1 Wednesday, 1 September 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.36 p.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
6 Good afternoon, everybody 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, Mr. Registrar.
10 Good afternoon to everyone.
11 May we begin as usual by taking the appearances for today,
13 MR. DOBBYN: Good afternoon, Your Honours. For the Office of the
14 Prosecutor, Gerard Dobbyn with Crispian Smith.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
16 Slobodan Cvijetic, and Eugene O'Sullivan appearing for Stanisic Defence
17 this afternoon. Thank you.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic,
19 Igor Pantelic, and Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
20 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Is the Prosecution ready to proceed with
21 its next witness, unless there are some other matters that would delay.
22 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I announced that I have a preliminary
24 matter which concerns the motion that we received yesterday by the
25 Prosecution concerning the 65 ter amendment, and three -- those are
1 basically three related issues, and I would like Your Honours'
2 indulgence to ...
3 JUDGE HALL: Of course, Mr. Zecevic. Please proceed.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much. I will proceed in Serbian,
6 [Interpretation] Your Honours, as I said, these are three related
7 matters. We received, yesterday, a new submission of the Prosecution to
8 change the 65 ter list, suggesting the introduction of a new document
9 related to the testimony of Witness ST-128, who is expected to appear
10 tomorrow or even later today. I suppose that the Trial Chamber will ask
11 us to make our position clear about this submission very soon, and I will
12 do it now. And in the same context, I would like to briefly invoke a
13 couple of facts that we encounter daily in this case and that pose a very
14 serious problem for the Defence.
15 The OTP justifies its motion to change the 65 ter list by the
16 fact that the Defence has presented a criminal complaint concerning a
17 crime covered by the indictment and by the evidence of some witnesses in
18 this case. If that crime is indeed covered by the indictment, and it is,
19 and the indictment, among other things, charges that the police
20 authorities had discriminated in cases when the victims were non-Serbs
21 and conducted less than serious investigations, it is then quite logical
22 to expect, and I have believe even necessary, that the OTP investigating
23 the crime in question reviews the relevant documents in order to
24 establish whether the original investigation had been conducted and what
25 its result was. It is inexplicable, and there is absolutely no
1 justification for the fact that the OTP has still not done it since the
2 beginning of investigations in this case or at least since 2005 when the
3 initial indictment was brought.
4 Some say that this is because the Office of the Prosecutor first
5 issues an indictment and then investigates the case, which our case and
6 similar cases seem to indicate.
7 Your Honours, exactly one year ago, since the beginning of this
8 trial, the OTP has modified or added to its 65 ter list exactly
9 56 witnesses, which amounts to about 50 per cent of the total number of
10 witnesses in the original 65 ter list. Furthermore, the OTP has -- had
11 made over 50 oral and written submissions to modify the 65 ter list
12 regarding documents and tendered almost 500 new documents, which is about
13 20 per cent of addition compared to the original number.
14 From the 1st of September, 2009, when the batch 78 was disclosed
15 to us as the last in the pre-trial stage, to date practically an
16 identical amount of documents has been disclosed to us as in the entire
17 pre-trial stage, which lasted almost five years. The amount is
18 approximately 500 gigabytes of documents, and we are currently at
19 batch 137. That means that the increase in documents is 100 per cent,
20 and this continues during the trial.
21 I really believe that this practice on this scale of modifying
22 the Prosecution case in trial has not been recorded so far in any of the
23 other cases before this Court. The very volume of this material makes it
24 impossible for the Defence to do its job well or to perform its duty
25 under the statute and under the professional code of conduct for Defence
1 counsel appearing before the ICTY, let alone the detriment to the
2 guaranteed rights of the accused under the statute, primarily the right
3 to a fair trial.
4 Another thing seems to be typical, namely even on top of this
5 unbelievable amount of material that the OTP is disclosing in trial, for
6 some reason they failed to disclose key documents such as in the case of
7 Witness ST-147, when a very important document was disclosed 90 minutes
8 before his testimony. The same applies to the witness who is about to
9 enter the courtroom and the witness after him.
10 Their evidence and their statements in criminal cases heard
11 before courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina concerning the same crime, and
12 are therefore more than relevant, were disclosed to us just before the
13 beginning of their evidence, plus they were incomplete. I will not even
14 begin to describe how much that documentation is influential on the
15 evidence of the witness who testified yesterday and the
16 cross-examination, because from these documents we can see what the other
17 accused say about the same event and to what extent their stories differ
18 considerably on very relevant points. After receiving and analysing
19 these documents, we will probably be forced to ask these witnesses to
20 return for additional examination.
21 The situation is similar with Witness ST-191. A day after the
22 completion of his testimony, a document was disclosed that relates to the
23 meeting where the witness participated, and the document relates his
24 words, whereas we did not have the opportunity to show him the document
25 and elicit his comments. Instead, the OTP introduced it through Witness
1 ST-182, who has knowledge about that meeting from an unknown and indirect
2 source. So we will also have to ask additional examination for Witness
4 Such cases slow down the course of this trial, expose the
5 Tribunal to huge additional costs and inconvenience for the witnesses,
6 and this practice must therefore be stopped.
7 In view of the fact, Your Honours, that this situation is
8 becoming -- is assuming alarming proportions, I thought it my duty to
9 bring these facts to the notice of the Trial Chamber because I believe
10 that they already have and will continue to have a great impact on the
11 further costs of this trial. I therefore ask the Trial Chamber most
12 kindly to take the necessary steps to protect the integrity of these
14 Thank you.
15 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
16 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, I'd just like to make a couple of
17 comments about some of the points that have been raised by my learned
18 colleague. With -- regarding the addition of documents over time, we
19 seek to add new documents to the 65 ter list when circumstances require
20 it. It's not a plan that's undertaken by the Prosecution to do this on
21 an ongoing basis, but as circumstances require and arise, we seek to do
22 that. And, Your Honours, each application is looked at individually by
23 the Trial Chamber and is ruled upon according to its merits. We can't
24 take that any further. This is another individual application that has
25 been made, Defence have responded, and we would just be seeking that the
1 Trial Chamber Judge it on its merits.
2 With regards to some of the other points that have come up,
3 the -- the large amount of disclosure recently that has been raised by my
4 learned colleague, I can only assume that much of that is in relation to
5 the new witnesses that we were granted leave to add to the witness list
6 recently, the 44 witnesses relating to adjudicated facts. And the
7 disclosure that comes out of those witnesses has to be disclosed
8 according to the Rules. And as Your Honours are well aware, the Defence
9 has strongly been insisting upon its disclosure as soon as possible. And
10 we are simply trying to do what we can that's required under the Rules
11 and that the Defence wants.
12 Now, with regards -- my learned colleague made a comment about
13 the upcoming witnesses and testimony from the state court which has just
14 been disclosed. And what I would point out, Your Honours, is that the
15 Prosecution found out that the witnesses had testified in the state court
16 in those cases at precisely the same moment that the Defence did, and we
17 sought out those transcripts at the requests of the Defence. It was at
18 their request --
19 JUDGE HALL: We needn't hear you on that particular point. We're
20 aware of the history there.
21 MR. DOBBYN: With regards to the present application,
22 Your Honours, I'm not leading that particular witness. The attorney who
23 is handling that case is not in court at the moment, so I don't know all
24 the specific details. But what I do understand is that it is important
25 to note that the proposed exhibit that the Prosecution is seeking to add
1 was sought and obtained as a result of the Defence tendering into
2 evidence part of the BiH case file through ST-125 on April 2010, and it
3 was after receiving this exhibit that the Prosecution then sought and
4 obtained the entire case file. And I believe that's the subject of this
5 most recent application, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Dobbyn.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Dobbyn, could I just ask, in clarification of
8 your last intervention, why you didn't seek to have this document added
9 to the 65 ter list much earlier?
10 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, I'm sorry, that's not a matter that I
11 have knowledge of. What I can perhaps request is that the lawyer who
12 drafted that motion and who is leading the next witness could perhaps
13 come to court at the start of the following session. And if Your Honours
14 have any questions, he would know this matter in much more detail and
15 could respond much more adequately than I could at this time.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: This might be a good idea to call the person
17 down. But in any case, Mr. Dobbyn, the thing that worries the Chamber is
18 that this seems to have become a systematic pattern of last-minute
19 motions for addition of documents to the 65 ter list, and I think we've
20 been through this a number of times before. The Chamber has repeatedly
21 requested the Prosecution to seek addition of documents to its
22 65 ter lists well in advance of the witness's arrival and to come and
23 testify about these documents, not only so as to put the Defence on
24 notice that this is something that they need to take into consideration
25 in their preparation for cross-examination of those witnesses, but also
1 for the Chamber's possibilities of following the evidence in the case and
2 managing the evidence.
3 So it is, to be frank, Mr. Dobbyn, it's intolerable that we keep
4 receiving these requests in the last minute. It puts the Defence and it
5 puts the Chamber in a lot of distress, and I don't know what other
6 measure we can take than to simply reject your motions. But let's hear
7 from your officer and see if he or she can explain.
8 MR. DOBBYN: Actually, Your Honours, we have received an e-mail
9 communication regarding that, and with regards to the timing, what I
10 understand, Your Honours, is that, as we say, the case file was received
11 in April -- sorry. Just give me one minute, Your Honours.
12 Sorry. It was requested in April of this year. When it was
13 received, it was immediately reviewed for its relevance, and then upon
14 analysing it, it was found that the file in its entirety was relevant.
15 So at that point it had to be sent for translation. As soon as this
16 translation was completed, which was on the 25th of August, it was
17 then -- sorry, one second. So, Your Honours, that was just six days
18 before the filing of this motion.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Dobbyn.
20 The -- are you ready with your witness, Mr. --
21 Well, obviously we are not going to rule on this immediately, but
22 we expect to do so in the course of today.
23 Are you ready with your witness, Mr. Dobbyn?
24 MR. DOBBYN: Yes, we are, Your Honours. The Prosecution calls
25 Witness ST-195, Nenad Krejic.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Dobbyn, while we're waiting for the witness
2 to come in, could you inform us of the date on which this case file was
3 disclosed to the Defence? Because I suppose that it was all in Serbian,
4 so they could be notified of the documents before translation.
5 MR. DOBBYN: Yes, Your Honour, and Mr. Smith is just checking
6 that at the moment.
7 It was disclosed on the 17th of August.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 WITNESS: NENAD KREJIC
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good morning, sir -- good afternoon, sir. Sorry.
13 May I -- can I ask you to make the solemn declaration, please.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
15 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. You may sit down.
17 I need to point out to you that the solemn declaration that you
18 just made does expose you to the penalties for perjury should you give
19 misleading or untruthful evidence to this Tribunal.
20 Could you please state your full name and date and place of
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Nenad Krejic, born on
23 the 2nd November, 1963, in Radici, Knezevo municipality.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: What is your ethnicity, please?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Serb.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: And your profession today?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was a teacher of national
3 defence, and I currently work in a security organisation.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. And a teacher of national defence,
5 was that your occupation in 1992?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Now, sir, is this your first testimony before
8 this Tribunal? Have you ever given testimony before tribunals or courts
9 in your country?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm here for the first time, and I
11 testified twice before the BH court.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: On matters concerning the conflict in 1992?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Now, then, let me explain you how --
15 briefly how the proceedings will unfold here. You've been called a
16 witness by the Prosecution, who is sitting to your right, and the
17 Prosecution has asked for two hours for your examination-in-chief. After
18 that, the counsel for Mr. Stanisic, sitting to your left, and the counsel
19 for Mr. Zupljanin, sitting for your left -- on your left as well, will
20 cross-examine you. After that, there is the possibility of redirect by
21 the OTP, by the Prosecutor, and the Judges can always put questions to
22 you as well.
23 There is one other practical matter. For technical reasons, we
24 need to take a pause every 90 minutes. And our hearings take more or
25 less four hours, from quarter past 2.00 to 7.00 in the evening or from
1 9.00 to quarter to 2.00 in the morning. If for any reason you need a
2 little break in between, please tell us and we will accommodate you.
3 That's all I have to say. Thank you very much. And I'll give
4 the floor to Mr. Dobbyn of the Prosecution.
5 Examination by Mr. Dobbyn:
6 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Krejic.
7 A. Good afternoon.
8 Q. Now, I'd like to start off by briefly going through some of your
9 background in relation to your position in 1992, and I know in response
10 to His Honour Judge Delvoie's question you said you were a teacher of
11 national defence. Just to clarify that a little, were you appointed head
12 of SJB Skender Vakuf on 7th of June, 1991?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So at that time you were, in fact, police chief of that police
16 Now, is it also correct that the municipality of Skender Vakuf,
17 the name was changed to Knezevo sometime in 1992?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So just to be clear, when we refer to Knezevo or Skender Vakuf,
20 those names do refer to the same municipality, don't they?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you tell me which security service centre or CSB
23 SJB Skender Vakuf was subordinate to?
24 A. The security services centre in Banja Luka.
25 Q. And did you hold your position as chief of SJB Skender Vakuf
1 until September 1st, 1992, when you were then transferred to
2 CSB Banja Luka?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. When you were transferred, what position did you hold at
5 CSB Banja Luka?
6 A. I was a police inspector, and I performed various duties.
7 Q. Were you also an instructor on the police officer training course
8 in Banja Luka?
9 A. No, I was not an instructor. I was a platoon commander at the
10 first police training course organised in Banja Luka.
11 Q. Thank you for that clarification. And did you remain in
12 CSB Banja Luka for the remainder of 1992?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Mr. Krejic, in 1992, were you a member of the SDS political
16 A. No.
17 Q. Were you ever a member of the SDS Municipal Board in
18 Skender Vakuf?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And can you explain when you became a member and when you stopped
21 being a member, if at all?
22 A. I was one of the founders of the SDS in Knezevo, and I was a
23 member of the steering committee and later on of the Municipal Board. At
24 the first multi-party elections, I was elected councilman in the
25 Municipal Assembly of Knezevo. And later on the Assembly sent me to the
1 Assembly of the Autonomous Region of Krajina. When I was appointed the
2 chief of the public security station in Knezevo, I resigned all those
3 three posts.
4 Q. Thank you. I'll move on from your background now.
5 MR. DOBBYN: And I would ask that we show 65 ter number 10236.13,
6 and this is a map showing the ethnic composition and distribution in
7 Skender Vakuf municipality in 1991, and it's from page 16 of the court
9 Q. And this will be coming up on the screen in front of you,
10 Mr. Krejic.
11 Now, Mr. Krejic, you'll see that on this map Serbs are denoted by
12 blue, Croats by red, and Muslims by green. And in the table at the top
13 right-hand corner - if we could zoom in on that, please - you'll see that
14 for 1991 this map shows that approximately 70 per cent of the population
15 of Skender Vakuf was Serb, approximately 20 per cent was Croat, and about
16 5 per cent Muslim.
17 Now, from your knowledge are these figures correct?
18 A. Approximately.
19 MR. DOBBYN: Now, if we could move down and see the map as a
20 whole, please.
21 Q. Mr. Krejic, you'll see that on the map it shows that the Croat
22 population of Skender Vakuf was basically clustered in the south-west of
23 the municipality, with one Croat pocket to the north-east of
24 Skender Vakuf, the town named Pavlovici. Otherwise, the rest of the
25 municipality was predominantly Serb, and there are no Muslim-majority
1 areas shown. Is this distribution an accurate reflection of the
2 situation in 1991?
3 A. This is quite accurate, in fact. There's just one error here.
4 North-east of Knezevo, it's the village of Pavlovici, purportedly with a
5 Croat population. And that's an error because it never existed. All the
6 rest is correct. But in Skender Vakuf, as it was called at the time,
7 there were Muslims and there are none marked here.
8 Q. So is it correct that the majority of Muslims in the municipality
9 lived in the town of Knezevo or Skender Vakuf itself?
10 A. They all lived in Knezevo.
11 Q. And I'd just like to briefly clarify this point about the village
12 of Pavlovici. Are you saying that this village never existed?
13 A. It's not a town at all. Approximately in this area it's the
14 village of Bastaja, and there's a hamlet which is part of Bastaja called
15 Pavlovici, but only Serbs lived there. Croats never lived there. It
16 must be just a technical mistake.
17 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, with that one correction pointed out
18 by the witness, I would seek the admission of this document.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm terribly sorry, Your Honours. I basically
20 agree with what Mr. Dobbyn is suggesting, but it came to my attention
21 actually right now, and I'm really sorry that I missed that, that these
22 maps were created by the Republic of Croatia in 1991, and they -- they
23 actually are aimed in showing the -- the Croatian -- the Croatian
24 population movement between 1948 and 1981.
25 So I don't -- I honestly don't think that these kind of documents
1 can be used in a serious trial because at 1991 this was used as a
2 propaganda, as you can imagine, because it's -- it's only well known that
3 each of the sides were producing maps like this and that.
4 So I would kindly invite our friends from the Prosecutor's side
5 to give us some more reliable maps. I mean, maps as such are -- should
6 be geographically okay, and we might use them for the geography, but we
7 cannot use them for the population numbers because I have a really
8 serious doubt about their accuracy.
9 Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, save for maps which are confined to
11 showing geographical features, all maps could probably be criticised as
12 being politically biased in some way or other, and it seems to me that
13 the -- save for counsel giving evidence, which at one point I thought you
14 were in danger of doing, the problem, which the OTP probably accepts, is
15 cured, if cured it could be, by the oral testimony they just elicited
16 from the witness.
17 So in other words, the Chamber would have the map. And to the
18 extent that there are any flaws, the Chamber would then have to look at
19 it alongside the explanation given by this witness or any other witness.
20 But returning to the application to return it, Mr. Dobbyn, I
21 thought we had this.
22 MR. DOBBYN: Not as far as I'm aware, Your Honours. I believe
23 it's -- it hasn't been shown before.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Is it -- it is 65 ter 10236.13? Right?
25 MR. DOBBYN: Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
2 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1570, Your Honours.
4 MR. DOBBYN:
5 Q. Mr. Krejic, I'd now like to turn to another topic and ask you
6 some questions about convoys passing through your municipality in 1992.
7 And while you were chief of the SJB in 1992, do you recall any convoys
8 passing through Skender Vakuf or Knezevo municipality?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. Who was being transported in these convoys?
11 A. For the most part, non-Serbs.
12 Q. Can you estimate how many convoys you were aware of passing
13 through your municipality in 1992 while you were there?
14 A. I don't know the exact number, but a relatively high number.
15 Q. Do you know where these convoys came from?
16 A. They came from the areas covered by the security services centre
17 in Banja Luka for the most part.
18 Q. And do you know where these convoys were heading to?
19 A. They came from the direction of Banja Luka, and they were heading
20 for Travnik.
21 Q. And Travnik, that was Muslim-held territory, wasn't it?
22 A. Yes. And at the beginning and in the course of the 1990s, there
23 were also Croat forces there.
24 Q. Were you aware of any convoys passing in --
25 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm terribly sorry. Page 16, 10, I believe the
1 witness said during the course of 1992. If you can clarify that.
2 MR. DOBBYN: I will.
3 Q. Mr. Krejic, I'd like to go back to the answer you just gave. Did
4 you say that "... at the beginning and in the course of 1992, there were
5 also Croat forces there," or did you say during -- at the beginning of
6 the 1990s, "in the course of the 1990s"?
7 A. 1992.
8 Q. Thank you. Now, the question I was asking, were you aware of any
9 convoys passing in the opposite direction carrying Serb civilians from
10 Muslim-held territory through Skender Vakuf?
11 A. The arrival and transfer of Serb civilians in the opposite
12 direction did occur, but they were not in convoys. It was done in a
13 different way. The convoys, well, that was a difficult situation, too,
14 but the Serbs had it much harder, in fact.
15 Q. Now, with regards to the convoys moving through to Travnik, do
16 you know who guarded or escorted these convoys?
17 A. As far as I knew, they were for the most part escorted by the
18 police from whatever public security station covered the area from which
19 the people hailed, from which they were being moved out.
20 MR. DOBBYN: Could I now show 65 ter 3132. This is another map.
21 It's in tab 2 of the Prosecution's documents.
22 Q. And what we're going to be looking at, Mr. Krejic, is another map
23 of the municipality of Skender Vakuf. What I would like is, with the
24 help of the usher, if you could on that map indicate the route that these
25 convoys took when they were passing through Skender Vakuf towards
2 A. So they came in from the direction of Banja Luka, they took this
3 it route to Knezevo, and then they took the old road to Travnik. That's
4 the one. That's the road.
5 Q. And on that map, could you indicate the location of
6 Koricanske Stijene.
7 A. Well, approximately here.
8 Q. Perhaps if you could just put the number 1 beside that, please.
9 A. [Marks]
10 MR. DOBBYN: I'd like to tender the map at this time,
11 Your Honours.
12 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1571, Your Honours.
14 MR. DOBBYN:
15 Q. Mr. Krejic, now I'd like to turn to a specific convoy from the
16 21st of August, 1992. And around that time, the 21st of August or
17 shortly thereafter, did you receive some information that some people
18 from a convoy had been killed?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. How did you first hear about this incident?
21 A. The date was most probably the 23rd of August, 1992. In the
22 early morning, my duty officer, policeman, notified me that he had
23 received a report from the duty officer at the operations desk of the
24 Banja Luka Security Services Centre to the effect that in the
25 Koricanske Stijene area around 150 people had been killed. Those people
1 had been in a convoy.
2 Q. Now, the information you received from your duty officer, did
3 that also include who the perpetrators of these killings were believed to
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did the information that you received from your duty officer
7 contain anything about the role of the police escorting that convoy?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Were you aware at that time where the police escorting that
10 convoy came from?
11 A. No, but quite soon after that I learned that this had been the
12 last convoy to leave Prijedor.
13 Q. Did there come a time where you received information about who
14 the perpetrators of this killing was?
15 A. No, never.
16 Q. Do you recall the full detail that you received from the duty
18 A. It was a very brief report, a single sentence, in fact.
19 Q. And do you recall what the content of that sentence was?
20 A. Well, as I've already told you a moment ago to the effect that in
21 the area of Koricanske Stijene about 150 people who were on a convoy were
23 Q. Did you find out the specific date, either during this
24 communication or any subsequent time, that these killings took place?
25 A. When I went to the scene, I learnt when the incident had actually
2 Q. And what did you learn about when the incident had happened?
3 A. I learnt that it happened on the 21st of August.
4 Q. After getting this call from your duty officer, do you recall if
5 you then contacted anyone yourself?
6 A. Yes. I contacted the chief of the security services centre in
7 Banja Luka, Stojan Zupljanin.
8 Q. And what did you tell Mr. Zupljanin?
9 A. I told him that I had received information, the information that
10 I've just shared with you.
11 Q. What instructions, if any, did you receive from Mr. Zupljanin in
12 that conversation?
13 A. Yes. He told me verbatim that I should take the chief of the
14 crime police with me -- or, rather, instruct him to go to the scene
15 immediately. I was to check what was going on and report to him
17 Q. Did you follow Mr. Zupljanin's instructions and go to the crime
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And did --
21 MR. KRGOVIC: I'm sorry. There is some error in the transcript.
22 Can the witness repeat the last answer on the line 19, 20 -- 25.
23 Page 19, line 95 [sic].
24 MR. DOBBYN: I'm sorry, page 19, which lines?
25 MR. KRGOVIC: Page 19, line 95 [sic].
1 MR. DOBBYN: I have differing numbering here on mine, so is this
2 the question:
3 "What instructions, if any, did you receive from
4 Mr. Zupljanin ..."?
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Microphone not activated].
6 MR. DOBBYN:
7 Q. Yes. I'll ask that question again, Mr. Krejic. When you called
8 Mr. Zupljanin, what instructions, if any, did you receive from him?
9 A. Yes. That was an order to take the chief of the crime service
10 with me, that we go to the scene together to check the initial report, to
11 gather as much additional information as possible, and to inform him as
12 soon as we returned.
13 Q. You've already said, following that, that you did, in fact, go to
14 the crime scene. Did you take someone else with you?
15 A. Yes. Milorad Veleusic came with me, and he was the chief of the
16 criminal investigation service, but he was also, at that time, acting
17 commander of the police station.
18 Q. When you arrived at the crime scene at Koricanske Stijene, could
19 you see whether or not the location had been secured?
20 A. No, it was not secured.
21 Q. And what did you see when you got to the location?
22 A. Well, at first we didn't know the exact place where it happened.
23 Milorad was driving, and I was looking through the open window at the
24 side of the road. And just on the right-hand side of the road, at the
25 beginning of a very deep canyon, behind some shrubs I noticed down the
1 cliff about a dozen human bodies. That was the first thing I noticed.
2 Q. Did you subsequently see some more bodies?
3 A. We got out of the car at that spot where I had seen those dozen
4 bodies or so. We looked around and we looked in front of us, and some
5 30 or 50 metres in front of us it turned out that there were many more
6 bodies. And then we got back into the car, drove to that spot, got out
7 of the car again, and we saw, in our rough estimate, between 150 and
8 200 bodies.
9 Q. I'd like you now to have a look at a photograph.
10 MR. DOBBYN: If we could show 65 ter 2266.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: And while we wait for the photograph to come up,
12 Mr. Witness, did you also notice if there were any ammunition shells on
13 the road where you parked the car or in -- in that area?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, we couldn't see anything like
15 that. But even if there had been any ammunition shells, that was not our
16 priority at the time. We were looking at the dead bodies.
17 MR. DOBBYN:
18 Q. Mr. Krejic, the photograph that's in front of you, do you
19 recognise this location as Koricanske Stijene?
20 A. Well, I cannot be 100 per cent sure, but I believe that's it.
21 Q. And could you take the pen again and mark where you believe the
22 location is that you saw the first grouping of about a dozen bodies. If
23 you could put an X there.
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. And next to that could you put the number 1, please.
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. Mr. Krejic, could you then mark where you believe you saw the
3 remainder, the 150 to 200 bodies, again with an X. Or perhaps with a --
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry, could we suggest that this is done with the
5 red pen? I think it would be better seen in the photograph.
6 JUDGE HALL: Yes, I agree, Mr. Zecevic.
7 MR. DOBBYN: Certainly, yes.
8 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
9 MR. DOBBYN:
10 Q. And could you then draw perhaps a circle around the area where
11 you saw the 150 to 200 bodies.
12 A. [Marks]
13 Q. And just a number 2 next to that. Thank you.
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. DOBBYN: I'd seek to tender this photograph now,
17 Your Honours, with its markings.
18 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1572, Your Honours.
20 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, are we taking the break at the usual
21 time? I'd be happy to do so now.
22 JUDGE HALL: If this is convenient, yes.
23 MR. DOBBYN: It is a convenient time, Your Honour.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 --- Recess taken at 3.40 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 4.22 p.m.
2 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, for the record --
3 JUDGE HALL: Just a moment.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 THE INTERPRETER: Would the Court Usher please switch off his
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Dobbyn.
8 MR. DOBBYN: Yes, Your Honours. I just wanted to add for the
9 record that we have been joined by Ms. Pidwell on the Prosecution side.
10 JUDGE HALL: The -- you indicated you're joined by Ms. Pidwell.
11 Is she going to respond to the query which the Chamber had on this file
12 as to when it was that the -- in terms of the sequence of events which we
13 have been alerted to when the -- when precisely the Defence would have
14 been -- it would have been disclosed to the Defence and when the
15 Prosecution received it?
16 MR. DOBBYN: No, Your Honours. And I'm sorry, I didn't realise
17 that that had been left unclear. Again, I don't have those full details.
18 The lawyer who is handling that witness does have those details. It was
19 my understanding it's included in the Prosecution's motion. But if not,
20 again, he can come in at the start of the next session. I believe it's
21 in the motion and the information I provided before. I didn't realise
22 there had been any uncertainty left there.
23 JUDGE HALL: I'm sorry I misunderstood you, because I thought
24 that is what Ms. Pidwell was here to answer.
25 MR. DOBBYN: No, Your Honour. That's ...
1 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
2 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Dobbyn, for the Chamber to address the
4 objection raised by the Defence, the Chamber would wish to know exactly
5 when the Prosecution received the case file in question. You told us
6 this morning [sic] that you had submitted it to the Defence on
7 17th of August, yet the challenge was raised in April. So I assume that
8 somewhere between April and August you actually received the file, unless
9 you had already taken possession of it prior to -- to April, I don't
10 know. But the Chamber would wish to have this piece of information as
11 soon as possible.
12 MR. DOBBYN: Yes, Your Honour. We're looking for that
13 information now. And as soon as it becomes available, I'll let the
14 Trial Chamber know.
15 JUDGE HALL: So could we have the witness back on the stand,
17 Mr. Zecevic, the -- on the application related to 197, we would
18 wish -- we're requesting an expedited response from the Defence by
20 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, the request which I have just addressed
23 to Mr. Zecevic, out of an abundance of caution, I say the same thing to
24 you, although I'm not sure that it immediately affects your client. But
25 if you do have an interest in this matter, we would expect your response
1 by tomorrow. Thanks.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, once the Prosecution
3 has given us an explanation as to why this motion had to be filed just a
4 few days ago and not earlier, I would kindly ask you to grant me some
5 time to respond to the motion.
6 JUDGE HALL: When you say "some time," are you saying that you
7 could not be ready by tomorrow?
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] No. I would -- well, the way I
9 understand the Prosecution, I would like the Prosecution to explain why
10 once the Manjaca file from the Prosecution was received we received
11 notice on the 17th of August. It was disclosed then. So why did they
12 wait from the 17th of August until the 26th for the disclosure? I would
13 like to get an explanation for that. I have a very important reason why
14 I'm asking for this explanation.
15 JUDGE HALL: So that's back on the matter of the file that --
16 yes. Thank you. Thank you.
17 Yes, Mr. Dobbyn, you may continue.
18 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Mr. Krejic, when we left off, you had just described arriving at
20 the scene of Koricanske Stijene and seeing the various bodies in that
21 area. Now, at this time, around the 22nd, 23rd of August, did you have a
22 police unit that was stationed in the Koricani area?
23 A. My police unit was not stationed at Koricanske Stijene but some
24 4 to 5 kilometres away from it in the direction of Travnik, above the
25 Ugar River canyon to be more specific. And at that time it was part of
1 the Republika Srpska army. It had been reattached, resubordinated, to
2 the Republika Srpska army and was taking part in combat. It did not
3 perform regular police work.
4 Q. Now, this unit, where it was stationed, was this along the route
5 that convoys travelling through your municipality on their way to Travnik
6 would take?
7 A. Yes. It was stationed by this route, and its task was precisely
8 to protect this road.
9 Q. After viewing the crime site, did you go and speak to members of
10 this unit to gather more information?
11 A. Yes. This convoy had to pass by my unit twice because of the
12 situation, how it was, and I assumed that the personnel in that unit
13 might have some information.
14 Q. And, in fact, did some members of that unit speak to -- to police
15 who had been escorting that particular convoy?
16 A. Yes. When I arrived in the unit, it turned out that the police
17 from Prijedor did stop by at the command post of my unit on their way
18 back. They took a short break there. And on that occasion they spoke
19 with the personnel from my unit.
20 Q. When you refer to the police from Prijedor, just to be clear, are
21 these the police who are escorting that convoy on the 21st of August?
22 A. Yes. Based on the statements elicited from the personnel from my
23 unit, it was clear that they were able to identify those people as
24 members of the public security station in Prijedor who had been escorting
25 the convoy.
1 Q. And what -- you said that the police from Prijedor stopped --
2 stopped and spoke with the personnel from your unit. Did you get any
3 information as to what they had told the members of your unit about what
4 had happened to the convoy?
5 A. Yes. The gist of the conversation was this: They admitted that
6 they had killed those people at Koricanske Stijene.
7 Q. Did they show members of your unit any property that had belonged
8 to people who were on that convoy?
9 A. Well, based on what one of the members of my police unit said,
10 the men from Prijedor allegedly showed them money and golden items. But
11 because I know this police officer of mine well, I think it's 50/50
12 whether it's really true are or not.
13 Q. When you say it's 50/50 as to whether this is really true, are
14 you talking about whether they had been shown money and gold items?
15 A. Yes. I had doubts about the veracity of his account that money
16 and gold had been shown to him.
17 Q. Okay. After visiting the crime site and speaking to the members
18 of this unit of yours, did you report back to Mr. Zupljanin?
19 A. Yes. Immediately upon my return, I reported to Chief Zupljanin.
20 I told him about everything I had learnt at the scene and also from the
21 personnel from my unit.
22 Q. Did that include telling him that the perpetrators were police
23 from Prijedor?
24 A. I told him that I had heard from the personnel from my unit, from
25 my police unit, that the perpetrators were from the public security
1 station in Prijedor.
2 Q. And did you also pass on to Mr. Zupljanin the number of bodies
3 you had seen at the crime site?
4 A. I did not even attempt to establish the number of bodies because
5 it was impossible to do that from where I stood, but my estimate and the
6 estimate of my escort was anywhere between 150 and 200 bodies.
7 Q. Did you tell Mr. Zupljanin that that was your estimate as to how
8 many bodies were down there?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, what was Mr. Zupljanin's response to this information that
11 he received from you?
12 A. He said that early in the morning I should come to the security
13 services centre headquarters in Banja Luka, together with two highest
14 ranking people in the Knezevo municipality, the president of the
15 Assembly, Municipal Assembly, and the President of the Executive Board.
16 Q. And who was the president of the Municipal Assembly?
17 A. The president of the Municipal Assembly was Milan Komljenovic.
18 Q. And who was the president of the Executive Board?
19 A. Vladimir Glamocic.
20 Q. Now, just to go back, when you reported to Mr. Zupljanin about
21 what you had found at the crime scene, how did you report to him? Was it
22 in person or by -- by phone or some other means?
23 A. I'm not sure, but I think it was by phone.
24 Q. Now, did you go to meet with Mr. Zupljanin as requested with
25 Mr. Komljenovic and Mr. Glamocic the following day?
1 A. Yes. I considered all demands made by Chief Zupljanin as orders,
2 and I obeyed my orders.
3 Q. When you got to Banja Luka, did you have an opportunity to speak
4 with Mr. Zupljanin privately?
5 A. Yes. Before the meeting itself, maybe some five minutes or so.
6 Q. And what did you tell Mr. Zupljanin when you spoke with him
7 before the meeting?
8 A. I shared with him everything that I had learnt in the field, and
9 I also told him what the position was taken by the key people in the
10 Knezevo municipality, the people in the leadership.
11 Q. And what position was taken by the key people in the Knezevo
13 A. The key people in the leadership, and, in fact, the whole
14 population - the members of the police force, of the army in the
15 municipality of Knezevo - condemned vigorously that act, and they were
16 appalled by what had happened, particularly because in our municipality
17 there had been no war crimes, no mass or multiple murders, and the public
18 saw this incident as something that is going to besmirch our
20 Q. Now, after speaking to Mr. Zupljanin privately, you said you
21 attended a meeting. Could you tell us who was present at that meeting?
22 A. Chief Stojan Zupljanin, who chaired the meeting, chief of the
23 public security department in the security services centre in Banja Luka;
24 Djuro Bulic; myself; the president of the Knezevo Municipal Assembly; the
25 president of the Executive Board of the Knezevo Municipal Assembly; the
1 president of the Prijedor Municipal Assembly; the chief of the public
2 security station in Prijedor, Simo Drljaca; and I think that there was
3 another person from Prijedor, but I'm not sure about that. I think it
4 may have been the president of the Executive Board of the Prijedor
5 municipality. He is, in fact, the only person I didn't know.
6 Q. The president of the Prijedor Municipal Assembly, was that
7 Milomir Stakic?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Could you tell us what was discussed at this meeting.
10 A. Well, it didn't really look like your normal meeting because
11 right at the very beginning there was a quarrel between on one side the
12 Knezevo people, the president of the Municipal Assembly and the
13 Executive Board, and on the other side the leadership from Prijedor. And
14 at one point or several times, in fact, it almost came to blows.
15 Q. At this meeting was there any open acknowledgement that these
16 killings at Koricanske Stijene had been committed by policemen from
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did -- sorry. Were you going to say something further then?
20 A. Yes. That was quite uncontroversial, and the people from
21 Prijedor admitted that it had been done.
22 Q. You say they admitted that it had been done. What was their
23 attitude towards what had been done? Were they opposed to it? Were they
24 in favour of it?
25 A. They thought it was normal, and Simo Drljaca was the most vocal
1 about it, bragging, in a way, of the fact.
2 Q. What was Mr. Zupljanin's response to this?
3 A. When I met with Chief Zupljanin in private at -- in the morning
4 before the meeting, I noticed that he appeared to be shaken. He was
5 visibly shaken. He condemned the incident strenuously. He called a
6 spade a spade. He said it was a crime. And he took more or less the
7 same position as we from Knezevo did. And Chief Bulic was closer to the
8 people from Prijedor in his views.
9 Q. What was the conclusion or how did this -- this meeting end?
10 What conclusions were reached as to what should happen next?
11 A. After a lot of quarreling and bickering, Chief Zupljanin insisted
12 on recovering the bodies of the victims. He insisted that those bodies
13 should be identified and, finally, buried. At one point he reacted very
14 harshly to what Simo Drljaca was saying. He told him in no uncertain
15 terms that he would insist on prosecuting the perpetrators of that crime.
16 Q. Well, did Mr. Zupljanin at that meeting give any specific orders
17 as to any investigatory steps that should be taken, as opposed to steps
18 to remove the bodies from the location?
19 A. As far as I know, he could not issue orders to the presidents of
20 the Municipal Assemblies and the presidents of the Executive Boards.
21 Q. Was he --
22 A. But --
23 Q. Sorry. Was he in a position to issue orders to you, to
24 Djuro Bulic, and Simo Drljaca?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, was there a point during the meeting where Mr. Zupljanin
2 read a dispatch or letter to those who were present?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you remember the content of that dispatch or letter?
5 A. That dispatch was allegedly sent by the President of
6 Republika Srpska, Mr. Karadzic. He was purportedly at a peace conference
8 As for the contents, the president from the plains and the
9 president from the mountain should assist the chief of the security
10 services centre to deal with this issue.
11 Q. What was meant or who was meant by the president from the plain
12 and the president from the mountain?
13 A. The plain was probably a reference to Prijedor; and the mountain,
14 given our altitude, is -- it was Knezevo.
15 Q. Now, you said that Mr. Zupljanin insisted that the bodies be
16 removed. Who was put in charge of removing the bodies?
17 A. I don't know if "removing" is the most fortunate choice of term
18 in this case. If any case, it was meant that these bodies should be
19 extracted from there and buried in a dignified manner, because if we use
20 the word "remove," that could have a negative connotation.
21 Q. I'm sorry for the poor choice of words, but could you tell us who
22 was to be responsible for recovering the bodies.
23 A. This task befell the municipality of Prijedor. This municipality
24 was more developed. They also had the necessary machinery that was used
25 in their municipality in various mines, and they were tasked with the
1 recovery, the transport, and the burial of the bodies.
2 Q. Did the fact that police from Prijedor had allegedly committed
3 the crimes have anything to do with those from Prijedor being given
4 responsibility for the clear-up?
5 A. Precisely. That is what the presidents from Knezevo insisted
6 upon. It was their position and their conclusion that if you were up to
7 commit such a horrendous crime, then at least do what you can to recover
8 these bodies and bury them in a dignified manner, exculpating at least a
9 part of your guilt.
10 Q. Was Simo Drljaca given any specific role in relation to this
12 A. Yes. He was supposed to co-ordinate in Prijedor between the
13 municipal authorities and the enterprises that owned such machinery, and
14 also to provide the personnel for recovering the bodies and burying them.
15 Q. As far as -- as far as you're aware, did Mr. Drljaca ever take
16 care of this?
17 A. None of these things were done in the seven or eight days that
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: If the witness had been
20 told to speak slowly for the benefit of the interpreters, we really don't
21 need him to speak this slowly.
22 MR. DOBBYN:
23 Q. Mr. Krejic, I've received a message from the interpreters that
24 you can actually speed up in your speech. You don't need to talk as
25 slow. The interpreters will be able to keep up with you. If you just
1 talk naturally. Thank you.
2 Now, sometime after this first meeting in Banja Luka, did you
3 actually meet a survivor of the killings?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What were the circumstances of you meeting this person?
6 A. The members of the 22nd Brigade of the Army of Republika Srpska
7 brought into the public security station of Knezevo one person whom they
8 thought to be a survivor of the massacre at Koricanske Stijene.
9 Q. How long after the incident was this?
10 A. Four or five days.
11 Q. When this man was brought to you, did you contact Mr. Zupljanin?
12 A. Yes. I contacted him and informed him.
13 Q. What instructions, if any, did Mr. Zupljanin give to you?
14 A. Yes. He ordered me again, very strictly, that I am personally
15 responsible for the security and safety of that person and that I should
16 bring him as soon as possible to the security services centre in
17 Banja Luka and turn him over to the service in charge.
18 Q. Did you do as instructed and deliver this man to Banja Luka?
19 A. Yes. Immediately the next morning, as soon as he was brought
20 into my station, sometime around 11.00 p.m.
21 Q. Did you discuss -- once you arrived at Banja Luka, did you
22 discuss with Mr. Zupljanin what would be done with this man?
23 A. Yes, and he told me that he would be turned over to the
24 Swiss Red Cross.
25 Q. Now, did you later attend a second meeting in Banja Luka CSB to
1 discuss the issue of the killings?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can you recall the date of the second meeting?
4 A. I think it was the 30th of August.
5 Q. Can you tell us who attended this particular meeting? Actually,
6 sorry, before you answer that question, I would ask you, Do you recall
7 who called this meeting?
8 A. I don't recall exactly who gave me that information about the
9 meeting. And as for who attended, all those from that first meeting were
10 in attendance, except Chief Zupljanin.
11 Q. Was this meeting again held at Banja Luka CSB?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, you've said Mr. Zupljanin didn't attend, but everyone else
14 from the first meeting did attend. Were there also some other people
15 attending the second meeting who had not been at the first meeting?
16 A. Yes. The meeting was chaired by Minister of Defence
17 Bogdan Subotic; and there was also the commander of the 22nd Brigade,
18 Bosko Peulic; and if I remember well, there was also the investigating
19 judge and the prosecutor; then Brane Buhavac, who is chief of the
20 scene-of-crime officers; and two inspectors, one from the police section,
21 that means uniformed police, Dusan Kos, and the other one from the crime
22 investigation police. The last name is Markovic, and his nickname was
23 Muric. And there was also my deputy, my successor, in fact, because I
24 had already received a letter of new appointment transferring me,
25 beginning with September, to the CSB Banja Luka.
1 Q. Now, you mentioned that Brane Buhavac was in attendance and he
2 was the chief of crime-scene officers. Did he inform the meeting as to
3 whether an on-site investigation had yet been conducted between the first
4 and second meeting?
5 A. No. He did not brief the meeting on that subject because we all
6 knew that it hadn't been done. Instead, he made a proposal how to go
7 about it.
8 Q. What was the -- the topic of conversation at this second meeting?
9 A. The topic was the recovery of the remains of these people,
10 identification, after which the forensic pathologists would do their job,
11 followed by transport to the place where they would be buried.
12 Q. You mentioned that at the first meeting there'd been a lot of
13 tension, arguments between the people from Knezevo and those from
14 Prijedor. Was the tone at the second meeting similar or was it
16 A. The tone was completely different, either because the meeting was
17 chaired by the minister of defence, member of the cabinet of
18 Republika Srpska, or because as time passed there were more and more
19 people condemning the event, and those who thought it was a normal thing,
20 a matter of course, were fewer and fewer.
21 Q. You mentioned that the topic of this meeting was, again, the
22 recovery of the remains and identification. Can you recall if there were
23 any conclusions reached or orders given at the second meeting concerning
24 investigation of the killings?
25 A. Since the hardest part of the work, in view of the layout of the
1 terrain, was to recover the bodies, most of the discussion and
2 conclusions focused on that issue, how to get them out. And then
3 Mr. Subotic, that is to say the minister, mentioned that after that or in
4 parallel with that the security services centre and the competent
5 judicial and prosecutorial authorities would normally conduct an
7 Q. Well, apart from removing the bodies, were there any specific
8 steps that were decided with regards to identifying or arresting the
9 perpetrators or otherwise investigating the crime, any specific steps
10 that were decided at the second meeting?
11 A. I've already said that in the course of their discussion,
12 primarily the contributions by Mr. Subotic, it was implied that there
13 would be prosecution of the perpetrators, that they needed to be found
14 and prosecuted, but it was left to the technical services whose job it
15 was to do it.
16 Q. After the meeting, what did you do at that point?
17 A. We went to the scene.
18 Q. Was it everyone that went -- everyone from the second meeting who
19 went to the scene?
20 A. I think so.
21 Q. Did Mr. Zupljanin accompany you to the crime scene on this visit?
22 A. No, I did not see him that day. He was not there.
23 Q. When you arrived at the crime scene - this is the second time
24 you'd been there - did you see anything to indicate that the scene had
25 been secured since your last visit?
1 A. It was not secured.
2 Q. On the second visit, were the bodies, down in the gorge, were
3 they as exposed to the elements as they had been on your first visit?
4 A. I knew before and I could see then that a segment of the civilian
5 protection from Knezevo had been to the scene in the interval between the
6 two meetings and cut down the shrubbery and the underbrush and used it to
7 cover the bodies because the inhabitants of the nearby village Koricani,
8 who were using rainwater to drink, complained that the birds and animals
9 were dragging bits of the bodies and carrying them to rooftops, and they
10 had protested in Knezevo why nothing was being done to deal with it, and
11 that's why the civilian protection covered the bodies, so as to make them
12 inaccessible to animals. And that is why when we came to the scene we
13 were unable to see the bodies or find out any more about them.
14 Q. And where did you hear this, that it had been people from
15 Knezevo, civil protection, who had covered the bodies like this?
16 A. I learned that already when I was back in Knezevo, because these
17 people had also been to the public security station to report these
18 incidents. And apart from that, there was an unbearable stench.
19 Q. Did you accompany the people from Knezevo Civil Protection when
20 they performed this task?
21 A. No. No. That was not within the jurisdiction of the public
22 security station.
23 Q. Now, on this -- this site visit after the second meeting, was
24 anything other than ways of recovering the bodies discussed?
25 A. I'm afraid I didn't understand your question.
1 Q. Sorry. I could have phrased that better. The -- during this
2 visit to the crime scene, what was the topic of discussion once you were
4 A. Well, people talked about how these conclusions made back in the
5 office could be applied in the field.
6 Q. And these conclusions related to recovery of the bodies; correct?
7 A. The conclusion was crystal clear: All the bodies, down to the
8 last one, must be recovered, identified, and buried.
9 Q. Was there any discussion at the crime site of securing the crime
10 site for evidentiary purposes, for looking for evidence related to the
11 killings that would help you to identify the perpetrators?
12 A. Quite possibly. But by the nature of things -- or, rather,
13 specifically, I have stomach trouble, and I was about to move to a new
14 job within two days, and my successor was there, the man who would become
15 the next chief of public security Knezevo. I was standing a bit away
16 from the others. It's quite possible I didn't hear any conversation
17 about that.
18 Q. Thank you. I'll move on now.
19 MR. DOBBYN: I'd like to look, if we could, at Exhibit P1567.
20 This is from tab 7 of the Prosecution's documents. And what we're going
21 to be looking at is the amalgamated Vlasic Mountain case file. And if we
22 could go to page 9 in the English, page 8 in the B/C/S.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Dobbyn, the Chamber just wishes to alert you
24 that you have 15 minutes left of your examination-in-chief.
25 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you, Your Honours. And I would ask, if at all
1 possible, that I could have perhaps an extra 20 minutes. I have simply a
2 couple of videos after this that I would like to show. I just want to
3 make sure we get enough time to do those. They are quite important to
4 this whole issue relating to the investigation.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Because much of what you have covered with this
7 witness, we believe, is already included in the adjudicated facts, so if
8 you have videos to show, I suggest you move on to that right away.
9 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you, Your Honours, I will. Before the videos,
10 actually, I'll show one more document, and I'll ...
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, I also see that it's time for the
13 break. Shall we take that now?
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
15 Before we rise, Mr. Krgovic, just as a matter of clarification,
16 the -- what we were seeking to remind you of earlier was your response to
17 the motion regarding 197 that was filed today. You've already responded
18 to your -- what you intend to do in respect of 1 -- with 128.
19 So we take the break now.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 --- Recess taken at 5.29 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 6.00 p.m.
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Dobbyn.
24 MR. DOBBYN: Yes, Your Honours. We are joined now by
25 Matthew Olmsted, who is available to speak about the issue that has been
1 raised with the motion.
2 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Olmsted.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Just before Mr. Olmsted starts, I would like to
4 announce for the record that Ms. Batista, Ivana, has joined the
5 Stanisic Defence team.
6 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honours. First we should
8 apologise. We did not anticipate that this disclosure issue would be
9 such a big matter, otherwise we would have gone into more details in our
10 motion itself. We didn't anticipate a strong objection from the Defence,
11 given that this proposed exhibit is really more or less a continuation of
12 the case file they've already admitted into evidence. So really it's
13 being tendered for this -- the reason of completeness so that the whole
14 file can be viewed in its entirety.
15 I cannot say for certainty exactly when we received this file;
16 that requires some investigation. But looking at our system, I believe
17 it's been entered in sometime in late May of this year, and usually it's
18 entered within a couple weeks of receiving it. So in a best possible
19 world, it should have been disclosed probably sometime in June of this
21 Now, during the summer recess, as I began preparing for the
22 testimony of ST-128, it was at that time that I came to review this
23 particular document, at least the analysis of it, and when I found out
24 that it was relevant to ST-128, I at that stage ran a check to see
25 whether it had been disclosed, and it turned out that it hadn't, and at
1 that stage I asked that it be disclosed as soon as possible. And then I
2 sent it for translation because without a translated copy of it, I can't
3 review it to determine whether it's something we actually want to add to
4 our 65 ter exhibit list. And I received that translation last week, and
5 then, talking with my colleagues, I determined that it was something we
6 do want to add to our 65 ter list, and that's when we filed the motion.
7 I hope that clarifies matters at least a little bit with regard
8 to this particular document.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Olmsted. Do I understand you
10 correctly that you do not intend to seek admission into evidence of this
11 case file, that you just wanted to include it in the 65 ter list as part
12 of the total case file in that incident for completeness, as you said?
13 MR. OLMSTED: Well, perhaps I don't understand, Your Honour, but
14 what we intended to do is add it to our 65 ter list at this stage, then I
15 do have some questions with regard to it with ST-128, and at that stage,
16 after he's answered those questions, to tender it into evidence but as --
17 really part and parcel of the entire file, which is -- part of it which
18 has been admitted into evidence already. So that the Trial Chamber, when
19 it sits down and evaluates this issue, can have both files there and look
20 at the whole thing.
21 The purpose of tendering it is to put into context the
22 prosecution's -- the office of the prosecutor's side of things, and by
23 that I mean the Banja Luka Basic Prosecutor's Office that was functioning
24 in 1992 and how they were processing this case through their system up
25 until -- well, the date of the case file, I think, ends sometime in 2007.
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, in order to avoid misunderstandings
3 in the future, I think you should always anticipate strong objections,
4 not only by the Defence but also by the Trial Chamber, for this kind of
5 late-minute -- last-minute motions. Thank you.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours. We appreciate that. And this
7 was certainly something that we didn't want to happen. We never want
8 this to happen, and -- but sometimes it does, and we will, of course,
9 be -- do our best to be more diligent with regard to this issue in the
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Olmsted.
12 Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, when it comes to
14 those documents, and more specifically the documents that the Prosecution
15 has just discussed, I would like to make an observation. This document
16 was submitted to us, disclosed to us, on 16th of August, together with
17 some 16 other batches of thousands of pages, and that's clearly Rule 68
18 material pertaining to the protected witness we completed examining
19 yesterday. And it is indicative that the Prosecution filed a motion to
20 tender this document yesterday. If I had had this document, I would have
21 used it in my cross-examination, and especially in the latter part when
22 we discussed Manjaca. And I did ask some questions of the witness in the
23 course of my cross-examination yesterday, and it was clear to the
24 Prosecution when it received this document as early as in June that this
25 is Rule 68 material.
1 If you look at my line of questioning yesterday and if you look
2 at this document if you admit it, you will see the correlation. It
3 speaks about the role, the place, the chain of command for
4 Witness ST-023. And this is why I have a problem with this kind of
5 disclosure of this kind of material. And if I had had this material, I
6 would have used it yesterday. I would have tendered it yesterday.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, if I may just address that briefly.
8 Ms. Korner's not here, but it's my understanding from my conversation
9 with her last week is that the Defence was alerted to this particular
10 document and even received representations that it might be used during
11 cross-examination of the last witness. Now, I can't confirm that for a
12 certainty without talking to Ms. Korner. Perhaps Mr. Zecevic can confirm
13 that for us. But I believe they did have it and they were aware of it
14 for purposes of cross-examination of the last witness.
15 I know that doesn't touch on this particular motion because this
16 is with regard to a witness who is going to testify tomorrow or Friday,
17 but I just want to make sure that it's clear that - and I'll have to
18 check on this - that the Defence did have notice of this particular
19 document for the purposes of the last witness.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, we had a
21 different document. It was an interview of another witness. I don't
22 want to mention his name because he might be a protected witness. We
23 couldn't use this interview and put it to the witness, and we were not
24 allowed to put any materials from other witnesses to this witness. So
25 this material was not disclosed to us as Rule 68 material.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, I heard you say that you would have
3 tendered it yesterday, but do I have to conclude from that that you're
4 not opposed to the addition of this material to the 65 ter list? Or did
5 I misunderstand you?
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, these are two
7 different matters. This is precisely the reason why I opposed to the
8 tendering of documents in this manner. And as my learned friend
9 Mr. Zecevic has said, the Prosecution is throwing tonnes of documents at
10 us, burying us in material. And we get this kind of material at a very
11 late stage, we don't have enough time to go through it, and this is the
12 final result.
13 I would have used it in my cross-examination if I had had it.
14 Now, the question is whether the Prosecution would have allowed me to
15 tender it to that purpose, and this is why I think that the Prosecution
16 opted -- this might be a coincidence, I don't want to claim it, but they
17 decided to disclose to us in this way after the cross-examination was
18 already completed, and this is why I have this concern and why we wanted
19 to share this concern with the Trial Chamber.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I can represent absolutely that that
21 was not the intention of the Prosecutor -- the Prosecution in this
22 matter. And, again, I need to talk to Ms. Korner about this, but I
23 believe that the Defence were aware of this particular document or the
24 statements contained within it for purposes of the last witness's
25 testimony because we were under the impression that they were going to
1 use it for cross-examination and they chose not to.
2 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Before we bring this discussion to a
3 close - obviously it isn't something on which we're going to rule
4 today - Mr. Krgovic, unless I missed it, I didn't hear you answer
5 Judge Delvoie's question as to whether you -- I understand that you would
6 have liked to have been in a position to use this yesterday, but what is
7 your position now in terms of the reception of this document?
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our position at this
9 point is the same as the one presented by Mr. Zecevic. So we fully
10 support his position.
11 JUDGE HALL: I see. Thank you.
12 Yes, Mr. Dobbyn.
13 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, before I continue with my
14 questioning ...
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE HALL: The -- I'm reminded, as this witness is coming
17 tomorrow, that we should give our ruling now. And our ruling is that we
18 refuse the Prosecution's request to admit the document on the basis that
19 the Prosecution, in the Chamber's view, has failed to show due diligence.
20 Yes, Mr. Dobbyn. Please continue.
21 MR. DOBBYN: Yes, Your Honours. And before I do continue with my
22 examination, I'm going to renew my application for an extra 20 minutes.
23 And I'd like to address His Honour Judge Harhoff's comment that the last
24 hour and a half or so of testimony has been covered by adjudicated facts.
25 Over the course of the break, I've reviewed the adjudicated facts that we
1 have on Vlasic Mountain, and what we have in the adjudicated facts simply
2 relates to the progress of the convoy and what actually happened on the
3 mountain when they were killed.
4 We have no adjudicated facts that cover these two meetings in CSB
5 Banja Luka, one of which was attended by Mr. Zupljanin; we have no
6 adjudicated facts showing what Mr. Zupljanin was aware of and when he
7 became aware of it. There's nothing along those lines as far as
8 reporting and the dates. And also there's nothing in the adjudicated
9 facts addressing what steps, if any, were taken to investigate the
10 matter, and that has been the thrust of this witness's testimony. And
11 that's why I'm seeking an extra 20 minutes.
12 So I would respectfully ask that you reconsider that decision.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE HALL: You have an additional 15 minutes, Mr. Dobbyn.
15 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you, Your Honours. I'll make sure to use that
17 At this point I'd like to call up Exhibit P1567. This is the
18 amalgamated Vlasic Mountain case file. And I had asked earlier that we
19 go to pages 9 in the English and 8 in the B/C/S.
20 Q. And while we're waiting for that come up, Mr. Krejic, you had
21 mentioned earlier that a survivor of the massacre had been brought to you
22 and that you had personally delivered him to CSB Banja Luka and spoken to
23 Mr. Zupljanin about that, about that survivor. And if you look on the
24 screen in front of you, what you'll see is an Official Note from
25 CSB Banja Luka dated the 8th of September, 1992, and you can see that
1 it's in relation to an interview with a survivor of the killings. You'll
2 also see that the document states that the interview took place on the
3 23rd of August at SJB Skender Vakuf and that it's signed by
4 Dragomir Markovic.
5 Now, Mr. Krejic, this Dragomir Markovic, is this the same
6 Markovic you referred to as having attended the second meeting at
7 CSB Banja Luka?
8 A. If I may, I would like to say first of all that this is probably
9 not the same person - now I'm talking about the survivor - because the
10 person that I brought to Banja Luka was 40 to 45 years old, and I can see
11 that this person was born in 1969. So that's one thing. And secondly --
12 Q. Sorry, if I can just address that. I'm not trying to say that
13 this is the same person. I'm simply asking you to see that this is a
14 statement that was taken from a survivor with the one you delivered or a
15 different survivor, and I'm asking if Mr. Markovic is the same one who
16 attended that meeting at CSB Banja Luka.
17 A. I think so, although I don't know his name, but I think it's
18 that -- the same person, Dragomir Markovic.
19 Q. Now, looking at the -- at the body of the document and the
20 content of it, we can see that this survivor corroborates the information
21 that you had received, correct, that the killings had been committed by
22 police escorting a convoy? Isn't that right? Do you see that there?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, in this amalgamated Vlasic Mountain case file, there are
25 several other such statements that were taken. And if you recall,
1 Mr. Krejic, you had the opportunity to look at them during proofing. But
2 in the interests of saving time, I won't look at those individually and
3 will move on.
4 MR. DOBBYN: I'd like now to look at 65 ter number 543.
5 Q. And what you see in front of you now, Mr. Krejic, is a dispatch
6 from CSB Banja Luka to the chief of SJB Prijedor, dated
7 11 September 1992, and at the bottom you'll see Stojan Zupljanin's name
8 there. Do you see that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, have you seen this document before, Mr. Krejic?
11 A. When I spoke with the Prosecution. That was the only time.
12 Q. Is there anything about this document that would suggest to you
13 that it's not an authentic communication, an authentic document, from
14 CSB Banja Luka?
15 A. I think it's an authentic document.
16 Q. You see in this document that in the body it includes an order
17 from the minister, Mico Stanisic, to conduct a full investigation. And
18 further under that it states, and this is from Mr. Zupljanin:
19 "In connection with this order, it is necessary to immediately
20 take written statements about the events at Skender Vakuf ... from the
21 policemen that escorted the convoy from Prijedor to the border with
22 Travnik on 21 August 1992."
23 Do you see that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, Mr. Krejic, this is dated the 11th of September,
1 approximately three weeks after the killings, and as an SJB chief
2 yourself and experienced policeman, considering the information that was
3 available about the involvement of the Prijedor police in these killings
4 and the fact that this had been confirmed by survivors of the killings,
5 would you have expected that such steps, that is, taking interviews from
6 the policemen who escorted that convoy, would have been ordered much
8 A. In my opinion, this order was issued too late, but that was
9 because of the situation on the ground, and by that I mean the situation
10 in the Banja Luka Security Services Centre. So that if I hark back to
11 that area, the delay sounds like business as usual, given the situation
12 that existed there at the time.
13 Q. Well, what exactly do you mean by "the situation that existed
14 there at the time"?
15 A. Some of the public security stations, and I mean in particular
16 Prijedor and Simo Drljaca, were disobedient, to put it mildly,
17 undisciplined. They did what they wanted in performing their everyday
18 law enforcement tasks. And they had a strong political backing of the
19 entire region, the Podkozarje region, and Prijedor is the centre of that
20 region. And they also enjoyed a great deal of support from a part of the
21 leadership of the Autonomous Region of Krajina, so that Chief Stojan
22 Zupljanin found it really hard to deal primarily with the Prijedor Public
23 Security Station.
24 And I would like to note that because of this power that they
25 had, Prijedor, later on in the course of the war, became the security
1 services centre itself.
2 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, just at this moment I just ask that
3 Mr. Olmsted be given permission to leave the courtroom.
4 JUDGE HALL: Yes, he may withdraw.
5 MR. DOBBYN:
6 Q. Now, be that as it may, the situation you've just described, that
7 wouldn't have prevented Mr. Zupljanin from actually issuing an order,
8 would it? There may be issues as to whether it was obey, but that would
9 not have stopped him from issuing this order earlier. Is that correct?
10 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, I think it's calling for speculation,
11 and ...
12 JUDGE HALL: I was waiting for that objection, Mr. Krgovic.
13 Mr. Dobbyn, isn't the -- whereas it's obvious what you are trying
14 to elicit from the witness, but isn't the problem that you're asking the
15 witness to look at a document and to express an opinion on the motive of
16 the maker of the document at the time that he made it? Isn't that a bit
17 of a stretch?
18 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, this witness was an SJB chief who has
19 experience in investigating crimes himself. I'm simply -- he also knows
20 the hierarchy within his own area. And I'm simply asking whether he
21 could have issued -- Mr. Zupljanin could have issued this order earlier.
22 That's -- that's the basis of my question.
23 JUDGE HALL: May I suggest that perhaps -- it would -- may be
24 useful for you to ask the witness what he would have done and then leave
25 the rest for argument.
1 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you for that suggestion, Your Honour.
2 Q. Mr. Krejic, if you had been in this position, would you have
3 issued such an order earlier rather than waiting three weeks to do so?
4 A. Well, quite frankly, I would have resigned from the post of the
5 chief of the security services centre in Banja Luka.
6 MR. DOBBYN: I won't pursue that any further. But, Your Honours,
7 I will seek admission of this document. He has identified it as
9 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1573, Your Honours.
11 MR. DOBBYN: Next I would like to show a video, and this is
12 Exhibit P1563 [sic]. And I'm going to show a short clip from this. Oh,
13 sorry. My mistake. It's P1359. I will show a short clip starting at
14 7 minutes and 48 into this particular video.
15 [Video-clip played]
16 "Voiceover: The two men eventually were captured and questioned
17 by investigators from the Bosnian Serbian army.
18 "Regional Commander General Momir Talic:
19 "Momir Talic: Our investigation showed that no soldiers
21 "Voiceover: Having cleared themselves, General Talic's men
22 turned over both survivors to the police in Banja Luka. But police
23 Chief Stojan Zupljanin told me ...
24 "Stojan Zupljanin: We have no living witnesses who can confirm
25 or deny the incident.
1 "Voiceover: At least Zupljanin admits that the incident
2 occurred. He says it's under investigation, and he showed us files of
3 evidence. He even let us watch his ballistics expert examine bullets
4 that were found at the scene. He promises ...
5 "Stojan Zupljanin: The Serbian people will see to it that all
6 the guilty parties are tried in a court of law."
7 MR. DOBBYN:
8 Q. Now, Mr. Krejic, at the end of that clip, we saw Mr. Zupljanin
9 speaking at a press conference of some sort. Did you see or know about
10 this press conference at the time?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Well, in this clip, Mr. Zupljanin is quoted as saying that there
13 were no living witnesses who could confirm or deny the incident, but
14 you've testified that you personally took a survivor to CSB Banja Luka,
15 and you've seen statements that have been taken by other survivors. So,
16 Mr. Krejic, this statement is simply untrue, isn't it?
17 MR. KRGOVIC: I object to that, first of all; and second, when
18 was the date of this video?
19 MR. DOBBYN: The video was shown in November 1992. I'll rephrase
20 the question in that case, if it will happen matters.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: When was it recorded, not when it was published.
22 That's the different thing.
23 MR. DOBBYN: Yes.
24 Q. Mr. Krejic, unless this interview was recorded sometime in
25 August of 1992, isn't it true that Mr. Zupljanin's statement about not
1 knowing of any living survivors was simply untrue?
2 A. I don't know when this interview was recorded, but I know that I
3 had turned over that survivor and that Chief Zupljanin was aware the man
4 was a survivor.
5 MR. DOBBYN: Now I would like to show a video which is
6 Exhibit P1563, and I'd like to start at 1:28:10 into this video.
7 [Video-clip played]
8 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover]
9 "BB: How are you? We've been waiting here. The show is running
10 half an hour late because of you. It was scheduled for exactly 12.00,
11 and you're 40 minutes late.
12 "ZT: We just came back. We had some combat activities ...
13 "BB: Where were you?
14 "ZT: In the village of Donji Koricani -- actually Gornji.
15 "BB: Really?
16 "ZT: Yes, we fired from our positions.
17 "BB: I see that you're kitted out with photographic equipment.
18 Is that -- what's your role here?
19 "ZT: Well, I'm a war correspondent --
20 "BB: War correspondent?
21 "ZT: -- for this news agency --
22 "BB: Do you have information for us?
23 "ZT: -- Associated Press. Yes, well we do. What are you
24 interested in specifically?
25 "BB: Well, we're not, the programme is not related to wartime
1 events but to the events it Skender Vakuf. These two colleagues of yours
2 preceded you on the show, and there is quite a lot of interest in the
3 show. It's a bit warm for these floodlights, isn't it?"
4 MR. DOBBYN:
5 Q. Mr. Krejic, the man that you see on the screen in front you with
6 the blue uniform and the glasses, do you recognise this man?
7 A. Yes. That's Brane Buhavac, chief of the scene-of-crime officers
8 in the CSB Banja Luka.
9 Q. And you named him earlier as one of the people attending the
10 30 August meeting at CSB Banja Luka; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. DOBBYN: Now, if we could now fast forward to 1 hour and
13 30 minutes and start from there.
14 [Video-clip played]
15 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover]
16 "BB: What exactly happened?
17 "ZT: These events began about four days ago, on Monday, when we
19 "SO: Not four, today is the fifth day.
20 "BB: Really, he has no --
21 "ZT: -- when we arrived in Skender --
22 "BB: Let me help you a bit. You can start either with
23 Mr. Pavicic or Mr. Oljaca.
24 "ZT: You mean Jelenko?
25 "BB: Let's start with Jelenko.
1 "ZT: This is what happened: When we arrived in Skender four
2 days ago, or more precisely on Monday, the 31st of August. Some minor
3 complications occurred, and Mr. Oljaca is to blame for all of that.
4 Oljaca created a little incident.
5 "BB: Was there a fuck-up?
6 "ZT: Okay. You could call it that, but I accuse Mr. Oljaca.
7 "BB: Okay. Then? What about Jelenko?
8 "ZT: You mean Jelenko's role?
9 "ZT: Well, the role of Jelenko's in all this --
10 "BB: Are we talking about the real Jelenko or this new Jelenko?
11 "ZT: Well, that is the problem. No one knows which one."
12 MR. DOBBYN:
13 Q. Now, the man that you see in front you now, do you recognise that
14 person, Mr. Krejic?
15 A. Yes. His last name is Oljaca. I used to know his first name,
16 but I forgot it. He's a scenes-of-crime officer in the forensic
17 scenes-of-crime service of the CSB Banja Luka.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. DOBBYN: If we could now go to 1:38:07, which I believe is
20 the third clip.
21 [Video-clip played]
22 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover]
23 "8.30 or something we were sitting on the wall chatting when this
24 woman appeared, and since it was 200 metres away, this cameraman here
25 from the television, so-called Jelenko ..."
1 MR. DOBBYN:
2 Q. Mr. Krejic, the man sitting in the van with the moustache and the
3 glasses, do you recognise this man?
4 A. Yes. That's an inspector from the department where I worked,
5 Dusan Kos.
6 Q. And is he someone that you'd also named earlier as attending the
7 30 August meeting at CSB Banja Luka?
8 A. Yes. He was supposed to be some sort of coordinator for the
9 tasks of the uniformed police, to put it that way.
10 Q. Thank you. Now I've finished this video now.
11 I'd like to move on beyond the Vlasic Mountain killings and look
12 at another topic.
13 Now, you said earlier that when you transferred to CSB Banja Luka
14 on the 1st of September you were a class commander in the police officer
15 course. Now, Mr. Krejic, from your time in CSB Banja Luka, were you
16 aware of the existence of the CSB Banja Luka Special Police Detachment
17 that was commanded by Ljuban Ecim?
18 MR. KRGOVIC: Objection. It's leading. First of all, existence
19 of the unit and the command.
20 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed, Mr. Dobbyn.
21 MR. DOBBYN:
22 Q. Did you hear my question, Mr. Krejic? Are you able to answer
24 A. I think perhaps there was a problem with the interpretation, so I
25 didn't understand anything. Could you please repeat.
1 Q. Certainly. I'm asking if you were aware of the existence of the
2 CSB Banja Luka Special Police Detachment.
3 A. Yes. That special police detachment existed, but I believe it
4 ceased to exist right at the time when I moved to that job in Banja Luka
5 or just before.
6 Q. Did any of the members of that unit participate in the police
7 officers' course when you were a commander there?
8 A. I was a platoon commander there, not class commander, because one
9 class contains several platoons. And the answer is yes. In every
10 platoon there were perhaps five or six members of that special police
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. DOBBYN: Now I'd like to show Exhibit P1092. And I'd like to
14 go to page 8 in both the English and the B/C/S.
15 Q. Now, you see at number 16 on the page in front you the name
16 Predrag Bodiroza, and next to his name we see the note "SJB Banja Luka
17 training-course graduate." Is this referring to the officer training
18 course of which you were a platoon commander?
19 A. I think so.
20 MR. DOBBYN: I'd like to now go to page 12 in the English and
21 page 11 until the B/C/S.
22 Q. Now, at number 116, you will see the name Danko Kajkut, and next
23 to his name is says "candidate for the course." Do you know if this is
24 also referring to the same officer training course of which you were a
25 platoon commander?
1 A. I think so.
2 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you. And I have no more questions,
3 Your Honours. I see I've used my time. Thank you very much.
4 And thank you, Mr. Krejic.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
6 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Krejic.
7 A. Good morning [as interpreted].
8 Q. My name is Dragan Krgovic, and on behalf of Stojan Zupljanin's
9 Defence I will be asking you some questions until the end of this day and
10 probably tomorrow as well. Unlike you, I'm a fast speaker, so please,
11 for the record, just in case, leave a second or two after my questions
12 before you start answering so the interpreters can keep up and so we
13 don't overlap speaking the same language. I will try to be mindful
15 I will pick up with the same line of questioning that the
16 Prosecutor finished off with.
17 When one of these men attends a course such as the course where
18 you were a platoon commander, it's a course that only prepares men to
19 become police officers or reserve police officers. In other words, it
20 prepares people for police work?
21 A. They would become active-duty policemen, not reserve policemen.
22 After completing this course, they would become active-duty police
24 Q. So that is the purpose of the course. Some of these men may even
25 have been reserve policemen, plus additional candidates. All of them are
1 prepared by this course, and following triage and a screen and a
2 selection, they would be admitted into the active-duty police personnel?
3 A. Yes. These courses exist even today, only the school is called
4 differently. It's called police academy or something like that.
5 Q. Mr. Krejic, you began your evidence today with a knowledge about
6 this incident at Koricanske Stijene on the 21st of August, 1992, and you
7 said approximately when you learned about it for the first time. You
8 said it was the 23rd of August.
9 Now, from talking with Stojan Zupljanin, although you have
10 already spoken about this before the court in Sarajevo, did you have the
11 impression that he learnt about this incident on the same day as you did?
12 A. Yes. That was my impression.
13 Q. And the first information about the number of people killed and
14 possible perpetrators was received by him from you; right?
15 A. I think so, but I'm not sure.
16 Q. If I understood well, it was a soldier who happened to go by and
17 saw it and went to report it to the duty operations centre, and then the
18 duty officer from that centre in the CSB Banja Luka sent it on to you
20 A. Yes, and I believe he probably wasn't aware of that report until
21 I called him up and told him that we had that report.
22 Q. And when you went out to the scene, was there a military security
23 vehicle there? Was anyone from the military security there or perhaps a
24 medical vehicle? When you got there.
25 A. No. We were alone. Mr. Veleusic and I were alone.
1 Q. When you saw that scene, that location, was it simple to just
2 climb down to where the bodies were, or did you need ropes and special
3 equipment and a certain skill to get down there?
4 A. The latter. You needed full equipment. And perhaps very young,
5 fit men could have tried to venture an excursion down there without it,
6 but for the most part you needed full equipment.
7 Q. Do you know that at the time when this first information arrived,
8 stories were circulating already that people from Prijedor and
9 Sanski Most both were involved?
10 A. This is the first time I hear about Sanski Most.
11 Q. When you got to that meeting at the CSB the next day, you said
12 Mr. Zupljanin opened the meeting that was very shortly interrupted by the
13 quarrel between the representatives of Prijedor and Knezevo. Can you
14 tell us what Mr. Zupljanin said on that occasion? Did he say openly at
15 that meeting, not only in your private encounter before the meeting, that
16 it was a horrible crime, that it was awful?
17 A. After the discussion by Simo Drljaca who said that what had been
18 done was normal, that the victims were Muslims, and that we were Serbs,
19 and other horrible things he said, also proposing that the best way to
20 deal with it was to conceal it and keep it quiet like nothing had
21 happened, because according to him nothing very awful had happened,
22 chief -- Chief Zupljanin was stunned, and he said loud and clear: Are
23 you aware that one murder, one crime, cannot be concealed, let alone a
24 crime on this massive scale? Forget about it. We have to be serious and
25 get our act together and deal with it in the proper way. This is a
2 Q. And then you said earlier he said at that point that there would
3 be an investigation and the perpetrators would be punished.
4 A. Yes, because as I remember, Simo Drljaca again reacted with
5 contempt towards what Stojan Zupljanin said. And I must say I had never
6 seen Stojan Zupljanin lose his calm. This time he was really wagging his
7 finger and saying that somebody will answer for that crime, that the
8 perpetrators would be tried.
9 Q. The Prosecutor asked you a series of questions, seeking to find
10 out whether specific investigation measures were discussed at that
11 meeting. I would say that it is highly unusual that a chief would, under
12 those circumstances, speak about the specifics of an investigation which
13 might concern the people present. An investigation would be left to
15 A. Yes. You could say that the discussion went along those lines.
16 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, I just have a small intervention
17 regarding the formation of the question. It sounds like it's not a
18 question at all but, rather, counsel giving evidence. So I just ask my
19 learned colleague to perhaps be careful about that in the future, unless
20 there's some issue with interpretation there.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't know what this refers to.
22 I'll look at the transcript. But I'll try to rephrase in any way and
23 make it perfectly clear.
24 Q. Mr. Krejic, you identified in the video two people. One of them
25 is Kos, Mr. Kos, who you said was in charge of the uniformed police. He
1 was to join this effort if policemen were needed to secure the site or do
2 any other job that falls within the purview of the uniformed police.
3 That would not be technical work. The other Markovic was in charge of
4 the forensic examination of the scene. His job was different, whereas
5 the uniformed police had a completely different job. Is that right?
6 A. Yes, you're right.
7 Q. And the way I understood the presence of these people,
8 Mr. Buhavac was working on the scene, doing the forensic part of the work
9 and the identification, all the forensic aspects of the investigation;
10 whereas Mr. Kos was supposed to provide all the conditions for that?
11 A. I don't know that. That's the way it was supposed to be. But
12 how it really worked, I don't know.
13 Q. That was precisely my question. The very fact that this set of
14 people was present indicates that that is how the investigation was
15 supposed to run. Mr. Buhavac was to deal with the technical aspects of
16 the job, and Mr. Kos to provide the logistics.
17 A. I can only repeat that's the way it was supposed to be. But how
18 it actually happened, I don't know, because I moved to a new job in
19 Banja Luka already on the 1st of September.
20 Q. Mr. Krejic, the Prosecutor also asked you, when you were talking
21 about that second meeting after which all the attendees went to the
22 scene, he asked you whether Zupljanin was there the second time. You
23 said no. I'd like to ask you about this period between the
24 23rd of August and the second meeting. Since you were chief of the --
25 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, if you're about to move on to a new
1 area, perhaps we should take the adjournment at this time. It's 7.00.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: I agree, Your Honour. It's a convenient time.
3 JUDGE HALL: The -- I would remind the witness that inasmuch as
4 he has been sworn and is giving evidence, you cannot communicate with
5 counsel from other side until you're released. And in such conversations
6 you may have with persons outside of the courtroom, you cannot discuss
7 your testimony.
8 So we take the adjournment, to resume in this courtroom at 2.15
9 tomorrow afternoon.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 2nd day
13 of September, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.