS public security and
7 national security come together.
8 Q. And were the chiefs or the heads of the CSBs, did they have
9 authority over both public and National Security Services?
10 A. According to both the 1990 rule book of SR BiH MUP on the
11 internal organisation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, as well as the
12 subsequent draft 1992 rule book on internal organisation of the
13 RS Ministry of Internal Affairs, it can be seen that the chief of
14 regional Security Services Centres continued to have a role vis-a-vis
15 both public and National Security Services.
16 Q. Thank you. And lastly, if we could go to page 28 of the English,
17 and page 39 of the B/C/S. The bottom half of the page for both. This is
18 the section on organisation, systemisation, and personal status. You see
19 there's a brief paragraph about the transformation of the Special Police
20 units having been carried out which reduced local influence on the use of
21 these units. I think that's something that you've talked about before.
22 And then near the -- well, at the very bottom of the B/C/S page and in
23 the list of bullet points above item number 5, you'll see the third
24 bullet point says, "a draft decision determining which MUP employees are
25 considered as authorised officials." This is among the list of things
1 that have been done and compiled during this reporting period.
2 Do you know what that draft decision was and what it said
3 regarding which MUP employees were considered as authorised officials?
4 A. I am not familiar with that draft decision. It's not a document
5 that I believe I was able to review. I certainly do not recall having
6 seen it. I think it is important to point out here that there were a
7 number, a considerable number of items in RS MUP's organisation and
8 indeed its definitions of tasks, functions, duties, et cetera, that were
9 being considered during the course of 1992 for redrafting where we see
10 again at the 11 July 1992 meeting, the heads of CSBs, the minister
11 himself, making suggestions as to how the RS MUP could function better if
12 certain internal documents, the rule book, definitions of authorised
13 officials and other matters were redefined or better defined to suit the
14 extraordinary circumstances in which the RS MUP was operating from April
15 1992 forwards.
16 We also have to remember that with all the documents, as I show
17 in my report with reference to the RS law and Internal Affairs and the RA
18 MUP rule book on internal organisation, they operated on the basis
19 initially of the documents that they have -- had, of course, all known
20 and operated according to previously in SR BiH MUP, but obviously now
21 that they had their own Ministry of Internal Affairs and they had
22 increased freedom to construct and structure that Ministry of Internal
23 Affairs to their own liking and to the circumstances in which they were
24 operating, they continued doing so throughout 1992 and indeed on -- into
1 Since the special units were mentioned and the previous paragraph
2 about the transformation of the special units of the police were referred
3 to, I just want to supplement very briefly my answer yesterday in which I
4 was asked why -- whether there were any discussions going on in the
5 Assembly or in the Presidency that could shed light on why there was a
6 perceived need to restructure the Special Police unit. And I, in
7 reacquainting myself with this report, which I wrote many years ago, note
8 that in the section on the Special Police forces, I refer in a footnote
9 to Radovan Karadzic's complaint that officials in municipalities
10 throughout the RS were often behaving as I believe he calls them little
11 princes, and again, as I noted, this included creating an atmosphere in
12 which virtually everyone who felt like it could form a Special Police
13 unit or form a police unit and call it special, and this had created an
14 unenviable organisation from the perspective of the police and eventually
15 also from the perspective of the government and the Presidency, and they
16 took together with the Ministry of Internal Affairs decisive steps to
17 shut down these units in a number of municipalities and in most cases
18 restructure them into the Special Brigade of the police, to which I refer
19 in my -- again in my report in a section on the Special Brigade of the
20 police and CSB
21 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Dr. Nielsen, I don't have any other
22 questions for you at this time. Thank you, Your Honours.
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon -- good morning, Mr. Nielsen. My
25 name is Slobodan Zecevic. I am Defence counsel for Mr. Mico Stanisic.
1 A. Morning.
2 Q. Mr. Nielsen, by training you are a historian, aren't you?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. If I understood well from your CV attached to the report, you
5 were employed at the OTP as an analytics officer in charge of research in
6 2002 through 2004, and you worked in the section of the Office of the
7 Prosecutor that dealt with cases against leaders; correct?
8 A. My official title was research officer and I worked from 2002
9 through 2004, August of 2004, for the leadership research team; that is
11 Q. When you say researching the leadership, you mean researches for
12 the cases against Izetbegovic, Tudjman, Karadzic, Krajisnik, Milosevic?
13 Are these the cases you mean?
14 A. Yes, those are the cases that were researched by members of that
15 team; that is correct.
16 Q. That section of the Prosecutor, this leadership research team, is
17 it divided internally by cases, like the Krajisnik team, Milosevic team,
18 Tudjman team?
19 A. The team was divided internally. However, this division was not
20 on a case basis, but was, rather, divided into sub-units. There was a
21 demographic unit, there was a Bosnian Croat unit, there was a Bosnian
22 Serb unit, et cetera, so covering all of the leaderships that are dealt
23 with at this Tribunal.
24 Q. I suppose you were part of the Bosnian Serb unit; right?
25 A. I did research both for that sub-unit of the team and also for
1 the unit that dealt with the leadership of the Federal Republic of
3 Q. That means that you dealt primarily with Krajisnik, Karadzic, and
4 Milosevic cases; correct?
5 A. I worked on those three cases, but I also worked extensively on
6 other cases.
7 Q. Did these other cases concern leadership or something else?
8 Would that include this case, for instance?
9 A. Well, I produced analytical reports primarily on the RS Ministry
10 of Internal Affairs and the Federal Secretariat for Internal Affairs in
11 Belgrade and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia
12 and that means that I always conduct my research based on my subject
13 focus, the subjects being those that I just mentioned, and obviously
14 those subjects are germane to an enormous range of cases that have been
15 tried at this Tribunal.
16 Q. You said yesterday that from the moment when you joined the
17 Prosecution, you immediately got the task to prepare such an analytical
18 report concerning the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska; is
19 that right?
20 A. That is correct. Because of my past research which had been
21 focused on the police in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, I came in with
22 experience on that issue, and there was a perceived gap at that point in
23 time in which a report needed to be written on the Ministry of Internal
24 Affairs, and I was asked to prepare such a report.
25 Q. Tell me, Mr. Nielsen, were you informed then, were you advised
1 for which case you were preparing that report?
2 A. Yes, as indicated by the cover page of my report, it was a report
3 prepared for the case of Krajisnik.
4 Q. So I suppose that the instructions to make that report were given
5 you by one the Prosecutors involved in the Krajisnik team?
6 A. That is not correct. I was instructed to write that report by my
7 team leader, who was the leader of the leadership research team.
8 Q. And after you made that report, you submitted it, I suppose, to
9 your team leader, and he then presented it to the trial attorneys on the
10 Prosecution side in the Krajisnik case, and then it was decided that your
11 report should become an expert report, the expert report to be used in
12 Krajisnik; correct?
13 A. Yes. It was also sent to a number of teams, both analytical and
14 investigative teams, which were engaged in cases that also involved
15 aspects of RS MUP, so not just to the Prosecution in the Krajisnik case.
16 Q. And when your report was made available to all the teams that
17 were dealing with various cases in the Office of the Prosecutor, did you
18 receive any feedback from them in terms of suggestions or questions?
19 A. Well, in the months that followed, I did receive a number of
20 questions regarding points in the report, a point where I was asked to
21 clarify something that I had put in because it was perceived that it was
22 maybe not clear, questions of the nature that are being posed in this
23 Trial Chamber today. I did receive such questions, yes, but I did not
24 receive any suggestions in terms of how to modify the report. It was
25 understood by all concerned that I was continuing to work on the report,
1 and I indeed subsequently filed, I believe, already before my testimony
2 in Krajisnik in 2005 an addendum to the report.
3 Q. Are you trying to say that none of the teams who received your
4 report made any suggestions to delve deeper into the subject that was
5 important to their theory of the case?
6 A. That is correct. They posed questions regarding the content of
7 the report, but they did not make suggestions to conduct further analysis
8 that was important to their theory of the case, as you ask.
9 Q. Well, let me be more specific. That initial report that you
10 provided, did it contain the sub-items that it contains now, such as
11 paragraph 1, the fragmentation of the SUP of the Socialist Republic of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina November 1990 to April 1992?
13 A. It's slightly difficult for me to reconstruct, given that I don't
14 have the original version of the report in front of me, which of the
15 headings in the table of contents were present in the original one, and
16 it is quite possible that I added additional headings after I filed the
17 initial version of the report. However, all of the headings that are in
18 this report are my headings. I'm the sole author of those headings, and
19 no suggestions were ever made to me by anyone that I should change the
20 wording in those headings or add specific headings or subtract or delete
21 specific headings.
22 Q. It's difficult for me to follow you, Mr. Nielsen, when you are
23 giving such long answers. If I understood correctly, you can't remember
24 whether the first was divided into the same number of items as this one,
25 but you allow the possibility that some of the items were added in your
1 follow-up work on the report. I asked you specifically about the
2 fragmentation of the MUP of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina --
3 sorry, the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and if that
4 particular section was not part of your initial report, how did it come
5 about that you eventually added that section? Was it your own idea or
6 was it suggested to you by someone or was it asked in the form of a
8 A. Thank you for that question. On that specific point, I'm happy
9 to answer that that original point under Roman numeral I was indeed in
10 the original version of the report.
11 Q. All right. But I took that first section, that first chapter
12 only as an example, not because I was trying to demonstrate anything in
13 particular. I used it just as an example.
14 Can you tell me how particular sections were created based on
15 your ideas only or based also on some suggestions you might have received
16 from the Prosecution?
17 A. All of the sections in this report came into being the same way,
18 the sections in my doctoral dissertation or the articles that I write
19 came into being, that is, they come as -- on an ongoing bases as I
20 continue to review and analyse documents, but they certainly were created
21 based on my ideas only.
22 Q. What measures were taken by the Prosecution from the moment when
23 it was decided that you would be their expert in terms of ensuring that
24 you remain objective?
25 A. I'm not aware that any specific extraordinary measures were taken
1 on that point. It was my understanding that my work and my reason for
2 being in analytical team and working constantly under the supervision of
3 the chief research officer who was the chief of the research leadership
4 team was, in large part, designed to ensure that objective.
5 Q. So if I understand correctly, the Prosecution decided to use you
6 as their expert, to use the report that you prepared and worked on and
7 supplemented as their expert report while you continued to work as an
8 analyst in the Office of the Prosecutor in the leadership research team;
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. From 2004 to date you are an advisor analyst, a consulting
12 analyst; right?
13 A. No, I think that from my departure the first time in August 2004
14 to the present date there were several periods in which I didn't do any
15 consulting analysis for the OTP, but I have resumed doing consulting
16 analysis for the OTP with specific relation to previous expert reports
17 that I produced after I began teaching in Denmark in 2008.
18 Q. So if I understand correctly, as a consultant, you would get a
19 question or a request from time to time from the Prosecution and in
20 response you would provide a report or advice, would that be correct?
21 A. I think the best example would be that I was asked to produce an
22 updated version of my expert report for the case of Stanisic Simatovic,
23 and I was provided with documents that had been obtained since I left the
24 OTP, and I proceeded using the same methodology as I previously described
25 to use such an addendum.
1 Q. Did you get the same kind of request or instruction for this
2 case, Stanisic and Zupljanin?
3 A. The latest work that I did on this report was work done in
4 January 2008, which involved reviewing a number of documents that had
5 arrived at the OTP after I was no longer working on RS MUP, and I was
6 asked to review those documents and, if necessary, if I thought that they
7 shed additional analytical light on any of the topics dealt with in the
8 report, then I was given the opportunity to amend the report accordingly.
9 That's the last work I did on this particular case.
10 Q. If I remember correctly, you said yesterday that you not only
11 authored the report, but that you selected alone all the documents that
12 support your conclusions in the report; correct?
13 A. That is correct. Sometimes I was shown documents by my
14 colleagues working on the military, the Crisis Staffs, or other subjects
15 that they believed to be relevant to my research, but at the end of the
16 day I was the sole arbiter of what documents were cited in the report.
17 Q. Did you also come across documents that do not support the
18 Prosecution case in this particular trial, and if you did, did you inform
19 the Prosecution about the existence of such documents?
20 A. My awareness of the Prosecution's theory in this case is based on
21 my reading of the publicly available indictment of -- that or, I would
22 say, the several indictments since there's been consolidation and
23 revision in this case. If I came across documents which I believed to be
24 of a potentially exonerating nature, then certainly I would raise the
25 awareness of the Prosecution to the existence of those documents and
1 point out that I thought that they were potentially exonerating.
2 Q. You must have also read the pre-trial brief of the Prosecution,
3 it's a public document?
4 A. No, I've never actually read that document.
5 Q. Not even the initial one from 2004, 2005, the initial pretrial
7 A. No, I believe I'd have to be provided with a date on that one,
8 but I think that might have been made final after I left in August 2004,
9 but I certainly haven't read it.
10 Q. I will give you the date as soon as my colleagues find it.
11 When you would come across these documents that you informed the
12 Prosecution are potentially 68 or perhaps do not fit their theory the
13 case as far as you were aware, did you refer to them in your report
15 A. Within the subjects that I deal with and which are laid out in
16 the table of contents, my aim was to present as complete as possible a
17 picture as I could based on the documents available. So when I became
18 aware of documents that contradicted points that were in earlier drafts
19 of the report, then I certainly changed the report to take that new
20 information into consideration, as one does when, for example, writing a
21 work of history.
22 Q. And then that document would be cited in the revised footnote; is
23 that the case?
24 A. Yes, with a caveat that this is a document which presents the
25 structure and functioning of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and
1 illustrates based on analytical conclusions the general thrust of the
2 operation and establishment of that ministry. When there were
3 significant document that I thought pointed in a different direction,
4 then I, as a rule, tried to cite them in a footnote. However, just as I
5 cannot cite every document that supports the conclusions, I have not been
6 able to cite every document that does not support a conclusion. That
7 would simply involve citing a nearly infinite number of documents.
8 Q. You said a moment ago that your colleagues who worked on other
9 aspects of this case would provide you with documents that might be
10 interesting for you. And today on page 9, line 21 in response to a
11 question from Mr. Hannis, you said you agreed with the findings of the
12 report of Ms. Hanson concerning Crisis Staffs, that means that you read
13 her report?
14 A. I have read her report, that is correct.
15 Q. We heard today that in this case you also read the interview of
16 Mr. Stanisic?
17 A. I have read it and I've also had the ability to view it, yes, on
19 Q. Tell me, Mr. Hanson [as interpreted], you also read some
20 statements of witnesses, Prosecution witnesses in this case?
21 A. Yes, I have had the opportunity to read at an earlier date a very
22 small number of statements of Prosecution witnesses. I'm more familiar
23 with their actual statements to date in this court as I have been, to the
24 best of my ability, following this case by reading the publicly available
25 transcripts on the web site.
1 I would also like to note, just to put a bit of context on it, I
2 was provided with the interview of Mr. Stanisic and had the opportunity
3 to review that in November, so it's very recently that I've seen that.
4 Q. When you say you are more familiar with the statements to date in
5 this court, you mean our case, right, this case?
6 A. Yes, sir, that's the transcripts that I'm reading that are on the
7 ICTY's website.
8 Q. Isn't it the case, Mr. Hansen [as interpreted], that in the
9 course of your work in the Office of the Prosecutor, you were also
10 involved in taking some witness statements in this case, at least you
11 were present?
12 MR. HANNIS: I just wanted to bring the attention to the
13 transcript, I believe he addressed the witness as Mr. Hansen instead of
14 Mr. Nielsen.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Mr. Nielsen.
16 THE WITNESS: I understand Scandinavian names can be confusing.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: It is actually the fact that we are having expert
18 after expert, so that it why. I'm sorry for this.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Maybe this is the subconscious of my learned
20 friend, Mr. Zecevic.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. If you would be kind to answer this question.
23 A. Yes, in the period from June 2002 to August 2004 I participated
24 in a number of witness interviews.
25 Q. Mr. Nielsen, then I have to ask you, bearing in mind all your
1 previous answers, how is it that in your view you can still be an
2 objective expert for particular issues in this case, and how you can be
3 of assistance to the Trial Chamber with the particular knowledge that you
4 have, while still maintaining an objective view?
5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I object. I think it's argumentative.
6 It really goes to an issue for you to decide whether he is an objective
7 expert or not.
8 JUDGE HALL
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. [Interpretation] All right, Mr. Nielsen, let us move on to your
11 report. Chapter number 1 is the fragmentation of the MUP of the
12 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, November 1990 to April 1992.
13 When you say November 1990, you took that date probably because that was
14 the date of the multi-party elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina; right?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. For this period, November 1990 to April 1992, you will agree with
17 me, won't you, that one of the features of this period was an attempt by
19 the Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
20 I am sorry. For the transcript, line 3 on page 28 it should be
21 SDA and HDZ instead of SDS
22 A. The focus of my report is primarily on the police organs, the
23 organs of Internal Affairs in the Socialist Republic of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina. I'm not an expert on the political situation during
25 that period, and I would defer on general descriptions of that period and
1 of the intentions of the three parties mentioned to the expert report of
2 my colleague and boss Pat Treanor who wrote a report on the political
3 situation during that period.
4 Q. Mr. Pat Treanor, his report and his testimony were not actually
5 used by the Prosecution, so I have to ask you, I specifically asked you
6 about the Ministry of the Interior, I didn't ask you about the general
7 political situation. I asked you whether one of the characteristics of
8 that period was precisely this attempt to achieve majority rule by the
9 members of the SDA and the HDZ within the Ministry of the Interior of the
10 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina? I mean, would you agree with
11 me or not?
12 A. I would agree that this is a period in which there is, as I
13 state, in the executive summary of the report and in the first section of
14 the report a very tense, an increasingly tense political situation in
15 which all three parties, as I stated yesterday, are involved in
16 politicising the Ministry of Internal Affairs. And I would also agree,
17 as I state in paragraph 26 my executive summary, that this increased
18 frictions. And I also agree that from the Bosnian Serb perspective, they
19 believed, and employees of Serb ethnicity in the SR BH MUP, believed that
20 the SDA and the HDZ were trying to achieve dominance within the Ministry
21 of Internal Affairs.
22 Q. 29, 4, I think that you said -- all right. Thank you very much.
23 Mr. Nielsen --
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Footnote 18 in document
25 65 ter 2746, can we please look at that on our screen.
1 THE WITNESS: I just wish to state for the record that the reason
2 I want to use the documents in the binder is that the screen is so
3 blurry, I can hardly read the documents on them.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. This is your paragraph 11 on page 11 of the English version.
6 This is a dispatch of the 19th of September, 1991, from Mr. Zupljanin,
7 sent to the public security station in Prijedor to the chief there, and
8 Mr. Zupljanin expresses --
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I can see Mr. Hannis is on his
11 MR. HANNIS: I'm not sure the witness is following where you are.
12 I think your reference was to paragraph 11 in his report?
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, yes, correct. Paragraph 11 of his report and
14 the footnote 18 of his report.
15 MR. HANNIS: But I'm not sure he has in his binder the specific
17 THE WITNESS: I would just like to look at the actual document if
18 a hard copy to be provided or if it's in the binders, if there's a tab
19 number I could look at.
20 MR. HANNIS: It's not in the hard copy of the binders that I
21 provided to him.
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, but the problem is that the B/C/S, in
23 particular ending which, in fact, is quite blurry. It makes it quite
24 difficult for me to read it.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do have a hard
1 copy, and we can try during the break to print the documents so that the
2 witness could use them.
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I only have the documents in the Serbian, but I
6 assume that that would not be a difficulty for you. Do you see the
7 document? This is, as I said, a dispatch by Mr. Zupljanin to the
8 Prijedor SJB where Mr. Zupljanin voices his surprise and protest because
9 legal provisions are not being taken into account while employing
10 candidates, and to make it even more strange, four candidates, who did
11 not pass the most elementary security clearance and so on, began to work
12 without the agreement of the chief of the CSB. Do you see that?
13 A. Yes, I see that.
14 Q. Isn't it a fact that this document proves this tendency, which I
15 referred to earlier, the attempt to establish a majority rule by the
16 Muslim and Croat people in the MUP of the Socialist Republic of
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and from what we can see here, this is even in
18 violation of elementary laws and regulations and requirements?
19 A. I disagree with you that it proves the tendency of
20 "majori zacija" of establishing majority rule, as it's being translated
21 here, by the Muslim and Croat people in the MUP. I think it is an
22 excellent illustration of a deplorable situation that obtains in SR BiH
23 MUP from November 1990 to April 1992 where all three sides are in the
24 habit occasionally and increasingly of proposing candidates who have not
25 gone through the proper procedures to be employed in the organs of
1 Internal Affairs.
2 JUDGE HALL
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, I see the time, Your Honours. Thank you very
4 much. [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Nielsen.
5 JUDGE HALL
6 [The witness stands down]
7 --- Recess taken at 11.52 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 12.20 p.m.
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, we have prepared a copy -- the hard
11 copy of certain documents for the benefit of the witness. I showed it to
12 my colleague and --
13 JUDGE HALL
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Welcome. [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would
15 like to tender the previous document, 65 ter 2746, into evidence, please.
16 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours --
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 2746 shall be given
21 Exhibit 1D112. Thank you, Your Honours.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 Q. Mr. Nielsen, the next document that I would like to discuss with
24 you is precisely the document that you are looking at now. This is 65
25 ter 1798. This is a document which is an agreement on the criteria for
1 the distribution of municipal functions and departments among the party
2 representatives of the SDS
3 dated the 22nd of December, 1990. The copy that we have is not signed by
4 Mr. Alija Izetbegovic, Mr. Karadzic, and Mr. Stjepan Kljujic, the
5 respective leaders of the three parties, but you will agree with me that
6 this inter-party agreement and the criteria were actually laid down among
7 the two -- the three parties following the elections in November 1990?
8 A. Yes, I agree with you.
9 Q. We can see on the first page of the document, for example, in
10 item 5, this is a percentage from 33 to 50 per cent. It says: "The
11 party which won more votes has precedence in choosing between the post of
12 the Municipal Assembly president and that of the president of the
13 executive committee, while the principle governing the distribution of
14 the departments is that the first can choose first, the second second."
15 Do you see that?
16 A. Yes, I see that.
17 Q. On the following page where the criteria for the distribution of
18 municipal functions and departments in the case of divisions among the
19 three parties, we can see on the first page the percentage ranging from
20 11 to 16 per cent, and it says vice-presidential post, and it says one
21 professional meaning that he is actually paid, and one department. Do
22 you see that?
23 A. Yes, I see that.
24 Q. Under item 5, over 25 per cent the principle for selection would
25 be the first, according to the votes, selects first, the second second,
1 and the third third. Do you see that?
2 A. I see that.
3 Q. Since you reviewed the documents, do you have any reason to doubt
4 that these criteria agreed upon among the parties were not implemented
5 after the 22nd of December, 1990?
6 A. I certainly have no doubts that they were initially implemented
7 in the form that we see it here in this particular document and in the
8 form in which I refer to in paragraph 7 of my report for the division of
9 functions at the top of the ministry. However, as I point out in my
10 report, this very nice mathematical compromise, if you will, in practice
11 quickly deteriorated with all sides accusing -- or each side accusing the
12 other two sides of not respecting the criteria that were agreed upon, as
13 we see in this document, or for, let's say, respecting the criteria, but
14 appointing or nominating people who lacked the correct professional
15 qualifications. I think that's why the word "professional" is also
16 significant in this document.
17 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I disagree with you. I think that if you look at
18 the document under item 1 it says less than 5 per cent, one
19 vice-presidential post on a voluntary basis, I take that to mean that
20 it's an agreement among the parties that the party that has less than 5
21 per cent of the vote has the right to one vice-presidential post but this
22 is not a paid post, the person would volunteer as a vice-president of a
23 certain organ in the municipality. Where it says professional, in that
24 case those posts are salaried posts. We are not talking here about
25 whether somebody is a professional employee or not, it's just a question
1 of whether they are actually paid for their work or not. Would you agree
2 with me or not?
3 A. Yes, I would agree with that. I think I was jumping a bit ahead
4 of myself in moving to the police, whereas these are just municipal
6 Q. Thank you very much.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
8 document into evidence, unless there is an objection.
9 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
10 JUDGE HALL
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 01798 shall be given
12 Exhibit 1D113. Thank you, Your Honours.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. The next document is the one that is next in sequence in your
15 binder. This is document 65 ter 1797, which actually goes into the
16 specifics of what you are actually discussing in paragraph 7 of your
17 report. This is a document from January 1991, as it is handwritten in
18 the upper right-hand corner of the document. This is probably a copy
19 obtained from the party premises of the Serbian Democratic Party since
20 only candidates of the Serbian Democratic Party are mentioned here by
21 name in this document. I would like to show it to you, though, because
22 of what is under item 2 in that document. It refers to the Ministry of
23 the Interior, and next to the typed posts in the ministry there is a dash
24 after which the post is assigned to a particular party. Do you see that?
25 A. Yes, I see that.
1 Q. And you would agree with me that this is more or less something
2 that absolutely corresponds with what you also state in your paragraph 7,
3 the minister is a member of the Party for Democratic Action, that is
4 Mr. Delimustafic; the deputies from the SDS party, Vitomir Zepinic; and
5 then the undersecretary is Mr. Kvesic [realtime transcript read in error
6 "Kresic"] from the HDZ; is that correct?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. In this paragraph 2, could you please look next to the letter L
9 where it says deputy of the undersecretary -- I apologise. I am being
10 warned, on page 35, 8 it is not "Mr. Kresic" but it is "Kvesic," Branko
11 Kvesic, with a V, from the HDZ. Now it is Kesic but it should be Kvesic,
12 K-v-e-s-i-c. All right. I'm actually sure that this will be corrected.
13 My question was, if you see under the letter L where it states
14 deputy of the undersecretary for state security services, and then there
15 is a dash, and after that it says SDS
16 A. Yes, I do see that.
17 Q. You would agree with me that that means that that post was
18 assigned pursuant to this agreement to the party -- to the Serbian
19 Democratic Party, SDS
20 A. That seems to be the case, yes.
21 Q. And then it also says Boro Susic if I'm not mistaken in the next
23 A. Certainly the way I read the name as well.
24 Q. And we can see that in the document letters N and J have been
25 added by hand and then you have two advisors, public security, and then
1 we have the letters SDA and that is for the state security?
2 A. Yes, I see that. Although, the letters SDA are after the chief
3 of the centre for education, training centre, and NJ, I think there was a
4 transcript issue there.
5 Q. Actually, that is the next entry, under the letters NJ, isn't
6 that correct?
7 A. Yes, I think I'm again getting ahead of myself; correct.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there is no objection, I would
10 like to tender this document into evidence, please.
11 MR. HANNIS: Well, I have an objection. There's not a date, and
12 we don't know who wrote these handwritten entries on there. If it's
13 being offered just to show that these were the positions and how they
14 were divided between the parties, I don't disagree with that because I
15 think it is -- it accurately represents how they were divided as I
16 understood, so if it's being offered for that limited purposes, I don't
18 MR. CVIJETIC: No translation.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. Mr. Hannis, you will have to --
20 MR. HANNIS: I see I'm in the transcript. My objection was that
21 we don't have a date and we don't know who made the handwritten entries
22 on this document. However, if the Defence is offering it for the limited
23 purposes of showing how certain positions were divided among the parties,
24 I don't disagree because to the best of my knowledge this does accurately
25 reflect how they were divided at that time.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that the
2 witness confirmed that as far as the Ministry of the Interior is
3 concerned, which is the only one relevant here for the purposes of this
4 case, corresponds to the findings of the expert in item 7 of his report.
5 I don't know in what sense does Mr. Hannis think that we are limiting the
6 use of this document. According to everything that we know and have in
7 the document so far from other sources, it absolutely corresponds to what
8 the situation was in January 1991 in Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially in
9 the MUP of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
10 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise to my learned friends and to the
11 others in the proceedings. I would like to put on the record that I
12 object to the form of my learned friend Mr. Hannis' objection. He said
13 on page 36, line 23 that -- I am a quoting, "that we don't have a date
14 and we don't know who made the handwritten entries."
15 Your Honours, we've been through all these matters. We have
16 well-established practice, we have guide-lines with regard to the
17 elements of certain documents which are required to be admitted. If our
18 learned friend from the OTP have a certain doubt or any kind of
19 objection, they are free to submit the request for a chain of custody and
20 all the other stuff. We are wasting time with this particular portions,
21 date, handwriting entries, et cetera, et cetera. We have
22 well-established practice and we have guide-lines. Thank you so much.
23 JUDGE HALL
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 01797 shall be given
25 Exhibit 1D114. Thank you, Your Honours.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. And the last document
2 from this set of documents that I would like to show you is 1D01-0868.
3 Q. This is the third document in sequence in your binder. I see
4 that you already have it, Mr. Nielsen. This is also a draft and it's
5 called the inter-party agreement regarding the functions in the MUP of
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] The number is 1D01-0868.
8 Q. Can you see what I have just read and we have the public security
9 centres here that are listed, in all there are ten of them; is that
10 correct, Mr. Nielsen?
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. And then next to the name of the centre we have Banja Luka under
13 number one followed by Sarajevo, Tuzla, to the right-hand side it is
14 listed which party is putting forward their candidate for chief, and then
15 we have public security department and the state security departments
16 next to that; isn't that correct?
17 A. That is right. I do see, however, and I do want to make sure we
18 are being very precise with the terminology here, these are not actually
19 ten public security centres. These are nine centres of security
20 services, that includes public and state security and the Sarajevo city
22 Q. Mr. Nielsen, can you please tell me since you dealt with this
23 topic, are all the nine public security services that existed at the time
24 in Bosnia-Herzegovina listed here?
25 A. Yes, that's correct, and I list them in paragraph 8 of my report,
1 and I also cite this document in my report.
2 Q. Very well. Since you also referred to the document, I hope it
3 will not be a problem to have this document tendered into evidence, but I
4 would like you to come just to two more things. From this we can see
5 that the SDS
6 ethnicity for the posts of chief of the public security centres in four
7 locations, the SDS
8 Sarajevo, and the HDZ did the same in two locations; isn't that correct?
9 A. That's correct. And I do note that there are some hand-marked
10 changes to this. From -- for example, for Doboj we see that public
11 security was initially listed as SDS, it's been changed in the
12 handwriting to HDZ, I'm -- I have to say that I'm unable to say what the
13 final outcome of this was, but it reflects the ongoing negotiations and
14 the political situation at the time.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm being told that on page 39,
16 line 6, it's SDS
17 action party, the SDA.
18 Q. And finally, again, it says further division of staff within the
19 centre would be based on -- would observe national proportion and would
20 be carried out in agreement with the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Is that
21 consistent with the information and the conclusions that you reached in
22 your work?
23 A. That is correct. And I note that in very faint handwriting on
24 the -- in the original document, the relative percentages that have been
25 agreed, including 35 point -- I believe it says 64 or 67 for the SDS, is
1 listed it at the bottom, that is in fact also a figure to which I refer
2 because Mr. Karadzic himself used it and that's cited in my report. So,
3 yes, I concur.
4 Q. So these percentages seem to show that according to this
5 inter-party agreement in the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the SDA would get
6 just over 42 per cent, the SDS
7 A. That's correct, and I note that I cite that number for the SDS in
8 paragraph 15 of my report.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there is no objection from my
11 learned friend, Mr. Hannis, I would like to tender this.
12 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
13 JUDGE HALL
14 THE REGISTRAR: Document ID 01-0868 shall be given Exhibit 1D115.
15 Thank you, Your Honours.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Q. In your report you confirmed that after a while this agreement
18 that had been reached in this way ceased to be observed; right?
19 A. I would say that I indicate in my report that there were an
20 increasing number violations of this agreement, yes.
21 Q. Do you recall, Mr. Nielsen, that even back in March 1992, the
22 issue and the problem about appointing the deputy secretary for the state
23 security service in the Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist
24 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina remained outstanding, and according to
25 this agreement, that post was to go to the SDS? Do you remember that?
1 A. Yes, I do, and I note in my report that the Bosnian Serbs in the
2 Ministry of Internal Affairs, as well as the SDS, were consistently
3 dissatisfied with the situation in the state security service in
5 Q. To illustrate that, could you please turn to 65 ter 1802. That's
6 the next document. 65 ter 1802. It's a communique by the leading Serb
7 employees in the MUP of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina 65
8 ter 1802.
9 A. I think this is a different document.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I wanted the document from 9
11 September 1991. Right, I need page 3. The problem seems to be that this
12 document is stapled and was put on the 65 ter list under number 1802, and
13 actually it has nothing to do with the first two pages. There we are.
14 Q. I think you cite it in your footnote 37, this document is dated,
15 as I said, 9 September 1991. It was a fax sent to the Ministry of
16 Information of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it's a communique of leading Serb
17 employees in the Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist Republic of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Do you see that?
19 A. Yes, I do, and as you state, I cite it in my report.
20 Q. And now in paragraph 2, the most prominent examples are cited
21 from the past experience of the MUP, examples of violations of laws and
22 regulations regulating security services; namely, first point, bypassing
23 the MUP deputy minister who is an SDS
24 abolishing the position of deputy undersecretary of the state security
25 service which was to go to the SDS
1 agreement. That's precisely what we discussed a moment ago; right?
2 A. Yes, I agree with you.
3 Q. Then they cite inconsistent and incorrect staffing policies
4 wherein some Serbs are being dismissed from senior positions, then a
5 large number of people taken into the service although they have a
6 criminal record and criminal proceedings are ongoing against them, then
7 issuing official identity cards to persons who were are not employees of
8 the MUP. Since you cited this document in your report, Mr. Nielsen, you
9 will probably agree with me that these objections voiced by leading Serb
10 employees in the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina are in fact based on facts, on
11 actual things that were happening at the time?
12 A. I think, as I state in the report, I believe this document
13 accurately reflects the views of leading employees of Serb nationality of
14 MUP of BiH as to what was ongoing at that time. And I would note also
15 the important reference to servile Serbs that I also note in paragraph 22
16 of my report; in other words, Serbs who did not enjoy the active support
17 of the Serbian Democratic Party. And I would also refer the Court to
18 footnote 39 which I believe is in the following paragraph in my report,
19 paragraph 23, in which the SDA ironically or, I think, relevantly sends a
20 similar complaint to Izetbegovic at the same time complaining that the
21 Serbs were doing similar things.
22 So again, I think I absolutely agree with you, this is what this
23 document says. I think it's highly relevant that on certainly both the
24 Muslim and the Serbian side such accusations were taking place with
25 increasing frequency during this period.
1 JUDGE HALL: Dr. Nielsen, did I correctly hear you to use the
2 adjective "servile" because the transcript at line 14, page 42, says
3 "vile." Did I hear you say "servile Serbs"?
4 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, you were correct in hearing me say
5 "servile Serbs." In the original "postlusni Serbi" [phoen], and that is
6 reflected in paragraph 22 of my report.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if there is no
9 objection, I would kindly ask that this document to be admitted into
10 evidence with the proviso -- thank you, Mr. Hannis. With a proviso that,
11 Your Honours, the first two pages of the document are not related by date
12 or any other indicator to this document. Perhaps we should reload it
13 into e-court under a certain separate number and then accord it an
14 exhibit number. I don't know if Mr. Hannis has any objection.
15 MR. HANNIS: I have no objection. I have to review and see what
16 the other two pages relate to and if that's something that we need to
17 keep a number for, but I have no problem with the suggested procedure.
18 JUDGE HALL: Having regard to what Mr. Hannis has just said, I'm
19 not sure what the suggested procedure is, that it remain as it is or that
20 it be reloaded.
21 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
22 JUDGE HALL: The Registry suggested it be marked for
23 identification at this stage, and then if the first two pages need not be
24 removed, then it will be assigned its exhibit number, but the onus would
25 be on counsel to remind us that it's an MFI document which has to be
1 given an exhibit number. It's -- so the only practical question remains
2 as to whether it's the one page or the three pages that would, in fact,
3 be exhibited.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I wanted
5 to suggest precisely the same procedure.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, for the record 65 ter 01802 shall
7 be given Exhibit 1D116 marked for identification. Thank you, Your
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Nielsen, our next document is 65 ter 37, and that is a letter
12 of the 6th February 1992 from SDS signed by Radovan Karadzic. I think
13 it's your footnote 76 where you considered this document. It is evident
14 from the document that Mr. Karadzic again voices his disapproval and
15 raises the issue of staffing in the MUP of the Socialist Republic of
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina, can you see that?
17 A. Yes, I do. I just want to note that I saw that I -- my previous
18 comment about, in answering Your Honours's question about the placement
19 of that phrase, it said in the transcript that it was in paragraph 226 of
20 my report, paragraph 22 of the report. Thank you.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. You see, Mr. Nielsen, that here in para 1, Mr. Karadzic points
23 out and demands that all appointments in the MUP of the Socialist
24 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina that concern the employment of around
25 14.00 people outside of the job specification be rendered null and void,
1 can you see that?
2 A. Yes, that is what the document says.
3 Q. Job specification is a framework document of a ministry
4 envisaging the number of executants by duties and responsibilities
5 specifying the number of executants for each particular job; correct?
6 A. Yes, that's correct. That's why it's such a long document, over
7 500 pages.
8 Q. In view of the position taken by the Trial Chamber, we are not
9 going to tender this. This will suffice.
10 In paragraph 2 it says: "All managers, managerial and other
11 staff who do not meet the requirements set by the law on state
12 administration and the rules of internal structure and job specification
13 in the MUP of Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina are to be relieved
14 of their duties (those who do not have the appropriate education,
15 et cetera)."
16 Mr. Karadzic, just as you commented a moment ago insist that the
17 police employ people with adequate training, that is to say, professional
18 policemen, and certainly not people, as you say in report, with very
19 dubious profiles and qualifications for work in the ministry; correct?
20 A. In this particular point number 2 he is insisting that the proper
21 procedures be observed and that those people who do not have the proper
22 qualifications be dismissed, that's correct.
23 Q. Furthermore, in paragraph 3, Mr. Karadzic demands that a citizen
24 of Muslim ethnicity be appointed to the post of deputy minister of the
25 interior, and that the current deputy minister, Mr. Mirsad Srebrenikovic
1 be relieved because he had been appointed bypassing the legal procedure
2 and because he is a foreign national. Can you see that?
3 A. That is what point 3 says, yes, that's correct.
4 Q. Are you aware that Mirsad Srebrenikovic indeed did not have the
5 citizenship of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
6 A. Well, I'm certainly aware of the fact that that accusation was
7 made. I have to say that I'm not aware of the actual nationality of that
8 person at that point in time.
9 Q. Thank you. And in item 4, he asks that staff of Serb ethnicity
10 be appointed to appropriate posts, to posts that belong to them. From
11 this I could infer that Mr. Karadzic in February 1992 is still observing
12 to the letter the inter-party agreement about the division of posts and
13 the agreement concerning the Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist
14 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Do you agree with me?
15 A. Well, if you are saying that you reached that conclusion solely
16 on the base of reading this one document in isolation, then I could see
17 how you would reach that conclusion. But I don't agree with the fact
18 that that reflects the entire context at that time when one is able to
19 take into consideration the numerous other documents that are available
20 for review.
21 Q. When you say other numerous documents available for review, do
22 you mean to say that these other documents prove that Mr. Karadzic was in
23 fact not insisting on professionalism and legality, that is to say,
24 Dr. Karadzic and the Serbian side did not insist on observing the law and
25 the inter-party agreement? Is that what you are trying to say?
1 A. Well, I would say that what I'm trying to say is that looking at
2 all the available documentation there are indications that
3 Radovan Karadzic, like his counter-parts on the Croat and Muslim side
4 during this period, sometimes prioritised ethnicity of potential
5 employees in SR BiH MUP over their professional qualifications.
6 Q. I am very happy you made that comment. Let us go back to item 3
7 of this document. Here Mr. Karadzic asks that the job of deputy minister
8 of the interior for personnel of the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina be given
9 to a citizen of Muslim ethnicity. So he is asking that a Muslim from
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina be appointed deputy minister for personnel of the MUP,
11 and that the gentleman occupying that position currently,
12 Mr. Srebrenikovic, who is a foreign national, be replaced because the
13 procedure had been violated in his case. All this had been regulated by
14 the inter-party agreement.
15 A. In this particular case, yes, it is.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at the last
18 page of this document, the Roman numeral III -- or, rather, Roman numeral
19 2 first, organisational matters. Under Roman numeral II, and then Arabic
20 number 2.
21 Q. Mr. Karadzic asks that the state security sector be staffed and
22 that the legality of the work of this department be reviewed, especially
23 the use of the assets of the service, and then he says wire-tapping. Can
24 you see that?
25 A. Yes, I see that.
1 Q. And for that purpose, he asks for the dismissal of
2 Mr. Munir Alibabic who had placed the whole department at the service of
3 the SDA party.
4 A. I see that is what the document says.
5 Q. It is a fact that Mr. Munir Alibabic, also known as Munja, was
6 the head of the Sarajevo state security sector?
7 A. I believe that is correct, that that is his function at the time,
9 Q. It's also a fact that Mr. Munir Alibabic, also known as Munja,
10 was a member of the democratic action party?
11 A. I do not know whether he was an actual member of that party. I
12 do certainly know that he was supported in his position pursuant to the
13 tripartite agreement on division of posts by the SDA.
14 Q. You'll probably agree with me after having reviewed all this
15 extensive documentation on several thousand pages, that
16 Mr. Munir Alibabic, nicknamed Munja, spent most of his time wire-tapping
17 the leaders of the Serbian Democratic Party in Sarajevo; correct?
18 A. Well, again, I would ask for precision and say that I don't know
19 whether he personally spent most of his time wire-tapping leaders of the
20 Serbian Democratic Party in Sarajevo. I also do not know what percentage
21 of wire-tapped conversations during this critical period were of
22 officials of the Serbian Democratic Party. I am aware that there were
23 wire-tapped conversations also of HDZ members and in some case SDA
24 members during this period in which Munir Alibabic was working.
25 So I'm unable to say what percentage, again, of these
1 conversations were of the SDS, but as I note in paragraph 55 of my
2 report, I state that in reference to this document which you have
3 presented, and which I cite, that the tapping of phone lines by Munir,
4 nicknamed Munja Alibabic, and the lack of Serbian cadres in a host of
5 positions that were allegedly reserved for Serbs, is -- was very much
6 among the grievances, and it is true that we have a large collection of
7 intercepted phone conversations by members of the SDS during this period.
8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Nielsen, for this clarification. You will agree
9 with me that the state security sector led by him, Mr. Munir Alibabic,
10 had in their purview all wire-tapping of telephones and they did it;
12 A. Yes, they did it. And it should be noted that Munir Alibabic is
13 the chief, I believe, of the sector of state security in Sarajevo. He is
14 not the chief of the state security service in Bosnia-Herzegovina at that
15 time. That post was held by Mr. Kvesic, the Croat, which -- whom was
16 mentioned earlier today.
17 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I'm sure that you have seen from the documentation
18 that members of the Serbian community, especially Mr. Karadzic and some
19 others, protested very frequently against illegal wire-tapping. Were you
20 able to see that from the documents?
21 A. Yes, I see that from documents including in the intercepts
22 themselves, the fact that they are aware that they are being listened to
24 Q. Were you able to find that in fact the wire-tapping that was done
25 at the time was not conducted in accordance with the law at the time in
1 Bosnia and Herzegovina?
2 A. I have not undertaken any analysis of the legality of
3 wire-tapping or the illegality of wire-tapping by Mr. Munir Alibabic or
4 other instances of the service of state security at that time. I am,
5 however, aware of the fact that that matter, that specific matter has
6 been dealt with in excruciating detail by other Trial Chambers at this
8 Q. And it will continue to be dealt with. Let us turn our attention
9 again to item 3. You see that Mr. Radovan Karadzic authorises and tasks
10 Mr. Momcilo Mandic, an assistant at the MUP, to organise and handle
11 staffing issues in the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina on behalf of the SDS;
13 A. Yes, Mr. Momcilo Mandic became increasingly important for the SDS
14 as their trust in the deputy minister who was a Serb, Vitomir Zepinic,
15 declined precipitously during this period.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir. If there are no
17 objections, I would like to tender this document, please.
18 MR. HANNIS: No objections, only to note that the document, I
19 think, is dated the 6th of February. In the first paragraph, it makes
20 reference, in the English translation, to a document that's dated some
21 place in March, and I think there's just a typographical error in the
23 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter 00037 shall be given
25 Exhibit 1D117.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 Q. Sir, since you have already anticipated my next topic and series
3 of questions, namely Mr. Zepinic, I would like to ask you to look at the
4 next document. This is 1D00-1081. And I think that is your footnote 110
5 in your report where you refer to this document.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Excuse me, I see Mr. O'Sullivan is
7 on his feet. Go ahead, Mr. O'Sullivan.
8 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Transcript page 50, line 12, there's obviously a
9 problem with that sentence regarding Mr. -- it should say Momcilo Mandic
10 became increasingly important. I believe that's the correction. It
11 currently says "Mr. Momcilo man difficult."
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan, I'm
13 sure that the official version of the transcript will correct this.
14 Q. Sir, as you can see, this document is information from March 1992
15 about the abuses, illegalities, and manipulation by SDA and HDZ personnel
16 in the service of the MUP state security service of the Socialist
17 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina through their choice of personnel, their
18 new structure and systemisation, and the one-sided application of methods
19 and manner of the services, and you quote this document. To avoid
20 repeating what it already says, you would agree with me that this
21 document actually refers to all of those matters that we spoke about
22 earlier referred to in Mr. Karadzic's letter of February; is that
24 A. Well, I haven't read the document in a number of years but I deal
25 with it in paragraph 75, and I think that that's correct characterisation
1 of the document, yes.
2 Q. On page 5 of the document, and I think that you particularly
3 emphasised this in your report, the author who is unknown, but you agree
4 and I also agree that it was probably written by the state security
5 service employee, who is Serb national who blames deputy minister of the
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina MUP for this situation even though he is an SDS cadre,
7 Mr. Vitomir Zepinic, don't you agree?
8 A. I agree with that in the report, and I think this is -- given the
9 fact that we both agree that this document was written by Serbs working
10 in the DB, this is an appropriate point to emphasise that by this time,
11 the date of this document is March 1992, and really as of the end of 1991
12 DB, the state security in Bosnia had really completely splintered along
13 ethnic lines.
14 Q. If I remember your conclusion correctly from your report, you
15 assert that the split in the state security service of the Bosnia and
16 Herzegovina MUP already began to appear as a serious problem as early as
17 the autumn of 1991; isn't that right?
18 A. I absolutely agree. By my previous comment, I just meant that by
19 the end of 1991 it had, as it were, reached a point of culmination.
20 Q. Thank you very much.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
22 document into the evidence if there are no objections by Mr. Hannis.
23 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
24 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Document ID 1D00-1081 is admitted as
1 Exhibit 1D118. Thank you, Your Honours.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Nielsen, now that we are talking about the assistant minister
4 of the interior, Mr. Zepinic, who as an SDS cadre was appointed to this
5 top post that the SDS had in the Ministry of the Interior of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina, would you agree that this was the highest post which
7 the SDS was allocated?
8 A. I agree and it should be noted that Mr. Zepinic was at that time
9 also a member of the SDS council of ministers, so it's quite an
10 extraordinary situation that they are accusing him of such activities.
11 Q. And Mr. Zepinic, if I remember correctly, was even in charge of
12 Internal Affairs in the council of ministers, wasn't he?
13 A. If memory serves correctly, Mr. Zepinic and Mr. Mico Stanisic
14 were both appointed to deal with such issues partly because of a
15 disagreement already in December 1991, and that is reflected in the
16 Assembly minutes of the Assembly of the Serbian nation.
17 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I am quite certain that time has done its part and
18 this is quite objective and clear. I assert that Mr. Zepinic was in
19 charge of the Ministry of the Interior and that Mr. Mico Stanisic was
20 minister without portfolio in the ministerial council?
21 A. I don't think that my memory is that poor, but I do agree with
22 you that Mr. Mico Stanisic was without portfolio. I would again state
23 that the context of the discussion that takes place about their
24 respective appointments makes it very clear, in my mind, that because of
25 the already then declining trust in Mr. Zepinic, Mr. Mico Stanisic was
1 without portfolio but was, as it were, a shadow minister or a shadow
2 councillor for Mr. Zepinic.
3 Q. You will recall, I am sure, I didn't think that your memory was
4 not that good, that you had any problems with your memory, I wouldn't
5 want you to misunderstand me, but you will recall I'm sure precisely
6 because of that that one of the delegates during the selection of the
7 ministerial council posed as a question the question of confidence in
8 Vitomir Zepinic and that this was the reason why ultimately Mico Stanisic
9 was included in the ministerial council. Do you remember that? Wasn't
10 that so?
11 A. Yes, and that recollection lines up quite nicely with my previous
13 Q. And I'm sure that you will also recall that the representative,
14 the parliamentarian representative stated his suspicions that Mr. Zepinic
15 had entered into some kind of business arrangement with Mr. Delimustafic
16 and that he had received some property in Grbavica and also a Mazda model
17 car in return. Do you remember that?
18 A. Yes, I remember that and I also remember seeing the receipt for
19 the Mazda in question.
20 Q. Excellent. I didn't have the opportunity to see that, perhaps
21 you could sometime provide that for us via the Prosecutor's Office and
22 perhaps we could make some use of that.
23 You will remember that Mr. Zepinic was interviewed by the state
24 security service sometime in 1992. The state security service of the
25 Republika Srpska MUP, do you remember that?
1 A. Yes, sir, I do, and I can assist the Court by stating that that
2 interview took place in mid-August 1992 at Kula prison right outside
3 Sarajevo and that I refer later in this report specifically to the
4 account that Mr. Zepinic offered during interrogation about the events
5 of, let's say, March to August of 1992. So that's the point at which he
6 was interviewed.
7 Q. Mr. Nielsen, are you aware of the fact that after this interview
8 in the -- in August 1992, mid-August 1992, Mr. Zepinic became a member of
9 the Army of Republika Srpska and he worked there as a security officer?
10 Are you aware of that fact? He was a security officer still in
11 November 1992.
12 A. I am not aware of that fact. I did not know what happened with
13 Mr. Zepinic until the late 1990s when he resurfaced in Australia.
14 Q. All right. When you say resurfaced in Australia, are you
15 thinking of the criminal proceedings conducted against him in Australia,
16 is that what you meant or did you mean something else?
17 A. What I meant is it became apparent that he was practicing, as I
18 believe, I don't remember whether it was psychiatrist or a psychologist
19 in Australia, and so I became aware of that well prior to any criminal
20 proceedings that were conducted against him in Australia.
21 Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. Nielsen, one more document. This is the
22 document in your binder 1D00-3445. And this is your footnote 124. The
23 document is of March 18th, 1992. It's by the deputy minister of the
24 interior, Mr. Momcilo Mandic. This is a document of the MUP of the
25 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Again, this is your footnote
1 124. In this document on the 18th of March, Mr. Momcilo Mandic again
2 voices certain criticism and points to the illegal aspects of the work of
3 Mr. Zepinic because he sought data about some weapons, ammunition, and
4 money without authorisation, and in the view of the deputy minister, the
5 assistant minister, Mr. Zepinic abused his authority in that sense
6 because he bypassed the administration in order to do this. Do you see
8 A. I see that. That is what the document accuses him of doing, that
9 is correct, and that is what I state in the report.
10 Q. Yes, I agree. You would agree with me, Mr. Nielsen, that not
11 only were there disagreements in the MUP of the Socialist Republic of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina along ethnic lines, but we can also see here that
13 there was a disagreement between two Serb members of the SDS, both
14 candidates at the very top leadership in the MUP of the Socialist
15 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Serbs evidently were having a major rift
16 amongst themselves; isn't that correct?
17 A. That is correct. And I am aware that on the Muslim side there
18 was also significant and at times quite turbulent disagreement among
19 Muslim employees internally in the ministry.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much. If there are no objections, I
21 would like to tender this document in evidence, please.
22 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
23 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D00-3445 shall be given Exhibit 1D119.
25 Thank you, Your Honours.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Sir, one more document and then we can finish our session for
3 today, and also finish with this topic. This is document 65 ter 44.
4 This is your footnote 93 where you refer to this document. This is a
5 document from the 13th meeting of the council for the protection of the
6 constitutional order of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
7 It's dated the 9th of March and it is -- has the title of the Presidency
8 at the head of the document. Is it correct that you referred to this
9 document in your footnote 93?
10 A. Yes, sir, it is.
11 Q. Thank you. Mr. Nielsen, you remember that Ms. Biljana Plavsic
12 was the president of this council for the protection of the
13 constitutional order of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of
15 A. Yes, and that is reflected in this document.
16 Q. Mr. Nielsen, you will agree with me, and you do write about this
17 in your report, too, that this document also dated March 1992 of the
18 Council for the Protection of the Constitutional Order mainly deals with
19 the situation in the MUP of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina at
20 that time; isn't that right?
21 A. Yes, that is correct.
22 Q. And that it deals on pages 2, 3, and 4, with the problems in the
23 MUP of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, primarily personnel
24 problems as well as in the supply with materiel and equipment, failing to
25 respect the agreements between the top MUP functionaries, that it was
1 also necessary to increase the efficacy of the MUP organs, as well
2 improve the adherence to law and regulations of all the employees of that
3 ministry. Would you agree with me?
4 A. Yes, I agree.
5 Q. I would just like to state something else that is specific here.
6 This is page 3 in the Serbian version and page 4 in the e-court.
7 Actually, it's the bottom of page 4 and top of page 5 in the B/C/S. And
8 then in the English, it's on page 4. Can we please look at item 7 where
9 it says - I'm just going to para-phrase briefly - that allegations --
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at item 5. I
11 apologise, can we look at page 5 in the English.
12 Q. It says that the council reviewed the statements and that on the
13 basis of information of the MUP carried by the media, this information
14 about the alleged involvement of Biljana Plavsic in the recently erected
15 barricades in Sarajevo, it was established that this information was
16 untrue and that it was put forward with a particular objective in mind.
17 Do you see that and could you please comment on that?
18 A. I do see that. I take it that she is probably referring to,
19 among other things, her unhappiness with the news magazine
20 "Slobodna Bosna," which I make reference to their articles on the
21 barracks as published in -- around 12 March. That's in paragraph 68 of
22 my report. And I've -- know that the SDS publicly claimed that it had --
23 had nothing to do with what was popularly known as the barricades episode
24 in early March 1992. I also know that and absolutely agreeing with your
25 earlier, I think we both agree, our earlier observations on the
1 fragmentation of this DB, that is the state security service of
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina at that point, that certain employees and again, as
3 usual, that state security documents usually don't list the name of the
4 author or authors, that I do cite in my report that one state security
5 report of this period found, on the contrary, that the SDS was involved
6 in the barricades episode. Obviously, Ms. Plavsic disagreed.
7 Q. Mr. Nielsen, you would agree with me, would you not, that it was
8 a very indicative situation that really reflected the situation in
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time with the Ministry of the Interior as an
10 official state institution would issue information to the media charging
11 one of the top members of the leadership, a member of the Presidency, and
12 the president of the council for the protection of the constitutional
13 order, and this information, it is stated here, was not verified by the
15 So it is not disputed that this was false information from the
16 Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
17 and was released to the media, and it charges with a very serious act a
18 member of a very important organ of that same state. Does it not seem to
19 you that this situation would serve well to illustrate the current
20 situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time as well as the role and the
21 way in which the MUP functioned at that time?
22 A. Well, I would point to paragraph 64 to 66 of my report in which I
23 first cite the DB document, the state security document that I refer to
24 and their findings of extensive SDS involvement based -- again, whether
25 they are legal or illegal, I'm not in a position to say, but based on
1 telephone intercepts that they collected, which they believed showed
2 extensive involvement of leading SDS fingers [sic], I would then point to
3 paragraph 66 where in the light of this, as you say, and I agree with
4 you, indicative situation, there was a call, as I state in paragraph 66,
5 by the Council for the Protection of the Constitutional Order to have
6 continued co-operation and co-ordination between the MUP and the JNA and
7 for all important decisions in MUP to be reached by consensus among the
8 representatives of Serbs, Croats, and Muslims. At this point, as I state
9 in my report, and if we are talking about March of 1992, it is, as I
10 stated yesterday - I apologise to the interpreters - a deplorable
11 situation. It is an extremely tense situation, and it is a situation in
12 which members of all three parties and to some extent their nominees or
13 favoured employees in MUP are leaking information left, right, and centre
14 and are broadcasting messages publicly to the public at large that are
15 hardly conducive to a stabilisation of an already precarious security
17 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, it's that time.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: I think I have one more question, Your Honours, and
19 I believe there are two more minutes, if I may.
20 JUDGE HALL: Well, according to -- [Microphone not activated] as
21 I said, I follow the clock in e-court and that 13.44.26.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: May I pose the question, Your Honour?
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Nielsen, it is a fact that at this meeting
1 of the Council for the Protection of the Constitutional Order was
2 attended by Mr. Alija Mustafic, by Mr. Zepinic, as well as by some other
3 high-ranking leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in particular the
4 minister of the interior, and we can see from this that it is not
5 disputed that the official information with untrue content was released,
6 issued by the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Would you agree with that or
8 A. I think that's what a prima facie reading of the document
9 reflects, yes.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I would like
11 to ask for this document to be tendered if there are no objections.
12 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
13 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, document 65 ter number 44 shall be
15 given Exhibit 1D120. Thank you, Your Honours.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] At least we have managed to do
17 something on time today and that is to finish today's hearing, and I'm
18 thanking Mr. Nielsen and I thank you, Your Honours, as well.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Dr. Nielsen. You, of course, continue
20 tomorrow. I assume that we will resume in Courtroom I as according to
21 the schedule, but of course from today's experience we'll all turn up
22 tomorrow morning and see where we end up.
23 The Registry advises the problem has now been solved, yes. So we
24 take the adjournment.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.
1 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 16th day of
2 December 2009, at 9.00 a.m.