Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 21991

 1                           Wednesday, 8 June 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

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

 6     everyone in and around the courtroom.

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

 8     Stojan Zupljanin.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

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

11             MS. KORNER:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Joanna Korner, together

12     with Crispian Smith and, this morning, Jim Cruess, who's an intern.

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.  On

14     behalf of Mico Stanisic, Slobodan Cvijetic, Tatjana Savic, and

15     Eugene O'Sullivan appearing.

16             MR. KRGOVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Dragan Krgovic and

17     Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  And unless there is some reason to --

19             Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan.

20             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  Just one matter, Your Honour.  These may be

21     famous last words, but it appears this witness will finish early this

22     week.  It appears the parties have overestimated the time for his

23     testimony; we estimated 8 hours for examination-in-chief, we only took

24     five.  All right.  Only took five.  Just under five.  Monday evening the

25     Prosecutor advised us that they would need six.

Page 21992

 1             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... no, four.

 2             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  Well, by e-mail -- by e-mail on Monday evening

 3     we were told six, but be that as it may, it appears he'll finish early.

 4     To answer the question you had yesterday, Your Honour, we do not have

 5     another witness available for this week.  I just want to repeat

 6     Mr. Zecevic's request to address you tomorrow on procedural and

 7     scheduling matters.  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan.

 9             Would the usher please escort the witness back to the stand.

10             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, can I just say something about this.  I

11     appreciate that it's not always easy to give estimates.  This one was

12     particularly over for the Defence and this witness.  But my concern is

13     this, I did say to Mr. Zecevic last week that it was highly unlikely that

14     the witness would take the whole week.  He did say that he only had the

15     next witness lined up for Tuesday.  And my concern is, given that we're

16     told that other matters that Your Honours are going to be involved in

17     will be starting at some stage, probably before the recess, that we

18     shouldn't lose days unnecessarily.  And in one sense it would be better

19     to have a witness ready and available to go even if the witness maybe has

20     to wait.  But, I mean, that's the only thing I'm saying, because it seems

21     to me that we have the possibility of losing a great deal of time over

22     the next few months, potentially.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, it's not an easy problem, but we're -- it --

24     and as you would be well aware, Ms. Korner, VWS has -- has views on this

25     matter of having witnesses standing by, and it's something which is not

Page 21993

 1     easily resolvable.  And it isn't peculiar to the Tribunal.

 2             MS. KORNER:  No, Your Honours, I appreciate that.  But, I mean,

 3     all I'm saying is this particular case the Defence were told that this

 4     witness was not going to take that long.  In any event, having seen him

 5     yesterday, unless he's prepared to answer questions more shortly, he may

 6     well trickle into tomorrow morning, so that's it.

 7                           [The witness takes the stand]

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning to you, Mr. Orasanin.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Morning.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, I didn't realise you didn't have your

11     headphones on.

12             Yes, before Ms. Korner continues, I remind you you're still on

13     your oath.

14             Yes, Ms. Korner.

15                           WITNESS: MILOMIR ORASANIN [Resumed]

16                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

17                           Cross-examination by Ms. Korner: [Continued]

18        Q.   Mr. Orasanin, yesterday His Honour Judge Delvoie pointed out that

19     I asked you a question about Novo Sarajevo and whether Mico Stanisic had

20     put out a statement saying that the attack had been carried out by what

21     he described as Green Berets.  And His Honour Judge Delvoie pointed out

22     rightly that you went into a long description, and this is at page 21983,

23     of what had actually happened and never answered the question I actually

24     asked.

25             Now, before I ask the question again, can I please ask you this

Page 21994

 1     morning - I think you would like to go home, and we would all like to be

 2     able to finish the cross-examination - just to answer the questions I

 3     ask.  If I want more detail, then I will ask for it.  Or if Defence

 4     counsel think that more detail is required, they can deal with it in

 5     re-examination.  So do you understand that?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Now, the question I asked was:  Did Mico Stanisic put out a

 8     statement to the effect that the attack had been carried out by

 9     Green Berets?

10        A.   My answer is this:  I know that it was the Green Beret that

11     carried out the attack.  I know it personally.

12        Q.   No, that's what I mean.  Just concentrate on the question, not

13     what you know, say you know.  The question was:  Are you aware that

14     Mico Stanisic put out a statement in which he said this was an attack by

15     the Green Berets?

16        A.   I don't remember any such statement.  However, I know that the

17     Green Berets carried out the attack.

18        Q.   All right.

19             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honours, it's not on my list, but, in

20     fact, Your Honours have already seen that.  It's Exhibit P537.  And I

21     don't know whether Your Honours want me to call it up so that you can

22     just see it.  As the witness says, he didn't -- he doesn't know about

23     that.  I had it a minute ago.  Can we just -- just call it up, if we

24     could, just so you can see it because it came in a long time ago.  537.

25     It's dated the 5th of April.  I think it came in through Dr. Nielsen,

Page 21995

 1     such a low number.  And you will see on the 3rd page -- second page

 2     you'll see the description of the attack in English.  I think it's still

 3     the same page in B/C/S.  "Novo Sarajevo Public Security Station was

 4     captured in a classic terrorist attack by so-called Green Berets."  And

 5     can we go to the next page in B/C/S and the last page, third page, in --

 6     you'll see there Mico Stanisic's signature.

 7        Q.   Do you recognise, while we're on this document, Mr. Orasanin, is

 8     that Mico Stanisic's signature?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Now, can we just for a moment go back to the

11     description of your career that you gave yesterday.

12             You told Mr. Cvijetic about your various appointments in the MUP.

13     And that's at -- yes, you worked -- you told him, at page 21842, that you

14     completed the police academy and so on and so forth.  Then you went to

15     the crime prevention department as chief in Novo Sarajevo until 1992.

16     Then you worked as the crime prevention inspector, as you said, until

17     November, when you went to border affairs, and then you told us that you

18     became the deputy chief of public security in Zvornik until you retired.

19             MS. KORNER:  However, can you have a look, please, now at

20     65 ter 20151, tab 9, Your Honours.

21        Q.   This is a document -- in fact, it comes from Prijedor,

22     Simo Drljaca, who was passing on information about appointments in 1994,

23     and at number 14, do we see you?

24        A.   Under 14 I can see the name Milomir Orasanin, chief of department

25     for general crime prevention.  But --

Page 21996

 1        Q.   Is that you?

 2        A.   -- that's a document -- I don't understand.  I have to see -- I

 3     have to look ... I was the chief of the public security station in

 4     Sarajevo in charge of general crime before the war, but that was in

 5     Novo Sarajevo.  I had nothing to do with Prijedor at all.  I'm analysing

 6     all the names.

 7        Q.   No, sorry.  It's my fault.  The copy of this document came from

 8     Prijedor, that's all I'm saying.  That's why you see at the bottom that

 9     it's got Simo Drljaca's name.  But this apparently is appointments which

10     were made in 1994 when Mico Stanisic returned as minister of the

11     interior, and I'm simply asking whether you were then, by him, made the

12     chief of the department for general crime prevention?  Is that so

13     difficult, Mr. Orasanin?  Surely you remember whether you were promoted.

14        A.   I worked in the crime prevention department administration as an

15     inspector in 1994.

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  In 1992.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In November I joined the border

18     affairs administration and there I was the chief of the department for

19     border affairs.  This may be a mistake of some sort.

20             MS. KORNER:

21        Q.   Are you saying that this document, in showing you as being the

22     chief of department for general crime prevention, is in error?

23        A.   I did do that previously, but at that time I was the chief of the

24     department for border affairs, not for general crime prevention.

25        Q.   Well, according to this list of May 1994, the chief of the

Page 21997

 1     department for border affairs is somebody called Slobodan Govedarica, at

 2     number 17.

 3        A.   Yes.  There was a reshuffle, a new organisation was put in place,

 4     and there were times when border affairs was part of the general police

 5     and there were times when it was a special department.  And there was a

 6     department for border affairs with its chief and there was also a section

 7     for border affairs, and its parts were public security stations in

 8     Zvornik, Bijeljina, and so on.  This is what I remember.

 9        Q.   All right.  Mr. Orasanin, this is really a simple question.  Were

10     you or were you not in 1994 made chief of the department for general

11     crime prevention?  The answer is either yes or no.

12        A.   Maybe that was part of a plan.  I can't remember now, but I know

13     I was assigned as the chief of department for border affairs.  They are

14     different organisations.  Ministers changed every two years.  And every

15     time a new minister came, the first thing they did, they re-organised

16     everything.  The border affairs administration was at time merged with

17     the police administration and there were also times when the border

18     affairs administration was on its own, hence all the confusion and

19     changes.  I can't remember.

20        Q.   But -- all right.  So you can't say yes or no; you can't

21     remember.  Are you saying you don't remember what was clearly a

22     promotion?

23        A.   Well, as I sit here, and I can say that in 1993 I worked, and in

24     1994 I was the chief of either the section or the department for border

25     affairs.  The titles changed.  And police stations from Zvornik to Brcko

Page 21998

 1     were integral parts of that department.  I don't see this as a promotion

 2     at all.

 3        Q.   Because all I was going to suggest to you, Mr. Orasanin, was that

 4     clearly Mico Stanisic thought very highly of your abilities as a police

 5     officer and promoted you in 1994.  Is that what happened?

 6        A.   Well, look, let me put it this way, let me tell you the truth, I

 7     can't remember.  Maybe that was planned.  But my office was elsewhere

 8     from August.  I had an office in Bijeljina and another one in Zvornik

 9     because of -- precisely because of this.  I know I was told, You're going

10     to take over everything regarding border affairs.  But it was not only

11     Mico Stanisic.  Others thought that I was an honourable man, that I was a

12     professional, and they told me, Choose an office where you will.  It may

13     be in Bijeljina or Zvornik, but things have to work.  You have to

14     surround yourself with professionals.  I remember that.

15             And I think that Tomo Kovac at one point when he joined, he also

16     had the same opinion.  I believe that the minister planned for that to

17     happen.  But within the next five days, I don't know what happened,

18     because it is the assistant minsters in charge of various administrations

19     who have the final say, and I agree that Mico Stanisic had a high opinion

20     of me, but not only him, everybody else did.  And vice-versa.  I thought

21     that he was the only professional minister that was in office.  He was

22     one of the first ministers, and I thought this it was my moral obligation

23     to come here and to say what I know.

24        Q.   Yes, all right.  Now, can we just deal with some of the other

25     names just to see whether this document is not what it purports to be.

Page 21999

 1             Did Tomo Kovac become the acting head of the public security

 2     department and an assistant minister in 1994?

 3        A.   Yes.  There was a period of time when there were two different

 4     sectors, public security and state security.  I don't remember when,

 5     whether that was in 1993 or 1994.  You would have to jog my memory.  And,

 6     yes, the answer is yes.  Yes, he was.  Yes, he was.  There was the

 7     minister and his office composed of two different services, state

 8     security service, public security service; that was the organisation that

 9     was in place.

10        Q.   Honestly, Mr. Orasanin, all I'm asking you is whether that's

11     right.  You don't have to give me a full explanation.  As I say, if I

12     need more explanation, I'll ask for it.

13             Now, did an Andrija Bjelosevic become the -- be promoted from

14     head of the CSB Doboj to assistant in the public security department at

15     the headquarters?  Either yes or no or you don't know.

16        A.   It says here yes, but I don't remember that.  I don't remember

17     for how long was -- I'm reading the document, and it says so in the

18     document.

19        Q.   Yes.  All right.  Now I'm asking you from your own knowledge

20     because I want to see about this document.

21             Did Vladimir Tutus, who you know, also become an assistant in the

22     public security department?

23        A.   It says so here, but I remember him from a period after the war

24     when he was one of the officials, but that was in 1998.

25        Q.   Do you remember Jesuric, who you knew, who had been in Bijeljina?

Page 22000

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Did he --

 3        A.   Yes.  Yes.

 4        Q.   Did he become the chief of administration for border affairs and

 5     foreigners?

 6        A.   Yes, this is the administration that I just mentioned a little

 7     while ago.  This is part of that new organisation that was to be put in

 8     place.  And pursuant to that there would have been a professional service

 9     for border affairs which had its lower-ranking units sections and police

10     security stations, and Predrag Jesuric was the chief of that

11     administration, whereas I was the chief of one of the departments.

12        Q.   Right.  Thank you.

13             MS. KORNER:  Now, Your Honours, I am going to ask that this be

14     admitted and marked, please.  It wasn't on our 65 ter list.  Its

15     relevance wasn't particularly apparent until this witness started to give

16     evidence.  I say straightaway, it's not just a question of the

17     credibility of this witness, it also does go to the case because it

18     shows, as you can see, other names having been promoted by Mico Stanisic

19     in 1994.  But we say it is relevant and admissible and the witness has

20     been able to speak to it, even though he says he can't remember whether

21     he got this promotion or not.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic.

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, first of all, this

24     is a period beyond the scope of the indictment, so this is not relevant.

25     It was not on the 65 ter list and it does not meet the requirements from

Page 22001

 1     the Prlic decision and we object.

 2             MS. KORNER:  We suggest it is 1994 but it's not the date that

 3     matters.  It's the -- as I say, firstly, this witness's promotion, even

 4     though he says he can't remember, and other people who Your Honours have

 5     heard about or seen also apparently being promoted.  That's the

 6     relevance.  The fact that it's 1994, I agree is outside the date.

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE HALL:  The Chamber is not persuaded that this document

 9     should be admitted into evidence.  It is outside of the -- it is well

10     outside of the relevant period, although promotions by their nature

11     admittedly reflect what would have happened in the past, but this is well

12     beyond the period.  And also we have the witness's viva voce testimony.

13             MS. KORNER:

14        Q.   Now, I want to just ask you, please, to deal for a moment with

15     the Law on Internal Affairs that was promulgated in March of 1992.  That

16     is the law under which all members of the MUP acted; is that correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Could you have a look, please, on the screen, then, please, at a

19     couple of sections.  P530, and it's at tab 1B.

20             MS. KORNER:  Could we have a look, please, at Article 28 first of

21     all, which is, sorry, on the - one, two, three - fourth page in English

22     and fourth page in B/C/S.

23        Q.   And that sets out the new CSBs that were going to be operating

24     within the Serbian Republic.  Do you agree?

25        A.   Well, I don't have the Serbian version here.

Page 22002

 1        Q.   [Microphone not activated] Article 28.

 2        A.   Article 28.  I can only see Articles 1 and 2.

 3             MS. KORNER:  I said page 4, please, in B/C/S.  And page 4,

 4     please, in English.  Yes.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now I can see it.

 6             MS. KORNER:

 7        Q.   And you were aware of that at the time, weren't you, that the --

 8     instead of being -- you said there were eight CSBs under the old BiH MUP,

 9     in fact there were nine, but you agree that they were reduced to those

10     five; you knew that?

11        A.   When I spoke yesterday, I was referring to the old organisation

12     of the former MUP, and then I listed the CSBs, Banja Luka, Doboj,

13     Tuzla --

14        Q.   Don't list them again.  Sorry, I shouldn't have mentioned you

15     said there were eight under BiH, in fact we know, so you needn't worry

16     about it, there were nine.  But don't worry about that.  Please just

17     concentrate on this:  Were you aware at the time in 1992, when you went

18     back to the -- when you went to the new MUP, the Serbian MUP, that there

19     were five CSBs?

20        A.   I was speaking about the stations in the eastern part of

21     Republika Srpska.  When we went there, they didn't belong to the

22     Sarajevo CSB until the new organisation was set up.  Later on they were

23     placed under the Sarajevo CSB, and Zoran Cvijetic was chief.  That's what

24     I know.

25        Q.   I'm going to come on to what you say.  All I'm asking you,

Page 22003

 1     Mr. Orasanin, please, concentrate on the question:  Were you aware, when

 2     you started work at the MUP, as you say, the beginning of May, that there

 3     were five CSBs?

 4        A.   I certainly knew that there was a CSB in Banja Luka, one in

 5     Doboj, then there were the undefined municipalities, and there was

 6     Trebinje.  As I said, there were Bijeljina, Zvornik, Foca, Visegrad, they

 7     had an undefined status; and Foca, Visegrad, Rudo became parts of the

 8     Trebinje CSB.  And there was a dilemma about Zvornik, as far as I know,

 9     and Bijeljina.  And that's why a new centre was established in Bijeljina.

10     There was a dilemma to who Zvornik should belong, whether to Bijeljina or

11     to Sarajevo.

12             When we went to the field, that was a problem for us because we

13     didn't know who these stations belonged to.  I said that they had been

14     left hanging, to my understanding.  And the SJBs in the eastern part, it

15     was decided that, probably it was the minister who decided that, that

16     they should become integral parts of the organisational structure of the

17     MUP but that they should be placed under the Sarajevo CSB.  That's what I

18     know, and that was the basic problem, because you didn't know who to task

19     to implement the obligations and authority under the Law on Internal

20     Affairs.  We were the ones who went to visit them first, and that was an

21     ad hoc visit.  That's what I said, that we didn't do what we were

22     supposed to do.  When we had made a snap-shot of the situation and we saw

23     chaos, we wanted the people to act as police officers, but they weren't

24     under our administration.  They were uniform police and we were from the

25     crime police department, but they were actually appointed by the local

Page 22004

 1     authorities.  And that's why we sent other teams there too, because our

 2     idea when we set out from Pale was something else, but then we saw that

 3     there was chaos.  There were people without appointments, and that's why

 4     we went about --

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Orasanin, are you still answering the

 6     question whether you knew or not that there were five CSBs?  Because I'm

 7     lost.  Would you please -- would you please answer the question:  Did you

 8     know that there were five CSBs or did you not know that at the time?  Or

 9     did you know at the time there were more than five?  That's a yes or a no

10     or there were more.  Nothing else.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I knew, but --

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- during the period after our

14     return in July, not when I went on my first visit.  When I first went

15     there to those SJBs in the east, I didn't know.  And, in fact, there

16     weren't, actually, because they didn't know who they belonged to.  And we

17     were there in the field and we made a snap-shot of the situation.  And

18     that's certain.  That was the real state of affairs.  And in May and June

19     those stations did not belong to a centre.  I'm positive about that.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So now it's clear:  In May you did not know and

21     people did not know because there was some uncertainty, but in July you

22     did know.  Thank you.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  In late July.

24             MS. KORNER:

25        Q.   Now, Mr. Orasanin, I give you fair warning:  Unless you answer my

Page 22005

 1     questions simply and in one sentence, you will be here not just today,

 2     but tomorrow and the day after.

 3             Now, is it your -- are you telling the Court that when you joined

 4     the MUP, you did not bother to look at the new Law on Internal Affairs?

 5        A.   No.  When I was a member of the crime prevention administration,

 6     we were at different locations.  There was a disorganisation.  We were in

 7     one place, and the legal department was in a different place.  In May I

 8     didn't know.  Later I found out.  Now I can't remember when the law was

 9     promulgated, and I must be honest, I accept what you --

10        Q.   Are you seriously telling the Court, Mr. Orasanin, that as a

11     professional, long-serving police officer you did not bother to look at

12     the Gazette published in March which set out the new Law on

13     Internal Affairs?  Is that really what you're saying?

14        A.   Well, in March I didn't know that.  But I did know in --

15             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter is not sure if the witness said

16     June or July.

17             MS. KORNER:

18        Q.   Could you tell -- the interpreter wasn't sure whether you said

19     June or July.  I think that's because I left my mike on.

20             When did you say you saw it, June or July?

21        A.   Well, I suppose it was in June, because March 1992 was before the

22     war, if we're talking about this period.

23             MS. KORNER:  Article 33, please, which should be on the same page

24     in both English and B/C/S.

25        Q.   Which sets out the activities and tasks of the ministry and one

Page 22006

 1     of them is that it monitors, directs, and co-ordinates the activity of

 2     the Security Services Centre and public security stations.  Is it under

 3     this provision that the inspections which were carried out by you and

 4     others took place?

 5        A.   Yes, but I was saying that in 1992 it wasn't possible.  We --

 6        Q.   No, don't you tell me, please, about the inspections.  I'm going

 7     to come on to them.  But I just want your agreement, and you have agreed,

 8     that it's under this provision that the inspections are carried out.

 9             Now, other than the inspection checklist, which I'm going to also

10     come back with -- to, was there any other rule that specifically set down

11     how inspections should be carried out?

12        A.   Yes, it was a bylaw.  But we also implemented the old laws and

13     regulations that were taken over.  So this instruction about

14     instructional supervision was one from the former MUP of

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it's basically the same, and I remember those

16     duties and obligations.

17        Q.   Yes, I understand that.  I fully accept that until later on in

18     the year there was no new rule book.  But what I want to know, please, is

19     under what provision, apart from the Law on Internal Affairs, you carried

20     out the inspections?  Was it a -- was it in the rule book, was it

21     somewhere else?

22        A.   As far as I remember, it was a bylaw, a piece of subordinate

23     legislation, which was passed in 1993.  It was called the instruction on

24     instructive supervision.

25        Q.   I understand that.  I know that there were new laws passed later

Page 22007

 1     on, but what I'm asking you is:  As you were carrying over the old BiH

 2     rule book, was there any other provision in any old legislation, as you

 3     call it, which regulated the conduct of these inspections?

 4        A.   Well, as far as I remember there was this instruction.  Or maybe

 5     it was called "the rule book on inspections."  It was a bylaw.

 6        Q.   Well, that's what I'm asking you --

 7        A.   Actually, it's name may have been called "instruction on

 8     instructive supervision" or something like that.

 9        Q.   Right --

10        A.   Those rules and bylaws and instructions are passed by the

11     minister.

12        Q.   I fully accept that.  What I want to know is, you mean there is a

13     book that is headed "conduct of inspections" as issued by, the then

14     minister it would have been, Delimustafic?

15        A.   Yes, yes, in the former MUP.

16        Q.   All right.  And you were using that when you carried out your

17     inspections, were you, in 1992?

18        A.   Yes, we used that and applied it.  We were duty-bound to do so.

19     The inspectors who went out to conduct inspections must work by some

20     rules where it is set out what they're supposed to do.

21        Q.   Did you keep a copy of that rule book?

22        A.   Well, yes, before the war and in 1992, as I was saying, we didn't

23     have a thing.

24        Q.   No.  I fully understand you, you were using the old one.  Do

25     you -- what I mean is, do you still have in your possession a copy of

Page 22008

 1     that rule book?

 2        A.   It was adopted in 1993, the crime prevention and detection

 3     administration, but that was later.

 4        Q.   Yes, no.  Do you have still, in your parents' place or wherever

 5     it is, a copy of the old BiH rule book on the conduct of inspections?

 6        A.   I do not remember.  I know I did have a copy of the rule book

 7     about public security, but that's a thin booklet and little is said about

 8     this there.  But in 1992 I did not have that rule book.  But when we went

 9     out to do our work, we just worked from memory.

10        Q.   All right.  All that I'm going to ask you to do, Mr. Orasanin, is

11     to check, when you've finish testifying, to see if you have a copy of the

12     book you were using in 1992 which sets out the guide-lines for

13     inspections.  And we'll deal with that at the end of your evidence.

14             MS. KORNER:  Now, finally, can we look, please, at Article 41,

15     which we will find on the sixth page in, I think, both English and B/C/S.

16        Q.   Which sets out the special duties and powers of officials.  And I

17     want to go to the second column, please, the column on the right-hand

18     side at the top where in the second paragraph it says:

19             "The minister shall decide which employees will be considered

20     authorised officials."

21             Do you see that?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And that is the provision, is it, that gives the minister the

24     power to make appointments?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 22009

 1        Q.   Now, you have said yesterday, in answer to questions from

 2     Mr. Cvijetic, or maybe the day before, that unless there were written

 3     appointments made, none of the people could be considered to be -- none

 4     of the people who held positions, such as chiefs of the SJBs, could be

 5     considered to be members of the MUP.  Do you remember saying that?

 6        A.   I was speaking about members of the service who didn't have

 7     appointments, that they couldn't exercise police authorities.  And

 8     legally speaking they couldn't exercise police powers as laid down in the

 9     law if they didn't have appointments.  That's why the appointments were

10     temporary.

11        Q.   I understand that.  And I'm going to come back to the actual

12     reality in a little while.  But what is there that prevents the minister

13     making a verbal appointment rather than putting it into writing?

14        A.   Well, firstly, before his appointment, that person must meet the

15     general and the special conditions to be an employee of the MUP.  And if

16     he meets all these conditions, once he's appointed, can exercise police

17     authorities, such as detaining persons, using force, including weapons,

18     et cetera.  That is that risk, to my understanding.  That's why the

19     appointments were temporary.

20        Q.   And I absolutely understand that.  There are conditions laid down

21     as to the qualifications that must be held.  But what I'm simply asking

22     you is:  What is there to prevent the minister, particularly in a time of

23     conflict and bad communications, from making a verbal appointment and not

24     putting it into writing?

25        A.   As far as I know, and I may not be the most competent person to

Page 22010

 1     speak about this, but talking about the crime enforcement administration,

 2     there must be proposals and all the persons must be qualified and meet

 3     the general and special conditions to do that work.  And of course, a

 4     certain time is required for that.  You can't go about this hastily.  You

 5     must check people, especially from some remote places.  The procedure was

 6     rather slow, as far as I know.

 7        Q.   What exactly -- and what I'm putting to you, Mr. Orasanin, is

 8     that in a time of conflict it is perfectly possible, in order to speed

 9     matters up, for the minister by telephone, or whatever it is, saying, You

10     are appointed, even if only temporarily, as chief of the SJB, or whatever

11     it may be.  There's nothing that prevents that happening, is there?

12        A.   Well, I must be honest and say what I know.  My answer may not be

13     correct.  But at the stations that we visited in the eastern part, and I

14     must stress that it is the eastern part, they were kind of hanging in the

15     air, hovering.  The local authorities were appointing people.

16     Crisis Staffs, as I said, appointed commanders at Zvornik, Skelani, and

17     other places, and that was a problem.  The phone didn't even work.

18     Traffic was disrupted, road traffic, I mean.  There were technical

19     problems and other problems.  That's why the minister couldn't issue

20     appointments, only temporary appointments.  I think it would have been

21     too much responsibility to authorise somebody over the phone to do

22     something without applying the procedure and without checking people.

23             The minister insisted on verified personnel that had experience

24     from before the war.  Goran Macar wasn't there, Dobro wasn't there, so I

25     had to be present.  He insisted that we find people, the old, experienced

Page 22011

 1     people.  In other words, get rid of those lazy sods who only work for

 2     their personal gain.  I remember that.  And I brought an inspector, Cedo

 3     Tosic, who was appointed to a position in the police administration.

 4     Then there was Kapetanovic, Ratko Kapetanovic, who was in the crime

 5     prevention and detection administration.  That was -- I worked on all

 6     that much more than on my proper line of business.

 7        Q.   Yes.  All right, Mr. Orasanin, I don't want a full description of

 8     everybody you employed.  I'm sticking to one simple principle.

 9             You said "the minister couldn't issue appointments, only

10     temporary appointments.  I think it would have been too much

11     responsibility to appoint somebody over the phone ..."  But that was his

12     responsibility, wasn't it? because that's what the law said, the minister

13     shall decide which employees will be considered authorised officials.

14     And that's right, isn't it?  And if you don't agree, say so.  Just say

15     yes or no.

16        A.   Well, I disagree because --

17        Q.   [Microphone not activated] ... that's all you have to say.

18        A.   -- the procedure wasn't applied.  It was a huge risk, a huge

19     responsibility, to appoint people who don't do their work and who aren't

20     professionals.  And then the minister is responsible for the activities

21     of those people who are 100 or 200 kilometres away from the ministry

22     headquarters.

23        Q.   Yes, right.

24        A.   That was a problem.

25        Q.   All right.  Now, I want to move on, please, to the evidence you

Page 22012

 1     gave on the day before yesterday, on Monday, when you were talking about

 2     starting work with the RS MUP, and you said -- or it was, in fact, when

 3     you were asked about the working conditions and you were shown the

 4     document which is a Defence document.  It is, I think, 10D1, which is in

 5     the binder you have, or you no longer have but I'm sure the Defence will

 6     give it back to you.  Tab 3.

 7             MS. KORNER:  Anybody want to give him his binder back?

 8        Q.   You were saying there was hardly anybody there, there was no

 9     phone, typewriters, or whatever.  So this is right at the beginning or a

10     month after the RS MUP has been put into place.  And if we look at the

11     first page, there are 16 people working at headquarters.

12             MS. KORNER:  If we go over to the next page in English and B/C/S.

13        Q.   That's a further 24, isn't it, including a large number of

14     communication officers?  Eleven in all -- well, with the head, 12 in all.

15     24 people on that page.  So working already in May are some 40 people in

16     headquarters.  Wouldn't you say that was at least an adequate number of

17     people within a month of the MUP starting up?

18        A.   Well, according to this document in terms of operative services,

19     there's six plus four, a total of ten.  And the rest are, auxiliary

20     services.  However, in the headquarters, in our headquarters, there was

21     the police administration as well as the crime prevention department, and

22     the two had a total of ten people; four or five in the administration for

23     the police, and the other administration, four to five.  We were in the

24     headquarters Kalovita Brda.  I don't remember where the communications

25     centre was, maybe on Mount Jahorina.  The administration for

Page 22013

 1     administrative affairs was also located somewhere, if my memory serves

 2     me, in a restaurant or in a hotel, also on Mount Jahorina, some

 3     200 kilometres away.  So this document was drafted in the administration

 4     for legal affairs.  They had more modern typewriters, I can see.  There

 5     were ten people in operative administrations.  In the public security

 6     service, that is a public service that works pursuant to the law that we

 7     just saw a little while ago.  The police administration, the crime

 8     prevention administration, a total of ten.

 9        Q.   But look, at the headquarters, wherever they -- and I agree they

10     were in separate buildings, part was in Vraca school in May, there were

11     no less than 40 people working.  That does not include, if you go through

12     the document, because you were taken through it by Mr. Cvijetic on

13     Monday, all the other people that we can see if you go to the next page

14     in English and B/C/S.  The specialist staff, over the page, crime

15     investigation.  All crossed out but you say that you don't understand the

16     crossings-out because everybody was working there, and so on and so

17     forth.

18             So I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Orasanin, that to say that there

19     were no personnel and no communications at this period is simply not

20     right, is it?

21        A.   I spoke about May and the beginning of June.  The roads were not

22     passable towards public security stations in the eastern part.

23        Q.   I'm not -- please, Mr. Orasanin, I'm not talking about how you

24     got about.  I'm talking about the number of staff that were working at

25     the MUP headquarters in May, because this is a payment list for May.

Page 22014

 1             Anyhow, I've made my suggestion.  Let's move on, please.  Can you

 2     look, please, now at a document which is 20 -- 65 ter 20162.  It's

 3     tab 4A, you haven't got it, Mr. Orasanin, of the Prosecution binder.

 4             Now, do you recognise this book, as we look at the cover?

 5             MS. KORNER:  Perhaps we can zoom in on the label.  Yes.

 6        Q.   Can you just read out what it says?

 7        A.   CSB, the Security Services Centre notebook or log-book.  A

 8     log-book of staff, I believe.

 9        Q.   All right.

10             MS. KORNER:  Well, let's go to the next page, please.  I think

11     you'll find it's not that.  In B/C/S.  You can stay on the same page in

12     English, thank you.  Right.

13        Q.   Does that say "sent and received dispatches"?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And does that show, just to take the first example, 22nd to the

16     23rd of April from the minister of the interior, a daily events bulletin,

17     which is going to those places that we can see listed in the next column?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   We go, please, to item number -- we'll leave out the media stuff

20     that follows, item number 4, 24th of April, from the Serbian MUP in S MUP

21     BiH Vraca, as I say, part of the MUP was there.  Does that show a

22     decision going out, temporary assignment to the head of the SJB Sokolac?

23        A.   Yes, 24 April 1992, Vraca.

24        Q.   If we go into May, can we go, please, to -- well, actually, no,

25     let's go to number 15, please, on this list.  Still in April.

Page 22015

 1             MS. KORNER:  Thank you.  And 15 is on the fourth page of the

 2     document in English.  No, in English.

 3             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just a moment, if I

 4     may.  This is a document which is not on a 65 ter list.  The signatory in

 5     the column entitled "remark" was a Prosecution witness, however, he was

 6     not shown this document although he was a competent witness.  I'm afraid

 7     that we are now showing a document to the witness who is not competent to

 8     talk about the communications system, or at least not as thoroughly as

 9     the -- as Witness Radovan Pejic.  So this document does not meet the

10     requirements that I mentioned a little while ago, primarily, it's not on

11     65 ter list.  We will not get very far with this witness unless we read

12     through everything that is written in here.  However, whether this

13     witness is going to be able to draw any valid conclusions based on this

14     document, I'm not sure.  I don't think that we will go very far with

15     this.

16             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, the point that I'm obviously making is

17     because of what the witness asserts about the lack of communication and

18     the no staff and all the rest of it.  As to -- this wasn't, I understand,

19     on the 65 ter list.  It was, however, disclosed to the Defence in 2008.

20     [Microphone not activated] Sorry, Your Honours, I'm just checking on the

21     history of this one.

22             Your Honours, it appears it was added but withdrawn and we're

23     having a slight problem in sorting it out.  But the point is, I'm not

24     seeking to exhibit it.  I'm merely going through this with the witness to

25     see if he'll agree that clearly what he's saying about communications

Page 22016

 1     cannot be, putting it at its lowest, entirely right.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  I have a bit of a problem, Ms. Korner.  Whereas I

 3     appreciate the -- that the witness is -- that you will elicit particular

 4     answers from the witness, the problem is that, this not being an exhibit,

 5     the -- it is -- he is, to my mind, being challenged as to the

 6     reliability, to put it at its lowest, of his answers against a document

 7     which is not before the Chamber.  That's the disconnect that I'm having.

 8             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, well, that's the difficulty on

 9     Your Honours' ruling about this question of exhibits, is that things

10     become much more relevant when we have a witness like this.  And so

11     documents which obviously have always had some relevance but not enough

12     to try and get it on become much more relevant, and I would like to

13     exhibit it.  But, I mean, if Your Honours' ruling is that something which

14     advances our case, although this one has actually been disclosed, and

15     disclosed in 2008, we have difficulty in getting in, then I'm in a bit of

16     a quandary, as it were.  I understand what Your Honour says.

17             I would, provided the witness, which actually -- I'm sorry, I'm

18     interrupting my own train of thought.  I should, of course, check that

19     he's familiar with books like this and that he may recognise his

20     signature.

21             I'm sorry, I'm being told something else.  Would Your Honours

22     forgive me.

23                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

24             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, can we -- Your Honours, I'm sorry, can

25     I help.  I have a feeling that we may have -- it is an exhibit already,

Page 22017

 1     after all of this.  We're just going to check.  I was quite surprised to

 2     hear it wasn't an exhibit when I saw the 20.000 number, but it seems to

 3     have a different 65 ter number.  So can I be just given a minute or so,

 4     or shall I move on while we check this out?

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Perhaps that would be the better course, Ms. Korner.

 6             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  We'll come back to this, then.  Your Honours,

 7     we're just doing a double-check.  We -- the trouble is we have a number

 8     of versions, and sometimes we get the 65 ter numbers right.

 9             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may we be of

10     assistance as well.  The document has been exhibited, and it was

11     commented upon by a competent witness, as P1428.  It was admitted during

12     the examination of a witness who explained the essence of all of the

13     documents listed in here.  I believe that we shed enough light on this

14     document with a competent witness.  I don't think that we can advance any

15     further with this witness.  We can't do more than we did with the witness

16     who is the signatory of this document, who was here and commented upon it

17     when he testified in this court.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic, if you are correct that the document

19     is an exhibit, isn't it open to counsel to challenge the witness on the

20     stand against the -- what that document shows if it is inconsistent with

21     the representations which he has made so far?  I take your point about it

22     not being on the 65 ter list and he not being the author and whatnot, but

23     you have an official document which is exhibited, as you say, and the --

24     Ms. Korner is cross-examining a witness who is testifying to the same

25     facts which are contradicted, on the face of it, by the exhibit.  So

Page 22018

 1     what's the problem?

 2             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... and it was on our

 3     65 ter -- Your Honours, it was on our 65 ter list, and it's P1428.  And

 4     I -- it's our fault but, nonetheless, I don't think Mr. Cvijetic has any

 5     further objection that he can possibly make.

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let me just say, the

 7     witness who testified here had worked and was in charge of the

 8     communications systems, and he explained in very great detail practically

 9     every entry in this document.  I'm afraid that this witness is in no

10     position to know any more about this document, so that's why I'm saying

11     we cannot go any further with him.

12             JUDGE HALL:  We hear you, Mr. Cvijetic, but that's an argument,

13     and we will no doubt come to it later.

14             Yes, Ms. Korner, please continue.

15             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I'm not in any way seeking to get him

16     to explain this book.  I'm getting him -- I'm challenging his assertion

17     that there was no communications.

18        Q.   Now, do I need to take you through any more of this document,

19     Mr. Orasanin, or do you accept that your assertion of no staff and no

20     communications simply isn't right?

21        A.   I will answer your question.  Actually, I already answered this

22     question during our first visit in May.  We didn't have a possibility to

23     communicate.  Whether dispatches were later on sent at the local level in

24     terms of different frequencies, I'm not an expert.  I'm not competent.

25     The chief of communications was Dragan Tesanovic.  He could answer your

Page 22019

 1     questions.  And Pejic, Dragan was in Sarajevo.  He was the head of our

 2     communications centre in Sarajevo, and they are privy to that part of

 3     communication.  But I know that there was a report when we visited the

 4     police stations in Vogosca and Ilijas, people told us there that they

 5     could not communicate between Ilijas and Vogosca, therefore they could

 6     not co-operate, and the distance between the two was only about 20 to

 7     30 kilometres.  And this is what is imprinted in my mind, that the

 8     communications did not function.  We could not report back from Skelani.

 9     I'm talking about the month of May.  Now, if this could function at the

10     local level, I don't know how it was possible because I don't know

11     anything about communications.  Maybe dispatches could be sent by some

12     other lines of communication --

13        Q.   Mr. Orasanin, all I am putting to you is - forget, please, about

14     outside MUP headquarters - that as far as headquarters, wherever the

15     buildings were, they had communication, they were able to send and

16     receive documents.  Now, do you accept that is correct, yes or no?

17        A.   That may have been at a local level, I don't know.  I have never

18     seen this log-book before.  I don't remember that we at the crime

19     prevention administration used this.  This is my answer.  I don't know if

20     their service could do something.  We couldn't.  I'm talking about the

21     month of May and the beginning of June.  As far as I know, it was only in

22     late 1992 that communications were properly up and running.  I have never

23     seen this before, and I don't know anything about this.  I don't know

24     whether it was possible at a local level.  I claim that there was no

25     communication between these two public security stations and there were

Page 22020

 1     no dispatches sent, and that's what I was governed by in my previous

 2     answer.

 3        Q.   All right.  Have a look, please -- that's all I'm going to ask

 4     you about that document.  Have a look, please at document which is P1437.

 5             MS. KORNER:  Tab 5 of the Prosecution binders, Your Honours.

 6        Q.   Were you familiar with the daily reports, Mr. Orasanin?

 7        A.   Not during this period.  This is a bulletin of daily events,

 8     right, in public security stations?  At least this is what I'm reading.

 9        Q.   No, this is sent by the -- if you look at the handwritten at the

10     top --

11             MS. KORNER:  Can we pull down the B/C/S slightly.

12        Q.   Does that read "sent at 2150 hours to the Serbian news agency and

13     the government"?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   This is a MUP headquarters daily report.  In fact, it's

16     number 12.  So these were documents that you had seen before; is that

17     right, or the type of document?

18        A.   I must say that I didn't know that daily reports were sent to --

19     this is our internal document as far as I know, but I may be mistaken.

20     You will allow me that.

21        Q.   I just want to deal with two -- three matters.

22             In the second paragraph, does that deal with what is happening in

23     Vogosca?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   In the third paragraph, does that deal with what is happening in

Page 22021

 1     Ilijas?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3             MS. KORNER:  And if we go over the page, please, just in English.

 4        Q.   In the fourth paragraph, does that deal with what is happening in

 5     Novo Sarajevo?

 6        A.   I can't find this.

 7        Q.   If you focus --

 8             MS. KORNER:  If we can highlight, please, the fourth paragraph in

 9     B/C/S.

10        Q.   You see Novo -- immediately after Ilijas, does it talk about

11     Novo Sarajevo?

12        A.   Yes, yes.

13        Q.   Right.  Do you agree that somehow or other, regardless of the

14     conditions, on the 4th of May MUP headquarters is able to get information

15     about what is happening in those municipalities?

16        A.   I'm not familiar with this.  I was not familiar with this during

17     this particular period of time.  I know nothing about Novo Sarajevo.  I

18     knew nothing about this.  I'm not familiar with the document either.

19        Q.   Yes.  All right.  The question was:  Do you agree, from reading

20     this document, that somehow MUP headquarters is able to get information

21     from these places which you say had no communications?

22        A.   Before the 4th of May, telephones were up and running in town.

23     There was communication before that time.  All communication lines were

24     up and running during this period of time, I think.  Later on there were

25     disruptions, after the 4th of May.  There were separations, as it were,

Page 22022

 1     and the communication lines were disrupted.  And during this particular

 2     period of time I think that telephones were up and running.  You could

 3     call from one station to a place in the city.  There were no separation

 4     lines in the city, as far as I can remember, which means that you could

 5     establish communication during this period of time.  You could make

 6     telephone conversations.  I don't know about teleprinter communications;

 7     I don't know if that was disrupted at all.

 8        Q.   Well, forgive me, Mr. Orasanin, I understood from your long

 9     non-answer to one of my earlier questions that there was no

10     communications between Ilijas and Vogosca at this period.  When do you

11     say -- from what period do you say there was no communication?

12        A.   Seven days after this period, something happened.  This is the

13     beginning of war.  Before the war, all communication lines were up and

14     running.  The situation was normal.  After the 4th of May when the war

15     started, somebody else started controlling their communications system.

16     I don't know how it was done.  I'm not an expert.  I don't know how that

17     worked.  Some ten days later, there were disruptions left, right, and

18     centre.  And it all depended on who controlled what, which part,

19     which ... and as far as I remember, the chief was Kezunovic.  He is an

20     engineer, and he's --

21        Q.   Yes, don't you worry about Mr. Kezunovic.

22             It is generally accepted that the conflict started around the --

23     between the 4th and the 6th of April, not the 4th of May.  Now, you're

24     saying, are you, it was only a week after the 4th of May, so roughly the

25     11th of May, that communications began to be disrupted?  Is that what

Page 22023

 1     you're saying?  A simple yes or no.

 2        A.   I misspoke.  I meant the 4th of April.  And, here, this

 3     information was issued on the 4th of May.  That's why I said the

 4     4th of May and that's why I said 10 or 15 days later everything was

 5     disrupted, when we were in Skelani, Brcko, Zvornik, during our first

 6     visit, that is.

 7        Q.   Mr. Orasanin, that's the point I've been trying patiently, I

 8     hope, to make to you; that you clearly are wrong when you suggest that

 9     there was no communications going on in May between MUP headquarters and

10     Ilijas and Vogosca.  Do you accept that, having seen this document?

11        A.   I claim that there were no communications between Ilijas and

12     Vogosca, because people there complained.  They complained that they

13     couldn't get in touch with the closest municipality.  They complained to

14     us.  I would have forgotten that if there hadn't been this report.  I

15     know that there was always a problem that they couldn't communicate, that

16     they couldn't call in, that the communication lines were down, that there

17     were disruptions.  I don't know what kind of disruptions there were, but

18     I know that they could not send this information from Skelani or

19     elsewhere.  There were no telephones up and running.  We could not --

20     ourselves, we could not call our own boss to report back to him.

21             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, that's probably --

22             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

23             MS. KORNER:  -- an appropriate moment.

24             JUDGE HALL:  So we take the break now, to resume in 20 minutes.

25                           [The witness stands down]

Page 22024

 1                           --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

 2                           --- On resuming at 10.58 p.m.

 3                           [The witness takes the stand]

 4             MS. KORNER:

 5        Q.   Mr. Orasanin, I want to move to the topic of the inspections

 6     themselves.  First of all, did you see reports on inspections that had

 7     been done by other inspectors as part of your job?

 8        A.   Yes, as far as I remember, some.  After our stay on 25 August,

 9     but I don't remember which ones exactly.

10        Q.   No.  But obviously if you were inspecting somewhere which had

11     previously been inspected by another inspector, you would want to check,

12     would you not, to see what they had done, reported on?

13        A.   In this case since we were the first team, there were no previous

14     inspections.  We were the first ones to go there, and after us I think

15     that some other teams went there, after the 15th of May and the

16     25th of August, our visits to Doboj and Foca in early September.

17        Q.   Yes.  Well, in fact we'll see that the -- before you went to

18     Doboj there had been an earlier inspection of Doboj, but I think you've

19     dealt with the matter.

20             Now, is it also correct that during the period of 1992 until you

21     left in November, working in the administration for crime prevention and

22     detection - you've dealt with Mr. Planojevic and Mr. Macar - were

23     yourself, Inspector Milanovic.

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Inspector Ostoja Minic.

Page 22025

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And somebody called Inspector Sinisa Karan.

 3        A.   As far as I know, Sinisa Karan came to the administration later,

 4     possibly even after I left, but I can't be sure.

 5        Q.   [Microphone not activated] All right.  Now, you told us, or you

 6     told Mr. Cvijetic on Monday, when you were shown the inspection

 7     checklist, and this is at page 21870, that he put to you:

 8             "Could you tell us how many employees and from which services of

 9     the ministry would be involved in such an inspection?"

10             And you said:

11             "The document talks about the manner of work and inspection.  For

12     such work you would need two or three inspectors who would be able to

13     examine the entire situation."

14             Now, it's right, isn't it, that you, in fact, on these

15     inspections always had at least two and sometimes three inspectors?

16     Don't worry about the document.  I'll tell you -- I'll come back to the

17     document.  I just want you to answer that question, please.  It's right,

18     isn't it, from what we've seen, there were at least two of you and at

19     least sometimes three of you doing these inspections?

20        A.   Yes, two are sufficient for an inspection of one administration,

21     that is, one region.  But in other cases, three or more.

22        Q.   So --

23        A.   But there were three of us.

24        Q.   Right.  So in fact, when you told Mr. Cvijetic that it needed at

25     least two or three to do the job, you were able in every case to do the

Page 22026

 1     job properly, weren't you?

 2        A.   I was speaking about our first visit, that we had problems there

 3     because we had nothing to inspect there, as those police stations were

 4     not under our administration.  Later there was Doboj --

 5        Q.   Yes, no, no.  Sorry, I understand what you're saying.  You say

 6     that in the earlier inspections there weren't any police stations to

 7     inspect, but you appear to give the impression that you weren't able to

 8     carry out the requirements on this checklist because you needed two to

 9     three people.  But as I'm pointing out to you, you did have at least two

10     and often three people to do these inspections.  So you were able, when

11     there was a police station that was operating, to carry out a proper

12     inspection; is that right?

13        A.   In some towns, no.  But in Doboj we were able to conduct an

14     inspection.  That's what I said when I gave my first statement in 2005,

15     that we had problems on our first visit and the real -- the only one was

16     in Doboj.

17        Q.   All right.  Please don't just repeat everything over again.

18             You were able, if a police station was functioning properly, to

19     carry out the full inspection, weren't you?

20        A.   Yes, if it was functioning and if the management was under our

21     command.

22        Q.   And you would always do a report; is that correct?

23        A.   It was a rule to write a report.

24        Q.   Yes.  And you would give that report, would you, to your direct

25     supervisor, Mr. Macar?

Page 22027

 1        A.   The reports of a uniformed team of inspectors was submitted to

 2     Mr. Macar, my supervisor.  But if it was a mixed team, including

 3     inspectors from the uniformed police, then reports would be submitted in

 4     accordance with the respective lines of work.  That is, the inspector for

 5     the uniformed police would do these tasks, and the crime prevention

 6     inspector would deal with crime prevention matters.  Everybody would

 7     inspect their line of work.  That's in accordance with the rules.

 8        Q.   Right.  But the whole idea, wasn't it, was so that through the

 9     chain of command - that is, from inspectors to Mr. Macar to

10     Mr. Planojevic - the minister, Mr. Stanisic, would be informed of any

11     problems that were occurring in the places where you did inspections?

12        A.   Well, yes, if the conditions allowed that.  But we didn't write a

13     report after our first inspection because we were in a traffic accident.

14     And the incident was suspicious because it may have been staged.

15        Q.   All right.  I appreciate that's what you are saying.  I didn't

16     want to jump ahead, but why did -- I understand you had the accident and

17     you had some injuries, but what was to prevent you, after you had

18     recovered from the accident, and your colleagues from using your notes to

19     put in a report, even if it was a late report?

20        A.   We didn't write reports because this colleague was transferred to

21     hospital and he stayed there for some 10 or 15 days and we were also

22     injured, and basically I didn't even report to anybody at work for a

23     while, maybe 10 days or so.  And that is why we didn't write a report.

24     And that was a very short visit to those stations.  We didn't do much

25     work because we simply couldn't.  We were driven out of Brcko by sniper

Page 22028

 1     fire.  If we had done anything, I probably wouldn't be here now.

 2        Q.   Yes, yes, I'm sure it was a very distressing experience for you,

 3     Mr. Orasanin, but what I'm asking you is:  Didn't Mr. Macar or

 4     Mr. Planojevic say to you, Now that you've recovered from this nasty

 5     experience, could we have a report, please, about what you found?

 6        A.   Well, we didn't submit a report.  I don't know if

 7     Drago Borovcanin ever did that for his line of work, because the greater

 8     problem was with the police administration and their remit, since the

 9     police stations, that is, the uniformed police are far more numerous and

10     they have specific tasks.  So I don't know whether he submitted a report

11     for his line of work, but I don't think so after our injuries.

12        Q.   All right, Mr. Orasanin.  Now, if there were problems as

13     identified in one of the inspection reports, it was the job, wasn't it,

14     of the minister, through his subordinates, to deal with those problems,

15     to put into place solutions; that's right, isn't it?

16        A.   If we are talking about a later period, then, yes, I would agree.

17     But in 1992 there was so much confusion.  It was the phase of the

18     organisation, the setting up of the service.  The centres, the

19     administrations, that was a problem.  I said so in my first statement,

20     that the ministry was only being set up.

21        Q.   Well, I know that, but who -- even if the ministry was only being

22     set up and even if there was confusion, it was the job, wasn't it, of the

23     minister to deal with the problems that arose?

24        A.   Well, I don't know that.  We did the things that had to do with

25     our administration and our tasks.  What the relations were between

Page 22029

 1     minister and minister, well, I'm not privy to that.  We did work in the

 2     field, and that's why we don't know what happened later, where that

 3     information went or our reports.

 4        Q.   Well, when you say you don't know what happened later to your

 5     reports, you, for example, described how the minister had taken action

 6     over what was happening in Foca and other places.  Wasn't it clear to you

 7     that the minister was getting the information?

 8        A.   I know that Goran Macar issued me that order.  He said to me, See

 9     about this and prepare our activities.  That's what I remember.  And I

10     drafted something by hand, considering who was available in terms of

11     human resources.  I was -- I limited myself to the crime prevention

12     department.

13        Q.   Did anybody other than the minister have the power to issue an

14     order removing or replacing the head of an SJB?

15        A.   Well, under the law, it's the minister who appoints people;

16     whereas the nominations come from the centres.  These are the legal

17     provisions, I think.  That was after the centralisation of the MUP.  The

18     war broke out when the MUP was centralised, as compared to a pre-war

19     situation when it was decentralised.  In 1984 [Realtime transcript read

20     in error "1994"] there was a decentralisation of the police.

21        Q.   Don't worry about the history, please.  Did anybody other than

22     the minister have the power to order --

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] If I may, I believe that the year

24     was wrongly recorded in line 17.  It says "1994."  I believe the witness

25     said "1984."  That's how it was interpreted.  Ms. Korner must have heard

Page 22030

 1     it too.  The reference to the pre-war decentralisation, the year is

 2     wrong.

 3             MS. KORNER:  Yeah, yeah, it's just been wrongly --

 4        Q.   Don't worry, Mr. Orasanin, it's just been wrongly recorded.  I

 5     heard through my earphones "1984," not "1994."

 6             Did anybody other than the minister have the power to order the

 7     reduction of reserve policemen?  Yes or no, please.  Not an explanation.

 8     Yes or no.

 9        A.   I know as far as appointments go that in 1992 the centre chiefs

10     were authorised to issue temporary appointments, but I'm not sure which

11     centres those are.  I'm referring to temporary appointments of police

12     officers.  And they also had the authority to downsize the reserve

13     police.  So centre chiefs were authorised to issue temporary appointments

14     for police officers in police stations, as far as I remember.

15        Q.   And that's because Mico Stanisic delegated that authority to

16     them; is that right?

17        A.   Well, I know that they made decisions on these appointments, I

18     mean the centre chiefs, but whether they were authorised to do so, I

19     cannot remember.  But that's not my line of business.  We had information

20     that the centre chief can appoint a person to do the work of a police

21     officer in a police station.

22        Q.   Right.  Now, you told the Court on Monday, at page 21872, that

23     your priorities - I'm trying to find it, 21872 - were staffing at the

24     places you inspected and also the crime reports; is that right?

25        A.   I was saying that we were duty-bound to check what the crime

Page 22031

 1     prevention services of some SJBs were doing.  We were inspecting the

 2     crimes log and everything else that had to do with crime.

 3        Q.   Well, let's -- can we just take, please -- have another look at

 4     that inspection checklist.

 5             MS. KORNER:  P988.

 6        Q.   Which you've got at tab 34 in your binder, Mr. Orasanin.  Defence

 7     binder.

 8             Now, if we look again at some of the items, you have to -- it

 9     says "purpose" -- it says:  "In the course of the inspection of

10     investigation departments, it is necessary to meet employees, working

11     meeting," and then, "purpose of the inspection:  Gain an insight into

12     criminal charges submitted."  That is in the KU log-book entries.  And

13     then the records, other records, including, and that's one before the

14     bottom on the English, "the log-book of on-site investigations"; is that

15     right?

16             MS. KORNER:  And then over the page, please, in both English and

17     B/C/S.

18        Q.   "Upon completion of the inspection, a written report is to be

19     compiled ... positive qualities, failures noted ... and then submitted

20     to" it makes it quite clear it has to go to the minister, the assistant

21     minister, the CSB head, and the files.  So that there's no question but

22     that your report had to go to the minister, didn't it?

23        A.   Talking about this instruction, I was saying that in our report

24     itself where it says visit to police stations, and I don't want to be

25     very long again, that we didn't use the term "inspection" but "visit."

Page 22032

 1     And -- but if we choose the term "inspection," then what you said follows

 2     from that.  But since it wasn't possible, there were no conditions on the

 3     occasion of our first visit, possibly with the exception of Doboj, the

 4     terms we used, visits to police stations.  And we did some of what is

 5     listed here.  In Doboj we had a meeting.  It is logical to look at the

 6     rule book on internal organisation, if it's in effect, to see how many

 7     inspectors there are, what they do, the structure, and then start

 8     reviewing the log-books, such as the KU log-book and the others.  It is

 9     logical that then a report must be submitted.

10        Q.   Yes, but whether you called it a visit because you couldn't, for

11     the reasons you've explained, carry out a full inspection, nonetheless,

12     the report that you made had to go, didn't it, to the same people because

13     that was the purpose of the visit?

14        A.   We were duty-bound to submit a report to our supervisor and that

15     was Goran Macar.  He was the coordinator, or his official position was

16     assistant minister of the interior, as far as I know.  And before him it

17     was Dobrislav Planojevic.

18        Q.   Don't worry about who it was before.  All right.  Let's consider

19     the KU books.  The purpose of that inspection, is that right, was to see

20     whether there were any anomalies in the books?

21        A.   The purpose is to make a review in accordance with the checklist.

22     But at the time we didn't have this checklist.  We used the pre-war

23     checklist.  So we worked based on our experience from before the war.

24     And by inertia we went about this job, and what we saw there we also

25     recorded.

Page 22033

 1        Q.   Yes, stop, please, Mr. Orasanin.  That's not the question I

 2     asked.  But you've now sent me down another side track.  Even if this

 3     list was produced during 1992, is there any difference between this list

 4     and the previous list that you had?

 5        A.   In 1993?

 6        Q.   No.  Was there any difference between the old checklist that came

 7     from the BiH MUP, the joint MUP, and this one?

 8        A.   I think that this is more or less the same, that it contains the

 9     same duties for the crime prevention department.  Or at least that's how

10     it should be.  I cannot be very precise now.

11        Q.   Now, when you were -- let's go back to my original question.

12     When you were checking the KU books, was one of the purposes of doing it

13     to see whether there were any obvious anomalies; for example, that there

14     were too many unknown perpetrators being listed?

15        A.   Well, I remember that when we were in Doboj that we reviewed --

16        Q.   [Microphone not activated] -- I want the general principle,

17     please.  As a general principle, with your years of experience, when you

18     were checking the books, was one of the purposes to look for anomalies,

19     things that weren't right, based on your experience?

20        A.   The KU log-book contains the reported crimes, with the dates and

21     so on, as well as the subsequent activities where that criminal report

22     ended up --

23        Q.   We know what the KU books contain.  We've got the KU books.  What

24     I'm asking you is what was the purpose of your inspecting them.  Was it

25     to look for things that suggested were not quite right in what was

Page 22034

 1     happening?

 2        A.   Well, the purpose was to identify any shortcomings and whether

 3     they worked in accordance with the procedure when it comes to reported

 4     crimes.  Where those criminal reports ended up, whether they were

 5     submitted to the prosecutor's office, because that was their duty under

 6     the Law on Criminal Procedure.  And then the prosecutor's office should

 7     trigger a further work to clarify those --

 8        Q.   Stop, stop, stop.  I don't want to deal with that.  One of the

 9     things you would be looking for is to see whether they had put in

10     criminal reports to the prosecutor's office; is that right?

11        A.   That's what we required.  I said that this inspection was done in

12     Doboj.  And as far as Skelani, the others, are concerned, well, there

13     were -- those were very short visits because the service wasn't really

14     organised, but in Doboj, yes.

15        Q.   Do you understand what is meant by "general principles,"

16     Mr. Orasanin?

17        A.   General principles follow from a rule, from an attitude or from

18     the law.

19        Q.   Right.  I'm not asking you specifically what you found at the

20     moment in Doboj or Skelani or anywhere.  I'm just asking you what, as an

21     experienced inspector, you were looking for when you inspected the

22     KU books.  And you've said already to see whether reports were being sent

23     to the prosecutor.

24             Would a book full of reported crimes with a lot of unknown

25     perpetrators be something that you would query?

Page 22035

 1        A.   Well, yes, we wanted to see the results of the crime prevention

 2     department's activities.  We wanted to see what they did under the law.

 3        Q.   Yes, no.  Right, because -- I'm sorry, is the answer to my

 4     question, which I will repeat, would a book full of reported crimes with

 5     a large number of unknown perpetrators be something that you would raise

 6     with either the chief of the SJB or the CSB or the relevant official at

 7     the place you were inspecting?

 8        A.   Well, yes, we would take stock of the numbers and we would see

 9     what activities had been undertaken.  That's what we did.  We spotted

10     problems and we insisted on task forces to be established in order to

11     deal with the problem.  That was our obligation under the law.

12        Q.   I'll try one more time, Mr. Orasanin.  Concentrate hard.  If you

13     saw a KU book that was full of crimes with unknown perpetrators recorded,

14     would that be something that you would raise with the officials at the

15     place that you were inspecting?

16        A.   Well, yes, it was our analytical service that did that.  They

17     looked at the reports.  It would be the head of the department for crime

18     prevention and the police department who did that.

19        Q.   I'm asking you whether when you saw it, you personally, you would

20     think that was something that should be reported, something you should

21     raise with -- you personally, with the officials at the place you were

22     inspecting?

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that the

24     question has been asked and answered.  He even gave you a very concrete

25     example as to what was done in situations when there was a large number

Page 22036

 1     of criminal reports featuring unknown perpetrators in Doboj.  I believe

 2     that the question has been asked and answered in a very concrete manner.

 3     The witness did say what they did.

 4             MS. KORNER:  I disagree.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Well, I was about to say, Mr. Cvijetic, in my view

 6     the question has been asked several times.  I'm not sure it's been

 7     answered directly.

 8             MS. KORNER:

 9        Q.   Now, I'll try it one last time, Mr. Orasanin.  When you saw a

10     book -- and, all right, let's say, for example, as in Doboj, with a large

11     number of unknown perpetrators, is that something you would raise at the

12     time?  You, not your analytical section.

13        A.   Yes, we discussed that at our meetings and we launched

14     initiatives for task forces to be set up in order to deal with that.  And

15     then in our subsequent visits, we would have looked at the results of our

16     previous remarks.  So as a result of our first visit, we established how

17     many unknown perpetrators there were.  And then we set up operative

18     groups in order to elucidate those crimes.  I remember that we wrote a

19     report to that effect.

20             And then during the subsequent visit, the one that I wasn't a

21     part of, they went there to see what concrete results had been achieved,

22     they visited all the other centres, they wanted to see what activities

23     had been undertaken and involved the chief of the centre.  Of course,

24     it's logical, and that was our obligation.  And information on all of

25     that would have been contained in our reports.

Page 22037

 1        Q.   Right.  Exactly.  And what applied to Doboj applied everywhere

 2     else as well; is that right?

 3        A.   That was the rule.

 4        Q.   Right.  And indeed it was important enough, as you say, for the

 5     information to go to your analytical section; is that right?

 6        A.   We submitted reports to the crime prevention administration.  If

 7     a team was mixed, then it -- the reports would go to both

 8     administrations, the police administration and the crime prevention

 9     administration.  And then the respective heads contacted our head of

10     service, not us.

11        Q.   No.  All right.  [Indiscernible].

12             In 1992, when you were going to areas where you knew that there

13     had been conflict, would the fact that nearly all reports appeared to be

14     against non-Serbs in any way cause you to ask questions at the time?

15        A.   I said that our visit to the stations in Skelani, Zvornik, and

16     Brcko was a blitz visit and that we couldn't do much there, practically

17     nothing.  For example, in Zvornik the station had not even been set up,

18     there was no chief --

19        Q.   No.  When you were doing your visits outside that first one that

20     you've told us about - and, for example, let's take Doboj again - was the

21     fact that the whole crime register appear to mainly have reports against

22     non-Serbs something that caused you to question what was happening?

23        A.   Well, yes.  But in Doboj, when we looked at the crimes, there

24     were some known perpetrators, there were some murders or killings, for

25     example, a Serb killed another Serb, and there were victims on both

Page 22038

 1     sides, both Serbs and Bosniaks.  The reports that we analysed prompted us

 2     to launch an initiative to elucidate all of those crimes.  I remember

 3     that.  Irrespective of who the victims were, we formed operative groups

 4     that would collect information, and so on and so forth.  It was not our

 5     obligation to contact any of the courts or the prosecutor's offices.  We

 6     still contacted them.  We were the ones behind the initiative to get both

 7     of them involved.

 8        Q.   Look, look, all I'm asking, Mr. Orasanin, is this:  Whether if

 9     you saw that there appeared to be an overwhelming preponderance of

10     reports against non-Serb perpetrators, would that be something that you

11     would ask questions about?  Either yes or no.

12        A.   Yes, of course.  We spoke to the crime prevention service again

13     and we asked them to work on all of the cases, all 11 of them, and then

14     the inspectors were resent out to see what had been done in the meantime,

15     from the first to the second visit.

16        Q.   I'm not talking about the 11 cases that had unknown perpetrators.

17             Now, for the last time, Mr. Orasanin --

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, could you eventually ask the witness

19     whether he noticed the fact you're putting to him.

20             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  I'm trying to get general principles.

21        Q.   If you noticed, when you were checking the KU book, that the

22     overwhelming number of cases had non-Serb perpetrators, not unknown ones,

23     named non-Serb, would you have raised that?

24        A.   I can only talk about what I know, about the 11 cases.  Those

25     were war crimes, as far as I could see, as far as I could glean from the

Page 22039

 1     reports, if we are talking about those 11 cases that were crimes, that

 2     were homicides.  And in legal terms and in logical terms that was what it

 3     was, and we were behind the initiative to set up teams that would deal

 4     with those cases.  That's why we sent reports, Madam Prosecutor.  This is

 5     my answer to your question.

 6        Q.   Okay.  This is actually the last time.  Leave aside Doboj and the

 7     11 cases, please.

 8             If when you conducted inspections in places that had KU books and

 9     you noticed that in those books the overwhelming majority of crimes had

10     non-Serb perpetrators, is that something you would have queried at the

11     time?  Please, either yes or no.

12        A.   Well, I can -- I really apologise, I can only tell you what I

13     know, what I saw with my own two eyes on my inspection visits to those

14     stations.  And if we're talking about rules and regulations, then yes.

15     However, what I noticed, what I observed, is what I told you and what was

16     entered in the reports about those stations.  I'm talking about things

17     that we were looking for.  We looked at all the criminal reports and we

18     insisted on the law being observed and carried out.  That was our

19     obligation.  That was our task.

20             If we're talking about general rules, they arose from rules and

21     regulations and from the laws.  I am telling you what I saw, what I was

22     in a position to see.  And I'm just sharing with you what my mental

23     capacities allowed me to see at the time.  There were no conditions in

24     place for us to do full inspection supervision.  I'm always coming back

25     to the inspection supervision.  It is a very tall order, in legal terms,

Page 22040

 1     to do an inspection supervision.  I'm just sharing with you what I saw,

 2     what we observed, and what our obligation was.  And all the police forces

 3     do that.  It's not something that only we did.

 4        Q.   All right.  I'll ask the simple question --

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, I take it that at line -- at page 48,

 6     line 2, at the end of line 2, the witness answered your hypothetical

 7     question.  But it's still a hypothetical question.

 8             MS. KORNER:  It's not, Your Honour, with respect.  I'm going to

 9     ask the specific question that Your Honour wanted me to ask, because it's

10     not hypothetical, it's what he considered to be part of his job, with his

11     experience.  So it's not a hypothetical question, but I will ask the

12     specific question.

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

14             MS. KORNER:  And I'm sorry that I was trying to get general

15     principles, unsuccessfully.

16        Q.   When you went to Doboj on what was a proper, full, complete

17     inspection that took two days, did you notice in the KU book for Doboj

18     that the majority of named perpetrators were of non-Serb ethnicity?

19        A.   I don't understand your question.  I don't understand your

20     question.  What do you mean by perpetrators?

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The word "perpetrator" in Serbian

22     was used, the non-Serbian perpetrators.  Can you repeat?

23             THE INTERPRETER:  The Croatian variant of the word was used and

24     that -- the interpreter believes that that may be the problem.

25             MS. KORNER:  Well, we've been using "perpetrators" throughout the

Page 22041

 1     whole case without anybody telling us you can't call them perpetrators.

 2        Q.   People accused of crime.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Orasanin, do you now understand the question?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not sufficiently.  When we looked

 5     at the KU, the question was whether we noticed the list of Serbian

 6     perpetrators of crimes or --

 7             MS. KORNER:

 8        Q.   No, stop.  I'll repeat the question again, as the translation

 9     went haywire.

10             When you inspected the Doboj KU book in August of 1992, did you

11     notice that the bulk of people accused of crimes were of non-Serb

12     ethnicity, Muslims or Croats?

13        A.   I don't remember that.  There were some crimes committed by known

14     perpetrators, both Serbs and Bosniaks.  As far as I can remember, there

15     were several such cases.  And there were also crimes committed by unknown

16     perpetrators.  It was our obligation to look at the crimes committed by

17     unknown perpetrators, those crimes that hadn't been elucidated by then.

18     And we urged them to collect information and to submit that information

19     to the prosecutor's office.

20             And I remember that there were two Serb cousins who were both the

21     perpetrator and the victim of a crime and the criminal report had been

22     filed.  So there were all sorts of different things there.  Maybe if you

23     showed me the document again, you would jog my memory, but that's -- this

24     is my answer to you.

25        Q.   Sorry, show you what document again?

Page 22042

 1        A.   If I were to see that document or those documents, those criminal

 2     reports featuring unknown perpetrators of crimes.

 3        Q.   I'm not talking about unknown perpetrators.  I'm talking about

 4     allegedly known perpetrators.  Do you understand the question,

 5     Mr. Planojevic -- Mr. Orasanin?  When you looked at the KU book in Doboj,

 6     which you say you did, did you notice the vast majority of those persons

 7     accused of crime were non-Serb?  If you didn't, then say so.

 8        A.   I didn't notice that.  Maybe it was the next team that noticed

 9     that, but I really can't remember.  And I'm being sincere when I say

10     this.

11        Q.   All right.  Now, finally, before I look at some of the

12     inspections that you did, you told us you didn't file a report in the

13     respect of your first visit, I'll call it, but did you give a verbal

14     report to Mr. Macar or Mr. Planojevic about what you found there?

15        A.   If we're talking about my first visit, as far as I can remember,

16     Macar was not my superior.  We had been sent on that first visit by

17     Cedo Kljajic, who was the chief for public security at the time, and our

18     team was a mixed team consisting of Drago Borovcanin on behalf of the

19     uniformed police, myself, and Pekic, Petko Pekic.

20        Q.   If it was Mr. Kljajic, did you give a verbal report of what you

21     pound to anybody at headquarters, when you finally got back there?

22        A.   I answered your question.  We had that incident and the short

23     break and my colleague was in hospital and for a while I was in a village

24     and we didn't file any reports.  We didn't submit reports.

25        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... I know you didn't file a

Page 22043

 1     written report.  I hope the translation's not going wrong here.

 2             Did you speak to Mr. Kljajic or anybody else and say, Look, this

 3     is the problem that we've found in Skelani or Zvornik or whatever it is?

 4        A.   No, because after the incident I joined the crime service, and I

 5     did not see Cedo Kljajic for a month or maybe two.  His office was in

 6     Vraca and my office was in Kalovita Brda.  So after our visit and our

 7     return, I really didn't see him.  I reported to Kalovita Brda, in Pale,

 8     and his office was not in Pale but in Vraca.

 9        Q.   I'm sorry, are you saying that your bosses, the senior officials

10     in the MUP who sent you off on this visit or inspection, whatever you

11     call it, that nobody, none of them, asked you, and not you personally, or

12     any of your colleagues what you had found?  Is that what you're saying?

13        A.   I'm not saying that.  That was the organisation in place.  It was

14     the early days.  Drago Borovcanin, I believe, along his line which was

15     uniformed police, it is possible that he conveyed some information,

16     because he was the least wounded of all of us in that incident.

17        Q.   That's all I wanted to know.  Thank you.

18             Now, the inspection of Zvornik that you did - let's deal with

19     these places - you did that in about mid-May; is that right?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Could you have a look, please, then, at the document which is 1C

22     in the Prosecution tab, which is -- it's got a number 20160.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  It's not 1C.

24             MS. KORNER:  Sorry.  Oh, we did have -- that's right, it was

25     the -- sorry, it's P346.  I've forgotten that we had discovered that it

Page 22044

 1     had been admitted as well.  P346.

 2        Q.   Now, I don't know -- well, you may have seen this before.  Have

 3     you ever seen this before?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   But this is the report that they sent you -- sorry, sent you --

 6     sent to the CSB at Bijeljina about what they had done between

 7     April the 1st and the 30th of June, and this is the station you say

 8     wasn't working at all and indeed you could only go to, I think you said

 9     Karakaj or something like that.  During this period, 300 individuals were

10     interviewed, 200 statements --

11             MS. KORNER:  Oh, sorry, page 2 in English and page 2 in B/C/S.

12     No, page 1.  Sorry, page 1 in B/C/S.

13        Q.   300 individuals were interviewed, 200 statements taken about the

14     activities of Muslims, 80 searches of apartments and other premises

15     belonging to Muslim extremists, all police station employees armed but

16     lack of communications equipment.

17             MS. KORNER:  And then if we go to the third page in English and I

18     think it's the second page in B/C/S.

19        Q.   In addition to that, the employees, the crime prevention

20     department were engaged in operative tasks.  At first when the conflict

21     broke out, there were three inspectors, later on an additional five

22     inspectors were hired and a chief of the crime prevention department

23     appointed.

24             MS. KORNER:  Please the next page in English.  Same page in

25     B/C/S, I think.  Sorry, no, can we go to page -- sorry, we should be on

Page 22045

 1     page 2 in B/C/S.

 2        Q.   Does that say "tasks and activities of the police station" in

 3     B/C/S?  In the middle of the --

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Right.  Thank you.  Underneath that, in English, "Zvornik public

 6     security service currently employs," and nobody can read it because

 7     something's gone over it, "members of the police, 33 are active police

 8     officers, all management posts have been filled."

 9             MS. KORNER:  Can we go down the page.

10        Q.   "In the reporting period, the police employees brought in 537

11     persons for interview and interviewed 48 Muslim extremists."

12             MS. KORNER:  And next page in English, please.

13        Q.   "There were 336 inspection outings on the territory of the

14     Zvornik municipality ..." and so on and so forth.

15             MS. KORNER:  And if we go, please, to the last page in English

16     and B/C/S.

17        Q.   That's signed by Mr. Vasilic, who was the person you met, wasn't

18     he?

19        A.   Can I comment?

20        Q.   Well, let me ask you the question:  Are you saying that all of

21     that activity recorded there must have taken place after your inspection

22     and before the end of June?

23        A.   I was saying that we called at Karakaj and Zvornik and that the

24     police station wasn't really operational, that it was in two offices.

25     Later on they moved to Zvornik to work.  I know that on the occasion of

Page 22046

 1     our visit, which took about an hour too, there was a personnel problem --

 2        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... yes, you told --

 3        A.   And we were trying to persuade Vasilic to take over.  He was

 4     deputy commander or assistant commander, as far as I remember.  And

 5     before him Slavko Jelic was commander but he got killed.  That was the

 6     problem.  We were there only on a very short visit and they weren't in

 7     their own facilities.  There were in new facilities in Karakaj and they

 8     really didn't do anything there.  That's why I said that our first visit

 9     wasn't really an inspection.  I only found a couple of people there.  I

10     remember that there was Petko and that there was Vasilic, who was deputy

11     commander.

12        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... all right --

13        A.   Or -- anyway, he wasn't chief.

14        Q.   This is what -- this is what I'm trying to ask you about:  You're

15     saying, effectively, because that's what you said to Mr. Cvijetic,

16     page 21877, you went mid-May or late May to this Karakaj place, they were

17     totally disorganised, they weren't operational, the police station didn't

18     have executive personnel, there was Marinko Vasilic and Petko Panic.  So

19     everything they describe there on your account must have taken place

20     between mid-May and the 29th of June when this report was sent up; is

21     that right?

22        A.   I haven't seen this report nor did we conduct an inspection

23     there.  That's why I don't know about this report.  We basically didn't

24     do anything there.  I can only say what I know.  And I know about this

25     information, that for a month or two this man stayed there, Pantelic.

Page 22047

 1     That is what I know.

 2        Q.   All right.  See, this is what I want to ask you about.  I really

 3     am suggesting to you, Mr. Orasanin, that for whatever reason this visit

 4     or inspection was nothing of the sort, was it?  Wasn't even beginning to

 5     be an inspection?

 6        A.   Well, I don't disagree.  The first visit was just to go and see

 7     what they had there, to make a snap-shot.  But what we saw was total

 8     disorganisation.  There weren't any police there.  They were all

 9     frightened.  It was the same at Skelani and Zvornik.  They were very

10     short visits.  And we didn't even start with the instructive inspection.

11     And that's the only truth.

12        Q.   Well, you see, this isn't right, is it?

13             MS. KORNER:  But I see the time, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, so we take the break, to pick this up in

15     another 20 minutes.

16                           [The witness stands down]

17                           --- Recess taken at 12.04 p.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 12.41 p.m.

19             JUDGE HALL:  We apologise for not having announced an extended

20     break at the beginning, but we were in a meeting.  We didn't think it

21     would take as long as it did.

22             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I don't think it will come as a

23     surprise to hear that I won't be finishing today, though I would've if

24     all things had been equal.

25                           [The witness takes the stand]

Page 22048

 1             MS. KORNER:

 2        Q.   Now, I want to stay with the subject of Zvornik and what you

 3     described as this non-working police station when you did your visit in

 4     May.  Could you have a look, please, at a document which has been given

 5     the number 20159 at tab 1D of the Prosecution bundle.

 6             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, can I say that it was disclosed in

 7     August of last year in connection with a witness who testified then.  If

 8     we go, please, to -- does it say "Lists of SJB Workers" on the front?

 9     And can we go to the next page, please in English and B/C/S.

10        Q.   A list --

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   -- of public security station workers at Zvornik.  SJB chief

13     Milorad Lokancevic, I think that's the person you mentioned?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Then we see administration, communications, national security.

16             MS. KORNER:  Then can we go, please, to the next page both in

17     English and B/C/S.

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, only for the sake of

19     the record, we repeat our usual objection that this document does not

20     meet the conditions.  It isn't on the 65 ter list.  And it's for the

21     Trial Chamber to rule on its admissibility.  It was disclosed in

22     connection with the Prosecution witness, but it was not used with that

23     witness.

24             MS. KORNER:  Correct, Your Honour.  And I'm dealing with his

25     assertions, and this goes to his credibility as a witness.  At that

Page 22049

 1     stage, of course, nobody knew that this witness was going to turn up and

 2     make these assertions.  Thank you.

 3        Q.   Now, next page, it's a letter dated the 1st of June, 1992,

 4     addressed to the Serbian contemporary municipal government, which is a

 5     somewhat odd translation, I think.  I think it's the municipality.  And

 6     it says, submissions of the workers engaged in SJB Zvornik.  Enclosed

 7     with the file, we submit to you the list of active and reserve police at

 8     Zvornik Public Security Station being submitted according to the payment

 9     of salaries for the month of May.

10             Do you agree, Mr. Orasanin, it appears that the SJB chief

11     Mr. Pantelic is asking for the municipal authorities to pay the salaries?

12        A.   Yes.  I know that they were controlled by the Crisis Staff, but

13     when I was on my visit, they were in Karakaj.  This is from a later

14     period.  I'm speaking about the time when the police station was

15     functioning in Karakaj.

16        Q.   Yes, no, no, just wait.  Because you said this was a

17     non-functioning police station.  Right, now, go to the next page, please.

18     They're asking for the salaries of those who worked in May, so at the

19     time when you made this visit.  Employed SJB workers, numbers 1 to 33.

20     Mr. Pantelic, Mr. Vasilic, Petko Pantic, the person you spoke to, and so

21     on and so forth.  33 of them in all.  Do you see?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And if we then go -- the rest are the reserve police.  And it

24     runs -- I'm not going to take you through all the pages.

25             MS. KORNER:  Can you pull up the B/C/S for a moment, please, or

Page 22050

 1     is it the next page, maybe.  Yes.  Yep.  Reserve police numbers 1 and,

 2     indeed, if we go to the last page, please, in English and B/C/S.

 3        Q.   Does that show that there are -- there were working or attached

 4     in May, and in fact it gives the dates that they apparently were working,

 5     some 187 reserve police?

 6        A.   Yes, according to this document.

 7        Q.   Well, are you suggesting that Mr. Pantelic was trying to extort

 8     money from the municipality by giving totally false lists of police

 9     officers who were working?  Surely not.

10        A.   No.  No, no.  I didn't mean that.  But possibly this list was

11     compiled later.  I had the feeling that in those three offices in

12     Karakaj, I only found a few people on duty.  That's how they functioned

13     in that remote police facility.  Later they moved to another location.

14     Karakaj is 5 kilometres from Zvornik.  That's what I'm talking about.

15        Q.   Yes, but you gave the impression that you were told this was a

16     non-functioning, non-working, non-staffed police station.  And we've seen

17     the report, Mr. Orasanin, that was done in June.  We've now seen the list

18     of police officers.  Are you saying that Mr. Vasilic, who you spoke to,

19     and Mr. Panic and everybody else told you this was a non-operating police

20     station?

21        A.   No, no.  I had the feeling when I was there, because we were only

22     there for an hour, I spoke to Marinko, I didn't even speak to Pantelic

23     about anything, and that's why we weren't able to conduct an inspection.

24     They had their premises inside a company in Karakaj at that period.  I

25     didn't see any people there.  That's why I had this feeling.  But I said

Page 22051

 1     that we were only there on a very brief visit.  And possibly later when

 2     they moved to the police station building, once the conditions were

 3     created, possibly this list was compiled, but I didn't see this these

 4     people there on the premises.  That's what I meant.

 5        Q.   But you'd been sent -- I'm sorry, Mr. Orasanin, but presumably

 6     with some difficulty, given the conditions that undoubtedly existed in

 7     May, you and your fellow inspectors had been sent off to do an

 8     inspection.  Now, why did you only spend one hour there and not make any

 9     inquiries, as you clearly didn't?

10        A.   I said that the first visit is something that I don't really

11     consider an inspection because the legal obligations are very serious.

12     When we went to Skelani, Zvornik, and Brcko, we didn't really review the

13     lists or registers.  They were only very short visits.  But we left it

14     for later inspections because we couldn't really do it.  We only went

15     there to see if there is anybody, and if they are properly staffed,

16     whether there's a commander, a deputy, and that was our intention.  And I

17     believe that we were successful in this respect.  But the police station

18     was not in its own building, the building that was built to be a police

19     station.  They weren't at Zvornik at all.

20        Q.   You've said that three times, Mr. Orasanin.  What I am trying to

21     get you to explain is how, given the reality of how Zvornik was

22     operating, as we can see from documents, you gained the impressions it

23     was not operating at all and presumably reported back to your superiors,

24     or somebody else, that it wasn't operating.

25        A.   As far as the functioning is concerned, I meant the executives,

Page 22052

 1     the commander and his deputy.  Slavko Eric, the deputy commander was

 2     killed as far as I know, and they said that their problem was nobody

 3     wanted to take over his duty.  And that's what I remember, something

 4     conspicuous.  But I didn't see any people there at that location.  And

 5     that's why I concluded that they weren't functioning, because management

 6     was a problem.  They had the staffing issue of nobody willing to accept

 7     the position of the one who was killed.  That's what I remember.

 8     Marinko Vasilic.

 9        Q.   Did you ask Mr. Vasilic, Do you have police officers or reserve

10     police officers who are working at this time?  Did you ask that simple

11     question?

12        A.   Well, yes.  There was Drago Borovcanin on behalf of the police

13     administration.  That was his duty.  I was tasked to see about crime

14     prevention.  The police station should be placed under the command of the

15     ministry, and he should become commander instead of the one who was

16     killed.

17        Q.   Yes, well, I think I've taken this as far as I can take it.

18             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I do ask that this document now be

19     admitted.  As I say, it was disclosed last year; that's accepted by the

20     Defence.  Its relevance has only become now apparent as a result of the

21     evidence which this witness gave, and this document clearly demonstrates

22     that this witness is in error.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE HALL:  The Chamber agrees that the document may be admitted

25     and marked as being received on the issue of credibility only.

Page 22053

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P2351, Your Honours.

 2             MS. KORNER:

 3        Q.   Now, although I'm going to turn to that a little later in more

 4     detail, you also asserted that this period, and indeed for some months,

 5     Zvornik was not attached to any CSB.  Do you remember making that

 6     assertion?

 7        A.   Yes, I said that the stations in Podrinje were not included in

 8     the organisational structure.  And later on they were placed under the

 9     responsibility of the Sarajevo CSB.  I don't remember the date when that

10     happened.

11        Q.   All right.  Could you have a look, please, at a document which is

12     P -- it's actually an exhibit, I think.  Just a moment, just let me check

13     that.  I don't want to get that wrong.  It is P2005.  Tab 4C.

14             This is apparently a fax document, but it comes, apparently, from

15     the chief of the CSB Bijeljina, Mr. Jesuric.  Did you know Mr. Jesuric at

16     the time to be the chief of the CSB in Bijeljina?

17        A.   Yes, as chief.

18        Q.   Is he actually writing to the ministry for the attention of the

19     minister, stating that on the 27th of April, so before your visit:  "I

20     visited the Zvornik SJB, acquainted with him, learned about their

21     situation.  We have agreed upon steps for returning the situation back to

22     normal and everyday life in Zvornik municipality.  You will be informed

23     on time about particular operation," blah, blah, blah, and "help

24     forwarded from Bijeljina CSB to Zvornik SJB."

25             So could you be wrong, Mr. Orasanin, when you say that Zvornik

Page 22054

 1     was not attached to any CSB?

 2        A.   Well, as far as I know and as far as I can see, at the time the

 3     Bijeljina CSB did not function.  It was later organised.  And this

 4     document reads Bijeljina SJB, and it speaks about the Zvornik SJB.  So

 5     it's the pre-war organisation and the war-time organisation.  And as far

 6     as I know, the Bijeljina CSB was only set up later.  And this document

 7     does not speak about the CSB.  I think that's how it was.  I remember,

 8     yes, there was a special station.  The Zvornik SJB was under the

 9     Bijeljina CSB, during the war remained in the same position as before the

10     war.  I cannot see here that this is about the CSB.  This is about SJBs.

11     They kept the pre-war organisation.

12             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the English

13     version, the line "Bijeljina SJB" is indeed missing, whereas it's present

14     in the original.  You can see it says "Stanica Javne Bezbjedrosti

15     Bijeljina" in the third line from the top.

16             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, you're quite right, but that's not --

17        Q.   I'm not dealing with where -- it's the text.  Does the text read,

18     and if it doesn't, please let me know:  "You will be informed about -- on

19     time about particular operations, assignments, and help forwarded from

20     Bijeljina CSB to Zvornik SJB"?  Is that what the document says?  And

21     equally, is the signature of Mr. Jesuric, chief of Bijeljina CSB?

22        A.   Yes, but I remember that the two stations were functioning.

23     Bijeljina is one and Zvornik is the other.  This is probably a mistake.

24     We should check the stamp.  But as far as I remember -- actually, I'm

25     sure that I remember that there was no Bijeljina CSB.  It came into

Page 22055

 1     existence later when the MUP headquarters was moved to Bijeljina,

 2     possibly in July or August.  I don't understand why Jesuric is writing to

 3     the station if they are at the same level.  This must be a mistake,

 4     this -- where it says CSB.  We should check the seal.

 5        Q.   Mr. Orasanin, the Court has heard evidence, firstly, and you've

 6     seen it, that the CSB Bijeljina was created by the Law on

 7     Internal Affairs passed in March 1992.  Additionally, the Court has seen,

 8     and I can show it to you if we can find it, the appointment of

 9     Mr. Jesuric as the chief of the CSB made by Mico Stanisic in April, or

10     temporary appointment, I think it was, until later.

11             So please do not go off on frolics of your own.  If the fact is

12     that you simply don't know and are just guessing when you make these

13     statements, then say so.

14             Now, the original question was:  You clearly, Mr. Orasanin, when

15     you made these assertions about these stations and the CSBs, were unaware

16     of what the situation was; isn't that correct?

17        A.   Yes, I didn't know the organisation, although it was there.

18     Exactly.

19             MS. KORNER:  And, Your Honours, I'm reminded that the temporary

20     appointment of Mr. Jesuric as the chief of the CSB Bijeljina is P2017.

21     And it was confirmed on the 15th of May, as so many of the others were.

22        Q.   Right.  Now, finally, on Zvornik, can we look at one other

23     document to lay to rest all your -- the information you gave about

24     Zvornik.  Could you look, please, at P348, which is tab 35A.  And it's a

25     very long document, so I'll try and direct you to the ...

Page 22056

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we get the

 2     document that Ms. Korner cited as the foundation for her assertion on the

 3     appointment of Mr. Jesuric.  That was P2017.  That's how it was recorded.

 4     Could we just see it on our screens.

 5             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, it's the wrong exhibit number.  It's 14 --

 6     I'm sorry, P1409.  Sorry, Your Honours, I gave the wrong number.  It's

 7     P1409.  Can we take off this document and go to that one, please.

 8        Q.   Do you recognise the stamp and the signature of Mico Stanisic,

 9     1st of April?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And does that show Predrag Jesuric temporarily appointed as head

12     of the CSB Bijeljina?

13        A.   Yes, according to this document.  But I don't remember this.  I

14     know that he was chief of an SJB.  That's what I remember.  I don't know

15     this document.  He was chief of an SJB.  And when we were in Bijeljina,

16     that's how we treated them.  And we asked to see Boro Grkinic.

17             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a convenient

18     moment for the comparison of both documents.  The one used by

19     Ms. Korner --

20             MS. KORNER:  I'm sorry, I'm sorry.  This is cross-examination.

21     If Mr. Cvijetic wants to take up these matters, he can do so in

22     re-examination.

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we just scroll up because

24     there is a handwritten remark at the top.  We can see a date, a

25     handwritten date.  It says sent to Bijeljina on 19 April 1992.  And

Page 22057

 1     there's another appointment with the same date, and I call it up and

 2     Ms. Korner did erroneously.  Maybe it would be good to see them both.

 3     P2017.  One appointment --

 4             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I really object to this.  I'm sorry --

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Just a moment, please.

 6             MS. KORNER:  I --

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic, do I understand the basis of your

 8     intervention to be that the document to which Ms. Korner has referred is

 9     the - I don't want to use the word wrong - is the wrong document, and

10     that if the correct document is shown, she may wish to rephrase her

11     question?  Because if it isn't that, then I would have to agree with her

12     that you should wait until your turn comes in re-examination.

13             Could you clarify that for me, please.

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yes, I can, very

15     briefly.  I'm afraid that the Prosecutor is leading the witness astray

16     because -- and that's why it would be good to see both documents.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner.

18             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, up till now there's never been any

19     suggestion that Mr. Jesuric was not the chief of the CSB Bijeljina.

20     We've got the permanent appointment as well, but I don't want to get

21     sidetracked down this.  I think if Mr. Cvijetic says I've got it wrong,

22     then he can deal with it in re-examination.  The permanent appointment is

23     P546, the 15th of May.  But, Your Honours, I only went down this because

24     he said he wasn't aware of it.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Well, we leave it for re-examination.

Page 22058

 1             MS. KORNER:  Thank you very much.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Let's move on.

 3             MS. KORNER:  And, Your Honours, can I just make it absolutely

 4     clear that there is another appointment the same day.  I don't want

 5     anybody to think I'm misleading the Court.  But his permanent appointment

 6     is confirmed on the 15th of May, and the evidence throughout from

 7     numerous witnesses has been that's what Mr. Jesuric was.

 8        Q.   And the only point that I'm trying to make with you,

 9     Mr. Orasanin, is that you make sweeping assertions without really knowing

10     the facts.  That's the problem, isn't it?

11             Mr. Orasanin?  You actually make sweeping assertions when you're

12     not aware of the facts?

13        A.   No, Madam Prosecutor.  As for this document, it's probably a

14     valid document.  But at the time I thought he was chief of the SJB

15     because that's what he was before, and that's what I remembered.  And

16     probably this temporary point is valid.

17             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I must intervene.

18     The third document Ms. Korner has referred to is not an appointment -- is

19     not the appointment of a chief.

20             MS. KORNER:  I can see that in order to satisfy -- I'm just going

21     to be continually interrupted.  Let's have all the three documents one,

22     after the other, that refer to Mr. Jesuric.  Could we have P2017 up.

23        Q.   Right.  On the 19th of April, so some 18 days later, Mr. Jesuric

24     is also -- is temporarily appointed to the task and duties of the head of

25     the personnel section in the MUP BiH.  Did you know that?

Page 22059

 1        A.   I don't remember this appointment either.

 2        Q.   All right.

 3             MS. KORNER:  And finally can we look at the one on the

 4     15th of May, which is P456.

 5        Q.   "Decision:  Predrag Jesuric is appointed as head of the

 6     CSB Bijeljina, member of the MUP staff Serbian Republic Bosnia and

 7     Herzegovina for command and control of the general forces of the Ministry

 8     of the Interior."

 9             Did you know about that, Mr. Orasanin?

10        A.   I didn't know about the decision.  I know that he was physically

11     present in Bijeljina in that building, but what kind of job he did,

12     whether he was chief of SJB or a centre chief, but he always used the

13     same office.  I know that he was physically present, but the personnel --

14     the details of the personnel policy, well, I worked in a different

15     administration, the crime prevention administration, and it wasn't my

16     duty to be acquainted with these decisions except in my line of work.

17        Q.   I understand.  Mr. Orasanin, stop.  I understand that.  I'm not

18     criticizing you for one moment for not knowing about these appointments.

19     I'm merely pointing out to you, as I say, that when you made the

20     assertion about Zvornik not having any -- being attached to any CSB from

21     that document from Mr. Jesuric, who signs himself chief of the CSB, it

22     would appear you were mistaken.  But I've dealt with that.  And I'd like

23     now, if I can not have any further interruptions, please, to go back to

24     the document I wanted to ask you about, which is P348 at tab 35A.

25             Now, at line 2 of this handwriting document, can we see that it

Page 22060

 1     says report of the Serbian security centres in Zvornik for the year 1992?

 2        A.   [No interpretation]

 3             MS. KORNER:  And if we go, please, in the English to page 20 of

 4     59, it may be because of the -- the number -- the ERN -- it's quite

 5     difficult.  Can I just see what comes up.  In B/C/S I can say that the --

 6     it should be 0176-9084.  Yes, that's it in English.  And in B/C/S it

 7     should be ... yep.  Thank you very much.

 8        Q.   Right.  It says it's a description of the activities undertaken

 9     on the organisation and winning over of personnel for the Serbian MUP by

10     the 4th of April.  And there's a long description, which I think the

11     Court has already been through before, about how Zvornik was taken over.

12             MS. KORNER:  But can we go, please, to the -- it will be three

13     pages on in English, and it should be on page 1769086 [sic], page 19.

14     Right.

15        Q.   And here we go on Karakaj, Mr. Orasanin:

16             "Serb SJB based in Karakaj was formed on the 5th of April, 1992.

17     The station had about 29 active and 50 reserve policemen.  A decision was

18     then reached on the makeup of the senior staff SJB chief, the station was

19     operational, had organised all patrols, held all check-points,

20     barricades, and reserve had risen to 70 policemen.  SJB personnel acting

21     together with the forces of the Serb TO took hold of the town on the

22     8th of April."

23             And then under C do you see, I hope, that "in addition, work on

24     the clearing up of the SJB building continued so the building could be

25     used -- the station in Karakaj transferred its operation to the building

Page 22061

 1     of Zvornik SJB sometime around the 15th of May."

 2             I hope that appears there somewhere.  Can you see that bit?

 3             MS. KORNER:  No, sorry, it's the wrong page.  No, I'm sorry,

 4     Your Honours, I haven't got the right page in English.  The page in

 5     English should say, at the bottom, 22 of 59.  Next page, please.  Oh,

 6     previous, sorry.  It's so small I can't read it, myself, on the screen.

 7     For some unknown reason the translation or the copying was done in that

 8     way.  It should be the penultimate paragraph on that page that's got C.

 9     Can we highlight that paragraph, please.  Zoom in, rather.  In English.

10     No, you can't.  See, it's going to be difficult.

11        Q.   Anyhow, and finally:

12             "During May, the following organisational units operated within

13     the SJB:  A police station of about 400 men strong, 31 of whom were

14     policemen active service, crime enforcement department which had 7,

15     department for general, legal, and administration affairs which had 9."

16             MS. KORNER:  We need to go to the next page in English.

17        Q.   "At the end of May, the SJB had a total of 420 employees."

18             Now, that's all I want to put to you about Zvornik.  You must

19     have been wrong, mustn't you, Mr. Orasanin, when you told the Court that

20     this was a non-operating, non-functional police station?

21        A.   What I know is this:  When we paid a visit to Karakaj, it was my

22     impression that they were not functioning, because I only found three or

23     four people there.  That was what I saw.  They were in Karakaj when I saw

24     them.  We were there in the first half of May, and this report speaks

25     about a later time after they had changed their location and there were

Page 22062

 1     conditions in place for their work.  When we visited Karakaj, they were

 2     not on their own, they shared the building with somebody else.  They had

 3     one, maybe two or three, offices.  That's why my impression was that they

 4     were not properly functioning, because I only found four or five of them

 5     there.  And then they moved to Zvornik to a police station where the

 6     conditions were better, and the report is about that, about that second

 7     location, which was a big improvement, hence the difference in the

 8     impressions and descriptions.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Orasanin, could you remind me how long you

10     were in Karakaj?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] An hour.  We just popped over.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So as for Zvornik, your conclusion about the

13     functioning of the SJB in Karakaj was based on a one-hour visit?  That's

14     right, isn't it?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And is that a reasonable -- a reasonable way of

17     concluding about how a police station functions, when you are there for

18     one hour?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I agree.  Those were blitz

20     visits.  And that's why I was saying that they were not supervisions or

21     inspections.  There were no conditions in place for that.  We visited

22     those stations only in passing.  And when we saw the conditions that they

23     were in, we went back in order to report for things to be improved.  That

24     was the purpose of our visits to Bijeljina, Brcko.  Those are not proper

25     inspections as they were prescribed.  What I saw is what I -- is the

Page 22063

 1     truth of the matter.  This is the truth.  That's what I saw.  Later on

 2     things may have changed, but I know nothing about that.  I'm talking

 3     about the first visit, about what we saw during that visit, and about

 4     information that we received on that occasion.

 5             We saw a few rooms -- sometime later their rooms had been

 6     broken -- were broken into.  I learned that subsequently.  But during

 7     that one hour that I was there, I just saw what I saw.  It was not a

 8     proper inspection.  I can't speak about anything that happened

 9     subsequently in Zvornik and Bijeljina.  I based my impressions on our

10     blitz visit, on that one hour.  We could not do a professional

11     inspection, and we couldn't do anything that was within our purview.  My

12     colleagues will confirm that, because later on they returned to their

13     previous building, the building that was functioning properly, where all

14     the conditions were in place for their functioning.

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, I would suggest that you move on.

16             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  The difficulty, Your Honour, is -- [Microphone

17     not activated] -- the difficulty is, of course, these are quite

18     important, these inspections, but.

19        Q.   Can you just answer this simply:  Were your instructions from

20     your superiors who sent the three of you out there simply to conduct, as

21     you put it, a blitz visit?

22        A.   No.  When we departed, we were aware of all the regulations and

23     the laws.  We thought that we could -- we were able -- we would be able

24     to do everything properly.  When we arrived, we saw that there was a

25     state of confusion, we saw that there were problems.  That's why we --

Page 22064

 1        Q.   Yes, yes, stop.  All I asked you was whether your instructions

 2     were for blitz and you've answered that no.  Right.

 3             Let's move, please, to Skelani, that same visit, where you told

 4     the Court, at page 2188 -- 21880, that you saw somebody there, and there

 5     was -- a Mr. Milanovic, and there wasn't a proper police station.  Right.

 6     Skelani, would you agree, was a very, very small place indeed?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Just trying to find my census document.

 9             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, Your Honours, I had flitting around somewhere

10     the census document.  I just wanted to put the ... All right, I'll come

11     back to that.

12             Well, can we have it up on the screen, actually, it's the

13     easiest.  It's P230, please.  No, that's not -- is that P230?  Sorry,

14     then I've given the wrong, as usual.  Oh, I'm sorry, P2321.  And can we

15     go in that to page -- we don't need any English for it.  P2321.  And I'd

16     like to go to the ERN number which is 0048213 [sic].  Sorry, 8213.

17             Your Honours, I don't want -- at the moment I'm afraid there's --

18     every now and again my note goes wrong.  I did have the right pages

19     printed out, but they've gone walk-about as well.  So forget that.

20             Page 303.

21             All right.  Instead of which, can we have, please, a document

22     which is 20163, 16A.  [Microphone not activated] This is tab 16A that we

23     are looking at now.

24        Q.   Does that show that at this very small town, which we've found

25     the census in a moment, in May this was apparently an operating SJB, with

Page 22065

 1     some ten officers working?

 2        A.   Yes, the list proves it.

 3        Q.   Right.  So again, Skelani, which, as I say -- well, perhaps we

 4     better show -- we finally found the census.

 5             MS. KORNER:  Right.  Can we have the document back I asked for,

 6     2321, Exhibit P2321.  And can we go in that to 0048-2139.  Page 230,

 7     B/C/S.  We only need it in B/C/S.

 8        Q.   Number 2 on the list, Skelani, which is part of the Srebrenica

 9     municipality; is that right?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   1948 through to 1981.

12             MS. KORNER:  We need to go to the next page, please, to find out

13     the figures for 1991.

14        Q.   Second line down again, 1.123 in total persons, of which 950 were

15     Muslim, 160 were Serb, and seven describe themselves as Yugoslav;

16     correct?

17        A.   [No interpretation]

18        Q.   It was in fact, wasn't it, largely a Muslim town which had been

19     taken over by the Serbs, attacked, hadn't it?

20        A.   I had never been in Skelani before that.  That was my first time.

21     And the information here, yes, this is what it says.

22        Q.   And therefore it had an adequately functioning SJB for the number

23     of people who were present, didn't it, in May?

24        A.   Previously it was just a brand [as interpreted] police station,

25     if I remember the organisation well.

Page 22066

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  Branch police

 2     station.

 3             MS. KORNER:

 4        Q.   Yes, but -- I'm sorry, you gave the Court the impression again,

 5     Mr. Orasanin, that when you visited Skelani there was virtually nothing

 6     there, there was just one man.  In fact, it had, did it not, a perfectly

 7     functioning police station; it had a chief, a station commander, and

 8     eight other police officers working there?

 9        A.   I didn't say that it was totally dysfunctional or not

10     functioning.  There were police officers there.  But as far as I

11     remember, they had problems.  They were just -- there was just one

12     office.  I don't know whether they went on to develop into a proper

13     police station and I don't know on whose orders.  However, before we

14     arrived there, the ministry had not done it.  The ministry had not set it

15     up properly.  That's what I can claim.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, didn't the witness answer this

17     question at page 73 -- your question -- 72/24 and 25, your question, and

18     73, line 2:  "Yes, the list proves it."

19             MS. KORNER:  Right.  Sometimes, you know, you get caught up.

20     Thank you.

21        Q.   That's all I wanted to ask you there.  All right.

22             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, in this particular case, although I

23     would like to have it exhibited, it is not a document that had been

24     disclosed before and that is because nobody had ever talked about

25     Skelani, nor is Srebrenica one of the municipalities in the indictment,

Page 22067

 1     but until this witness came along and gave this information.  So it's a

 2     document that purely goes to his credit.  And I make the application

 3     notwithstanding that it hadn't been disclosed before because this really

 4     could not have been anticipated and equally wasn't relevant to any matter

 5     at all except, as I say, his credibility.

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Would you remind us the tab number, please?

 7             MS. KORNER:  It's tab --

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Is it 16A?

 9             MS. KORNER:  16A.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, he has looked at the document and spoken

12     to it.  We don't need to have it exhibited.

13             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I won't press the matter then.

14             Your Honours, I'm going to move on to a slightly different topic,

15     and I note -- well, I can start it and we'll see where we go in five

16     minutes.

17        Q.   You discussed -- sorry, you answered questions from Mr. Cvijetic,

18     beginning at 21883, about the police officers not being under your

19     command because you -- they hadn't got decisions as to the appointment

20     from the minister, and we dealt with that briefly.  But one of the things

21     that you said, and this is at 21884, is:

22             "Once an employee of the MUP receives a decision, then according

23     to the regulations and according to the rules of procedure on internal

24     structure, the person has certain rights, but also has certain

25     obligations.  The rights are that he would get a salary."

Page 22068

 1             So, Mr. Orasanin, if there are documents showing that persons

 2     were receiving salaries as police officers, then it follows from what you

 3     are saying whether or not there was a written appointment, it was

 4     accepted that he was a police officer?

 5        A.   As far as I know and as far as I know the regulations, it is

 6     clear.  A person who had received decision on employment pursuant to the

 7     labour law and the law on internal affairs, that person has rights and

 8     obligations.  And as far as the payrolls are concerned, those persons

 9     whose names are on the payrolls must use police authorities.  That's why

10     they are authorised officials, which is uniformed police who work on

11     crime prevention and crime detection.  And they had to use police

12     authorities.  Anybody else working in financial departments or

13     administrative departments, they don't have police authorities, and they

14     are not considered authorised personnel or authorised officials because

15     they are not police officers.

16        Q.   Right.  But this is the point.  You -- your complaint, and many

17     others have complained the same, is that appointments or people are being

18     put into place not by the minister but by Crisis Staffs.  It was open,

19     wasn't it, to the minister to accept that appointment and agree with it,

20     whether in writing or verbally?

21        A.   All I know is that this is correct.  That when a decision is

22     issued, that a person acquires rights and obligations and is in a

23     position to use police authorities.  It is not whether they are on a

24     payroll or whether they receive salaries, especially when it comes to the

25     reserve police.  According to regulations, when a policeman is engaged as

Page 22069

 1     a reserve policeman and if he only works for seven days, he is furnished

 2     with an official ID, a pistol, and that person performs duties for seven

 3     days, and during those seven days he is an authorised official.  When his

 4     tour is finished, he returns all those things, goes home, and he no

 5     longer has authorities as a policemen.  Those are the differences.  And

 6     as far as I know, this is how things worked, this is how it was

 7     regulated.  It doesn't mean that everybody on the payroll belonged to the

 8     MUP or that they were authorised officials.  And I'm now referring to

 9     crime prevention and detection police officers and inspectors.

10        Q.   Yes, I understand the difference between those who were

11     authorised officials and those who were not.  What I'm asking you about,

12     and just listen to this question:  Even if the original appointment is

13     done by the Crisis Staff or the municipal authority, it is open, is it

14     not, to the minister to accept and authorise that appointment, whether in

15     writing or verbally, or by simply doing nothing at all?

16        A.   Well, in -- what I know is that those people had to comply with

17     certain requirements, irrespective of who issued the decision.  That was

18     the problem.  They had to comply with certain legal requirements.  And as

19     for that decision that you're referring to, in this case it was the

20     Crisis Staffs who appointed people.  But they were not authorised to do

21     that.  Under the law, they were not supposed to have anything to do with

22     the police organisation.  Neither the local authorities nor the

23     Crisis Staffs were supposed to have anything to do with the police.  They

24     should have acted in keeping with the Law on Internal Affairs.

25        Q.   Stop, Mr. Orasanin.  I understand that.  What I am putting to

Page 22070

 1     you -- just try and concentrate and don't go off on a tangent.  Is it, in

 2     your long experience as a police officer, open to the minister to accept

 3     and confirm, whether verbally or in writing, an appointment which has

 4     been made by the Crisis Staff?  Is that within his authority, yes or no?

 5        A.   He could only issue decisions in keeping with the law.  He could

 6     not have done it ad hoc.  He could not have made ad hoc approvals.  But

 7     this is not what I'm versed in.  I'm not a legal expert or professional.

 8             MS. KORNER:  All right.  Your Honours, that will be as far as we

 9     can take it today, I think.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  We reconvene in the afternoon tomorrow.  And

11     I'm advised that we are in this courtroom again.  So we take the

12     adjournment.

13                           [The witness stands down]

14                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,

15                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 9th day

16                           of June, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.