1 Thursday, 5 May 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
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. Good morning to
10 everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
11 MR. HANNIS: Good morning, Your Honours. For the Prosecution,
12 I'm Tom Hannis along with Belinda Pidwell and Crispian Smith.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
14 Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for Stanisic Defence
15 this morning. Thank you.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and
17 Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. It's been so long since we've been in
19 this courtroom that I have to get used to how close we all are again.
20 Yes, if there are no preliminary matters, would the usher please escort
21 the witness back to the stand.
22 Mr. Zecevic, while the witness is on his way in, do you
23 anticipate using all of your remaining anticipated 6 hours?
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 MR. ZECEVIC: No, Your Honours. I believe I informed the Trial
1 Chamber that I will be shorter at the very beginning of my direct
2 examination. I believe I do have another hour or so this morning.
3 JUDGE HALL: I did have the impression yesterday that you were
4 winding up.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, that's correct, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Bajagic, good morning to you. Before
7 Mr. Zecevic resumes, I remind you you are still on your oath.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning. I know.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: May I, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
12 WITNESS: MLADEN BAJAGIC [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Examination by Mr. Zecevic. [Continued]
15 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Bajagic.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. Mr. Bajagic, paragraphs 152 and 153 of your expert report and in
18 connection with that footnote 186. One of the documents you set in that
19 footnote is the document that is under tab 105, namely 65 ter 49D1,
20 footnote 186.4.
21 A. Could I please get the binders with the tabs, I apologise.
22 Q. Oh, I am sorry, I thought that you had them already.
23 So we are talking about tab 105. 65 ter of the Defence, 49D1.
24 Sir, you cited the document that you see in front of you in footnote 186
25 in connection with paragraph 153. Please comment.
1 A. In accordance with the bylaw on the carrying out of activities in
2 the public security service, it also foresees the monitoring of all --
3 monitoring, directing, and harmonising of all activities in the service.
4 As I have pointed out in paragraph 152, this encompassed advisory
5 supervision and the directing of organisational units -- the
6 organisational units of the ministry outside headquarters. For example,
7 when it comes to providing professional assistance and guidance with
8 regard to all issues connected with the organisation of the work of the
10 Q. Just one question, please. Is this a legal obligation of the
11 ministry headquarters with regard to its territorial units?
12 A. Yes, it is a legal obligation which is always further elaborated
13 by the bylaw or rule book. In paragraph 153 I mentioned an example for
14 this aspect of the powers of the ministry headquarters and that is the
15 report on the -- on the inspection of the units in Dvornik [phoen] and
16 some other places which is an example that the ministry headquarters went
17 about such tasks in accordance with the rule book.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Unless there are objections, I
20 would like to tender this document.
21 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I do have concern. This document
22 doesn't have a signature, doesn't have a stamp, it doesn't have a date.
23 From the content and from other evidence in the case, I have reason to
24 believe that it probably does relate to some work that was done in 1992,
25 but absent this witness saying he knows the author of the document or
1 something else to indicate that he has reason to believe that this was
2 done in 1992, I don't think this is a witness through whom to introduce
3 this one.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, with all due respect, in a number of
5 documents we have seen that Mr. Tosic, Cedo was inspector in the
6 department, the police department in -- in 1992, but I can give you the
7 references; however, the document itself refers to the dissolution of the
8 paramilitary and the Special Police Units. The document, the order on
9 dissolution of these Special Police Units is exhibit in this case, just
10 bear with me, Your Honours. If my memory serves me well, it's dated
11 27 July, something around there. Yes, this is Exhibit 1D176 tab 85, so I
12 think that it's sufficient to indicate that the document is from 1992 and
13 not to mention that we have admitted a number of documents without the
14 stamp and the signature, I believe your own directions -- I am sorry?
15 Guide-lines, I am sorry, yes. Your own guide-lines refer to that matter
16 as well. So therefore I don't think this is -- this objection is founded
17 at all.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, is there any chance you can find an
19 original? I mean, we could MFI it until --
20 MR. ZECEVIC: This is the document we received from the Office of
21 the Prosecutor. This is their disclosure. It is not our document. I'm
22 sorry, of course, I would be more than happy to find the original, but I
23 must say one thing, Your Honour, it has been suggested over here over
24 months and months the Office of the Prosecutor has been asking us for the
25 provenance of the documents, can we have the original, where did we get
1 it, the chain of custody and everything, only to turn at the very end
2 that they have the document in their vaults, that it has been misplaced,
3 it could not be found, the search engine didn't work or something like
4 that. And I'm really -- I'm really feeling a bit frustrated, I must say,
5 because it is imputed that the Defence is trying to, I don't know, sneak
6 some forged documents or something which is entirely not the case.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, there is no such perception in the
8 Chamber. That is completely certain. We do not share any of the
9 concerns that you have just expressed. When I was asking for an
10 original, it was merely for the record. It's always better to have an
11 original if we can find it than to have what appears to be a copy, but --
12 MR. ZECEVIC: I fully agree with Your Honours, but unfortunately
13 this is what we have and what we have to live with.
14 JUDGE HALL: So in this case, the document which as you say
15 originated from the Prosecution, this is the best that we have.
16 Mr. Hannis, you have something to add.
17 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, and I'm not trying to suggest that
18 this is a forged document, I'm just saying that you as the finders of
19 fact have this document, but we don't know when it was written, we don't
20 know if it's a draft or if it was officially submitted or not because
21 it's not signed, and that the information I have about where the
22 Prosecution got this document in our MIF information sheet says this was
23 among four binders provided by Father Marko Kljajic from Novi Sad who
24 also wrote a book titled "How Many People Were Dying." To write this
25 book Father Kljajic gathered documents and articles and put them together
1 in four binders, a copy of which was handed over to investigator
2 Stokey [phoen] on 26 June 2004. So that's where we got it and we
3 disclosed it because it appears to be relevant. And we do know that Cedo
4 Tosic was an investigator or inspector for the MUP and did carry out
5 investigations. I think that's likely, but I think it's my job to try
6 and hold us all to the standards for admissibility.
7 Now, if it's being offered to prove that inspections were carried
8 out by MUP inspectors in 1992, we don't contest that and we have lots of
9 other evidence about that. We presented an inspector who testified in
10 our case about the inspections he carried out, so if that's purpose for
11 offering this particular one, I don't have a problem but I don't think
12 it's necessary. We have other evidence of that. That's all.
13 JUDGE HALL: So the document is admitted and marked.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D539, Your Honours.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Q. Mr. Bajagic, in paragraph 155 that deals with the same matters
17 there is also footnote 191 that which cites document 111. That's your
18 footnote 191.3 and the relevant document is P1341. It seems to be marked
19 for identification. I'm not sure whether it still is. That's tab 111.
20 Since this is a document that's cited in one of your footnotes, please
21 make a brief comment if you can.
22 A. This document too was made as a result of an audit by inspectors
23 who were ordered to conduct that audit and to give guidance and correct
24 monitoring. This is an annex to the report made pursuant to an order in
25 1992. The inspectors who carried out the audit in several SJBs made some
1 proposals for the improving of the efficiency of the work of those SJBs.
2 This document is cited in that footnote along with others from
3 footnotes 186 through 191 and even 192, all these are the outcome of an
4 organised activity launched by the ministry headquarters toward all
5 organisational units of the MUP to enhance the work of all these units
6 from the CSBs down to the SJBs in that period.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, at this moment I
9 really cannot remember why this document was marked for identification.
10 MR. HANNIS: Sorry, I don't seem to have control over my
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Pick another one.
13 MR. HANNIS: It's the only one I have. Your Honours, as far as I
14 can tell from reviewing the record, this was first introduced when
15 Mr. Demirdjian was questioning a witness and he thought we were going to
16 call an additional witness who had better relation with the document. It
17 was MFI'd at the time. I don't have any objection to the MFI being
18 removed, if that's what Mr. Zecevic would like to do. I'm agreeable.
19 JUDGE HALL: So voided.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, just for reference, this is
21 Exhibit P1341.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, document 119 and your footnote 192 also
24 have to do with paragraph 155. There's a note here that this is
25 Exhibit P407. That's under tab 113.
1 A. As I've already pointed out and in footnote 192 I cite a
2 document, actually a dispatch which also shows the overall activities
3 about directing the monitoring of work, auditing, and other activities
4 that are meant to enhance the work of the MUP. This is a dispatch that
5 was sent from the ministry headquarters to the CSB Doboj. It says that
6 three MUP members who carried out the audits in the territory of that
7 centre will take over the further co-ordination of the work of one SJB
8 and that is Bosanski Samac which is under that CSB, that they will take
9 over the co-ordination of work, probably in order to rectify the
10 shortcomings noted in the future period.
11 This document is another example that the ministry headquarters
12 really made efforts to make the organisation and functioning of all
13 organisational units in accordance with laws and regulations.
14 Q. Thank you. Mr. Bajagic, could we now please briefly discuss
15 something as we are approaching the end of our direct examination. I'm
16 referring to Annex 12 of your research document. Yesterday we discussed
17 these questions partly about the relationship between the army and the
18 police in accordance with -- in accordance with the Law on All People's
19 Defence. I would now like to ask you to give us your comment on
20 paragraph 8, Annex number 12, that is on the second page if you can,
22 A. In paragraph 8 of Annex 12 which has to do with subordination of
23 police to the army, and in relation to what we dealt with yesterday in
24 great detail indeed, so it is Article 105 of the Law on All People's
25 Defence of the SFRY and also it has to do with the strategy of the DSZ.
1 I think it is page 58. I made certain comments and drew certain
2 conclusions in this paragraph, namely that police units which are
3 subordinated to the army act as military units. They carry out tasks
4 from military jurisdiction, and they are in the military chain of command
5 and responsibility, not that of the MUP or police. That is what we
6 pointed out yesterday, bearing in mind an entire set of laws and other
7 legislation that applied to the members of the police of the Serb
8 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina during the course of 1992.
9 Q. Thank you. What I would particularly be interested in is
10 footnote 494 in relation to paragraph 6 and the second part of
11 paragraph 8. Could you please give us your comment on the status?
12 A. In paragraph 8 of this annex I say further on that members of the
13 police lose their status as authorised officials. They are no longer in
14 the MUP, they are no longer in civilian status because members of the MUP
15 or the Ministry of the Interior have the status of civilians. Rather,
16 they become combatants and therefore they can become a legitimate target
17 of the other side in the conflict, and therefore they are subjected to
18 military rules, not police rules. So an entire set of laws apply to
19 them, those that deal with military issues. I base these statements of
20 mine on what I refer to in paragraph 6, it is a convention, or rather, it
21 is a protocol, it is the protocol to the Geneva Convention of August 1949
22 and in part of it, and I quoted that sentence in English even in the
23 Serbian version of my report, and that confirms what I say in paragraph 8
24 and some of the other things I stated in this particular annex.
25 Q. Thank you. Another matter, the second part of this annex called
1 "co-ordination and co-ordinated action," this is what I would be
2 interested in, I would actually like to hear your comment that sums up
3 all of these ten paragraphs that you state here, so I am actually turning
4 your attention to paragraph 19, the very last paragraph. Could you
5 please give us a brief comment on paragraph 16 and 19 then?
6 A. When analysing the legal framework, that is to say, all the legal
7 regulations treating the organisation of work and functioning of the
8 Ministry of the Interior, we saw that this is an administration organ.
9 For that reason, and bearing in mind all the characteristics of the
10 Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska as such an organ, I state
11 that in the Ministry of the Interior there is direction as opposed to
12 what is done in the military. In that connection at the very outset of
13 this analysis of these terms, or rather, these concepts of co-ordination
14 and co-ordinated action, in modern theories of management including
15 security management and police management, generally speaking regardless
16 of the particular activity involved, as this certainly does apply to the
17 MUP as well, there are five functions of management or direction, if that
18 would be the right term. There are five of them.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The witness is moving too
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Bajagic, I could not follow what you were saying let alone
23 the interpreters. Just take it easy, please.
24 A. I do apologise.
25 Q. Could you please repeat those five, five ways of directing or
2 A. I said that there were these five functions that management or
3 directing may have and that is planning, organisation, command,
4 co-ordination, and control. Bearing in mind that as regards pending
5 issues, the most important function among these five is co-ordination in
6 terms of seeing what the relationship between the police and the military
7 is because in 1992 in the territory of the Serb Republic of BH, I tried
8 to state in general terms what co-ordination was. It meant co-ordinating
9 activities of a given organisation in terms of time, place, the objective
10 involved between two or more participants in a particular process.
11 So if there is that kind of co-ordination, there are two or more
12 participants. In this case of ours there are two. Further on, I said
13 what types of co-ordination may be recognised and I said --
14 Q. Just a moment, please. All of that is contained in your report.
15 However, I asked you a specific question. I asked you about 16 and 19.
16 I asked you about co-ordinated action.
17 A. What is most important is -- what is most important is in
18 relations -- in terms of the relations between the military and the
19 police is co-ordinated action; that is, internal co-ordination by way of
20 subordination, as I say in paragraph 16 of this report. Ordering
21 co-ordinated action as article -- or rather paragraph 19 says, is this
22 kind of co-ordination by way of subordination. So in all situations it
23 goes without saying that co-ordination by way of subordination implies
24 co-ordinated action by way of direct orders and we see that from the
25 legal framework involved, that implies subordination of members of the
1 MUP to the military commander in the area where these units are being
3 Q. Sir, whoever it is that orders co-ordinated action, does he
4 establish this co-ordinated action at the same time for all these groups
5 that are involved in this co-ordinated action?
6 A. Yes, certainly.
7 Q. Whoever it is that orders co-ordination must he in such a case or
8 must that be the superior command for both groups whose co-ordinated
9 action is being ordered?
10 A. The station that is issuing orders on co-ordinated action
11 necessarily is the superior of those who are going to take part in that
12 co-ordinated action, that is to say all of them, regardless of how many
13 sides are involved. Whoever it is that issues the order is the superior
14 of all of those who are taking part in this co-ordinated action.
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Bajagic.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have completed my
17 direct examination. I just have a request. Yesterday I was reminded by
18 the Registrar, the court deputy, that I did not tender certain documents
19 that I had called up. That was done intentionally in some cases because
20 I thought that the witness, or rather, that is there is not a sufficient
21 nexus between the witness and these documents.
22 However, there is one document pending, I hope that you will
23 remember the document. We discussed it yesterday. Mr. Hannis was
24 opposed to that document although I did not even tender it ultimately.
25 He was opposed to my putting a question in that regard. Tab 12, the
1 document is 474D1. I would like to remind the Trial Chamber that the
2 Trial Chamber did allow me to put a question, so what I would like to
3 propose at this point in time is the following: I think that this is an
4 important document. Could we mark it for identification? Could it be
5 assigned a number so that in due course when we obtain the original of
6 this document and when the Prosecutor receives it, then we can discuss it
8 JUDGE HALL: In anticipation of your application, Mr. Zecevic,
9 the two judges who were sitting yesterday did think through that process
10 and that was the decision at which we arrived, so we'll have to marked
11 for identification.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you so much, Your Honours.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D540 marked for identification, Your
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you so much, Your Honours.
16 [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Bajagic.
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Bajagic. We have already met
21 but for the record my name is Dragan Krgovic. On behalf of the Defence
22 of Stojan Zupljanin, I'm going to put questions to you related to your
23 expert report and your testimony. I said that I would be examining you
24 for two hours, I just have a few questions for you to clarify certain
25 subjects that we have already discussed or rather that you already
1 referred to during your testimony.
2 Yesterday when answering the questions of my colleague
3 Mr. Zecevic and Judge Delvoie, you talked about the financing of the MUP
4 and how that problem affected the organisation and activity of the MUP in
5 these conditions. Do you remember your testimony from yesterday?
6 A. Of course I do.
7 Q. As far as I understood your testimony, that part of it actually,
8 you believe that the fact that local and regional organs financed the
9 salaries of the MUP, gave them a certain degree of influence and they
10 thought that they had certain rights because they were paying them, they
11 in a way had the right to give orders to local public security stations;
12 is that right?
13 A. Yes, that particularly goes for the first period up until
14 September 1992 when the organs of the autonomous districts and the Serb
15 autonomous regions were still functioning.
16 Q. Mr. Bajagic, could you look at number 62. P160 is the number.
17 You cited this document, it's a brief analysis of the functioning of the
18 MUP so far and the outlines of its future activities. Please look at
19 page 4, or rather, it's page 5 in your binder, in E Court is 0324-1855,
20 that's the ERN number. Number 5 in your copy and could you please look
21 at the penultimate paragraph. It is also page 4 in the English version
22 in e-court, I think.
23 A. Yes, I found the paragraph.
24 Q. Just a moment.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have the appropriate page
1 on the screen so that the other participants in these proceedings could
3 Q. As you were able to see, this is the presentation given by
4 Stojan Zupljanin given on 11 July 1992; right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Mr. Zupljanin says when he speaks about several matters including
7 the funding of the MUP, he says the MUP and the services are funded by
8 the government of SAO Krajina. Once the funding issue is resolved, then
9 there will be less outside influence. Well, clearly whoever gives money
10 wants to exert certain influence and pressurise the MUP; right?
11 A. Yes, exactly, and on the basis of this discussion I drew my
12 conclusion with regard to the funding of the ministry. I believe I cited
13 this document in footnote 145 and it's based on this discussion and some
14 others that I drew my conclusions about the problems with the funding of
15 the MUP of the Serb republic in that period.
16 Q. Mr. Bajagic, please turn to page 7 in your version. That's the
17 discussion of Mr. Andrija Bjelosevic, the chief of CSB Doboj. It's the
18 fourth paragraph from the top. Actually, the third. I apologise. And
19 it says, these are Bjelosevic's words: "Funding is a -- funding must be
20 solved because whoever pays wants to issue orders and that means
21 restraining the work of the Internal Affairs bodies."
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, but the English text
23 should be on page 6. The page in Serbian is the correct page but we need
24 another page in English, either the following page or the previous one.
25 I apologise, it's the following page I think. It seems that this passage
1 is not translated, at least I cannot find it. For some reason the
2 English version of the document does not contain this passage. It
3 probably needs to be revised.
4 Q. But you agree with me, Mr. Bajagic, that Andrija Bjelosevic
5 stated these words, I will read it once more:
6 "Funding must be resolved because whoever pays wants to issue
7 orders and that means the restraining of the work of the bodies of
8 Internal Affairs."
9 Is this what this passage says?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And what's your comment?
12 A. I've already said that not only Mr. Zupljanin's presentation --
13 MR. HANNIS: I am sorry, since we probably don't have the
14 English, could we have an indication where on the page in B/C/S he is
15 reading from.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The third paragraph from the top.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: What is the previous one so we can --
18 MR. HANNIS: So we can locate it in the English.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The -- my copy is very poor,
20 perhaps Mr. Zecevic can assist me.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: The missing one is just after the first one. The
22 first one, "a number of stations have no personnel and assets, it is
23 difficult" and so on and so on, and that is exactly the one before the
24 one which is missing.
25 JUDGE HALL: So it's clear that it is missing.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, yes. It is entirely missing. The whole
2 bullet is missing.
3 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. I apologise for this, Mr. Bajagic. Can you comment this
7 A. I have already said that my views about the funding issue is
8 based not only on the presentation of Mr. Zupljanin who was chief of CSB
9 Banja Luka, but also on other discussions in connection with this
10 document, including the positions put forward by the chief of CSB Doboj.
11 At this collegium session which was held in July, we see that several
12 CSBs point out the problem of the unresolved funding issue which probably
13 negatively affected the work of these centres and their autonomy with
14 regard to local political structures.
15 Q. And Mr. Bjelosevic says whoever pays want to give orders and thus
16 restrains the bodies of the MUP and also disrupts the chain of work in
17 the MUP; correct?
18 A. Yes, certainly, because any interference with the standard
19 operating procedures of the MUP disrupts or negatively affects the
20 efficiency of work and certainly all other things that are required for
21 the MUP to act in accordance with the laws and regulations as it should.
22 Q. Mr. Bajagic, please take a look at page 28 of the same document.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The ERN number is 0324-1878. And
24 the Serbian version, that's the part where the conclusions are to be
1 MR. HANNIS: And an English page reference?
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm not sure about the page
3 reference in e-court. As soon as it comes up, I'll give you this
4 information. 024-1878 [as interpreted], conclusion number 16.
5 Q. You will agree with me, won't you, when I say that the ministry
6 was aware of the problem and that it strove to resolve it. One of the
7 conclusions from that meeting was that more attention should be given to
8 that problem; correct?
9 A. Conclusion 16 of the collegium of the MUP of the Serb republic
10 held in July is very clear indeed. It says that the Ministry of the
11 Interior must be financed exclusively from the budget of the Serb
12 republic as stipulated by the law. At this collegium meeting, the
13 ministry clearly shows it's commitment and its efforts to provide
14 adequate conditions for the coming period to enable the ministry to
15 really act as an autonomous body of public administration and tackle one
16 of these problems or something that enables the local authorities to
17 exert influence on the work of the organisational units of the MUP on the
19 Q. You will also agree with me, Mr. Bajagic, when I say that the
20 problem was prominent throughout this initial period and that it reached
21 into November and that there have been other discussions about this. Two
22 corroborate that, I will show you document P1270 under your tab 68. It's
23 the Stanisic Defence binder. You see these minutes of the extended
24 meeting of the board of the MUP held on 5 November in Bijeljina.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please repeat the ERN number.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe the page reference is the
2 same in English. Possibly it could be page 4. Page 4 in English, I
4 Q. All right. Please take a look at the last paragraph which says:
5 "Upon the proposal of the chief of CSB Banja Luka that a review
6 of the MUP financing be carried out and that necessary funds be secured
7 for salaries and equipment, in particular it was decided that for the
8 next meeting of the board, the collegium, a relevant analysis of finances
9 be compiled together with the Ministry of Finance."
10 It is obvious here, Mr. Bajagic, that the problem still isn't
11 adequately resolved. Even in November some SJBs are still faced with
12 this same problem; correct?
13 A. Yes, exactly. The MUP of the Serb republic really had
14 difficulties in its functioning in all respects, especially in the first
15 period up until September, but even after September when they were
16 supposed to begin functioning under new conditions, the same problems
17 persisted partly, that is why this problem of funding is stressed and it
18 is stated here that in co-operation with the Ministry of Finance a final
19 solution to the problem of the funding of the ministry should be found.
20 Q. Mr. Bajagic, in your report you also dealt with the issue of
21 communication between the ministry headquarters and the SJBs or CSBs. So
22 let's go back to document P160. That is under tab 62 in your binder.
23 These are the minutes of a collegium meeting, or rather the summary of a
24 meeting of the top executives of the MUP held on 11 July. Please turn to
25 page 5, which is page 4 in e-court.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 0324-1855 is the ERN of the Serb
3 Q. Please take a look at the bottom of this last page, the last
4 paragraph. These are also Zupljanin's words who says the functional
5 communication system is destroyed. There have been talks with
6 representatives of Rudi Cajave about acquisition of equipment. Can you
7 tell us what Mr. Zupljanin is exactly talking about when he is saying
8 that the communication system is destroyed?
9 MR. HANNIS: I am sorry, Your Honour. That calls for speculation
10 on the part of this witness. He wasn't at Banja Luka. He doesn't know
11 what was in the communication system any better than you or I do from
12 looking at the document. Unless he can provide some further foundation,
13 I object to this witness commenting on that entry in this document.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I didn't ask him what
15 he thinks, I asked him for the meaning of this statement that the
16 function communication system is destroyed. Not what Mr. Zupljanin
17 meant, but what it means for the functioning of the MUP if the
18 communication system is not functional and he as an expert should be able
19 to explain that.
20 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, he is an expert on police, he is not
21 an expert on communications. He is in no better position to express an
22 position about the meaning of that term than anyone else in this
23 courtroom, I object.
24 JUDGE HALL: Except, Mr. Hannis, as I understand the question, it
25 is as a police expert he is being asked a question about the effect in
1 terms of police operations on this breakdown in communications, which
2 strikes me as being permissible.
3 Did I get the question?
4 MR. KRGOVIC: That was my point, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Bajagic, can you please answer my question.
8 A. When it says that the functional communication system has been
9 destroyed, that means that its effect is that the possibility of
10 communicating between the headquarters of the ministry and the
11 organisational units, according to the territorial principle, has been
12 completely destroyed or that it functions under far more difficult
13 conditions. That is how I understand Mr. Zupljanin's comment on the
14 basis of this summary.
15 Q. And how does that effect the functioning of the MUP as a whole?
16 A. It effects the unified system of reporting and communication
17 within the ministry and, of course, that disrupts all the lines of work
18 and the efficiency in the discharge of all the tasks entrusted to them by
20 Q. Let us move on to another topic, Mr. Bajagic, one that you
21 discussed yesterday. If you remember, you also referred to it in your
22 expert report. It is paragraph 190 something up until 950 -- 195
23 onwards. You talk about the authority of authorised officials. So
24 please look at paragraph 195 of your expert report. You refer to the Law
25 on Internal Affairs and you speak of certain rules that were in force for
1 awhile. Mr. Zecevic showed you one of those rule books, and I'm going to
2 put a question to you in relation to that rule book. It is 65 ter 889D1
3 in Mr. Zecevic's documents. It is tab 41 in your documents. I think
4 that it was assigned a number in the law library yesterday and I will
5 tell you what that number is, L332.
6 Please look at page 44. Do you have it? Sorry, I'll give you a
7 copy. Just a moment. Could you please take a look at page 44 or 45, the
8 ERN number is 1D05771. The B/C/S version, that is. Page 19 in the
9 English version. So on the previous page, 43, is the use of physical
10 force and rubber batons, as you explained in your own expert report too.
11 So could you please look at Article 94, the last paragraph of Article 94
12 on page 44. Article 94, the last paragraph. This is what it says, and
13 I'm going to quote it:
14 "An authorised official who used a rubber truncheon or physical
15 force has to submit within 24 hours at the latest a detailed report to
16 his immediate superior about the reasons and intensity of the use of
17 these means. The superior officer shall examine and assess the legality
18 and correctness in the use of physical force and rubber truncheon and
19 will make a note about it on the submitted report."
20 Mr. Bajagic, that is precisely what you stated in your expert
21 report, although that is not referred to in the law, but it is referred
22 to in the rules. The procedure of reporting on the use of force, both in
23 terms of rubber truncheons and fire-arms; right?
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. And now I'm going to follow a certain sequence. I'm just going
1 to go through all the things that should be done, how I see this line on
2 the basis of your report. A policeman who uses force, physical force or
3 who uses a fire-arm first submits a report to the head of his patrol if
4 it happened while he was patrol; right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Then further on the commander of the department within the police
7 station is involved in this chain, the one who is his head, that
8 policeman's head, the policeman who used physical force; right?
9 A. Yes, if that is the case, if he used a weapon.
10 Q. Then it goes to the commander of the milicija station within the
11 station; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And then such a report is sent to the chief of the public
14 security station; right?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. And then the chief of the public security station compiles a
17 report along with his own assessment and then he submits it along the
18 line of work to the CSB to the milicija department within it; right?
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. And then through the chief of the public security service in the
21 CSB, it is sent to the chief of the CSB itself; right?
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. And then the chief gives his own assessment, as you say in your
24 report, on how justified it was to use physical force; right?
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. Now, speaking about the minister, the chief of the CSB submits
2 that to the head of the milicija department in the ministry headquarters;
3 right? A report is sent to him; right?
4 A. Probably that's how such information reaches headquarters. It's
5 not probably, that's the way it should be.
6 Q. And then the chief of the milicija within the MUP headquarters;
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. It finally ends up on the desk of the undersecretary for public
10 security, or the chief of public security in MUP, whatever he may be
11 called; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And it is only then that this is submitted to the minister if the
14 chief believes that it is necessary to inform the minister about that?
15 A. Yes, of course, but I just notice here that if all information
16 about anything would reach even the head of the sector of public
17 security, let alone the minister, then they would simply be snowed under
18 and they wouldn't have anything else to do in their lives except read all
19 of these reports. Some things happen and then simply all of this does
20 not go further up to higher levels. Not each and every information goes
21 from the very bottom to the very top.
22 Q. You have anticipated my question. That would be the procedure to
23 apply but in practice if this would be done in each and every case when
24 force is applied it would be way too much, wouldn't it?
25 A. That's right.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I see that this would
2 be the right time to take the break because I'm going too move on to
3 something else now, so.
4 JUDGE HALL: Very well. So we resume in 20 minutes.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 --- Recess taken at 10.24 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.
8 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I don't know if you've been alerted, we
9 requested to address one procedural matter before the witness resumed.
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, that's why I was here but I understand
11 Mr. Krgovic would prefer, if that's possible, he says he's got 5 minutes
12 to complete his cross-examination, and then I'll deal very briefly with
13 the point that I'm here for if that is' suitable to Your Honours.
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes, yes.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I am sorry, I have to stand up also. There is one
16 matter, Your Honours. Before the break we were discussing the
17 insufficient translation of P160, if you remember there was the whole --
18 yes, the missing paragraph.
19 Now, the situation is the following: This document has not been
20 translated by CLSS in its entirety, this P160. This is a draft
21 translation done by the Office of the Prosecutor, and we were instructed
22 by the CLSS because it's a 32-page document, that CLSS does not -- are
23 not doing the revised translations on the translations which are not
24 their translations. Therefore, we would need the assistance of the Trial
25 Chamber in asking the CLSS to translate this whole document, P160.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Or perhaps just to review the translation that
2 was actually made so that they don't have to do the whole thing all over
4 MR. ZECEVIC: No, no, but I'm sure they are going to use this --
5 the draft translation that exists, but they are not doing the revision of
6 the translation which is done by somebody -- by third parties, so-called.
7 So therefore, if we can kindly ask the Trial Chamber's help in this
8 matter. Thank you.
9 JUDGE HALL: So we make the necessary order.
10 Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation].
12 Q. Mr. Bajagic, just a few more questions for you. In your expert
13 report -- in your expert report in Annex 12, you talked about the
14 subordination of the police, you gave your conclusion and opinion. I'll
15 give you a few examples as to how things occurred in practice, and I'd
16 like to hear your comment.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please go back to document
18 P160. It is tab 62 in your binder.
19 Q. It is a summary of the meeting of senior MUP personnel. It is
20 page 4 in e-court. You have page 5. 0324-1855 is the ERN number. Just
21 a moment, we are waiting for the English version as well. Paragraph 4
22 from the top of the page. Again these are Mr. Zupljanin's remarks, so
23 it's after the parentheses he says that the role of the police should be
24 defined and its participation in combat activity and in that connection
25 he needs reinforcements. The army is asking for the involvement of an
1 entire unit, they re-subordinated, and then they pushed them to the most
2 difficult front lines which should be rendered impossible. Further on,
3 Mr. Bajagic, the next document, please. 1D406.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, before we leave this document, could
5 I just put a short question to the witness relating to the last sentence
6 of paragraph 4, the sentence reads:
7 "The active duty units had to be reinforced through educating
8 courses on the MUP level, or within the area of Banja Luka."
9 Mr. Bajagic, are you able to cast some light over the background
10 of this remark by Mr. Zupljanin? What lies behind here?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, it's not that they are
12 only admitted but during their career, members of the MUP, especially the
13 active-duty personnel continue to have an obligation to be trained
14 further and to become well versed in new skills so that they could carry
15 out the tasks as defined by law. Mr. Zupljanin is probably trying to say
16 here that personnel should be trained further at the level of the
17 ministry as a whole and then he also says within the Banja Luka region.
18 These courses can be general courses or specialised courses as envisaged
19 by the system of police training and education and they can also be
20 organised at the level of one security centre, not only at the level of
21 the entire ministry.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand that, but my question is really
23 whether there had been any incidents that would specifically call for the
24 need to train the active police, and this again begs the next question,
25 what about the reserve police, how were they trained? But my interest is
1 really why was there suddenly a need to have extra education or training
2 of the police force? Was there any -- had there been any incidents that
3 would call for this or was Mr. Zupljanin's remark here just an expression
4 of the ordinary general necessity of keeping your police force well
5 trained at all times?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is certainly an expression of
7 this general need, no matter what conditions the ministry members work
8 under in order to discharge their duties they must permanently train.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much.
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Bajagic, I apologise, part of what I've read out is missing
12 in the translation, so I would like to comment on this paragraph with
13 you. Please return to that section of the text. Mr. Zupljanin speaks
14 about two things here, one is the participation of the police in combat
15 activities, that is, re-subordination, and then he also speaks about
16 manning. These are the two subjects he speaks about in this item, aren't
18 A. Yes, they are.
19 Q. And in the first part of this sentence he speaks about
20 re-subordination and how the army behaves on the ground. They take the
21 entire police unit, resubordinate it, and it pushes them to the most
22 difficult sections of the front line, as well as that this should be
23 curtailed, isn't it?
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. And then he speaks about the manning of the police force and the
1 need that regular manning should take place through courses at MUP level
2 and training the reserve force; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And in connection with these remarks made by Mr. Zupljanin,
5 please take a look at 1D406, tab 23 in your binder. This is an order by
6 General Talic from July 1992. It precedes these remarks by Mr. Zupljanin
7 we saw -- we have just seen. We commented on the -- on a paragraph on
8 the following page with Mr. Zecevic. It's the third paragraph from the
9 bottom. It says:
10 "In the carrying out of combat activities all police forces are
11 placed under the command of the zone commander who decides about their
13 This is what Mr. Zupljanin was referring to, that the entire
14 police force from a municipality is placed under the control of a
15 military commander and thus the activities of the MUP in a certain
16 territory are totally paralyzed; correct?
17 A. Yes. May I clarify additionally. This is one of the problems I
18 noted while I was writing my expert report. Many police officers from a
19 territory, if not all, are re-subordinated to an army commander which
20 makes the discharge of their regular duties very difficult or impossible.
21 Q. And such a practice prevailed until September, namely that
22 without consulting the chief of the CSB or the minister, the police was
23 re-subordinated in this manner and used for these purposes; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. That is not in line with the procedure you were explaining in
1 annex 12, namely how this re-subordination process should be gone about,
2 only under certain conditions and so on; correct?
3 A. Yes, I was explaining that the organisational levels in the
4 territory where the re-subordination of some police members takes place
5 should know about it, maybe the CSB or another organisational unit.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Bajagic.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Bajagic, could I just hold you on to the
8 document which is still on the screen, the order by General Talic,
9 because the part that was read out by Mr. Krgovic says that "in the
10 conduct of combat activities all police forces shall be placed under the
11 command of the army commander," but what does the term "conduct of combat
12 activities" actually mean? Because I suppose that in the normal practice
13 of events, there would be, say, an armed operation, a military operation
14 that would involve, say, an attack on a legitimate target, so there will
15 be shelling and subsequently there would be the moving in of armed forces
16 into the area. But what would happen once the mission was accomplished?
17 You would still have the police forces present in the area but the armed
18 activity had come to an end. Would the police forces there then still be
19 under the command of the army commander, or would we assume that the
20 armed activities had come to an end and so as of that moment the command
21 over the police forces would then go back to the CSB or to the SJB, to
22 the MUP?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I? The military commander to
24 who a unit is subordinated and that unit is made up of MUP members
25 decides about the period during which the MUP members are subordinated.
1 Combat activities need not mean offensive operations, they could also be
2 defensive operations, but these are military matters, I don't want to go
3 into that. While they were subordinated they don't have the status of
4 authorised officials. They will get it back only once they are back in
5 the organisational unit, be it the CSB or the SJB, that is when the
6 status of being subordinated ceases, they go back to their regular duties
7 and are again entitled to their regular powers as stipulated by the Law
8 on Internal Affairs.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, I understand, but just on the border-line
10 between being under the army command and returning to their MUP command,
11 that particular point in time, how is that decided? Was that just by the
12 fact that they returned back to their police station or was it required
13 that the army commander officially release them back to the MUP? Do you
14 understand my question?
15 I'm looking -- because I'm looking for the constitutive elements
16 that transfers the authority over police forces from the army back to the
17 MUP because my impression is that there is really a grey zone there, once
18 the combat activities have come to an end then there is a grey zone until
19 they are clearly and definitely back into their MUP positions, their
20 original MUP positions. So I would be glad if you could help us shed
21 some light over the mechanisms that would transfer the authority back
22 from the army to the MUP.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The military commander to who in a
24 certain zone of responsibility everybody is subordinated at the end of
25 military preparations assesses that these operations are finished and
1 informs the officer of that other organisation that these MUP members can
2 return to the regular duties in the MUP. Then these MUP members are
3 transported by some means of transportation from that military zone of
4 responsibility to their respective organisational units of the MUP. Then
5 by arriving at their organisational unit, they again receive the status
6 of authorised officials. Certainly the unit returning from such a task
7 will get a few days of leave, but basically as soon as they return to
8 their organisational unit they are again members of the ministry. I hope
9 I was able to assist.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: You were certainly, but let me just clarify that
11 the constitutive element here would be an order issued by the military
12 commander to release the police forces back to their regular duties, is
13 that correctly understood, that there would have to be an order by the
14 army commander?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not analyse the procedure
16 applied by military commanders, but it's natural to me that the military
17 commander to whom everybody is subordinated must be the one to say to all
18 participants that their task is completed and that they can return to
19 their regular duties. That seems natural to me. What kind of document
20 is involved or maybe it's just an oral order, I cannot say, but certainly
21 the commander to who everybody is subordinated in his zone of
22 responsibility decides that their mission is completed.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Could I take you back to the document that was
24 shown to you by Mr. Krgovic, namely the rule book on the operational
25 methods. I think the document is 65 ter number 889 or it's in the law
1 library L332. And I would like us to have a look at Article 94 once
3 While we are waiting for the document to pop up on the screen,
4 Mr. Bajagic, my question to you as an academic and as a professor, I'm
5 sure that you would no doubt have come across the fact that very often
6 what is written in the rules diverge significantly from what is the
7 actual reality, and so my question to you when you describe in your
8 report in the paragraphs 190 to 195, when you describe the rules about
9 the reporting, that is a very clear and exhaustive description of the
10 procedures that would apply to the reporting, but my question to you is,
11 do you have any sense of how this was applied in practice? Because I'm
12 sure that during a war time things did not always function the way they
13 should according to the rules, so how effective was really the reporting
14 in 1992, if you can tell us?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my report I devoted some
16 attention, especially in the paragraphs you mentioned, to the authority
17 to use force, including firearms, since these are very sensitive issues
18 regarding the actions of members of the MUP in general, this applies to
19 every police force. I did mention in my report that apart from what I
20 called the set of means of force, the use of fire-arms certainly is a
21 most sensitive issue and in any police force, including the MUP of the RS
22 is considered the ultimate means to carry out a task efficiently. I
23 devoted special attention to some articles of the Law on Internal Affairs
24 and other pieces of legislation that regulate this subject matter.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Professor, please be brief and try to answer my
1 question, how was all of this -- how did this come out in practice?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly all the procedures as
3 laid down by the law and bylaws are not always honoured in practice. I
4 cannot make an estimate now about the number of instances when they were
5 not honoured, or I cannot give you a percentage, because I haven't
6 critically reviewed the situation in reality, but I'm sure that as in any
7 police force, there must have been omissions and shortcomings in this
8 respect, but I didn't have information to give any -- to state any
9 particulars in these paragraphs in my expert report.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
11 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, you wanted to raise a matter.
12 MS. KORNER: Yes, sorry, Your Honour. Your Honours, I don't
13 think it matters much but maybe -- I don't know if he speaks English,
14 maybe the professor should remove his earphones.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Professor Bajagic could you remove
16 your headphones for the time being, please.
17 MS. KORNER: Oh, he does speak English. Oh well. I thought that
18 was right. Well, Your Honours, it doesn't matter because he can
19 certainly stay here rather than having to leave court.
20 Your Honours, I am here and I apologise for interrupting this
21 witness, but as I said to Your Honours it's perhaps an urgent matter that
22 needs to be resolved. You will recall on Monday, the Defence,
23 Mr. O'Sullivan requested that the Prosecution be precluded from using
24 certain documents in cross-examination of the witness who is to return.
25 I said that it would help if we were provided with a list of those
1 documents for which they say we should not be allowed to use in cross,
2 and they did so helpfully and I think it was copied to the Legal Officer,
3 and I hope Your Honours have got a copy because it's easier if I refer to
5 Your Honours, can I say this is clearly linked with the request
6 by the Defence that we should -- that the Trial Chamber should order us
7 to provide all the material which they refer to in their motion which
8 includes the correspondence over disclosure under 66(B). Your Honours,
9 can I just briefly put this into context. As Your Honours saw, there was
10 the request in October of 2009 which was an all encompassing request
11 which we declined to comply with and we included our response. After
12 that we had specific requests under Rule 66(B) which are not copied, but
13 Your Honours one of them, as I remarked earlier, was on the 21st of
14 January of this year which requested all documents signed by
15 Mr. Bjelosevic. And we extended that to documents that are actually
16 being provided by him.
17 Your Honours, in the list that was provided, Your Honours, the
18 only documents which fall under that specific request of the 21st of
19 January are those at 5, 6, 16, 30, 34, and 90. The rest are all
20 documents that we propose to use in cross-examination of the returning
21 witness, but they do not fall under that specific request or any other
22 request save for the very late one which, as we say, is far too broad and
23 is merely an attempt to get in advance the documentation we are going to
24 use for cross-examination, particularly going to credibility of witnesses
25 and which under the -- Your Honours' guide-lines we do not have to
1 disclose until the witness has started his evidence. And there's good
2 reason for that.
3 Your Honours, all 5, 6, 16, 30, and 34 and 90 were all documents
4 provided by Mr. Bjelosevic when he was interviewed in 2004 and 2009, and
5 I referred to them when I dealt with the whole matter. We accept that we
6 should -- when we disclosed the interviews in 2009, and I emphasise that
7 so the Defence had the interviews since July 2009, we should have also
8 sent the documents with it. We didn't, but the Defence told you that
9 they were using our interviews as the basis for calling Mr. Bjelosevic.
10 At no stage did we ever have a request for these documents, which would
11 have reminded us, if nothing else, that we hadn't disclosed them. The
12 documents provided are discussed during the course of the interview, some
13 in more details than others. If we take one example, which is the
14 document number 5, that's discussed at page 83 of the 2004 interview. I
15 number them consecutively but it's discussed. Number 6 is discussed at
16 page 22 and so on and so forth.
17 Your Honours, we say the Defence have suffered no prejudice at
18 all and that there is -- they've shown no good reason other than attempt
19 to punish the Prosecution which is not the goal, we submit, of any
20 rulings that Your Honours should make. Your Honours should look at is
21 there any prejudice which has been shown to the Defence by us not
22 disclosing those six documents under the specific request and we say
23 there isn't. And as regards the others, we say they do not come under
24 any proper request under Rule 66(B) and that's the submissions we make.
25 Your Honours, as I say, I know that Mr. Hannis has reminded you
1 about the need for a decision on Mr. Nielsen, but obviously I do think
2 this is a fairly important matter as well that Your Honours should deal
3 with perhaps before the return the next witness.
4 JUDGE HALL: Yes, I believe we've already indicated we are very
5 much aware of the fact that it has to be dealt with before Mr. Bjelosevic
6 returns. But it is something that requires -- I was going to say, thank
7 you, Judge, a closer look, because we wish to carefully state what we
8 have to say on this matter.
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I understand that. Then Your Honours,
10 I see Mr. O'Sullivan is going to say something.
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan.
12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes, may I briefly respond, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I think now, if anything, we see that there have
15 been in fact two breaches by the Prosecution in relation to Bjelosevic.
16 First there was non-disclosure with the statement in 2009, and second, as
17 is conceded, there is a breach of Rule 66(B) as recently as January of
18 this year. Now, as for prejudice, it's not a matter of seeking relief to
19 punish the Prosecution, the relief we seek is to ensure a fair trial.
20 Rule 66(B) disclosure is intended to be material which is used by
21 the Defence in preparation of its defence. Had the Prosecution complied
22 with its obligation under 66(B), we would have been in a position to have
23 had these documents prior to the commencement of Mr. Bjelosevic's
24 testimony, it would have been used in the preparation of our Defence case
25 and our preparation of his testimony. And that's the prejudice to us.
1 The only relief at this point which is commensurate with that breach is
2 to not allow the Prosecution to use those documents during its
4 So the basis for the relief is the guarantee of the fair trial
5 and proper preparation. That's why we seek the relief requested.
6 MS. KORNER: I am sorry, I didn't quite understand the reference
7 to non-disclosure of the statement by Mr. Bjelosevic. We disclosed the
8 2004 and 2009 interviews in 2009.
9 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes, but I understood the Prosecutor to say that
10 there was not full disclosure along with those statements. In any case,
11 the true violation is a 66(B) request which was made in January of this
12 year for which there is acknowledged a violation.
13 JUDGE HALL: Could I hear you on one small point, Mr. O'Sullivan,
14 your submission that the relief at this point which commensurate with
15 that breach is to not allow the Prosecution to use those documents during
16 its cross-examination, what about the -- what to my mind seems an obvious
17 alternative, but you may have a contrary view, is to allow the Defence to
18 deal with these documents before the cross-examination begins?
19 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, are you suggesting with your leave we
20 would be able to meet with the witness for the limited purposes of
21 dealing with these documents, am I understanding you correctly, Your
23 JUDGE HALL: I don't know whether the question of meeting with
24 the witness arises, but having been provided with these documents if
25 there are matters which should have been explored, which your
1 appreciation then is they should have been explored in cross-examination,
2 I would have thought that it is certainly -- and leave could be sought to
3 re-open the examination-in-chief on the one hand and cross-examination of
4 the second accused on the other hand before the cross-examination by the
5 Prosecution begins.
6 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, our position is that the proper
7 application of the Rule 66(B) is that we are entitled to this information
8 prior to --
9 JUDGE HALL: I'm not losing sight of that. It's just that I
10 wanted to hear you on what struck me as being an obvious response. What
11 I am saying may not be the position taken by the Prosecution, it's just
12 that for myself and Judge Harhoff agrees, and probably Judge Delvoie as
13 well, that that is an alternative; in other words, the sanction that you
14 purport is not the only option, that's the only question I'm asking. If
15 you have a view on that, fine. If not, it's a matter for you.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: If I may intervene, Your Honours. Your Honours, I
17 explained very clearly the first time I raised this matter and objected.
18 The problem is at hand is Mr. Bjelosevic, but what we are trying to
19 establish is that there is violations of disclosure. There are
20 disclosure violations. And now Mr. Bjelosevic is our first witness, now
21 with this witness we have the same thing repeating again. And that is
22 going to happen until the end of the Defence case with each and every
23 witness that is coming because a number of documents have been withheld
24 from us. We say the Office of the Prosecutor should not be allowed to do
25 that. We made the request in 2009, 66(B), the Office of the Prosecutor
1 said well, it's too broad, but we assure you that we are giving you
2 everything. We said, okay. Then we gave specific requests, but still
3 understanding that the words written by the Office of the Prosecutor
4 means that they are actually disclosing to us all the relevant material.
5 Now we come to the point where Ms. Korner says, well, it wasn't
6 specific whether he signed whether he was given, maybe it is the document
7 that he received from somebody, I mean, if we are going into such
8 details, then, then our request from 2009 is specific enough because we
9 said everything. Give us everything.
10 So now -- but you see, Your Honours, if I want to -- if I want to
11 specify each and every possibility, it would take me 4.000 pages to say
12 every possible -- whether this was connected with Mr. Mico Stanisic
13 during the time when he was in his, I don't know, school or it was
14 connected with the people who were in relation to him in his office or
15 something like that. The problem, Your Honour, is that we rely on the
16 rules and the obligation of the Office of the Prosecutor and on their
17 professionalism that they disclose to us the documents that they are
18 bound to disclose to us by the rules.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, I am sorry.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Sorry to interrupt you, but this is not how I
22 understand the issue. If we are talking of these six documents here,
23 there's no discussion about the fact that they should have been
24 disclosed. The Prosecutor admits that. So your argumentation is not
25 relevant with respect to these documents.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: That's correct.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: To other documents, and you are referring
3 probably to what seems to be 28 documents on the cross-examination list
4 for this witness also, there I think the question is were they under an
5 obligation -- was the Prosecutor under an obligation to disclose or not,
6 and if not, if there was no obligation under 66(B) or 68 as such, can
7 they put them on their list for cross-examination only for the purpose of
8 cross-examination. And is your position that they can't for documents
9 where there is no disclosure obligation as such under 66(B) or 68?
10 MR. ZECEVIC: No, of course not, Your Honours. I think some of
11 the documents. We discussed with Mr. Hannis about this witness.
12 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Maybe the usher can escort the witness for just a
14 couple of minutes.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 MR. ZECEVIC: We discussed with Mr. Hannis about the number of
17 documents that have been shown to us for the first time. Now, Mr. Hannis
18 assured us that this is just for the limited purposes of testing the
19 credibility of the witness, not for the truth of its contents, but to
20 test the credibility of the witness, and we said okay. We said okay. I
21 mean, of course we don't think that this is a violation of 66(B). Now,
22 but today we received a number of documents which have nothing to do with
23 the testing of credibility of the witness but are in fact the documents
24 concerning the finances of the MUP which have never ever been disclosed
25 to us, which is a violation of 66(B) or 68, and I still didn't have time
1 to review them.
2 But what I'm trying to say, Your Honours, is that this situation
3 we will have repeating over and over and losing the precious court time
4 because the problem is here. And the Office of the Prosecutor
5 acknowledges the problem but still maintains the position that they
6 should be allowed to do that, and we say they shouldn't because there
7 must be somewhere must be -- the line must be drawn and the understanding
8 must be clear what can be done and what cannot be done. That is my
9 sincere opinion, because with this situation we have made a specific
10 request a week ago after this first situation with Bjelosevic, specific
11 request for each and every witness. We got the response from the Office
12 of the Prosecutor that it's too broad. Now, we had to file the motion to
13 compel the Prosecution to -- so what I'm trying to say, it's building up
14 and the problem is not solved. And the problem is actually really
15 hurting the Defence because we have this witness on the stand,
16 Mr. Bjelosevic is coming, then is the next witness after him, then
17 Mr. Bjelosevic cross, then another witness, so the problem will only
18 enlarge and we will be prejudiced because of that. Thank you. Sorry I
19 took sometime.
20 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, can I respond because
21 effectively Mr. Zecevic has expanded out of the specific problem.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, just to follow up what I asked
23 Mr. Zecevic and his answer was no, we don't -- we don't oppose documents
24 that are only there on your list for the purposes of cross-examination
25 and that were under no prior disclosure obligation. Okay. So I take
1 that as his position.
2 Now, is it your position that you can put on your -- on that list
3 for cross-examination documents that you did not disclose but that should
4 have been disclosed?
5 MS. KORNER: If we put on our list documents that we should have
6 disclosed either under a specific proper, I underline that, Rule 66(B)
7 request, and/or 68, which are the two methods of disclosure, then Your
8 Honours have to look at the principle of whether the Defence have
9 suffered prejudice or how the failure to disclose came about, as opposed
10 to an automatic rejection.
11 So, Your Honours, can I return for a moment to the six documents
12 on this list. In fact, the Defence had disclosure in terms of
13 notification and description of the documents through the interviews.
14 They didn't have the actual documents but they had notification, as I
15 say, and disclosure and I am sorry, Your Honours, but there is a certain
16 responsibility on the Defence if they consider that these documents
17 contained in the interviews of the witnesses which they assured the Court
18 were the basis of calling this witness, then they bear a certain amount
19 of responsibility, in civil law terms, if damages were being assessed
20 they would be contributory, I don't know if you have the same, but in
21 England it's called contributory liability.
22 Your Honours, but I want to return to the general principle that
23 Mr. Zecevic says is on-going problem. The original request in October
24 which is attached to their motion, Your Honour, one only has to read it
25 out to see that this cannot be a proper request.
1 "Inspection of all books, documents, photographs, tangible
2 objects intended to be used at trial. Inspections of all books,
3 documents, photographs, tangible objects belonging to Zupljanin or
4 Stanisic. Inspection of all books, documents, photographs, and tangible
5 objects which are material to the preparation of the Defence. This would
6 include all information received from persons who have personal knowledge
7 of the events in the indictment but whom the Prosecution does not intend
8 to call as witnesses in chief."
9 That would mean every statement ever taken for the purposes of
10 any trial that relates to any events in the indictment, and for Prijedor
11 alone I imagine that was thousands of statements.
12 "All information from persons who have testified as Defence
13 witnesses in cases dealing with any of the same events to be proved in
14 this case. All -- all this --" and I'm quoting, "all information
15 received from the Bosnian government or any of its entities including its
16 courts pertaining to the accused or the events to be proved in this
18 Your Honours have got the document, I'm not going to go on, but
19 you can see it is a wholly ludicrous fishing expedition which were it to
20 be complied with would mean the trial would never have got started at
21 all, the Defence would spend years looking at all of this, and that is
22 why we say this -- why we wrote back saying this is not a proper
23 application. And Your Honours, as I say, since then, the Defence never
24 wrote back again saying yes it is, and unless you comply we will be
25 putting it before the Court, instead of which sensibly they sent us
1 proper requests relating to specific subjects, such as, for example, all
2 interviews we had conducted with members of the MUP over the years.
3 Your Honours, the Defence are actually -- their problem is this:
4 That they are calling witnesses who like many of the witnesses we called,
5 but there we had an obligation to disclose the information we had, were a
6 party to these events. As Mr. Zecevic said on one occasion, it is our
7 contention that Mr. Bjelosevic is a party to the joint criminal
8 enterprise which we say existed at the time. And therefore what they are
9 trying to do by their latest request is, as I say, get around the fact
10 that we are not obliged to disclose until such time as Mr. Bjelosevic
11 goes into the witness box, the information that we have which relates to
12 his credibility as a witness. And that is what they are trying to do by
13 the latest attempt at what they call a 66(B) attempt which is no better
14 than this particular one there. And that is why we object and that is
15 the ruling that Your Honours have got to make. To what extent under the
16 guise, if I put it that way, of Rule 66(B) are the Prosecution -- sorry,
17 are the Defence entitled to know in advance what documents we have which
18 relate to the credibility of their witness. And that's the simple issue.
19 JUDGE HALL: Yes, so as I said, we are giving this careful
20 consideration and I trust that we would put this matter to rest although
21 that may be an expression of judicial naivete but we will see.
22 Sorry, Mr. Zecevic. Thanks.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm grateful for Ms. Korner's enlightenment about
24 our intentions. I wasn't even aware of it myself. The point of the
25 matter, Your Honours, is the following: It's the obligation of the
1 Office of the Prosecution to comply with the Rule 68 and 66(B). It has
2 nothing to do with any of our intensions protecting any of the witnesses
3 or whatever. It is very strict point, that the obligation according to
4 the rules rests with the Prosecution to disclose Rule 68 material to the
5 Defence. And on request of Defence to disclose 66(B) and that's what we
7 JUDGE HALL: I think the witness can be escorted back in.
8 MS. KORNER: Would Your Honours excludes me then.
9 JUDGE HALL: Yes, you may go, Ms. Korner. We have a brief
10 ruling [Microphone not activated]. Thanks.
11 The Chamber is seized of a motion filed on the 21st of April
12 whereby the Stanisic Defence requests reconsideration of or in the
13 alternative certification to appeal an oral decision of 19th of April.
14 By this decision, the Chamber denied admission into evidence of certain
15 documents which the Defence considered relevant under Rule 68 to
16 challenge Christian Nielsen's credibility as an expert. The Chamber
17 found that these documents do not challenge the credibility of the expert
18 or that of his reports admitted in this case. The Chamber recalling that
19 it issued the decision in the exercise of its discretion, holds the
20 Defence has not demonstrated a clear error of reasoning in the 19th of
21 April decision. Moreover, it finds that it is not necessary to
22 reconsider the decision to prevent an injustice.
23 In respect of the request for certification, the Defence refers
24 to the Prosecution's announcement that it will use Christian Nielsen's
25 report during the cross-examination of the Defence expert currently on
1 the stand. It submits that an important issue in dispute between the
2 parties is the bias or objectivity of Christian Nielsen as a former staff
3 member of the Prosecution.
4 The Chamber is not, however, persuaded that the 19th of April
5 decision involves an issue which would significantly affect the fair and
6 expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial.
7 Moreover, it is not persuaded that an immediate resolution of this issue
8 would materially advance the proceedings. Lastly, and recalling that
9 Rule 126 bis does not give a right to a party to reply, the Chamber holds
10 that there is nothing preventing a Chamber from deciding a motion in the
11 absence of a reply of a party. The motion is therefore denied.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, I see it's so near the usual time for
14 the break that perhaps you may wish to --
15 MR. HANNIS: Actually, I was going to make that request, Your
16 Honours, because I need to get the podium from the other side and connect
17 it here, so I would request that we take an early recess.
18 [The witness stands down]
19 --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 12.23 p.m.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis:
23 Q. Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Good afternoon, Professor. My name is Tom Hannis, I'm the
25 Prosecutor who will be talking to you for the next two or three days, I
1 expect. And I'll have to ask you to bear with me a little bit, spring is
2 in the air here in The Hague and half of the pollen seems to be in my
3 head, so I've got a bit of a sniffle and a cough.
4 I saw when you started your testimony, you'll recall
5 Judge Delvoie after you took the solemn declaration here at page 20014 he
6 asked you about your occupation in 1992, and your answer at line 24 was:
7 "In 1992, since I was born in Sarajevo, from the beginning of the
8 war I was a member of the National Security Service in the Republika
10 My first question is, is there some kind of connection between
11 being born in Sarajevo and being a member of the National Security
12 Service or is that just a translation issue?
13 A. It's a translation issue. But I can provide a more detailed
14 answer. I had a university degree in political science. I graduated
15 from that faculty in 1988. In early 1992, I got employment in -- with
16 the National Security of the Serb Republic.
17 Q. Thank you. You say early 1992, can you be more precise as to
18 what month?
19 A. April.
20 Q. And how did that come about, were you recruited or did you go in
21 and ask to join? How did it come about?
22 A. You cannot join such a service voluntarily. There is a defined
23 procedure how you can get a professional status with the Ministry of the
24 Interior including all of its organisational units. Before receiving the
25 status of an active-duty member of the National Security Service, at the
1 time of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the relevant
2 authorities of that republic made me a member of the reserve police
3 force. In accordance with legal procedures, my status changed to become
4 an active-duty member of the National Security Service.
5 Q. And from when had you been a member of the reserve police?
6 A. I became a member of the reserve police after doing my compulsory
7 military service in the JNA. That was in the early 1980s. Under the
8 laws of the time, that was my war time assignment, that's what it was
9 called at the time.
10 Q. Yes, I understand in the former Yugoslavia all the young men had
11 to do mandatory military service, I think around the age of 18. Do you
12 recall now from when to when you actually did your military service?
13 A. Yes, of course I do. I served from October 1981 until August
15 Q. Could you tell us where you did that and what your military
16 specialty was during that time?
17 A. I did my military service in Karlovac, a town in the Republic of
18 Croatia today and it was in Croatia back then too. And my military
19 specialty, well, I don't remember the number because they are in numbers,
20 but I was a member of a -- an anti-armour weapon crew. I don't exactly
21 remember what it was like. Anyway, it was a weapon with a crew of more
22 than one man. And I was a military conscript with limited abilities
23 because, as you can see, I wear eyeglasses, strong correctional
24 eyeglasses, so that may have been the reason why I was assigned that
25 military specialty. But anyway, my conscript ID contained this remark,
1 that my ability was limited.
2 Q. From the time you finished your military service in August of
3 1982 until 1988 did you have any kind of employment or were you in school
4 full time? Can you tell us about that?
5 A. Upon completing my military service I continued my education.
6 Q. Okay. And I see on Monday you said after you finished at the
7 faculty of political science in 1988 that you did "some work in
8 journalism." Can you tell us anything more about that, what exactly did
9 you do and what publication did you work for, if any?
10 A. Yes. While I was still a student I was an activist of the
11 university conference, the university youth conference, it was the
12 students' league. That organisation published a magazine which was
13 called Walter. During a brief period I was also editor of a fashion
14 magazine, the name of the magazine was Nana and it was privately owned.
15 Q. You said that during that time between 1988 and 1992 that you
16 also worked on the social political communities that were in existence in
17 the old political system. Can you tell us what that was exactly?
18 A. Yes. As a delegate of the university youth conference or the
19 students' league I worked first -- at first for the city conference of
20 the socialist youth league for the city of Sarajevo. That organisation
21 delegated me further in accordance with the system that was in existence
22 then. They recommended me to work for the city conference of the
23 socialist association of the working people for the city of Sarajevo.
24 All these were semi professional engagements, more of a voluntary
25 nature. I was more of a volunteer than a professional. I went about my
1 tasks based on freelance contracts. I didn't have permanent employment.
2 That was the usual practice for young people who had just made their
3 appearance in higher level political organisations.
4 Q. Thank you, Professor. In -- well, after the death of Tito and
5 the emergence of the multi-party system, did you become a member of any
6 political party in Bosnia?
7 A. I must say first that since the death of Josip Bros Tito until
8 the introduction a multi-party system in BH quite some time elapsed.
9 Only in 1990 was a multi-party system introduced in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
10 Of course, both before and after Tito's death, starting from the fourth
11 form of high school, gymnasija [phoen] , that I attended then, I was a
12 member of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and I stayed a member
13 until that organisation basically died away.
14 Q. And after that did you join any other political party, after the
15 League of Communists passed away?
16 A. No. After that I was never active in the work of any political
17 party, especially the newly emerged parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I've
18 mentioned that I worked for awhile for an organisation called the
19 Socialist Alliance of the Working People. In 1990 a civic organisation
20 grew out of that organisation, and when I say civic, I mean in every
21 respect. It was that organisation for which I ran in the first
22 multi-party elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I ran for the position of a
23 member of the Municipal Assembly of Ilidza. That was the last thing that
24 could be called political involvement on my part in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. HANNIS: Let's show the witness please, 65 ter number 20062.
2 Q. And Professor, this relates to what you have just been talking
3 about, I think. I just want to confirm.
4 MR. HANNIS: If we could go to page 10 first of all. And focus
5 on the upper left-hand corner and enlarge that, please.
6 Q. This is from a Sarajevo publication and it contains a list of
7 candidates for office in Ilidza, we see number 5, Mladen Bajagic, is that
8 you on this list?
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis, do we have a tab number?
10 MR. HANNIS: I am sorry, Your Honours, that is tab number -- I do
11 have a tab number. It's tab number 1, I believe, on the list of
12 documents I proposed.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
14 MR. HANNIS:
15 Q. I am sorry, Professor, is that you? And it might help --
16 MR. HANNIS: I don't have this in English, Your Honours, but it
17 might help if we go back to page 9 at the bottom right.
18 Q. Professor, you'll see where this list starts, and can you tell us
19 what the name of this group is? Does it have a party name?
20 A. Yes, yes. This is the heir of the Socialist Alliance of the
21 Working People, their exact name was Democratic Socialist Alliance, and
22 it is indeed my name under number 5 on the following page.
23 Q. Were you successful in your run for that position?
24 A. It is a known fact that the success of all civic-oriented parties
25 at these elections was minimal and that applies to this organisation as
2 Q. Now, I see here in this list that your nationality is listed as
3 Yugoslav; correct?
4 A. Yes, that is what is here. Yes.
5 Q. And I don't recall, we usually ask witnesses here when they come
6 to testify, I don't recall if you were asked, but what do you call
7 yourself these days, if you were asked what's your nationality?
8 A. Today I say that I'm a Serb. And I don't see a problem in that.
9 Q. No, I did not intend to suggest that there was a problem. Not at
10 all. I'm quite close to a Serbian citizen myself. I wanted to ask you
11 then after this did you participate in any other political activity after
12 this 1990 candidacy?
13 A. Since then until this very day I'm absolutely not involved in
14 anything that might even resemble political engagement. I have aimed my
15 career in a completely different direction.
16 Q. I have an updated CV that we just got the translation of
17 yesterday. If I could take a quick look at that.
18 MR. HANNIS: I think the document ID number is 1D064985.
19 Q. And, Professor, I just want to confirm that this is your most
20 up-to-date CV that you provided to Mr. Zecevic, I guess, when you proofed
21 last weekend? Is that it?
22 A. Yes, yes, that is this latest updated CV.
23 Q. Okay. I know I'd seen one earlier that you had when you
24 testified in the Popovic case and between that and this one we had
25 another one. Did you prepare this one yourself?
1 A. Yes, I wrote it myself.
2 MR. HANNIS: Can we go to the last page in both English and
4 Q. And the last section is about other professional engagements and
5 you mention your expert report prepared in this case for the case of
6 Mico Stanisic and it says Radislav Zupljanin. Do you understand that the
7 Zupljanin in this case is Stojan? Okay.
8 A. I do apologise, to Mr. Zupljanin as well. My mistake.
9 Q. Thank you. Your doctoral thesis, what was the topic or subject
10 of that?
11 A. The topic of my doctoral thesis was challenges and threats in the
12 changed security system, what is meant is the end of the 20th and
13 beginning of the 21st century. It is this changed security context
14 within security studies, that is what is meant.
15 Q. Is that available in English, if I wanted to read it?
16 A. The text of the entire dissertation?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. No, there's just an abstract that I have in Belgrade. As for the
19 entire dissertation, it has not been translated into English, but
20 significant parts of it are part and parcel of the books that I've
21 published. Of course, for your information, if you allow me to do so, I
22 would like to direct your attention to an article on redefining the
23 concept of security. It is called "redefining security." It was quoted
24 many time, it is on the wall of science, and you can just Google me and
25 you will find it. You can see what the -- what the most significant
1 scientific effort I made is to see what the concept of security is facing
2 these new challenges. In the article, as in my dissertation, I deal with
3 individual concepts of security from individual to global. That article
4 is on the list provided here in my CV.
5 Q. Thank you. You mentioned in your CV that as part of your current
6 work in teaching at various levels that at the basic level fourth year
7 you teach courses, one of which is the methodology of intelligence work.
8 Can I ask you, is the teaching you do on that subject based in part on
9 your personal work experience in the state security service of the MUP?
10 A. Experience in that field is precious. However, my appointment as
11 a teacher primarily has other criteria as a prerequisite for being
12 appointed to that position. The requirement is to have dealt with that
13 field of science in a thorough manner for many years. At any rate, I am
14 assisted by it when pondering the problems related to intelligence work.
15 I'm assisted by my practical work in that.
16 Q. I understand, that's just what I wanted to confirm. I assumed
17 that some of the content of that course would relate to the kind of work
18 that you had done. Do you speak and understand languages other than
19 Serbian. I think we heard already that you do speak and understand
20 English. Any others?
21 A. No, I use the English language as much as I can.
22 Q. So nothing other than Serbian and English? No German, French,
23 et cetera?
24 A. No. When I need that, I use the services -- I mean, when I need
25 something for scientific purposes, I use the services of the Institute
1 For Foreign Languages in Belgrade and certified translators.
2 Q. You mention in your CV also, and I think you mentioned earlier
3 that you have published a couple of textbooks, one on fundamentals of
4 security, and the other my English translation says methodology of
5 intelligence. I assume both those are based in part on your actual work
6 experience; is that correct?
7 A. The methodology of intelligence is a textbook for fourth year
8 students of the criminalistics and police academy. It was published in
9 2010 and it represents an attempt to spell out in more systematic terms
10 knowledge from around the world as well as my very own efforts to view
11 all the aspects involved in the work of contemporary intelligence and
12 counter-intelligence services, so generically speaking the methodology of
13 work of such institutions.
14 A textbook, or rather, this textbook cannot be the result of some
15 experience. It has to be based on scholarly research. It is subjected
16 to reviews, favourable or unfavourable, and in this way it is appraised
17 on the basis of a grading system in the higher education system of the
18 Republic of Serbia. We know that in Serbia as well what is in force is
19 the system that we call the system based on the Bologna declaration in
20 the briefest possible terms.
21 Q. Thank you. You told us you began work at the state security
22 service in April of 1992. Where did you actually work?
23 A. Since I lived in the territory of the municipality of Ilidza for
24 a long time, my professional effort started and ended in the security
25 department of that municipality.
1 Q. And was your office actually in the SJB building in Ilidza, or
2 was it located somewhere else?
3 A. The official premises of the department of the state security
4 service in Ilidza were physically located in the building, but they were
5 completely separated in every possible way from the public security
6 station. Entering our premises was allowed only to members of the
7 service and persons who we allowed to enter, so there was a code at the
8 front door and that is how one entered our premises. So this is a
9 specialised area and therefore there is a different kind of procedure
10 involved in terms of clearance, et cetera. So I meant it in that sense.
11 Q. Thank you. I understand that, that makes sense. Were you as a
12 member of state security allowed to enter the public security part of the
13 building and go about freely in that part of the SJB?
14 A. Well, any citizen was allowed to do that. Many citizens come to
15 the public security station. It's not a question of permission or being
16 allowed. I entered the main door of that building and I went to my own
17 offices, abiding by the rules of the National Security Service. There
18 was no need for me to wander about the premises of the public security
19 station. I was involved in my own work.
20 Q. I hear the part of your answer about any citizen allowed to walk
21 into the public security station, but my question is more particular. I
22 understand that at some point in 1992, Mr. Tomo Kovac was commander or
23 chief of the SJB; is that correct?
24 A. Yes, that is correct. Tomislav Kovac was the komandir at that
25 police station before the war.
1 Q. And could any ordinary citizen walk into the police station and
2 walk into his office?
3 A. Of course one had to be announced. I don't know what question
4 would be involved, but it is certain that a citizen could ultimately get
5 to the chief of the public security station.
6 Q. Would you as a member of the MUP be able to walk into Mr. Kovac's
7 office without being announced, just as a co-worker?
8 A. No. That would not be professional conduct. Tomo Kovac was the
9 chief and with regard to a particular question, if there was a need to do
10 so, I could establish contact with Tomo Kovac through the head of my own
11 department. There was no other mode of communication that was necessary
13 Q. And who was your immediate supervisor in the state security in
14 Ilidza in 1992?
15 A. During 1992 the chief of the department was Mr. Predrag
16 Caronic [phoen], he was succeeded by Srdjan Sehovac. After
17 Srdjan Sehovac, since I said that from the beginning until the end I
18 worked only in that department, it was Milenko Lukic who was head of that
19 department. There are probably documents to that effect, but it is
20 certain that this was the case.
21 Q. And when you began your work there, what position did you hold?
22 Did you have a title or a job description?
23 A. My position was called operative worker of the National Security
24 Service. And a degree in higher education was a requirement for that
1 Q. In that position did you wear a uniform or dress in plain
3 A. Bearing in mind the situation on the ground and the necessity to
4 move about, we had a rather free choice what to wear, depending on the
5 operative situation.
6 Q. And can you define for us what the term "operative worker" means
7 in terms of the job you had in 1992? What were your duties?
8 A. As in any service of this kind anywhere in the world, an
9 operative worker who in some other systems may be called intelligence
10 officer has a job in collecting information of an intelligence or
11 counter-intelligence nature. Information that was important from the
12 aspect of security.
13 Q. And within your service, and help me with this, I see the terms
14 used at different times and I think there was a name change. Sometimes
15 your service was referred to as state security and then I see also a
16 reference to national security. Can you tell us about that?
17 A. No. The Law on Internal Affairs as adopted in March 1992
18 envisages two larger units and the MUP. The public security service and
19 the National Security Service. That law was amended and then the public
20 security service was renamed public security sector and the National
21 Security Service, state security sector. In essence they remained the
22 same. The tasks were exactly the same, only the names changed.
23 Q. Thank you for that. And for purposes of my question, I will
24 generally use state security as the term. And related to that, when I
25 asked you questions, I may typically refer to the RS MUP, the Republika
1 Srpska MUP, although I understand in the early days from April 1992 it
2 was the Serbian Republic of BiH before the name change took place. So
3 you understand if I say RS MUP, I want to cover the entire time-period,
4 fair? I see you nodding your head but I need you to say something out
5 loud for the record.
6 A. I'm fine with this convention. We can call the service that I
7 worked for and the MUP by the names that you suggested. It makes it
8 easier for me too.
9 Q. Thank you, Professor.
10 MR. HANNIS: I'd like to show the witness 65 ter 20064. This is
11 tab 31.
12 Q. Professor, I want to show you a payroll document from Ilidza from
14 MR. HANNIS: And if we can have the page 1 first of all.
15 Q. We see this appears to be for the period of May 1992. And number
16 1 listed as the head or the chief we see Tomislav Kovac, but in
17 particular I want to show you a page, it's page 6 of the English and I
18 think it's page 4 of the B/C/S in e-court. Can you see number 126 on the
19 list. It's a Mladen Bajagic, am I correct in assuming that's you?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And to the right of your name I see 15.5 and something
22 handwritten that's been translated into English partly as "worked." Do
23 you know what that says or what that refers to? I don't know if you can
24 read it on the screen. It's hand-printed.
25 A. I cannot recognise the handwriting. I cannot decipher it.
1 Q. Bear with me, could it say "worked in Vraca"?
2 A. Maybe.
3 Q. Did you work in Vraca in May of 1992?
4 A. I had to go to the field for a couple of days because of the
5 requirements of the service. We're not talking about another
6 organisational unit. It's just that I spent sometime in the field and of
7 course I was on the payroll of my organisational unit which I was part of
8 that. It can only mean that.
9 Q. Do you recall whether you had actually gone to Vraca for a couple
10 of days during this time-period to do some of your work, and if so, what
11 that work was?
12 A. It wasn't any work or basic operative activity. It was more
13 about getting acquainted with ways of functioning in the service because
14 I was still young and inexperienced at the time. So I was given the
15 opportunity to meet other more experienced members to explain the
16 functioning of the service to me and how they went about things for a
17 couple of days. This is normal for young, inexperienced employees to be
18 given tutors, if you will, to teach them how to conduct themselves as
19 members of that sector.
20 Q. Thank you, Professor. You mentioned that you were young and new
21 on the job. What kind of training did you get when you started working
22 in had the state security service?
23 A. I said that I had already graduated from a four-year university
24 course, and what we are talking about was part of some sort of intern
25 training. Of course, I had to undergo additional training to be more
1 successful in the discharge of my duties.
2 Q. Well, help me out here for a second. Your four-year university
3 course was in what?
4 A. It's the faculty of political science in Sarajevo.
5 Q. And your studies were primarily about political science then, I
6 take it?
7 A. Yes, of course.
8 Q. And how did that relate precisely to your work in state security?
9 A. Political science everywhere in the world is one of the most
10 important courses for anybody who want to work in intelligence.
11 Political science is also the widest possible framework for security
12 because that is a political concept. I got employment with the National
13 Security Service, so I can't see which other school it may have been that
14 would make me better able to work for that service.
15 Q. Okay. And once you then started on the job you got some
16 additional training. Did you have specific training courses or was it
17 simply just on-the-job training actually doing the work?
18 A. During the first few months of my work for the service, I
19 mostly -- I was mostly getting acquainted with the rules of the service,
20 with the methodology of work. I learned from the experienced officials
21 in my department, and we already knew that during our careers we would
22 have to undergo general and specialist additional training. Without that
23 you cannot be a successful member of such a service.
24 Q. Did part of your training include interrogation techniques?
25 A. One of the basic methods applied by all such services throughout
1 the world is this interrogation method which means that you must be
2 skillful in interviewing people, creating interviews and techniques that
3 involve direct or indirect communication with other persons.
4 Q. And as part of -- well, first of all, generally, as part of the
5 work in state security, did that sometimes involve doing undercover work.
6 I'm not asking you about yourself just now, but generally for people in
7 the service, did they sometimes perform undercover work, meaning posing
8 as someone that they were not to infiltrate a group and gather
10 A. The service for which I worked, and if we view it from a
11 historical view, all contemporary intelligence services, as well as those
12 that existed before, also apply this method of going undercover. It's
13 human intelligence, that's the technical term that's used for this type
14 of gathering intelligence.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat this last term
16 he used.
17 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Bajagic, the interpreters need you to repeat the
18 last term you used.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's clandestine collection. It's
20 espionage by agent or agent method.
21 MR. HANNIS:
22 Q. In addition to human intelligence, there's security services all
23 over the world and the state security service did it use signal
24 intelligence, intercepted communications?
25 A. Yes. It's well known as a technical method in the theory of
1 intelligence. It is divided into two subcategories. The technical
2 method in the general sense which includes signal intelligence,
3 communication intelligence, and interception, as well as, of course, the
4 technical method in the narrow sense which consists in the covert use of
5 technical means and intelligence work.
6 Q. And in the state security service of the RS MUP, did you, and
7 when I say "you" I mean "you all" in that service try to develop and use
8 informants to help you in gathering information?
9 A. It's impossible for any such service, including ours, to function
10 without having our sources of information or agency positions. It's only
12 Q. I agree. And related to all this, the gathering of information
13 to these various sources, is it part of the work of a security service
14 sometimes to engage in disseminating information to informants or other
15 sources which is wrong, misinformation, disinformation, et cetera?
16 A. What I'm familiar with, and that's nature of counter-intelligence
17 work, the dissemination of misinformation is one of the most efficient
18 techniques and it's applied by any intelligence or counter-intelligence
19 service by default.
20 Q. And obviously, Professor, by your education and by the
21 conversation we've had so far, you are clearly an educated man who
22 understands well the use of language and the choice of words, would you
23 agree with me so far?
24 A. I do my best in each and every situation, especially when I work
25 with my students, but in any other situation I try to be as clear as
1 possible when I speak.
2 Q. I'm sure you do. And what I want to ask you now is an example of
3 choices of words. What we've been talking about we can talk about an
4 operative in a security service who engages in dissemination of
5 misinformation or working as an undercover agent, but another person in
6 describing that same thing might refer to that person as a spy who is
7 engaging in lying to other people to fool them about who he is and what
8 he is doing. Different words to describe the same thing. And I'm not
9 saying this to try to be offensive or anything else, I'm just trying to
10 make a point.
11 A. At any rate, in this field there is a lot of terminological
12 confusion. What is right is the following: Between a spy and an agent
13 one can put a sign of equality. However, a professional member of an
14 intelligence or counter-intelligence service is an intelligence officer,
15 an operative, or even an intelligence military officer, if it's someone
16 from a military service, and that is the basic point when speaking of the
17 methodology of intelligence services.
18 Q. Fair enough. Thank you. During your work in state security in
19 the RS MUP, first of all, tell me when you left the RS MUP?
20 A. My employment in the national security and thereby the Ministry
21 of the Interior of Republika Srpska was terminated in December 1995 as an
22 act of my own free will. I don't recall the exact date but it was the
23 second half of December.
24 Q. You anticipated my next question, it was why did you leave?
25 A. Actually, as we know, towards the end of November, the peace
1 agreement was reached for Bosnia-Herzegovina and I thought that the time
2 had come for me to continue my academic improvement because I had
3 enrolled in a master's course in Belgrade as far back as 1987 and I
4 thought that the time was right for me to go back to my master studies.
5 Q. Thank you. Within the security service were there different, I
6 don't know what we should call them, different lines of work? I
7 understand within security service there was a group that worked on
8 counter-intelligence and foreign intelligence. Can you tell us how many
9 different lines of work there were?
10 A. At the level of the sector of state security, that is to say the
11 National Security Service, there were clearly delineated lines of work
12 according to different departments. That was the situation only up until
13 the level of the centre of national security and that would be at the
14 level of the centre of the security services. In the department where I
15 worked, these lines were individually assigned. They were not always
16 divided. In view of the general situation, we actually had to work in
17 both intelligence and counter-intelligence and these were the two basic
18 lines of work in the state security service always.
19 Q. Can you describe briefly for us the difference between the two,
20 intelligence and counter-intelligence?
21 A. Intelligence activity means collecting intelligence about the
22 situation in, for instance, other states, about the political situation,
23 the security situation, economic and so on. That is what is called
24 foreign intelligence. Whereas counter-intelligence means investigating,
25 identifying, and making it impossible for foreign intelligence services
1 and their agents and other entities to threaten the national security of
2 a country.
3 Q. And in the context of Ilidza in 1992, what did intelligence work
4 mean? What were you doing when you were doing intelligence work then and
6 A. In that specific situation it meant collecting by resorting to
7 all means and methods intelligence about the structures of the opposite
8 side, and we know who that was primarily. We collected information about
9 the political situation in the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or in
10 the structures of the central government in Sarajevo. The activities of
11 their intelligence services, their ministry of the interior, and all
12 other institutions and organisations that were actively operating within
13 that system of government. Of course we collected information at a
14 general counter-intelligence level about the activities of all other
15 intelligence services from all over the world that were directed towards
16 Republika Srpska.
17 Q. Thank you. And in the course of your work in -- from April 1992
18 to December 1995, did you interview people or take statements from them
19 and if so, can you give us a rough estimate of how many people you
20 interviewed or took statements from? Was it dozens, hundreds?
21 A. Over three years and seven or eight months, I cannot do the exact
22 arithmetic right now, I was really in a position to conduct a great many
23 interviews. It was mostly interviews rather than traditional statements.
24 I cannot really give you an estimate. I was never involved in
25 statistics, but it's a significant number. These are interviews that
1 were then written up with regard to a particular situation and so on.
2 Q. Help me out with some of the terminology because we've seen in
3 this case sometimes documents which appear to be a record of information
4 taken from speaking with someone. In some cases the document appears to
5 be referred to as an Official Note. In some cases it's referred to as a
6 statement. And I can't remember if I also something saw was referred to
7 as record of interview. Can you explain the difference for us?
8 A. An Official Note is the basic document that an operative worker
9 writes on the basis of the results achieved, or rather the knowledge
10 gained on the ground. What can be obtained from an interview in view of
11 assessments can be translated into an Official Note. And sometimes
12 interviews lead us to a situation that requires dealing with more complex
13 documents. So the Official Note is the basic document. Then there's
14 also operative information and so on. However, a recorded statement is a
15 completely different thing, so there's not a classical document about an
16 interview. The information obtained is evaluated and if it is ordinary
17 information it is -- it becomes part of an Official Note. If it is
18 something more complex or urgent, then on the basis of urgent information
19 systems it is provided higher up and several interviews may result in an
20 operative information that makes a proposal as to certain measures that
21 should be taken and so on.
22 Q. On some of the documents that appear to be information from a
23 conversation with a person, we see that the person spoken to has a line
24 and their name for signature. Sometimes we have ones with signatures and
25 sometimes without. Can you tell us how that worked? For example, if you
1 had someone who had been arrested in the course of combat operations on
2 the other side, you have perhaps a civilian, perhaps a Muslim prisoner of
3 war, a soldier, and they are interviewed, do they sign the interview?
4 A. You could get a precise answer from the persons who worked in
5 military security organs. As for my own work, as far as you can
6 remember, we did take statements that were recorded but from other
7 categories. It didn't have to do with prisoners of war and so on, it was
8 the military that dealt with that and their security organs.
9 Q. Did you never work jointly with military investigators from the
10 VRS security service to gather information from someone, from a Muslim
11 who may have been a captured soldier, because sometimes they might have
12 information of interest to the military and yourself in the police state
13 security. Did you do any of that?
14 A. Well, of course, it could have worked that way too, but in such
15 situations we did not write up separate documents like that. We only
16 noted this information and if the military organs thought that this was
17 of relevance to our service, they finally wrote up their own documents as
18 a result of their interviews with such persons. At any rate, I remember,
19 well, it's not a specific situation now that I'm referring to, but
20 several times we were in a position to exchange the information we had
21 with the military security organs. I'm referring to intelligence and
22 counter-intelligence that is.
23 Q. I know you said you had the opportunity during those three years
24 and eight months to interview many persons, but I don't know if you were
25 able to give us a more specific number. Would you have interviewed on
1 average 10 a month, 30 a month? Can you give us any kind of estimate?
2 A. It's a maximum of 10 to 15 because if every operative worker were
3 to conduct interviews every day and write them up, then he should be
4 given three salaries for that month because after an interview something
5 else follows and that is studious work on analysing the knowledge
6 acquired through such an interview, then cross-referencing that
7 information, checking the accuracy of the information received, and only
8 then reporting to higher instances. So we always had to make our
9 evaluations and say that how reliable a source was, that is. And all of
10 this was further assessed in the organisational units that dealt with
11 these matters.
12 Q. I assume that much of your work involved interviewing non-Serbs
13 about information concerning the non-Serb side, the Muslims; is that
15 MR. ZECEVIC: May I just instruct -- ask Mr. Hannis to instruct
16 the witness to talk slower because a part of his answer was -- previous
17 answer was not recorded. It's nothing important but I notice that there
18 are parts missing.
19 MR. HANNIS:
20 Q. Witness, we'll ask you to keep that in mind and we only have a
21 minute and a half left today, so if you could answer my last question:
22 Did much of your work involve interviewing non-Serbs about contact
23 related to anti-Serb activities, if you will?
24 A. I personally throughout that period did not have the opportunity
25 to do that and the entire department only very infrequently interviewed
1 non-Serbs. Intelligence work about the structures of central authorities
2 entailed something else and there we always used other operative methods
3 rather than interviews because the information obtained thereby is the
4 least reliable for my service.
5 MR. HANNIS: Thank you for that, Professor. I think we are at
6 the point to stop for today.
7 JUDGE HALL: So we take the adjournment. I believe we are back
8 in Courtroom I tomorrow and we resume at 9.00 in the morning. Thank you.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.
11 to be reconvened on Friday, the 6th day of May,
12 2011, at 9.00 a.m.