Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 10639

 1                           Friday, 21 May 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

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

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

 8     the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

 9             Thank you, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             Good morning to everyone, including those in the field office.

12     The -- may we have the appearances, please.

13             MS. KORNER:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Joanna Korner and

14     Crispian Smith again for the Prosecution.

15             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

16     Appearing for Mr. Stanisic, Slobodan Cvijetic and Eugene O'Sullivan.

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

18     Defence, Igor Pantelic and Dragan Krgovic.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

20             Judge Peric, can you hear me?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

23             Mr. Krgovic indicated he has about 20 minutes left, so I would

24     invite him resume his cross-examination at this point.  And, of course, I

25     remind you you're still on your oath.

Page 10640

 1                           WITNESS:  BRANKO PERIC [Resumed]

 2                           [Witness testified through interpreter]

 3                           [Witness testified via videolink]

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

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Peric.

 6             Yesterday, if you remember, I showed you those criminal reports

 7     that were filed directly, as you explained, to the military prosecutor's

 8     office in Bijeljina concerning crimes committed in Teslic, and the

 9     criminal reports were filed by the police.  Do you remember that?

10        A.   Yes, of course.

11        Q.   And when you answered some questions by the Prosecutor and

12     provided us with some mini-statistics about the reported persons from the

13     area of Teslic, you did not include that number.

14        A.   No, I couldn't have.

15        Q.   If we wanted to have a real picture of how many people were

16     reported for what types of crimes, we would also need to have the

17     log-book of this military court in Bijeljina, right?

18        A.   And the military court in Banja Luka, if you wish.

19        Q.   Because criminal reports were filed to both criminal courts;

20     correct?

21        A.   I suppose that there were criminal reports filed directly to them

22     as well.

23        Q.   Now, Mr. Peric, I'd like to move to a different subject.

24             In the former Yugoslavia, where you worked as a prosecutor, and

25     in Republika Srpska, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, under Article 191, remand in

Page 10641

 1     custody could be ordered for a number of reasons.  If you want to look at

 2     the Law on Criminal Procedure, it's P120 and your tab in the binder of

 3     Mr. Cvijetic is 23.

 4             Look at Article 191.

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Have you found it, Your Honours?

 6     That's ERN 0025-2976.

 7        Q.   It says remand in custody is always ordered against persons

 8     suspected of committing a crime for which the law prescribes a certain

 9     length sentence; correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Now turn the next page.

12             And look at the other standards.  In paragraph 2, item 1, if the

13     person is hiding, or the identity cannot be determined, or, in the

14     presence of other circumstances pointing to a risk of escape.

15        A.   Correct.

16        Q.   If there is a well-grounded suspicion that the person may destroy

17     evidence or interfere with the investigation, intimidate witnesses,

18     accomplices, or those hiding him.

19        A.   Correct.

20        Q.   Point 3:  If particular circumstances indicate the person may

21     continue the crime, complete the crime, or commit or execute a threat

22     already issued.

23        A.   Correct.

24        Q.   If the crime committed is subject to a ten-year sentence of

25     imprisonment, and the circumstances of the crime risk causing such a

Page 10642

 1     disturbance among the citizens, that may endanger the investigation and

 2     thus justifies remand in custody.

 3             Now, after a person is remanded in custody and then the

 4     investigating judge decides to terminate remand in custody within 30

 5     days, that decision needs consent by the public prosecutor; correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Mr. Peric, in this specific case of the Mice Group, all the legal

 8     requirements for remand in custody were met for all those persons

 9     reported.

10        A.   Yes, all of them.

11        Q.   Just help me from a technical point of view.  Once remand in

12     custody is ordered and investigation starts, this KI number is given to

13     every decision made in the course of the investigation.

14        A.   Every court decision.

15        Q.   In this specific case, the number under which procedure was taken

16     against these persons for the crime in Teslic, the number is 35/92.

17             Now look at P15312 [as interpreted] that's in the prosecutor's

18     binder; tab 26.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Counsel, can you kindly repeat the number of that

20     exhibit, please.

21             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] It's P1312; tab 26 in the

22     Prosecution binder.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Of which it has been removed, if I'm not wrong.

24             MS. KORNER:  [Microphone not activated] We removed it because I

25     wasn't going to use it, but I think it's in Judge Peric's binder.  And we

Page 10643

 1     can put it on the screen.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And give the relevant numbers then, because it's

 3     not on the list.

 4             MS. KORNER:  It's P1312.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  [Microphone not activated] Thank you.

 6             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Mr. Peric, have you found it?  Have you found this document?

 8     It's a decision to conduct investigation.

 9        A.   No.  I have another document here.  But if I remember well,

10     that's the right number.

11        Q.   Now let us go back to this Mice case you spoke about.

12             The criminal report was filed against 16 persons, and the police

13     arrested and brought before an investigating judge 16 persons; correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   The investigating judge, on the 16th of July, terminated remand

16     in custody with your consent for three persons:  Predrag Karagic,

17     Mr. Tadic, and Mr. Subotic?

18        A.   Yes.  I saw, I think, in the prison document that these persons

19     were released on the basis of a certain court decision.

20        Q.   Look at tab 28 in the Prosecution's binder.  It's P1314.  That's

21     a letter from the President of the high court.  Look at the first

22     sentence, where it says:  "Under a subsequent decision from the

23     investigating judge, release was ordered for Predrag Subotic,

24     Zoran Tadic, and Predrag Karagic."

25        A.   That's in the document.

Page 10644

 1        Q.   There were no legal requirements for their release from custody.

 2        A.   If remand in custody was terminated, then the legal requirements

 3     existed.

 4        Q.   Were these persons members of the Mices Group?

 5        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 6        Q.   And the crime for which they were reported is certainly a serious

 7     crime, subject to a prison sentence of over ten years.

 8        A.   I don't think they were permanent members of that group.  I think

 9     they joined two or three days before the arrest and they had not been

10     involved with all the other conduct with which the others were charged.

11     You can check that in the decision to investigate.  I know that Karagic

12     was not based in Teslic.  He was invited to come to Teslic.

13             I think these three persons came just three days before the

14     arrest.  They're invited to join to work as a security detail or

15     something.  I think that was all considered and it was found there was no

16     reason to keep them in custody.

17             MS. KORNER:  I think there is a small problem going on here.

18     Nothing's on the screen at all.  Oh, there we go.

19             But what Mr. Krgovic read out, "under a subsequent decision from

20     the investigating judge," I don't see those words anywhere.

21             I see the words 16th July 1992, "An investigating judge ruled

22     that detention be cancelled," but I don't see anything subsequent -- or

23     anything as read out by Mr. Krgovic.

24             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps it's not on the screen in

25     the translation.

Page 10645

 1             MS. KORNER:  Was that -- were you reading that -- you were

 2     reading the second paragraph, were you?  On the 16th -- which begins on

 3     16th of July, 1992?

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.  By a subsequent decision of

 5     the investigating judge, that's the beginning of the paragraph I read.

 6     Remand in custody was terminated.

 7        Q.   We're talking here about a Mr. Karagic who is currently on trial

 8     before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina for war crimes.  I think he

 9     was convicted to 22 years.

10        A.   I think there was a trial, but I don't know if it was completed.

11     I don't know whether he was charged with war crimes either.

12        Q.   Now please look at P1313.  It's in the Prosecution binder,

13     tab 68.

14             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, the last name of this

15     person is not "Karadzic"; it's Karagic.

16        Q.   Could you please turn to page, in e-court, 30 and 30 in English.

17     In your copy, the number in the right top corner is 04155935.

18        A.   What number?  What are the last four numbers?

19        Q.   5935, in the right hand top corner.

20        A.   All right.

21        Q.   Have you found it?  Now turn to the next page.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Look at 151, 152, 153, 154, and 155, and 156.

24             These are the Mices, right?

25        A.   Yes.  A military unit.

Page 10646

 1        Q.   And in the column on the right, on page 33, you will see, first,

 2     that they were transferred to the prison in Doboj on the 17th of July,

 3     1992.

 4        A.   I can't see it.  Which column?

 5        Q.   It's the first column; the date of placement in prison.  The

 6     number on the page is 04155937.  Just after the name.

 7        A.   Date of birth, place of birth, place of residence, date of

 8     imprisonment.  Yes, can I see it.

 9        Q.   You see that they were remanded in custody by the lower court in

10     Teslic, by decision KI 5/92.

11        A.   I think they must have been remanded in custody earlier, because

12     this is not a decision to remand them in custody.

13        Q.   Now look at the next column.  They were released on the 24th of

14     July 1992?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And they were released, all these persons mentioned on this page,

17     based on -- or pursuant to the decision of the first instance court in

18     Teslic, KI, as mentioned here.

19        A.   Yes, that's what it says.  I suppose that there is a decision to

20     release them from prison, but I have problems understanding the decision

21     dated 11th of July, 1992, because that's not possible.  They were

22     arrested on the 1st, and they must have been placed in custody on the

23     3rd.  Anyway, much earlier than this date, so I don't know what this is

24     about.  So if have you the decision we could take a look at it.

25        Q.   I don't have it on me at the moment.  The problem is that earlier

Page 10647

 1     they were in police custody for three days?

 2        A.   But that expired on 3rd of July.

 3        Q.   And later on you will see from the criminal report the problem

 4     was the jurisdiction with regard to their arrest.  So they were put up in

 5     the Kardijal, so they were not really in detention for a certain while.

 6        A.   Yeah, but it was detention, but only physically.  They were not

 7     in prison.  They were in Kardijal, but they could have -- could have been

 8     kept there only based on a relevant decision.

 9        Q.   And Kardijal is a hotel at Vanja Vrucica [phoen], right?

10        A.   Yes, in Teslic, that is correct.  That's where they were kept for

11     a while.

12        Q.   So let us sum up Mr. Peric.  All these persons I have mentioned,

13     six persons on this page, were released based on a decision of the first

14     instance court in Teslic, right?

15        A.   I suppose that there is a decision on release from custody.  This

16     group of persons was not involved in most of the crimes committed by the

17     group that belonged to the police, so that with regard to them, there

18     were no more reasons to keep them in detention and that's why their

19     custody was terminated.

20        Q.   Sir, go back one page, please.  That is page 0415935.  And you

21     will see these two person, Roboljub Sjilic [phoen], and Ranko Stjuka?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   That's serial numbers 149 and 150.  And these two were released

24     pursuant to a decision of the first instance court in Teslic, file number

25     KI 35/92.

Page 10648

 1        A.   Probably.  And probably they belonged to a military unit.

 2        Q.   Do you have a reason to doubt the truthfulness of the information

 3     contained in this document, this log-book?

 4        A.   I believe that there is a decision on release of -- from

 5     detention of this group of military personnel, because they were not

 6     involved in most of the crimes committed by the members of this police

 7     formation.  I believe that was the only reason, but we should check by

 8     looking at the decision and the reasons stated there.

 9        Q.   From this log-book it follows that the higher instance court in

10     Doboj terminated detention for Pijunovic, Tekic, Culibrk, Djuric, and

11     Spesevic [phoen]; correct?

12        A.   Yes.  Pursuant to an appeal by defence.

13        Q.   In August 1992; correct?

14        A.   Yes.  Pursuant to an appeal by the defence.

15        Q.   Talking about criminal reports against military personnel, isn't

16     it true that this military wing of the Mice was reported for the

17     execution of 40 Muslims at places outside Teslic?

18        A.   Correct.  Some of them took part in the execution, but they

19     admitted they did, which was established in the investigation.

20        Q.   Mr. Peric, were there legal grounds for releasing this group of

21     persons from detention with regard to the circumstances, because for

22     murder the death penalty could be imposed and they -- it was required

23     that they remain in detention.

24        A.   I believe that that was a court decision.  They were transferred

25     to Doboj.  Under the law, detention could be terminated after six months

Page 10649

 1     so that regardless of this legal requirement, with regard to the

 2     situation regarding their transfer to Doboj, detention would have been

 3     terminated anyway.  They were transferred to Doboj to be released.  This

 4     is obvious from the entire scenario of their transfer from Banja Luka.  I

 5     even think that they were not really in prison, that they were only filed

 6     as being in prison, that they were on the list, but that they were

 7     actually at large.

 8        Q.   How did the release of the Mice affect the police and the persons

 9     who had arrested them?  Namely, this group of hardboiled [as interpreted]

10     criminals was at once at large again.  How did that affect the work of

11     the police?  Very badly, right?

12        A.   I don't know how it affected the work of the police.  In Doboj,

13     this was hailed and celebrated in the streets.  But to the people who had

14     arrested them, probably were not delighted by that.

15        Q.   Immediately after that, there were threats to the people who had

16     arrested them, specifically Mr. Radulovic and the others.  You know about

17     that, don't you?

18        A.   No.  No, I don't.  I suppose there may have been threats due to

19     the circumstances of the arrest.  You saw that there were injuries in the

20     process, torture, et cetera.

21        Q.   And such a court decision to release them and this attitude

22     toward the arrest certainly discourages the police and undermines their

23     work, because we saw that this case was perfectly processed and then the

24     criminals were released.

25        A.   Well, that is your conclusion.  I need more context to comment.

Page 10650

 1     From this point of view, I cannot draw conclusions as to how this may

 2     have affected the police and the military psychologically or Teslic,

 3     Doboj, or Banja Luka.

 4        Q.   You saw that brigade report that I showed which -- from which it

 5     follows that the soldiers from the brigade complain about the Mice

 6     re-appearing.  It is a known fact that the Mice appeared again and

 7     started threatening the people who had arrested them?

 8        A.   Some of them came to Teslic and those were the reactions.  But,

 9     at the time, I didn't even know that they were coming to Teslic again.

10     But obviously they started reappearing in some situations.  You must bear

11     in mind that the relations between Teslic and Doboj throughout the war

12     were very bad.

13        Q.   Mr. Peric, let's me sum up and finish this topic.

14             These people, even today -- or, rather, there are no proceedings

15     against these people even today for the crimes they committed in Teslic;

16     correct?

17        A.   That is unfortunately true, with the exception of Karagic.

18        Q.   Mr. Radulovic even today has problems because of this arrest and

19     the investigation he conducted, right?

20        A.   I don't know that.  Mr. Radulovic is an attorney nowadays, as far

21     as I know, and I don't know of any problems, or his problems.

22        Q.   And these criminals who committed these offences are at large.

23     And Mr. Radulovic is now an attorney, and Mr. Zupljanin, who ordered the

24     arrest, is standing trial for the crimes of these Mice.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat his answer.  We

Page 10651

 1     didn't hear the answer to this last question.

 2             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, apart from the fact that it's a

 3     comment and not a question.  I don't know what the question was and I

 4     don't know what the answer was because we didn't get the translation.  I

 5     didn't hear anything that Mr. Krgovic said at the end.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             MR. KRGOVIC:  [Microphone not activated]

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.  Microphone.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   I asked you about these facts about the result of all this, that

11     the Mice are at large, Mr. Radulovic is no longer with the police,

12     Mr. Zupljanin is standing trial -- Mr. Zupljanin who ordered the arrest

13     of these Mice is standing trial for the crimes they committed.

14             MS. KORNER:  Yes, just a minute.  That's not a question.  It's a

15     comment, and I object to that.

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   But is -- is what I said correct and true -- or, rather, do you

18     know that?  Do you know that?

19             MS. KORNER:  It's still a comment, and it's not a question.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Naturally.  Of course, I know.

21     Today I'm certainly aware of that.

22             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Peric.  No more questions.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Krgovic.  Mr. Krgovic, please, could you

25     assist me from where we have the evidence that Mr. Zupljanin ordered the

Page 10652

 1     arrests of the Mice Group?

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

12             MS. KORNER:  [Overlapping speakers] Redacted.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Sorry, Ms. Korner, please.  Can I just reply to

14     Mr. --

15             MS. KORNER:  You can, but, Your Honour, it needs to be redacted;

16     the whole speech by Mr. Krgovic.

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise for this, I mentioned

18     about the gentleman.  Yes, I agree that this should be redacted.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes, it should be redacted.

20             My comment was just that I'm aware of the evidence that we had

21     from previous witnesses.  I just wanted to make sure that we have not

22     received this evidence from this witness.  That was my question.  Thanks.

23             MS. KORNER:  And Your Honours, as a matter of interest, we

24     haven't had that witness from any witness directly either.  So it -- what

25     Mr. Krgovic has said is not correct.  Having said that, I anticipate that

Page 10653

 1     is the evidence that will be given.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, the accused Zupljanin seems to be trying to

 3     get our attention.  Perhaps his counsel.

 4             Is this -- Mr. Krgovic, is there --

 5             MR. KRGOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I don't have further

 6     question.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 8             Re-examination.

 9             MS. KORNER:  Yes I do, Your Honours.

10                           Re-examination by Ms. Korner:

11        Q.   Judge, first of all, I want to deal with the question of your

12     resignation about which you were asked yesterday, and your interview was

13     referred to by Mr. Cvijetic.  I think we better just have that up.

14             MS. KORNER:  It's page 4 of the second interview.  Sorry.  Oh, 65

15     ter 10359.02.  And as it's -- the fourth, yes, the fourth page at the

16     bottom.

17             No, that's not it.  Page 4, please.  Yep.

18        Q.   At the bottom of the page you were asked:

19             What was the reason given why they wanted you removed?

20             And you said:

21             They gave several reasons.  Amongst other things, they wrote that

22     before the war I'd associated with a Muslim man who was a war criminal,

23     and this was a young man I used to have a publishing house together with

24     from Bosanski Brod.  And I did associate with him before the war.  He was

25     a poet, he was a painter.

Page 10654

 1             And you go on to describe that.  And then you said at the end of

 2     that paragraph:

 3             And this is the main reason they stated, for when they said that

 4     I wasn't a Serb, that I didn't support the state, and that I didn't

 5     support their politics or their policy.

 6             And could we go to the next page, please, the top of it.

 7             Then they said that I also wrote for Nin, and I remember them

 8     saying that I was the ideologist behind the creation of the socialist

 9     party in Teslic, that I was providing assistance to certain people within

10     the socialist party, which is in fact true because there was a group of

11     people within that party who were the opposition, the only opposition to

12     the SDS and who had believed that the socialist party that Milosevic were

13     against the SDS and they would have support from Belgrade.

14             Was there any reason ever suggested ... you were not performing

15     your duties properly as a public prosecutor?

16             Not at all.  There was not a single sentence in connection with

17     work.

18             MS. KORNER:  Right.  Can we go back to the Judge.  Yes.

19        Q.   Judge Peric, you said that in interview in 2002.  Was that your

20     view at the time and is it your view today of why you were removed?

21        A.   That is completely true.  I saw that SDS document from Teslic.  I

22     wrote it in its entirety.  It was brought to me by the chief prosecutor

23     to show me who demands my removal and why.  And that there had been

24     several such letter and that he was saying to Karagic several times that

25     I was a regular prosecutor and that there was no reason for him to remove

Page 10655

 1     him, and finally he was told, Either you remove Peric or I remove you,

 2     because I cannot cope with this Knezovic and the deputies from Teslic

 3     anymore.

 4        Q.   Right.  Now, that was reopened the question of your resignation

 5     by Mr. Cvijetic who showed you a document for which there was no

 6     translation available and read you a selected bit.  And that's at page

 7     10572 of the transcript.  And the document, for which there is now a

 8     translation, is 1D277 -- sorry, it was at page -- I think it was at a

 9     later stage you were shown this document.

10             Anyhow, can we have it up, please, 1D277.  I don't think it was

11     MFI'd at all.  Was it?

12             JUDGE HALL:  I thought it was.

13             MS. KORNER:  Oh was it.

14        Q.   And what you said about it, Judge, when you were shown it, with

15     the implication, I imagine, that you were corrupt, although it wasn't

16     stated in those terms, because you were asked about the apartment that

17     you got?

18             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, it's page 10580 and 81 of the transcript

19     yesterday.

20        Q.   And you said Mr. Rade Pavlovic was a man who was not supporting

21     the policies of the SDS.  He openly fought against such policies.  All

22     the claims here about his criminal activities is untrue.  The purpose of

23     it was to discredit him and to dismiss him.  He was a man with a

24     reputation with authority who was protecting his employees of Bosniak and

25     Croat nationality, and the SDS did not like this.

Page 10656

 1             I'm not interested in this, said Mr. Cvijetic, only the bit

 2     related to you.

 3             Well, now let's have a look at what is clear from the letter or

 4     the report I should say.  Can we have it up on the screen, please.  And

 5     go in it to the -- it will be the fourth page, please, in English.

 6     That's the bottom of page 3 of the English, I think.  Sorry, can we go

 7     back one page in English, and I don't know where it is in B/C/S at all.

 8     Yes, that last paragraph, please.

 9             Page 4 of B/C/S.

10             This is the report:

11             After a litany of complaint about his alleged corrupt activities,

12     in which you were dragged into it, his stance towards Muslims and Croats

13     who are moving out voluntarily is rather unorthodox, especially in the

14     current climate.  He gives valuable gifts to more prominent Muslims and

15     Croats who are leaving as a sign of gratitude, in inverted commas, for

16     everything they have given to Teslic.  In these circumstances, he never

17     fails to apologise to the Muslims and Croats for having to leave their

18     hearths, adding that there are many Serbs who regret their leaving.

19     Because of such actions on his part Radio Tesanj has --

20             Could we go to the next page.

21             -- has been of late referring to Pavlovic as the most humane Serb

22     and in other laudatory terms.

23             Is that, Judge Peric, what you were referring to when you give

24     that answer to Mr. Cvijetic?

25        A.   Yes, that's correct.  Pavlovic was really an honourable man who

Page 10657

 1     want to help people, and I also wanted to help Pavlovic for that

 2     apartment to be preserved for the people who had renovated it and lived

 3     in it.  That was a complete lie.  If that was an official police report,

 4     you can see what the police were dealing with.  Pavlovic was never

 5     accused or suspected.  They tried to remove him after the war.  They

 6     circled his company and there was a clash between the workers and the

 7     police, and he was -- he was a nuisance to many people, but such reports

 8     were a complete fabrication.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  On page 16, line 13,

10     of the current transcript the first word should be "read," "I read it in

11     its entirety."

12             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I don't know whether Your Honours want

13     this to be exhibited.  Your Honours, I do say that it would have been

14     proper for Mr. Cvijetic, knowing there was no translation and having

15     heard the answer the Judge, to have referred him there and then or at

16     least us to that paragraph.

17             Now, can I -- as I say, I don't know whether Your Honours think

18     this is something that you want to have exhibited.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Inasmuch as it was -- one of the lines of the

20     cross-examination was to attack the credibility and honesty of this

21     witness, and this was a document relied on, in order to give a context to

22     that bit of evidence I should it should be exhibited.

23             MS. KORNER:  Well, then, Your Honours now that we've got the

24     translation, Your Honours have seen exactly what this is about.

25             JUDGE HALL:  So the -- as I said, my recollection is that it was

Page 10658

 1     marked for identification so -- yes, so it would -- that -- that would

 2     now be lifted.

 3             MS. KORNER:

 4        Q.   Can I move then, Judge Peric, to another matter that you were

 5     asked about Mr. Cvijetic, and this is at page 10560 of the transcript.

 6     You were being taken through the Criminal Code and the duties of a

 7     prosecutor.  And --

 8             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, Your Honours, I just want to make sure I've

 9     got the... yes.

10        Q.   And it was put to you that citizens -- you were asked question at

11     the top of page:

12             Were you ever in a situation as a public prosecutor that a

13     citizen comes to you and verbally tells that you a crime was committed

14     and that he or she wants the proceeding to be launched against the

15     perpetrator?

16             No.  I've been a prosecutor for three years and I was a

17     prosecutor for three years, I've never been in such a situation.

18     Citizens normally report crimes to the police and never has any citizen

19     come to me to report a crime.

20             Now, first, leaving that aside for a moment, supposing a citizen

21     had filed a criminal report with you, what would you have to do with that

22     criminal report?  Who would be -- would have to investigate whether there

23     was substance to this report?

24        A.   The police, of course.  What I would do with the report is write

25     a letter to the police and ask police inspectors to collect information

Page 10659

 1     related to that report, to question certain persons, et cetera.  Simply

 2     collect evidence.  I, as a prosecutor, could not do that.  I could

 3     possibly invite some persons to talk to them, but this was mostly done

 4     through the police.  And this procedure applies to date.  Even the

 5     minister would ask the police and other agencies to provide logistical

 6     support in collecting evidence.

 7        Q.   All right.  You say you never ever had a citizen reporting a

 8     crime to you in the whole of your three years as a prosecutor; is that

 9     right?

10        A.   Correct.  It's simply part of our legal culture.  It is the

11     police to which crimes are reported and it is the police that enforces

12     security, protects public order and morale.

13        Q.   Next, can I move to another matter that you were asked about.

14     And that was the processing, if you like, of an investigation.

15             It was put to you:

16             Mr. Peric, let me summarise the position of the Defence in

17     relation to the implementation of the provisions you were looking at.

18     The prosecution of the perpetrators and their processing before the

19     judicial organs at the time was exclusively part of the authorities of

20     the public prosecutor, and then further processing would be under the

21     authority of the relevant court.

22             And your reply was:

23             Prosecution, yes, but preparation and collection of evidence was

24     something that had -- was to be done by the police.  One must make a

25     distinction here.

Page 10660

 1             So effectively, who conducted the first investigation?

 2        A.   Preliminary investigation in the pre-indictment stage was always

 3     handled by the police.  Always.  And the results of these pre-indictment

 4     steps were submitted to the prosecutor, either in the form of a criminal

 5     report or by briefing the prosecutor about the steps that had been taken,

 6     especially if they found there were no elements of crime.

 7        Q.   Right.

 8        A.   The police had a service, the Criminal Investigation Service,

 9     which had its chief, and this service dealt exclusively with the

10     discovery of crime and collection of evidence.  That was a special

11     service within the police.

12        Q.   Now, once an investigative judge had become involved, who would

13     he have to rely on, for example, to arrest the perpetrators of the

14     alleged crimes?

15        A.   On the police, of course, and only the police.

16        Q.   Who would be responsible for locating the witnesses to the

17     crimes?

18        A.   The police, of course.  They would have to find out his or her

19     address, bring him or her in, or even deliver a subpoena regarding

20     persons who did not want to appear in court.  They had to rely solely on

21     the police.  Otherwise, they would be unable to do their job.

22        Q.   And was that the same in respect of the conduct of searches and

23     the seizure of evidence?

24        A.   Correct.  All the searches, all crime scene investigations.

25     Everything was done with the help of the police.

Page 10661

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just a moment of

 2     your time.

 3             Perhaps it would be fair to ask the witness on whose orders and

 4     under whose supervision the police did that work when a case was in the

 5     stage of investigation and who led all these procedures.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The prosecutor gives authority to

 7     the police, unless he leads a particular investigating step.  He could,

 8     for instance, take charge of a crime scene investigation, but he could

 9     also assign his authority to the police and did not normally take part in

10     those investigative steps.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Ms. Korner asked you who orders

12     these steps to be taken.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The investigating judge does not --

14             MS. KORNER:  I truly object to this.  I'm in the middle of

15     re-examination and suddenly Mr. Cvijetic gets up again to continue his

16     cross-examination.  I mean -- this is outrageous.

17             JUDGE HALL:  I agree, Ms. Korner.  Please proceed.

18             MS. KORNER:  I'm sorry, but Your Honours I -- I'm sorry, would

19     Your Honour like to point out to Mr. Cvijetic it's utterly improper.

20             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, I must explain with all due

21     respect that the witness has to be asked a fair question.  The witness

22     was led to give a wrong answer.  Well, only now did he give an answer

23     that is in conformity with the law.  If we go on with questioning of this

24     kind, we will not get to the truth.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic.

Page 10662

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, I do apologise.  I just have an intervention

 2     to the transcript.  It's page 21, line 18, beginning with the word "They

 3     had to rely," actually witness said, "the prosecution had to rely solely

 4     on police."  That was his word.

 5             Maybe my learned friend, Ms. Korner, can clarify that with the

 6     witness.  Thank you.

 7             MS. KORNER:

 8        Q.   Is that right, Judge Peric?  Did you say the prosecution had to

 9     rely.  I understood you to say -- I was asking you -- can I make this

10     absolutely clear, the questions I asking related to once the

11     investigating judge was in charge of the investigation.

12             MS. KORNER:  So I was not misleading the witness, and I take

13     strong objection to Mr. Cvijetic's intervention at any stage in the

14     middle of re-examination.

15             Now, I was asking specific questions about the time at which the

16     investigative judge became involved.  On whom the investigative judge had

17     to rely.

18        Q.   Now, Judge Peric, I'm sorry for this somewhat unseemly

19     interruption but --

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Let's wait for the witness to answer to be clear.

21             MS. KORNER:  Yes, I'm just about to go back to this.

22             MR. PANTELIC:  I do apologies.  Judge answered on your question,

23     it was line 5:

24             "Is that right, Judge Peric?  Did you say the prosecution had to

25     rely ..."  and then he said, "yes," but it was not in the transcript so

Page 10663

 1     maybe you can ask him again in relation to my objection to the

 2     transcript.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you Mr. Pantelic.

 4             MS. KORNER:

 5        Q.   Judge Peric, when you were answering my questions - and I will go

 6     back to the actual question and answer - I've forgotten what line you

 7     said it was, now.  21, line 19.  Right.

 8             And I'll go back and read the whole series to you.  My question

 9     was:

10             "Now once an investigative judge has become involved, who would

11     he have to rely on, for example, to arrest the perpetrators of the

12     alleged crimes?"

13             And your answer was:

14             "On the police, of course, and only the police."

15             "Q.  Who would be responsible for locating the witnesses to the

16     crimes?"

17             "A.  The police, of course.  They would have to find out his or

18     her address, bring him or her in, or even deliver a subpoena regarding

19     the person who is did not want to appear in court.  They had to rely

20     solely on the police."

21             Now did you say then instead of "they," "the prosecution"?

22        A.   I can clarify.  Everyone relies on the police.  The prosecutor,

23     the investigating judge, and even the court, during trial, if it is

24     necessary to ensure the presence of a witness.  At all stages, only the

25     police for the prosecutor and for the court and for the judge, the police

Page 10664

 1     is the supporting body, the force that supports their work at all stages.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  And one final question on this topic before I move to

 3     the next.  Is -- at what stage does an investigation become a

 4     prosecution?

 5        A.   With the request to conduct an investigation.

 6        Q.   At that stage it's a prosecution as opposed to an investigation?

 7        A.   Correct.  That's correct.  Those are criminal proceedings.

 8             MS. KORNER:  I don't know, Your Honours.  And I've lost track of

 9     when -- is that about the time for the break?

10             JUDGE HALL:  No, we have a ways to go yet.

11             MS. KORNER:  Oh, I see.  Yes, I'm sorry.  I've slightly lost

12     track this morning.  Right.

13        Q.   Can I then next move to the question, you were asked by, I

14     believe, Mr. Krgovic, this was, about the attacks on Stenjak and

15     Rankovici, of the operations which is 10957.  Page 10957 in the

16     transcript.  I apologies, 10597, yes.  Yes, yes.  You were asked about by

17     Mr. Krgovic about the military operations in Stenjak and Rankovici.  And

18     it was put to you that you don't know anything about the reasons for the

19     operation or the causes of the operation; 10598.

20             And you said:

21             Yes, that's correct, I don't know anything about the details.

22             Now, I think we better clarify that because you were asked about

23     this in your interview, second interview at page 71.  You were asked,

24     first of all, about Stenjak, and you described the attack -- perhaps we

25     better have the page up.  Page 71 of this interview.

Page 10665

 1             MS. KORNER:  10359.02.  Page 71.

 2        Q.   The investigator said he was going to ask you about the military

 3     operations in Stenjak and Rankovici.  And you explained that it was a

 4     large village, inhabited exclusively by Muslims, and you were asked:

 5             Did you actually see the tank firing on Stenjak, and you said

 6     that you heard it because it was about 2 to 3 [sic] metres away from the

 7     Court.

 8             And then it was one tank or is that other fire coming from

 9     places.

10             And you said, I think there was another one firing from the

11     direction of what is called the cattle market?

12             Was there any response, you were asked, any firing from the

13     village.

14             I couldn't see that nor do I know that.  I am not aware of any

15     resistance being put up.  I never heard anything about it, but I remember

16     hearing that people said many people had left the village before the

17     attack.

18             And, next page, please.

19             You were asked, at the top of the page, next page.

20             So why do you think there was a military -- military operation

21     carried out there then.

22             Your answer was intimidation, to set an example for other

23     villages.

24             Then you were asked about the shells.  And you said you didn't

25     see that anything was destroyed.

Page 10666

 1             Did the infantry enter Stenjak, you were asked.

 2             And you said, yes, I think it was the military and police groups

 3     that entered, and I think that several people were killed.  I was -- I

 4     was told by -- about this by the people who actually buried those people

 5     who got killed, and I think they couldn't even establish the identity of

 6     two or three people who were killed.

 7             And then you were asked if you knew had killed them, and you said

 8     no.

 9             And then you were asked about Rankovici.

10             Now, first of all, dealing alone with Stenjak, that evidence that

11     you gave then or -- sorry, that information you gave then, was that your

12     recollection and understanding at the time that you gave this interview?

13        A.   Yes, that's it.  But I meant direct knowledge before that action.

14     That it would happen.  Later, I heard about several dead who could be

15     identified.  I heard the fire, because it was very close.  I saw the tank

16     and the fire from the tank -- I heard the fire from the tank.

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  The dead who could

18     not be identified.

19             MS. KORNER:

20        Q.   So when you were answering Mr. Krgovic's questions, you were

21     dealing with the direct -- whether you had direct information?

22        A.   Yes, precisely.

23        Q.   But you, yourself, heard the tank firing at the time of the --

24     the -- the attack on the village?

25        A.   Yes, I heard of the tank.  I perhaps even saw it because it was

Page 10667

 1     200 metres away from the court-house by the road to Doboj.  Stenjak is a

 2     town neighbourhood.  It's very central.

 3        Q.   All right.  And then you moved on -- you were then asked about

 4     Rankovici.  If we just go back to the interview for a moment, the same

 5     page.

 6             You then -- you thought it was on the 8th or 12th of May, and

 7     then you corrected that to say it was June, later on.

 8             And then at the bottom of the page you were asked, before we

 9     cover Rankovici, do you think there's any relationship between the

10     arrival of the Mices and the attack on Stenjak.

11             And you -- it said, yes [sic], of course, it was their action,

12     operation.

13             And then over the next page.

14             How [sic] do you mean it was their operation.

15             They participated in the same [sic] thing -- sorry, the whole

16     thing.  It was part of their strategy of installing order.

17             You were asked how did they participate.

18             I don't know.

19             And then the tanks, they didn't arrive with tanks, they were

20     regular army tanks.

21             No, they came to the brigade, to Bilanovic and Petricevic - I'm

22     sorry, that one I have a real difficulty with - was his duty, and it was

23     all co-ordinated with the Crisis Staff.  They brought them in and

24     arranged for everything.  They were just a tool in the strategy of the

25     Crisis Staff.

Page 10668

 1             Let's talk about the attack on Rankovici.  It was after the

 2     attack of Stenjak; correct.

 3             Yes.

 4             Can you describe the military operation that had happened in that

 5     village.

 6             I can.  Whatever I can tell you comes from the investigation we

 7     conducted.  Apparently, somebody from that village shot -- fired shots at

 8     police or a military patrol.  I don't know whether that's true or not.

 9     Maybe this was just a way for them to justify their operation, but they

10     put that down as the reason for the operation.  And then the police and

11     the army went there.  It was the same as in Stenjak.  It was a

12     co-ordinated action.  Just in case the police, both the police and army.

13     And in this operation on Rankovici, one of the Mice was wounded and one

14     policeman or one man was killed.

15             And then you describe what happened afterwards.

16             So was this your conclusion, having investigated this matter as

17     to how this attack came about?

18        A.   All that I said was based on what I heard during the

19     investigations we conducted at the court.  I did not see anything with my

20     own eyes, and I did not participate.

21        Q.   And when you talk about the -- a joint operation between the

22     military and the police, are you just talking about the Mices or other

23     members outside the Mices, or both the military and the police?

24        A.   The local police was involved, the Mices, and the army.

25        Q.   And then you were asked, over the page, just very briefly --

Page 10669

 1     sorry, can we go back to ...

 2             Yep.  And then you talked about the interrogations you carried

 3     out.  You talked about what happened to the village -- the people who had

 4     been in the village.  You said Rankovici was a village exclusively

 5     inhabited by Muslims.  And you were asked then, were the Croats -- where

 6     were the Croats based largely.

 7             And you said, after this operation on Rankovici there was a

 8     similar operation done on the village of Komusina where the Catholic

 9     church is and the holy edifice as well.  The Croatian villages gravitated

10     toward the Zenica municipal boundaries.  So their town was towards the

11     end when the inside operations were finished.

12             And was that again something you discovered as a result of your

13     investigations into the Mice?

14        A.   That happened later.  And that's also indirect knowledge on my

15     part, regarding actions or people who participated.

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't remember this arises from

17     my cross-examination.  I don't remember mentioning Komusina and this

18     operation.  We talked about two operations, Rankovici and Stenjak.

19             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, as I understand it, the suggest -- I

20     know those are the only two villages mentioned, but the suggestion was

21     that in each case the judge was unaware of the actual nature of these

22     operations with which, on the face of it, the judge agreed, which is why

23     I was dealing with all of them, and the three operations run as one, even

24     though specifically Komusina wasn't mentioned.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Perhaps you should confine yourself to

Page 10670

 1     the [overlapping speakers].

 2             MS. KORNER:  Well, I dealt with the topic in any event.

 3        Q.   Can I move, please, to the next matter that was put to you,

 4     namely, that after the Mice were arrested in July, and this is at page

 5     10599, you said, in the period when the people from Banja Luka were

 6     there, all Muslims and Croats that were in detention at different

 7     locations were released with the exception of several against whom

 8     indicts were issued and they were still being prosecuted.

 9             Now from whom did you get the information that all of these

10     people who had been arrested by the Mice and were being held in various

11     detention places were released?

12        A.   Got it from Radulovic Predrag.  Together with him, I went to the

13     prison of the Territorial Defence because he invited me to be present at

14     the disbanding of that prison.  So I came together with him to that

15     prison and was present when the detainees were released and regarding

16     other prison, I heard from him they were disbanded.

17        Q.   Right.  So the only one that you're aware of where you actually

18     saw people -- or you were present when people were released was the one

19     in the Territorial Defence building.  And for the rest, you're relying on

20     information that Mr. Radulovic gave you; is that right?

21        A.   That's right.

22        Q.   All right.  Well, Your Honours, I think that is now time for the

23     break because I'm moving to a marginally different topic.

24                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

25             JUDGE HALL:  If --

Page 10671

 1             MS. KORNER:  It will take me more than five minutes.  But, Your

 2     Honours, as I say, I completely lost track of when we're having breaks at

 3     moment, but I'm perfectly happy to go on for another five.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  If it will take you more than five minutes, we can

 5     conveniently take the break at this time.

 6             MS. KORNER:  Certainly.

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE HALL:  As a matter of interest, Ms. Korner, how much longer

 9     do you think you would be in total in your re-examination?

10             MS. KORNER:  No more than half an hour.

11                           --- Recess taken at 10.22 a.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

13             MS. KORNER:

14        Q.   Judge, just a couple more questions about the -- these detention

15     places.

16             Were you aware that -- that there was a -- a detention facility

17     at Pribinic?

18        A.   Yes, I was.  There was even before the arrival of the Mice and I

19     believe that it was closed down, but it was re-opened when the Mice came,

20     as far as I know.

21        Q.   Right.  Were you aware that people were actually kept there until

22     the 5th -- at least the 5th of October?

23        A.   I cannot assert that with certainty.  It's a -- it's possible,

24     but I'm not sure.

25        Q.   All right.  And were you aware of another detention facility at

Page 10672

 1     the partisan handball place?

 2        A.   I think it was a sort of open-air collection centre.  It was not

 3     a usual prison.

 4        Q.   No, I absolutely agree with you.  But were you aware, again, that

 5     apparently people were detained there, non-Serbs, until at least the 20th

 6     of October?

 7        A.   I cannot comment this time reference, but I know that it existed,

 8     and I saw people there.

 9        Q.   All right.  Now, as I said, I wanted to move to another topic

10     that you were asked about.

11             It was put to you effectively that when you were looking -- when

12     you were asked to look again at your report for September - perhaps you'd

13     better have that.

14             It's in tab 84 for you, Judge, and the number is P1353.15.

15             And effectively you were asked about the section which is on --

16     just a moment ... find it myself.  I think it's page 1, and you were

17     asked about the relationship between -- yes.  It's the last

18     paragraph of -- paragraph 1, the introduction.  Relations between the

19     public prosecutor's office and the public security station were within

20     the limits of correctness and professionalism, although they were marked

21     by subjective organisational weaknesses in one period.

22             And at page 10604, you were asked by Mr. Krgovic:  Were you

23     referring to the time when the Mices were in Teslic.

24             And you said:  Yes, that's the period I had in mind.

25             And then in the period after that, covered by your report, your

Page 10673

 1     relations were good.

 2             Yes, concerning the criminal reports that arrived, the

 3     co-operation with regard to them was good.

 4             Now, you told us yesterday -- when I was asking you questions

 5     in-chief, that the police were not, in fact, reporting crimes to you.  I

 6     think I better find my actual question.  I think you said it in your

 7     interview as well.

 8             When you talked about relations being bad during the period of

 9     the Mice, were you referring to reports of crimes being not given to you

10     at all, obviously; or were you referring to something else?

11             What did you mean by "relations were good"?

12        A.   This statement of mine refers to those cases that were processed

13     and good cooperation with regard to the cases or files that were

14     forwarded to the prosecutor's office.

15             With regard to that, the relations were good.  All the reports

16     were professional, contained enough evidence, and professionally done.

17     That's what I meant.  Everything in connection with those reports was all

18     right.

19        Q.   I see.  Right.  That's -- so it's in the reports that you

20     actually submitted.

21             All right.  Thank you.  That's clarified that.  Thank you very

22     much.

23             You were then -- it was put to you, and you agreed with it, and

24     this is on page 10603 of the transcript, that the main complaint about

25     crimes committed pertains to the army.  And you said:  Yes, that was the

Page 10674

 1     greatest problem.  The army did not have a -- doesn't quite make sense in

 2     the transcript, but did not organise, I think it should be "organised"

 3     the military police and did nothing to exert control over the armed

 4     persons while those people were not at the front line.

 5             You told the Court when I was asking you question about the type

 6     of people that were being prosecuted, that I think that the people

 7     processed were criminals of classical type so to speak, this is page

 8     10537 of the transcript, and in the case where the people weren't

 9     prosecuted, these were people either that were under the control of the

10     police, or the case was that maybe the police didn't want them to be

11     prosecuted.  That's the only conclusion I can reach.

12             Now, were the -- the crimes only committed by those who were in

13     the military; or were there also those not in the military committing

14     crimes?

15        A.   That was my conclusion also.  Whatever was not reported and

16     investigated, I suppose that was, in a way, under the control of either

17     the police or the military, or both.  I cannot strictly distinguish

18     between the military and the police.  I believe that there was some sort

19     of joint action.  After all, both the commander and the chief of police

20     were members of the Crisis Staff, so they had to know about all these

21     events.

22             I concluded from all that that cases of common crime were being

23     investigated, whereas other crimes were under some sort of control of

24     either the police or the military, or they were tolerated from a

25     political level.  These -- these were my conclusions.

Page 10675

 1        Q.   Thank you.  And then, really, finally, you were asked a number of

 2     questions in relation to the entries in your register which show the

 3     arrest of Serbs for crimes committed against non-Serbs.

 4             And you were also -- it was effectively put to you that the

 5     arrests of Croats and Muslims stopped once the Mice were out.

 6             Now, in relation to the second aspect - that is, the arrest of

 7     Croats and Muslims stopped once the Mice were removed - is that actually

 8     right?

 9        A.   That is right, but only applies to the period where -- while the

10     police from Banja Luka was there and carried out policing in Teslic.

11     After that, things went bad again.

12        Q.   All right.  And as -- it's right, I think, we can see from the KT

13     log-book, in fact, that there were further prosecutions of Muslims and

14     Croats for such things as armed rebellion and illegal possession of

15     weapons.

16             Yes.  Thank you very much, indeed, Judge Peric, for coming.

17     That's all I ask.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19                           Questioned by the Court:

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Judge Peric, when you are to deal with a group of

21     criminals and when proceedings are started against them, you normally

22     proceed against every member of the group, right?

23        A.   That is correct.

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Was there any decision ordering the arrest of

25     Mr. Savic, as far as you know?

Page 10676

 1        A.   No, there was no such decision.  We never received one from the

 2     police.  I don't know what exactly the explanation was.  Mr. Radulovic

 3     could say more about that.  I don't know why he was not included in the

 4     criminal report.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  The fact that he was not in Teslic, that he

 6     couldn't be found in Teslic, has nothing to do with the question whether

 7     there are investigations, whether there are proceedings against him or

 8     not.  The fact that he is not there, not in Teslic, or cannot be found,

 9     does not prevent investigations to be started against someone, right?

10        A.   That is correct.  But I believe that, at that moment, it wouldn't

11     have been possible to arrest him because he was in Doboj under the

12     control of the people who had sent him to Teslic.  So for those reasons

13     at that moment we didn't carry out investigative measures with regard to

14     him.  Instead, we waited for a more convenient moment.  That's the only

15     reason I can mention.

16             I don't know why he was left out.  It -- it was Predrag Radulovic

17     and the police who didn't include him in the criminal report.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And if I'm not wrong, the same goes for, I don't

19     recall his name, but head of the military part of the group; is that

20     right?  What was his name Petricevic or something like that?

21        A.   That is correct, Ljubisa Petricevic.  The explanation for him

22     that we received -- got for him was that he was taken to detention to

23     Banja Luka by the military police.

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 10677

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, Judge.  I also have just one small

 2     question for you.

 3             And my question relates to your testimony -- or not your

 4     testimony, sorry, your interview with the Prosecution on the 10th of

 5     January, 2002.  And I don't know whether it's possible to bring up these

 6     statements on the screen.  I would like you to see what, in the English

 7     version, is page 7 of your statements to the Prosecution of 10th January,

 8     2002.

 9             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, it is possible to bring it up.  It's

10     10359.02.  Tab 76 for the Judge.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Are you there, Judge.

12             MS. KORNER:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  He doesn't have it because

13     it wasn't in B/C/S.  He listened to the tapes.  It.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Ah.

15             MS. KORNER:  But it is up on the screen, and if Your Honour reads

16     it out in English, it will be translated to him.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Very well.

18             Judge, what I wanted to raise with you was the issue of political

19     pressure that was put on your office.  And speak about this at several

20     places in your statement, and one of these places is on page 7, and I

21     will read out slowly to you what you said.

22             It was Ms. Korner who asked you whether what you told at the

23     first interview was right; namely - and this is a quotation of what you

24     said:

25             "Most important was the pressure exerted on the police in

Page 10678

 1     criminal, in that role, in criminal proceedings.  Control exerted by the

 2     political parties, in this case, the SDS.  What were" - and this is

 3     Ms. Korner's question to you - "what were, in your experience, happening

 4     between May 1992 and roughly September or October 1992, what sort of

 5     control was being brought on the police."

 6             And your answer was:

 7             "The chief of police was member of the Crisis Staff, and they had

 8     meetings every morning.  And they controlled the entire situation on the

 9     territory of the municipalities.  So, all the members of the Crisis Staff

10     knew what happened.  And all the members of the Crisis Staff could

11     influence the chief of police as to what he would do.  I even think they

12     asked the police to perform certain duties which did not fall into the

13     police duties and, on the other hand, do not imply what the police should

14     have done."

15             Judge, this was your response to Ms. Korner's questions at the

16     time, and I would like to follow up on your answer.  Could you tell us a

17     bit about the political pressure that was being put on the police.  And

18     my question would be:  Was your office also under some sort of pressure

19     from the political level?

20        A.   Yes, that is correct.  What you read is my statement and I still

21     think today that influence was exerted on the police and that the police

22     was under political pressure.

23             The chief of police was, I believe, at the same time, the

24     president of the SDS of Teslic, and he was a member of the Crisis Staff.

25     He knew -- he had access to information and could exert influence on the

Page 10679

 1     police.  When I said at the first meeting of -- that we didn't want to

 2     take part in the work of the Crisis Staff and that we didn't want to be

 3     involved in politics in any way, they left us in peace.  They left us

 4     alone.  Only once was I called up to bring some file to the municipality,

 5     and I answered that, And this is the last time you're asking something

 6     like that from me.

 7             But taking into consideration the huge number of unprocessed

 8     cases, I believe that it was the position of the Crisis Staff that some

 9     cases should not be investigated and, what's more, that some things

10     should be done in contravention of the law.  But these are my

11     conclusions.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thanks.

13             But, Judge, when you say that political pressure was also put on

14     the prosecutor's office, could you tell us a little more about just how

15     that pressure was exerted?  You -- you seemed to have indicated just now

16     that you were left alone, and yet, in your previous answer, you seem to

17     imply that political pressure was, indeed, put on you.

18             So how was this political pressure applied?

19        A.   I explained those were attempts of political influence and

20     pressure.  I mentioned the case when we were invited to a meeting of the

21     Crisis Staff; and the second time I was asked to bring a file to the

22     president of the municipality; and the third indirect sort of pressure

23     was they wanted to remove me.  But there was no other political pressure

24     on the public prosecutor's office.

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So your testimony today is that the political

Page 10680

 1     pressure that was exerted was mainly on the police and not directly on

 2     the prosecutor's office; is that correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Very well then.

 5             So your assertion that the police was under pressure, under

 6     political pressure, is based on your observation that the chief of police

 7     was member of the Crisis Staff.

 8             Is that the way we should understand it?

 9        A.   Yes.  A member of the Crisis Staff and the President of the

10     political party that had absolute power.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Right so this leads to the next question.

12             Who was formulating the political pressure?  Was that the

13     political party that you have just spoken of, the SDS; or was it in a

14     wider sense, the Crisis Staff?  Are you able to make that distinction, if

15     such a distinction exists?

16        A.   I think that it was the political party, the SDS who had the

17     dominant influences and the deputies who were members of that party.

18             If we want to establish a hierarchical connection, then it's the

19     SDS, the political party that was the ruling party.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So I understand that the SDS was controlling the

21     political priorities of the Crisis Staff in Teslic.

22             Is that -- that the way we should take this?

23        A.   Yes.  Those were the political priorities of the highest

24     government level and the local level.  They were -- they belonged to the

25     same political party.

Page 10681

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  What do you know exactly of this policy of the

 2     SDS at the time?  Do you -- are you able to form an opinion about whether

 3     it was a distinct and clear policy of the SDS to remove non-Serbs from

 4     Teslic and its nearby villages?

 5        A.   I've never been able to make a conclusion as to the official

 6     policy of the SDS.  It was never published anywhere.  You could only draw

 7     conclusions from what you observed or from what was happening in reality.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And so your conclusion then is, that, based on

 9     the events as they happened on the ground, you infer that it must have

10     been the policy of the SDS to have non-Serbs removed from the area.

11             Is that a correct reflection of your opinion?

12        A.   Yes, it is.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Now, this policy that was then, in your view,

14     applied by the SDS in -- in Teslic, do you know if this was a policy that

15     also applied in -- in Doboj and Banja Luka and other municipalities?  Or

16     maybe throughout the Republika Srpska?

17        A.   I cannot be certain.  I believe that there were differences

18     between municipalities.  There were some municipalities that were

19     considered extreme, that -- where was extreme nationalism and in others

20     there were no extreme occurrences so that the situation was rather

21     varied.

22             Doboj was considered one of the extreme municipalities, and it's

23     still considered one, in which the SDS has strong influence.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Let's get back to Teslic.

25             Do you know if any objections to the policy was ever raised in

Page 10682

 1     the Crisis Staff in Teslic?

 2        A.   The only objections were outside the institutions,

 3     non-institutional, because there was no political opposition.  Only

 4     people such as Rade Pavlovic and others who fought their own private war

 5     against these structures and were rather successful in opposing them but

 6     it wasn't very significant.  But I haven't heard of any public or

 7     institutionalised resistance or reactions or opposition.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Well, suppose someone from the police, or the

 9     army, didn't want to go along with the priorities handed down by the

10     Crisis Staff, then what would happen?  I mean, were you ever aware of any

11     such differences in opinion?

12        A.   Well, that person would certainly be removed from their position.

13     I believe there were cases like that, although I can't remember any

14     particular ones now.  There were many dismissals, removal, replacements,

15     brigade commanders were removed.  New ones were brought in.  The

16     situation was pretty chaotic.  I don't know any details, but I suppose

17     anyone who didn't think the same had to tow the line or they would be

18     removed, or called up to the army, like I was, after my dismissal.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Now, finally, I would be grateful if you could

20     explain to us - if you know - a bit about the relations between the

21     Crisis Staff and -- and the army.  And the reason I'm putting this

22     question is that, ordinarily, after the declaration of an imminent threat

23     of war, one would assume that the -- that the army was in control of all

24     activities in the area, yet you seem to suggest that it was really the

25     Crisis Staff that was controlling events in the areas.

Page 10683

 1             So, you know, it couldn't be both ways.  Either it was the army

 2     who decided and the army would then have taken control over -- and

 3     authority over the police, or it was the Crisis Staff.

 4             How was this dual authority exercised in -- in real terms; do you

 5     know?

 6        A.   Yes.  I'll try.

 7             I think Teslic was a rather peculiar case in that sense.  The

 8     army did not have control over the Crisis Staff.  On the other hand, the

 9     Crisis Staff -- sorry, the SDS tried to control the army through the

10     Crisis Staff and officers inclined towards the SDS were made brigade

11     commanders, and there was constantly talk that Teslic needs commanders

12     who were natives of Teslic rather than commanders from outside.

13             I know that former JNA officers were not popular because they

14     were thought to be closer to the socialist party and that they were not

15     patriotic enough.

16             I think the Crisis Staff had the key role rather than brigade

17     commanders in the army.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, Judge.  That's all I have to ask you.

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I have leave to

20     ask a few questions after the Judges' questions, questions put by

21     Judge Harhoff specifically, a few clarifications to be precise.

22                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:

23        Q.   Mr. Peric when you are answering questions put by honourable

24     Judge Harhoff you were talking about the work of the Crisis Staff and its

25     composition.  Isn't it true that in July, or starting with July the

Page 10684

 1     Crisis Staff no longer existed and the Assembly of the municipality of

 2     Teslic operated regularly?

 3        A.   I think the Crisis Staff existed throughout the war.  It was

 4     called the Crisis Staff and then the War Staff and it existed in parallel

 5     with the Assembly.  The Assembly was like a democratic embassy of sorts.

 6     It didn't decide on anything.

 7        Q.   But you haven't seen a single decision of the Crisis Staff in

 8     Teslic.

 9        A.   I'm sure such decisions existed and these people sat every day,

10     and they made decisions rather than the parliament.  The parliament, when

11     it made decisions, made decisions that they had formulated previously.

12        Q.   Could you look at 65 ter 866.  It's in my binder --

13             MS. KORNER:  I'm sorry, Mr. Krgovic.  The transcript -- you have

14     to keep an eye on the screen.  The translation was still continuing.

15             MR. KRGOVIC:  Okay.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] It's the Zupljanin Defence binder, tab 4.

17             This is, Mr. Peric, an excerpt from the minutes of the Assembly

18     session held on 20th August.

19        A.   That's correct.

20        Q.   You can see what the discussion was about, you can see who

21     participated, and you can see there is reference to the same thing you

22     mentioned on page 1, where they endorse the agenda -- sorry, the minutes

23     of the previous Assembly session, and the conclusion of the Assembly that

24     the military police at battalion level was not doing its job.  That's on

25     page 1.

Page 10685

 1             And after that, please look at page 6 where Mr. Perisic, in his

 2     contribution, says that the issue of paramilitary units has to be dealt

 3     with, and he proposes to the military command to arrest and started

 4     proceedings against any brigade members involved in illegal activities,

 5     and you can see the other persons who respond, the previous chief of

 6     police, Kuzmanovic, and Djordjevic, and all these differences of opinion

 7     at the Assembly session.

 8             Isn't it the case that from the month of July the Assembly met

 9     regularly?

10        A.   Yes.  It held sessions but in parallel with the Crisis Staff.

11     And I believe the Assembly was used exclusively for mutual settlements of

12     accounts between the chief of the Crisis Staff, the brigade commander,

13     Perisic, the Assembly was supposed to --

14             JUDGE HALL:  [Previous translation continues] ... sorry,

15     Judge Peric, I just want to intervene with counsel.

16             You do appreciate that the document we now have on the screen is

17     under seal, do you?

18             MR. KRGOVIC:  Probably Your Honour, I didn't -- I really -- I

19     didn't notice that.

20             What's the position of Prosecution?

21             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I -- I have to confess I had forgotten

22     that as well.  But it needs to come off the screen, and that's for sure.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Necessary instructions have been conveyed to the AV

24     unit.

25             MS. KORNER:  All right.  Thank you.

Page 10686

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 2             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to.

 3        Q.   Mr. Peric, broadly speaking, can you tell us if you have ever

 4     seen after July, and you brought some documents to the Prosecution during

 5     your interview, documents you had in your possession.  But after the

 6     month of July 1992, did you ever see a decision of the Crisis Staff

 7     published or not?

 8        A.   I think there were such decisions.

 9        Q.   Have you ever seen?

10        A.   I can't be sure, but I think there were such decisions.

11        Q.   What content?  What did they relate to?

12        A.   Precisely these issues that were first discussed at the Crisis

13     Staff and then they passed through the Assembly.  And you can see in

14     these minutes all the people from the Crisis Staff sitting at the

15     Assembly session.  Jokic, Markovic, Kuzmanovic, and others, they're all

16     sitting in the Assembly, and they are the same people who made decisions.

17        Q.   Markovic at the time was not on the police force.  He was not

18     police commander.  Kuzmanovic either.

19        A.   I'm talking about the minutes that you referred me to, in

20     paragraph 3, look at the --

21             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, haven't you made your point within the

22     context of the -- what arose directly out of the questions of

23     Judge Harhoff?  Aren't you wondering ...

24             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  I have only one

25     question.

Page 10687

 1        Q.   Just answer with a yes or no.  Have you ever seen or known about

 2     a decision signed Crisis Staff, after, after the month of July 1992?

 3        A.   I'm sure, I believe it was even the War Staff and the War

 4     Presidency.

 5        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Peric.  I have no further questions.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  I don't suppose the Prosecution have anything

 7     arising out the Judge Harhoff's questions?

 8             MS. KORNER:  No.  Thank you very much, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, thank you.

10             Judge Peric, we thank you for your attendance before the Tribunal

11     and assisting us with respect to your testimony.  You are now released as

12     a witness.  Thank you.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14                           [The witness withdrew]

15             JUDGE HALL:  I assume that there is nothing that need engage our

16     attention before I take the adjournment for the weekend?

17             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, there is.  If you recall, I said I

18     would like to ask Your Honours to reconsider Your Honours' ruling in

19     respect of the articles, and I would like to take the opportunity,

20     really, to deal with the whole question of hearsay, because as

21     Your Honours know, we were taken by surprise, first of all, by

22     Mr. O'Sullivan's general submission and secondly by Your Honours ruling.

23     And so, I'm sorry, I know it's Friday, but I would like to take a little

24     time, because we've got a bit of time which we won't have next week.  If

25     I could, I would be very grateful.

Page 10688

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Are you ready to begin?

 2             MS. KORNER:  I am, yes.

 3             Your Honours, it seems to me that effectively because this is an

 4     ongoing saga, I ought to deal with Mr. O'Sullivan's really general

 5     submission although he has related it specifically to the documents

 6     produced by Mr. Traynor about this question of the admission into

 7     evidence of newspaper articles.

 8             As Your Honour says, you have in some cases admitted them and in

 9     others not, but the general principle, as Your Honours are perfectly well

10     aware, is set out under Rule 89 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence,

11     and which has been interpreted on a number of occasions, that, under Rule

12     89(A), a Chamber shall apply the rules of evidence set forth in the

13     section and not bound by national rules; and (C) ...

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, before you expand on that, our ruling

16     was -- was not -- was in no way upon Mr. O'Sullivan's objection.  The

17     reasons why we ruled as we did had nothing to do with Mr. O'Sullivan's

18     objection.

19             MS. KORNER:  I perfectly understand that Your Honours, I do.  I'm

20     simply, as it were, using the opportunity just to deal with the general

21     principle because it's our submission that it wasn't perhaps altogether

22     properly enunciated by Mr. O'Sullivan, as I say.

23             And I will come on to the reasons Your Honours' ruling why we're

24     asking for reconsideration.

25             Your Honours, in (C):  "A Chamber may admit any relevant evidence

Page 10689

 1     which it deems to have probative value."

 2             I know I'm repeating the obvious.  Your Honour, that includes

 3     hearsay.  But the various cases on hearsay do not distinguish between, as

 4     Mr. O'Sullivan put it, admissible hearsay and inadmissible hearsay.

 5     There is no such distinction in the authorities on the matter.  The key

 6     factor for the admission of hearsay evidence is that of reliability.

 7             Your Honours, there have been three appeals decisions, decision

 8     on this matter, none of them -- and Your Honour, may I say straight away

 9     to Ms. Frew, who did the research for me while I was slightly otherwise

10     occupied.  There is no specific case which has dealt with newspaper

11     articles as such.  The hearsay cases are all on slightly different

12     aspects.  But Aleksovski was the first in 1999, Kordic, which was not

13     referred to by Mr. O'Sullivan, was the second in 2000, and Milosevic was

14     the third of the three cases, all decided before Milutinovic in which

15     Mr. O'Sullivan was counsel.  The Milosevic decision is the 30th of

16     September, 2002.  And, in effect -- Your Honour, the situation there,

17     just to set that out, related to a statement which had been taken from a

18     dead -- sorry, a dead witness.  Not taken from -- the witness from whom

19     the witness had been taken from had died before the trial.  And the

20     question was whether --

21             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  Sorry, I don't believe that's Milosevic.

22             MS. KORNER:  I'm sorry, that's Kordic.  You`re quite right.

23     Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan.  I'm muddling up with Kordic.

24             The Milosevic case was the -- sorry, Your Honours, just let

25     me ...

Page 10690

 1             Yes, the application was in relation to -- I'm so sorry.  It was

 2     an investigator giving evidence which was a summary of a large number of

 3     witness statements.  The Kordic one was the dead witness.

 4             In any event, the trial -- the Appeals Chamber went through the

 5     previous authorities including those of Aleksovski and quoted Aleksovski

 6     at page 6 of the Judgement and said that hearsay evidence -- the Chamber

 7     is given a broad discretion to admit relevant hearsay evidence, that it's

 8     admitted to prove the truth of its contents.  Like me, Ms. Pidwell, had

 9     not had a chance to research the authorities before she stated that it

10     was not being put forward for the truth of the contents.  That it should

11     be admitted.  It's been shown to be reliable.  And it's for this purpose

12     the Chamber may consider both the content of the hearsay statement and

13     the circumstances under which the evidence arose, (E) of the probative

14     value of a hearsay statement will depend upon the context and character

15     of the evidence in question.  The Appeals Chamber also stated that the

16     absence of opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the

17     statements and whether the hearsay is first-hand or more removed are

18     relevant to the probative value.  And I emphasise that.

19             It's also acknowledged that though it depends on infinitely

20     variable circumstances of the particular case, the weight or probative

21     value to be afforded to hearsay evidence will usually be less than that

22     given to a testimony of a witness who has given it under a form of oath

23     and has been cross-examined.

24             And that goes without saying.

25             But that doesn't prevent it in any way from being admissible.

Page 10691

 1             The court went on, the Appeals Chamber, went on to say that the

 2     reliability and this is at top of page 7 of the hearsay statement is

 3     relevant to its admissibility and not just to its weight.

 4             And then at -- it dealt with statements for the purpose of legal

 5     proceedings, which is not something that's relevant to this particular

 6     issue.  And then at paragraph 22 it approved -- it proved the following:

 7             "As stated in the Aleksovski decision, the passage on which the

 8     Prosecution did not rely, the Chamber must first consider whether the

 9     summary is first-hand hearsay; that is, whether the persons who made the

10     statement summarised personally saw or heard the events recorded in their

11     statements, and whether the absence of the opportunity to cross-examine

12     those persons affects the reliability.

13             "According to the submission of the Prosecution, the opportunity

14     to cross-examine the person who summarised those statements does not

15     overcome the absence of opportunity to cross-examine the persons who made

16     them.  In different cases, of course, the statements may contain their

17     own indicia of reliability which does overcome the absence of that

18     opportunity."

19             Now, Your Honours, the -- Mr. O'Sullivan relied very heavily on

20     the decisions in Milutinovic.  There were in fact a total of three of

21     them.  The first on the 1st of September, 2006; on the 8th of September,

22     2006; and then on the 29th of November, 2007, although the last was in

23     relation to newspaper articles.  I'll come back to that.  And the first

24     two were in relation to the witnesses who had prepared a report one was

25     called Mitchell and Abrahams -- or two were called Mitchell and Abrahams,

Page 10692

 1     and somebody was called Hax -- a completely unpronounceable name,

 2     Haxhibeqiri, H-a-x-h-i-b-e-q-i-r-i.

 3             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  That would be Haxhibeqiri.

 4             MS. KORNER:  Well, of course, you'd be there so you'd know how to

 5     pronounce it.  I'm not even going to attempt to pronounce that one.

 6             Your Honour, they were all people who were called to talk about

 7     publicly a report, Mitchell and Abrahams, that had been done by OSCE on

 8     Kosovo.  It was called "Kosovo as Seen as Told."  And the report

 9     contained extracts from a number of people who had been interviewed but

10     who had not been interviewed by these two witnesses personally.  And that

11     was the distinction, the very great distinction which Mr. O'Sullivan

12     didn't refer to between that and where you're interviewing the people

13     who'd give you the information.  They were unable to say who had actually

14     interviewed them because it was just a report and had not themselves

15     spoken to the witnesses.

16             Your Honour, so there is the, we submit, the great distinction

17     between that case and the ones -- the one that Your Honour was dealing

18     with.

19             In the third judgement, which was an admission of documents from

20     the bar table, this was an article from the "Politika" newspaper, and

21     this was the Chamber's decision.  All of these, of course, are

22     discretionary decisions, and not in the way that an Appeals Chamber

23     decision is a binding.

24             "The Chamber has previously indicated it will not generally

25     consider newspaper articles admissible solely to prove the truth of their

Page 10693

 1     contents."

 2             And they went on to deal with that.

 3             Now, Your Honours those are the authorities and that's the

 4     background to this, and we say that the test is, as the Appeals Chamber

 5     enunciated, looking at the surrounding circumstances, is the

 6     information -- is it reliable information which we can admit.  And it

 7     doesn't matter whether it's first-hand or second-hand hearsay.

 8             Now, Your Honours, that's the background to this case or to --

 9     to -- to Mr. Traynor.  And can I just add one further thing on this,

10     because I raised this because Mr. Pantelic, in his eloquent address at

11     the end of the day, nothing to do with adjudicated facts and what

12     Your Honours should do about that, which was a totally different subject

13     to that under discussion, said that, in -- in discussing JCE he said

14     that -- this is page 10469 of the transcript, that the honourable

15     Judge Agius who was quite, I would say, he was an excellent judge, found

16     Brdjanin discussing the issue of JCE.

17             Well, the excellent judge, which obviously I totally agree with

18     that assessment of Judge Agius, dealt with -- or the Trial Chamber in

19     Brdjanin dealt with at some length the question of newspaper articles in

20     the context of a case, and this is of in the Trial Judgement in the 1st

21     of September, 2004, headed general considerations regarding the

22     evaluation of evidence.  At paragraph 28, it dealt with hearsay evidence:

23             "As regards hearsay evidence, the Trial Chamber reiterates that

24     it's well settled in the practice and jurisprudence of this Tribunal that

25     hearsay evidence is admissible.  The approach taken by the Trial Chamber

Page 10694

 1     has been that since such evidence is admitted to prove the truth of its

 2     contents it ought to be satisfied that such evidence is reliable for that

 3     purpose in the sense of being voluntarily, truthful, and trustworthy and

 4     as appropriate."

 5             And then it goes on to say the probative value of a hearsay

 6     statement will depend upon the context and character of the evidence in

 7     question.  The absence of the opportunity to cross-examine the person who

 8     made the statements, and whether the hearsay is first-hand or more

 9     removed has also been considered relevant to the probative value of the

10     evidence.

11             It's not the admission.  It's the probative value.

12             And then at paragraph 33, it dealt with -- specifically with

13     newspaper articles.  Your Honours will not be surprised to hear that they

14     start by saying in that paragraph:  "The Defence objects to all newspaper

15     articles and reports introduced into evidence by the Prosecution

16     submitting that they are unreliable and they amount to hearsay.  Some of

17     them come from hostile sources prone to propaganda and that the accused

18     has not been given the opportunity of cross-examination or confrontation

19     of evidence."

20             Your Honours, they then -- exactly as what's been going on here.

21     Your Honours, they then said, and, Your Honours, may I say straight away

22     this is just a Trial Chamber decision, but it may help Your Honours when

23     considering this.  The Trial Chamber considers that when reliable

24     newspaper reports and articles and similar items of evidence challenged

25     may be important not only because they originate from the time of events

Page 10695

 1     they report upon but also because they very often corroborate the

 2     information provided by other evidence and confirm that the facts

 3     referred to are public and generally known.  As such, they can be

 4     appropriate instruments for verifying the truth of the facts of a case."

 5             Your Honour, that's the background to the -- the evidence of the

 6     articles that were produced by Mr. Traynor.

 7             Now, Your Honours can I go back, please, to your decision on

 8     Mr. Traynor's, the admission of Mr. Traynor's evidence under 92,

 9     Rule 92 ter, if I can just find that for a moment, which I had.

10             Your Honours gave a ruling on this matter on the 2nd of

11     October of last year.  And said in paragraph 12:

12             "The Trial Chamber notes that the Prosecution identified what it

13     considers to the relevant portions of the transcripts and statements for

14     the witnesses.  The Trial Chamber," and I quote, "has undertaken its own

15     review of the evidence submitted and finds that for most witnesses the

16     portions identified by the Prosecution are indeed relevant.  The Trial

17     Chamber does consider for some witnesses the Prosecution's indications

18     are too inclusive and not related with the evidence of the witnesses.

19     The Trial Chamber sets out below the portions."

20             And you dealt with ST-155 and ST-198.

21             With the exception of the portions identified above, the

22     Trial Chamber is satisfied the transcripts and statements are relevant

23     and probative and will therefore admit them.

24             Paragraph 14:

25             "The Prosecution tenders into evidence several documents that

Page 10696

 1     accompany the transcripts and statements of the witnesses.  It submits

 2     that without those exhibits the witness's prior testimony cannot be fully

 3     evaluated for relevance and probative value, and then you deal with the

 4     fact that it must be on our exhibit list and that some -- some were

 5     included, others were not."

 6             And paragraph 15:

 7             "The Trial Chamber, in its review of the accompanying documents,

 8     finds that most of them do indeed form an inextricable and indispensable

 9     part of the evidence they accompany.  Save for the following."

10             And Your Honours then identified with ST-173 a number of

11     documents.  ST-180, and ST-183 Colonel -- ST-183, and then ST-189, the

12     list of newspaper articles which was included.

13             So excluded the list of newspaper articles.

14             Your Honours, the test as enunciated partly there but also in, I

15     think, Your Honours' first decision on the 2nd of October 2009, was the

16     inextricable and indispensable part of the evidence they accompany.

17             Your Honour, we had here the journalist - going back to the

18     hearsay point for a moment - the journalist who actually wrote the

19     articles and who testified that he had spoken to the people directly

20     about what he recorded in those newspaper articles.  He could have been

21     cross-examined -- it's rare.  Normally we don't have the journalist, for

22     once we did.  Mr. O'Sullivan, who had raised the original point, asked no

23     questions at all in respect of how accurate his notes were or anything of

24     that nature.

25             Mr. Pantelic, on behalf of Zupljanin, raised the question of

Page 10697

 1     bias, Your Honour heard the answers, and in one or two occasions

 2     challenged the witness's notes of what he had said to Mr. Zupljanin.  But

 3     they had here, effectively, someone who said, I spoke to these people and

 4     whom, in particular, Mr. Zupljanin, but also to the others whose

 5     statements I recorded direct into my articles.

 6             Now, Your Honours' ruling, and can I take entirely the point that

 7     was raised right at the beginning my address by Judge Delvoie, was on the

 8     basis - can I just find that for a moment, thank you.

 9             Yes, Your Honours ruled at page 10457 that:

10             "We will admit into evidence the two statements made by the

11     witness in 1999 and 2000 and that's it; that is to say, the 15 articles

12     which were also part of the package will not be admitted into evidence.

13     The reason is that we don't think they have sufficient evidentiary value.

14     They're interesting articles, they're good, but we wouldn't rely on them

15     for the purpose of reaching our conclusions in the case."

16             Your Honours, that was despite, in fact, Mr. Pantelic, at page

17     10454, saying that he actually did not object to two of the articles, and

18     I've forgotten which they are now.

19             Your Honours, the reason for introducing this evidence was

20     twofold.  First, to rely on the truth of its contents given that they are

21     newspaper articles and that they're hearsay.  But, second, because of the

22     notice that they provided to the leadership, in this case, in particular

23     to Mr. Zupljanin, about what the international press was actually saying.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Could I ask you to expand on that, Ms. Korner.

25             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

Page 10698

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Because the -- one of the questions that immediately

 2     occurs to me at least, on that proposition, is that Mr. Traynor was a

 3     journalist for a newspaper from a particular country.  In other words,

 4     there would have been a number of persons similarly placed, and the

 5     straight line that, as I understand it, you're seeking to draw between

 6     the newspaper articles and the -- the actions of the government seems to

 7     me to be a bit difficult to -- to make apart from the -- I suppose the

 8     basic argument that can be made about confusing sequence with

 9     consequence.  But a government would have, by its nature have had --

10             MS. KORNER:  A press bureau.

11             JUDGE HALL:  -- been informed by a variety of sources, not least

12     among them being its intelligence services and that of other agencies to

13     which it would have had access.

14             So what then becomes the magic, for want of a better word, of

15     this particular journalist's story?

16             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I -- magic is not that.  But

17     Your Honour knows that one of the issues in the case is what did either

18     accused know about what was happening, in Mr. Zupljanin's case, within

19     the area of the Autonomous Region, and, Mr. Stanisic, more generally.

20     And, Your Honours, I anticipate, will hear evidence from the next witness

21     that he, the next witness, specifically brought to the attention of

22     Mr. Zupljanin -- now, I cannot say they were Mr. Traynor's articles

23     particularly but articles that were being written in the international

24     press about what was happening in Banja Luka.  And this is just one

25     example.

Page 10699

 1             And, Your Honours, one of the difficulties is if we want to

 2     put -- let us say that Mr. Zupljanin gave evidence, then if we wanted to

 3     put to him, Mr. Zupljanin, you were put on notice, weren't you, by this

 4     article, of Mr. Traynor, or other articles that we may have, that what

 5     was happening in Hambarine or in Kozarac was shelling.  And people --

 6     innocent people being carted off to camps.

 7             Now, if we don't have the article there, I can't show it to him,

 8     and that's the next problem I'm going to come onto with the way that the

 9     evidence came out, Your Honours, because -- and I direct Your Honours

10     specifically to the parts where Mr. Traynor was asked about the articles,

11     because we didn't realize that was going to be the ruling, the articles

12     weren't read out at all.  Mr. Traynor was asked about individual lines

13     within those particular articles, and without the articles being in

14     evidence it is impossible, when reading the transcript, to know what he

15     is talking about.

16             Your Honours, can I -- can I give you an example.

17             Your Honours, he was shown, and I -- just find the transcript

18     again.  And, Your Honours, I should add that he was asked about his

19     knowledge of languages and how he came to write his articles.

20             But, Your Honours, for example, this is at page 10336 and on the

21     screen was put his article, which is now 103583.03, and Ms. Pidwell said:

22             "Sir, this isn't the first article you wrote in a series of three

23     during your time in Visegrad, and my question is:

24             "You refer -- you use the term 'Serbian irregulars' throughout.

25     You can see it at the beginning and throughout the text.  And I'm asking

Page 10700

 1     you if you'll explain what you mean by that?"

 2             Now, the problem is when we come back to this, which we may want

 3     to, particularly when we're dealing with Visegrad and whatever, we've no

 4     idea what the text is because Ms. Pidwell, for the reasons I've

 5     enunciated, that we thought that these articles were in, didn't go

 6     through it.  So that's the first example.

 7             And it goes on like that, I'm afraid.  He explain what he means

 8     by Serbian irregulars.

 9             Your Honour, the next one was at page 10354 of the transcript.

10     Ms. Pidwell says:

11             "Could I have 65 ter 3375, please.  This is an article you wrote.

12     It's dated the 29th of September.  And in the second paragraph of the

13     English you used the term 'ubiquitous police,' can you please expand on

14     that?"

15             Now, again, we don't know when we go back to this how the term

16     "ubiquitous police" arises and in what context of the article.

17             Your Honour -- and so -- and then she goes on the next page

18     10355:

19             "And later in that article in paragraph four, you use a term 'a

20     demented, crazed, and brutalised town,' can you expand on that, please?"

21             Again, Your Honour, we can't see the context because we haven't

22     got the article.

23             And, Your Honour, when it comes, as I say, to the interview with

24     Stojan Zupljanin, directly with the defendant, and Mr. Traynor has been

25     cross-examined about that in -- it really is, we say, important that that

Page 10701

 1     article becomes an exhibit.

 2             So, Your Honours, I am sorry that I spent some time on general

 3     principles of hearsay, but in the context of this evidence we do ask you

 4     to reconsider your admission at least of the specific articles that

 5     Ms. Pidwell asked him about.  She didn't ask him about all of them that

 6     were in the package so that when we come back to look at this transcript

 7     we can see what on earth it relates to.

 8             And that's really the upshot.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  For the record, could you assist us by -- if not

10     immediately, the -- you said the specific articles.

11             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

12             JUDGE HALL:  You're asking to us to reconsider which articles.

13     As I said, if you aren't in a position to answer that immediately, if you

14     could come back --

15             MS. KORNER:  I'm not.

16             JUDGE HALL:  We understand the thrust of your --

17             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  Well, if Your Honours are going to take a

18     break, then I can give Your Honours the numbers immediately after the

19     break of the actual articles she showed him, which are part of the

20     transcript.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE HALL:  The --

23             MS. KORNER:  Or can I do it at some other -- if Your Honours want

24     to ... to rise now, then I can do it at some other stage.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 10702

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Can we anticipate a response from the Defence on

 2     this?

 3             The context in which we're asking this is whether we should take

 4     a break now and come back, or whether we should adjourn for -- for the

 5     day.

 6             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  Perhaps the solution is to sit five extra

 7     minutes.  I can respond; then we can break.  I will be very brief.  And

 8     there's no point in breaking and coming back for -- for ten minutes, is

 9     what I'm suggesting.  If the interpreters can survive for ten more

10     minutes.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Are you ready to proceed, Mr. O'Sullivan?

12             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  Yes, Your Honour.

13             In a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must

14     demonstrate that there's been an error of law or that there's been an

15     injustice.  Your Honours have ruled on the admission, or the

16     inadmission -- inadmissibility of these articles in your -- in the

17     transcript; pages 10457 to 10456 [sic].  And I include all those pages

18     because after Judge Harhoff expressed the view of the Chamber, in turn,

19     each of you expressed or gave explanations of the reasons why these

20     articles are not admissible.

21             There's been no suggestion and no showing that you abused your

22     discretion because, under Rule 89(C), it is a matter of discretion for

23     you whether or not hearsay is admissible.  There has been no showing of

24     that.  You properly considered the submissions, you came to the

25     conclusion on your own, and no one is suggesting that you made an error.

Page 10703

 1             So there's no basis for any second reconsideration.  In fact, the

 2     Prosecution had a full-blown opportunity on the 18th of May, right after

 3     Traynor left, we had the contradictory and irreconcilable positions that

 4     it's for the truth of their contents/it's not for the truth of their

 5     contents.  The confusion reigned at that point.

 6             So we say that it is furthermore incorrect, incorrect for the

 7     Prosecution to say that any one of the not-admitted articles could not be

 8     used in a future cross-examination.  Well, of course, it could.  If a

 9     witness took the stand, the Prosecution could show the witness one of the

10     articles that Traynor wrote.  Nothing precludes that by the fact that you

11     didn't admit them through Traynor.

12             So there's been no showing of abuse of your discretion, there's

13     been no showing that you didn't apply the law correctly, and there's no

14     basis for you to grant the second attempt at this reconsideration.

15             Thank you.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

17             Mr. Krgovic, did you wish to be heard on this point?

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Very briefly only.

19             In essence, what Ms. Korner says has nothing to do with the

20     facts.  The whole story about camps where prisoners were kept was --

21     started much earlier, before any -- by my -- by my client before any

22     journalist arrived.

23             So the possibility that this document may be shown to Zupljanin

24     here -- in this trial has -- is not related to any facts.  All the

25     activities of Mr. Zupljanin relate to the period before the time

Page 10704

 1     described in Mr. Traynor's articles, so this is not a valid argument put

 2     forward by the Prosecution.

 3             MS. KORNER:  [Previous translation continues] ...

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Put forward by the Prosecution.

 5             MS. KORNER:  I thought I heard an interruption.

 6             Just on the question of injustice, Mr. O'Sullivan says that we

 7     haven't shown injustice.  I thought I'd made that clear.  Because, Your

 8     Honours, Your Honours' ruling - and I forgot to read this part out, on

 9     this - was under paragraph 16:

10             "The Trial Chamber will, when admitting into evidence the prior

11     transcripts and written statements of a witness, will admit all the

12     accompanying documents, save those identified herein above for the reason

13     that it views this as an integral whole," and you accepted - or at least

14     we thought you did - all the documents.

15             And as a result, when Ms. Pidwell went through it, she didn't go

16     into the detail she would have gone, had she known that they would not --

17     that the articles themselves would not go in.  And as I pointed out,

18     indeed, the whole transcript makes no sense now.

19             So that's, we say, the reason why you should reconsider your

20     ruling on at least those documents that the witness was specifically

21     asked about.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Well, we thank counsel for their assistance in this

23     matter, and, of course, we should rule sometime next week.

24             So we will take the adjournment now, to resume in Courtroom I

25     at -- on Monday morning -- sorry, Tuesday morning - thank you - and,

Page 10705

 1     indeed, for -- straight through -- through the first week in June, we are

 2     all in morning sessions, unless there is some new change in the schedule.

 3             And I wish everyone a safe weekend.

 4                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.13 p.m.,

 5                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 25th day of May,

 6                           2010, at 9.00 a.m.