1 Tuesday, 21 June 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
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,
12 Indah Susanti for the Prosecution.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
14 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for
15 Stanisic Defence this morning. Thank you.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours, Dragan Krgovic and
17 Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
19 Before we continue, I need to go -- we need to go into private
20 session. There's a direction which the Chamber wishes to give.
21 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, it goes without saying, that translated.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Of course, Your Honours, I understand.
20 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE HALL: Good morning, to you, Mr. Tusevljak. Before I
23 invite Ms. Korner to resume her cross-examination, I remind you of your
24 solemn declaration.
25 Yes, Ms. Korner.
1 MS. KORNER: In fact, Your Honours, I think we'll have to go back
2 to private session briefly because I want to revert to a couple of
3 matters that we raised yesterday in private session.
4 JUDGE HALL: So we go back to private session.
5 [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
11 Pages 22482-22484 redacted. Private session.
5 A. I said I did not see a single criminal report in relation to a
6 person charged with war crimes. Those were crimes such as aggravated
7 murder, 36(2)(4).
8 Q. Yes, I'm sorry, I appreciate that you're saying that everything
9 was charged as aggravated murder under section 36 and not war crimes and
10 I'm going to deal with that later. But I'm just asking you whether it's
11 right and whether you stick to your assertion that during -- there are no
12 criminal reports submitted for any war crimes, whether described as
13 section 36 or 154 of the criminal code, against Muslims?
14 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. I have to ask that Ms. Korner rephrase
15 the question because -- perhaps the witness can take the earphones off.
16 The question is: "... there are no criminal reports submitted
17 for any war crimes, whether described as section 36 or 154 of the
18 criminal code, against Muslims?"
19 The Article 36 is the murder according to the Law of Bosnia and
20 Herzegovina, and the republican law does not cover the matter of the war
21 crimes; it's the federal law, it's the federal Criminal Code of the
22 former Yugoslavia. And if the question is concerning the war crimes,
23 then it has to be asked properly about the war crimes and not both,
24 because I don't see how the witness can answer on this.
25 MS. KORNER: All right. That's fine.
1 Q. Let's get this clear. And it may be that you didn't mean to say
2 what it appears you did say.
3 Are you saying to the Court that however it was classified by
4 either the MUP or the Prosecutor's office, you have seen no criminal
5 reports that allege that Muslims committed crimes - however
6 charged - which would be considered war crimes?
7 A. No, you got it wrong. I'm being misinterpreted. I did see
8 criminal reports that were filed by members of the Sarajevo Canton Police
9 or the military police in relation to murder when talking about Serbs. I
10 also know from this perspective how those reports were carried through by
11 the courts or prosecutors. If you go to the archive, which should just
12 do [as interpreted], and you go through all the convictions by the
13 military courts or civilian courts in Sarajevo up to this very day, you
14 will see how many of those cases have been dealt with and brought to a
16 One of your associates came to see me at Pale and I showed him
17 3.299 case files relating to Serbs who were killed. I showed him how we
18 kept those files. We pulled out quite a number of files. Unfortunately,
19 I could not attach any convictions during that process. This is a
20 problem that we have been encountering since day one. Throughout all
21 this time - and that applies to the BH prosecutor and other
22 prosecutors - we have been trying to get the prosecutors to raise
23 indictments for crimes committed against Serbs as well. This is a
24 problem that we believe is an obvious one which has been obvious since
25 2005 when I started my job. It persists to this very day. We have only
1 a very small percentage of cases that result in either an indictment or
2 even a conviction.
3 The next problem that we tend to come across in Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina is the following: Over the last couple of years many
5 different strategies came and went at state level, and each time we have
6 a new strategy we're back to square one, virtually. I could give you a
7 handful of examples, not just of our criminal reports by the
8 Republika Srpska MUP but also all of the others. They had four or five
9 different levels of prosecutors, the cases changing hands, documentation
10 lost along the way, and such-like. So this is one of the problems that
11 my team encounters in its work.
12 The other thing is this: In Bosnia and Herzegovina it is the
13 prosecutor that issues an order. I'm a police officer. I have no choice
14 as to what order I will receive and what order I will refuse to carry
15 out. Each time the Ministry of the Interior receives an order, you
16 should ask the international prosecutors, whom I have been working with
17 for years, you should ask them why those orders are being issued to the
18 MUP of Republika Srpska and not another prosecutor's office.
19 And the third thing -- because I've been pondering what you asked
20 yesterday. You probably know about the Vrence [phoen] case --
21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... no, no, I'm sorry --
22 A. -- that is murder, that is the case of murder of members of the
23 corps command of the BH army in Mostar. The Republika Srpska MUP found
24 the grave. The grave was shown to us by an informer. We photographed
25 the site and we photographed the informer as he was indicating the
1 location to us. We passed this along to our missing persons institute
2 and we said no more about it. Four months later when the bodies were dug
3 up, no one publicly said that information had come from the
4 Republika Srpska MUP. We had no intention of boasting because that could
5 have threatened our co-operation.
6 The other thing, a whole series of grave-sites and localities
7 around Srebrenica were passed along to the BH prosecutor and the
8 institute by the Republika Srpska MUP. There is a particular grave-site
9 with Bosnian victims in it called Zveka. That discovery also occurred
10 based on our information. The crime the Bosniaks committed against the
11 Croats, that's another case that we are actively involved in.
12 There's an ongoing trial pursued by the prosecutor, and the
13 person involved is one of the Serbs involved in the killing in the
14 western Krajina area. Again, we worked very closely with the prosecutor
15 on this case.
16 I am simply co-ordinating these activities. I'm privy to these
17 activities from the perspective of the Republika Srpska MUP.
18 Q. Right. Now, Mr. Tusevljak, as we saw over the last few days,
19 you're perfectly capable of answering questions shortly. That is what
20 you are required to do when answering my questions as well. The
21 questions are fairly straightforward and do not require, I would imagine,
22 something like two pages of transcript as an answer.
23 You told the Court that you had shown one of my associates - I
24 think you said -- I'm just going to get the figure right as I go back
25 over the two pages - you showed him 3.299 case files relating to Serbs
1 that were killed. You talked about this when you testified in the
2 Dragomir Milosevic case, didn't you?
3 A. Probably so. I can't remember.
4 Q. All right. You --
5 MS. KORNER: This, I understand, Your Honours, has been uploaded
6 by the Defence into e-court, so I don't know what the number is. Perhaps
7 they'd like to tell me and we can have it up.
8 Q. While that's happening, I'm quoting from page 8081 of the
9 transcript of the trial in 2007. You were asked about the -- the cases
10 that you were doing and you said this -- well, the question was from
11 Mr. Tapuskovic who was the lawyer:
12 "How many civilian victims were there approximately in the
13 217 reports that you filed during the war and during the time of the
14 indictment against Dragomir Milosevic?
15 "A. The MUP of Republika Srpska team that I am still the head of
16 at the moment is carrying out investigations together with commission for
17 Sarajevo and the prosecutor's office for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
18 But [sic] so far my team has compiled" - and it read, in error, "2.999
19 files"; that was corrected to read "3.299" - "containing the names of the
20 victims of war in Sarajevo. Out of that number, some 2.000 were killed
21 as a result of the terror in the territory under the control of the BiH
22 army. The remaining victims were killed by snipers and artillery in the
23 territory of the MUP of the Serbian Sarajevo."
24 Now, is that the 3.299 that you referred to this morning?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. It's right, isn't it, that when you referred to 95 -- 90 per cent
2 of the requests deal with cases against Serbs that you receive from the
3 prosecutor's office in BiH, it's requests, isn't it? In other words,
4 it's not that you investigate them on your own bat; you're asked to do so
5 by the prosecutor's office?
6 A. The prosecutor's office acts upon reports filed by us, and in
7 each precise order it gives instructions about what the Ministry of the
8 Interior of the RS needs to do. This is always very precise and very
10 Q. The question, as I explained, perhaps not that well phrased, was:
11 It's not that you yourself would be investigating these crimes against
12 Serbs; it's that under the law if the prosecutor's office makes this
13 request you have to do it?
14 A. No. We have to start from something else. The Ministry of the
15 Interior of the RS would first file these official reports, and then
16 based on the official reports by the MUP the prosecutor's office would
17 open an investigation and then ask further action from us in order to
18 support these reports and in order to prove the guilt of the suspects.
19 So there is no self-initiative on our part in terms of the investigation.
20 The law says that it's the prosecutor's office, that's the law now.
21 Q. Yes, right. And that's the only point I was trying to make.
22 Now, in fact one of the first cases of war crimes that the
23 prosecutor's office in Bosnia and Herzegovina dealt with was an
24 allegation of crime committed by a Muslim - I'll just find the name of
25 the case - you can perhaps tell me. Do you remember that? Makteuf?
1 A. That is a crime in Novi Travnik --
2 Q. Yes, don't tell me. I'm not interested in the crime. But do you
3 agree that it was in fact the first case that came before the court of
4 Bosnia and Herzegovina for war crimes?
5 A. I remember the case, but whether it was the first one I really
6 can't recall. But I do remember the case.
7 Q. And I'm suggesting to you it was, in fact, the first trial for
8 war crimes that came before the new state court in Bosnia and Herzegovina
9 and you accept that it was the -- the accused in the trial was a Muslim?
10 A. He was an Arab. As for his religion, he was a Muslim.
11 Q. Right. And you mentioned yesterday the rules of the road files,
12 which you described, or it was interpreted, as the rules of the Roman
13 path, which I think because it came about as a result of the
14 Rome Agreement signed between the Prosecutor's office here and the
15 Bosnian authorities. You don't know, do you, how many cases were
16 submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor in The Hague, how many
17 allegations of crime, and to whom they related?
18 A. I can't know that. I can't know about the total number of cases
19 because when this was happening I wasn't working.
20 Q. Yes. Now, you talked yesterday, at page 29, about your
21 relationship with the military prosecutions. And you told the Court that
22 if you established that the perpetrator was a member to the military --
23 of the military, you would give them a hand, as it were. You said:
24 "If bodies were exchanged and if we were invited by the military
25 security ... to give them a hand, because ... the military prosecutor ...
1 was in charge of these matters at the time ..." and you said you'd lend
2 them forensic assistance.
3 Do you remember saying that?
4 A. Yes, except then it was a military investigating judge.
5 Q. Right. Now, again you dealt with this aspect in your testimony
6 before the Trial Chamber in Dragomir Milosevic, page 8098.
7 MS. KORNER: Has it been -- can somebody tell me what the number
8 is, please? Your Honours, we got an e-mail from the Case Manager telling
9 us this had been uploaded by the Defence.
10 MS. SAVIC: It was and the number was sent to you; it's
12 MS. KORNER: Thank you. Could we have that up.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe we're still in private session --
14 MS. KORNER: Oh, so we are, yes.
15 Your Honours, there's no -- I'm so sorry, I had forgotten that.
16 There's no need for us to be in private session, for some time.
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
19 MS. KORNER: Yes, could we have page 8098, please. 8098. Yes.
20 Q. You said there:
21 "Whenever a crime is committed - that is what you have to
22 know - usually, those crimes are committed by an unknown perpetrator.
23 The investigation is carried out but the Ministry of the Interior of
24 Republika Srpska;" that must be "by," "and as a result of the
25 investigation, we find out who the perpetrator is. And if we establish
1 that he was a member of the Republika Srpska army, then we would inform
2 the military prosecutor and the military judge, and they would take over
3 the entire case file" against "us."
4 And you were asked some further questions. And then you were
5 cross-examined about this at page 8113, please. And at line 9 the
6 question was:
7 "Sir, I'm talking about war crimes and I think I've made that
8 clear both yesterday and today. You just indicated you recalled that, so
9 I'd like to ask you this: In the light of the cooperative relationship,"
10 that is, between you and the military, "were you ever asked by the SRK,"
11 that's the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, "to provide assistance in any of
12 their police investigations?
13 "A. Some parts of my crime technology were put at the disposal
14 of the military prosecutors and investigating judges of the
15 Romanija-Sarajevo Corps. I'm talking about equipment, not personnel.
16 "Q. Was that for the investigation of allegations of war crimes
17 against members of the SRK?
18 "A. No.
19 "Q. Sir, do you recall between 1992 and 1995, one single
20 instance in which you came upon or undertook an investigation of war
21 crimes against a member of the SRK that you had to refer to the military
23 "A. No. As far as war crimes go, no."
24 Was that answer correct, Mr. Tusevljak?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And isn't it right that the only war crimes that you were
2 interested, and your service, in investigating was where the Serbs were
3 victims, not the Muslims and not the Croats?
4 A. Are you referring to our investigations in 1992 to 1995 or today?
5 Q. I'm sticking to 1992, 1992. I have insufficient information
6 about what you did between 1993 and 1995, but in 1992.
7 A. I looked at the log-book that you showed me. And if you paid
8 attention, it starts in November of 1992. This means that what I talked
9 about on the first day, that the Sarajevo CSB, that is, the
10 Sarajevo Romanija-Birac CSB, didn't have its own forensics police formed
11 which would have been able to deal with any sort of work seriously.
12 Q. No, no, I'm sorry. No, let's stop there. I am going to come
13 back to the book, but I want to do that under a different heading. My
14 question to you --
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm terribly sorry, 16, 2, was translated as
16 forensic police or recorded as forensic police. I think the witness said
17 something else. I don't know what forensic police is as a matter of
19 MS. KORNER:
20 Q. Can you -- sorry, Mr. Tusevljak. You said the CSB
21 Sarajevo-Romanija didn't have its own forensic police formed. Can you
22 just repeat, forensic what?
23 A. Crime police, not forensic.
24 Q. All right. Now, the only question I'm putting to you at the
25 moment - I'm going to come back to the book - is that the only war crimes
1 that you actually spent any time investigating properly were those where
2 Serbs were alleged to be the victims? So you either agree with that or
3 you don't agree; that's all it requires.
4 A. No. And I can give you some examples now. The report against
5 Jadranko Jeberovic [phoen] for the murder of Bosniaks and Croats; a
6 report of Predrag Djurovic, I believe that's what he was called, for
7 raping a Bosniak woman.
8 Q. Right, is that the one -- yeah, stop, stop for a moment. Is that
9 the one we looked at yesterday?
10 A. No.
11 Q. All right. Go on, then.
12 A. I think -- actually, I know that there were four or five such
13 reports in the territory of the Ilidza SJB, when Bosniak people were
15 Q. Right.
16 A. That's what I can recall at the moment. These people weren't
17 reported for war crimes, but they were reported for aggravated murder by
18 the police stations, not the centre but by the police stations.
19 Q. All right. Anything -- any others? Can you recall any of the
21 A. I can't. I know there was such but I can't remember the names.
22 We also talked about that man in closed session, a man who is alive, and
23 this was in Vogosca in 1992 --
24 Q. I'm coming back to that one. That's all right. I appreciate the
25 one you're talking about.
1 A. I believe that there was a case in the Ilijas SJB, actually, that
2 there were such reports in the Ilijas SJB. That's the information that I
3 obtained based on the reports that were sent to us.
4 Q. Did you personally ever carry out or take charge of during 1992
5 any investigation in the Sarajevo area that's covered by the CSB into
6 crimes committed against Muslims or Croats?
7 A. Not me personally. I was chief of the department, so I didn't
8 lead investigations. That was the time when we were establishing the
9 service -- actually, trying to establish the service.
10 Q. And I want to deal very briefly with your -- and before I move on
11 to a different topic, with your area of expertise. We established
12 yesterday that at the time of these events you had been in the MUP for
13 about three years. Had you yourself -- or did you yourself conduct any
14 disciplinary proceedings during 1992?
15 A. Not me personally.
16 Q. So any knowledge that you have - because you were asked a huge
17 number of questions about disciplinary proceedings - is not your own
18 personal knowledge?
19 A. I didn't conduct these disciplinary proceedings, but both at the
20 collegium of the CSB we discussed disciplinary proceedings. At that time
21 I wasn't a disciplinary judge. I didn't participate directly in
22 disciplinary proceedings, except at collegiums when they were discussed.
23 Q. Did you yourself ever, during this period, make appointments,
24 appoint police officers to jobs?
25 A. No.
1 Q. I want to move, then, please, to the composition of the police,
2 and that is before the split in the MUP. And you dealt with this at
3 page 22196 and that was on Wednesday. -196 following. You explained
4 that in 1991 there was a major escalation in the commission of crime in
5 the town of Sarajevo. That meant, didn't it, that police officers had to
6 be drafted in from other areas to try and control this outbreak of crime?
7 Would you accept that?
8 A. No. That's not what I was referring to at all.
9 Q. No. I understand. But do you agree that as a matter of
10 principle, and from documents we've seen, that it's not uncommon if
11 there's a sudden increase in crime levels in every police force in the
12 world for police officers to be brought in to deal with that?
13 A. That wasn't the case in Sarajevo. In the crime police which
14 dealt with the prevention of these types of crime worked only crime
15 policemen or inspectors from Sarajevo. And I talked about a group that
16 was formed in the city SUP in Sarajevo and which was composed of crime
17 employees from the territory of the town of Sarajevo, and they weren't
18 operatives who would have come from other areas.
19 Q. That's -- you -- I appreciate you say you formed a crime -- an
20 operative group to deal with the outbreak, but all I'm asking you at the
21 moment is: Are you saying that as you describe it the bringing in of
22 people into Sarajevo who didn't know Sarajevo had nothing to do with the
23 outbreak of crime?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Well, you're saying it was -- I'm afraid it was a bad phrasing of
1 a question by me, actually. I apologise.
2 Are you saying that when you say "no," they were not drafted in
3 to help with the outbreak of crime?
4 A. Yes, they were not there to deal with that.
5 Q. You complained - and indeed that's the only complaint that you
6 made, and when you were interviewed by us a few weeks ago - was that they
7 didn't appear to know their way around Sarajevo. Do you agree with that?
8 A. I agree with that, but this was in the context of our
9 conversation, that is, when I talked about the fact that there was a
10 change in the ethnic composition of the police; and then as an example I
11 told you - and I can repeat this - that on one occasion when I was in
12 charge of a raid --
13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... yes --
14 A. -- in the territory of Sarajevo -- may I continue?
15 Q. No, because I can summarise this much quicker than you can tell
16 us the whole story again. You were going to lead a raid on some
17 well-known catering facilities in Sarajevo and you said everybody knows
18 where those facilities were but somebody stood up, and so did a number of
19 others, and said where were they. Is that right?
20 A. Yes, which was nonsense.
21 Q. Well, if you had people who came in from outside Sarajevo, it was
22 highly likely, wasn't it, that they wouldn't know where these premises
24 A. Yes, but the problem was that these people weren't from Bosnia,
25 they were from Sandzak.
1 Q. You never mentioned that, did you, when you were interviewed,
2 this business of them coming from Sandzak?
3 A. I believe I did.
4 Q. Well --
5 A. I'm sure. I might have said from Serbia, Sandzak, but I'm sure
6 that I mentioned it. Anyway, I'm mentioning it now.
7 Q. Yes, I know you are. And I'm asking you why you didn't mention
8 it in interview, because I can assure you, you didn't. And as you know,
9 Ms. Savic was there throughout taking notes. Why didn't you mention it
10 then when you were being interviewed?
11 A. At that time we discussed several issues, and as for whether I
12 mentioned it or not, one word doesn't mean anything. I know that at the
13 time I said that these people weren't familiar with Sarajevo, and we were
14 discussing precisely that the ethnic composition of the police in
15 Sarajevo had changed and that was all.
16 Q. Apart from them not knowing where these catering facilities are,
17 what other complaints do you have about the new people who were brought
18 into Sarajevo from Sandzak as police officers?
19 A. Do you know how many of my friends who were Bosniaks that had
20 graduated from faculties of law, who'd completed secondary school, who
21 were from Sarajevo and who were unable to come and work in the police?
22 Q. So your other --
23 A. They were decent, honourable people, and they knew both the town
24 and they knew about what was going on in town.
25 Q. So your other complaint is that they got jobs that you said that
1 Bosniak friends of yours should get?
2 A. Of course. Somebody from Sarajevo should have been doing it, not
3 from Serbia, in Sjenica, where none of us want to go and work in Sjenica
4 or Novi Pazar or anywhere.
5 Q. All right. Now, you dealt with, also, the number of inspectors.
6 Just let me find the -- yeah. You were asked at page 22211 -- or
7 20211 [sic] how many operatives, how many inspectors, were you there in
8 the sector which Mr. Macar was the chief in 1991, or the chief of the
9 department. And you said you had about eight inspectors.
10 Do you remember saying that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You see, at various times you kept on talking about a hundred
13 people under your command as chief of crime prevention. The actual
14 number of inspectors even at the height of the MUP was only eight, wasn't
15 it, in total?
16 A. No. You misunderstood. I can explain if you like.
17 Q. Well, I'm sorry, what did I misunderstood?
18 A. The Sarajevo city SUP is a special organisational unit, actually,
19 it's secretariat of the interior of Sarajevo city. It's a special unit.
20 At the level of Sarajevo there was a security services centre of Sarajevo
21 which was the superior unit. The head of the sector in Sarajevo's SUP
22 was Jozo Leutar. First it was Idriz Hodzic, and then --
23 Q. No, no, stop. You explained all this before and I don't want an
24 explanation again, please.
25 What did I misunderstood about the numbers? I'm telling you what
1 you said, you had eight inspectors. At various points during your
2 testimony about after -- what happened afterwards, you said that you
3 should have a hundred people working for you.
4 Now, what did you mean by a hundred people?
5 A. Eight inspectors in the Sarajevo SUP is a unit for co-ordinating
6 work at the level of Sarajevo city. The eight inspectors co-ordinate the
7 work of ten units of the crime police in public security stations. In
8 each of these stations, you have Novi Grad, 20 inspectors; Ilidza,
9 12 inspectors; Stari Grad, 10 inspectors; Novo Sarajevo, 20 inspectors;
10 Centar ... so one inspector for each 10.000 citizens. The security
11 services centre covers 20. In its own units, the security services
12 centre of Sarajevo had hundreds of inspectors.
13 When I talked about the Sarajevo Romanija Birac centre, they
14 copied the internal structure from the security services centre of
15 Sarajevo. This is a different level. It's not the same as
16 Sarajevo's city SUP. I talked about that. I talked about the number of
17 inspectors required to keep the centre working and functioning properly
18 over the 22 municipalities that belonged to us, to Romanija-Birac. At
19 the time, I had two or three inspectors. So that is the difference.
20 If I may further assist you. In Sarajevo city SUP, as far as the
21 general crime unit was concerned, there was the sector which I mentioned
22 at some point. We had white collar crime -- a special white collar crime
23 unit that had about 20 inspectors. There was the forensics unit, also
24 comprising between 20 and 30 forensic experts. We had four
25 in-department, we had anti-sabotage department, where, again, quite a
1 number of people worked. This is just a single segment, when I talk
2 about the eight inspectors in the general crime unit, and they were busy
3 mainly with co-ordination work.
4 Q. Right. The actual level -- well, first of all, when you're
5 talking about a hundred people, you're now talking about, are you, the
6 CSB Sarajevo which then was renamed the Sarajevo Birac when it became
7 Serb? That, you say, should have had a hundred people working in the
8 crime prevention department. Is that right? Is that what you're saying,
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Right. Is the -- a number of people in the -- in each of the
12 departments regulated by the - sorry, just going to see what it's
13 formally called - the rule book on internal organisation?
14 A. Yes, that's how it should be.
15 Q. Right. Were you using the rule book for 1990?
16 A. You mean when the war broke out or before?
17 Q. Yes, for the most of 1992, did you still exist on the old 1990
18 rule book from the BiH MUP, the joint MUP?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did that specify for the Sarajevo CSB crime department 28 people
21 including the chief?
22 A. 28, I can't remember. But according to the 1990 rules, it should
23 have been a lot more.
24 Q. All right. Finally on -- sorry. Yes?
25 A. Look, if you have a head of unit, if you have five units under
1 him, or departments, that's another five managers, which adds up to a
2 total of six people. Now, if you have two or three inspectors per team,
3 per unit, and if you know that the general crime unit then had all these
4 different inspectors for property-related crime, for sexual offences, for
5 aggravated theft, robbery --
6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... yes --
7 A. -- and then you have the investigations team, the search team, so
8 it would have been impossible.
9 Q. All right. You don't agree with that. All right.
10 Now I want, finally, to ask you, just before we move on to the
11 events that led to the split, you talked at page 22 -- 22200 about the
12 shipments of arms you had stopped on two occasions, both, you said,
13 Bosniaks; do you remember?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. But you also, didn't you, were aware of illegal arming being
16 carried out by Serbs?
17 A. Yes, but weapons were seized in those cases too, and I was
18 personally involved in such instances.
19 Q. Absolutely. But you -- again, I'm only putting it to you because
20 you didn't mention that when you were testifying earlier. There was, was
21 there not, illegal arming going on, on all sides?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Right. Now, I want to deal with the -- shortly, with the events
24 which led to the split. Would you agree with these words: That it's
25 difficult to make people who are not -- who were not present during these
1 events understand what happened. Nothing was black or white. It was all
3 Would you agree with that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. The way you described the events was, effectively, on or around
6 the 4th of April there were attacks on Friday, the -- that would be the
7 4th, I think. I'll just check my calendar. You said, That evening when
8 I came home from work, that was the Friday --
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry, can we have the reference, please.
10 MS. KORNER: Yes, sorry. 20217.
11 Q. "When I came home from work, attacks had already started against
12 all police stations in Sarajevo. These attacks were being carried out by
13 the Green Berets and the Patriotic League."
14 Is it your contention, Mr. Tusevljak, that that is how matters
15 began in Sarajevo, the beginning of April?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. All right. Do you remember the attack on the police school in
19 A. Yes, I do. I think it occurred on the 5th of April. But that
20 was no attack on the Vrace school but, as far as I understand, based on
21 an agreement -- I wasn't involved, myself. I can only tell you what I
22 know, what I have direct knowledge of. The special units of the
23 Serbian MUP were supposed to establish a base in that school and that was
25 Q. Regardless of whether or not there should have been an agreement
1 about the split, isn't what actually -- the split in the school, wasn't
2 what actually happened was that the special units under Milenko Karisik
3 and Mladen Mladic under -- to name just a couple, actually attacked and
4 took over the school?
5 A. No. Mladen Mladic, never heard of this person before. It
6 certainly wasn't someone from the MUP.
7 Q. You've never heard of the brother of Momcilo Mandic?
8 A. The younger Mandic brother, but he was assistant head-master in
9 that school.
10 Q. All right. You talked about this, the first casualty being the
11 policeman at the police station on Novo Sarajevo. You weren't there for
12 that, were you?
13 A. No, I wasn't.
14 Q. And were you aware that the police station was attacked by people
15 wearing masks?
16 A. People wearing masks, I read the statement of the duty officer
17 Lazar Bojanic, who was taken prisoner on that occasion and beaten. That
18 person in his statement provided a detailed description of what had gone
19 on during his shift. He provided a detailed description of the telephone
20 calls with Ismet Tahic, the then-commander of the Stari Grad Police
21 Station, and members of the Patriotic League and the Green Berets --
22 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... yes --
23 A. -- based on that, in order to be able to talk about this it would
24 be exceptionally useful to have Lazar Bojanic's statement here, who was
25 the duty officer at that police station at the time. If we could do
1 that, things would become a lot clearer. All I could do would be to
2 paraphrase the statement to the extent that --
3 Q. When did you read the statement?
4 A. The first time I read it was sometime in 1992. Nevertheless, I
5 went back to it recently because this case, murder, is still being
6 processed. The whole case file is with me.
7 Three or four months ago I picked it up, read through it again
8 because I had received certain materials that support our criminal
9 report. All of this I immediately submitted to the relevant prosecutor,
10 all of this being the reason I now know more about it.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness, do you remember that the question
12 was simply: Are you aware of the fact that a police station was attacked
13 by men wearing masks? I really don't understand what you're talking
14 about. Please answer the question.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There weren't just men wearing
16 masks attacking that police station, but men not wearing masks.
17 MS. KORNER:
18 Q. Well, would you agree with -- did you read the article in
19 Oslobodjenje that came out about all these events shortly afterwards?
20 A. No.
21 Q. All right. You say you read all the case file. Were there, in
22 fact - and this is simply yes or no - 50 men, around 50, who were wearing
23 masks? I understand you're saying that they weren't just men, but were
24 there around 50 wearing masks?
25 A. I can only say that the witness did not see 50 men wearing
1 masks --
2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... well, how many did he see?
3 A. -- meaning my answer is no.
4 Q. How many masked men did your -- the witness statement you read
5 say were there?
6 A. He saw about four or five of them who entered the station. About
7 two or three of them took the duty officer and Pero Petrovic down to --
8 Q. No, no, we've heard the story over and over and over again. You
9 don't have to tell it to us again.
10 I just want to know: Does he say four or five were masked?
11 A. I never said how many were wearing masks. I'm telling you how
12 many entered the police station.
13 Q. Yes, all right. Well, I'll move on from that.
14 By the 6th of April, Novo Sarajevo had been taken over by the
15 Serb MUP, hadn't it?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Right. Well, can I ask you, this is probably the final document
18 before the break, please, to have a look at a record of a conversation
19 which is Exhibit P1500.08, and I'm afraid it's pre-1F in our list.
20 Now, no doubt as a result of your job, and probably before,
21 you're aware that conversations were being intercepted during this
22 period. You knew that, didn't you, Mr. Tusevljak?
23 A. No, I didn't know that.
24 Q. Well, wait a minute. Are you saying you didn't know in 1992 or
25 you don't know it now?
1 A. I know now because I see transcripts being released. Back in
2 1992, I did not know that telephone conversations were being intercepted.
3 This was something that was being done by the State Security Service and
4 it had nothing to do with us.
5 Q. All right. Well, this is a conversation that was intercepted on
6 the 6th of April, 1992, between Danilo Veselinovic - you know who he is,
7 don't you?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And Jovan Tintor, and you know who he is?
10 A. Yes.
11 MS. KORNER: And if we go, please, in the English to the third
12 page and to the --
13 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. Your Honours, I have to object. This
14 is the other conversation between two people. Obviously the witness was
15 not -- was not a part to that conversation nor was he present during the
16 conversation. I don't know how can he comment on the --
17 JUDGE HALL: Well, could we have a question first. I, too, am
18 curious as to how Ms. Korner is going to make this link.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. I believe that Ms. Korner can pose the
20 question about the events and get the answer from the witness without
21 showing the conversation of two other people.
22 JUDGE HALL: Well, she can go ahead and show him, but let's have
23 a question and then we can ascertain -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
24 MS. KORNER: Mr. Zecevic, of course, wasn't here for the
25 wonderful Mr. Orasanin, who -- to whom I posed the very self-same
1 intercept and the very self-same question.
2 Can we go, please, to the third page in English, and I believe
3 it's the same in B/C/S. No, second page in B/C/S.
4 Q. Now, the first thing that Mr. Veselinovic talks about is: "This
5 morning we seized the airport."
6 And Mr. Tintor asks him: "Is the airport ours again?"
7 And: "Everything is good."
8 Do you remember the airport being taken by the Serb forces on the
9 6th of April?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Well, when do you say the airport was taken?
12 A. It was never taken by the Serb forces.
13 Q. The airport never came under the control of the Serb forces; is
14 that what you're saying to the Court?
15 A. Yes. The airport was taken by the JNA, not the Serb forces.
16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... right.
17 A. There's a difference there, an enormous one.
18 Q. Quite right. Technically there's a difference between the JNA
19 and the Serb forces because the VRS had not yet been formed. So let me
20 rephrase the question.
21 Was the airport taken over by the JNA on the 6th of April?
22 A. Well, I don't know the exact date. But when the airport was
23 taken -- and that's why I can speak about this, when the airport was
24 taken, I was together with the two assistant centre chiefs,
25 Vlatko Beckanovic, I think that was the person's name, and
1 Slobodan Kukobat. They came to see me at Nedzarici and we were all off
2 to the airport so that they could carry out an on-site investigation
3 because two police officers had been killed belonging to the airport
4 police station. That is why I know the airport was taken.
5 At one point in time when we arrived, the three of us, too, were
6 taken prisoner by the JNA, therefore --
7 Q. Sorry, Mr. Tusevljak, I'm really -- I'm sorry, neither I nor the
8 Court, I'm sure, are interested in what investigation you were carrying
9 out at the airport. All I'm asking you about is the date. Now, was the
10 airport, as according to Mr. Veselinovic, seized - and I'll -- you'll
11 note he used the word "we" - on the 6th of April?
12 A. No, I don't know. Meaning I don't know. I absolutely don't
14 Q. Is there any reason of that you know of to doubt Mr. Tintor or
15 Mr. Veselinovic saying, "This morning on the 6th of April we took over
16 the airport"? Is there anything you know that contradicts this?
17 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe the witness answered that he doesn't know
18 the answer. And contradicting the speech between two other people whom
19 he is not the party, I don't know how it can be relevant at all.
20 MS. KORNER:
21 Q. The question is: Do you know of any information which would
22 suggest that this conversation is inaccurate?
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, the witness should be able to read the whole
24 conversation in order to be able to respond to that question.
25 MS. KORNER: Well, I'm perfectly happy -- Your Honours, I see the
1 time. I will hand over the copy of the whole conversation, which he can
2 look at, at the break.
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes, and we would take the break now.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one moment.
5 Ms. Korner, it would be helpful if you could indicate, after the
6 break, at which point we should have gone out of private session --
7 MS. KORNER: Oh, yes --
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- the moment we forgot, so that we can lift.
9 MS. KORNER: I'll do that.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, while the witness is ushered in, I do
15 have another objection to this. During the break, I checked.
16 Your Honours, the questions which Ms. Korner is posing to the witness
17 presume that this is in fact the conversation between Mr. Tintor and
18 Mr. Veselinovic, and it has never been authenticated. We don't know
19 whether it's Mr. Tintor and Mr. Veselinovic. It was introduced through
20 the witness who brought the -- SD-155 and who only brought the
21 transcripts of this conversation. And it has never been authenticated by
22 either of the persons who were party to this conversation. Therefore, I
23 don't see any basis to pose a question on stating that this is the
24 conversation between so and so. Thank you.
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, these are admitted in evidence through
2 the witness that -- I think Mr. Tusevljak better keep his headphones off
3 for a moment -- through the witness that Your Honours heard from.
4 Your Honours will recall we had a number of discussions about whether
5 people could recognise voices on the tape and we were told not. They've
6 been entered into evidence. We're entitled to assume, barring any
7 evidence to the contrary, that the people say who -- that the people on
8 the transcripts are those who were actually speaking. I can, if
9 necessary, get hold of the tape and play it to this witness, who no doubt
10 is familiar with Mr. Tintor. But, Your Honours, at the moment, as I say,
11 we went through this on a number of occasions; there is no basis for
12 suggesting that those shown on the transcripts are not the people who
13 were speaking.
14 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, without, I -- to save me the -- going
15 back through the transcript, could you remind me of the question that the
16 witness was about to answer when the objection was taken before the
17 break, please.
18 MS. KORNER: About the airport. Your Honours, it was whether he
19 had any information to suggest that the airport was not taken over by the
20 JNA, described by one of the participants in this conversation as us.
21 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. The reason why I asked to be reminded
22 about that is that before Mr. Zecevic had made his objection, my own
23 reaction was that what -- I'm not sure I see the point of asking this
24 witness that question --
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, the --
1 JUDGE HALL: -- because he isn't a party to the conversation.
2 Apart from the -- putting aside for the moment the point that Mr. Zecevic
3 has just raised now, but even assuming that the persons on the tape are
4 who they are, so what? in terms of the question that you're putting to
5 this witness.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that's the context for the main point
7 that I'm showing him this intercept for. Your Honours, I dealt with
8 this, as I say, with Mr. Orasanin the other day. It's entirely to do
9 with the date that Novo Sarajevo Police Station was taken over.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 MS. KORNER: And the context of that is at the same time the
12 participants to this conversation are talking about the airport.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mrs. Korner, do you need this intercept to ask
14 the question whether he has any information to the contrary?
15 MS. KORNER: About?
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: About the 6th of April.
17 MS. KORNER: The airport or Novo Sarajevo?
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yeah.
19 MS. KORNER: No, no, I don't. I was trying to put it in to show
20 the co-existence of two events, one of which can be proved by other
21 evidence and that's the JNA's occupation of the airport.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: And the other one -- the other one being?
23 MS. KORNER: The Novo Sarajevo -- the conversation goes on
24 that -- can we have it back again at the bottom of the page, Mr. Tintor
1 "Now we just need to take, what is with the police station in
2 Novo Sarajevo?
3 "That's already seized."
4 Your Honour, the whole context is --
5 JUDGE HALL: Please continue. Please proceed.
6 MS. KORNER: Sorry. Your Honours, can -- just before I do that,
7 I've been asked to indicate -- Your Honours asked me to indicate where we
8 can stop the private session that took place earlier this morning,
9 page 6, line 13. After that, nothing appears which needs to be -- needs
10 to have been in private session.
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
12 MS. KORNER:
13 Q. Right. You've had a chance, Mr. Tusevljak, to read the whole of
14 the transcript?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And I've had to cut what's been a rather protracted exercise
17 rather short. Do you see that after talking about the airport Mr. Tintor
19 "What's happened with the police station in Novo Sarajevo?"
20 And Mr. Veselinovic says:
21 "That's already ... seized."
22 And then it goes on. I don't need to trouble you with the rest
23 of the conversation.
24 What makes you say, Mr. Tusevljak, that by the 6th of April
25 Novo Sarajevo was not in the hands of the Serbs?
1 A. Not before and not after.
2 Q. Sorry, I didn't follow that. What do you mean "not before and
3 not after"?
4 A. The Novo Sarajevo Police Station, the building, was at no point
5 part of the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska, not before the
6 6th of April and not after the 6th of April.
7 Q. Novo Sarajevo, as we've seen from the map that you actually drew,
8 fell into the part of Sarajevo that was being occupied by the
9 Bosnian Serbs, didn't it?
10 A. Only a part of Novo Sarajevo municipality. Most of Novo Sarajevo
11 municipality was under the forces of the BH army throughout the war. And
12 if you have a map, I can show that for you.
13 Q. Right. Well, we're going to come back to maps and what was --
14 So you're saying, are you, that Novo Sarajevo SJB - and I'll show
15 you a document from there in a moment - was not in the same building as
16 the old MUP building; is that what you're saying?
17 A. What do you mean by the old MUP?
18 Q. Well, you've just said that Novo Sarajevo Police Station was
19 never seized, and as I understood what you were saying is that the
20 building was not seized. Is that what you're saying?
21 A. Seized when? There wasn't an attempt to seize it, let alone it
22 being seized. Never. What do you mean by that? What do you mean it was
23 seized? I don't understand. Would you please explain.
24 Q. Right. Let's try and get what should have been a really simple
25 question answered. In 1992 on the 6th of April, was there already a
1 Serb -- a Serbian MUP Novo Sarajevo SJB?
2 A. No.
3 Q. All right. When did, in your opinion, the Novo Sarajevo Serbian
4 MUP SJB come into existence?
5 A. Sometime in mid-April.
6 Q. All right. And when it came into existence, are you saying that
7 it was in a building that was not the building that had been the
8 SJB Novo Sarajevo pre-April 1992?
9 A. Yes, it was in a different building.
10 Q. Right. Okay. I think we've now established that.
11 MS. KORNER: Would Your Honours give me one moment.
12 Q. Now, were you aware of the sequence of events that led to the
13 establishment of the Bosnian Serb MUP?
14 A. If you're referring to the preparations for forming the MUP, I
15 didn't know anything about that.
16 Q. Well, were you aware that at the end of March 1992 the Assembly
17 passed the Law of Internal Affairs?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you not read the gazette at all?
20 A. No. I wasn't obliged to read the Official Gazette.
21 Q. Were you aware on the 31st of March Momcilo Mandic, as the deputy
22 minister, sent a telegram to all CSBs and SJBs, saying that the Serbian
23 MUP would start operating from the 1st of April?
24 A. I read that dispatch only after the 4th of April. I didn't
25 receive it that day.
1 Q. When did you read it?
2 A. Sometime after the 4th of April, 1992.
3 Q. Yes, well that covers a multitude of sins. In 1992 itself or
4 more recently?
5 A. In 1992.
6 Q. Right. On the 31st of March, did you know about the Serb police
7 in Ilijas all wearing the blue uniforms surrounding the SJB and
8 preventing people from entering?
9 A. No.
10 Q. You never heard anything about that?
11 A. No.
12 Q. All right. Now, finally, just before we move on to what happened
13 afterwards, is it your contention that the events in Sarajevo were
14 started by the Muslims?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right. Well, I'd like you to have a look, please, at
17 something that was said by somebody you know in the Assembly.
18 MS. KORNER: Could we have document P199, 13B of the list of
20 Q. This is a record of the Assembly meeting that was held in - I've
21 forgotten where it was now - Pale, I think, in July of 1992 over two
22 days. And I'd like you to have a look at something that was said by
23 Mr. Prstojevic.
24 MS. KORNER: Which is at page 65 in English, and in B/C/S it's
25 page 67. And maybe -- I think, actually, it's probably 68 if you count
1 the cover page. Yes, sorry, it's page 67 -- sorry, page 67 at the top,
2 not 68, sorry, 67 in B/C/S. All right.
3 Q. You knew who Mr. Prstojevic is/was, don't you?
4 A. [No interpretation]
5 Q. Sorry, no translation.
6 A. Yes, I did. I met him during the war.
7 Q. All right. He's telling the Assembly in July:
8 "Mr. President, honourable MPs, I have decided to say a few words
9 and to ask a few questions that I'm being asked by the citizens of
10 Sarajevo. Namely, when the Serbs started the uprising in Sarajevo and
11 when they seized control over certain territories ..."
12 Do you know to what Mr. Prstojevic was referring when he said
13 "when the Serbs started the uprising in Sarajevo"?
14 A. I don't know. You should ask him. I don't know what he meant.
15 Q. And then when he went on later in that speech:
16 "Moreover, we didn't know Mr. Karadzic was alive during the first
17 couple of days. When we learnt that he was alive and when he visited us
18 in Ilidza and encouraged us, the Serbs from Sarajevo retained control
19 over the territory and even extended their territory in some areas,
20 driving the Muslims out of the territories where they'd actually been a
22 Do you agree with that, that the Serbs drove out Muslims from
23 places where they'd been in the majority?
24 A. I don't know. I wasn't involved at the time. But you skipped
25 the sentence that says that at that moment there was no government or it
1 wasn't known where it was then. You just skipped that sentence in the
3 Q. Yes, does that make a difference to you?
4 A. Well, it means that no organs of the authorities of
5 Republika Srpska had been formed at that time. There was no government
6 and nobody knew where the government was. The local Crisis Staffs and
7 local politicians did what they did.
8 Q. Yes. I'm merely dealing with what you said, Mr. Tusevljak, that
9 it was effectively the Muslims who were responsible for the outbreak of
10 violence in Sarajevo, the uprising, if you like, whereas Mr. Prstojevic
11 seems to think it was the Serbs. Do you agree with Mr. Prstojevic?
12 A. I don't agree with Mr. Prstojevic, clearly.
13 Q. And just one other matter that I should have dealt with before.
14 Earlier today you were talking about -- when I was asking you about
15 investigation of crimes committed by Serbs against non-Serbs - sorry -
16 you mentioned an incident in Ilidza. Do you remember that?
17 A. You have to remind me.
18 Q. You said, if I can, as usual, find my pieces of paper, this. And
19 this was at page 17, bottom of 16, page 17 of today's transcript.
20 "... the only war crimes you actually spent any time
21 investigating properly were those where Serbs were alleged to be the
23 And you said you didn't agree. You mentioned somebody called
24 Jadranko Jeberic [sic], the report of Predrag Djurovic. And then you
25 said: "... four or five such reports in the territory of the Ilidza SJB
1 when Bosniak people were killed."
2 Were you referring to an incident involving a man called
3 Sinisa Milic, also known as Mongo?
4 A. I don't know. I think that he was investigated by the SJB, but I
5 think that this man was killed at the very beginning of the war. He was
6 killed somewhere. And I was referring to Davor Draskovic and some others
7 who committed these crimes. But I think that Sinisa Milic was killed
8 right at the beginning of the war. Whether he was being processed, I
9 don't know, because probably after he died nothing was done.
10 Q. What do you mean by the beginning of the war?
11 A. I mean the first months of the war. I don't know when exactly he
12 was killed, but I know he was killed in the first months. And I think
13 that we were processing him about weapons smuggling. I think we even
14 filed a report.
15 Q. Were you not processing him for shooting dead 22 Muslim men in
16 cold blood?
17 A. I don't know about that. If such an investigation was done, it
18 would have been done by the Ilidza SJB at the beginning of the war.
19 Q. And this being on the 12th of June, do you know anything about
21 A. No, I don't.
22 Q. In front of, unfortunately, some people from UNPROFOR?
23 A. I don't know. I wasn't personally involved in the processing.
24 Whether the Ilidza SJB did that, I don't know. I personally wasn't
1 Q. Did you know Mr. Ceranic?
2 A. Ceranic?
3 Q. Yep.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Was he the chief at that stage of the SNB at the CSB Sarajevo?
6 A. I don't know whether it was him or Dragan Kijac. First it was
7 Kijac, then Ceranic came. And before that, Ceranic was the chief of the
8 SNB in Ilidza.
9 Q. All right. Now, I want you, please, to deal -- or I want to deal
10 with, please, the subsequent events, really. Now, you told us at
11 page two-hundred and -- sorry, 22.222 that you first of all went up to
12 Vrace physically; is that right? Then went to Nedzarici.
13 A. Yes. I lived in Nedzarici.
14 Q. Yes, I know. You told us that. And then you went up to Vrace
15 again, did you not, when you were given the role of co-ordinator?
16 A. Yes, sometime in the beginning of May. It was in May.
17 Q. And you were asked to look at, please, the document which is in
18 the Defence bundle, so you probably got it, which is 1D575, tab 149.
19 Now, I want to make it -- I want to make sure that what came out
20 and what came across is accurate. Are you saying that this is not a list
21 of people who were actually under your command - if I can put it that
22 way - but a list of people that you were looking for?
23 A. Yes. These people were not under my command.
24 Q. Right. Well, let's have a look just for a moment. We see the
25 Novo Sarajevo SJB, the Vrace Operative Group. Are you saying that those
1 are simply -- that's simply a list of people that you were making -- that
2 you wanted to find?
3 A. It's a list of people who reported at these SJBs.
4 Q. Right. So you're saying, are you, you managed to establish that
5 at the Novo Sarajevo SJB something that you've called the Vrace Operative
6 Group was reporting?
7 A. This was a proposal of the 15th of May, 1992. You can see that.
8 And it contains names of operatives. And it was probably then that I
9 became co-ordinator, and this is probably a proposal about how to
10 organise these operative groups.
11 Q. But weren't all these people people who came for the -- were
12 under the -- under your authority as part of the crime prevention
13 departments at each of these police station? For example, if we look at
14 the second page in English and B/C/S, Pale, Mr. Micic.
15 A. Yes, both in 1992 and before he was chief of the crime police
16 department, Sejdo Palin [phoen].
17 Q. But then I don't understand the note at the end, if you forgive
18 me. If you didn't know where these people were, or if they've just
19 turned up these police stations and weren't under your command, as it
20 were, why were you saying - can we look at the last page in English,
21 please, and the second page in B/C/S - under "note," these "operates are
22 currently on sick leave." On sick leave from where?
23 A. We didn't say. That's what's written. But Vasiljevic, Zeljko
24 was wounded in Vrace and he was being treated in Belgrade, and
25 Sreten Risticevic had been beaten up in Sarajevo at the town SUP by the
1 Green Berets and he was receiving treatment at my parents'.
2 Q. I'm sorry, what I'm trying to get at is: Where were they on sick
3 leave from?
4 A. Nowhere. Nobody asked for that. That was just what was written
5 down. They couldn't have asked for sick leave and they didn't need it.
6 At that time the term "sick leave" didn't exist as it existed under
7 normal circumstances or in a normal health care system.
8 Q. All right. You see, I'm suggesting to you that these are people
9 that came under your authority and that's why this list was, not that you
10 were looking for them, but they were there. And the reason I'm going to
11 put that to you is because of what you said -- or what was said, to be
12 accurate, in the Milosevic trial.
13 MS. KORNER: Could we have up again, please, the testimony.
14 Q. Now, this document, do you agree, was shown to you by
15 Mr. Tapuskovic in the Dragomir Milosevic trial? Do you agree? Or if you
16 don't remember, say so.
17 A. I don't remember.
18 Q. All right. I'll take us all to the part. It's page 8047.
19 Now, it hadn't been translated for that trial, apparently. And
20 we'll see there that Mr. Tapuskovic asks you, on the previous page, to
21 have a look at it. And you answered:
22 "Could you tell us who wrote this document?"
23 I'm sorry, no, the question was:
24 "Witness, could you ... look at it, look at the heading, the
25 date, what is this, and could you please tell us who wrote this document?
1 "A. Well, the heading says Serbian Republic of Bosnia and
2 Herzegovina, the Ministry of the Interior ... The date is the
3 15th of May ... It's a list of operatives in the territory of the city of
4 Sarajevo, and ... on this list, Simo Tusevljak is listed as the
5 coordinator for the territory of the city of Sarajevo."
6 So do you agree that's obviously the same document?
7 A. Probably, unless there's another one.
8 Q. And then next page, 8048, you were asked by Mr. Tapuskovic:
9 "Can you please tell us who drafted this document?"
10 And you said:
11 "This document was drafted by my chief at the time."
12 Was that -- is that right, it was drafted by your chief?
13 A. I suppose so, because the ministry's in the header.
14 Q. And then the Judge, who I think was the Presiding Judge for the
15 trial, after Mr. Tapuskovic asked for this document to be exhibited,
17 "You didn't tell us what the document is exactly. What is this
18 document ... how do you interpret this document?"
19 Mr. Tapuskovic said in your presence and in, presumably, Serbian,
20 as I don't believe he speaks English:
21 "Well, you see, this document contains a list of operatives doing
22 the kind of work that Mr. Tusevljak described. We have groups for Vrace,
23 for Kula, for Ilidza, for Vogosca, for Pale. I didn't think it was
24 necessary for us to read all of it but at any rate these are the people
25 who were under his control, and they were working to shed light on the
1 crimes that he mentioned to us."
2 Now, did you hear Mr. Tapuskovic say that?
3 A. I don't remember that.
4 Q. Well -- because if you had heard it you would have said, "No,
5 that's wrong," wouldn't you?
6 A. I'm telling you, I don't remember it. I wasn't paying attention
7 at all. I don't pay attention to the comments that you make to each
8 other. I don't remember. I said it then and I'll repeat: This is just
9 a list of operatives in the territory of the city of Sarajevo, if you
10 look at it and if you look at the Law on Internal Affairs or any other,
11 and I was appointed after this as chief of the department in the Romanija
12 Birac CSB, and the SUP of the city of Sarajevo didn't exist as a part of
13 the RS MUP.
14 Q. Well, you see, the reason I suggest you're saying that is because
15 it somewhat contradicts your continued assertion that you had no manpower
16 that enabled you to carry out the job during those early months of the
17 conflict. Those, in fact, were people, weren't they, who came under your
18 control and were available to you from the very beginning of matters.
19 That's right, isn't it, Mr. Tusevljak?
20 A. No. No.
21 Q. Now, because you said, you see, again very shortly after you were
22 shown this document, page 22235 I think:
23 "We didn't have operatives. We didn't have people who had the
24 expert knowledge in order to do the jobs ..."
25 And that's your case, isn't it? That's why you say that no
1 investigations were carried out or able to be carried out into the many
2 crimes against non-Serbs that were committed within the area of
3 responsibility of the CSB Sarajevo. That's right, isn't it,
4 Mr. Tusevljak?
5 A. It's true, they didn't have the men. But I said nothing about
6 the investigations.
7 Q. Well, okay. You're saying you didn't have the manpower. Are you
8 saying you could still carry out investigations?
9 A. The security services centre crime police had not been set up
10 yet. For that reason, at the headquarters we had no investigations. You
11 can tell that if you look at the log which starts on -- in November 1992
12 and not before.
13 Q. Yes. I'm going to come on to that. But you had in each of the
14 SJBs that fell under your command, didn't you, crime police, crime --
15 people whose job it was to investigate crime?
16 A. Whatever the crime police had been set up in public security
17 stations, they would be under the command of the head of that department
18 in his turn appointed by the head of the police station. They launched
19 certain investigations but there are reports about it.
20 Q. I want you to have a look, please, first of all, at a chart of
21 the SJBs that came under the CSB Sarajevo, which you had a look at when
22 you were interviewed. Sorry, I'm just trying to find the page.
23 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I do apologise. I thought I'd
24 grappled with the new numbering, but I seem to have lost it again. Yes,
25 it's -- actually, it's P879 and it's tab 58.
1 Q. All right. Well, that's not terribly helpful. It may be
2 easier -- no, that's not -- all right.
3 Now, you've seen this one before, haven't you?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And do you agree that those are the SJBs which reported to the
6 CS -- or came within the area of responsibility, I suppose is a better
7 way of putting it, of the Romanija-Birac CSB?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And just very quickly while we're on the chart, we see that the
10 SNB sector of the CSB, as you rightly say, originally Dragan Kijac and
11 then replaced by Predrag Ceranic. Do you agree with that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, of the SJB chiefs, can you just -- can we just go through
14 them, please, the people that you knew. Mr. Saric at the centre
15 Sarajevo, was he a police officer before the war, the conflict?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Mr. Kovac at Ilidza?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Mr. Jovanovic at Novo Sarajevo?
20 A. He came to the police in 1991 for the first time as far as I
22 Q. So a little junior to you, but certainly an officer before the
24 Mr. Glavas at Hadzici?
25 A. Yes, police officer before the war.
1 Q. Mr. Mitrovic at Olovo?
2 A. Yes, likewise.
3 Q. Okay. I think probably the simplest is, because we asked you
4 this earlier, of these 20 SJBs, which of them had as chief of the SJB
5 someone who had not been a police officer before April 1992?
6 A. I don't know, as I said. I just knew the commanders and chiefs
7 from the area covered by the Sarajevo SUP. As for the other areas not
8 belonging to the Sarajevo SUP before the war, as I said, I didn't know
9 those men and I had no idea what they were doing.
10 Q. All right. Just identify which ones they were, please.
11 A. Vlasenica, Han Pijesak, Rogatica, Sokolac, Skelani, Bratunac,
12 Milici, Sekovici, Visoko; these are the stations that didn't
13 belong [Realtime transcript read in error "that belonged"] to us, and I
14 knew no one there, not a single employee until the beginning of the war.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe the witness -- perhaps you can clarify
16 with the witness. I don't want to ...
17 MS. KORNER: Clarify what?
18 MR. ZECEVIC: 49/9, "these are the stations that belonged to
19 us ..."
20 MS. KORNER: Oh --
21 MR. ZECEVIC: And I think --
22 MS. KORNER: No, he said the opposite.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: -- he said the opposite.
24 MS. KORNER: I heard him say the opposite as well.
25 Q. I think you said these were the SJBs that did not belong to the
1 CSB Sarajevo before April 1992; is that right?
2 A. No. I said those were the stations that did not belong to the
3 Sarajevo SUP. There's a difference there.
4 Q. I see. All right. But those -- it's those stations that you
5 know nothing about -- the heads of those stations?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. All right. Now I want you to look, please, at a second chart,
8 which is, I believe, P-- oh, sorry, 20189, 65 ter number, at tab 57.
9 Now, you were shown this by Mr. Zecevic -- or the first version
10 by Mr. Zecevic and you made certain corrections which, to the best of our
11 ability, we have incorporated into the second version.
12 Now, do you agree that that is the set-up of the CSB
13 Romanija-Birac during the course of 1992?
14 A. Well, from July on, roughly speaking, although this kept
16 Q. Now, I accept -- can I say, I accept entirely that there were
17 changes and additions to the personnel, particularly in your department.
18 And to the best of our ability, as you see, we have put in the dates when
19 these people came there. But do you agree that, as you say, as of July
20 this is accurate information?
21 A. Yes, roughly speaking.
22 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, without - [microphone not
23 activated] - we want to come back to it --
24 Q. Sorry, you want to say something else?
25 A. Where you see the forensic technicians, it reads "inspectors,"
1 but that is a difference. They're not inspectors. They don't run
2 investigations. They're forensic technicians, and we had a strict
3 division there. They don't interview people. They simply go to a crime
4 scene to gather any traces, evidence, that sort of thing. So it's a huge
6 Q. Yes, I accept that. And which do you say are the crime
7 technicians there where erroneously we put "inspector," now I see, yes,
8 Mr. -- yeah, under there.
9 MS. KORNER: Well, with that caveat, Your Honours, may I ask that
10 this be admitted into evidence and marked?
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I object. First, Your Honours, I was asked
13 by Ms. Korner during the proofing that I showed this or similar document
14 to the witness. And the witness made a lot of changes on the document
15 and I provided a copy to Ms. Korner, and I don't have my copy. And
16 neither the witness had the opportunity to look at this document and then
17 comment about it, because he made a number of changes to that document.
18 Therefore, I'd -- first of all, I don't know if all the changes would
19 have been made which he made; and second, the document should be given to
20 him perhaps to study it better in order to give his comments to the
22 JUDGE HALL: So as I understand it your objection is not to the
23 admission in principle. It is that it is not -- it's probably premature,
24 that there's something that should be done --
25 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct, Your Honours. I don't object to
1 the admission of the document because it just lists the people who were
2 members of the CSB during the time.
3 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, that's why I gave him the
4 opportunity to look at it and he said with that exception, that they're
5 not inspectors. We made all the changes that we could decipher, if I can
6 put it that way, but I'm perfectly happy to have it marked for
7 identification at this stage, give a hard copy to the witness, and
8 tomorrow morning he can come back and tell us again if there's any
9 further changes he thinks need making.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: That's a perfectly --
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes, so we can proceed in that manner. Yes.
12 So the document is admitted but marked for identification -- or
13 the document is marked for identification, sorry.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P2355 marked for identification,
15 Your Honours.
16 MS. KORNER:
17 Q. Having dealt with that document that you were asked about, I want
18 to look, please, at some of the payroll lists for some of the stations
19 that -- SJBs that came under your authority.
20 And can we start, please, with 20190, which is in tab pre-1C
21 [Realtime transcript read in error "31C"].
22 Now, this is not -- in fact, as we can see, this deals with
23 Novo Sarajevo. And it's not a full list, but it's actually a list,
24 according to this, of those who were omitted from the initial payroll
25 from the month of April 1992 by a mistake.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Could you please -- I'm sorry, could you please
2 call the tab number, I don't --
3 MS. KORNER: Sorry, it's very -- it's pre-1C. It's the third
4 document in the list.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. It's recorded "31C."
6 MS. KORNER: Oh, I'm sorry. Pre as in p-r-e. Sorry about the
8 Q. Now, Novo Sarajevo, can you tell us, please, did you know these
9 officers, first of all, Mr. Subotic?
10 A. Him and Drago Jugovic both, these being the only two men I knew.
11 Q. Did you know Mr. Slavko Aleksic?
12 A. The only Slavko Aleksic I met was the one we called "The Duke."
13 I met him during the war at Grbavica. I'm not sure if it's the same
14 person. It doesn't say here, does it?
15 Q. Well, can I show you, please, a photograph and see if you can
16 recognise him. If I can find out where it is.
17 MS. KORNER: Would Your Honours forgive me.
18 [Prosecution counsel confer]
19 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Ms. Korner, please.
21 MS. KORNER: Oh, sorry. We'll have to leave the photograph and
22 come back to it.
23 Over the page, please. Or is it all on one page? It is in
25 Q. So you knew Mr. Subotic, Mr. Jugovic, and those are the only two
1 you knew. Were they members of the crime police?
2 A. No. Mirko Subotic worked with me in the Sarajevo SUP.
3 Drago Jugovic was with the traffic police of the Sarajevo SUP and that's
4 why I know them.
5 Q. All right. Well, let's look, please, at another document which
6 is 20191, pre -- the tab is pre - p-r-e - 1C.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: That's 1D.
8 MS. KORNER: Sorry, 1D. Thank you.
9 Q. Presumably you're familiar with these payrolls, are you not,
10 Mr. Tusevljak, these type of payrolls?
11 A. Yes, I know the type of payrolls. But I've never seen this
12 specific one before.
13 Q. All right. It's a list for Ilidza, April 1992.
14 MS. KORNER: I think we need to pull down the thing. I'm sorry
15 about the way it was photographed. Presumably it was in a book, as you
16 can see. Can we just highlight that. Highlight the top bit, please,
17 zoom in, I mean. April 1992.
18 Q. It shows Mr. Kovac as the chief; is that right?
19 A. Yes, that's what it says.
20 MS. KORNER: Can we go, please, to the third page of this
21 document, and this is April. Preferably the right way up.
22 Q. After number 81 can you read out what it says, please, if you can
23 read it.
24 A. Department for fighting crime and crime prevention.
25 Q. Right. So is that your department that we're talking about?
1 A. Yes. When the security services centre was set up, this
2 department belonged to the -- not the service as such but the station,
3 because the station was part of the centre.
4 Q. Yes, quite. Does that show on the face of this document that it
5 had a chief and operatives between numbers 82 to 93?
6 A. Yes, but not all of these are operatives.
7 Q. Well, what does that mean?
8 A. In the month of April 1992 those of us who had left Sarajevo
9 stopped receiving our salaries. We no longer received our salaries from
10 the republican secretariat of the interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
11 This is a one-time financial subsidy to those police officers who had
12 left Sarajevo. You can see that each received 25.000 dinars, the same
13 amount for each and every one. You can see who reported in April,
14 because they were somewhere in the area covered by the Ilidza Public
15 Security Station, and if they were there they received the 25.000 dinars
16 specified here. The list was drawn up for that purpose, in order to give
17 financial support to these men. It doesn't mean that they were actually
18 performing these activities, these jobs, at the time.
19 Since Ilidza was a police station that remained in the hands of
20 the Serbian MUP, the building itself, we have some operatives here who
21 even before the war worked in that police station in addition to all
22 these others who reported.
23 Q. Yes. Of course you have to say that, don't you, because on this
24 list of people that we see there, they all appear on the list that we
25 looked at earlier which you said were the disappeared operatives, don't
2 MS. KORNER: Let's have up for a moment -- I don't know whether
3 we can do it side by side, the document which is the Defence
4 document - I'll just give the number again - it's 1D575.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, this is tab 149, but I don't see the basis to
6 say that the witness said were the disappeared operatives?
7 MS. KORNER: He says these were people that were not working
8 during the month of April. That's what his list is about.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: I must say I don't recall that, but perhaps maybe
10 we can clarify.
11 MS. KORNER: I think he's just said it a moment ago as well.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: It's okay --
14 MS. KORNER: Yes, he said it -- sorry.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: If you say so, I believe you now. It's --
16 MS. KORNER: It's page 54 --
17 MR. ZECEVIC: I might have missed --
18 MS. KORNER: Yeah, okay.
19 Q. Right. Those are exactly the same --
20 MS. KORNER: Sorry, we need the second page in -- anyway, down
21 there, we can see it -- sorry, sorry, go back to the first page in B/C/S.
22 Q. Those are the same people, aren't they, in slightly different
23 order but the same people?
24 A. Yes, but I don't see Milorad Susic; Stankic, Miri [phoen];
25 Ranko Sajic, I don't see them on this 15th of May list,
1 Jamir [phoen] Dragan. So at one point they appear on the lists of the
2 crime police and then as early as May they're gone.
3 Q. Sorry, I don't follow that. Oh, you mean those people. I'm
4 sorry, yes, I see. But on what possible basis, Mr. Tusevljak, do you say
5 that these payments to these men do not reflect work they did throughout
7 A. Well, because you'll find my name on one of these payrolls for
8 April - I think it's the crime police one. I received my salary, too,
9 the 25.000 dinars, and that was the only way for me to receive it, but as
10 my entire family had fled by this time and had become refugees. There
11 was no free bread or free potatoes or anything like that.
12 Q. So you're saying out of the kindness of its heart the MUP paid
13 all these people something to compensate them for April even though they
14 weren't working?
15 A. Yes, for the most part all those who reported to the MUP got this
17 Q. All right.
18 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, I see the time.
19 JUDGE HALL: Well, we have another five minutes, Ms. Korner.
20 MS. KORNER:
21 Q. All right, then I'll show you one more document. Could you have
22 a look, please, at 2192, please, the payroll list for Sokolac.
23 MS. KORNER: We can take off the other one. Second page.
24 Q. Mr. Borovcanin; Predrag Cajic; Mr. Cobovic, Veljko; were they all
25 part of the crime investigation department?
1 A. Yes, they probably were, in Sokolac.
2 Q. And you would say, would you, that these payrolls are not
3 evidence that any of these people worked at that time?
4 A. This only proves that they received the salary. These are
5 employees of the Sokolac Police Station who had been employees in the
6 crime service before the war. They never left their station.
7 Q. So at least in Sokolac they were operating throughout, were they?
8 A. They were operating then or not -- I wasn't in Sokolac in April.
9 I didn't go to Sokolac until August perhaps, so I don't know whether they
10 were operating or not operating. I was in Nedzarici at the time. This
11 was in April. I can't say with certainty that they were operating or
12 that they were not operating.
13 Q. Well, you see, it may be that I misunderstood the tenor of your
14 evidence, Mr. Tusevljak, in which case I'll stop taking you through this
15 rather tedious exercise of having a look at payrolls. You're not saying,
16 are you, therefore, that no crime police were operating anywhere in
17 Serb-held territories in the Sarajevo area?
18 A. Yes. If you understand what I mean, if I understood the question
19 correctly, some stations functioned and in some police stations it didn't
20 function at all.
21 Q. And you don't know one way or the other, do you, which police
22 stations it was functioning in and which it wasn't?
23 A. Well, if you show me the list, I can tell you where operatives
24 existed and where there were no operatives at all.
25 Q. Right. Well, have a look, please, at one last one which is --
1 it's 212 -- 65 ter number is -- sorry, 02127. I'm not sure why.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mrs. Korner, the previous, one you're not
3 tendering that one?
4 MS. KORNER: Oh, sorry, Your Honour, I meant to tender it. Yes,
5 please. I forgot.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, first of all I don't know what was the nexus
7 between the -- this witness and the document, the second -- the document
8 is a fresh evidence, so I believe that that requires, according to the
9 ruling of Your Honours, the Office of the Prosecution to establish
10 certain facts. And I believe the witness said he never saw the document
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, my understanding -- first of all, can I
13 say that of course he says he didn't -- and I accept that, that he
14 probably didn't see the documents before, but he says he knows these
15 people who are members of the crime -- shown as members of the crime
16 police, and the reason that I'm putting them in now and seeking to tender
17 them is to go to the credibility of his assertions, which I understood to
18 be the case, certainly, that the -- that the assembled might of the
19 CSB Sarajevo through its component SJBs did not have members of the crime
20 police working in the early months of the conflict. And I'll check, but
21 I have a feeling that this document, the one for Sokolac and indeed the
22 one for Ilidza, which I should have asked for as well, but I was just
23 moving through a whole series, are relatively new ones. I'll just check
24 on when we acquired them.
25 Your Honours, could we do that -- I see what the time is now.
1 Could we just do that over the break?
2 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
3 Before we rise, I -- I'm advised it is necessary to issue a
4 formal order lifting the confidentiality of the transcript from
5 pages 6 -- from page 6, line 13, onwards, which I now do.
6 So we take the break now and resume at -- in 20 minutes.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.
10 JUDGE HALL: While the witness is on his way back in, I am
11 reminded by the Court Officer that in terms of the order that was made
12 just before we took the break about lifting the confidentiality, that it
13 should be made clear that that also extends to the audio files.
14 MS. KORNER: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Your Honours, may I also,
15 before he comes in -- well, firstly we need to return to a ruling on the
16 objection raised by Mr. Zecevic. Secondly, could I ask that there's
17 ten - well, I say ten minutes because I think it may take that - to raise
18 something that needs discussion as a result of something that was said
19 this morning. So I will finish cross-examination, if not tomorrow, very
20 early - touch wood - very early on Thursday morning, as I indicated
22 Your Honours, so our application is these documents, and indeed
23 I'm going to be showing some more to the witness, should be admitted on
24 the basis that they are relevant to the assertions he's made about the
25 operation of the crime police, and they go to his credibility.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if all these documents go for the
2 credibility of the witness and not for the truth of its contents, we
3 don't have the objection.
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, that's the difficulty. Of
6 course it goes to the truth of the contents. We say these payrolls are
7 records -- that they don't make much sense otherwise, are records of
8 payments made for work done and therefore contradict what he says or
9 appears to be saying about the existence of crime police during those
10 early months. So it's not really a truth of the contents, it's whether
11 it advances our case. Truth of the contents is different --
12 JUDGE HALL: Yes, I follow you, Ms. Korner.
13 Mr. Zecevic, the distinction which you now make, in other
14 contexts that makes -- is easily recognisable, but having regard to
15 these -- the nature of these documents, the "truth" is presumed, but the
16 limited purpose for which the Prosecution is using them is in terms of
17 credibility. So I don't think we need to concern ourselves with that
18 distinction here, if you follow me.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours, but the ruling of Your Honours
20 is that this is a fresh evidence. This obviously then is a fresh
21 evidence which the Office of the Prosecutor is trying to introduce. That
22 is what Ms. Korner says just right now, we are advancing our case.
23 Now, if that is a fresh evidence, then according to the ruling
24 and the existing jurisprudence the Office of the Prosecutor has a certain
25 threshold to meet before these documents can be admitted. That is
1 simply -- this is the decision of this Trial Chamber.
2 JUDGE HALL: Yes, I'm reminded about that, Mr. Zecevic, but I'm
3 wondering whether if it were only the question of credibility, this
4 wouldn't present a problem. But I'm wondering whether the -- because
5 the -- allowing their use to test credibility is only possible on the
6 assumption that these are accurate and truthful records makes it
7 necessary to invoke the ruling to which you -- to which you have
8 referred. That's my question.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: But, Your Honours --
10 JUDGE HALL: Or am I being overly subtle or overly complicated?
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, perhaps it's my wrong understanding,
12 Your Honours. If the -- perhaps I can explain how I understand. If the
13 document is introduced for the credibility of the witness, that means
14 that the Office of the Prosecutor would not rely on that document in
15 their submissions, they will only say: This witness so and so was not
16 telling the truth because this document was presented to him, this
17 document was presented to him, and so on and so forth, so you cannot rely
18 on the credibility of the witness's testimony. That is my understanding.
19 Now, if, however, this will be the basis for Office of the
20 Prosecutor to submit that there has been -- unlike the testimony of the
21 witnesses and unlike other documents which we presented, that there has
22 been a sufficient number of police officers based on these documents,
23 then it is definitely fresh evidence. And if they wanted to establish
24 that, they could have established that in the -- during the case of the
25 Prosecution. Therefore, that is my understanding and that is why I think
1 the Office of the Prosecutor needs to meet threshold to be -- to have
2 these documents admitted.
3 JUDGE HALL: I fully understand what you're saying, Mr. Zecevic.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
5 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, I think there's a missing link,
6 as it were, in what Mr. Zecevic is saying. Firstly, you could only
7 challenge the credibility of a witness using a document which you
8 believed to be true, because you should not be challenging the
9 credibility of a witness on a document you did not rely on the contents
10 of. Secondly, a number of these documents had been used by the Defence
11 themselves. Thirdly, it's no good saying "we didn't prove this as part
12 of our case." We asserted throughout that there were effectively
13 sufficient people to do the investigations because they were doing other
14 investigations, and it's only when a witness comes along and says - which
15 cannot be anticipated - in terms -- not just the general "everything was
16 chaotic," but that "we did not have sufficient manpower to carry out
17 investigations," that we're entitled to challenge that assertion through
18 these documents. And obviously to that extent it bolsters our case. But
19 we don't know what these Defence witnesses are going to say. So that's
20 the situation, Your Honours.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE HALL: The Chamber's of the view that the relevance of this
23 material only becomes patent because of the witness's testimony. And as
24 Ms. Korner has correctly pointed out, the Prosecution would not have been
25 in a position to anticipate this; and therefore, in the circumstances, we
1 agree that it could be admitted and marked, and we so order.
2 MS. KORNER: Then, Your Honours, could I ask, please, that the
3 documents which have a 65 ter number 2010 -- sorry, I say that again,
4 20191 and 20192 be admitted.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I -- of course I object, and I
6 strongly suggest that the ruling that you just made is -- departs from
7 the previous oral ruling of this Trial Chamber. Because if it's the
8 fresh evidence, Your Honours, there are other options for the Office of
9 the Prosecutor. They can ask for rebuttal, they can ask for a re-opening
10 of their case, but the fresh evidence it must be treated in accordance
11 with the jurisprudence, and that was the decision of this Trial Chamber.
12 Now we are having a different situation. And I'm afraid I would -- we
13 would have to consult, but I might be -- I might be asking for a
14 certificate on this matter, Your Honours. This is a very important
15 matter for the presentation of the Defence case. Thank you very much.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may I just say one word about this.
18 It's not fresh evidence. It's evidence that we've been using, both
19 sides, throughout the course of the case, these payrolls, for different
20 aspects. Therefore, if a witness comes along and says - as this witness
21 has - the crime police during the early months were not in existence and
22 therefore couldn't operate, it must be right that documents which are
23 used to challenge that assertion should be placed into evidence.
24 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Ms. Korner, we've gone over this ground and
25 raked and re-raked it. And no doubt we would be invited to re-visit it
1 again. But for the time being the last application you made in terms of
2 the -- of those documents mentioned at lines -- page 64, lines 11 and 12,
3 we make the like order.
4 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much.
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, therefore document 20191 shall be
7 Exhibit P2356 and document 20192 shall be Exhibit P2357. Thank you.
8 MS. KORNER:
9 Q. Mr. --
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 MS. KORNER:
12 Q. Now, Mr. Tusevljak, I just want to be sure I understand this. Is
13 it --
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: 20190 was not tendered?
16 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour, I'm coming back to that. I was
17 dealing with that for a different purpose.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
19 MS. KORNER:
20 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, do I understand you to say that it is your case
21 that the payments that we see all over these documents for April are
22 simply, if you understand the expression, ex gratia payments made by the
23 MUP to help out Serbian police officers?
24 A. Mainly, yes. That was the first time that we received the
25 25.000 dinars. That was in May. We hadn't received any salary in
1 February or in March in the police in Sarajevo, which was a part of the
2 Republic of B&H.
3 Q. However, that is not your contention, I take it, for salaries
4 paid in May; in other words, in May if a salary was paid, that was to
5 people who had actually worked in May?
6 A. I believe that the salary for May was the same for everybody,
7 both the active and the reserve police staff. It was the same. I think
8 there was no difference in the amount of the salaries. That's my
9 opinion. I can't really go into that because I didn't make the decision
10 on the payrolls and I didn't make a decision on who was not to be paid.
11 That was not my job. I don't know what else I can say about this.
12 Q. No, no, I think you misunderstood, or it's possible it's a
13 translation difficulty. Regardless of what they got paid, people who
14 were paid in May or for work done in May, that was for actual work
15 performed. It was not an ex gratia payment?
16 A. I really can't comment on that.
17 Q. Well --
18 A. I have no idea.
19 Q. Well, Mr. Tusevljak, you're the one who's been making these
20 assertions about nobody being able to work, so I want to show you some
21 payrolls for May if I may now. Let's see if you can help on those.
22 First of all, can you look at the payroll which is 20195 at tab 2D,
23 although it's a slightly different point here that I want to make.
24 Now, do you agree that appears to be a payroll for May for Kula?
25 A. Yes, that's what it says.
1 Q. So there was a distinction made between Kula and Novo Sarajevo
2 station, wasn't there?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And are the people who are being paid here criminal inspectors,
5 four of them I think, plus an analyst?
6 A. Yes, at that moment, yes.
7 Q. And do you know those people there?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So in May of 1992, Kula had an operating criminal investigation
11 A. At the police station with these people, yes. They all should
12 have been working, but I think Rajko Gluhovic never worked either in Kula
13 or in Novo Sarajevo, and I think Mirko Ljuboje wasn't working at all then
14 either because he was at the police station in Vojkovici.
15 Q. All right. But -- wherever they were based at the time. And
16 according to this they were paid different salaries?
17 A. Yes. This was based on level of education. It was university
18 education, secondary education, or post-secondary education. It didn't
19 go based on position but based on the level of education.
20 Q. And do you recognise the signature? It says "nacelnik," and
21 there's a signature -- "chief," sorry.
22 A. No.
23 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I ask that this document be exhibited
24 for two reasons. The first is - and I'm not clear that it was actually
25 an assertion made by the witness, it's right to say, but certainly
1 Mr. Zecevic - that Kula didn't exist and there was Novo Sarajevo. And
2 secondly, the assertion as to crime police working.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I object. I don't want to explain
4 the assertions of the witness. The witness gave his testimony. This
5 document was never disclosed to the Defence. Now -- before, I mean, it
6 was announced for this witness. So as I said before, this is -- this, in
7 our opinion, is intolerable that during the Defence case the Office of
8 the Prosecutor is allowed to lead evidence and advance their case like
9 they're in the -- during their OTP case. Therefore, I strongly object.
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm told - and it may be -- - that
11 this was disclosed in 2009 in batch 78 under the number 0665-2364 through
12 to -2666. And we've given it ...
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: What is the document we're talking about right
15 MS. KORNER: It's the one on the screen, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yeah, and the tab number, is that --
17 MS. KORNER: Oh, the tab is 2D.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Still 2D. Thank you.
19 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, that's one of the two documents we
21 admitted a few moments ago; right?
22 MS. KORNER: No.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: No?
24 MS. KORNER: So, Your Honour, this is a Kula document. You
25 admitted earlier the documents in relation to the other police stations.
1 This is Kula for May.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Sorry, it's 2D. Sorry about that.
3 MS. KORNER: That's quite all right.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, Mr. Zecevic, there is obviously a difference
5 in opinion as to whether this is or is not fresh evidence. But I would
6 have thought that according to Rule 90(H), I think it is, the
7 cross-examining party is required to put its case to the witness, in any
8 case. So I wonder whether this is really as you say, to be classified as
9 new evidence, so fresh evidence, in the sense that you seem to use this
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may, according to the
12 jurisprudence of this Tribunal, the fresh evidence are: Material that
13 was not included on the OTP's 65 ter list, material not admitted during
14 OTP case in chief, material tendered by the OTP when cross-examining the
15 Defence witness. So, in my opinion, this definitely -- each of these
16 documents qualify hundred per cent as a fresh evidence, and that is our
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes --
19 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm not disputing the 90(H), of course.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, but obviously the implications of what you
21 have just read out to me is that the Prosecution or the cross-examining
22 party would be barred from providing any new witness -- any new evidence,
23 and that is clearly not the intention of the Rules.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, with all due respect, the --
25 I'm not saying they should be banned all together, but this is
1 exceptional circumstances when they can -- when they can introduce the
2 fresh evidence. That is -- that is the nature of the jurisprudence in
3 this Tribunal. Otherwise, Your Honours, we prepared the Defence case
4 based on the case to answer. If that case changes, like it changes in
5 this situation, how are we supposed to give our defence to that?
6 JUDGE HALL: But in any event, Mr. Zecevic, returning to the
7 document at issue now, whereas we fully understand your position on these
8 documents generally, now that the matter of disclosure is out of the way,
9 because I confess that that would have caused me some concern had it not
10 been previously disclosed, this is assimilated to the position of the
11 earlier documents we admitted, isn't it?
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I still don't have the confirmation
13 from my assistants about the disclosure of these documents. What I have
14 as a note is that the document was never disclosed to us before. Perhaps
15 it might be the -- we -- Your Honours, it will take us some time because
16 it might be a different ERN number, because that is the only way how we
17 can check the documents.
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I just --
19 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't know what kind of search engine or the
20 facilities the Office of the Prosecutor has, but we don't.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, can I ask, for the moment, until
23 the Defence have had a chance to confirm it, that it be marked for
24 identification so that we can move on and perhaps return to this
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
2 MS. KORNER: Or at the end of the day.
3 JUDGE HALL: So we'd so mark it.
4 MS. KORNER: Yes. I'll repeat again: The number under which it
5 was disclosed was 06665-2364 [sic] in a range that goes up to 2666, and
6 it was in 2009, batch 78. So I hope that assists.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, therefore 65 ter number 20195 shall
8 become P2358 marked for identification. Thank you.
9 MS. KORNER:
10 Q. All right. On the same topic, and then we'll move on to
11 something different, could you have a look, please, at 20198 at tab 2G.
12 This is apparently a payroll for May for Vogosca. And if we look
13 at the first page, at numbers 26, 27, and 29 -- it's a bit I think --
14 yes. Thank you very much.
15 Does that show them as members of the criminal investigation
17 A. If you have a closer look, 26, 27, 29, you will see that they are
18 crossed out. It's crossed out. It says: Paid according to the payroll
19 of national security. 26, he left, so he wasn't paid at all. And then
20 29, Slobodan Govedarica, paid according to the payroll of the Pale SJB.
21 Q. Yes --
22 A. Meaning no one, none of these persons from the Vogosca Police
23 Station, in May received a salary, and this document demonstrates that in
24 no uncertain terms if you look closely.
25 Q. Sorry?
1 A. If you look closely.
2 Q. It shows they were paid by other places; is that correct?
3 A. No. It shows they were not on the payroll of the Vogosca Public
4 Security Station. Zivko Lazarevic now works for the national security.
5 Stanko Borovcanin, also crossed out, he used to be chief up until
6 April 1992 for that same police station, but it reads here he left. He's
7 no longer there. Slobodan Govedarica was paid by the Pale SJB.
8 Therefore, as I said, there are no crime police in Vogosca.
9 Q. Thank you. Can you go over the page, please, to number 35.
10 Nebojsa Lazic, criminal inspector, 50.000, signed for.
11 A. Nebojsa Lazic. I never heard of anyone like that working at the
12 Vogosca Police Station.
13 Q. Well, it appears, according to you, this is an accurate payroll
14 because these people, who you knew, who -- went elsewhere. All you can
15 say about this gentleman is you've never heard of him?
16 A. Yes, never.
17 Q. All right. Can we look, then, please, at one different one,
18 then. Could you look, please, at 20197, tab 2F. This is Rogatica for
19 May. And we need to go, I think, to the second page at numbers 36 and 37
20 and -- well, 36 and 37, inspectors, and at 38 a criminal technician. Did
21 you know Mr. - I think it's Zoranovic - and Mr. Perkovic?
22 A. No.
23 Q. But do you agree it would appear that Rogatica in May had at
24 least two people or three people working in its criminal investigations
1 A. I think this is again a payroll. I think Rogatica at the time
2 was still not in the hands of the VRS. There was fighting going on there
3 throughout. I really don't know. I don't know these people from this
4 period, and I said that Rogatica was not under the Sarajevo SUP. Their
5 heads and the chiefs were people I didn't know back then. I did meet
6 some of them in the latter half of 1992 when we started organising
8 Q. Yes. Well, whether you knew it or not - and I'm not quite clear
9 what the fact is that Rogatica was still being fought over has to do with
10 this - I'm suggesting to you that if one looked at the payrolls for all
11 of these SJBs that one would find that they had people working in the
12 criminal investigation departments in May. Do you understand that? Do
13 you understand, Mr. Tusevljak, that is the suggestion that I make to you,
14 that you are wrong when you say there was no criminal investigation
15 department during this early period?
16 A. No. I'm not saying that these people weren't inspectors, but as
17 for that department dealing with crime-related business at this point in
18 time indicated here, I'm certain that that was not the case.
19 Q. All right. Can we move then, please, to the general topic of
20 communications. Now, again I want to make sure that we understand what
21 you're saying. Are you saying that during the period up until
22 July of 1992 the CSB Sarajevo was not communicating with any of the SJBs?
23 A. No, that's not what I'm saying.
24 Q. All right. Well just can you tell us, please, shortly, what you
25 are saying about communications with the SJBs within your area of
2 A. I never worked in the communications department or had anything
3 to do with communications at all. What I do know is that there were
4 problems when I came to the security services centre. The dispatches
5 that were sent to the subsidiary stations from the centre were late. The
6 same thing applied to the reports. As for everything else, the method of
7 communication that was used by the communications centre, what equipment
8 was used, what technology was used, is something that I can't tell you
9 about because I understand nothing about it.
10 Q. No -- yes, I understand that, and I'm not asking you about the
11 technical equipment. What I'm asking you is -- and I'm asking you, for
12 example, because of something you said at page 22241. You were asked:
13 "The CSB Sarajevo Romanija-Birac, did it have any communication
14 with the public security station of Ilidza?"
15 And you said:
16 "No. There was that communication that I drew for you," in other
17 words, it was put to you that if someone from the CSB traverses
18 160 kilometres to get to Ilidza.
19 So are you saying there was no communication except by
20 dispatch -- by courier?
21 A. More often than not it was by courier. We did consider a
22 document which showed that at one point in time a telefax line was being
23 used and it was down to Ilidza to use their courier service to forward
24 the dispatches to the stations in their area, Pale to the stations in
25 their own area, and then Sokolac and Zvornik and whatever else. I can't
1 quite remember.
2 Q. Well, yes, all right. That's fair enough. Can I say, I'm not
3 suggesting that in many areas communication was not difficult during this
4 period. But it is not right to say, is it, that there was no
5 communication, in other words, orders going from the CSB and reports
6 being received from the SJB -- sorry, I'll start that sentence again. It
7 got a bit lost. Sorry.
8 You're not suggesting, are you, that the CSB could not send
9 orders or dispatches to any of the SJBs under its authority during the
10 period April until July?
11 A. Again, the dispatches that we sent or received were forwarded in
12 a variety of ways to the police station by courier or whatever else, but
13 we always had situations where the dispatches were late.
14 Q. Look, this is a simple question. As I say, I accept that there
15 may well have been problems and things were late or even went missing,
16 but it is not the case, is it, that the CSB was unable to send its
17 dispatches or orders to any police station, any SJB?
18 A. Well, if we wrote them, we sent them. But I don't know how.
19 Q. Right. Equally, it was possible, wasn't it, for each of the SJBs
20 within the area of responsibility of the CSB Sarajevo to send its reports
21 to the CSB?
22 A. First of all, you must know that in April there is no established
23 centre. In May, you still don't have an established centre. The centre
24 first began to get off the ground sometime in June. Therefore, there was
25 no address that the police stations could use to send their reports to,
1 as far as the security services centre was concerned.
2 Q. Right. I'm going to ask you to have a look, please, at the
3 communications log-book of the Ministry of the Interior, which is
4 Exhibit 1428, tab 1A.
5 Now, are you familiar with this book, Mr. Tusevljak?
6 A. No, I've never seen it.
7 Q. Now, to begin with, is this right, the MUP headquarters and the
8 CSB Sarajevo shared the same premises in the Vrace school?
9 A. They were there in the Vrace school but not with these guys. I
10 don't think so.
11 Q. Sorry, which guys?
12 A. The school at Vrace had several buildings. If you look at where
13 the minister was and his services, it was in the same place where the
14 centre chief was.
15 Q. I see. All right. It was -- I see what you mean. So it was a
16 different building within the complex that made up Vrace; is that right?
17 A. Yes. You may not be familiar with the earlier entries which
18 is -- which deal with a -- the dispatches or the documents sent out by
19 MUP headquarters to the various places and received, but I want you to
20 have a look, please, at item number 74 - but it turned into the Sarajevo
21 book at some stage, apparently - at -- it's, in English, at the fifth
22 page. Let's just check if it is in the -- in B/C/S it is -- it's quite
23 difficult to tell, I'm afraid. It's got at the top 0339-2402, if that
25 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, the -- at page 75, line 24, the
1 answer is:
3 And then the sentence beginning: "You may not be familiar ..."
4 is the question.
5 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
6 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
8 MS. KORNER: Oh, sorry.
9 Q. Is that a dispatch from the SJB Milici reporting on those killed,
10 missing, and mutilated in the Birac area sent apparently on the
11 16th of July to be received by you, Mr. Tusevljak?
12 A. I don't see a date here. It was sent to me, that much is
13 certain, but I can't see a date. It was probably sometime in July.
14 Q. I think --
15 A. I can't really see the date. It says Milici Public Security
16 Station, report on --
17 Q. Yeah, it appears -- well, you're right. And I'm not quite sure
18 where the date comes from, but certainly the date is on the following
19 entry of the 15th of July. So we can see the previous -- it's somewhere
20 between the 14th and the 15th because at number 72, if we go back one
21 page, we'll see the date there.
22 Did you get a dispatch from the Milici SJB reporting on people
23 killed in Birac, missing and et cetera?
24 A. Probably. That's what it says. And my signature should be
25 somewhere there too.
1 Q. Well, we can't see a signature, unless that's your signature
2 above there.
3 And just for these purposes can we look at a few more entries
4 that appear to be for you.
5 MS. KORNER: At number -- well, probably 107, please, which we'll
6 find in the B/C/S at page 3, 0339-2407. And the English at page 10.
7 Q. Is that the instruction that was sent to the SJBs of the meeting
8 that you had with the crime heads in Sokolac?
9 A. Well, I see here that 107 is dispatch to call a meeting for
10 Sokolac. It was a dispatch that was sent out in order for a meeting to
11 be called.
12 Q. Yes, doesn't it read at 107:
13 "Scheduling of meeting of the CJB crime department and CSB in
15 A. Yes, a meeting that we had.
16 Q. And the book contains a large number of entries, which I don't
17 want to take you through because it's going to take a long time, that
18 relate to investigations into the Tas factory thefts in Vogosca. Would
19 you agree that that took up, certainly in 1992, a great deal of your
21 A. Based on the requests that we received from the RS Assembly and
22 MUP. And you see that there were no crime police at all in Vogosca. So
23 I only have these two operatives and I couldn't expect them to do ten
24 jobs at the same time.
25 Q. Yes. The question was: Do you agree it took -- the
1 investigations into the thefts at the Tas factory took up a lot of your
3 A. Of course. The crime police took some time to investigate that.
4 Q. We'll come back to that later. So certainly by July no -- would
5 you agree, absolutely no problem in communications with anybody?
6 A. By July?
7 Q. By July.
8 A. Well, you see that I only received the first dispatch on the
9 15th of July.
10 Q. Well --
11 A. What about my communications? Where are my dispatches?
12 Q. Well, you -- you can go through all of the book if you want to,
13 Mr. Tusevljak, but are you suggesting that even in July you couldn't
14 communicate with your SJBs -- your crime police in the SJBs?
15 A. What I'm saying is there were ongoing difficulties with the
16 communications. The communication lines were not working properly as
17 they would have in normal circumstances.
18 Q. Well, still on the subject of communications, and I'm going to
19 show you some other documents probably tomorrow now, you drew this map
20 when you were interviewed in Sarajevo and you were asked to draw further
21 maps by Mr. Zecevic or to mark further maps, I should say accurately. I
22 want to see, because it's quite difficult to see the perspective in some
23 of those maps, whether you agree with this one.
24 Could you have a look, please -- what was the -- it's
25 65 ter 20207, tab 42A?
1 Now, the difficulty about the maps that you were looking at is it
2 didn't show places like Pale and whatever. What we have attempted to do
3 here - and have a look at it and see if you agree, and if necessary you
4 can take the map away with you overnight in hard copy - is indicate by
5 the red line that goes down the left of the page there the front line.
6 To the left being -- of that red line being the ABiH or Croat-held areas;
7 to the right, the Serb areas. And then you'll see we've indicated the
8 other areas which were part of the front lines. Have a look at that and
9 see whether you agree with that.
10 A. I don't know which period this was in.
11 Q. 1992.
12 A. It changed the most in 1992.
13 Q. Well, I'm suggesting that this is --
14 A. I'm sorry. When I'm looking at this now, it turns out that all
15 of Hadzici was under the BH army.
16 Q. No. It's meant to indicate that part of Hadzici was part of the
17 Serbian republic, do you see?
18 A. Not this small an area.
19 Q. You --
20 A. It's the same situation with Trnovo. I'm not sure about that
21 part of Rogatica because I was never there, and I'm not sure about that
22 part of Srebrenica, Bratunac, Vlasenica because I wasn't there either.
23 And I'm not sure about the area towards Kladanj, Olovo, Vares, Breza,
24 Visoko, Kiseljak because I was never there either.
25 Q. All right. What I'm trying to indicate - and let's see if we can
1 get at it this way, rather tediously - is that from where you were based
2 in the Lukavica barracks -- or, not barracks, next to -- in the
3 electro -- or next to the Lukavica barracks, you could travel to Pale, to
4 Sokolac, to Han Pijesak, and further up without any difficulty?
5 A. Yes, except to Pale because you had to cross Trebevic and that
6 was difficult because of combat operations. So you had to travel down
7 the macadam road that I described.
8 Q. Yes. But otherwise, as it were, you had, I suppose, to use an
9 expression that we've heard over and over again, a corridor through which
10 you could travel?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Well, thank you. That's all I wanted to get at.
13 And as far as the snipers are concerned, any Muslim snipers that
14 there were, were based in, as it were, Sarajevo itself, weren't they, the
16 A. In Sarajevo and also where Ilidza bordered on the other side,
17 from the line of Mount Igman, there was constant sniper fire on
18 Kotorac Donji, Kotorac Gornji, that part of Butmir, Novakovice, Kuce.
19 This wasn't towards the inner area of Sarajevo but the outside, and the
20 situation was same towards Visoko, Breza, and so on. There was snipers
21 that were shooting from Sarajevo. And it wasn't just snipers, it was
22 also Brownings and other weapons.
23 Q. Yes, but you were up in the hills, weren't you, whereas the
24 snipers were down in the valley of Sarajevo, the Muslim-held areas of
25 Sarajevo? Leaving aside Igman. Leaving aside Igman. But from where you
2 A. That's not correct.
3 Q. Isn't it?
4 A. That's not correct, no.
5 Q. Where do you say the Muslim snipers were in connection to where
6 you were?
7 A. I wasn't on the Muslim side, but I know where the Serbian victims
8 were. And since I know the town of Sarajevo very well, just as I said
9 about the areas where I'd never been, I don't know them. At the
10 separation line in Grbavica, which goes along the Miljacka River, on the
11 one side there are 12- and 13-storey residential buildings as are on the
12 other side. Further on, Gola Brda is a place that was under the control
13 of the BH army the whole time, and from that position they targeted the
14 Vrace-Lukavica road. Mojmilo hill is another position that was under the
15 control of the BH army the whole time and they constantly targeted the
16 Lukavica-Kula road or the positions or Serbian villages in Nedzarici.
17 Q. All right --
18 A. Also, if you go towards Vogosca, this position or this recurrent
19 theme that the Serbs were on the hills and somebody was defending
20 themselves from the city is simply not true. In our official report
21 which we filed - and I'm not going to name names now - but we filed it
22 against responsible people, people who were responsible for the sniper
23 activity from Sarajevo, if you ever get the opportunity, I have that
24 official report and I can show it to you, and you'll see the victims of
25 these snipers on this side. This entire case file is with the Bosnian
1 prosecutor's office --
2 Q. Stop. I'm sorry, Mr. Tusevljak, for a number of reasons.
3 Firstly, we need some time to discuss. But secondly, the only point that
4 I'm raising with you - and I can see you disagree with me - is that when
5 you allege that you could not travel to these places because of snipers,
6 that that cannot be right.
7 A. No, it's not correct. Our roads ran across Mount Trebevic, and
8 the defence line with the Serbian army was under this road, was 2 metres
9 under this road. This means that the defence line ran along that road.
10 And travelling down that road was always a matter of life and death.
11 Q. All right. We'll leave it there, thank you very much, for today.
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, if I may, I'd like to raise just one
14 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Tusevljak, again we have certainly procedural
15 matters to deal with before we rise for the day, so the usher will escort
16 you out before we rise. And we will resume your cross-examination
17 tomorrow morning.
18 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
20 MS. KORNER: Can I ask that he be handed the CSB chart that
21 Mr. Zecevic wants him to look at which was MFI'd.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, what I -- what I wanted to raise is
24 the question of intercepts and their probative value. Today I was the
25 one taken by surprise when Mr. Zecevic said that there was no evidence
1 before the Court that the people on the transcripts, in this case
2 Mr. Tintor and Mr. Veselinovic, actually had that conversation. My
3 understanding of the admission of those intercepts was that it was
4 accepted, through the evidence of the witness that dealt with them, that
5 the people named are the people who spoke. And we were in fact prevented
6 from taking it any further on that basis; that if they were admitted,
7 they were admitted.
8 Now, Your Honours, I would really like to know that my
9 understanding is correct, because otherwise we've just got a series of
10 meaningless pieces of paper in evidence, if the Defence supposition or
11 suggestion that was made by Mr. Zecevic is correct.
12 JUDGE HALL: I would have thought, though, Ms. Korner, and it has
13 been a while since we had to deal with this, that the Chamber's view
14 would have been made patent at the time that we admitted these
15 transcripts, and therefore the -- I would have thought that the first
16 step in your present concerns would be to see what we said at the time.
17 MS. KORNER: Well, that was my understanding, Your Honours, from
18 what you said at the time. And it's apparently not Mr. Zecevic's
19 understanding, but then -- so I'm seeking clarification.
20 JUDGE HALL: Well, I suppose, if -- the Chamber will have to look
21 at the transcript and any ruling we would have made, and if clarification
22 is necessary, we would then address it. But as I said, for myself, I
23 thought this matter was settled at the time.
24 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, so did I until this came up again
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, do you have any reply to this?
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honour. Your Honour, we understand this
4 to be two separate issues. One issue is the admittance of the intercept,
5 and they are admitted; the second issue is the probative value of each of
6 the intercepts and the weight to be given to the intercepts, which
7 depends on many factors, including proof of authenticity, namely, whether
8 there is a proof of the identity of the speaker. Certain intercepts, for
9 example, have been played to the witness and they recognise the speakers;
10 some others have never been played.
11 For example, if I can give you one example. Concerning the
12 intercept that Ms. Korner was showing to the witness, the witness says in
13 his statement, and based on that statement this intercept was admitted,
14 he said: I listened to the tape of one telephone conversation --
15 MS. KORNER: I think we ought to be in private session,
16 Your Honours. The witness testified in --
17 MR. ZECEVIC: No, I'm not going to mention the witness or
18 anything. I'm just reading what he -- what he said.
19 It says --
20 JUDGE HALL: Out of an abundance of caution, we go into private
22 [Private session]
11 Pages 22565-22566 redacted. Private session.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,
21 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 22nd day
22 of June, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.