Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 20078

 1                           Tuesday, 3 May 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to

 6     everyone in and around the courtroom.

 7             This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and

 8     Stojan Zupljanin.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             Good morning to everyone.  May we have the appearances, please.

11             MR. HANNIS:  Good morning, Your Honours.  On behalf of the Office

12     of the Prosecutor, I'm Tom Hannis, with Belinda Pidwell, and

13     Crispian Smith.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Slobodan Zecevic,

15     Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic, appearing for the Stanisic

16     Defence this morning.  Thank you.

17             MR. KRGOVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Dragan Krgovic

18     appearing for Zupljanin Defence this morning.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  And could the usher please escort the

20     witness back to the stand.

21                           [The witness takes the stand]

22             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning to you, Mr. Bajagic.  Can you hear me?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.  I can hear you.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, before Mr. Zecevic resumes, I remind you of the

25     solemn declaration that you made yesterday.

Page 20079

 1             Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 3                           WITNESS:  MLADEN BAJAGIC [Resumed]

 4                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 5                           Examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Bajagic.

 7        A.   Good morning.

 8        Q.   Yesterday we broke off when you were commenting upon footnote 13,

 9     1D78.  When I asked you yesterday, I think I gave you the wrong

10     reference.  Well, relatively speaking.  Because in that part of your

11     report, you also mention this in 169 and 170, but basically you deal with

12     this document in paragraphs 123 and 124, on page 43 of your report.

13             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, Your Honour, for the record, the page

14     references between the Serbian and the English aren't the same, so ...

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  Oh I'm really sorry.  But --

16             MR. HANNIS:  The paragraphs are.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  The paragraphs are.  Okay.  Thank you very much.

18     Sorry, Mr. Hannis.

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Could we now please have a look at your footnote

20     148.  That is in paragraph 124.  This is tab 33.  396 -- 65 ter 3961.

21             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, if I may.  This is a particular

22     footnote and document of which we have an objection.  It's refers to the

23     testimony of Mr. Delimustafic in a trial in State Court.  We think the --

24     if there's any effort to have this exhibit tendered through this witness,

25     it should be denied.  It's -- attempting to introduce it through this

Page 20080

 1     witness is trying to get around the provisions of Rule 92.  If they want

 2     the evidence of Mr. Delimustafic, he could be called as a Defence

 3     witness.  It's not appropriate to try and introduce his testimony in

 4     another Tribunal in this fashion.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Well, let me hear from Mr. Zecevic, but I confess

 6     that the impression I had is that this was by way of reference and you

 7     are anticipating at this point.  But you may be correct.

 8             Mr. Zecevic.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, I anticipated that this was

10     going to be the objection, and I didn't want to tender the witness -- the

11     document as an exhibit.  But since the -- since the expert refers to it

12     in his footnotes, I -- I need to -- I need to get the explanation from

13     him why and for what purpose and I believe I'm entitled to.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Hannis, am I missing something?  Having regard

15     to the limited purpose for which, if I understand Mr. Zecevic correctly,

16     he is asking the question.

17             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, I guess I need to hear the questions

18     and the answer and then make a submission at that time.  What I'm trying

19     to avoid is getting in the content of that evidence in this fashion

20     because I see it as a way to try and avoid the requirements of

21     Rule 92 ter.  But let's hear what follows.

22             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, your footnote 148, paragraph 124 of your report, you

24     refer to this document that is a transcript of the testimony of

25     Mr. Alija Delimustafic in the case of Momcilo Mandic.

Page 20081

 1             Could you tell us why, what the reason was, for you to cite this

 2     document in your paper?  Why are you referring to this document?

 3             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry.  I guess what I would request is before

 4     that question is answered, that Your Honours are directed to the

 5     paragraph or the sentences to which this footnote is supposed to be

 6     support for so that you can understand why it's being offered.  At page

 7     50 of the English.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, at the very beginning, I said

 9     we stopped at the footnote 13 and that is the -- the 1st of

10     April collegium meeting of MUP SRBiH, and that is the reference on the

11     document which is -- which is the focus of -- of paragraphs 123 and 124

12     of the expert report.

13             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  Page 50, paragraph 124,

14     immediately after footnote 147 in the text the sentence begins:  "It is

15     evident from the instruction that the result of the collegium was the

16     factual recognition of the existence of a MUP of the Serbian People of BH

17     which is additionally confirmed by the fact that the minutes from the

18     collegium were also sent to the ministers of the interior, 'Mico Stanisic

19     and Alija Delimustafic' as well as the SSUP (Federal Secretariat of the

20     Interior) and others."

21             Footnote 148; that's what it's supposed to support.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  This is -- I mean, Mr. Hannis will have the

23     opportunity to cross-examine the expert witness.  The expert witness made

24     the reference to this document in his -- in his expert report.  I'm just

25     trying to find out what is the reason, and I am inviting the expert, the

Page 20082

 1     author, to explain this to us.  Nothing else.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Please proceed, Mr. Zecevic.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, I have put a question to you.  If

 6     you still remember it, please answer.

 7        A.   Of course, I remember.  This footnote has to do only with the

 8     last part of this paragraph, or, rather, the last sentence.  In order to

 9     support the comment that the result of that collegium was accepting the

10     fact that the MUP of the Serbian Republic of BH did exist, and the

11     gentleman did state --

12        Q.   Sorry, which gentleman?

13        A.   Mr. Alija Delimustafic, who was minister of the interior of

14     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  He confirmed that the transcript of that collegium

15     was sent to the ministers of the interior, Mico Stanisic of the

16     Serb Republic of BH, to him, and Mr. Delimustafic as well as to the

17     Federal Secretariat of The interior, in Belgrade that is.  And to other

18     organs.  So the reason why I refer to this document, is because

19     Mr. Alija Delimustafic confirmed the fact that he knew everything about

20     the collegium that had been held, that he knew what the results were

21     because he personally received the minutes of collegium meeting.  Nothing

22     else is relevant here except for that fact, and that is why it was

23     included.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Bajagic, paragraph 127, we've already mentioned

25     it.  We mentioned it yesterday.  It refers to the legal framework, if I

Page 20083

 1     can put it that way, for the functioning of the Ministry of the Interior

 2     of the Serb Republic in the period from April to December, and the

 3     sources are provided here.  I would like to ask you to give us brief


 5             I know that you're not a lawyer by training, but could you just

 6     give us brief comments with regard to these legal regulations that are

 7     mentioned here in your paper.

 8             I see that under the fourth bullet point, after the constitution

 9     and the amendments to the constitution, the Law on the Government is

10     referred to.  Can you explain to us why you put it there and why it is

11     important for understanding the legal framework within which the MUP of

12     the Serb Republic functioned in 1992?

13        A.   The Law on the Government is the topmost law, after the

14     constitution, that regulates the functioning of the government and the

15     ministries, and as we can see on the basis of this expert report, there

16     are two paragraphs concerning this law.  133 and 134.  Two particular

17     articles of that law are referred to:  That is Article 6 in which it says

18     that among the other members of the government, that is to say, the

19     government and the members of the government, it is the minister of the

20     interior who is also appointed.  The other important article is

21     Article 19 that refers to the duties of the members of the government.

22     And, finally, Article 13 states the rights and responsibilities of the

23     members of the government to put on the agenda of government meetings

24     various important issues and so on and so forth.  So whatever pertains to

25     other ministers pertains to the minister of the interior as well.  And

Page 20084

 1     that is why this reference was made to the Law on the Government, which

 2     is one of the system-based laws, and it has to do with the functioning of

 3     the Ministry of the Interior as such.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  By way of a reference, this is tab 30, your

 5     footnote 142.1, P734.

 6             The next regulation that you refer to in paragraphs 135 and 136

 7     is the Law on State Administration.  That is tab 37; your footnote 156.

 8     And it is part of law library here; L32 is the reference.  Could you

 9     please give us your comment?  Could you tell us why this law is important

10     for your research?

11        A.   The Law on State Administration is of exceptional importance for

12     the organisation and functioning of the Ministry of the Interior and also

13     for the position of the minister of the interior, who is an elected

14     official in charge of that organ.

15             As we can see in paragraph 135, what is particularly highlighted

16     are Articles 11 and 12 of this law, referring to the rights and

17     responsibilities of executive organs and administrative organs in the

18     discharge of the functioning of the state administration.  These articles

19     and this law show that the Ministry of the Interior within the system of

20     the executive government is one of the administration's agencies because

21     in Article 19 of the Law on Administration, it says that administrative

22     organs in the given system are organised as ministries, secretariats, and

23     administrations.  At the level of the republic, it is ministries and

24     republican administration; and at lower levels, the level of lower social

25     communities, it is secretariats and administrations.

Page 20085

 1             So what follows is that the Ministry of the Interior is a state

 2     organ at the level of the republic.

 3        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Bajagic.  Could you please give us a brief

 4     comment.  Further on in your expert report you touched upon this issue.

 5     However, since we are now dealing with this particular piece of

 6     legislation, I would like us to discuss it now.  It has to do with

 7     Articles 38 and 39, and it is within the chapter on state organs and how

 8     they are run.

 9        A.   In the briefest possible terms, since state organs at the

10     republican level are called ministers and secretariats, Article 38 of

11     this law states that the minister is in charge of the ministry, and a

12     secretariat -- a secretary is in charge of a secretariat.

13             In Article 39, things are spelled out in greater detail.  Namely,

14     what the duties are of the official who was in charge of a particular

15     state organ.  In view of this law, that is.

16        Q.   When you say an official who is in charge, does that mean the

17     minister or the secretary, or someone else?

18        A.   It refers to the official that is in charge of the organ and

19     represents it.  So it is the minister, if we're talking about a ministry;

20     and it's the secretary, if we're talking about a secretariat.

21        Q.   Thank you.  The next piece of legislation that you refer to,

22     Mr. Bajagic, in paragraph 137 of your expert report is the Law on

23     Ministries.  By way of reference, it is tab 31; your footnote 142.2.  It

24     is part of the law library; L34 is the number.

25             Could you please give us your brief comment.

Page 20086

 1        A.   In this case as well, it is a system-related law of exceptional

 2     importance for each and every organ of the state administration that is

 3     at ministry rank.  Therefore, the Ministry of the Interior included.  In

 4     general terms, this law spells out in more specific terms what the fields

 5     of work are of all the ministries that are established on the basis of

 6     this law.  Namely, in Article 1 of this law, it says that:  "This law

 7     shall establish ministries as republican government organs and republican

 8     government organisations and establish their competencies," their

 9     province of work.

10             In this connection, it is very important to look at both

11     Articles 1 and 8 of the Law on Ministries, and that Article specifically

12     deals with the position of the Ministry of the Interior in the system of

13     ministries that exists.  According to that Article, it is stated

14     unequivocally that the Ministry of the Interior carries out

15     administrative and other professional work related to an entire set of

16     issues that have to do with the overall mission and vision of the

17     Ministry of the Interior.

18             That is the significance of these two Articles related to

19     ministries.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Bajagic, could I just put a question to you

21     that relates to Article 6 of the law.  If the usher could get us back to

22     the first page.  Thank you.

23             My question is to the order in which the ministries are lined up

24     in Article 6.  You see that the ministries shall be, first, the ministry

25     of National Defence; secondly, the Ministry of the Interior; thirdly, the

Page 20087

 1     Ministry of Justice; then comes foreign affairs, finance, and so on, and

 2     so on.

 3             My question is:  If, in this Article, there is a priority of

 4     importance in the way the ministries are listed, or do they just come by

 5     alphabetical order or by some other order that has nothing to do with the

 6     importance and the significance and the position within the government of

 7     the Ministry of the Interior?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my opinion, it's a list of 13

 9     ministries, stating the ministries that are hereby established.  There is

10     no specific significance to the way they are lined up, because all the

11     ministries are -- that are part of the executive branch of government of

12     equal ranking and importance.  If I had the possibility to draft a bill

13     now, I would possibly place the Ministry for Information and

14     Technological Development first.  But in my view this is a list of no

15     particular order and I don't believe that the ministry's placement on

16     this list in any way reflects its significance in the government.  They

17     were all of equal importance.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, professor.

19             Back to you, Mr. Zecevic.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you.

21        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, through my fault, we omitted to

22     mention something.  But before we move onto the Law on the Ministry of

23     the Interior, when I asked you about the Law on Government in

24     paragraph 134 and footnote 155, and that's a document behind tab 36 here,

25     and it is part of the law library, under L88, we see that the Law on

Page 20088

 1     Government of Republika Srpska was amended in September of 1992, as

 2     compared to the March 1992 version that we commented on.  Can you give us

 3     your brief comment on this particular law, since we had two laws on the

 4     government in the relevant period?

 5        A.   This is a law which was improved on the 15th of December, 1992.

 6     The amendment had to do with the substance and the way it was dealt with

 7     in the various articles.  But no substantial issues were dealt with.

 8     Instead of Article such and such, it's a different Article that deals

 9     with a particular matter.  So there is nothing else that could be raised

10     in this other law and which would specifically have to do with the

11     Ministry of the Interior.

12        Q.   Thank you.  In paragraphs 138 and 139 and onwards, you speak of

13     the system-related law; namely, the Law on the Interior --

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  May I?

15             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] This is tab 32, your footnote 142.3.  The

18     document has been admitted as P530.

19             As I said, you addressed this issue in paragraphs 138, 139, and

20     onwards.  Can we have your comment on the Law on the Ministry of the

21     Interior?

22        A.   The Law on the Internal Affairs is one of the system-related laws

23     and the topmost law dealing with all the matters pertaining to internal

24     or home affairs, as such.  Right at the beginning of the law, the

25     province of internal affairs is set out specifically - that's in

Page 20089

 1     Article 3 of the law - which says that the province of the home affairs

 2     will cover the affairs of public and state security, tasks and affairs of

 3     national security, and tasks and affairs pertaining to a number of

 4     administration-related issues, from the issuance of identity papers to a

 5     number of others.

 6             Article 4 states that internal affairs are affairs of general

 7     interest to the republic itself.

 8             As can be clearly seen from these various articles, which deal

 9     with matters ranging from generic to specific as we will see later on ...

10                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

11             JUDGE HALL:  For the information of counsel, the Court Officer

12     just confirmed something to me.  I was curious why this was a Prosecution

13     exhibit rather than part of the law library.  But I am reminded that this

14     was exhibited before we come up with the concept of the law library.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  That is correct, yes.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Please continue.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

18        Q.   [Interpretation] Please go ahead, Mr. Bajagic.  Continue with

19     your answer.  Please go ahead.

20        A.   So, as we will see in our subsequent analysis, the law deals with

21     the entire province of internal affairs from generic to specific issues.

22        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, tell us very briefly, in connection with

23     paragraph 139, where you explain the substance of the law, what was the

24     basic division in structural terms within the Ministry of the Interior?

25        A.   Bearing in mind the law in its entirety, the global structure of

Page 20090

 1     the ministry was set out in such a way that it was constituted of two

 2     global units; one was the Public Security Service, and the other National

 3     Security Service.  The law provides that, in addition to the minister's

 4     office, the other two are topmost leaders.  Within the ministry would be

 5     the individuals in charge of these two units.  That's to say, the

 6     under-secretary for public security, and under-secretary for national

 7     security.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown, unless

 9     there are objections from the Prosecution since I failed to announce this

10     document, but my colleague, Mr. Hannis, did.  Can the witness be shown

11     P876, in order to give us his comments.

12        Q.   The usher will hand you my copy because it is a better copy.

13             Mr. Bajagic, this folder is similar to the one that you looked at

14     yesterday which had to do with the Ministry of the Interior of the

15     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  The chart was made by the

16     Prosecution for the purposes of their case.  Please have a look at it and

17     tell us if there's anything in particular you'd like to comment on with

18     respect to the structure as presented in the chart.

19        A.   As for the structure that we can see in the chart and in view of

20     what I said, that there were two global units, we can see that we have

21     the minister's office here, and below the two units, namely, on the

22     left-hand side, the Public Security Service, and on the right-hand side,

23     the National Security Service.  As far as the factual situation is

24     concerned, I believe that is all.

25        Q.   Does the Law on the Ministry of the Interior of the Serbian

Page 20091

 1     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina provide for the post of assistant to the

 2     minister?

 3        A.   I apologise, will you --

 4        Q.   And I mean under the Law on the Ministry of the Interior of

 5     Republika Srpska.

 6        A.   You mean the post of Assistant Minister?  No, not under that

 7     piece of legislation.

 8        Q.   We have a document in English here, and beneath

 9     Mr. Mico Stanisic's photograph, we have the name of Momcilo Mandic and

10     his duty of Assistant Minister.

11        A.   Yes, I can see that.  But this wasn't what I was referring to

12     when I was making my initial comments.  It had to do with the two units.

13             The law clearly states that in addition to the minister, the two

14     top leadership positions are those of the under-secretary of public

15     security and the under-secretary of national security, and the law is

16     silent on anything else.

17             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry.  May I intervene just to raise a

18     question.  What we have on the screen lists Momcilo Mandic as deputy

19     minister is the English explanation we have on the chart.  It has been

20     translated now as assistant minister.  If we can have some clarification

21     as to whether those two terms are equal.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, I haven't seen the translation.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, can you give us a clear answer to

24     have it interpreted well.  Under the Law on the Home Affairs -- a moment,

25     please.  Under the Law on the Home Affairs of Republika Srpska from 1992

Page 20092

 1     which is the subject of your research here, was the post of assistant

 2     minister envisaged or any other such post as would fit within the

 3     structure between the under-secretary -- under-secretaries of public and

 4     state security and the minister himself?

 5        A.   I was quite clear a moment ago.  In the structure between the

 6     post of minister and those of under-secretaries, there are no significant

 7     posts.  The two functionaries are responsible to the minister for their

 8     respective provinces of work and in between there are no posts envisaged

 9     and the law is quite explicit on this.  There is no function of assistant

10     or deputy minister under the law.

11             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, again, Mr. Zecevic's question got

12     translated as assistant.  I understand we're talking about a person

13     between the minister and the two under-secretaries.  But my confusion is

14     because at the next level when we have the heads of administration,

15     they're all described as assistant ministers.  Is there not a word in

16     Serbian for "deputy" that is different than the word in Serbian for

17     "assistant"?

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  Mr. Hannis, there are two words.  There is

19     pomocnik, there is zamenik [Interpretation] And that's it.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Pomocnik, assistant;

21     zamenik, deputy.

22             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Let us clarify matters.  You have the document before you.  As

24     part of public security, there is a number of administrations.  Can you

25     list the administrations that fall within public security?  And let us

Page 20093

 1     try and identify them on the chart that we have before us.

 2        A.   It would make it easier for me if I referred to the law as well.

 3     But I do know that there is the administration for uniformed police,

 4     administration for the prevention and suppression of crime.  At all

 5     times, there was an administration for communication and information,

 6     administration for training, personnel administration.

 7        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, look at the legal provisions and disregard the

 8     chart.  What we want to establish is whether the chart reflects the law,

 9     and, of course, you will agree with me that it is the law that is the

10     authoritative text, is it not?

11        A.   Yes, the law is the authority.  But, please, can you refer me to

12     the paragraph where I listed it or to the relevant provisions of the law,

13     rather than me flipping through the entire text of the law, and in that

14     event I will be able to analyse the chart in detail.

15        Q.   Give me a moment, please.

16             Very well.  Let's simplify the matter.  Mr. Bajagic, the

17     individuals heading a given administration within public security, what

18     is their title?  And I mean in the head office of the Ministry of the

19     Interior.

20        A.   These individuals in charge of administrations are referred to at

21     times as chiefs of administrations, and they may, at the same time,

22     perform the duty of assistant ministers.  It is not an ex officio

23     position but they may at the same time be heads of administrations and

24     assistant ministers.

25        Q.   In other words, if they are called assistant ministers, does that

Page 20094

 1     mean that they were still subordinated to the under-secretary for public

 2     or state security respectively?

 3        A.   All assistant ministers who are, at the same time, at the head of

 4     these organisational units in the public security department, are

 5     directly subordinated to the under-secretary for public security.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Let us now take another look at the chart and the

 7     last comment from you.  To the far right, you will see a line that links

 8     Mr. Mico Stanisic, or, rather, his photograph with a box in which it says

 9     "Sokolac, special police platoon, Commander Dusko Malovic."

10             Can you comment on this, please.

11        A.   As you can see from the law itself, within the public security

12     department and its administration for uniformed police, also operational

13     was a special police brigade, and I know that that was stipulated by the

14     law and that existed before in the MUP of the Socialist Republic of

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Under the law, this special police brigade existed

16     and this continued to exist in the MUP of Republika Srpska.  It was part

17     of the police administration and it was within the public security

18     department.

19             I can see that underneath here that there is mention of the

20     special police brigade, although this is the first time that I'm seeing

21     this kind of chart, which surprises me to see these functional links with

22     the office of the minister of another unit.

23             That would be my comment.

24        Q.   Thank you.

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But, Mr. Bajagic, the authority which

Page 20095

 1     Mr. Dusko Malovic is supposed to have under this chart, or in this chart

 2     - sorry - is that he is in charge of the Sokolac SJB, special police

 3     platoon.  But there were special police units in other districts, weren't

 4     there?

 5             So my question is:  Was Mr. Malovic only in charge of the special

 6     police in Sokolac, or was he also in charge of special police units in

 7     other municipalities?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I honestly don't know.

 9             And I actually never addressed these issues in my expert

10     analysis.  I did not analyse any specific unit in the whole territory of

11     the Serbian Republic of BH with the exception of one or maybe more

12     paragraphs where I tackled the issue of a special police unit that

13     operated in the Autonomous Region of Krajina.  I addressed the fact that

14     this unit had been disbanded and then a special police brigade was

15     established in a centralised way in accordance with the law.  That's why

16     I said that I find it surprising to see these links.  The fact is, if we

17     accept this as a fact, it could indicate that maybe we could put another

18     30 boxes of the same kind relating to various regions.  But I know that

19     the special police brigade in the first year was part of the uniformed

20     police department within the public security department.  Under the law,

21     during that period, no special police unit had any direct links with the

22     office of the minister.

23             That would be my answer.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So why was Sokolac so special?  Or perhaps the

Page 20096

 1     better question is:  Was Sokolac, indeed, having or enjoying any special

 2     or particular position at any point in time?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, and I learned

 4     these facts from the documents, the ministry head office or any other

 5     significant organisational unit was based in that town.  When I analysed

 6     the documents that spoke about some combat operations, I realized that

 7     there were not even any direct combat operations conducted in or around

 8     Sokolac.  Of course, I know where Sokolac is, and I'm familiar with that

 9     area, so in terms of discharging any crucial police work on even in

10     military terms, it did not have any strategic significance higher than

11     any other place.  Quite the contrary.  It was a town which was more

12     peaceful than many other towns.  So in that context, at least as far as

13     the documents that I analysed are concerned, Sokolac does not feature as

14     any special town.  That is why I said that I was surprised to see this

15     mentioned here.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, Professor.

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And then a follow-up question, perhaps,

18     Professor.

19             Who was the commander of the centralised special police unit, or

20     brigade?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the Ministry of the Interior of

22     the Serbian Republic of BH, once it was established according to the law,

23     the commander of the special police brigade was Milenko Karisik.  And I

24     think I have mentioned that fact somewhere in my expert report.  And,

25     sorry, I'd like to say that this is this specific box that you can see

Page 20097

 1     here.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues]... thank you.

 3     That's why I asked.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  May I continue?  Thank you very much.

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, before we analyse in more detail

 6     some other aspects of the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska as

 7     a systemic law, would you be so kind as to look at your footnote 178.1

 8     which relates to your paragraph 145.  That's tab 39.  And in this case,

 9     just like the previous ones, it's marked as P510.  That's the Law on

10     Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina from

11     1990.

12             Could you please just comment on the differences between this Law

13     on Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina from

14     1990, and the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska from 1992.

15        A.   If I make comparison between specific provisions and paragraphs

16     in these two laws, i.e., the BH law from 1990 and the Law on Internal

17     Affairs of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, I would like to

18     underline that organisational units of the ministry according to

19     territorial principle had certain obligations towards municipalities.

20        Q.   No, no, I just took this as a reference, this particular

21     paragraph, not because of its contents but because of the fact that you

22     established a link.  My question was:  If we compare the contents of the

23     law of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Law on

24     Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska, to what extent do these two laws

25     differ and what is the essence of these differences?

Page 20098

 1        A.   These two laws are identical for the greatest part.  The majority

 2     of the provisions that govern the organisation, the functioning, the

 3     territorial organisation of the ministry are identical.

 4             There are, though, certain differences in a number of chapters,

 5     but I can't tell you that off the top of my head.  Generally speaking,

 6     these two laws are similar, of course, and they regulate matters in the

 7     same way.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Let us go back to the Law on Internal Affairs of

 9     Republika Srpska.

10             A while ago, when we commented the chart, you explained to us

11     that there were two main departments, the public security department and

12     the state security department, that were headed by under-secretaries.

13     Can you please explain to us what was the function of these

14     under-secretaries with regard to the ministry and the administrations

15     subordinated to them, and then what was the relationship between these

16     under-secretaries and the minister of the interior?  Under the law.

17        A.   The under-secretaries for public and national security report to

18     the minister of the interior, and those directly responsible to these two

19     are, for example, in case of public security, is the chief of the

20     administration for suppression and prevention of crime, which means all

21     the heads of the sectors who are within the public security department

22     are directly responsible to the under-secretary for public security.

23             The same applies to the other department.  When we talk about the

24     under-secretary for national security, head of certain administrations

25     that are part of this department are responsible to the under-secretary;

Page 20099

 1     whereas, the under-secretary himself is responsible to the minister of

 2     the interior.

 3        Q.   Are the under-secretaries answerable to the minister of the

 4     interior, in terms of how their respective departments operate, or are

 5     they responsible for some other things?

 6        A.   The law is very clear on that.  They are answerable to the

 7     interior minister for the entire operation of the department that they

 8     are the head of, which means all important issues, starting from the

 9     organisation of the work that they are performing.  In other words, the

10     entire operation of the department, it is the under-secretary who reports

11     to the minister.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please, for the counsel.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.

15        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, speaking about general issues pertaining to the

16     functioning of the Ministry of the Interior, I would like to show you a

17     number of documents that would serve as an illustration of what a

18     ministry of the interior is practically involved in, and I would like to

19     hear your comments on that.  That's tab 1.  The document is 65 ter 336D1.

20     That's a Defence document.

21             It's tab number 1.

22             Sir, this is a document that has three pages.  The first page is

23     a report on an on-site investigation compiled, as we can see, on page 2,

24     an investigating judge who signed it, and then page 3 is a record of

25     external examination of the body.  Can you briefly comment on this

Page 20100

 1     document?

 2        A.   According to the legal regulations in force at the time and when

 3     the Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist Republic of

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina functioned and also at the time when the ministry of

 5     the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina functioned, the Ministry of the

 6     Interior, and let me just specify a particular department.  The public

 7     security department is responsible for safe-guarding the property of

 8     citizens, public law and order, and preventing and curbing all forms of

 9     crime.  In the field of prevention and crime control, members of the

10     Ministry of the Interior, or the relevant department within it, have

11     certain duties in terms of carrying out certain activities with the

12     representatives of other state organs and in respect of the commission of

13     various crimes.  So according to the system that was in force then, the

14     Ministry of the Interior was duty-bound to send its authorised officers

15     whose field of activity is crime control anyway, that is to say, crime

16     inspectors, and also representatives of that those departments that deal

17     with technical matters, right?

18             The person in charge of the on-site investigation was the

19     investigative judge in that system, and, of course, at the request of the

20     investigating judge, the team on the scene can include other persons as

21     well, in order to carry out a proper on-site investigation, in order to

22     preserve material evidence that might indicate who the perpetrator of the

23     crime was.  From that point of view, this document precisely indicates

24     that.

25             We see who the persons present on the scene are.  It's the

Page 20101

 1     Duty Judge, then the representatives of the military post, the forensic

 2     medicine doctor.

 3             That is what I can say about this record.  Because I don't really

 4     know anything else about medicine.

 5             And I don't see anything controversial here.  That's it.

 6        Q.   Could I just ask you to give us an explanation.  You said in your

 7     response that the Ministry of the Interior has the duty to send its

 8     authorised officers, a crime inspector, and an inspector from the

 9     department that includes crime technicians, the forensic departments.

10             Could you tell us what these inspectors, these forensic

11     inspectors do, the crime technicians?

12        A.   Well, as far as I know, these inspectors, crime technicians, take

13     part in securing the scene of the crime; then also keeping the traces

14     there; taking various objects in accordance with the rules involved.  So

15     these measures are taken, these technical measures, and all of them with

16     a view to preserving material evidence in the best possible way, the

17     evidence that might indicate who the perpetrator was and that is

18     important for the process that is to ensue.  That is what crime

19     technicians do, these inspectors.

20             There are many forensic matters involved, but what is done on the

21     scene itself involves this kind of work.

22        Q.   Thank you very much.  If there are no objections, I would like to

23     tender this document.

24             MR. HANNIS:  Well, Your Honour, I'm not sure for what purpose or

25     how it relates to any contested matter in the case.

Page 20102

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, by way of

 2     illustration.  I think it's a relevant document.  Because it is a record

 3     of an on-site investigation during the relevant period of time, the time

 4     relevant to this indictment.  It has to do with a crime that occurred in

 5     a municipality that is included in the indictment and where the victim

 6     was a person who was an ethnic Muslim.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  For myself, Mr. Zecevic, the -- in terms of public

 8     security matters this is almost routine.  What -- I appreciate you're

 9     saying it's illustrative, but it isn't remarkable in any way, is it?

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  No, no, it is not at all remarkable.  I just wanted

11     to -- I'm leading another questions and you will see where I'm going with

12     this line.  I'm not insisting on admitting this document.  I'm just -- I

13     thought just as illustration of the -- of the -- of the expert opinion

14     given on -- during his testimony.  And there are some additional reasons

15     why this document, in my opinion, is relevant, but ...

16             MR. HANNIS:  Well, could I hear those other reasons and respond

17     to them?

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I just stated them.  It's a crime that

19     happened in the relevant time in one of the municipalities which is in

20     the indictment and the victim is a lady of the Muslim ethnicity.

21             MR. HANNIS:  Well, Your Honours, I guess if it is to rebut the

22     Prosecution's position that the police weren't investigating or

23     prosecuting crimes where the suspected perpetrators were Serbs and the

24     victims were non-Serbs, it may have some relevance.  However, I think

25     this only indicates that an on-site investigation was done, which would

Page 20103

 1     be the judge doing something.  There's no evidence that the police then

 2     followed -- followed up and filed a criminal report.  And the absence of

 3     that is consistent with our theory, that the police were not pursuing

 4     these matters.  I think we have had witnesses from Kljuc talking about

 5     what is in the KU reports, and I don't believe this one is.

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Well, Mr. Zecevic, the victim of this crime is

 7     not in the victims' list in the indictment.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I'm not entirely sure, Your Honours, but I

 9     can give you an answer after the break.  Because the -- the surname does

10     sound a bell.  But it might be -- it might be the case that, that it has

11     been mentioned during the case in some other -- in other relation.

12             Maybe we can take the break now and ...

13             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE HALL:  So we return in 20 minutes.

16                           [The witness stands down]

17                           --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, while the witness is on his way in, we

20     have been alerted by the Court Officer that the Prosecution --

21                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

22             JUDGE HALL:  Yeah, I know.  Has requested ten minutes at the end

23     of the day, so you will pace yourself accordingly.

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  I was notified.  Thank you.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Have you abandoned your application to have this

Page 20104

 1     document admitted, Mr. Zecevic?

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, Your Honours.  We checked, and it is not in

 3     the schedules.  The name of the victim is not in the schedules, yes.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 6                           [The witness takes the stand]

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, tell me, please, from a technical point of view, if

 9     I can put it that way, in the so-called pre-criminal proceedings, where

10     does the role of the police end?

11        A.   The role of the Ministry of the Interior and its members ends

12     when the criminal report is filed, regardless of whether the perpetrator

13     is known or unknown.  That is how far police powers go.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Tab 3.  340D1 is the 65 ter number.

15             This is a document dated the 2nd of December, 1992.  It is a

16     criminal report.  It's actually a set of documents.  Five or six

17     documents are attached.

18             Could you please give us your brief comment on this document.

19        A.   This document -- or, rather, this criminal report, confirms my

20     previous statement.  We see that it is the public security station of

21     Kotor Varos that filed this criminal report.  It was the head of the

22     public security station that filed this criminal report.

23             We see that there's a reference to the relevant laws on the basis

24     of which it is being filed, and we see that the general pattern is

25     followed there against whom it is being filed - in this case, the

Page 20105

 1     perpetrator is unknown - and then various facts are given about the said

 2     person.  Then there's a description of the crime.  And then the evidence

 3     that is just listed briefly.  And then there are the attachments that are

 4     enclosed.  So they're an integral part of the criminal report.

 5        Q.   What are the usual attachments that are enclosed with a criminal

 6     report?  Could you please tell us that.

 7        A.   Well, that is certainly a record of the on-site investigation

 8     that is written up by the investigative judge.  Then if there was

 9     expertise carried out by doctors, then there are documents about that.

10     And then there is an Official Note of the members of the Ministry of the

11     Interior who wrote that.  And it has to do with a specific crime, when

12     information was being collected about material evidence and about the

13     perpetrator of the crime involved.

14        Q.   When you say "expertise of a doctor," what do you mean?

15        A.   Well, that can be a record or a certificate of death, if the

16     injured party died; and it can also be a medical certificate, if there

17     were grave injuries sustained, or other things that belonged to the

18     domain of medicine.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20        A.   I do apologise.

21        Q.   Please go ahead.

22        A.   If it is a traffic incident, then it could also include some

23     expertise by a traffic expert.

24        Q.   Thank you.

25             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, bearing in mind

Page 20106

 1     Mr. Hannis's objection from a while ago, I think that this document meets

 2     all the requirements, as it were, that Mr. Hannis referred to in relation

 3     to the previous document we tendered, so I would like to tender this

 4     document as relevant.

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Bajagic, are you able to indicate the

 6     ethnicity of the victim?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the description of the crime,

 8     there is only a reference to the name, or, rather, the last name, and I

 9     don't see any reference to ethnicity.  Baric; that is what is written

10     here.  I cannot say.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I think there is an indication of his first name

12     also, Jako.

13             So the name Jako Baric does not --

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Jako Baric, yes.  But I cannot say

15     what that person's ethnicity was, only on the basis of the name and

16     surname.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, sir.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic, what has this document have that the

20     previous one doesn't have?

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, Mr. Hannis objected to the

22     previous document, saying that the position of the Office of the

23     Prosecutor is not that -- that the -- that the Ministry of the Interior

24     was not conducting on-site investigations.  The point they are -- they --

25     they are pursuing is that the ministry was conducting on-site

Page 20107

 1     investigations but was not filing criminal complaints against the

 2     perpetrator where the victim is a non-Serb.

 3             Now I cannot say for sure that this person is -- is not non-Serb,

 4     but it -- it sounds very much like a Croat name and surname.  But I

 5     wouldn't like to give evidence on this.  But it's -- it's the -- it's

 6     the -- it's the matter of doubt that I think we are in entitled to have

 7     in this matter.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  But is it related to the facts and the crimes

 9     we're dealing with here?

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well --

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  I mean, if it's a -- a, for instance, a crime of

12     passion, and even if it's somebody of Croatian or -- or Muslim ethnicity

13     who is concerned, is that relevant?

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honour [Overlapping speakers] ...

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... the fact that

16     investigations are conducted in those cases relevant to this case?

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, according to this criminal complaint,

18     it says that on the 2nd of November, 1992, around 8.00, two unknown men

19     dressed -- between 20 and 30, dressed in olive-drab uniforms, armed with

20     automatic rifles, shot at the -- at the windows of the house, and

21     committed a murder of this person.  Therefore --

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  I must admit that I missed that.  I was

23     checking the victims' list.  He's not on the victim's list.

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  It's not on the victim list, but Kotor Varos

25     municipality is in the -- in the indictment.

Page 20108

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D532, Your Honours.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   I'd like to show you another document, Mr. Bajagic, behind tab 4.

 5     It's 65 ter 374D1.

 6             It's an entire criminal case file of which the military court in

 7     Bijeljina was seized.  Let's go through the documents that make up this

 8     file, and can we have your brief comments on them.

 9        A.   This is --

10        Q.   Pause there.  Before you start giving your answer, let me state

11     for Their Honours that it's a document dated the 27th of September, 1992.

12     The crime scene is in Bijeljina municipality, which is referred in our

13     indictment, and it is the murder of one Enes Tabakovic who is apparently

14     a Muslim, because, on page 2, it says that the person murdered had been

15     taken prisoner in August 1992 and was held within the barracks in

16     Bijeljina.  Can we have your comments now.

17        A.   It's a set of documents.  First of all, a record of the on-site

18     investigation was made on the part of military investigation bodies.  We

19     can see that the investigative judge is Captain Radusa Bojcic.  We have

20     the forensic technician and note-taker, all of whom are members of the

21     army, in contrast to the previous document where we had a civilian

22     investigative judge, a member of the Ministry of the Interior, and a

23     number of other individuals.  The record of the on-site investigation

24     describes the crime committed.

25             We also have an Official Note here, which was compiled by the

Page 20109

 1     authorised official of the military police, I presume.  We also have the

 2     criminal report filed by Commander Captain First Class

 3     Dragomir Keserovic.

 4        Q.   That's page 7 in e-court in the Serbian version.

 5        A.   It was filed by a military prosecutor attached to a certain

 6     military post.  And, lastly, we have the judgement rendered by the court

 7     seized of the criminal report and all the other documentation.  Finally,

 8     the same set of documents contains a judgement rendered by the

 9     Supreme Court of Republika Srpska, denying the appeal lodged by the

10     defendants in this case.

11        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, in your view, is this case illustrative of the way

12     in which a criminal procedure unfolded under the regulation in force at

13     the time -- under the regulations in force at the time?

14        A.   We see that there are two procedures here.  The civilian

15     procedure, and a procedure which took place under a set of military

16     regulations.  In technical terms, the procedures are probably similar,

17     but in view of the bodies involved, from prosecutor's offices to

18     investigative judges, to judges, are different.

19        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, in the civilian criminal procedure, does the

20     procedure initiate with the criminal report?

21        A.   Yes.  The criminal report is the basis from which everything else

22     follows.  I don't know much about it because I am not an expert in the

23     area, but I do know up until what point the police are involved, and I do

24     know that there was the system of the military judiciary from the

25     prosecutor's offices to the judges of the courts of both instances

Page 20110

 1     performing their respective duties.

 2        Q.   The civilian criminal procedure, as far as you know, did it end

 3     with a judgement?

 4        A.   Yes.  That's the customary practice across the world.  Every

 5     criminal procedure ends with a judgement.  There may be other specifics

 6     involved that I cannot go into right now.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'd like to tender

 9     this document into evidence.  I think that it is useful as an

10     illustration and relevant to this case.

11             MR. HANNIS:  I'm not sure what the relevance is, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE HALL:  I suppose by way of illustration, it's the -- it's a

13     specimen of a complete case from start to finish.  And this is one of

14     the -- and bearing in mind that this witness is an expert, admitted and

15     marked.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D533.

17             MR. HANNIS:  With your last comment in mind, Your Honour, I just

18     want to state on the record that it's our position that he's tendered as

19     a police expert.  He, himself, just said now that he is not an expert on

20     criminal procedure in terms of in terms of military or civilian courts.

21             JUDGE HALL:  We haven't forgotten the Prosecution's position on

22     that, Mr. Hannis.

23             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, we will now go back to the Law on the Internal

25     Affairs of Republika Srpska behind tab 32.  Your footnote 142.3;

Page 20111

 1     Exhibit P530.

 2             In paragraphs 148, where you explain Article 33, and the

 3     following paragraphs, in paragraph 148, you list the various powers of

 4     the Ministry of the Interior under Article 33.

 5             Let us start with Article -- or, rather, paragraph 149, and could

 6     you please give us your brief comments on each and every competence or

 7     power as envisaged under the law.

 8        A.   Based on the fact that the province of the internal affairs

 9     comprises public security, national security, and a number of affairs

10     relating to administration --

11        Q.   I apologise.

12             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have Article 33 in e-court.

13     It's page 4 in the Serbian and English.

14        Q.   Thank you.

15        A.   Article 33 of the Law on Internal Affairs sets out the service of

16     national security and regulates that the MUP shall discharge, perform

17     duties of national security.  And that's in the first bullet point:

18     "Directly conduct national security-related activities ..."

19             We have already referred to this one of the two global units

20     within the MUP; namely, the National Security Service.

21        Q.   I am referring to Article 33 of the Law on Internal Affairs,

22     which reads -- yeah, I'm sorry.  You were referring to the first

23     answer --

24        A.   Yes, the first bullet point of the various bullet points listing

25     the duties and tasks of the ministry as a whole, which deals with

Page 20112

 1     national security as the first set of tasks within that ministry.

 2             And I was just going back to what I said earlier on, that this

 3     was one of the two units within the ministry which has its own respective

 4     organisation.

 5        Q.   Please, go ahead.

 6        A.   As for the National Security Service, subsequently the law would

 7     define the internal structure of the service as regulated -- or to be

 8     regulated subsequently in a set of regulations or rules which are

 9     actually bylaws.  So that's one of the various competencies.

10        Q.   Please go through all the competences under Article 33 that are

11     mentioned in the subsequent paragraphs.

12        A.   The ministry at its seat shall, furthermore, monitor, direct, and

13     coordinate the activity of the Security Services Centre and public

14     security stations, especially in activities related to public security.

15     In cases of higher complexity, if necessary, it shall take direct

16     measures to prevent and detect crime.

17        Q.   Next.

18        A.   Next is the protection of citizens and their personal security

19     and lives, as well as the protection of facilities and other material

20     goods.  In cases of general emergency or serious breaches of public law

21     and order.

22             Next is the competence whereby the Ministry of the Interior

23     shall, at its seat, monitor the administration of internal affairs

24     entrusted to other organs, enterprises and legal entities.  Moreover, the

25     ministry shall, at its seat, prepare or draft the proposal for the

Page 20113

 1     organisation and the strength of the reserve police force in the

 2     republic, as well as the criteria for its manning, or the recruitment of

 3     its personnel.

 4             In this respect, the ministry has the power to activate the

 5     reserve police force in emergency situations upon orders from the

 6     president of the republic, as defined by other system-related laws and

 7     the constitution itself.  Likewise, the ministry shall, at its

 8     headquarters, see to it that weapons are procured, as well as other

 9     appropriate sets of equipment for the needs of the active duty and

10     reserve force from the funds earmarked for those purposes in the

11     republican budget.

12             Furthermore, the ministry has the power to set up professional

13     and specialised training programmes for the active-duty and reserve

14     police forces and other authorised officials and test -- or, rather, deal

15     with other forms of training and exercise.

16             Furthermore, the ministry is under the obligation to advance the

17     specialist and scientific methods of work, as well as the subject matter

18     of the work of the Public Security Service.

19             Its next competence has to do with the organisation development,

20     modernisation, and maintenance of communication systems of the Ministry

21     of the Interior, as well as their protection overall.

22             The next competence of the ministry headquarters is to perform

23     complex forensic analysis for the needs of Security Services Centres and

24     public security stations.  The ministry headquarters is also authorised

25     to ensure the introduction and application of modern scientific methods

Page 20114

 1     in crime prevention.  It is also in charge of cooperating with foreign

 2     organs and international organisations in the field of internal affairs.

 3             Its next competence is to issue local search notices and publish

 4     appropriate bulletins on searches.

 5             And, finally, the ministry headquarters is in charge, or

 6     competent, to keep mandatory and other necessary records of statistical

 7     and operational data and ensure that such records are kept in all

 8     Security Services Centres and public security stations.

 9             And the final competence of the ministry headquarters is to

10     perform other duties and tasks placed within its remit by this and other

11     laws within the legal system of the Serbian Republic of

12     Bosnia-Herzegovina in the relevant period.

13        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Bajagic, would you please comment on

14     paragraph 162.  And I would like to show you, in that respect, another

15     document under tab 74 of P262.

16        A.   My apologies, I've just managed to locate that under the

17     tab number.  But could you just remind me what paragraph you wanted me to

18     comment on?

19             Yes, I can see it now.  Would you like me to comment on it?

20             Well, paragraph 162, as we can see, it says that as a rule,

21     pursuant to Article 33 on the Law on Internal Affairs that I commented on

22     just a moment ago, the Law on Defence and the decision of the Presidency

23     of the Serbian republic, MUP shall participate in the general

24     mobilisation of conscripts.

25             As I stressed earlier, the ambit of the ministry is not defined

Page 20115

 1     by the Law on Internal Affairs alone but also by other laws, and in that

 2     respect, I also mentioned that they also had a role in general

 3     mobilisation, which is in conjunction with Article 33, the last

 4     competence, as well as in keeping with the Law on Defence of June 1992.

 5     In other words, they are -- they have a role in the general public

 6     mobilisation of forces and resources in the republic in keeping with

 7     general legal provisions.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Now what we have under tab 74 is an order, as we can

 9     see, issued by the prime minister, pursuant to an order by the

10     Presidency, or a decision adopted by the Presidency, as we can see in the

11     preamble.  And it also refers to the decision of the Presidency that you

12     mention in your expertise.

13             Now, would you please just comment briefly on paragraph 2 of this

14     document.

15        A.   Paragraph 2 of this document, as we can see, describes that all

16     military conscripts who do not comply with Article 1 of this decision,

17     against all such military conscripts, measures shall be determined by the

18     law and taken by the law.

19             And then we see that in the second subparagraph, it says:

20             "The implementation of these measures shall be pursued by members

21     of the military police, the army and staff members of the Ministry of the

22     Interior ..."

23             In other words, this is directly related to paragraph 162 of my

24     expertise.

25        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, is this document, this order from the president of

Page 20116

 1     the government, in fact the implementation of the decision adopted by the

 2     Presidency?

 3        A.   Well, as we can see, the first document that deals with this

 4     matter - in other words, mobilisation - came from the Presidency of

 5     Bosnia-Herzegovina as the highest organ, and then we see that it is

 6     implemented by the government and the prime minister, and then it is

 7     further conveyed and assigned to lower levels, the ministries of internal

 8     affairs.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Now in paragraph 162, you also mention footnote 198.

10     That's under tab 75.  And it is marked here as 1422 in this particular

11     case.  Could you please take a look at that.

12        A.   In paragraph 2 of the earlier document we just saw says that

13     measures taken against individuals who do not comply with Article 1 on

14     mobilisation, that the organisations in charge of taking such measures

15     against these individuals are the army and Ministry of the Interior.

16     Pursuant to the order from the government, we see that this is in keeping

17     with Article 33 of the Law on Internal Affairs and that pursuant to that

18     Article the ministry ordered -- issued an order to the special police

19     unit to conduct mobilisation in certain municipalities -- or, rather, to

20     mobilize those who have failed to report to call up, to a call-up up to a

21     certain date and that all of this was in keeping with the decision by the

22     Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina on general mobilisation.

23             Now, under 2, paragraph 2 of this order, we see that all those

24     conscripts who are mobilized pursuant to the decision there shall be

25     handed over to the Lukavica Barracks, or referred to the

Page 20117

 1     Lukavica Barracks, and we see that, through the activity of one of its

 2     organisational units, they participated in the mobilisation process, and

 3     these individuals were handed over to the barracks, or, rather, a

 4     military post.

 5        Q.   Just one question.  Can you recognise the signature that appears

 6     on this document?

 7        A.   No, it actually says that in the signature we see, it says that

 8     it's the minister of the interior, Mico Stanisic.  However, we see there

 9     is some kind of symbol preceding the typed words "minister of the

10     interior," and I assume that this would mean "for the minister of the

11     interior" and that somebody else had actually placed their signature

12     there.  Because as far as I can recall, this does not look like the

13     signature of the minister of the interior, because I believe I've seen

14     that signature on one of the dispatches sent by -- on his behalf.  So I

15     believe this was signed on his behalf by someone at the headquarters.

16        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, please tell me this.  The ministry headquarters for

17     the needs of the service, are they in a position to detach or

18     resubordinate certain members of the internal affairs services and assign

19     them to the territory of another municipality and not the one where they

20     normally belong?

21        A.   The Ministry of the Internal Affairs is an organ that, by

22     implication and also under the legal provisions, allows them to detach

23     certain functional organisational units and also individuals, as we can

24     see later on when we analyse the expertise, and assign them to certain

25     tasks for a certain period of time in another territory and not the one

Page 20118

 1     where they normally belong.  In other words, this could apply to a

 2     functional unit, such as the special police brigade, or it can apply to

 3     individuals, and individuals can be assigned to certain assignments

 4     outside of their own territory for a certain period of time.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Bajagic.

 6             Now I would like you to give us your comments on paragraph 164 of

 7     your expert report.  It deals with Article 38 of the Law on Internal

 8     Affairs, and perhaps it would be a good idea to put it back on our

 9     monitors.  That's under tab 32; your footnote 142.3 of P530.  Page [as

10     interpreted] 38 is actually the fifth page of that document.  And I

11     believe it is the same in both versions, both in English and B/C/S.

12        A.   Could you please just repeat the tab number?  I didn't get it.

13        Q.   That's 32.

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Your paragraph 164.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, if you need some assistance, perhaps we can ask the

18     usher to remove one of the binders so that you can deal with them more

19     easily.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Usher, if

21     you can help Mr. Bajagic that just one of the binders is moved.  Thank

22     you very much, Mr. Usher.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In paragraph 164 of my expert

24     report, I analyse Articles -- I analyse the Article 38 of the Law on

25     Internal Affairs because of something that that took me by surprise.

Page 20119

 1     This significantly, actually, restricts the role of the minister of the

 2     interior in the event of emergency situations, such as an imminent threat

 3     of war, and other emergencies, and I quoted parts of that Article which

 4     suggest that the minister could not issue any such orders without the

 5     approval of the assembly, such as, for instance, Assembly of Citizens in

 6     a specified public area.  In other words, he was unable to issue such an

 7     order without the approval of the National Assembly or an order from the

 8     president if the National Assembly was unable to meet.  And I refer there

 9     to a constitutional provision which provides for the president to issue

10     certain orders in the event that the National Assembly is unable to do so

11     at the time, which would then later just confirm it.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Now could we just briefly look at your paragraph 166.

13     It deals with Article 40 of the law.  And it is on the same page in

14     Serbian, and I believe in English, it's on page 6.

15        A.   Yes, I can just say this briefly.  We see the same phenomenon, in

16     other words the restriction of the powers of the minister of the

17     interior, in external communication.

18             And Article 40 of the law specifies that it is only the president

19     of the republic who can decide on which socio-political communities, the

20     republic, town, municipality, or so forth are to be informed of the

21     activities of the MUP.  In other words, the minister did not have the

22     power to inform other organs about the operations of the Ministry of the

23     Interior without the approval of the president.

24        Q.   Thank you.  I would now like you to comment on paragraph 175 of

25     your expert report relating to Article 43 of the law, and I believe

Page 20120

 1     that's on the following page, page 6 in the B/C/S version, and we have

 2     the right page in English already.

 3             Again, that's paragraph 175 of your expert report.

 4        A.   Paragraph 175 analyses Article 43 of the Law on Internal Affairs,

 5     which is of great significance in my view, because it regulates the

 6     question of who issues orders in the administrative procedure to

 7     authorised officials of the MUP, and I quoted there a sentence where it

 8     says:

 9             "Authorised officials must execute orders issued by the minister

10     or by their immediate supervisor for the purpose of performing duties and

11     tasks of national and public security except when such orders contravene

12     the constitution and the law."

13             The importance of this lies in the fact that it states that the

14     Ministry of the Interior, as a state administration organ, uses the term

15     "control and order," which indicates that orders and other instructions

16     that the ministry headquarters send have the nature of an administrative

17     document within that particular government agency.  That was important

18     for me, in order to be able to distinguish between this and the terms

19     that are used in the military.  That is why I say at the end of this

20     paragraph that since the Law on State Administration and the Law on

21     Ministries and the Law on the Ministry of the Interior define the

22     ministry as a state administration organ.  On that basis, I concluded --

23     and, anyway, it says in modern-day police science that as stated in

24     paragraph 133 there is control within the police; whereas, in the

25     military, there is command.  So the way of issuing orders is quite

Page 20121

 1     different.  That was important and that is why I quoted that.  When I

 2     said that those who were issued orders to carry out tasks except those

 3     that contravene the constitution and the law.  However, I think that we

 4     are going to explain that in detail at a different point.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  I have a couple of issues in the transcript.  I

 6     think quite some time ago, I think we seeked [sic] assistance from the

 7     CLSS in -- in relation to -- to the specific term "rukovodjenje," and I

 8     believe it was agreed that -- that the proper translation was

 9     "directing."

10             Now I see here "control and order."  But I think it was

11     "directing," as opposed to "commanding."

12             And there is one other thing.  The administrative act, I -- I

13     think needs to be explained by the -- by the expert because it has been

14     translated as "administrative document."  43:5.

15             But I will come to that.  I will seek clarification from the

16     expert.  But about the -- the -- the "directing," I would like to -- to

17     have it clear whether that -- that is the understanding of our friends

18     from the Office of the Prosecutor, that it has been agreed like that.

19             MR. HANNIS:  Well, I -- I -- I don't recall.  If you can direct

20     me to where there was a document or something we received from CLSS.  I

21     simply don't remember if it was something I dealt with before.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I will provide the reference.  We have to

23     find it in the transcript.  So we will return to that.

24             Now --

25        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, when you say issuing orders in an

Page 20122

 1     administrative procedure as an act of administration, when they say that

 2     they have the nature of an administrative act, are you referring to a

 3     document, or what is it that you mean when you say that?

 4        A.   What I mean, or what I meant, is everything that leaves the

 5     Ministry of the Interior by way of internal documentation.  That is,

 6     documents and specific documents, such as orders.

 7        Q.   Is the core of the matter the fact that administrative acts, both

 8     as acts and documents, are strictly prescribed by law or not?

 9        A.   Of course, they are prescribed by law.  We're going to see later

10     in the analysis what kind of documents are issued by the ministry and

11     which were relevant for this expert report as well.

12        Q.   Does that make a distinction between the situation in

13     administrative organs, in the one hand, and in the military, on the other

14     hand?

15        A.   The ministry headquarters issues orders, how to act in general

16     situations or in specific situations.  Of course, this action has to be

17     in line with the law.  Members of the Ministry of the Interior, as

18     authorised officials, I mean, by virtue of the fact that they received

19     the status of authorised officials, they have the legal obligation to

20     exercise certain authority, regardless of whether there are specific

21     orders involved.

22             I think that members of the ministry --

23        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, I don't think you understand my question.  What you

24     say here and what you said in your answer a moment ago, you say in your

25     paper that is why it says that the police --

Page 20123

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We cannot find the

 2     reference.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   I am asking you whether this distinction that you have between

 5     direction in the military and commanding in the army has anything to do

 6     with the fact that the police is an administrative organ which has the

 7     Law on Administrative Procedure there and the Law on State Administration

 8     in contrast to the military.  Is that the difference involved or is it

 9     something different?

10        A.   Well, that is the difference involved.

11             MR. HANNIS: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry.

12     Mr. Zecevic, I don't know if it is what you said in Serbian, but at line

13     15:  "I'm asking whether this distinction that you have between direction

14     in the military and commanding in the army has anything to do with the

15     fact ... "

16             I think you may have meant the police instead of military.  But

17     here it comes out as military and police -- military and army and I see

18     no connection [Overlapping speakers] ...

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... thank you very much.  I

20     did say direction in the police and commanding in the army, yes.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In a military system, the members

22     of the military carry out their tasks on the basis of a direct order.  In

23     the police, it's different.  On the basis of all regulations and

24     administrative documents, the members of the police have certain powers

25     to take action.

Page 20124

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please give us your comment on

 3     paragraph 178 of your report.

 4        A.   One of the administrative actions, or powers, is the right to ask

 5     persons to show their IDs and to bring them to an appropriate organ.

 6     That is defined by Article 47 of the Law on the Interior and authorised

 7     officials of the Ministry of the Interior --

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have paragraph -- or,

 9     rather, Article 47 on our monitors, please.  It's the next page in

10     English.

11        A.   Members of the Ministry of the Interior can carry out this

12     administrative action in accordance with this Article of the law and in

13     ways envisaged by the law.  So that involves the Law on Criminal

14     Procedure that is very important in this context as well.  I didn't go

15     into that specifically.  And that is regulated by Article 48 of this law,

16     that you can see here.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.

20        Q.   Could I please have your comment on paragraph 187 of your expert

21     report.  It has to do with Article 54 of the law.

22             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have that, please.

23        Q.   That is the next page of the Serbian text.  And I assume that it

24     is the same in English.  Thank you.

25        A.   In paragraph 187, I provide my comment on the basis of Article 45

Page 20125

 1     [as interpreted], one of the powers vested in the members of the Ministry

 2     of the Interior, that is to say, the right of authorised officials to

 3     collect data and information when this is necessary for the purpose of

 4     uncovering crimes and accomplices in the commission of these crimes.

 5             So this is one of the usual administrative actions taken by

 6     members of the Ministry of the Interior of the Serb Republic of BH and

 7     before that for the ministries and for all modern police forces anyway.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Could I please have your comment on Article 55 of the

 9     law.  And it is paragraph 189 of your expert report.

10        A.   Again, this is an administrative action, or one of the powers

11     that the members of the Ministry of the Interior have.  It involves

12     closing off access to a specific area or facility and preventing people

13     from leaving the area or facility without permission.

14              So, in my judgement, this administrative action, or, rather,

15     this power of the members of the Ministry of the Interior, is, in most

16     cases, envisaged in the field of uncovering crime and fighting crime as

17     such.  I provided a broader explanation here; but, in brief terms, I

18     should say that without this kind of entitlement to this kind of

19     administrative action, members of the crime prevention police could not

20     efficiently secure the scene or take many other tactical measures from a

21     crime-prevention point of view, in order to get to relevant facts that

22     may be of assistance to uncover a crime and possibly obtain preliminary

23     information for -- from persons who may be present there and thus collect

24     information that may lead to uncovering the crime.

25        Q.   Thank you.  I think that we have time to hear your comments on

Page 20126

 1     Article 56.  It's the next page in Serbian.  It is your paragraph 190.

 2        A.   Article 56 of the Law on Internal Affairs, as can be shown -- as

 3     can be seen from paragraph 190 of this expert report regulates the use of

 4     instruments of coercion, which is, as I have been pointing out, one of

 5     the standard administrative actions taken by all police forces in the

 6     world.

 7             According to this Article of the law, this right has been vested

 8     in the Ministry of the Interior; that is to say, its authorised

 9     officials.  Also, this Article states what is meant by instruments of

10     coercion.  That is, physical force, rubber batons, police dogs, police

11     cavalry, water hoses, gas weapons, and other gas devices, binding

12     devices, devices for forcible obstruction and stopping of vehicles and

13     individuals.

14             So all this is specified, every one of these instruments.

15        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Bajagic.  Once again, I need to intervene in

16     relation to the transcript.  Last time when we discussed this with a

17     previous witness we had a similar situation, and then Ms. Korner was so

18     kind as to give us the right explanation or interpretation of this term

19     "sredstvo prinude," how it should be translated.  She said that in

20     English in her view the best term to be used would be "use of force in

21     the course of arrest," if I remember that correctly.  I am going to find

22     it --

23             JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... That is my

24     recollection, too, Mr. Zecevic.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

Page 20127

 1             [Interpretation] For the purposes of the transcript, that's

 2     19903.  That's the page.

 3        Q.   We still have time left to hear your comments in respect of

 4     paragraph 195.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Zecevic.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Which has to do with Article 159?

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic, just for the transcript,

 9     Judge Hall's last intervention was:  "That is my recollection, too."

10             I think it is important to add that in the transcript.  Thank

11     you.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honours, I'm sorry.  I

13     missed that Judge Hall was not recorded.  Thank you.  I know I'm creating

14     a problem because I'm shifting.  I sometimes speak in Serbian and then

15     there is a translation going on and then ... but I'm ...

16             JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  I will try my best to avoid making a confusion

18     anymore.  Thank you.

19             [Interpretation] I apologise, I referred to Article 59.  Yes, we

20     have it before us.

21        Q.   And the paragraph of your report we're dealing with is 195.

22     Please go ahead.

23        A.   In paragraph 195 of the expert report, I analysed Article 59 of

24     the law, which is directly related to Articles 56 and 57 of the law.

25             Article 59 regulates that the chief of the Security Services

Page 20128

 1     Centre shall, within the legal time-limit, that's to say, within seven

 2     days at the most, of being informed that an authorised official of one of

 3     the public security stations within the system of the centre, has used

 4     force in one of the ways described under Article 56, or fire-arm under

 5     Article 57, that he will have the duty to assess the legality and

 6     appropriateness of the use of force, one of the instruments thereof or

 7     fire-arm.  In other words, the chief of the CSB shall have seven days to

 8     investigate this, to assess this, in respect of the use of force, or

 9     fire-arm, on the part of any of the officials of any of the SJBs the

10     centre covers.

11        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, in view of the provisions of Article 59 and the

12     inherent duty of a CSB chief, what is the obligation of the chiefs of

13     SJBs in this regard?

14        A.   The stipulation of the law is that the chief of the CSB has the

15     obligation to assess the lawfulness of the use of force within the

16     prescribed time-limit, so whether it was used within the limits of the

17     law and whether it was used properly.  But the Article does not confer

18     any duties or powers in this regard to any of the SJB chiefs.  Rather, it

19     is only the CSB chief who is referred to.

20        Q.   I do agree with that.  But as the law regulates, and you confirm

21     in Article 59, the CSB chief is under the obligation to do this and that,

22     within seven days of learning of this.  So if a member of the Ministry of

23     the Interior who is a member of any of the SJBs used force, including

24     fire-arm, how is the SJB chief going to learn this?

25        A.   Well, he is definitely going to learn this or be informed of it

Page 20129

 1     from the chief of the SJB concerned.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honour, I'm looking at the clock.  Perhaps

 4     this might be the right time for our break.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, if this is convenient.

 6             We return in 20 minutes.

 7                           [The witness stands down]

 8                           --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.

 9                           --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.

10                           [The witness takes the stand]

11             JUDGE HALL:  You may continue, Mr. Zecevic.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, footnote 184 and 185 of your

14     report, which relate to paragraphs 150 and 151, refer to the rule-book on

15     the operation of public security.  It's 889D1.  Unfortunately, I don't

16     have it in my binder.  I asked for copies to be made, but until that

17     time, we can look at it on our screens.

18             Sir, these are 1977 rules of the Socialist Republic of

19     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Were these rules also applicable with regard to the

20     duties performed by the Public Security Service of the MUP of

21     Republika Srpska of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992?

22        A.   Just as was the case with some other bylaws regulating issues

23     related to the workings of the Ministry of the Interior of

24     Republika Srpska of Bosnia-Herzegovina, these rules were in force in 1992

25     as one of the documents which did not run contrary to the laws in force

Page 20130

 1     at the time in the Serbian Republic of BH.  These rules, as well as

 2     others, were applied and adhered to by the Ministry of the Interior.

 3        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, these rules are on the affairs of public security.

 4     Do they contain detailed interpretations of all the relevant articles

 5     from the Law on Internal Affairs that we have discussed?

 6        A.   The 1977 rules set out in detail the departments and structural

 7     units from the ministry headquarters down to the lowest territorial

 8     units, as well as the tasks and duties that the various units down to the

 9     level of departments and sections are duty-bound to carry out in keeping

10     with these rules.

11        Q.   In your view, is this document important for the understanding of

12     the way in which the Ministry of the Interior operated when it comes to

13     public security?

14        A.   It is certainly important.  Some sections of the rules where the

15     establishment of certain structural units is discussed, be it in

16     territorial or hierarchical terms, also deal with the powers and

17     competences these departments have to perform their tasks within the

18     purview of the Ministry of the Interior.  At any rate, together with the

19     law and other bylaws the rules are very important in order to gain an

20     insight into the workings of the Ministry of the Interior and its

21     respective units.

22             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm told that the

23     document is not in the law library due to apparently what was an

24     oversight.  On that basis, I'd like that the document be introduced into

25     the law library or that it be assigned an exhibit number.

Page 20131

 1             JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... I thought that

 2     we had recently, when I say recently, since the Defence case opened,

 3     visited this question and the understanding was that the law library is

 4     not closed at this point.  And as documents are newly discovered, then

 5     they would just be included.

 6             I don't know if the Prosecution has a different recollection.

 7             MR. HANNIS:  No, I don't.  And I don't necessarily disagree with

 8     that.  But I have a question and maybe it arises out of my confusion.

 9     But I thought we looked at the 1990 rules, earlier from January 29th on

10     the rules on internal affairs.  And if there's a 1990 version that is in

11     effect in 1992, then I don't see a relevance of a 1977 version.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Just a second.

13                           [Defence counsel confer]

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honour, there is a difference between two

15     rule-books.  The rule-book Mr. Hannis is referring to bears the exhibit

16     number P850, and it's at tab 38; footnote 168 of the expert opinion.  And

17     it's -- it's a rule-book on internal organisation of the -- of the

18     Ministry of the Interior.

19             Now, this is a rule-book on operational methods of the Public

20     Security Service, which is a different thing.  It's a different

21     rule-book.  And, therefore --

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  We understand.  But, Mr. Zecevic, I suppose that

23     the issue is whether the 1977 rule-book on the operational methods was in

24     force in 1992 and had not been replaced by any subsequent rule-book.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I believe I asked the question of the witness

Page 20132

 1     and he confirmed that this particular document from 1977 was in fact used

 2     in 1992 in the MUP of Republika Srpska.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your -- yeah.  Your Honour, therefore, the only

 5     question is whether -- whether the Office of the Prosecutor will agree

 6     that we -- that we add this to the law library or not.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, that should be assigned an L number.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, this will be Exhibit L332.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And, Mr. Zecevic, just to make sure, it is not on

11     your list of documents.  That's right?

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  No, it is on the list of documents.  It was just

13     not printed out for the binder for the witness.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated]

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  Tab number 41.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated]

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you.

18             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, just a technical matter.  I'm looking at

19     the e-court version on my screen of the English translation, and maybe

20     it's me, but it's blurry.  I don't know if we need to have another

21     upload.

22                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  It's pretty clear on -- on my monitor, Mr. Hannis.

24     Especially the English text.

25             JUDGE HALL:  It appears that not all screens have your

Page 20133

 1     deficiency, Mr. Hannis.

 2             MR. HANNIS:  [Microphone not activated] I understand my partner

 3     has the same deficiency.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated]

 5             MR. HANNIS: [Microphone not activated] carry on.  I'll do the

 6     best I can with what I have.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, let's go back to paragraph 195 of

 9     your report and footnote 229, which is related to the paragraph.

10             Was there rules governing the use of fire-arms?

11        A.   In relation to the power to use fire-arms as provided for under

12     the Law on Internal Affairs for members of the ministry, it is only

13     natural that rules should be adopted on the use of fire-arms which

14     stipulate in greater detail the legal requirements for such use and the

15     appropriate conduct on the part of those using fire-arms, as well as

16     their obligation to report such events as soon as possible in writing and

17     verbally.  In other words, under the rules, such individuals are under

18     the obligation to report verbally at once and in writing at a later

19     stage, as to the legal conditions that were in place and that allowed

20     them to use fire-arms.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Can we have your comment on paragraph 215, Article --

22     Article 127 of the law.  Let me just check if we're still dealing with

23     the same law.  That's tab 32, P530, your footnote 142.3.  It's page 15 in

24     Serbian and probably 16 in English.  Article 127.  Page 15.

25             This has to do with paragraph 215.

Page 20134

 1        A.   In paragraph 215, Article 127 is addressed, which stipulates the

 2     way in which all members of the Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist

 3     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina are to be assumed by the Ministry of the

 4     Interior of the Serbian Republic.  In other words, with the date of the

 5     coming into effect of this law, the Ministry of the Interior of the

 6     Serbian Republic would take on all of these members of the MUP, in

 7     accordance to their preferences.  And it is stated in that Article that

 8     all employees in the headquarters and all the employees in the security

 9     stations on the respective posts that they held would be taken over by

10     the Ministry of the Interior of Serbian Republic of BH.

11        Q.   In your view, on the basis of these legal provisions and in the

12     course of your research, was it your conclusion that there existed

13     certain restrictions or limitations with respect to those employees of

14     the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina who were of Serbian ethnicity?

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  Who were of Muslim

16     ethnicity.

17        A.   No, it says here that all other -- all employees of Serbian

18     ethnicity and other ethnicities, that is to say, regardless of their

19     ethnicity can voluntarily express a wish to be taken on by the Ministry

20     of the Interior of the Serbian Republic of BH.  There were no

21     restrictions.  It was left up to them to say voluntarily whether they

22     would move on to the Ministry of the Interior of the Serbian Republic of

23     Bosnia-Herzegovina and continue their work there.

24        Q.   Thank you.  I would now show you the next document with a

25     different subject.  I will go back with you to paragraph 106 of your

Page 20135

 1     report and also paragraph 231, with which this document is also linked.

 2     And it has to do with footnote 131.  That's Exhibit 1D159, tab 29.

 3        A.   Yes, I found it.

 4        Q.   Can you please comment on this document for us, the one that you

 5     referred to in your footnote 131.

 6        A.   I have not opened it in my binder.  Which tab is it?  I'll do it

 7     very quickly.

 8        Q.   It's tab 29.  And your paragraph in question is 106 and the

 9     related footnote, 131, in which you referred to this document.

10        A.   Yes.  As we mentioned yesterday, as I think, this has to do with

11     the fact that deputy interior minister on 26th September 1992 issued an

12     instruction on mobilising the reserve police force, which we connected

13     with some other documents too.  And considering the fact that such

14     mobilisation could only be carried out on the basis of orders of federal

15     organs, the organs of the federal state, as mentioned in the dispatch

16     which we dealt with in connection with paragraph 107.

17             So this was the manning and updating of the wartime organisation

18     of the MUP which was signed by Deputy Minister Zepinic together with a

19     form which is an integral part of the document and stating in which

20     manner the information should be filled and updated.  That was the

21     information about the mobilisation of the Ministry of the Interior.

22        Q.   I can see that it says here the 26th of September 1992 in the

23     record but I think you said and in your report it says 1991.

24        A.   Yes, I apologise, 26th September 1991.

25        Q.   Sir, as for the Ministry of the Interior of the former

Page 20136

 1     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and also other organs, were they

 2     obliged, according to the regulations that were in force in SFRY, to have

 3     defence plans and plans for extraordinary situations or emergencies.

 4        A.   They certainly did.  Not just state administration organs but

 5     also all enterprises, all educational and health institutions,

 6     considering the set of legal regulations which regulated specifically

 7     this issue, the situation of an imminent threat of war, war, and other

 8     emergency situations.  It is certain that the constitution of SFRY which

 9     was then in force included several provisions that had to do with this

10     subject, but systemic laws in this area, that is to say, the documents

11     where the law on All People's Defence and the strategy of the All

12     People's Defence and social self-protection.

13             Of course, on the basis of the Law on All People's Defence and

14     this strategy, in certain specific laws that primarily had to do with the

15     Ministry of the Interior in that period, and it was called the

16     secretariat of the interior, and also within the military system, the

17     laws pertaining to them regulated this subject matter in accordance with

18     the documents I already mentioned.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would

21     move to tender this document so it can be admitted into evidence.

22             MR. HANNIS:  Sorry, can I confirm which one we're talking about?

23     Is this the Zepinic document?

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

25             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, I do have a --

Page 20137

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honour, I'm sorry.  It's already 1D159.  I'm

 2     sorry.

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, before we move on to the actual

 4     situation, the organisation, and activities of MUP in 1992, I would ask

 5     you a few general questions relating to item 3 from paragraph 233 of your

 6     report and further.  I believe that this is all connected.  And in

 7     connection with this, I would show you a couple of documents.  It is

 8     tab 6, 65 ter 444D1.  I will ask you for your comment.

 9        A.   What is the tab number?

10        Q.   Number 6.

11        A.   This is a document, or, rather, a decision which was made on the

12     basis of item 2 of decision to form the Army of Republika Srpska, so this

13     is the decision on the forming, organisation, establishment, and command

14     and control of the Army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

15     which was signed by the then-president of the presidency of the Socialist

16     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Radovan Karadzic.  So the decision is

17     based on the decision to establish the Army of Republika Srpska and it

18     deals with the organisation, forming of the Army of Republika Srpska,

19     command and control, establishing the Main Staff, and generally speaking,

20     which corps should make up the army, and where their seats would be and

21     what would be the zones of responsibility of individual corps.

22        Q.   On page 3 there is the signature of ... ?

23        A.   President of the Presidency, Radovan Karadzic.  I already

24     emphasised that.

25        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, do you remember what was the assembly session at

Page 20138

 1     which the decision to establish the Army of Republika Srpska was made?

 2        A.   I know that it was made but I do not know the exact date.  I know

 3     that the decision was made, that the documents referred to it, but I

 4     really could not guess the exact date.

 5        Q.   All right.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would

 7     propose that we admit this document.

 8             MR. HANNIS:  No objection.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D534, Your Honours.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:

12        Q.   [Interpretation] Can you please comment on the next document.

13     This is document number 7, 65 ter 500D1.

14        A.   This document deals with --

15        Q.   Just a second so that we can wait until we get the English text

16     on the monitor so everyone could follow.

17             Please go ahead.

18        A.   This document or, rather, the order to form and establish the

19     army of the Serbian Republic of BH is the result of the previous document

20     that is to say, the decision made by the president of the Presidency.

21             This order was issued and signed by the commander,

22     Lieutenant-Colonel General Ratko Mladic, and on the basis of the previous

23     document it talks about the seat of the Main Staff of the Army of

24     Republika Srpska and specifies in detail which units would belong to

25     which corps of the Army of Republika Srpska.  On principle, this document

Page 20139

 1     is a consequence of the decision to form and establish the Army of

 2     Republika Srpska which was signed by the president of the Presidency of

 3     Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadzic, and now this is specified by the

 4     chief of General Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska.

 5        Q.   Thank you.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would

 7     move to have this document admitted as well.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D535, Your Honours.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic, we are having a bit of a difficulty

12     in accepting that these documents be admitted through this witness, who

13     is an expert on police matters.

14             Now, we realize that the documents are -- are, indeed, relevant,

15     so we'll --

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, it wasn't intended for -- for any

17     specific comment by this witness because is he not expert on military

18     issues.  But I -- it is just to illustrate actually the -- the -- the

19     time-line of the -- of the establishment of the -- of the -- of the

20     military -- of the VRS at the time.  It -- the problem is -- the problem

21     is, Your Honours, that we came in possession of these documents only

22     after the -- the Office of the Prosecutor military expert has stepped

23     down.  Otherwise, I would have, of course, shown it to him.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  My point, I think, perhaps was not clear.  My

25     point is that we should limit ourselves to introducing documents into

Page 20140

 1     evidence through particular witnesses who are capable of testifying to

 2     them, and since this witness is a professor and expert on police and MUP

 3     matters, it may not appear to be quite appropriate to have documents

 4     relating to something completely different introduced through this

 5     witness.  You may have other witnesses through whom it would be more

 6     appropriate to -- to introduce these documents.

 7             But let's not dwell too long on this.  I'm just giving you a

 8     signal that this is on the border-line.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand and I appreciate it.

10             Mr. Hannis.

11             MR. HANNIS:  I initially started to rise, Your Honour, because I

12     was going to complain that this is something that should have been shown

13     to Ewan Brown when he testified here.  But I understand that Mr. Zecevic

14     says that he didn't get the document until after Mr. Brown testified.

15     However, I think your point is a good one.  And I see that Mr. Zupljanin

16     has a military expert on his list as a witness to be called later in this

17     case, and perhaps would be a more appropriate witness to deal with this

18     document, in which case, I would suggest that we have this one MFI'd at

19     this stage.

20             JUDGE HALL:  For tidiness, I suppose, Mr. Zecevic.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, yes.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Therefore, Your Honours, Exhibits 1D534 and 1D535

25     will remained marked for identification.

Page 20141

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Now, Mr. Bajagic, as we have dealt with the de jure aspect of

 3     your research, we have arrived to the de facto part.  That's primarily

 4     paragraph 219 and onwards.

 5             Would you be so kind to provide us with a general comment on

 6     paragraph 219 and generally what you discuss in this part of your report.

 7        A.   In the analysis of the factual situation concerning the

 8     organisation and functioning of the MUP in the course of the year 1992, I

 9     started by noting in paragraph 219 that, considering the de jure

10     situation, that is to say the obligation of the Ministry of the Interior

11     to act in accordance with the specific law and other documents which we

12     mentioned, that the status of the ministry, its organisation, and its

13     functioning, according strictly to organisations, was considerably

14     limited by the actual situation on the ground.  In particular, it was a

15     problem to establish, strictly legally speaking, the organisational

16     structure, the management and control, and everything else that the

17     ministry is supposed to do, because some significant documents such as

18     the constitution and constitutional law, the constitution of the Serbian

19     Republic of BH is what I mean, the constitutional law on the

20     implementation of the constitution, limited some sections of the Law on

21     the Internal Affairs, and, therefore, prevented the Ministry of the

22     Interior to act fully in accordance with the law.  That is on the one

23     hand.

24             On the other, as we know, there was a number of Serbian

25     autonomous regions, as well as the Autonomous Region of Krajina.  These

Page 20142

 1     were the regional organisational units in the area of the

 2     Serbian Republic of BH, and as late as September 1992, they began to be

 3     gradually incorporated in accordance with the amendments which were used

 4     to change certain constitutional provisions, and they were gradually

 5     being incorporated within the legal system of the Serbian Republic of BH,

 6     which late on became Republika Srpska.  So there were the two facts which

 7     were limiting this:  The constitution and constitutional law; the fact

 8     that there was the Autonomous Region of Krajina and Serbian autonomous

 9     regions on the ground which only in 1992, after the adoption of

10     constitutional amendments, began to be gradually incorporated into a

11     single and unified system of power.

12        Q.   In relation to what you've just said to us, could you give us a

13     brief comment on paragraph 222.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic, before we come to that question for

15     the witness, first, could you clarify, explain, what you mean by:  The

16     ministry was prevented to act fully in accordance with the law and that,

17     on the basis of constitution.

18             How am I to understand this?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The constitution of the Serb

20     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, from 1992, and the constitutional law,

21     recognised the existence of autonomous regions as regional, territorial

22     entities, and Serb autonomous regions.  They recognised them in the sense

23     of recognising that in that territory they have certain legal regulations

24     regulating the life and work of those regions.

25             The Ministry of the Interior -- or, rather, the Law on the

Page 20143

 1     Ministry of the Interior does not in its text recognise any other subject

 2     matter except for that which is related to the functioning of the

 3     Ministry of the Interior.  So, when we look at the factual situation, the

 4     ministry worked in increasingly difficult conditions because it could not

 5     function within a single territory.  It was not a unified, single

 6     territory, and that became possible only through the constitutional

 7     amendments.  When the Serb autonomous regions were no longer recognised

 8     but only this single line of functioning from the central government

 9     towards the local lower level -- levels of government.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So if I understand you well, the ministry could

11     not function in the autonomous regions on the same level as in the other

12     parts of the republic.  Is that basically what you're trying to explain?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you can put it that way.  That

14     it could not fully carry through what running all the organisations of

15     the MUP in the territory meant.  Some organisational units, especially

16     CSBs, were within the system of this -- of this system of autonomous

17     regions or Serb autonomous regions.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:

20        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Bajagic, are you trying to suggest, or is it

21     your conclusion, that in terms of this aspect, there is some division

22     into two periods during 1992?

23        A.   Well, many paragraphs of this expert report reflect that.  I

24     think we can speak about two periods.  One up until September,

25     functioning under increasingly difficult conditions, in terms of running

Page 20144

 1     all the organisational units involved; and then, after September 1992.

 2     Although we can say that establishing this unified territory and this

 3     unified way of running the organisational units, that did not happen all

 4     of a sudden.  It happened over the course of a few months, so we can say

 5     that only towards the end of 1992 this has been set in place -- or,

 6     rather, the Ministry of the Interior was established in accordance with

 7     the Law on the Ministry.

 8        Q.   Thank you.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 65:25, the minister said in

10     accordance with -- oh, sorry, not the minister.  The witness.  In

11     accordance with the Law on Internal Affairs the way it was envisaged by

12     the Law on Internal Affairs.  That's what the witness said.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  In accordance with what was

14     envisaged by the Law on Internal Affairs.

15             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, to complete the picture, I'll take you back to

17     paragraphs 145, 146, and 147 of your expert report.  At one point in time

18     today, you started speaking about that, and I interrupted you - I

19     apologise for that - but I said that we will be getting to that, and now

20     is the time for that.

21             Can you please explain?  It has to do with Article 27 of the law.

22     We're going back to the law.  That is tab 32.  P530, Article 27.  Could

23     you explain what this pertains to.

24        A.   In this set of paragraphs, when analysing Article 27 of the Law

25     on Internal Affairs, it is stated that organisational units of the

Page 20145

 1     Ministry of the Interior, in addition to the tasks specified in the

 2     regulations, are -- they are duty-bound to carry out regulations passed

 3     by the municipal assemblies relating to public law and order and road

 4     traffic safety, as well as other regulations passed by the municipal

 5     assemblies.

 6             I particularly pointed out the fact that the rules on the

 7     internal organisation of the ministry of the Serb Republic of

 8     Bosnia-Herzegovina was involved in a procedure only from the Autumn

 9     onwards, so it was the rules that were from 1990.  The rules on internal

10     organisation of the Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist Republic of

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1990.

12             So organisational units, like the CSBs -- the SJBs, rather, had

13     certain obligations vis-a-vis the local governments in peacetime and in a

14     state of imminent threat of war.  And these obligations of theirs were

15     based on the already mentioned Law on National Defence of the SFRY.

16        Q.   Mr. Bajagic, when you say here -- or, rather, when Article 27 of

17     the law says that public security stations have the obligation of

18     implementing regulations passed by the municipal assembly relating to law

19     and order and road safety, as well as other regulations in the domain of

20     internal affairs, can you give us an example of what kind of regulations

21     this pertains to?

22        A.   Well, for example, these can be some situations that are specific

23     in terms of a particular municipality.  For example, in the territory of

24     a particular municipality, there can be something that is special in

25     relation to others.  For example, a sports hall where events of national

Page 20146

 1     and international significance may be taking place, and then such

 2     institutions can follow the situation together with the Secretariat of

 3     Interior, with the SJB.  They can provide safety and security so that

 4     this kind of major events could be held in the first place.  These are

 5     situations that are of relevance to all citizens in the territory of a

 6     municipality, or, rather, within a local self-government.

 7             At any rate, everything that has to do with public law and order

 8     and, generally speaking, as far as public law and order is concerned, in

 9     a society by definition it is not only the police or the Ministry of the

10     Interior that is the only institution involved.  It is the society at

11     large that has to be involved as well, and that is why there has to be

12     this kind of cooperation between organs of local government and public

13     security stations.

14        Q.   Precisely.  That is what I wanted to ask you about.  I would like

15     you to comment on paragraph 147 of your expert report and Article 32 of

16     the law.  And that paragraph of yours pertains to that particular

17     Article.  I would just like you to provide us with a brief comment, and I

18     believe that that would be it for the day, because I think that we have

19     to adjourn early.

20        A.   Well, my comment with regard to paragraph 147 is just a

21     continuation of the previous comment, in view of the provisions of the

22     law referred to.

23             Assemblies and the executive organs of local government may send

24     certain proposals to the ministry headquarters, as well as opinions and

25     initiatives that are related to matters that are of relevance to the

Page 20147

 1     overall safety and security of the municipality, and in that connection,

 2     the work of centres of public security and public security stations.  As

 3     the law says, the ministry is duty-bound to look at initiatives,

 4     opinions, and proposals, and inform the organs of local government in a

 5     municipality of their own views regarding these initiatives or certain

 6     measures that may have been taken in relation to such initiatives.

 7             So according to this law, the MUP was duty-bound to consider

 8     these initiatives and to respond within a certain period of time.

 9        Q.   From the point of view of this comment of yours, I'm just giving

10     an example by way of illustration.  For instance, if the municipality of

11     Visegrad were to launch an initiative to close down a road across the old

12     bridge on the Drina, and that is something that is related to traffic

13     safety, would that be an illustration of the kind of situation that you

14     have been telling us about now?

15        A.   But of course.  That could be an illustration of that kind.

16     Perhaps, since this is a historical monument in this specific case, that

17     would be it precisely, to restrict traffic along certain roads, in order

18     to improve traffic safety or public law and order.  Or there can be a

19     different situation.  For example, a marathon or another race, and, of

20     course, a town could ask for the police to take active part in this, not

21     only from the point of view of their regular work.  Rather, they should

22     make an extra effort in order to ensure the success of such an event.

23        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Bajagic.

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Previous translation continues] ... Your Honours,

25     I see Ms. Korner has arrived and this is about the proper place for me to

Page 20148

 1     stop for the day and continue tomorrow.  Thank you.

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Bajagic.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Bajagic, we are about to take the adjournment

 4     for the day, but we have certain procedural matters with which to deal

 5     before the Court rises.  So the usher will escort you from the courtroom

 6     at this point.

 7             Tomorrow, we are scheduled to resume in the afternoon and in a

 8     different courtroom.  But you will be conducted to the appropriate place

 9     at the appropriate time.  Thank you.

10                           [The witness stands down]

11             JUDGE HALL:  Before we hear from Ms. Korner, who we understand

12     has requested the time to deal with certain matters there are two matters

13     which the Chamber -- to which the Chamber wishes to speak.

14             Firstly, upon the Registry's request, the Chamber clarifies that

15     its order of the 20th of April, 2011, whereby it rescinded the protective

16     measures of ST-219 also applies to the audio and video record of his

17     testimony in this case on the 22nd of November, 2009.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, Brother.

19             The second issue we have is just to put a question to

20     Mr. Krgovic, because we noted that you filed a motion, I think it was on

21     the 15th of April, for protective measures for your witnesses.  And it

22     states, at least in the English translation, that you wish to have this

23     motion cover all the viva voce witnesses that you intend to call; yet,

24     towards the end of that same motion, you only address protective measures

25     for three witnesses.  I understand, and I recall, that you have asked

Page 20149

 1     for, all together, 13 viva voce witnesses.

 2             So my question to you, Mr. Krgovic, are you seeking protective

 3     measures for all 13 witnesses that you call viva voce or only those three

 4     that you have mentioned in your motion?

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this must be due to an

 6     error when the submission was filed.  I thought that I clearly stated in

 7     my motion that we sought protective measures only in respect of the three

 8     witnesses that were specifically named in that motion.  The other

 9     witnesses will be testifying viva voce in open session without any

10     protective measures.

11             That's the situation for the time being.  We haven't received any

12     information from our investigators on the field of any other witnesses

13     appearing viva voce and seeking protective measures.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you for this clarification, Mr. Krgovic.

15     You may wish to consult paragraph 2 of your motion to see if there's a

16     mistake in the translation.

17             That's all.

18             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I'm really sorry to trouble

19     Your Honours with what really is an administrative matter, the first

20     thing I wish to raise.

21             Your Honours will recall that on the Thursday before Easter,

22     Maundy Thursday, I spent a little time asking Mr. Bjelosevic about

23     documents and asking him if he was agreeable to produce various documents

24     for us, which he was, and the question then arose as to the best way of

25     doing it.  And it was decided that VWS should be the people to deal with

Page 20150

 1     it.  And at page 19977, I asked him this at line 22:

 2             "Are you prepared to have someone from the Sarajevo field office

 3     to collect these documents in advance," and I under line this, "because

 4     otherwise it will mean a delay when you get here while we all look at the

 5     documents."

 6             And as I say it was then changed to VWS.  Regrettably my

 7     understanding is that as follows that between Maundy Thursday when he

 8     left, and yesterday, there was no contact between him and VWS at all.

 9     VWS turned up yesterday and delivered to him, and I don't know why, the

10     bundle of documents that he had had here which we all understood he was

11     going to take back with him simply to identify which documents he had

12     provided and which the CSB Doboj.  He never had that bundle throughout

13     the whole ten-day period and VWS turned up yesterday and just gave it to

14     him.  They did not ask him if he discovered any other documents, as I

15     understand it.  The arrangement now is that he will give them any

16     documents he can find on the 9th which is next Monday, which is much too

17     late, because if he doesn't give them to VWS in Sarajevo until the 9th,

18     we are unlikely to get them here before I would imagine however they're

19     going to bring them up on the Thursday and he is due to come back on the

20     Monday.  And if any of the documents are to be translated or looked at by

21     us, that really does not give very much time.

22             Accordingly, I have asked if VWS could contact him -- I asked if

23     they could contact him yesterday.  I understand their position is they

24     will not do so unless this is a direction from the Trial Chamber.  I

25     would be very grateful, therefore, if Your Honours would district VWS to

Page 20151

 1     contact him and ask him if he can produce those documents by the latest

 2     Thursday of this week, as it is now Tuesday, to them, so that, with luck,

 3     we could have them by the 9th.  And I understand -- I spoke to

 4     Mr. Zecevic about this, to whom it most affects and he's in agreement

 5     with the course that we suggest.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  If I may have a moment.

 7             MS. KORNER:  Certainly.

 8                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, have you something to add, Mr. Cvijetic?

10             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, 15 seconds.  I have

11     an administrative obligation towards the Registry to report my presence

12     here today.  That's all.

13                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

14             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  So with the assistance of the

15     Court Officer we give the necessary direction.  I'm saying that for the

16     record but to the extent that the Registry may need further

17     clarification, we will take the liberty of doing that out of court, for

18     the benefit of the Registry.

19             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I'm perfectly content with that.  I

20     understand that they just needed an order from Your Honours, a direction.

21             The second matter is even more administrative.  It relates to a

22     document that was marked 2D89, MFI.  Your Honours may recall, it's a

23     payroll list from Doboj.  It was put in by Mr. Krgovic during originally

24     on the 31st of May?  I think, 31st of May.  And indeed at that stage the

25     OTP was saying that there ought to be a translation of the writing

Page 20152

 1     that -- the handwriting that appeared on the document before it was

 2     admitted.  So it was MFI'd.

 3             Mr. Krgovic put it again in cross-examination to Mr. Bjelosevic,

 4     and at that stage the same problem over the untranslated words at the top

 5     came up.  We sent it off for a revised translation which we got, and we

 6     asked the Defence, please, we sent it to the Defence, to upload it into

 7     e-court and they declined to do that.  I have no doubt that Mr. Krgovic

 8     will explain why.  But, Your Honour, all that we're asking at the moment,

 9     leaving aside whether it becomes a full exhibit or not, is if the Defence

10     decline to upload the revised translation into e-court, we ask that the

11     document be released and we will upload the revised translation.  It was

12     originally a document provided by us.  We can then argue about whether it

13     becomes an exhibit later.  But, at the movement, I say, because the

14     Defence won't upload it, we would like to do that.  So could we have the

15     order.

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can I provide an

17     explanation for this.

18             The document was disclosed to us for the first time during the

19     testimony of a witness from Doboj, a chief of -- or, rather, the chief of

20     the public security station in Doboj.  The Prosecution didn't use it at

21     the time but I did use with Witness Radulovic.  I asked that the document

22     be admitted into evidence.  However, if you look at transcript pages 1107

23     to 1111, the Prosecution opposed the admission on the grounds of the fact

24     that it was a poor copy.  And then, later on, when we were settling the

25     matter of all the documents that were tendered, we placed them all on the

Page 20153

 1     list, but the Prosecution yet again opposed their admission at the end of

 2     their case.

 3             In the meantime, we produced our own draft translation, because

 4     we believed that the document was translatable.  We sent the draft

 5     translation to the translation service, which rejected our request,

 6     stating that they were unable to translate the document.

 7             Now, once all these witnesses testified, and once the Prosecution

 8     case is over, the translation service is providing us with a better

 9     translation than was the one that we produced.  The translation we

10     provided was a fair one, and yet the translation service rejected the

11     request for a final translation.

12             So this is a -- an important issue to us and I want the CLSS to

13     state the reasons why they rejected our request for the translation of

14     this document, whilst they actually accepted the request from the

15     Prosecution and translated the document.  I am interested in the

16     specifically names, date and the stamp on this document, and this is what

17     we don't have on the translation version we have now, and on that ground,

18     we oppose its admission.  And let me state that the CLSS version and the

19     Prosecution differ in only slight details.

20             MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... Well, I

21     understand that Mr. Krgovic is aggrieved by the fact that CLSS acted on

22     our request but wouldn't have his.  But that's not the point.  The point

23     at the moment now is that there is a revised translation.  It does show

24     the handwritten name and therefore there's no reason at all why it should

25     not be uploaded into e-court.  As I said, the argument about whether the

Page 20154

 1     document becomes a full exhibit is a separate matter.  All we want at the

 2     moment is for the revised translation to be uploaded into e-court.

 3     Otherwise we can't show it to Your Honours when we have the discussion

 4     and the Defence won't do it.  It's as simple as that.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  If I may just shortly observe.  It is my

 6     understanding that the translation which was provided by the CLSS on

 7     request of the Office of the Prosecutor, again, is not the full

 8     translation.  That is the problem.  And Mr. Krgovic is having a problem

 9     because this, again, is a partial translation.  So I suggest that the

10     Trial Chamber instructs the CLSS to do their utmost to translate the

11     whole document and give us the whole document and then we will admit it.

12             I think the both parties basically agree [Overlapping

13     speakers] ...

14             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ... that's

15     precisely the point.  The CLSS should take into consideration the draft

16     translation we sent to them originally.  I agree fully with what

17     Mr. Zecevic said.  We need a complete translation.  We tried to assist

18     the CLSS back in June by enlarging the copy, by providing them with our

19     own translation, and yet they rejected our request.  What we need is a

20     full translation.

21             MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... All right, Your

22     Honours.  I don't want to waste any more of Your Honours' time on this.

23     Perhaps Your Honours would direct, please, CLSS, using whatever

24     assistance they can get from the Defence, to produce the fullest possible

25     translation.

Page 20155

 1             JUDGE HALL:  So directed.  Whatever assistance we can afford.

 2     And with that, we can take the adjournment -- there was something else?

 3     No.

 4             So with that, we take the adjournment to tomorrow at 2.15.

 5     Courtroom III, I believe.

 6                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,

 7                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 4th day of May,

 8                           2011, at 2.15 p.m.