1 Monday, 19 September 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
6 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
7 Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 Good morning to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
10 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner,
11 Thomas Hannis, and Indah Susanti for the Prosecution.
12 Mr. Hannis will be taking the witness, and I'm just here for the
13 purposes of the legal argument over the admission of the report.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic and
15 Ms. Deirdre Montgomery appearing for Stanisic Defence this morning.
16 Thank you.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic,
18 Aleksandar Aleksic, and Miroslav Cuskic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
20 Mr. Krgovic, you have moved for the admission of this report,
21 have you?
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.
23 At the end of the last session on Friday, we were all rather
24 tired and agreed to put forward our arguments until today. I would now
25 like to officially make a motion to admit the report of the witness.
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Ms. Korner.
2 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I don't know -- I suppose,
3 technically, Mr. Zecevic on behalf of Stanisic is supporting the motion.
4 I'm not sure. I know that I've been objecting throughout to Mr. --
5 MR. ZECEVIC: I am. Yes.
6 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Thank you.
7 MS. KORNER: Then, Your Honours, we do object, not only to the
8 admission of the report, but basically to -- and it's -- it's a bit odd,
9 but to the admission of the evidence as well that the general gave. And
10 as Your Honours will recall, I did raise this at a very stage because of
11 what was coming out in evidence. But, Your Honours, can I set out
12 exactly why the Prosecution say that the report and the evidence should
13 be disqualified.
14 Your Honours, can I say that had the facts been known as they
15 came out to the Prosecution at the time of the filing of the application
16 for admission, then we would have made these representations then. But,
17 as it was, they only came out when the General gave evidence.
18 Your Honours, can I start very briefly with the law in relation
19 to the admission of, firstly, a witness as an expert; and, secondly, the
20 witness's report.
21 Your Honours, the guide-lines were really set out in the
22 Dragomir Milosevic case, although there are a number of cases on this,
23 when the Trial Chamber there -- sorry, the appeal -- yes -- no, it was
24 the Trial Chamber, and I note that Judge Harhoff was, in fact, a member
25 of that Chamber, and it's dated the 21st of August, 2007.
1 Effectively, it set out the five criteria which are as follows:
2 First, the witness has to be an expert, and that's in paragraph 6 of the
3 judgement; second, there has to be a minimum standard of reliability,
4 which means sufficient information as to the sources used in support of
5 the statements. The sources must be clearly indicated and accessible in
6 order to allow the other party or the Trial Chamber to test or challenge
7 the basis on which the expert witness reached his or her conclusions.
8 Third, the expert is expected to make statements and draw conclusions
9 independently and impartially. In other words, the question of bias.
10 The statement, the report, must be relevant or of probative value, and
11 the content of the statement or report must fall within the expertise of
12 the expert.
13 Your Honours, in fact, when giving judgement on the
14 5th of November, 2009, in this case, in respect of Dorothea Hanson's
15 report and evidence, reiterated those criteria, and stated that the term
16 "expert" is defined in the jurisprudence as a person who by virtue of
17 some specialised knowledge, skill, or training can assist the trier of
18 fact to understand or determine an issue in dispute."
19 Your Honour, effectively, the issues which this witness,
20 General Kovacevic, was called to give evidence about are really the
21 effect of resubordinating the police to the army, with a sideline in town
22 defence commands, although it really comes under the same general head.
23 Now, Your Honours, it should be a given, we would suggest, that
24 an expert preparing a report should know his duties. And, Your Honours,
25 right away it became apparent, we submit, that General Kovacevic,
1 possibly through no fault of his own because he's never testified before
2 as an expert, although he did a report, as we know, for the Popovic case,
3 clearly was not aware of that. The transcript on day four, at
4 page 23817, I asked him whether he understood the duties of an expert
5 witness or, indeed, an expert in any kind of proceeding, and he said:
6 "The way I understood the words of the Presiding Judge and when I
7 pronounced my solemn obligation, that my duty here was to tell the truth
8 and nothing but the truth."
9 And he repeated that answer again the following page after I'd
10 been asked to put to him in leading form. And he then went on to say
11 this, at page 23819:
12 "... the focus of my report was on military rules, documents, and
13 regulations. I attempted an interpretation of those rules and
14 regulations which I also relied on in order to interpret the documents
15 provided by the Defence in the course of the past few days."
16 Now, Your Honour, that's the first matter. So let me turn
17 immediately to the criteria. Is the witness an expert on the subject of
18 his report?
19 Your Honour, the subject of his report, as set out in the
20 introduction, was to write an expert report on the topic of command in
21 the armed forces - and I emphasise the following words - of
22 Republika Srpska, including resubordination and co-ordinated action of
23 police units of the RS, minister of the interior, the MUP.
24 Your Honour, what he wasn't here to do was to give evidence or
25 write a report about general issues of command and control in the JNA.
1 Now, Your Honours, although the command and control regulations of the
2 JNA certainly form the basis for the VRS, there's -- and all the other
3 armies that were formed, Your Honour, that's not what his report was
4 about. He had no expertise whatsoever in the VRS in 1992 or the police,
5 whether resubordinated or otherwise. He said, at page 23825 of the
7 "I hesitated to accept the task because the police is an
8 institution I'm not familiar with, or to be more precise, I'm less privy
9 to its working than the military institutions are."
10 And he said, when asked, "You are not ... an expert in police
11 matters, are you?":
12 "That is correct. Except when the police is used in combat
14 Well, Your Honour, again, the reality is, as he explained, that
15 he has no personal experience of either combat, as we're talking about in
16 this case, or the resubordination issue in respect of the police. And he
17 made that fairly clear at page -- transcript page 23933 when he said --
18 he was very reluctant to answer it, but he was asked by me:
19 "Had you ever personally commanded a group of soldiers in combat
20 which included resubordinated police?"
21 And he said:
22 "That is correct. If you insist on getting an answer."
23 Now, Your Honours, the reality is that he not only has no
24 personal experience, but I imagine very few officers had personal
25 experience before the events of 1991/1992, because, as is well known, the
1 JNA hadn't been to war at all in the intervening period after it was set
2 up in 1945 or thereabouts.
3 So, Your Honours, the first submission we make is that he doesn't
4 even qualify as an expert for the reasons on -- so on the -- the basis of
5 which he was called; namely, the VRS and resubordination of the police.
6 Your Honour, minimum standards of reliability. Very few of the
7 matters of fact which he expressed, or opinion, are footnoted. If
8 Your Honour looks at -- Honours look at the introduction on page 3, there
9 are a number of assertions made in paragraphs 2 and 3 for which there are
10 no footnotes at all. The same goes for the methodology. Perhaps it
11 isn't right to describe what he said there as methodology, but in
12 paragraph 14 where, again, he made assertions. For example, the
13 paramilitary, parapolice forces, the military forces which participated
14 in the armed conflict were poorly organised, insufficiently and
15 disparately armed, and so on and so forth.
16 And the reason, Your Honours, for the lack of footnotes is
17 apparent when one looks at his bibliography. He said that the books or
18 military laws that he had considered were all listed in his bibliography.
19 Your Honours, at page 23886, he was asked:
20 "Did you get any documents from Mr. Krgovic outside from those
21 listed in your bibliography?
22 "No, Ms. Korner."
23 And as Your Honours know, the bibliography consists of 14 books
24 about the conflict, 18 JNA doctrinal manuals, nine of the
25 Republika Srpska laws or decrees, and precisely 11 VRS documents, and
1 three from the MUP. And that was the only documents he looked at before
2 he had completed his report; although, when he came here, he looked at
3 other documents with Mr. Krgovic and Mr. Cvijetic. And that's set out at
4 the transcript page 23889.
5 The time that he had to do the report is also a factor. In his
6 examination-in-chief, all he said, at page 23645, was that he had little
7 time to do the report without any further specification. And Mr. Krgovic
8 said, yes, he had been instructed late.
9 It then turned out, Your Honour, that he was only instructed to
10 do report on the 1st of March of this year, and that report was filed on
11 the 28th of March. He said he had worked up to ten hours a day on that
12 report, but, clearly, we would submit, that a report on such a major
13 issue as this, taken together with the lack of documents that he saw,
14 cannot possibly begin to approach the minimum standard of reliability.
15 He said he had some other sources. He had read books. He had
16 seen analyses of some of the operations through his work at the academy,
17 and he had spoken to people and attended conferences, but, all,
18 Your Honours, we submit, very, very vague.
19 He was not even told that Mr. Brown had done a report on this
20 matter. That's at T23893. He had not been told that there had been a
21 report on the MUP from Dr. Nielsen, and so he agreed that he would like
22 to look through those reports. And after he'd done so, agreed that they
23 were considerably more footnoted than his.
24 And, Your Honours, above all, we say, that what he demonstrated
25 was the lack of an open mind, which I'll come on to next, and
1 inflexibility. He said on more than one occasion - and I will just quote
2 one example, at transcript 23895 that -- after he had been asked about
3 Dr. Nielsen and Mr. Brown's report, he said:
4 "Even if I had read it," and that's Dr. Nielsen's report he was
5 referring to, "I have so say, once again, that this report would have
6 looked exactly the same as it looks now."
7 Well, Your Honour that shows, we submit, that he approached this
8 whole thing with a closed mind.
9 Now, Your Honours, let me come to the reasons why originally I
10 asked Your Honours to consider stopping this evidence there and then.
11 The statements made by the expert, and this is the third
12 criteria, his conclusions must be independent and impartial. Now,
13 Your Honours, it then emerged that he had been speaking to Mr. Krgovic.
14 And this is really important because it may well be - I don't know how
15 the General struck Your Honours - that Your Honours came to the
16 conclusion that he was an honest man; we would suggest if misguided and
17 not properly instructed. But on this occasion, we say he was distinctly
18 less than honest, and that's a matter we invite Your Honours to consider.
19 Your Honour, he said, and I must say this came as a surprise, I
20 would imagine, to most people in the Court, and this is at 23836 of the
21 transcript, on the fourth day, he was asked:
22 "Did you speak to Mr. Krgovic or any member of the Defence team
23 before you delivered your final version about the contents of your
25 "A. I spoke to Mr. Krgovic on a number of occasions while I was
1 working on the report.
2 "Q. ... Did you tell him what you were going to put in [sic] the
4 "A. Yes.
5 "Q. Did you make any changes to what you were going to put into
6 the report, as a result of your conversations with Mr. Krgovic?
7 "A. It was more of a consultation."
8 Asked what he meant, he said: "... I wouldn't bring him a
9 document so that he could put in some corrections.
10 Asked again what he meant by consultation:
11 "Sometimes I had a dilemma." Can I pause there. And, of course,
12 we're not sure what the Serbian version of dilemma is. But it certainly
13 means, we would suggest, a problem. "Then I would ask him, he would give
14 me a reply. I would memorize it. I will go home. I would sit behind my
15 computer, and I would put it into the report that I was currently working
17 Again, Your Honour, pausing there, we say there can be absolutely
18 no doubt what he was saying there was that he would ask Mr. Krgovic about
19 something, memorize it, go home, and put it into the report. Those are
20 his own words.
21 He was asked for an example. Said he couldn't remember with
22 precision. Then he was asked, Your Honours, whether he understood that
23 he should have said in the report who had given him assistance with the
24 preparation. This goes back to his knowledge of what his duties as an
25 expert are.
1 "A. I was not aware of the existence of this obligation. But I
2 emphasise once again: That I drafted the report on my own."
3 It was put to him that it was understood that he did the physical
4 drafting but that from what he just said, it contained input from
5 Mr. Krgovic.
6 "A. More [sic] often, or to be more precise, it was really a
7 suggestion. Or I shouldn't ... say 'suggestion.' In those cases when I
8 had small problems in interpretation of certain laws and regulations."
9 So, at that stage, we would submit that he was backtracking.
10 "Q. ... do you mean he gave you the interpretation ...?
11 "He helped me. He helped me to resolve a dilemma. Legal
13 He said he understood that to the reader this would look all like
14 his own work.
15 "Q. ... the reality is ... isn't it ... it contains parts that
16 you got from Mr. Krgovic who solved dilemmas. Is that right?
17 "There is no such thing in this report. The dilemmas were only
18 inside my head."
19 Asked how many times he had consulted Mr. Krgovic about a
20 dilemma, he said "three or for times."
21 And then he -- he was asked why he hadn't written it down, and he
22 explained that he had problems with writing.
23 And then, question, this is the top of 23839:
24 "Is there any way of identifying in your report which are the
25 parts on which you got the answer to your dilemma from Mr. Krgovic, as
1 you tell us you can't remember what the dilemmas were?
2 "A. I would have to go through the entire report ... to find
3 these instances [sic]."
4 And, at that stage, Your Honours, we came to a halt.
5 Now, the next day, after he'd been asked to do a check, he came
6 back and said the following, and that's at page 23853:
7 "... I read my report, and I recall the topics and details which
8 were the subject of my conversation with Mr. Krgovic."
9 He was asked to identify the paragraphs in his report which he'd
10 received assistance. And he said:
11 "... I told you yesterday that I had some dilemmas. For example,
12 I asked Mr. Krgovic to what extent, within the topic given, I should
13 expound on the Law on Military Courts and Military Prosecutors. He
14 replied this is a topic to be discussed by the lawyers representing the
15 Defence and ... I should limit my activity on military topics, or, more
16 precisely, the use of police units in combat activities, within the armed
18 "Other issues that we discussed were more of technical nature:
19 How this trial is supposed to look like; whether I can have at hand
20 textbooks and rule-books ... how many days I'm supposed to spend here;
21 and other similar issues that were not related to the report itself or a
22 specific paragraph of the report."
23 And then he went on to say:
24 "It was I who helped Mr. Krgovic by explaining some military
25 phrases to him; for example, the difference between attaching and
1 resubordination. And many other military terms. It was I who helped
2 Mr. Krgovic, and not the other way around."
3 And, Your Honours, he went -- he said again, at 23861, he --
4 well, 23860 to -61. Again, he repeated that his dilemmas had been about
5 whether he could bring his briefcase into court. "And, of course, all
6 this way did not find its way into my report."
7 Now, Your Honours, we submit that, regrettably, clearly, for
8 whatever reason, the General was being less than frank. Apart from the
9 fact it's a complete change from what he had said the previous day, and,
10 equally, technical problems and the like about how he should address
11 people in court would never, ever have found their way into this report.
12 So, as I say, we say it with deep regret, but we say he was distinctly
13 less than frank.
14 Your Honours, the reasons that I spent so long on this is because
15 it's clearly important. Not only was there this, putting it neutrally,
16 input from Mr. Krgovic, additionally, the General made various changes
17 from his original report for the Popovic case on behalf of General Gvero,
18 which I took him through. And Your Honours will recall the word
19 parapolice inserted into paragraph 14. The influence of local
20 municipalities. He dealt with these at pages 23937 and 23955.
21 And, finally, Your Honours, if that were not enough, he told the
22 Court, in no uncertain terms, that he considers himself to be part of the
23 team for the Defence. At page 23872, he -- I was asking him about the --
24 what he'd been shown by the Defence counsel, the documents. He said at
25 the top of that page:
1 "Mr. Cvijetic showed me some documents, but it was more me
2 explaining to Mr. Cvijetic some military terms and resolving some of his
3 dilemmas" - Your Honours, with respect, we'd suggest "dilemma" is much
4 the same whether it's in Serbian or in English. It's a problem for which
5 there may be more than one solution - "because I understood that I am
6 part of the team of lawyers of the Defence and that I'm supposed to help
7 them with the things pertaining to military topics."
8 I asked him then whether he saw his role as winning -- helping
9 the Defence to win the case, and he said he thought that was a military
10 terminology which was improper. And it was put to him:
11 "You see ... your role ... to assist the Defence in its role of
12 obtaining an acquittal for their client, Stojan Zupljanin. Is that a
13 better way of putting it?
14 "A. ... that is [sic] correct."
15 Your Honours, taken on its own, maybe, one might be prepared to
16 overlook it. But taken with everything else that has happened in this
17 case, we suggest this is a serious bar to why the General should be
18 treated as an independent expert.
19 Can I move, then, to the relevance and/or probative value of his
21 Your Honour, as I've already stated, his chapter, at least on
22 organisation and tasks of the armed forces of the SFRY, is wholly and
23 completely irrelevant. We are not, in this case, considering the old JNA
24 or the forces of the SFRY, and that whole chapter deals with that. As I
25 say, even excepting that it provides the basis for how the VRS operated,
1 he's made no attempt in this report to look at the actual operation of
2 the VRS, because he simply didn't have the information available to him,
3 nor the personal experience of what -- of the formation of the VRS or its
4 operation in 1992.
5 In respect of the resubordination of the MUP forces aspect of
6 this case, Your Honours, as I've already stated, he has no personal
7 experience. It's doubtful that any old JNA officer had the personal
8 experience, because it had never happened before. And, in fact, he
9 relies on his interpretation of various regulations dating back to 1982
10 and the like, and others that were late on in the Republika Srpska. And,
11 Your Honours, as I say, he said himself that his paragraph 22, which is
12 the one that deals with the Article 104 of the 1982 Law on
13 All People's Defence, he had problems with it. It's at page 23647 of the
14 transcript. This was actually in-chief. Where he said: "I have major
15 problems" -- oh, sorry.
16 "Q. When you were drafting paragraph 22, did you have
17 methodological problems with drawing certain conclusions?
18 "A. Yes, I did have major problems when I drafted this report,"
19 he said.
20 "The reasons are the following: I understand that the basic
21 topic is the use of the police, or the milicija, in combat activities.
22 And such a thing was not provided for; it wasn't elaborated. There was
23 only one article in the Law on All People's Defence, and that is
24 Article 104, which I cite here, which simply states that the police can
25 be used for combat activities. That is the only reference to the police.
1 That is why it was a major problem to explain this matter and shed more
2 light on it because in no country is the police meant to, or trained for,
3 the carrying ... of combat activities. That is exactly why there is such
4 a thing as the Military Academy ...
5 "However, in a war, there are situations that are absent from
6 theory. Even when such situations arise and police are used for combat
7 activities, they are always subordinated to the military officer in
8 charge of those combat activities."
9 Now, Your Honours, of course, that's what he stuck to all
10 through, but the problem, we say, is this: That, as I say, he doesn't
11 know, and he is, as it were, maybe guessing is not the right word, but he
12 is turning himself into a lawyer, an interpreter of laws, which is the
13 one thing he said he was not capable of doing, by doing -- by -- by
14 interpreting Article 104 and other matters.
15 Your Honours, the content of his report, we submit, does not fall
16 within his expertise insofar as the report and the evidence he gave about
17 the VRS or resubordination. We say that's not within his expertise. As
18 I said a moment ago, he is interpreting regulations, which are not
19 specifically military ones, without the proper knowledge or experience
20 or, indeed, without having looked at all of the relevant legislation.
21 Your Honours will recall almost last thing on -- when Mr. Krgovic
22 was re-examining, it came to our attention that there was another law or
23 decree on work obligation, because we developed -- his evidence developed
24 from straightforward interpretation of Article 104 to the meaning and
25 extent of work obligation. And he said, when he was asked, that although
1 he thought he'd seen the law, he didn't look at it before doing the
2 report. And I'm afraid I've got the -- haven't got the reference, but
3 I'll give that to you.
4 Your Honours, all in all - and I'm sorry to have taken a little
5 time over this, but this is a really important matter, we would submit -
6 we submit that, first of all, the General falls foul, if Your Honours
7 understand what I mean by that. Doesn't mean meet the criteria, any of
8 the four or five criteria, at all. And if it wasn't for that,
9 Your Honours, if you took each individual criteria, if that was all,
10 then, Your Honours, we would say, of course, it's a matter of weight,
11 when Your Honours consider his report and his evidence. But,
12 Your Honours, when he doesn't fulfil any of the criteria, we submit, then
13 to allow this evidence in is, we say, really dangerous. Particularly,
14 Your Honours, as he was -- he was here for such a long time, and, of
15 course, Your Honours, as I say, Your Honours may have formed the opinion
16 that he was -- as I said, an extremely patient and courteous witness.
17 But, Your Honours, that unfortunately makes it even more dangerous in
18 that, we submit, the actual knowledge and his close connection with the
19 Defence make his report one that really should not be admitted. And, I'm
20 afraid, obviously that goes for the evidence, because it makes no sense
21 to have had the evidence but not the report.
22 And, Your Honours, that is the submission we make on behalf of
23 the Prosecution.
24 JUDGE HALL: May I ask this before I hear from Mr. Krgovic,
25 Ms. Korner:
1 Doesn't the Chamber have a responsibility -- a duty to -
2 excepting the -- the flaws that you have pointed out - to tease out from
3 the report and the evidence such of it as properly qualifies as expert
4 evidence and deal with it accordingly?
5 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, of course, if -- if there was some, as
6 it were, even a small amount of expert -- but we say the real problem is
7 he's not an expert in what this report is about nor what the evidence he
8 gave. He's an expert in the JNA, general military law, if you like, or
9 general military procedures. But he's not an expert in either the VRS,
10 which is what this report and his evidence is supposed to be about and
11 what this case about, or the real issue for which he was called, namely
12 when and how and the effect of the resubordination of the police. He
13 actually does not know.
14 I may say, none of these issues were put in any depth to
15 Mr. Brown, but that's, perhaps, beside the point. And that's why, we
16 say, this is not a case where the professional Judges which, of course, I
17 accept, are able to -- to -- to tease out anything from this report
18 because you start from the basis that he's not an expert. And if he's
19 not an expert, because he wasn't there, because he took no part in that,
20 then he cannot give the opinion evidence which he's purporting to give.
21 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
22 The -- Mr. Krgovic, the one thing that I would particularly wish
23 to hear you on is Ms. Korner's last point, that the inability of this
24 witness to speak authoritatively on the matter of resubordination is the
25 fundamental flaw in his expert report.
1 You can either deal with that now or in the order that you had
2 planned to respond.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will take your
4 suggestion, and I will take the last things first.
5 Your Honours, before this Trial Chamber we have seen several
6 Prosecutor expert witnesses who have provided their opinions on several
7 topics. In our view, this particular expert, of all of those who have
8 been here, is the most qualified and the best educated expert that has
9 ever appeared before this Trial Chamber to talk about this particular
10 area of expertise.
11 He is an officer, and he graduated from the highest military
12 schools. And those military schools teach people about control and
13 command. He is an officer who has a very rich war experience. He
14 participated in all the wars that took part in the territory of the
15 former Yugoslavia, either as a JNA officer or a VJ officer, and he is --
16 he was also an officer of the Army of Republika Srpska for a good period
17 of time, something that Ms. Korner deliberately fails to mention.
18 There is an indisputable fact that was presented before this
19 Trial Chamber, something else that Ms. Korner fails to mention, that the
20 Army of Republika Srpska functioned according to the doctrine and the
21 rules adopted by the former JNA. That military adhered to the
22 principles, rules, and regulations of the Yugoslav People's Army.
23 This man and his role while he was in the JNA and the VRS was to
24 interpret those regulations and to apply them and to interpret them for
25 the benefit of the troops and the officers, as he told us in his
1 evidence. This is the role of an officer in charge of morale, guidance,
2 religious, and legal affairs. In addition to that, his role and the job
3 that he performed after the end of the war was to take all those same
4 regulation, the experience, and the practice, and to transform them into
5 textbooks and theory and to teach future cadets and officers. In other
6 words, there is no -- no more competent person who would be better suited
7 to interpret and provide his expert opinion on the issues that he
8 testified about.
9 The fact that somebody reviews thousands of documents, like
10 Mr. Brown and Mr. Nielson did, merely illustrates the point that they had
11 to read more because they don't know anything. Because when it comes to
12 the Army of Republika Srpska, the control and command over the army and
13 the police, it is a tabula rasa for them. They don't have a clue about
14 those things. And the objection proffered by Ms. Korner that he used
15 very few documents actually supports my claim why the other experts used
16 a lot of documents, because they didn't know anything about the
17 interpretation of all those rules and regulations.
18 It is inappropriate to compare Mr. Brown or Mr. Nielsen with this
19 expert, primarily due to his high education, rank, and experience. To
20 give advantage to Mr. Brown and Mr. Nielsen would be the same as if, for
21 example - I'm going to use an expression - as if you commissioned a
22 person to build a bridge for you although he is not an architect, he
23 never built a bridge before, but he has read all the books about
24 bridge-building and then he actually went on and built the bridge for
25 you. I wouldn't advise you to cross the river using that bridge.
1 So this is the essence of this testimony. This is a man whose
2 main task - and I reiterate this - it was his duty throughout his whole
3 career in the army to interpret all the regulations, to apply the
4 regulations, to compile regulations, to participate in drafting all those
5 regulations. If the Prosecutor challenges that, if they challenge that
6 the VRS adhered to different principles than the principles of the JNA,
7 then we're talking about a different thing. However, looking at the
8 reports of Mr. Brown and Mr. Butler, I would say that this was the
9 essence of their testimony, that the VRS reposes on the same principles
10 that this witness spoke about, and this is precisely why he introduces
11 this -- introduced this part about the JNA into his testimony. His
12 experience with analysing combat activities, with analysing the
13 experiences from the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, provide him an
14 additional qualification and gives additional weight to his testimony.
15 Ms. Korner did not show a single document to this witness, she
16 didn't show a single rule to this witness that would not confirm his
17 thesis and his position on resubordination. Obviously sometimes military
18 officers to whom police officers were resubordinated will not be honest
19 and will not say that they were in charge of
20 interrupting [as interpreted] that activity, because that's -- that would
21 mean that they recognise their own responsibility.
22 Ms. Korner also holds it against the witness that he did not
23 review Brown and Nielsen's reports, but those reports did not deal with
24 that topic. They don't deal with the relationship between the police and
25 the military when it came to engagement in combat. That is why we
1 believe, when we talk about whether this expert is an expert or not, we
2 absolutely believe that he is the most competent person who is best
3 suited to explain the relationship between the police and the army from
4 the military point of view.
5 Ms. Korner also analysed his independence and possible closeness
6 to the Defence. I would kindly ask the Trial Chamber to be the judge of
7 that and to say whether somebody's influenced by the Prosecutor --
8 Prosecutor or the Defence and to apply the same criteria that they
9 applied on the expert reports of Mr. Brown and Mr. Nielsen and Ms. Tabeau
10 and Dorothea Hanson. Those are all people who are employed by the
11 Prosecutor. Would the Trial Chamber deem this to be a disqualifying
13 This witness is not employed by the Defence as the others are
14 employed by the Prosecutor. This witness is not paid by the Defence. He
15 is paid by the Tribunal. And this witness cannot be compared to
16 Mr. Brown. He who reviewed Mr. Kovacevic's testimony and then helps the
17 Prosecutor to formulate questions and formulate thesis, which is even one
18 step further and closer when it comes to the relationship between the
19 Prosecutor and the witness. The Prosecutor failed to mention, when
20 talking about the witness's view of the role of an expert witness, he
21 said, on 273 [as interpreted]: "My role is to help them to understand
22 certain military matters and certain military terms and first and
23 foremost to help the Trial Chamber to understand certain things."
24 And this is the essence of his understanding and perception of
25 his role as an expert witness. Obviously we are not saying that this
1 report is perfect, especially not no terms of its methodology. It's a
2 scientific paper [as interpreted]. Your Honours, in our country when it
3 comes to the drafting of such reports, not every word has to be
4 accompanied by a footnote because there are some things that are implied.
5 In his cross-examination, the Prosecutor dealt with general things with
6 the introduction, where only some outlines are given by the expert in
7 order to put his work in context, without going into any of the details
8 of all the phenomenon. The Prosecution based most of the
9 cross-examination to those general topics because the Prosecutor knows
10 that when it come -- when it comes to the essence, to the heart of the
11 matter, they cannot succeed. They can only fail. Not for a single
12 moment did the witness, who testified honourably and honestly and replied
13 sincerely to the all the questions by the Prosecution and the Trial
14 Chamber, did he change his position. He remained true to his original
16 And when it comes to the criteria that Ms. Korner mentioned,
17 something that was applied in the Milosevic case, we believe that an --
18 that the expert fulfils all of the five criterias [as interpreted] that
19 were laid out in that trial. The expert has specialized knowledge, has
20 specialized skills, has enough education and especially enough
21 experience, and he can be of assistance to the Trial Chamber when trying
22 the facts of this trial. Bearing in mind his former position and his
23 current position, his professional experience, we have to say that he's
24 an experienced officer who was given the highest rank in the VRS. He
25 underwent all the levels of command up to the highest level. He said so
1 himself in his evidence. And he does fulfil the criteria as an expert
2 witness more than any other expert witness that has ever testified before
3 this Trial Chamber.
4 His oral testimony and interpretation of the rules and
5 regulations broadens and amplifies what is stated in the report itself so
6 that his evidence and his work represent a consistent, clear, and
7 unambiguous position about a topic relevant for these proceedings.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Page 21, line 5, it should
9 be "not a scientific paper."
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] About the criteria in respect of
11 Mr. Brown, he exclusively relies on documents pertaining to the
12 1st Krajina Corps, although his report does not deal with matters
13 concerning the police and Crisis Staffs about which, according to his own
14 words, he couldn't make any comments because of inexperience. And if you
15 remember, the Defence was able to show that his aggressive conclusions,
16 especially with regard to the special police forces, were not valid and
17 that it isn't possible to draw conclusions about some things exclusively
18 by perusing documents. Because Mr. Brown 's and Mr. Nielsen's work, on
19 the one hand, and General Kovacevic's work on the other, differ in
20 methodology. They acted as analysts. Their goal was to analyse a
21 certain situation based on documents; whereas, the approach of
22 Mr. Kovacevic is different. It's a scientific approach. That's why he
23 relied more on laws and regulations.
24 Ms. Korner said that the criteria of independence and
25 impartiality must be applied to disqualify this witness. However, we
1 submit that this cannot be applied to the admissibility of evidence but
2 only to its probative value.
3 Whether or not the evidence is relevant, we submit that it is and
4 that it has probative value. We think that it meets the criteria of
5 Rule 94 bis that sets up the same standard for the admission of experts
6 as stipulated by Rule 89(C) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. This
7 report is specific and precise, and we consider it relevant for these
8 proceedings because it assists the Trial Chamber with regard to an
9 essential topic in these proceedings.
10 Based on everything I said, Your Honours, it is the Defence's
11 position that the report, with all its footnotes, should be admitted into
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. I will try to make my
14 submission very short.
15 Your Honours, based on the authority that Ms. Korner was citing,
16 namely, the Dragomir Milosevic decision, I must say the Defence accepts
17 that as a relevant authority.
18 Now, as a first test, I think that the Trial Chamber has already
19 accepted this witness as an expert witness, and, therefore, the first
20 test is -- is, therefore, sufficiently dealt with.
21 The second test, that the -- that the -- that the expert
22 statement or report must meet the minimum standards of reliability. I
23 agree with what Mr. Krgovic have said about the -- the -- the contents of
24 the -- of the footnotes. But in any case, Your Honours, the -- the
25 jurisprudence of this Tribunal stands on the point that the failure of
1 the expert to list his sources can be remedied when the witness
2 testifies. That is Prosecutor versus Delic, decision on Paul Cornish's
3 status as an expert, 20th of March, 2008, paragraph 14, and also
4 Prosecutor versus Perisic, decision on Defence motion to exclude the
5 expert report of Morten Torkildsen, 30th of October, 2008.
6 The third test, that deals with independence and impartiality of
7 the witness. I believe the matter was raised during the
8 cross-examination of the witness on transcript pages 23874 and -875, and
9 Your Honours already stated your opinion which we -- which we agree
10 completely as -- as -- I made the submission on the subject as well.
11 The fourth, the requirement the relevant or probative value to
12 the case, I -- I agree with Mr. Krgovic that the expert report is both
13 relevant and has a probative value. And I note that, according to the
14 jurisprudence, the Rule 94 bis does not set a different or higher
15 threshold for the admission of evidence by expert witness than the
16 standard admissibility enshrined in Rule 89(C) of the Rules.
17 And the last test, that the report must fall within the expertise
18 of the expert witness. We say that the -- that it goes without saying
19 that the -- that the witnesses precisely has the specialized knowledge on
20 the issue of -- which is at the crux of the matter in this case.
21 Your Honours, the fact is, and Ms. Korner agrees with that, the
22 fact is that the same regulation, the JNA regulations, were applied to
23 the VRS, especially in the course of 1992, which is the relevance for
24 this indictment. It is -- it is the role of the expert, because we heard
25 so many evidence of the -- of the situation how it was in -- in the
1 field, what happened, the expert's role here was precisely to explain and
2 interpret the provisions of Article 104 of the All People's Defence from
3 the military perspective. That was -- that was the -- that was his role.
4 And did he that because he knows. He has a specialized knowledge for
6 As concerning the work obligation, Ms. Korner -- it was
7 Ms. Korner who invited the witness to provide her with the articles of
8 the law concerning work obligation, and that is why he did that.
9 And at the very end, I -- I don't -- I will cite Ms. Korner, the
10 very last thing which Ms. Korner said, on page 16, line 17:
11 "Or the real issue ... he was called, namely when and how and the
12 effect of the resubordination of the police. He actually does not know.
13 "I may say, none of these issues were put in any depth to
14 Mr. Brown, but that's, perhaps, beside the point."
15 And further down:
16 "... anything from this expert [sic] because you start from the
17 basis that he is not an expert. And if he's not an expert, because he
18 wasn't there, because he took no part in that, then he cannot give the
19 opinion evidence which he's purporting to give."
20 Now, there is a couple of issues here. As I say, we stand on
21 the -- on the position that the witness has a precise specialized
22 knowledge about the issue which is the crux of the matter, which is the
23 resubordination. That's the one thing.
24 The second thing. Your Honour will recall, and this is a bit
25 misleading, I must say, that I -- it took me at least three days
1 discussing the very same issue with the -- with the -- with Mr. Brown, I
2 must say in a very, very, deeply into the matter.
3 And the third thing is I think that Ms. Korner is mixing here
4 expertise of the witness and the personal experience. There is no
5 requirement for the expert to have the personal experience in the field.
6 It is that he has a specialized knowledge about the issue, not that he
7 has a personal experience.
8 Therefore, in Your Honours' question, "the inability of this
9 witness to speak authoritatively on the matter of resubordination is the
10 fundamental flaw in his expert report," we say, Your Honours, there is no
11 flaw whatsoever. The witness has all the basis: He possesses the
12 specialized knowledge, it goes without saying that as a general of the
13 army he knows that, and he is -- and he gave a clear -- clear expertise
14 on the matter of resubordination.
15 And for these reasons we believe that his expert report with all
16 the footnotes should be admitted as a whole.
17 Thank you very much.
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, first of all, can I just -- I think
19 there was a mistake in the interpretation when Mr. Krgovic was speaking,
20 and this is at page 19, line 20. When he was asserting I didn't show a
21 single document to the witness that wouldn't confirm his position.
22 "Obviously sometimes military officers to whom police officers were
23 resubordinated will not be honest and will not say that they were in
24 charge of interrupting that activity."
25 Now that's how it was translated, but I don't think the word is
2 MR. KRGOVIC: Ms. Korner is right, but I really can't remember
3 what I said.
4 MS. KORNER: "Investigating"?
5 MR. KRGOVIC: It's not what is recorded. That's definite.
6 MS. KORNER: Well, no, that's what -- that's what was translated,
7 but that cannot be right. I think it must be --
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I said that officers to whom police
9 were resubordinated will not admit the responsibility because that --
10 their responsibility to initiate proceedings because they would then --
11 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continued] ... [Overlapping
12 speakers] ... yes, Your Honours, can I then just, I mean, deal with two
13 other -- two or three other things that were said.
14 Going backwards. Mr. Zecevic, of course, when I said he wasn't
15 there, I'm perfectly in agreement with Mr. Zecevic that an expert witness
16 doesn't have to be there. But he does have to have knowledge of what
17 actually happened in the area, which is the subject of dispute. And we
18 say that he doesn't. First, because the question of resubordination
19 never came up before, because there wasn't a war. And second, because
20 there is no, as he himself said, obvious and clear ruling on -- on -- on
21 what must happen.
22 Mr. Zecevic said that the question of bias had already been
23 resolved by the Trial Chamber. With respect, Your Honours, when I was
24 suggesting that matters should come to a halt there and then because of
25 the obvious bias, all that Your Honour, Judge Hall, did at page 23875,
1 was say, as it were, in passing, that this often happened where someone
2 was instructed by one side or another. And, as I said at the time,
3 Your Honour, it's a question of the degree to which that bias extends.
4 Your Honour, the decision that Your Honours made that he was an
5 expert was made, as I say, on the basis -- and we accepted it, on the
6 basis that nobody knew at the time the report was submitted what the
7 actual true situation was. Mr. Zecevic said that the fact that the
8 sources were not listed can be remedied, on the authority that he quoted,
9 when the expert testifies, but, of course, he couldn't. He couldn't
10 remedy it. Because when he was asked about where he got these various
11 assertions from, for a lot of them he was wholly unable to say where that
12 assertion had come from.
13 Your Honours, finally, the question of employment. Of course,
14 the Prosecution experts in this case were actually employed by the
15 Prosecution, but that, in itself, is not enough, as, indeed, the
16 instruction by the General -- sorry. The instruction of the General by
17 the Defence in itself wouldn't have been a matter that with we would have
18 raised. But the General's involvement with the Defence and his desire
19 for -- to assist in obtaining an acquittal, Your Honours, we say, take it
20 far beyond that which is shown by any of the witnesses called for the
21 Prosecution, who, Your Honours will recall, were, unlike the General,
22 prepared to admit they made an error, quite often gave evidence that was
23 helpful to the Defence. At no stage was the General prepared, ever, that
24 that was his mantra, to resile from what he had said in his report.
25 Your Honour, I don't know the basis on which Mr. Krgovic asserts
1 that it's the same as Mr. Brown assisting in the preparation of
2 cross-examination. First of all, there's no evidence of that at all.
3 But, secondly, if there was, even if that was the case, Your Honours,
4 it's a completely different matter from having an expert in military
5 matters assist counsel in the -- some of the issues which counsel has to
6 deal with, and particularly one who has looked at all the documents. So
7 I don't think it's right or proper for Mr. Krgovic to equate that with
8 the General.
9 Your Honour, those are the submissions that we make.
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I made a general
11 statement. If you look at Mr. Zecevic's cross-examination and if you
12 take a look at the report itself, the report written by Mr. Brown was
13 made for the needs of the Prosecution; whereas, Mr. Kovacevic's was made
14 for the Trial Chamber, not for the Defence, not for the Prosecution, but
15 for the Trial Chamber. Whereas, Mr. Brown's report was made exclusively
16 for the Prosecution, and that is how it was tendered.
17 Let me just repeat what the expert himself said about the way he
18 saw his assistance: Not by helping the Defence but by clarifying some
19 concepts. And he repeated that a number of times. I believe that he
20 gave honest and honourable evidence, unlike many other expert witnesses.
21 He -- when he didn't know an answer, he said as much, and I believe that
22 his evidence is credible and acceptable.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, I see that we went a bit
24 broader in submissions about the different experts.
25 I just want to say this: Your Honours, it is completely -- in our
1 opinion, it is a completely wrong view that Ms. Korner is advocating at
2 this point. Because the point, Your Honours, is the regulations. The
3 army has a regulations. If, however, the actual situation departs from
4 these regulations, that's a matter of evidence for each and every
5 specific case. Now, the point of the matter is what the regulations say,
6 how it should have been done. That is the point. Because that, for us,
7 is the -- is the basis for -- for -- for our submissions. The fact that
8 the situation in the -- in the territory or on specific occasions
9 deferred from that, in some aspects and in some others not, is a matter
10 of evidence in every specific case.
11 Thank you very much.
12 JUDGE HALL: Well, having --
13 MS. KORNER: Just one other matter with the admission of the
14 footnotes. This is not continuing the argument. Mr. Krgovic wants the
15 part of General Milovanovic's testimony that's footnoted admitted, I take
17 Well, Your Honours, I think, then, the other part that I referred
18 to should also be admitted at the same time. I can give the page
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... no objection,
21 Your Honour.
22 MS. KORNER: And I see there's no objection from ... which -- it
23 was the transformation of the 2nd Military District. I'll have to -- I
24 can give the pages as and if Your Honours decide to admit the evidence.
25 JUDGE HALL: Well, having regard to the considered arguments
1 which counsel have advanced, we, of course, will not rule on this matter
2 extemporaneously. And we would, I expect in the course of this week,
3 would be able to give our decision on the admission of this report, which
4 helpfully brings us to the -- within two minutes of the time for the
5 first break, so ...
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE HALL: We -- we have an application in terms of documents
8 in respect of the next witness. And if the Prosecution is able to
9 respond immediately, we would be grateful; if not, we would require an
10 expedited response from the Prosecution.
11 Yes, Mr. Hannis.
12 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I only comment that it comes late, but
13 I've reviewed the documents. I don't have any objection. I had some of
14 them on my list to use.
15 So I have no objection.
16 JUDGE HALL: Yes. So the application is granted.
17 And we resume in 20 minutes.
18 --- Recess taken at 10.24 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE HALL: So, Mr. Krgovic, are you ready with your --
22 Mr. Aleksic, are you ready to call your next witness?
23 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you. Our
24 next witness is SZ-003. He has been granted protective measures: A
25 pseudonym and a voice and face distortion.
1 JUDGE HALL: So we have to go into closed session to have him
2 enter the courtroom.
3 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honours.
4 [Closed session]
11 Pages 24376-24377 redacted. Closed session.
9 [Private session]
11 Pages 24379-24381 redacted. Private session.
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session. Thank you.
25 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Sir, could you please tell me something about the structure of
2 the CSB Banja Luka during the relevant period of time, meaning the
3 beginning of 1992.
4 A. When we're talking about the structure of the CSB in Banja Luka,
5 I have to say that there were several units. There was the chief's
6 office. There was the police sector. There was the police department,
7 which also included the duty operations team. There was the crime
8 prevention and crime detection department, which included white-collar
9 crime and general crime. I would also like to mention that the duty
10 operations team had about 12 employees, as far as I can remember, and the
11 crime prevention and detection department had some -- something between
12 10 and 12 employees. Then there was also communications; department for
13 foreigners; department for legal and personnel affairs. And there was
14 also the department for protection against fire and explosions.
15 I believe that I have covered everything, but I cannot be
16 100 per cent sure. I believe that I have presented the entire
17 organisation of the CSB Banja Luka at the relevant period.
18 Q. Could you please tell us something about uniformed police who
19 worked as part of the CSB.
20 A. The uniformed police of the CSB, as I've already told you, within
21 the organisation of the CSB there was also a department or a sector for
22 police that included inspectors in charge of special tasks and a team of
23 uniformed police officers which was about 12 members strong.
24 As for the other services and departments, the -- there were
25 about 150 employees in the entire CSB.
1 Q. There was a patrol duty composed of uniformed police, and they
2 belonged to which department within the CSB?
3 A. When we're talking about uniformed police, police stations
4 belonged to the Banja Luka public security stations. And they had about
5 200 uniformed police officers, all in all.
6 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us something about the overall
7 situation in Banja Luka in very general terms, the situation as it was in
8 late 1991 and early 1992.
9 A. When it comes to the security situation in the city of
10 Banja Luka, that situation was rather complex at the time. A lot of
11 refugees had arrived in Banja Luka from the war-struck territories of the
12 Republic of Croatia. There were a lot of armed military conscripts from
13 the territory of Slavonia. It is assumed -- or, rather, I assumed that
14 at the time there were about 50.000 people in the city who had arrived
15 from somewhere else. The city of Banja Luka is a traffic hub located on
16 the main road leading from Jajce, Mrkonjic Grad, Knezevo, Skender Vakuf
17 towards Prijedor, Gradiska, and that part of the country, which means
18 that on a daily basis we saw JNA convoys passing through the city of
19 Banja Luka.
20 One could hear shooting. There were shots fired in the air.
21 There were shots fired into various facilities. Bombs were thrown,
22 explosives were thrown, and so on and so forth. The employees of the
23 public security station, approximately 200 of them, were not able to
24 counter such behaviour and to curb this security -- these security
25 threats. They were not able to deal with such a large number of
1 perpetrators of such incidents.
9 (redacted). These were entered in the log-book of events kept by
10 each station. When such information was received, it was always
11 distinguished between reports that were truthful and others that weren't.
12 If the conclusion was that the crime had been committed, an on-site
13 investigation team was set up that went to the site. But before that, a
14 police officer was urgently dispatched to the site to secure it until the
15 arrival of the on-site investigation team. The latter was made up of
16 inspectors, and an inspector for fire and explosive protection, an
17 investigative magistrate, or a prosecutor. All details were registered.
18 The site was inspected and a report was submitted by the inspector.
19 Q. Please repeat what you said about what happens when the on-site
20 investigation is completed.
21 A. A case file is opened. A criminal complaint is filed against an
22 unknown or known perpetrator. It is entered in the KU log-book and
23 forwarded to the prosecutor's office. Before that, possibly some
24 forensic analyses are made or ... there were registers about explosions
25 and fires. There was statistical sheets, unified P-1 for fires and E-1
1 for explosions.
2 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Witness, you would have observed Mr. Aleksic
3 signalling you to slow down. We would ask you to bear in mind that
4 although you may naturally tend to speak at a certain pace, to always
5 remember that what you say to the Tribunal has to be interpreted and also
6 has to be recorded. So we would ask you to bear that in mind as you
7 answer counsel's questions.
8 Yes, Mr. Aleksic.
9 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honours.
11 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Tell us, from your experience, whether before and throughout 1992
13 that was the procedure applied in case of fire and explosions.
14 A. I can claim with full responsibility, having worked on these
15 matters, that this procedure was followed in 1991 and 1992 and to the
16 present day.
17 Q. Thank you. Please tell us the following: The duty operations
18 service, to what department of the CSB did it belong?
19 A. If we bear in mind the structure of the CSB, I believe I said
20 that the duty operations department was part of the police section of the
21 Banja Luka CSB.
22 Q. Who was the chief of that section or department in 1992?
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. Please explain to us the duty of the duty operations service.
4 A. The duty operations service's duty was to --
5 JUDGE HALL: May we interrupt for a moment, please. There is a
6 small matter that we ...
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
9 JUDGE HALL: Could we go into private session for a moment,
11 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session. Thank
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
16 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Let me repeat my question. Tell us more about the role and the
18 task or purpose of the duty operations service.
19 A. Duty operations is a unit that collects all information and
20 receives all information from the field or, to be more precise, from the
21 public security stations. It includes that information in the daily
22 report, which is forwarded to public security stations; whereas, in the
23 CSB headquarters, it is submitted to the chief of the centre and the
24 chiefs of the departments. It can be precisely reconstructed who
25 received that report for any particular day because it is -- the handing
1 over of the report is entered in log-books.
2 Q. How is information received from public security stations?
3 A. Information is received from public security stations through
4 dispatches sent to duty operations, and the senior officers of duty
5 operations include such information in the daily report for that day.
6 If I may add?
7 Q. Please wait a moment.
8 You said that a report is made for the previous day. Does the
9 duty operations officer, when he drafts the report in the morning hours,
10 inform anybody else of that?
11 A. The duty operations officer who drafted the report goes to see
12 the chief of the department of the police every morning. Although there
13 is a written report, he also relates all the most important information
14 concerning the previous day to him orally.
15 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm afraid we must go
16 to private session again for a short time.
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 24390-24397 redacted. Private session.
25 [Open session]
1 --- On resuming at 12.40 p.m.
2 JUDGE HALL: We are now in open session, but if memory serves,
3 when we took the adjournment we were still in closed session -- or
4 private session.
5 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that we can
6 continue in open session. At least for a while.
7 JUDGE HALL: Very well. Yes, please continue.
8 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Sir, before the break, we saw a certain number of documents. In
10 practice, however, in the course of April and May 1992, what was the
11 situation like when it came to reporting from public security stations to
12 the CSB?
13 A. If you're talking about reports that were sent by the public
14 security stations to the CSB, the reporting practices were not always
15 adequate and the reporting was not always timely. Some of the dispatches
16 from the public security stations were incomplete, and they did not
17 encompass all the relevant incidents or the descriptions thereof that
18 should have been sent to the operations team in the Banja Luka CSB.
19 I can corroborate this claim by saying that informations had to
20 be -- information had to be sent in writing by operations services. For
21 example, at the CSB, we received information that in Sipovo,
22 Mrkonjic Grad, Prijedor, and so on and so on, there were no incidents or
23 events of any interest for the service. Likewise, some of the incidents
24 were not reported on time for various reasons. Some of the reasons were
25 justified; for example, hampered communication between public security
1 stations and the CSB, i.e., interrupted communication links because of
2 the electricity outages and other reasons.
3 Sometimes people were just not very diligent when it came to
4 compiling reports that were supposed to be sent to the duty operations
5 team in the CSB. Chief Zupljanin --
6 Q. I apologise for interrupting. Please wait for my questions.
7 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at
8 Exhibit P374 in e-court.
9 Q. And you will find it under tab 13.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Aleksic, while -- while we're waiting for
11 this document, we might perhaps just go back to the last answer given by
12 the witness, in which he says that the -- in some cases people were not
13 very diligent when it came to compiling reports that were supposed to be
14 sent to the duty operations team in the CSB.
15 And then he goes to say something about what Chief Zupljanin did.
16 So could we please complete that part of his answer, please. Thanks.
17 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely, Your Honour.
18 Q. I believe you understood the Honourable Judge's question. Please
19 proceed. Tell us what you wanted to say.
20 A. I want to say that Chief Zupljanin was constantly, on a daily
21 basis, requesting and asking from all those in charge to send accurate
22 reports, to send them on time and in time. And this also happened during
23 the meetings staged by various departments and public security stations.
24 Every time that there was a working meeting, this was repeated. What was
25 requested was comprehensive, timely reporting -- or comprehensive and
1 timely reports to be sent to the duty operations team in the CSB.
2 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
3 Q. Did you have a look at P374?
4 A. I am looking at it now. Yes.
5 Q. Did you see the document at the time when it was actually sent?
6 A. This is a very important document, for precisely the reasons that
7 I have just explained.
8 This is a document that concerns reporting and reports sent to
9 the duty operations team in the CSB. This document is something that I
10 saw during the proofing, and the document explains the link between a
11 document issued by the Serbian Republic -- or, actually, a reference is
12 made to a document issued by Minister Stanisic and sent to all public
13 security stations in the territory. This document is actually an order
14 by which public security stations are ordered to send daily reports to
15 the duty operations team in the CSB.
16 There is a categorical request upon public security stations to
17 do that whenever there was a grave crime, such as robbery, murder,
18 throwing explosives, aggravated robbery. There is a very interesting
19 passage in this document where it says that all public security stations
20 are duty-bound, even if there were no incidents or events of interest for
21 the CSB, if no such events happened in their respective territories, that
22 they should still inform the duty operations team -- team in the CSB, by
23 way a dispatch, that there were no such events.
24 Q. Look at the last three paragraphs on page 2, which is page 6 in
25 English. You have already commented upon one part of the document, but I
1 would like to invite your comments on those three last paragraphs in this
3 A. If I understood you well, I would like to say that reports from
4 the territories of the public security stations should cover the period
5 from 0000 to 2400 hours, that they should be sent daily, that such
6 dispatches should be sent on a daily basis. This is what I meant to say.
7 If a dispatch cannot sent during the -- that period of time, then
8 it has to be done at a later stage. Likewise, in this part of the
9 document, as I've already stated, it says that the information and
10 reports sent from the public security stations must include all the
11 elements of the crimes that were committed. That is why it says in this
12 paragraph that the dispatch should -- should include all the relevant
13 information as per the body of the document.
14 Q. Very well. Thank you. Would you please tell us in factual
15 terms, or physically, where were the premises of the duty operations team
16 in the CSB in Banja Luka in the course of 1992?
17 A. The premises of the duty operations team in the CSB Banja Luka
18 were in the hallway, as you enter the building, on the left-hand side.
19 Q. And what about the Banja Luka public security station? Did it
20 have its own duty operations service?
21 A. The Banja Luka public security station did not have its own duty
22 operations service because the police stations Mejdan, Budzak, Centar,
23 and Ivanjska had their duty services where -- and the public security
24 station occupied the same building as the operations team, on the first
25 floor. Which means that we were the ones who serviced the needs of the
1 entire building -- I apologise, all the services in the building.
2 Q. Since you mentioned a building, or the building, was there any
3 security provided for the CSB building?
4 A. Well, you know, the conditions that were in place at the time and
5 the security situation imposed the need for providing security for the
6 CSB building. Security was provided by the police officers of the public
7 security station Centar that belonged to the public security centre of
8 Banja Luka. Obviously, that security detail also covered the entry of
9 unknown individuals. The workers of the CSB were excluded from that
10 scrutiny, and what was checked was the -- the persons were checked for
11 carrying arms, explosives, and other such devices.
12 Q. What about working hours. How did the duty operations team in
13 the CSB function in this regard?
14 A. The duty operations team, or service, worked 24/7, from 0000
15 hours to 0000 hours.
16 Duty operations officers and team leaders worked in shifts. For
17 example, the first shift was from 0700 to 1500 hours; and then the
18 following day, from 0700 hours to 1900 hours; and then the following day,
19 from 1900 hours to 0700 hours in the morning of the previous
20 day [as interpreted]; and then you would be off for two days after that.
21 Q. And what were the working hours of the entire CSB, i.e., the
22 other services within the CSB?
23 A. The working hours of the CSB, i.e., of the services that occupy
24 the building, were from 0700 hours to 1500 hours. There was a period,
25 but I can't tell you exactly when, when the CSB worked from 0700 hours to
1 1800 hours.
2 Q. After regular working hours, what was the role of the duty
3 operations service?
4 A. After working hours, after 1300, or occasionally after
5 1800 hours, duty operations assumed the role of the chief of the CSB of
6 Banja Luka. All events from the field were arriving at the duty
7 operations service, as I've already described, and activities would be
8 taken from the remit of other services.
9 If I may add, I mentioned at the beginning who worked at duty
10 operations and what the positions of my colleagues had been before they
11 joined duty operations. The centre chief appointed people, or strove to
12 appoint them at least, who had previous -- previous police experience,
13 who had asserted themselves in their work so that persons from the senior
14 structures of the CSB were transferred to that service to make sure that
15 duty operations do a professional job in keeping with the laws and
16 regulations in force.
17 I apologise for ...
18 Q. Thank you. What was the procedure in practice. How would a
19 report about some serious criminal offence committed in Banja Luka come
20 in, and what was the follow-up after regular working hours?
21 A. I've already said that duty operations ran the CSB after working
22 hours. All reported events, and let me take a criminal offence as an
23 example, as soon as a report about a criminal offence was received, the
24 duty operations officer informed the chief of the crime enforcement
25 department, along the lines of work; likewise, the head of the criminal
1 offences group; and the inspector on duty.
2 In the meantime, the duty operations officer would dispatch a
3 police officer to the site. Certainly territorial jurisdiction was
4 respected there with regard to police stations. And that police officer
5 was to secure the crime scene, put up a parameter, in other words. Then
6 an on-site investigation team would be set up, which consisted of the
7 inspector on duty, along the lines of work; a forensic technician, an
8 inspector for fire prevention and explosive devices, if that was the
9 nature of the event, then the prosecutor on duty and the investigative
10 magistrate. It could happen that the investigative magistrate did not go
11 to the site, or the prosecutor who was on duty at the time. The chief of
12 the on-site investigation team was informed of that fact orally or in
14 The police officer, until the arrival of the on-site
15 investigation team, secured the crime scene. If he was able to find any
16 material evidence, he would mark them in an appropriate manner with
17 whatever he had at hand. Sometimes the police officer would note the
18 personal information of any citizens who happened to be nearby if their
19 statements were likely to become evidence, especially with regard to
20 their observation of the movements of any unknown individuals or vehicles
21 or what have you.
22 After the on-site investigation, the authorised official, in
23 other words, the inspector, filed a criminal complaint against a known or
24 unknown perpetrator. And with all the statements, Official Notes,
25 photographs taken, the entire file would be sent to the prosecutor's
2 Q. Thank you. Let us just complete your reply.
3 If the prosecutor and the investigative magistrate are present on
4 the scene, who is in charge of the on-site investigation?
5 A. If one of these two is present during the on-site investigation,
6 then they are in charge of everything. Of course, they are assisted by
7 the forensic technician and our staff, the staff from the CSB.
8 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to move
9 into private session just in case, because we are likely to mention some
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
12 [Private session]
11 Pages 24407-24415 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session. Thank
10 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Witness, we are about to take the adjournment
11 for the day. I would point out to you that having been sworn as a
12 witness, you cannot have any communication whatever with counsel from
13 either side until you are released.
14 In addition to that, in such conversations as you may have with
15 persons outside of the courtroom, you cannot discuss your testimony.
16 Do you understand what I've just explained to you?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE HALL: Well, we are going to -- we not going to repeat the
19 error that the Bench made at the last break, and we would go into closed
20 session to have the witness escorted out before we take the adjournment.
21 So we go into closed session.
22 [Closed session]
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session. Thank
8 JUDGE HALL: And we take the adjournment, to reconvene at
9 9.00 tomorrow morning.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
11 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 20th day
12 of September, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.