1 Thursday, 15 April 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case IT-08-91-T. The
7 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL
9 everyone. May we have the appearances for today, please.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Good morning, Your Honours. Matthew Olmsted,
11 Joanna Korner, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
13 Slobodan Cvijetic, and Ms. Deirdre Montgomery for -- appearing for
14 Stanisic Defence this afternoon. Thank you.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. For Zupljanin
16 Defence, Igor Pantelic and Dragan Krgovic. Thank you.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 one who is disoriented by these afternoon sittings.
19 Can we revert to closed sessions and -- oh, sorry.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. In the Trial Chamber's decision on the
21 Prosecution motion of 18 February to amend the Rule 65 ter exhibit list,
22 the Trial Chamber decided to grant the withdrawal of document 65 ter 966.
23 As a follow-up of the e-mail exchange between parties, the best way to
24 handle this is to mark as non-admitted Exhibit Number P1260 so that we
25 don't have a document on the 65 ter list, and we don't have a document on
1 the exhibit list. Okay, 1. P1261 goes out. Is not admitted. P1260
2 stays as it is.
3 JUDGE HALL
4 May we revert to closed session and have the witness escorted
5 back to the courtroom.
6 [Closed session]
11 Pages 8713-8760 redacted. Closed session.
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, the witness may be shown in.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, aren't adjourning before the next
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: We'll take the witness in now.
22 MS. KORNER: Right. Thank you very much.
23 [The witness entered court]
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Witness. Would you be good
25 enough to read the solemn declaration, please.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
2 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you very much. You may be seated.
4 Mr. Witness, I take it you can hear me in a language you understand?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. First of all, the Trial Chamber wants
7 to apologise for the time you had to wait. Your testimony was planned to
8 start on Wednesday, so you are two days late. Unfortunately, it's --
9 this kind of work can't be planned exactly as scientifically so we are
10 very sorry about that.
11 WITNESS: RADOMIR RODIC
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Could you please state your name and your date of
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Radomir Rodic. Born on the 3rd of
16 June, 1954.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. What your profession, please?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a lawyer.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Your ethnicity?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am a Serb.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Is this the first time you are
22 testifying before this Tribunal or on these matters --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Even in your home country, you didn't testify on
25 these matters? A court --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Well, then, Mr. Rodic, you are a Prosecutor
3 witness which means that the Prosecutor, who is on that side, the
4 Prosecutor who is on that side will ask you questions to start with
5 presumably for more or less four or five hours. Then both Defence teams
6 on that side will take over for the cross-examination which will take
7 around two times three hours, something like that. Perhaps a little bit
8 less. Then there will be redirect by the Prosecution and eventually
9 questions by the Judges. So we will see each other for some days.
10 We are sitting in the morning or in the afternoon, and we sit
11 from 9.00 to a quarter to 2.00 or from a quarter past 2.00 to 7.00 with a
12 break after a session of one hour and 30 minutes. So that means two
13 breaks during half a day's session. Okay. Do you have any questions
14 before we start?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Mr. Olmsted.
17 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I think it's time for a break.
18 Should we take it now?
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: You are absolutely right, Mr. Olmsted. This is
20 the time for the break.
21 --- Recess taken at 5.19 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 5:46 p.m.
23 JUDGE HALL
24 constituted. I understand, Mr. Olmsted, that you are about to begin your
1 MR. OLMSTED: That's correct, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE HALL
3 MR. PANTELIC: Just for the record, Your Honours, I have been
4 informed by Mr. Zupljanin that due to religious ceremony which is very
5 important for him, tomorrow morning he will be late, so he is waiving his
6 right to be present at the latest stage depending on the transportation
7 arrangements, he will join us. I think from 10.00 to 11.00 he has this
8 ceremony, but after that he will join us.
9 JUDGE HALL
10 certain paperwork which you have to ensure gets to the Registry.
11 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct, Your Honour.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 Examination by Mr. Olmsted:
14 Q. Good evening, Mr. Rodic. Let me first start by joining the
15 apology of the Trial Chamber in the late start for you. I'm also
16 apologising for going right to a break right when you sat down. It's
17 necessary for the interpreters and other staff members to take a break.
18 They work very hard.
19 I want to begin by just going over your professional background
20 with the police service. You began your career with the BiH Ministry of
21 the Interior in 1985 as an economic crime inspector at SJB Banja Luka; is
22 that right.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And then I believe you joined the general crimes department at
25 SJB Banja Luka. Could you tell us when that was?
1 A. I think it was in 1987 or 1988.
2 Q. And you were in the general crimes department at SJB Banja Luka
3 in 1992; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. At some point did you become chief of major thefts within the
6 crimes unit at SJB Banja Luka?
7 A. In that period at some time before the war, I was line chief for
8 major thefts, but it cannot be really considered a managerial position.
9 Q. And did you hold that position in April 1992?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I know you say it wasn't a managerial position, but were there a
12 certain number of crime inspectors who reported to you, and how many?
13 A. Well, the inspectors officially didn't submit reports to me, but
14 rather to the chief of the general crime department. I was more of a
15 link between the latter and the inspectors.
16 Q. And how many economic or major theft inspectors were there in the
17 time-period April 1992 to December 1992?
18 A. There was the department for economic crime or white-collar
19 crime. That's where I was for two years after my internship, and then I
20 was trans -- I was moved, I was shifted to the general crime department
21 where I stayed --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the last part
23 of his answer.
24 MR. OLMSTED:
25 Q. I'm sorry, the interpreter needs you to repeat the last part of
1 you answer, he missed it.
2 A. I think there were about 30 inspectors in the general crime
3 department of the Banja Luka SJB.
4 Q. Now, I believe you were in the general crimes department until
5 November 1992 when you were appointed commander of the police station at
6 Majdan in Banja Luka; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And if I understand it correctly, you held that position off and
9 on for a few years and held some other posts within the RS MUP, but I
10 want to jump to 2004. What position were you appointed to in that year?
11 A. In 2004 I was appointed deputy chief in the Internal Affairs
12 inspectorate or in a control.
13 Q. And in 2007 were you appointed chief of that inspectorate?
14 A. Yes, that's right.
15 Q. Could you please explain to us what are the responsibilities of
16 the inspectorate of Internal Affairs or internal control?
17 A. In the briefest terms possible, the responsibilities would be to
18 supervise the legality of police action.
19 Q. So would one of the responsibilities of your inspectorate be to
20 investigate acts of misconduct by members of the RS MUP?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, we are going to be focusing on your experiences in 1992, but
23 before we do, could you tell the Trial Chamber generally your background
24 with the police disciplinary process during your 25 years with the police
1 A. Since I first started work with the Ministry of the Interior
2 1985, I started working as a lawyer. I held a degree in law. Nearly for
3 the whole time I was with one or the other disciplinary body. I was
4 chairman of some disciplinary committees and various other bodies. In
5 2002 I think I was the last chairman of the second instance disciplinary
6 Court with the RS MUP. From this point on, the courts became fully
7 professional courts. My experience when I compare the time I spent as
8 the disciplinary prosecutor back in 1992 and my later work with the
9 inspectorate would indicate that generally work was done legally at least
10 as far as the disciplinary organs were concerned and the regulations were
12 Q. Now, turning back to 1992, in July 1992 were you appointed to the
13 position of disciplinary prosecutor at CSB Banja Luka?
14 A. Yes, the 7th of July, 1992. The disciplinary committees were set
15 up or appointments were made to them and disciplinary prosecutors were
17 Q. And who appointed you to that position of disciplinary
19 A. The chief of the Security Services Centre, Mr. Stojan Zupljanin.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Let's take a look at 65 ter 173.
21 Q. And, sir, it will come up on the computer screen in front of you,
22 so you don't have to look at any documents.
23 A. Yes, fine.
24 Q. Could you tell us what this document is?
25 A. This is a decision on appointing disciplinary prosecutors with
1 the Security Services Centre in Banja Luka.
2 Q. And is this the decision that appointed you as a disciplinary
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 Q. Was this position as disciplinary prosecutor something that you
6 applied for, or were you simply ordered to do it?
7 A. No, at the time it worked on a voluntary basis. It was a
8 thankless task for whomever it fell to. Certain conditions had to be met
9 obviously for a person to be appointed to a position in one of the
10 disciplinary bodies. First and foremost, one needed to hold a degree in
11 law. I believe that was the reason for my appointment.
12 Q. Now we see on this document that there are six disciplinary
13 prosecutors appointed pursuant to this decision. Were all these
14 individuals on this list from the public security service?
15 A. No. It's actually specified here. I was -- could you please
16 repeat your question.
17 Q. No problem. Were all these individuals, these six individuals
18 listed here, were they all from the public security sector? In other
19 words, were they all public security, or were there some from the state
20 or national security?
21 A. I think number 2, Predrag Radulovic known as Pile was with the
22 state security. Whether he was, in fact, active in that service at the
23 time or whether it was later on that he made the move to the other
24 department, I can't be quite certain. Stanko Karac is not a person I'm
25 familiar with. Dusko Malinkovic, number 6, I know the man, but from
1 secondary school. He worked with state security.
2 Q. And were disciplinary matters kept separate between the two
3 sectors, in other words, did the disciplinary prosecutors from the public
4 security only process cases involving public security employees and the
5 state security disciplinary prosecutors only handle cases involving
6 employees at the state security?
7 A. I don't know. I think it depended on the secretary of the
8 disciplinary committee who a certain case would be assigned to. I
9 personally had three cases at the time that I was dealing with in my
10 capacity as disciplinary Prosecutor. Not a single state security man was
12 Q. Can you tell us what the ethnicities of these six individuals
14 A. I think they are all Serbs.
15 MR. OLMSTED: May this be admitted into evidence.
16 JUDGE HALL
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1286, Your Honours.
18 MR. OLMSTED:
19 Q. Now, how long were you disciplinary prosecutor under this
20 particular appointment?
21 A. Up until I believe the 19th of September, 1992 when a new book of
22 rules was adopted in view of the imminent threat of war that had been
24 Q. And I will ask you some questions about those new book of rules
25 that were implemented in mid-September 1992 in a little bit, but for now,
1 Mr. Rodic, I want you to focus solely on the period between 1 April 1992
2 and mid-September 1992 and what procedures existed up until that point in
3 time. And to begin with, from April up to mid-September 1992, how did
4 the police disciplinary procedures within the RS MUP differ from the
5 disciplinary procedures that existed under the BiH MUP? And if you can
6 hold off, I think we have something --
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm slightly confused
8 the witness said awhile ago that he was familiar with the work of the
9 disciplinary committee between July and September. Now he is being asked
10 a question in relation to the time-period between April and July. I
11 don't think he could possibly address that particular period prior to
12 July, that was before his appointment to the committee.
13 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, I don't think that's a valid
14 objection. I mean, this individual is working with the police force and
15 he is going to be familiar with procedures and such.
16 JUDGE HALL
17 Perhaps you should lay the foundation before you ask that question.
18 MR. OLMSTED: Very well, I'll do that then, Your Honour.
19 Q. We understand that you were weren't appointed until July 1992 to
20 the position of disciplinary prosecutor. However, you've also told us
21 that you've had had a long experience with the disciplinary procedures
22 within the police force both under the BiH MUP and the RS MUP. Do you
23 feel that you can give us some insights into the procedures that existed
24 as of April 1992?
25 A. Probably so.
1 Q. All right. Well, if I ask you any questions that you cannot
2 answer with regard to the April to July time-period, then just let us
3 know. Now I'll ask my question again. During this preSeptember 1992
4 time-period where they were -- before there were procedural changes in
5 the disciplinary process, how did the disciplinary procedures within the
6 RS MUP differ from those procedures that had existed under the BiH MUP
7 prior to April 1992?
8 A. I think there were no differences.
9 Q. Can you tell us what laws governed the disciplinary process
10 within the RS MUP?
11 A. The Law on State Administration and the Law on Internal Affairs.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Let's take a look at 65 ter 10329.
13 Q. Now, we are looking at the 1990 BiH Law on State Administration.
14 MR. OLMSTED: If you could turn to page 28 of the B/C/S and page
15 105 of the English.
16 Q. Mr. Rodic, if we look just above Article 295 of this law we see
17 it's entitled "Disciplinary Responsibility of Employees." Just a moment
18 ago you referred to the Law on State Administration. Is this the
19 provisions of the Law on State Administration that you were referring to?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And if we can take a look at Article 296, which is on the same
22 page of the B/C/S, but we need to turn the page for the English to 106.
23 Now, Article 296 states that a dereliction of duty may be severe or
24 light, and then it provides a list of acts considered to be severe
25 derelictions of duty. Could you tell us what is the first severe
1 dereliction of duty that's listed under this Article?
2 A. Bullet point 1, commitment of a criminal act against official
3 duty with another criminal act or offence deteriorating reputation of the
4 office and making the employee unworthy of working in an organ of
6 Q. Now, what kinds of crimes would fall within this particular
8 A. Crimes against official duty or other crimes. Well, crimes
9 prosecuted in the line of duty or ex officio.
10 Q. Would it include crimes such as murder, rape, torture, and such?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, other than crimes, what other acts of misconduct were
13 considered to be severe derelictions of duty during this time-period?
14 A. The commission of criminal offences, tarnishing the reputation of
15 the services, and other acts tarnishing the reputation of the ministry or
16 administration bodies as is implied here.
17 Q. Would failure to report to work, would that be a severe
18 dereliction of duty?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I'm going to come back to this law at
21 some point. I'm wondering how we want to deal with these laws. We don't
22 have a law library set up yet. Hopefully soon. One thing we could do is
23 mark it for identification so we have a number we can refer to or we just
24 refer to it by 65 ter number
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HALL
2 numbers that they have.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: And could we remind the parties then to expedite
5 their manoeuvres to get the law library together so that we can finally
6 start using it.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, if I may briefly just outline the situation,
8 Your Honours. We basically have agreed on the number of the laws which
9 will be this law library. However, what we are -- why we are going
10 behind the schedule is the problems of translation because the
11 translation takes time of laws, as you can imagine, which are
12 significantly big, and we have to divide certain portions of these laws
13 which we think are relevant for the proceedings in this case. And that
14 is why it is taking that much time. Otherwise, we have all these
15 documents in the original agreed between the parties basically that they
16 are relevant in original in Serbian, yes.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: I wonder if it would make sense to begin to put
18 together a law library and then give each law a number and you could say
19 that the number 1A would be the B/C/S version and number 1B would be the
20 English translation, and then just start putting it together so that
21 where the translations are still missing, the number B would be empty for
22 the moment until such time as we may receive the English translation then
23 we could put it into the law library when the translations are done.
24 Because I think the need to have the collection of laws is becoming more
25 and more urgent as we go along so the sooner we can start having at
1 least, the better I think, and then if it is --
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, you will remember that I initiated
3 that as early as September last year, but it's quite voluminous, and it
4 if it pleases the Court, we can do it whichever way is for the benefit of
5 the Trial Chamber. Whatever the Trial Chamber prefers us to, I mean,
6 technically how it to approach this, we would gladly do. I'm sure my
7 learned friend from the Prosecution side will confirm that.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: We look forward to receiving the input from the
9 parties very soon.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much. We will.
11 MR. OLMSTED: And I'll just raise, I think there's going to be
12 some issue with regard to the record with regard to some of these laws
13 we've been referring to solely by 65 ter number, I'm not sure how that's
14 going to play out, say, in a time where we are writing our final briefs,
15 time of judgement on appeal, maybe we'll have to go back to the record
16 and somehow add these P numbers at that time, but I guess we will address
17 that when the time comes.
18 If we could have up on the screen now P530. And let's go to page
19 13 of the B/C/S and page 23 of the English.
20 Q. Mr. Rodic, what we are looking at now is the 1992 Law on Internal
21 Affairs for the Republika Srpska. You referred earlier that one of the
22 laws, one of the two laws that you applied with regard to disciplinary
23 procedures was the Law on Internal Affairs. Is this the law?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. And if we look at the section heading above Article 113, we see
1 it's labelled number 2, disciplinary accountability. Is this the section
2 that as a disciplinary prosecutor you would refer to with regard to the
3 disciplinary process in effect between April and September 1992?
4 A. Yes. Yes.
5 Q. All right.
6 MR. OLMSTED: If we can look at Article 114, which is the same
7 page B/C/S you but we have to turn the page for the English.
8 Q. Article 114 specifies acts of police misconduct in addition to
9 those enumerated in the Law on State Administration which we just looked
10 at. So were these offences listed here enumerated here, were they
11 equivalent to a light dereliction of duty or a severe dereliction of
13 A. Severe. The same as those in the Law on State Administration.
14 Q. I would like now to go through the police disciplinary procedures
15 that existed up until mid-September 1992. First, at which organisational
16 level were disciplinary cases investigated and prosecuted in the first
17 instance within the territory covered by CSB Banja Luka?
18 A. Can you please clarify your question.
19 Q. Yes. You have organisational units, you have the police
20 stations, you have the public security stations, the SJB, you have the
21 public security centres, the CSB
22 organisational structure were disciplinary cases investigated and
23 prosecuted up until September 1992?
24 A. Under the regulations, the person directly in charge would take
25 initiative and take a matter to the centre head, if severe violations
1 ensued. And then the committee secretary would put certain disciplinary
2 prosecutors in charge of certain cases.
3 Q. And I want to go through each of those steps individually, but
4 before we do, I think my general question is, were disciplinary cases
5 investigated and prosecuted at the public security station level, the SJB
6 level, or was it at the CSB
7 A. It was at the CSB
8 disciplinary prosecutor were attached to the CSB at the level of these
10 Q. So the SJBs in the various municipalities, they didn't have their
11 own disciplinary prosecutors or disciplinary commissions to handle these
12 disciplinary cases?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Now, I think you touched on this but let's start at the very
15 beginning. How was a disciplinary case initiated against a police
16 employee? What was the first thing that had to happen to initiate the
18 A. As soon as one learned that a violation of the rules of duty
19 occurred, the immediate superior would take this to the centre. The
20 secretary of the disciplinary committee would then put certain
21 disciplinary prosecutors in charge of certain cases.
22 Under these rules, the disciplinary prosecutor, the chairman of
23 the committee, no, the secretary of the committee, would put the
24 disciplinary prosecutor in charge and then within a three-day period, a
25 request was made against an employee. He would write it up and then
1 submit it to the centre head for signing off. Likewise, if there was a
2 case of suspension --
3 Q. Let me interrupt you there. We are going to go through each step
4 in the process just so the Trial Chamber has a full understanding of it.
5 I just want to start at the very threshold, and I think you mentioned
6 that a -- the information from the superior officer would be communicated
7 to the CSB
8 be orally? How was that communicated to the centre?
9 A. In writing.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Let's take a look at Article 115 of the RS Law on
11 Internal Affairs which is page 14 of the B/C/S and page 24 of the
12 English. I think we are there on the English.
13 Q. And Article 115 reads:
14 "The request for disciplinary accountability must be issued by an
15 official, authorised by the minister."
16 As of April 1992, who was authorised by the minister of interior
17 to file a request to initiate disciplinary procedures?
18 A. The centre head, the chief.
19 Q. So only the CSB
21 A. As well as the administration heads. These are the basic
22 organisational units within the MUP, the administrations and the centres.
23 Q. And the administration heads, those were in Pale or wherever the
24 headquarters of the RS MUP were located?
25 A. The MUP headquarters.
1 Q. But I think you've also mentioned that the superior officer is
2 the one who can communicate information up to the CSB chief's attention
3 regarding a disciplinary violation, and when you mention --
4 A. Then he would make an initiative to reach the chief of the
6 Q. And that initiative usually would be in writing?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And it went to the CSB
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, who had the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings
11 against the chief of a CSB
12 A. I think it was the minister.
13 Q. And who had the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings
14 against an SJB chief?
15 A. The chief of the centre.
16 Q. And am I right that the minister also could initiate a
17 disciplinary proceedings against an SJB chief if he is aware of a
18 disciplinary violation?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And just to we are clear, did the minister of interior have the
21 authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against any MUP employee,
22 so anyone within his ministry?
23 A. I think so.
24 Q. And could the same be said about the CSB chief, that he could
25 initiate disciplinary proceedings against anyone within the area covered
1 by his centre whether it's at the SJB level or the police station level?
2 A. Yes, if he knew about it.
3 Q. Now, you mentioned this initiation of a -- that was sent up by
4 the superior officer and that was typically in writing. What kind of
5 information was included in this initiation?
6 A. First of all, first and last name of the officer who committed
7 the offence, then the organisational unit in which he worked, a
8 description of the offence, and the evidence collected about the
9 infringement, the offence.
10 Q. And I believe you already mentioned that that initiation was sent
11 to the CSB
12 received it under the procedures that existed in the time-period we are
14 A. I'm not sure whether all those requests actually went directly to
15 the chief. I think that they went to the secretary of the commission who
16 updated the file and forwarded it to the disciplinary prosecutors. After
17 which the prosecutor on behalf of the chief within three days would draft
18 a request to launch disciplinary proceedings and that would go back to
19 the secretary of the commission and he would then submit it to the chief
20 of the centre to sign it.
21 Q. Well, you've mentioned this secretary of the disciplinary
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. It sounds like -- what was the exact role of the secretary of
25 disciplinary commission? You say logging things in and such, but what
1 was this person's responsibility within the disciplinary process?
2 A. On behalf of the chief of the centre, he dealt with disciplinary
3 proceedings. He monitored it, made sure that everything was in line with
4 the law. He would check whether the initiatives received were complete,
5 and he informed the chief of the centre of disciplinary cases.
6 Q. Now, these initiatives that -- you are not absolutely positive if
7 they went to the chief on all occasions but when they did, what would
8 happen if the chief of the centre did not provide them to the secretary
9 of the disciplinary commission?
10 A. I don't know of such cases.
11 Q. Well, let me ask it this way: Could the secretary of the
12 disciplinary commission initiate disciplinary procedures without the CSB
13 chief's authorisation?
14 A. The secretary couldn't launch a disciplinary proceedings by any
15 means because he wasn't authorised to do so. He was a member of the
16 professional services that assisted the chief of the centre to enable
17 him, or rather, to make it possible for the process to run smoothly
18 without any obstacles.
19 Q. Between July and September 1992, who was the secretary of the
20 disciplinary commission at CSB
21 A. It was Aleksandar Jovicic.
22 Q. And what was his ethnicity?
23 A. I think that he is a Serb. Sometimes it's difficult to tell by a
24 person's first and last name, especially the distinction between Croats
25 and Serbs can be difficult. But I think he was a Serb.
1 Q. And I think you mentioned that Mr. Jovicic would take this
2 initiation, and he would assign the case to a disciplinary prosecutor; is
3 that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. OLMSTED: Let's take a look at 65 ter 1448.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is a case where I was
7 disciplinary prosecutor.
8 MR. OLMSTED:
9 Q. Now, the subject matter is Ivica Gagula, disciplinary
10 responsibility. What was the ethnicity of the police officer in this
11 disciplinary case?
12 A. He was a Croat.
13 Q. And can you tell us what is the purpose of this letter that's
14 coming from Aleksandar Jovicic, the secretary of the commission? What is
15 it attempting to achieve?
16 A. The entire file, not only this letter, would be forwarded by him
17 to the disciplinary prosecutor, so that the procedure, the disciplinary
18 procedure, can be continued. It says that it is necessary to issue a
19 decision on the temporary suspension of this employee as soon as
20 possible, and not later than three days after the reception of this
21 letter. You should also forward a request for initiation or procedure to
22 establish disciplinary responsibility to the head of the CSB Banja Luka
23 for his signature. And it goes on to say five copies must be made,
24 et cetera, so this is along the lines as I put it earlier.
25 Q. Now, as I understand it, this is a letter that is assigning you
1 as disciplinary prosecutor to this particular case?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And can you just tell us generally what was the role of the
4 disciplinary prosecutor in the disciplinary process? We'll talk about
5 these two letters in a second that you are instructed to write, but just
6 generally, what was your role as disciplinary prosecutor?
7 A. I had to collect evidence about the infringement and present them
8 to the disciplinary commission to describe the infringement and enumerate
9 the witnesses and the evidence that will be presented, and simply to
10 submit this request.
11 Q. Now, this letter, as you mentioned, instructs you to prepare two
12 documents, a decision on a temporary suspension and a request for
13 initiation of procedure to establish disciplinary responsibility; is that
14 what it's doing?
15 A. Yes. I was supposed to prepare these two documents, and it was
16 required that the chief of the centre sign them.
17 MR. OLMSTED: May that be admitted into evidence, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE HALL
19 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
20 JUDGE HALL
21 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1039.
22 MR. OLMSTED: My mistake. Thank you. Let's take a look at 65
23 ter 1450. And just for the record, this is also admitted into evidence
24 as P1038.
25 Q. Mr. Rodic, can you tell us what the purpose of this document, it
1 appears to be a decision. Can you tell us what its purpose is?
2 A. This is a decision on temporary suspension from the ministry of
3 one Ivica Gagula.
4 Q. And in the CSB
5 temporary suspend a police employee in relation to disciplinary
7 A. The chief of the centre.
8 MR. OLMSTED: If we can turn to the second page, I believe.
9 Q. And that is why we see his signature at the bottom of this
10 document; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, if we look at the end of this document, we see that the
13 decision on temporarily suspending this police employee was sent to the
14 department of finance. Which department of finance is that referring to?
15 A. It's the department of finance of the centre which was charged
16 with, among others, payroll.
17 Q. And why did the department of finance receive copies of
18 suspension decisions?
19 A. Well, it's mentioned here that during the temporary suspension,
20 the employee is entitled to 70 per cent of his salary.
21 Q. So they received this decision so that they knew to withhold a
22 certain percentage of the salary until the disciplinary proceedings were
24 A. Yes. Throughout the duration of the temporary suspension,
25 however, I'm not sure that this decision ever came into force.
1 Q. Now, did the CSB
2 to temporarily suspend a police employee? In other words, could he
3 always [sic] choose not to suspend an employee?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. OLMSTED: Let's take a look at P1 -- hold a second. P530.
6 If we could turn to page 14 of the B/C/S and page 25 of the English.
7 Q. And let's take a look at Article 118 of the Law on Internal
8 Affairs. It states:
9 "A ministry employee shall be temporarily suspended from duties
10 or the ministry when disciplinary or criminal proceedings have been
11 instigated against him if there are sufficient grounds to conclude that,
12 regarding the nature of the criminal act or gross misconduct, and the
13 circumstances under which they have been committed, it would be harmful
14 to the interest of the service that an employee continue to perform
15 duties or stay in the ministry."
16 Mr. Rodic, can you tell us generally what kinds of acts of
17 misconduct fell within this particular provision which would warrant
19 A. In this specific case of Ivica Gagula, it was leaving his
20 work-place without permission and without having reported. I believe
21 that this officer was the only active-duty police officer on a -- at a
22 check-point with some reserve police officers and he went AWOL for a
23 prolonged period.
24 Q. Yes, I don't want to focus on that particular case at this
25 moment, I just want to talk more generally. What we have in front of us
1 is a provision from the Law on Internal Affairs, and it's discussing
2 temporary suspension of a police employee, and it starts out by saying
3 that the employee shall, it doesn't say may, it says shall be temporarily
4 suspended, and it gives criteria to apply when this provision should come
5 into effect. And my question to you is, what kinds of misconduct would
6 fall within this provision?
7 A. First of all, criminal offences committed by police officers.
8 And then in this first paragraph of Article 119, it also mentions gross
9 misconduct depending on the circumstances of the infringement and other
10 circumstances. So in this specific case this could come under this
11 heading because he didn't commit a crime, but it was gross misconduct
12 given the circumstances because there were grounds to conclude that it
13 would be detrimental to the interest of the service to keep that officer
14 working, keep him working.
15 Q. Let me ask you it this way: Where police employees has committed
16 a serious crime, a serious crime, was suspension, temporary suspension,
17 always warranted under the law?
18 A. Yes, there are legal grounds for that.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Let's take a look at 1D236.
20 Q. This is another document from the disciplinary case file of Ivica
21 Gagula. Can you tell us what the purpose of this document is. It's
22 entitled "Request," but what is it?
23 A. The purpose of this document is to conduct disciplinary
24 proceedings before the disciplinary commission, and it's a disciplinary
25 prosecutor who puts forward the case as described or outlined in this
2 Q. And who had the authority to initiate this disciplinary process
3 against the police employee?
4 A. In this particular case of Ivica Gagula it was launched by the
5 commander of his police station whose initiative it was to approach the
6 chief of the centre.
7 Q. And who could issue this request? Who is authorised to issue
8 this request within the area of the CSB
9 A. This request to initiate the procedure for the establishment of
10 disciplinary responsibility was submitted by the chief of the centre.
11 Q. And if we turn to the second page, I believe we will see the
12 signature of the chief of the centre. Is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What would happen if the CSB
15 initiation of a disciplinary process? In other words, he didn't sign one
16 of these letters?
17 A. I don't know such cases. In case he wouldn't accept, then the
18 disciplinary procedure would be terminated.
19 Q. So you as disciplinary prosecutor did not have the authority to
20 commence a disciplinary case without the CSB chief's authorisation; is
21 that what you are saying?
22 A. The regulations clearly lay out the initiation and the course of
23 disciplinary procedure, and the request to initiate disciplinary
24 procedure was to be made by the chief of the centre.
25 Q. Now after the CSB
1 proceedings, what happened next in the step of the disciplinary process?
2 What was the next step?
3 A. The secretary of the commission would send out summons to
4 everybody who had to be there. That is, the members of the disciplinary
5 commission, the disciplinary prosecutor, and the witnesses mentioned in
6 the request. And then a hearing would take place.
7 Q. And who appointed members of the disciplinary commission?
8 A. The chief the centre.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Let's take a look at 65 ter 10327.
10 Q. Now, this is a decision dated 7 July 1992. Can you tell us what
11 this document is?
12 A. This is the decision on the establishment of a disciplinary
13 commission at the CSB
14 Q. And who issued this decision?
15 A. The chief of the centre.
16 Q. The first name on this list is Bosko Nunic, who according to this
17 document or this decision is designated as president of the disciplinary
18 commission. Can you tell us, what was Mr. Nunic's position within the
20 A. I think he was a chief of general affairs of the first SJB. I
21 don't know if he held a position in the centre of the security services.
22 Q. Now, this decision establishes six disciplinary councils
23 consisting of three members each. Why were there six councils?
24 A. There were six disciplinary councils and six disciplinary
25 prosecutors. I think there were six because the assessment was that the
1 Banja Luka CSB
2 this was probably seen as the best suitable number to deal with all
3 disciplinary cases because all these people, members of disciplinary
4 commissions and the disciplinary prosecutors were volunteers in that
5 capacity. They also had their regular duties to perform.
6 MR. OLMSTED: We've looked at page 1, why don't we turn to the
7 second page.
8 Q. And could you tell us what were -- what are the ethnicities of
9 the disciplinary commissioners that are appointed pursuant to this
11 A. I think they are Serbs.
12 Q. And by the way, if the CSB
13 disciplinary prosecutors and commissioners, did he also have the
14 authority to remove them?
15 A. Well, that seems a logical conclusion.
16 MR. OLMSTED: May this be admitted into evidence.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1287, Your Honours.
19 MR. OLMSTED: I see that I have three minutes left. Should I
20 stop here or.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: If it's convenient.
22 MR. OLMSTED: I mean, I have more on the disciplinary
23 commission, but I'm wondering if I'm going to run into a time problem if
24 I -- let me ask at least one more quick question.
25 Q. We've talked about the role of the disciplinary prosecutor. Can
1 you describe in general terms what was the role of the disciplinary
2 commission, what did they do in the disciplinary process?
3 A. The disciplinary commission decided on the verdict, the
4 punishment to be imposed or to decide whether or not the person in
5 question was guilty. So they were like a court.
6 MR. OLMSTED: And Your Honours, I think I better stop there then.
7 JUDGE HALL
8 9.00. I would remind the witness, this being the first adjournment since
9 he began his testimony, that having been sworn as a witness, you cannot,
10 communicate with the lawyers from either side, nor can you in such
11 conversations you may have with anyone outside of the courtroom discuss
12 your testimony. So with that reminder, we rise until 9.00 tomorrow
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.57 p.m.
15 to be reconvened on Friday, the 16th day of April,
16 2010, at 9.00 a.m.