Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 12341

 1                           Tuesday, 29 June 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.05 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 everyone.

11             May we have today's appearances, please.

12             MR. OLMSTED:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Matthew Olmsted and

13     Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Slobodan Zecevic,

15     Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for

16     Stanisic Defence this morning.  Thank you.

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

18     Defence, Igor Pantelic.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

20                           [The witness takes the stand]

21             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning to you, Mr. Drasko.  You may resume

22     your seat.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE HALL:  And before I invite Mr. Cvijetic to resume his

25     cross-examination, I remind you you're still on your oath.

Page 12342

 1                           WITNESS:  LAZAR DRASKO [Resumed]

 2                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

 5                           Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic: [Continued]

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Drasko.

 7        A.   Good morning, Mr. Cvijetic, and colleague, because I'm also a

 8     lawyer.

 9        Q.   Before we resume, there's something interpreters asked us to ask

10     you.  Please make a pause before answering a question and be close to the

11     mic so that we can hear the answer and let us not overlap.  Thank you.

12             We -- yesterday I was showing you -- I was about to show you a

13     document.

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It's P633.

15        Q.   Mr. Drasko, you certainly know that Visegrad SJB belongs to

16     Trebinje CSB; am I correct?

17        A.   I believe you are.

18        Q.   One can see that in the heading of this document.  This is a

19     short review of the military and security situation in the Serbian

20     municipality of Visegrad.  This overview was drafted in the Visegrad SJB.

21             Can you see that?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Let us now move to the relevant part of the document, which can

24     be found on the following -- on the second page.

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And in English, most probably,

Page 12343

 1     it's page 3.  So in the Serbian version, it's the following - yes, this

 2     one - and if we could enlarge the last paragraph on that page.

 3             On both pages it's in the last paragraph.

 4        Q.   So, please, take a look at this last paragraph.  It is stated

 5     there that from the very first days when the town was liberated, the

 6     Visegrad Public Security Station has functioned.  Its senior officers

 7     were appointed by the War Presidency of Visegrad municipality.

 8             And then it states that the station was manned with personnel

 9     from the area, that is to say, former MUP employees and so on.

10             Mr. Drasko, in relation to what we've discussed yesterday in

11     relation to this proposal regarding your appointment, we can see

12     here - and can you please confirm this - that local authorities were

13     rather involved in the personnel policy, not only in the prosecutor's

14     office but also in the SJBs.  Am I right?

15        A.   Yes.

16             MR. OLMSTED:  I would object to this question.  For one thing,

17     this document is dated July 1992, before this witness came to Visegrad,

18     long before he came to Visegrad.  And, secondly, the Defence is asking

19     this witness to comment on personnel issues with regard to the police

20     which, of course, there's no foundation for, at least established at this

21     point, how this witness knows how police officers were appointed.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic.

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness

24     confirmed what's stated in the document.  He obviously is aware of this

25     role of the local authorities.  He lived in the municipality in question.

Page 12344

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no doubt that, at the

 2     time, attempts were made to create the rule of law, and that is why, at

 3     the time of my arrival and before, I know that in Tasovcici, in Bileca,

 4     Trebinje, and Visegrad, there were efforts to create the rule of law and

 5     to have the government function.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  So the -- this is another example of a broad pattern

 7     of what was going on.  But how does it assist us in terms of the issues

 8     with which this trial are concerned?

 9             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the course of the

10     proceedings so far, you have certainly observed that Defence case

11     involves that during 1992 many appointments in SJBs were made by the

12     Crisis Staffs, War Commissioners offices, and other local authorities.

13     This question of mine is important because it shows de jure and de facto

14     control over such stations.

15             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, this is exactly the objection I'm

16     raising.  This document is dated July 1992; it's talking about events in

17     Visegrad early on in the conflict; and this witness is really not in a

18     position to comment on it.  To show this witness a document that I assume

19     the witness has never seen before and ask him to comment on something

20     that occurred before he even showed up in the municipality is just not an

21     appropriate line of questioning.

22             JUDGE HALL:  And the document, for whatever use can be made of

23     it, speaks for itself.

24             MR. OLMSTED:  Exactly, Your Honour.  And it's been admitted into

25     evidence.

Page 12345

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Please, let's move on, Mr. Cvijetic.

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Mr. Drasko, do you know that the local public security station

 4     with which you probably cooperated had personnel problems because they

 5     were, according to the systematisation or establishment of posts, they

 6     were short-staffed, also because of possible involvement of police

 7     officers in the fighting and the war?

 8        A.   Upon arrival in Visegrad, I realised that not only they were

 9     short-staffed but that they don't even have enough fighters to defend the

10     area that was in between Srebrenica, Zepa, and Gorazde.  Many people

11     deserted the ranks.  One can see that from criminal reports I drafted at

12     certain points in time there were not more than 150 men at the front

13     lines.  Now I don't know about the police, so -- but the police was

14     forced to strengthen the lines.  Many policemen also got killed.

15        Q.   Yes.  You anticipated my following question.  Namely, my learned

16     friend, Mr. Olmsted, showed you a list of police members from the month

17     of October.  And we noticed that at the time already four of them had

18     been killed, which is a confirmation of what you just told us.  But to

19     finish with this document --

20             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please go to the last

21     page of the document.

22        Q.   Penultimate paragraph, Mr. Drasko.  Could you please find the

23     sentence where 2000 is numbered.  It is stated here that:

24             "Through the activity of the Red Cross, over 2.000 Muslims were

25     moved out in an organised manner from the area of the municipality."

Page 12346

 1             Now, I would like to remind you that this was done under the

 2     organisation of the municipal organs.  Can you confirm that the Red Cross

 3     was also involved?

 4        A.   I have heard this from late Baton [phoen].  I can't remember his

 5     surname at the moment.  That's how people used to call him, Baton.

 6     Namely, that they were organising convoys for the movement of civilian

 7     population out of the town.  I don't know how many people left, but I

 8     know that from Capljina, where I used to live, not a person could leave.

 9        Q.   But my question to you was whether you know whether Red Cross was

10     involved in these activities.

11        A.   Yes, that's correct.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I want to show

14     another document to the witness, already in evidence; P158, please.

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the counsel please switch off his

16     microphone when not using it.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic, did you hear the request to switch off

18     your microphone when you aren't using it.

19             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Mr. Drasko, this is a report or information on the work of the

21     Trebinje CSB from 1st of July to 15th of August, 1992.

22             I would like to draw your attention to the following page of the

23     document.

24             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have the following

25     page.  I assume, then, the following -- this is just a certificate stamp.

Page 12347

 1     Yes, the following page in the Serbian version.  It's this

 2     paragraph which starts with the words:

 3             "Special programme" -- "special problem."  In the English

 4     version, it's non-functional communication system.  Let me just check if

 5     we are on the right page.  Yes, we are.

 6        Q.   Mr. Drasko, this information, as we've discussed just now, the

 7     chief of the CSB was Mr. Krsto Savic, and here they are enumerating some

 8     of their problems: short-staffing -- short-staffed, you mentioned that;

 9     then the problems with the communications; lack of equipment; shortages

10     of fuel that are very common; and breakup of communication because of

11     which we are not even now able of processing the information from old

12     Herzegovina.

13             In the document which was actually a proposal for your

14     appointment, it is stated, and I pointed that out to you, that the

15     proposal should be sent using radio communications.  The document I've

16     shown you before this one, namely, the report on some security problems

17     in the area, it was stated that a courier should be used.

18             Now, this is what I want to ask you:  Geographically speaking,

19     was Visegrad physically connected to Trebinje in such a way that one

20     could stay within the Republika Srpska territory?

21        A.   No.  We needed to go through Priboj and Podgorica, me and my

22     family.  And when we were on our way to Sarajevo, we had to go through

23     Sjemac.  Through Sjemac.

24        Q.   Hold on a second.  We have to wait for the interpreters.

25             So you were saying you went through the territory of --

Page 12348

 1        A.   Serbia.  Priboj and Uzice we travelled by train, and then by bus

 2     to Trebinje.  When I was in Sarajevo to make my pledge of allegiance, I

 3     had to cross the Sjemac mountain.  This road goes via Rogatica.  Since

 4     there were constant sabotage actions along that route, on one occasion,

 5     when I was travelling with Colonel Luka Dragicevic, he gave me his rifle

 6     and he told me, Listen, if Muslims are about to capture me, kill me.

 7     Don't let them get me alive.

 8             The communication was very difficult.

 9        Q.   You answered my question in your last sentence, so I won't repeat

10     it.

11             You mentioned the oath you had to make.  That's an oath that has

12     to be made by judges and prosecutors; right?

13        A.   Yes.

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let us now go to the very end of

15     this document.  In the Serbian version, the paragraph begins on the

16     previous page.

17             Could we please go back to that page.  In the English version,

18     it's also the last paragraph.  I don't know if we have it, but we should

19     see it on our screens.

20        Q.   Mr. Drasko, this report says the following:

21             "For the well-known reasons of the non-functioning of judiciary

22     organs in this area, reports were not filed in a timely fashion, although

23     most of the cases have been processed and completed, which will be done

24     very soon."

25             And then the author of the report adds that a -- an additional

Page 12349

 1     difficulty with the completing of criminal reports is the fact that the

 2     perpetrators are impossible to identify, and it's also impossible to

 3     apprehend and interrogate the individuals who have taken part in the

 4     commitment of those crimes.

 5             Now, I would like to know about your experiences in the year

 6     1992.  One of the basic problems in your work was the inability to reach

 7     both the victims and the perpetrators of the crimes, in order to do the

 8     work required; correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Cvijetic, the last part that you read out

11     from the document, does that also appear in the English translation?  And

12     the reason I'm asking is that the paragraph -- the penultimate

13     paragraph seems to suggest that, in the last sentence, that 28 reports

14     were registered against identified perpetrators; whereas, nine of the

15     reports were against unknown perpetrators.

16             This would seem to suggest that, in fact, by far the majority of

17     the reports that were filed were against identified perpetrators.  So I'm

18     just confused about the apparent inconsistence between the two parts of

19     the evidence that you have shown us.

20             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, a known perpetrator

21     can also be outside of the reach of the law enforcement bodies.  I was

22     speaking about the impossibility to reach them physically, and the

23     reasons are stated here.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the counsel please switch off his

25     microphone when he is not using it.  Thank you.

Page 12350

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Once again, Mr. Cvijetic, the interpreters are

 2     asking that you switch off your mic when you're not using it.  Thanks.

 3             Now --

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I continue?

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Well, I'm not sure I completely understood the

 6     reasons why you said it was impossible to physically apprehend the

 7     perpetrators.

 8             I can imagine what these reasons were, but what's -- what is the

 9     evidence that you are bringing out to this effect?

10             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it may be best for

11     me to ask the witness.

12        Q.   Mr. Drasko, the victims of criminal offences, the witnesses were

13     persons that the police and the prosecutors often couldn't reach;

14     correct?

15        A.   That's true to some extent because many perpetrators were

16     volunteers who went to Serbia with their loot, and there were a great

17     many of them.  They hadn't come to fight but to loot.  As soon as they

18     were able to come by some goods and weapons, they would leave for Serbia.

19        Q.   Do continue speaking about victims and witnesses too.

20        A.   I, as a prosecutor, worked on a case.  A young man by the name of

21     Mitrasinovic killed his father.  The mother complained of him mistreating

22     her.  And when he came back from the front line, he met his father at

23     home and shot him from a fire-arm.  We put him in detention, and the

24     police placed him in remand prison.  While I was working on the case and

25     drafting a -- a request for investigation, his brother came back from the

Page 12351

 1     front line armed with an automatic rifle.  He entered our office, he

 2     pointed his fire-arm at me, and said, Let my brother go.  He killed my

 3     father not yours.  And I froze.  I did understand that he hadn't come to

 4     kill me, and I was able to calm him down.  And I said to him that he must

 5     leave my office immediately otherwise I would lock him up too.

 6             For a while he was pointing his rifle at me, and then he put it

 7     down and left, and I never saw the man again.

 8             This is an example of the situation we were in as prosecutors.

 9     We were always risking losing our lives.  There was no judiciary police,

10     there was no regular police to protect us, or the military police for

11     that matter.

12        Q.   We'll get there, but we owed an answer to Judge Harhoff.

13             Do answer the following question though:  The victims of criminal

14     offences and witnesses and now -- I'm -- now I'm referring to non-Serbs,

15     Muslims, very often could not be reached because they were in a territory

16     that didn't belong to the RS?

17        A.   That is correct.  I only -- I was only able to find ten persons;

18     all of them were in prison at Uzamnica.

19        Q.   So while working on criminal offences where the victims were

20     non-Serbs, that is, Muslims, a problem was also procuring evidence if it

21     involved the participation of witnesses who are relatives or whatever but

22     Muslims?

23        A.   Yes.  It is impossible to work when you have no idea of what

24     happened and you have no information.

25             MR. OLMSTED:  I'm objecting to this line of questioning because

Page 12352

 1     it seems purely hypothetical.  I think the witness has stated during

 2     examination that there were no cases involving non-Serb victims that were

 3     reported by the police.  So I'm not sure where this is leading us.  This

 4     witness is simply speculating how hard it would be to investigate a crime

 5     against a non-Serb when there are none.  So I'm not sure this is helpful

 6     evidence to the Tribunal.

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And if I may add, Mr. Cvijetic, I thought that

 8     your line of questioning was designed to explain to us why the

 9     perpetrators could not be apprehended or investigated.  And so far,

10     I'm -- I'm being presented with evidence to show that the focus really

11     wasn't on the perpetrators, but, rather, on the victims, and since the

12     victims had fled, you couldn't investigate.  But -- but that's taking the

13     whole story from behind, if I may say so.

14             So where are we going?

15             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the line of

16     questioning about this is not yet finished; I have only just started.

17     And I'll finish with a relevant topic, and that is the issue of war

18     crimes and working on war crimes.

19             I'm moving toward that topic, possibly in an unorthodox manner,

20     but I'll get there relatively soon.  And I will discuss it with this

21     witness by showing him some documents.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  That's very good.  I look forward to that.  But

23     may I add that I would have wished that you started with this issue

24     rather than in the end because then we could have saved the time.

25             Please move on and get to your point, Mr. Cvijetic.

Page 12353

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see Exhibit P166.

 2        Q.   Mr. Drasko, let us take a look at the heading so we know what

 3     this is about before we go to the last page.

 4             This is a dispatch of the CSB of Trebinje which was sent out on

 5     the 9th October -- of October, 1992, and it was sent to the MUP of -- in

 6     Bijeljina to the Crime Prevention Department.

 7             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let us go to the last

 8     paragraph immediately.  Yes.

 9        Q.   This is the last paragraph.  I don't know if you can read it.

10             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps we can enlarge it.

11        Q.   Mr. Drasko, here, the chief of the centre points out problems in

12     their work and in the uncovering of crimes; that is, the perpetrators

13     thereof.  He speaks about personnel shortage, the use of personnel at the

14     front line, the impossibility to bring in persons that have some

15     connection to crimes for interviewing, which is something we have just

16     discussed, and he says:

17             "For a longer time, judiciary bodies have not been functioning,

18     military and regular prosecutor's offices and courts, and in some areas

19     such as Visegrad, such a situation still persists."

20             Of course, at the time when he was writing this.  And on-site

21     investigations were conducted in the absence of the investigating judge,

22     the prosecutor, and so on.

23             Furthermore, he goes on to speak about problems when military

24     bodies are supposed to work on a crime.  He says that they don't go to

25     the site; whereas, the civilian police assists them in collecting

Page 12354

 1     evidence.

 2             Now, here's my question to you concerning these allegations:

 3     Mr. Drasko, the prosecution and processing of war crimes is in the

 4     jurisdiction of Military Prosecutor's Offices and the military judiciary

 5     in general; correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   In a situation when all able-bodied men in the territory covered

 8     by, let's say, the CSB of Trebinje and your municipality became

 9     conscripts, they came under the jurisdiction of military courts if they

10     committed other crimes in that territory; correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   You will agree with me, then, won't you, when I say that the

13     military judiciary bodies processed them even if they commit crimes

14     against persons of other ethnicities, regardless of the nature of the

15     crime?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   You will agree with me, won't you, that this is the source of the

18     problem?  Because the military judiciary only started working in 1992,

19     but from the point of view of manning and equipment, they were not able

20     to work on such a large number of cases that now was in their

21     jurisdiction.

22        A.   Yes.  I called military judges and prosecutors parade horses

23     because they only paraded about but they didn't really do their job,

24     although they were receiving their salaries from Serbia.

25        Q.   Let us continue discussing the topic of war crimes then.

Page 12355

 1             You will agree with me, won't you, when I say that for the

 2     processing of war crimes - now that we have clarified the matter of

 3     jurisdiction - it was necessary to create the required preconditions;

 4     correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   You will agree with me, won't you, when I say that one of the

 7     basic preconditions was that all three peoples in Bosnia-Herzegovina

 8     understand and accept the fact that they must make it possible for a

 9     member -- for members of their people to be tried for the crimes they

10     committed; correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   In addition to the fact that national consciousness had to come

13     to its germination, another precondition was to make sure that the

14     judicial system within a state has all the staff, all the expertise, and

15     all the equipment necessary for processing crimes, such as war crimes; is

16     that correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Furthermore, you will agree with me, won't you, that it was

19     necessary to have general safety preconditions in place, both for victims

20     and witnesses and for law enforcement organs so that they can carry out

21     their job without any bias and in a focussed manner; am I correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Mr. Blasko --

24        A.   It's Drasko.

25        Q.   My apologies.  You will agree with me, won't you, that in 1992,

Page 12356

 1     unlike in other war years, not one of these preconditions was in place

 2     for proper processing of war crimes; am I correct?

 3        A.   Mostly.

 4        Q.   Do you know that in some larger military courts, prosecutors were

 5     conducting the processing of the case, and once encountering any of the

 6     problems mentioned before, such as inability to interview victims or

 7     witnesses, or could not do the technical, let's say, excavation of mass

 8     graves, they decided to suspend investigation until the conditions were

 9     available and ripe; are you aware of that fact?

10        A.   That's what I did in all of my cases.

11        Q.   And there was a practical reason behind that.  Had the prosecutor

12     been insistent in processing the cases, it could have happened that many

13     of the perpetrators would have been found not guilty because of the lack

14     of evidence?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   [No interpretation]

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   The risks were obvious.  Had they been acquitted, they would be

19     under the non bis in idem principle.  Is that correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Let me just repeat.  These people could never be tried again; am

24     I correct?

25        A.   Yes, that's correct.

Page 12357

 1        Q.   Which was according to this principle of non bis in idem?

 2        A.   Yes.  There was a case such as that in Trebinje.

 3        Q.   So you will agree with me, won't you, that in a situation like

 4     that it was more useful to document the criminal offences, to collect

 5     whatever evidence that's available at the time, and then wait for the

 6     conditions to be present for processing of criminal cases in question?

 7        A.   Yes, that would be the normal procedure.  But all my criminal

 8     reports were dropped by Rajko Bojat [phoen] in Sarajevo because of lack

 9     of evidence, and the process was stopped.

10        Q.   Yet all the criminal offences remained live, and investigation

11     could have been continued at any point?

12        A.   Unfortunately, the prosecutor's office in east Sarajevo does not

13     wish to do so, it seems.  They haven't done anything so far, at least.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Witness, your testimony is that

15     investigations were given up because of the risk that the perpetrators

16     would have been acquitted in case of a Prosecution because of the lack of

17     evidence.

18             Now, would you not, under such circumstances, ensure that at

19     least a registration was made of the investigation and then a note that

20     the investigation was temporarily suspended until such time as the

21     investigations could be resumed?

22             Do you know if such registrations or notes were made in each of

23     these cases?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, when I found out

25     about this case, I informed the prosecutor of Bosnia-Herzegovina; the

Page 12358

 1     Prosecutor was Mr. Jucevic [phoen].  And cases -- and I copied all the

 2     files that I had with me and sent them to the court in question, which

 3     was done also by other lawyers.  In Simsic case was Mr. Karkin, Fahrija

 4     and a prosecutor of Bosnia-Herzegovina - since they knew about the

 5     cases - was the body in charge of further processing them, especially

 6     when one is talking about, for instance, Jelesic case where the victims

 7     were children, and there were plenty of such cases.

 8             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   What nationality were the -- or what ethnicity were the children?

10        A.   They were Serbs.  I apologise, may I add something?

11        Q.   Yes, go on.

12        A.   Upon my arrival in Visegrad, I was made aware of this case, but

13     none of the investigative judges could go there because it was in the war

14     zone, and only a misdemeanour judge went there, together with a film

15     team.  They made an on-site investigation.  And upon his return, I helped

16     him to file or draft a report.  And this was only 30 days after the event

17     itself.  In other words, before my arrival, there hadn't been anyone

18     there who could have made such a report on the on-site investigation, and

19     the military prosecutors refused to go there.

20             In my yearly report, I stated that in Serbia conditions are such

21     that those who are afraid are glorified, and heros are being laughed at.

22     Because this situation showed that if somebody dies on the front line,

23     the military police -- the Military Prosecutor's Office do not go and

24     conduct on-site investigations.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 12359

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, please continue, Mr. Cvijetic.

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

 3        Q.   Mr. Drasko, I failed to mention another condition that was

 4     necessary, namely, to have all the regulation within the state adjusted

 5     to processing war crimes; is that correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   For instance, at the time, in 1992, there was no law or act on

 8     protection of witnesses; is that correct?

 9        A.   That's correct.

10        Q.   Only with the reform of the judiciary in the 2000s things were

11     organised in such a way -- or, rather, in a way that is organised before

12     this Tribunal; is that right?

13        A.   That's right.  Unfortunately, this is something that applies only

14     to this Tribunal.  It does not happen in such a way in Bosnia and

15     Herzegovina.  There, the witnesses are really at risk.  The law you

16     mentioned is only on paper, but it's not really being implemented.

17        Q.   Mr. Drasko, let me round up this topic by giving you an example.

18             You spoke about the facts that your wife was a prisoner in

19     detention camp called Dretelj in the municipality of Capljina.  Let's

20     just make it clear:  Geographically speaking, of course, this area was

21     under the control of the Croatian forces.

22        A.   That's correct.  At the time, it was -- this area was held

23     jointly by Muslims and Croats.  At the time they were together.

24        Q.   You told us that there, in the area under their control, there

25     were 2- to 300 such centres for holding Serbs, some of them of private

Page 12360

 1     nature even.  Did I understand you well?

 2        A.   Yes.  And this was also a privately held detention facility.

 3        Q.   With your permission, I would like to speak about what was being

 4     done in the camp of Dretelj.  Namely, what I want to propose is that you

 5     decide whether we will discuss this issue on closed -- in closed session

 6     or in public session, because one can find that in your statement.

 7        A.   I believe this is not relevant for this trial.  There is a trial

 8     going on in Norway and in Sweden, and I -- I think that the perpetrators

 9     in that case who are neo-fascists should be tried in other countries, not

10     only Norway and Sweden.

11        Q.   What I wanted to ask you really was when were such cases

12     processed?  How many years after the war?

13             JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Cvijetic,

14     Mr. Olmsted is on his feet.

15             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you.  Thank you.  The witness is a

16     prosecutor, and I think he thinks along the same lines as I do, on

17     relevancy grounds.  We're about to go into war crimes committed against

18     Serbs and a case that involves this witness's spouse.  It's tu quoque,

19     it's not relevant to this case, and I think it's just not going to be a

20     good use of cross-examination time.

21             JUDGE HALL:  I was about -- before Mr. Olmsted rose to intervene,

22     I was about to observe, having regard to the witness's comment about

23     relevance, that whereas matters of relevance are for the Bench and not

24     the witness, this is, in my view, so painly [sic] irrelevant,

25     Mr. Cvijetic, that you should desist.

Page 12361

 1             In other words, please move to a different line of questions.

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe you may

 3     have focussed on what the wife of this witness went through.  But the

 4     essence of what I'm saying is this was -- these cases were not processed

 5     until this day by the organs of the Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, we'll move to a

17     different topic.  I only wanted to discuss the conditions necessary for

18     processing of a case with the witness.

19        Q.   Now, Mr. Drasko, you spoke about moving out of a Muslim

20     population, about crimes during the direct examination.  In one of the

21     reports presented to us - and I think it was a military report - it was

22     stated that the Serbian population was also moving out of the area.  And

23     what I'd like to hear from you is an answer to the question whether this

24     was connected with the wartime operations, because I guess we'll agree

25     that Visegrad was in the zone of the combat activities throughout the

Page 12362

 1     war.

 2        A.   Let me explain.

 3             When my wife, myself, and the three children of ours came to

 4     Visegrad, I heard a story, according to which there was a judge and a

 5     doctor coming to Visegrad and everybody else moving out of Visegrad.

 6        Q.   I'm asking you this because I have a document with your signature

 7     on it, and, if necessary, I will show it.  I hope you can confirm that

 8     you remember the document, in which you state that from 1990, in the area

 9     of Visegrad, inter-ethnic relations had been disturbed, which was

10     reflected in the events described in this report signed by you, at least

11     I assume, in March of 1993, and they refer to the events from 1990 till

12     1992.  Do you remember the document?

13        A.   Yes, I wrote it, and there's no doubt that families from Uzice,

14     Obrenovac, that is, relatives of Visegrad people who lived there,

15     protested against the terror that prevailed after the election victory by

16     the SDA party.

17        Q.   You mentioned that some people had been driven out.  Which

18     people?

19        A.   Serbs.

20        Q.   After the multi-party elections in that area, the SDA had the

21     majority, certainly, because the ethnic makeup of the municipality was

22     such.  And then the Serbs, as the minority at the time, were being

23     persecuted.  Was that the subject of your report?

24        A.   Yes.

25             MR. OLMSTED:  I have to raise a foundational objection again.

Page 12363

 1     This witness stated during his examination-in-chief that I think he said

 2     he was through Visegrad once prior to moving there in late August 1992.

 3     Now my learned friend is asking him a number of questions of what

 4     happened after the 1990 elections and the SDA power in the Visegrad

 5     before the conflict.

 6             I think there has to be at least a degree of foundation here

 7     before we proceed any further to establish where this witness is getting

 8     this information.  Is he getting it from word on the street when he

 9     arrived in Visegrad, from literature that he read.  I mean, we just don't

10     have any foundation to establish that this witness can talk about this

11     subject matter in a credible and helpful manner.

12             JUDGE HALL:  I had the impression though, Mr. Olmsted, that the

13     foundation on which Mr. Cvijetic was relying was the witness's own

14     report.

15             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, again, I mean, this witness was not in

16     Visegrad until the end of August 1992, and we're talking about events

17     that preceded that date significantly.  So I'm not sure how this is --

18     this is going to be useful evidence.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Well, I tend to agree with you there.  But the -- to

20     the extent that Mr. Cvijetic is relying on the witness's report, such

21     challenge as you have -- as you are able to make to the basis on which he

22     came to those conclusions is a different issue than the immediate

23     question as to whether Mr. Cvijetic can base his questions on the

24     witness's report.

25             And, Mr. Cvijetic, you would have gathered from my response to

Page 12364

 1     Mr. Olmsted that, to the extent that you're relying on this, it is only

 2     such of it as is relevant for our purposes, that we need hear about.

 3             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, and that is,

 4     indeed, my intention.  I will show the exhibit.  It's Exhibit D034304.

 5                           [Defence counsel confer]

 6        Q.   Mr. Drasko, do you recognise the introduction of this document?

 7        A.   Yes, I wrote it.

 8        Q.   Can you tell the Trial Chamber how you made this chronological

 9     sequence of events from 1990 until 1992 in the Visegrad municipality, on

10     what grounds?  And you mentioned dates, names, and events here.

11        A.   The prosecutor Sahim Muhic and Ms. Tanaskovic were in charge of

12     the investigation of these cases.  Furthermore, it was well-known in all

13     of Yugoslavia that Murat Sabanovic tried to blow up the dam on the Drina.

14     Then there was the destruction of the statue erected to Ivo Andric.  And

15     then there were Croatian extremists and Muslim extremists who were killed

16     in Hercegnovi.  In Visegrad, Murat Sabanovic destroyed the statue erected

17     to Ivo Andric.  His brother, Avdija, was the vice-president of the SDA,

18     and he was behind all that.

19             In Visegrad, to establish law and order, the district attorney,

20     Rato Ruljevac [phoen] I believe his name was, to do that -- one wanted to

21     do that and went there, and the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina also

22     wanted to establish peace there.

23             The SDA had its plans called Brijest and Jelen.  Those were like

24     the plans of Fascist Germany.  And the departure of Serbs from the town

25     was an element of those plans.  Even a fleet on the Drina was organised,

Page 12365

 1     consisting of armed vessels, and it was all about a system of arming and

 2     seizing power in the town.  But it was prevented by the arrival of the

 3     Uzice Corps.  Even then, tunnels were dug for them to be prevented to

 4     come.  In April 1992, the units of the Uzice Corps entered Visegrad, and

 5     when they withdrew, the war started.

 6        Q.   Do confirm to me that you got all this information from official

 7     documents that you found in archives.

 8        A.   Yes.  If necessary, I can show a police report which I have on

 9     me, but I haven't used it.  It's from that period, and it's about the

10     conduct of -- conduct of Murat Sabanovic.  I can find it.  It must be

11     here somewhere.

12        Q.   We believe that you have it.  Let me just ask you, on page 5 of

13     the document, I would like to know how you got this information.  You say

14     here that the SJB - do listen to me, please - distributed weapons and

15     ammunition to Muslim extremists and that's why all Serbs left the SJB in

16     March 1992.  The exact date is mentioned too.  How did you get that

17     information?

18        A.   There are documents to show that, official documents.  And also

19     we can see an order issued by the Visegrad Crisis Staff for

20     Avdija Sabanovic to be tasked with establishing peace, and he takes

21     charge of the police.

22        Q.   Do repeat the name.

23        A.   Avdija Sabanovic, the brother of Murat Sabanovic, is tasked with

24     establishing law and order.  And police and law enforcement were

25     duty-bound to obey him.  I have the document here.

Page 12366

 1        Q.   So, basically, we're talking about Muslim extremists that -- who

 2     were the authority in Visegrad and who ran things there?

 3        A.   Yes.  I found it here.  This is a criminal report against

 4     Murat Sabanovic and Senad Kahriman, because on the

 5     20th of September, 1992, they attacked police officers on duty.

 6        Q.   Mr. Drasko, you are proceeding in chronological order, and you

 7     mention incidents in which Serbs were victims; they were being killed.

 8     And they -- you also mentioned the incident where children were killed.

 9     Did you have official information about that?

10        A.   Yes.  There was some video footage, and Miroslav Kojic was -- was

11     on site to investigate.  There is a report about that.  The footage was

12     also shown.

13        Q.   Mr. Drasko, you are a civilian prosecutor, and you sent this

14     document to the Military Prosecutor's Office at Sokolac because you

15     believed that if some of these offences are war crimes, that they should

16     be dealt with by the military prosecutor; correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is about the

19     general context of events from 1990 till the end of 1992.  This context

20     is dealt with by the indictment, and it was dealt with by the OTP in the

21     pre-trial brief.  This Trial Chamber, too, has adopted a package of

22     adjudicated facts that have to do with the general context in the

23     Visegrad municipality.  In order to grasp the overall context and all

24     events, I seek to tender this document as a Defence exhibit because the

25     author of the document is present and has confirmed the authenticity and

Page 12367

 1     correctness of the allegations in the document.  He signed it, and he

 2     stands by it.  And this also is part of his perceived credibility as a

 3     witness because he fairly deals with the matter of war crimes and wartime

 4     events in the Visegrad municipality as viewed from both sides.

 5             MR. OLMSTED:  The Prosecution would object to the admission of

 6     this -- this document.

 7             It's a -- a report to the state documentation centre for the

 8     investigation of war crimes against members of the Serbian People.  By

 9     its very title, it's tu quoque.  It's dealing with war crimes committed

10     against Serb victims.

11             The Prosecution is not challenging the idea that law enforcement

12     and the judicial system were reporting war crimes committed against

13     Serbs, and so this really isn't relevant to this case --

14             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, subject, of course, to the general

15     rule of -- the overriding principle of relevance, isn't the rule that

16     cross-examination is, at large, and as I understand Mr. Cvijetic's

17     position, is that, whereas the contents of this document may, in their

18     detail, relate to matters that do not counter what -- facts in which the

19     Prosecution are relying, they are -- it is admissible because it is an

20     item which would assist the Chamber in assessing the credibility of the

21     witness.

22             I believe that's a fair summary of Mr. Cvijetic's position.

23             Mr. Cvijetic?

24             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, Your Honours, if that is -- if that is the

25     case, if it's for going to the credibility of the witness, of course, we

Page 12368

 1     wouldn't object on that grounds, of course.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE HALL:  So the document is admitted and marked.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D333 [Realtime translation read in

 5     error "1D33"], Your Honours.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm pretty sure that cannot be 1D33, I'm sorry.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  That is correct; it's 1D333.

 8             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I note the time.  I

 9     believe it's time for the break.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Yeah, I was going to suggest, whereas we're about

11     two minutes early of the break, perhaps this is a convenient point.

12             And I would remind you, Mr. Cvijetic, when we return, that, if I

13     remember the Registry calculations correctly, you would have about

14     40 minutes left.

15                           [The witness stands down]

16                           --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.

18             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, just for the record, the Prosecution

19     is now joined by Tom Hannis and Alex Demirdjian.

20             And before the witness is escorted in, if I could just seek a

21     clarification on the Trial Chamber's ruling on the last document that was

22     admitted, 1D333.  It is unclear to the Prosecution whether the Defence

23     purports this document bolsters the testimony of the witness or

24     challenges the witness's credibility.  We're entitled to know this to

25     determine whether the Defence sees this witness as telling the truth or

Page 12369

 1     to lack credibility.  If it's for the purposes of enhancing his

 2     credibility, bolstering his credibility, then the relevance of it -- or

 3     the purpose of the document really is -- is not necessary because there

 4     is no challenge by the Prosecution at this point to the credibility of

 5     this witness.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Of course, in order to deal with the last part of

 7     your observation, Mr. Olmsted, the -- the Chamber's already ruled on the

 8     admissibility.  In terms of the first part, I would have thought that

 9     this is something that you would deduce from the line of questions that

10     the other side frames.

11             And then, of course, to the extent that it has now been made

12     an -- I shouldn't say be made an issue, to the extent that they are

13     relying on it for such purposes as you may deduce, you do have a right to

14     re-examine.

15             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honour, I see your point.  But we simply

16     want to know whether the Defence challenge the credibility of this

17     witness and whether that's the purpose of this document, is to challenge

18     his credibility or to bolster it.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic did say what he -- what his purpose

20     was, and we had an understanding of it.  And I don't know what your

21     appreciation of it would be, but we'll see where we go.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23                           [The witness takes the stand]

24             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Cvijetic, please continue.

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 12370

 1        Q.   Mr. Drasko, we'll now finish with the last document I intend to

 2     show to you.

 3             Yesterday, in response to a question put to you by my learned

 4     colleague, you spoke about the kidnapping of either 17 or 18 Muslims, and

 5     you were also asked whether Republika Srpska authorities took any

 6     measures to clear up the events surrounding this criminal offence.

 7             Do you remember this question put to you by the Prosecutor?

 8        A.   I think so.  It's not a very clear recollection that I have of

 9     the question, but it's a well-known question.

10        Q.   What you made certain in your response -- in response yesterday

11     was that the kidnapping took place in Republika Serbia -- Republic of

12     Serbia and that the victims were also citizens of Republic of Serbia?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   The role of the organs of Republika Srpska in relation to that

15     case would be only at the level of assistance in resolving the case?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   [Microphone not activated]

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for Mr. Cvijetic.

19             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   I will show you a document now, 1D00-2433.

21             I don't know whether you have the magnifying-glass still.

22        A.   I returned it.

23        Q.   But you can still read.  Now it's enlarged.  Maybe it will be

24     easier to read it now.

25             This is a dispatch by the SJB Visegrad, dated

Page 12371

 1     25th of October, 1992.

 2             You will also notice that in handwriting one can see the words:

 3             "Re: Dispatch link them together 26th of October."

 4             Can you see that?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Have I read properly what's written in the handwriting?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Just to clarify, Visegrad and Rudo are the municipalities closest

 9     to the location where the crime took place; am I correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Also, one can see from this dispatch that the Visegrad SJB is

12     referring to a dispatch by the Ministry of the Interior, dated

13     25th of October, 1992, and that, for all practical purposes, they are

14     just giving a response to the said dispatch - if you want, you can read

15     it in the document - and in relation to the activities of the SJBs

16     concerning these events; can we see this in this dispatch?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   At the bottom of the document, one can see that the minister of

19     the interior was -- has shown personal interest in this case.  And the

20     chief of the SJB, Risto Perisic, mentions that in the bottom part of the

21     dispatch.

22             Can you see that?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Before showing you the next document, can you please tell me

25     whether you were aware that the Visegrad SJB was involved in clearing up

Page 12372

 1     the case?

 2        A.   Well, based on this document, it was.  Since, at the time, I was

 3     member of the army, the only thing I knew was that the army was also

 4     involved.  At the relevant time, I read the dispatch sent by

 5     Colonel Ranko Kuljanin.  I read it in the command of the Visegrad Brigade

 6     2nd LPB.  And in his dispatch he is asking them to try and clarify the

 7     case.

 8             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the issue of clearing

 9     up events surrounding this case was something that my learned colleague

10     examined the witness about.  The Prosecutor asked a specific answer

11     whether anything was done to clear up the case, so that's, according to

12     me, the relevance of this document.  We have an answer to that question

13     put by the Prosecutor, and I would like to tender this into evidence.

14             And I also have a report regarding this very case because, on the

15     very next day, some actions were taken following the dispatch.  And I

16     believe these two documents are really important, in relation to a

17     serious crime, and I think this is sufficient foundation for tendering

18     this and then the following document into evidence.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Cvijetic, the only thing I can read on the

20     English translation of this document is that it says that the Visegrad

21     police station continues to carry out the operative activities in the

22     investigation of the kidnapping but no Visegrad SJB members participated

23     in this case.  And the persons were not brought into the Visegrad SJB.

24             That's basically what it says.

25             Do you still think it's necessary to have this document admitted

Page 12373

 1     into evidence?

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the translation I

 3     heard -- I'm -- I may have misunderstood you.  The dispatch here is

 4     stating that no Visegrad SJB members participated in this case, nor were

 5     the persons, persons who had perpetrated the crime, were brought in.  And

 6     also it's stated that the case is being processed.  But I'm trying to

 7     provide the complete picture; namely, this dispatch provides a foundation

 8     for the work of the SJB.  And we will see that in the following document.

 9     This following document is a broader report about what has been achieved

10     by that time.

11             I cannot put both documents at the same time on the screen.  I

12     have to show them to you one by one and then ask them to be tendered.

13     But I can ask for this document to be enter into evidence later on, once

14     I've shown the other one.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honour, the Prosecution doesn't object to this

17     particular document coming into evidence as it certainly shows

18     communication between the SJB Visegrad and the RS MUP.

19             But having said that, this is probably not the appropriate

20     witness to admit any more documents on this issue, because, as the

21     witness has just said, he wasn't aware of any activities of the RS MUP or

22     the SJB Visegrad in any investigation or reporting on this particular

23     incident.

24             So if it stops here and it's just this document, then the

25     Prosecution has no objection.

Page 12374

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Let's see -- let us see the other document before

 2     we take any position on whether or not to admit them.

 3             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we please have

 4     1D00-2769 on the screen.

 5        Q.   Mr. Drasko, you can see here --

 6             MR. OLMSTED:  I'm sorry, which tab is this under?

 7             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Under tab 18.

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you.

 9             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   You can see here that two stations, Rudo and Visegrad, cooperated

11     on this case, and that already by the 26th of October they had some

12     initial information or indicia.  It is obvious that it was not possible

13     at the time to clear up the case completely, but they put into writing

14     what they had.  The event took place on 22nd of October, and already four

15     days after the event this information was drafted.

16             Can you see that, Mr. Drasko?

17        A.   Yes, I see from the document that they worked on it.

18        Q.   From the document you can also see that through operative work

19     and mainly by examining the bus driver, policemen obtained the present

20     information and a description of the perpetrators and the events.

21             Can you see that?

22        A.   Yes, yes, I've read it.

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we please see the last part of

24     the document.  In the English version as well; we need the last

25     paragraph.

Page 12375

 1        Q.   The last sentence where it is stated that:

 2             "The ministry will be duly informed of all further information,

 3     measures, and activities which will be undertaken."

 4             Can you see that?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Mr. Drasko, if I -- I'd like to draw your attention to the date

 7     on the dispatch sent by the ministry, namely, the 25th of October; and

 8     then, on the 26th of October, we see that actions were taken.  And I

 9     believe that shows that Republika Srpska organs took this as something of

10     importance.  Would you agree with me?

11        A.   Yes.  But I see these documents for the first time only today.

12             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have nothing to

13     add in relation to tendering these documents.  It's now upon you to reach

14     your decision.

15             MR. OLMSTED:  Again, the Prosecution raises the same objection,

16     that this is not the appropriate witness to seek to tender and admit

17     these documents.  The witness has repeated now three times he has never

18     seen these documents before; he knows nothing about any sort of work,

19     operative or otherwise, on this case by SJB Visegrad or SJB Rudo.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic, what is your response to Mr. Olmsted's

21     objection that the witness -- not having any connection with these

22     documents?  To the extent that they may be useful to you, they perhaps

23     should be tendered through somebody else.

24             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I must remind my

25     colleague that it was he who started discussing the issue, who asked this

Page 12376

 1     witness whether he knows anything about the investigation, whether police

 2     was involved in the case in question.  So now we have an answer to a

 3     question that the Prosecution put.  And I think the issue is now closed

 4     thanks to these very documents, documents that are relevant, important

 5     for clearing up the case.  I believe the conditions are there.

 6             MR. OLMSTED:  But, Your Honours, the witness's answers still

 7     remains:  He doesn't know.  That's exactly the Prosecution's point.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9                           [Defence counsel confer]

10             JUDGE HALL:  In the Chamber's view, the documents are admissible

11     but not through this witness.  So they would be marked for

12     identification.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this will become Exhibit 1D334 and

14     1D335, marked for identification.

15             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

16        Q.   Mr. Drasko, thank you for your evidence.  I have no more

17     questions of you.

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have finished with

19     the witness.

20             MR. KRGOVIC:  We don't have questions for this witness,

21     Your Honour.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Re-examination?

23             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24                           Re-examination by Mr. Olmsted:

25        Q.   Mr. Drasko, yesterday you recall we were looking at the

Page 12377

 1     Visegrad Prosecutor's Office KT log-book.  And do you recall that the

 2     log-book showed that you received the first criminal reports from

 3     SJB Visegrad on the 9th of September, 1992?

 4             Do you recall seeing that in the log-book?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   So from that date forward, you were performing the function of

 7     basic prosecutor in Visegrad?

 8        A.   Yes, certain activities.  I did take certain measures, which

 9     means that the official authorities in Visegrad authorised me, although

10     technically I wasn't yet elected; they authorised me to do what I was

11     doing in order to prevent crimes and to establish the rule of law.

12        Q.   If the SJB --

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm --

14             MR. OLMSTED:  Go ahead.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, it might be my knowledge of English, but

16     in Serbian there is a significant difference between what witness said

17     and what was recorded.  I believe the witness says -- said --

18             MR. OLMSTED:  Let me just ask him again and --

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

20             MR. OLMSTED:  -- to clarify.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, it goes -- the second part of his answer.

22             MR. OLMSTED:  Okay.

23        Q.   Just -- Mr. Drasko, if you could clarify the second part of your

24     answer as far as your authority to act as prosecutor pending your formal

25     appointment by the RS Assembly?

Page 12378

 1        A.   I was completely familiar with the processes and the regulations

 2     because I'm a lawyer after all.  And I was aware that my activities were

 3     temporary only.  But in such a situation, I agreed to draft a request for

 4     an investigation because I expected that I would be elected once the --

 5     once the investigating judge does everything he had to do, and that I

 6     would be in a position to write an indictment, which, indeed, happened.

 7     My -- the justification for acting this way, to my mind, was the war.

 8        Q.   Now we saw from the KT log-book that the SJB Visegrad filed three

 9     criminal reports with you in 1992.  If the police had filed more criminal

10     reports than three with your office, would they have been recorded in

11     your log-books?

12        A.   Certainly.

13        Q.   And if they came acrossed [sic] a case where they could not

14     identify the perpetrator and they filed with you an unknown perpetrator

15     criminal report, would you have logged that into your KTN log-book?

16        A.   Certainly.  Into the KTN log-book with entries about crimes

17     committed by unknown perpetrators.

18        Q.   And if you received these criminal reports from the police, would

19     you have taken it upon yourself, either as acting prosecutor or when you

20     were formally appointed as the prosecutor, to take measures to pursue

21     those cases through the criminal justice system?

22        A.   I certainly would have.  I can give an example.

23             In Gorazde, in ten years, I also worked on cases against Serbs

24     for crimes committed against Muslims.  It was the prosecutor's office of

25     the Gorazde canton.  I didn't actually -- I wasn't immediately involved,

Page 12379

 1     but I was chief prosecutor and I was familiar with the cases.

 2        Q.   My learned friend, during his cross-examination, brought up this

 3     principle of non bis in idem.  Did this principle prevent the police from

 4     filing criminal reports with the prosecutor's office?

 5        A.   No.

 6        Q.   The Defence asked you some questions about the jurisdiction of

 7     the military courts, and I want to show you 65 ter 2003 -- or, I'm sorry,

 8     2002.

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  And just for the record, it has already been

10     exhibited as P1287.07 [sic].

11        Q.   Mr. Drasko, are you familiar with this law?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And was this -- this law, which is entitled: "The Law on Military

14     Courts," and it's from the SFRY, but is this the law that applied to the

15     Republika Srpska in 1992?

16        A.   Yes.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  If we could turn to page 2 of both the B/C/S and

18     the English and take a look at Article 13.

19        Q.   We can see from Article 13 that it enumerates the Articles under

20     the SFRY Criminal Code and the circumstances under which the military

21     court has jurisdiction over one of these crimes when they are committed

22     by a civilian.

23             Would you agree with that?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   For example, if we look at item number 4, it's citing

Page 12380

 1     Article 123; and it states that this is -- that:

 2             "The military court has jurisdiction over civilians who commit

 3     this crime if it is directed against servicemen or the destruction of

 4     property of greater value that is a part of the equipment owned by the

 5     armed forces of the SFRY."

 6             Do you see that?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   If we could look at -- later on in this Article...

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  And I think we have to turn the page in both the

10     B/C/S and the English.  And if we can zoom in on the last paragraph of

11     Article 13.

12        Q.   Mr. Drasko, we see the last paragraph states:

13             Military courts try prisoners of war for any committed criminal

14     act and for crimes against humanity and international law (under Articles

15     141 through 146 of the Criminal Code [sic] of the SFRY).

16             Do you see that?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   How do you interpret this provision?

19        A.   Before that, we must establish who is to be considered a prisoner

20     of war.  Unfortunately, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, my wife, too, who was

21     transferred from the medical centre, was considered a prisoner of war,

22     just like medical doctors and others.

23             In Visegrad, the army kept persons prisoner in military camps,

24     although they were -- or, rather -- correction, in military prison

25     although they were civilians.

Page 12381

 1             In Bosnia, people used to say -- speak about the exchange of

 2     prisoner of war, although they were civilians.  So that regular citizens

 3     of Bosnian Serbs were considered prisoners of war even though they were

 4     not -- or, rather, because they were not organised so as to be able to

 5     flee in time.  Most times they were not soldiers who put up resistance

 6     but, rather, civilians, regular people.  That is unfortunate, but that is

 7     the reality I came to learn.

 8             That is why the treatment of prisoners of war were such.  But --

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness repeat his last sentence.

10             MR. OLMSTED:

11        Q.   Yes, could you repeat your last sentence.  And then let me ask a

12     follow-up question.

13        A.   I know about these offences where people were treated as

14     prisoners of war and kept in prison.  But later on, when proceedings were

15     initiated against them, there was no evidence, and they were acquitted.

16        Q.   I just want to clarify something with regard to this particular

17     Article of the Law on the Military Court.

18             This paragraph we just read says the military courts can try

19     prisoner of war; in other words, is this referring to POWs who are

20     perpetrators?

21        A.   Mostly, yes, perpetrators of criminal offences.

22        Q.   If a civilian who is not a prisoner of war commits a war crime,

23     then who had jurisdiction over that case?

24        A.   Speaking about humanitarian law, in that period I think military

25     courts were supposed to try, before the war, under these laws and

Page 12382

 1     regulations, because these most serious crimes against the

 2     Geneva Conventions - and the reference is mentioned here - crimes against

 3     humanity and international law, are under the jurisdiction of military

 4     courts.

 5        Q.   Well, let me ask you this then:  Where under this Article 13 is

 6     the military court given jurisdiction over civilians who commit war

 7     crimes where those civilians who are the perpetrators are not prisoners

 8     of war?

 9             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I must intervene.

10             I think it will be useful to show the witness Article 9 of this

11     law also, which provides for the basic jurisdiction of military courts.

12     It has already been shown in this trial.  And the article that my learned

13     friend is dealing with is only expanding on that jurisdiction as outlined

14     in Article 9.  So it may be good if we could read out Article 9 because

15     it states the personal principle.

16             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, we can certainly look at Article 9, if we go

17     back to the previous page.  I'm not going to read it out.

18        Q.   But, Mr. Drasko, you can certainly take a look at it.

19             Mr. Drasko, as I read Article 9, this specifies when a person is

20     considered a member of the military.  Is that how you read it?

21        A.   Yes, it says here:  A civilian -- or, rather, such a person shall

22     be considered a civilian who, and under paragraph 1 of this Article, is

23     not a serviceman or a prisoner of war.  That is such -- to such a person

24     that the provisions of this law are not applied.

25        Q.   And I want to return to my original question.  We've looked at --

Page 12383

 1        A.   [No interpretation]

 2        Q.   We looked at Article 13.  It specifies when the military court

 3     has jurisdiction over civilians.  We looked at the provision that deals

 4     with war crimes, and it specifies that the court has -- military court

 5     has jurisdiction over war crimes committed by prisoners of war.

 6             My question to you is: On what basis, under this law, do military

 7     courts have jurisdiction over civilians who are not prisoners of war who

 8     have committed war crimes?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Let me ask the question again so it's clear.  A civilian who

11     commits a war crime but is not a POW, who has jurisdiction over those

12     cases?

13        A.   Civilian courts.  I think it's civilian courts.  Because we're

14     talking about civilians, so civilian courts have jurisdiction.  But

15     sometimes it's difficult because persons who didn't meet the conditions

16     to be prisoners of war still were considered as such, and they were --

17     they were to be tried by military courts.  But if it's established that

18     they aren't really prisoners of war, then they should be tried by

19     civilian courts as is now being done in Bosnia and Herzegovina, et

20     cetera.  My wife, in Norway, isn't considered a prisoner of war, even

21     though she was considered to be one by the HOS.

22        Q.   Are you aware of any efforts, either by the military or the

23     civilian police, in 1992, to investigate war crimes against non-Serbs.

24             And let's just limit it to where you have knowledge to the

25     Visegrad municipality.

Page 12384

 1        A.   Meetings were held, and as a prosecutor who should launch

 2     pre-trial proceedings and initiate other activities to solve criminal

 3     offences, I invited the district prosecutor of east Sarajevo,

 4     Sajko Gojkovic [phoen] to these meetings; then the republican prosecutor,

 5     Miroslav Gladanac, I invited him to the meetings in writing; and the

 6     meetings were to be about war crimes and their resolution, among others.

 7     I invited the command of the brigade too, that is, military personnel, as

 8     well as civilian personnel from the SJB.  And they all came to the

 9     meeting except for those from Sarajevo.  We insisted that the issue of

10     accountability for war crimes must be insisted upon.

11             There was this Muslim by the name of Mutapcic [phoen]; there was

12     case against him.  And I wrote a criminal report -- or, rather, I wrote a

13     report against the persons I suspected of having killed him.  The reports

14     went to the Military Prosecutor's Office in Bileca because he was a

15     prisoner of war, and we processed this case later.  The agreement reached

16     at those meetings was that the law must be strictly implemented with

17     regard to the protection of property and protection of people.  But my

18     fellow prosecutors didn't come to those meetings, and they said, Well,

19     working on war crimes is your private affair.

20        Q.   I want to focus you on my question.  I'm only talking about war

21     crimes that were committed against non-Serbs.  In other words, Muslims or

22     Croats are the victims of the war crimes.

23             In 1992, are you aware of any investigations by the police -

24     military or civilian - of war crimes in which the victims were non-Serbs?

25        A.   No, I am not aware that these crimes were investigated at all.  I

Page 12385

 1     never received any criminal reports to that effect.

 2             MR. OLMSTED:  No further questions, Your Honour.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the Judge, please.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Drasko, we thank you for your attendance before

 7     the Tribunal.  Are you now released as a witness, and we wish you a safe

 8     journey back to your home.

 9             The usher will escort you from the courtroom.  Thank you, sir.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I wish you much success

11     in your work and that you may solve all war crimes cases.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, sir.

13                           [The witness withdrew]

14             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honour, just two matters while we're waiting

15     for the next witness.

16             First, my apologies.  I gave the wrong exhibit number for the

17     Law -- the military courts; it's P1284.07.

18             And, secondly, since Mr. Demirdjian is going to lead the next

19     witness and I want him to occupy my chair, is it all right if I may be

20     excused?

21             JUDGE HALL:  Certainly, Mr. Olmsted.  Thank you.

22             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Good morning, Your Honours.  No preliminary

23     matters.  The next witness is ST-167, Mr. Dragan Raljic.  No protective

24     measures.

25                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

Page 12386

 1             JUDGE HALL:  The -- I understand there's a ten-minute gap before

 2     the next witness comes, so we would rise and resume when he's available.

 3                           --- Recess taken at 11.39 a.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 12.23 p.m.

 5                           [The witness entered court]

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Good afternoon to you, sir.  Can you hear me?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.  Yes, I can hear

 8     you.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Please take the solemn declaration.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare to say the

11     truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

12                           WITNESS:  DRAGAN RALJIC

13                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

14             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  You may be seated.

15             I would begin by pointing out that the solemn declaration that

16     you have just made does expose you to the pain of the penalty for perjury

17     should you give misleading or untruthful evidence to this Tribunal.

18             The first formal question that I have of you is to give us your

19     name, your date of birth, and your ethnicity.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Dragan Raljic.  I was

21     born on the 25th of December, 1967.  I'm of Serbian ethnicity.

22             JUDGE HALL:  And what is your profession?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm an employee of the Ministry of

24     the Interior, working in the police station Kotor Varos, in

25     communication-related field.  I'm a civil servant.

Page 12387

 1             JUDGE HALL:  And how long have you been so attached?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since 1st November, 1990.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Have you testified previously, either before this

 4     Tribunal or before any of the courts in the countries that comprise the

 5     former Yugoslavia?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Well, the -- we -- we thank you for your assistance

 8     to the Tribunal and for your attendance as a witness.  The procedure that

 9     is followed is that the side that calls you as a witness - in this case,

10     the Prosecution - would begin by asking you questions, after which

11     counsel for each of the accused have a right to ask you questions,

12     arising out of -- generally arising out of your testimony in-chief.

13             The Prosecution then has a right to re-examine you, arising out

14     of the cross-examination, and the Chamber -- the Judges who comprise the

15     Chamber may ask you questions on relevant issues relating to the matters

16     with which the Tribunal is concerned.

17             We -- the Prosecution has asked for two hours to conduct their

18     examination-in-chief; counsel for Stanisic -- Mr. Stanisic, two hours;

19     and counsel for Mr. Zupljanin, three hours.  The ordinary sittings of the

20     Tribunal - you are beginning in the middle of a working day - is from

21     9.00 in the morning until 1.45 in the afternoon, unless it's an afternoon

22     session, which doesn't arise in your case.  And within that day's

23     sitting, the time is broken up into periods of no longer than an hour and

24     a half so that the taping arrangements which this Tribunal follows to

25     preserve its proceedings can be changed and so forth.  Notwithstanding --

Page 12388

 1     and the breaks are usually of 20-minutes' duration.  Now, notwithstanding

 2     those breaks, if, for any reason, you are in distress or have a problem

 3     continuing, if would indicate that to the Chamber, we would, of course,

 4     accommodate you.

 5             We are starting unusually -- at an unusual time, so we -- your --

 6     the first part of your testimony beginning now would go straight through

 7     until we rise for the day at 1.45.  And then we would resume your

 8     tomorrow morning at 9.00.

 9             And with that, I would invite counsel for the Prosecution,

10     Mr. Demirdjian, to begin his examination-in-chief.

11             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Thank you, Your Honours.

12                           Examination by Mr. Demirdjian:

13        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Raljic.  You already provided us your personal

14     details, so I would like to go straight to your educational background.

15             It is correct to say that you went to primary school in

16     Kotor Varos until 1982?

17        A.   Yes, that is correct.

18        Q.   And that you completed secondary school in 1986, studying, I

19     believe, electrical mechanics; is that correct?

20        A.   Mechanical engineer.

21        Q.   Thank you.  And recently, I believe in 2007, you completed junior

22     college in management; is that right?

23        A.   Yes, that's correct.

24        Q.   And if I go to your background, in terms of your military

25     service, I think you completed that in 1987 as a radio and telegraph

Page 12389

 1     operator?

 2        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 3        Q.   Very well.  When you joined the police, you told us earlier you

 4     joined the police on the 1st of November, 1990, in the SJB Kotor Varos.

 5     That was in the communications section; is that right?

 6        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 7        Q.   Prior to joining the police, had you attended any police school?

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Would all the unnecessary microphones be

 9     switched off, please.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I have not.

11             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  I think there was a problem with the

14     microphones.  Is it all right now?  I'll assume it is.

15        Q.   You said you did not.  However, it is correct that you followed a

16     training upon joining the police?

17        A.   I underwent some training that was organised by international

18     police at the time.  These were trainings that lasted several days only,

19     related to human dignity and such issues.

20        Q.   And did you receive any training in relation to your line of work

21     in communications at that time?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And just to complete on that chapter, you were also leading a

24     radio club in Kotor Varos, and I assume this exposed you to all

25     terms [sic] of radio devices?

Page 12390

 1        A.   Yes, that is correct.  That was radio club from Kotor Varos

 2     called Oblas.

 3        Q.   Very well.  Now, when you joined the police station in 1990, what

 4     was the position that you were assigned to?

 5        A.   I started working at the position that was, at the time, called

 6     radio telegraph operator, radio telephone operator, encoding operator.

 7     That was the full title.

 8        Q.   And how long did you remain in that position?

 9        A.   Until, I think, 1995, after which a new organisation was applied,

10     and the full complement of workers were obtained, four plus one, namely,

11     and then I was -- I became head of the group.

12        Q.   Therefore, in 1992, throughout the year that is of interest to

13     this case, you were an operator, as you explained, for radio telegraph,

14     telephone, et cetera?

15        A.   Yes, that's correct.

16        Q.   I'd like to ask you, in 1990, when you joined the section, did

17     you have a chief at the time?  A chief of communications; I apologise.

18        A.   No.  At the time, there was no chief of communications.

19        Q.   And did you have co-workers in the communications section?

20        A.   There was another more experienced colleague, Miroslav Kalamanda,

21     who was already employed at the time when I arrived.

22        Q.   So in 1990 [Realtime transcript read in error "1992"] there were

23     the two of you in the communications section?

24        A.   In 1992?  My answer was in relation to 1990.  In 1992, there were

25     the two of us plus another worker that started working in July that year.

Page 12391

 1        Q.   I apologise.  I did mean 1990.

 2             And up until -- well, during the years 1990 and 1991, who did you

 3     report to?  Who was your chief?

 4        A.   At the time when I started working in the police station, or --

 5     as it was called, public security station, the chief of the station was

 6     Munir Kovacevic.  And since mid-1991, Mr. Savo Tepic took up that

 7     position.

 8        Q.   And in terms of your line of work, who was your superior?

 9        A.   In the public security station, initially, chief Munir Kovacevic,

10     and then later Savo Tepic.

11        Q.   I apologise.  What I meant is in your line of work in terms of

12     communications who was your chief or your superior?

13        A.   According to our line of work, it was the CSB Banja Luka chief of

14     department for encoding --

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat the name of the

16     officer.

17             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Yes.

18        Q.   The interpreters didn't hear the name, could you please repeat

19     the name of the CSB Banja Luka chief for the department.

20        A.   You asked me about the chief of the communications and encoding

21     department.  And his name was Rakovic, Dragan, Drago.

22        Q.   Thank you.

23             Now you've told us that the chief of the police in the second

24     half of 1991 was Savo Tepic.  Again, in terms of mid-1991, who was the

25     commander of the police station at that time?

Page 12392

 1        A.   I cannot remember for 1991.  I think it may have been

 2     Bogdan Djurovic who was the commander.  At least for a period of time.

 3     And then later, this position was filled in by a man whose name I cannot

 4     remember who was sort of a stout man, I think a Croat.  And then after

 5     him, it was Dragan --

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Again, could the witness repeat the surname.

 7             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:

 8        Q.   The interpreters didn't catch the last name of Dragan that you

 9     just mentioned.

10        A.   Dragan Bojic.

11        Q.   Very well.

12             If you know, can you tell us whether -- what was the proportion

13     of the employees in the public security station, in terms of ethnic

14     background?

15        A.   In the period of 1991, if we're still discussing 1991, the makeup

16     was mixed.  During that year, there were Serbs, Muslims, and Croats

17     working for the station.

18        Q.   And you mentioned to us that the commander eventually became

19     Mr. Bojic.  Do you remember when he became the commander of the police?

20        A.   I think that was after the arrival of Savo Tepic and his

21     appointment to the post of the chief of station.  It was a few months

22     after his arrival.  I cannot be more precise.  It may have been in

23     early 1992.

24        Q.   Very well.  I'd like to take you now to the year 1992.  It is an

25     established fact in this case that the takeover took place on the

Page 12393

 1     11th of June of 1992.  Were you in Kotor Varos at that point?

 2        A.   Yes, I was.

 3        Q.   And can you tell us, On -- on the -- in June 1992, in your

 4     section, how many staff members did you have?

 5        A.   In June of 1992, it was Kalamanda, Miroslav and myself.

 6        Q.   You told us that a third person joined.  When did he join?

 7        A.   As far as I remember, it was in July 1992.

 8        Q.   And what was the name of the third operator?

 9        A.   Vujadin Popovic.

10        Q.   Now, can you tell us, When the takeover took place, were you in

11     the --

12             I apologise, there seems to be an interpretation --

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm really sorry.  Line 52 -- I'm sorry, page 52,

14     line 2.  Oh, yeah, it was changed.  The name of the person was mis --

15     misrecorded.

16             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Misspelt.  Okay.  It is fine now.

17        Q.   Let me go back to my question.  In relation to the takeover, you

18     were -- were you at -- were you in Kotor Varos when the takeover took

19     place?

20        A.   Yes, I was.

21        Q.   Was there any indication that it was going to take place?

22        A.   Well, there were indicia that certain developments were about to

23     occur.  One could not exclude conflicts, but nobody to could tell whether

24     there was going to be a takeover or maybe a conflict with the rise.  But

25     the situation was tense.

Page 12394

 1        Q.   Now, can you explain to us, on the 11th of June, what you

 2     observed on that day, in terms of the takeover?

 3        A.   What I observed:  The town was full of people in uniforms, some

 4     in -- in SNA [as interpreted] uniforms or camouflage uniforms.  People

 5     were taking up positions in various places in town.  There were

 6     check-points.  On that day, there were no conflicts or there wasn't any

 7     shooting.  Everything was rather quiet.

 8        Q.   You told us that you noticed people in SMB uniforms or camouflage

 9     uniforms.  What happened per se?  How did the takeover take place?

10        A.   I don't know specifically how.  I only saw people at various

11     locations in town.  Now, how the takeover or establishment of

12     check-points -- how did that really look, I don't know.

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Demirdjian, is this relevant in view of the

14     Adjudicated Fact 519?

15             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  I'm getting to the forces that were present,

16     Your Honour, to specify that.

17        Q.   Mr. Raljic, could you tell us whether you were aware of which

18     forces were present in town?

19        A.   At the time, I didn't know which forces were in town.  As I've

20     already stated, there were a lot of people in various uniforms, and I

21     didn't know who was who.

22        Q.   In the police station itself, did you notice a presence of these

23     people?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Did you come to learn who they were?

Page 12395

 1        A.   Yes.  With passage of time, yes.

 2        Q.   If you could tell the Trial Chamber, please.

 3        A.   Yes.  After the 11th of June, so in the following day, the

 4     subsequent days, various uniformed people were coming to the police

 5     station.  Some of them wore lighter coloured camouflage uniforms that I

 6     hadn't seen before, wearing hats with wider rims.  Later on, I saw blue

 7     camouflage uniforms that were police uniforms.  Again, uniforms I hadn't

 8     seen before that.  Then there was the regular police.  They were people

 9     in various other uniforms coming in olive drab or SMB and so on.

10        Q.   If we start with the group that you told us were in a lighter

11     colour of uniform, did you come to learn who was their leader?

12        A.   Initially I didn't know who they were because they were all mixed

13     in groups.  I never saw them lined up in formations, either of the three

14     groups.  But according to my information, I think it was the people who

15     were headed by Slobodan Dubocanin.

16        Q.   And did you come to learn to which organisation this group

17     belongs to?

18        A.   No, I did not find out whom they belonged to.

19        Q.   If I go to the second group of people you told us in blue

20     camouflage uniform, that were police uniforms, can you tell us, if you

21     know, who they were led by?

22        A.   As far as I remember, Ecim Ljuban and Zdravko Samardzija.  I

23     remember them because Zdravko I knew from before.  And as for the other

24     names, no, I didn't know what the names of their commanders were.

25        Q.   And Mr. Ecim and Mr. Samardzija, do you know from to which unit

Page 12396

 1     they belonged to?

 2        A.   I used to see them in -- or wearing those uniforms, and I believe

 3     they were part of the special police unit.

 4        Q.   And the special police unit belonged to which municipality?

 5        A.   Special unit was not part of any municipality.  It was under the

 6     Ministry of Interior.  It was the special unit of the police, not a unit

 7     of any municipality.

 8        Q.   And when you say "the Ministry of Interior," which organisation

 9     in the Ministry of Interior did it belong to?

10        A.   I wouldn't know.

11        Q.   Where were they stationed?

12        A.   I don't know any specific one location.  I think they were

13     stationed at different locations in town.  I don't know where they slept.

14     One could see them all over the town.  I don't know where they slept.

15        Q.   And do you know, on the 11th of June, where they came from?

16        A.   No, I don't know.

17        Q.   Prior to this takeover on the 11th of June, in the police station

18     did there come a time when the employees were requested to sign a loyalty

19     oath?

20        A.   As far as I remember, yes.

21        Q.   Were you present?

22        A.   I think I was, for at least one part of the time.

23        Q.   Can you tell the Trial Chamber where did this take place?

24        A.   In Kotor Varos retirement home.

25        Q.   And who convened the meeting?

Page 12397

 1        A.   I cannot remember who convened the meeting, but it must have been

 2     senior officers of the station, either the chief or the commander.

 3        Q.   And who else was present?

 4        A.   In addition to the senior officers of the SJB and all the

 5     uniformed personnel, I don't think there was anyone else present.

 6        Q.   And can you just tell us how this signing of the loyalty oath

 7     took place.  What was -- what were you told?

 8        A.   I cannot remember the exact formulation of the statement that

 9     needed to be signed, but, in general, people were required to sign that

10     they are willing to continue performing their duties under the aegis of

11     the new-formed ministry.  That was the basic formulation.  I don't think

12     there were any threats made that someone may lose a job.  It's a form

13     which you have to sign when you're moving to a different position, to a

14     different organisation.

15        Q.   And just to be clear, when you say "the new-formed ministry,"

16     which ministry are you referring to?

17        A.   The Ministry of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, I

18     think it was called at the time.

19        Q.   And do you remember when this signing of the loyalty took place?

20        A.   I can be a few days off, but, in general, it was maybe late

21     April or May.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm really sorry, but a part -- part of witness's

23     answer on page 55, 24, and page 56, 4, I saw it first in the -- in the

24     transcript and then it was deleted and now it's not recorded.  Because he

25     gave the comment what -- what kind of a -- that -- something along the

Page 12398

 1     lines about loosing a job and all that.

 2             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Okay.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  I think this should be clarified.

 4             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Yes, I see that.

 5        Q.   Mr. Raljic, when I was asking you about the signing of the

 6     loyalty oath, you explained to us what was told to you.  And you said, in

 7     general terms:

 8             "People were required to sign ..."

 9             Can you continue there, because I think a part of the answer is

10     missing.

11        A.   People were asked to sign that they will loyally continue

12     performing the tasks that they were already conducting, and I'm not aware

13     of anyone issuing threats to employees to the effect that they might

14     loose their jobs should they not sign the document.  I have not heard

15     anyone say that.

16        Q.   Now, on that -- at that moment when you were asked to sign the

17     loyalty oath, to your knowledge, did anyone decide not to sign it?

18        A.   There was some discussion about that, who would sign it and who

19     wouldn't.  But the meeting didn't last long, maybe 20 minutes or half an

20     hour.  I can't really say now.  Because the meeting was, in fact,

21     forcibly interrupted.

22        Q.   And to your knowledge, did some staff members stop showing at

23     work after this meeting?

24        A.   I really cannot recall.  It's possible, but I'm not certain.

25        Q.   And to your knowledge, other than the senior staff of the SJB at

Page 12399

 1     this meeting, were there any other superior members of the higher

 2     echelons of the MUP present during this signing?

 3        A.   I don't remember the presence of anyone from the higher echelons.

 4     I don't think so.  I doubt it.

 5        Q.   Now, if we go back to the 11th of June, in relation to

 6     communications, what effect, if any -- if anything, did the takeover have

 7     on your work?

 8        A.   The communications lines didn't function.  Phone lines, teletype

 9     lines.  Only radio communication was possible.  Nothing else.

10        Q.   And how long did that last?

11        A.   At the moment when the lines were interrupted, this situation

12     prevailed for about seven to ten days.

13        Q.   And prior to the 11th of July, were all your communications

14     functioning -- 11th of June; I apologise.

15        A.   I believe so.

16        Q.   After those initial seven to ten days, were you able to

17     communicate and send dispatches?

18        A.   Only occasionally because there were constant shortages of power,

19     almost daily.  Today we would have power; on the following day, not.  And

20     it went on like that all summer long.

21             So the communications lines were unreliable, so we couldn't

22     really be sure that we would be able to send a dispatch at any given

23     moment.

24        Q.   Now, when you're saying that the lines were unreliable, I want to

25     go back to those seven to ten days that you were talking about earlier.

Page 12400

 1             During those days, was there any damage to your equipment?

 2        A.   I don't think so, no.

 3        Q.   And what happened to the telephone lines between the initial

 4     seven to ten days?

 5        A.   The telephone lines were not functional.

 6        Q.   Did you come to learn why they were not functioning?

 7        A.   I never learned the real reason, whether there was an

 8     interruption somewhere, whether it was up to the post office, but I never

 9     really heard what the real reason was why the phone lines didn't

10     function.

11        Q.   Now, in terms of the equipment that you had in your section, can

12     you tell us, first of all, if you kept the same equipment you had prior

13     to the takeover?

14        A.   Yes, we kept the same equipment.

15        Q.   And what sort of equipment did you have in the communications

16     section?

17        A.   We had a regular phone line, a special dedicated phone line.  We

18     had teletype communications for sending out dispatches.  And we also had

19     a UHF radio communications.

20        Q.   And did you also have a machine for encryption purposes?

21        A.   Yes, we did.

22        Q.   Now you just told us that after the 11th of July [sic] you had

23     some problems in sending your dispatches; what was it that caused the

24     problem?  Was it your equipment; was it the lines?  Could you tell us.

25        A.   The most important problem was the shortage in -- in electrical

Page 12401

 1     power.  The teletype machine couldn't function without electricity.  If

 2     we had no electricity, we couldn't send out dispatches.  And if the other

 3     side, the recipient, didn't have electricity so they couldn't receive it,

 4     so there was no point in sending it.

 5        Q.   Now the dispatches that you're talking about are those documents

 6     that you are typing in -- in the machine itself; is that correct?

 7        A.   The -- we receive a typed dispatch which is signed, and then we

 8     type it into the teletype machine and send it out that way.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, Mr. Demirdjian.  I don't want to

10     interrupt.  But I think we need to clarify one thing.

11             I noticed even before, during the -- the previous -- the two

12     witnesses ago, that on some occasions the "UKT," UKT, was translated as

13     "UHF" radio communications.  I believe the "UHF" stands for "ultra high

14     frequency."  And actually what the witnesses are talking about are ultra

15     short frequency communication.  So just for the -- for the sake of

16     clarity of the transcript, in the future, that we know what we are

17     talking about.

18             It should be stated in each and every answer UK KT.  Thank you.

19             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:

20        Q.   Maybe this is something that Mr. Raljic can clarify for us when

21     you're talking about the radio equipment.

22        A.   Yes.  UKT is the radio communication that we used, that's

23     actually VHF; whereas UHF stands for higher frequencies over

24     400 megahertz.  We worked on the frequency on 157.7 megahertz.  That's

25     actually VHF.

Page 12402

 1        Q.   Now, during the periods of the day where you told us that the

 2     lines would be down, were you eventually able to send the dispatches that

 3     you were requested to send?

 4        A.   From time to time, yes.  When the system functioned, we were able

 5     to send out outgoing dispatches or possibly receive dispatches if there

 6     was electrical power.

 7        Q.   And in terms of electrical power, did you have a generator in the

 8     police station?

 9        A.   Later we did have a small generator, but we didn't use it at the

10     communications centre.  It was a small generator which we used for

11     lighting and so on.  But that was only later.  If we had used a generator

12     for the teletype machine alone, that wouldn't have helped us much because

13     if there was no electricity supply in town, that is, if the phone

14     exchange of the post office was without electricity, then it was no good

15     again.

16        Q.   Therefore, if the electricity is down, you told us that the only

17     means left was the radio communication?

18        A.   There was radio communication.  The duty officers -- officer

19     could communicate in simplex radio communications without the mediation

20     of a repeater because in such a situation the repeater couldn't function.

21     There was an RU-210 radio station which could function if fed from a

22     battery.

23        Q.   Now, this radio communication, what was the range?  How far could

24     you reach with this radio communication?

25        A.   Well, VHF waves are specific, especially if you have a simplex

Page 12403

 1     radio network, that is, if you work without a repeater.  Then the waves

 2     propagate in a straight line.  But it depends on the configuration of

 3     terrain.  Sometimes you wouldn't be able to communicate over 500 metres

 4     if there was a little in between or something.  Or -- but, on the other

 5     hand, if there was optical visibility, you could communicate over a

 6     distance of ten or more kilometres.

 7        Q.   Now, in terms of the means of communications that were available

 8     to the chief of the police station, could you just tell what

 9     communications he had available in his office?

10        A.   The chief of the SJB has a regular telephone.  I believe he also

11     had a fax machine and a hand-held radio station, as far as I remember.

12        Q.   And in terms of telephone, are you referring to a special

13     telephone, or was it a regular telephone line?

14        A.   The chief had a regular phone line with a number registered with

15     the post office.  And if he dialed 8 or 9, he could reach the exchange

16     and then switch to the special or dedicated line.

17        Q.   Did anybody else in the police station have a phone line like the

18     police chief, registered at the post office?

19        A.   A phone line, yes.  Such a phone line was also with the

20     Deputy Commander, the chief of the crime service, the duty officer, and

21     possibly the Deputy Commander [as interpreted], I'm not sure.

22        Q.   Now, you told us about dialing 8 or 9 and reaching this special

23     or dedicated line ...

24             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  While I'm asking the question, if we could

25     display on the screen Exhibit P1471, which is tab 4 on the list that was

Page 12404

 1     provided.

 2        Q.   Mr. Raljic, can you tell us a little bit what is this special

 3     line?

 4        A.   As far as I know - but I didn't work in the technical service

 5     that maintained the lines, so I may not be the most competent person to

 6     provide these explanations.  But as far as I know it was a closed system

 7     used by the ministry.  Speaking about the CSB of Banja Luka, those were

 8     leased lines; they were leased from the post office.  And it was

 9     something like an Intranet [Realtime translation read in error

10     "Internet"], if we used today's terms, a closed network that we would use

11     but which consisted of postal lines.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  I believe the witness said, 62, 19, "Intranet."

13             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Yes.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Not "Internet."

15             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Yes, I heard that, too.  Yes.  Internet.

16        Q.   Now, you can see the document displayed on the screen,

17     Mr. Raljic.  Are you familiar with the system that is diagrammed on the

18     document?

19        A.   Yes, I've seen this schematic before.

20        Q.   And the title here says that it is the special internal telephone

21     network.  Is this the special line that you were talking to us about just

22     now?

23        A.   Yes, this is it.

24        Q.   And this is the pre-war scheme; is that right?

25        A.   Yes, it is.

Page 12405

 1        Q.   And just to be clear, after the split of the MUP, you were still

 2     able to use this special line?

 3        A.   For a while, I think we were only able to work within the CSB of

 4     Banja Luka, not beyond.  But how long exactly, I'm not sure.  It was a

 5     brief period, but the lines were interrupted and then didn't function

 6     anymore.  For what reasons, I don't know.

 7        Q.   So you're telling us that it was -- the lines were restricted

 8     within the CSB Banja Luka region for a little while?

 9        A.   Yes.  It was a very short period.  I heard that communications

10     didn't function in other CSBs.  I believe that it -- we were able to

11     communicate for a bit longer, but I cannot be specific as to when exactly

12     the lines were interrupted, in which month.

13        Q.   After the 11th of June, was that line working between Kotor Varos

14     and Banja Luka?

15        A.   Well, as I said, for the following ten days or so, communication

16     wasn't possible.  No lines were in function, not even the -- these

17     special lines.  Whether it started functioning again after the

18     11th [as interpreted] or 25th of June, I -- that -- I'm not privy to that

19     information.  I'm not sure.  There may have been a couple of calls, but I

20     really don't remember.  At the very beginning, it was mostly

21     Miroslav Kalamanda who worked in the duty officers' office, and so it was

22     him who was there mostly, and I cannot be certain.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  63, 20, the witness said "20th or 25th of June,"

24     and it was recorded "11th."

25             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Yes, that's correct.  I heard that, too.

Page 12406

 1        Q.   Now, when the lines were -- when the special line was

 2     functioning, how easy was it for you to contact Banja Luka?  How many

 3     codes did have you to type, or how many digits did you have to?  Digits.

 4        A.   It was very simple.  You press a button on the phone to be

 5     connected to the special line, and, as far as I remember, you only had to

 6     dial three digits, possibly four, but I think it was three.

 7        Q.   And when you dialled those three digits, where does it take you

 8     to?  Let's say you're calling Banja Luka with those three digits, who

 9     answers on the other side?

10        A.   The operator at the communications centre.

11        Q.   And that operator would then forward the call to the person that

12     is intended to be called?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   To your knowledge, was the police chief, Mr. Tepic, using this

15     line to contact his superiors in Banja Luka?

16        A.   Yes, he did.

17        Q.   Now, you told us that there was also a fax in the

18     police chief [sic].  You told us that there was a dispatch system.  If

19     those don't work, is there any other means to transmit information to

20     your superiors?  And when I'm talking about your superiors, I'm talking

21     about Banja Luka.

22        A.   The only other way was to send the communication by courier, that

23     is, give it to a driver who would then take it away.

24        Q.   And to your knowledge, in 1992, was a courier system used in

25     Kotor Varos?

Page 12407

 1        A.   Yes.  Even before that.  And it's used even today.

 2        Q.   And could you tell us what is the distance between Kotor Varos

 3     and Banja Luka?

 4        A.   30-odd kilometres, approximately.  32, I think.

 5        Q.   And, to your knowledge, how often would a courier go to

 6     Banja Luka from Kotor Varos?

 7        A.   The courier carries regular mail once to twice a week at the

 8     most.

 9        Q.   And, to your knowledge, has it ever occurred that, if you were

10     not able to send a dispatch, that the courier service was used instead?

11        A.   I cannot remember any particular instance of that.

12        Q.   Fair enough.  Maybe if I explain the processing of dispatches,

13     that might clarify a little bit.

14             In your section, what was your main role when you are receiving a

15     dispatch from one of the sections of the police station?  How do you

16     process it?

17        A.   There is a procedure in place for receiving and sending

18     dispatches.

19             Upon receiving a dispatch at the communications centre, that

20     dispatch had to contain all prescribed elements.  If it didn't, we would

21     place a remark that the dispatch has to be amended.

22             Upon reception of the dispatch, we would check it, whether it

23     contains all these elements.  Then we would type it on the teletype

24     machine, and forward it, if it was an open dispatch.

25        Q.   Now, when a dispatch reaches your unit, you told us that you

Page 12408

 1     would check whether it contained all the elements.  What elements would

 2     you look for on a document before dispatching it?

 3        A.   The heading of the dispatch which had to contain the designation

 4     of the sender, the number of dispatch, the date, the urgency and

 5     confidentiality classification, who it is being sent to, and possible a

 6     reference if it refers to another dispatch, as well as the signature of

 7     the sender.

 8        Q.   You told us about the number of the dispatch.  Would you assign

 9     that number, or was is somebody else who assigned the number of the

10     dispatch?

11        A.   Other services would assign a number, those who sent the

12     dispatch.

13        Q.   And, physically, who would bring down the dispatch to you?

14        A.   Usually it was the girl who worked on -- in the administration, a

15     clerical person.  But sometimes people from other departments would bring

16     in dispatches, such as the crime police or the regular police.  There

17     have been such instances too.

18        Q.   And each of these departments, did they have their own coding

19     system, or did it go through a central numbering system?

20        A.   I don't understand the question.  What do you mean "coding

21     system"?  You probably mean something else.

22        Q.   Let's look at a document and maybe we can have an example.

23             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Could we pull up, please -- Your Honours, this

24     is a document that is not on the Prosecution's 65 ter list, but I will

25     just use it for illustration purposes, and I will not seek to tender it.

Page 12409

 1     Just to understand the numbering system.

 2             The number is 10392.  Yes.

 3        Q.   Now, if you look at the top of this document, it says

 4     "SJB Kotor Varos."  And then we see right below that the dispatch number.

 5             Can you explain to us, first of all, the first part, 11-9.  What

 6     does that represent?

 7        A.   Yes, that's the designation of the organisational unit, namely,

 8     the SJB of Kotor Varos.

 9        Q.   Then we have a backslash and we see 01.  What does the 01

10     represent?

11        A.   Yes, 01 stands for the organisational unit within the SJB.  Here,

12     it's the police.

13        Q.   When you mean "it's the police," which section is that?

14        A.   I mean the uniformed police and under the commander of the

15     police.

16        Q.   And then we see the number 383.  What does that represent?

17        A.   It stands for the entry number in the log-book where this

18     dispatch is registered.

19        Q.   And which log-book would this number come from?  To whom did that

20     log-book belong to?

21        A.   It usually belongs to the entire SJB, and it sits in the office

22     of the administrative service.  However, some services have their own

23     log-books, so they can enter the number of their own organisational unit.

24     So I cannot say right now whether this refers to the entire

25     administrative service of the SJB or only that section which belongings

Page 12410

 1     to the police.

 2        Q.   So what you're telling us is you're not sure if 383 belongs to

 3     the log-book of the general police or whether it belongs to the entire

 4     police station?

 5        A.   No, you didn't understand me.  If we have this prefix 01, it

 6     means that this belongings to the police.  It means that this dispatch

 7     came from the organisational unit of the police.  But this following

 8     number, 383, means that they gave this dispatch to the administration for

 9     the girl to register it and she would assign a number.  Likewise, they

10     could enter their own number from the -- the log-book of that subordinate

11     unit.

12             This 383 may be a -- an enter number in the log-book that

13     belonged to the entire SJB.

14        Q.   And just to be clear, 383 is a sequential number; does it start

15     from 1 at the beginning of the year?

16        A.   Yes, that's the usual situation.

17             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  We can put that document away.

18        Q.   Now, in terms of log-books, did your section have log-books?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   How many log-books did you have?

21        A.   We had one for sending and transmitting open-type dispatches, so

22     we had two books:  One for sending and one for transmitting.  And then we

23     had two:  One for sending and one for receiving encoded dispatches.

24        Q.   And -- so that would be four log-books.  Are these log-books

25     still in existence?

Page 12411

 1        A.   No, they're not in existence anymore.

 2        Q.   What happens to these log-books?

 3        A.   These log-books are kept for a period of up to five years,

 4     according to the regulations applying to communications and encoding

 5     service, these log-books are kept for a period of five years, after which

 6     they are destroyed.

 7        Q.   And how about the dispatches?  How long did you keep the

 8     dispatches?

 9        A.   In principle, the communications centre does not keep the

10     dispatches.  After sending a dispatch, we keep it for another 24 hours

11     for the case of some problems detected by the receiving side, if the

12     printout was poor or something like that, so that we could re-send it.

13     And after 24 hours, we returned the dispatch to the sender.  We were not

14     filing the dispatches themselves.

15        Q.   And how about incoming dispatches?

16        A.   Incoming dispatches were submitted to those who they were

17     addressed to, depending on the priority level.  In our case, we were

18     sending or forwarding the dispatches to the chief of the public security

19     station.

20        Q.   Now, when a dispatch comes in, and let's say it is addressed to

21     the head of the crime service, you just told us that you would forward

22     the dispatches to the chief of the public security.  Did all of them go

23     to him first, or did you direct it to -- let's say, the head of crime

24     service in this example?

25        A.   Yes, yes.  No, in principle all the dispatches would be forwarded

Page 12412

 1     to the chief of the public security station who would review them, and

 2     then, having done that, he would, at the bottom of the dispatch,

 3     designate who should be getting this dispatch and acting upon it.

 4        Q.   Now, we saw one dispatch earlier.

 5             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  If we can display a second one, which is 10393.

 6             This one, too, Your Honours, I will not seek to tender it.  It is

 7     not on our 65 ter list.  But just for illustration purposes.

 8        Q.   Now, the first we saw was dated the 1st of August, 1992.  This

 9     one is the 12th of September, 1992.  And right after the 11-9, what

10     number can you see there?

11             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  If we can maybe zoom into that section up there,

12     the top left-hand corner.  Yes.

13             THE WITNESS:  After 11-9, we can see 09-387 [Realtime transcript

14     read in error "01"] forward slash 92.

15             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  And, I'm sorry, it says "01" in the transcript.

16        Q.   After the 11-9, what do you have?

17        A.   Number 09 at the time was organisational unit called

18     Administration and Legal Section of the SJB.  And then number 387 is most

19     probably the number in the log-book where it was entered.

20        Q.   Okay.  Now, having been in Kotor Varos yourself in -- in

21     August and September 1992, let me ask you the following:  We see 09-387,

22     and on the previous document we saw 01-383.  Now, there's only four

23     numbers of difference within a month and a half.  From that, are you able

24     to tell us whether the sequence of numbers was given by each section or

25     whether it was given by a general section?

Page 12413

 1        A.   As I've already said, it is possible that -- that the number was

 2     off the general section -- or, rather, the administration section, but

 3     some of the services had their own log-books.  Now, I cannot tell you

 4     about there specific number, 387, but my guess would be that this is this

 5     general section number.

 6        Q.   Very well.

 7             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  If we could display on the screen 65 ter 3195,

 8     which is tab 11 on the list.

 9        Q.   Witness, I'm going to show you a report which appears to be a --

10     a report of the end of the year.

11             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Yes.

12        Q.   Do you see a document on your screen?

13        A.   Yes, I do.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... tab?

15             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Tab 11.

16        Q.   Do you recognise this document?

17        A.   Yes, I recognise the document.  This is a yearly report or annual

18     report on organisation and work of the KZ.

19        Q.   Yes.  It says KZ in the transcript.  Do you mean communication

20     and cryptography by that; is that right?

21        A.   Yes, cryptography.

22        Q.   Now, who drafted this document?

23        A.   I drafted this document.

24        Q.   This, you said, is an annual report.  First, before we look at

25     this document, were there other reports you sent periodically throughout

Page 12414

 1     the year?

 2        A.   Usually the reports were and are sent monthly, but they would

 3     only cover the traffic of dispatches.

 4        Q.   And in --

 5             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  If we can turn to -- if can go to the bottom of

 6     the first page in the English version.

 7        Q.   We can see the first paragraph here seems to give a historic of

 8     your section, with a description of the staff members.  Is that right?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And we see here that it talks about Mr. Kalamanda, who you

11     mentioned earlier.  And it mentions that you joined in November 1990.

12             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  And if we turn to the second page in the English

13     version and in the B/C/S version as well.

14        Q.   We can see that it talks about Mr. Popovic, you mentioned

15     earlier, who was hired that year.

16             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  If we can go to the third page, both in English

17     and the B/C/S.

18        Q.   We see, at the bottom of that page, the numbers of telegrams that

19     were sent and received throughout that year.  And does that -- is that an

20     accurate description of the situation during that year?

21        A.   Yes, it's an accurate description of the situation.

22        Q.   And it says here that you received 2530 open dispatches, you

23     received 150 encrypted dispatches, and you sent 837 open dispatches, and

24     you sent 21 encrypted dispatches.

25             Now, I would like to understand the number 837 of sent open

Page 12415

 1     dispatches.  Can you tell us what kind of dispatches would be sent open?

 2        A.   All dispatches that did not contain, to put it briefly, any

 3     secret information were sent by open dispatch system.  For instance,

 4     whether there was need for some equipment, if someone from the political

 5     structures was passing through Kotor Varos and needed escort through

 6     town; whereas, dispatches which required any degree of secrecy were not

 7     sent through this open system.

 8             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  And if we can go to the last page.

 9        Q.   And I would ask to you look at the last paragraphs.

10             It reads here that:

11             "All communication and cryptographic protection affairs in the

12     SJB Kotor Varos are conducted successfully and without major difficulties

13     considering the current situation."

14             Do you see that paragraph?

15        A.   Yes, I do see the paragraph.

16        Q.   So to come back to what you told us earlier.  In the initial

17     seven to ten days you were having problems.  This -- your conclusion for

18     the year is despite the difficulties you are able to send dispatches.  Is

19     that -- and if that's correct, can you tell us, roughly speaking, when it

20     is that the situation allowed you to send dispatches?

21        A.   The situation became relatively normal, although it never became

22     fully normal in the few years to come, but relatively normal.  It was as

23     of the end of the year onwards.  As you said in the last paragraph, we

24     can see that considering the current situation it's conducted

25     successfully.  So it means at the time of reporting.

Page 12416

 1             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  Your Honours, may I ask for this document to be

 2     admitted.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 4             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  I have one last, short topic before we --

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  I apologise.  This will be Exhibit P1486,

 6     Your Honours.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  I just have an observation, Your Honours.  I

 8     believe it might be important.  This document --

 9                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  I believe, Your Honours, that the English

11     translation that -- does not correspond entirely to the Serbian original.

12     Because -- and that is exactly what witness was explaining, and I don't

13     know if it's clear to Your Honours.

14             The English translation uses the -- the Serbian original contains

15     the word "zazada," which means "at this moment."  And it's not a part of

16     the English translation.  So I think that that is what is creating the

17     difficulty for my learned friend and the witness to comment on the

18     document because the English translation does not -- does not contain

19     that particular part of the original.

20             So I would --

21             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  The witness concluded that he was at the time of

22     reporting, so I think that clarifies the issue.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.  But the officially translation should contain

24     everything which is in the original.  And we need to -- to re-send it for

25     verification of translation.

Page 12417

 1             Thank you very much.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

 3             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  I'll look into it.  Very well.

 4             One last topic before we resume [sic] for the day, Your Honours.

 5        Q.   Mr. Raljic, you were telling us about the courier system.  I'd

 6     like to ask you about the SJB chief, Mr. Tepic, himself.  Would he attend

 7     meetings with his superiors?

 8        A.   Yes.  The chief would attend meetings with his superiors.

 9        Q.   And this is in Banja Luka; correct?

10        A.   Yes.  That was in the CS -- or, CJB [as interpreted].

11        Q.   Now, how often, to your knowledge, would Mr. Tepic go to

12     Banja Luka?

13        A.   During which period?

14        Q.   I'm talking about the year 1992.

15        A.   Chief Tepic, in 1992, would relatively frequently go there.

16     Initially - and we are discussing the meetings now - initially, if they

17     had a collegium which was scheduled and announced through dispatches and

18     they would hold a meeting, they would have an agenda for the chiefs to

19     prepare for the discussion and their briefings, and then after the

20     11th of June, I don't remember receiving any dispatches announcing a

21     meeting of the collegium.  But the chief would travel often.  I think, on

22     the average, two or three times a week.  Now, whether he was on these

23     occasions going to the centre or was he going to do some private business

24     of his, that I don't know.

25        Q.   And during the first part of the year 1992, do you know who his

Page 12418

 1     driver was?

 2        A.   During the first part of 1992, I was the driver, the chief's

 3     driver.  And then after the April of 1992, there were two other guys who

 4     would alternate.

 5        Q.   And, generally speaking, when you drove the chief, where did you

 6     drive him to in Banja Luka?

 7        A.   If we would be going to the public security centre, then I would

 8     take him to the public security centre -- or, rather, sometimes we would

 9     go to Laktasi or other locations in Banja Luka.  The chief was not

10     strictly using his official vehicle only to go to the CSB.

11        Q.   Very well.  And one last question on this topic:  When he would

12     attend the meetings at Banja Luka, who would have called for those

13     meetings?

14        A.   As I mentioned, these meetings would be announced, we would

15     receive dispatches to that effect, and the meetings were convened by the

16     chief of the CSB, Mr. Zupljanin.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             MR. DEMIRDJIAN:  It may be a good time, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  It is the time when we would take the

20     adjournment for today.

21             I would remind Mr. Raljic, the witness, that having been sworn as

22     a witness, that you cannot communicate with counsel from either side

23     until you are released, and such conversations that you have outside the

24     Chamber, you cannot discuss your testimony.

25             So we adjourn, to reconvene tomorrow in this courtroom at 9.00.

Page 12419

 1             Thank you.

 2                           [The witness stands down]

 3                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,

 4                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 30th

 5                           day of June, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.