Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5577

 1                           Wednesday, 27 January 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.05 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.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning to all.  May we begin in the usual

 9     manner by taking the appearances for today, please.

10             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Good morning.  Tom Hannis

11     with Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Slobodan Zecevic and

13     Eugene O'Sullivan appearing for Stanisic Defence this morning.  Thank

14     you.

15             MR. PANTELIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  For Zupljanin,

16     Igor Pantelic, Dragan Krgovic, and Ms. Katarina Danicic Case Manager.

17             JUDGE HALL:  While the usher is escorting the witness back to the

18     stand, when we adjourned yesterday, Mr. Pantelic had asked for an

19     additional 45 minutes.  The Chamber rules that he has an additional

20     30 minutes to complete his cross-examination of Dr. Nielsen.

21                           [The witness takes the stand]

22                           WITNESS:  CHRISTIAN NIELSEN [Resumed]

23                           Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic:  [Continued]

24        Q.   [No interpretation]

25        A.   Good morning, Mr. Pantelic.  And please given that we are here on

Page 5578

 1     the 27th of January, allow me to wish you, all members of the Defence

 2     team, and your clients a very happy day of Saint Sava.

 3        Q.   Thank you for your wishes.  Yesterday when we adjourned we are

 4     discussed of the structure of CSB like in accordance with the rules and

 5     rule book.  Would you agree with me if I put to you the proposition that

 6     Mr. Zupljanin in his capacity of chief of CSB was not in a narrow sense

 7     commander, but rather the co-ordinator who under his authority has

 8     several departments not only strictly related to the police issues, but

 9     and administrative, et cetera.  So that we have to have a difference

10     between the commander of the police and the chief of CSB, which is more

11     administrative -- administrative and co-ordinative function?

12        A.   Yes, I would agree with that.

13        Q.   And in CSB Banja Luka there were two sectors.  Sector for

14     national security and sector for public security commanded by -- and

15     headed by, actually, the chiefs, respective chiefs.  Would you agree with

16     me if I put to you that chief of sector for public security was actually

17     commander of the police units within the jurisdiction of CSB Banja Luka?

18        A.   Yes, I agree that at the operational control level on a

19     day-to-day basis, command was within the jurisdiction of the public

20     security service.

21        Q.   And would you agree with me that also under the command of chief

22     of sector for public security service were also Special Police units in

23     this structure?

24        A.   I agree that the Special Police units were at the CSB level.

25     Obviously this changed, as we've discussed, after August 1992, but during

Page 5579

 1     the early period under public security which again was subordinate to the

 2     chief of the CSB.

 3        Q.   And speaking of the special unit of CSB Banja Luka, would you

 4     agree with me if I can tell you that several forms of this unit in

 5     accordance with the regulations were -- one of these is joint police unit

 6     which actually was combined of all active and reserve police forces

 7     within the area of competence of CSB Banja Luka, and the amount, the

 8     numbers were around 900?

 9        A.   I know that there were contingency plans, for example, in cases

10     of riots and such, for reserve police forces and active police personnel

11     to join in a larger force.  However, I'm most familiar with a smaller

12     unit of approximately, I think, 160 or 170 persons that was commonly

13     known to be the Special Police unit of CSB Banja Luka.

14        Q.   Yes, this is a third form of the units.  And in between these two

15     there is a third one, actually, which is manoeuvring unit of police which

16     has a number around 700.  Were you aware about this unit also which was

17     in the structure of CSB?

18        A.   I agree that there were several different forms of the unit.  The

19     one that is visible most prominently in the documentation is the smaller

20     unit to which I referred.

21        Q.   And speaking of this smaller unit were you aware or did you find

22     when you were reviewing all these documents in your work that the

23     commander of this unit was Mr. Mirko Lukic?

24        A.   Yes, I'm familiar with Mr. Lukic.

25        Q.   Were you familiar with the fact that Mr. Lukic was active army

Page 5580

 1     officer at that time?

 2        A.   I'm not familiar with the status of Mr. Lukic.  I know that he

 3     together with Ljuban Ecim were the two most prominent figures in the

 4     Special Police unit of CSB Banja Luka during the summer of 1992.

 5        Q.   But Mr. Lukic was in fact commander of that unit; am I right?

 6        A.   It is sometimes the case that Mr. Lukic appears as the commander

 7     of the unit, that is correct.  There are other periods during which, at

 8     least at an operational level, it appears from the documentation that it

 9     is Mr. Ecim who is conducting certain operations.

10        Q.   And would you agree with me that the many chiefs of SJB which we

11     know that these are local police organisations, many chiefs were not

12     professionalists, but rather people and persons with the other education

13     like machine engineers, jewelists, former police -- former army officer,

14     even teachers.  Would you agree with me?

15        A.   Yes, I am aware that some chiefs of SJBs had professional

16     backgrounds other than the police.

17        Q.   I mean comparing to the period before 1992, would you agree with

18     me that a certain level of local political authorities were requested

19     like nomination from local community or a procedure for, I don't know,

20     elections, et cetera?

21        A.   Are you referring to elections of police officials, or?

22        Q.   Yes, appointment of police officials on the bases of the

23     recommendation of the political structure of the local community.  Are

24     you familiar with this?

25        A.   I'm certainly familiar with the fact that from the period from

Page 5581

 1     April a 1992 until the autumn of 1992, the Crisis Staffs in particular at

 2     the municipal level often interfered, nominated, proposed, or otherwise

 3     involved themselves in the selection of police personnel at the municipal

 4     level.

 5        Q.   And also you are aware of the fact that after the multi-party

 6     elections in Bosnia in 1993 [sic], ruling parties SDA, HDZ, and SDS were

 7     actually negotiating the candidates for each particular position

 8     including police, on various levels of course?

 9        A.   Yes, they were involved at all levels, and as I noted previously,

10     even before the war, this led to the appointments by all three parties,

11     occasionally of people who were not professionals.

12             MR. PANTELIC:  Just correction to the transcript, page 5, line 6,

13     instead of 1993 in my question, it was 1990.

14        Q.   Okay, were you aware of the fact that Mr. Zupljanin being elected

15     -- appointed, actually, as chief of CSB Banja Luka after multi-party

16     elections in 1990, actually was not member of SDS party?

17        A.   I believe that as far as I know, Mr. Zupljanin was not a member

18     of the SDS party, that's correct.

19        Q.   And would you agree with me and/or maybe are you familiar with

20     the fact that the actual first candidate of SDS party for CSB Banja Luka

21     was Mr. Vlado Tutus also an active police officer at that time?  Just say

22     yes or no, if you are familiar, okay, if not --

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   And maybe you are familiar or not, but actually Muslim party SDA

25     was against the nomination of Mr. Tutus at that time, and they gave

Page 5582

 1     permission only to the professional police officer without party

 2     affiliation which was Zupljanin.  Did you come to the attention of this

 3     information?

 4        A.   I'm not aware of the SDA's position on Mr. Zupljanin prior to

 5     1992, no.

 6        Q.   Now, Mr. Nielsen, I would like to have your opinion with regard

 7     to the disciplinary and criminally responsibility -- criminal

 8     responsibility of the members of police forces.  In your report you spoke

 9     about the rule book, about the regulations, laws, et cetera.  I will put

10     to you one situation, and I kindly ask you to give me an answer.  If

11     police officer committed a crime or a lesser offence like misdemeanour or

12     something else, but I'm focused on the crime act, in performing his duty,

13     what is the first duty of local chief of police, chief of SJB in

14     accordance with the laws and regulations?

15        A.   Are you discussing the period prior to the formation of the RS or

16     the period of the RS?

17        Q.   Of the period of the RS.

18        A.   As far as I recall, the primary responsibility of the local chief

19     of police would be to initiate a disciplinary commission that would

20     examine the charges against the officer in question, and from there the

21     practice diverges depending on whether we are looking at a minor

22     disciplinary infraction or a misdemeanour or a more serious criminal

23     charge.  Obviously if it's a more serious criminal charge, the matter is

24     handed to the public prosecutor.

25        Q.   And then the relevant public prosecutor is in charge to give

Page 5583

 1     additional orders to police to collect certain evidence necessary for

 2     investigation or to obtain additional witness statements, et cetera.

 3     Would you agree with me that this is the process?

 4        A.   I agree with that, yes.

 5        Q.   And chief of SJB was obliged to put this particular event in his

 6     daily report to the superior -- superior organ which is CSB; am I right?

 7        A.   I believe that's correct, although I'm not aware that if it's a

 8     minor -- a very minor disciplinary infraction that it would warrant

 9     report.  But certainly for more serious charges, it should be reported to

10     the CSB.

11        Q.   And also this particular situation with the serious violation

12     which is a criminal act actually committed by a police officer, this

13     information would be also a part of weekly or monthly report from SJB to

14     CSB; am I right?

15        A.   Reports about disciplinary and criminal procedures against active

16     police officers and data pertaining to such reports should, according to

17     the ministry's reporting regulations, be reported upwards from the SJB to

18     the CSB and on to the ministerial level which is what results in the

19     reports dianalytical reports that I mentioned yesterday.

20        Q.   Tell me, Mr. Nielsen, in preparation and process of work, your

21     work to prepare this report, did you find any report from SJB to CSB

22     where local chief of police was reporting that certain violation of rules

23     or laws or commitment of crime was -- was actually a case taking place in

24     this particular municipality?

25        A.   Yes, I am aware of such documents, and I have viewed such

Page 5584

 1     documents.

 2        Q.   Can you be more specific?

 3        A.   Certainly.  As an example, I can mention reports, I believe it is

 4     from the municipality of what used to be called Bosanski Novi where they

 5     report that -- and also from Sanski Most where they report about alleged

 6     crimes that have been committed by active police officers, particularly

 7     the special unit to which we referred to before, and noted that the

 8     municipal civilian authorities are unhappy about the behaviour of such

 9     active police officers.

10             I'm also aware of reports in other municipalities, sometimes they

11     do not mention who the active police officers in question are, but

12     mention in a general manner that in the context of looting or plundering

13     abandoned houses that some uniform police officers are allegedly

14     involved.

15        Q.   So my understanding from your answer is that actually there were

16     very general, I would say, reports or, I don't know, informations, not

17     specific for specific -- against the specific police officer who

18     committed a specific crime; am I right?

19        A.   Not always.  There are cases, again specifically with reference

20     to the CSB Banja Luka special unit where members of that unit who I know

21     from the payroll and information about that unit were active members of

22     that unit at that time are mentioned by name as allegedly having

23     participated in criminal activities.  And indeed as I state in my report,

24     that actually led to the arrest of some of those members in the summer of

25     1992.  They were later forcibly freed from the Banja Luka prison Tunjica

Page 5585

 1     by members of the CSB Special Police unit.

 2        Q.   I'm interested in a particular report from a local police chief,

 3     chief of SJB.  Do you have in mind particular report from someone of

 4     chief of SJBs in mind?  Can you tell me the name and the function?

 5        A.   I believe -- I don't know if I can remember his first name, but

 6     Mr. Vrucinic who was head of the SJB, if memory serves, I think in -- I

 7     can't remember whether it was Sanski Most or Kotor Varos.  But certainly

 8     he was one of the chiefs of SJBs who filed such a report, and which I

 9     have reviewed in the course of preparing this report.

10        Q.   So among all municipalities, only chief of SJB Sanski Most

11     Mr. Vrucinic filed this kind report; am I right?  Based on your reviewing

12     of documents?

13        A.   No, that would be incorrect.  I state that he was the one that I

14     immediately recall.  I also can recall examples of similar reports from,

15     for example, Eastern Herzegovina, CSB Sarajevo area, and other

16     municipalities in the CSB Banja Luka area.

17        Q.   No, no, no, please just listen.  We are speaking about the region

18     of CSB Banja Luka, so if I would be interested in the larger area, I will

19     ask you.  So to conclude, in your work, you came to the attention that in

20     official capacity only chief of SJB Sanski Most filed a report against

21     his police officers from his police unit in Sanski Most; am I right or

22     not?

23        A.   No.  You are again misstating my position.  My position is that

24     that is the example that immediately comes to mind, but I am aware of

25     having reviewed other examples of such documentation from the operational

Page 5586

 1     area of CSB Banja Luka.  There are not many, but there are more than that

 2     one.  That is -- of that I'm absolutely sure.

 3        Q.   And tell me in formation of police forces of all three nations in

 4     Bosnia, what were the insignia and coat of arms of, for example, Serbian

 5     police in 1992?

 6        A.   After April?

 7        Q.   After April.

 8        A.   I know that in the instructions that Mr. Zupljanin sent out in

 9     the beginning of April, he noted, I believe, that the insignia and coat

10     of arms of the Serbian police should be the Serbian tricolour, the

11     Trobojka, and that would be the badge identifying Serbian police.

12        Q.   And what was the case of Croatian police at that time?

13        A.   I believe that they used the "sahovnica," chequerboard of

14     Herceg-Bosna, at least later in 1992.  Again I'm not an expert on the

15     Herceg-Bosna police, but I know that at some point in 1992, they

16     systematically started to use the sahovnica as their emblem.

17        Q.   What about the members of Muslim police forces, what was the

18     insignia and coat of arms of this police force?

19        A.   I don't know precisely what the date was, but after the

20     independent Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina adopted its own regulations on

21     insignia, I believe that they used the shield with the Lilies and the

22     blue background which we are familiar with from the war time Bosnian

23     flag.

24        Q.   Would you agree with me actually in this process of dissolution

25     or separation of -- and speaking now of police forces, every member of

Page 5587

 1     police went to his, I would say, national group or entity in performing

 2     his future police works, many police officers moved from one territory to

 3     another territory for various reasons?

 4        A.   I would agree that for various reasons many police officers

 5     moved.  I would not agree that every member of the police went to, as you

 6     put it, his national group or entity in performing his future police

 7     functions.

 8        Q.   Absolutely.  But you would agree with me that very few Serbs

 9     police officers left in Muslim or Croat police forces in accordance with

10     your knowledge?  Maybe you know or you don't know.

11        A.   I don't have the data that I have for the RS MUP, but I do know

12     that the percentages of Serbs left in the Muslim or Croat police forces

13     in Bosnia were quite modest, that's correct.

14        Q.   Okay.  You were also aware of the rough number of around

15     600 police officers Serbs came from Croatia, because in 1991 there was

16     clashes there, so they were fired, or for various reasons they came to

17     Bosanska Krajina, are you aware of this fact?

18        A.   Yes, and I discussed that fact in my report.

19             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you.  All right.  Now, could we have a

20     document, please, it's 65 ter 279.  And the page is of B/C/S version 6,

21     and the English version is 7.

22        Q.   In the meantime, Dr. Nielsen, you would agree with me, would you

23     not, that chief of police in Prijedor, a Muslim, Talundzic was

24     co-ordinating in more details activities with the SDA at the period of

25     before the outbreak of the hostilities?  Do you have this kind of

Page 5588

 1     information?

 2        A.   I know that allegations were made against Mr. Talundzic by Serbs

 3     that he was co-ordinating his activities with the SDA.  I am aware of

 4     that.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Now, Mr. Nielsen, please take a look on the --

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Pantelic, what do we have in front of us?

 7             MR. PANTELIC:  We have, Your Honour, document which was offered

 8     by Stanisic Defence.  This is a report of MUP of Republika Srpska for of

 9     period April/December 1992.  And this document was discussed with

10     Mr. Nielsen.

11        Q.   So I would like to draw your attention to the third paragraph

12     where --

13             MR. PANTELIC:  I'm sorry, I have a problem with English.  Is that

14     page 7 of English?  Okay.  Good.

15        Q.   So now this is -- in English version this is the last paragraph.

16     Mr. Nielsen, you used this document in your report in terms of to support

17     your claim that MUP of Republika Srpska was illegally organised; am I

18     right?  That was your position?  Yes or no, just simple question.

19        A.   That's not my position.  That's the position of the RS MUP in its

20     own document.

21        Q.   Okay.  Great.  Now, you know the catch with the translation, with

22     the spirit of language, et cetera.  I put to you, Mr. Nielsen, that word

23     in the second line of B/C/S paragraph 3, a word "ilegano" is not a proper

24     translated in English with word "illegal" organisation.  I put to you

25     that the more proper wording in English would be a secret or undercover,

Page 5589

 1     not illegally, and I will give you a basis for that.

 2             Using a word which is not originated from Serbian language,

 3     "illegal" is something which is in use of in B/C/S language even from the

 4     time of Second World War for so-called movement of resistance, and the

 5     usual use of word "illegal" means -- is related to illegality or movement

 6     of resistance, et cetera.  So the author of this document was not use

 7     this word in Serbian language which corresponds to the word of unlawful

 8     or illegal in English.  Would you agree with this approach that I just

 9     explain?

10        A.   I think that's the most entertaining explanation of the word

11     illegal I've ever heard.  And I've been watching a lot of partisan movies

12     lately, so I'm well familiar with traditionalists, but I don't agree with

13     that interpretation.

14        Q.   No, no, you cannot agree with that, that's your position.  So,

15     tell me, Mr. Nielsen, if the at that time Republika Srpska was

16     established and constitution was adopted, that was a fact of public

17     knowledge; am I right?  I mean, nothing was hidden?  Was the fact of

18     establishment of Republika Srpska, adoption of constitution and laws, was

19     it secret or public?

20        A.   This is not a discussion about whether it's secret or public,

21     it's a discussion about whether it was legal or illegal.

22        Q.   No, no, please, it's a very simple and straightforward question.

23     Was the fact that Republika Srpska was established in January 1992 and

24     adoption of constitution and all relevant laws, was that a fact of public

25     knowledge, or Republika Srpska was organised in undercovered operations

Page 5590

 1     or in totally secret circumstances?  Just give me answer yes or no.

 2        A.   That one fact was public knowledge.  It also involved covert

 3     preparation.

 4        Q.   But, of course, if Republika Srpska was established with all its

 5     functions and organs, how Ministry of the Interior is considered illegal

 6     under these circumstances?  Is it strange?  How -- then, I mean, correct

 7     me if I'm wrong, then even Republika Srpska should be proclaimed illegal

 8     by its leadership?  It's not logical, Mr. Nielsen, what you are saying to

 9     us.

10             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I object.  That's about four

11     questions.  Secondly, this witness has been indicated several times by

12     the Defence as not being an expert on legal matters or constitutional

13     matters, so ...

14             MR. PANTELIC:

15        Q.   Okay, Mr. Nielsen, would you agree with me that in accordance

16     with the general framework of constitutional principles in Bosnia during

17     negotiation in Brussels, three entities were suggested to be a part of

18     independent and sovereign state of Bosnia-Herzegovina; am I right?

19        A.   Yes, that was part of the negotiations.

20        Q.   And finally, the crown of this process of international

21     negotiations and arrangements was Dayton Peace Accord with the two

22     constituent units; am I right?  I mean, this is a fact of common

23     knowledge of course.

24             MR. HANNIS:  Objection, Your Honour, I'm not sure what the crown

25     of this process means, and the Dayton negotiations were after a long and

Page 5591

 1     protracted war.  So I don't see that they were part of the Cutileiro

 2     negotiations that were going on in 1992.

 3             MR. PANTELIC:

 4        Q.   I put to you, Mr. Nielsen, that on the basis of EU negotiations

 5     in 1992, the end of this process of international intervention and

 6     mediation was a Dayton Peace Accord where all relevant parties agreed to

 7     create a Bosnia-Herzegovina with two constituent units, do you agree with

 8     me or not?

 9        A.   I cannot agree with that assessment.

10        Q.   Then, Mr. Nielsen, in the paragraph 88 of your --

11             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic, your 30 minutes having been exhausted,

12     this is your final question.

13             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, thank you.

14        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, in paragraph 88 of your report, you stated that by

15     the end of March 1992 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was

16     clearly nearing dissolution.  In light of these findings, I put to you

17     that Republika Srpska and its respective government with its ministries

18     including MUP is a constituent entity of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina

19     and that nothing was illegal when the ministry of internal affairs of

20     Republika Srpska was established.  Do you agree with my position or not?

21     Yes or no yes, Mr. Nielsen.

22        A.   I disagree and point out again that --

23        Q.   Thank you.

24        A.   -- the MUP uses the word illegal.

25             MR. PANTELIC:  I don't have further question for this witness,

Page 5592

 1     thank you.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Hannis.

 3             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  Before I start, there was

 4     a mention of Mr. Tutus as the chief of the -- or being proposed for the

 5     CSB position, and it reminded me, I think Judge Delvoie last week had a

 6     question for us when I think it was Mr. Krzic was testifying.  And I

 7     think you indicated, Judge, that you didn't find him on your chart as

 8     chief --

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  I found him on the next page, not on the first --

10     the first page of the chart, there is no CSB -- SJB of Banja Luka

11     mentioned, but on the second part, the next page there is.

12             MR. HANNIS:  That's what I wanted to bring to your attention.

13     Thank you.

14                           Re-examination by Mr. Hannis:

15        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, I want to go back to last year and the beginning of

16     the cross-examination on the 15th of December.  Just a general matter,

17     Mr. -- I don't recall if it was Mr. Zecevic or Cvijetic was asking you

18     about your work in the leadership research team at the OTP.  At

19     page 4800, you were asked, When you say researching the leadership, you

20     mean researches for the cases against Izetbegovic, Tudjman, Karadzic,

21     Krajisnik, Milosevic?  Are those the cases you mean?  And you said, Yes.

22             My question is, did the leadership go beyond those gentlemen and

23     include other leaders such as top figures in the military and the police

24     in those various republics of the former Yugoslavia?

25        A.   The work of the leadership research team focused on the civilian

Page 5593

 1     leaderships, police and political of all of the political entities

 2     operating in Yugoslavia from 1990 to 1999, and the primary military

 3     leadership research was conducted by the military analysis team.

 4        Q.   I want to refer to the transcript at page 4836, there was a

 5     discussion with you by Defence counsel about Mr. Zepinic and the council

 6     of ministers.  And I think it was Mr. Zecevic who said to you:

 7             "Mr. Nielsen, I'm quite certain I assert that Mr. Zepinic was in

 8     charge of the Ministry of the Interior and that Mr. Mico Stanisic was

 9     minister without portfolio in the ministerial council."

10             And at line 22 you said:

11             "I would again state that the context of the discussion that

12     takes place about their respective appointments makes it very clear in my

13     mind that because of the already then declining trust in Mr. Zepinic,

14     Mr. Mico Stanisic was without portfolio but was, as it were, a shadow

15     minister or a shadow councillor for Mr. Zepinic."

16             MR. HANNIS:  And to discuss this I'd like to look at P10.

17     Exhibit P10.  These are the minutes from the fourth session of the

18     Assembly of the Serbian people in Bosnia on the 21st of December 1991.

19     And I think if we could start with page 35 in the English, and I think

20     the B/C/S page in e-court is page 73.

21        Q.   And on this first page you'll see that the list of proposed

22     members for the council of ministers.  You recall seeing that with

23     Mr. Zepinic as number 3, and Mr. Stanisic not appearing in the initial

24     list; is that correct?

25        A.   Yes, I recall examining that document.

Page 5594

 1        Q.   Okay.

 2             MR. HANNIS:  And if we could go to the next page in English.  And

 3     the next page in B/C/S.  Actually we need to go to one further page in

 4     B/C/S.

 5        Q.   We'll see the speaker is noted as Mr. Bjelosevic who is

 6     expressing his disagreement with the proposed appointment of Mr. Zepinic.

 7     You recall that?

 8        A.   Yes, I recall that discussion in the Assembly.

 9        Q.   Okay.  And farther down on the English page we see the chairman.

10     Who was the chairman at this session, by name, if you know?

11        A.   Well, the -- normally the chairman would have been Mr. Krajisnik,

12     but I would have to look at the first page to make sure that he was

13     indeed presiding at this session.

14        Q.   Okay.  And he indicates that there always be more than one

15     proposal for particular position, and decisions on particular

16     appointments will be made according to what we think is the best person

17     to do the particular job.  And the next speaker is Mr. Jovan Sarac, who

18     supports the previous speaker and proposes appointing Mr. Mico Stanisic

19     in the council of ministers in charge of these issues.

20             Now, given where that appears in the minutes, what is he

21     referring to when he says "in charge of these issues"?  Referring to the

22     matters for which Mr. Zepinic has been proposed?

23        A.   That is my understanding that, as I state in my report, because

24     of a prevailing deep dissatisfaction in the SDS with the conduct of

25     Mr. Zepinic on issues related to Serbs in the SRBiH MUP, a number of SDS

Page 5595

 1     politicians including Mr. Jovan Sarac are proposing Mr. Mico Stanisic to

 2     sit in the council of ministers, as it were, as a kind of shadow on

 3     Mr. Zepinic.

 4             MR. HANNIS:  Okay, if we can stay on this page in the English,

 5     but we need to go to page, I think, 77 of the B/C/S.

 6        Q.   Just a little further down after Mr. Knezevic speaks, we see the

 7     Mr. Chairman is noted as thanking the previous speaker and adding that

 8     clarification is needed:

 9             "I think we explained at the session before last that the council

10     ministers should be filled by ministers, deputy ministers, assistants of

11     ministers or other officials of appropriate level.  The idea is that the

12     council of ministers should be a kind of executive body of the Serbian

13     Assembly."

14             And then in the next paragraph he says:

15             "If you agree, I would like it to propose that we include

16     Mr. Mico Stanisic as well."

17             Is that consistent with your view that Mr. Stanisic is being

18     proposed to deal with police issues in addition to Mr. Zepinic?

19        A.   Yes, that is correct.

20             MR. HANNIS:  And if we could go finally to the next page of the

21     English.  I think we have to go to page 78 in the B/C/S.

22        Q.   You see in the middle of the page of the English, the chairman is

23     speaking, and you'll note in capital letters is it says:

24             "The Assembly unanimously adopts the proposed list of ministers

25     and the appointments of the chairman..."

Page 5596

 1             There's no further comment suggesting that anything different

 2     than what you've inferred from this that Mico Stanisic was being

 3     appointed to, in effect, supplement the appointment of Vidomir Zepinic

 4     for matters related to the Internal Affairs, would you agree with that?

 5        A.   That is correct.

 6             MR. HANNIS:  [Microphone not activated] Next at page --

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  Sorry, Mr. Hannis, but I don't think it's proper.

 8     This is misinterpretation of the document, Your Honours.

 9             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, that's a matter for submissions.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Explain yourself.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, the document is very explicit

12     in this respect, and I think -- I think the report by the witness is also

13     very explicit in this respect.  There is no -- there is no supplemental

14     position for Mr. Mico Stanisic.  Mico Stanisic is a minister without the

15     portfolio, and minister within the ministry council for Internal Affairs

16     is Mr. Zepinic.  That is the decision of the Assembly.  Now it appears,

17     as Mr. Hannis is alleging, is that Mr. Zepinic was never, in fact, the

18     minister for Internal Affairs, but Mico Stanisic was instead appointed to

19     that post, which is not the fact.  And it doesn't come out from the

20     document.

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Let's put that to the witness.

22             THE WITNESS:  I agree with Mr. Zecevic that Mico Stanisic was not

23     appointed to the post of minister in the council of ministers for

24     Internal Affairs.  My position in my report and now on the stand is that

25     even though Mico Stanisic was appointed minister without portfolio, the

Page 5597

 1     circumstances surrounding his appointment to minister without portfolio

 2     and is reflected in this discussion in the Assembly and in numerous other

 3     documents that I discuss from that period is that, in fact, he was there

 4     to shadow Mr. Zepinic, who was indeed appointed as the minister for

 5     Internal Affairs in the council of ministers.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And how did that work out in practice?

 7             THE WITNESS:  Based on the documentation that I've been able to

 8     review, in practice it means that Mr. Zepinic at a rapidly declining

 9     pace, or I would say rapidly increasing pace, rather, is removed from the

10     inside discussions regarding decisions that the SDS wishes to see

11     implemented in the police, and that Mr. Momcilo Mandic and Mr. Stanisic

12     are increasingly involved instead of Mr. Zepinic.  This culminates in

13     April with Mr. Zepinic's resignation and Mr. Stanisic's appointment as

14     the first minister of Internal Affairs of the RS.

15             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

16        Q.   Now, I'd like to turn to transcript page 4839, again on the 15th

17     of December.  You were shown a document 1D119, we don't need to call it

18     up.  That was a 18 March document in which Mr. Mandic was voicing certain

19     complaints about Mr. Zepinic.  And you were asked the question:

20             "Serbs evidently were having a major rift amongst themselves;

21     isn't that correct?

22             And you answered:

23             "That is correct."

24             My question is that in March of 1992 were you aware of any rift

25     between Momcilo Mandic and Mico Stanisic?

Page 5598

 1        A.   I'm not aware of a rift between those two individuals at that

 2     time.

 3        Q.   Were you aware of any rift between Mr. Stanisic, Mico,

 4     Momcilo Mandic on the one hand and Radovan Karadzic on the other?  Any

 5     rift between them?

 6        A.   Not at that time in March 1992, no.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  The next matter is just, I think, an error in the

 8     transcript or perhaps just a misspoken word.  At page 4841 of the

 9     transcript you were being asked about the barricades that were set up in

10     Sarajevo in March.  And at line 19 you are talking about Mrs. Plavsic:

11             "I take it that she's probably referring to, among other things,

12     her unhappiness with the news magazine "Slobodna Bosna" which I make

13     reference to there articles on the barracks as published in around

14     12 March."

15             I think you meant to say articles on the barricades, would that

16     be correct?

17        A.   Yes, that is correct.

18        Q.   Thank you.  On March 16th you were being asked about

19     Exhibit P424.

20             MR. HANNIS:  If we could bring that up, please.

21        Q.   You recall this is a document that included a list of candidates

22     for training as Special Forces in the Republic of Croatia MUP.  I think

23     it's dated the 8th of July, 1991.  Had you seen this document before it

24     was presented to you in your cross-examination?

25        A.   I believe that I stated that I had not seen that document

Page 5599

 1     previously to the cross-examination.

 2        Q.   And I don't see in the document itself any indication of who paid

 3     for the training or whether or not these trainees were MUP reservists.

 4     Do you have any knowledge about that?

 5        A.   As I stated previously, my knowledge about the modalities of this

 6     training is very limited, so I do not know whether it was the MUP or the

 7     SDA that was paying for this training.

 8        Q.   Okay.  And it appears that the SDA is merely recommending

 9     candidates.  Do you know who would make the final decision about whether

10     or not these proposed candidates would be received for training in the

11     MUP of Croatia?

12        A.   I'm not aware who was exactly in charge of determining that.

13        Q.   And it appears in the transcript at page 4854 that it was pointed

14     out that in the text it says this was, "in keeping with the joint

15     agreement of authorised representatives of the MUP of the Socialist

16     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the MUP of the Republic of Croatia."

17     There's no indication that this was being done in secret or

18     clandestinely.

19        A.   Again with the caveat that I'm not an expert on this particular

20     issue, I would note that, as I have done previously, that I am aware that

21     during the same time-period there was both this kind of training of

22     Bosnian MUP employees in Croatia going on, as well as training of Bosnian

23     Serb members of MUP in Belgrade going on.  I'm not aware whether that was

24     envisaged as a part of procedure or whether that represented an

25     innovation, but I'm certainly aware given the documents that Defence

Page 5600

 1     presented that such practices were ongoing on several sides.

 2        Q.   Related to that you mentioned that you had an LRT colleague who

 3     dealt with the Croatian MUP.  Just as a matter of curiosity, who was

 4     that?

 5        A.   Well, I had colleagues who both dealt with the Croatian MUP and

 6     the Bosnian MUP.  The colleague who dealt with the Croatia MUP, I believe

 7     there were two of them, Chuck Sudetich and William Tomljanovich.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  I want to now move to transcript page 4909.  You were

 9     being asked generally about the Bosnian Serbs actions in late 1991 and

10     early 1992 in moving toward creating their own state.  And you agreed

11     that Republika Srpska was formed on the 9th of January 1992, and then you

12     were asked:

13             "Wouldn't it be logical to expect that a republic that is

14     established would establish its own organs?"

15             And you said, "yes."

16             And then you were asked:

17             "If the representative of a people decide to create a state and

18     adopt such a decision at the Assembly, then it can be assumed surely that

19     such a state would need to function, too, would it not?"

20             Your answer:

21             "Yes, within the context of their own plans, it indeed does."

22             But related to this issue that we've discussed about whether or

23     not the creation of a separate RS MUP was in accordance with something

24     referred to as the Sarajevo agreement or the Cutileiro plan or agreement

25     or otherwise, I note that you've discussed Exhibit 1D135 which is the

Page 5601

 1     11 February meeting of senior Serb staff in the joint MUP; correct?

 2        A.   That is correct, we discussed that document.

 3        Q.   Okay.  And in Exhibit 1D133, which is dated the 22nd of February,

 4     and 1D134, 18 March, which are statements of principles referred to as

 5     the Cutileiro plan, we see indications that this was a matter that was

 6     still being discussed, although the Serbs had already been making

 7     preparations before that date; right?

 8        A.   As I state in my report, at the latest in September 1991 the

 9     Bosnian Serbs began contemplating the possibility of forming their own

10     Ministry of Internal Affairs.

11        Q.   One thing I want to address with you, relates it to the 31 March

12     dispatch sent by Momcilo Mandic, which is Exhibit P353, and then Mr. --

13     Minister Delimustafic's related telefax which is Exhibit 1D136.

14             MR. HANNIS:  And if we could bring up those side by side in the

15     B/C/S, I want to bring something to your attention and ask you a couple

16     of questions about it.

17        Q.   In the transcript at page 4913 you were asked by, I think it was

18     Mr. Zecevic, about the timing of the sending of these documents.  And on

19     the left side of the screen you'll see the dispatch from Mr. Mandic, and

20     you note at the top the header line that we typically see on a fax seems

21     to indicate that this was being sent to -- well, it's kind of hard to see

22     on Mandic's, but it appears to be to Radio Sarajevo.  Do you see that?

23        A.   Yes, I believe that Radio Sarajevo was the recipient.

24        Q.   And the time of transmission is 1358.  Do you see that in the

25     upper left?

Page 5602

 1        A.   Yes, I see that.

 2        Q.   In the upper right corner, we see 002, and some kind of icon, it

 3     appears to be like a page.  Would it be safe to assume that refers to

 4     this as a second page of some sort of fax transmission?

 5        A.   Well, looking at the two page numbers, 002 and then 003 on the

 6     document on the right-hand side, that would seem to confirm my earlier

 7     conjecture that the two were sent as part of one fax.  At least

 8     potentially.

 9        Q.   Okay.  Yes.  And the one on the right, and in the first page of

10     the telefax from Delimustafic, you see the time of transmission is 1359?

11        A.   Yes, I do.

12             MR. HANNIS:  If we could go to the next page of that exhibit, of

13     1D136.

14        Q.   You see the time of transmission on that next page is 1400, and

15     the page number is 4, 004?

16        A.   Yes, I see that.  And I note also from the ERN stamps that these

17     are in consecutive order, which is to say that they were found as part of

18     one document.

19        Q.   Okay.  And if counsel will take my word for it, the next two

20     pages are page 5 and 6, and they are transmitted at 1401.  That seems to

21     suggest that both these documents were transmitted to the same time to

22     Radio Sarajevo, some sort of public press announcement?

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  I have to object now.  I mean, I was patient enough

24     with -- all these questions were actually leading to speculation on the

25     part of the witness, but I'm objecting at this point.  Thank you.

Page 5603

 1             JUDGE HALL:  I suspect I understand the basis of your objection,

 2     but could you articulate it for the record, Mr. Zecevic.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, it is put to the witness

 4     basically to speculate whether this is one document which was sent in a

 5     consequence one after the other, or a part of one document.  And it's

 6     also -- it's also put to the witness that the document is -- the document

 7     is a press release, which the witness doesn't know, and he can only

 8     speculate on that, that it's a press release.  I mean, in my position

 9     that's calling for speculation, with all due respect.  Thank you.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             MR. HANNIS:  That's fair, Your Honour.  I'll withdraw that

12     question.  But the reason that I'm going into this amount of detail on

13     this is because at transcript page 4913, Mr. Zecevic says:

14             "This means that between Momcilo Mandic's dispatch which is P353

15     and the reaction of the minister of the interior, Mr. Alija Delimustafic,

16     there's only one minute difference."  Somehow trying to suggest that the

17     Delimustafic document might be a later fabrication or something made up,

18     at least that's how I viewed it.  That's why I thought it was necessary

19     to go into this because I think it's a reasonable reading that these were

20     sent out together to Radio Sarajevo because it's a hot news item.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Well, the other thing that occurred to me,

22     Mr. Hannis, is that I'm sure that I'm not the only person who has had

23     experience with the headers on faxes not being accurate.  So how much you

24     can build on this, I don't know -- I don't that initial purpose is served

25     by going down this road.

Page 5604

 1             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, I take your point but the fact that

 2     these appear to be consecutive pages and they are one minute apart, it

 3     may not be the right time, but it's probably the right time vis-à-vis the

 4     relative sending of those individual pages, if you take my.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  To the extent that this is relevant when the Chamber

 6     comes to assess the evidence, it will be taken into consideration.

 7             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, I'll move on.

 8        Q.   Next, Mr. Nielsen, I want to move to your cross-examination on

 9     the 17th of December at transcript page 4929.  You were being asked about

10     document 1D137.

11             MR. HANNIS:  If we could have that up on the screen.

12        Q.   This is a document from Stojan Zupljanin to subordinate SJBs, I

13     believe, related to the dispatch we saw from Mr. Mandic.  And we saw

14     Mandic's dispatch was the dated the 31st of March.  You'll see the

15     dispatch from Mr. Zupljanin is dated 3 April.  And in the addressees in

16     the second line we see it's going to the SRBH MUP, and my English

17     translation says minister and deputy.  Who would that be at that time in

18     the SRBH MUP, if you know?

19        A.   I don't know if legally speaking Mr. Zepinic might still on paper

20     have been the deputy minister as he was before the 1st of April; but if

21     it was not he, I don't know who it would have been on that date.

22        Q.   Well, let me ask you this question, the first line appears to be

23     the Serbian Republic of BH Ministry; correct?

24        A.   That is correct.

25        Q.   And SR, is that also the Serbian republic or is that the

Page 5605

 1     socialist republic of BiH?

 2        A.   Well, given -- there is a confusion during this period with the

 3     acronym SR because it can both mean Serbian republic or

 4     socialist republic, both in English and in B/C/S.  But in this case it's

 5     clearly spelled out in the first line of the recipients, the Serbian

 6     republic of BiH, therefore I infer that in the second line when they

 7     refer to the SRBiH, they are not sending it twice to the same minister,

 8     they are sending it once to the minister of the Serbian republic and once

 9     to the minister of socialist republic and his deputy.

10        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

11             Moving to transcript page 4945, you were being asked about

12     Mico Stanisic's appointment to the SRBiH MUP.  I think on the 14th of

13     February 1992, we were shown Exhibit 1D139 which was a decision by

14     Delimustafic appointing Mico Stanisic as an advisor.

15             When Mico Stanisic who was then a member of the joint MUP was

16     appointed the minister of interior for the newly created Serb MUP, would

17     he have taken an oath to become the minister of the Serb MUP, do you

18     know?

19        A.   I have to admit that I'm not aware whether ministers were

20     required to take an official oath to the government of which -- to the

21     government of which they were members.

22        Q.   Did you ever come across any document indicating that

23     Mr. Mico Stanisic resigned from the BiH MUP or the joint MUP at or

24     shortly after the time he became minister of the newly created Serb MUP?

25        A.   I have not seen a document that indicates that an official

Page 5606

 1     resignation took place.

 2        Q.   [Microphone not activated] Now, on the 17th of December --

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 4             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry.

 5        Q.   On the 17th of December, Mr. Cvijetic was asking you some

 6     questions at page 4992.  He was asking you about I think the law on the

 7     ministries -- or the law on state administration, I'm sorry.  But that's

 8     one that we don't have an English version for.

 9             MR. HANNIS:  So, Your Honours, once we have an English

10     translation I'd like to request an opportunity to perhaps come back to

11     that issue, but I'm somewhat hamstrung not having any English to work

12     with, so I'll move on.

13        Q.   Let's go to the 1982 Law on the All People's Defence.  You were

14     asked some questions about this by Mr. Cvijetic, and he addressed the

15     portion of your report where you say:

16             "In situations of immediate threat of war and other

17     contingencies, the police may also be used to carry out combat task of

18     the armed forces in keeping with law.  During its engagement for combat

19     activities in the armed forces, the police shall be under the command of

20     the authorised officer in charge of the combat activity."

21             And you said that you agreed with that principle as it was

22     written in the Law on All People's Defence.  And at page 5429,

23     Mr. Cvijetic said to you:

24             "Mr. Nielsen, according to military regulations in the system of

25     All People's Defence all subjects in the state are duty-bound to prepare

Page 5607

 1     for All People's Defence, to make plans, to form staffs, and to take all

 2     other necessary steps."

 3             At the time the 1982 Law on All People's Defence was written,

 4     it's correct, isn't it, that the former Republic of Yugoslavia consisted

 5     of Serbs, Croats, Muslims, Romas, a variety of other peoples?

 6        A.   It is correct that the Socialist Federative Republic of

 7     Yugoslavia contained a large number of nations and nationalities as they

 8     were called.

 9        Q.   And is it your understanding that in April, May, June, 1992, the

10     Republika Srpska, as it came to be called, was following the 1982 Law on

11     People's Defence because they had not yet formulated a new law?

12        A.   In all cases where the RS had not yet formulated its own law,

13     they appeared to have been guided by the previously existing Yugoslav

14     legislation.  I am aware, and I do not at the present moment recall the

15     exact date, but I am aware that in the course of 1992 they promulgated

16     their own law on these matters.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Which was different from the old ones, or were

18     they just copies of the old ones?

19             THE WITNESS:  Some of them were to a large extent copies as

20     indeed was the law on Internal Affairs, but certain passages were most

21     certainly changed and updated.  But I'm not an expert on the differences,

22     and I have not compared the two laws on National Defence.

23             MR. HANNIS:

24        Q.   Speaking in general terms in 1992 after April in the

25     Republika Srpska as part of All People's Defence, were Muslims and Croats

Page 5608

 1     being provided arms and invited to make plans and take part in the All

 2     People's Defence?

 3        A.   I'm not aware that open invitation to that effect was issued.

 4     That having been said, I am aware that both the RS MUP, as we've

 5     previously discussed, and the VRS contained very small percentages of

 6     non-Serbs who did serve on behalf of that republic.

 7        Q.   And generally speaking, weren't weapons being removed from

 8     Muslims and Croats in the Republika Srpska by the army and the police?

 9        A.   That is amply reflected in the police documentation that I have

10     been able to examine, and I am aware that it's also amply reflected even

11     more in the military documentation which my colleague Ewan Brown has

12     examined.

13        Q.   At page 5430 and -31, then you were asked about Exhibit 1D46.

14     Which is a document dated the 15th of May, 1992, an order issued by Mico

15     Stanisic.

16             MR. HANNIS:  If we could have that up on the screen, please.

17        Q.   You are familiar with this one.  This is the order basically

18     creating or organising parts of the MUP into war units.

19        A.   Yes, I am familiar with this document.

20             MR. HANNIS:  And if we could go to page 2 in both the English and

21     the B/C/S.

22        Q.   In item 7 the last paragraph says:

23             "While participating in combat operations, the units of the

24     ministry shall be subordinated to the command of the arms forces.

25     However, the ministry units shall be under the direct command of certain

Page 5609

 1     ministry officials."

 2             What is your understanding of that term "direct command of

 3     certain ministry officials"?

 4        A.   My understanding of that, and, indeed, as I understand it, the

 5     understanding of my esteemed colleague Mr. Bajagic whom I met in December

 6     and had read his report in the Borovcanin case, is that what this means

 7     in the operational level is that when a police unit is resubordinated to

 8     military command, it is under military command pursuant to the Law on

 9     National Defence as Mr. Cvijetic very correctly also stated, but that

10     orders to the actual members of that police unit in the area, and so on,

11     of combat activities are issued through the commanding officer of that

12     police unit.  So if the ranking police officer in the case of a combat

13     activity is the commander of a Special Police unit, the chief of the

14     military or the commander of the military activities on the VRS side

15     would not simply go to any -- just any member of the police and say, Do

16     this, or do that.  He would first go to the commanding police officer and

17     say, I order that your unit, for example, support the right flank of our

18     offensive.  This is to ensure that the police were not ordered to do

19     things that their own commander was not aware of in the zone of combat

20     activities.

21             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.  Is this an appropriate time for the

22     break?

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes.  But before we go to the break, I was

24     intrigued by some of the propositions made by counsel Pantelic when he

25     was cross-examining the witness, because in Mr. Pantelic's

Page 5610

 1     cross-examination I gathered as much as the proposition that in the CSB

 2     of Banja Luka there were a number of different units, and I was left with

 3     a very unclear impression of if these units really existed, and how many

 4     officers were in them, and what was their function.  And I really don't

 5     know if indeed this is relevant information to the Chamber, but just in

 6     order to take advantage of the presence of the expert witness, I would

 7     propose to Mr. Pantelic, if you would be so good to offer a diagram of

 8     the structure of the CSB in Banja Luka, and maybe you could use the break

 9     to consult with your client about how the Banja Luka CSB was really

10     structured.  And if that's possible, we can then after the break put it

11     to the witness, and of course, Mr. Hannis will be given an extra chance

12     to comment on that.  But I -- it may not be relevant, but yet it may,

13     actually.  So let's use the existence and presence of the expert witness.

14             JUDGE HALL:  We resume in 20 minutes.

15                           --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.

17                           [The witness takes the stand]

18             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I don't have a diagram for Banja Luka

19     CSB yet.  I know we are working to see if we can provide one to the

20     Court.  I don't know if Mr. Pantelic has anything for you or not.

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  The idea was, I think, that you should finish

22     your re-examination and then at some time, Mr. Pantelic may or may not

23     put a draft diagram on the ELMO, and we'll hear the witness whether he

24     has any comments to it, and you will then be allowed to put further

25     questions in relation to the comments made by the witness, and then

Page 5611

 1     we'll --

 2             MR. HANNIS:  That's fine, Your Honour.  I anticipate finishing

 3     well before the end of the day, and I would indicate to the Court that

 4     our next witness won't be available to start until tomorrow.  So if we

 5     finish early maybe we can look at the Banja Luka diagram and address some

 6     other matters.

 7        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, we were looking at 1D46, the 15 May order from

 8     Minister Mico Stanisic.  I had a question for you.  Item 7 talks about

 9     the use of the ministry units in co-ordinated actions with the armed

10     forces of the Serbian Republic of BH may be ordered by the minister.  We

11     already looked at the last paragraph under number 7 about "while

12     participating in combat operations."  Do you read co-ordinated action in

13     -- I see Mr. Zecevic on his feet.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  I was wondering if we could have this document on

15     the e-court.  Thank you.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  Sorry, I didn't notice they weren't.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  And before we see it in e-court, Your Honours, with

18     your permission, I think that the starting question of my learned friend

19     was, "do you read co-ordinated action in," I think it's slightly leading,

20     so I'm not reading a mind of my learned friend, but I think we have to

21     get an opinion, expert opinion on the issue from Mr. Nielsen.  Maybe I'm

22     wrong, sorry.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, where is this question, Mr. Pantelic?  I am

24     looking at the transcript.  Where will I find the question to which you

25     are taking objection?

Page 5612

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  The ongoing question, actually, of my learned

 2     friend, so let's hear and then we can see.

 3             MR. HANNIS:  I hadn't finished my question, so I think the

 4     objection is a bit premature.

 5        Q.   In item 7, you see the first sentence says, The use of the

 6     ministry units in co-ordinated action.  In the third paragraph in item 7

 7     you see a reference to combat operations.  What is your understanding of

 8     the term co-ordinated action in the first line?  Do you read that to

 9     include something beyond combat operations or exclusively combat

10     operations?

11        A.   Well, the first line of point 7 of this document just uses the

12     rather vague term co-ordinated actions, or co-ordinated action as it's

13     translated in English.  I think it's clear that this document -- the

14     ambit of this document is to discuss joint activities of the VRS and the

15     RS MUP, in particular combat activities.  But it's obviously the case

16     that in operations outside combat activities, for example, the

17     apprehension of paramilitary groups in Zvornik at the end of July 1992,

18     that was a joint military police operation; that was not a combat

19     activity.  So it was not only in combat that the MUP and the VRS would

20     cooperate.

21        Q.   Thank you.  And that first paragraph says that the use of the

22     ministry units may be ordered.  Does that raise an inference that the MUP

23     may decline to order MUP units to participate in any particular

24     co-ordinated actions?

25        A.   I think there's two points to be made here.  One is that it

Page 5613

 1     appears that the minister in point 7 may himself order certain joint

 2     activities to take place that involve both the VRS and the RS MUP, and

 3     again these joint activities do not necessarily need to mean joint combat

 4     activities.

 5             The other point that I think needs making at this stage is that

 6     it is evident, as I have testified previously, that on a number of

 7     occasions, the minister of Internal Affairs demonstrated his annoyance at

 8     the use of police units for combat activities without proper notification

 9     to him as minister.  And this order, a large point of this order, is to

10     ensure that the VRS does not go and use one resubordinated unit for one

11     particular combat activity, and then without consulting back to the

12     ministry, go on to use them for a whole bunch of other activities.

13             There is an agreement ongoing, and it's discussed and reflected

14     in the government minutes in the summer of 1992, that the police is

15     supposed to be used for discreet activities when it's resubordinated to

16     the VRS.  And if the VRS then decides that it still needs the services of

17     the MUP, it's supposed to go back to the minister of Internal Affairs and

18     say look, can you agree that we continue to use the MUP for such

19     activities.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  What do you mean by discreet operations?

21             THE WITNESS:  Well, whether it's tasks or operations, there is --

22     the VRS commander would say, I need to use MUP forces because we need

23     reinforcements on the front, because we need to arrest looters, we need

24     to round up military conscripts, whatever the purpose of that activity

25     may be.  And the minister says, Yes, I agree, you can have this unit, and

Page 5614

 1     these particular units of the police are resubordinated to you.  Now, if

 2     he then find out six weeks later that the military command in that area

 3     is still ordering around the police and using them for all kind of other

 4     things that minister did not originally -- and the relevant police

 5     officials did not originally grant permission for, then that would be

 6     perceived by the MUP as a breaking of that agreement.

 7             I note that this takes place in the context as is evident in all

 8     the RS MUP documentation that the minister of Internal Affairs wants the

 9     police to get back to being police and get them out of combat.  There's a

10     great quote from the ministry in the report where he says, I do not want

11     to see a situation in which the police is conducting -- or, excuse me,

12     the military is conducting traffic while the police are in the trenches.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Just briefly, if you can, Mr. Nielsen, how were

14     these conflicts between the MUP and the army resolved in practice?  Is

15     there any pattern in the way in which these issues were resolved, or was

16     it just the minister of interior barking at the army?

17             THE WITNESS:  As I note in the brief section of my report on the

18     co-operation of RS MUP with the VRS, there were ongoing negotiations, a

19     Planum that was set up under the supervision of the Presidency in which

20     the minister of Internal Affairs and Ratko Mladic and other military

21     commanders were supposed to be meeting and agreeing continuously that

22     whenever there were conflicts they would try to ease them through such

23     negotiations and resolve them on an ad hoc basis.  It's overall the case,

24     as is reflected in the RS MUP annual report and the minister's interview

25     in October 1992 that until the end of 1992 the level to which the police

Page 5615

 1     was of involved in combat activities far exceeded that which the ministry

 2     itself wished to see.  But I do note, and I state in my report, quoting

 3     Mr. Mico Stanisic's interview in October 1992, that is in paragraphs 392

 4     to 395 of my report, that Mico Stanisic said that overall he was

 5     satisfied with the co-operation with the VRS in the course of 1992, and

 6     he played down any notion of conflict of responsibilities between the two

 7     organs.

 8             MR. HANNIS:

 9        Q.   Dr. Nielsen, in paragraph 8 it talks about

10     "... in military operations military regulations and rules shall be

11     enforced."  If you could look at the original and in paragraph 7 you see

12     the reference to co-ordinated action and also to combat operations.  Here

13     in paragraph 8 we see military operations.  Are those three distinct

14     terms that are used in the original?

15        A.   Well, I'm immediately seeing two key terms, one is "sadejstvo" in

16     B/C/S, which is translated merely as co-ordinated action.  The other is

17     "borbena dejstva" which is combat activities.  And the key distinction

18     here, as we have discussed previously, is that if the -- if an employee

19     of the RS MUP commits, for example, crimes during the period in which is

20     he resubordinated to the VRS and participating in joint combat

21     activities, then point 8 states that it is military regulations and rules

22     that shall be enforced.  If on the other hand, he is carrying out duties

23     which are pursuant to his job under the law in internal affairs, then it

24     is the relative -- with the police regulations on disciplinary

25     responsibility that apply.

Page 5616

 1        Q.   Can you clarify for me whether the term combat operations in

 2     paragraph 3 of item number 7 is the same phrase in B/C/S as what is

 3     translated in paragraph 8 or item 8 paragraph 1 "military operations"?

 4        A.   You are correct.  There are two terms being used.  One is

 5     "borbena dejstva" which is combat activities, and one is "vojna dejstva"

 6     which is military activities.  As far as I know and not being a military

 7     expert, these two are, for all intents and purposes, synonyms.

 8        Q.   Thank you for that.

 9             MR. HANNIS:  Let me go next to take a look again at

10     Exhibit P427.14 that you were shown on Monday at transcript page 5443.

11     This is a 28 May 1992 document from Major Andric to the Zvornik TO staff.

12        Q.   You looked at that before.  I want to ask you about item number 6

13     which says:

14             "The moving out of the Muslim population must be organised and

15     co-ordinated with the municipalities through which the moving is carried

16     out.  Only women and children can move out, while men fit for military

17     service are to be placed in camps for exchange."

18             It's not clear from this document whether the men in the Muslim

19     population are captured fighters or old male civilians living at home.

20     Did you see other documents reflecting that non-Serb males,

21     non-combatants were being detained or held for purposes of exchange.

22        A.   Yes, I have seen that, and that is reflected in paragraphs, I

23     believe, 3 -- excuse me, 298 through approximately 302 of my report.  I

24     note that there was a discussion about detained persons of Muslim and

25     Croat ethnicity in which they ultimately, as I state in paragraph 298,

Page 5617

 1     devised, and this is reflected in a letter written by Mr. Zupljanin on

 2     the 20th of July to Mr. Mico Stanisic, to the sorting of detained

 3     individuals into three categories.  The first was comprised of persons

 4     suspected of commission of criminal acts.  The second was comprised of

 5     persons suspected of aiding and abetting those in the first category.

 6     And the third was comprised, and I quote from the document:

 7             "Of adult males concerning whom the service has not to date

 8     gathered any security relevant data on the bases of which these persons

 9     may be treated as hostages."

10             And there is an internal discussion in the ministry where

11     Tomislav Kovac and Stojan Zupljanin and Mico Stanisic are involved as to

12     what to do with these individuals.  Zupljanin proposed the exchange of

13     military-aged males in the afore mentioned third category for Serbs being

14     held under similar circumstances by the Muslim Croat forces.  The concern

15     at this time that is reflected in many documents is that if the Muslim

16     military-aged males were allowed to move out, as this document phrases it

17     that we have in front of us, they would return from their refugee

18     locations and rejoin the struggle against the Serbian Republic of

19     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

20        Q.   In your report you indicate that this was a subject matter of

21     discussion at meetings of the high-level members of the RS MUP, and I

22     think you've pointed to various documents reflecting an awareness of this

23     problem of non-Serb civilians being held without any kind of charges

24     being filed.  Correct?

25        A.   That is correct.  And again, the paragraphs which I previously

Page 5618

 1     mentioned reflect some of the correspondence that relates to that

 2     discussion at the level of the CSB and at the level of the ministry.  And

 3     it was also discussed at government sessions.

 4        Q.   You were shown by Defence counsel some documents reflecting

 5     Minister Mico Stanisic's directions to subordinates to treat detained

 6     individuals in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and humanitarian

 7     law principles.  Do you recall that?

 8        A.   I recall being shown documents by Radovan Karadzic to that

 9     effect, and them having been forwarded by Mr. Stanisic, yes.

10        Q.   Okay.  Did you find in your review of the documents anything

11     showing direct action taken by Minister Stanisic or the MUP with regard

12     to this category of persons such as releasing these people forthwith, or

13     refusing to continue to furnish police personnel to guard people held or

14     detained in such capacity?  Did you see anything like that?

15        A.   As I stated previously, in August 1992 and from -- actually from

16     mid-July 1992 Minister Stanisic was pressuring his subordinates to divest

17     RS MUP of responsibility for detention facilities as quickly as possible.

18     In practice, what this meant is that in the course of August 1992 in

19     particular, the police did indeed for the most part cease to operate and

20     guard detention facilities.  And those persons detained at facilities

21     such as Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje were sent to Manjaca, the

22     military detention facility, where the military was then in charge of

23     their further fates.

24             I do note and it is the case, and I state it in paragraph 311 of

25     my report, that Mr. Stanisic in his capacity as minister issued orders

Page 5619

 1     that all RS MUP personnel dealing with detainees obey the relevant

 2     domestic and international laws.  That was a dispatch he issued in

 3     mid-August.

 4             I would also note, and it is reflected in my report, that the VRS

 5     complained particularly in the case of Prijedor municipality that they

 6     were receiving at Manjaca persons who had been detained at facilities

 7     under the control of the RS MUP for whom no accompanying documentation

 8     was given about the reasons for their detention.  And in several cases,

 9     VRS officers filed reports to their superior officers noting the

10     extremely poor physical state of these detainees, and in a few cases also

11     the fact that they appeared to have been beaten and killed by the RS MUP.

12        Q.   Thank you.  You were shown at page 5449 on Monday a document that

13     has identification number 1D03-0496.

14             MR. HANNIS:  If we could have that up in e-court, please.  And

15     the English is 1D03-0498.

16        Q.   This is a document that apparently has a handwritten date on it

17     of 9 December 1992 from Colonel Tolimir relating to prisoners still in

18     Manjaca POW camp.  You recall looking at that yesterday or Monday?

19        A.   Yes, I do recall that document.

20        Q.   At the bottom of the page in the English, and it's the fourth

21     paragraph in the B/C/S, it makes reference to:

22             "With respect to the Muslims for whom you have operational and

23     technical documentation..."  And later on in the paragraph it says, "and

24     against whom you have not submitted criminal reports do so immediately."

25             Do you have any idea how long some of these prisoners would have

Page 5620

 1     been held as of December 1992?  Or do you have any way of knowing?

 2        A.   I do know from the relevant police documentation that some

 3     individuals were detained for a period that certainly extended over a

 4     period of several months, but I'm not aware of the specific lengths of

 5     detention of specific individuals.

 6        Q.   And were you aware that exchanges were still taking place in

 7     December of 1992?

 8        A.   Yes, I am aware of that fact, and I'm aware of the fact that

 9     there was an RS exchange commission established for that purpose.

10             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.  Your Honours, that document was

11     discussed with the witness yesterday, but it wasn't tendered by the

12     Defence.  I would like to tender it, just to put his testimony about it

13     in context.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P872, Your Honours.

16             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

17             Next if we could look at Exhibit P194.  And if we could look at

18     the last page in both the B/C/S and English versions.

19        Q.   I'll tell you, Dr. Nielsen, this is the 17 August 1992 report of

20     the commission on the inspection of collection centres and other

21     facilities for captives in the Autonomous Region of Krajina.  You are

22     familiar with that document?

23        A.   Yes, I discuss this document starting in paragraph 304 of my

24     report.

25        Q.   If we can look at the very last item number 6, in my English

Page 5621

 1     translation it reads:

 2             "The Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior should

 3     jointly prepare adequate regulations on the treatment of captives held in

 4     collection or investigation centres, or other facilities for

 5     accommodating these people."

 6             Did you find in your review of documents any definition of the

 7     term "collection centre" or "investigation centre"?

 8        A.   It's, as with many terms used in the summer of 1992 in the RS,

 9     Crisis Staffs, War Presidencies, detention facilities, collection

10     centres, there is a sloppiness with the use of terms, often they are

11     undefined.  And when reading the documents as an analyst, it appears that

12     several terms are used to mean the same thing, yet at some times there

13     seem to be subtle differences.  So the terms "collection centre" and

14     "investigation centre" are symptomatic of this.  In the most narrow sense

15     of the word, collection centre would mean a place where people are simply

16     put and collected, whereas an investigation centre would be a place where

17     people who are formally under investigation would be held and where

18     judicial or police officials would come to investigate them.  In

19     practice, these things occur at both types of facilities.

20        Q.   And what about the term "other facilities" for accommodating

21     these people?  Any idea of what that is and how it differs from a

22     collection or an investigation centre?

23        A.    I can only speculate that that might include reference to other

24     buildings locations in which persons so defined were kept.  I mean, there

25     were a lot of improvised buildings and facilities that were operating for

Page 5622

 1     these purposes during the summer of 1992 and as of the writing of this

 2     document.

 3        Q.   Can you tell us whether or not a prisoner of war camp would be

 4     included within these three terms, or is that something separate and

 5     apart, if you know?

 6        A.   Again, there is a sloppiness in the original documentation with

 7     respect to the use of the term "prisoners of war."  I would note that

 8     prisoners of war as defined by the RS officials were most certainly

 9     detained in military facilities.  However, as I note in paragraph 305, on

10     occasion persons detained in police controlled facilities were also

11     termed prisoners of war.  And indeed in some cases, subsequent to further

12     categorisation, it later emerged that some of the people originally

13     identified as prisoners of war were exonerated from that and put in this

14     third category to which I referred previously.

15        Q.   At page 5452 in the transcript when you were asked about this

16     document, you said that you were familiar with it, and in expanding on

17     your answer you said:

18             "I would note that the point in number 4 is completely consistent

19     with my findings, namely that as of August 1992, not least because of the

20     international outrage regarding detention facilities in the RS, the

21     Ministry of Internal Affairs was very actively and very rapidly trying to

22     divest itself of any involvement in the operation of such facilities."

23     And then you started:

24             "In some cases," and Defence counsel interrupted and asked to

25     move on.  Do you recall now what else you were going to say there?  If

Page 5623

 1     so, can you tell us what that was.

 2        A.   I believe that I simply wanted to state that in some cases, the

 3     reports of the police after mid-1992 pretended that the police had never

 4     been in charge of detention facilities.  And I note that Simo Drljaca --

 5     this is the, I should note, the only example I am aware of where this was

 6     the case.  That Simo Drljaca in Prijedor municipality simply erased from

 7     his report the fact that the police had ever been involved in detaining

 8     people in Prijedor municipality.  He was supposed to say what facilities

 9     had existed and which ones were they still operating.  He essentially

10     said we are not operating any such facilities, and left out the fact that

11     they had been doing so until literally the previous week.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MR. HANNIS:  Next I'd like to show you -- I see Mr. Zecevic on

14     his feet.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  I am sorry, just for the clarification in the

16     transcript.  46, line 1, I believe the witness says, and I note this is

17     the only example I am aware of.  And this might -- in the transcript it

18     says, Not note the only example I am aware of.  So it might be understood

19     that it's not the only example I'm aware of.  So I would like that to be

20     clarified with the witness if you would, please, Mr. Hannis.

21             MR. HANNIS:

22        Q.   Is that correct, Dr. Nielsen, is that the only example that you

23     are aware of?

24        A.   Yes, Mr. Zecevic is correct, that is the only example that I am

25     aware of.

Page 5624

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you.

 3             MR. HANNIS:  Next if we could quickly take a look at

 4     Exhibit 1D55.

 5        Q.   You were shown this at transcript page 5455.  It's an order

 6     issued by Mr. Mico Stanisic, and I believe it's dated the 10th of August:

 7     You recall seeing that earlier this week?

 8        A.   Yes, I do.

 9        Q.   Can you read what is handwritten in the upper right.  I can tell

10     you what it's been translated as in the English, if you aren't able to

11     read it.

12        A.   Well, the first part in Cyrillic lower case at the top says,

13     "please disseminate" or "forward to all SJBs."

14        Q.   And below that, starts with "MUP."

15        A.   Can it be enlarged.  Can we zoom in on that second part.

16             Yes, it says, "the MUP of the Serbian Bosnia and Herzegovina

17     promised to do this for Trebinje."  So it's correct what, as far as I can

18     tell, what has been translated in the English.

19        Q.   Okay.  And who was the head of the Trebinje CSB at that time?

20        A.   I believe that was Krsto Savic.

21        Q.   And August 10th, when is that date in relation to when the

22     international community first became generally aware of the situation in

23     Manjaca and elsewhere?

24        A.   I believe that media reports to the effect of that issue began to

25     emerge in either late July or early August.

Page 5625

 1             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.  If we could next take a look at 1D56.

 2        Q.   This is the next document you were shown on Monday at transcript

 3     page 5458.  This one is dated the 17th of August from Minister Mico

 4     Stanisic.  I think you commented on this yesterday, there's a phrase

 5     that's been translated as "wild prisons."  Do you see that term in quotes

 6     in the B/C/S?

 7        A.   Yes, the term in B/C/S, at least if we put it in the nominative

 8     case, is "divlji zatvori," wild prisons.

 9        Q.   Do you know what that means?

10        A.   I take that to be a reference to the unauthorised operation of

11     detention facilities by, for example, paramilitary organisations or

12     others who were not employed by the RS MUP or indeed by the VRS.

13        Q.   Have you seen that particular term used in any other MUP

14     documents, other than this one?

15        A.   I may have seen it one or two other places, but this is -- let me

16     see.  I have a footnote here, but that should be the same document.

17     Well, yes, I have it in footnote 449 of my report, I note that Zupljanin

18     was forwarding an administerial dispatch of 19 August to the chiefs of

19     all subordinate SJBs in which Stanisic ordered that all RS MUP personnel

20     dealing with detainees obey the relevant domestic and international laws

21     and the existence of any wild, i.e., illegal camps or detention centres

22     was to be reported immediately to the minister.  So but that in essence

23     as I read it is a forwarding of Stanisic's order.

24             I think the term might also appear at the 11 July meeting in

25     1992.

Page 5626

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Have a look at that later.

 2             But in connection with this document, Judge Harhoff asked you or

 3     asked Defence counsel a couple of questions.  And at page 5461 of the

 4     transcript in answer to one of Judge Harhoff's questions, Mr. Cvijetic

 5     says at line 13:

 6             "The minister of the interior does not decide on questions like

 7     the engagement of the police in combat activities and in the security

 8     service of camps.  It is the corps commander and the warden of the camp

 9     who take these decisions.  These orders were not even notified to the

10     minister, at least in the aspect that we discussed, that's how I see it."

11             And then on to line 20 he said:

12             "No camp was under the direct control of the Ministry of the

13     Interior under the law."

14             That sounds like sort of a de jure, de facto statement.  Is there

15     a definition of camp that you've seen in any of the documents that you

16     reviewed for writing your report?

17        A.   As I stated there is a sloppiness in the terminology during this

18     period in which terms that sometime appear to be synonyms, sometimes

19     appear to be slightly different.  But I have not been able to find a

20     document from either the military or the RS MUP in my review that would,

21     in a rigorous way, go through and say, All right, there's three or five

22     or seven types of facilities, and this is precisely how they are defined.

23             The only such facility that is so defined is -- are the prisons

24     operated by the Ministry of Justice, which are set out and defined in the

25     relevant legislation that is pertinent to that ministry.

Page 5627

 1        Q.   Did you not also see in the documents the term "camp" used in

 2     connection with the military detention facilities in Batkovic and

 3     Manjaca?

 4        A.   Yes, the term "camp" is so used.

 5        Q.   By whatever name or term we use it, in your review of the

 6     documents and the evidence, did you see evidence that non-Serbs, Muslims

 7     and/or Croat civilians were being held or detained in some sort of

 8     facility that was under the direct control of Ministry of the Interior

 9     personnel?

10        A.   For the basic life of its existence, the Omarska camp was one

11     such facility.  It was established pursuant to a Crisis Staff decision.

12     But throughout the period in which it existed up until it was shut down

13     in August 1992, on a day-to-day basis it was run by the police, operated

14     by the police and guarded by the police.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             MR. HANNIS:  And in connection with that, I'd like to look at

17     1D55 again.

18        Q.   While that's coming up, I'll tell you it's a document dated the

19     10th of August 1992 from Minister Mico Stanisic to the five CSBs.

20     Related to detention and holding measures, item 1 tells the chiefs that

21     they shall be personally responsible for the lives of people who are

22     being held and detained.  Can you tell us, is there a term of art

23     involved here, is there some difference between held and detained, or

24     between detention and holding measures?  Do you know?

25        A.   Can the first paragraph of the B/C/S be enlarged.  It's a bit

Page 5628

 1     difficult to see on the screen here.

 2             In the B/C/S they talk about two forms of measures, one is

 3     measures of "pritvor," detention.  And one is "mjere zadrzavanja" which

 4     is -- refers to simply holding someone.  So certainly the minister

 5     himself and his order seems to be distinguishing between two different

 6     types of holding people or two different methods of holding people, but

 7     it's clear that the subsequent parts of the order and to treat those

 8     people responsibly and to ensure basic hygiene, health requirements,

 9     et cetera, pertains to all such individuals.

10        Q.   Thank you.  And in item 2 says:

11             "The security of collection centres shall be the direct

12     responsibility of the Serbian army and, if they do not have enough men

13     for these duties, it shall therefore be necessary to engage members of

14     the reserve police for these tasks and to place them at the army's

15     disposition."

16             As a practical matter, how is this foreseen to be implemented?

17     Who decides, for example, whether the army has enough men, do you know?

18        A.   I am aware of the fact that the military itself on occasions

19     would notify the police and say, We don't have enough people to guard

20     this facility.  We need to use you or part of your reserve police

21     officers to continue guarding such a facility.  In paragraph 300 of my

22     report, I note that on the 24th of July, the War Presidency of the

23     Municipal Assembly Prijedor itself ordered a reduction in the number of

24     reserve police and requested that the military take over security

25     operations for Keraterm, Trnopolje, and Omarska.  This is an example of

Page 5629

 1     continued Crisis Staff involvement, or War Presidency in this case

 2     involvement.  However, Simo Drljaca reported that the military refused to

 3     accept this obligation, and he was not happy about that.  Both

 4     Mr. Drljaca by that point as well as the minister wanted to get MUP as

 5     quickly as possible out of guarding facilities.  The military was not so

 6     keen to take over all of these obligations.

 7        Q.   And --

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  I am sorry, Mr. Hannis.

 9             MR. HANNIS:  Sorry.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  Just one comment, Your Honours, I just noted that

11     there might be a problem with the translation of this document.  Because

12     I'm not sure due to my limited knowledge of English language that the

13     "shall" in this particular part of paragraph 2 is it used as regarding

14     the future from that moment on, or is just to stress that that is the

15     situation.  I'm not sure about that.  But the Serbian original talks

16     about the present.  The actual translation of this document would be that

17     the camps -- I am sorry:  "That the security of the collection centres

18     are in direct authority of the Serbian army."  That is the actual

19     translation.  I mean, maybe Mr. Hannis can verify that with the witness

20     because the witness speaks Serbian as well, or maybe we can send for

21     reconsideration to CLSS this document.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I suggest we ask the witness, and then if we can

23     have the interpreters to confirm that is this is the correct translation.

24             MR. HANNIS:

25        Q.   I'm certainly happy to begin by asking Dr. Nielsen if he can

Page 5630

 1     assist with the point raised by Mr. Zecevic.

 2        A.   I agree completely with Mr. Zecevic on that point.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Can we have a word from the interpreters.

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  As far as interpreters know, the word "shall"

 6     in legal term implies obligation, not a future tense.

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you very much, madam.

 8             My question was whether the translation proposed by counsel

 9     Zecevic coincides with how you would translate it.

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Yes, it does.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you very much, madam.

12             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.  Thank you all.

13        Q.   At page 5475, you were shown a document 65 ter 1936 which was the

14     only session of a Supreme Command meeting that took place in 1992.  That

15     is on December 22nd.

16             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, this was discussed with the witness,

17     and I simply would like to tender it.  It was not tendered by the

18     Defence, but given than it was quoted from with the witness, I think in

19     fairness, it should be in the record.  And I would move to tender it at

20     this time.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  I believe it was admitted, Your Honour, after

22     His Honour Judge Hall intervened, and I believe it was admitted already

23     on the intervention of the Trial Chamber.  I didn't want to offer it as

24     the witness was not aware of previously of the document, and then

25     Your Honours suggested that it should be -- it should be admitted because

Page 5631

 1     it's in a consequential sense, it goes with the previous document.  And

 2     Mr. Hannis didn't object.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  The Registry confirms that it has been entered as a

 4     Defence exhibit.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, I was just trying to reflect

 6     the memory.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  If I could assist the counsel, the document is

 8     Defence Exhibit 1D173.

 9             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you very much.  I apologise for wasting

10     everyone's time, I missed that.  Got a bit of a cold, and I'm not my best

11     today.

12        Q.   If we could go next to page 5486 of the transcript, you were

13     asked about paragraphs 320 to 329 of your report.  And Defence counsel

14     went through with you four different elements.  You had cited in support

15     of your finding or position that the police of the RS were involved in

16     deportations and forceable transfers.  Do you recall that discussion?

17        A.   Yes, I do.

18        Q.   He only discussed four elements with you, one was insufficient

19     security for all the citizens.  Two, was a significant number of

20     non-Serbs were leaving territories affected by war or combat.  Three, the

21     cleansing or mopping up operations.  Four, the involvement of police

22     officers in the disarming operation.

23             Are there any other elements that you want to mention now or

24     comment on?  They are in your report.  But are those the four primary, or

25     do the others that you cited in your report carry equal weight in your

Page 5632

 1     view?

 2        A.   Well, the only thing that I would wish to amend to what I've

 3     already said is that one certainly gains the impression from the police

 4     documentation that an enormous amount of population movement was ongoing

 5     during this period, and that in a large number of cases, that was not on

 6     a voluntary basis.

 7             I would also note, as I do in paragraph 324, that in some cases,

 8     in this case in the municipality of Kljuc, the War Presidency of the

 9     Municipal Assembly of Kljuc, at the very time in August 1992 when

10     detention facilities are being shut down and there's a discussion about

11     what to do with these people, writes to the police and says, If you send

12     people back to Kljuc we cannot guarantee their safety.  This is, I think,

13     an interesting statement that it's the War Presidency telling police, who

14     is responsible for day-to-day security, that the War Presidency cannot

15     guarantee security of people who might return from detention facilities

16     to Kljuc municipality.  As I note in most cases the people ended up

17     leaving Kljuc with Canada as their final destination.

18        Q.   Thank you.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Nielsen, what do you make out of that?

20             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, what I make out of it is that I've

21     been struck by the number of police documents which state that they

22     either cannot or will not ensure the security of people who are returned

23     from facilities and who they, in their own documentation, state did not

24     do anything that would justify them being in those facilities in the

25     first place.  Specifically, I note a report also -- actually, several

Page 5633

 1     reports from, for example, Mr. Vinko Kondic in Kljuc, who stated that the

 2     Muslim inhabitants, these are his words, had been inculcated with fear

 3     and that pressure had been put on them to leave the municipality.  And he

 4     refers to an ongoing campaign of terror, and even in his own words, these

 5     are not my words, monstrous crimes, massive theft against Muslims who

 6     remained in Kljuc municipality.  Another chief of the police refers to

 7     the hot potato, as he call it, of prosecuting or even trying to arrest

 8     people who had committed crimes against the remaining Serbs -- excuse me,

 9     Muslims or Croats because the civilian population was in a rage against

10     those persons.  That is to say, the Muslims and Croats.  So overall, the

11     portrait is of a situation in which the Muslims and Croats are leaving

12     not only because some of them perhaps voluntarily decide to leave, but

13     they are leaving because it's an intolerable situation in those

14     municipalities.  That is the overall impression that I am left with.

15             MR. HANNIS:

16        Q.   Thank you.  Yesterday at page 5515, you were asked by Defence

17     counsel about some changes that were made in the summer of 1992 to

18     disciplinary rules or procedures.  And asked your opinion about whether

19     that was an adequate step.  In spite of whatever procedures were changed

20     or stream-lined, did you find in your review of the documents instances

21     of police actually being disciplined?  And if so, can you tell us

22     anything about the number and the nature of those things?

23        A.   As I noted previously in my testimony, the RS MUP draft 1992

24     annual report, in fact, offers the specific numbers on the number of

25     police who were either subject to disciplinary procedures or who were

Page 5634

 1     prosecuted pursuant to alleged criminal activities in which they had

 2     engaged.  So those numbers, which I unfortunately cannot quote to you off

 3     the top of my head, are available in the RS MUP draft 1992 report.

 4        Q.   Did you see the documents reflecting members -- police members

 5     from Banja Luka being disciplined in connection with killings and other

 6     crimes in Kotor Varos, in particular, killings at the hospital?  Are you

 7     aware of that incident and the allegations that police from the special

 8     unit in Banja Luka were involved?  And if so, whether or not any

 9     documents reflected any discipline or punishment for any of those

10     individuals?

11        A.   For the period of 1992, I am not aware of any specific

12     disciplinary actions taken with respect to that incident.  The only

13     disciplinary or criminal procedures of which I am aware for 1992 in the

14     case of the CSB Banja Luka Special Police unit pertains to some stolen

15     vehicles and joy riding in those vehicles in Banja Luka.  That is the

16     incident I referred to earlier where some of the members of that unit

17     were in fact put in Banja Luka prison and were freed when members of the

18     unit threatened to attack the prison unless they were released.

19             I would note that Mr. Tutus who has been referred to several

20     times today gave an interview in June 1992 in which he complained about

21     that and said that such behaviour by the police was not conducive to the

22     establishment of the rule of law.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Yesterday at page 5536 you were shown a document

24     2D34.

25             MR. HANNIS:  If we could have that up on the screen.

Page 5635

 1        Q.   It was put to you to contest the statement in your report about

 2     only six non-Serbs in the RS MUP at the end of June 1992.  Do you recall

 3     that?

 4        A.   Yes, and I reiterate my gratitude to counsel for raising my

 5     attention to that point which I had myself spotted while preparing to

 6     testify.

 7        Q.   I have a question for you about the nature of this document.  It

 8     appears to be a printed computer -- well, a printed document.  There's no

 9     handwriting on it except on the first page, it appears to be handwritten

10     "October 1992."

11             MR. HANNIS:  And if we could go to the last page.

12        Q.   I don't see anything on the document other than the typewritten

13     word, I think, which is translated as "chief," but there's no name,

14     there's no signature, there's no stamp, there's no seal.  Is that unusual

15     for an official MUP document?

16        A.   Certainly an official MUP document should contain a signature and

17     a seal.  I'm not disputing the authenticity of this document simply

18     because it does not have a stamp or a seal or a signature.  It may just

19     be a copy of the payroll.  I note that having collected a large number of

20     payrolls from the basement of Banja Luka police stations, many of them

21     are not necessarily finished in the official sense of the word.

22        Q.   Now, I note in footnotes to your report, you make reference to

23     several payroll documents, and those documents appear often times to be

24     payroll documents where the person receiving the pay signs for the pay.

25     And there's a signature from the chief or the head of department

Page 5636

 1     authorizing payment.  Are you familiar with those documents?

 2        A.   Yes, I am familiar with those documents.  They have a somewhat

 3     different format than this document does.  They usually provide spaces

 4     where the person would sign.  This is -- looks to me like a computer

 5     generated document from the accounting department and not as the receipt

 6     document that employees would sign upon receipt of salaries.

 7        Q.   Okay.  This is apparently numbered from 1 through 516 or so, at

 8     least on the page I'm looking at, and the second column is a number of

 9     several digits.  Do you know what that is?  Is that a personal

10     identification number or employee identification number of some sort?

11        A.   Can we please scroll to the top of the first page?  Yeah, it's

12     there, what is called the JMBG personal identification number.

13        Q.   Is there any way to determine what position these individuals

14     held in the Banja Luka CSB?

15        A.   Not from this document alone, no.  Such a determination cannot be

16     made.

17        Q.   And no way of knowing when some of these individuals were hired,

18     whether it was before or after the end of June 1992?

19        A.   No, that is impossible to derive from this document.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Now I'd like to move -- I am sorry.  I think, yeah,

21     just a couple of items left.  At page 5558 of yesterday's transcript, you

22     were shown a document 2D27.  And you were asked about this issue in your

23     report where you had said that there was only from April 1992 until the

24     end of that year, the SNB sector at CSB Banja Luka pressed charges

25     against only one individual for suspected war crimes.

Page 5637

 1             Let me ask you, do you know if there was a -- in the

 2     Criminal Code for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at that time in 1992

 3     whether there was a particular Criminal Code provision for war crimes as

 4     a specific separate kind of offence?  Do you know?

 5        A.   Again, I'm not a legal expert, but I think that there was such a

 6     provision.

 7        Q.   Okay.  And do you know how the term "war crimes" was supposed to

 8     be reported in the MUP of RS when -- I think you've told us that there

 9     were requests for information to be sent in about war crimes.  Was there

10     a definition in those requests for information or elsewhere in the MUP?

11             MR. KRGOVIC:  This line of question just remind me on to

12     yesterday objection to my learned friend, so I think that we held the

13     same approach as yesterday, not [indiscernible], but he cannot explain

14     what are these war crime, how the MUP understand war crimes, so ...

15             MR. HANNIS:  Well, if the expert is being attacked because in his

16     report he says there was only one instance of a war crime being reported,

17     and the Defence is presented a document to him where he says, this is

18     criminal charges against 16 individuals for war crimes, how come that

19     isn't in it your report, I think it's relevant to ask if there was a

20     definition of war crimes that MUP units were told to use when reporting

21     information about whether or not they had any cases involving war crimes.

22             JUDGE HALL:  If I understand Mr. Krgovic's intervention though,

23     it is, and Mr. Krgovic would correct me if my memory isn't what it should

24     be, that the -- when he was embarking on this course yesterday, there was

25     a -- I could only put it as a sort of semantic morass into which we were

Page 5638

 1     being led, and at your intervention that course was abandoned.  So

 2     Mr. Krgovic, as I understand his present objection, is expressing

 3     surprise that you were seeking to go back into that situation.  Is that

 4     your objection, Mr. -- is that where you are, Mr. Krgovic?

 5             MR. KRGOVIC:  Absolutely right, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Hannis, you would bear in mind that the witness

 7     has continually insisted that he isn't a lawyer.

 8             MR. HANNIS:  That's fine, Your Honour.  I'll move on.

 9        Q.   I think the last question I wanted to ask you, Dr. Nielsen,

10     related to a question from Mr. Pantelic this morning.  I think it was at

11     page 2.  You were asked by him if you would agree that Mr. Zupljanin in

12     his capacity of chief of CSB was not in a narrow sense commander, but

13     rather a co-ordinator, et cetera.  You said, "yes, I would agree."

14             My question is, but in the CSB who held the ultimate authority

15     within the CSB to hire, to fire, and/or to discipline employees of the

16     CSB.  Who would that be?

17        A.   In agreeing with Mr. Pantelic's question, I was understanding the

18     question as being who was responsible on a day-to-day basis for

19     operational activities, and indeed in that sense, it is the commander and

20     not Mr. Zupljanin in his capacity as the chief of the CSB.  But

21     obviously, and this is reflected in the relevant RS MUP documentation

22     including the lengthy rule book on the internal organisation of the

23     ministry, the chief of the CSB exists for a reason, and that reason is

24     among other things that he is the highest authority at that level of the

25     police and that all employees from the chiefs of the relevant services

Page 5639

 1     and departments in the CSB down to the clerical personnel are ultimately

 2     responsibility to him.

 3             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Dr. Nielsen, I don't have any further

 4     questions for you.

 5             Your Honours, and I know this is about the time for our normal

 6     break.  I don't know if you want to come back and see if anybody has a

 7     CSB Banja Luka org chart to discuss with the witness.

 8             In terms of the next witness, Ms. Korner would like to come in

 9     and address you concerning him, but it's my understanding the Prosecutor

10     is not prepared to proceed with him this afternoon.  He just arrived last

11     night, there's been some proofing with a number of intercepts, et cetera.

12     So I'll alert to you that, but I'll allow her to discuss that further

13     when we return.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, if I may, there's just one thing I

15     would like to raise the attention of the Trial Chamber and the Registry.

16     I know that today's transcript bears the date 26th which is, like,

17     yesterday, so we have two transcript dates of 26th of January, so I would

18     kindly ask that this be corrected.  Thank you very much.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.  So we take the break now

20     and return in 20 minutes.

21                           --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.

22                           --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.

23             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, with regard to any kind of

24     organisational chart or diagram for Banja Luka SJB, all I've been able to

25     find is one handwritten schematic drawn by a witness, an insider witness

Page 5640

 1     with knowledge of it, but it is not going to be very useful to the

 2     Trial Chamber.  It's in B/C/S, I've handed to the Registry officer, you

 3     can have a look, but I don't think it's what you are looking for.  I

 4     don't know if Mr. Pantelic has anything else that he can offer you since

 5     he is the one who raised the intriguing questions.

 6             I would note that that drawing that you have, I think, is roughly

 7     a reflection at the SJB level of what you will find in one ever the

 8     org charts we provided to the Bench in 65 ter 10138 number 5 which is an

 9     org chart of the Ministry of Internal Affairs between April and December

10     1992.  And it shows the lines of work, the administration for police

11     affairs and tasks, the administration for police affairs and tasks, the

12     administration for detection and crime prevention, et cetera.  I think

13     what that purports to be is a similar showing of the different

14     administrations or departments at the SJB level.  But I think you can see

15     for yourself, there may not be much that we can do with it with

16     Dr. Nielsen at this point, and I'll leave it to Your Honours and

17     Mr. Pantelic.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, can we have the witness back.

19                           [The witness takes the stand]

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Pantelic, can you offer some assistance?  You

21     were the one who raised the issue of the existence of a Special Police

22     unit resulting under the authority of the CSB in Banja Luka, and in

23     addition, another police unit, so since you are the author of all of

24     this, I asked you if you could produce a diagram or an organogram.

25             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour, first of all, for the record,

Page 5641

 1     well, it was not my intention, like my learned friend Mr. Hannis just

 2     stated, to proceed with the line of intriguing questions, of course.  My

 3     aim as a Defence counsel is to challenge certain findings of

 4     Mr. Nielsen's expertise, and to put some elements of Defence case with

 5     that regard.

 6             In response to your question, Your Honour, and after being in

 7     communication with my client, Mr. Zupljanin, the position is the

 8     following:  Both Defence team, Defence case will provide an expert

 9     opinion by our expert that you have met when he was here during the

10     examination-in-chief in December last year, Mr. Bajagic, Dr. Bajagic.

11     And since to some extent all of us here are layperson to certain very

12     specific issues, organisation stuff, I would prefer fully in accordance

13     with the instructions of my client to defer that issue to our expert who

14     will be able to in all details explain the structure in organisations of

15     CSB formations with regard to the regulation in force, with regard to the

16     internal regulation of MUP, and also with regard to particular

17     circumstances.

18             What we -- if you allow me to say, what we agreed with

19     Mr. Nielsen during my cross-examination is that in accordance with law

20     and regulations within CSB Banja Luka, there were actually three form of

21     these units.  Each form was dependent of the actual role or task or

22     circumstances.  For example -- I just give you an example in very general

23     term.

24             For example, in the extraordinary circumstances like earthquake

25     or massive riots or intrusion of terrorist units from the other

Page 5642

 1     territories, then a particular unit for special purposes could be

 2     activated, and then the point that I made during my cross-examination

 3     which is of our interest is to show that in between Mr. Zupljanin as a

 4     chief of CSB and commander of that particular unit, there was another

 5     person who was chief of sector for public security, actually commander of

 6     that line.  In narrow term.

 7             So that was the basis of line of our cross-examination and

 8     discussion this morning, and we both agreed, I believe, Mr. Nielsen, that

 9     these particular units were there as a part of an overall legislation and

10     regulation within MUP.  But, of course, I would defer that issue in

11     details for our expert, Your Honours.  Thank you.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.  My question to you was

13     really just merely triggered by the simple thought that it would have

14     been an easy task for the chief of the CSB who is present in the room to

15     draw up a diagram or an organogram of his own unit at the time.  But be

16     that as it may, we will defer to the expert when he comes.

17                           Questioned by the Court:

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  To Mr. Nielsen, I would like to put one question,

19     and that is the following:  Are you able to within your expertise to give

20     us an impression of the normal functions that the Special Police unit

21     within the CSBs would normally undertake in comparison to the other

22     police units in the CSBs?  If you look at the chart which is on the

23     screen, I think, and if we can ask the Registrar to tip it over so we

24     have it horizontally, I don't know if you can see on the screen but to

25     the far -- almost to the far right there is something called the "Special

Page 5643

 1     Police detachment/brigade," and I suppose that this is what is normally

 2     perceived of as the Special Police unit belonging to a CSB.  Now, what

 3     would be the functions of this Special Police detachment or brigade, if

 4     you know?

 5        A.   Yes, Your Honour.  Actually, what is referred to as far as I can

 6     see from this diagram as the Special Police detachment or the brigade is

 7     a unit that exists at the ministerial level, not at the CSB level.  And

 8     as I discussed in response to Defence counsel's earlier questions, this

 9     was commanded by Milenko Karisik and was directly responsible to the

10     minister.  This unit existed prior to -- under the old SRBiH MUP as well

11     and performed many of the functions that Mr. Pantelic mentioned.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes.  Thank you, let me just interrupt you

13     because I was asking under the assumption that the organigram of the MUP

14     would reflect the organigram of a CSB, or let's be more complete, the CSB

15     in Banja Luka.  So the Banja Luka CSB would also have most of these units

16     that are depicted in the organigram for the MUP.  Can you confirm this?

17        A.   Your Honour is correct in stating that the structure of a CSB

18     mirrors the structure of the ministry as a whole.  I would just point out

19     that the notion that there were Special Police units based and

20     responsible to the CSB level is something that we see only after April

21     1992, that did not exist in SRBiH MUP.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  That is clear to me, but once they were

23     established, what were their functions?

24        A.   Their functions could include many of the activities which

25     Mr. Pantelic referred to dealing with emergency situations, situations of

Page 5644

 1     natural disasters and such in practice, as I state in my report.  During

 2     the summer of 1992, these Special Police units engaged extensively in

 3     combat activities throughout the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and

 4     this is reflected, if one looks at, for example, the weaponry that was

 5     allocated to the CSB Banja Luka by the JNA, I discuss that in my report,

 6     we have artillery pieces, heavy machine-guns, helicopters, this is

 7     obviously much more than a peacetime swat or Special Police unit as we

 8     are familiar with it in many countries.  This is a paramilitary, in the

 9     classic sense of that word, police unit that is equipped and able and

10     indeed did engage in combat activities.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Did they have any special training, and did they

12     wear any visible uniforms that would distinguish them from ordinary

13     policemen?

14        A.   They indeed did have special training.  Mr. Zupljanin himself in

15     announcing the formation of this unit proudly announced that many of them

16     had special training in the martial arts, in mountain climbing, in other

17     extraordinary skills that regular police officers might not have.  As I

18     noted previously, a number of the Special Police officers in the CSB

19     Banja Luka special unit had received what is called diversionary and

20     sabotage training in Pancevo in Serbia in the course of 1991 and early

21     1992.  As regards their uniforms, there I think it would be most

22     appropriate to ask someone who worked with that unit.  I know from the

23     media at the time that there was a mish-mash of various uniforms used

24     throughout this period, so I'm unable at this point to of inform you

25     about exactly what type of uniform they used.

Page 5645

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  I have no further questions.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Hannis, during cross-examination by

 3     Mr. Krgovic, there was some discussion about the role of

 4     Predrag Radulovic was mentioned as the chief of SNB Banja Luka, and you

 5     said at a certain point, you seemed to remember at a certain point he was

 6     chief SJB of Teslic.  And, in fact, you can find that name on the -- in

 7     your chart -- in your chart under SNB and under chief SJB Teslic.  But

 8     isn't it so that it concerns two different persons with the same name?

 9             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, it is the same person.  He was

10     appointed acting chief, and my understanding, the evidence will show, he

11     was appointed acting chief of Teslic SJB for a very short time-period

12     during the time that the group that was referred to as the Mice was taken

13     into custody.  And for a very short time he was appointed as acting chief

14     of the Teslic SJB.  Does that answer your question?

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.

16             MR. HANNIS:  And he was -- in Banja Luka he was a member of the

17     SNB, but he was not chief of the SNB, I don't believe.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Special operative chief of group.

19             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, may I perhaps ... Can I help?

20                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  Thank you.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Ms. Korner.

23             MS. KORNER:  It may be that I can help with this.  Radulovic

24     worked as a the chief of a line within the SNB, but the chief during the

25     relevant period was largely a man called Kesic in Banja Luka.  For a

Page 5646

 1     short period of time, as Mr. Hannis has said, he took over as acting

 2     chief of the SJB Teslic.

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you very much.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Before we release the witness, it is noted that the

 5     Prosecution has provided a list of 391 documents to be admitted through

 6     this witness, some of which have already been used in court and marked

 7     for identification.  All of these documents are referred to in the

 8     footnotes to the witness's report and are on the Rule 65 ter list.

 9     However, of the MFI'd documents on the list, the Court Officer has

10     confirmed that 20 have already been admitted through another witness.

11     One document has been marked pending verification of a translation, and

12     so the final determination as to admissibility should await the outcome

13     of that review.  All of the remaining documents whether marked for

14     identification or not, may now be admitted.

15             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  And does that include his

16     expert report itself which is 10082 and the erratum sheet which is 10083.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Why do I think that that has been admitted already?

18             MR. HANNIS:  I can't remember now, Your Honour, if I moved them

19     in at the time when I began his direct examination or not.

20                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

21             JUDGE HALL:  It has not been admitted previously, but is included

22     in the list now provided.

23             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you very much.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Dr. Nielsen, we thank you for your assistance to the

25     Chamber, and you are now released as a witness.

Page 5647

 1             THE WITNESS:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  And we wish you a safe journey back to your home.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 4                           [The witness withdrew]

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Ms. Korner, next.

 6             MS. KORNER:  Yes, Your Honour, can I raise a matter in connection

 7     with a witness who is due to start tomorrow who is witness 171.  Your

 8     Honours will recall that we've had certain problems in getting him here.

 9     One of the matters that he can deal with is the question of the

10     identification of voices on intercepts.  I have asked both counsel for

11     the two accused whether in the light of Your Honours' ruling that the

12     intercepts subject to the usual rules of admissibility are admitted and

13     that they are application, they should be excluded in their entirety as

14     being rejected, they were prepared to say whether it is said by the

15     Prosecution that either Stanisic or Zupljanin on the intercepts, whether

16     that's admitted or not because that will clearly save a the lot of time.

17     It has no impact whatsoever on any other issues they may wish to raise on

18     the legality of these things.  But otherwise we are going to be

19     subjected - Your Honours are, tomorrow, and all of us - to an exceedingly

20     tedious exercise.

21             Your Honours, I was told by both sets of Defence counsel that

22     nothing will be admitted which I have to say, in my view, is exceedingly

23     unhelpful, unnecessary, and is going to lead to a huge amount of court

24     time being taken up.

25             What at the moment is happening is that the witness is sitting

Page 5648

 1     there literally listening to something like, I think we worked out 57

 2     different recordings of intercept conversations where -- which include

 3     those in which it is said that Stanisic took part in the conversation and

 4     one where Zupljanin took part in the conversation.  That's going to take

 5     him a long time.  The Defence wish to speak to him, and he has agreed, so

 6     that's going to take more time.  And in addition to that he has got to go

 7     through the actual documents which are relevant.  So it may well be,

 8     Your Honours, and I say this, we may not be in a position to start with

 9     this witness tomorrow morning if we have to deal with all these

10     intercepts.

11             What I've asked the investigator to do is to make a note on a

12     spreadsheet of any comments he makes, any voice recognition and then to

13     ask him either to take a statement or sign a spreadsheet as reflecting

14     accurately his comments.  I would then like, rather than taking him

15     through every single intercept where the only question is voice

16     recognition, the content for these purposes not relevant, to tender that

17     as an exhibit, and that will mean that all we have to do with him is go

18     through some of the intercepts where the content is clearly relevant and

19     material.  Many of the intercepts are -- reflect the voice of the witness

20     as well.

21             But that's the situation, Your Honours.  I have to say that in my

22     view it is appropriate for the Defence to say nothing else about the

23     intercepts but whether or not they accept that it's the voice of their

24     client on it.

25             But, Your Honours, that's -- the reason I'm raising it now is the

Page 5649

 1     other matter is this, we put down four hours based, at that stage, on

 2     actually him taking us through the events to which he was a party.  But

 3     the addition of having to take him through every single intercept and

 4     possibly having to play every single intercept and load it and put up the

 5     transcript, Your Honours, there's no way we can complete his

 6     examination-in-chief in four hours.  That's the only matter.  It's going

 7     to take effectively a couple of hours alone if I have to take him through

 8     every intercept.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE HALL:  Have the Defence heard the transcripts at this

11     point?  The intercepts?

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  I am sorry, no, no, Your Honours.  I'm not sure

13     what are you referring to?  We have been disclosed the masses of

14     intercepts during the disclosure in the pre-trial phase.  We just

15     received the list of documents while we were sitting in court to be used

16     with the ST-171 which is to appear tomorrow.  Therefore, we were not able

17     to -- I mean sitting in court right now, I'm not in a position or we are

18     not in a position to listen to the intercepts at the same time and follow

19     the court proceedings.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But have you had a chance to listen to the

21     intercepts previously?  And so to be more concrete, the 57 or 58

22     intercepts that Ms. Korner is now proposing, would you be able to confirm

23     or deny whether the Prosecution is correct in assuming that one of the

24     speakers are your clients?

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honour --

Page 5650

 1             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, Your Honour, some are.  We are also going to

 2     identify other voice, people he knew so that that way we can give

 3     Your Honours the indicia of reliability and get the intercepts admitted.

 4     But a goodly proportion certainly are ones in which Mico Stanisic is said

 5     to speak largely to Karadzic.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, Your Honours, we stated our position

 7     on the intercepts some time ago.  Now, we have been disclosed thousands

 8     -- well, hundreds of intercepts in the pre-trial stage.  Of course we did

 9     not listen to all of them, because most of them are irrelevant, including

10     the intercepts by Mico Stanisic, they are mostly irrelevant.  So I cannot

11     confirm that we have actually heard these intercepts that Ms. Korner is

12     proposing.  And having in mind your decision of the 16th of December, I

13     believe it's very clear.  Your Honours under the number 18, paragraph 18

14     say:

15             "Intercepts like all tendered exhibits will only be admitted if

16     and when the tendering party has provided the evidence necessary for the

17     Trial Chamber to determine that the threshold for admissibility has been

18     met."

19             Your Honours, may I just finish.  The Prosecution position when

20     the Prosecutor moved the Trial Chamber to decide on the intercepts was

21     that the Prosecution indicates, that's paragraph 15, that at the time it

22     tenders the intercepts, it will do so through an appropriate witness who

23     is able to provide evidence which will allow the Trial Chamber to

24     determine whether the threshold for admissibility has been met.

25             So Ms. Korner knows this from the 16th of December.  This is the

Page 5651

 1     decision.  It hasn't been -- the Prosecution was silent, they didn't ask

 2     for certification of decision or anything.  So, therefore, they accepted

 3     this decision, this ruling, like we did.

 4             Now, Ms. Korner -- this was 16th of December.  Now Ms. Korner

 5     tells us that for some reason she omitted to include the tendering of

 6     intercepts in her estimation of the direct examination of the witness.

 7     I'm really sorry, but that's an omission which we cannot help her, I am

 8     afraid, as much as I would like.  Thank you.  So we object to this

 9     entirely.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Sure, we understand your position.  But before we

11     give the floor to Mr. Pantelic, my immediate comment would be that of

12     course the criteria for admissibility have two prongs.  One, is the

13     authenticity, and the other is the relevance.  And while we may have a

14     dispute about the relevance, the way in which I interpret Ms. Korner's

15     request today is that we could save time actually if we could deal with

16     the other prong, namely the authenticity, meaning the authenticity of the

17     voices that are heard on the intercepts.  So if at least that hurdle

18     could be weeded away or weeded out, then we could concentrate on the

19     contents and the relevance of what is being said in the intercepts.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I understand your question.  Our

21     position on the authenticity is widely known of the intercepts, that we

22     don't accept that any of the intercepts offered in this case or

23     authentic.  That's our position.  Except in a situation where the person

24     -- the witness has -- is one of the other speakers on this particular

25     intercept and he confirms the date, the contents, and the person who he

Page 5652

 1     was talking to.  We cannot -- with all due respect, we cannot accept that

 2     the witness comes over here and he says, I hear Mr. Zecevic and

 3     Mr. Pantelic talking on this intercept.  We don't accept -- I mean, we

 4     will object to it because we believe that this is not the proper way to

 5     authenticate the intercept.  Because this witness might make a mistake.

 6     He might have talked to me on the phone some time ago and might have

 7     talked to Mr. Pantelic on the phone some time ago, but it doesn't mean he

 8     can identify my voice when talking to, for example, Mr. Pantelic, or his

 9     voice when he is talking to me.  I don't think that's appropriate.  That

10     is our position.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, may I return to Ms. Korner.  Your difficulty

12     is obvious.  I shouldn't say your difficulty, the difficulty is obvious.

13     And it appears that the position that Mr. Zecevic has just articulated

14     would not come as a surprise to the Prosecution, not that the --

15     Mr. Pantelic and Mr. Zecevic are prone to being obstructive, but having

16     regard to the incidents of proof in a matter such as this, the position

17     that Mr. Zecevic has just indicated was inevitable, if I may say so.

18             But what I would wish your assistance on, I heard you, but I'm

19     not sure I fully understood it, is what -- having regard to what you now

20     have confirmed, have had confirmed adds to the Defence's position on

21     question of authenticity as Judge Harhoff has identified it.  As distinct

22     from relevance, what was the short cut that you had proposed?  Could you

23     return to that for me, please.

24             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, firstly, can I say that the Defence

25     position is not a acceptable position.  Things have moved on a long way

Page 5653

 1     since Defence can simply stand up and say you prove your case; we are

 2     admitting nothing.  That' not the situation anymore either at this

 3     Tribunal nor in most of the domestic courts.  However, having said that,

 4     the suggestion that I made is, as I say, at the moment the witness is

 5     listening to the 59 various intercepted calls, on some of which he is a

 6     speaker himself, on others in which we he say Mico Stanisic is a speaker,

 7     and others on which other people involved in these events are speakers

 8     with whom we say he is familiar with the voice.  He will then -- the

 9     comments or the agreement or whatever he says will be entered by the

10     investigator who is with him at the moment on either a statement or they

11     have been put into an Excel spreadsheet.  He will then sign it.  I'm then

12     asking that instead of having to play each and every one of the

13     intercepts about which the only interest that we have at this stage is

14     whether we can confirm that the person said to be speaking is speaking,

15     we play only or we go through the transcripts in fact, because it's

16     quicker, only of the ones where the content is of interest and about

17     which he can give the relevant evidence.  And that is a shortened form of

18     this procedure.

19             And we will be asking, can I make this clear, and if there's

20     going to be argument, Your Honour, then we maybe better deal with it at

21     some stage.  We are going to be asking of admission of each and every one

22     of those intercepts where he is able to identify the voices.  We say that

23     is a -- and indeed Your Honours already ruled, because in respect of one

24     of the witnesses, admitted were the ones where he identified the voices;

25     not admitted at this stage were the ones where he said he couldn't

Page 5654

 1     identify the voices.  And, Your Honours, in our view, this is a proper

 2     way of dealing with the admission of these intercepts, but it's very,

 3     very tedious and long.  And it's -- we say it's unreasonable and indeed

 4     whether in -- certainly in my domestic jurisdiction, where Defence

 5     counsel to waste time like this, when it is not disputed, when

 6     Mico Stanisic says, This is my voice, they would be penalised and the

 7     costs thrown away.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  [Microphone not activated]... but the situation

 9     is Stanisic says it's not --

10             MS. KORNER:  No, no, that's not right.  He is not prepared to say

11     one way or the other.  He is not saying, It's not my voice.  As I

12     understand it.  He is simply not prepared to say, It's not my voice, or

13     it is my voice, full stop.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I wouldn't comment the last part.  I

15     would just make one comment.  I don't believe, Your Honours, that it's

16     proper to ask for the admission of the document of the intercept based

17     even on the assumption that the witness is such a perfect witness that he

18     can distinctly recognise two voices talking over the phone.  Because,

19     Your Honours, the contents of this intercept, the parties will rely on

20     the contents of it.

21             Now, if I am supposed to, as a witness, to identify the speech

22     between Ms. Featherstone and Mr. O'Sullivan, and I can do that, I cannot

23     verify the contents of that speech because I was not a party to it.

24     Therefore, if this intercept has been tampered with by some unauthorised

25     person, the contents of that intercept can be modified many ways like we

Page 5655

 1     were suggesting before.  I don't see how on which basis can -- just on

 2     the basis of voice recognition a content of an intercept be admitted.

 3     That is really a problem which I'm taking a serious issue with,

 4     Your Honours.  Sorry.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             MR. PANTELIC:  And Your Honour --

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Just give us a moment.

 8             MR. PANTELIC:  Okay.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Ms. Korner, how far is your investigator into the

10     listening of the tapes?  My question is relating to the following

11     possibility:  Is there any chance that your investigator could sit with

12     the Defence investigators and do the exercise together?  Is that still an

13     option, or is he almost finished?

14             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I don't know where he has got to, I am

15     afraid.  I've been in court for the last -- and they are doing it in a

16     room somewhere.  I can find out.  The witness has in fact agreed to meet

17     Defence counsel in any event.  I don't know that they've got Defence

18     investigators here.  I don't know what they think of that proposal.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  It's just that it would seem to us that the

20     process of verifying or identifying the voices on the tapes would

21     meaningfully be a process that should be exercised by both parties, so if

22     the Prosecution's investigator could sit with the Defence investigators,

23     or the Defence counsels themselves, I don't know, and just go through the

24     tapes, that might be perhaps a good way.

25             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, the exercise started this morning at

Page 5656

 1     around half past 9.00, so I would imagine I hope he has gone a goodly way

 2     through them.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Let's hear from Mr. Pantelic.

 4             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honour, for the record, I respectfully

 5     disagree with the approach of Trial Chamber on several occasions.  I

 6     kindly ask this Trial Chamber to give me a floor as a second Defence

 7     after my colleague Mr. Zecevic before any discussion or ruling just for

 8     the record, and then the Trial Chamber we have position of the both

 9     Defence team, because now I want to, for the record, express my

10     submission with regard to the submission of the OTP, Office of the

11     Prosecutor, and we are in the midst of the process of discussion of this

12     particular issue.  I think it's proper, and it would be fair for

13     Zupljanin Defence to be heard after Stanisic Defence for the record, and

14     then we could go at a several stage.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  There's no question about that, Mr. Pantelic.  We

16     have not ruled anything.  We have had an internal consultation, and there

17     was one question that arose which we put to Ms. Korner, and of course we

18     get back to you.

19             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honour, but in your

20     internal discussions, I think the wider picture might be of importance

21     for your discussion if you be able to heard Zupljanin Defence,

22     Your Honour.

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Pantelic, don't worry, we will listen to your

24     interventions as carefully as we have listened to Mr. Zecevic's and

25     Ms. Korner's.

Page 5657

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you, very much, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  In any event we thought we would of been assisting

 3     you to try to get clarification of what Ms. Korner was proposing before

 4     you responded.

 5             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, with your permission, Your Honour, the

 6     Zupljanin Defence position is the following:  Point number 1, this

 7     particular submission of my learned friend Ms. Korner is a perfect

 8     example of gross and blatant of judicial economy rules of proceedings and

 9     spirit of, I would say, co-operation in terms of -- on our road to

10     justice.

11             Point number 2, Your Honour, this is a Prosecution case.  They

12     have very strict and precise guide-lines from this Trial Chamber.  They

13     are -- also they have precise case law, and they have rules of procedure

14     here.  And they are obliged well in advance to contact particular

15     witness, to discuss all materials and then get back to you and to us.  In

16     this particular situation, this witness came here under the subpoena.  So

17     is it a lack of diligence of the work of my learned friend Ms. Korner, or

18     is, I would say, act of God, or it's something else which is behind this

19     particular episode?  I don't know.  And I'm not interested at all.

20             Why the Office of the Prosecutor failed in pre-trial phase up to

21     today on a proper way to contact witness, to discuss all these matters,

22     and to come here with a well-proofed witness?

23             And my final submission is the following:  We are fully support

24     the submission of our learned friend Mr. Zecevic with regard to the

25     intercepts and this issue.  We are not prepared to take any part in this,

Page 5658

 1     I would say, inter-parties contacts with regard to the authenticity or, I

 2     don't know, the weight of this particular proof, et cetera.  We are not

 3     -- we are laypersons.  We don't know who, when, and how performed these

 4     particular process of intercept.

 5             What we -- at least Zupljanin Defence is prepared to do, is to

 6     give the chance to Prosecution to ask his witness whether on a particular

 7     date he was a part of certain conversation and to confirm that.  Nothing

 8     else because we are of the opinion that this particular witness can

 9     testify only on behalf of himself when he was a part of certain

10     conversation.  He is not entitled, for obvious reason, to give any

11     particular evidence with regard to the conversation between two different

12     persons.

13             Prosecution has many experts including experts for intercept, for

14     voice recordings, et cetera.  And finally, Prosecution is absolutely free

15     to bring witness, whoever that witness is, maybe from Muslim state

16     security service in 1992, 1991, 1993, or a member of international forces

17     in Bosnia operating at that time.  I don't know the source of all these

18     intercepts.  And then they establish and to verify the process how these

19     intercepts were made.

20             So with regard to the next witness, only possible solution is

21     that he can be confronted with the particular conversation where he was a

22     part of.  Any other approach is absolutely unacceptable for Defence.

23     Thank you for much for the attention, Your Honours.

24                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 5659

 1             JUDGE HALL:  We appreciate counsel's patience in this regard.

 2     The Chamber has determined that the witness will begin his testimony as

 3     scheduled tomorrow, but the Chamber has reserved a decision on the

 4     application made orally by the Prosecution and may not be in a position

 5     to rule before the witness's testimony resumes tomorrow morning.  And,

 6     therefore, the issues which are clearly not so easily resolved as

 7     evidenced by what has passed between the Chamber and counsel on both

 8     sides, it may very well result in a break in the witness's testimony

 9     until we can definitively dispose of this issue.

10             The Chamber, of course, bears in mind its own ruling that it

11     would have given in -- was it -- the 16th of December on this question,

12     and it appears that this witness is not -- the witness to come is not in

13     exactly the same position as was the witness to whom that ruling was

14     specifically -- whose testimony that ruling specifically addressed.

15             So the Chamber out of prudence would say nothing further at this

16     stage, but appreciates that it has to deal with this matter by tomorrow.

17             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honour, may I say that this in relation

18     to the question of him starting, as Your Honour knows there have been

19     many difficulties in respect of this witness, and Mr. Pantelic knows it

20     as well.  And, therefore, his criticism that this wasn't dealt with

21     earlier is, we would submit, unfounded.

22             However, because Your Honours haven't ruled and because I cannot

23     get any assistance from the Defence on this, the exercise that he is

24     undertaking is a lengthy one.  The information I've had is he has got

25     through 30 in the last nearly four hours, obviously with a break for

Page 5660

 1     coffee, I imagine.  So to get through the rest will take him another few

 2     hours, he then has to look at the documents.  He is going to be

 3     interrupted in the exercise he is undertaking because the Defence want to

 4     talk to him.  And so all of this, Your Honours, with the greatest of

 5     respect, may mean, I'm sorry, that there may have to be a delay tomorrow

 6     morning.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Well, Ms. Korner, perhaps I'm exhibiting that

 8     naivete which judges often do.  Looking at what this was intended to --

 9     what he is intended to testify to, we didn't see a difficulty with him

10     beginning.  I hear what you are saying now, but --

11             MS. KORNER:  I can't talk to him once he has begun his evidence,

12     Your Honours.  None of us can.  That's the difficulty.  So we can't break

13     his evidence to deal with other matters.  Unless Your Honours give

14     permission for us to speak to him or him to go on listening to

15     intercepts.  What he has to deal with in terms of the factual -- his own

16     part in these events would certainly be covered within four hours, and

17     the documents he can speak to, but the intercepts just take longer.  And

18     Your Honours, may I say, when we originally put in our timings for this

19     man, we hadn't got the decision on the intercepts, whereas Your Honours

20     are talking about indicia of liability.  Well, identification of the

21     voices as the persons that we say they are is a major part of that,

22     surely.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, may I just interrupt, if it would be

25     possible to switch from -- I'm not normally in favour of this, but to

Page 5661

 1     switch from the morning to the afternoon?  That might be --

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  We were just considering that.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE HALL:  We will take the adjournment to 2.15 tomorrow

 5     afternoon in this courtroom, and the Chamber will rule as soon as we can

 6     tomorrow on the issues which have been canvassed today.

 7             MS. KORNER:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 8                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.39 p.m.,

 9                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 28th day of

10                           January, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.