1 Tuesday, 15 June 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
6 Good morning, everyone in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
8 Stojan Zupljanin.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Good morning to everyone.
11 May we have the appearances for today, please.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Good morning, Your Honours. Matthew Olmsted,
13 Tom Hannis, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
15 Slobodan Cvijetic, and Eugene O'Sullivan appearing for Stanisic Defence.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic for
17 Zupljanin Defence.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
19 Before we begin, there are two matters. One is that the -- we
20 have been made aware through the Registrar of the Defence counsel's
21 concern that LiveNote is not immediately available, and the -- we --
22 we -- because of the uncertainty of when it is likely to come up --
23 [The witness entered court]
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Problem solved. It's on already.
25 Which means that I can move to the second matter.
1 The Chamber is in receipt of a motion yesterday to permit the
2 testimony of a witness by videolink, and we inquire as to whether, A, the
3 Defence intends to respond; and, if so, whether we would request an
4 expedited response. Again, this is something that we -- we are not
5 asking for an answer immediately but in the course of today Defence
6 counsel could indicate where we are.
7 Thank you.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: We will, Your Honours. If -- if you permit us, we
9 will be able to give you an answer tomorrow? I mean, on the -- on the
10 merit of the -- of the issue.
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
14 JUDGE HALL: Good morning, ma'am. Could you take the solemn
15 declaration, please.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
17 I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth,
18 and nothing but the truth.
19 WITNESS: Staka Gojkovic
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. You may be seated.
22 Just give us a moment.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, are we correctly advised that we should
25 have anticipated an application from the Office of the Prosecutor in
1 respect of this witness?
2 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour. We just want to be safe. We
3 only have an hour for this witness, who is a viva voce witness, and there
4 may be some areas that we want to explore with this witness that will
5 take us slightly over that. I don't anticipate much more time than the
6 hour, but we do want to look at a couple of the log-books. And since
7 this is our first judicial witness from the 1992 time-period as well as
8 the first higher prosecutor from the time-period, we want to go over some
9 organisational matters. And it might go a little bit beyond the hour,
10 but we don't anticipate much beyond that. And I think with the
11 cross-examination we still finish today.
12 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE HALL: Could you begin by giving us your name, please.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Staka Gojkovic.
16 JUDGE HALL: And what is your date of birth, and what is your
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 19 October 1955. And I have a
19 degree in law.
20 JUDGE HALL: And you say you have a degree in law. Could you
21 tell us in what capacity that you work.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I work as a judge of the
23 Supreme Court of Republika Srpska.
24 JUDGE HALL: And what is your ethnicity, please.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a Serb.
1 JUDGE HALL: Have you testified previously before this Tribunal
2 or at any trial in any of the countries of the former Yugoslavia?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
4 JUDGE HALL: The procedure before this Tribunal is one that you
5 would not be unfamiliar with, in that it is -- it has features in common
6 with any court anywhere in the world, with its own peculiarities, of
8 You have been called by the Prosecution, and the -- as you would
9 have heard in what has just passed between the Bench and counsel for the
10 Prosecution, Mr. Olmsted, they expect that their examination of you would
11 take a little more than an hour. You would then be cross-examined by
12 counsel for each of the two accused men, Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Zupljanin,
13 and counsel for the first accused has requested two hours and counsel for
14 the second accused an hour. And as Mr. Olmsted has said, we expect that
15 your testimony would be completed within the compass of today.
16 A sitting day for this Tribunal is ordinarily from 9.00 in the
17 morning, which is the session we're beginning now, until 1.45 in the
18 afternoon. The reason for that is that there are other trials going on,
19 and the courtrooms have to be shared. That sitting day is divided into
20 periods of not more than 90 minutes for technical reasons because tapes
21 have to be changed and so on. So we would take two 20-minute breaks
22 within the sitting day. Of course, if, for any reason, before the
23 regular time of taking a break you need, for whatever reason, to indicate
24 that -- that the Chamber needs to rise, you would let us know and we
25 would accommodate you.
1 And, unless there is any other area in which you have questions
2 that I might answer, I would invite Mr. Olmsted to begin his
4 Examination by Mr. Olmsted:
5 Q. Good morning, Judge Gojkovic.
6 A. Good morning.
7 Q. I first want to go rather quickly through your professional
9 From 1980 until October 1983, you were a judge of the basic court
10 in Sokolac; and then from 1985 until May 1992, you were a judge of the
11 BiH Basic Court I in Sarajevo. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 Q. And after that, you were appointed judge of the basic court in
14 Serb Sarajevo; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. When were you appointed to that position?
17 A. The appointment happened on the 20th of June, 1992.
18 Q. And how long did you remain a basic court judge in Sarajevo,
19 under that appointment?
20 A. Up to the 19th of December of the same year.
21 Q. And what position were you appointed to in December of 1992?
22 A. I was appointed as a senior prosecutor in Serbian Sarajevo.
23 Q. And how long did you remain in that position?
24 A. I remained in that position up to December 2005.
25 Q. Let me clarify that. How long were you in the position of
1 Sarajevo higher prosecutor? Was it -- the record says here until
2 December 2005. Is that correct?
3 A. Well, I believe so.
4 Q. What --
5 A. Perhaps -- I think so.
6 Q. Well, let me ask it this way: How many years -- for how many
7 years were you a higher prosecutor for Sarajevo?
8 A. A little over two years. And I'm really confused now. I'm
9 sorry. I believe that I remained in the position of senior prosecutor
10 for a little over two years, or perhaps three. I don't know.
11 Q. That's fine. I just wanted to clarify the years. Yes.
12 Now, after you were a higher prosecutor, it's my understanding
13 that you served as secretary of the Assembly of the Republika Srpska
14 until approximately 1998; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And in 2001, you were appointed judge of the Serb Sarajevo
17 district court; and in 2003, you were appointed to the RS Supreme Court.
18 Is that correct?
19 A. Correct. All of that is correct.
20 Q. Let's take a look at 65 ter 2442.
21 MR. OLMSTED: And if we can turn to page 10 of the B/C/S, page 12
22 of the English.
23 Q. This is the Official Gazette of the Serbian People of BiH dated
24 30 June 1992. And if we can look at decision number 239, we see a
25 20 June 1992 decision by President Radovan Karadzic.
1 Was this the decision appointing you to the basic court in
3 A. Yes, it was.
4 Q. Were you the only judge appointed to the Sarajevo basic court in
5 June 1992, or were there others?
6 A. I was not the only one. Some other judges were appointed on the
7 same day.
8 Q. Do you recall how many were appointed that day?
9 A. I believe that four were appointed for the basic court.
10 Q. Were judges for the higher court for Sarajevo also appointed at
11 that time?
12 A. Yes, there were.
13 Q. And can you recall how many higher court judges were appointed in
14 June 1992?
15 A. Six, I believe.
16 Q. Also at this time, were the public prosecutor and deputy public
17 prosecutors for Sarajevo basic prosecutor's office appointed?
18 A. Yes, to the basic prosecutor's office.
19 Q. Can you tell us, what were the ethnicities of these judges and
20 prosecutors who were appointed in June 1992?
21 A. In June 1992, I believe that they were all Serbs.
22 Q. Where were the offices of the Sarajevo higher and basic court
23 judges in 1992?
24 A. The main office was in Lukavica, on the premises of -- of the
25 former administration building of Energoinvest; a company, Energoinvest.
1 Q. And where were the offices of the Sarajevo basic prosecutor and
2 his deputies located?
3 A. At first, we shared the same building.
4 Q. And where were the offices of the centre for public security, the
5 CSB for Romanija-Birac region, located.
6 A. Well, when we were given offices in Energoinvest, they were in a
7 different building but within the same perimeter, the parameter of the
8 Energoinvest building.
9 Q. When the basic court in Sarajevo was first established, over
10 which municipalities did it have jurisdiction?
11 A. Those were all the municipalities which had formally belonged to
12 Sarajevo. And I'm referring to parts thereof. Novo Sarajevo, Novi Grad,
13 Centar, and Vogosca, as well as Ilijas, Ilidza, Hadzici, and Trnovo.
14 Q. Now, at some point, were the Sarajevo basic court and basic
15 prosecutor's offices divided into two?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. When did this division occur; do you recall?
18 A. Well, I believe that that happened in Autumn 1992. But I
19 wouldn't be able to give you the exact date. I don't know the date,
20 although I believe that it was in November.
21 Q. And after this division, which Sarajevo basic court and
22 prosecutor's office had jurisdiction over crimes committed in Vogosca and
24 A. The Basic Court II in Sarajevo.
25 Q. And where was that court located?
1 A. That court was located in Ilidza.
2 Q. Were additional judges and prosecutors appointed to the
3 Basic Court and Prosecutor Office II in Ilidza?
4 A. Yes, of course. Several persons were appointed at the time.
5 Some prosecutors which were formerly appointed to work in the basic
6 prosecutor's office were subsequently appointed as prosecutors in Ilidza.
7 I'm referring to Milana Popadic, who was the deputy prosecutor in
8 Sarajevo; and after the division, she was appointed the deputy prosecutor
9 in the prosecutor -- Prosecutor's Office II in Sarajevo.
10 Q. I want to ask you some just very general procedural
11 questions now.
12 Looking back to 1992 and the procedures that existed then, when
13 would have a judge such as yourself first become involved in a criminal
15 A. As soon as a public prosecutor issued an order for investigation.
16 Q. And in order to conduct an investigation, what assistance did the
17 judge need from the police?
18 A. In the course of an investigation, if there was a need to locate
19 certain individuals who were either suspects or potential witnesses or
20 when information was needed, an investigating judge could request all
21 those services from the police. For example, an investigative judge
22 could order the police to check whether a person had a criminal record or
24 Q. If the judge wanted to have a search warrant or an arrest warrant
25 executed, who would do that? Who would execute those warrants?
1 A. The police.
2 Q. And if the judge wanted some forensic analysis performed, either
3 finger-print or ballistics or what have you, who would provide that
4 forensic expertise?
5 A. There were institutions that provided such expertise. And there
6 were also forensic experts who provided different sorts of expertise.
7 And a judge issued an order in which it was decided who would perform the
8 expertise and what kind of expertise would be performed.
9 Q. Were you aware, did the police perform any forensic analysis?
10 A. The police were able to perform some types of forensic analyses
11 during the pre-criminal procedure, when data was collected, with a view
12 to issuing a criminal report and preparations to launch a proper
14 Q. How many cases do you -- do you recall investigating as a basic
15 court judge from June 1992 until you were appointed higher prosecutor?
16 A. I was in charge of the investigation in one case; and in one case
17 I was in charge of the first-instance procedure, the trial, once the
18 indictment was issued.
19 Maybe I can explain. An indictment could be issued for certain
20 crimes without any prior investigation, which means that the prosecutor
21 could issue an indictment immediately. And what followed was an
22 immediate trial and conviction, or a decision.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm really
24 sorry, the -- I think this needs to be clarified because it will create a
25 problem afterwards.
1 I believe the witness was talking about the specific procedure
2 which is called the "direct indictment," and it wasn't recorded.
3 Therefore -- therefore, this has to be clarified because this is
4 one of the options given by the law that you can directly indict somebody
5 without the -- the investigation.
6 MR. OLMSTED:
7 Q. Let's talk about this first case. Council raised the issue.
8 This was a case in which an indictment was issued directly
9 without an investigation by an investigative judge; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. And can you tell us just generally what kind of case this was?
12 A. The case was manslaughter.
13 Q. And can you tell us the ethnicities of the perpetrator and the
15 A. Serb.
16 Q. And you mentioned the case went to trial.
17 When did the trial occur?
18 A. I can't remember the date. As far as I could remember, it was
19 during the summer. The summer of 1992; I'm sure of the year.
20 Q. Let's talk about the second case that you worked on.
21 Can you tell us what that case was about?
22 A. In that case, the basic prosecutor issued a request to launch an
23 investigation against Vladimir Srebrov for a crime pursuant to
24 Article 118 of the then-Penal Code of the SFRY. He was taken into
25 custody; he was remanded in custody. The prosecutor issued a request,
1 and the case was handed over to me to carry out the investigation in that
3 Q. Can you tell us, what was the ethnicity of Mr. Srebrov?
4 A. I believe that he was a Serb. Yes, I'm sure he was a Serb.
5 Q. And you mentioned Article 118 of the SFRY Criminal Code.
6 Can you tell us what that provision is? What's the crime at
8 A. I cannot give you the exact title of the crime, but it was to do
9 with persuading people to join the enemy army; something to that effect.
10 Q. Can you tell us when and where this crime took place?
11 A. Well, he was charged with acting in Sarajevo, with regard to his
12 public appearances in Sarajevo, which was in the part under the Muslim
13 control, and his arrival at Ilidza in order to discuss the cessation of
14 hostilities. He arrived in Ilidza, and he had talks with some
15 representatives of the Serbs there. Actually, he arrived at the police
16 station in Ilidza, according to him. That's what he told us. And then
17 he was arrested.
18 Q. He was arrested in Ilidza?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And when did this occur; do you recall? When in 1992?
21 A. I think it was in August 1992.
22 Q. And I think you had an opportunity to review the case file. Do
23 you recall who signed the police Official Note at the outset of the case?
24 A. I believe it was signed by Petko Budisa.
25 Q. And who was Petko Budisa at the time?
1 A. Well, that document says that he was commander of that police
3 Q. Do you recall who from the RS MUP issued the initial remand order
4 to detain this perpetrator?
5 A. Mico Stanisic did.
6 Q. Do you know why the minister of the interior himself issued the
7 remand order in this case?
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. When did you receive the request from the prosecutor's office to
10 initiate the investigation in this case? Approximately when?
11 A. In September. I think it was the 7th of September.
12 Q. And then, once you received that request, did you, in fact,
13 conduct an investigation?
14 A. Well, I, of course, interviewed the accused, Vladimir Srebrov,
15 and I issued a decision to launch an investigation, and I also signed an
16 order for him to remain in custody for 30 days. The interview took two
18 Q. Do you recall attending any meetings with police officers from
19 the RS MUP in 1992?
20 A. I remember attending one meeting.
21 Q. And where was that meeting?
22 A. At Vogosca.
23 Q. And do you recall roughly when did that meeting occur?
24 A. I really cannot remember.
25 Q. Can you give us a season? Was it summer or fall?
1 A. It was certainly summer, but I can't be more precise than that.
2 It must have been at some time from June to September. It can't have
3 been later. But I can't be more precise than that.
4 Q. And who do you recall attended this meeting in Vogosca?
5 A. As far as I recall, there were the representatives of the
6 civilian police, the military police, and the municipality of Vogosca.
7 Q. And what was --
8 A. And ...
9 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry.
10 I'm sorry, I interrupted the interpretation. Was there anything
11 more to be interpreted?
12 All right. I'll just move on then.
13 Can you tell us, what was the purpose of this meeting in Vogosca?
14 A. The purpose of the meeting was to prevent - that's what I would
15 call it - stealing vehicles from the perimeter of the factory at Vogosca.
16 There was a large number of newly manufactured vehicles there.
17 Q. Was that the Tas car factory?
18 A. Yes, it was the Tas factory.
19 Q. And what was the outcome of the meeting?
20 A. As far as I remember, the decision was taken for mixed patrols of
21 the civilian police and the military police to guard the perimeter. This
22 south-western part was completely cut off from the north-eastern part,
23 and, therefore, the initiative was made to establish a separate court and
24 public prosecutor's office for that area. It was then that people came
25 up with this idea.
1 Q. Why did you, as a judge, attend this particular meeting?
2 A. Well, I think that the Ministry of Justice wanted somebody from
3 the court to attend the meeting. And as far as I remember, they wanted
4 somebody from the court because of the psychological effect, because it
5 was all about preserving property and reducing the number of criminal
6 offences. At least that's how it was explained to us. I don't remember
7 why I was chosen to go; but, anyway, I went there as a representative of
8 our court.
9 Q. Other than this one meeting in Vogosca, do you recall attending
10 any other meetings with the police, either from the CSB Romanija-Birac or
11 the RS MUP in 1992?
12 A. Not as far as I remember.
13 Q. While you were a judge, between June and December 1992, do you
14 recall any criminal cases initiated against Serb perpetrators for crimes
15 committed against non-Serb victims?
16 A. I never received such a file.
17 Q. I want to turn to your position as a Sarajevo higher prosecutor.
18 When you were a higher prosecutor, where was your office located?
19 A. My office was at Pale.
20 Q. And where in Pale?
21 A. At the Panorama Hotel, the administrative wing of that hotel.
22 Q. And which other government offices were located at that hotel?
23 A. The Supreme Court of the RS had its premises there at the time,
24 as well as the public prosecutor's office of the republic.
25 Q. And who was the republican prosecutor at that time?
1 A. Miroslav Godanac.
2 Q. As higher prosecutor, which basic prosecutor's offices reported
3 to you?
4 A. The Basic Prosecutor's Office I in Sarajevo, then number II in
5 Sarajevo, then the basic prosecutor's office at Sokolac, Vlasenica, and
7 Q. We already talked about how Vogosca and Ilijas were part of the
8 Sarajevo Prosecutor Office II in Ilidza.
9 Which prosecutor's office had jurisdiction over Pale?
10 A. The basic prosecutor's office from Sokolac.
11 Q. And while you were a higher prosecutor, did the basic
12 prosecutor's offices submit reports to you on their work?
13 A. Yes. They submitted annual reports.
14 Q. And did you also hold meetings in Pale with your basic
16 A. Well, I cannot remember exactly whether we held meetings, and, if
17 so, how many, because there were constant interruptions of communication
18 lines with certain areas. But I went to the individual basic
19 prosecutor's offices. And it would also happen that on the occasion of
20 being sworn in, they would come to Pale.
21 We didn't assemble all of us. But, on some occasions, I would
22 meet with one prosecutor, or two, or three, but we didn't have plenary
24 Q. During your two years as a Sarajevo higher prosecutor, do you
25 recall receiving any reports about criminal charges brought against Serb
1 perpetrators for committing crimes against non-Serb victims in 1992?
2 A. Well, if I may explain how the were reports made, the annual
4 An annual report contained information about the total number of
5 criminal reports, what kind of decisions the prosecutor took pursuant to
6 these reports, and the structure of crime -- criminal offences, which
7 means that the names of the perpetrators were not mentioned. From those
8 reports, one could see the results of the work of each prosecutor's
9 office and the type of criminal offence committed in their area. Those
10 reports did not contain any names.
11 As for direct contact with those prosecutors, no prosecutor
12 informed me specifically about what you were asking me about.
13 Q. At the level of the basic prosecutor's offices, what log-books
14 were maintained of criminal reports received by those offices?
15 A. Mm-hm. Log-books were maintained for some types of offences.
16 They had their respective -- they were marked differently. KT included
17 all criminal offences against known perpetrators. KTN stood for the
18 log-book containing criminal reports against unknown perpetrators. KTM
19 was how the log-book containing criminal reports against minor
20 perpetrators was marked. And there was a fourth mark for the log-book
21 containing information about the administrative duties of the prosecutor.
22 Q. And the fourth log-book that you mentioned, that was the KTA?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. As higher prosecutor, why was it important that the basic
25 prosecutor's offices under your jurisdiction maintained these log-books?
1 A. These log-books had always been maintained, before the war and
2 after the war. Even now. They are an objective reflection of the
3 activities of the prosecutor's office. It contains the basic information
4 about all activities of a prosecutor's office as a governmental
6 Q. And would these log-books allow for the auditing of the work of
7 the basic prosecutor's office?
8 A. Of course. Because you can see everything there; what was done,
9 how it was done.
10 Q. Prior to testifying here today, did you have the opportunity to
11 review 1992 KT and KTN log-books, from Sarajevo, Sokolac, Vlasenica, and
12 Visegrad Basic Prosecutor's Offices?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And from each of those log-books, did you compile some statistics
15 for us?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 MR. OLMSTED: May we have 65 ter 10387 on the screen.
18 Q. Could you tell us, is this the statistical data that you
19 collected from the KT and KTN log-books that you reviewed?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, to save time, I would propose to
22 tender this document into evidence, and then I'll just ask a small
23 handful of questions, general questions, regarding some of its data and
24 some of the log-books that it refers to.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence is
1 opposed to this admission. This document is actually a reminder for the
2 witness. This is not a document per se. The witness drafted this
3 document, and, I suppose, following the instructions of my learned
5 If this document refers to the original documents in our
6 possession and it is to be understood as a summary of those documents,
7 then I see no reason why we shouldn't tender the original documents.
8 Because, unless we do, there are -- there's no foundation for the
9 allegations found in this document the Prosecutor wishes to tender.
10 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, to what end do you seek to -- to
11 exhibit these summaries which the witness has made?
12 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, the summaries are of log-books, prosecutor
13 log-books, and I think you've had an opportunity to see a couple of them
14 so far; they're rather large. To translate them all would be a
15 tremendous effort for this Tribunal. And so it's much better to have a
16 witness who has some familiarity with them and can testify about them as
17 to what they contain.
18 I certainly can go through all the information contained in this
19 document that's in front of us right now; that's going to take a little
20 bit of time. She's basically going to affirm the information into it --
21 in it because she created it and she signed it. And I think that doesn't
22 really maximise the time of the this Trial Chamber for her to do so.
23 I note that we've done the same practice with two other
24 witnesses, Judge witnesses or prosecutor witnesses, and so I'm just
25 following that precedent.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, we see the utility of the witness
4 having compiled this synthesis of material herself. But the -- we -- in
5 our view, Mr. Zecevic has correctly pointed out that that the limited
6 utility of it is to assist the -- or to facilitate the examination and, I
7 suppose, cross-examination of the witness in the box. The document by
8 itself would have no use whatever as an exhibit, and I would even go so
9 far as to say it, taken in isolation, would be misleading.
10 So we understand the shortcut that you wish to take, but,
11 unfortunately, this is one of those areas in which there is no getting
12 around the fundamental material, bulky though it is, on which you would
13 wish to rely.
14 And the witness who is in the box could, I suppose, be asked
15 questions about the summary that she would have presented and what
16 specific items mean by way of example, but this cannot, in the Chamber's
17 view, be admissible as an exhibit.
18 MR. OLMSTED: Well, I certainly can take her through it, and I
19 guess that's what I will have to do to come with the results of her
20 analysis of these log-books.
21 Q. Well, let's turn to the first log-book that you reviewed.
22 You reviewed the Serb Sarajevo Prosecutor's Office 1992 KTA
23 log-book. Can you tell us, what was date of the first entry you found in
24 that log-book?
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Could we have the indication of the document you
1 are talking about, Mr. Olmsted? Does it have a name or tab number or
2 anything like that?
3 MR. OLMSTED: Yes. This will be tab 19.
4 Q. What was the date of the first entry in the KTA log-book?
5 A. Of the Sarajevo Prosecutor's Office? The 6th of July, 1992.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm really sorry, but can we have the 65 ter number
7 also so this can be shown to the -- to the accused?
8 MR. OLMSTED: Yes. It --
9 MR. ZECEVIC: It really --
10 MR. OLMSTED: Well, I'll give the 65 ter numbers; but these are
11 large log-books, and to load them all up in the system just so she can
12 give her conclusions on that I think will take a lot of time.
13 So let me just announce the 65 ter number, and they can take it
14 from there.
15 The 65 ter of this log-book was 2956.
16 Q. Now, you also reviewed the Ilidza Prosecutor's Office 1992 KT
17 log-book. What was the date of the first entry you found in that
19 MR. OLMSTED: And this is -- this is 65 ter 2955.
20 A. The 1st of December, 1992.
21 Q. And what was the total number of criminal reports received by
22 that office between 1 April and 31 December 1992?
23 A. The total number of criminal reports is 46.
24 Q. Now, we talked about how the Prosecutor's Office II in Sarajevo
25 was created sometime in November of 1992. So does this entry, this first
1 entry, conform with, basically, your understanding of when that
2 prosecutor's office was created?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. You also reviewed the Sokolac Prosecutor's Office 1992 KT
5 log-book. What was the date of the first entry found after 1 April 1992
6 in that log-book?
7 MR. OLMSTED: And this is 65 ter 1544.
8 A. The 8th of April, 1992.
9 Q. And how many entries -- how many criminal reports were received
10 by this office between 1 April and 31 December 1992?
11 A. 176.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... Your Honours,
13 I'm really sorry. The accused are protesting because they cannot follow
14 any -- any -- anything. They don't get any kind of information, what
15 Mr. Olmsted is directing the witness about. Because what we have on
16 the -- on the screen is, I believe, the first document. We are now on
17 the third log-book. And we still have the first log-book on the -- on
18 the ELMO.
19 I'm just saying this for the purposes of the accused. The
20 accused should be able to follow, at the very least, what is going on --
21 and what documents is -- are the parties referring to.
22 Thank you very much.
23 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, I'm not sure I understand the utility in
25 bringing up the log-books. We certainly can. But this witness is saying
1 when the first entry was and how many entries are in the log-book. I
2 think that that is something that would require -- you know, I'm not sure
3 what the Defence wants us to do; flip through each page and count them
4 for ourselves? Or can this witness simply divulge what she found when
5 she reviewed these log-books?
6 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, I suppose the alarm of the accused is
7 understandable. But isn't the -- don't we come back to what the Chamber
8 would have indicated to Mr. Olmsted when we started down this path? That
9 what we are really concerned about is the oral testimony of the witness
10 on the basis of what she would have examined; and the back documents, as
11 it were, are -- have -- obviously form the basis of the line of
12 questions. But what we should all, including the accused, concentrate
13 on, are the specific questions that counsel is now putting to the
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, with all -- with all due respect,
16 I -- I fully understand and appreciate the position of the Trial Chamber,
17 and I understand the position of my learned friend.
18 However, if, for example, Mr. Olmsted is asking the witness to
19 confirm which is the first date in the log-book and she confirms a
20 certain date, it is -- it is a couple of seconds that, before that,
21 Mr. Olmsted says 65 ter 1554, page 1. So the accused can see actually
22 that the witness is reading the actual date where -- where it's -- what
23 is written in the log-book.
24 That is my opinion that it would be only fair to the accused.
25 Thank you.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, it seems to -- to us that it only adds
3 a layer of confusion to be showing these documents, which we don't see,
4 at the end of this present exercise, being exhibited in any event.
5 To repeat what I said earlier, what we are concentrating on is
6 the witness's oral evidence. Admittedly, that her -- what she would say
7 is based on the documents that she would have examined. She has already
8 said that; that's a part of the record. But it only, as I said, adds
9 confusion to -- to be running these documents on the screen, which we
10 don't see, at the end -- we have already said that the summary would not
11 be admissible, and we don't see the log-books being admitted either.
12 As you have said, they are, A, voluminous, and, B, haven't all
13 been translated.
14 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour. But it is important to our case
15 to get this information in, and I think this is by far the most expedient
16 way of doing it. The Defence will have the opportunity to question any
17 information she derived from these log-books, and they can do it through
18 this witness or they can do it through any future witness. Or they can
19 file something otherwise to -- to question the -- the veracity of her
20 calculations. But these are, you know, such basic information, based
21 upon a review, that to bring up the log-book and to confirm everything
22 she's determined from them will -- it would just, I think, needlessly
23 take the time of this Trial Chamber.
24 JUDGE HALL: I don't know if we're at cross purposes,
25 Mr. Olmsted. We're inviting you to continue asking her questions. And
1 it is the duty of counsel on both sides to, at some point, seek to match
2 those questions to the basic documents, which are the log-books. But
3 what we are saying is that while you're asking her questions we don't
4 need to have the log -- these documents put up on the screen.
5 MR. OLMSTED: Now I understand you, Your Honour. I apologise for
6 that. Thank you.
7 Q. You also -- Judge Gojkovic, you also had the opportunity to
8 review the Vlasenica Prosecutor's Office 1992 KT log-book. Can you tell
9 us, what was the date of the first entry in that log-book on or after
10 1 April 1992?
11 A. The date is 14th of May, 1992.
12 Q. And what was the total number of criminal reports --
13 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm really sorry. Again, we don't have a 65 ter
14 number. I'm sorry.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, if I may be of assistance, it seems
16 to me that the summary which this witness has put together and which is
17 now -- which was offered by the Prosecution contains nothing more than
18 figures relating to the date of the beginning of the log-book and the
19 number of crimes that were registered.
20 The Defence, of course, is free challenge the correctness of what
21 the witness has put together. If there is a challenge, say, against the
22 number of crimes that were registered in Ilidza and you're able to prove
23 that it wasn't 46 crimes, it was only 44 crimes, then, of course, you
24 should do so.
25 But at this point in time in the Prosecution's chief examination,
1 I guess the interest is not so much about ascertaining the number of
2 crimes or the correctness of the information which the witness has
3 offered in this summary, but, rather, the breakdown of the numbers.
4 Because, as Judge Hall, the Presiding Judge, has already said, in
5 isolation this information is useless, unless we get a breakdown of
6 numbers: Out of the 46 crimes registered in Ilidza, how many crimes
7 were -- were concerning Muslim perpetrators, how many were concerning
8 Serb perpetrators, who were the victims, what was the charge, and so on.
9 So that is, I think, in the end, the information that the Chamber
10 is looking for.
11 So as much as I understand your -- your unhappiness with the fact
12 that we don't see the underlying material, I think at this point in time
13 we can proceed without having to use time to go into each and every one
14 of these log-books and confirm and ascertain that the number of crimes
15 that the witness has offered in her summary is correct.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours' position, and I
17 appreciate it very much. I'm just trying to explain the two things.
18 Number one, for the record, we need the 65 ter number of the
19 document that the witness is referring to. I think that's only logical.
20 We can't -- we can't play with the tab numbers, because the tab numbers
21 do not appear anywhere else. They are just for the purposes of our
22 facilitating work in the courtroom. That is why I insisted that the
23 65 ter number is always used; so I know what is the document and we know
24 in the record afterward.
25 The -- the problem I see, Your Honours, is that this doesn't help
1 saving the time. It -- it only - it only - increases the time. Because
2 Mr. Olmsted prepared this summary document last night. He sends it to us
3 with the data which is -- which Your Honours correctly suggested are the
4 numbers and the -- the qualification of some of the criminal -- criminal
6 Now, we are going to challenge that. Of course we are going to
7 challenge that. Because there is no basis for these conclusions from the
8 documents which -- which are -- which are before us. And now we will
9 have to go through each and every entry in these log-books to show the
10 Trial Chamber that the witness did not have the basis to confirm this.
11 Now it will take maybe two days. Instead that the Prosecution,
12 who has the burden of proof, shows the document, shows the -- shows the
13 example on which they base their -- their -- their assertion that the
14 witness is -- has -- on the basis of which the witness has created this
16 That is all I'm saying. Nothing else. And I think, with all due
17 respect, I think the Defence position is very justified in this respect.
18 Thank you.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: I wasn't in any way trying to say that you were
20 not justified in -- in bringing up ... it's just that I'm surprised that
21 the very limited information which is contained in the witness's summary
22 can actually be challenged. I mean, is that -- was the witness wrong in
23 providing the information that in Ilidza from 1st of April to
24 31st December there were 46 crimes registered? I mean, is that the
25 challenge? Or where does the challenge come in?
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I think the witness should be excused before
2 I answer that question, or maybe the witness can be withdrawn before the
3 time. Or we are about the time to break, so maybe the witness can be
4 excused and can I answer that question.
5 Thank you.
6 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
7 Judge Gojkovic, we are near the time that we would ordinarily
8 take a break. The usher will escort you from the courtroom at this
9 point. Thank you.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 JUDGE HALL: The -- rather than -- Mr. Zecevic, rather than
12 your continuing your representation to the Chamber at this point, it
13 seems that the more efficient thing - it mightn't work out - may be if
14 counsel, during the break, could see if a practical solution to this very
15 real problem can be worked out. Because we appreciate what you --
16 what -- what both counsel have said, and it may very well -- it -- it
17 appears that the Prosecution may not have anticipated the problems that
18 would have been created by the shortcut, what they thought would have
19 been a shortcut.
20 So if counsel can get together during the break and report back
21 when we resume as to whether there is anything that they have to offer
22 as -- as to how we go forward.
23 Thank you.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.
1 JUDGE HALL: Before the witness is escorted back to the stand,
2 the Chamber would wish to -- unless, of course, counsel have something to
3 report about progress they would have made.
4 So let's hear from counsel first.
5 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours, we spoke with Defence counsel,
6 and I think it was primarily a misunderstanding. We're not going seek to
7 tender this document into evidence; we're simply having her use it to
8 refresh her recollection based upon a review of the log-books.
9 I certainly will note the 65 ter number of the log-book. We
10 won't put it on the screen, though. And I think that that was acceptable
11 to the Defence.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. That was the -- basically we -- I understood
13 that the -- the Prosecution offered this document, and -- and that was --
14 that was the basis of my objection.
15 The other objections were concerning the 65 ter.
16 Now, the Prosecution assures me that they're interested in this
17 document in number one and two, which is the first date of entry and the
18 number of entries for 1992, which I don't have a problem with. The
19 problem I have is under number three and four, but my friend from the
20 Prosecution explained me that he is going to ask the witness directly for
21 her opinion on that. And that is basically okay with us.
22 Thank you, Your Honours.
23 I hope this satisfies the Trial Chamber.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: What is -- Mr. Zecevic, what is on the three and
1 four? Or, Mr. Olmsted, what is on the three and four? We don't have the
2 document anymore on the screen.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: The number three is the total number of the
4 criminal complaints concerning non-Serbs by -- committed by Serbian
5 perpetrators --
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: And the number four is also related to that.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: But Mr. Olmsted explained to me that he is going
10 ask the witness a question, therefore, and is he not going to rely on
11 this document. So we'll see what this witness will answer, and then we
12 will cross-examine on that.
13 Thank you.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, could you give us an indication as
16 to the -- the purpose of these questions, these precise questions?
17 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour. It's two-fold. The ones I'm
18 asking her, with regard to the statistical sheet, is establishing that
19 the prosecutor's offices were open for business in 1992, they were
20 accepting criminal reports, and several of them processed quite a few of
21 them. That's what I'm going to use the statistical sheet for. I will
22 ask her, generally, what her -- what she found.
23 With regard to number three, I'm not going refer her to the
24 sheet, I going to ask her, just outright, based upon a review of these
25 log-books, was she able to identify any cases in which the Serb was a
1 perpetrator and a non-Serb was a victim. And we'll hear her answer at
2 that stage on that. Based upon her looking at these seven or eight
4 And I note that's exactly what we did with two witnesses who have
5 testified here already. So it's simply -- there -- she's the higher
6 prosecutor; these log-books fell within her purview because they were her
7 basic prosecutors who were collecting this information and maintaining
8 these log-books which were used for auditing purposes and which were the
9 basis of reports going up the chain of command, and she, simply, has
10 reviewed them and told us what she's been able to find in them.
11 JUDGE HALL: So we would have the witness back.
12 If the usher would please escort the witness back to the stand.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 MR. OLMSTED:
15 Q. Judge Gojkovic, we apologise for the delay. We just had to deal
16 with a couple of procedural matters.
17 I want to return to the results of your review of the log-books.
18 We were talking about the Vlasenica Prosecutor's Office 1992 KT log-book.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Which I just note for the record is 65 ter 1552.
20 Q. Can you tell us, based upon your review, the total number of
21 criminal reports received by that prosecutor's office between 1 April and
22 31 December, 1992?
23 A. 191 criminal reports.
24 Q. I want to turn now to the Visegrad Prosecutor's Office 1992 KT
1 MR. OLMSTED: And I note for the record this is 65 ter 1550.
2 Q. Based upon your review, what was the date of the first entry in
3 that log-book on or after 1 April 1992?
4 A. 9 September 1992.
5 Q. And what was the total number of criminal reports received by
6 that office between 1 April and 31 December 1992?
7 A. Five.
8 Q. Now, you also looked at the Ilidza Prosecutor's Office 1992 KTN
9 log-book. Can you tell us, what was the total number of unknown
10 perpetrator criminal reports received between 1 April and
11 31 December 1992 by that office?
12 A. 18.
13 MR. OLMSTED: And, for the record, that's 65 ter 2969.
14 Q. You also reviewed the Vlasenica Prosecutor's Office 1992 KTN
16 MR. OLMSTED: That's 65 ter 2968.
17 Q. Can you tell us the total number of unknown perpetrator criminal
18 reports received by that office between 1 April and 31 December 1992?
19 A. 33.
20 Q. And, finally, the Visegrad Prosecutor's Office 1992 KTN log-book.
21 MR. OLMSTED: That's 65 ter 2971.
22 Q. Can you tell us what was the total number of unknown perpetrator
23 criminal reports received between 1 April and 31 December 1992 by that
25 A. One.
1 Q. From your review of the 1992 KTN -- or strike that.
2 From your review of the 1992 KT log-books, were you able to
3 identify any criminal reports filed by the police for crimes committed by
4 Serb perpetrators against non-Serb victims?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And from your review of the three 1992 KTN log-books, were you
7 able to identify any criminal reports for crimes against non-Serb
9 A. No.
10 Q. When the Serb Sarajevo Prosecutor's Office was located solely in
11 Lukavica, so before the split in November of 1992, did the prosecutor's
12 office maintain a KT log-book?
13 A. I believe so.
14 Q. Our investigators were unable to locate this log-book.
15 Can you tell us what happened to it?
16 A. I wouldn't know what happened to it. But I do know that this
17 prosecutor's office had transferred its offices to Grbavica and that the
18 premises where they were originally located were shelled. I don't know
19 whether they were destroyed, whether it was destroyed, their log-book. I
20 don't know what may have happened to it. I cannot tell you.
21 Q. Let's take a quick look at 65 ter 10385.
22 This is a request to initiate an investigation dated
23 7 September 1992. And we've already talked about this Srebrov case in
24 which you were investigative judge. I just want you to take a look at
25 the upper left of the first page. We see written "KT 24/92."
1 Could you tell us, what is the purpose of that number?
2 A. This number shows the sequence of these criminal reports that
3 were entered into the KT log-book.
4 Q. So as of the beginning of September 1992, how many criminal
5 reports were received by the Serb Sarajevo Basic Prosecutor's Office,
6 according to this document?
7 A. According to this number here, this is the 24th criminal report.
8 For this log-book.
9 Q. Let's take a look at 65 ter 2955. This will be the 1992 through
10 1993 Sarajevo Basic Prosecutor's Office II KT log-book.
11 And while we're pulling that up, did you also review, during
12 proofing, the 1993 entries in the KT log-book from the Sarajevo
13 Basic Prosecutor's Office II?
14 A. Only for the Sarajevo Basic Prosecutor's Office II.
15 Q. That's right. And were you able to identify any cases in the
16 1993 KT log-book against a Serb perpetrator for a crime committed against
17 a non-Serb victim, in 1992?
18 A. There was one case that was entered in 1993, and the criminal
19 report bore the date of, I think, December 1992. The perpetrator was a
20 Serb, and the damaged parties were described as members of "other
22 MR. OLMSTED: Let's look at page 23 of the B/C/S and page 6 of
23 the English.
24 And if we can zoom in to the last entry on the page; I believe
25 it's entry 30. And zoom in a little bit more on the B/C/S so she can
1 take a look at it.
2 Q. Judge Gojkovic, is this the case that you identified, this entry
3 number 30?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what was the name of the perpetrator?
6 A. Stanko Knezevic.
7 Q. And when was the criminal report received by the prosecutor's
9 A. The 9th of April, 1993.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Let's scroll over to column 23.
11 Q. According to this --
12 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, move -- move -- scroll over in the B/C/S. No,
13 not up; over. Yeah. Now keep on going. Keep on going. Okay. Stop
15 Q. According to this log-book, what happened to this case in 1995?
16 A. It says here that the investigation was interrupted. It was
18 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge why the investigation was
19 interrupted or dropped?
20 A. It was just interrupted. It was not ended. And I don't know
22 Q. Other than this one case that you identified, were you able to
23 identify any other criminal reports of crimes committed in 1992 by Serb
24 perpetrators against non-Serb victims in this 1993 KT log-book?
25 A. Well, I can say that there were examples where victims are not
1 even identified. There are no names of the victims in any of the
2 log-books that I reviewed. The one in 2003 [as interpreted] shows
3 another example where the victim was a woman who bore a Serbian family
4 name and her first name was not Serbian, I believe.
5 Q. Do you recall, was that crime committed in 1992 or 1993?
6 A. I'm not sure.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may this log-book be tendered into
9 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
10 MR. OLMSTED: I just want to show you one more document and then
11 I'm done.
12 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise. As Exhibit P1445, Your Honours.
13 MR. OLMSTED: If we can have on the screen P275.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, could you repeat the 65 ter number
15 of this log-book we just admitted?
16 MR. OLMSTED: Yes. It's 2955.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
18 MR. OLMSTED:
19 Q. Judge Gojkovic, what we're looking at now is the minutes from the
20 8th Session of the RS Presidency, dated 17 June 1992. If we look at
21 number 3, it states:
22 "The following conclusion was adopted: That the government draft
23 a decision on the establishment of a state documentation centre which
24 will gather all genuine documents on crimes committed against the
25 Serbian People during this war."
1 Do you recall whether this documentation centre was, in fact,
3 A. Yes, it was.
4 Q. And who was responsible for collecting this documentation?
5 A. Well, Miroslav Toholj was -- I don't know whether he was
6 appointed its director or whether he bore a different title. The
7 documentation centre organised a collection of all the documents, and I
8 believe that he was in charge of the overall organisation of setting up a
9 team that would be working on collecting all those documents.
10 Q. Are you aware of whether the police played any role in collecting
11 documents --or documenting the crimes committed against the Serb
12 population, for the centre?
13 A. As far as I know, yes, they did.
14 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I have no further questions for this
16 I'm wondering whether it would be beneficial to mark the
17 log-books that this witness summarised as exhibits at this stage, until
18 we can figure out the best means of -- of whether we need to tender
19 themselves into evidence or whether it's going to be acceptable to have
20 them summarised. But at least to have them --
21 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, you do mean marked for identification?
22 MR. OLMSTED: That's right; marked for identification.
23 I could provide a list to the Registrar, and they could just
24 assign P numbers for them. And then at least we know they're on the --
25 they're in the record, and we can figure out what's the best way to get
1 this evidence in, if it's necessary at all to get it in.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE HALL: Isn't this premature, Mr. Olmsted? We see the
4 practical aspect of your application. But isn't this premature? Because
5 the -- inasmuch as the log-books have not yet all been translated, the --
6 I think that's as far as we can go for the time being.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Well, a few of them have, that she reviewed --
8 well, partially translated, let's say. We'll never get them fully
9 translated just because some of them are quite large. But she did review
10 them, and she did testify about them, and we did announce their 65 ter
11 numbers on the record. So I was thinking maybe this would be a good time
12 to do that. But if the Trial Chamber is of the opinion to wait, we'll
13 address the matter later.
14 JUDGE HALL: But although she reviewed them, they're still merely
15 foundation documents for her viva voce testimony. And I -- I think
16 that's where they should be left for the time being.
17 MR. OLMSTED: That's fine, Your Honour.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Judge.
20 A. Good morning.
21 Q. Tell me, please, first of all, about our Criminal Code and
22 criminal procedure. I would like to clarify a few things with this
24 According to our criminal procedure - and when I say "our," I
25 mean the procedure that was in place in 1992, which is relevant for this
1 indictment - the police filed criminal reports whenever there was
2 reasonable grounds to suspect that a person committed a crime; is that
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In addition to the police, of course, such a criminal report is
6 filed with the competent prosecutor's office; right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. In addition to the police, citizens also had the right, and even
9 an obligation, and I believe that was stipulated by the law, to file
10 criminal reports; am I right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. At the moment when the police or citizens filed a criminal report
13 or when they reported a crime and when they specified the type of the
14 crime that was committed, such a specification in no way limited the
15 prosecutor to file a request to investigate the crime, such as committed
16 in the eyes of the prosecutor; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Let's clarify. If, for example, somebody filed a criminal
19 report -- for example, the police did that for an aggravated theft,
20 whereas, the facts established, during the so-called pre-trial procedure
21 conducted by the police, indicate that the crime is -- can be
22 characterised as a robbery, then the prosecutor will follow the logic and
23 will charge the perpetrator with the more serious crime - robbery in this
24 case - irrespective of the fact that the initial criminal report was
25 filed for an aggravated robbery -- aggravated theft; right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. For the interpretation, we have to make pauses between my
3 questions and your answers. I thank you kindly for your consideration.
4 A. Okay.
5 Q. After that, after the prosecutor reviewed the documents provided
6 to him by the police, together with the criminal report, or a citizen, a
7 victim, who could also file a criminal report, and then the prosecutor
8 filed a request for investigation and based it on his view that there
9 were reasonable grounds to believe that a certain individual had
10 committed a crime, which the prosecutor specified in their written
11 request submitted to the investigative judge.
12 Am I right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Once a request for investigation is filed, the investigating
15 judge will decide whether there are grounds for the investigation to be
16 launched; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. From the moment when the request for investigation is handed over
19 to the investigating judge the investigating judge agrees that there
20 should be an investigation of a case or of an individual, from that
21 moment on, the dominus, to put it that way, the main person, the person
22 in charge in the proceedings, is undoubtedly the investigating judge;
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The investigating judge has a certain body of rights which
1 include and which he is duty-bound to issue for the enforcement agencies
2 to carry out concern actions every time upon his specific order; right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Within the scope of the investigation, the police -- or, rather,
5 the bodies of the -- of interior affairs, do not act on their own will;
6 they act either on the order of the investigating judge or the
7 prosecutor. In other words, at the request of the prosecutor; right?
8 A. Yes. After the criminal report was filed.
9 Q. The fact is also, is it not, madam, that if a serious crime was
10 committed and the duty investigating judge and the duty prosecutor go to
11 the site immediately after that crime had taken place to carry out an
12 on-site investigation, from that moment on, effectively, both the
13 investigating judge and the prosecutor provide instructions to the police
14 as to what to do; right?
15 A. Yes. That's right.
16 Q. That's because, effectively, the presence of an investigating
17 judge and the prosecutor on the crime scene is the beginning of an
18 investigation. An order is issued. But the fact that they came to the
19 site, in case of a serious crime, violent death, or any such situations,
20 such a development, constitutes the launching of an investigation?
21 A. These are investigative actions that precede, following
23 Q. I'm really glad that you mentioned "investigative actions."
24 The fact is that some crimes which one might call the less
25 serious crimes - and I'm again talking about the year 1992 and the
1 regulations that were in effect at the time - for all those less serious
2 crimes, and I believe that they were qualified by a prison sentence of up
3 to three years, there was no investigation as such. Actually, what
4 happened was investigative actions were carried out in order to establish
5 whether there were elements and reasons for proceedings to be initiated
6 against a certain person; right?
7 A. Yes. Only certain actions were undertaken that were absolutely
8 indispensable to proceed, an indictment with a lesser or milder effect.
9 That was just an indictment proposal.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, let me check.
11 JUDGE HALL: The -- although the interpreters haven't so
12 indicated, I get the impression that the gap between the question and the
13 answer isn't sufficiently long. So if both the witness and counsel would
14 bear that in mind, the need for interpretation.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours.
16 Q. [Interpretation] The two of us speak the same language, and we
17 are rightfully inclined to follow each other immediately; but both my
18 question and your answer have to be recorded, hence the need for a short
20 At the beginning of your testimony earlier today, you referred to
21 a case where a direct indictment was issued. And you were the presiding
22 judge in that case, in 1992. Do you remember?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And in the proceeding that preceded that indictment, although
25 this crime was a serious crime, the facts were very clear. And I assume
1 that only some investigative actions were undertaken, and the prosecutor,
2 after that, directly charged the person, without launching a proper
3 investigation; right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Let's just clarify one specific matter. Since you worked both --
6 also as a prosecutor for a while, a prosecutor who was not happy or
7 satisfied with the contents of the criminal report he is seized with, he
8 could propose that certain investigative actions be taken so as to
9 establish whether there was, indeed, reasonable grounds to suspect that a
10 certain perpetrator committed a certain crime; right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. A prosecutor also had a possibility to do the following: When he
13 received a criminal report, he could turn to the police -- or, rather,
14 before he even received a criminal report, when he received information
15 that a certain crime had been committed, the prosecutor's office could
16 request from the police to collect the -- the so-called preliminary
17 information; right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. If I'm not mistaken, there was a special log-book, the so-called
20 P.O. log-book for that purpose?
21 A. I'm not aware of that.
22 Q. I'm sure that you will agree with me that in any case every such
23 prosecutor's request for an action by the police had to be recorded
24 somewhere; right?
25 A. I'm sure you're right. It must have been.
1 Q. And in such a case, when the prosecutor's office requested
2 preliminary information to be gathered, they also provided the
3 enforcement bodies with a set of instructions as to who they were
4 interested in, which additional information about certain persons had to
5 be gathered, about what facts, the time-frame, the place, and so on and
6 so forth; right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right. So we saw that the prosecutor's office is not bound
9 in any way by the legal qualification used by the body of the
10 Ministry of the Interior or the person filing the criminal report, except
11 with respect to the facts; right?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. That is, the public prosecutor can freely decide which criminal
14 offence he will state in the request to conduct an investigation and,
15 after that, in the indictment. And that is at the discretion of the
16 prosecutor, which is based on the facts that have been established in the
17 procedure until that time, which make the prosecutor think that there are
18 reasonable grounds to suspect that such a crime has been committed and
19 that it can be proved before a court of law; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. When the file makes it to court - that is, when the indictment
22 enters into legal force and a court hearing starts - after the hearing,
23 the court is supposed to decide. It is a fact, isn't it, that the
24 trial chamber that makes the decision is not bound by the prosecutor's
25 qualification in the indictment, but, rather is only bound by the facts
1 stated in that indictment; correct?
2 A. Yes, that is also correct.
3 Q. In essence, that means that the trial chamber can convict a
4 person of a crime if the trial chamber thinks that it has been proved
5 during the hearing that this crime was committed. That crime, however,
6 must not be the same as the one that the prosecutor states in the
7 indictment -- need not --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: "Need not," rather
9 than -- "must not."
10 A. Correct.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. All right. I apologise, I'm trying to control the transcript.
13 So, if an indictment is issued for the crime of qualified murder,
14 aggravated murder, and during the hearing before court it is established
15 that there are elements of another offence, such as a war crime, then the
16 court can pronounce that person guilty of committing a war crime;
18 A. Yes, if the facts of the criminal offence are all the relevant
19 facts that prove that the person has, indeed, committed what he or she is
20 charged with.
21 Q. Absolutely. I believe we have clarified as much. The court is
22 bound by the facts from the indictment rather than by the legal
23 qualification. That's the essence, isn't it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Tell me, please, I won't show it to you because I believe it
1 isn't necessary; but for the sake of reference, it is P119. That's the
2 Criminal Code of the Socialist Republic of BiH.
3 Madam, in 1992, there was, still, the death penalty in the
4 legislation of that republic; right?
5 A. Yes. And even later than that.
6 Q. And that was certainly the most severe sentence; right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I'll read it out to you to remind you.
9 In the second part of chapter 6 of the Criminal Code of the
10 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was applied in the
11 territory of the Republika Srpska in 1992 also, Article 36 describes the
12 offence of murder.
13 Do you remember?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And murder, in paragraph 2, is -- or, rather, paragraph 2
16 describes aggravated murder, and the sentence -- punishment for that is
17 ten years at least, and the severest sentence is the death penalty;
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And then the types and descriptions of various types of
21 aggravated murders is listed: Item 1 is in a cruel or insidious way;
22 then item 2, whoever deprives somebody else of his or her life, and, with
23 premeditation, jeopardizes the life of another person; and then
24 recklessness; then authorised officials; then several persons. And so
1 Do you remember, so I needn't read it out?
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. Let me remind you of another criminal offence from Article 151.
4 I'm again referring to the Law of the Socialist Republic of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina which in 1992 was also applied in the territory of the
6 Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. As I said, the Article in
7 question is 151, that deal with severe cases of robbery or -- robbery and
8 theft combined with robbery.
9 And Article 2 describes a qualified type of that offence; namely,
10 a situation when, during the performance of a robbery, a person is
11 deprived of his or her life with premeditation. And, in that case, that
12 offence is punishable by at least ten years, up to the death sentence?
13 A. Yes, that is an aggravated form of that criminal offence.
14 Q. What I want to ask you is the following -- or, rather, what I
15 would like to you confirm, and I hope you will: It's a fact, isn't it,
16 that under the rules and regulations in force at the time, the most
17 severe sentence is the death penalty, and it could be imposed, as we have
18 just seen, in these two cases; and the same sentence, the most severe
19 one, could be imposed also for war crime, crimes against humanity -- or,
20 rather, it was a sentence stipulated by the law for these offences.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So from the aspect of penalties, the law does not distinguish
24 between persons indicted of some type of qualified murders or a type of
25 aggravated robbery or crimes against humanity; correct?
1 A. Not with regard to the sanctions envisaged by the law.
2 Q. You may remember that at the very outset of your evidence today
3 you were asked by my learned friend about an investigation that you
4 conducted as investigating judge in 1992 against Vladimir Srebrov. Do
5 you remember?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Then the Prosecutor suggested to you, and you accepted, as you
8 have already stated in your answer, that the decision to place that
9 person in remand was signed by the minister of the interior,
10 Mr. Mico Stanisic. Do you remember?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show 65 ter
13 document 10383 to the witness.
14 Q. Let me ask you something, Ms. Gojkovic: Did you ever receive any
15 document from Mr. Stanisic?
16 A. No. At least I don't remember.
17 Q. Please enlarge the section of the document that contains the
19 This is the document shown to you by the Prosecution; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Madam, here we see the title typed out:
22 "Minister of the Interior, Mico Stanisic."
23 But take a look at the stamp. We can see that inside the stamp
24 there is the letter Z. I believe that it stands for "za," 4, and it's
25 followed by a signature. Can you see it?
1 A. Inside the stamp, there is a character. And the signature itself
2 is difficult to read. I saw what was typed on -- on the typewriter.
3 Q. I put it to you, madam, that this is not Mico Stanisic's
4 signature but, rather, that of Mr. Tomislav Kovac, who had met this
5 gentleman, Mr. Srebrov, to talk with him about some things.
6 A. That's not for me to know. I'm not saying that he signed it in
7 person. I only said that I cannot read the signature.
8 However, I could read, or I was able to read, what was
9 typewritten, and I read it.
10 Q. I'll show you another document.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 10384.
12 Q. It's an Official Note concerning the same case, the case against
13 Vladimir Srebrov.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please enlarge the
15 signatures in the lower right corner.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I'm objecting to what I anticipate
17 will be the line of questioning here.
18 I think that my learned friend is going to ask this witness to
19 compare signatures on two different documents to determine whether that
20 is, in fact, the signature of Mr. Stanisic.
21 I think the most appropriate way to do this would to be tender
22 the two documents into evidence and let the Trial Chamber compare the
23 signatures. I don't see why this witness is an expert in handwriting or
24 anything else. She's said that she's not familiar with Mr. Stanisic's
25 signature; she's saying that she's not seen that he, in fact, signed it.
1 I so I think that's really the end of the inquiry.
2 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, the question hasn't been asked yet.
3 Perhaps we should allow Mr. Zecevic to ask the question.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Precisely so.
5 Q. [Interpretation] You see, madam, that this document is signed
6 by - at least that's what it says, and I'm not sure you can see it - it
7 is signed by two persons, and the typewritten names are Tomislav Kovac
8 and Petko Budisa.
9 Can you see that?
10 A. Yes, that can be seen.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender both
12 these documents into evidence: 65 ter 10383 and 65 ter 10384.
13 JUDGE HALL: To establish what?
14 MR. ZECEVIC: To establish that the allegation that Mico Stanisic
15 signed these -- this -- the document on remand -- the decision on remand,
16 as suggested by the Prosecutor, as -- and as confirmed by the witness,
17 which is 65 ter 10383, is basically not --
18 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, I'm certain it isn't peculiar to the
19 system -- to the Rules of Evidence and the system of law with which --
20 from which I come, the rule of presumption of regularity. There is a
21 document, which is -- will not be disputed as an official document, and
22 it's issued in the name of the minister. It is a matter for the internal
23 administration of the department at the time as to whether he manually
24 signed it or somebody signed it for him, which I understand to be the
25 purpose for which the Prosecution was tendering the document.
1 I didn't understand - and perhaps Mr. Olmsted will tell me if I
2 misunderstood the purpose of his line of questioning - that he -- it is
3 was being tendered for the witness to establish that the minister
4 personally signed the document because I don't understand anything to
5 turn on that.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I'm sorry, Your Honours. That is precisely
7 why I am challenging this. Because he said, Mr. Olmsted said, to the
8 witness, he proposed to the witness that Mr. Stanisic has signed this
9 document and even asked the witness, Why do you think Mr. Stanisic signed
10 the decision on remand?
11 So he is suggesting and the -- and the -- very strongly
12 suggesting that it was actually signed by Mr. Stanisic. And that is what
13 I say is not true.
14 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
15 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]
16 MR. OLMSTED: I'm just going back to record, page 12 of the
17 transcript today, and I'm actually quite pleased the Trial Chamber was
18 listening closely to my questions. I did say:
19 "Do you recall who from the RS MUP issued the initial remand ...
20 to detain this perpetrator?
21 "A. Mico Stanisic did.
22 "Do you know why the minister of interior himself issued the
23 remand order?"
24 I didn't say anything about his signing it. It's in his name, as
25 Your Honour has just pointed out. It's -- it can be presumed that it
1 came from him.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
4 I'm not sure that I remember where we are now, in terms of the
5 issue before the -- the Chamber.
6 It's 12.08. We would return to this when -- when we come back.
7 Because it seems to me, from what has passed between the Bench and
8 counsel, that there is not an issue. But I suppose your application --
9 there is no real issue, let me put it that way, and I don't mean to be
10 disrespectful to counsel in respective cases when I say that.
11 But your application was to tender these two documents as
12 exhibits, as I recall, Mr. Zecevic?
13 And I come back --
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... that's correct,
15 Your Honour.
16 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... and I come back to the
17 question as, To what end? Because, at bottom, what we are left with are
18 documents which would have been issued on the authority of the -- of the
19 minister who would have been responsible; unless, of course, it is a part
20 of your case that these are wholly fictitious documents, which takes us
21 down another path altogether.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I believe we and the Prosecutor are
23 in agreement about that. Because it is not the responsibility of the
24 minister to issue decisions on remand. Not at all.
25 Therefore -- therefore, the -- the -- therefore, that is why
1 Mr. Olmsted was suggesting -- was asking the witness, Why do you think
2 minister himself ordered the -- the remand of this -- of this person?
3 And I say, It wasn't minister at all, and it wasn't done on his authority
4 at all. Because --
5 JUDGE HALL: Anyway, we'll take the break and come back to this.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 --- Recess taken at 12.10 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, with your leave, I have several
12 corrections to the transcript from last Friday.
13 On page 11647, the exhibit number should read 1D324. On page
14 11650, the exhibit number should be 1D325. And on page 11674, the
15 exhibits admitted are P1430 through P1445.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
18 THE REGISTRAR: 44, I apologise. Thank you.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
21 JUDGE HALL: In order -- sorry, Mr. Olmsted, you had something
22 to ...
23 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour, just to clarify, when Mr. Zecevic
24 left off at the end of last session, he said that the Prosecutor and the
25 Defence were in agreement that the minister didn't have any authority to
1 issue remand decisions, and I just want to clarify that there is no
2 agreement on that. That is not the position of the Prosecutor. Nor is
3 it the reason why I asked the follow-up question as to why the minister
4 had issued that remand decision.
5 I just want to clarify that there is no agreement on that issue.
6 JUDGE HALL: Yes. What -- what we understood the question to be
7 at the time, was the -- even if Mr. Olmsted over-spoke, as it were, in
8 terms of, say, emphasizing the -- the -- the minister having signed the
9 order in question, the ordinary rule of the presumption of regularity of
10 official acts, which goes by the Latin idiom omnia praesumuntur rite esse
11 acta, means that if Mr. Zecevic is challenging that presumption, it means
12 that there would be cast a persuasive burden on him evidentially, and in
13 order to -- it would seem to us that that is the only basis under which
14 he could be seeking to ask to tender these documents, because he is
15 intending to prove that the documents are fictitious. Otherwise we don't
16 see how the question of admitting them arises.
17 There is the ancillary consideration that it is somewhat curious,
18 in terms of the first document, which -- which was signed on behalf of
19 the minister, that the Prosecution couldn't have tendered it -- well, I
20 shouldn't say couldn't - didn't seek to tender, it not being on their
21 65 exhibit list, that -- that counsel for the Defence would seek to do so
23 So in order to consider the application of the Defence to tender
24 these two documents, we want be to be clear that Mr. Zecevic is -- his
25 application is based on the recognition that if his challenge is to
1 the -- that these documents are wholly irregular, as being wholly
2 fictitious, it would be necessary for him to state that now.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you. Well, Your Honours -- Your Honours, I
4 don't know if I can be of -- of assistance to the point which I feel the
5 Trial Chamber expects me to.
6 Your Honours, we say, first of all, that this order is not the
7 order on remand. This is a completely different situation. It says, on
8 the face of it, it says the order of remand, but it's not. And I'm going
9 to explore that with the -- with the witness.
10 I say -- we say that the minister does not have the authority for
11 that and that -- that the signature is not the minister's and that in no
12 way was minister -- has minister authorised this person to sign this
13 document, the person who signed the document.
14 JUDGE HALL: The -- Mr. -- Mr. Olmsted had anticipated something
15 that you were about to -- to -- which he thought you were about to do.
16 In terms of the second document, would you be going so far as to invite
17 the witness to compare the signatures on the two?
18 MR. ZECEVIC: No, Your Honours, I agree with the -- I agree
19 with -- with Mr. Olmsted and the witness because the witness said
20 herself, I cannot recognise the signatures, because she never saw the
21 signature of Mico Stanisic. She confirmed that in my cross-examination.
22 And, of course, she's not an expert. I just wanted to be of
23 assistance to the Trial Chamber because it's clearly that these two --
24 these two signatures are -- are pretty much similar, and it refers to
25 Mr. Tomislav Kovac.
1 And, if need be, we will lead evidence in our Defence case to
2 that respect. But ...
3 JUDGE HALL: So the first document is admitted as an exhibit, and
4 you would ask the witness such questions that you consider useful to your
5 case on that.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very, very much, Your Honours.
7 So just for the clearness of the record, it's 65 ter 10383.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. This will become Exhibit 1D326.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 MR. ZECEVIC: May I proceed, Your Honours?
12 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Ms. Gojkovic, just one more question about this document, if I
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 1D326, 65 ter 10383; that's the
17 document in question.
18 Q. In a minute you are going to see it on the screen, and I would
19 invite your comments upon it.
20 Madam, this decision to remand somebody in custody is actually a
21 decision on remand, is it not?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. According to the prevalent regulations, the police could remand a
24 suspect in custody, a potential perpetrator, up to three days, up to 72
25 hours; right?
1 A. Right.
2 Q. After that, that person had to be brought before the competent
3 investigative judge who, upon the proposal of the public prosecutor,
4 could extend the custody for a period of up to a month; right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The one -- the period of one-month custody ordered by the
7 investigative judge can be extended up to a maximum of six months, upon
8 the proposal of both the investigating judge and the public prosecutor;
10 A. Yes. That can be done by the trial chamber.
11 Q. The interpretation we heard is "trial chamber;" however, we're
12 talking about a special chamber which existed in all the courts pursuant
13 to the then-organisation of work. However, the gist of the matter is
14 that the chamber that decided on keeping somebody in custody for an
15 extended period of time also acted upon the proposal of an investigating
16 judge; right?
17 A. Upon the proposal of an investigating judge and the public
18 prosecutor. And that was done during the stage of the investigation. It
19 could be done up to the moment when the investigation was completed.
20 Q. The same chamber that decided on remanding somebody in custody
21 also decided on the objections and proposals to abolish somebody's
22 custodial sentence upon the proposal of a defence team?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. In any case, the gist of the matter was this: Once a person was
25 remanded in custody for up to 72 hours, the police could not keep that
1 person for any longer. During that period of time, such a person had to
2 be brought before the investigating judge who, in turn, instituted
3 different measures upon the proposal of a -- the competent public
4 prosecutor; right?
5 A. That was the law in place.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 I have a brief question. On page 35, lines 18 and 19, I believe,
8 the Prosecutor showed you P275, which is a -- actually a record or the
9 minutes of a Presidency session. We are going to have it on the screen
10 in a minute to jog your memory.
11 A. I remember the document.
12 Q. The Prosecutor invited your comment on bullet point 3 in this
13 document, whereby the Presidency ordered the government to prepare a
14 decision on the establishment of the State Documentation Centre which
15 would be in charge of collecting authentic documents about crimes
16 committed against the Serbian People in the course of the war. You said
17 that you're familiar with this decision and that, as far as you know,
18 Mr. Toholj was in charge of that documentation centre; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Madam, isn't it true that this State Documentation Centre, which
21 gathered documents on crimes committed against the Serbian People,
22 focussed primarily on crimes committed in the territory under the control
23 of the Muslim and Croatian forces and not on the territory of
24 Republika Srpska?
25 A. I never paid a visit to that documentation centre, so I don't
1 have any direct knowledge about its functioning. However, what I heard
2 and read in the media and what I'm reading here under bullet point 3,
3 that documentation centre would be operational in the areas where crimes
4 were committed against the Serbs, whether those areas were constantly
5 under the control of the enemy side or temporarily taken over by the Serb
7 One would say that you're right. I only know about
8 Presenica [phoen] village near Trnovo. I know that at one point in time,
9 when the enemy side entered that village, crimes were committed, and I
10 saw a photo documentation. But not in my formal capacity, but, rather,
11 in my private capacity.
12 Q. Madam -- I apologise. Do you know that the
13 Nationality Security Service particularly dealt with crimes committed
14 against Serbs -- or, rather, they collected information about crimes
15 committed against Serbs in the territory that was not under the control
16 of the military or the authorities of Republika Srpska?
17 A. Yes. The Nationality Security Service was engaged in those
18 activities, yes.
19 Q. This certainly doesn't mean that crimes committed against other
20 ethnic groups in the territory of Republika Srpska would not be
21 documented or processed, prosecuted; right?
22 A. I think that they should all be documented and prosecuted.
23 Q. And now I'm going to show you 1D84.
24 This letter was written by the Ministry of the Interior of the
25 Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to all public security
1 centres in the territory of Republika Srpska. It is dated 5 June 1992.
2 The signatory is the assistant minister for prevention and detection of
3 crime, Mr. Dobro Planojevic.
4 Did you have an occasion to possibly see this document before I
5 showed it to you? Are you familiar with Mr. Dobro Planojevic? Do you
6 know him?
7 A. I knew Dobro Planojevic even before the war, and I know that he
8 was assistant minister in 1992.
9 I don't believe I have seen this particular document before.
10 Q. In this document, Mr. Dobro Planojevic, about halfway through the
11 text, appeals to the best possible cooperation with the judicial bodies
12 and the police in the efforts to combat crime.
13 Do you think that there were attempts to bring about such
15 A. I don't quite understand. Could you please explain your
17 Q. I'll ask you something else so as not to waste time.
18 You will see from the text that Mr. Planojevic insists that
19 things must be documented. He literally says:
20 "Special attention it to be paid to uncovering perpetrators of
21 war crimes ...
22 Can you see that?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. And in the last-but-one sentence, he says -- and I would like to
25 hear your comment on that. He says:
1 "In war time, you will encounter numerous obstacles in combatting
2 crime and will, on occasion, be unable to take adequate measures. In
3 such cases, you are to record all information in Official Notes for
4 subsequent measures, that is, criminal prosecution."
5 Madam, this means, doesn't it, that in cases when, due to
6 war-time activities, it's impossible to conduct an on-site investigation
7 and other activities that, under the law and regulations of the MUP, must
8 be carried out, at least an Official Note must be drafted to make it
9 possible for a subsequent investigation to be carried out, once the
10 conditions allow that, in accordance with the regulations in force for
11 and applying to the bodies of the Ministry of the Interior.
12 Is that the way you understood it?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 MR. OLMSTED: The -- my learned friend is asking the witness to
15 interpret a document she never saw from the police which she was not a
16 part of. It doesn't seem like there is a sufficient foundation. She's
17 obviously answered the question, but I just raise my objection.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: With all due respect, the witness is -- was a
19 prosecutor at the time, so ...
20 JUDGE HALL: Let's move -- let's move on.
21 MR. ZECEVIC:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Madam, it's a fact, isn't it, that under the
23 regulations in force at the time, war crimes and crimes against humanity,
24 that, for them, there was no statute of limitations?
25 A. Yes. Those were the regulations.
1 Q. The Ministry of Justice of the RS was being established in
2 April 1992. That's when it began; right?
3 A. I don't know for certain.
4 Q. If I followed your testimony attentively and remember all the
5 relevant facts, then you were appointed judge in June 1992; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Let me show you P1318.23. That's a -- an activity report for --
8 of the Ministry of Justice and Administration, dated May 10 1992, for --
9 for --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: For May through
11 October 1992.
12 MR. ZECEVIC:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Have you had the opportunity to see this
14 document before?
15 A. Do you mean in 1992?
16 Q. Well, at any time before this testimony today.
17 A. Yes. Before this testimony I did, but not in 1992.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show page 2 to the
20 Q. You see that at the very beginning it says that the
21 Ministry of Justice and Administration began functioning in extremely
22 complex conditions due to the well-known war-related events.
23 And then it goes on to speak on the establishment of the rule of
24 law and legal security of the citizens. And apart from the Supreme Court
25 and the public prosecutor's office, a total of -- a number of courts and
1 other institutions were set up. And that 276 judges were appointed, as
2 well as 80 public prosecutors.
3 Do you remember that this information is approximately correct?
4 A. Well, as for the number of courts and public prosecutors' office,
5 I think that this is correct. And as for the number of officials, I'm
6 not sure.
7 Q. You see the last sentence, which says -- and we are referring to
8 mid-November 1992. It says:
9 "The Supreme Court and the Republican public prosecutor's office
10 have not yet started working."
11 And then it goes on to say that there isn't yet enough staff or
12 premises for the work of these institutions.
13 Does the information you have correspond to what is stated here,
14 that the public prosecutor's office, in November 1992, hadn't yet started
16 A. Yes, that's correct. Because in 1993 I was still -- or, rather,
17 the higher public prosecutor's office was still at the Panorama Hotel,
18 where also a court and a basic prosecutor's office had their premises.
19 They had come there earlier because the higher prosecutor's office was
20 not yet in existence. That's why I think that this is correct.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 In that structure that in 1992 and for a while even after that
23 existed in the SFRY, apart from the judiciary as a governmental body, in
24 all republics and autonomous provinces as well as the federal level there
25 was also a military judiciary and there were Military Prosecutor's
1 Offices; correct?
2 A. Yes. And the military ombudsman also.
3 Q. Do you know that the military judiciary and the Military
4 Prosecutor's Offices in 1992 in the territory of the RS weren't
5 functioning until probably autumn or even the end of the year?
6 And when I say "functioning," I mean functioning normally.
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. Do you know that the Ministry of Justice of the RS repeatedly,
9 due to the fact that these military bodies - that is, courts and
10 prosecutor's offices weren't functioning - repeatedly requested that
11 civilian courts and civilian prosecutor's offices be allowed to deal with
12 matters and criminal offences which, under the law, were within the
13 exclusive purview of the military judiciary and Military Prosecutor's
15 A. I didn't know that at the time.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] could the witness please be shown
17 page 4 of this document, which is a report of the Ministry of Justice. I
18 need paragraph 1.
19 The sentence starts:
20 "With regard to that" -- it's on the previous page actually,
21 "... has accepted the duty to have regular courts deal with such crimes
22 as would have to be dealt with by the military judiciary as the military
23 judiciary was not functional yet."
24 Q. Do you know that regular courts conducted investigative actions
25 for criminal offences within the purview of the military judiciary? I
1 mean, at least in the framework of the court where you were a judge.
2 A. I cannot tell whether any of my colleagues was involved in such
3 activities. I only know that I, as a judge, was never requested to do
4 anything of the kind, and I know that the case that we have mentioned,
5 namely, the case of Vladimir Srebrov, was within the jurisdiction of the
6 military court, because the Criminal Code of the SFRY stipulated that
7 such offences are -- follow in the jurisdiction of the military court.
8 However, I didn't know about military courts because their
9 organisation and structure differed from those of regular courts. When I
10 received such a request, I could not terminate the procedure. I could
11 only state that I -- this was not in -- in my jurisdiction. And as this
12 was a case of placing somebody in remand, into custody, I only filed a
13 request for an investigation to be conducted.
14 So I have no such experience, but whether anybody of my
15 colleagues had, I cannot really remember.
16 Q. This report says that the untimely organisation of the military
17 judiciary organs makes it more difficult for the Rule of Law to be
18 established; and current conditions, military courts, and prosecutor's
19 offices are mainly responsible for criminal activity since the
20 announcement of the general mobilisation.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the Defence counsel please repeat his
22 last sentence, and let's continue from there, please.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. I apologise, I was too fast and have to go back.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to the interpreters.
2 Q. So the question was: After I had read out this part that for
3 acting upon criminal offences, military courts and prosecutor's offices
4 had jurisdiction because the -- a general mobilisation had been declared,
5 and I asked you whether or not this confirms what you told us concerning
6 this case, the case of Mr. Srebrov.
7 So could you now please repeat slowly the answer that you've
8 already given me.
9 A. Yes, because military courts had jurisdiction over criminal
10 offences committed by military personnel as perpetrators, irrespective of
11 the nature of the offence.
12 Q. All right.
13 I'm now going to show you document.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] P1328.
15 Q. Dated 5 August 1992. It's a letter from the Ministry of Justice
16 to the Presidency of the Serbian Republic of BiH about this very problem
17 with the military judiciary.
18 You see that the then-minister of justice addresses the
19 Presidency of the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and says that he
20 repeats the proposal that he made in July 1992. Namely, that regular
21 courts and public prosecutor's offices temporarily take over the
22 jurisdiction of military courts and prosecutor's offices until the
23 establishment of the latter.
24 If I understood you correctly, then you're unfamiliar with this
25 initiative of the Ministry of Justice?
1 A. No.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Yes, unfamiliar.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Let me show you document -- a document that will probably also
5 serve to illustrate this situation.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 1D189.
7 Q. You see, this is a criminal report filed by the SJB of Vogosca on
8 12 December 1992. And it was submitted to the Military Prosecutor's
9 Office of Sarajevo against one Stanko Knezevic. And he is charged with a
10 criminal offence against prisoners of war.
11 This person allegedly took 12 prisoners from the prison of the
12 Vogosca Brigade and killed them.
13 Can you see that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. This criminal report was sent to the Military Prosecutor's Office
16 because it is obvious that the alleged perpetrator is a soldier, this
17 Stanko Knezevic; correct?
18 It says in the statement of reasons that as a member of the
19 Semizovac Battalion, et cetera --
21 isn't mentioned there. But in the statement of reasons, we see that he
22 was a member of that brigade.
23 Q. And I think there's no contention about this involving prisoners
24 of war, who are not members of the Serbian ethnic group; am I right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I will ask you to briefly comment for us ... some documents that
2 you've already commented when questioned by my learned colleague.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have 2968,
4 65 ter document, shown to the witness.
5 Q. These are the log-books that you reviewed or had reviewed and
6 then drafted a short document stating certain data from the document in
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I need page 3, please. 0665-0214;
9 that's the ERN number.
10 I don't know whether it would be possible to turn it for 90
11 degrees and thereby make it more easy to read. When I say "rotate," to
12 put it upwards. Yes, thank you.
13 Can we please zoom in on the central portion of the document,
14 entries 26 to 30. Rather, lower part of the document is what I mean.
15 Q. As you can see, the fifth column is the column where one enters
16 the names of the damaged party. You told us that in many of the
17 documents you reviewed one cannot find entries concerning the damaged
18 party and that, therefore, you could not say whether these were persons
19 of Serb ethnicity or non-Serb ethnicity or something different.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In any case, it is a fact, isn't it, that all the log-books that
22 you reviewed, KT, KTN, and the others, the log-books you reviewed in the
23 last few days, probably over 90 per cent of perpetrators of crimes or
24 offences logged and against whom criminal reports were brought out are
25 people of Serb ethnicity; am I right?
1 A. I cannot give you an exact percentage, but these were mostly
2 criminal reports against Serbs.
3 Q. A small digression: Since you used to work also as a prosecutor,
4 I assume you will agree with me that in order to prepare a criminal
5 report, it is of the essence to have the damaged party, the victim, or
6 any witness, be interviewed by the law-and-order institutions or take
7 a -- at least a statement by such a person?
8 A. Yes, that's very important.
9 Q. It was also very common in the times of war that -- gathering of
10 such essential information to draft a criminal report and that, at that
11 time, it was very difficult to -- to do so, to gather this information?
12 A. At the time, it was very difficult to conduct even the most
13 simple of activities, let alone the more complex ones.
14 Q. Thank you. As can you see here, entry number 26, we have a legal
15 entity. It's Han Pijesak Agricultural Society, or something like that.
16 It is impossible to determine the ethnicity of a commercial company, and
17 such companies can very often be found in these log-books as the damaged
18 party. Am I right?
19 A. Well, it is impossible to determine ethnic affiliation of a legal
20 entity such as an enterprise or anything like that.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at number 30,
23 Q. As we can see here, the damaged party is an elementary school.
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have 65 ter 1550.
2 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, I'm just wondering, since questions
3 have been asked about this particular log-book and particular entries,
4 would this be a good time to at least mark it for identification, maybe
5 even admit it? And the Prosecution will endeavour to get an English
6 translation, in the near future, of it. It's not a huge log-book. But
7 since it's obviously in the record and it's referring to particular
8 entries, it seems appropriate to have it in evidence.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I -- first of all, I -- I can't -- I thought
10 that it was -- that it wasn't permitted to offer the document for
11 admittance or to exhibit before we have the -- the translation. That is
12 why I -- I was reluctant to --
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: We have admitted documents, MFI, pending
14 translation, in earlier cases so if -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... but it was my
16 understanding, at the end of Mr. Olmsted's direct, that he will provide
17 the list -- the Registry with the list of all these -- these documents to
18 be MFI'd. Maybe I'm -- maybe I misunderstood.
19 MR. OLMSTED: No, that is -- that is a misunderstanding. I think
20 Judge Hall and I went back and forth on that and the decision was at this
21 time we won't even mark them for identification because the witness
22 simply provided her results upon reviewing them. But now that we've
23 actually brought a log-book and she's talked about that particular
24 log-book, we could mark this one for identification, pending translation,
25 and then that should take care of it.
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes. So marked for identification.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D327, marked for identification,
3 Your Honours.
4 JUDGE HALL: While we're on this issue - and if I sound
5 tentative, it's because I really can't remember whether this would have
6 arisen in a private discussion that the Judges would have had among
7 themselves or whether it arose in the colloquy between the Chamber and
8 counsel - but did we explore the question of dealing with these log-books
9 by - as we have done with certain other documents in the past - by
10 eventually, for instance, in respect of this one, after it's translated,
11 marking -- only seeking to admit one as a specimen of what all the others
12 in the class would be?
13 Can counsel -- do counsel remember whether we -- we did that in
14 open court?
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE HALL: Okay. My colleagues remind me that it wasn't -- it
17 didn't come in open court. But this is a opportune time for counsel to
18 consider that, because that is one of the things that we certainly
19 consider as a means of dealing with this large volume of -- of material.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour. And you will notice, I think,
21 we're on the same wavelength because the way we've approached these
22 log-books so far is to only translate the headings, which tend to be the
23 same, universally, throughout the charged municipalities, and then the
24 particular entries that we want to ask questions about to the witness or
25 we want those be considered by the Trial Chamber and not do the whole
1 book. Because obviously that would overwhelm our translation resources.
2 So I think we're basically doing exactly that. Having one that
3 is -- more or less indicates what these log-books are all about, and then
4 focussing on the particular log-books, the entries that are relevant to
5 this case.
6 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Madam, when I asked you about the ethnicity of some legal
9 entities, I believe I didn't put my question in the proper way.
10 What I'm primarily interested in is the fact that amongst some of
11 the entries here we have, as the damaged party, legal entities, elements
12 of the economy. But in these KT log-books, if the damaged party is an
13 institution or a company, an enterprise, one will -- would not see the
14 name of the owner of, for instance, a privately-owned enterprise or a
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. So on the basis of this, even -- even if the damaged party is
18 specified, when the party in question is a legal entity, one cannot tell
19 whether the owner may have been a Serb or a non-Serb?
20 A. For most parts, such legal entities were socially owned. They
21 were, with the -- with the exception of shops, not owned by individuals.
22 Q. If it's stated "PP" and then a name, that means a privately-owned
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. When reviewing these documents, in places where you -- you saw
1 who the damaged party was, you made your conclusions as to whether these
2 were Serbs or non-Serbs on the basis of their name and surname, the name
3 and surname of the person in question, which, of course, in cases you've
4 mentioned a moment ago, need not be a correct indicator showing what
5 ethnicity of the damaged party is.
6 A. That is correct. But that is the only possible criterion that
7 one can use in a log-book such as this to make an assessment. There are
8 no other ways to determine that because there is no column defining
9 ethnic affiliation.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the Prosecutor
11 to assist me with something.
12 I can see that our witness reviewed Vlasenica Prosecutor's Office
13 KT log-book, but I'm not sure what 65 ter number that is.
14 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, the Vlasenica KT is 65 ter exhibit 1552.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Q. Madam, I have no further questions for you, madam. Thank you.
17 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, I don't have questions for this
20 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, just very briefly, Your Honours.
22 Re-examination by Mr. Olmsted:
23 Q. Judge Gojkovic, do you recall, while you were a basic court judge
24 in Sarajevo or a higher prosecutor, did the police ever come to you and
25 ask for your cooperation in investigating war crimes against non-Serbs?
1 A. While I was a judge at a basic court in Sarajevo, I don't
2 remember having any official contacts with the police in relation to this
3 topic. And while I was a senior or higher public prosecutor, I had
4 contacts with assistant minister whose name, I think, is Goran Macar but
5 in relation to issues relating to general crime. These were mainly
6 offences related to general crime. Because he needed to consult us in
7 relation to several cases, and since the seat of my office was at Pale,
8 so the closest prosecutor -- although normally they should be consulting
9 with basic-level prosecutors, I still think that, on several occasions, I
10 did have contacts with Mr. Macar. But not in relation to war crimes. I
11 don't think that was part of his jurisdiction.
12 Q. These conversations you had with Mr. Macar, could you tell us,
13 were they in 1993 or 1994; do you recall?
14 A. I think - I assume - it was in 1994. 1994 most probably, but I
15 cannot recollect this with any precision.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Can we quickly look at 65 ter 1552. It was just up
17 on the screen a moment ago.
18 And to save time, I want to hand the witness this log-book, which
19 is the Vlasenica KT log-book from 1992, just so she can quickly flip
20 through it.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I don't see how this came out of the
22 cross-examination. I didn't -- I didn't pose a single question on this
23 particular log-book.
24 MR. OLMSTED: You -- it's not so much the log-book but the
25 question that came up. And you'll see in a moment. But, essentially,
1 it's your question with regard to, Were most of these crimes in these
2 log-books against Serb perpetrators.
3 JUDGE HALL: Do you expect to finish today, Mr. Olmsted?
4 MR. OLMSTED: Yes. After this, I'm done.
5 And then if we can change -- turn to page 2 of both the B/C/S and
6 the English.
7 Q. And, Judge Gojkovic, if you could just flip through the first few
8 pages. And can you tell me, are -- the perpetrators listed in these
9 entries, are they Serb or are they non-Serb?
10 And you can just flip ahead. I know you reviewed it yesterday,
11 but just to refresh your memory.
12 A. Yes, I can comment. In this log-book, the first -- well, I don't
13 how many, but certain number of persons listed are people against whom
14 criminal reports were submitted and who are of other nationality. And,
15 therefore, in my response when I was asked against which persons criminal
16 reports were issued, I responded by saying that I cannot give you exact
17 percentage but that majority of them were members of other nationalities.
18 In this case, I think it was -- it involved illegal possession of
19 weapons, and the reports were against members of other [as interpreted]
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm really
22 sorry. At 73, 19, the witness says: The majority of them were member of
23 "Serb" nationality. Not -- and it was recorded "other nationalities."
24 MR. OLMSTED:
25 Q. Just to clarify, Judge, did you say the majority were of Serb
1 nationality or majority were of non-Serb nationality? Just to clarify
2 your answer.
3 A. The majority of people against whom, during 1992, criminal
4 reports were submitted were of Serb ethnicity. But in this log-book for
5 Vlasenica, there is a number of people of other nationalities against
6 whom criminal reports were submitted. But I haven't counted them, and I
7 don't know how many of them are mentioned in there.
8 Q. Since we've talked about this log-book as well and there is an
9 English -- partial English translation, may this be admitted into
11 JUDGE HALL: Wasn't this the one that was marked for
13 MR. OLMSTED: No, that was the KTN, the unknown perpetrator
15 JUDGE HALL: But you said partial English translation.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Yes. Because this is quite a large log-book, and
17 so we only translated part of it. And in this case I think it's the
18 first entry from 19 -- from after April 1992 and the last entry from
19 1992 --
20 JUDGE HALL: Let's mark it for identification and think it
22 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1446, marked for identification,
23 Your Honours.
24 MR. OLMSTED: No further questions, Your Honour.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HALL: Judge Gojkovic, we thank you for your assistance to
2 the Tribunal. You are now released as a witness, and we wish you a safe
3 journey back to your home.
4 And we take the adjournment to this --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
6 JUDGE HALL: We take the adjournment to reconvene in this
7 courtroom at 9.00 tomorrow morning.
8 Thank you.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,
11 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 16th day
12 of June, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.