1 Wednesday, 29 September 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The Accused Zupljanin not present]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
7 everybody in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-08-91-T,
8 the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
9 JUDGE HALL
10 May we have the appearances, please.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Good morning, Your Honours. Matthew Olmsted,
12 Tom Hannis, and Jasmina Bosnjakovic for the Prosecution.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
14 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for
15 Stanisic Defence this morning. Thank you.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic,
17 Igor Pantelic, and Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
18 Our client is not present. He already signed a waiver.
19 JUDGE HALL
20 escorted in?
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, just one small matter before we start
22 with the witness. We received last night the new version of witness
23 statement with annexes totalling some 87 pages --
24 JUDGE HALL
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. And I didn't even have the time to read it,
1 let alone analyse it, so we will not be able to start the
2 cross-examination of this witness today.
3 JUDGE HALL
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
5 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour, maybe I can give some background
6 into this. During the last couple days of proofing, the witness made
7 some revisions, alterations, additions to the annexes attached to her 2
8 June 2010 statement. The size of what we disclosed to the Defence
9 yesterday is deceptive. It's -- looks worse than it really is. Rather
10 than having the standard addendum that we submit with a 92 ter package
11 that results from proofing, where you would list a particular line in the
12 statement and indicate the change, so you would cross-reference the two
13 documents, as a practical solution because that would require a lot of
14 work for the Trial Chamber and the Defence to flip between the addendum
15 and the original annexes, we inserted all the changes, all the revisions,
16 into the annexes and produced revised annexes. So we really saw that as
17 a practical solution to make it easier for them to read.
18 Now, we turned over this morning red-lined versions of the
19 changes to the annexes so the Defence can review them. Two points. It's
20 important to know what materials is in the annexes. This is simply her
21 results of her review of the log-books, in other words, the cases she was
22 able to identify that fall within either one of the annexes -- one of the
23 schedules to the indictment or she concluded involved serious crimes
24 committed by Serb perpetrators against non-Serb victims between April and
25 December of 1992.
1 So really, her annexes can be looked at along with the log-books
2 themselves to verify the information she found, and Defence could either
3 agree that she found the relevant cases or that she missed some.
4 I also want to note that the vast majority of the revisions are
5 really in favour of the Defence; in other words, she identified some
6 additional cases that the police reported to the prosecutor's offices
7 that fall either within the scope of the indictment or involved serious
8 crimes against non-Serbs. And I believe that once the Defence have taken
9 a look at these revisions, they're not going to have a strong objection
10 to them.
11 JUDGE HALL
12 having regard to everything that you have just said that it is surprising
13 that at some point between yesterday evening when this material was
14 forwarded to the Defence and the point at which the Judges took the bench
15 this morning that counsel on both sides would have had a chat about this
16 as to what the consequence of this is in terms of the time, allocation of
17 time, and how we are proceeding today.
18 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, well the witness was reviewing the annexes up
19 until about 7.00, 7.30 last night, and then we had to get them into the
20 system and disclosed as quickly as possible. So I didn't have time last
21 evening to talk with the Defence. I did talk with Mr. Zecevic and the
22 Zupljanin Defence this morning and they did indicate their concerns, and
23 I explained really what these annexes contain and what the revisions
24 consist of. So we communicated at that stage. I suggested that we do
25 something similar with Mr. Vasic, Witness ST-210, which is perhaps take a
1 slightly extended break after I do my examination-in-chief. The Defence
2 can take a look at the revisions and see whether it really is necessary
3 for them to delay the cross-examination. The witness wanted me to sit in
4 on their proofing which occurred on Sunday, and I note that I didn't see
5 much of what they were raising that dealt directly with the annexes
6 themselves. So perhaps once they've seen the revisions, see that they're
7 not really detrimental to their case, they might be in a position where
8 they say, Well, we can go ahead with the cross-examination.
9 JUDGE HALL
10 in his proposal, that an extended break after he has completed his
11 examination-in-chief may resolve the concerns that you think you have?
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I'm afraid so, Your Honours, my concerns
13 are -- I would like to state that my concerns are basically objective
14 concerns because I didn't even have time to read the -- this additional
15 statement with the annexes, with the revised annexes, let alone analyse
16 it. Therefore, I would, at the very least, need to be able to analyse it
17 once before I could give you any information which would be -- which
18 could be regarded as a solid information about that. So in that sense, I
19 don't see that it is achievable -- that the suggestion which Mr. Olmsted
20 made would be achievable or realistic. Thank you.
21 JUDGE HALL
22 Judges, but I am thinking that the most efficient course would be that
23 the -- at the conclusion of the examination-in-chief we come back after
24 the usual time, after the usual break, and then counsel would report as
25 to whether we should take an extended break -- pick up the hearing at a
1 later point in the course of today. Let me confer.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE HALL
4 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, while the witness is being brought
5 in, may I take the usual practice in giving a brief summary of what is
6 contained within this witness's 92 ter package. As background,
7 Ms. Gacinovic was appointed deputy basic prosecutor in Trebinje in 1976
8 and held that position until August 1992, when she was appointed higher
9 prosecutor for Trebinje, a position she has held ever since, although the
10 title has changed over time. As Your Honours know, the Trebinje higher
11 prosecutor's office had jurisdiction over two municipalities charged in
12 the indictment: Gacko and Bileca. At the request of the ICTY Office of
13 the Prosecutor, Ms. Gacinovic reviewed the prosecutor office log-books
14 from the period of 1992 through 1995, covering the 20 municipalities
15 charged in the indictment as well as the higher prosecutor's office
16 log-books to the extent those log-books were still existing.
17 As the Trial Chamber has heard from other witnesses, these
18 offices consisted of -- these log-books consisted of a KT log-book which
19 contained criminal reports of known perpetrators, KTN log-books which
20 contained criminal reports of unknown perpetrators' crimes, and then a
21 KTA log-book which included on-site investigation reports filed by the
22 courts as well as other official notes that really weren't criminal
23 reports per se.
24 Now, in reviewing these log-books, Ms. Gacinovic was asked to
25 address essentially three issues. The first was whether any of the
1 crimes listed in the schedules to the indictment are recorded in the
2 log-books; second, the extent to which the log-books record criminal
3 reports of serious crimes committed by Serb perpetrators against non-Serb
4 victims between 1 April and 31 December 1992
5 some statistical information about the number and kinds of cases that the
6 prosecutor offices received in 1992.
7 [The witness entered court]
8 JUDGE HALL
9 declaration, please.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
11 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 WITNESS: SLOBODANKA GACINOVIC
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 JUDGE HALL
15 Good morning to you, ma'am. The first thing I would point out --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 exposes to the pain of the penalties of perjury which this Tribunal is by
19 its constituent Statute and power to impose should you give false or
20 misleading testimony. With that I would ask you, first of all, to tell
21 us your name.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Slobodanka Gacinovic.
23 JUDGE HALL
24 for us, please.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I completed primary school at
1 Danilovgrad, Montenegro
2 Ginozija [phoen], Trebinje 1969. I graduated from the faculty of law at
3 the university of Belgrade
4 job at the primary school and preschool education centre in Trebinje as a
5 secretary. Until December 1975 I worked there, and then I got a job with
6 the basic public prosecutor's office at Trebinje. I was an intern until
7 May 1976. In June, I passed the bar exam and I was elected to be a
8 deputy basic prosecutor in Trebinje. I held that position until August
9 1982, when I was appointed higher public prosecutor in Trebinje. I was
10 in that position until March 2004. Then my title changed when I was
11 elected chief district prosecutor in Trebinje. Last year I was -- my
12 term in office was extended and I still remain in the same position.
13 JUDGE HALL
14 Have you testified previously before this Tribunal or before any
15 of the courts in any of the countries that comprise the former
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some ten years or so ago I appeared
18 as a witness in a case where we conducted an investigation -- actually,
19 it was the investigating judge of the basic court in Trebinje. In that
20 case I was heard as a witness, but I didn't testify before any other
22 JUDGE HALL
23 by the Prosecution, and under an expedited procedure permitted by the
24 Rules of the Tribunal the Prosecution would be examining you for only 20
25 minutes. After that you would be cross-examined, of course as you would
1 expect, by counsel for each of the other accused -- each of the two
2 accused and the times that they have indicated subject to some variation
3 that may have occurred in the course of -- since it was first indicated
4 is a total of three hours and it was expected that your testimony would
5 have been completed within the compass of today's sitting which ends at
6 1.45. The usual pattern is that the court takes a break after no longer
7 than an hour and a half to allow for the technical changing of tapes and
8 also the comfort of counsel and the witnesses and everyone else. But
9 that may be varied today. But notwithstanding those fixed periods, if at
10 any time you need to take a break you will indicate that to the Court,
11 and we will, of course, accommodate you.
12 And I would of course invite Mr. Olmsted to begin.
13 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour. My recollection may be
14 incorrect, but I believe I was granted 30 minutes to examine her. It was
15 an oral ruling. I'll tell you what I want to do, it's quite simple other
16 than doing the standard questions with regard to the 92 ter package, I
17 want to take the Trial Chamber through one of her annexes so that you'll
18 be able to review it on your own and make a couple of clarifications so
19 that when you see something perhaps you'll understand what she meant by
20 it. And then I just wanted to ask her some more general questions about
21 things she observed through her review of these log-books and I think I
22 can do that within half an hour.
23 JUDGE HALL
24 take you at your word, so 30 minutes.
25 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you.
1 Examination by Mr. Olmsted:
2 Q. Good morning, Ms. Gacinovic. Now, prior to testifying today, did
3 you have the opportunity to review your written statements from 2 June
4 2010 and 28 July 2010
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, with regard to the 2 June 2010 statement, did you have some
7 corrections and clarifications to some of the annexes to that statement?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. OLMSTED: If we may have 65 ter 10530 on the screen and I
10 also want to hand the witness a copy of her addendum.
11 And while they're bringing that up, just to note for the record
12 since this was produced yesterday, we did not have the opportunity to
13 insert the ERN numbers onto it. That will be done very soon, it was just
14 in the process of getting that done. We'll have that done before we seek
15 to tender it.
16 I'm actually interested for the -- on the screen if we can have
17 the -- there we go. Now it's on the screen to the left.
18 Q. Ms. Gacinovic, can you just confirm that this is the addendum to
19 your 2 June statement containing the 11 annexes you revised during
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. With these revisions to the annexes, are you satisfied that the
23 information contained in your written statements is accurate and correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I want to show you one of the revised annexes by way of an
2 MR. OLMSTED: If we can have page 32 of the original, of the
3 B/C/S, and page 15 of the English on the screen. This is the revised
4 annex 8 which applied to the Teslic office of the prosecutor's log-books.
5 Q. And I want you to first -- and you can look at the one in front
6 of you if that's easier, but it's also on the screen. And I want you to
7 first -- do you have it in front of you, Ms. Gacinovic?
8 A. I have reviewed it on the screen.
9 Q. Very well. Now, if we can first look at -- under issue number 1
10 we see that you recorded one criminal case that you determined falls
11 within the schedules B7, C7, and D7 of the indictment.
12 MR. OLMSTED: And for the record, this is the Mici group case
13 which the Trial Chamber has already heard evidence on.
14 Q. Ms. Gacinovic, do you recall, other than this case, how many
15 other cases you found in the log-books you reviewed that pertained to
16 issue 1; in other words, crimes charged in the schedules of the
18 A. I subsequently identified four more cases that referred to the
19 indictment in this case against Mico Stanisic, against Stojan Zupljanin,
20 as is mentioned under item 1 of this table of the annex.
21 Q. Yes. And we have this one in front of us which is Teslic. There
22 was one for Vogosca, is that correct, and then there was one for --
23 A. Yes, one for Vogosca and two for Banja Luka.
24 Q. Very well. And those can be found in revised annex 5 and revised
25 annex 15 and they pertain to incidents charged in the schedules under
1 D16-1, B1-2, and B6-1.
2 Now, if we could turn the page, page 34 in the original and page
3 19 in the English, we see issue 2 which are cases of serious crimes
4 committed by Serb perpetrators against non-Serb victims between 1 April
5 and 31 December 1992
6 log-books that you reviewed. And before we go through this issue I want
7 to turn quickly to 65 ter 10528, and I want to turn to page 14 of the
8 B/C/S and page 8 of the English.
9 And, Ms. Gacinovic, can you confirm that this is the list of
10 serious crimes that you were asked to identify under issue 2?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, looking at this list were there any crimes on this list that
13 you did not focus on when reviewing the log-books?
14 A. Article 172 of the Criminal Code of the RS is referred to here
15 under item 4, but I didn't focus on that so much because I focused on
16 Article 187 [as interpreted] of the Criminal Code of Bosnia-Herzegovina
17 with regard to the consequences of the crime committed because Article
18 187 stipulates serious bodily injury or great damage done to property.
19 Q. And just to clarify for the record, we have it on our transcript
20 that you're referring to Article 187. Is it 187 or 177 that you're
21 referring to?
22 A. 177 is the article of the Criminal Code of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
23 Q. And if I understand you correctly, Article 172 does not involve
24 instances where there is serious physical injury to a victim involved in
25 the crime?
1 A. Yes. That is the basic offence. When serious danger to lives or
2 property is caused, and Article 177 when there is serious bodily injury
3 or great damage to property or the lethal outcome of an injury. But I
4 mostly focused on Article 177 which actually comprises the basic offence
5 as described in Article 172.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Let's have 65 ter 10530 back on the screen, page 34
7 of the original, page 16 of the English.
8 Q. Now, if we look at the entries under issue number 2, we see that
9 in the last two columns you provide information regarding the date when
10 the indictment was filed in the particular case, and in the last column
11 the resolution of the case. Now, for some of the entries in your
12 annexes, one or both of these columns are blank. For example, if we look
13 at the first entry under issue 2 we see that the date of indictment for
14 the first entry is not -- is blank. Can you explain what -- how should
15 we interpret the blanks on these -- in these annexes?
16 A. In this particular case, KT177/72, the SJB in Teslic submitted a
17 criminal report to the prosecutor's office in Teslic, a report against
18 Mile Stanojevic. The victim was Fadil Resulovic. The crime was
19 committed on the 5th of August, 1992, so this was in the period between
20 April until the end of 1992. The crime here is 148/1, and looking at the
21 log-books we can see that the indictment was not issued but rather the
22 investigation was halted in 1993, which in this particular case -- in
23 this particular case the Prosecutor, after submitting a request for
24 investigation to be conducted, halted that investigation and gave a
25 proposal to the investigative judge to suspend further proceedings in
1 this case which was done in May of 1993. So in every case where I had
2 information indicating that there was a decision by the public prosecutor
3 pursuant to a criminal report, I inserted the data into the table. Where
4 you see blanks, that means that there was no decision taken either
5 vis-a-vis the indictment or if the indictment was issued there was no
6 judgement by the court. So whenever I had information, whenever I had
7 files, I inserted data from the files into these columns.
8 Q. And just for the record, she was referring to the entry that's --
9 involves case that has a KT number of 157/92.
10 Let's turn the page to page 37 of the B/C/S and page 19 of the
11 English. And this is issue 3 which is the statistical data you collected
12 regarding the criminal reports received by the prosecutor's office, in
13 this case the Teslic prosecutor's office between 1 April and 31 December
14 1992. I just want to clarify just two things for us with regard to this
15 data. First, we see under the first two entries you provide the total
16 number of criminal charges recorded in the KT and KTN log-books. What do
17 you mean by criminal charges?
18 A. When we look at table 3, I inserted in table 3 all cases which
19 reached the basic prosecutor's office in Teslic between the 1st of April,
20 1992, until the 31st of December, 1992. When I put a total number of
21 criminal reports, I -- the ones that came from the KT log-book, I
22 included all criminal reports which were entered into the KT log-book
23 against perpetrators who were of age. So KT log-book is a registry book
24 for criminal reports against perpetrators of age. Now, whether these
25 reports were filed by authorised officials, that is to say police, or
1 SJBs or citizens or other entities is irrelevant. What is important for
2 the KT log-book is that the perpetrator's identity is known.
3 Q. Yes, and I want to clarify just one particular point, and I think
4 you've addressed it. But these total numbers that you provide in the
5 first two entries here, are they the number of criminal reports, the
6 number of cases, or are they the number of perpetrators?
7 A. In column number 1, I inserted a total number of criminal
8 reports, regardless of the number of perpetrators. It could be that
9 there were many more perpetrators here. I simply looked at the number of
10 criminal reports in the period between the 1st of April, 1992
11 of December, 1992; number of reports filed with the basic prosecutor's
12 office in Teslic regarding known perpetrators, regardless of the number
13 of perpetrators. This just reflects the number of criminal reports
15 Q. Thank you. Now, the rest of the data that is contained in this
16 table beginning with the number of indictments and continuing down, is
17 this data from the KT log-book or does it also include data from the KTN
19 A. In column 2 underneath the KT log-book, I inserted there the
20 total number of criminal reports in the KTN log-book with the basic
21 prosecutor's office in Teslic, and that was 12 within the same period of
22 time. So number 12 -- the figure of 12 reflects the number of criminal
23 reports filed against unknown perpetrators. Then I put in the number of
24 indictments issued which was 64. I also counted cases and not
25 perpetrators, and then further down the data that you see in table 3, all
1 of it reflects cases and not perpetrators.
2 Q. Yes. And we understand that, but the clarification I want to
3 make is we see first 64 indictments and then we see the number of
4 criminal reports for various crimes. Were those derived from the KT
5 log-book, the rest of the data on this chart?
6 A. Yes, yes. From the KT log-book, that is to say against known
7 perpetrators. Only figure from column 2 pertains to unknown
8 perpetrators, whereas the rest of the data pertains to known perpetrators
9 and I took this information from the KT log-book.
10 Q. Let's turn to issue 4, which is page 38 of the B/C/S and page
11 20 --
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Hold on a minute. Before we leave this schedule.
13 First of all, Madam, I have a question to you regarding the number of
14 perpetrators. Is that included in this chart?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this table you can see the
16 following. Let's focus on one or two issues. Total number of cases, in
17 cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity, based on this wording
18 you can see that this pertains only to known perpetrators. I wrote down
19 the number of criminal reports regardless of whether there was one
20 perpetrator or five perpetrators, because those were my instructions.
21 All of this pertains to known perpetrators of crimes and the list of
22 crimes is given below. This is in the period between the 1st of April,
23 1992, until the 31st of December, 1992. Whatever was entered into the KT
24 log-book with the basic public prosecutor's office in Teslic.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand, but my question was really if it is
1 possible to extract from this chart how many perpetrators were involved,
2 because if you look at the first entry on top of the chart you see the
3 total number of criminal charges recorded in the KT log-book, and the
4 figure says 132 charges. Now, I suppose that several charges might be
5 raised against one perpetrator. So my question was: How many
6 perpetrators are involved in this chart?
7 Mr. Zecevic.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: If I may be of assistance, there might be a slight
9 problem with the translation, Your Honours, because the Serbian says
10 "krivicna prijava," which is a criminal report or criminal complaint
11 filed with the office of the public prosecutor. So it's not the criminal
12 charges, it's the number of criminal reports which were filed with the
13 prosecutor -- with the prosecutor's office. I don't know if I was of
14 assistance. I thought maybe that is maybe creating the confusion.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, thank you, Mr. Zecevic, for this
16 clarification, and that is indeed an important point that you are
17 raising. Nevertheless, I sit back with the question of how many
18 perpetrators were involved in the number of criminal reports, the 132
19 criminal reports that were registered in the KT log-book. Because my
20 assumption would be that it probably includes a considerably smaller
21 number of perpetrators because the reports would -- or maybe bigger. I
22 don't know.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the very outset I said that in
24 table 3 I counted only reports, not perpetrators of crimes. However,
25 sometimes in one single report there are several perpetrators listed. I
1 only counted the number of criminal reports, regardless of the number of
2 perpetrators; I did not enter information on perpetrators, how many
3 perpetrators were involved in each particular crime. It could be that
4 from -- for the crime in Articles 36 to 38 I listed down four criminal
5 reports, that is to say four cases. It could be that there were ten
6 perpetrators involved. So I put down information concerning criminal
7 reports, not perpetrators.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. And with the clarification that
9 Counsel Zecevic provided, it would seem that the number of perpetrators
10 would for sure exceed the number of 132. Is that correctly understood?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is possible, given that my
12 instruction was to go by cases. As a result of that, I did not analyse
13 perpetrators. It could be done subsequently to see how many perpetrators
14 there were and how many perpetrators were recorded in the KT log-book.
15 It should be no problem to obtain that piece of information. I looked at
16 cases, not perpetrators.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. My second question goes to the
18 penultimate entry which seems to be a bit vague to me. I simply don't
19 understand what it comprises. It reads:
20 "The total number of serving with the enemy army cases against
21 non-Serb perpetrators under Article 119."
22 What does this cover, Madam, if you recall?
23 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, if I may be of assistance again. I
24 believe the translation again is a problem. Maybe Your Honours can
25 invite the -- our interpreters to read the penultimate paragraph of the
1 chart and I will -- I'm sure you will better understand what it refers
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: I don't know if the translators have the text in
4 B/C/S, but if not then could you please read it out, Mr. Zecevic, or
5 Madam Prosecutor.
6 MR. OLMSTED: And just -- just for the record, I think
7 Your Honour's referring to the -- not the -- yeah, the penultimate one,
9 Why don't we have the witness read it out since she has it in
10 front of us.
11 Q. Ms. Gacinovic, can you read the second-to-last entry on this
13 A. In the penultimate line it says:
14 "Total number of cases for the crime of serving in the enemy army
15 Article 119 of the Criminal Code of the SFRY."
16 So this is not a crime committed against non-Serb individuals.
17 My task was to list the number of criminal reports in the given period
18 from the 1st of April, 1992, until the 31st of December for the crime of
19 serving in the enemy army, Article 119 of the Criminal Code of the SFRY,
20 where the perpetrators were of non-Serb ethnicity, that is to say Muslims
21 or Croats. So the same of the crime is serving in the enemy army,
22 Article 119 of the Criminal Code. It wasn't my job to see how many
23 criminal reports were filed for this crime, no. My job was to see how
24 many perpetrators were reported for the crime of serving in the enemy
25 army, Article 119, where the perpetrators were non-Serbs, that is to say
1 Muslims, Croats, or of some other ethnicity. Perhaps it was confusing
2 for you that it says here serving with the enemy army cases against
3 non-Serb perpetrators under Article 119, perhaps the word order should
4 have been different in order to make it more clear for you. My job,
5 however, was to establish how many were reported for Article 119 where
6 the perpetrators were of non-Serb ethnicity.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you for this clarification, and I admit it
8 was indeed confusing. But, Madam, let me be clear, what are we talking
9 about here? Are we talking about charges raised against Muslims for
10 serving in the Muslim army? Is that what is included in this entry?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This reflects the today number of
12 cases that arrived at the prosecutor's office during this period of time
13 for this particular crime. We have no information as to any indictments
14 or the resolution of the case. In cases where there were indictments,
15 that's reflected in the column for indictments. As far as I can
16 remember, I don't think that a single indictment was issued for this
17 particular crime.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. But that's not the issue. My
19 question to you is: Were criminal charges brought against Muslims for
20 serving in the Muslim army during the time covered by this chart?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't enter that -- such
22 information in this table. I only did what I was instructed to do. It
23 was my duty to mention only the number of indictments issued, regardless
24 of the crime committed. I didn't state the number of indictment by
25 individual criminal reports. I only listed the total number of criminal
1 reports from April till December 1992, but I didn't make a breakdown to
2 the type of criminal offence because that wasn't my task.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, maybe if I can intervene here and help
4 clarify matters. Her job was to only look at the log-books. Now,
5 log-books, as you've seen already, they list the perpetrators, the
6 victims, and the procedure that the case went through; it doesn't give
7 the facts of the case. So she identified cases of criminal reports filed
8 against non-Serbs for serving in the enemy army. Now, what enemy army
9 they were serving in, you're not going to get that from the log-books.
10 You would have to pull the criminal file and see what's actually alleged.
11 The criminal report would say they were, for instance, with the
12 Green Berets or they were with the BiH army or what have you. But from
13 the log-books which is what she reviewed, she wouldn't be able to tell
14 you which enemy army they were serving with, because her scope was really
15 just limited mainly to log-books, and then we referred to some cases --
16 case files where it fell under issue number 1 or 2, or you'll see number
17 4 to get clarification to make sure that they fall under one of those
18 issues. But for the statistical purpose, all she did is go through the
19 log-books is say, Yes this is an enemy army case, and yes, it's charging
20 non-Serb perpetrators so that's one. And then find another one.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Olmsted, I'm sorry. You can't help asking
22 the question of what does this actually signify? What lies behind these
23 entries? I am fully aware of the fact that this is just a statistical
24 review, but nevertheless the witness is a prosecutor and I would assume
25 you would be able to tell us what does this penultimate entry cover. And
1 to your knowledge were charges brought? Apparently there were 15 charges
2 registered against non-Serb persons for serving in the enemy army, and
3 this looks mysterious to me. I'm sorry.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let's proceed. Thank you very much, Madam.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I just provide some
7 clarification? I only adhered to the table, only what was mentioned in
8 the table, and I entered the relevant information from the log-books. I
9 entered the total number of indictments, regardless of the criminal --
10 underlying criminal offence. And I relied only on the number of criminal
11 reports filed. Let's take as an example Article 119 of the Criminal
12 Code. I proceeded the same way with regard to Article 116. So I
13 strictly adhered to the requirements of this table and didn't pay
14 attention to the ethnicity -- to issues such as ethnicity.
15 MR. OLMSTED: Just for the record, Your Honours, you may want to
16 refer to the testimony of ST-176 to get further clarification regarding
17 the nature of these cases in Teslic and the reasons for them being filed
18 and other information that perhaps Your Honours are seeking with regard
19 to the particular cases here.
20 If we may turn to page 38 of the original as well as page 20 of
21 the English, this is issue 4.
22 Q. Which is where you recorded entries that you identified in the
23 log-books which you required additional information to determine whether
24 they fell either under one of the indictment's schedules or involved
25 serious crimes against non-Serbs. Now, turning to the first couple
1 entries, the KTN entries that you recorded under issue 4, and this
2 applies generally to your other tables for -- under issue 4, did you find
3 any indication in any of the log-books that a criminal report was ever
4 filed against a known perpetrator for these particular crimes that you
5 identify under issue 4?
6 A. By reviewing the KTN and KTA log-books, I didn't find information
7 showing that the perpetrator of these crimes was identified nor that
8 criminal reports were filed with the basic prosecutor's office in Teslic
9 for these crimes on the dates of the 13th -- or rather, committed on the
10 13th and 14th of November and the 15th of September and so on. One would
11 have to check the records of the basic public prosecutor's office in
12 Teslic to find the relevant information. That's why I entered these in
13 table 4 because they require additional documentation to complete this
15 Q. Thank you. And just to clarify, these entries -- these KTN
16 entries that you record under issue number 4, those are not found in the
17 KT log-book because if they were found in the KT log-book you would have
18 recorded that in entry under issue number 2; is that correct?
19 A. By reviewing the log-books, I found in some cases that the
20 perpetrator of a crime was identified and then I entered a remark that he
21 was identified and that the case was entered under certain item number in
22 a log-book because I wanted to establish a link between unidentified and
23 identified perpetrators but I wasn't able to do so for these four cases.
24 Q. Now, with regard to the KTA entries that you have recorded here
25 under issue number 4, we see that they reference the basic court. What
1 was the basic court submitting to the prosecutor's offices or the
2 prosecutor's office of Teslic in this instance?
3 A. It follows from this table that the investigative judge of the
4 basic court in Teslic conducted an on-site investigation on the occasion
5 of a murder that happened on the 15th of September, 1992, at Banja
6 Vrucica and on the 22nd of September, 1992, at Osovica. He drafted an
7 on-site investigation report and submitted it with the public
8 prosecutor's office in Teslic under the file numbers as stated in the
9 table. The investigative judge makes an on-site investigation report and
10 submits it to the public prosecutor's office and copies the police
11 station on it because the police assists in the on-site investigation,
12 that is, the authorised officials from the police station who make a file
13 including photographs, sketches, and so on.
14 Q. Now, if subsequently the police file a criminal report against a
15 known or unknown perpetrator for one of these cases that you refer to in
16 the KTA, where would that case be transferred to?
17 A. If the police submits the remaining documentation that was made
18 at the site, in this case it is added to the case file. In this concrete
19 case of murder, the whole file is entered in the KT log-book and this
20 file which is entered in the KTA log-book is entered in the log-book that
21 contains identified or known perpetrators.
22 Q. And am I correct in stating that if the police file a criminal
23 report against an unknown perpetrator on that -- that this case would
24 then transfer from the KTA into the KTN log-book?
25 A. Yes. If the police file a criminal report against an
1 unidentified perpetrator and after the on-site investigation the police
2 fails to identify the perpetrator, then the police file a criminal report
3 against an unknown perpetrator with the public prosecutor's office.
4 Since the police already have the on-site investigation report, or
5 rather, the public prosecutor does, the case is entered in the KTN
6 log-book. And what was received from the court is also entered in the
7 KTN log-book together with what was received from the police and the two
8 files are merged because they refer to one and the same offence.
9 Q. Finally --
10 JUDGE HALL
11 just about to point out to you that you're ten minutes past your 30
13 MR. OLMSTED: I apologise. I just want to now go over some
14 general trend issues that I think might be helpful for the Trial Chamber.
15 I don't think it's going to take long.
16 Q. I just want to ask you some questions about some of the general
17 trends you observed from your review of the prosecutor's log-books for
18 the period of 1992 to 1995. First, did the log-books indicate to you
19 that the district and basic prosecutor's offices in the various
20 municipalities were functioning in 1992 and subsequently?
21 A. Yes, by reviewing all log-books that I received when I worked on
22 this project, in the time-period from the 1st of April until the end of
23 1992 I saw that occasionally there were criminal reports against
24 identified or unidentified perpetrators and the public prosecutor's
25 office worked on these cases and so did the courts in that period because
1 there are court decisions.
2 Q. Now, with regard to the prosecutor offices that you worked for in
3 Trebinje in 1992 and subsequently, were your -- was your office able to
4 receive and process criminal cases during this time-period?
5 A. Yes. That can be seen from the table.
6 Q. Now, based on your review, what can you tell us about the number
7 of criminal cases or criminal reports filed with the prosecutor's offices
8 in 1993 or 1994 or 1995 that relate to crimes that were committed in
9 1992? What can you tell us about the overall number of those? Were
10 there many of those?
11 A. Not many. Criminal reports for offences committed in 1992 were
12 mostly filed during that same year, although some of them were filed
13 later but there weren't many such reports.
14 MR. OLMSTED: No further questions, Your Honour.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE HALL
17 15 minutes, at which point, Mr. Zecevic, we would ask you to report to us
18 how much -- at what point you would comfortably be in a position to begin
19 your cross-examination.
20 So we return in 15 minutes.
21 --- Recess taken at 10.07 a.m.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 --- On resuming at 10.31 a.m.
24 JUDGE HALL
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I informed Ms. Featherstone and Ms. Audrey
1 about the -- what we are suggesting at the moment as a way how to
2 proceed. What I proposed and what I'm prepared to do at this point is --
3 the fact is that my cross-examination concerns two particular points
4 actually in general. One is the general position of the office of the
5 prosecutor and the police according to the laws at the time, and I'm
6 ready to start with this general points in the cross-examination. And I
7 propose to lead -- to cross-examine the witness on these points up until
8 I believe one hour and a half. And then that we are adjourned and I have
9 half an hour to 45 minutes tomorrow after I reviewed the -- and analysed
10 additional statement which was given to us last night.
11 JUDGE HALL
12 the court officer to work out at what time we should take the next break.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you. I understand, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE HALL
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mrs. Gacinovic.
18 A. Good morning.
19 Q. I will put several questions to you regarding your testimony
20 earlier today. Today at page 9 of the transcript, line 21, when asked by
21 Mr. Olmsted whether you could confirm, given the revisions to the annex,
22 that the information contained in your written statements was correct and
23 accurate you said yes. Do you remember that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Tell me, please, the statement that you gave yesterday, the
1 revised statement of the 27th and 28th September was drafted in English;
2 right -- just please answer my question.
3 A. Let me tell you. I want to answer. Yesterday when we worked in
4 proofing, the statement was read out loud to me, we compared the tables,
5 and I could confirm that what was written in the statement was indeed
6 what I wanted to state.
7 Q. Madam --
8 A. And I also compared it with the tables.
9 Q. Madam, do you speak English?
10 A. A bit, not really well but I do speak some.
11 Q. Your statement drafted yesterday, the first 15 pages is in
12 English; right? You signed that statement. Did you read it in English
13 or not?
14 A. As I told you, I read out some of it myself in English, but in
15 addition to that the interpreter read it out loud to me in my language
16 and I confirmed that. And then I put my signature and date to it, and I
17 compared the data that I had with what was written in the tables.
18 Q. All right. Very well. So the statement was read out to you by
19 an interpreter?
20 A. Yes, in my presence; and to the extent that I was able, I read
21 the statement myself.
22 Q. I would like to ask you for the sake of interpretation to please
23 make pauses between my question and your answer.
24 A. All right.
25 Q. Madam, today Mr. Olmsted showed to you the document from Teslic,
1 and while it is still fresh in our minds let us discuss it. That's
2 65 ter 10530, and the page that was shown to the witness pertains to the
3 revised annex number 9 to Teslic, to municipality of Teslic
4 prosecutor's office in Teslic. I really can't remember what page number
5 it was. I think it was page 32. I think that's the page I need in
6 English. It was issue number 3. Perhaps it was page 34. I apologise
7 for not being accurate enough, but I did not have occasion to look at the
8 document or study it a bit. So that's why we're having these problems.
9 Yes, that's the page.
10 Can you see this? This is revised annex 9, issue number 3.
11 Madam Gacinovic, the prosecutor's office has the following log-books: KT
12 log-book for criminal reports against known perpetrators?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. KTN for criminal reports against unknown perpetrators?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. KTM for criminal reports against minors?
17 A. Yes, known minors.
18 Q. KTA for accompanying documentation such as on-site investigation
19 reports, official records, and other documentation pertaining to certain
20 events for which an indictment was not yet issued?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In Teslic -- or rather, did you study the KTM log-book in Teslic?
23 A. As I said at the outset, I only checked KT, KTN, and KTA
24 log-book, and you can see that reflected in table 1 where I stated that I
25 checked log-books in Teslic for 1992 KT; and then KT for 1993, 1994, and
1 1995; and KTA for the same years. That is to say I did not check the
2 log-books -- I did not check KTM log-books.
3 Q. So concerning issue 3 of the revised annex 9, the prosecutor's
4 office in Teslic had 132 criminal reports in the KT log-book, and then in
5 KTN log-book there were 12 reports. Tell me, please, did some of the
6 reports recorded in KTN log-book get transferred to the KT log-book in
7 Teslic for the year of 1992, if you are aware of this?
8 A. While working on issue number 3, I only analysed how many there
9 were recorded reports in KT and KTN log-books during the relevant period
10 of time. I did not analyse whether any of the reports were transferred
11 from KTN to KT log-book. I strictly adhered to my instructions and to
12 the task given to me. If there is a criminal report filed in the KTN
13 log-book against an unknown perpetrator and then the perpetrator gets
14 identified, that year or in the following five years there is a column
15 where there should be an entry as to whether the file, the case, and the
16 information was transferred to the KT log-book for perpetrators that are
17 of age or into the KTM log-book for perpetrators that are minors.
18 However, I did not look for that kind of information because I was not
19 told to.
20 Q. In order to clarify, there is a logical sequence in these
21 log-books that are kept in the prosecutor's office. First of all, the
22 first information that arrives about an event is recorded either in an
23 official note or in a document called information or in the on-site
24 investigation report. It is sent as such to the prosecutor's office and
25 then recorded in the KTA log-book; isn't that right?
1 A. Well, it depends. If an investigative judge goes to an on-site
2 investigation together with authorised officials, whether the prosecutor
3 is present or not the judge will draw up a report on the on-site
4 investigation. The police will do the rest. They will take photographs
5 and do other things that need to be done. Then the investigative judge
6 draws up the on-site investigation report. This is how it was done
7 during this period of time. This report is sent in two copies to the
8 prosecutor's office, and then a copy or two are filed with the court and
9 then also one copy is sent to the police station. This on-site report
10 will be recorded by the prosecutor's office in the KTA log-book. Police
11 continues its work and they will make photographs, they will collect
12 statements from eye-witnesses, et cetera, and then together with the
13 criminal report against the known perpetrator they will send it to the
14 prosecutor's office. The prosecutor's office will record it in the KTA
15 log-book with the proviso that the initial on-site investigation report
16 that was received from the investigative judge will be transferred to the
17 KT log-book. However, this will be reflected as an entry in the KTA
18 log-book. If the police learns of something that happened but there was
19 no need to conduct an on-site investigation, the police will draw up an
20 official record and they may send it to the prosecutor's office. In the
21 prosecutor's office they will record it in the KT [as interpreted]
22 log-book, and then later on should a criminal report be filed then this
23 will be transferred to the KT log-book or KTM log-book or perhaps even
24 KTN log-book. This is a piece of information indicating that something
25 had happened and that something is being done about it. The on-site
1 investigation report is drawn up only when while conducting an on-site
2 investigation they come to a conclusion that indeed a crime had been
3 perpetrated and then they will -- they would draw up an on-site
4 investigation report.
5 MR. OLMSTED: Just -- I'm sorry, just to clarify. In the record,
6 page 30, line 19, she says that the official note would be recorded in
7 the KT log-book. I believe that she most likely meant the KTA log-book.
8 Maybe you want to clarify that.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it should be KTA.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Madam, all of us here are attempting to be of assistance to the
12 Trial Chamber. So please focus on my questions and give us brief answers
13 because I don't think that what we have just done was of assistance to
14 the Trial Chamber. Your answer was fully correct, but it was overly
15 broad and you provided too much information in one answer.
16 A. [No interpretation]
17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the witness, as
18 the speakers overlapped.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. I think it would be best if we could explain this using an
21 example. Let's say a body is found, a corpse. And then an official
22 record is drawn up or a report from the on-site investigation, and then
23 this document is sent to the prosecutor's office as a piece of
24 information on the event that had happened. So this document would be
25 recorded in the KTA log-book; right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Following a forensic examination, for example, of a forensic
3 expert, it is established that this was a case of natural death. The
4 corpse's identity is provided and this is where any further activity on
5 the prosecutor's office halts; right?
6 A. Yes. No need to do anything else except to inform the family
7 that there are no grounds for criminal prosecution.
8 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is requested to speak into the
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. So the prosecutor's office --
12 JUDGE HALL
13 into the microphone, and while the -- I would remind the witness of what
14 counsel's already alerted her to, that to allow a gap between the
15 question and the answer so there's no overlap. Thank you.
16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters would also kindly request
17 Mr. Zecevic to switch off his microphone when the witness is answering
18 because she's very difficult to hear when both microphones are switched
19 on. Thank you very much.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Noted. Thank you very much.
21 Q. [Interpretation] So in case a dead body is found, the public
22 prosecutor's office is informed by the services and agencies in charge.
23 It is entered in the KT A log-book, and if it is established that there
24 are no elements of a criminal offence it stays in the KTA log-book and
25 the public prosecutor's office is informed accordingly?
1 A. There is no need to take any official action in such a case.
2 Q. If in such a situation after a forensic analysis it is
3 established that this was a case of violent death, after certain
4 additional activity is conducted by the police, a criminal report against
5 an unknown perpetrator is filed; correct? And then the event entered in
6 the KTA log-book is transferred to the KTN log-book; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Once that event was transferred to the KTN log-book after a
9 certain time -- and after a certain time the perpetrator of the crime is
10 found or identified, then the police informs the public prosecutor's
11 office that they have established the identity of the perpetrator or the
12 suspect, then the entry is transferred from the KTN log-book to the KT
13 log-book; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you. There were -- some things were unclear, so we should
16 assist the Trial Chamber. Concerning criminal offence 172 and 177 or
17 under -- that fall under Articles 172 and 177 of the Criminal Code of
18 SFRY -- or rather, the SR BiH, the -- as regards the differences between
19 Articles 172 and 177 of the Criminal Code of the S R BiH is that Article
20 177, which you say you relied on, describes a criminal offence with a --
21 with serious consequences; correct?
22 A. Yes, that's what I explained.
23 Q. So the so-called elements of the crime are identical in
24 Article 172 and Article 177 only that serious consequences are included
25 in Article 177. So that is the specific difference that makes a criminal
1 offence come under Article 177; correct?
2 A. Yes, and that's what I explained.
3 Q. Mr. Olmsted on page 12 of today's transcript, line 14 and 24,
4 showed to you KT 177 [as interpreted] from 1992 against one Mile
5 Stanojevic. That's the revised appendix 2 --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Appendix 9, issue 2.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Do you remember?
9 MR. OLMSTED: And just to clarify again for the record, I believe
10 under issue 2 this is KT 157/92. I think she misspoke when she said 177.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, 157/92.
12 Q. Can you see it, Madam?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. The question my learned friend asked you was about the last entry
15 in the table where it says that the investigation was suspended on 12 May
16 1993, and the document is self-explanatory in this sense. If the
17 perpetrator of a crime dies, we're talking about an identified person
18 whose name is Mile Stanojevic, so this Mile Stanojevic commits a crime, a
19 criminal report is filed, but the investigation was suspended in 1993.
20 I'm interested in the following: Is the investigation suspended when the
21 accused or the suspect dies?
22 A. The investigation is suspended. I didn't review the case file.
23 I just collected information from the log-books which showed that a
24 criminal report was filed against Mile Stanojevic, that the injured party
25 was Fadil, that the offence was committed on 5 August 1992, and that the
1 criminal charges were brought under Article 148, paragraph 1. But I
2 don't have information about the reasons why the investigation was
3 suspended. If I had had the case file, I could have answered your
4 question. An investigation is suspended when the public prosecutor makes
5 a proposal to the investigating judge to suspend the investigation.
6 Possible reasons are the death of the perpetrators or that the suspect
7 did not commit the offence, but that's information I didn't have.
8 However, this column reads only investigation suspended and the relevant
10 Q. Thank you. That's what I wanted to clarify. Let us return to
11 revised annex 9, issue 3. If I remember correctly, that's page 34 of
12 this document. That's the previous document that we saw. We can see
13 from this overview of statistical data that between April and 31st of
14 December, 1992, the basic public prosecutor's office in Teslic received a
15 total of 144 criminal reports. That is 132 against known perpetrators
16 and 12 against unknown perpetrators; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. But your reservation was that it was possible that a certain
19 number of criminal reports was filed against perpetrators who are minors,
20 but since you did not review the relevant log-books you couldn't say any
21 more about that; correct?
22 A. I did not review KTM log-books. Whatever I say would be my
23 assumptions, but I'm not supposed to assume. I can only speak about what
24 I saw.
25 Q. So you will agree with me that a short answer to my question will
1 be yes?
2 A. There are minor offenders anywhere, so we can assume as much, but
3 it wouldn't be fair to state anything based on assumptions.
4 Q. But I repeat, the answer to my question is yes. You did not
5 review KTM log-books and that is why it is possible that there is a
6 number of reports against minor perpetrators?
7 A. I cannot comment because I did not consult the KTM log-books,
8 so -- which are for minor perpetrators.
9 Q. You explained here that your statistics are based on the number
10 of criminal reports. I believe that you explained, but for the sake of
11 complete clarity of the transcript let me summarise that one criminal
12 report can be filed against a greater number of perpetrators; correct?
13 A. Yes. So a criminal report can be filed against one perpetrator,
14 but also for 50 perpetrators in the same case.
15 Q. Let us reconfirm. One criminal report can be filed against one
16 perpetrator for several offences, that is either one offence or several;
17 and likewise, it can be filed against several perpetrators for one
18 offence or several offences; is that correct?
19 A. That is correct.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, to be totally complete, several
21 criminal reports can be filed against one and the same perpetrator; is
22 that right, Madam?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is right.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. But when several criminal reports are filed against one and the
2 same perpetrator, then each criminal report is for a different offence;
4 A. It can be the same criminal offence, but it can be about several
5 offences. It all depends on what the perpetrator has done.
6 Q. I know. But if, for example, Petar Petrovic is the suspect for
7 murder and one criminal report is filed against him for murder and the
8 public prosecutor's office receives another criminal report against the
9 same person for the same offence, then you wouldn't enter both criminal
10 reports but only one; right?
11 A. The first criminal report is entered under one item number, and
12 if another report comes in against the same person for the same offence
13 it is entered in the case file, the same file.
14 Q. So if one criminal report is already filed against one
15 perpetrator for one offence, all possible subsequent criminal reports for
16 the same offence against the same perpetrator would become part of the
17 same case file; correct?
18 A. If it's the very same event, yes. But if we're talking about
19 different events, then it all depends on the -- on the stage of the
20 procedure in which the previous case is at the time.
21 Q. I think that one more thing remained insufficiently clear. I'm
22 referring to page 22, I believe, where there was discussion about
23 criminal offences under Article 119 of the Criminal Code of the SFRY and
24 that is serving in an enemy army.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could you please show us 65 ter
1 10130, that's tab 159 of the Defence binder. While we're waiting, I need
2 Article 119. The page reference is 60 and the ERN number is 0025-3452.
3 Q. While we're waiting for the document to appear, Madam, it's a
4 fact that the RS took over the Criminal Code of the SFRY; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. If you know, tell me, isn't it true that the Criminal Code of the
7 SFRY was also applied in the territories controlled by the Muslim and
8 Croat forces, which is the territory of nowadays Federation?
9 A. Well, I don't know which laws and regulations they took over. I
10 know how we went about it in the RS, which laws we took over and so on.
11 Q. We see Article 119 here, which describes the criminal offence of
12 serving in an enemy army; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Tell me, do you know whether the courts and prosecutor's offices
15 in the Federation submitted criminal reports against citizens of Serbian
16 ethnicity under the same article, namely for their belonging to the RS
18 A. I'm not aware of that.
19 Q. To clarify for the benefit of the Court the documents that get
20 entered into K TA log-book, let me show to you two documents from Doboj.
21 The first one is 1D01-0315, tab 157. As you can see, Madam, this is a
22 memo by the security services centre Doboj. The date is the 25th of
23 August, 1992. The document is signed by the chief of the centre,
24 Andrija Bjelosevic. This is an accompanying letter and it is stated that
25 it's -- that attached is the on-site investigation report and the
1 interview of the witnesses. The prosecutor's office in Doboj is informed
2 about a certain event, namely, that an anti-tank mine was blown off which
3 resulted in death of Hodzic Sejfudin. A driver Bozidar Vidovic received
4 injuries. There were some other people injured as well. The injured
5 parties are people of both Muslim and Serb ethnicity; am I right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. This type of document would normally be entered into the KTA
8 log-book of the prosecutor's office; am I right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In essence, the prosecutor's office on the basis of such a memo
11 received by the CSB
12 event only; am I right?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, unless there are any
15 objections, I would like to tender this document.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, I'm not sure why it's
17 particularly relevant to this case. I mean, the witness doesn't know
18 anything about this particular event and I think he's shown it to another
19 witness and basically the witness is giving the same general answers
20 about procedures. I think the procedure is established; the relevance of
21 the document itself is not.
22 JUDGE HALL
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honours, the position of
24 the Defence is that the work of the police is completed at the moment
25 when documents concerning a certain event is submitted to the relevant
1 prosecutor's office, and the purpose of tendering this document was to
2 show an example of the procedure.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Well --
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, I thought that we were exploring
5 reports relating to Article 119.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I believed, Your Honours, that it
7 was sufficient to have shown the SFRY Criminal Code, where one could find
8 an explanation as to substance of a crime under Article 119. I don't
9 have any other interest here except by using the assistance of the
10 witness to explain the situation. But if you wish me to do so we can go
11 and elaborate it to the smallest details, but I move to a different topic
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: I missed that and I apologise for that. I
14 thought actually that this memo from Doboj was supposed to illustrate one
15 of the 15 reports that were --
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- included in the schedule put together by the
18 witness. But if that is not the case, then what is it that you seek to
19 show with this memo?
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in accordance with
21 Rule 90(H), this document would be relevant for the Defence case.
22 Through the assistance of the witness, I'm attempting to enter a document
23 as an illustration of the fact that the CSB reports basic public
24 prosecutor's office in charge of the territory in question about events.
25 The question here is whether this case was transferred either to the KT
1 or the KTN log-books because what we have here is a case of an anti-tank
2 mine. A vehicle hit the mine and one person got killed and several -- or
3 all together three persons were injured. So I believe that in that sense
4 it's relevant for our case.
5 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the witness has identified this case
6 in her annexes, so the fact that this particular event occurred or this
7 document was filed with the prosecutor's office is in her annexes under I
8 believe it's KTA 74/92. Now, if the Defence is claiming that this case
9 resulted in eventually the police filing a criminal report, then they
10 should produce the criminal report of that. The fact that it is in her
11 report under issue number 4, she's indicated that implies that there was
12 no criminal report filed in that matter -- or at least the log-books did
13 not indicate that a criminal report was filed for that matter.
14 JUDGE HALL
15 procedure, which as I understand it was the purpose of your seeking to
16 tender this in support of the -- what you are showing the procedure to
17 be, isn't it sufficient that we have the testimony of this witness and
18 other witnesses in that regard and the illustration of this particular
19 incident notwithstanding its being cross-referenced in the annexes to the
20 present witness's report. It doesn't advance the clarity of the matter
21 for the benefit of the Trial Chamber.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my idea precisely was
23 to show by giving you an example, to show you something that both this
24 witness and some other witnesses demonstrated, namely, that such an event
25 could be found logged in the KTA log-book. I just wanted to help the
1 Trial Chamber see what this was really about. In the KTA log-book you
2 can only find several details and numbers, but if you believe all this is
3 superfluous I will not insist and ask for tendering this document.
4 MR. OLMSTED: The Prosecution doesn't dispute that this case --
5 that this document or at least this event was recorded in the KTA
6 log-book for Doboj. As I indicated, it's in her annex, and therefore if
7 it's in her annex, the Prosecution will agree that the prosecution
8 receives something from the police with regard to this case. In this
9 case it was just an Official Note about an event.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] That is precisely the essence of
11 this, Your Honours. This is the essence. Tomorrow the Prosecutor will
12 say in their final argument that the police informed the prosecutor's
13 office about this event, that the event was entered into the KTA
14 log-book, and then police stopped taking any actions in relation to this
15 case. This is why I'm using this specific example, showing that there
16 was nothing to do. How can police determine where did the anti-tank mine
17 come from, who placed it, and so forth? Well, it is possible to do so,
18 but that would involve enormous resources and take a lot of time. That
19 is the essence of our case here, namely, in showing you specific examples
20 and documents related to them.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Well, I'll agree with -- Your Honours, I'll agree
22 with Mr. Zecevic's statement that to find out whether this was a crime it
23 would require the police to do further investigation. I think that's
24 obvious. But I ask that Mr. Zecevic again refrain from characterising
25 the Prosecution's case, particularly in front of a witness, because I
1 don't think he knows necessarily our case inside and out and what our
2 arguments eventually will be.
3 JUDGE HALL
4 the narrative of the events that forms the indictment in this trial, that
5 something like this is at best a footnote.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Madam, the KTA log-books, what was entered into
8 them was not only the Official Notes by the internal affairs organs nor
9 only on-site investigation reports, it also included information the
10 prosecutor's office received from citizens in regard to certain events;
11 am I right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The public prosecutor's office, they -- there are two main
14 documents regulating it, one is the Criminal Code and the other one is
15 the Law on Public Prosecutor's Office.
16 A. Yes. It was the Law of Code of Criminal Procedure and the Law of
17 Public Prosecutors, but there were other laws.
18 Q. I agree with you. You will agree with me that the Law on
19 Criminal Proceeding in Article 17 provided for the criminal procedure to
20 be initiated upon the request of the public prosecutor?
21 A. For such crimes that are dealt with ex officio.
22 Q. And for other crimes, it was the injured party who could be the
23 party that launches the proceedings; am I right?
24 A. I believe in such cases one would file a private lawsuit, if I
25 remember it correctly.
1 Q. I agree that this was called private criminal complaint, but this
2 kind of document, complaint or lawsuit, would rather be the first stage
3 of the criminal proceeding?
4 A. But that was independent of the prosecutor.
5 Q. Independently in relation to the public prosecutor; am I right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. It is a fact that the Law on Criminal Proceeding in Articles 45
8 to 51 devotes one whole chapter to public prosecutor; am I right in
9 saying that?
10 A. As far as I remember the provisions, yes. It's been a while
11 since I've used that law so I may be wrong in giving you answers about
13 Q. You will remember just general postulates from the provisions
14 where in Article 45 it was prescribed that the public prosecutor is in
15 charge of crimes that are dealt with ex officio, including taking
16 measures in determining the crime, finding the perpetrator, and directing
17 the pre-trial criminal proceeding; is that correct?
18 A. You skipped paragraph 1 where you're saying that basic rights and
19 duties of public prosecutor is to prosecute those crimes that are dealt
20 with ex officio. You read paragraph 2, but you skipped paragraph 1
21 where it is stated that the basic task of the public prosecutor is to
22 prosecute those crimes that are prosecuted ex officio. I do not have the
23 law before me, so I cannot give you a full interpretation. You have it
24 so you can confirm it. And in paragraph 2, yes, what you just read
25 that's what is stated.
1 Q. Correct, Madam. Your memory serves you right when it comes to
2 these regulations. What I read out to you, paragraph 2, item 1, because
3 I want to ask you the following question or a question. So we agree that
4 the public prosecutor under paragraph 1, item -- paragraph 2, item 1
5 takes necessary action to detect crimes and identify perpetrators and
6 take measures to direct the pre-trial criminal proceedings.
7 Could you please explain the meaning of this formulation in the
8 law directing the pre-trial criminal proceedings, but very briefly.
9 A. It depends on a case. Once the prosecutor informs what he has
10 available and what he needs to obtain what the organs of the interior
11 need to do, what kind of steps they need to take.
12 Q. Which means when the prosecutor receives information or criminal
13 report, then he, according to the law, directs and indicates the
14 direction in which certain facts should be established by the organs of
15 the interior, i.e., the police; right?
16 A. Yes. In many cases that's how it is and in many other cases the
17 police itself once it learns that a crime was committed does it on its
18 own because this is their duty under the law. Once a crime is committed
19 for which persecution needs to take place under the law, then the police
20 is duty-bound to take certain steps. And I think that this is regulated
21 by Article 151. The police is duty-bound to do certain steps, regardless
22 of the steps taken by the prosecutor.
23 Q. However, if the police takes all these steps and they don't
24 provide expected results, then the prosecutor can direct the police to do
25 certain other steps, to conduct other checks, or obtain some other
1 evidence. The prosecutor is entitled to do that; right?
2 A. I can give you a very brief explanation. Once a criminal report
3 is filed against an unknown perpetrator, the police until that time has
4 done everything it was able to do. And then it sends the report to the
5 prosecutor against unknown perpetrator. The last sentence in every
6 criminal report reads that in addition to everything that is enclosed
7 with that report, the police will continue working on establishing the
8 identity of the perpetrator. And if they manage to do that, then they
9 will send a criminal report against the known perpetrator. However, if
10 something else was recorded in the KTA log-book and the prosecutor while
11 working on the case believes that police or somebody else needs to take
12 additional steps, then the prosecutor can direct them to go and collect
13 statements or conduct other steps. This is the kind of direction that
14 the prosecutor can give in pre-trial proceedings to the police. However,
15 if the prosecutor establishes that the police has done everything it was
16 able to do until that point in time, then there is no need for them to do
17 anything else and they can perhaps have a phone call and conclude that
18 the police has done everything it was able to do in that particular case
19 until that time. It just all depends on the particular case.
20 Q. When the prosecutor's office conducts work on a certain case,
21 when they're working on collecting evidence that would enable the
22 prosecutor to draft the indictment properly and to have sufficient
23 evidence to support the indictment, then the prosecutor gives certain
24 instructions or sends requests to police to obtain certain evidence, such
25 as to carry out a forensic analysis or additional forensic analysis or to
1 carry out a ballistic examination or something of that kind; right?
2 A. I have already explained this. If the prosecutor establishes
3 that something else is needed in the file, then he can ask that
4 additional statements be obtained or other additional steps be taken, and
5 this comes all under Article 152 of the Law on Criminal Procedure.
6 Q. I think you said Article 153, paragraph 2, and the transcript
7 reflects Article 152.
8 A. Yes, that's correct. As far as I can remember, I think it's
9 Article 153, paragraph 2. Perhaps my memory is not what it should be.
10 Q. No, you're absolutely right. It's 153, paragraph 2. However,
11 paragraph 3 of that same article of the Law on Criminal Procedure says as
12 follows and gives the following authorisation to the prosecutor. It
14 "Public prosecutor can seek the necessary information from state
15 organs, from organisations of associated labour, other organisations and
16 associations, and can also for that purpose send a request to the person
17 who submitted the relevant criminal report."
19 A. Yes, all of that is fully correct.
20 Q. And in accordance with the role of the public prosecutor, as
21 defined by the constitution and the law, all of these state organs, all
22 of the individuals and organisations were duty-bound to act pursuant to
23 the request sent out by the public prosecutor; right?
24 A. Yes. If they were able to act upon the request of the
1 Q. I will remind you of Article 16 which says that:
2 "The public prosecutor's office is entitled to receive from
3 courts and other organs and entities all documents and information that
4 are necessary for the public prosecutor to act within its competence."
5 The last paragraph says that:
6 "Organs and individuals from paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article
7 are duty-bound to act pursuant to the requests sent out by the
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. When I said Article 16 I failed to say that I was referring to
11 the law on public prosecutor's office, and the law on public prosecutor's
12 office is 1D04-2985. Unfortunately we are still missing the translation
13 of this law, but as soon as we have the translation we will file it into
14 our law library and we have already agreed on this with the Prosecution.
15 JUDGE HALL
16 half you indicated would run until noon
17 technical reasons we cannot sit beyond 12.10 so that you would indicate
18 around noon
19 that point we will take the adjournment until tomorrow.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I can give you my answer right now.
21 I'm going to lead the cross-examination until noon and then I propose
22 that we adjourn for tomorrow and I will finish the rest of my
23 cross-examination tomorrow.
24 JUDGE HALL
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Now let us go back once again to the Law on
2 Criminal Procedure. Just a minute. I need to find it. That's P120, tab
3 152. No need to show it on the screen. I just want your comment,
4 please. It seems that you have very good memory of the Law on Criminal
5 Procedure which was in force at the time. Since you have mentioned the
6 case of -- or rather, the case of unknown perpetrators, I would like to
7 remind you of Article 152 -- 155 of the Law on Criminal Procedure, which
8 envisioned that:
9 "In cases when the perpetrator is unknown, public prosecutor can
10 request from the organs of the interior to take certain investigative
11 steps should that be deemed useful and that they can ask for this even
12 before an investigation is initiated."
13 Further on:
14 "If the public prosecutor believes that an investigative judge
15 needs to take certain steps or if he believes that an autopsy or
16 exhumation of a corpse needs to be conducted, the prosecutor will --
17 shall propose to the investigative judge to do that."
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. In accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure, the
21 investigative judge could disagree with the proposal advanced by the
22 public prosecutor, proposal to conduct such investigative action?
23 A. He could disagree with the request of the public prosecutor to
24 launch an investigation. Now you're talking about just investigative
25 step. I'm not sure whether he could disagree with the request to conduct
1 certain investigative steps. I'm not entirely sure of that. When it
2 comes to initiating an investigation, then I'm sure that you're right;
3 but when it comes to just certain investigative steps, I'm not fully
5 Q. I will read you, this is Article 155, paragraph 1, the last
6 sentence. This is the Law on Criminal Procedure of the SFRY. So the
7 last sentence reads:
8 "If the investigative judge disagrees with this proposal, he
9 shall request that the chamber rule on this."
10 A. Are you referring to an investigation or just individual
11 investigative steps?
12 Q. Madam, please focus. Article 155 reads, let me read it in its
14 "If the public prosecutor believes that certain investigative
15 steps need to be taken by the investigative judge or if there is a need
16 to perform an autopsy or exhumation of a corpse, the public prosecutor
17 shall propose to the investigative judge to undertake that step. If the
18 investigative judge disagrees with that proposal, then he will request
19 that a chamber rule on it."
20 In parenthesis it says: "Article 23, paragraph 6."
21 A. Yes, yes. You are right I have forgotten about this, and as I
22 told you I don't remember all of the articles of the old Law on Criminal
24 Q. So a special Trial Chamber ruled in these situations according to
25 the Law on Criminal Procedure, these situations when the prosecutor
1 proposes to the investigative judge to do something and the judge
2 disagrees with that proposal. In such cases, a special Trial Chamber
3 comprising three judges would rule on this, make a final ruling on this
4 proposal of the prosecutor; right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Very briefly about the structure of the prosecutor's office.
7 That's where we will conclude for today. I'm referring now to 1992
8 because that's the year that's relevant for this case. The structure of
9 the prosecutor's office was as follows. There was a republic public
10 prosecutor at the level of the republic, then there were district public
11 prosecutors that worked with the district courts in their jurisdiction,
12 and then there were first-instance or basic prosecutors that worked
13 within the jurisdiction of the basic courts in the territory of the
14 republic; right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In 1992 and I think to this day as well, there is a very clear
17 hierarchy in the office of the prosecutor. The republic prosecutor is at
18 the top, and then below him we have district prosecutors or higher
19 prosecutors, and then basic prosecutors at the -- basic or junior
20 prosecutors at the lowest level; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Each of these three prosecutor's offices had an identical
23 internal organisation. At the head of the prosecutor's office there is a
24 public prosecutor who has one first deputy and then several additional
25 deputies. That's how it was at the level of the republic, at the
1 district level, and at the basic level; right?
2 A. It depends on the size of the prosecutor's office.
3 Q. When you say that it depends on the size of the prosecutor's
4 office, you mean that it can happen that at the basic level, at the
5 lowest level, they have just one prosecutor and one deputy and not
6 several deputies. Is that what you meant?
7 A. Yes, and that's how it could be at the middle level or at the
8 highest level. It just depends.
9 Q. Well, as far as I know it was a rare occasion where a republic
10 prosecutor's office would only have one prosecutor and one deputy and not
11 several deputies. Have you -- are you familiar with any such instance
12 as -- because you said that you've been a prosecutor since 1976 or so?
13 A. Well, you mentioned the years 1992 and 1993. And at that time
14 I'm not sure whether there was only one prosecutor at the republic level
15 or several, and whereas we at the district level in Trebinje -- there was
16 one prosecutor, one deputy, and several second deputies. So it all
17 depended on the resources and on needs.
18 Q. In 1992 you were appointed senior prosecutor in Trebinje; correct
20 A. Yes, in 1992 it was called senior public prosecutor.
21 Q. And your appointment, if I remember correctly, was in early
22 August 1992?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. The higher prosecutor's office in Trebinje which was headed by
25 you in 1992 had under its jurisdiction the basic prosecutor's offices in
1 Trebinje, Ljubinje, Bileca, Gacko, Nevesinje, correct, Berkovici?
2 A. You now mentioned the municipalities that were covered. There
3 was a -- there was one higher prosecutor's office and three basic
4 prosecutor's offices. There was Trebinje, Bileca, Gacko, Nevesinje,
5 Berkovici. Actually, I'm not sure about Nevesinje. Possibly in the
6 early days Nevesinje didn't have a basic prosecutor's office. I'm not
7 sure when it was up and running, possible a couple of months later.
8 Q. Just one question, if you remember. Was the jurisdiction of the
9 public prosecutor's offices in Trebinje extended to cover the
10 municipalities of Visegrad and Foca?
11 A. Foca belonged to Trebinje, but I don't think that Visegrad ever
12 did. Trnovo did for a while, that municipality, together with Foca,
13 Kalinovik, and Cajnice. But I don't think that Visegrad was ever under
14 the jurisdiction of the Trebinje prosecutor's office as far as I
15 remember. And Trnovo didn't remain under our jurisdiction for long
16 either; it was soon transferred to Sarajevo. I'm not quite certain, but
17 the CSB
18 that was soon changed; however, Foca in terms of the jurisdiction of the
19 prosecutor's office there was under Trebinje.
20 Q. I just have a few more questions and then we can finish.
21 Article 17 of the Law on the Public Prosecutor's Office --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please repeat the reference.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. It's document
25 Q. Article 17 explains the hierarchy within the public prosecutor's
1 office, and it says:
2 "The higher or senior public prosecutor," which was your position
3 in 1992, "has the right and the duty to give binding instructions from
4 work to the subordinate public prosecutor and in addition to that can
5 conduct -- perform several activities from the jurisdiction of the junior
6 public prosecutor. He can authorise the junior public prosecutor to act
7 upon certain cases from the jurisdiction of the junior prosecutor, then
8 he can authorise the junior public prosecutor to perform certain duties
9 from the jurisdiction of another junior prosecutor."
10 Let us clarify this. If you wish, I can give you a copy of the
11 law for you to be able to control what I'm reading out.
12 A. There is no need to.
13 Q. So you agree that this was the text that I read out?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. This basically means that the senior public prosecutor can order
16 a junior public prosecutor, and let's assume that you are a senior
17 prosecutor and there is a junior prosecutor in Bileca, let's say. And
18 you can order him or give him binding instructions for his work or order
19 him to perform certain activities; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. As senior prosecutor, you also have the authority to -- I'm using
22 "you" for the sake of argument. I don't want to insinuate anything. As
23 senior prosecutor you can remove a case from a junior prosecutor and task
24 another junior prosecutor to act on it or to deal with it; correct?
25 A. Yes, but only if there are reasons for that, not if it's a whim
1 of mine.
2 Q. Well, yes, certainly there must be reasons. If you're
3 dissatisfied with their work, that is the work of one prosecutor, you can
4 remove a case from them and transfer it to another and give instructions
5 as to what should be done; correct?
6 A. Yes, but it didn't happen in our practice. It didn't happen, but
7 it was possible under the law.
8 Q. So in your personal practice it didn't happen, I suppose because
9 you were satisfied with the work of your subordinate prosecutors?
10 A. I said that it didn't happen in our practice. There were only
11 cases when the junior prosecutor or his deputy asked to be recused
12 because they couldn't work on a certain case, and then I would task
13 another prosecutor from our jurisdiction to deal with that case.
14 Q. So let us shorten this. You as senior prosecutor have the
15 authority to do what we have spoken about and which is provided for by
16 Article 17, but you as senior prosecutor did not exercise your right --
17 that right in your practice or did so relatively rarely when the
18 prosecutor himself would apply for -- to be recused?
19 A. As far as I remember, that's how it was.
20 Q. And here's my last question: This same Article 17, paragraph 2,
21 reads that:
22 "The senior public prosecutor can take over criminal prosecution
23 from the jurisdiction of a subordinate prosecutor ..." and it goes on to
24 enumerate what the senior prosecutor is entitled to do. But the essence
25 is that you as senior prosecutor, if you are dissatisfied with the work
1 of any subordinate prosecutor, you have the authority to remove a case
2 from their jurisdiction and decide to have the senior prosecutor's office
3 to deal with that case; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Since I will be moving to another unknown territory
6 at the moment, I suppose we can take a break -- adjourn for the day and
7 continue tomorrow. Thank you very much.
8 JUDGE HALL
9 In my inquiries -- thank you, Mr. Zecevic, you may -- in my
10 inquiries as to the -- how we were proceeding, I apologise that I
11 neglected to inquire of counsel for Zupljanin as to how they were
12 positioned to deal with cross-examination of this witness. But I advise
13 that they are in a position to begin their cross-examination today,
14 interposing in the cross-examination of Mr. Zecevic. Am I correctly
15 advised, Mr. Krgovic?
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since Mr. Zecevic
17 have mostly covered what we wanted to deal with, we're basically left
18 with only such matters as are included in the amendments. So we are not
19 in a position to start our cross-examination today. So what will be left
20 unresolved once Mr. Zecevic has finished will be dealt with us, but we
21 would like to avoid going over the same things twice.
22 JUDGE HALL
23 2.15 tomorrow afternoon. Thank you.
24 The -- Ms. Gacinovic, I would remind you that you, having been
25 sworn as a witness, cannot have any contact with counsel from either
1 side. You are excused for the day because we are about to take the
2 adjournment as you would have gathered, to resume at 2.15 tomorrow. And
3 in addition to such -- you're not being able to communicate with counsel,
4 in such discussions as you may have with anyone else outside of the
5 courtroom, you cannot discuss your testimony.
6 So with that we would rise and resume in this courtroom at 2.15
7 tomorrow afternoon.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.04 p.m.
9 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 30th day of
10 September, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.