1 Tuesday, 7 September 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
6 Good morning, everybody in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
8 Stojan Zupljanin.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 Good morning to everyone.
11 May we have the appearances, please.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Good morning, Your Honours. Matthew Olmsted,
13 Joanna Korner, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
15 Mr. Mico Stanisic is represented by Mr. Slobodan Cvijetic and
16 Ms. Deirdre Montgomery.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... good morning,
18 Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and Igor Pantelic appearing for
19 Zupljanin Defence.
20 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. And if there is nothing that need delay
21 us, may we have Mr. Kovacevic back on the stand, please.
22 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, I assume your estimate is still
25 20 minutes. It hasn't enlarged overnight.
1 MR. OLMSTED: Well, I'm going to definitely try to stick to that,
2 Your Honours.
3 While the usher is standing up, if I may hand the witness
4 Exhibit 1D373.
5 WITNESS: MARINKO KOVACEVIC [Resumed]
6 [Witness answered through interpreter]
7 Re-examination by Mr. Olmsted: [Continued]
8 Q. And, Mr. Kovacevic, if you can just take a brief look at that
10 MR. OLMSTED: And while he is doing that, if we can have P1574 on
11 the screen in front of us. And this is the Banja Luka Basic Prosecutor's
12 Office KTN. And once we that on our screen, if we could -- again, I want
13 on the screen, P1574. And if we can turn to page 44 of this exhibit and
14 zoom into entry 2637, which is on the left-hand page. It's the fourth
15 entry from the bottom.
16 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, please look at Exhibit 1D373, which is in front of
17 you, that I handed to you, and if you can see that this is an unknown
18 perpetrator criminal report listing Emir Nezirevic as the victim. And if
19 you look in the upper right of this criminal report, we see the KU entry
20 number 3925.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Now if we can turn to the log-book, which I would
22 ask to be put on the full screen. And if -- is this page 44? And if we
23 can zoom in on entry 2637, which is on the left-hand page, fourth entry
24 from the bottom.
25 Q. We see that entry 2637 is the entry for this unknown perpetrator
1 case. Is that correct, Mr. Kovacevic?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could just scroll across this entry.
4 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, according to this entry, was the perpetrator in
5 this case ever identified by the police?
6 A. No, according to this entry.
7 Q. Now, in response to one of my questions last week, you told us
8 that once the police identify a perpetrator of a crime, there would be no
9 reason for you to request the opening of a criminal investigation.
10 During cross-examination, Mr. Zecevic put to you that there may
11 have been situations where the police knew who the perpetrator was but
12 did not report the identity of the perpetrator to the prosecutor's office
13 for several years because; for example, the perpetrator was living abroad
14 during that time.
15 Can you tell us, what are some of the risks of not opening a
16 criminal investigation immediately upon identifying the perpetrator?
17 A. I'll try to be more precise, to explain the notion of reporting
18 and the notion of criminal prosecution for the sake of clarity.
19 Therefore, a criminal report must be filed by the police in
20 writing against an identified and known perpetrator. Identified means
21 full identification, which implies --
22 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Kovacevic, I'm going to
23 stop you there because we did cover this already in your testimony. And
24 I just want to get to the exact point of my question, which is: You have
25 the identity of the perpetrator; you have the information you need to
1 open an investigation; can you tell us what the risks are of not opening
2 that investigation immediately upon having the information about the
3 identity of the prosecutor [sic]?
4 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, I was going to intervene when you first
5 raised the question asked. Do we need evidence of that?
6 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, you're suggesting that this is common
8 JUDGE HALL: I would have thought so.
9 MR. OLMSTED: That's fine, Your Honour, but I'm not sure if
10 common sense is evidence. But I can move on.
11 JUDGE HALL: It seems to me that that question admits of only one
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] Common sense doesn't
14 need evidence.
15 MR. OLMSTED: Very well. I guess my point is made then.
16 May we have 65 ter 1533 [Realtime transcript read in
17 error "1633"] on the screen.
18 Q. And I'm going to hand you -- well, Mr. Zecevic showed you two
19 criminal reports filed by the basic prosecutor's -- or filed with the
20 basic prosecutor's office in which the perpetrators were known Serbs.
21 And these are Exhibits 1D206 and 1D199. I want to hand them to you, and
22 hopefully this will save time.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, 65 ter 1633 is -- is that document
24 part of your list of documents?
25 MR. OLMSTED: I'm sorry, it's 1533.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: 1533. Thank you.
2 MR. OLMSTED: And this is the Banja Luka Basic Prosecutor's KT
3 log-book covering the 1992 period.
4 Now, if we can turn -- oh.
5 Now, while the witness is looking at these two criminal reports,
6 if the usher can please turn in this log-book to page 40 and then zoom in
7 to KT entry 348, which is the third from the top.
8 Q. Now, Mr. Kovacevic, with regard to Exhibit 1D206, which is a case
9 involving a Serb perpetrator, Dragoslav Kuzmic, and a non-Serb victim,
10 Mustafa Smailagic, who was killed at a cafe on -- in June 1992, I want
11 you to take a look at KT entry 348 and confirm that this is the entry for
12 that particular case.
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 MR. OLMSTED: Now, if we can scroll over to column 24. So if we
15 could move over right, to the right. Further.
16 Q. You see the date 28 September 1992. And if we can go to the top
17 of the page just to see what the column heading is. For column 24, we
18 see the heading says "date investigation dropped."
19 So according to this log-book, Mr. Kovacevic, what happened to
20 this case on 28 September 1992?
21 A. The investigation was terminated, but I don't know on what
22 grounds. That means that according to the rules then in force, an
23 investigation can be suspended for a variety of reasons. One of those
24 reasons, for example, could be, let's say, that the perpetrator is
25 deceased, for example. Or that the results achieved during investigation
1 demonstrated there was insufficient evidence relating to the reported
3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... and that's fine. We don't
4 want you to speculate as to why it was -- why the investigation was
6 MR. OLMSTED: If we can turn now to page 58 of this exhibit, the
7 log-book. And if you can go to the bottom of the page and zoom in to the
8 last entry, which is KT entry 365.
9 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, in front of you one, of the exhibits I handed to
10 you, Exhibit 1D199, is not a criminal report but it's a document that
11 pertains to a criminal report under the KU entry number 123/92, which is
12 against Branko Palackovic, Dragan Javorac, and Mladen Josic, amongst
13 others. And during cross-examination, Mr. Zecevic explained to that you
14 these Serb perpetrators committed a large number of crimes, and
15 Mr. Zecevic also mentioned that they were charged with killing Mustafa
16 Smailagic as well.
17 Mr. Kovacevic, do you know whether this is the same victim as the
18 case we just looked at, this Mr. Smailagic?
19 A. Excuse me, which previous case are you referring to? Oh, the
20 Kuzmic case. Yes.
21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... yes. That's right. Are
22 they the same victims; do you know?
23 A. I honestly don't know whether that's one and the same victim.
24 There were quite a few people with the same first and second -- last
1 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... that's fine. That's fine.
2 Now, if you can look at this KT entry 365, we see that there's
3 two entries or two perpetrators listed on this particular page. Can you
4 confirm that this is the entry for the case for KU entry 123/92 against
5 Branko Palackovic and others?
6 A. Yes, that's the one.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Now, if we can turn to the next page in this
8 exhibit and go down to the last two entries.
9 Q. We see in column 27 that the prosecutor -- scroll over to the
10 left, please. We see the date 31 August 1992, which is the date that the
11 prosecutor's office filed indictments in this case. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 Q. Now, if we scroll over to the right, we don't see any other
14 information with regard to this case. Is there any indication,
15 Mr. Kovacevic, of what happened to this case after it was indicted?
16 A. There's a note here, 77/99. I can only assume that this case was
17 assigned a new number in the year 1999. That means that these
18 proceedings were ongoing for some time, and that in 1999 it was assigned
19 a new number, I suppose. Whereas, the other case files were attached to
20 this original case file, and that eventually it was given a 1999 number,
21 77. This is what I can suppose.
22 Q. Let's turn to the next page.
23 MR. OLMSTED: And if we can zoom in on the first five entries on
24 this page.
25 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, we see here the five other perpetrators in this
1 case; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... and if we can scroll over to
4 the right, we can see that indictments were filed against two of these
5 perpetrators on the same date, 31 August 1992.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, the other three, we see an entry in column 24, which we've
8 established is that the investigation was dropped. We see the date
9 31 August 1992 as well. So does that mean that the investigation was --
10 was terminated with regard to those three perpetrators?
11 A. Yes. For this particular crime reported, it would mean that
12 investigation was terminated for these three individuals.
13 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may this be admitted into evidence.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise.
16 It's a rather unusual way in -- in re-direct to put -- to offer
17 some evidence, exhibits. That's point number one.
18 Point number two, Your Honours, how this particular exhibit and,
19 by the way, how this particular line of questioning in re-direct can help
20 this Trial Chamber with regard to the individual criminal responsibility
21 of our clients? Whereas, it is undisputed fact that police, in this
22 particular stage of investigation and procedure with the prosecutor, has
23 not any particular role.
24 So everything here what we are discussing now is related
25 specifically to the tasks of the prosecutor office and the investigating
1 judge, in accordance with the -- with the law which was in force in 1992
2 in -- in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Nothing to do with the police work and even
3 with this particular case.
4 Thank you.
5 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, how does this assist?
6 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours, may the witness take off his
7 headphones, please.
8 Your Honours, the Defence has shown these particular cases to
9 this witness and, in fact, they've showed them to a number of witnesses.
10 And as I understand it, the purpose for doing so was to suggest that the
11 criminal justice system was functioning in a non-discriminatory manner in
12 1992. It is, therefore, important to see what happened to these cases as
13 they went through the criminal justice system. The KT log-book, which
14 tracks the case from its reporting all the way through to the appeal
15 stage to its final determination, is a source -- a piece of evidence that
16 can establish that.
17 I point out that our indictment charges joint criminal
18 enterprise. This is not solely a police case. It's about the entire
19 system and whether that system was used as a tool to implement the plan
20 of the JCE. And, therefore, we don't -- we can't just be myopic and look
21 at what the police did; we have to look at the whole process.
22 Now, I know the Trial Chamber does not like to go into such
23 details, but with regard to this issue, unfortunately, the devil is in
24 the details. And, after all, we're not going through the entire
25 log-book, but these two particular entries give some insights.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Olmsted, if I may reply to your comments.
2 I think you're missing the point, because the Chamber is mindful
3 of the importance of the information that is hidden in these log-books.
4 But as you will recall, we have been through the issue of interpretation
5 of the information that we can find in the log-books a number of times
6 during the past few months, since we began the exercise of trolling
7 through the log-books. And the Chamber has made, at several occasions,
8 the comment that unless we're given some statistical information that
9 covers all the log-books and shows exactly how many cases were raised,
10 how many of them were investigated, how many of them were prosecuted, and
11 how many of them were successfully carried along through conviction, then
12 the -- then the Chamber would have a difficulty in getting the full
14 That's why I think the Chamber's point here and now is that to be
15 given yet another few examples of what happened to two or three cases
16 doesn't assist the Chamber at all because we are in no position to -- to
17 compare this information with any background, general background, that
18 might show a pattern.
19 So I -- I, for one, at least, I don't know the position of my
20 colleagues, but I would have a difficulty in -- in accepting this
22 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, I think the statistics will be
23 provided, hopefully they will be of assistance to the Trial Chamber down
24 the road. This witness is from Banja Luka, so he can authentic these
25 log-books, which is important, of course. But more importantly, the
1 Defence is opening the door on this issue. They are presenting a handful
2 of cases to say that the system was functioning none discriminatory.
3 And the Prosecution -- that puts the Prosecution in a position to
4 show that, no, these case do's not show that. And the place to look
5 at -- the easiest place to look is the log-books because the log-books do
6 track the cases, and they'll say, yes, there was a trial; yes, the
7 accused was sentenced to X number of years. And so we do need to address
8 on an individual basis the cases the Defence tenders into evidence.
9 And if the Trial Chamber's position is as Your Honour,
10 respectfully, has made, then, really, the Defence shouldn't be allowed
11 to -- also to tender particular cases to try to prove their point.
12 They've made -- if these weren't -- the cases that were in front of them,
13 in front of this witness, if they weren't exhibits in this trial, that
14 might be a different matter. Certainly it's not the position of the
15 Prosecution that every single crime committed against a non-Serb was
16 never reported. But if they are going to admit certain documents into
17 evidence or if they tendered them and they are admitted, then we need to
18 address them one by one.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: But to repeat the point that I just made,
20 Mr. Olmsted, it is of no use or at least it is only very limited use to
21 the Chamber to be given examples of cases that were raised but not
22 carried through or that were not raised or ... because it only shows
23 that, yes, there were cases that were investigated but never brought
24 through to prosecution and conviction. In some other cases, the
25 perpetrators were brought to court. In some of these cases in which the
1 perpetrators were brought to court, some of the perpetrators were
2 convicted while others were acquitted, and yet the cases or the charges
3 were dropped against another.
4 It's -- it's just examples that shows that, well, everything was
5 possible, and that's where we -- we come to the end.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I understand the point that you're
7 making. And I will repeat that we will provide some statistics that we
8 have with regard to the issue that you're raising. However, we are
9 presented with these examples, and the Prosecution ask that we be able to
10 address those examples. And we want to do that through documentary
11 evidence and that would include this log-book.
12 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise. Just short remarks on
13 Mr. Olmsted's submission.
14 Point number 1: Our case, Defence case, has nothing to do with
15 the judicial system of Republika Srpska, with the work of the courts,
16 with the work of the prosecution. So this is completely misunderstanding
17 from the OTP side and misinterpretation.
18 We have here two police functionaries, and we have indictment.
19 Fortunately for Defence, unfortunately for the OTP, this indictment is
20 based on the very wide and, I would say, ungrounded facts which is JCE.
21 And we shall destroy this concept, JCE.
22 It is not the point, because we have to know where is the line in
23 that JCE. What does it mean? That these two people are responsible for
24 everything what was done in a prosecution office, in judicial area, et
25 cetera? So -- but that -- that's for the submissions.
1 Now, Your Honour, what we have here, we have a log-book, we have
2 an overview of the work of the prosecution office. And why we offered
3 all our exhibits? Because, in accordance with the law at that time, the
4 role of police was to -- to -- to file criminal charges. And we explain
5 how, when, and under which circumstances police work and what they
6 actually did. And then end of story. Unless, because we -- we saw here,
7 and we hear that for many Prosecution witnesses, investigating judges,
8 and prosecutor, where the role of prosecutor is to give direction to
9 police, to collect additional informations during the process of
10 investigation. And end of story, Your Honour. So we are wasting
11 precious court time here with this exercise from the OTP.
12 Thank you.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE HALL: The problem that has been -- perhaps problem is the
15 wrong word. The difficulty with this type of evidence that has been
16 articulated by Judge Harhoff as to how the isolated examples -- or I
17 should say random examples from the log-books is something which - and I
18 telegraph this to especially the Prosecution - is something which, when
19 the time comes to put all of this together, is something that is going to
20 present great difficulty without the statistics to which Judge Harhoff
21 has referred.
22 But the -- having gone down this route and the -- of isolate --
23 of identifying these examples to put to the various witnesses, and, of
24 course, the Bench is not in the position of understanding the mind of --
25 of -- of counsel on either side, in this particular case we're dealing
1 with examples which the Defence has used, and it must be presumed that
2 they had a purpose in leading this evidence. And against that
3 background, it seems to a majority of us - Judge Harhoff dissenting -
4 that the application to admit this evidence, that they now be tendered,
5 is an application to which we should accede.
6 And so they're admitted and marked.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honours. Just one final question.
8 Q. Mr. Kovacevic -- yes, please, I'm sorry, put on your headphones.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: One moment. One moment. We need to have the
10 exhibit number.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Oh.
12 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibit P1575, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: And could you remind us, just what was the
14 65 ter number?
15 MR. OLMSTED: Yes -- it was ...
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: 1533.
17 MR. OLMSTED: That's right. That's right. Thank you,
18 Your Honour.
19 Q. One final question, Mr. Kovacevic.
20 In response to Mr. Pantelic's last question to you, you gave a
21 very candid response to which we all appreciate. You told us that you
22 could have demonstrated a more active involvement in the
23 Koricanske Stijene case by seeking more details.
24 Mr. Kovacevic, you worked on both the Koricanske Stijene and the
25 Manjaca camp killings cases, and over the past few days you have reviewed
1 with us the case files for these cases. As you sit here today, can you
2 honestly say that the CSB Banja Luka did everything it could in 1992 to
3 investigate these cases and identify the perpetrators?
4 A. I can express my personal view, my own thinking, as a
5 contemporary participant in these events.
6 This criminal case, Koricanske Stijene, began in 1992. Work
7 started on it, and it was an open case. We're still talking about 1992,
8 end of August, early September. No record of on-site investigation was
9 made, and that's a basic piece of evidence that was very important for
10 further and more active involvement of the prosecution in this case.
11 That record was supposed to be done by the investigating judge of the
12 lower court in Banja Luka.
13 I'm trying to say that I can only give my subjective judgement in
14 response to your question with the facts being what they are, and one of
15 these facts is that an investigating judge was also involved in this
16 case. And if we follow the documentation and the correspondence that I
17 had occasion to see and hear, when it was shown to me by the Defence, it
18 appears that the CSB Banja Luka, indeed, took all the possible steps to
19 detect, to identify the perpetrators. But why they were not ultimately
20 identified and why the criminal report was not fleshed out is up to the
21 Trial Chamber to determine on the basis of all the relevant information
22 and evidence.
23 Whether it was possible to do even more in 1992, whether it was
24 possible to get more information, collect more evidence in this specific
25 case, is a question that is very difficult for me to answer. But the
1 correspondence between CSB Banja Luka and the Centre for Public Security
2 Prijedor seems to indicate that the CSB Banja Luka did take all the
3 possible steps to identify the perpetrators in this pre-indictment stage.
4 Q. We'll leave it at that.
5 MR. OLMSTED: No further questions, Your Honour.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Kovacevic, we thank you for your assistance to
8 the Tribunal. Your -- you're now released as a witness, and we wish you
9 a safe journey back to your home.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
11 [The witness withdrew]
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, Your Honours granted the next witness
13 protective measures, which fall short of closed session, and we'll have
14 do adjourn if -- if those are still to be put in place. Can I simply
15 raise, again, the question of whether it isn't going to be more
16 straightforward and simpler to have his evidence in closed session.
17 Virtually every document bears his name that I'm going to ask him
18 about. Not every, but the majority. Which means they can't be shown on
19 the screen, and we're going to have all sorts of difficulties about going
20 in and out of private session. As I say, as we said in the motion, most
21 of his evidence will reveal his identity.
22 So I'm just wondering whether Your Honours want to think about
23 whether it wouldn't be simpler, faster, to stay in closed session,
24 subject to any objections from the Defence. And even if are there are
25 objections, Your Honours still have the discretion.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE HALL: We -- we didn't consider it necessary to hear from
3 the Defence because the -- in the Trial Chamber's view, it would have
4 given careful consideration to the reasons put forward in the original
5 motion, and, at this point, there is no -- we don't see the need to
6 consider reviewing that decision. However, we accept that, as Ms. Korner
7 has indicated, that it may be something that we would have to look at as
8 the evidence develops.
9 MS. KORNER: I appreciate you made the decision. I simply raised
10 it because of the -- the -- the inevitable jerkiness, if you like, of the
11 evidence. But I appreciate your decision, and I'm not going to take it
13 JUDGE HALL: Before --
14 MS. KORNER: It means we have to rise, Your Honours, because we
15 have to set up the --
16 JUDGE HALL: Yes. But before we do that, we were alerted, before
17 we took the Bench, that you may have had another application, Ms. Korner.
18 In terms of time ...
19 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... Your Honours, we asked for
20 five hours and we heard nothing so we assumed we'd got the five hours on
21 the basis silence is consent.
22 Your Honours, can I say, the reason is that -- that it's --
23 again, it's documents. And there are, I think, four, if not five, videos
24 to show, each of which show the witness. So there's quite -- and some of
25 the videos you've not seen before. In fact, most of them you haven't.
1 JUDGE HALL: The -- inasmuch as the practical time arrangement,
2 which counsel have agreed last week, to which we gave our seal of
3 approval, means that we have today and tomorrow. We don't see any
4 difficulty with this. But as an aside, I would only comment that I come
5 from a religious tradition which holds presumption to be a sin.
6 So we will rise now. I'm looking at the clock, and one of the
7 things I'm always concerned about is the comfort and the convenience of
8 the accused and balancing that against the maximum hour and a half time
9 that we have for taping and whatnot. To keep as regular time as
10 possible, particularly for those who have the care of the accused, I'm
11 wondering whether the -- since we have to rise now, whether we shouldn't
12 wait until 10.35 to resume and then we can sit for an hour and a half to
14 It would be an extended break. But rather than coming in and
15 out, I'm just thinking ...
16 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Certainly, Your Honour.
17 --- Recess taken at 9.54 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 10.37 a.m.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just for the record,
22 may I say that we were joined by Ms. Tatjana Savic.
23 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
24 The -- yes, Ms. Korner.
25 MS. KORNER: Well, no, Your Honours, I simply was about to say
1 that -- that the shutters will have to come down for the witness to come
2 into court.
3 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Thank you, Yes. Yes.
4 While the witness is on his way in -- I believe that we all
5 understand this, but the -- it's clear that his testimony in-chief has to
6 be completed by -- by tomorrow. Yes.
7 MS. KORNER: Even I, Your Honour, can't extend it beyond that.
8 Indeed, Your Honours, I'm hoping there will be time tomorrow to
9 just raise a few administrative matters which may affect the progress of
10 the trial.
11 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] I remember the last time
12 this came up, it had been represented to us that both sides had reached
13 some accommodation on this exhumation business. Is there necessity for
14 Court time, or has that been resolved completely between counsel?
15 MS. KORNER: Well, no, Your Honours, it -- unfortunately, it
16 hasn't. Although I had a brief chance with Mr. Zecevic who's been doing
17 the running on this, as it were, for the -- both teams, I think, as I
18 wasn't here for the last half of last week and Mr. Zecevic, I understand,
19 is not here for the rest of this week, it's going to have to wait until
20 next week to have a discussion with him in the hopes that - and I'm
21 slightly more sanguine than I was - that we won't have to trouble
22 Your Honours with Court time.
23 [The witness entered court]
24 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] The shutters may be
1 Good morning to you, sir. Would you please make the solemn
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. I
4 solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and
5 nothing but the truth.
6 WITNESS: ST-197
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. You may be seated.
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may I just remind Your Honours we need
10 to go into private session while you deal with his personal details
11 because the answers to the questions that I know Your Honour is going ask
12 may indicate who he is.
13 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
14 The -- before -- before we go into private session, I would
15 indicate to you, sir, that we -- your testimony is being taken under the
16 provisions of certain protective measures which the Chamber is allowed to
17 permit. Before I do that, I would point out that the solemn declaration
18 which you have just made imposes upon you the obligation to speak the
19 truth under the pain of the penalties for perjury which this Chamber is
20 empowered to impose should you give misleading or untruthful testimony.
21 Returning to the protective measures, the -- ordinarily this
22 Tribunal receives testimony in public for the reason that being a
23 Tribunal dealing with criminal matters especially criminal matters which
24 arose in the peculiar circumstances of the former Yugoslavia, it is
25 necessary for the public to have confidence in the proceedings that we're
1 about to -- because the -- both for the sake of the victims and the
2 public at large, but notwithstanding the general desideratum of evidence
3 always being received in public, it recognises that, again, in the
4 context of the historical events, it is, from time to time, necessary and
5 in the public interest for certain protective measures to be allowed to
6 allow -- so that witnesses who are called are able to be free and frank
7 in their testimony presented to the Tribunal without there being any
8 personal difficulties, resulting from the fact of their having given
9 evidence, visited upon them or their families.
10 You would have observed that when you entered the courtroom the
11 screens were lowered. And that would happen on each case that we take an
12 adjournment so that any person in the public gallery wouldn't be able to
13 identify you.
14 In addition to that, we have medical and electronic measures by
15 which your image would be distorted so that anyone tuning in to these
16 proceedings would not be able to identify you by your face or voice. And
17 you will also be accorded a pseudonym, and you will, for that reason, be
18 referred to as -- either by your witness number or simply as Mr. Witness.
19 The -- from time to time, notwithstanding the otherwise public
20 nature of your testimony, as I said, subject to those conditions, we have
21 been alerted that it would be necessary to revert to what we refer to as
22 a private session so that the -- that portion of your testimony taken
23 during a private session, members of the public either in the gallery or
24 those who are viewing the proceedings via the Internet would not be --
25 would not hear that part of your testimony.
1 And I would ask the Prosecution if they have a pseudonym sheet,
2 and then we will go into private session.
3 MS. KORNER: Yes, we do, Your Honour.
4 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE HALL: Can you read that, sir? And if you're satisfied
7 with the accuracy of what it contains, would you please sign it and hand
8 it back to the usher.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE HALL: So the pseudonym sheet is admitted and marked under
11 seal. And we now go into private session.
12 THE REGISTRAR: And this will be Exhibit P1576, under seal,
13 Your Honours.
14 [Private session]
11 Pages 14332-14356 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
7 MS. KORNER: This is obviously causing the witness difficulty,
8 which I understand because it's not the easiest thing to do. He did
9 actually produce a marking for me when I saw him, which I've got on here.
10 I don't know whether I would be allowed to hand that over to him just so
11 he can see what he did.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may make a
13 suggestion. It would be perhaps a good idea if the witness took the map
14 with him during the break and make his markings then. Because here we
15 are obviously not going to get anywhere.
16 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... no, as I say,
17 that's what I'm saying? If I can produce this, this is what he marked.
18 He can have a look at it, identify it. I appreciate the electronic
19 problems, but -- and then Mr. Cvijetic can see what he did.
20 JUDGE HALL: Yes, that appears to be practical.
21 MS. KORNER: Yes.
22 MR. PANTELIC: We could have on the ELMO for the moment, he can
23 confirm, and then we can admit it.
24 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... that's a sensible
25 suggestion. If we put it up slightly. No, you've got -- sorry. Yes.
1 Q. So that -- we can see across there a line in -- and a little
2 squiggle in blue. Is that what you drew when we spoke, and does that
3 show the -- where the AOR of the 122nd ended?
4 A. Yes, that's the left border of the area of responsibility of the
5 122nd and later 22nd Brigade. Borja-Karanovac village is the line on the
7 MS. KORNER: Now, Your Honours, I'm not sure exactly how we -- is
8 it possible to produce that as the exhibit?
9 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, has the witness confirmed that --
10 MS. KORNER: Yes, he has.
11 JUDGE HALL: He has.
12 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise. Clients are not sure what -- what
13 exactly it is. Maybe the map should go little bit to the right and then
14 we -- we would need - I think Trial Chamber would agree - we would need
15 the clear line goes around the area of responsibility so we exactly know
16 where these lines -- if that's a red line, because we -- it's -- it's not
17 precise here, what we see.
20 Thank you.
21 MS. KORNER: And can we redact that last bit, please.
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
23 MR. PANTELIC: And he can do it during the break.
24 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
25 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
1 MS. KORNER: Yes.
2 Q. Thank you very much, sir. I think you've marked the plan
4 MS. KORNER: Is Mr. Pantelic happy with that? Mr. Cvijetic?
6 Then, Your Honours, may that now be made an exhibit.
7 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
8 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
9 JUDGE HALL: Which brings us to the time for the break.
10 THE REGISTRAR: And this will be Exhibit P1578, under seal,
11 Your Honours.
12 MS. KORNER: Yes, it does have to be because part of it contains
13 his name.
14 JUDGE HALL: So we resume in 20 minutes.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE HALL: Yes, sir.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, we were wondering if it would --
21 We were wondering if it would make sense to ask the witness to
22 identify the locations of Koricanske Stijene and perhaps the Vrbas River,
23 notably to see whether these locations were within the area of
24 responsibility of the 122nd Light Brigade.
25 I wonder if you could bring this up.
1 MS. KORNER: Certainly. I don't think there's any dispute, but
2 I'll ask him to mark them.
3 Q. Sir --
4 MS. KORNER: Can we have the map back up, whatever the exhibit
5 number was, now.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: 1578.
7 MS. KORNER: Thank you. 1578.
8 Q. And could you be very kind, if you can do it, and mark on it
9 the -- the location of Koricanske Stijene, where, as you know, the
10 killings took place, and the Vrbas River.
11 A. The Vrbas is here, and that's the ultimate point of the area of
12 responsibility of the 122nd, or 22nd Brigade.
13 As for Koricanske Stijene, it is located on the Knezevo-Koricani
14 village country road which runs along the ridge from the town of Knezevo,
15 the village of Koricani, and, finally, Vitovljani [phoen].
16 Since this scale is 1:100.000, it's not easy to discern
17 Koricanske Stijene. It's very small, and it can be found in a map with a
18 larger scale in order to avoid any mistakes. But I would say that it's
19 on the road that leads to the village of Koricani. And I really wouldn't
20 want to be mistaken here, because I can't see clearly the location of
21 Koricanske Stijene. This is a very small-scale map, and it is possible
22 that the Koricanske Stijene is not marked at all. If any such map is
23 available, then I can show you exactly where it is.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, what I'll do is I'll make sure that
25 for tomorrow we have a larger-scale map so that the witness can indicate
2 Q. But, sir, can you confirm that the area of Koricanske Stijene
3 came within the area of responsibility of the 122nd?
4 A. Yes. Koricanske Stijene was in the area of responsibility of the
5 122nd Brigade.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. And the same goes, I assume, for the
7 Vrbas River?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The River Vrbas is, as I said, the
9 ultimate border or boundary, and it was always considered as a boundary
10 between the two zones, starting from the village of Karanovac until the
11 River Ugar flows into the River Vrbas. So, as I said, that was the
12 ultimate boundary of the area of responsibility of the brigade.
13 According to our rules, it belonged to no one. It was a boundary.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Now that we have the map on the
15 screen, I note that you, when you drew the boundary, marked a cross on
16 the northern-eastern side of the area. What is that cross meant to
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This cross signifies the pass on
19 Mount Borja, approximately. As I said, if I had a different scale map, I
20 can mark the elevation. But this is -- approximately where the boundary
21 was. You can't take the whole of the mountain as a boundary. You always
22 take the mountain peak. So this approximately where the peak was and
23 where the boundary was.
24 In the order that I received from the commander of the 1st Corps,
25 it was said that the boundary was on Mount Borja.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, maybe to have a clearer situation,
2 maybe witness can mark number 1 where this cross is so that we have a
3 reference that number 1 is related to Borja, or Borja position, if that
4 would be assistance for the Trial Chamber.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Pantelic. But since there's only
6 one cross on the map, I think that would be sufficient.
7 MR. PANTELIC: And I do apologise again, maybe I -- I missed
8 something. What are these two red signs on the map? On -- with the red
9 marker that we have on the screen? On the north and on the south.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Witness, are you aware that you made two red
11 markings at the north-western corner of the area of responsibility and
12 then further down south?
13 Do you recall what these markings were supposed to represent?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I understood you properly, that
15 you're referring to this mark that I'm showing right now, if this is what
16 you mean? I'm not clear what you're referring to.
17 MR. PANTELIC: I'm speaking about the red mark which is just on
18 the northern part of the zone of responsibility. And then there is
19 another red mark just on the south near the zone of HVO units. So if
20 there is any sense of that; if nothing, I will disregard it, of course.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't see any special markings
22 that I made. They don't represent anything in particular.
23 These circles are important, and they signify the locations of
24 the brigade, of its command post, et cetera. As for the other things, I
25 don't see anything of relevance there.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. Let's move on.
2 MR. PANTELIC: And I do apologise again. Maybe Ms. Korner can
3 get the answer from the witness where -- whether Manjaca camp was within
4 his zone of responsibility.
5 MS. KORNER: All right. I don't mind asking that.
6 Q. Sir, you heard Mr. Pantelic's question. Was Manjaca camp within
7 the area -- within the zone of responsibility of the 122nd?
8 A. No, it wasn't.
9 Q. Thank you. Right, sir, can we move on. I've got a few general
10 questions relating to the system of reporting, please.
11 Before I do that, can I just ask you this: You told the
12 investigates in 2001 that when you relocated to the Vlasic area you had
13 three Muslim officers but they left shortly after the declaration of the
14 VRS in 1992; is that correct? If you can just answer shortly yes or no.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Next, again, fairly shortly, again, you dealt with this in your
17 first interview, the reporting structure. Is this right: That the
18 brigade, company commanders, would report through the communication lines
19 sometimes once a day and sometimes twice a day, depending on what was
3 MS. KORNER: Yes. Can we just have redacted, please, that last
5 Q. Sir, if we can just keep it general so that we can stay in open
7 Were there also daily combat reports that were submitted to
8 command -- to the corps command?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And sometimes there were oral -- there was oral reporting, and
11 sometimes written?
12 A. That was the routine procedure. The way of communicating within
13 the subordination system involved both oral and written reports.
14 Q. Yes. Thank you, sir. That's all that I want to ask you about
16 Now can we move to some general matters that you were asked about
17 approximately a month ago.
18 First, as I think you may have already told us, is it right that
19 the VRS, in fact, operated strictly according to the regulation of the
20 JNA; that in 1992 there were no new regulations adopted?
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Redact.
4 MS. KORNER: Yes. All right.
5 Q. Sir, from time to time, we will be going into private session so
6 that can you speak freely. But at the moment, in public session, if you
7 could avoid mentioning the fact of your position at the time because I
8 want to stay in public session for the following matters.
9 Anyway, is the answer to my question, as far as you were
10 concerned, you operated according to the regulations of the JNA during
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And were all persons, such as yourself, who attended
14 Military Academy drilled, if that's the right expression, in what the
15 various regulations were?
16 A. I suppose so.
17 Q. I mean, were you?
18 A. Yes, I was.
19 Q. Now, as -- from your understanding, was there a distinction
20 between a situation where there was an actual state of war and one where
21 an immediate threat of war had been declared, as far as the authority of
22 the military was concerned?
23 A. That's an international and legal question.
24 During a state of war, once it's declared, one should act in
25 accordance with the situation, and that is when the international laws of
1 war come into force, guiding and governing the procedures and everything
3 As for an immediate threat of war, but also the state of war, was
4 something that I never saw as being equal. As far as my competence was
5 concerned during the state of war, it was much broader, and I was
6 entitled to undertake more radical measures compared to any other state.
7 Q. [Microphone not activated] In 1992 --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 MS. KORNER: Never the right thing.
10 Q. In 1992, we know that an immediate threat of war was declared by
11 the Serbian Republic in Bosnia. Did the -- in that situation, did
12 peacetime laws and regulations apply to the military?
13 A. The declaration of an immediate threat of war had to be explained
14 and regulated in a lawful measure, which included other procedures to be
15 applied by the military and all other structures. (redacted)
16 never received anything in terms of the change of my status once the
17 declaration of an immediate threat of war was made. The situation
18 remained the same as before because there was not a single regulation
19 which would bind me to act differently under the state of an imminent
20 threat of war.
21 Q. And when you say "before," sir, do you mean, as it were, in
23 A. Precisely so. Because even in peacetime we sometimes had an
24 elevated state of combat readiness declared. That is how we used to call
25 it. And we received orders to that effect from our superior commands.
1 During the state of an elevated combat readiness, it was clearly
2 and decisively stated which particular measures are to be taken and to
3 what these measures referred to specifically. However, what was not
4 included within the scope of these measures, we applied the usual
5 standard schedule of activities, according to the rules.
6 For example, if, during the state of elevated combat readiness,
7 the issue of regulating a ban on leaves, that means that all leaves were
8 suspended, both for privates and officers. Or, for example, if a measure
9 was imposed requiring one-third of the officers to be in the unit
10 24 hours a day, that was something that had to be complied with fully.
11 Therefore, if a certain state of alert is declared by -- certain
12 bylaws and ancillary regulations apply to this specific measure that was
13 declared or ordered. This is how the army operated, and I abided by that
14 very strictly.
15 Q. Yes, thank you.
16 Now before I move to specific topics, can I deal with this:
17 The training of the JNA, as regards imminent threat of war, and,
18 indeed, a state of war, had that all been concerned with the idea that
19 there would be an external enemy?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And none of the training had really looked at the situation
22 regarding an internal conflict?
23 A. Well, as far as I know, there were some topics addressed to
24 the -- within the scope of which people were trained in the event of
25 incursions by terrorists or sabotage groups --
1 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... yes.
2 A. -- and similar situations. But we had never been trained for a
3 possible inter-ethnic conflict because we had constantly been trained on
4 the basis of the All People's Defence and social self-protection concept.
5 In other words, it was never presented to us that such an inter-ethnic
6 division could occur and that a certain kind of euphoria would ensue.
7 So, certain JNA units, such as the military police, for example,
8 anti-sabotage units, were trained to fight the incursions by terrorist
9 and sabotage groups.
10 As for the other units, that did not apply.
11 Q. Yes. All right, sir. I want to now look at, as I say, a
12 specific topic. But can I just correct line -- at page 56, line 23, that
13 "there would be an external knee." It should read "there would be an
14 external enemy."
16 Now, can I ask you next, please, sir, specifically about
17 resubordination. And can you tell us, please, what you understood by the
18 term "resubordination."
10 Q. All right. Now, Article 104 of the Law on All People's Defence
11 states that:
12 In war, in time of immediate threat of war and ... other
13 emergencies, the police may be used for carrying out combat activities
14 for the armed forces ... and during its engagement in the armed forces,
15 the police shall be under the command of the authorised officer in charge
16 of the combat activity.
17 Now, first of all, sir, as I think you noted, it's a
18 discretionary power. It says the police may be used for carrying out
20 Apart from that Article, did the JNA's own regulations also apply
21 to the use of civilian police within a resubordinated capacity?
22 A. Well, in principle, this Article - and I must say that I just saw
23 this law during proofing - is very old, and I believe it's obsolete.
24 Because this is the 72 law, isn't it?
25 Q. Are you asking me, sir - and I think you actually looked at this
1 when you had your statement taken from you. I think this is the 1980 -
2 oh, that's good - the 1982 law. Now, just a moment. I'm going to check
3 that. Somebody has very cleverly -- yes, it's 1982.
4 A. Yes. When this Article says "may," that means not necessarily,
5 doesn't it? In any case, if it happened, then it must be governed very
6 precisely. By orders. Resubordination to what units, for how long, for
7 what purpose, what assignment, et cetera.
8 Q. I'm going to -- exactly. But I'm going to come on to that, sir.
9 Bu I want to deal, next, with the other regulations that had some kind of
10 effect on this.
11 MS. KORNER: Can we have a look, please, at the instructions for
12 the use of the Territorial Defence, which is also part of the law
13 library, 8316, tab 11.
14 Q. As we can see, these appear to have come into effect in 1977.
15 MS. KORNER: Could we have a look first, please, at Article 6,
16 which is at page 12 in the English and page 12 also in -- 17. 17. Oh, I
17 see. Now I see. In e-court, I gather it's page 17.
18 And we need to go over the page in the B/C/S, please, because
19 it's the last part of that article.
20 Q. Now, that reads, sir, that:
21 "In the event of an imminent threat of war and during wartime,
22 the police are ... part of the TO force and are engaged in carrying out
23 certain combat and security tasks or other tasks."
24 MS. KORNER: Then number 10, please, of the instruction, which is
25 the next page in English, and the next page in B/C/S.
1 Q. "The organising of the Territorial Defence forces shall be
2 carried out by the competent body, social republics, provinces, regional
3 communities, municipalities, local communities, and associated labour
4 organisations in accordance with legal regulations," and so on and so
5 forth, "and establish defence plans."
6 And then finally, Article 11.
7 MS. KORNER: Which is over the page in both English and B/C/S.
8 Q. "The Territorial Defence is composed of ..." and it sets out what
9 it's composed of.
10 And then it deals with how the TO units are activated according
11 to the unique plan of the SFRY armed forces.
12 And then: The activating of the TO forces for the purposes of
13 combat tasks shall be carried out according to the order of the armed
14 forces or a body's Supreme Commander, that is, the commander who is
15 authorised by him.
16 Right. So there's the regulations.
17 Now, first of all, who is meant by the "Supreme Commander," as
18 set out in that last regulation.
19 A. Well, the constitution spells out who that is. At least while
20 the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia existed, it was the
21 Presidency of the SFRY.
22 Q. And as you've told us, these regulations were carried over into
23 the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Who were the actual --
24 or was the actual Supreme Commander during the period between May and
25 December of 1992 [Realtime transcript read in error "1993"]?
1 A. That's a very sensitive issue. Republika Srpska adopted the
2 decision establishing Republika Srpska on the 12th of May. Bosnia and
3 Herzegovina continued to function as a -- as an entity, and I'm not going
4 into the politics of it.
5 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
6 A. But according to some logic, the Supreme Commander was the
7 president of Republika Srpska.
8 Q. Right. All right. Now, sir, having looked at those regulations,
9 can you now tell us, in principle -- what the reality was during this
10 period, in 1992, as to what would have to happen to have civilian police
11 resubordinated to the military?
12 A. It's hard to answer very precisely what would have happened. But
13 the civilian police did its own police work based on the existing law.
14 As far as I'm concerned, the Article from the Instruction was still in
15 force, saying that the civilian police is part of the Territorial Defence
17 Even if it -- a civilian police unit were to be resubordinated to
18 me in a particular situation, they would still be doing work that they
19 are competent for, tasks that fall within the purview of the Ministry of
20 the Interior under the law as it was then. I worked following the rules.
21 And we did not take exams on these laws, nor did we study them. The
22 Assembly could adopt one law and then enact another law a month later.
23 And in our schooling system, we did not read or study laws. We studied
24 the rules that were in effect, because if I gave an answer based on the
25 legislation not -- rather than the rules at an exam, I would have failed.
1 Q. Sir, I understand what you're saying is you studied the
2 regulations which were derived from the laws?
3 MS. KORNER: Just before we go any further in this, can I just
4 correct the -- yes, line -- page 62, line 2. I asked:
5 "Who was the actual Supreme Commander during the period between
6 May and December of 1992," not "1993."
7 Q. Right, sir. I understand that you didn't actually study the
8 laws. You just studied the regulations that were derived from the laws.
9 You, in fact, brought this to the attention, I think, of the
10 investigators when you were seen. But can you tell us, please, sir, what
11 your understanding of the regulations would mean were a military
12 commander to want reinforcement from civilian police. What procedures
13 would he have to follow?
14 A. Well, those procedures are derived from the existing rules on
15 resubordination. (redacted)
18 Q. [Microphone not activated] ... just pause -- just pause, sir, for
19 a moment.
20 Theoretically, Your Honours, I need to have that last -- I think
21 this may be quicker to go through in private session because I think he
22 is going give his own understanding. So --
23 JUDGE HALL: We go into private session.
24 [Private session]
11 Pages 14375-14379 redacted. Private session.
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
17 MS. KORNER:
18 Q. Sir, yes, I'll just repeat the question dealing with a
19 disciplinary offence: During the period of resubordination, a civilian
20 police officer commits a disciplinary offence, who would deal with that
21 matter? The military authorities' chain of command or the civilian
23 A. The civilian police.
24 Q. If the -- during the period of resubordination, a civilian police
25 officer committed a crime such as murder, who would be responsible for
1 dealing with that matter?
2 A. The organs of the civilian judiciary.
3 If the crime is committed against a member of the military, in
4 that case, the organs of the military judiciary would become involved,
5 according to the rules and regulations governing the military courts.
6 But, in any event, that matter would be dealt with at the level of
8 If the crime falls under the jurisdiction of the military organs,
9 it would be dealt with the military; and if it falls under the
10 jurisdiction of the civilian courts, then the civilian judiciary would
11 become involved.
12 Q. As far as you are concerned, did a military commander exercise
13 any disciplinary authority over a resubordinated civilian police officer?
14 A. No.
15 Q. All right. And, finally, on this topic, and I think we've got
16 one more -- in fact, we can look at one more document.
17 MS. KORNER: Could we have a look, please, at, again, part of the
18 law library, the Republika Srpska Law on Defence, 8003, tab 21.
19 Article 10, which is part of the Official Gazette of June 1992. And
20 Article 10 is at page 2 in the English and page 2 in B/C/S, though I
21 think we're going to need to go to page 3.
22 Q. Well, Article 10 starts by saying:
23 "The Ministry of Defence shall," and sets out what that shall do.
24 MS. KORNER: And can we go to page 3, to the Ministry of Internal
25 Affairs, which is -- actually it's still on page 2 in English -- in
2 "The Ministry of Internal Affairs shall organise and carry out
3 its own preparations for defence and operation in time of war or imminent
4 threat of war.
5 "Set up security measures and carry out tasks pertaining to ...
6 protection of facilities vital for defence.
7 "... prepare and plan the deployment of the police force in time
8 of war, or imminent threat of war, or in a state of emergency."
9 Q. In your view, sir, is that consistent with there being a
10 separation of powers between the civilian police and the military, even
11 in times of imminent threat of war?
12 A. Well, I haven't seen this law before, but it is obvious that the
13 responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior is in line with the
14 guidance on the use of Territorial Defence. Therefore, I don't see any
15 controversy or inconsistency here. These are more general statements and
16 regulations, and I suspect that there are some bylaws that are stipulated
17 in this in more detail. But, anyway, I think this fits in.
18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... so you say you haven't seen
19 it before, but, in fact, again, it's something you dealt with when you
20 made your statement.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, that's probably an appropriate moment.
22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Witness, we're about to take the adjournment for
23 today. You, having been sworn, you cannot have any communication with
24 lawyers from either side. And in such -- in the unlikely event that you
25 are speaking with persons outside, you can't discuss your testimony
1 before the Tribunal.
2 We reconvene tomorrow morning in Courtroom III, I believe, at
4 [The witness stands down]
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 8th day
7 of September, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.