Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 7819

 1                           Friday, 19 March 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.27 p.m.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good afternoon,

 7     everyone in and around the courtroom.

 8             This is case number IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus

 9     Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             Good afternoon to everyone.

12             Before I invite Mr. Zecevic to resume his cross-examination,

13     could we have the appearances for today, please.

14             MS. KORNER:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.

15             Joanna Korner, assisted by Crispian Smith, case manager for the

16     Prosecution.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.

18             Slobodan Zecevic, Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and

19     Tatjana Savic appearing for the Stanisic Defence this afternoon.  Thank

20     you.

21             MR. PANTELIC:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  For Zupljanin

22     Defence this afternoon, Igor Pantelic and Dragan Krgovic.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Tutus, I would remind you that you're still on

24     your oath.

25                           WITNESS:  VLADIMIR TUTUS [Resumed]

Page 7820

 1                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.

 4                           Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:  [Continued]

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Tutus, good day.  Yesterday we stopped when

 6     dealing with 1D001361, tab 72.  This document is a report on

 7     implementation, dated the 19th of June, 1992, forwarded by your chief of

 8     the department, Zoran Josic.

 9             I see we don't have it up on the screen yet.  1D001361.

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Counsel is kindly asked to speak into the

11     microphone.

12             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] It has to do with bringing in three

13     individuals, in fact, it's not an implementation: Savic, Miroljub;

14     Krajisnik, Dragan; Miljkovic, Milan, on the 17th of July, 1992.  Can you

15     see this document?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   These three individuals, if you have a look at their names, would

18     appear to be Serbs.  That's the conclusion one could draw?

19        A.   Yes, that's correct.

20        Q.   A criminal report was attached to the document for the crime of

21     robbery, in which Nezirevic, Irfan, from Banja Luka was the injured

22     party, and 1.500 dinars was stolen from that individual.  Can you see

23     that on the first page in the statement of reasons?

24        A.   Yes, I can see that that's correct.

25        Q.   Thank you.  The rest of the document has to do with documents

Page 7821

 1     that were attached to the criminal report?

 2        A.   Yes, that's correct.  That is evidence in support of the criminal

 3     report.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  If there are no objections, I would suggest that

 5     this document be admitted into evidence.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D207, Your Honours.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Sir, just one other question in relation to the document that has

10     been admitted.

11             Mr. Irfan Nezirevic, from Banja Luka, is of Muslim ethnicity;

12     isn't that correct?

13        A.   Judging by the first name and last name, he should be.

14        Q.   Thank you.

15             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, Your Honour, I'm afraid it's my fault.  I was

16     slightly distracted.  I don't know that -- is this a document the witness

17     said he saw?  Because if not, shouldn't it be MFI'd?

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  I posed the question, Ms. Korner, this is the

19     document which was signed by his --

20             MS. KORNER:  Oh, right.  I'm so sorry.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  It comes from the SJB Banja Luka.  Thank you.

22        Q.   [Interpretation] Please have a look at document under tab 100.

23     1D031872 is the number of the document.

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   I won't be tendering this document.  All I would like to do is

Page 7822

 1     ask you the following:  On page 2 of the document, there's a letter from

 2     the Public Prosecutor's Office in Banja Luka, dated the 22nd of July,

 3     1992.  The deputy public prosecutor, Enver Kerenovic, has signed the

 4     document.  Are you familiar -- or, rather, do you know Enver Kerenovic,

 5     the deputy public Prosecutor in the Banja Luka Public Prosecutor's

 6     Office?

 7        A.   I know the name, but I don't know the person personally.

 8        Q.   Isn't it correct to say that this is a person of Muslim

 9     ethnicity?

10        A.   Judging by the first and last name, that should be so.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Tell me, in the Public Prosecutor's Office in

12     Banja Luka and in the Court -- the First Instance Court in Banja Luka,

13     and in the higher-level organs, higher-level courts, Prosecutor's Office,

14     do you know how many individuals were employed in those bodies of Muslim

15     ethnicity in 1992?

16        A.   I don't know.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Are you aware of the fact that one of the

18     investigative judges was of Muslim ethnicity, Mirsad -- well, it slipped

19     my mind now, the name.  Can you remember it, perhaps?

20        A.   No, I can't.

21        Q.   Perhaps Mr. Krgovic will be able to remind you of that person's

22     exact name.

23             Please have a look at document 101 -- under tab 101.  1D011037 is

24     the number of the document, tab 101.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 7823

 1        Q.   This is a letter from the Banja Luka CSB, forwarded to all the

 2     SJBs in the area, signed by the chief of the sector, the head of the

 3     sector, Djuro Bulic.  Can you see that?

 4        A.   Yes, I can.

 5        Q.   This is a letter in which information is provided to all SJBs

 6     about the events -- or the event that took place when unidentified

 7     individuals opened fire on religion facilities, on a monastery and a

 8     church in Bosanski Aleksandrovac, and the bishopric in Banja Luka

 9     informed the CSB of this event.  Do you remember this event?

10        A.   No, I don't remember this event, but I can see, on the basis of

11     the contents of the document, that that is the case.

12        Q.   Do you remember having ever received this letter?

13        A.   No, I don't remember that.

14        Q.   But since it was forwarded to the Public Security Station, so all

15     the SJBs in the area, it must certainly have been forwarded to the

16     Banja Luka SJB as well?

17        A.   There's no reason for that not to be the case.

18        Q.   Item 2 says that the head of the sector says that it's obvious

19     that there are attacks on religious facilities and other -- and at other

20     places in the area, and he issues instructions according to which it's

21     necessary to take measures in order to prevent such occurrences and in

22     order to identify the perpetrators of the acts reported so far.  Can you

23     see that?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   As part of your responsibilities in the Banja Luka SJB, did you

Page 7824

 1     take any steps and measures in order to prevent religious facilities,

 2     religious buildings, from being attacked, and did you take measures to

 3     identify perpetrators of crimes that had been reported at the time?

 4        A.   We certainly acted in accordance with this letter, and at

 5     meetings we conveyed the orders issued.  The police stations in the area

 6     of the Banja Luka Police Station received this.  They would receive this

 7     letter at the same time that I would receive it in the headquarters.

 8     They would receive it, and naturally they would have to abide by the

 9     instructions in the letter.

10             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  If there are no

11     objections, I suggest that this be admitted into evidence.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D208, Your Honours.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Let's now have a look at tab 102.  1D031955 is the number of the

16     document.

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   This is a report on arresting and remanding in custody certain

19     individuals.  The 1st of August, 1992, is the date.  It was sent from the

20     SJB in Banja Luka and signed by your head of the sector, Mr. Zoran Josic.

21     Can you see that?

22        A.   Yes, I can.

23        Q.   And this report was sent to the Public Prosecutor's Office in

24     Banja Luka?

25        A.   Yes.  It's a report --

Page 7825

 1        Q.   Just a minute.  We don't have the document up on the screen in

 2     the e-court system.  1D031955.  That's the document that we commented on

 3     just a minute ago.

 4             I interrupted you when you started answering my question.  I said

 5     that this was a document that was sent to the Public Prosecutor's Office

 6     in Banja Luka.  It's a report on arresting and remanding in custody a

 7     certain individual.  You said, Yes, that's a report, and then I

 8     interrupted you.

 9        A.   Yes, it's a report on arresting and taking into custody a certain

10     individual who was to be placed in detention.  That's what it says in the

11     upper right-hand corner.

12        Q.   Thank you.  On page 2 of this document, we have a criminal report

13     on the basis of which we can see that the Marjan Pranjic, a Croat by

14     ethnicity, was detained, and criminal proceedings were instituted against

15     him because there were reasonable grounds to suspect that on the 31st of

16     July, 1992, he used fire-arms and a hunting rifle, a 60-millimetre

17     calibre, he used this to kill Kosic, Ivica, born in 1966 in Banja Luka;

18     can you see this?

19        A.   Yes, that's correct.

20        Q.   Ivica Kosic seems to be a Croat, if we judge by his name.  That's

21     the injured party?

22        A.   Yes, one could draw the conclusion that he is a Croat by

23     ethnicity.

24             MS. KORNER:  In fact, the bit you're reading is not on the

25     screen.

Page 7826

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry?

 2             MS. KORNER:  The bit you're reading is actually not being shown

 3     on the screen.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, I'm not -- I don't follow you.

 5             MS. KORNER:  Part of the document you were reading is not on the

 6     screen.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.  I said page 2 of the

 8     document.  Yes, it is.

 9             MS. KORNER:  In English, it's not -- it wasn't.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  Oh, I'm sorry.  It should be the previous page in

11     English.  I'm sorry.  Yes, this is the --

12             MS. KORNER:  That's it.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Ms. Korner.

14        Q.   [Interpretation] That is the document, which shows that he was

15     suspected of having killed Mr. Ivica Kozic, born in 1966, from

16     Banja Luka.  And you confirmed that the injured party is probably a

17     Croat; isn't that correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  If there are no

20     objections, as this is a document from the Banja Luka SJB, it's a

21     criminal report, and there's a report and attached documents, so if there

22     are no objections to this request, I suggest that it be admitted into

23     evidence.

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic, I'm a little bit lost here.  Can you

25     remind me what tab number this is in your binder?

Page 7827

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  102, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  102, 102.  That would be number 1D001955?

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  1D031955.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  There's something wrong with your list.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, could you assist me by telling me on a

 6     thumbnail -- although like the previous two documents, there being no

 7     objection, I ordered them admitted and marked, to what end are these

 8     documents being exhibited?  As I said, just briefly.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, the allegation from the Prosecution

10     side is that during the relevant period in the indictment, the MUP of

11     Republika Srpska was conducting sham inquiries and were not prosecuting

12     people or filing criminal reports and criminal complaints to the courts

13     on perpetrators of crimes against non-Serbs.

14             Now, what I'm trying to establish over here is not -- is that

15     the -- and which the witness confirmed, basically, at the very beginning,

16     that the SJB Banja Luka, which he was heading, was, in fact, doing

17     everything in accordance with the law, protecting all citizens despite

18     their nationality, who the victim are, or who the perpetrator are, and

19     that is the purpose why I am going through this exercise, Your Honours.

20     I think it's relevant.

21             JUDGE HALL:  And in support of this, you propose to tender how

22     many documents?

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I have, actually, one more document.

24             JUDGE HALL:  I see.  Admitted and marked.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.

Page 7828

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you.  This would be Exhibit 1D209,

 2     Your Honours.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] As I said to the Trial Chamber, please have a

 5     look at document 107.  1D010044 is the document number.  This is also a

 6     report on arresting and remanding an individual in custody.  It's dated

 7     the 19th of August, 1992, forwarded by the Banja Luka SJB, the head of

 8     the sector -- your head of the sector, Zoran Josic, signed the document,

 9     and it concerns arresting a certain Selvir Zilic, whose mother's name is

10     Fatima, probably, from Banja Luka.  Can you see that?

11        A.   Yes, I can.

12        Q.   Zilic, Selvir, is a Roma by ethnicity, but of Muslim faith; isn't

13     that correct?

14        A.   In the criminal report, it says he's a Roma.

15        Q.   Thank you.  On the second page of this report, there's a

16     description of the crime, and it says that he is responsible for having

17     committed the crime of murder.  When engaged in a verbal conflict, he

18     killed someone by throwing a hand-grenade on Saban Ramadan.  He threw a

19     hand-grenade at Saban Ramadan.  It's the fourth page in the English.  Can

20     you see that?

21        A.   Yes, yes.

22             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Attached to this criminal report

23     are the documents which are part of this criminal report.  And if there

24     are no objections, I tender this into evidence as well.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

Page 7829

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D210.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Mr. Tutus, I have now three documents which I wish to show you.

 4     But prior to that, I have to put a question to you.

 5             It is true that every citizen can file an oral criminal report by

 6     coming to a public security station and telling the officer on duty about

 7     the event, and thereby filing an oral criminal report; isn't that right?

 8        A.   Yes.  According to the law, every citizen who learns of a crime

 9     is duty-bound to report it.

10        Q.   That naturally includes the injured party; right?

11        A.   Certainly.

12        Q.   In that case, I would like to show you document 111, which is

13     1D002029.  Again, this is a document from your SJB.  It's your tab 111.

14             This document was signed by the chief of department, Zoran Josic.

15     It was sent on the 8th of September, 1992, to the Public Prosecutor's

16     Office.  And it says there that this was a report on the oral criminal

17     report filed by Suljo Dujma due to an attempted murder.  And as you will

18     see on the next page, it says that he was stopped by three uniformed

19     persons, who fired on the back of the car in which he was driving.  Do

20     you see that?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Suljo Dujma, according to the first and last name, should be of

23     Muslim ethnicity; right?

24        A.   One could say so.  He could also be a Roma of Muslim faith.

25        Q.   At any rate, he's not a Serb?

Page 7830

 1        A.   Correct.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  If there are no

 3     objections, I would like to tender this into evidence.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D211, Your Honours.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Another example of this type of verbal criminal report can be

 8     found in tab 82; 1D001828, tab 82.  This is a report on an oral criminal

 9     report which was filed.  The document is signed by your head of

10     department, Zoran Josic.  The date is 15th of July, 1992.  And on the

11     second page of this document - could we please turn to the next page - we

12     have a record on an oral criminal report that was filed, and it says

13     there that citizen Ismet Zilkic, born in Zavidovici, and residing in

14     Banja Luka, filed a criminal report against an unidentified person due to

15     a crime of robbery.  Do you see that?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   I'll put a similar question to you.  Ismet Zilkic should be of

18     Muslim ethnicity; right?  At any rate, he's not a Serb; is that correct?

19        A.   Yes, correct.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I

21     tender this document into evidence as well.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D212, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Notwithstanding my slight confusion about a written

25     record of an oral report, continue, Mr. Zecevic.  That was an aside.

Page 7831

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Now, please turn to tab 87, which is the next document; 1D006703,

 3     tab 87.  In order to assist the Trial Chamber to understand the procedure

 4     as it existed, let us look at this.

 5             When an injured party or any other citizen comes in to file an

 6     oral criminal report, that person would go to a person on duty at the

 7     Public Security Station or at the police station; isn't that right?

 8        A.   Yes.  He would just need to come to any police institution and he

 9     would be sent to the right place.

10        Q.   When you say "he would be sent to the right place," you mean that

11     this person would be sent to one of the inspectors, who then compiles a

12     written record on an oral criminal report that was received, and in that

13     criminal record he will write down whatever that person who came to the

14     police station said to him; right?

15        A.   Correct.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

18        Q.   [Interpretation] And following that, that written record, which

19     is taken down by a police officer, is sent to the relevant public

20     prosecutor, in this form that we just saw, for the public prosecutor to

21     act upon it; correct?

22        A.   Yes, correct.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Now, let us return to this document.  Again, this is

24     dated 13th of July, 1992, sent to the Public Prosecutor's Office in

25     Banja Luka by your chief of department, Mr. Zoran Josic.  This is a

Page 7832

 1     written record of a criminal report filed by Ivan Pranjic due to

 2     aggravated theft; correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And on the second page, we have this written record compiled by

 5     an authorised official, and in the left lower corner we see the person

 6     who made this oral report, and that person signed this written record;

 7     isn't that right?

 8        A.   Yes, correct.

 9        Q.   Based on this written record, we can see that Pranjic, Ivan,

10     father's name Anto, born in 1937, a taxi-driver by occupation, filed a

11     criminal report against three persons wearing a camouflage uniform who

12     asked money from him, entered his house -- or forced him to take them

13     into his house, and from there they confiscated from him 12.000 Austrian

14     shillings, 1.500 Swiss francs and $90 US.  Do you see the amounts here?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Ivan Pranjic, father's name Anto, should be of Croat ethnicity;

17     that's how it looks, right?

18        A.   Yes.

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  If there are no

20     objections, I would tender this document into evidence.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D213, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic, I thought you had only one more --

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, Your Honours, one more criminal file.  Those

25     are just to show that there was a possibility to file the oral criminal

Page 7833

 1     reports, because that's -- that was one of the options available to the

 2     citizens in accordance with the law.  And I'm moving on from this.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thanks.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  I appreciate it.  I appreciate your patience.

 5     Thank you very much.

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] Now, please, for the sake of illustration, let

 7     us show to the Trial Chamber three groups of documents out of which we

 8     shall comment upon just one or two documents in each group.

 9             Can we please see 118, which is 1D031857, tab 118.

10             Mr. Tutus, isn't it a fact that CSB Banja Luka provided so-called

11     forensic services by providing their forensic technicians to all other

12     institutions in the territory under their jurisdiction; isn't that right?

13        A.   Yes, they were the only one who had such expertise and forensic

14     equipment.

15        Q.   All right.  Now that we've mentioned forensic expertise and

16     equipment, let us clarify that.  This includes finger-printing expertise,

17     establishing someone's identity based on their finger-prints; correct?

18        A.   Yes, various types of expertise.

19        Q.   Including analysis of fire-arms and explosives; right?

20        A.   Yes, including that.

21        Q.   Analysis of gunpowder particles, which is popularly known as

22     paraffin glove?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And in all police stations in the territory of CSB Banja Luka, in

25     cases where they needed to establish the identity of the perpetrator or

Page 7834

 1     various elements of the crime committed, these police stations would send

 2     their request -- would send a letter to the CSB requesting their help or

 3     their services in conducting this forensic analysis; correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Now, please look at this document.  It's dated 14th of August,

 6     1992.  It requires finger-print analysis, expert analysis.  And in the

 7     body of the text, we see that they require that an analysis of

 8     finger-prints be conducted, finger-prints found after the murders of

 9     Zlata Vandi, Bozidar Jovic and Ante Lipovac at the Romantika Restaurant?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   It was signed by the chief of the department, Milorad Djuric?

12        A.   Yes, Milorad Djuric.  I'm familiar with that name.

13        Q.   He was --

14        A.   He was chief of Crime Prevention Department or Sector.  I'm not

15     sure whether it was "Department" or "Sector," and it was within the CSB.

16        Q.   Do you know that the persons who were killed, the victims, Vandi,

17     Jovic and Lipovac, were of Croat ethnicity; are you aware of that?

18        A.   Judging by their names and last names, they could be of Croat

19     ethnicity, but I'm not familiar with this particular case.  I don't know

20     the details of this case.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please look at page 2, which is a request

22     for expert forensic analysis which was sent to the CSB; correct?

23        A.   Here, where we see the signature of Milorad Djuric, they're

24     actually informing us about the results of this expert forensic analysis.

25        Q.   Yes.  But on the next page, on page 2, we see your request sent

Page 7835

 1     to them for the finger-print forensic analysis that they are informing

 2     you of?

 3        A.   Well, this was -- this is signed by Nedzad Jusufovic.  Is this

 4     what you have in mind?

 5        Q.   Yes.

 6        A.   Nedzad Jusufovic used to work at the centre, and in the heading

 7     it says "Sector for Forensic Analysis" and "KDZ."  This is within the

 8     CSB.  Now, whether they use this particular form, I wouldn't really be

 9     able to tell you.  It's possible that the CSB acted in this case

10     throughout.

11        Q.   Chief of department, Nedzad Jusufovic, the name you just

12     recognised, who worked at the centre, is of Muslim ethnicity; right?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And he used to work at the Banja Luka CSB in 1992?

15        A.   Yes.  He was chief of Forensic Department.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Your Honours, given

17     that I brought these documents to your attention, I don't know whether I

18     should now tender them into evidence.  And I have a group of almost

19     identical documents which all speak of the same subject, a finger-print

20     forensic analysis, so I'm not sure whether the Trial Chamber would accept

21     my suggestion which I stated -- which I gave before starting with

22     cross-examination of this witness.

23             JUDGE HALL:  How many documents are we talking about,

24     Mr. Zecevic?

25             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in relation to

Page 7836

 1     finger-printing analysis, I have five more documents in addition to this

 2     one.

 3             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honour, sorry, but I'm not sure that --

 4     again, how this can go in through this witness, who doesn't know anything

 5     about the documents at all and has never seen them before.  And as I

 6     understand it, as he told us earlier, he knows nothing about crime -- the

 7     Crime Prevention Department or whatever it's called.  I mean, I have

 8     no -- I have no objection to it being MFI'd until a more suitable witness

 9     can deal with them and the whole group, as such, but not admitted as

10     evidence for the moment, on the basis of the rules, as they now stand,

11     about how documents come in.  If there's a complete change, then it's a

12     different matter.

13             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do have some

14     documents here which come directly from the Banja Luka Public Security

15     Station.  It was because of time constraints that I did not wish to go

16     document by document and ask that those documents which came from

17     elsewhere be MFI'd, whereas those documents which came from the SJB to be

18     admitted, though I have to say that I don't mind if the documents, as

19     such, are only MFI'd for the time being and then we may eventually ask

20     for them to be tendered into evidence through a different witness.

21             JUDGE HALL:  I'm sorry.  Ms. Korner, before we rule, is there --

22     although Mr. Zecevic hasn't used this phrase, is there a problem, in

23     terms of your reservation, with the documents -- with the witness being

24     seen as someone who can testify to the system, methods, and practice?

25             MS. KORNER:  Well, yes, Your Honour, because the witness,

Page 7837

 1     himself, doesn't actually deal with any of this, doesn't know about this,

 2     and, indeed, in terms said, when he was giving evidence-in-chief, that he

 3     didn't know how any of this worked.

 4             Your Honours, we're back to the same old problem, and the reason

 5     I'm raising this objection is twofold.  One is, as my understanding,

 6     these are not documents that come from our CSB collection.  There's no

 7     sign of that.  And, Your Honour, I have reservations at the moment,

 8     without a statement, as I've indicated, from whoever provided these

 9     documents from the Defence, that they are authentic documents which come

10     from the CSB.  That's my first reservation.

11             The second reservation is that if Your Honours, as we've

12     discussed, want documents to come in through witnesses who can speak to

13     them, then this witness can't really speak to them.  The criminal

14     reports, we will, in fact, be calling witnesses with whom -- who can deal

15     with those.  These, I don't know about, and that's my reservation.

16             If we change the policy, and subject to relevance and

17     authenticity, it's not necessary to have a witness speak to them, that's

18     fine.  But at the moment, it seems that if we're having this difficulty

19     getting our documents in because we have to go through these hoops, then

20     the same should apply to the Defence.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, in considering your application to have

24     these documents admitted, there are two questions which we don't think

25     we've heard evidence about.  One is the provenance of the documents, and,

Page 7838

 1     building on what Ms. Korner has raised, the authenticity.  But we aren't

 2     sure that the testimony of the witness so far has confirmed a familiarity

 3     with the system or the type of documents or the procedures.  So if we

 4     could have some greater assistance on those two points, Mr. Zecevic.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in relation to the

 6     first question, I think that I spoke about this yesterday, about the

 7     source -- the provenance of documents.  They originate from the Office

 8     for Investigations into War Crimes of Republika Srpska.  I affirm again

 9     that the OTP must be in possession of these documents because they are

10     filed in the archives of the CSB Banja Luka.  However, if the OTP

11     continues to deny this, we will have to ultimately call a witness who

12     will confirm that, indeed, back in 1998 KFOR came into possession of

13     these documents and forwarded them to the Prosecution.  This will only

14     amount to a waste of time.  Still, I think that as far as the Defence is

15     concerned, it will be an exercise to confirm the authenticity of the

16     documents.

17             As for the latter question of Their Honours, I will ask the

18     witness to explain the matter.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21        Q.   Mr. Tutus, I asked you if you were familiar with the fact that

22     the Security Services Centre was the only agency which had a forensic

23     department and the necessary technology for forensic examination across

24     the territory covered by the CSB, and your answer was in the affirmative?

25        A.   Yes, that's right.  The Banja Luka Public Security Station did

Page 7839

 1     not have any forensic staff or technology.

 2        Q.   Throughout your term of office as chief of the Public Security

 3     Station Banja Luka, had you ever used the services of the Forensic

 4     Department of the Banja Luka CSB?

 5        A.   We used their services throughout.

 6        Q.   Can you briefly explain the procedure involved?

 7        A.   Let's say that a murder takes place, or a crime such as a

 8     burglary, and a crime scene team would attend the scene together with the

 9     investigating judge and sometimes with the prosecutor, himself.

10     Technicians would preserve any trace evidence found at the scene.

11     Normally, artifacts would be recovered, such as the ones used for forced

12     break and entry or for murder.  The traces are preserved, photographs are

13     made, the evidence is lifted, and then a request is forwarded to the

14     Forensics Department to engage in any forensic analysis that may be

15     necessary.

16        Q.   On the screen, you can see one such form which is, in fact, a

17     request for forensic analysis.  Is this the sort of request you would be

18     sending to the CSB when you required the assistance of their forensic

19     technicians?

20        A.   This isn't our request.  This is, in fact, the response from the

21     Forensics Department to our request.  So what we are looking at is not a

22     request.

23        Q.   Page 2 -- this is page 2.  So I know this isn't your request.

24     You've explained this.  My question is:  You, as the Public Security

25     Station, did you send similar requests, requests with similar contents,

Page 7840

 1     to the CSB whenever you required forensic analyses?

 2        A.   Yes, that's right, we did.

 3        Q.   Can we now turn to page 5 of the document.  This is the same

 4     document 118, page 5, where we have a criminal report.  The criminal

 5     report bears the date of the 17th of August, 1992 --

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, if you are continuing to lead evidence

 7     from the witness to answer the second question that we posed, we are

 8     satisfied on that aspect, and our ruling is that the documents may be

 9     marked for identification not pending a further witness coming in to

10     prove them, but pending the matter of the authenticity being resolved at

11     some point.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE HALL:  So we're satisfied with the questions and what we

14     have heard from the witness.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand.  And may I inquire, also, does it

16     refer to the whole set of the documents or just this particular document?

17             JUDGE HALL:  This was the whole set -- the whole set, because

18     I think the understanding was that we would use a specimen in each case

19     and operate on the assumption that the specimen accurately represents the

20     bulk.  Or should it turn out not to be so, we're going to have to decide

21     what to do about that.  But we will operate on that basis.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

23             I have six documents altogether that would need to be MFI'd.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Therefore, the documents will be Exhibits 1D214

25     through 1D219, marked for identification, Your Honours.

Page 7841

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

 2             MS. KORNER:  If it assists on the first matter, in order for us

 3     not to have to keep getting up and saying, Where do the documents come

 4     from, and so on and so forth, if the Defence are prepared to provide us

 5     with statements from people saying either this comes from the Banja Luka

 6     CSB or from General Praljak's web site, or wherever it is, then at least

 7     we know where we are, and then we can make our own inquiries.  It's as

 8     simple as that, and that, I think, will save a lot of time in the end.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  The tab -- or the first document is 118, and the

10     other ones?

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  I will read the documents.  The first document is

13     tab 118, document 1D031857.  The next document is tab 92, document

14     1D005936.  The next document is tab 91, 1D006090.  The next document is

15     tab 90, and the number is 1D006095.  And the next document is tab 86,

16     1D005940.  And the last document is tab 81, 1D030457.

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Sir, can we have a look now at document -- this

20     is a document from a different batch which concerns the analysis of

21     firearms, behind tab 71, 1D031845.  Have you found the document?

22        A.   Yes, I have.

23        Q.   The date is the 19th of June, 1992.  This is a report on the

24     findings of a ballistic analysis of fire-arms in connection with the

25     killing of Admir Selimovic from Sanica, which took place on the 27th of

Page 7842

 1     April, 1992, where the chief of department, Milorad Djuric, the same

 2     person we talked about before, is sending this report to the Public

 3     Security Station in Kljuc; is that right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   The subject involved is the ballistic analysis of the fire-arms,

 6     and Admir Selimovic is presumably, judging by his name, a Muslim, is he

 7     not?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Just as you've confirmed before, as the Banja Luka Public

10     Security Station, you, just as is the case with the Kljuc Public Security

11     Station, sent to the CSB Forensics Department any requests for ballistic

12     analysis of fire-arms involved in certain cases; is that right?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And the procedure was identical to the one we referred to on the

15     issue of finger-printing; is that right?

16        A.   Yes.

17             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I hope that there is

18     no need for us to examine this any further.  I have 13 documents from

19     this category, from this batch.  And if we are in agreement, can these

20     documents be equally MFI'd?

21             MS. KORNER:  I really think no.  I mean, Banja Luka, fine.

22     Kljuc, and I don't know how many other different security stations, you

23     have ample opportunity to call real evidence about this and not put them

24     in through this witness.  So these I object to, Your Honour.

25             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Ms. Korner obviously hasn't

Page 7843

 1     understood this.  These are documents from the Banja Luka CSB, from their

 2     Forensics Department that was involved in forensic analysis for the

 3     entire territory of Krajina, the entire area covered by the CSB, and it

 4     concerned all cases.  It was done for all cases and for all SJBs.  So

 5     these are documents from the CSB in Banja Luka, and they have to do with

 6     certain murders throughout the territory of Bosnian Krajina.

 7             MS. KORNER:  I do understand that.  What I'm now saying is that

 8     there are proper witnesses the Defence can -- they could have been put in

 9     to any other witness -- well, actually, we haven't called anyone from

10     Kljuc, it's fair to say, but they must be put in through people who can

11     talk to the circumstances, if it's at all possible.  And where it's

12     possible -- and I haven't checked the rest, but if it's going to other

13     places like Sanski Most and the like, then people -- it should be put to

14     witnesses who have knowledge of this.

15             JUDGE HALL:  But, Ms. Korner, if I -- well, first of all, could

16     you assist me?  Is your objection to the attempt to mark the entire batch

17     according to specimen or is it that this witness -- or is it that this

18     witness cannot speak to the documents?  Because if it is the latter, as I

19     understand the evidence led and the purpose for which they are being --

20     the documents are being put in, is again to illustrate what had gone on,

21     as contrasted with the truth or accuracy of the contents of the

22     complaint.  And, again, having regard to what we know about this

23     witness's competence to speak authoritatively to the systems and methods

24     that existed in the time, hasn't the Defence met the necessary crossing

25     threshold for so admitting the document?

Page 7844

 1             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, if they're being put in purely for

 2     system, but I don't think that's why they are being put in.  They are

 3     being put in as to the truth of the contents, which is, namely, that an

 4     investigation was taking place in respect of each of these individual

 5     reports that are being put in.  That's what I understand Mr. Zecevic to

 6     be saying.  I think he's nodding.  It's not just system.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Perhaps I over-simplified the matter.  Clearly, it

 8     is beyond system, but as I understand it, Mr. Zecevic is still on that

 9     plank in his platform that notwithstanding the thesis of the Prosecution

10     about the discrimination, for want of a better word, in the investigation

11     of complaints, that, in fact, investigations were done by the book, was

12     the expression --

13             MS. KORNER:  Absolutely, that's what he was trying to prove.  I

14     absolutely agree with that.  And as I say, he doesn't have to prove it;

15     he's trying to raise a doubt as to any Prosecution theory.  But that's my

16     objection, Your Honour.  If these are being put in and Your Honours are

17     going to be asked to accept them as evidence of the truth of the

18     contents, that it appears, on the face of it, a full investigation was

19     taking place into various aspects, then it is, with respect, not the

20     witness to whom these documents should go in.  It should be a witness who

21     can speak to these investigations.  That's the basis of my objection.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic, we're back to the same issue that we

25     were in relation to the previous batch of documents that we admitted MFI;

Page 7845

 1     namely, the question that relates to the witness's knowledge of the

 2     forensic investigations done by the CSB in respect of fire-arms.  And we

 3     were looking for the evidence offered by the witness, but I just couldn't

 4     find it in my quick search.  So maybe the easiest thing is simply if you

 5     would --

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  I asked the witness -- I asked the witness,

 7     Your Honour, during -- previously, I asked the witness if the requests,

 8     such as these, for the forensic analysis of the fire-arms have been sent

 9     by his station, and was it done according to the same procedure which

10     applied to the finger-tip forensic investigation, and he confirmed.  And

11     I thought that that was enough.

12             I can give you the reference, Your Honour, if you'll bear with me

13     just -- sorry.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So what you're saying is, basically, that

15     forensic analysis of finger-prints and forensic analysis of bullets from

16     fire-arms is basically the same?

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, the procedure is completely the same,

18     because the CSB Banja Luka had the resources, had the necessary

19     equipment, for conducting these forensic investigations, and they did

20     that for the whole territory of the CSB Banja Luka, for all stations.

21             JUDGE HALL:  For the same reasons that we marked the previous

22     batch for identification, this batch is, according to the specimen,

23     marked for identification.

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Let me -- may I read first

25     the tab numbers and the documents?  Thank you.

Page 7846

 1             So the first document is tab 71, 1D031845.  The next document is

 2     tab 110, 1D005259.  The next document is tab 75, 1D002181.  The next

 3     document is 74 -- tab 74, 1D005924.  The next document is tab 69,

 4     1D004793.  Then the next document is tab 85, 1D001845.  The next document

 5     is tab 78, 1D006652.  The next document is tab 103, 1D005900.  The next

 6     document is tab 98, 1D001903.  The next document is tab 97, 1D031951.

 7     The next document is tab 99, 1D005944.  The next document is tab 95,

 8     1D001874.  And the last document is tab 112, document 1D0027 -- 2073.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Those will be Exhibits 1D220 through 1D232,

10     marked for identification, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, which conveniently brings us to the point

12     at which we take the break.  So we'll resume in 20 minutes.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you.

14                           [The witness stands down]

15                           --- Recess taken at 3.43 p.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 4.07 p.m.

17             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, before the witness comes back in again

18     and Mr. Zecevic continues, can I just bring to your attention one matter

19     which VWS has brought to our attention?

20             Apparently, Mr. Tutus asked them whether, over the weekend, he

21     could have copies of the transcripts of his testimony.  Well, my first

22     reaction was, well, it's an unusual request, but given that he's

23     testified publicly and, in theory, it should be on the internet ASAP,

24     which in reality it isn't, we couldn't stop him if he wanted to do that.

25             However, the point made by Mr. Zecevic just a moment ago is

Page 7847

 1     actually a good one.  The transcript won't help him, because he can't

 2     read English.  And his son is with him, who does speak and read English,

 3     but, of course, he can't discuss the testimony he's giving with anybody.

 4     In theory, I suppose he could be provided with the audiotapes, but it's

 5     really -- as I say, we've been -- we can't speak to him, any more than

 6     the Defence can.  He has asked VWS, and they've asked us, so I'm putting

 7     it before Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  I don't suppose he volunteered to them as to why he

 9     wanted to have access to the transcripts.

10             MS. KORNER:  Not that we've been told.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Ms. Korner and Mr. Zecevic.

13             Having had the benefit of the advice from the Registry, we are

14     advised that the normal procedure of the transcripts being available only

15     after a five-day interval to allow for such corrections as counsel

16     recognise ought to be made before it is published, after which it is then

17     publicly available, there being no reason which was advanced or

18     volunteered to VWS from the witness requesting it as to why he wanted it,

19     we see no reason to deviate from the established practice.

20                           [The witness takes the stand]

21             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Tutus, please have a look at tab 59.

24     Document 1D031733 is the number, tab 59.

25             In your set of documents, let me just point the following out:

Page 7848

 1     If you have a look at tab 59, the last two pages are page 1 and 3.  It's

 2     not in the correct order.

 3        A.   Yes, yes.

 4        Q.   That's the first page, so just take it out and put it where it

 5     should be.

 6             [In English] Ms. Usher, the last two pages of the document under

 7     tab 59 are the pages 1 and 3, and for some reason it has been -- if you

 8     can bring me here, I will do that in a second, please.  Thank you very

 9     much.

10             I'm sorry, Your Honours.  I'm sorry, Your Honours.  The problem

11     arose because it was up-loaded in e-court with the wrong pagination.  But

12     we have resolved the problem in the e-court, but unfortunately failed to

13     resolve it with the binder.  I'm sorry for the interruption.

14             [Interpretation] Mr. Tutus, this document is a report on crimes

15     in the area of the Banja Luka SJB for the period of the 1st of January

16     until the 20th of December, 1992.  Can you see it?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   It's signed on page 7, the last page, it's signed by the head of

19     the department, Zoran Josic.  He's the head of the CID in your SJB of the

20     crime police; isn't that correct?

21        A.   Yes, that's correct.

22        Q.   The date of the document is the 20th of December, 1992.  Can you

23     see that?

24        A.   Yes, that is right.

25        Q.   On the first page, it says the purpose of the report is to show

Page 7849

 1     that there are problems, since very serious crimes are concerned.  This

 2     is on page 1 in the Serbian version.

 3        A.   Yes, I can see that.

 4        Q.   It says since the crimes concerned are extremely serious, and the

 5     number of violent crimes has significantly increased with regard to the

 6     same period "last year," well, at the beginning of your testimony you

 7     said that in 1992, if I remember this correctly, there were 1.000 more

 8     crimes than were recorded in 1991; isn't that correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   In the third paragraph on page 1, it also says that a total of

11     107 various crimes were recorded, 90 of which were clarified or

12     identified.  And in the case of 90 violent crimes, 101 individuals were

13     involved.  Can you see that?

14        A.   I don't see the number 101 individuals.  Where is that?  Yes,

15     I can see that now.  It's the following paragraph.  I can see it.

16        Q.   It's page 2 in the English version.  You can see that it says

17     that of the 101 individuals, 12 were under age and there were 4 who had

18     repeated their criminal offences; isn't that correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And then it says that 54 individuals were given three days'

21     detention for the crimes committed; isn't that correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   On page 2 of the Serbian - it's page 3 in the English version in

24     the e-court system - we have a table, and the title is "Ethnic

25     Composition," the type of violent crimes.  It says "Murder," "Rape,"

Page 7850

 1     "Attempted Murder," and so on and so forth, various types of serious

 2     crime or violent crime; is that correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And in the top row, the last eight columns concern the ethnic

 5     composition or, rather, the identity of the perpetrators and injured

 6     parties; isn't that correct?

 7        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 8        Q.   This table clearly demonstrates that the greatest number of

 9     perpetrators and injured parties were to be found amongst the Serbs;

10     isn't that correct?

11        A.   Yes, that's correct.

12        Q.   If we have a look at the bottom, the last row, if we have a look

13     at the total there, we can see that with regard to all crimes, in 74

14     cases the perpetrators were Serbs; isn't that correct?

15        A.   Can you repeat that?

16        Q.   If you have a look at the table, if you have a look at the last

17     row, where it says "Total" --

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   -- this shows that in 74 cases of violent crimes, the

20     perpetrators were Serbs; in 69 cases, the Serbs were the injured parties?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   As far as the Croats were concerned, there were 8 Croatian

23     perpetrators and 16 injured parties; isn't that correct?

24        A.   Yes, that's correct.

25        Q.   As far as the Muslims are concerned, in 19 cases the perpetrators

Page 7851

 1     were Muslims, and in 20 they were injured parties; isn't that correct?

 2        A.   That's correct.

 3        Q.   On the same page, the last paragraph, there's an analysis that

 4     I think is very important.  I think it's on the following page in the

 5     English version, on page 4, and it says when one considers the ethnicity

 6     of the perpetrators and victims, one can say it is a reflection of the

 7     ethnic composition of the population in the territory of Banja Luka

 8     municipality.  Despite the escalation of the inter-ethnic strife in the

 9     Banja Luka municipality in 1992, it was not, and I emphasise "not," usual

10     for members of different ethnic groups to come into conflict.  The

11     perpetrators and victims are most frequently of the same ethnicity, and

12     because of their number they're mostly Serbs.  Can you see that?

13        A.   Yes, I can.

14        Q.   This conclusion drafted by the head of your crime police,

15     Mr. Zoran Josic, the head of the department, is this a conclusion that

16     you agree with?

17        A.   Yes, I do.

18        Q.   And now just to mention the percentages.  It says out of 101

19     perpetrators, 74 or 73 per cent are of Serbian nationality, 8 of them or

20     8 per cent are Croatian nationality, and 19 persons or 19 per cent are of

21     Muslim ethnicity.  And then it says the situation is similar in the case

22     of the victims of the violent crimes committed.  Out of a total of 122

23     victims:  69 victims, or 58 per cent, were Serbs; 60 victims, or

24     14 per cent, were Croats; and 25 victims, or 20 per cent, were Muslims.

25     It should be noted that the nationality of eight victims found in

Page 7852

 1     Karano [phoen] in 1992 was not established.  Do you see that?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Sir, before this report was sent out from the SJB, you, as chief,

 4     were made aware of these facts; correct?

 5        A.   Yes, naturally.  I was the one who requested that this report be

 6     drafted.

 7        Q.   And you saw this report, and you believe that it realistically

 8     and correctly reflects the situation as it existed in the territory of

 9     your Public Security Station in relation to violent crimes committed in

10     1992; right?

11        A.   I have not a single reason to doubt the accuracy of this data.

12        Q.   On the following page, paragraph 7 from the beginning of the

13     document, and I think it's the next page in the B/C/S, and most likely

14     the following page in the English as well, which should be page 5, it

15     says inter-ethnic murders were rare in 1992, even though in the larger

16     part of the former Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, there is an

17     inter-ethnic war going on.  So far, there have been observed and

18     identified six such cases.  In three of them, Serbs killed a total of

19     eight Muslims.  In two cases, Muslims killed a total of four Serbs.  And

20     in one case, a Croat killed a Serb.  Do you see that paragraph?

21        A.   Yes.

22             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] It's page 6 in the English text - I

23     am just being told.  I apologise for that - the second paragraph which

24     says:  "Cases of murder along inter-ethnic lines ..."

25        Q.   According to your recollection, is this information accurate?

Page 7853

 1        A.   I have no reason to doubt them.

 2        Q.   At the end of that page, there is an overview of unresolved

 3     murders, that is to say, murders or perpetrators were not found; correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And in parenthesis it says that there were 12 such murders and

 6     that two attempts were also unresolved; correct?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And under item 1, we see that the one of the unresolved murders

 9     was that of Zabic, Mirsad.  And then under item 4 on the following page,

10     we see it was the murder of Ismet Havic.  And then under item 6, an

11     eight-year-old child was killed, Suljo Culum.  And then under item 10, it

12     was a married couple, Salihovic, Serif and Fatah.  And then under item

13     11, it was Ibrisagic, Sadeta, and so on.

14             Based on these persons' last names, we can conclude that these

15     are people of Muslim ethnicity; right?

16        A.   Yes, one could say so.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Further on in this analysis, your chief of

18     department, on page 5 of the Serbian text, states which were the most

19     important causes.  I think that's page 7 in the English text.

20        A.   What page in our text, in our version?

21        Q.   It's page 5 in the Serbian, and I think it's page 8 -- or,

22     rather, 9 in the English text.  In English, it's probably page 10.

23             At any rate, this document says in bullet points that the most

24     important cause for such a situation is certainly politics and wartime

25     events in our country, as a result of which more people have access to

Page 7854

 1     fire-arms and explosives devices.  And then the second bullet point lists

 2     objective factors as causes, subjective factors which are the result of

 3     various psychological frustrations because of the war, wartime psychosis,

 4     a feeling of insecurity, which leads to increased alcohol consumption.

 5     And then they go on to say:

 6             "The fact that a large number of people possess fire-arms ..."

 7             And let me paraphrase, that due to increased alcohol consumption,

 8     this leads to conflicts which break out, and it frequently happens that

 9     for reasons of insignificant and banal circumstances, people are killed;

10     correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Your chief of department, in his analysis, says that in almost

13     60 per cent of the cases, the perpetrator and the victims, well, were

14     under the influence of alcohol, and that the murder or bodily injury

15     inflicted had no significant deep motive; for example, personal benefit,

16     hatred, and so on, but that, rather, in most cases it was a matter of

17     fierce conflict which resulted in murder or injury.  Do you see that?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Do you agree -- did you agree at the time with the analysis of

20     causes, as it was written down by your chief, causes for murders and

21     violent crime, in the territory of SJB Banja Luka in 1992?

22        A.   Well, this analysis stems from analysing causes and methods of

23     how the crime was perpetrated, and I have no reasons to question it or to

24     doubt it.

25        Q.   Then the report, at the end of this page, in the last sentence,

Page 7855

 1     I think, they say:

 2             "It is estimated that almost 50 per cent of violent crime is

 3     related to the army, either directly that they are the perpetrators or

 4     indirectly (that they provide weapons, leave it without supervision),"

 5     and so on.

 6        A.   Where is it?

 7        Q.   It's the last sentence in the Serbian text on that page, page 11

 8     in the English text.

 9        A.   Yes, I see that.

10        Q.   Is that in accordance with your recollections, that that's how it

11     was?

12        A.   Yes.  It says here it is estimated, so most likely it was a

13     result of the analysis conducted.

14        Q.   All right.  We will look at that analysis in the following page

15     of the English text on page 6, where they say:

16             "This statement can be supported by the fact that in the course

17     of 1992, members of the army carried out 38 violent crimes, which is

18     35.5 per cent or one-third of total crime."

19             And then they give what kind of crimes were committed by members

20     of the army: murders, attempted murders, involuntary manslaughter, and

21     serious bodily injury; correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   In page 6 of the Serbian text, which is the following page in the

24     English text, I think page 11, they say that SJB Banja Luka observed, in

25     a timely manner, that there was an increase in violent crime, and that in

Page 7856

 1     order to decrease it, and to resolve crimes, and identify perpetrators,

 2     they undertook preventive and repressive measures and actions.  Do you

 3     see where they say that?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And then in item 1, where they elaborate on this, they say that

 6     they were working more intensely in order to discover and confiscate

 7     illegally-obtained weapons and so on?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And then under item 5, they say that when issuing fire-arms

10     permits, SJB Banja Luka will bear in mind this increase in crime and will

11     revoke fire-arms licenses in cases where it is justified based on the

12     law?

13        A.   Correct.

14        Q.   It's on the following page, I think.  We will go back to this

15     issue a bit later, this confiscation of legally-owned weapons for which

16     there is a permit, because my learned friend Ms. Korner put a question to

17     you about it.

18             And to conclude, at the very end, on page 7, your chief of

19     department says it is realistic to expect that this increase will

20     continue, because the experience from war in neighbouring countries

21     confirms that.  Here they mean an increase in violent crime; correct?

22        A.   Yes, correct.

23             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24             If there is no objection, I would like to tender this document

25     into evidence.

Page 7857

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D233, Your Honours.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   In order to document this that is mentioned in your report, dated

 5     20th of December, 1992, I will now show you a report from your SJB from

 6     the 25th of May, 1993, which is tab 116.  The document is 1D002270.

 7        A.   You said "116"?

 8        Q.   Yes.  This document pertains only to a crime of murder, however,

 9     and not to all other violent crime; correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   This document is dated 25th of May, 1993, and it is also signed

12     by your chief of department, Zoran Josic?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   In 1993 -- I apologise.  This document relates to 1992 and the

15     first five months of 1993.  Do you see that?

16        A.   Yes, I do.

17        Q.   And then in this document, they state that a total of 84 crimes

18     were committed during that period of time and that there were a total of

19     105 victims.  Do you see that?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Once again, they conduct an analysis of the ethnic background of

22     victims, and they say that the Serbs represent the majority or

23     46 per cent of all victims?

24        A.   Forty-eight.

25        Q.   No, it's 46 per cent of all victims, which is 48 persons.  Do you

Page 7858

 1     see that?

 2        A.   Yes, you're quite right.

 3        Q.   18 per cent of the victims were Croats, 28 per cent of them were

 4     Muslims, and the others were 8 per cent; right?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And then further on in the text, they list by name all victims

 7     from 1992 and the first five months of 1993.  They give their full names,

 8     years of birth, and they also classified based on their ethnic

 9     background; correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   At the very end, there are nine victims whose ethnic background

12     was not established.  They are in the category of "Others"?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy and veracity of this

15     data?

16        A.   No.

17             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would

18     like to tender this document into evidence as well.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D234, Your Honours.

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Now, would you please turn to tab 114, 1D002134.  This a document

23     with the subject "Information," which you signed on the 30th of

24     September, 1992?

25        A.   Correct.

Page 7859

 1        Q.   This information was sent to the Municipal Assembly or, rather,

 2     to the president of the executive board; correct?

 3        A.   Yes.  By law, we were duty-bound to inform them whenever they

 4     requested.

 5        Q.   And this pertains to confiscation of legal and illegal weapons

 6     from citizens in the period between the 1st of January, 1992, until the

 7     21st of September, 1992; correct?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   On page 2 of this document, we see that it is headed

10     "Information," and in paragraph 2 you say:

11             "In accordance or based on the security situation and the

12     conclusion of the War Presidency, Banja Luka SJB is taking all the

13     necessary measures in order to disarm the residents."

14             And then they go on to say that the basic task is to collect and

15     check by means of implementation of adequate operational and tactical

16     activities, and to implement all intelligence on illegal acquisition and

17     possession of fire-arms in order to improve the security situation in

18     Banja Luka municipality.  Do you see that?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Do you still consider that these activities, aimed at

21     confiscating illegal and legal fire-arms from citizens in 1992, were

22     aimed at improving the security situation?

23        A.   Yes, that's exactly how it was, and that's what it says here.

24        Q.   Was there any other reason for doing that?

25        A.   No.

Page 7860

 1        Q.   On the next page, which is page 3 of the document, which is

 2     probably page 4 in the English version, it is stated in the period

 3     between the 1st of January, 1992, and the 21st of September, 1992, 180

 4     misdemeanor reports were filed against persons who were illegally arming

 5     themselves.  Do you see that?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   In the next paragraph, it is stated that 43 criminal reports were

 8     filed for illegal possession of weapons and explosive devices, under

 9     Article 213 of the Criminal Code of Bosnia-Herzegovina, against 58

10     individuals.  Do you see that?

11        A.   Yes, that's correct.

12        Q.   On page 3 of the Serbian version, and we're good as far as the

13     English version is concerned, it is stated that of 58 individuals,

14     25.9 per cent were Serbs -- or, rather, 15, 16 Croats, and 24 were

15     Muslims, or, rather, 41.4 per cent of Muslims.  These were individuals

16     against whom criminal reports were filed for illegal possession of

17     weapons or explosives; is that right?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Furthermore, in paragraph 4 it is stated:

20             "In accordance with the conclusions of the Banja Luka Municipal

21     War Presidency, and in keeping with the provisions of Article 28 on the

22     Law on Acquisition, Possession, and Carrying of Weapons, the Banja Luka

23     Public Security Station has confiscated 1.012 pieces of fire-arms from

24     the citizens who did not have a weapons permit issued by the authorised

25     body."

Page 7861

 1             Do you see that?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Mr. Tutus, I think that this is a convenient moment, now that we

 4     have broached the subject, for you to explain the following:  In keeping

 5     with the Law on the Acquisition, Possession, and Carrying of Weapons, the

 6     citizens of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina who wanted to

 7     obtain a hunting rifle for hunting purposes, or for purposes of their own

 8     safety, would approach the relevant public security station with a

 9     request to be given a permit for the purchase of a piece of weapon; is

10     that right?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Once in receipt of the request, the public security station, in

13     the territory of which the citizen resides, would vet the citizen, would

14     it not, would engage in checking the citizen; is that right?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   The vetting procedure would include the verification of any

17     criminal files.  Did it involve anything else?

18        A.   Yes, operative and field vetting as well.

19        Q.   Can you tell us what operative vetting and what field vetting

20     stand for?

21        A.   Under "operative vetting," the individual who is being checked

22     may have been the subject of an investigation or a suspect, but the case

23     never reached a court having jurisdiction.  Still, such individuals would

24     be kept in operative records.  The "field vetting" required policemen to

25     go out into the field and check what sort of character the individual

Page 7862

 1     had, whether he was prone to drinking, or brawls, or rows with

 2     neighbours, et cetera, in order to establish whether such a person was,

 3     in fact, a suitable individual to carry weapons.

 4        Q.   The field vetting would be conducted in the following manner,

 5     would it not:  A policeman from the area where the individual seeking to

 6     buy a weapon resides would go to the locality where the individual

 7     resides and talk to the neighbours and persons knowing the individual?

 8        A.   Yes.  In fact, there was a form which had to be filled in by the

 9     policemen and which would be conclusive in terms of establishment whether

10     the individual was suitable for -- suitable to be issued with a weapon.

11        Q.   Therefore, an individual who had not been -- who did not have a

12     criminal record, had not been convicted, had not been on any of the

13     operative records, and the field vetting of whom had shown that he was

14     not prone to violence, such an individual would be given a permit for the

15     purchase of weapons?

16        A.   Yes.  However, if the individual wanted to buy a hunting rifle,

17     he also had to give proof of his membership of a hunting society.

18        Q.   It's a fact, is it not, that once the SJB would issue its

19     clearance, the individual could go and purchase the sort of weapon for

20     which that particular permit was related to?

21        A.   Yes.  He would be given two copies of the permit, and one copy

22     would be kept by the store where the weapon is purchased, and the other

23     copy was to be kept by the citizen together with the invoice showing

24     where the weapon was purchased, which was needed for the weapon to be

25     registered.

Page 7863

 1        Q.   Once the individual gains possession of a piece of weapon, once

 2     he buys it in a store, he has to go back to the SJB, where a weapons

 3     license or weapons certificate would be issued to him, would it not?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And the certificate contained the name of the person, type of

 6     weapon, calibre, and year of manufacture of the weapon to which the

 7     certificate referred; is that right?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Mr. Tutus, based on the competence mentioned herein under

10     Article 28 of the Law on the Acquisition, Possession, and Carrying of

11     Weapons, the SJB had at all times the power under the law to withdraw

12     any -- or revoke any permit it may have issued to an individual in

13     respect of a piece of weapon that the individual is in possession of; is

14     that right?

15        A.   Yes, we had that sort of power.

16        Q.   This sort of power would be exercised by the SJB in a situation

17     where, let's say, an individual has been issued with a permit and has

18     purchased a piece of weaponry, and subsequently his spouse has reported

19     violent behaviour of that individual.  Thereupon, in accordance with the

20     powers you had and in accordance with the procedures that was in place,

21     the SJB would seize the weapon from the individual, would it not?

22        A.   Yes.  We rigorously applied or exercised our power to confiscate

23     weapons.

24        Q.   The same situation applied to the power under Article 28

25     throughout the year 1992.  I mean, in other words, you had that power

Page 7864

 1     throughout 1992, and you did resort to it in order to improve the

 2     security situation in the Banja Luka area.  This was the sole reason, was

 3     it not?

 4        A.   Yes, that's right.

 5        Q.   At the very end of the document, the last three pages in Serbian

 6     contain a list of individuals against whom criminal reports were filed,

 7     stating their ethnicity, year of birth, address, et cetera; is that

 8     right?

 9        A.   Yes.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  If there are no objections, I would like to tender

11     this document into evidence.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D235, Your Honours.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15        Q.   Mr. Tutus, I would like to quickly go through a series of orders

16     and dispatches issued by the Ministry of the Interior and copied or sent

17     to you.  That's behind tab 7, 65 ter 87.

18        A.   Which number was that?

19        Q.   Number 7, tab 7.  This is the document bearing the date of the

20     17th of April, 1992, signed by an individual on behalf of

21     Minister Stanisic, the minister of the interior.  The document was sent

22     to all the security services centres in Republika Srpska and relates to

23     recorded cases of unlawful possession of movable and immovable property

24     committed on the part of certain members of the service.

25             The minister, and this is back on the 17th of April, 1992, orders

Page 7865

 1     that the strictest of measures should be applied against such

 2     individuals.  In brackets, it states "dismissal, criminal prosecution,"

 3     et cetera.  Do you see that?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   In the last paragraph, it is stated, similarly, it has been noted

 6     that a number of individuals prone to crime had been committing theft of

 7     socially-owned and public property in an organised fashion, and that

 8     these should be brought to justice.  Do you see that?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Lastly, the minister assigns chiefs of sectors and chiefs -- or,

11     rather, chiefs of centres and chiefs of public security stations as

12     responsible for the implementation of these measures; is that right?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Do you recall receiving such a document?

15        A.   No, I don't.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Please look behind number 9, which is P553, dated the

17     29th of April.  It's a dispatch from the Security Services Centre.  The

18     date is the 29th of April, 1992.  It's a dispatch by

19     Mr. Stojan Zupljanin, the CSB chief, wherein he forwards, in its

20     entirety, the letter from the minister of the interior, does he not?

21        A.   Yes.  Well, I haven't read through the documents, but I have no

22     reason to doubt it.

23        Q.   Did you receive this dispatch?

24        A.   I believe I did.

25        Q.   The dispatch reads:

Page 7866

 1             "We received from the MUP of the Serbian Republic of

 2     Bosnia-Herzegovina, Sarajevo, a dispatch, the contents of which we bring

 3     here in its entirety."

 4             And this is the number that is stated here that shows that it's

 5     the same letter, is it not?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can the witness be

 8     shown 1D58.  That's number 25 in your binder.

 9        Q.   This is an order by Minister Mico Stanisic, dated the 23rd of

10     July, 1992, wherein it is stated all the members of the MUP who have

11     committed crime should have legal measures taken against them, should be

12     removed from "our ranks," dismissed, and made available to the Army of

13     the Serbian Republic.  Do you see that?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Chief of administration at the headquarters, commanders of police

16     units, and chiefs of security centres are responsible for implementing

17     the order; is that right?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Do you recall receiving such a dispatch?

20        A.   There were several such dispatches.

21        Q.   Thank you.  I'll show another document, and then -- I'll list

22     them for the benefit of the Trial Chamber.  1D166, tab 53, it's a series

23     of dispatches that Minister Stanisic sent in relation to the same issue.

24     53, 1D176, this is an order from the minister of the interior, dated the

25     27th of July.  That's four days after the previous one.  Item 2 says:

Page 7867

 1             "In accordance with my order dated the 23rd of July," that's the

 2     one we had a look at a minute ago, "I hereby order that certain

 3     individuals be removed immediately from the ministry who were held

 4     criminally responsible ..."

 5             And so on and so forth.  So you can see that this reproduces the

 6     dispatch dated the 23rd of July, more or less; is that correct?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Item 4 says that all special units formed in the course of the

 9     war in the territory of CSB should be disbanded and placed under the

10     command of the Army of the Serbian Republic.  Can you see that?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Do you remember that you received this dispatch from the Ministry

13     of the Interior?

14        A.   I don't remember this dispatch, but I remember the order.  I had

15     it in my hands at some point.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  For the benefit of the

17     Trial Chamber, it's tab 54, P592, and this is the very same order.  It

18     has to do with the same problem.  The date is the 29th of July, 1992.

19     And there's another order dated the 24th of July, 1992.  1D59 is the

20     number, and it's tab 52.

21        Q.   When you said that you saw a number of such orders -- that you

22     received a number of such orders, this shows that as early as the 17th of

23     April, and up until the end of July and later, these orders from the

24     Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska are repeated.  Is that your

25     recollection?

Page 7868

 1        A.   Yes, it is.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  I'd like to show you a different type of order now.

 3     Tab 34, 65 ter 222.  In fact, I apologise.  Tab 35, P655.

 4             Have you found it?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   It's an order dated the 19th of August, 1992, in which the chief

 7     of the centre, Stojan Zupljanin, forwards to all SJBs -- I assume you

 8     received it.  Well, it says it's an order from the minister of the

 9     interior of the Serbian Republic, dated the 10th of August, and a

10     dispatch that deals with the same issue, dated the 17th of August.  And

11     then it says -- or, rather, a certain text is reproduced that was

12     provided by the Ministry of the Interior to the CSB.  Can you see that?

13        A.   Yes, I can.

14        Q.   Do you remember having received this document?

15        A.   I can't remember, but there's no reason for me to doubt that.

16        Q.   P665, 65 ter 223.  In the e-court system, it's a different

17     document, not the one we are commenting on.

18             I apologise.  It's 605, P605.  I do apologise, 65 ter 223.

19             Do you see this document?

20        A.   I can see it.  I'm sure I received it.  There's no reason why I

21     shouldn't have received it.

22        Q.   This has to do with an instruction or an order from the minister,

23     according to which preventive detention should be applied in accordance

24     with the rules in force.  Custody and detention measures should be taken

25     only within the scope of the regulations in force.  And it says hygiene

Page 7869

 1     and health conditions on prison premises should satisfy basic standards.

 2     It says:

 3             "You are responsible for the lines of individuals, and no abuse

 4     is permitted."

 5             Can you see that?

 6        A.   I can't really decipher the last sentence.  Yes, I've found it

 7     now.

 8        Q.   Item 1, do you agree that that's what it says?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Under item 2, it says:

11             "The Serbian Army is directly responsible for the security of

12     collection centres."

13             And so on.  And then if they don't have enough manpower to

14     perform this work, it is necessary for wartime assignments to be

15     allotted.  Can you see that?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   This concerns the police reserve force that is re-subordinated to

18     the army for a certain task; isn't that correct?  That's what the

19     minister has in mind?

20        A.   Could you please repeat that last sentence and your question?

21        Q.   I'm saying that when the minister says if they don't have

22     sufficient manpower to perform their work, he has the Serbian Army in

23     mind, provide wartime assignments, and he has the police in mind; isn't

24     that correct?

25        A.   I think so.

Page 7870

 1        Q.   What does it mean, if they're given wartime assignments?  It

 2     means that they're being re-subordinated to the Army of Republika Srpska;

 3     isn't that correct?

 4        A.   Yes, I think that this concerns members of the reserve force.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  For the benefit of the

 6     Trial Chamber, these same orders are under -- the orders that have to do

 7     with the same problems, we have one dated the 20th of August, 1992, and

 8     it's under number P606, tab 36.  And then we have the same order about

 9     the same problem, 1D57 is the number, dated the 24th of August, 1992, and

10     it is under tab 40.

11        Q.   Sir, please, let's have a look at the document under tab 50,

12     1D000509.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, before you move on to the document,

14     perhaps we could take the break at this point.  It's 5.20.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, Your Honour, thank you very much.  I lost

16     track of the time.  I'm sorry.

17                           [The witness stands down]

18                           --- Recess taken at 5.20 p.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 5.53 p.m.

20             JUDGE HALL:  While the witness is being escorted back to the

21     stand, the Chamber, having received a motion from the Office of the

22     Prosecution to amend its 65 ter list, the Chamber would be grateful for

23     expedited responses from the Defence by Monday.  Thank you.  Orally,

24     thanks.

25             MS. KORNER:  And, Your Honour, can I --

Page 7871

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry.

 2             Your Honours, just for the transcript, it was brought to our

 3     attention that there was a mistake on page 42, line 18.  In fact, it

 4     should say -- the whole sentence:

 5             "The Banja Luka Public Security Station has confiscated 1.012

 6     pieces of fire-arms from the citizens who did not have a weapons permit

 7     issued by the authorised body."

 8             This is not correct, because the document says who did have a

 9     weapons permit issued by the authorised body.  But in all fairness to the

10     interpreters, we found that the English translation of the 1D235 actually

11     contains "did not," so we are going to file for the revised translation

12     and then re-admit it into the e-court.  I'm just putting this on the

13     record because of the transcript.  Thank you very much.

14             JUDGE HALL:  So noted, Mr. Zecevic.

15                           [The witness takes the stand]

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  May I continue, Your Honour?

17             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, had you an intervention?

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  Oh, I'm sorry.

19             MS. KORNER:  I'll wait [indiscernible].

20             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Mr. Tutus, have a look at tab 29, document 1D85.  It's tab 29.

23     This is a dispatch from the Banja Luka CSB, dated the 8th of June, 1992:

24     "To all public security stations - to the chief."  That should include

25     you, shouldn't it?

Page 7872

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   It was signed by the head of the centre, Stojan Zupljanin.  You

 3     can see it in the lower left-hand corner, can't you?

 4        A.   Yes, I can.

 5        Q.   And in this dispatch, the chief of the Banja Luka CSB reproduces

 6     the entire text of the dispatch that he received from the Ministry of the

 7     Interior, which was signed by the assistant of the minister for crime

 8     prevention and detection, Dobro Planojecic.  And Mr. Zupljanin says that

 9     all authorised officials of the SJB must be informed of the contents of

10     the dispatch and they must abide by the instructions in the dispatch.

11     Can you see that?

12        A.   Yes, I can.

13        Q.   The original dispatch from the ministry is 1D84.  That's for the

14     benefit of the Trial Chamber.

15             Mr. Tutus, do you remember having received this order?

16        A.   I do.

17        Q.   Do you see that in the order it says that there has been a

18     significant increase in crimes, especially in war crimes?  Do you

19     remember that part of the order?  It's the first sentence in the

20     document.

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Somewhere in the middle, the order says particular attention

23     should be paid to the detection of the perpetrators of war crimes, to the

24     documenting of crimes committed by groups and individuals, and to their

25     capture and apprehension, or, rather, surrender to the appropriate

Page 7873

 1     authorities.  Can you see that?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   So the assistant minister, Dobro Planojevic, the assistant

 4     minister for crime prevention and detection, sent this on the 8th of

 5     June, 1992.  Did you know Mr. Dobro Planojevic?

 6        A.   Yes, I did.

 7        Q.   Did the Banja Luka SJB abide by the instructions of this dispatch

 8     in accordance with the order from the centre's chief?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Sir, there's another document that deals with the same subject.

11     It's under tab 129.  1D63 is the document number.  This is a dispatch,

12     instructions, dated the 19th of July, 1992, forwarded to all SJBs, CSBs,

13     in fact, and Mico Stanisic signed the document.  Paragraph 2 says:

14             "A questionnaire will be completed at security services centres

15     for all persons, regardless of their ethnicity (Muslims, Croats, Serbs,

16     and others) against whom criminal reports have been submitted ...",

17     because there is reasonable grounds to suspect that they have committed

18     certain crimes, war crimes, what one has in mind."  Do you remember this?

19        A.   I don't remember this.  It wasn't addressed to SJBs, public

20     security stations.

21        Q.   But I'm certain that the CSB informed you of the instructions and

22     of the questionnaire that related to war crimes.

23        A.   I think that was done.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Just a few more documents that I would like to deal

25     with.  Mr. Tutus, I know that this must be tiring for you, but

Page 7874

 1     unfortunately it's necessary.

 2             Document 119.  1D52 is the document number.  This is a mandatory

 3     instruction on the procedure of the Ministry of the Interior in

 4     performance of searchs and pursuits from October 1992.  It says

 5     "Bijeljina," which is where the ministry had its seat at the time.  It

 6     was in Bijeljina; do you remember that?

 7        A.   Yes, I know that the ministry had its seat in Bijeljina.

 8        Q.   Are you familiar with this mandatory instruction?  It has the

 9     signature of Minister Mico Stanisic?

10        A.   Yes, I recognise the signature.  So I suppose we received it, but

11     I cannot remember it specifically now.

12        Q.   I have just one question concerning this mandatory instruction.

13     It has already been admitted into evidence in this case.

14             On page 2, under item 1, it says that:

15             "Search and pursuit activities within the meaning of these

16     instructions shall constitute a system of operational, tactical, and

17     technical measures taken by internal affairs organs in order to discover

18     certain persons or items connected to a crime, and dead bodies ."

19             Do you agree with this definition of search and pursued

20     activities?

21        A.   I do, I agree.

22        Q.   It is a fact, isn't it, that these mandatory instructions were

23     sent to all SJBs and to all subjects within the Ministry of the Interior

24     precisely in order to uncover the perpetrators of crimes; isn't that

25     right?

Page 7875

 1        A.   Well, these instructions specify what steps need to be taken

 2     within search and pursuit activities, and there was no reason for us not

 3     to receive these instructions.

 4        Q.   All right, thank you.  I will show you another instructions,

 5     which is tab 136, 1D51.  I'm showing you this because with my learned

 6     friend, you commented upon the issue of reporting.  So we now need

 7     tab 136, 1D51.

 8        A.   I only have 35 -- 135.

 9        Q.   It should be the last document in the binder with yellow --

10        A.   Yes, yes, I have it.

11        Q.   It was added subsequently.  You remember that you and Ms. Korner

12     made some comments about reporting, and you said, in answer to one of the

13     questions she put to you - I can't give you the exact reference, but I

14     assume you will remember - that you said that you made your reports in

15     accordance with the instructions which were in force in the MUP of the

16     Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the time when you

17     entered on duty, and that you provided reports in accordance with those

18     instructions with that document.  Do you remember that?

19        A.   Yes, I remember that.

20        Q.   So you see the instructions here.  You see that there are several

21     kinds of reporting, urgent, current, periodical and statistical reports,

22     and that this was issued by the Ministry of the Interior of

23     Republika Srpska, with the seat in Bijeljina in October 1992?

24        A.   Yes, I remember this.

25        Q.   Did you receive these instructions, and did you act in accordance

Page 7876

 1     with them?

 2        A.   We most likely received it, and we acted in accordance with it.

 3        Q.   All right, thank you.  The last instructions I wish to show you

 4     is in tab 132; 1D54, tab 132.  These are the instructions issued by the

 5     minister of the interior concerning disciplinary responsibility from the

 6     19th of September, 1992.  And in paragraph 2 -- or, rather, on the first

 7     page, it says that these rules on the disciplinary responsibility of

 8     workers, during an immediate threat of war and during a state of war, it

 9     now envisages a summary procedure for establishing the disciplinary

10     responsibility of the workers of MUP.  Do you remember this?

11        A.   I do.

12        Q.   All right.  And on the last page, which is page 5, page 5 of the

13     Serbian text, in Article 17, which should be the penultimate and ultimate

14     page in the English text -- so in Article 17, it says that statute

15     of limitations is extended, the deadlines are extended?

16        A.   It specifies the statute of limitation and the time-periods.

17        Q.   You must have been familiar with these instructions and with the

18     rules on the disciplinary responsibility of the workers of the Ministry

19     of the Interior in the state of war and immediate threat of war?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Thank you.  In order to illustrate that by using a practical

22     example, I will remind you by saying that in your interview, I think you

23     said that in the course of 1992 - I think that's on page 80 of your

24     interview - you filed one or two -- you instituted one or two

25     disciplinary procedures against some of the MUP workers.  In one of the

Page 7877

 1     cases, there was -- there were allegations of confiscation of coffee, and

 2     in the other case, it involved Gagula, Ivica.  Do you remember that?

 3        A.   I remember, but I don't think we had only two cases.

 4        Q.   Well, how many cases do you think there were, according to your

 5     recollection?  How many times did you institute disciplinary proceedings

 6     in 1992?

 7        A.   Well, I can't remember now, but I'm sure that there were more

 8     cases.  I mentioned Gagula just as an illustration, and also the coffee

 9     case.

10        Q.   Thank you for this clarification.  I wanted to show you this

11     document involving Gagula precisely in order to explain to the

12     Trial Chamber how this procedure for establishing disciplinary

13     responsibility was regulated.

14             Could we now please see tab 121, which is P1039.

15             See here, this is a letter from the Disciplinary Committee of

16     Banja Luka, signed by the secretary of the Disciplinary Committee,

17     Aleksandar Jovicic.  Are you familiar with this name?

18        A.   Yes, but it's not Jovcic, it's Jovicic.  An I is missing after V.

19        Q.   Thank you.  This document is dated the 20th of August, 1992.  It

20     says here that the disciplinary prosecutor, Rodic, Radomir, was from the

21     Banja Luka SJB.  Do you know this person?  Did he really work there?

22        A.   Yes, yes.  I apologise.  I may be wrong with Jovicic's last name.

23     I'm not sure whether it's Jovicic or Jovcic.  I don't want to the claim

24     that with certainty.

25        Q.   Thank you, but it's not essential for our purposes.  You know

Page 7878

 1     Radomir Rodic?  I asked you if you know the person.

 2        A.   Yes, I know him.

 3        Q.   And then it says here:  "Subject, Ivica Gagula, disciplinary

 4     responsibility."

 5             And then it says here:

 6             "We enclose a letter with the initiative of the SJB Banja Luka to

 7     institute proceedings aimed at establishing disciplinary responsibility

 8     of Ivica Gagula."

 9             Do you see that?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Do you remember this case of Ivica Gagula?

12        A.   Yes, I remember that there were proceedings, but I can't remember

13     the details.  Perhaps I need to read this document.

14        Q.   Aleksandar Jovicic says in this document that no longer than

15     within three days from the date of receipt of this initiative, you need

16     to, "you" meaning Radomir Rodic, you, as the disciplinary prosecutor,

17     need to write a decision on temporary suspension of this worker from work

18     and request to institute proceedings in order to establish disciplinary

19     responsibility, signed by chief of the Banja Luka CSB.  Do you see that?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   So this temporary removal from work is actually a suspension?

22        A.   Yes, correct.

23        Q.   Now please look at tab 123, which is 65 ter 1459.  Tab 123,

24     65 ter 1452.  Tab 123.

25        A.   Yes, yes, I have it.  I'm looking at it.

Page 7879

 1        Q.   No, no, I'm saying this just for the sake of the transcript, and

 2     other people who are listening, so that they have an accurate reference.

 3     This document is dated 24th of August, 1992.  This is a request to

 4     initiating proceedings for establishing disciplinary responsibility.  And

 5     then on page 2, you see that it is signed by Stojan Zupljanin, chief of

 6     the centre, and then there's a stamp there as well.  And this request

 7     pertains to Ivica Gagula; correct?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And the proposal on page 1, on the first page of the document,

10     where it says:  "I propose ...," it says -- rather, Mr. Zupljanin, chief

11     of the centre, proposes that a hearing be held before the Disciplinary

12     Committee, to which the accused, Ivica Gagula, should be invited,

13     witnesses, and the prosecutor, Rodic.  Do you see that?

14        A.   Yes, correct.

15        Q.   Are you familiar with this document?  Do you know of its

16     contents?

17        A.   I know about the event.

18             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  If there are no

19     objections, I would like to tender this document into evidence.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D236, Your Honours.

22             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   The next document is tab 124, which is 65 ter 1453, from the

24     7th of October, 1992.  It says that this is from the Banja Luka CSB, the

25     Third Disciplinary Board, and this is a record of the main hearing or,

Page 7880

 1     rather, a record of the hearing held on the 7th of October, 1992.  Do you

 2     see that?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Based on the preamble, we can see that this involves proceedings

 5     against Ivica Gagula for grave violation of work duty?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And it says who was present:  President of the Disciplinary

 8     Board, then two members, then the disciplinary prosecutor, the accused,

 9     and witnesses; correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And then finally at page 7 and 8 of the Serbian text, I suppose

12     penultimate and ultimate page in the English text, it says what the

13     decision of the Disciplinary Board was.  Do you see that?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   During the proceedings, the Disciplinary Board established that

16     the accused, Ivica Gagula, was indeed responsible for this grave

17     violation.  We don't need to go into details.  Do you see that?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And a disciplinary measure was handed down that he was to change

20     his work for a period of six months.  Do you see that?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   So this change of work-place for a period of six months must have

23     meant that he was demoted?

24        A.   Yes, certainly.

25        Q.   Which necessarily involved reduction in pay and the like?

Page 7881

 1        A.   Yes, and most likely he no longer had his official authorities

 2     during that period of time.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  If there are

 4     no objections, I would like to tender this document into evidence.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D237, Your Honours.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   And now let's have a look at the last document, the last one I

 9     want to show you today, tab 125, document 65 ter 1454.  This is a written

10     decision, a copy of the decision, dated the 17th of October, 1992.  It is

11     the Disciplinary Commission that is forwarding its decision on

12     Ivica Gagula.  And it repeats the decision that it took at the hearing

13     held on the 7th of October; isn't that the case?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And on page 2, it says -- or there's a statement of reasons.  The

16     Disciplinary Commission has determined that he, in fact, violated his

17     work obligations, and it says on what basis this was determined.  And it

18     says something about the legal remedy.  It says against this decision --

19     it's possible to appeal against this decision by filing the appeal with

20     the minister of the interior three days after -- or within three days

21     from the date on which the decision was received.  Can you see that?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And if the appeal is filed in a timely manner, this postpones the

24     effect of the decision, and it's been signed by the president of the

25     board.  Can you see that, there's a stamp and a signature?

Page 7882

 1        A.   Yes, I can see that.

 2        Q.   It also says it was forwarded to certain individuals.  It says it

 3     was forwarded to the employee who was named, the person who can appeal,

 4     it was forwarded to the minister, to you, the chief of the SJB - you

 5     initiated the proceedings - it is official for employment relationships

 6     to the Disciplinary Commission, the disciplinary prosecutor, and to the

 7     archives; is that right?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   So in this decision -- I apologise.  I'm going a little too fast

10     again.  It's on the basis of this decision that the first-level

11     proceedings, disciplinary proceedings, were completed against an employee

12     of the Ministry of the Interior, an employee of yours in the SJB, Gagula,

13     Ivica, and this was done in accordance with the law; isn't that correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And now Ivica Gagula had three days to file an appeal to the

16     minister, as the second-level court or second-level instance?

17        A.   That's correct.

18             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would

19     like to tender this into evidence.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D203 [sic], Your Honours.

22             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Since we are now --

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  The record is not correct, I think.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  For the transcript, Your Honours, this is

25     Exhibit 1D238.  Thank you for noticing that.

Page 7883

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Since we are dealing with disciplinary responsibility, I have the

 3     impression that in your interview you mentioned the case of

 4     Pero Tanjanovic [phoen].  Do you remember that?

 5        A.   Petar Tanazovic [phoen].

 6        Q.   I apologise.  Petar Tanazovic?

 7        A.   That's right.

 8        Q.   Petar Tanazovic was the commander of the Medan Police Station?

 9        A.   That's correct.

10        Q.   And at one point in time, if I remember this correctly,

11     Mr. Tanazovic committed one or two crimes, the crime of murder, and

12     subsequently after the proceedings instituted against him, the

13     proceedings for murder, it was discovered that he had committed the crime

14     of rape, he had raped a lady of Croatian nationality; is that correct?

15        A.   Yes, I remember that.  We had such information, the case was

16     processed, but I'm not sure whether we had sufficient evidence and

17     whether we filed a report against him on that basis.  I don't know

18     whether there was sufficient evidence to do that.

19        Q.   In any event, Mr. Tanazovic committed the crime of murder at a

20     check-point where he opened fire on members of the Territorial Defence,

21     I think, or the police.  I'm not sure.  He opened fire on a Serb and a

22     Muslim at that check-point, on which occasion the Serb died; is that

23     correct?

24        A.   Yes.  There was a mixed police check-point.  It was manned by

25     policemen of various ethnicity.  He arrived in an intoxicated state, and

Page 7884

 1     it is true that he killed a Serb whose surname I believe was Kovic.

 2        Q.   And as a result of having committed that crime, criminal

 3     proceedings were naturally instituted against him?

 4        A.   That very same evening, he was arrested.  I arrived in the SJB

 5     that evening.  I saw the state he was in.  We placed him in detention for

 6     a three-day period immediately and then referred him to the relevant

 7     judiciary authorities.  And he was convicted for that crime.

 8        Q.   At the same time, disciplinary proceedings were instituted

 9     against him which were different from the criminal proceedings?

10        A.   I don't know the details, but his employment was, in any event,

11     terminated.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Sir, I just have a few more questions for you.

13             Do you know someone called Predrag Radulovic?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Tell me, Radulovic, Predrag Radulovic, was an employee of the

16     State Security Service, wasn't he?

17        A.   An employee of the State Security Service.  Later, it was called

18     the National Security Service.

19        Q.   Was he a member of the Banja Luka CSB or --

20        A.   Prior to the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, he was a

21     member of the State Security Service within the Republican Secretariat

22     for Internal Affairs.  And, similarly, prior to the armed conflict he was

23     transferred to Banja Luka, and he worked for the State Security Service

24     in Banja Luka.

25        Q.   Did you ever ask Mr. Radulovic to provide you with certain

Page 7885

 1     information relating to any events he might have been familiar with or

 2     any events with regard to which he had information as a result of the

 3     work he was involved in?

 4        A.   No, I never asked for such information.  I didn't have the right

 5     to do so.  If I had done that, that would have been in violation of the

 6     rules in force, so I couldn't have asked for such information and I

 7     certainly didn't.

 8        Q.   When you say this, what I'm interested in is whether you perhaps

 9     had a certain type of private relationship on the basis of which you

10     could ask him for such information on a private basis.  Did you do that?

11        A.   No, I didn't do that, and I wouldn't have allowed myself to do

12     that.

13        Q.   Did Predrag Radulovic ever provide you certain data and

14     information on his own initiative, and did he ever ask you to forward

15     such data and information to the minister, Mico Stanisic?

16        A.   No.  That would have been a case of abuse if I had done that.

17        Q.   I'm asking you again whether, when you had personal contact with

18     him, he provided you with certain information and asked you to inform

19     Minister Mico Stanisic about that information, or anyone else in an

20     executive position in the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska.

21        A.   I never made such a request.  Had we met in the corridor, I

22     wouldn't exclude that possibility, but I don't remember him having

23     conveyed any information to me.  I certainly don't remember this having

24     happened.

25        Q.   My question is whether he asked you to forward certain

Page 7886

 1     information he provided you with to Minister Stanisic.

 2        A.   In a certain sense, I have answered that question.  No one asked

 3     me to do that.  No one could have asked me to do that.  I had no

 4     authority to act in such a way, and I wouldn't have accepted to act in

 5     such a way.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  I have no

 7     further questions, and I do apologise for having tired you.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

 9                           Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:

10        Q.   [Interpretation] Good evening, Mr. Tutus.

11        A.   Good evening.

12        Q.   Since it's no longer -- my name is Mr. Krgovic.  I represent

13     Mr. Stojan Zupljanin, and I will be cross-examining you for the remainder

14     of the day.  Since you may already be quite tired, since we've been here

15     for a while, if you feel tired, please tell me.  Perhaps we could adjourn

16     a little earlier today, if you're feeling tired.

17             I've prepared a binder for you.  Could the usher please assist me

18     and provide the witness with this binder.  It contains the documents I

19     will be using in the course of my cross-examination, and you will find

20     the relevant documents under tab numbers.  This will make it easier for

21     you to follow.

22             Mr. Tutus, when answering questions put to you by the Prosecutor

23     and my colleague Mr. Zecevic, you spoke about the events that preceded

24     the wartime period in the area of Banja Luka, and you spoke about your

25     personal dissatisfaction and the dissatisfaction of your colleagues with

Page 7887

 1     the situation in the MUP of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and

 2     Herzegovina and, in particular, with the situation in the area of the SJB

 3     that you were in.  Do you remember having said that?

 4        A.   Yes, I do.

 5        Q.   I'll briefly summarise some of the subjects that were dealt with

 6     and some of the reasons for which you and members of the MUP were

 7     dissatisfied.

 8             In 1991, in the border-line areas of Banja Luka, in the marginal

 9     areas of Banja Luka that were part of the -- or that came under the

10     Banja Luka CSB - I'm referring to the municipalities that border with

11     Croatia - in those areas the security situation deteriorated; isn't that

12     correct?

13        A.   Could you please be more precise?  Where did this deteriorate?

14        Q.   In the territory of those border-line areas, the security

15     situation deteriorated before the war broke out.  I have

16     Bosanska Gradiska and Bosanski Novi in mind and all those areas that

17     border with Croatia.

18        A.   I can't assess the security situation in areas covered by other

19     SJBs.  But if you are asking me whether there were any incidents in those

20     areas, yes, there were.

21        Q.   And as for the situation in Croatia, the war there, and the

22     situation in these border-line municipalities, these situations also

23     affected the security situation in Banja Luka; isn't that correct?

24        A.   Yes, it is.

25        Q.   So first many refugees arrived from Croatia, 10.000 or 15.000 at

Page 7888

 1     the time.  That was towards the end of 1991 and at the beginning of 1992;

 2     is that correct?

 3        A.   Yes, and that significantly influenced the way in which the

 4     security situation deteriorated.

 5        Q.   And as a result, the population moved from those marginal

 6     municipalities.  They would go to Banja Luka -- they would move to

 7     Banja Luka because they were afraid and they felt safer in Banja Luka; is

 8     that correct?

 9        A.   Well, that's possible, but I don't have any official information

10     about that.

11        Q.   Similarly, given the number of armed individuals increased and

12     they were members of various formations, as a result of this public law

13     and order was disrupted in the area of Banja Luka; isn't that right?

14        A.   The increase in the number of armed citizens.

15        Q.   The increase in the number of armed citizens resulted in

16     significant disruption of public law and order.  Fire would be opened,

17     and these individuals would cause certain incidents?

18        A.   Yes.  They didn't just disrupt public law and order, but they

19     also committed crimes.

20        Q.   So I'll now show you a document about this subject.  Number 1,

21     2D -- 2D0207 -- 2D0020705.  It's under tab 1.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   The date is the 30th of September, 1991.  It's from the CSB.  It

24     has "Information on the Security Situation in the Territory of the

25     Centre."

Page 7889

 1        A.   That's what it says.

 2        Q.   It was sent to the Ministry of the Interior of the

 3     Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to the minister and deputy

 4     minister?

 5        A.   Correct.

 6        Q.   Please look at the last page of the document.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Do you see the signature and the stamp?

 9        A.   Yes, "Chief of the Centre, Stojan Zupljanin."

10        Q.   That's his signature?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Would you please look at the second page of this document, the

13     last paragraph.  It says there that in parallel with the intensification

14     of armed attacks from the territory of Croatia against the aforesaid

15     municipalities and other municipalities covered by the centre, there has

16     also been an escalation of sabotage terrorist operations which, together

17     with numerous other serious security implications, is primarily serving

18     to bring about a climate of foreign and widespread armed inter-ethnic

19     conflict.  And then they mention that there were 15 blatant sabotage

20     terrorist acts and so on.

21             When a chief compiles such reports, he would normally receive

22     information from you as to the security situation in the jurisdiction of

23     your station; right?

24        A.   Whatever he asked from us, we would provide him.

25        Q.   And if you turn to the next page, it says there that explosives

Page 7890

 1     were launched, bombs were activated, hand-grenades thrown at residences

 2     and cafes and catering establishments?

 3        A.   Where are you reading this from?

 4        Q.   Well, from the next page, the first paragraph.

 5        A.   Yes, yes, I see that.

 6        Q.   And it describes the situation as it was on the ground; right?

 7        A.   I believe so.

 8        Q.   Now, please look at the last page, where the signature was, and

 9     there is a statement by the chief.  And he says that more and more

10     frequent shooting at night by unidentified individuals and groups at

11     night-time in ethnically-mixed areas is causing the very dangerous

12     further heightening of inter-ethnic relations and imminent risks, and so

13     on.  Do you agree that this all led to such a situation?

14        A.   Yes, there were such incidents.

15             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't think this

16     document has been admitted into evidence yet.  So if there are no

17     objections, could that be done now?

18             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 2D54, Your Honours.

20             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   When answering questions during the your testimony, and also in

22     your interview, I think, you said that you were dissatisfied with the

23     situation, both financially and in terms of the equipment, the situation

24     as it was at the public security stations?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 7891

 1        Q.   And especially if one bears in mind all of these circumstances

 2     that you mentioned, this significantly made your work harder and made it

 3     more difficult to be efficient at the Banja Luka SJB?

 4        A.   Well, the state of equipment and resources definitely affect the

 5     work of the police station.

 6        Q.   And given the increase in the number of incidents, you certainly

 7     must have required an increase in staff members, policemen, who could

 8     have dealt with this situation?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Could we now please look at 2D38, tab 2 in your binder.

11        A.   Yes, I see that.

12        Q.   I think that you said in your interview that you addressed all

13     relevant instances in order to resolve this question and to highlight how

14     serious the situation was in the territory of Banja Luka.  You said that

15     letters were being sent to various persons.

16             Please look at the last page of this document.

17        A.   Yes, I remember that.

18        Q.   Now, please, let us go back to the first page.  So the second

19     paragraph from the bottom, it says:

20             "Our dispatch 11227, dated 26th of August, 1991, by way of it I

21     sent to the relevant republic organs observations and complaints

22     concerning the number of police workers according to the job description

23     scheme, where it says that we were discriminated in relation to other

24     centres."

25             So it says that you were in a worse position than other stations?

Page 7892

 1        A.   I don't remember that specifically.  But now that I'm looking at

 2     this document, I think that you're right.

 3        Q.   So then it says that -- on the second page of this document, they

 4     make an analysis, and they say that you need to have 11 workers, 11

 5     policemen?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Do you remember that there was a problem with employing persons,

 8     that consents for employing somebody were late, and that you also had

 9     problems in this schematic, giving job descriptions?

10        A.   Yes, I remember that.

11        Q.   And all of this together caused you to distrust, you and your

12     other colleagues --

13             MS. KORNER:  [Indiscernible]

14             MR. KRGOVIC:  It's in the evidence now.

15             MS. KORNER:  [Indiscernible]

16             MR. KRGOVIC:  Yes, I can see that.  That's the right one.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] I apologise, Mr. Tutus, but the English

18     translation of this document does not correspond to the original.  So now

19     we have the right one.

20             This is when you voiced your discontent in that meeting.  That

21     was just one of the illustrations of problems that you faced at the time

22     for which there was no understanding within the ranks of the Ministry of

23     the Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Mr. Tutus, can we please look at the next document, tab 3,

Page 7893

 1     2D040140.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic, if I'm not mistaken, this document,

 3     the previous one, is MFI'd.  You want to keep it that way?

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours, I think that it

 5     was admitted by -- when the witness who identified it, whose name I don't

 6     want to mention -- we're in public session.  When that witness testified,

 7     we admitted it then.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   I'm interested only in the first page.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic, Madam Registrar tells me that it is

12     still MFI'd.  We suppose you're confusing somewhere.  But to me, it was

13     still MFI'd, and the Registrar confirms that it was still MFI'd.  I just

14     want to be of assistance.

15             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, in that case, since the

16     witness recognised the document and its contents, then if there are no

17     objections, why don't we resolve that confusion now?

18             [In English] The witness which I cross-examined recognised the

19     signature on that.

20             MS. KORNER:  Okay, all right, no objection.

21             JUDGE HALL:  So it's now exhibited, marked as an exhibit.

22             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   I apologise, Mr. Tutus.  We had an administrative confusion to

24     settle.

25             Now, as a result of deterioration of the security situation on

Page 7894

 1     the ground, the federal minister, Gracanin, came to visit Banja Luka in

 2     1991.  Do you remember that?

 3        A.   Yes, and I was present.

 4        Q.   So they mentioned the working visit to the centre and the persons

 5     who attended that meeting.  You were among them, among the attendees?

 6        A.   Yes, I was present.

 7        Q.   And that was a publicly-announced visit, there were no secrets.

 8     Minister Delimustafic was present, as we can see from this letter;

 9     correct?

10        A.   There was no secret meeting held.

11        Q.   I'm asking you this because we have heard from some other

12     witnesses that this was an almost secret visit, that it was organised

13     and -- organised under the auspices of Stojan Zupljanin.  You don't think

14     so, do you?

15        A.   I don't think it was a secret meeting.  I think it was reported

16     on by the media.  I can't remember, really, but I don't see why it would

17     have been secret.

18        Q.   This is an excerpt from a news report by "Tanjug."  This is a

19     brief news agency report.

20             [In English] I don't ask it to be tendered, because there are

21     these newspaper articles.

22             [Interpretation] Mr. Tutus, I just wanted to run some things by

23     you in 1991 and early 1992.  And now I will go back to events which would

24     be of interest for this Chamber which were in 1992.

25             But before that, I wanted to ask you something about

Page 7895

 1     responsibilities, which you touched upon in your examination-in-chief and

 2     in your interview, concerning the responsibilities of SJB and CSB.

 3             You will agree with me, won't you, that according to the system

 4     as it was before the war, an SJB and its scope of work, the scope of work

 5     and duties coincided with the jurisdiction of the Basic Municipal Court;

 6     isn't that right?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And an SJB, when it comes to criminal cases, would act only in

 9     cases for which the Basic Municipal Court had jurisdiction?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   On the other hand, a CSB was the one who filed charges and who

12     prosecuted cases that fell under the jurisdiction of a higher court, a

13     regional court?

14        A.   A CSB was authorised to act in cases which came under the

15     jurisdiction of higher courts and also in cases of crimes which were all

16     listed individually in the instructions issued by the secretary of the

17     interior.

18        Q.   You are now referring to sabotage acts?

19        A.   Yes.  The crimes were listed individually; kidnapping an

20     aircraft, endangering safety, also grave property damage, and so on.

21        Q.   And this is how it was when the war began in 1992?

22        A.   Correct.

23        Q.   Before the war broke out in the territory of Banja Luka, the

24     centre, as far as I'm aware, had under its jurisdiction 11 SJBs.

25     Correct?

Page 7896

 1        A.   Well, I can't remember whether there were 11, but, yes, it had

 2     under its jurisdiction these stations that were mentioned in the rules.

 3        Q.   And after the conflict broke out and some additional

 4     municipalities joined the Autonomous Region of Krajina, that number

 5     increased to 26; correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Which is almost two and a half times more than previously, before

 8     the conflict broke out?

 9        A.   Well, I'm not sure about the ratio, but significantly more, at

10     any rate.

11        Q.   In your examination-in-chief, you spoke about responsibilities,

12     and --

13             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, if you're about to move on to something

14     else, it's very near 7.00, so we may as well take the break at this

15     point, if you're moving on to something else.

16             MR. KRGOVIC:  Yes.

17             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, can I just mention the question of the

18     intercepts?

19             Your Honours admitted them orally and said you would give reasons

20     later.  I'm taking that that meant you admitted all the intercepts that

21     we applied to admit through the witness; is that right?  Because at the

22     moment, we're having a slight debate with the Registry about whether the

23     intercepts are admitted or not.

24                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we release the witness in the

Page 7897

 1     meantime?

 2             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, it was the 4th of March, 2010, and

 3     Judge Hall said:

 4             "The Chamber, for reasons which will follow, accedes to the

 5     application."

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, the position is that all of the

 8     transcripts have not been admitted, and by Monday, certainly in advance

 9     of the Witness Mandic coming to testify, you would be alerted as to which

10     have been admitted and which haven't.

11             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I'm really sorry, but this not our

12     understanding of what you said, and we would have pursued submissions if

13     we'd understood that.

14             You said, in terms:

15             "The Chamber has [indiscernible] motion from the Prosecution in

16     respect of the package of documents to be tendered through the witness

17     whose testimony was completed yesterday, and the Chamber, for reasons

18     which will follow, accedes to the application."

19             And we're now being told that you're not admitting all the

20     exhibits?

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Ms. Korner, there is a slight problem with a few

22     of the -- there is -- we have discovered there is a slight problem with a

23     few of the transcripts that makes it questionable whether we can admit

24     them.  And so for the purposes of the evidence offered by Mr. Mandic on

25     Wednesday next week, you'll have to rely on the 65 ter numbers.

Page 7898

 1             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honour, may I just, in that case, for

 2     future reference, make this point:  It's the problem with oral rulings

 3     like this.  We understood, and I believe I'm speaking for all of us, that

 4     the ruling was that you admitted everything.  Had we known that

 5     Your Honours were not going to admit, we would have sought to make oral

 6     arguments.  As it is, we now don't know, nor do I know for the

 7     preparation of, as you put it, Mr. Mandic, what's admitted, and what

 8     isn't, and why.

 9             Well, Your Honour, obviously, I mean, there's nothing I can say,

10     but may I suggest that in future, that we do not get an oral ruling like

11     that, which leads everybody to believe erroneously that the whole package

12     that we've applied for has been admitted.  And if it's not to be

13     admitted, could we be informed so that we can argue the matter?  That's

14     all I can say.

15             JUDGE HALL:  I don't know if there's anything that we can

16     usefully add at this point, so we'll take the adjournment to Monday

17     morning, and, unless there is a change, all of our sittings next week are

18     morning sittings in Courtroom 1.

19             Sorry, before we adjourn, Mr. Tutus, I'm obliged to remind you of

20     what I would have said at the first day's adjournment, that you're still

21     under oath and cannot discuss the case with anyone outside of the court

22     or not have any communication with counsel.

23             So I trust that everyone has a safe weekend.  Thank you.

24                           [The witness stands down]

25                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.,

Page 7899

 1                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 22nd day of March,

 2                           2010, at 9.00 a.m.