1 Wednesday, 20 April, 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
6 everyone in the courtroom. This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor
7 versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Good morning to
9 everyone. May we take the appearances, please.
10 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner,
11 Alexis Demirdjian, Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
13 Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for Stanisic Defence
14 this morning. Thank you.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and
16 Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
18 Mr. Zecevic, we've been alerted by the Court Officer that there's
19 some matters that you wish to raise.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, I haven't been in contact, of
21 course, with the witnesses or VWS, so I'm not aware if the witness is
22 told or made aware that he should come back. Now, what I wanted to
23 suggest was that Your Honours inform him about that -- that's the fact
24 right now as I see it, that he will need to come back, so he can over the
25 breaks he can maybe think about the dates which might -- he might be
1 unavailable so we can properly schedule that. That is the only thing I
2 wanted to raise. Thank you, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE HALL: Did I [Microphone not activated] -- hear correctly
4 yesterday when counsel were making their comments that apart from the
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the presiding judge, please.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thanks. Did I correctly gather yesterday that from
8 the comments that counsel made that apart from the witness's personal
9 convenience with the firm fixture you have for your experts with the very
10 earliest that he would be available would be the week beginning the --
11 the very earliest that we would be get back to him would be the 23rd of
12 May? As I said, we still have to find out what his convenience is.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, Ms. Korner and myself, we were
14 just discussing that before the -- before the start of the session.
15 There might be a possibility that we can hear this witness on the week of
16 16th already after we finish the experts. Now, that -- of course, that
17 depends on the length of the cross-examination because --
18 JUDGE HALL: Of course.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: -- and the other arguments that we can anticipate
20 are going to be heard in the court. Or maybe we can -- maybe we can also
21 schedule him to start as early as the 2nd of May and move the expert.
22 What is the -- the situation with the expert is the following: I
23 explained to Your Honours, it needs to be finished for Mr. Bajagic in the
24 month of May. That's our concern. Because after that he starts the
25 examinations and all that that then he might not be available until end
1 of -- before the summer break. That's why we ...
2 JUDGE HALL: Of course, best case scenario is that if Ms. Korner
3 requires 20 hours that's five sitting days, so that's the week of the 2nd
4 gone already and that may very well create problems for you. But what I
5 propose to do is when the witness comes into court today to alert him to
6 the problem so he can think about it, and when we rise tomorrow - because
7 we are going to be back here tomorrow - if he is in a position to
8 communicate to VWS any problems that he has, then we'll know where to go
9 from there.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE HALL: So could we have the witness back on the stand,
13 Sorry, Ms. Korner, before I put the question to the witness,
14 picking up on my last comment about your 20 hours, is it safe to say that
15 if you were to begin on the 2nd of May, there may very well have to be an
16 interruption so probably that may not be the prudent option?
17 MS. KORNER: When Your Honour says "interruption," sorry, do you
18 mean that if I started on the 2nd and I went over the week or -- well,
19 Your Honour mentioned interruption, what --
20 JUDGE HALL: Yes, because I'm thinking of the problem with
21 Mr. Zecevic's expert.
22 MS. KORNER: Yes. Your Honours, I certainly -- yes, it would
23 certainly cause a problem if I had to interrupt my cross-examination.
24 There's no question about that.
25 JUDGE HALL: So probably --
1 MS. KORNER: I would suggest it's probably safer to go for the
2 later date rather than -- and have Mr. Zecevic -- I'm sorry, I don't know
3 [indiscernible] Mr. Zecevic's name, Mr. Zecevic start his expert and deal
4 with it then. I actually thought because Mr. Zecevic said that he had 15
5 hours with his expert, that the likelihood was that the expert would take
6 a couple of weeks, or the best part, but Mr. Zecevic now says he is
7 probably not going to take that length of time. But I think it's
8 probably -- let's deal with the experts as arranged and then we'll go
9 back to Mr. Whatever his name is.
10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 JUDGE HALL: Good morning to you, Mr. Bjelosevic. You may take
13 your seat. Before Mr. Zecevic resumes his examination-in-chief, there is
14 a procedural matter on which the Chamber is inviting your input, and it
15 is this: You would recall that at the beginning of your testimony I
16 alerted you as to the estimated lengths of time that counsel altogether
17 would take. The result of the progress we are making is that with the
18 holiday weekend that is about to begin and for certain administrative
19 reasons, a decision was taken several months ago that it would not be
20 practical to sit in the three available sitting days next week. Your
21 testimony is not going to be completed within this week.
22 Now, the Chamber appreciates that notwithstanding your obligation
23 to the Chamber and to the Tribunal to attend as a witness having been
24 summoned that as is the case with all witnesses it is not a personally
25 convenient thing to have to attend court and it presents some disruption
1 in your ordinary schedule. What we have to decide is this: Because of
2 arrangements that are in place in respect of other witnesses who
3 Mr. Zecevic is calling, that when your examination-in-chief by
4 Mr. Zecevic and your cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic on behalf of the
5 accused Zupljanin is completed this week, that counsel for the
6 Prosecution, Ms. Korner, would not begin her cross-examination of you
7 until you return.
8 Now, I mentioned earlier the arrangements that are in place in
9 respect of other witnesses, and it appears that the earliest that we
10 would be able to return to you is -- there's an outside chance of the
11 week beginning the 16th of May, but more likely than not the 23rd of May,
12 so if you would bear those dates in mind and give it some thought in the
13 course of today and over night, and when we take the adjournment tomorrow
14 I would raise this matter with you again and your either then or at
15 some -- in the days following, if you could communicate directly with the
16 Victims and Witnesses Section of the Tribunal to let us know how your --
17 what dates would cause the leasts disruption in your own schedule.
18 Do you understand the question that I'm posing?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I understand and yesterday I
20 heard a bit about that. It seemed that I would be coming back. The most
21 convenient date for me would be the 9th of May, but that's not a date
22 that you offered, so I'll see.
23 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
24 Yes, Mr. Zecevic, you may continue.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
1 WITNESS: ANDRIJA BJELOSEVIC [Resumed]
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 Examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]
4 Q. Good morning, Mr. Bjelosevic.
5 A. Good morning.
6 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, let us continue from where we broke off
7 yesterday. We were discussing Bosanski Samac and the situation towards
8 the end of November in Bosanski Samac. I would like us to look at the
9 document in tab 185. The document is 262D1.
10 A. 186?
11 Q. 185. Mr. Bjelosevic, this is a dispatch. It's roughly the 23rd
12 or 25th of November, 1992. It was sent to the public security station of
13 Bosanski Samac and it is signed by chief of the centre
14 Andrija Bjelosevic. Can you confirm to us that this is your dispatch, or
15 actually can you tell us whether this is your dispatch, whether it was
16 sent to Bosanski Samac, and what was the reason for sending it?
17 A. Yes, this is a dispatch of the CSB. I sent the document and
18 signed it. It was sent to the public security station of Samac with the
19 request of having the chief of that station at the time, Stevan Todorovic
20 to report immediately to the minister or assistant minister, Tomo Kovac.
21 If we recall everything that had preceded this particular date, then the
22 arrest of Todorovic by the security organs of the military, many
23 omissions in the work of this public security station in the previous
24 period, and I also wish to recall the dispatch I sent to the minister and
25 the president of the republic. So it was after all of that that
1 conditions were created for this, for having Stevan Todorovic dismissed
2 from that position of chief of the public security station. That is why
3 he was supposed to report immediately.
4 Q. Thank you?
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would
6 like to tender this document into evidence.
7 JUDGE HALL: We have the testimony, do we need it?
8 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours. I withdraw.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Can we please have a look at 270, D1, tab 188.
10 Mr. Bjelosevic, this is a document without a date. On page 3 there's
11 signature, Mirko Blazanovic compiled the report, or wrote the report, and
12 there's his signature there as well. The subject of this document is the
13 activities of the activity co-ordination work group in the Samac public
14 security station. What is written here is that it's addressed to the
15 Republika Srpska MUP in Bijeljina. Tell me, do you know about this
16 document? Who was Mirko Blazanovic? Tell us everything you can about
17 this document, whatever you may know.
18 A. We've already mentioned this name. Mirko Blazanovic was the
19 chief of the department of the milicija in the CSB Doboj from the month
20 of June onwards. This is indeed his signature, I can recognise it, and
21 this is a document that was written up after the visit of a group that
22 was sent on the 27th of November, 1992, sent to Samac. They looked at
23 the work of the public security station to that date and they noticed
24 many flagrant omissions. I would like to underline that, flagrant
25 omissions, and they are listed here.
1 The station area had not been divided into patrolling sectors and
2 areas in the building without any appropriate decision. 41 persons were
3 being held in detention of five different ethnic backgrounds as it is
4 stated here, so the Samac public security station did not observe the
5 decision of the ministry. The date was the 10th of August. That was a
6 surprise for that group that was staying there, that group of inspectors,
7 and for all of us as well.
8 Q. Just a moment.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we move the English text a bit
10 so that everyone can follow what the witness is saying. It's the same
11 page but could you just go to the bottom of the page. Perhaps the next
12 page would be required as well, I couldn't see it myself. I do
13 apologise. Thank you very much.
14 Q. Sorry, Mr. Bjelosevic, for having interrupted you, but this is
15 necessary for all the other participants to be able to follow.
16 A. All right. So let me move on, let me state what was observed.
17 No records were being kept, and I remember when contacting the commander
18 Savo Cancarevic that question had been raised once, namely that he even
19 interfered in assignments given by the service. So it wasn't the
20 komandir or his deputy that did that but he did it.
21 Q. Sorry, when you say "he," who is he?
22 A. I'm referring to Stevan Todorovic because he is the person we are
23 discussing. Then the operative coverage of the station's territory was
24 very poor. The negligence towards equipment, all of this is specifically
25 noted. I'm underlining the word "flagrant" once again, flagrant
1 omissions in the work of the public security station.
2 Q. Just tell me about the signature, are you familiar with it?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did you receive a copy of this document? Have you seen it
6 A. Of course. The centre received a copy and the situation was
7 discussed and it is Mirko Blazanovic's signature, no doubt about that.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
10 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D519, Your Honours.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Another document that has to do with the same matter, 268D1, 189,
14 that is the tab number. Mr. Bjelosevic, this is a dispatch dated the
15 27th of November, 1992. It says CSB Doboj on the top of the page and
16 then your name rather is at the bottom of the page by way of a signature,
17 and then there's something that was added here, something handwritten.
18 This dispatch was sent to the MUP of Republika Srpska, to the minister,
19 and to the commander of the special purpose police. That is the brigade
20 of the Special Police attached to the MUP; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you confirm this for us? Is this your document? What was
23 the reason for sending this document, and can you tell us what happened
24 in relation to this?
25 A. The document is a document of the CSB Doboj indeed. I sent this
1 dispatch. May I just say what the reason was, although you can see it
2 from the text of the document itself? After all the things that happened
3 beforehand and that we have discussed already, Stevan Todorovic tried to
4 win over the milicija and some members of the military and -- to oppose
5 his dismissal. The security situation in the territory, the municipality
6 of Samac had already become increasingly complex. I told you already
7 that an inspector had been sent there, and he monitored the situation as
8 it was. That's why I asked the minister to send reinforcements there
9 from the Special Police, that is.
10 As you can see that this document was also sent to
11 Milenko Karisik, commander of the special purpose police. This request
12 was indeed met. I see this handwritten text on the top of the page and
13 it says that a work group was sent to Samac and then further on it says
14 Saric, that was Goran Saric, if I remember correctly, he was an inspector
15 of the milicija in the department at the MUP headquarters, then Ostoja
16 the crime department. It's probably Ostoja Minic, and he was indeed on
17 that team. After that Stevan Todorovic quite simply left the public
18 security station. He went to the municipality and he did something
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
22 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D520, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, on the English translation, there is
25 another piece of information that has been translated. "The work details
1 report says that there is no need to send the unit."
2 Mr. Bjelosevic, but you say that there was a unit sent to Samac?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sure at that additional forces
4 were sent there at that time. I don't remember their number. And I know
5 that they were accompanied by Marinko Djukic, an inspector.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Bjelosevic, what is translated here as a work
8 detail, "a work detail has been sent to Samac" and then "the work details
9 report says that there is no need to sent a unit." What is meant by "a
10 work detail"?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean the handwritten text?
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, a detail or a group or a team
14 means that there was a group of people sent there.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, perhaps the witness can read what is
16 written in Serbian so it can be translated by interpreters.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes.
18 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Bjelosevic, could you read aloud the handwritten
19 notation at the top, please.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm starting from the top:
21 "A work group has been sent to Samac."
22 I can't read the last word, I'm not sure. And then later on it
23 says Saric, after a little dash, Saric was an inspector of milicija from
24 the headquarters of MUP, and then it says Ostoja crime department, he was
25 an inspector from the crime prevention department,
1 Ostoja Milic [as interpreted]. And then "the work group's report says
2 that there is no need to send a unit." And then there's somebody's
3 signature, maybe Zuban but I'm not sure, but I'm sure that a unit was
4 sent at approximately that time. Maybe a little bit before or a little
5 bit after, and I know that Marinko Djukic, an inspector from the Security
6 Services Centre of Doboj accompanied them. That was a group that had
7 been in the army before that, and I don't know in which unit, and their
8 leader was an individual nicknamed Ljapo. They went towards the station,
9 and I know for sure that a unit was sent there and spent some time there
10 as reinforcement and then the situation calmed down. I know that for
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe if you permit me one more
14 explanation. Maybe these are people from Doboj. Maybe this unit came
15 from Doboj, but they were there, I remember that very well. They went
16 there because of the attempt on part of that Ljapo to take over the
17 station. I'm sure of that.
18 JUDGE HALL: I have another query on this document.
19 Mr. Bjelosevic, having regard to the content of the -- what the original
20 document says, that the classification initially is that it was not
21 urgent, is there an inconsistency there?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says here "DX," yes, but I
23 really don't know why it wasn't marked as very urgent.
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I simply don't know.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Just an issue about the transcript. 12/1, when you were reading
3 out the name Ostoja, you said something and then in the transcript it
4 ended up Ostoja Milic, can you repeat the surname?
5 A. Ostoja Minic. As far as I remember, his surname is Minic and not
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have 1D60, tab 175.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, this is a document originating at the
12 Ministry of the Interior in Bijeljina. The date is 16th of November,
13 1992. On page 3 we can see typed Minister Mico Stanisic as well as
14 signature and a stamp. On page 1 there is some handwritten text. My
15 first question, are you familiar with this document and did you receive
16 it at the time, and if you did, what is it about?
17 A. I'm familiar with the document. It's about the conclusions
18 adopted at the collegium meeting on the 5th of November in Bijeljina.
19 This document was sent to us in the field and it contained a more
20 detailed description of the conclusions adopted at the collegium meeting.
21 It also contains more details about the procedure for nominating
22 personnel for certain positions in the National Security Service and
23 public security service.
24 Q. Can you recognise the signature?
25 A. I can't recognise the signature.
1 Q. Actually, it doesn't matter. Thank you.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have 258D1, tab 177.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, this is a document originating at the department
6 for police duties and assignments. It's an activity plan. It contains
7 three signatures. Can you first explain the first page out of four pages
8 in this document. Is this your document and what is it about?
9 A. Yes, this is a document originating in the Doboj Security
10 Services Centre. In the milicija department or police department there
11 was an inspector and a long time ago it also used to be a department in
12 charge of organisation and mobilisation. At the time of this document,
13 these affairs were handled by Rajko Bilic, an inspector. If you remember
14 yesterday we spoke about the problems related to the criteria for the
15 members of the reserve police. Having noticed the aforementioned
16 problems, this inspector drafted his work-plan or activity plan. It was
17 approved by the chief of sector Mirko Stojcinovic, and I authorised the
18 plan. This inspector visited police stations in the territory of the
19 centre and then reported about it.
20 Q. Can we take a look at the second page and then you can explain
21 that page. We can see a signature of Rajko Bilic. So what is this
22 report about, can you comment on it?
23 A. I again have to go back to what we discussed yesterday, and that
24 is although there were very clear orders, instructions, and warnings,
25 still there were still some problems in some of the stations. Here we
1 can see that Inspector Bilic, while working in accordance with his plan
2 that had been approved and authorised, went to the SJB in Doboj and found
3 that five members of the reserve police were people who did not serve the
4 usual national service in the army. On top of that, there were five
5 other people that had been convicted of crimes which rendered them
6 unsuitable for their jobs.
7 And now if you take a look at the date, and if we know that
8 warnings to resolve this situation were issued as early as August, then
9 we see that this is a clear obstruction.
10 Q. Can you explain pages 3 and 4, the two lists.
11 A. These lists form a part of the report drafted by Inspector Bilic.
12 He made a separate list of the members of the SJB Doboj that had been
13 convicted listing their names, courts that had convicted them, and
14 criminal offences, or more precisely, numbers of relevant articles. So
15 here we can see their names. And on the following page, there's also a
16 list and it's also part of the report drafted by Inspector Bilic and this
17 list contains the names of the members of the reserve force of milicija
18 in the Doboj SJB who had not regulated their military service. And that
19 was one of the criteria.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would
22 like to tender this document.
23 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D521, Your Honours.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] The following document is 45D1.
1 45D1, tab 178A.
2 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, this is a dispatch by Minister Stanisic from the
3 Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska. The date is the 20th of
4 November, 1992. It was sent to Municipal Assemblies. Here it says
5 "everyone" and I don't know whether that pertains to all municipalities
6 or Security Services Centre. Are you familiar with this document? Have
7 you received it? And if yes, can you comment on it?
8 A. I am aware of this document. The minister sent this document to
9 all the municipalities in the territory of the Serbian republic. I
10 emphasise that there had been long discussions spread over several
11 collegium meetings relating to the desire of the local authorities and
12 the local politicians to appoint their own people, people chosen by them,
13 people who were loyal to them. Although the nomination procedure was
14 very clear, Minister Stanisic had told us, chiefs of centres, that three
15 candidates should be nominated for the position of the chief of the
16 station in consultation with local authorities, however local authorities
17 thought that that was insufficient for their purposes. We consulted them
18 about certain people, but they wouldn't want any of those people. They
19 would tell us we want this particular person on this position. That's
20 why this document was sent.
21 In this document, the minister speaks directly to the presidents
22 of Municipal Assemblies and Executive Boards and he tells them how this
23 should be done, and the document was also sent to us for information.
24 And only from that point on the pressure was slightly lesser than before.
25 I mean, the pressure exerted by the local authorities, but it did not
1 completely disappear.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Unless there are
3 objections, I would like to tender this document.
4 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D522, Your Honours.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown
7 259D1, tab 179.
8 Q. Sir, is this your document? It says here chief of centre
9 Andrija Bjelosevic?
10 A. Yes, it is. This is a dispatch which was sent to the Security
11 Services Centre in Banja Luka. It was to be given to Vojo Kupresanin,
12 and there is also an explanation in here as to why the dispatch was being
13 sent. As you can see from the dispatch contents, at 1300 hours in front
14 of the police social centre in Doboj on the 22nd of November, 1992,
15 deputies from the parliament of Republika Srpska gathered. They were
16 escorted because the area of the corridor was not safe at the time. It
17 was rather unsafe. It was exposed to daily artillery fire. Very often
18 groups appeared there and engaged in short attacks and then withdrew
19 towards what was then the enemy side. That's why the deputies had to be
20 escorted, for their safety. They had to be escorted to their
22 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, I've shown you this document precisely to show an
23 example which would help us explain what was the meaning of escort.
24 Escorting somebody as an action carried out by the police?
25 A. Escorting can take place under different circumstances. In
1 peacetime, this usually means escorting people in order to secure a safe
2 passage through traffic and similar exceptional conditions. However,
3 under the conditions when this happened, it was war time and the
4 situation was very complex. The activity was therefore also very complex
5 and had to be carried out with full responsibility by the security
7 We had to secure the route of their movement through the
8 corridor. The route had to be additionally secured by the police who
9 were placed there to observe the situation. The column had an armed
10 escort as well at the beginning and the end of the column in case of
11 attack. Those armed escorts were prepared to engage and to ensure a
12 secure movement of vehicles and safety for the deputies.
13 Q. Sir, was this an activity that the Ministry of the Interior was
14 authorised to carry out in keeping with the Law on Internal Affairs?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown
18 1D321, currently marked for identification, tab 182.
19 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, this is a two-page document. The first page is a
20 cover letter. I believe that the date is the 25th November, 1992. It
21 was sent to all public security stations by the Security Services Centre
22 in Doboj, and the signature is chief of centre Andrija Bjelosevic.
23 Kindly tell us briefly whether this is your document, what was it about,
24 who was it sent to and why?
25 A. Yes. This is a cover letter which was sent to all the public
1 security stations in the Doboj Security Services Centre area. I signed
2 the document. As you can see enclosure 1 is the directive on maintaining
3 storage deposits which was sent by the Ministry of the Interior. The
4 minister had signed it, and here in the top right-hand side corner you
5 can see the word "copy." We received the directive from the minister and
6 then we made a sufficient number of the copies thereof and sent them to
7 the public security stations.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the document was
10 marked for identification because the previous witness was not in a
11 position to authorise it, or rather, recognise it. Since this witness
12 has just confirmed that this document was drafted by him, I would like to
13 the MFI marking to be removed from the document.
14 JUDGE HALL: We could do that, Mr. Zecevic, but I confess I'm at
15 a loss as to why this -- what appears to be a routine piece of
16 correspondence would have been entered even provisionally.
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we are going to be asking about it.
18 JUDGE HALL: I see. So we would de-MFI it.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
20 46D1, tab 193.
21 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Your Honour, I have to
22 make it clear why I said that. You only saw the front page of that.
23 There is three pages to it.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, I'm not following.
25 MS. KORNER: When asked -- when I said -- Their Honours, when
1 they were asking you about the last document that you wanted de-MFI'd,
2 all that was on the thing was the front page. It's actually a three-page
3 document, that's what I was explaining.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, that is correct, but I didn't want to show all
5 three pages because the document has been already admitted, only it's
6 been MFI'd due to the fact that the authenticity was -- could not have
7 been established by the previous witness.
8 JUDGE HALL: That was all for my edification, Mr. Zecevic.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, this is a letter, or rather, a dispatch bearing
12 the date 3rd December, 1992. It was sent from the crime prevention
13 administration in Bijeljina and sent to the Doboj CSB. And they are
14 referring to your report dated the 6 November 1992, and we can see that
15 something was added by hand. I believe that it is a family name. Are
16 you familiar with this document, and can you briefly explain what the
17 document is about?
18 A. Yes, I'm familiar with this dispatch. It arrived from the crime
19 prevention administration at the seat of the MUP. This dispatch is
20 connected with one of our documents. I believe that we saw it in this
21 courtroom earlier and in that dispatch we wanted a search warrant to be
22 issued for certain vehicles and property stolen from the company Krivaja
23 based in Zavidovici, and this is the administration's response. The
24 dispatch was signed by the then chief of the administration or perhaps
25 the assistant chief, Goran Macar. What is added by hand is the marking
1 of the crime prevention department and it was delivered to
2 Branislav Petricevic who at the time was the head of that department, or
3 rather, the head of the economic crime department.
4 Q. The MUP of the Republika Srpska, the crime prevention
5 administration hereby informs you about what?
6 A. That the administration will take measures necessary to locate
7 the stolen property and goods which were stolen in our centre and
8 transported to the Republic of Serbia.
9 Q. Since this document refers your dispatch that we already
10 commented upon, would you say that this was an example showing the
11 functioning along the lines of work?
12 A. Yes, precisely. This is what it reflects. Perhaps you will
13 remember another dispatch sent by the ministry, or rather, by the
14 minister. It had to do with the correspondence with the neighbouring
15 MUPs. It seems that the MUP here has already entered in a correspondence
16 with their counter-part in another republic and they are just sending us
17 a letter for information.
18 Q. Was there a crime prevention administration at the CSB?
19 A. There was a department and within that department there was a
20 section for economic crime.
21 Q. Let's just explain. At the level of Security Services Centres
22 were there departments or were there administrations?
23 A. The administration existed at the level of the ministry. We had
24 departments. For example, we had -- the MUP had the administration for
25 policing, the administration for crime prevention, the administration for
1 administrative and legal affairs and so on and so forth. And then that
2 hierarchy along the lines of work came down to the centres, and then in
3 the centres there were departments which corresponded to each of the
4 administrations in the MUP.
5 Q. Very well. This means that an administration existed at the MUP,
6 a department existed at the CSB, and what did the public security station
8 A. At the time the public security stations had sections.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, unless there are
11 objections, I would like to tender this document.
12 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D523, Your Honours.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown --
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Is this document -- no, no, sorry.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: It is related to one previous document which the
17 witness was talking about. [Interpretation] The document is in
18 connection with 1D488.
19 Can the witness please be shown 274D1, tab 195.
20 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, this is a document in whose heading you see the
21 Security Services Centre Doboj. The date is the 3rd December 1992.
22 There is a typed up signature of chief of centre Andrija Bjelosevic, but
23 I believe that there is a word "for" and another signature. Can you
24 explain what the document is about, whether the document was assigned
25 under your authority, did you know about it, what does it refer to?
1 A. The document originates from the Security Services Centre in
2 Doboj, and it is about measures and tasks ordered to the police station
3 in Petrovo. Those measures and tasks had arisen from the control and
4 instructive inspection which was carried out at the station. It had been
5 established that certain omissions were made and there were shortcomings
6 in the work of the station and it was immediately ordered that those
7 shortcomings should be eliminated. The shortcomings that were noted are
8 listed in here, dead-lines are given, and this document was signed by the
9 chief of the public security sector, Mirko Stojcinovic. He was
10 authorised by me to sign certain documents including this one. As you
11 can see, there are immediate dead-lines. Some tasks are described as
12 on-going and for some tasks there is a dead-line of several days.
13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Bjelosevic.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I
15 would like to tender this document into evidence as well.
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I have no objections, but I wonder if
17 the witness could read paragraph 2 in the Serbian language because the
18 English translation doesn't make much sense at the moment.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Ms. Korner.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Establish records on the use of
21 means of coercion and ensure lawful procedure in cases of use of means of
23 MS. KORNER: I don't know whether Mr. Zecevic wants to ask
24 Mr. Bjelosevic what that refers to, because I don't want to have to come
25 back to it.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Sir, this is a problem with the translation. Could you explain
3 what means of coercion are. What is meant by that? Could you please
4 explain what it is that is referred to in paragraph 2.
5 A. Well, I would like to remind you that we have already discussed
6 this and that this is what the procedure is: If a person who violated
7 the law have certain measures taken against him or her, that involves a
8 certain procedure, certain rules as to how this takes place.
9 Q. When you say certain measures, could you please explain the
10 measures involved?
11 A. I am going to explain now. First there is an order, an order can
12 be issued to the effect of come with us, but then you have to assess the
13 situation. You see, the situation is assessed each and every time. What
14 kind of person is involved, is this person going to put up a resistance,
15 will this person draw a fire-arm, for instance, and then measures are
16 planned on that basis, and then there's a gradual process.
17 The resistance can be active or passive. If it's passive, again
18 there has to be coercion involved, the person has to be brought to a
19 vehicle if necessary. If there is a court order to bring that person
20 into custody if the person was caught while committing a crime and if
21 there is a tendency to the effect that this person may continue doing
22 that, then the person may be tied up in order to be brought in. Also a
23 truncheon may be used, a rubber one. And in most drastic cases when
24 lives are threatened either of the policeman or of other citizens, then
25 even fire-arms can be used.
1 All of these measures that are applied have to be recorded,
2 described. That's the way it was at the time as well. If physical force
3 was used to overcome a person, then the policeman when handing over that
4 individual has to describe what he did, so this report, whatever it had
5 to do with, physical strength, tying a person up, et cetera, all of that
6 has to be recorded. All of these means of coercion have to be described,
7 recorded, and then it is the superior that determines how justified that
9 I don't know whether it was clear, everything I have been
10 explaining so far. What has been noted here is that not all reports were
11 made and then an order was issued to have the situation addressed.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I hope that the witness explained
13 this in an exhaustive fashion and if there are no further questions, I
14 would like to tender it.
15 JUDGE HALL: I think I understand his explanation to date, but
16 there's one small point. I understand fully the record keeping part of
17 it, but this ensure lawful procedure in cases, does this -- the lawful
18 procedure, is it the record keeping or is this lawful procedure a
19 detailed, for want of a better expression, escalation, if the suspect
20 does this you can only do that and so on? Do you understand my question?
21 The latter part of that when you say is ensure lawful procedure. You are
22 nodding your head, what's your --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand. It is never
24 superfluous to note certain things. When instructions are being issued,
25 when measures are being ordered, et cetera. My understanding of this was
1 simply to redress this lack that was noted in the records and then also
2 to ensure lawful procedure when means of coercion are applied. That is
3 never superfluous. It's always a good idea to remind policemen of that.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, the question was as follows, if I may be of
6 assistance: Is there a procedure involved as to when and in which cases
7 which measure of coercion may be applied? That is the first question.
8 So could you please respond to that.
9 A. Yes. That is regulated in the rules on the work and conduct of
10 the public security service.
11 Q. Do these rules envisage the cases in which a member of the police
12 has the right to use a rubber truncheon, physical force, or fire-arms,
13 and are the situations involved specified?
14 A. Yes, all of this was elaborated in the rules.
15 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Bjelosevic. The document is admitted
16 and marked.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D524, Your Honours.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Just one document before the break,
19 could the witness please be shown 48D1. That is document 217A.
20 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, this is a document entitled "Instruction on
21 Record Keeping in Police Stations." I would like to know whether you are
22 familiar with this, whether you had received it, under which
23 circumstances, who issued these instructions, and could you specifically
24 comment on paragraph 7 on page 6?
25 A. Yes, this is a document entitled "Instruction on Record Keeping
1 in Police Stations." The document came from the Ministry of the Interior
2 and this is paragraph 7 that refers precisely to that, recording the use
3 of force, means of coercion and that is elaborated here. And you see it
4 refer to gradually, as I said, how this should be applied. Then this
5 book is a record of the use of physical force, a rubber baton, fire-arms,
6 and other means of restraint while performing duty. That's it.
7 So when the document said that there was a lawful procedure
8 involved, it meant this record keeping as well because that is something
9 that was prescribed too.
10 Q. Were the effects of the use recorded too, the effects of the use
11 of one of these means of coercion?
12 A. Of course. There are special boxes for recording all of that.
13 First of all the number, and then what was used and then what the effects
14 were. We can read it out if you wish.
15 Q. There's no need for that. The document is self-explanatory.
16 Could you just explain to us, I mean from a technical point of view,
17 justification of the use of force, how was that assessed?
18 A. It depended on the means that were used. After the report would
19 be written up and after the circumstances were established, how the
20 particular means of coercion were applied for physical force, rubber
21 baton, it was the chief of the police -- the public security station that
22 assessed how justified that was, but it was the head of the CSB that
23 assessed whether it was justified to use a fire-arm. And then what was
24 ultimately established was that this was used in a justified or
25 unjustified manner. In my own practice or career, I had both cases.
1 Q. If it is assessed that it was unjustified, what would happen
3 A. Then disciplinary measures are taken depending on the
4 consequences or effects that followed, even criminal proceedings could
5 have been instituted. And actually, in some cases, it's obligatory to
6 institute criminal proceedings.
7 Q. Thank you very much.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
9 document as well.
10 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D525, Your Honours.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I see the time,
13 perhaps it would be a convenient moment to take the break.
14 JUDGE HALL: So we rise and resume in 20 minutes.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, just one matter while the usher is
19 bringing the witness in, concerns the interpretation because we see that
20 there has been two interpretations of this particular subject that we
21 were discussing with the witness. One was coercion and the other was use
22 of force. Now, I discussed with Ms. Korner and Ms. Korner advised me
23 that coercion in English would be considered as unlawful use of force and
24 basically what the witness was talking about is the use of force during
25 arrest. So I just wanted to.
1 JUDGE HALL: That was certainly the sense with which I was left.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: I just wanted to make sure.
3 MS. KORNER: Yeah, I agree. It became, as Mr. Zecevic just said,
4 if you discuss it coercion used in English suggests an unlawful use of
5 force which is why I raised it because that's why it looked so odd. And
6 I agree entirely that when he gave the explanation what he was clearly
7 explaining, and I think it's common with police forces in most countries,
8 is that if you use force, even lawful force, during the course of an
9 arrest, you have to record that somewhere, and I accept that that's
10 entirely what is meant by that.
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, while we are just waiting. Having
13 discussed the matter over the break again, we think probably the 16th of
14 May would be the appropriate time for Mr. Bjelosevic to return. And it
15 may be rather than to-ing and fro-ing between him and VWS, he should be
16 asked if that week would cause him any problems.
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes, I'll ask him. Thank you.
18 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: And one other matter, Your Honour, 1D514 was MFI'd
20 because of the revised translation. The revised translation was received
21 and it has been uploaded. So 1D514 should be de-MFI'd.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes, the MFI status on that -- qualification on that
24 is lifted.
25 Mr. Bjelosevic, before we resume, further on the matter to which
1 I alerted you at the beginning, having heard from counsel during the
2 break, it looks as if the 16th of May is a feasible date for you to
3 return, so when you would have thought about it, you can confirm to us
4 before we take the adjournment tomorrow whether that would present any
5 insurmountable problems for you.
6 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bjelosevic, a few more questions on the
9 topic we discussed before the break. You said that the chief of the
10 Security Services Centre is the person who decides whether the use of
11 fire-arms was justified. How is the chief of the Security Services
12 Centre informed about the use of fire-arms, can you explain how it went
13 on in practice?
14 A. I can give you an example. Something that happened in the
15 territory of the public security station of Petrovo. Fire-arms were used
16 by a policeman. In such a case, both the centre and the MUP have to be
17 informed about it urgently, then a commission is formed to perform an
18 on-site investigation. In this particular example, the consequence was
19 death of a person. Investigative judge also has to be informed for
20 purposes of his investigation. However, in parallel with his
21 investigation, a report on the use of force has to be compiled.
22 Q. Who writes this report?
23 A. The person who used force writes this report. The chief of
24 station attaches his opinion but the final judgement about whether the
25 use was justified rests with the chief of the centre. In this particular
1 case, I judged based on information contained in the report that the use
2 of fire-arm was unjustified. This policeman was suspended, criminal
3 proceedings were instigated against him, and he was convicted because it
4 was considered a criminal offence. So this is an example of an
5 unjustified use of fire-arms.
6 Q. Generally speaking about chiefs of centres, is there a duty to
7 inform you as the chief of centre about every such instance of use of
8 fire-arms by members of the MUP?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. When police performs combat tasks, is the situation the same, do
11 they still have the same duty?
12 A. No, when they perform combat tasks, military rules are in force.
13 Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to report about every
14 individual case. When the unit returns, a memo is drafted containing
15 information that the unit was engaged in combat tasks, where, how long,
16 consequences for the unit, if any, casualties, killed, and so on.
17 Q. Thank you. Well, you actually answered my question.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have now 290D1. Tab 216.
19 Q. Sir, this is a document originating from the Security Services
20 Centre in Doboj. The date is the 31st December, 1992. It is addressed
21 to the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska, in parentheses Doboj
22 section. On the right-hand side we see chief of centre Andrija
23 Bjelosevic and the signature, and on the left-hand side there is a stamp,
24 a signature, and the confirmation of receipt.
25 Can you tell us, is this your document and what is it about?
1 A. Yes, this is a document originating in the Doboj Security
2 Services Centre. I signed it. This is a request that certain
3 individuals should be put on work obligation at the time they were
4 engaged in the Doboj CSB. According to the regulations that were in
5 force at the time, individuals who worked in certain institutions and
6 organs and who were supposed to be assigned to those positions by the
7 Ministry of Defence, all that had to be done through their particular
8 sections. In this particular case, this is the Doboj section.
9 Q. I think you already mentioned it, but can you remind us, who kept
10 the documentation on military conscripts and what war time roster was the
11 roster that these individuals were supposed to be included in?
12 A. The documentation on military conscripts was kept by the Ministry
13 of Defence in their respective sections in the field. They decided about
14 individual assignments, whether somebody would be sent to a war unit or
15 work obligation. In this case, request is made for these individuals to
16 be sent to work obligation.
17 Q. Work obligation where?
18 A. Work obligation here in the police social centre.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I
21 would like to tender this document.
22 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D526, Your Honours.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have 286D1, tab 209.
2 Q. Sir, the letterhead is Security Services Centre Doboj. The date
3 is the 23rd December 1992. On the second page we see chief of centre
4 Andrija Bjelosevic and the signature. Can you confirm that this is your
5 document and can you explain what it is about and why it was drafted?
6 A. The document originates in the Doboj Security Services Centre. I
7 signed it. As you can see, it's a draft decision on establishing which
8 employees of the Ministry of the Interior are considered authorised
9 officials. This document was the basis for a discussion. Opinions were
10 invited before the definitive version of the appropriate regulation could
11 be established. As you can see, it was sent to all the public security
12 stations in the field, it says here "all."
13 Q. So was a decision made, a final decision, on which employees are
14 to be considered authorised officials?
15 A. There was a discussion and as far as I can remember there were
16 some suggestions that were sent to the ministry, and after that the final
17 regulation was enacted by the minister.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: What are we supposed to conclude from this
20 document, Mr. Zecevic?
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I believe -- Your Honours, I believe
22 the matter is of certain significance. Namely, this shows who -- which
23 members of the Ministry of the Interior are to considered authorised
24 officials. And you will see during the course of our expert testimony
25 what are the prerogatives, so to speak, of the authorised officials. And
1 if you remember, there has been a number of times that we discussed
2 whether the members of the Ministry of the Interior when resubordinated
3 to the army maintain their position or their authority as authorised
4 officials or not, and that is a matter of dispute, as I understand,
5 between the parties in this case. That is why we believe -- that is why
6 we believe this document is important. I'm just reminded that there has
7 been a certain discussion on the same subject, authorised officials, on
8 page 3696 of the transcript.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
10 JUDGE HALL: But if I understand the testimony correctly, this --
11 document that we now have was a discussion paper, discussions followed,
12 and the result was an actual regulation which I would expect, to the
13 extent it is relevant, to have migrated into the law library. Why would
14 we need the discussion paper?
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, what is contained in the law
16 library is the documents which were taken or accepted by the MUP of RS
17 and they were created by MUP of BiH, so throughout the -- this period
18 from April until December the documents which were regulating this matter
19 were the ones from the MUP of BiH. Now, this document is dated 23rd of
20 December and it shows that the MUP of RS was -- was deciding on the
21 matter or actually taking the position within the structure on this
22 particular matter by end of the year. And we believe it's relevant to
23 show that the Ministry of the Interior of RS is conducting this
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: But could I just ask then a follow-up question to
1 the issue that was just raised by the presiding judge, namely, does this
2 decision in its draft or in its final form actually address the issue of
3 the functions during re-subordination?
4 MR. ZECEVIC: No, Your Honours, because the functions during
5 re-subordinations are regulated by other laws. This only concerns what
6 are the authorities of the authorised official and who the authorised
7 officials within the Ministry of the Interior are. And that is regulated
8 by the regulation of the ministry.
9 JUDGE HALL: I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but the
10 difficulty that I still have is that what we now have before us is, as it
11 were, step one. It would be the result of this exercise that we would
12 find useful, isn't it?
13 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, I question that because as
14 Mr. Zecevic rightly says, the applicable law during the period that we
15 are considering in this indictment is that which was still -- is still
16 that which applied to the old BiH MUP. The discussions they were having,
17 nothing came into effect until 1993.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do agree with
19 Ms. Korner. This -- the result of this procedure which was conducted in
20 the end of 1992 was -- it resulted in the document which was -- which was
21 published only in 1993, therefore, outside of the scope of the
23 But, Your Honours, our position is that we need to show that the
24 Ministry of the Interior of RS was conducting each and every step in
25 order to establish the functions of the Ministry of the Interior as it
1 should be according to the law throughout 1992. And that is the
2 importance of this document, as well as the importance which I already
3 stated about the rights of the authorised officials and the position
4 during the re-subordination to the army.
5 JUDGE HALL: Is it possible that one reading this document could
6 be misled as to who constitutes -- who falls in this category of
7 authorised officials, that's my concern? That we have this proposal
8 but --
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I must say that I never thought about it that
10 way and I'm grateful for Your Honours to raise it. I can't guarantee
11 that because it might be, as witness just testified, that there has been
12 some proposals, and we don't know whether these proposals were accepted
13 or not and I accept -- I accept fully that intervention and therefore I
14 agree, I will withdraw my proposal to tender this document because the
15 last thing I would need is to mislead the Trial Chamber on anything,
16 especially on these matters.
17 MS. KORNER: And, Your Honours, it occurs to me there may be one
18 other simple question to ask, and that's whether there is any difference
19 between who was an authorised official under this proposal and that under
20 the law which they were operating under throughout 1992.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: But I think as we have that in the law library and
22 we have the expert witness coming, I can ask the witness this question
23 but still it wouldn't change the position on this document, I guess.
24 JUDGE HALL: I understand that, but it may be useful to get this
25 witness's response to that particular question in as much as he was
1 working with --
2 MR. ZECEVIC: No, no, no, definitely.
3 Q. [Interpretation], Mr. Bjelosevic, please. Can you hear me?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, one question, we see that this was sent on the
6 23rd of December. Which regulations were applied before December 1992 to
7 regulate these issues?
8 A. Initially what applied was the organisation that was in effect
9 within the Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Later on
10 it was regulated more in the territory of public station, and I would say
11 that it was on a case-by-case basis. And when the ministry was
12 established and when this communications system was established, things
13 became more regulated, certain proposals were sought from the public
14 security stations, they were sent to the centre and finally from the
15 centres they would be forwarded and regulations were drafted that I
16 considered final and applicable in the future period.
17 Q. According to the regulations that were in effect in the former
18 ministry in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the persons listed in this proposal, did
19 they enjoy the status of authorised personnel in keeping with the law,
20 can you tell us something about that?
21 A. Yes. At the time there were similarities in terms of who could
22 be considered an authorised person.
23 Q. When you say that there were similarities, you have to be more
24 precise. Do you know what the differences were, how did the two differ?
25 A. The differences as far as I can remember were regulated by the
1 regulations that state security service was separated from the centres
2 and it became a special service. When the regulation was drafted in
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina within the centres, there was a sector of public as
4 well as the sector of state security. The rest in practical terms was
5 police officers, crime inspectors and so on and so forth.
6 Q. But, Mr. Bjelosevic, could you please focus. We are not talking
7 about the division into public as opposed to state security. I'm talking
8 about the status of authorised personnel within the Ministry of the
9 Interior. My question was this: The persons listed in the proposal
10 under Roman I and II and III as well, as far as you can remember,
11 according to the regulations that were applicable to the Ministry of the
12 Interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina, did the same persons or individuals enjoy
13 the status of authorised persons or not?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. If there were any differences, what did the differences consist
16 of? What did they constitute?
17 A. I am not sure whether this would be applicable to the
18 communications centre employees. I believe that that was the only
19 difference. Everything else is practically the same starting with the
20 ministers, deputy assistants, chiefs of centres, chiefs of public
21 security stations and so on and so forth.
22 Q. When you say communications centre employees, what are you
23 saying? What do you mean by that? Are you saying that communication
24 centre employees under the law in effect and applicable by the MUP of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, were they authorised individuals or were they not and
1 then that's changed so they became authorised persons, can you explain?
2 A. According to the regulations that were applied during the
3 existence of the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the communications centre
4 employees were also authorised persons. I know that there was a
5 discussion during that period about the status of those persons and that
6 it became clear that authorised persons could be only those persons who
7 apply authorisations. The communication centre employees were not in
8 that category and that's why it was proposed that communication centres
9 employees would no longer figure as authorised personnel.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know whether
12 the witness's answer has been of assistance to the Trial Chamber.
13 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic. Thanks. Thank you.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Does this mean that the Trial
15 Chamber perhaps now has a different position then before this document
16 was introduced, or perhaps not?
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE HALL: We have the testimony of the witness, Mr. Zecevic.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. I appreciate it.
20 [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown 289D1, tab 214.
21 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, this is a CSB document dated the 30th of
22 December, 1992. It was sent to the Ministry of the Interior of the
23 Republika Srpska to the commander of the Special Police Brigade
24 Milenko Karisik. In the right-hand side corner it says chief of centre
25 Andrija Bjelosevic. There seems to be a signature but I can't see it
1 well in my copy. Could you please tell us whether this is your document,
2 what is it about, who was it sent to and why, if this indeed is your
3 document, if you are familiar with it?
4 A. Yes, I'm familiar with the document. I apologise, I'm sorry. I
5 spoke with my family at home and I forgot to switch the phone off. I
6 apologise. I apologise once again.
7 It was addressed to the commander of the Special Police Brigade
8 Milenko Karisik. Certain problems did appear in that detachment. The
9 period was somewhat calmer, they were not so heavily engaged, and with
10 nothing else to do, as it were, they started behaving in a manner that
11 was not befitting a member of the Ministry of the Interior. That's why I
12 wanted to have an urgent meeting with their commander and the detachment
13 commander to deal with those issues.
14 Q. Can you please tell us why you sent this letter to the commander
15 of the brigade, Milenko Karisik? Please tell us this first and then I'll
16 go on.
17 A. Because of the hierarchy. The 5th Detachment was under strength
18 of the brigade which was under the command of Mr. Milenko Karisik.
19 Q. Was Milenko Karisik their immediate superior?
20 A. Via the commander of the 5th Detachment, yes.
21 Q. Who was authorised to institute the disciplinary and other
22 measures against them?
23 A. In keeping with the regulations on disciplinary responsibility,
24 the brigade commander was the one who could do that pursuant to the
25 detachment commander's proposal, if there were some breaches of
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Unless there are objections, I
3 would like to tender that document into evidence.
4 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D527, Your Honours.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown 282D1, tab
7 206. [In English] Please bear with me, Your Honours, this document might
8 be a duplicate, so if I can have just one minute, please.
9 [Interpretation] I have checked. It is in connection with 1D60, but we
10 are talking about two different documents.
11 Q. So, Mr. Bjelosevic, the document before you bears the date
12 17 December 1992. On the third page -- but let me first say that this is
13 a dispatch. On the third page you will see the typed up name of
14 Andrija Bjelosevic but there is the word "for" and somebody else's
15 signature. This document was sent to a certain number of security
16 stations. Could you please confirm whether this was indeed your
17 dispatch, what was it about, and who it was sent to?
18 A. Yes. This is a document issued by the Doboj CSB. It was
19 addressed to the public security stations in the territory of the Doboj
20 CSB. The purpose of this dispatch was to inform the public security
21 stations about the new regulations on internal organisation that was
22 coming into effect and that the previous appointments on assignment to
23 duties and those were temporary, I believe that we saw a document in
24 which those appointments were described as temporary. And that in
25 keeping with the new regulations, a complete new procedure had to be
1 carried out in order to sign personnel in keeping with the Law on
2 Internal Affairs and Regulations. And this is a reminder of the
3 conclusions from the collegium which had taken place and the discussion
4 that was -- that took place with regard to the new regulations and
5 obligations arising from it.
6 The document was signed by Mirko Stojcinovic, the chief of the
7 public security station in the Doboj centre on behalf of the chief of
8 centre. Of course he did it with my authorisation, I knew about it.
9 Q. Please, could you tell us something about paragraph 9 on page 3
10 in this document.
11 A. On the example of the control and instructive inspection in the
12 field, you could see that there were still reservists who had criminal
13 records or were still kept on contrary to the regulations. Paragraph 9
14 is another reminder that such people should not be appointed in the
15 future, but that rather they should be excluded from the police ranks.
16 Q. We can see here that an order of the ministry is referred to in
17 here, when was that issued?
18 A. That was issued on the 23rd of July and from that time it was
19 repeated several times by the ministry.
20 Q. What is the date of this document?
21 A. The date is the 17th December 1992.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
24 tender this document.
25 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D527, Your Honours. 28, I apologise.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 1D258 [as interpreted] is the
3 number of this document then. Thank you.
4 Could the witness please be shown 272D1, tab 217.
5 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, this is a document of the CSB Doboj,
6 instructions. There is no specific date. It is just the month of
7 December 1992. And then it says Andrija Bjelosevic, there's a stamp,
8 that's at the end of the document. Can you explain to us whether this is
9 your document and can you tell us what this is all about?
10 A. These are instructions on the conduct of the duty operations
11 officer that were within the department of the milicija. This document
12 is from that period, December 1992, but later on it was updated. As you
13 can see in several positions here, if I can call it that, it -- you can
14 see that someone used an eraser or some correcting fluid. My name was
15 there first and then the name of Vaso Skondric was written there instead
16 of my name. Also, as there were other personnel changes, these
17 corrections were reflected in the same way but this really had to do with
18 the positions that they held and this is what the duty officer did. If
19 something happened on the ground, all the public security stations were
20 supposed to inform the duty operations officer and in accordance with
21 these instructions, he reported that either by applying regular procedure
22 or an urgent procedure depending on what had happened.
23 Q. Just two questions. When was Vaso Skondric appointed chief of
24 CSB Doboj, if you remember?
25 A. That was the beginning of March, if I remember correctly, in
1 1994, when I became assistant head of the public security sector in
2 accordance with the minister's decision.
3 Q. Tell me, what is typewritten here, is that the original text of
4 the instruction that you signed?
5 A. Yes, that is the instruction. I signed it and you can see that
6 of course it was still in force at the time when I left. It was only
7 specific information that was updated and that changed.
8 Q. When you say information, what do you mean?
9 A. I mean personnel changes. I mean persons' names and surnames.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
12 tender this document although I do not insist, I have to say that.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE HALL: We'll admit it and mark it.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D529, Your Honours.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. It's a pity that it's
17 only now that I realise that perhaps it's always easier to leave the
18 decision to the Trial Chamber. I do apologise.
19 Could the witness please be shown the next document, 276D1, 197.
20 Tab 197.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone please.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Before we look at the document, Mr. Bjelosevic, a question.
24 Towards the end of the day yesterday and when the first session started
25 today we discussed the situation in Bosanski Samac. Did you take any
1 disciplinary measures against the chief of the public security station of
2 Bosanski Samac, Stevan Todorovic?
3 A. No, for two reasons. Firstly, Stevan Todorovic was never
4 appointed by a decision of the chief of the centre or of the minister of
5 the interior. From the very outset, as we gained insight into what was
6 going on in this public security station, I made efforts to have
7 Todorovic dismissed from that position and that a went very slowly and
8 with great difficulty. We saw that. After all of the problems that
9 appeared in November when he was sent to the ministry for a discussion,
10 he left that duty and he was not appointed to another position, as far as
11 I know.
12 Q. Thank you. The document that we have in front of us is a
13 document of the CSB Doboj. The date is the 8th of December, 1992. This
14 is a decision on imposing disciplinary measure. The signature says chief
15 of the CSB, Andrija Bjelosevic. Can you confirm that for us, can you
16 tell us whether this is a document of yours and can you tell us what it
17 is about?
18 A. Yes, I remember this. This is a decision on imposing a
19 disciplinary measure against a policeman of the Petrovo public security
20 station in accordance with the rules on disciplinary responsibility. The
21 chief of the station took the initiative and the disciplinary commission
22 carried out the appropriate procedure and presented evidence based on the
23 testimony of certain persons. It was established that this person had
24 committed a disciplinary infraction. He was supposed to pay a fine
25 amounting to 15 per cent of his monthly salary over the course of six
2 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, just one question, in paragraph 1 this document
3 refers to the rules on disciplinary responsibility of employees of the
4 MUP in conditions of a war time regimen. Do you remember what the
5 difference was between that set of rules and the rules on disciplinary
6 responsibility envisaged by the law on the interior of Republika Srpska?
7 A. Well, the substantive difference was who this referred to. It
8 actually referred to all members of the service except for those who were
9 on combat duty.
10 Q. Do you remember whether these rules on disciplinary
11 responsibility during a state of war shortened the proceedings,
12 disciplinary proceedings, or did something else happen?
13 A. I cannot recall any details, but I know that there were
14 disciplinary commissions and there was a prescribed procedure as to who
15 starts the initiative and the procedure, and there was a possibility to
16 appeal such a decision and that was the ministry itself or the minister
18 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, tell us, can you remember approximately how many
19 disciplinary proceedings you had against members of the MUP in 1992?
20 A. It's been a long time. I really cannot remember but I know that
21 there were such cases. However, I cannot recall an actual number.
22 Q. Do you remember what the most serious punishment was in such
23 cases of disciplinary infractions by members of the MUP?
24 A. Dismissal from work.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would
2 like to tender this document.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, what is the purpose of tendering
5 this document? It's about a traffic accident so it's not for the purpose
6 of the disciplinary fact, the fact committed. What is the purpose of
7 tendering it?
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, this was considered as a breach of
9 disciplinary responsibility. I'm not offering it to show which breach it
10 was, I'm just showing it that the CSB was conducting this disciplinary,
11 or actually, disciplinary proceedings and giving disciplinary measures to
12 the -- it's members in 1992 contrary to what the opposing party's theory.
13 MS. KORNER: No, no, no, we say no disciplinary measures for
14 serious offences such as murder, beating in prisons, and like this. I'm
15 perfectly happy to accept; traffic accident, disciplinary proceedings
17 JUDGE HALL: So it doesn't advance the issues before us any, so
18 we don't need it.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay.
20 Q. [Interpretation] Tell me, Mr. Bjelosevic, during your testimony
21 we discussed the situation in the -- or rather the public security
22 station of Doboj. In the public security station of Doboj were there any
23 omissions in their work in your view?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Could you please remind us who the chief of the public security
1 station of Doboj was in 1992?
2 A. It was Obren Petrovic.
3 Q. Did you take disciplinary measures against Obren Petrovic?
4 A. No. If necessary, I can explain why not.
5 Q. Please do.
6 A. From these documents you could see that there was a continuity
7 involved in terms of these omissions in work, these omissions were
8 pointed out. I had discussions with the then chief of the station,
9 Petrovic, since the situation was changing slowly, we saw from documents
10 that there were even obstructions in terms of carrying out orders and
11 instructions. I finally suggested to the minister that Obren Petrovic be
12 replaced and dismissed from this position of chief of the public security
14 I think it was the beginning of 1993 when a new chief of the
15 public security station of Doboj was appointed, Mr. Milorad Novakovic.
16 When Obren Petrovic left the service, he did not wait for a new
17 appointment decision so his departure actually pre-empted my intention of
18 carrying out disciplinary proceedings because we were collecting evidence
19 at that point in time for initiating disciplinary proceedings against
20 him. Since he had left the service as such, these proceedings were never
21 carried out in fact.
22 Q. Tell me, in relation to Mr. Savic - you told us about him on the
23 second day of your testimony here - did you establish in his case was
24 that there were omissions in his work?
25 A. Of course there were omissions. When we talk about Milan Savic,
1 I had in mind the results of the work of the team that investigated the
2 situation in Teslic. I had in mind who was included in the criminal
3 report and who was not. Since Milan Savic was not on the list of persons
4 against whom criminal proceedings were instigated, and I was not able to
5 automatically instigate proceedings against him, I continued to gather
6 evidence about his omissions step by step, slowly, and when I wanted to
7 instigate disciplinary proceedings, Milan Savic left the service. He was
8 appointed the manager of ZOIL it's an insurance company. No, excuse me,
9 it was Omnikom. He was appointed for the manager of Omnikom and Obren
10 was appointed to a managerial position in ZOIL. So Milan Savic left the
11 service and continued working as a manager in Omnikom and Obren Petrovic
12 was appointed a manager in ZOIL.
13 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, we saw that those men left the Ministry of the
14 Interior. How did that affect their disciplinary responsibility?
15 A. In accordance with the rules and the law, you cannot conduct
16 disciplinary proceedings against somebody who is not in the service. The
17 rules pertain only to the persons employed in the Ministry of the
19 Q. Sir, the fact that they left the service, that they did not work
20 in the Ministry of the Interior anymore, did that affect their criminal
21 responsibility in any way?
22 A. No. Criminal responsibility is something different. Criminal
23 responsibility is ascribed to any perpetrator of criminal offence.
24 Q. Does that also go for the members of the Ministry of the
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, in 1992 do you remember whether in the security
3 services centre there were disciplinary proceedings against members of
4 the Ministry of Interior for grave breaches of their duties related to,
5 let me put it this way, mistreatment of non-Serbs or something similar?
6 A. I don't remember specifically whether something was related to
7 that, but there were disciplinary proceedings. I think that there were
8 some cases related to the treatment of the persons of Muslim ethnicity.
9 I wouldn't want to make a mistake here. I think that one of the
10 inspectors was involved in something like and I think that there were
11 disciplinary proceedings against him, but I really can't remember now
12 without refreshing my memory through documents.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have 281D1, tab 201.
14 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, could you remind us, who was Veljko Solaja and
15 what was he doing in the Security Services Centre?
16 A. Veljko Solaja was an inspector in the crime prevention
18 Q. This is a document dated the 15th of December, 1992. It's signed
19 by chief of centre Andrija Bjelosevic and it's about a complaint filed by
20 Veljko Solaja on termination of his employment. It was sent to the
21 minister together with the whole case file is so that the minister could
22 make a decision on appeal. Is this your document and do you remember
23 details of the case?
24 A. Yes. This is a cover letter that went together with the
25 disciplinary case against inspector Veljko Solaja. He was imposed a
1 disciplinary measure of termination of employment. He was an inspector
2 and I think it may have been connected to what I mentioned just a moment
3 ago, certain acts towards individuals of Muslim ethnicity. And then
4 Mr. Solaja appealed the disciplinary measure that had been imposed on
5 him, and then in accordance with the rules, the whole case file together
6 with this cover letter was sent to the ministry, or more precisely, the
7 minister, at the appeals level.
8 Q. Do you remember what the outcome of this appeal was?
9 A. No, I really can't remember the outcome.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
11 document. I think it's relevant.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, but it may be relevant especially if we
13 could shed some light over what exactly had Mr. Solaja done.
14 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Your Honours, I was going
15 to ask just that, where is the rest of the document. The file.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, this document was disclosed to us by
17 the Office of the Prosecutor. This is just one page, and if the
18 Prosecutor has the whole file, I would be more than happy to introduce
19 the whole file. I just have this one document which was disclosed to us
20 by the Office of the Prosecutor.
21 MS. KORNER: Yes, but I am sorry, Your Honours, that may well
22 have been disclosed to you by the Office of the Prosecutor. We disclosed
23 what we had. If we had the file, no doubt we would, but the bulk of the
24 documents that Mr. Bjelosevic have been going through have been provided
25 by him. Did he provide the Defence with the rest of the file?
1 MR. ZECEVIC: This document, Your Honours, this document is batch
2 170 disclosure by the Office of the Prosecutor document 198.
3 MS. KORNER: I am sorry --
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Court order, please.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have any interpretation or
6 am I not supposed to hear anything?
7 JUDGE HALL: You can listen to this, but the issue is not whether
8 this document was or was not disclosed. The issue is what had Mr. Solaja
9 done, what were the acts for which he was prosecuted or investigated.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: I have asked the witness and maybe the witness can
11 provide additional answer.
12 Q. [Interpretation] You probably didn't hear the question because
13 you didn't hear interpretation. His Honour Judge Harhoff asked whether
14 you could say something more specific about the reasons because of which
15 the termination of employment was the disciplinary measure imposed on
16 Veljko Solaja. What exactly did he do and how was it qualified?
17 A. I'm afraid I'm going to make a mistake. I think that I can
18 remember that it was about taking money from individuals of Muslim
19 ethnicity. I'm not sure but I think that that's what it was.
20 JUDGE HALL: My reservation about admitting this is that it's the
21 cover, and as Ms. Korner has pointed out, without the rest of the file, I
22 don't see how it assists in the least.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, simply this document shows that
24 the -- that the CSB was conducting disciplinary proceedings against its
25 members, the Serb members, for committing disciplinary whatever, mistakes
1 or concerning the non-Serbs.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: But it doesn't say so.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: But, Your Honours, that's the testimony of the
5 MS. KORNER: The witness says "I think." Your Honours, I
6 certainly say that without the rest of the file this document is
8 MR. ZECEVIC: I find this, Your Honours -- I'm gravely concerned
9 because I find this very unfair. We have admitted during the Office of
10 the Prosecutor case a number of documents which have not been complete
11 documents, a number, and the explanation given is that this is all we
12 got, we found. Now, this is --
13 JUDGE HALL: I'm interrupting you, Mr. Zecevic, to say that of
14 course each ruling that the Chamber makes is based on the particular
15 document that is before it. The problem, as I see it, with this document
16 is that, and I suppose it is because it was merely a cover forwarding
17 certain other documents, is that standing by itself, and as Ms. Korner
18 has pointed out, the witness has not been able to assist by expanding on
19 it, it really says nothing. That's the practical question that I have.
20 And we have the witness's testimony. This document adds nothing to what
21 the witness has said.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, may I suggest that this document be
23 MFI'd and that we try to locate the missing files. Maybe -- I'm very
24 sure that there might be some way that our friends in the Office of the
25 Prosecutor check their records again and maybe we'll be able to find some
1 additional documents from this file. So therefore, may we have it MFI'd
2 just in case.
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes. We could do that. So the document is marked
4 for identification pending the completion of, for want of a better word,
5 of the document. Discovery, thank you, the discovery of the report which
6 comprises the remainder of the document.
7 MS. KORNER: We've checked our records on this and with the
8 caveat that we don't always have everything completely recorded, the
9 particular entry doesn't show that we have the file only as Mr. Zecevic
10 points out, the cover letter. So we can't assist.
11 JUDGE HALL: Well, in as much as the trial -- this trial isn't
12 going to end tomorrow, we will see where we go.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: I see the time, Your Honours.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, I apologise, document number will
15 be Exhibit 1D--
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe I could be of help. I am
17 sure that it was an unlawful act of Veljko Solaja against persons of
18 Muslim ethnicity. I'm one hundred per cent sure about that, but I can't
19 remember what exactly it was that he did to them. That I cannot claim
20 because I don't know that. But I'm sure that it was something in
21 relation to individuals of Muslim ethnicity. I just don't remember
22 exactly what act it was.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, maybe we can deal with this after the
24 break and can we just have, for the record, the number of the document.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Number is Exhibit 1D530 marked for
1 identification, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE HALL: So we resume in 20 minutes.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 --- Recess taken at 12.12 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 12.36 p.m.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, while the witness is ushered in, may
7 I use the opportunity to give one additional important argument why I
8 think that go in favour for admittance of these documents to the record,
9 to exhibits. Your Honours, despite the nature of the breach of the
10 disciplinary proceedings which are happening, despite whatever is the
11 breach, it directly goes to the knowledge of the minister if he receives
12 an appeal, it goes to his knowledge and this document shows he received
13 an appeal, that's beyond doubt. So it shows the knowledge of the
14 minister that there exists a system, a disciplinary system and it's
15 functional in the territory at the time. Therefore, therefore, Your
16 Honours, this document is important for the knowledge of the ministry and
17 the minister that the disciplinary system exists at the time: It -- of
18 course it would have been better, I agree, that if we have the whole
19 file, but still, the document on its own showing that the appeals and the
20 minister receives the appeal, he can only conclude that the disciplinary
21 system as provided by the law and the regulation is existing and
22 functioning and therefore that is important for the aspect of knowledge
23 of the minister. And relevant for this case definitely.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, if that's the only matter for which
25 its sought to be tendered and not sought to be tendered as evidence of
1 disciplinary proceedings being taken against a Serb police officer in
2 respect of crimes committed against a non-Serb, we have no objection.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE HALL: I believe where we are is that this had been
5 exhibited but the qualification was only marked for identification. By
6 majority, Judge Harhoff dissenting, we would remove the MFI
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Would the Trial Chamber expect me to pursue the
11 last answer of the witness concerning this document?
12 JUDGE HALL: I thought he had answered as best he could, but.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much. That was my opinion also but
14 I am in the hand of Your Honours.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bjelosevic, could you please be shown P855,
16 tab 299. Tab 229.
17 A. I don't seem to have that.
18 Q. You have it on the screen. The document is only one page long.
19 It will be enough for you to see it on the screen. This document was
20 issued by the Ministry of the Interior. It's a dispatch dated 16
21 December 1992. The signatory is Minister Mico Stanisic, it says that it
22 was sent to all chiefs of MUP administration, all chiefs of CSBs, did you
23 receive this dispatch? Are you familiar with it?
24 A. Yes, we did receive this dispatch.
25 Q. Tell me, please, what the dispatch is about and did you act in
1 accordance with it?
2 A. The dispatch concerns suspension of individuals. If they are
3 suspended, they should be placed at the disposal of the local command of
4 the Republika Srpska Army without awaiting the results of disciplinary
5 procedures. That was a very harsh measure.
6 Q. Sir, can we clarify one thing. The measure called suspension,
7 when was it applied? At what moment?
8 A. The measure of suspension was mandatory in case criminal
9 proceedings were instituted against a MUP employee. In that case, we
10 were duty-bound to act in keeping with this order.
11 Q. Did that measure suspension apply when disciplinary proceedings
12 were instituted for serious breaches of duties?
13 A. Yes, this applied to the serious breaches, not to the lighter
14 kind of breaches of discipline and obligations.
15 Q. How should I understand the answer that you just provided, the
16 two last answers. Did you say that suspension as a measure was applied
17 both when criminal proceedings were instituted as well as when a
18 disciplinary procedure was instituted for the grave breach of discipline?
19 A. In both. It was mandatory if criminal proceedings were
20 instituted as well as in cases when a disciplinary procedure was
21 instituted for major breaches of discipline.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Witness.
23 I don't have any more questions for this witness, Your Honours.
24 Thank you.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
1 Mr. Bjelosevic, could I just follow up on Counsel Zecevic's
2 questions and ask you how exactly did this work in practice. If, say,
3 one of your police officers had been engaged in activity and for that
4 reason was subject to either criminal proceedings or disciplinary
5 proceedings, would you then suspend the officer immediately or would you
6 postpone your suspension until such time as the officer in question could
7 in fact be resubordinated to the army? How did it work?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If there were indications and
9 indicia that a crime was committed and that criminal proceedings were to
10 be instituted against an authorised official, a suspension was automatic.
11 That person would be immediately suspended. The measure would also be
12 applied if an authorised official violated his duties and that was
13 prescribed by the regulations on disciplinary responsibility.
14 In other words, the regulations stipulated what were minor
15 breaches of discipline as opposed to major breaches of discipline. If a
16 disciplinary procedure was started because of a major breach of
17 discipline, suspension was a mandatory measure that was applied.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: And if I take it that it was then applied also
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: But tell us then how was the re-subordination to
22 the army then arranged?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A suspended official was reported
24 to the Ministry of Defence, a report would go to the Ministry of Defence
25 about such individuals. The Ministry of Defence kept records on
1 conscripts. The report would also state that that person was no longer
2 an employee of the Ministry of the Interior and that the person was
3 placed at their a disposal. Then the Ministry of Defence and its
4 departments in keeping with the rules and regulations and in keeping with
5 the requirements of war units would send such a person to any of the war
6 units that had requested reinforcement in manpower.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: So it would be the Ministry of Defence's duty to
8 then assign the suspended officer to one of the units?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are right. And that depended
10 on the requirements of the units and priorities.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Was the suspension of a temporary nature or was
12 it permanent so to say until it was brought to an end by the Ministry of
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Suspension was always temporary in
15 nature, as it were. When criminal proceedings were completed, the person
16 may be acquitted or convicted and in keeping with that such a suspended
17 person is entitled to some other rights. And the same goes for
18 disciplinary procedures. It doesn't necessarily mean that every
19 disciplinary procedure will result in sanctioning the person who was
20 subject to the procedure.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: So if I understand you correctly, when you
22 ordered a suspension of one of your officers, the suspension would be in
23 effect running until such time as the criminal or disciplinary procedures
24 against him had been completed and by then he would come back to you; is
25 that how it worked?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. That could also happen but it
2 depended on the outcome of the disciplinary procedure. One of the
3 measures resulting from disciplinary proceedings may be the termination
4 of employment which would just continue what was started with suspension.
5 In case of a more lenient measure, the person who had been subject to the
6 disciplinary procedure and was also suspended could claim certain rights,
7 one of them being reinstatement in their previous position or monetary
8 compensation, things like that. It all depended on the final outcome of
9 either the criminal proceedings or the disciplinary procedure instituted
10 against the person.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. And would you have any influence over
12 which part of the army your officer would be assigned to?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Did the officer continue to be paid, receive his
15 salary from you or would he receive his salary from the Ministry of
16 Defence while he was suspended?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the moment of suspension his
18 salaries and other benefits would arise from his further assignments. If
19 he was assigned to a war unit, he would enjoy the same benefit as the
20 other members of that unit.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: But on whose budget? Would it be the MUP budget
22 or it be the Ministry of Defence budget?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It would certainly not have been
24 the MUP. I don't know how the Ministry of Defence funded the military.
25 Different regulations regulated that.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: One last question. Are you able to indicate just
2 roughly how many of the police officers that were suspended under your
3 authority did actually go to the front line? Was it all of them or half
4 of them or somewhere between?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Ministry of Defence assigned
6 them from then on and I don't know how they did that. Our obligation was
7 to hand them over and put them at the disposal of the Ministry of
8 Defence. We were supposed to inform them that as of that moment they
9 were no longer employees of the Ministry of the Interior.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. But my question was really whether
11 you kept track of them while they were suspended?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: I am sorry, Your Honours, I have a couple of
15 follow-up questions, if I may.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bjelosevic, one question. Let's imagine the
17 following situation: A member of the MUP for the reasons that we have
18 just discussed was handed over to the Ministry of Defence. Would that
19 have been the case of re-subordination or not?
20 A. It's a completely different status. Re-subordination in legal
21 terms was something else. In your imaginary case, the employee was no
22 longer an employee of the MUP. He was given a new status by the Ministry
23 of Defence and that had nothing to do with the Ministry of the Interior.
24 Q. Thank you. Mr. Bjelosevic, in case criminal proceedings were
25 instituted against such an employee of the Ministry of the Interior would
1 that person's removal from the records of the MUP and transferred on to
2 the records of the Ministry of Defence, would that have had any influence
3 on the course of the criminal proceedings?
4 A. No, I don't see why that would have been the case.
5 Q. So, Mr. Bjelosevic, if an employee of the Ministry of the
6 Interior against whom a criminal proceedings were instituted was
7 suspended and subject to criminal proceedings and he is remanded in
8 custody, for example, would the -- his transfer or referral to the
9 Ministry of Defence mean that he was released from custody or not?
10 A. No, it was within the authority of the Court. The Court would
11 decide whether they would be reminded in custody for any longer, whether
12 they would be released. That had nothing to do with either the Ministry
13 of the Interior or the Ministry of Defence.
14 Q. And now my last question: To His Honour Judge Harhoff's
15 question, you explained what suspension was, that it was temporary, and
16 how long it lasted. Based on the document that I showed you, P855, I
17 believe that you still have it on the screen, the date is 16 December
18 1992. What effect does this minister order have on the suspension
20 A. I'm not sure I understood your question, sir.
21 Q. Based on this order, would you say that the measure of suspension
22 still had a temporary nature or not?
23 A. Of course, it was still temporary in nature. If the outcome of
24 the criminal proceedings was acquittal, then the suspended employee had
25 all the rights and he can claim them if he wants to do so. Because his
1 responsibility for the crime in question was not established so he was
2 acquitted. And the same was true of disciplinary procedures. If the
3 outcome a disciplinary procedure was acquittal and no charges were
4 proven, then of course that person could exercise all of their rights,
5 either the return to service or claiming benefits and things like that.
6 Q. Sir, I am asking you about this very specific document. How do
7 you understand the order pursuant to which upon suspension every MUP
8 employee temporarily removed from his tasks and duties is to be placed at
9 the disposal the local responsible command of the Republika Srpska army?
10 A. To be placed at the disposal of the army is one thing and this
11 was done by the Ministry of Defence. The second issue is the criminal
12 proceedings or the disciplinary procedure instituted against the person.
13 Depending on the outcome of either of the two which could be either
14 acquittal in which case the first case scenario would be for him to sue
15 the authorities that charged him with the non-existent responsibility,
16 but that did not leave any room for the person to wait in an undefined
17 status. It was his obligation to report immediately to the Ministry of
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I have no
20 further questions.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation].
24 Q. Good afternoon Mr. Bjelosevic.
25 A. Good afternoon.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, the document we have on the screen,
2 is that part of your list? I am a little bit at a loss. What tab number
3 is it?
4 MR. ZECEVIC: This is tab number 229 and this is Exhibit P855.
5 Office of the Prosecutor 65 ter 2675. And it's been exhibited and is now
6 Exhibit P855.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
8 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon once again, Mr. Bjelosevic. My
10 name is Dragan Krgovic. I'm a Defence counsel for Stojan Zupljanin. We
11 met briefly before you started testifying. I'm going to put some
12 questions to you today that have something to do with what you said here
13 in court. I'm also going to ask you about certain things that you did
14 not refer to here in court but you did in your interview with the OTP.
15 The OTP disclosed certain documents to us as a later stage so I didn't
16 manage to go through these documents with you, but you are basically
17 familiar with these documents so we will be able to understand each
19 Mr. Bjelosevic, when answering the questions of the Prosecutor in
20 your interview from 2004 and 2009, you spoke about a few meetings you had
21 with Stojan Zupljanin, so my questions will have to do with that. First
22 of all, on page 51 of this interview, that is for the Prosecutors and the
23 Trial Chamber to know what this is about, it's 2004. You mentioned
24 meetings with Saric from Tuzla in December and you mentioned meetings
25 with Stojan Zupljanin in 1991, 1992. That's the period. And then you
1 say when answering the Prosecutor's question in terms of what it was that
2 you discussed with Zupljanin, you said that you had similar problems --
3 MS. KORNER: Sorry to interrupt. I am afraid that the page
4 numbering is separate for each of the tapes in the first interview, so if
5 you could possibly tell me which tape it is. And secondly, I'm sorry,
6 Mr. Krgovic, but you are going very fast and the interpreter is somewhat
7 behind you.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. T-002550 to
9 T-002533 that's in the upper right-hand corner.
10 MS. KORNER: Yes, thank you very much.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation].
12 Q. You said then that when you talked to Mr. Zupljanin, you had
13 similar problem, problems similar to the ones you discussed today. You
14 said that that means that the top people of the municipal public security
15 stations had turned to the Crisis Staffs and municipal leaders, municipal
16 officials, there was a lack of co-operation on the part of the police to
17 carry out their police duties. There were problems with supplies and
18 similar problems with some criminal groups that were in your area and the
19 area of Mr. Zupljanin. Basically, that you had to face similar problems;
21 A. Yes. As far as motivation is concerned --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could Mr. Krgovic please
23 turn off his microphone, we cannot hear the witness.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- there were indeed --
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, thank you.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were many people who were
2 exceptionally good policemen before the war and in that pre-war period
3 they wanted to work in a way in which they were used to work, and they
4 were very dissatisfied with the behaviour of some of the top people in
5 the police stations. This led to a certain passivity on their part and
6 dissatisfaction. As soon as the war broke out, many joined the military
7 precisely because they did not agree with that type of work that was
8 being introduced in practice as the system was crumbling.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Further on when answering the Prosecutor's question, this is now
11 another tape, it is marked T-002554 until 2554 [as interpreted] page 14
12 of the transcript. The Prosecutor asked you how often you met with
13 Mr. Zupljanin, and you said that it was roughly once in 1992 and then
14 perhaps twice a month. It depended on whether there was any need for you
15 to meet up. Do you remember having said that?
16 A. I remember that I did speak about that topic, but I really cannot
17 remember how many times we had met up really, I don't know.
18 Q. In your interview, you mentioned a few of these meetings that you
19 had recalled so my questions will be related to those meetings. One of
20 the topics that you discussed with the Prosecutor and that is related to
21 Mr. Zupljanin was the question of this group of Veljko Milankovic's, the
22 so-called wolves from Vucjak. Do you remember that unit that was
23 creating problems in that zone, if we can put it that way, between the
24 CSB Doboj and the CSB Banja Luka, that area between the two?
25 A. Yes, I remember one particular thing that happened. The
1 commander of the barracks in Doboj came from the direction of Banja Luka,
2 Colonel Cazim Hadzic, they stopped him, we have already mentioned him
3 here. They checked him and when they came back Colonel Cazim told us
4 about this, and we established, judging by the location involved, that on
5 that day, that is to say, when they were carrying out these checks they
6 were in the municipality of Prnjavor. They were not in the territory of
7 the area of the CSB Doboj. At the time I informed Mr. Zupljanin about
9 Q. You said to the Prosecutor further on in this interview that you
10 know that this group of Veljko Milankovic's was arrested right after that
11 happened; right?
12 A. Yes, I cannot remember the exact day that this happened, but
13 indeed that group together with their commander Milankovic was arrested.
14 I remember that. That was done by the milicija that was at the time in
15 the area of the CSB Banja Luka because they had authority there in terms
16 of territory. Veljko Milankovic and his people were based there around
18 Q. I'm going to show you a document now because in your interview
19 you said that you weren't sure whether it was the military or the police
20 that had originally arrested Milankovic. Could the witness please be
21 shown 2D0073. Number 2, tab number 2 in the Stojan Zupljanin Defence.
22 I'm going to show you a document briefly. This is the Milankovic that
23 you are talking about?
24 A. Yes, yes. He was born in Kremna near Prnjavor, yes, that's it.
25 Q. And we see this decision on his arrest and someone signed on
1 behalf of Stojan Zupljanin. Sorry, your answer was not recorded?
2 A. Yes, yes, I recognise that. It was that Veljko Milankovic who
3 led the wolves from Vucjak and Kremna is his native village and he lived
4 there as well.
5 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, when answering the Prosecutor's questions you
6 said -- well, but that was in 2009 in your interview then, that is page
7 24, T-001-1856. I think you mentioned something during your testimony,
8 actually in May 1992 a number of the employees of the state security
9 sector came from Banja Luka to Doboj to help out; right?
10 A. Yes, a number of operatives came who worked with the people from
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Sorry, I didn't turn on my
15 Q. When answering the Prosecutor's question then, you said that to
16 the best of your knowledge, this had been agreed upon between
17 Dusan Zivkovic, the head of the state security in Doboj, and Kesic, the
18 head of state security in Banja Luka; right?
19 A. Yes, I think that the two of them as the chiefs of that service
20 had agreed upon that, that is my assumption. I don't know how else these
21 people could have been involved.
22 Q. The Prosecutor asked you then whether you knew that a number of
23 people came then from the unit of Special Police from Banja Luka, and
24 your answer then was that a small number of people came who were
25 providing security for these operatives; right?
1 A. Yes. I don't know exactly how many of them came but indeed it
2 was a small number, that is what I observed. I think that they took
3 turns but on the whole there wasn't more than 15 of them involving all
4 shifts, that is my estimate. Since we are talking about those people
5 now, on one occasion one of them addressed me and said that he had
6 certain knowledge since he was in this building where the police and the
7 state security service were, that I was facing some kind of danger and
8 that I should take care of my own safety and security. I remember that
9 one of them said that to me.
10 Q. To the best of your knowledge and that is what you said on page
11 26 of your interview, that's to say the next page, these people were not
12 securing any specific buildings in Doboj and they were not involved in
13 any other kind of police work. They were only securing this group of
14 state security operatives; right?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. Sorry. I'm going to show you a document now. This is in
17 Prosecutor tab 96, 2D89 MFI'd.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could you zoom in on the top part,
20 Q. There is a reference to the 9th Company for special assignments,
21 Banja Luka, and there's a list of some 15 persons on that list. This
22 roughly corresponds to what you had said, that there was a total of 15 of
23 them in two shifts, so not all 15 of them were there at the same time.
24 They took turns; right?
25 A. Yes, they took turns. I can't remember whether there were two or
1 three shifts involved, but I know that they were not there at the same
2 time all of them.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness now please be
4 shown --
5 MS. KORNER: Sorry, before we do that, this document was MFI'd at
6 the time and this witness has identified it, so I wonder if we could have
7 the MFI removed.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have a problem
9 with this document. Actually, it cannot be translated. We sent it out
10 for translation twice and the translation service said that it cannot be
11 translated. Since the Prosecutor was opposed to having it admitted, then
12 I left it at that so I don't know now.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, we are quite happy for it to be
14 de-MFI'd. I agree it's very difficult to read and that's the problem,
15 but certainly we may as well have it properly exhibited even without a
16 full translation.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The problem is that the translation
18 is not accurate. That's my only comment. So I really have no position
19 on this. The translation that came back from the CLSS is not accurate.
20 That's the essence of what I'm saying. But we have the testimony of this
21 witness and other witnesses, so I think it shouldn't be terribly
23 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, we can't go on having a document
24 referred to as often as this one without it having exhibited. We'll see
25 what we can do about a translation.
1 JUDGE HALL: So we are going to have to return to the question of
2 whether the MFI qualification should be removed.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have P1340, tab 90 Stanisic
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 90?
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. 90. During the examination of Mr. Zecevic, he showed you this
8 document and you explained for which purpose it was drafted. If I
9 understood you correctly, you requested the chief of the public security
10 station in Doboj to submit a report about all stolen vehicles including
11 all the details about who was driving them at the time and where, and all
12 this because there were complaints from citizens in relation to unlawful
13 appropriation of vehicles?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And in this part people from Banja Luka told you that it was
16 known that only one vehicle was used by a person from Mr. Banja Luka,
17 while other vehicles were related to other people and not to the members
18 of this unit; is that so?
19 A. Yes. We dealt with this problem. We attempted to collect as
20 much information as possible, to find out what exactly happened with
21 those vehicles, what were the registration numbers, where they are, and
22 we managed to find out that, yes, one among the people from Banja Luka
23 did take away a vehicle. I think it was Jetta as far as I can remember,
24 although I see here they say it was a Passat, now I don't quite remember
25 exactly what it was, but as for the other vehicles it wasn't found out
1 that they were taken by those persons and that they were taken towards
2 Banja Luka.
3 Q. Renault 5 that was allegedly taken by the Special Police from
4 Banja Luka, it turned out that it was taken away by Slobodan Karagic, and
5 you told us that he also testified in this case, if I understand you
7 A. Yes, there was a trial in Doboj in relation to that vehicle.
8 Karagic claimed that the vehicle was mobilised and that's why I was
9 called as a witness. The vehicle had not been mobilised. At the time
10 there was a practice, and I think that I had informed the minister at the
11 collegium meetings about it. Vehicles would be driven around with the
12 registration plates covered. Very often they would say that those
13 vehicles were mobilized vehicle, well, actually, they were not. The
14 lawful procedure had not been followed. It was basically a case of theft
15 and I think the same goes for this Renault 5.
16 Q. In relation to this document you never had a conversation with
17 Mr. Zupljanin about this?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, in addition to this unit, the unit that was
20 securing the operatives that came from the state security, was there any
21 other special reconnaissance unit in Doboj comprised from people --
22 comprised by people from Banja Luka in May or June 1992?
23 A. At that time especially in June there was a number of units from
24 the area of Krajina because of the combat operations that were going on.
25 I would like to use this opportunity to emphasise one thing. You
1 reminded me now of an event. I testified here about the problem that I
2 had when on one occasion people stopped me and they were carrying rifles.
3 At that time I had some documents relating to information about the enemy
4 forces. After that incident, I took those documents and went to the
5 forward command post of the 1st Krajina Corps.
6 When I arrived there, General Talic noticed simply by observing
7 me that something had happened. He asked me what had happened. I really
8 wanted to avoid talking about that because it was unpleasant for me. It
9 was a very unpleasant experience. However, General Talic insisted. He
10 saw that I did not behave in the way that I had behaved when I left him.
11 He asked me whether somebody was killed from my family. And then I told
12 him what happened and he said, ah, things are not going to go on like
14 Since I didn't have any security people who would take care of
15 me, I told him that I only had a driver. He said that he would give me
16 protection. And for awhile he gave me, I think it was a reconnaissance
17 unit, their commander was Zoran. I think there were about 10 or 12 of
18 them, and later when I arrived to the police building, they entered the
19 building and secured it, meaning that they he secured the entrance, the
20 staircase, my office on the first floor, and for awhile they performed
21 the function of my security.
22 And then as a reaction to that, the Predini Vukovi unit arrived
23 and they wanted to have a shoot-out with the unit that was securing me.
24 I sought a compromise and from that point on there was nobody there.
25 Neither those chaps from the corps command. We somehow managed to avoid
1 an incident and a shoot-out.
2 Q. This unit from the corps command, they were from Banja Luka, they
3 dressed in a different way and they had undergone a different training
4 from regular soldiers?
5 A. Yes. The way I understood it, I think they were some sort of
6 reconnaissance unit. They were the unit in charge of the security of the
7 command at the forward command post. I think they were engaged in some
8 other activities as well. I think that they were reconnaissance
9 activities. They were very able people.
10 Q. Do you remember what kind of berets they had, or whether they had
11 any berets, this unit from Banja Luka that you were describing a moment
13 A. If I remember it correctly, they had different caps. They
14 changed them. They didn't wear the same caps all the time. Sometimes
15 they had berets, sometimes they had camouflage hats. Because that unit
16 spent quite some time around the command, so they did not have the same
17 caps all the time.
18 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, I have another question. In response to the
19 questions by the Prosecutor --
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, just one moment. Mr. Bjelosevic,
21 just a moment ago when we talked about a unit changing berets, were we
22 talking now about the unit that secured you or were we talking about
23 what's the name, the Predini Vukovi unit? I'm little bit confused here.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Predini Vukovi also used to change
25 their uniform and the caps, but in answering the question of Mr. Krgovic,
1 I was talking about the unit attached to the corps command and about the
2 people who were my security for a while. I think that sometimes they
3 wore berets, and if I remember it correctly, sometimes they had
4 camouflage hats, just as they had camouflage uniforms.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. I'm going to skip the chronology now. I want to talk about the
8 meeting that you discussed with Mr. Zecevic. It was the meeting in
9 Belgrade on the 11th of July. It's page 12 of the interview, tape
10 T-0002559, 2004.
11 Mr. Bjelosevic, you remember, you were present at that meeting on
12 the 11th of July in Belgrade. It's Stanisic Defence tab 66. P160.
13 A. Yes, I attended that meeting.
14 Q. You were asked by the Prosecutor about the meeting and its
15 participants. Can you turn to page 8. Actually, that's the page in
16 e-court, and in your binder it should be page 4. It's marked. In
17 English it's also page 8 in e-court. P160. Maybe I wrote it down
18 incorrectly. 66, I apologise.
19 A. I found it.
20 Q. It's page 8 in e-court both in Serbian and English. And in your
21 binder it begins on the fourth page and goes over to the fifth page. ERN
22 number is 0324-1855. Excuse me, Mr. Bjelosevic, it seems that we have a
23 problem with e-court so we are waiting for the document.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] P160, tab 66, I apologise. I
25 wasn't precise.
1 Q. Mr. Bjelosevic, you recall that you spoke about this with the
2 Prosecutor. Mr. Zupljanin says here, I will paraphrase, that the
3 military and the Crisis Staff or War Presidencies should collect the
4 Muslim population, that they are collecting them into such undefined
5 centres, and then handing them over to the workers of the interior. And
6 you commented on this, if you remember that. Do you remember that
7 Mr. Zupljanin spoke about these events?
8 A. Yes, I remember that he mentioned it during his discussion. I
9 also remember the interview with the investigator, and I remember him
10 asking me about Mr. Zupljanin's discussion. If I recall it correctly, I
11 think that he asked me what did Zupljanin have in mind when he was saying
12 that. It's very hard for me to know what he had in mind, but obviously
13 if he highlighted it as a problem, it means that he doesn't agree with
14 what was going on. That's the only understanding that I could have about
15 the reasons that he spoke about what he spoke. He highlighted this as a
17 Q. And then you said that that was a problem and that you had the
18 impression based on Zupljanin's words that Zupljanin thought that this
19 was inappropriate, that things were not supposed to be done in such a
20 way, that he complained about it, and according to your understanding,
21 the manner that he spoke about it meant that he requested assistance from
22 the ministry in order that something be done about it?
23 A. Yes, that was the general direction of the discussion. He
24 highlighted this as a problem and he requested assistance from the
25 ministry so that the problem could begin to be solved.
1 Q. And you remember that in the conclusions from the meeting it was
2 also decided that the highest leadership of Republika Srpska should be
3 apprised of the problem so that it could be solved?
4 A. Yes, we have the conclusions here and it is beyond dispute that
5 that was highlighted as a problem be and that it formed a part of the
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that this is
8 an appropriate moment to break.
9 Thank you Mr. Bjelosevic, for today, we are going to continue
11 JUDGE HALL: So we take the adjournment to resume tomorrow
12 morning at --
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I just mention one matter.
14 Mr. Krgovic filed a motion supporting Stanisic's motion which you
15 dismissed yesterday, therefore we don't propose to take any action.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Well, it's appears too late.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.
19 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 21st day of
20 April, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.