100907ED

Page 14311

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

9 exhibit.

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

Page 14312

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

Page 14313

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

7 sense?

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

12 answer.

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.

Page 14314

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

Page 14315

1 demonstrated there was insufficient evidence relating to the reported

2 person.

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

5 dropped.

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

25 names.

Page 14316

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

Page 14317

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

Page 14318

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.

Page 14319

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

13 picture.

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

21 log-book.

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

Page 14320

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

Page 14321

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.

Page 14322

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

Page 14323

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

Page 14324

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

Page 14325

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.

Page 14358

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

6 left.

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.

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

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]

Page 14359

1 MS. KORNER: Yes.

2 Q. Thank you very much, sir. I think you've marked the plan

3 accordingly.

4 MS. KORNER: Is Mr. Pantelic happy with that? Mr. Cvijetic?

5 Yes.

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.

Page 14360

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

Page 14361

1 it.

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

17 signify?

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.

Page 14362

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.

Page 14363

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

20 happening?

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 14364

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 MS. KORNER: Yes. Can we just have redacted, please, that last

4 answer.

5 Q. Sir, if we can just keep it general so that we can stay in open

6 session.

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

15 that.

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?

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 14365

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

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

11 1992?

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

Page 14366

1 war come into force, guiding and governing the procedures and everything

2 else.

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

22 peacetime?

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.

Page 14367

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 --

Page 14368

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."

15 Right.

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."

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 14369

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 14370

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

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

19 activities.

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

Page 14371

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.

Page 14372

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"]?

Page 14373

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

16 forces.

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.