1 Thursday, 2 September 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.39 p.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
6 everybody in and around the courtroom. This is case IT-08-91-T, the
7 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic, and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Good afternoon to
9 everyone. First of all, as a matter of courtesy I should explain the
10 reason for our delay in taking the Bench is that we were on the other
11 side of the door discussing a number of procedural matters relative to
12 this trial.
13 May we have the appearances for the today, please.
14 MR. DOBBYN: Good afternoon, Your Honours. For the Office of the
15 Prosecutor, Gerard Dobbyn with Belinda Pidwell and Crispian Smith.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
17 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan appearing for Stanisic Defence this
18 afternoon. Thank you.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic,
20 Igor Pantelic, Aleksandar Aleksic, and Jason Antley for the Zupljanin
22 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Before the witness returns to the stand,
23 do we correctly understand that the Defence has something to say?
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, we were invited and instructed
25 by the Trial Chamber to give our position on the latest amendment of --
1 motion to amend the 65 ter list in relation to Witness ST-197. So I
2 would make that submission and short explanation, and I will -- I will
3 speak in Serbian, Your Honours.
4 [Interpretation] Your Honours, in support of what I said
5 yesterday in my address to the Honourable Trial Chamber, we have before
6 us yet another document that we have to state your position on. We
7 received an amendment for the 65 ter list for Witness ST-197, scheduled
8 to testify next week. We received it yesterday.
9 Two new topics are now contained in the 65 ter list, and we agree
10 with the Prosecution that they're relevant for this case, but we had not
11 been aware of the fact that this witness would be testifying about that,
12 although the witness was interviewed as early as in April 2010 and again
13 in August, in early August, again 2010. Now, that makes me wonder
14 whether the Prosecution was not in a position to announce in April or in
15 May that there was a possibility the witness might be testifying about
16 those issues.
17 Rule 126 bis gives the Defence 14 days to respond to motions of
18 this kind filed by the Prosecution, Your Honours. Again, as they did
19 yesterday, the Prosecution asked us to state our position in 24 hours. I
20 absolutely understand the Trial Chamber's reasons. The witness is at the
21 door, at the courtroom door, but this practice implemented by the
22 Prosecution seeking amendments to the 65 ter list immediately before the
23 witness is about to take the stand is, in my opinion, entirely
24 inappropriate, and let me explain why I think that it is so.
25 In this case the Defence agrees with the Prosecution that it is
1 absolutely relevant to include the issues in the testimony of
2 Witness ST-197, and this witness really probably might assist us to
3 clarify some of the issues at issue here, and if I had enough time to go
4 through all the documents, I perhaps would not be opposing the amendment
5 of the 65 ter list. But in a situation like this when I am facing a fait
6 accompli, when I don't have enough time to analyse the documents and the
7 witness -- witness's statement, I have to oppose this amendment of the
8 65 ter list. This goes for the case of this witness and perhaps also for
9 the case of -- that we discussed yesterday.
10 Yesterday, my learned friend Mr. Dobbyn stated that in the course
11 of the disclosure they were disclosing to us materials relevant to the
12 testimony of the witnesses that were included in the witness list at a
13 later stage. I claim that it is only partly true. Most of the
14 disclosure that we received contain documents for the witnesses who are
15 about to take the stand. Let me give you an example. Now we're talking
16 about Witness ST-197.
17 From the 16th of August, Your Honours, until yesterday, so it's
18 14 days, we received a total of seven batches of documents, which means
19 that on the average every other day we received a batch of documents.
20 Yesterday, on the 1st of September, we received batch 138 which
21 supporting materials pertaining to Witness ST-197, who is about to take
22 the stand. He's due to testify on Monday.
23 A week ago, we received by way of disclosure video material
24 lasting longer of -- longer than four hours. That's part of batch 136.
25 And the quality of the audio recording was very bad, which means that it
1 takes us much more time to actually go through it, to listen to it.
2 Yesterday, we received a total of nine documents pertaining to
3 this witness totaling 687 pages of documents, transcripts, and
4 photographs. At first glance at least 50 per cent of those are very
5 relevant and call for serious analysis, and I claim here and now that
6 despite all of our preparations we will be unable to get ready for the
7 witness, for his cross-examination.
8 The Trial Chamber knows that the Defence is obliged to state its
9 position on the motion pertaining to 92 bis witnesses. We will agree to
10 it. We are also seeking to find a solution with the Prosecution for the
11 exhumations. We are preparing the cross-examination of witnesses who
12 come here day by day, and we have to say aside this urgent business in
13 order to address urgently the motions for the amendment of 65 ter lists,
14 the supporting materials, additional materials, and the deluge of
15 documents that hit us every 24 hours.
16 I would like to assure you, Your Honours, that the Defence is
17 unable to meet those demands. I simply do not know how this situation
18 can be resolved, and the only solution that I see is for the trial to be
19 adjourned for a few days. It's an unpopular measure, I know, but the
20 Prosecution should be given a certain deadline to deal with the 20
21 witnesses from the original list, to give us any motions for the
22 amendment of the 65 ter lists and all the documents that they might have
23 pertaining to those witnesses, and then we can continue.
24 I would like to notify the Trial Chamber about yet another fact
25 which will become a hot topic quite soon. It's the Prosecution military
1 expert. I don't have any information, but common sense tells me that we
2 will be receiving a new report from that expert, modified to be in line
3 with the documents obtained in the action to capture Ratko Mladic. I
4 have information from other cases tried before this Tribunal that there
5 are about 150 hours of audio and video recordings and an additional
6 expert report, expert analysis, carried out by the minister of interior
7 of the Republic of Serbia containing several hundreds of pages, and this
8 material has already been disclosed in other cases. Not in this case,
9 however. And now I can share this with you: This will force us to seek
10 an adjournment of the proceedings in order to be able to analyse the
11 documents and to prepare for the cross-examination of the Prosecution
13 Your Honours, by way of conclusion, the gist of it is this:
14 Yesterday I made a submission. I explained the position of the Defence,
15 and today, the very same day as I was drafting the Defence submission, we
16 kept receiving a huge amount of documents and new motions to amend the
17 65 ter list. So I really consider that the Prosecution has not taken the
18 Defence demand seriously, because I cannot see any other justification or
20 I'm really sorry that I'm taking up so much of your time,
21 Your Honours, but this is a serious issue, because it really affects the
22 ability of the Defence to prepare for the trial.
23 Thank you very much, and I do apologise once again.
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let me just add to
1 what Mr. Zecevic has said. We fully subscribe to everything he has said,
2 and this is a joint position of the Defence teams of Stanisic and
4 As far as Witness ST-197 is concerned, the modification of his
5 evidence at the last minute, at the eleventh hour makes it impossible for
6 us to cross-examine him next week. It's not only about the amount of the
7 material. It is video footage and documents that we did not take into
8 consideration when we were preparing our cross-examination.
9 When the Defence prepares to cross-examine, they take into
10 account the material disclosed and stays within the scope of the
11 Prosecution summary of witness evidence. With this substantial expansion
12 of this scope, the Defence is no longer able to prepare in time. I don't
13 know any of the people who are to be seen on this video footage. I have
14 to send investigators to check this on the ground, to examine this.
15 Otherwise, we cannot fully prepare to cross-examine the witness.
16 Therefore, if the Trial Chamber is considering the possibility to
17 expand the testimony of Witness ST-197, I would like to suggest that we
18 move his evidence to the week beginning with the 13th.
19 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, there are two related but separate
20 issues. One is the expanded evidence -- expanded testimony, as you have
21 described it, but more importantly, and what I understand to be common to
22 yourself and Mr. Zecevic, is the general problem about late disclosure,
23 and in that context I would ask you -- I suppose I should have asked
24 Mr. Zecevic, but it's a common question, and that is the implied
25 application that you are -- would make for an adjournment. How much time
1 would your application -- how much time would you require according to
2 any application that you have indicated you may be forced to make in
3 order to deal with -- with this new material which was just recently
4 disclosed? It's information which the Chamber -- would be useful to the
5 Chamber in making its decision.
6 [Defence counsel confer]
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe, as
8 Mr. Zecevic has said and after consulting him, that in order to really
9 prepare we would need two weeks.
10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
11 Is the OTP -- does the OTP have any comments on the -- on the
12 reply which had been -- replies which have been articulated by counsel
13 for the accused?
14 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, our view is that at this present time
15 we have two witnesses who are backed up, waiting to come into court. The
16 witness in question is due to come next week. We feel that this would be
17 better dealt with after these two witnesses have been seen. We're taking
18 up valuable court time to argue this matter, delaying the witnesses that
19 we already have here waiting in The Hague.
20 However, I understand that they've now asked -- they are seeking
21 an adjournment of Witness ST-197, so if you would like to hear our
22 specific submissions on what they've said, then, yes, we will do that
24 Sorry, or alternatively at the end of the day, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE HALL: Perhaps it may be more -- I was going to say,
1 perhaps it may be more efficient to leave it to the end of the day,
2 because I realise we have a witness outside the door who is waiting to
3 continue his testimony. Of course, we have learned from bitter
4 experience that trying fit these things at the end of the day we find
5 ourselves pressed for time and the time for adjournment is upon us, but
6 perhaps we can continue with the witness and counsel can consult during
7 the break, and we can decide when would be the most efficient time to
8 deal with this.
9 Could the usher have the witness ...
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 WITNESS: NENAD KREJIC [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Dobbyn, without -- before we -- as I said, we're
15 going to return to the broader issues which have been raised by Defence
16 counsels' submissions, but in terms of 197 specifically, the matter of
17 this new material, it isn't clear to us from the motion as to, (A) when
18 this information came to the notice of the Prosecution; and (B), when it
19 was disclosed to the Defence. Could you assist us with that, please.
20 MR. DOBBYN: Yes, Your Honour. And I'm taking this information
21 from the motion that the new information became available to the
22 Prosecution upon interviewing the witness first on the 12th of March of
23 2010 and again on the 6th of August, 2010, and the statements or
24 interview transcripts from those meetings with the witness were then
25 disclosed to the Defence on 12th of March -- excuse me. I have that --
1 sorry. One second, Your Honours. On the 15th of April and the 10th of
2 August, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Dobbyn, this is general information that is
4 indeed in the motion, but what we would like to know is a little bit more
5 precise. There are more or less three issues of new material. At what
6 time did you get each of them, and at what time did you disclose? At
7 what moment did you disclose each of them?
8 MR. DOBBYN: By the new material, Your Honours, just to be clear,
9 I wonder is this the -- the matter that was raised by my learned
10 colleague about the most recent disclosure batch that went out yesterday?
11 I'm not quite -- I'm not understanding what you mean by the "new
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: From the top of my head, there is the meeting
14 between the witness and Mr. Zupljanin. There is the new material on the
15 Vlasic Mountain -- Vlasic Mountain incident, and the new material on the
17 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, the witness had previously been
18 interviewed about Vlasic Mountain, and that was contained in his original
19 65 ter summary that he would be testifying about Vlasic Mountain. Now,
20 the -- there is one line added, I see, to the motion concerning Vlasic
21 Mountain, and I -- in my submission, Your Honour, that can really be
22 inferred into the original 65 ter summary. It's -- it's clarifying the
23 specifics about what he would be testifying about Vlasic Mountain. It's
24 really just making it clear. It's not a new matter in that respect.
25 Now, with regards to the -- the issue of resubordination, again,
1 Your Honours, I -- I have to say on that point I would need to check
2 further. I don't know. I don't have that information off the top of my
3 head at this point.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: About the meeting between the witness and
5 Mr. Zupljanin?
6 MR. DOBBYN: That's the other matter which I'd also need to check
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.
9 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krejic, good afternoon to you. We apologise
10 that the continuation of your testimony has been delayed, but the nature
11 of trials is that in addition to receiving testimony, invariably courts
12 have procedural matters with which to deal, and some of it would have
13 continued after you were escorted back to the stand. So I remind you
14 you're still on your oath, and I would invite Mr. Krgovic to resume his
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic: [Continued]
17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Krejic, good afternoon. Let us pick up
18 where we left off yesterday. I started a line of questioning yesterday,
19 but then we had to cut it short because we had to adjourn for the day,
20 but let me repeat. Let me recap.
21 When the Prosecutor asked you a question you said that on that
22 day when all of you went to the scene, General Subotic and other people
23 who were present at the meeting, that Mr. Zupljanin was not with you.
24 A. Yes. Mr. Zupljanin was not at the site on that occasion.
25 Q. On the 23rd of August, when you went to the site together with
1 your colleague Mr. Veleusic, Mr. Zupljanin was not at Koricanske Stijene,
2 at the site on that occasion either, wasn't he?
3 A. No, he wasn't there on that occasion either.
4 Q. And on that day, the 23rd, you spoke with Mr. Zupljanin at least
5 twice, at first time when you called him and when he instructed you to go
6 to the site, and the second time when you called him upon your return
7 from the site to inform him about what you had found there.
8 A. Yes, that's true.
9 Q. And both times he was in Banja Luka when you called him on the
10 phone, either in the security services centre or you used the dedicated
12 A. Yes, that's true.
13 Q. On the next day, the 24th, when the meeting took place at the
14 security services centre, there was no visit to the site. Isn't that so?
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could all the microphones
16 that are not in use be kindly switched off.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, we didn't go to the site.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. And after the meeting, all the participants went their own way.
20 Isn't that so?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. And on that day, Mr. Zupljanin did not go to Koricanske Stijene,
23 to the best of your knowledge?
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. You were the chief of the public security station in Knezevo up
1 until the 31st of August, if I understood you correctly. I'm talking
2 about 1992; is that correct?
3 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 Q. In that period between the 24th, when the meeting took place, and
5 the last meeting after which you no longer were at the post in the public
6 security station in Knezevo, Stojan Zupljanin never came to Vakuf or
7 Knezevo and Koricanske Stijene, to the best of your knowledge?
8 A. Yes, that's correct.
9 Q. Because if you wanted to go to Koricanske Stijene, you had to
10 pass through Knezevo. Isn't that so?
11 A. Yes. That was the only route. And I think that he would have
12 stopped by to see me, because we were on such terms.
13 Q. And it was usual practice that any visits by the chief or any
14 other high-ranking officials were to be announced either to you or to the
15 president of the Executive Board or the president of the Municipal
17 A. Yes, that was usual practice. Chief Zupljanin had a lot of
18 respect for his subordinates, and if he had come to Knezevo on any kind
19 of business he would have come to see me and I would have known that.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, I have a little doubt in this
21 respect due to what the witness showed us on the geographical map of the
23 Mr. Witness, Koricanske Stijene, is that within the borders of
24 the municipality or just past the borders?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before the war and indeed at the
1 time when the incidents we're talking about occurred at Koricanske
2 Stijene, Koricanske Stijene were not part of the municipality of Knezevo.
3 Koricanske Stijene, this is located as you are about -- as you are about
4 to leave the municipality of Knezevo in the direction of Travnik. The
5 distance from the Municipal Boarder is about 2 to 3 kilometres.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's -- that's how you -- you indicated it on
7 the map that was shown to you. Thank you.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. And in light of the fact that this area was controlled by the
10 Republika Srpska forces, for all intents and purposes this unit that you
11 mentioned that had been resubordinated to the army was deployed in that
12 area; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, but further down from Koricanske Stijene, some 4 to 5
14 kilometres further on, into the depth of the municipality of Travnik.
15 Q. Mr. Krejic, in talks with the people in the municipality and the
16 Executive Board in those days and after that, did you receive any
17 information that Stojan Zupljanin had visited the area of Koricanske
18 Stijene in that period while the investigation was going on and so on?
19 A. No, never. I never received any such information either through
20 official or unofficial channels to the effect that Chief Zupljanin had
21 been in the area, in the field.
22 Q. Mr. Krejic, the Prosecutor also asked you about a survivor, the
23 one that you took to Banja Luka. You described how that transpired, and
24 you told us that Mr. Zupljanin had told you -- well, the interpretation
25 was a bit unclear, that you were responsible, that you were to guarantee
1 his safety. Did Mr. Zupljanin tell you that you had to guarantee
2 personally that this man would reach Banja Luka safe and sound?
3 A. Yes, precisely, that he would reach Banja Luka safe and sound,
4 and that I would be held responsible for any problems.
5 Q. And you definitely know that there was high security risk for the
6 survivors of the massacre and that either perpetrators or people who
7 wanted to solidarise with them might want to harm them and that their
8 security and safety were indeed at risk; is that correct?
9 A. In the territory of the municipality of Knezevo there were no
10 perpetrators of the massacre. And as for the rest of the population, the
11 troops and the Republika Srpska police, they were not a threat to those
12 people. They didn't threaten their lives or threaten them in any other
13 way. Quite the opposite. They were treated humanely right from the time
14 when they were found until they were handed over to the responsible
16 Q. Perhaps you misunderstand me, but I'm -- I was referring to the
17 time period when you took them over until their hand-over to the Red
18 Cross and their stay in the hospital in Banja Luka. Were there any
19 safety concerns about those people, that their lives might be in danger?
20 A. Yes, you are right here. That's why I, although I did not have
21 any suspicions as to Chief Zupljanin's intentions, I wanted to meet
22 Chief Zupljanin, and I asked him what would happen to that man. I wanted
23 to make it clear.
24 Q. And disclosing the identity and the number of survivors of the
25 massacre to the public would put them at risk and would jeopardise the
1 investigation. Isn't that so?
2 A. Yes. Well, I suppose that would be the case.
3 Q. And of course if the intention was for those people to be
4 transferred from the territory of Republika Srpska to the territory
5 controlled by the federation safely, it was unwise to -- to make public
6 the -- their identity, number, and route they would take, their
7 movements. Isn't that so?
8 A. I agree with you completely.
9 Q. Just a correction for the transcript. I may have misspoken, but
10 when we talked about the territory, the border with the municipality of
11 Knezevo, it was controlled by the Republika Srpska Army, wasn't it? The
12 Koricanske Stijene. This is the area where your unit was.
13 A. Yes. Yes. It was controlled by the Republika Srpska Army.
14 Q. I would now like to revisit another topic. When you spoke about
15 the meeting at which Mr. Zupljanin read out the dispatch, the wire that
16 he claimed had been sent by Mr. Karadzic, you thought that in essence
17 Mr. Zupljanin was the author of the document and that he was exploiting
18 it, exploiting the authority of President Karadzic to gain control over
19 Simo Drljaca. You testified to that effect before the court in Sarajevo.
20 Do you recall?
21 A. Well, I'm not 100 per cent certain that that is the case, but I
22 think it is.
23 Q. Let us now go back to a topic that is not directly related to
24 this line of questioning. When you spoke about the ethnic composition of
25 the municipality of Knezevo, you mentioned a certain number of Croat
1 villages that were marked as such in an area. Do you remember?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And when the conflict broke out when inter-ethnic tensions
4 appeared in Bosnia-Herzegovina, there was an agreement in place for the
5 villages that were bordering with the Croat areas should develop ties
6 with those areas that were controlled by the Croat forces. Isn't that
8 A. After the first multi-party elections, when the HDZ, the Croatian
9 Democratic Union had it's deputies in the Knezevo Municipal Assembly, we
10 and the deputies of the SDA and of the SDS agreed, before the conflict
11 broke out, that an approval should be granted to them to establish their
12 own municipality in the area which were -- which was 100 per cent
13 Croatian. It was a compact area.
14 Q. Well, did this really happen, or was it just in theory?
15 A. We, as the Assembly in which the SDS had more than half of
16 deputies, we gave our approval, but in addition to the municipal
17 approval, they had to get the approval of the Assembly of the republic,
18 and the war broke out and put a stop to all those activities.
19 Q. Mr. Krejic, I showed you a video-tape yesterday, and I asked you
20 to identify some persons. Now I would like you to look at the same
21 video, and I would like you to identify some things that can be seen in
22 the recording.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] So could we play Prosecution
24 Exhibit 1563.
25 Q. It's the video-clip that you saw yesterday.
1 [Video-clip played]
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could you continue, because we
3 can't see this very clearly. [In English] Okay. Stop now.
4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Krejic, this is the crime scene technician's
5 equipment, kit. Based on my knowledge of forensic procedures, this is
6 the kit used for identification, isn't it?
7 A. Yes.
8 [Video-clip played]
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: What exactly are we talking about, the green
10 suitcase or the piece of cloth that he's holding in his hand or what?
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The green suitcase, and the other
12 thing is a camera, still photography camera.
13 [Video-clip played]
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to check -- stop
15 here, please. Could you please rewind a little bit. [In English] Stop
17 Q. [Interpretation] Do you see what this man has at his left hip?
18 A. Yes. It's a still camera.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, I think we did establish this
20 yesterday, so there's no reason to go into this again.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I simply wanted to use a more
22 qualified witness to make sure we have it right.
23 Q. Mr. Krejic, yesterday I asked you, you may recall, about the
24 initial reports about possible perpetrators of the crime. Now I would
25 like to show you a document. It's P676. It's at tab 5 in Stanisic
1 Defence binder.
2 Sir, this is a report from the 1st Krajina Corps Command to the
3 Main Staff of the Republika Srpska Army. The date is the 22nd of August,
4 1992. I would like you to look at item number 4. It's down at the
5 bottom of the page. It says:
6 "When the refugee columns were escorted across Mount Vlasic ..."
7 Now we need to move to page 2 of this document. In the Serbian
9 "... to Travnik, a group of police officers from Prijedor and
10 Sanski Most took out about 100 Muslims, killed them in various ways and
11 threw their bodies into a ravine."
12 Have you seen this document before, perhaps during your testimony
13 at some trial or during your proofing sessions with the Prosecution?
14 A. I don't remember. I don't think so. I don't think I've seen it
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Krejic.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this completes my
18 cross-examination of this witness. I don't have any further questions.
19 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir.
21 A. Good afternoon.
22 Q. I would like to clear up one matter that I believe would be of
23 assistance to all of us, including the Trial Chamber.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] P -- P1572 is the document I would
1 Q. Sir, you remember the photograph you marked yesterday?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. With number 2, you marked the location where you saw the larger
4 group of bodies when you first came to the site with that colleague from
5 the public security station Knezevo.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I suppose there were some bodies outside this circle, down below
8 in the gorge.
9 A. Yes. Most of the bodies were somewhere halfway down the cliff.
10 Q. With the help of the usher, could you mark where the other bodies
11 at the bottom of the gorge were?
12 MR. ZECEVIC: May we have the assistance of the usher for
13 markings on the monitor, please.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is a problem here. You
15 can't see the bottom of the gorge on this photo.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Uh-huh. So the bottom of the photograph is not the bottom of the
19 A. No.
20 Q. Well, can you mark in approximately, roughly, all the places
21 where there were bodies, as far as you can see on this photo.
22 A. I'm sorry, let me make one thing clear. All this terrain
23 gravitating towards the circle is the side of the canyon on Travnik
24 territory, whereas this part towards me is Knezevo territory. You can't
25 see the bottom of the canyon.
1 Q. This line you've just drawn in red, does it mark how the bodies
2 were lying?
3 A. Yes, but there were some bodies below as well where you can't
5 Q. Can you draw an arrow to show what you mean by "further down."
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. So this red line represents the bodies that were in that part of
8 the canyon, and below them were more bodies at the very bottom of the
9 canyon. Is that what the photograph is showing?
10 A. Well, they didn't go to the bottom of the canyon. The distance
11 between the line and the bottom of the canyon is approximately the same
12 as the distance between the line and the road, and the bodies were not
13 close to the very bottom.
14 Q. All right. Could you mark this line and the arrow with a number
16 A. [Marks]
17 Q. Tell me, sir, what is the difference in altitude between the road
18 where you were standing and this first group of bodies that you marked
19 with a circle on this photograph marked with 2?
20 A. Twenty to 30 metres.
21 Q. But it's very steep, isn't it.
22 A. Extremely.
23 Q. So we could say that these bodies below marked with a line and
24 number 3 were 50 metres down roughly. Does that sound right?
25 A. From the road, yes.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I suggest that this document be
3 admitted, if there is no objection, with the additional marking and with
4 his clarification.
5 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
6 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit 1D363, Your Honour.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Sir, at the very beginning of your evidence you said you were a
9 teacher of national defence; is that correct?
10 A. Yes. That was my occupation.
11 Q. I suppose you graduated from the faculty of national defence.
12 A. Yes, of the University of Belgrade.
13 Q. I suppose, then, you are familiar with the fundamental
14 regulations governing national defence and social self-protection.
15 A. I should be.
16 Q. These regulations are, in fact, the foundation for the subject
17 called national defence at your school, at the faculty.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Sir, I'll read out to you and I'll show you document 1D04-2409.
20 It's the instruction on the use of Territorial Defence issued by the
21 Federal Secretariat for National Defence. It was published in Belgrade
22 by the Military Publishing Institute in 1977.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown page 4
24 in Serbian. The English page is the one we need.
25 MR. DOBBYN: Sorry, can I just check which tab number this is on
1 the list of documents we received from Defence?
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Tab 17.
3 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Do you see this instruction? Do you know this document? I know
6 it's not so easy to view it on the screen, but I have a hard copy, if you
7 wish. You can leaf through it, refresh your memory.
8 A. That won't be necessary. It's an instruction, just any other.
9 Q. Tell me, the Federal Secretariat for National Defence issued such
10 instructions to the forces of the Yugoslav People's Army, and of course
11 you are familiar with them.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And there were dozens of them.
14 A. I don't know how many there were, but I suppose there were many.
15 Q. I need your comment on two points contained in the general
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] It's page 17 in Serbian in e-court,
18 and I suppose it could be page 12 in English, but I'm not quite sure.
19 Q. I don't want you to think that I'm trying to take something out
20 of context, so I would like you to look at the full document.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If the usher could help me pass
22 this document to the witness.
23 Q. For you it's pages 11 and 12. This is chapter 1, and the heading
24 is "General Provisions." You see that?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And paragraph 4 stipulates who is a member of the armed forces by
2 law. It says:
3 "The armed forces are a unified armed force within the system of
4 national defence ... any citizen participating in the resistance against
5 the aggressor either by taking arms or any other way shall be considered
6 a member of the armed forces."
7 Can you see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. This paragraph 4 is in full conformity with all regulations that
10 governed at the time the national defence and social self-protection, the
11 subject in which you -- the subject which you read at university?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Thank you. When you say it was the basic postulate you mean it
14 was the foundation on which the entire system rested?
15 A. Yes, the entire system rested on it, and it defined the armed
16 forces, what they meant, what they consisted of in the SFRY, the
17 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we show page 18 in e-court.
19 Q. And for you it would be page 13. It's paragraph 6 that straddles
20 another page. It deals with the Territorial Defence. I'm interested in
21 the last two paragraphs of this para 6. It says:
22 "The Territorial Defence is equipment to carry out, either with
23 the JNA units or independently, combat operations in the temporarily
24 occupied territory along the front line and in its own rear."
25 Can you see that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I suppose this is sufficiently well explained in English. I
3 don't think it needs further explanation.
4 And the last point that interests me most is this:
5 "In the case of immediate threat of war and during wartime, the
6 police forms a part of the Territorial Defence and is engaged in carrying
7 out certain combat and security tasks."
8 Can you see that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. When it says "the police," in Serbian "milicija," that's the old
11 name for the police, the members of the Ministry of the Interior; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. This was also one of the basic postulates in the general design
14 of the national defence and social self-protection system?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So in the event of immediate threat of war or an ongoing war,
17 according to the basic postulates of the system of national defence, the
18 police became part of the Territorial Defence force, and it was engaged
19 in combat, security, and other tasks. However, whenever they are
20 carrying out tasks of this kind, members of the police, members of the
21 MUP, are under the command of a military unit.
22 A. Yes. By all means.
23 Q. I wonder if you could assist us with a brief explanation. I
24 think we all understand the term "combat tasks." These are tasks carried
25 out in the course of combat operations.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Other tasks are also somehow related to combat operations or
3 military actions, but they are not direct combat.
4 A. Yes. You could describe it that way.
5 Q. And could you tell us what security tasks means?
6 A. In this context as it is written here, I understand security
7 tasks to mean certain security tasks in the area of combat operations.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I see the time, Your Honour. I
9 suppose it's time for the break.
10 JUDGE HALL: Yes. I was just waiting for a convenient point. I
11 know we started a little late, so I -- thank you.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.
15 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, as a result of some discussions over
16 the break, I'm just asking for -- that we finish with the witnesses half
17 an hour early tonight in order to discuss the issues that have come up so
18 far. Sorry, that we be given half an hour before the close to discuss
19 those issues. Also, I believe there will be some further ongoing
20 discussions over the next break about issues that we're hoping to resolve
21 with the Defence.
22 JUDGE HALL: So noted, Mr. Dobbyn.
23 MR. DOBBYN: And, sorry, one other matter I'd like to add for the
24 record, that Matthew Olmsted has joined the Prosecution in court.
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Let me ask you, Mr. Krejic, when we were discussing this, you
3 mentioned security tasks and other tasks. I think you testified
4 yesterday that on the day when you went for the first time to the crime
5 scene at Koricanske Stijene, you spoke with the members of the public
6 security station Knezevo, who were at that moment deployed -- or, rather,
7 resubordinated to the military unit in a locality about 5 kilometres away
8 from the scene. You remember that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So this unit of yours, I saw it somewhere in one of your previous
11 statements, had 25 members of the public security station Knezevo, which
12 was resubordinated to some Tactical Group that was carrying out some
13 military operations in that area.
14 A. Yes, precisely.
15 Q. They were resubordinated to that military unit, but their task,
16 the task of that unit, was, in fact, to secure the road, the
17 Travnik-Knezevo road, at that time.
18 A. At that time, their task was indeed to secure that road but not
19 securing that road internally. That road passed through the zone of
20 separation between the Army of Republika Srpska and the Croatian Defence
21 Council, so that this unit was carrying out combat tasks.
22 Q. When you mentioned in your answer to the previous question, when
23 you mentioned, I think, the area of responsibility of a military unit, if
24 I understand this correctly, the area of responsibility of a military
25 unit is not just the territory where combat operations are taking place,
1 but it is the entire territory occupied by that military unit or covered
2 by that military unit.
3 A. Yes. So the area of the 22nd Brigade, which was on the Vlasic
4 plateau, went from Karanovac, which is a suburb of Banja Luka, up to the
5 front line, and that covers a depth behind the lines of about 70 or 80
7 Q. You said 70 to 80 kilometres, right?
8 A. Yes. In that specific case it was 70 to 80 kilometres.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
10 65 ter 10236, para 13.
11 Q. I'd like to show you the same map shown to you by my learned
12 friend Mr. Dobbyn, just to look at the geography without accepting the
13 picture presented on that map. I just want you to delineate on the map
14 the area that was the area of responsibility of the 22nd Krajina Brigade?
15 JUDGE HALL: Could the counsel please repeat the number of the
16 65 ter document.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 10236.13. I suppose it has
18 a P number now, but, I'm sorry, I can't find it now. If you give me a
19 minute. Could we zoom in a bit for the witness. We don't need the upper
21 Q. You've seen this map before. It shows the territory of Skender
22 Vakuf and Knezevo municipality.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. With the help of the usher, could you mark on this map what
25 exactly was the territory the area of responsibility of the 22nd
1 Krajina Brigade.
2 A. It's just the 22nd Brigade, it's not Krajina Brigade.
3 Apart from the entire territory of Knezevo municipality, the
4 responsibility of the 22nd Brigade stretched onto a great part of the
5 Celinac municipality, which is not drawn here, and the entire territory
6 of Kotor Varos Municipality. This is it. One part of Travnik
7 municipality and the entire territory of Knezevo municipality.
8 Q. So what you just delineated in red is the area of responsibility
9 of the 22nd Brigade that is seen on this map, but in addition to this, it
10 also covered the area up to Karanovac, which is almost a suburb of
11 Banja Luka, that is to say 70 to 80 per cent -- sorry, 70 to 80
12 kilometres behind the lines.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Could you mark this with 1 as the area of responsibility.
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. Thank you very much.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
18 document now.
19 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D364, Your Honours.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. While we are still on this subject, and I believe it may be also
23 of assistance to the Trial Chamber and to all of us if I show you another
24 document -- or, rather, I'll ask you a question first.
25 At what point did the 22nd Brigade take control of the Knezevo
1 municipality -- or, rather, the territory that was covered by the public
2 security of -- station of Knezevo?
3 A. This used to be called the 122nd Brigade of the JNA, and it came
4 to Knezevo municipality from Slavonia, which is currently the Republic of
5 Croatia, after the so-called Vance Plan was adopted. That is when the
6 JNA units left Croatia, and sometime in March 1992 they were stationed in
7 Knezevo municipality.
8 Q. Fine. The commander of this unit was Colonel Bosko Peulic. I
9 don't know if he was yet a colonel at that time.
10 A. No, he wasn't, but he was the commander.
11 Q. When that unit under his command took position on this territory,
12 they took over all the functions of the civilian authorities in that
14 A. They did not take over, but they sought to, and that was a
15 constant source of strife between the command of the brigade and Peulic
16 and the leadership of the municipality.
17 Q. When we interviewed you in the presence of the Prosecutor, I
18 believe you told me that when Peulic arrived, he acted like a
19 conquistador. Do you remember saying that?
20 A. There were moments when it seemed exactly like that,
21 metaphorically, of course.
22 Q. When you used that metaphor, you meant to indicate that he acted
23 autocratically, as untouchable.
24 A. Yes, in the full sense of that word.
25 Q. And if I understood your statements and your evidence correctly,
1 the command headed by Peulic kept asking and insisting that they receive
2 all sorts of materiel and supplies, and they wanted to have priority over
3 everything else, every aspect of life in Knezevo.
4 A. Yes, and they meddled with every aspect of normal life in
6 Q. And that caused a lot of friction between the municipal
7 authorities, including also you as chief of the public security station
8 on one hand and that military unit on the other?
9 A. Yes, but I was the piggy in the middle between the political
10 leadership and the army.
11 Q. I'd like to show you a document that relates to this issue. It's
12 1D04-2846. It's tab 18 in our binder of documents, and it's an
13 instruction on civilian affairs in crisis areas, issued by the Federal
14 Secretariat for National Defence, the Department of Civilian Defence, and
15 it was signed by the Assistant Federal Secretary for National Defence,
16 Major-General Milan Pujic, and the date is 25 November 1991.
17 Did you maybe have occasion to see this document before?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Today was the first time I saw it myself. This document deals
20 with the conduct of civilian affairs in crisis areas, and it is intended
21 for members of the armed forces. Can you confirm this? This document is
22 meant for members of the armed forces on how to conduct civilian affairs
23 in crisis areas.
24 A. Yes. That's what it says.
25 Q. Did you know that in commands of JNA units and later the Army of
1 Republika Srpska there was an organ for civilian affairs? Do you know
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. This says that this has the character of an instruction and needs
5 to be applied in practice, adapted to the actual circumstances on the
6 ground. Do you see that in the last paragraph?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we turn to page 2 of this
10 Q. On this page 2, the first one was an explanation on the delivery
11 of this instruction, and this speaks about the tasks of the organ for
12 civilian affairs in JNA unit commands and the local command. Was a local
13 command indeed established in Knezevo by the 22nd Brigade?
14 A. Yes. They had their own Knezevo command.
15 Q. Here you see a list of tasks, basic tasks, and how the programmes
16 should be adapted to the actual conditions and the areas of
17 responsibility and jurisdiction. That's the third paragraph. Can you
18 see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So in essence this is a general document which allowed the
21 commanders of some units in the area of responsibility -- in their area
22 of responsibility and their civil affairs officers to adapt and modify
23 those measures to bring them in line with the circumstances in the field.
24 Is that so?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Very well. Now I would like to see the next page, page 3.
2 This -- well, these are specific tasks where the instruction itself is
3 further elaborated, and under Roman numeral I it says: "Tasks from the
4 area of state administration, legislative, judicial, and executive
5 authority or government."
6 And item 7 reads:
7 "If the military command deems that the civilian authority no
8 longer functions, the units' commands shall take measures and create
9 conditions for the establishment and functioning of the organs of
10 civilian government or civilian authorities."
11 Do you see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now I would like us to go to the next page. This pertains to the
14 tasks in the sphere of security. And we will dwell on this for a while
15 longer, because I think those affected the operation of the public
16 security station where you severed as chief.
17 You can see here the Roman numeral II, it says: "Tasks in the
18 Sphere of Security."
19 Item 1:
20 "Assisting in the organisation of labour within the area of
21 internal affairs."
22 Do you see that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you have any idea what this assisting in the organisation of
25 labour in the sphere of internal affairs might refer to?
1 A. Well, the only thing that I can think of is providing assistance
2 to the organs of the interior in setting up operations in the recently
3 liberated areas where there had been no organs of the interior present.
4 Q. Very well. You can see item 6 here where it says:
5 "Taking and implementation of investigative actions and
6 submission of criminal complaints against perpetrators of crimes."
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. These are the tasks that are within your purview under the Law on
9 Internal Affairs. Is that not so?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You will agree with me that this creates a certain double chain
12 of command in terms of powers or authority.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I can see that in the interpretation is the chain of command, but
15 I said duality in powers, which means that two organs, one an organ of
16 the interior which has it's powers under the Law on Internal Affairs, and
17 on the other hand you have military organs which, on the basis of this
18 instruction, have the same powers in crisis areas. This is the duality
19 that I had in mind when I asked my question, and probably you had the
20 same in mind when you answered.
21 A. Yes. This was the gist of my answer.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at the next
24 Q. You can see item 9:
25 "Providing assistance for securing and performance of official
1 tasks within the purview of other authorities."
2 This is also one of the tasks under the Law on Internal Affairs,
3 is it not, of the organs of the interior?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. The same goes for item 9 where we're talking about security
6 measures for buildings and other property and persons?
7 A. I think that you mentioned item 9 in your previous question.
8 Q. I do apologise. I referred to item 10 where it says:
9 "Participation in the organisation of tasks --"
10 No. I do apologise. I'm sorry. In my previous question I
11 actually invoked item 8, and now I'm talking about item 9, securing
12 buildings, other property and persons.
13 A. That's item 9, and we've dealt with it.
14 Q. Very well. Item 10, it says:
15 "Participation in organising tasks in the performance of the
16 control and regulation of traffic on roads, controlling the movement and
17 stay of foreign nationals in the border areas," and so on.
18 These are also tasks that are in the purview of the organs of the
20 A. Yes, 100 per cent. This is something that the minister of the
21 interior does.
22 Q. In item 11, they are given powers to carry out administrative
23 tasks pertaining to the purchase, carrying, and possession of weapons and
24 ammunition, and they can issue licenses for that.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. This is strictly -- this had strictly been a power of the
2 Ministry of the Interior, did these kind of administrative jobs?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Item 15, which reads:
5 "Ensuring that appropriate repressive measures are taken against
6 individuals and groups and enforcement of special powers and duties in
7 security tasks (checking identity, summons, bringing in, remand, arrest,
8 bringing into custody, searches, use of physical force and firearms,
9 restricting the freedom of movement in an area, and isolation measures)."
10 Pursuant to this item, the military organs have the powers that
11 the organs of the interior did not have under the law; isn't it so?
12 A. I would say that the organs of the interior do have these powers,
13 all of them as far as I was able to read, and we can see that the
14 military organs want to actually seize some of those powers, to
15 appropriate them.
16 Q. You can see in item 16 it says:
17 "Providing assistance in ensuring the appropriate conditions for
18 the functioning of the judicial organs, the penitentiary and correctional
19 facilities and detention camps, and the control over the enforcement of
20 the arrest and detention of detainees."
21 The powers that under these instruction are given to the military
22 organs are the powers that under the law of internal -- on internal
23 affairs you, as members of the organs of the interior, did not have.
24 Isn't it so?
25 A. Yes. This -- these are tasks that are normally within the
1 purview of the Justice Ministry.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I know that the
4 witness has not seen this document. I don't know what the Prosecution's
5 position is, but in light of the fact that we've commented on this
6 document in the course of the cross-examination, I would like to tender
7 it. This is an official instruction, and it appears to me to be quite
8 relevant for our case.
9 MR. DOBBYN: No objection, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D365, Your Honours.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies.
14 I think that I've neglected to tender document 1D04-2409. It's
15 the document that I went through with the witness at the very beginning.
16 It's at tab 17. It's the instruction on the use of the Territorial
17 Defence, or perhaps if we could mark it for identification and then
18 perhaps once I have -- once I have more time we can choose the
19 relevant -- select just the relevant parts so that we don't tender the
20 whole document. It's a voluminous document.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, that might be a good idea, but before we
22 take any position on the matter, I just wish to ensure that these
23 instructions were indeed in force in 1992. I note that they were dated
24 1977, if I'm not mistaken, and so -- I mean, if they were no longer in
25 force, it would make little sense to consider admission.
1 JUDGE HALL: The query I have is that although they are
2 instructions, whether they did not form as a category of -- of something
3 which should be part of a law library.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, that was exactly my -- my thinking, along
5 these lines, Your Honours. This might be -- as far as the Defence is
6 aware, these are the instructions which were valid at the -- which were
7 in force in 1992. They -- they were prepared for the JNA troops, and as
8 we can see, this 22nd was -- was -- was actually the JNA -- the JNA unit,
9 and only after the creation of VRS it became the 122nd Brigade of the
11 I agree with Your Honours that this could qualify as a part of
12 the law library, but unfortunately, Your Honours, I received the document
13 just this morning, so due to that I didn't have time to consult with my
14 friends from the -- from the Prosecutor's side, and that is why I suggest
15 we just MFI the document and then we will inform the Trial Chamber of
16 what is the agreement between the parties about this document, whether we
17 would admit it in its entirety into the law library or just the relevant
18 parts under the -- the exhibit number which will be given as MFI.
19 JUDGE HALL: So for the time being we'll mark it for
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Dobbyn.
23 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, we would agree to that being added to
24 the law library in entirety.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, then --
1 JUDGE HALL: So we needn't -- so we rescind the order marking it
2 for identification, and it would become part of the law library by
3 whatever process that is achieved.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I'm sure Mr. Dobbyn and myself will be very
5 criticised and hated by our assistants who are working on this law
6 library, because it was my understanding that they had just finished the
7 updated version, but we will --
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic --
9 MR. ZECEVIC: -- we will proceed in accordance with Your Honour's
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: But this begs the question --
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: This begs the question as to whether the most
14 recent document that we admitted should also be a part of the law
15 library. These also appear as being instructions by the old --
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, this is --
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- federal --
18 MR. ZECEVIC: This is instruction is in the form of a book, and
19 this other instructions which we admitted are in the form of a document,
20 and therefore I cannot honestly say at this point whether it's -- it
21 qualifies to be the part of law library, but I think -- I think for the
22 time being maybe we can leave it as it is and then readdress the issue
23 later if that -- if that is acceptable to the Trial Chamber.
24 Thank you.
25 THE REGISTRAR: So the document will be marked 1D366, marked for
1 identification, Your Honours.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Sir --
4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
5 THE REGISTRAR: So I stand corrected. The document will not be
6 exhibited, and this is the document 1D04-2409.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
8 Q. Now, sir, in addition to graduating from the faculty of national
9 defence and teaching national defence in school, at one point in late
10 1992, you actually headed a unit of the public security station in
11 Knezevo which actually had been resubordinated in the Posavina theatre;
12 isn't that correct?
13 A. No. If you are referring to my stint in Posavina, well, that was
14 at the beginning of 1993.
15 Q. But it is a fact that the unit from Knezevo, together with you as
16 the chief, was resubordinated to a military unit and was engaged in
17 combat in the territory of the municipality of Odzak, if I'm not
18 mistaken, and that's in Posavina.
19 A. No. No. I have already said a few times on the 1st of
20 September, 1992, I stopped being the chief of the public security station
21 in Knezevo. I did some work in the security services centre in
22 Banja Luka, and the unit was called the police brigade of the Banja Luka
23 security services centre, and it was part of some kind of a tactical
24 group or something in the Posavina theatre. I don't recall the name of
25 the Tactical Group. And it was stationed in the village of Obudovac.
1 That's Samac municipality. And it was engaged in combat in Orasje, and I
2 was a member of the command of that unit.
3 Q. I do apologise. My mistaken entirely. I really do apologise. I
4 lost my focus for a moment. It is a fact that as of the 1st of
5 September, you were in the security services centre.
6 Now, tell me, you say that you were in the command of that unit
7 of the police brigade, but that police brigade had a military commander.
8 Is it not so?
9 A. Yes, it had a military commander.
10 Q. And that military commander was called what?
11 A. Until my arrival, very fortunately, it was Bosko Peulic, and
12 after my arrival Radoslav Djukic, and he was lieutenant-colonel or
14 Q. When you said "very fortunately for me," I suppose you felt lucky
15 that the commander was not Bosko Peulic in your time.
16 A. Precisely.
17 Q. All right. Could you show us on the map where this unit was and
18 where these -- where these command operations were taking place?
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 65 ter
20 16236.04 [as interpreted].
21 Q. And while we're waiting, you obviously don't have a very good
22 opinion of Mr. Peulic. Is it his qualities as military commander or as a
23 human being that you don't like?
24 A. Neither.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 10236, number 04. It's a map of
1 Bosanski Samac. 00482222 is the ERN number.
2 Q. It's not a very good map. I'm using it only for it's geography,
3 not to show this ethnic composition that I do not accept. I would just
4 like you to delineate and mark with an X the place where you were
5 stationed. You said Obudovac. It's a bit of a problem that there is
6 writing in yellow, but as far as I can see, it's in the left corner of
7 the photograph.
8 A. The writing is in black in my copy.
9 Q. So much the better.
10 A. The brigade command was in the centre of Obudovac.
11 Q. You held this bit on the right. Can you show us the territory of
12 Orasje municipality where you conducted combat operations?
13 A. Roughly the area of responsibility of the brigade was like this.
14 Q. Could we please put number 1 near Obudovac.
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. Number 2 next to the line showing the area of responsibility of
17 the brigade.
18 A. [Marks]
19 Q. And now if you can tell us where in this area were the HVO, the
20 Croatian Defence Council troops? Mark that with a 3 and a circle.
21 A. They were on the other side of that line. I misplaced this
22 number 2. The HVO should be on this side, number 3, and number 2 on this
24 Q. The usher will help you delete this wrong marking.
25 A. The HVO were on the other side of this red line.
1 Q. That's it. Now put number 3 there.
2 A. [Marks]
3 Q. We see this black line above Bosanski Samac. I think it's the
4 Sava River, isn't it? And beyond it is the Republic of Croatia.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Mark the Republic of Croatia with 4.
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. Now, in the lower part of the map where was the separation line
9 with the BH Army? If you can.
10 A. Roughly here.
11 Q. Please put number 5 there.
12 A. [Marks]
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I see Mr. Dobbyn is on his feet.
14 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you. From my understanding of this line of
15 questioning so far, we've been discussing a situation in 1993. Before we
16 go much further, I just wonder if the relevance of this could be
17 explained perhaps.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, as I -- as I'm aware that
19 the -- that the -- that the Office of the Prosecutor is going to lead
20 evidence about the deployment of the police brigade of the CSB Banja Luka
21 end of 1992, when the deployment started. Since this witness was
22 actually deployed on the -- on the same location, I thought that it might
23 be worth that we -- that we get the evidence of the witness about the
24 positions when -- at the time when he was there despite the fact that
25 it's the beginning of 1993. It is just for the purposes of
1 cross-examination of witness who is going to testify to this about the --
2 for the -- for our friends from the Prosecution. In any case, I'm -- I
3 am finished with this line of questioning, and I would like to tender
4 this document if there is no objection.
5 JUDGE HALL: So the purpose of this is for comparative purposes
6 when the other witness comes.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct.
8 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Admitted and marked.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: And, Mr. Zecevic, could we just have one extra
10 comment on the map. Are we to understand that north of the line where
11 the number 3 is put, that's where the Croatian Army was in control, and
12 south of the other line, which has now disappeared, south of the line
13 which was indicated by 5 --
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Overlapping speakers].
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- that's where the Bosnian army was in control,
16 and so the -- the police brigade was deployed in the -- in the little
17 area between the Croatian Army and the Bosnian army. Is that --
18 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct, Your Honours. And this is also --
19 I think it will help us understand the situation in -- in the
20 municipality of Bosanski Samac, which is part of our indictment, and this
21 map depicts the municipality of Bosanski Samac.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
23 THE REGISTRAR: And this will be Exhibit 1D366, Your Honours.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Q. Sir, I don't have much more, and I'll try to be quick.
1 You testified on the first day that you were one of the founders
2 of the Serbian Democratic Party in Knezevo.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And as a representative of that party, you were elected into the
5 Assembly and the Assembly of the Autonomous Region of Krajina.
6 A. Yes. There were elections into the Municipal Assembly of
7 Knezevo, and that Assembly elected seven of us to represent them in the
8 Autonomous Region of Krajina Assembly.
9 Q. But all this happened before you were appointed chief of the SJB
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. When you were appointed chief of the SJB, you froze all your
13 political functions in the party and in the Assembly?
14 A. I abandoned them. I didn't freeze them, didn't put them on hold,
15 abandoned them.
16 Q. You did that because it was your legal obligation to do so, in
17 keeping with the Law on Internal Affairs.
18 A. For that reason, yes, but also because I personally didn't want
19 to be involved in politics any more and wanted to concentrate on my
20 professional work of leading the station.
21 Q. But the legislation that prevailed stipulated it was incompatible
22 for a chief of the police station to be a member of any party.
23 A. Yes, but there is this saying that rules are made to be broken,
24 and in this way my successor was also a member of the Assembly at the
25 same time, and his successor in the post of chief of station was also a
1 member of the Assembly.
2 Q. That seems to indicate that your successors did not abide by the
3 rules and legislation, and they did not care so much for upholding strict
5 A. I wouldn't go as far as to say that. I just explained my
6 personal point of view and why I did the things I did.
7 Q. You had certain disagreements with the political leadership in
8 the Knezevo municipality, didn't you?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. In the Assembly -- sorry, in the municipality there was a
11 National Defence Council before the outbreak of the conflict in April
13 A. Yes. Every municipality had a National Defence Council.
14 Q. That National Defence Council, just as the committee for national
15 defence in social self-protection, were bodies that were set up in every
16 administrative unit, that is to say municipality, in keeping with the Law
17 on National Defence; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, you're right.
19 Q. And under this legislation, you were ex officio member of the
20 National Defence Council, weren't you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In addition to you, ex officio members were also president of the
23 municipality, president of the Executive Board, the officer for national
25 A. Yes. Everybody was member of that council ex officio by virtue
1 of the post they held.
2 Q. After these events in April 1992 and the beginning of the
3 conflict, some people called this body the Crisis Staff; is that right?
4 A. Yes, you're right.
5 Q. However, it is a fact, isn't it, that regardless of which name
6 you use, the National Defence Council or Crisis Staff, that body,
7 throughout the time you were in Knezevo, the 1st of September, 1992, was
8 made up of the same people and dealt with the same issues. It was
9 basically one and the same body.
10 A. You're right.
11 Q. Fine. The separation line, the line separating the territory
12 held by Muslim and Croat forces from the other side was barely one and a
13 half kilometres from the centre of Knezevo, wasn't it?
14 A. Yes. That was the separation line with the Croatian side,
15 running through the municipality of Knezevo.
16 Q. It is a fact, isn't it, that at the very beginning of the war and
17 the conflict, some members of the paramilitaries killed a mentally
18 disabled Croat, and it was then that Croatian forces blocked the
19 Knezevo-Travnik road, or it was, in other words, Knezevo-Skender Vakuf
20 road, and it continued to be blocked throughout the war.
21 A. Yes. That man was mentally unstable. The victim, I mean. And
22 the Croatian side didn't really block the road. That road passed along
23 the Ugar River. It was a kind of natural border, a canyon, and that road
24 was controlled from high up above the canyon from both sides. It was
25 neither theirs or ours. It was not safe for passage any more for anyone.
1 Q. Because this road was blocked. Actually, that was the reason why
2 the old road passing by Koricanske Stijene was used; right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. While you were at the post of the chief of the public security
5 station -- first of all, let me ask you this: When was it that you were
6 appointed to that post, if you recall?
7 A. Sometime on the 6th of June, 1991.
8 Q. And I suppose it's not controversial that the then minister,
9 Alija Delimustafic, signed the decision on your appointment.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Throughout 1992, while you were the chief of the public security
12 station, you insisted that the police and the police officers should
13 comply with the law in their work.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. That pertains to the law of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and
16 Herzegovina, the Law on Internal Affairs, and also on the Law on Internal
17 Affairs of Republika Srpska, which was, in essence, identical to the
18 other one.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In your statements, I found your claim that in 1992 a total
21 number of homicides or murders in the territory covered by the public
22 security station in Knezevo, the total number was seven, seven murders.
23 A. Six in 1992 and one in late 1991.
24 Q. And as for the victims, five were Muslims, one was a Croat, and
25 one victim was a Serb; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The one Croat that we mentioned here was this unfortunate man
3 that we mentioned a little while ago, this mentally ill person killed by
4 the paramilitaries right at the beginning of the conflict; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, tell me, since you were the chief, each of these crimes, and
7 I'm talking about murders, were dealt with in accordance with the law on
8 the -- on internal affairs and in accordance with your powers, and a
9 criminal complaint was filed to the appropriate public prosecutor's
10 office; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm mindful of the
13 time. Perhaps now would be the appropriate time for a break. I think I
14 have about 10 to 15 minutes at most in my cross-examination of this
16 JUDGE HALL: Very well, Mr. Zecevic.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 --- Recess taken at 5.27 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Krejic, in all the cases that we mentioned, the seven murders
23 that we've been talking about, and other serious crimes, if I understand
24 you correctly, the police did its job in accordance with the laws in
25 force at the time in terms of investigating those crimes.
1 A. Yes. Well, the only exception is the murder of this Croat,
2 ethnic Croat, because it was impossible to reach the crime scene safely
3 and to perform all those tasks that we've been talking about.
4 Q. So after the murder of this ethnic Croat the police set off, but
5 the road was already blocked and the police were unable to reach the
6 scene and do the on-site investigation; is that correct?
7 A. Yes, precisely.
8 Q. Now tell me, with regard to the murders, were you able to
9 identify the perpetrators in each and every case?
10 A. No. The perpetrators remained unidentified in all of the cases.
11 Q. Very well. Just one last question. In the municipality of
12 Knezevo, where the demarcation line was bordering with the area
13 controlled by the enemy, a certain number of convoys actually passed
14 through; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And your public security station, in line with the law after all,
17 did not play any part in those movements or transfers of population,
18 exchanges of population.
19 A. Yes, you are right.
20 Q. One last question then. The exchange of population at the
21 demarcation line was carried out under the control of the military unit,
22 the one that we've been talking about, the one that held Knezevo as part
23 of its area of responsibility; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you very much, sir. I have no further questions for you.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE HALL: Re-examination.
3 MR. DOBBYN: Yes, Your Honours. I just have a few questions.
4 I'll try to keep this as brief as possible.
5 Re-examination by Mr. Dobbyn:
6 Q. Good afternoon again, Mr. Krejic. Now, yesterday you were asked
7 by Mr. Krgovic, this is at transcript page 14078, what Mr. Zupljanin had
8 said at the first meeting held at CSB Banja Luka on the 23rd, 24th of
9 August, and you'd mentioned that Mr. Drljaca had wanted to conceal the
10 murder, and Mr. Zupljanin had said, "One murder cannot be concealed.
11 These murders cannot be concealed." Do you recall that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, do you recall if Mr. Zupljanin mentioned any specific reason
14 why these murders in particular could not be concealed?
15 A. Chief Zupljanin did not insist only on the fact that it was
16 impossible to conceal the murders. He insisted that he refuse to conceal
17 them, that he was absolutely opposed to any effort to conceal the
19 Q. Mr. Krejic, are you aware if any survivors from the killings had
20 crossed over into Muslim-held territory and spoken to the media there?
21 A. At the first meeting, Chief Zupljanin told us about that. He
22 told us that he had received information to the effect that there were
23 survivors who had crossed the demarcation line, which was right there in
24 the canyon of the Ugar River, and that they made a statement of sorts for
25 Radio Jajce.
1 Q. Thank you. I'll move on now. Earlier on today, you were shown a
2 document. This is the document which the instructions on the use of the
3 Territorial Defence. The number was 1D04-2409, and you were read -- or
4 at least you agreed with the proposition that in the state of imminent
5 threat of war the police forms a part of the Territorial Defence and
6 carry out combat and other tasks.
7 Now, does this mean that the Territorial Defence takes over
8 command of the police or that they simply co-ordinate and work together?
9 A. It's difficult to answer a question phrased like this. In early
10 1992, there was no state of war. It had not been declared. And as far
11 as I know, there was no imminent threat of war as such, and the
12 Territorial Defence or the armed forces which comprised the Territorial
13 Defence as one of its components, in the depth of the territory where
14 there was no fighting worked side by side with the police in the manner
15 that you've described, co-ordination, making arrangements. And in the
16 combat zone, especially when police units were engaged in fighting, they
17 were strictly subordinated to the Territorial Defence of the Yugoslav
18 People's Army, later on of the Republika Srpska Army.
19 Q. On that topic, Mr. Zecevic put to you that, as you've just said,
20 in the performance of combat tasks, police come under the command of the
21 military unit. An article or paragraph of these instructions was not
22 cited. You have those instructions in front of you, and I'm just going
23 to ask you if you're aware of any particular article in those
24 instructions that states that's the case?
25 A. I would kindly ask you to repeat the last part of your question.
1 I fear I haven't really understood it.
2 Q. Mr. Zecevic's proposition that when combat tasks are performed
3 you come under -- police units would come under the control of the
4 military, can you yourself cite an article in those instructions that
5 states that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And which article would that be?
8 A. I think it was at page 12 or 13.
9 Q. We'll move on from there. If we perhaps look at Exhibit P --
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Before you move away from this, I had myself a
11 question relating to this issue of resubordination of police forces for
12 the purpose of combat operations, because the way I understand, and I
13 refer to you, Mr. Witness, to correct me if my understanding is wrong,
14 but during the armed conflict, that is to say from April and onwards in
15 1992, the police would normally not be taking part in combat operations,
16 but from time to time the local army command would request assistance of
17 police forces to take part in a particular combat operation, and for
18 those purposes the army would then assume command and control over those
19 policemen who were resubordinated to the army for that particular
20 purpose, and when that operation was completed, the policemen would be
21 returned to their civil command.
22 First of all, my first question: Is this correctly understood,
23 or have I -- or did I get it wrong?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, excellently put. Let
25 me just add one minor detail. The Supreme Command could also call for
1 the use of the police units, not just local commands, local military
2 commands. The Supreme Command could also make such a demand. But as for
3 the rest, you've really defined it perfectly.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. And thank you for this addition,
5 which makes sense.
6 My next question would be: What then about the police brigade?
7 Did the same situation apply to the police brigade, namely that -- that
8 most of the time the police brigade would remain under civilian command
9 and do the police work that was needed in the local area, and then from
10 time to time the police brigade would be subordinated to the army for a
11 particular purpose, or was the police brigade at all times put under the
12 command and control of the armed forces? In other words, was there a
13 difference between the -- the regular police force that was employed at
14 the SJBs and under the CSB on the one hand and then the police brigade on
15 the other hand?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As regards the police brigade,
17 specifically the brigade that was deployed in Posavina, it was deployed
18 there on the demand of the Supreme Command. So it's the same procedure
19 but a higher level. The local military units demanded that the personnel
20 from the local public security stations be engaged, and as for the
21 brigade, a demand was made by the Supreme Command or a corps command from
22 the Ministry of the Interior or security services centre.
23 As regards the personnel in the brigade, those were police
24 officers who performed their day-to-day police work and during lulls on
25 the front line the brigade did not exist for all intents and purposes.
1 And when the situation at the front became more difficult and when the
2 Supreme Command made this request, then the ordinary police officers
3 would form a police brigade and be dispatched to the front,
4 resubordinated to the army. And we can see that the brigade commander in
5 this particular case was, in fact, an active-duty serviceman in the army.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. And please forgive me for putting
7 these questions. It's difficult for someone who is not a part of the
8 events to fully understand what -- how this operated. But from what you
9 have just said, I would conclude that -- that the police brigade was --
10 was a unit that was established on a regular basis so as to say -- so as
11 to be able to participate in reinforcement of the combat operations
12 carried out by the armed forces, but then as you said, when the situation
13 at the front line lulled or when there was a pause in the fighting, then
14 the police brigade sort of more or less fell apart and people will go
15 back to their -- the police officers would go back to their normal police
16 duties and yet again work under the command of their civilian police
17 superiors. Is that how it was?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Excellent. Thank you very much. I have no
20 further questions.
21 MR. DOBBYN: And, Your Honours, I have no further questions now
22 at this time either for the witness.
23 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Krejic, for your testimony before the
24 Tribunal. You are now released as a witness, and we wish you a safe
25 journey back to your home. Thank you, sir. The usher will escort you
1 from the courtroom.
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Dobbyn -- yes, Mr. Zecevic.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry, Your Honours. I have one intervention in
5 the transcript if I may.
6 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Just bear with me, Your Honours, one second. It's
8 page 4. It's line 7, 8, and 9. It was -- it was recorded like this --
9 that was my submission at the beginning of today's session, and it's
10 recorded here as:
11 "The Trial Chamber knows that the Defence is obliged to state its
12 position on the motion pertaining to 92 bis witness. We will agree to
14 That is not what I said. What I -- I'm pretty sure that's not
15 what I said, because it's not in my -- in my notes, and -- and I don't
16 know where it come from -- where it came from.
17 What I wanted to -- to explain to Your Honours was that we have
18 three cumulative things which are going on at the same time, that is, the
19 92 bis witnesses which we have to review in order to able to agree with
20 the Prosecution about it. That was one thing. The other was
21 exhumations, and the third thing is our day-to-day preparation of
23 That is the only clarification I wanted to do in the transcript
24 so that it might not be understood as our agreement. Thank you very
1 JUDGE HALL: Thank you for that, Mr. Zecevic.
2 Mr. Dobbyn, is your next witness here?
3 MR. DOBBYN: Yes, Your Honours, and if I may be excused
4 Mr. Olmsted will be taking over this witness.
5 JUDGE HALL: No, there was a point that you wanted to raise --
6 you wanted to reserve a half hour today --
7 MR. DOBBYN: Yes, I believe fifteen minutes will be enough for
8 that matter now.
9 JUDGE HALL: So are you suggesting that we call the witness in
10 and then take a 15 -- or how are you suggesting we proceed?
11 MR. DOBBYN: Yes, we would like to start with the witness and see
12 how far we can get and then leave 15 minutes at the end.
13 JUDGE HALL: Very well.
14 MS. PIDWELL: Your Honours, just to clarify, there has been some
15 progress over the breaks in terms of the issues, the outstanding issues,
16 and that is why we only request 15 minutes at the end.
17 MR. OLMSTED: And, Your Honours, the reason we're going to
18 proceed this way is this witness has been here since 3.00, and probably
19 my error, but I did promise him that he would start today, so I think it
20 will be good that we can at least get him sworn in and, of course, the
21 bulk of our examination will be tomorrow.
22 JUDGE HALL: Why I was inquiring as to whether he was here is
23 because, as a matter of courtesy to him, what I would have done was to
24 invite him into the courtroom and explain the reason for the delay, but
25 if you feel you can usefully use the time, then we'll proceed.
1 MR. OLMSTED: Why not. Let's at least get the provisional
2 questions over.
3 [The witness entered court]
4 WITNESS: MARINKO KOVACEVIC
5 [Witness answered through interpreter]
6 JUDGE HALL: Good evening, sir. I trust you can here me. Would
7 you kindly make the solemn declaration, please.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
9 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, sir. You may be seated.
11 The solemn declaration that you have just taken obliges you to
12 speak the truth under pain of the -- being -- having imposed upon you the
13 penalties for perjury which this Tribunal is empowered to impose should
14 you give false or misleading testimony.
15 Could you begin by giving us your name, date of birth, and
16 profession, please.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Marinko Kovacevic, born 29th of
18 September, 1956. I have a law degree.
19 JUDGE HALL: And is that your profession now or in the past,
20 working as a lawyer?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My current occupation is higher
22 professional assistance for licensing affairs in an agency for insurance
23 in Republika Srpska.
24 JUDGE HALL: And what is your ethnicity, please?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Serb.
1 JUDGE HALL: Have you testified previously either before this
2 Tribunal or before any of the courts in one of the countries that would
3 have comprised the former Yugoslavia?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I testified before the BH state
5 court in 2008.
6 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Now, you have been called as a witness
7 before this Tribunal by the Prosecution, and the procedure, as with most
8 tribunals is that the side calling you would begin by asking you
9 questions, and then the side opposite. In this case there are two
10 accused persons, so counsel for each of those would have the right to
11 cross-examine you, and then the Prosecution could ask you questions
12 arising out of that, and at the conclusion of that, or indeed at any
13 point before that, if the Chamber has any questions, it may ask you
15 Now, the Prosecution has indicated that they would spend three
16 hours -- three hours with you, and the -- counsel for the first accused
17 has indicated that he would need -- require two hours for his
18 cross-examination, and counsel for the second accused, three hours.
19 The -- I should explain to you that although you have been here,
20 as we have been informed, since 3.00, the reason for the delay is that
21 the nature of trials is that inevitably there are procedural and other
22 issues that arise which inhibit the flow of the trial as smoothly as we
23 all would have liked. So we trust that you were not unduly
24 inconvenienced by having to wait longer than you expected.
25 The ordinary sitting times of the court are with the afternoon
1 sittings we begin at 2.15 and rise for the day at 7.00, and then morning
2 sittings would begin at 7.00 -- sorry, at 9.00 and end at 1.45. In this
3 case, your testimony begins in an evening sitting, so we would be rising
4 in about a half hour, but indeed counsel for the Prosecution has
5 indicated that there are certain procedural matters with which they wish
6 to deal, so you would excused a little before the Chamber rises, and we
7 will resume in this courtroom at 9.00 tomorrow morning and sit through,
8 as I said, until 1.45.
9 Now, within those beginning and ending times there are breaks for
10 the technical reason that the tapes by which these proceedings are
11 recorded have to be changed every 90 minutes, so the actual session does
12 not last longer than 90 minutes. Indeed, it's more like an hour and 20
13 minutes, an hour and 25 minutes. And the -- those breaks are also used
14 by counsel and the parties to -- for their own comfort. But if, of
15 course, at any point before a regular break you need to take an
16 adjournment, you would indicate that to us and we would accommodate you.
17 The -- and with that, I would invite Mr. Olmsted to begin his cross --
18 his examination-in-chief.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Examination by Mr. Olmsted:
21 Q. Good evening, Mr. Kovacevic.
22 A. Good evening.
23 Q. I want to start out by just briefly going over your legal
24 background. From 1984 to 1990, you were deputy public prosecutor in
25 Banja Luka; is that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And then from 1990 until mid-1992, you worked for a private
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then -- and then in August of 1992, you were appointed once
6 again to the position of deputy prosecutor in the Banja Luka basic
7 prosecutor's office.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Who was the basic prosecutor in Banja Luka at the time of your
11 A. Mr. Nebojsa Pantic.
12 Q. What was his ethnicity?
13 A. Serb.
14 Q. And how long did you remain as a deputy public prosecutor in
15 Banja Luka?
16 A. Until 1998.
17 Q. And at that time what position were you holding from that point
19 A. In 1998, I was acting prosecutor until I was officially appointed
20 as prosecutor on the 24th of December, 1998.
21 Q. And how long were you basic prosecutor in Banja Luka for? Till
22 what year?
23 A. Until March 2004.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Let's have on the screen Exhibit P264.
25 Q. Now, what we're looking at are the minutes from the 19th session
1 of the Assembly of the Serbian People in BiH held on the 12th of August,
2 1992, in Banja Luka. If I can draw your attention to item number 1, we
3 see a number of persons who were appointed as Judges and Deputy
4 Prosecutors in Banja Luka at this session, and I believe it also includes
5 your name.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And can you confirm for us, were these, in fact, the prosecutors
8 and judges who held these positions in 1992?
9 A. Yes. Those are the judges and prosecutors.
10 Q. I just want you to focus on 1992. At any time in 1992, were
11 there any additional judicial or prosecutorial appointments made?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. None that you're aware of then?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Let's take a look at Exhibit 2D71. What we have before us is the
16 first page in the police file for a case involving the murder of eight
17 unidentified persons by an unknown perpetrator.
18 Mr. Kovacevic, are you familiar with this case?
19 A. Yes, I remember it.
20 Q. Can you tell us how you became familiar with it in 1992?
21 A. Following the regular procedure, the basic public prosecutor, the
22 chief, Mr. Nebojsa Pantic, entrusted this case to me as deputy
24 Q. So just to be clear, Mr. Panic -- or Pantic came to you and
25 assigned you as prosecutor?
1 A. Pantic. Yes, he did. He gave me this criminal complaint.
2 MR. OLMSTED: If we could take a look at page 2 of the B/C/S and
3 page 3 of the English.
4 Q. This is the on-site investigation report by the investigative
5 judge, dated 8 August, 1992, and we see that the basic prosecutor Pantic
6 participated in this on-site investigation. Did you receive a copy of
7 this report?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Under the procedures that existed back in 1992, would the
10 prosecutor's office have received this report from the investigative
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And if we can just turn to the next page on both B/C/S and
14 English, and we'll just show you one of these. But there are eight of
15 them. These are records of forensic examination by Dr. Dragutin Savjak,
16 also dated 8 August, 1992, and did you receive these reports as well?
17 A. Yes. And these minutes, these records, were part of the case
18 file, of the prosecutor's case file.
19 Q. And they would come along with the on-site investigation report?
20 A. When the expertise is finished, it is submitted usually with the
21 on-site investigation report.
22 Q. I want to return to page 1 in both the B/C/S and the English.
23 And what we're looking at is the unknown perpetrator criminal report from
24 CSB Banja Luka, dated the 26th of August, 1992. And just to confirm, is
25 this the criminal report that you received for this case?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you recall on what date this criminal report was received by
3 the prosecutor's office?
4 A. It was received in the beginning of September.
5 Q. Let's take a look at 65 ter 2957. What we have in front of us is
6 the KTN log-book for the basic prosecutor's office in Banja Luka.
7 MR. OLMSTED: And if we can turn to page 26. And if we can look
8 along the right-hand side page and zoom in on entry 2284.
9 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, can you confirm that entry 2284 pertains to this
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, column two contains the date that the report was received
13 on, and for this particular entry we have just a checkmark, but if we can
14 scroll up a little bit to about three entries above it, we see the date 7
15 September 1992, and directly below this entry 2284, there's the date 10
16 September 1992.
17 Based on this can we conclude that the report, the criminal
18 report, was received between the 7th and the 10th of September?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And since we're on this entry, if we look over in column 16 and
21 17, we see a date of 26 May 2000. Can you tell us what occurred in the
22 year 2000 with regard to this case file?
23 A. In the meantime, there was a change in jurisdiction so that
24 this -- these cases were given to the competent district prosecutor's
25 office in Banja Luka, and the district prosecutor's office in Banja Luka,
1 according to this record, received this on the 26th of May.
2 Q. And as of the date of the transfer, was this case still
3 classified as an unknown perpetrator criminal case?
4 A. Yes. Yes. It's a KTN case, meaning that an unknown perpetrator
5 is involved.
6 Q. Do you know -- we see that this criminal report arrived at the
7 prosecutor's office sometime between the 7th and the 10th of September,
8 but that the crime occurred towards the beginning of August. Do you know
9 why it took a month for the police to submit this report to your office?
10 A. I don't know why, why it took that long.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, that's a good point to stop, I think.
12 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Kovacevic, we, as I indicated, are taking the
13 adjournment for the day. You having been sworn as a witness, you cannot
14 have any communication with counsel from either side, and in such
15 conversations as you may have with persons outside of the courtroom, you
16 cannot discuss your testimony. So the usher would now escort you from
17 the courtroom, and we will resume your testimony at 9.00 tomorrow
18 morning. Thank you.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 MS. PIDWELL: Your Honours, my learned friends from the Defence
21 raised four issues at the commencement of the proceedings today, and I
22 propose to deal with each of them in turn. Coming from the southern
23 hemisphere, I am going to do them in the opposite direction from which
24 they were raised, simply because the last two matters can be dealt with
25 fairly briefly and the first two matters require a little bit more
2 Now, we have had some discussions over the breaks, and that is
3 why -- and we think we've received -- or reached a compromise situation
4 on the substantive issues, which is why we think we only need this
5 abbreviated time at this juncture.
6 So firstly it's the -- if I can firstly address the issue of the
7 Mladic material, which was one of the last matters raised by my learned
8 friend. Just to clarify a couple of issues. Firstly, the audio
9 recordings and the videos from the Mladic material has been disclosed to
10 the Defence. It was disclosed on the 23rd of July of this year. There
11 was a reference to a -- a MUP report from my learned friend. Now, a
12 Ministry of the Interior report was disclosed to the Defence earlier this
13 week, simply relates -- in redacted form, it simply relates to the search
14 and seizure of the material and has nothing to do with any of the issues
15 relevant to this case in 1992.
16 I'm not aware of any additional Ministry of the Interior report
17 that my learned friend referred to, and if he could enlighten me I would
18 appreciate that, but we're not aware of any other Ministry of the
19 Interior reports related to the Mladic material.
20 The issue was raised by my learned friend in respect of the
21 testimony of the military expert that we propose to call, Ewan Brown.
22 Now, he is not scheduled to testify imminently and for this very reason
23 we have deferred his testimony in light of the new a Mladic material and
24 to ensure that the Defence have enough time to review it. We have not
25 commissioned a new report from him, but he is currently reviewing the
1 material, and if there are any matters which need expansion from his
2 report, when he comes back to us on that we will be seeking leave to do
3 that orally, formally at that juncture, but that's a premature submission
4 from my friend in that regard.
5 The second issue I want to deal with is the general issue of
6 disclosure overload and the amount of work that everybody is doing at
7 this -- at this current time. The -- we are at a position where we are
8 indeed disclosing a lot of material to the Defence. That is because we
9 are disclosing the material for the new witnesses. We're under very,
10 very strict time frames to do that, because we need to call these
11 witnesses six weeks from the moment of disclosure in accordance with your
13 Now, it's the beginning of September, and we will end our current
14 witness list, on my schedule anyway, in the first week in October. So we
15 need to have disclosed everything for these new witnesses six weeks prior
16 to that date. So we are working very hard to get all the -- all of that
17 out, and that is what -- it is coming to the Defence thick and fast at
18 the moment.
19 Now, amongst that material is some new material that may or may
20 not relate to the -- the witnesses on the current list, but that is --
21 that is the bulk of the material that is going to the Defence at this
22 point. We are burdened with this obligation under 66(B), triggered by
23 the Defence, to disclose everything to them, not just Rule 68 material
24 but everything that may be relevant to the issues in this case and that
25 was their choices to trigger that 66(B) rule. We're complying with that
1 and we're doing so fairly liberally to ensure or to try and ensure that
2 we catch everything. So that's the -- that's where both teams are at, at
3 the moment in terms of disclosure.
4 The major issue that I need to address, or the more important one
5 at this juncture anyway, is the testimony of Witness ST-197 next week.
6 The -- and there are two aspects of that: One is the amendment to the
7 65 ter summary, and the other is the disclosure of the documents.
8 Firstly, in relation to the 65 ter summary, this is not an
9 amendment, as my learned friend put it, to the 65 ter list. Now,
10 yesterday he listed a number of issues and a number of times spoke about
11 how many times the Prosecution had sought to amend the 65 ter list and so
12 forth. This is not a situation like this. We are seeking to amend the
13 65 ter summary for this witness.
14 We are obliged to file that summary in June last year. The
15 witness was seen in March and then in August again this year. There are
16 three issues which Your Honour, Judge Delvoie, highlighted earlier today.
17 My colleague Mr. Dobbyn addressed one of those. The remaining two are --
18 well, firstly the meeting with Stojan Zupljanin and the Kotor Varos
19 issues. I'll put them together because they're inter-related. That
20 issue was contained in his statement in March 2010 and was disclosed to
21 the Defence on the 15th of April. So the Defence have known about that
22 issue since that time. The videos or the Kotor Varos videos which are a
23 part of the documents which are the second part, but they were found
24 after that date, and Your Honours may, if you wanted to track the --
25 how -- how we came to about those videos, it's all contained in the
1 statement of our investigator Michael Koehler, which is attached our
2 recent motion to add those videos to our 65 ter list. So the Defence
3 have known about that meeting and the Kotor Varos issues since April
5 The last issue is that of resubordination. Now, Your Honours are
6 aware that's a live issue in this case, and this witness is one of the
7 few military witnesses that you -- you will hear from. He was -- this
8 issue was raised and discussed with him at the second interview we did
9 with him in early August during the recess, and it was at that time that
10 we canvassed the issues with him and this was disclosed to the Defence on
11 the 10th of August. So they've known about that since that time.
12 Now, my understanding from the Defence is that they will agree
13 that it's appropriate for the Prosecution to lead evidence on those three
14 new issues and expand the 65 ter summary, and they wouldn't be opposing
15 it if they had more time to review the documents which were disclosed
16 yesterday, and I'm just going to dovetail into that now because I think
17 although we have reached a proposal which we want to jointly put to you
18 about his testimony, I just want to clarify for the record the documents
19 which were disclosed yesterday.
20 Now, my learned friend said there were 687 pages of material
21 which -- at least of which 50 per cent were relevant which needed to be
22 reviewed meticulously by them. There were, in fact, nine documents,
23 separate documents which were disclosed yesterday. The first three were
24 transcripts from the new videos. Now, the videos themselves were
25 disclosed to them in early August. We formally sought to add them in a
1 motion filed last week, and in the intervening time, and we have sent
2 them to our services for transcription, and so in my submission this is
3 not new evidence that is available to the Defence. It's simply a
4 different form of the evidence that they previously had.
5 The fourth one is the transcription of the video from Kotor Varos
6 which Your Honours have already ruled into evidence and admitted to our
7 65 ter list. It's 65 ter 3623. It's the transcript of that video. Now,
8 Your Honours, these transcripts are very difficult to do, because they --
9 the quality is very bad, and so we've had to spend some time trying to
10 get the transcriptions right in order to provide them to the Court and
11 the interpreters when we propose to actually formally tender them. So
12 that's the first four documents out of the nine.
13 The fifth document or series of documents was 50 photos, and one
14 of them contains a photo of one of the accused. The rest do not, but
15 they are a series, and that's what -- that's what are contained in
16 that -- that range of documents.
17 The sixth document has just been used by the Defence today and
18 added by Your Honours to the law library. So that is a document of over
19 200 pages long, and forms part of the 687 that they were complaining
20 about, but has, in fact, been tendered by them today and alternatively we
21 agreed to just add it to the law library.
22 The next document is a similar document. It's an instruction on
23 civil affairs. It's a regulation. It's 11 pages. So it falls into the
24 same category as the previous one.
25 The last two documents are new. One is a handwritten diary from
1 the president of the municipal Executive Board. It's one page. And the
2 last document is -- is a chart which -- of the military structure drawn
3 by the witness.
4 So that's, in summary, the documents that were sent to them
5 yesterday. In my submission, they're -- their application to adjourn the
6 entire testimony of the witness on the grounds that they have to review
7 687 pages of material is misleading. In fact, when, you break it down
8 there's two pages of new documents, one new photo, and the rest of the
9 material has been explained.
10 Despite that, Your Honours, we have had discussions over the
11 break, and in light of the fact that the current witness has only just
12 started and will go into tomorrow, possibly over 'till Monday, it's been
13 agreed with the Defence that we will call ST-197 directly after he
14 finishes, the current witness finishes next week, and then we will defer
15 his cross-examination. That solves two problems. One, it means that he
16 won't be held over the four-week long -- the four-day, sorry, weekend,
17 and it means the Defence have agreed that the Prosecution will be able to
18 lead new evidence -- well, the expanded evidence under the new 65 ter
20 So the joint proposal, Your Honours, is that we continue as
21 scheduled and call Witness ST-197 next week, that we defer his
22 cross-examination, and it will be for a date to be advised because I'd
23 like to be able to speak with the witness himself and organise that
24 around his schedule, and bring him back possibly in about three or four
25 weeks to commence and conclude his cross-examination. And on that basis,
1 the Defence have agreed that the -- the Prosecution can lead the evidence
2 on the expanded topics which are relevant to the issues in this case.
3 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Ms. Pidwell. Do either Defence counsel
4 have anything to add?
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Just very briefly, Your Honours, a verification.
6 I'm not going to touch this because we agreed, and we hereby withdraw
7 our -- our opposition to the amendment of 65 ter summary. That is --
8 that is correct. I was referring to the summary. I -- I mistakenly
9 referred to the list.
10 Your Honours, the point is not whether the statement or the video
11 or the documents are disclosed at a certain point in time. It is -- what
12 is important for us is that we have to know if this area will be explored
13 by the Prosecution. So if the 65 ter summary stays the same, so they are
14 not calling him for these particular issues that he mentions in his
15 testimony and we can disregard them, or maybe we can use it, but the
16 point of the matter is late notice in the change of the 65 ter summary,
17 that they indeed want to -- to explore that -- that area with this
18 witness. That is the point of the problem. But I'm not going again into
20 The second thing, Your Honours, what I was referring to Mladic, I
21 have seen what -- what so far we have been disclosed with is the diaries
22 and the 20 or 30 hours of audio and video material. However, I know that
23 in case Perisic and in Gotovina and in some other cases, another 150
24 hours of audio and video material additionally has been -- has been
25 disclosed, and I saw the -- the actual Ministry of Interior report
1 confirming the contents of that material. So that's an expertise of MUP
2 of Republika Srpska on that particular material, and it has couple of
3 hundred of pages. And if my learned friends can knock on the door on
4 their friends in the office, they will probably be able to find that out.
5 Thank you very much.
6 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honours, I don't have anything, except that we
8 agree with the Prosecution how to sort out the problem with
9 Witness ST-197.
10 JUDGE HALL: Yes. We will formally rule on the joint proposal at
11 the start of tomorrow's sitting.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: I have one question, Ms. Pidwell. Do you have
13 another witness available to fill the gap that eventually will occur?
14 MS. PIDWELL: In short, no, Your Honour. Ms. Korner is going to
15 ask for five hours in total in chief with Witness ST-197 in light of the
16 video material and expanded topics. We -- and so we envisage there will
17 be a -- despite that application, there will be a gap, because we don't
18 have a back-up witness to fill the gap for next week at this late
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
21 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. We take the adjournment until 9.00
22 tomorrow morning.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.07 p.m.,
24 to be reconvened on Friday, the 3rd day of
25 September, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.