1 Monday, 17 October 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-08-91-T,
7 the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Good morning to
10 May we have the appearances today, please.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Good morning, Your Honours. Matthew Olmsted and
12 Sebastiaan van Hooydonk for the Prosecution.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. For
14 the Defence team of Mr. Mico Stanisic, Mr. Slobodan Cvijetic and
15 Ms. Montgomery.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and
17 Miroslav Cuskic appearing for Zupljanin Defence -- I'm sorry, I forgot to
18 mention Mr. Aleksandar Aleksic.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
20 If there is no reason to delay us, would -- yes, Mr. Olmsted.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour, I would like to raise just one
22 brief matter. The Prosecution has some concern with regard to the
23 proofing note for this next witness that we received this weekend. First
24 of all, just as a general matter, it provides very little by way of
25 additional detail from the 65 ter summary. We still do not have much of
1 an understanding of what this witness is going to testify, particularly
2 with regard to events in the municipalities. We understand he's going to
3 testify about the structure and the reporting within the state security,
4 but with regard to matters in Prijedor and in Doboj in particular, we
5 really don't have much notice on that. And, of course, our
6 cross-examination estimates are based on what we know about the witness,
7 which is very hard for us to give accurate estimates without more
8 details. This is not a situation where the Prosecution should be
9 surprised by what kind of evidence this witness will be providing.
10 But more importantly, the proofing note adds two entirely new
11 topics that go beyond the scope of the 65 ter summary. First of all, it
12 states in paragraph 5 that this witness will testify about the situation
13 in the region of Prijedor about various matters of non-Serbs arming and
14 organising themselves militarily. And this is not in the 65 ter summary.
15 The only mention of Prijedor in the summary is with regard to this
16 witness's visit to the Prijedor camps on a particular occasion.
17 Secondly, in paragraph 7, it states that this witness will
18 testify about the security situation in Banja Luka beginning in 1992, and
19 this is the first we learned that this witness will provide evidence on
20 that issue. And of course that's a very expansive issue that we've heard
21 a number of witnesses discuss or provide evidence on. And not only is
22 that a very vague statement, but it's entirely outside the scope of the
23 65 ter summary. So we'd just like to raise those concerns.
24 JUDGE HALL: Before I call on Mr. -- well, Mr. Aleksic to
25 respond, what "remedy" are you seeking? Or you just mention this in
1 passing to alert us that your cross-examination may consequentially be
2 more extended than you projected?
3 MR. OLMSTED: Well, certainly the latter is a possibility,
4 depending on what kind of evidence this witness would provide on those
5 topics. But we -- I recall that when a similar situation arose during
6 our case in chief the Trial Chamber limited the Prosecution to the 65 ter
7 summary because the Defence never sought to amend the 65 ter summary. I
8 recall that there was an extensive proofing note provided for -- I think
9 it was a crime base witness and the proofing note went well beyond the 65
10 ter summary and the Trial Chamber said -- ruled that it must be -- that
11 the witness's evidence must be limited to the 65 ter summary topics.
12 JUDGE HALL: So what you are saying is that this new evidence so
13 embarrasses you that you are wholly unprepared to deal with it, and
14 therefore the Defence should not be permitted to lead it. That's your
16 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Aleksic.
18 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. As far as
19 what my learned colleague said, I can say that the Prosecution spoke to
20 this witness as far back as 2004. That was the first time they spoke to
21 him. After that, after Mr. Radulovic testified, the Prosecution got in
22 touch with him - I don't want to go into all the details of that
23 conversation, I will discuss that with the witness - they expressed their
24 interest in certain matters that stemmed from Mr. Radulovic's testimony
25 and which they were supposed to deal with with that witness in their
1 opinion. I'm not going to go any further than that.
2 As for the situation in Prijedor, or rather, the arming of
3 non-Serbs, I do not have a single new document to show this witness.
4 These reports of the Milos group were admitted during Mr. Radulovic's
5 testimony. I can show him a few documents or I can ask him in two or
6 three sentences whether they had that information and that would be all.
7 As for the situation in Banja Luka, I think that my number of questions
8 is going to be very limited. It will have to do with some of the topics
9 that the Prosecution discussed with Mr. Radulovic and that he testified
10 about, so it has to do with certain specific incidents. I agree that
11 that is not on our 65 ter list; however, I think that the context of
12 everything that happened and everything the witness knew about what had
13 happened is very important for his testimony because it's going to paint
14 a complete picture. If the Trial Chamber finds that we have violated the
15 Rules in this way, then of course I will not ask the witness about these
16 details. However, I believe that the other parts of his testimony will
17 make it necessary for us to hear about that as well so that we would have
18 a complete picture as to what his knowledge is. That is what I had to
19 say, Your Honours.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, if I may just briefly respond to my
21 learned friend's argument. It's true this witness was interviewed back
22 in 2004, most likely for another case, and there was no statement taken.
23 And according to the investigator's notes, which we have turned over to
24 the Defence, there's no mention of events in Prijedor -- in fact, it
25 doesn't even mention the witness's visit to the Prijedor camps. And our
1 interview more recently with this witness touched on the issue of state
2 security, chain of command, and reporting. It did not touch on the
3 situation in Prijedor or the security situation in Banja Luka. So these
4 are entirely new topics, and I can represent, as I stand here today, that
5 I do not know what this witness will say about those topics.
6 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE HALL: As the Chamber understands the issues raised by the
9 Prosecution, they are such that given Mr. Aleksic's explanation we see no
10 reason why the evidence should not be permitted to be led because it
11 appears clearly to be relevant and, as Mr. Aleksic says, contextual. Any
12 difficulty or embarrassment that the counsel for the Prosecution had, as
13 a result of being taken by surprise, would of course have been -- begun
14 to be remedied since he received this notice on Friday and presumably his
15 preparation to deal with this new evidence would have begun from being so
16 put on notice.
17 If there is a consequence to all of this, it is clearly something
18 that we may - and I underline may - have to revisit as the days progress
19 because we bear in mind that this is a witness who is scheduled to be
20 with us for the entirety of the week. So the -- we -- I'm not going to
21 restrict counsel for Mr. Zupljanin in this regard, but we will see
22 whether we have to, as I said, return to the -- any -- to hear any
23 application that the -- consequential application that the Prosecution
24 may have.
25 So would the usher please escort the witness to the stand.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE HALL: Good morning to you, sir. Could you please read the
3 solemn declaration on the card that the usher is handing to you.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
5 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
6 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, sir. You may be seated. And from your
7 responses to me thus far, I take it that you are hearing me in a language
8 that you understand. Would you please confirm that?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear you well.
10 JUDGE HALL: Well, welcome to the Tribunal and we thank you for
11 coming to assist us by giving your testimony. You have been called by
12 counsel representing one of the two accused, Mr. Zupljanin, and the -- it
13 is expected that your testimony will last for the entirety of this week.
14 Would you begin by telling us your name, your profession or former
15 profession, and your ethnicity, please.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Goran Sajinovic. I have
17 a degree in engineering. I work in the post service company of
18 Republika Srpska. Beforehand I worked in the CSB Banja Luka and I'm an
19 ethnic Serb.
20 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
22 JUDGE HALL: Your date of birth -- would you tell us your date of
23 birth, please.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 12th of July, 1965, I was born
25 in Banja Luka.
1 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Have you testified previously before
2 this Tribunal or in any of the courts in the region?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
4 JUDGE HALL: In which case I would begin by explaining to you
5 briefly the procedure that we follow. The side calling you, and as I
6 indicated previously it's counsel for Mr. Zupljanin, begins by asking you
7 questions. Then counsel for the co-accused would have a right to
8 cross-examine you, followed by counsel representing the Prosecution, that
9 is, the counsel sitting at your right. Counsel for Mr. Zupljanin has a
10 right to re-examine you, and at that stage, or indeed at any earlier
11 stage, the Judges may have questions of you.
12 Now, you began by taking a solemn declaration and I would point
13 out to you that the effect of that is that should you give false or
14 misleading testimony, this Tribunal is empowered to proceed against you
15 for perjury. And there are severe consequences for giving false or
16 misleading testimony. The -- as I said, it is expected that you will be
17 with us for the entirety of this week, and counsel for -- who is calling
18 you has indicated that their examination-in-chief would last for about
19 four to five hours, and counsel for the co-accused, Mr. Stanisic, have
20 indicated that their cross-examination would be considerably shorter and
21 last about one session. I'm going to explain to you in a while what I
22 mean by "a session." Counsel for the Office of the Prosecution have
23 requested eight hours for their cross-examination.
24 Now, the day of the Tribunal is broken up into sessions for --
25 first of all, for the technical reasons that the tapes that record the
1 proceedings have to be changed at 90-minute intervals, and that allows
2 the -- for the comfort and convenience of yourself, counsel, Judges,
3 everybody else involved, to have a break and the break is about 20
4 minutes in length. And then we come back for another session. Now,
5 ordinarily the Tribunal's day ends at 1.45 because the courtroom space is
6 shared with other trials, but in order to ensure that your testimony's
7 completed this week arrangements have been made for us to have an extra
8 session today, tomorrow, and possibly on Wednesday and Thursday. The
9 exact times of the sittings later in the week are still being worked out,
10 but the -- so there would be a longer break today and tomorrow, longer
11 than the 20 minutes, before the final session that we take in order to,
12 as I said, facilitate the completion of your testimony.
13 Now, notwithstanding those set breaks to which I have referred,
14 if at any time for any reason whatever you require us to take a break, if
15 you indicate that, we will certainly accommodate you. And with that, I
16 invite counsel for Mr. Zupljanin, Mr. Aleksic, to begin his
18 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 WITNESS: GORAN SAJINOVIC
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 Examination by Mr. Aleksic:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Sajinovic.
23 A. Good morning.
24 Q. You have already provided some information to the Trial Chamber
25 about yourself. Could you now tell us something about your education,
1 your general education.
2 A. Well, I completed secondary school -- actually, elementary school
3 I completed in Banja Luka, secondary school also in Banja Luka. In 1986
4 I started working at the CSB Banja Luka in January 1986, that is. I
5 continued studying part time. I got a degree in technical sciences at
6 the University of Zrenjanin and I am now working on a master's degree in
7 Banja Luka. For the past five years I have been working for the postal
8 services company. Until 2002 I worked at the CSB Banja Luka.
9 Q. Very well. Tell us, over the past several years did you have any
10 contact with the representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor of this
12 A. The first contact with the representatives of the OTP I had
13 sometime in 2004. I was interviewed in Banja Luka. They called me.
14 Q. Do you remember who it was that spoke to you then?
15 A. An investigator of The Hague Tribunal. I cannot remember
16 exactly. I think Nicholas or something like that, that must have been
17 his name.
18 Q. Tell me, how did this interview develop? How did it take place?
19 A. This is how it went. In addition to the investigator, there was
20 an interpreter there too. The investigator put questions and I was
21 giving answers, and he typed all of that up on a laptop. During the
22 interview, a few documents were shown to me, a few. I don't know exactly
23 how many. I think that I provided brief comments on some of them. I was
24 told that it was not being recorded. I did not see the statement in the
25 form of a statement and it wasn't read out to me in the Serbian language.
1 The gentleman who interviewed me then told me that soon I would be called
2 again, that we would continue this interview, and that on that occasion
3 the statement would be completed and that I would read it then and then I
4 would say whether I accept it as my own. However, that never happened.
5 Q. Thank you. Could you tell us, please, how long that interview
6 went on for.
7 A. Well, the interview began sometime in the morning and it went on
8 until -- into the afternoon. So one could say it lasted for a day. We
9 had a lunch break, of course.
10 Q. From what you've said before, I understood that whatever the
11 investigator had typed up on the laptop and recorded, that you never
12 actually saw that or signed anything?
13 A. Well, I've just said that, Mr. Aleksic. I never saw my words.
14 They were typed up on a laptop. The interview was not recorded in any
15 other way, not in an audio recording, and I was told that this interview
16 would be completed at some later time.
17 Q. After 2004, were you ever contacted again by representatives of
18 the Office of the Prosecutor and when?
19 A. Yes. They got in touch with me last year, but I would like to
20 say something before that. I feel it's important. Before this contact
21 by the Prosecutor I was contacted by Mr. Mirko Bojinovic from Banja Luka.
22 This is a man who I knew when I was still employed by the police like he
23 was, and he told me - and this was summer, I can't recall the exact date
24 but I do know it was last summer - he told me that he was an investigator
25 on the Defence team of Mr. Zupljanin's. There was a Ms. Jasmina with
1 him, she was from Belgrade. She also said she was a member of the
2 Defence team. And on this occasion they asked whether I was willing to
3 testify as a Defence witness in the case against Mr. Zupljanin. I told
4 them then that I had already been contacted by the Office of the
5 Prosecutor in 2004, and I told them if there was no conflict of interest,
6 I would agree to be their witness.
7 Following that, that conversation, I was contacted by the OTP
8 investigator, and asked for a meeting in Banja Luka. The gentleman who
9 called me said that his name was Michael Koehler, if I'm not mistaken.
10 And in this conversation I told him that I had also been contacted by the
11 Defence team and that I accepted their request to be their witness and
12 that I did not wish to change that position and possibly become a
13 Prosecution witness, that I did not wish to be a Prosecution witness.
14 Mr. Michael told me then that the Prosecutor did not intend to call me as
15 a witness, but rather that their intention was to just meet with me and
16 that they would like me to clarify some details having to do with the
17 testimony of a colleague of mine, Mr. Radulovic, and I accepted that
19 Q. Thank you. Tell us, please, following these events did you have
20 any contact with any of the sides, any of the parties, and whom with if
21 that was indeed the case?
22 A. If I understand you correctly, do you -- are you referring to the
23 conversation that we had in Banja Luka? Well, after that conversation I
24 have to say that the interview was with Mr. Michael Koehler and a lady.
25 It took about an hour. I can't recall exactly what date that was on, but
1 I was contacted by phone by Ms. Jasmina from Belgrade, with whom I had
2 already spoken before, and she told me that the gentleman from the
3 Prosecution, after their interview with me, had compiled a report. She
4 read out the report to me over the phone that statement. And she told me
5 as could be concluded also from the statement that the Prosecution had
6 requested that I be a Prosecution witness. Now, this was an unpleasant
7 surprise because I was explicitly told that the Prosecutor was not going
8 and did not -- was not interested in having me as a witness, but also
9 because what was recorded in the statement did not quite jibe with what I
10 had said. In other words, it wasn't completely accurate.
11 Q. Very well. But chronologically speaking, after that were you
12 contacted by anyone else from the Prosecution?
13 A. Yes. Mr. Michael Koehler phoned me again after these events. He
14 asked that we meet again in Banja Luka and told me that on that occasion
15 he should record a statement that I was supposed to sign and that this
16 interview would also be recorded, videotaped. And during that
17 conversation with Mr. Koehler, I told him about my earlier conversation
18 with Ms. Jasmina and I told him also that I was very unpleasantly
19 surprised by what had been said in that conversation. And I also said
20 that I was not happy with the report. I also told him that I was upset
21 with the Prosecution because the first time that they contacted me was in
22 2004 and that at that time I was told that I would be contacted again,
23 that the interview would continue, but that had not happened. And then
24 six years later there was this new conversation with them, but I told him
25 that as a human being and as a person who respected the law, I would
1 accept to have -- to co-operate but only at the request of the Court
2 because I did not want to communicate with such people because I felt
3 that I was being deceived twice and I did not want to continue that
4 contact without a request from the Court itself.
5 Mr. Michael told me that it was not standard practice at that
6 stage to be subpoenaed by the Court, but that if I insisted he would see
7 to that. And he added that I would probably be handed this subpoena by
8 the police, that they would come to my door. And at that point I
9 understood that to be a threat, a pressure exerted on me, because I knew
10 that that was not the practice, that I had worked for the police for a
11 long time and so did my father, and the police and all law enforcement
12 agencies were welcome at my place. So this would not be effective as a
13 threat and that I was expecting to receive a request from the Court if
14 they wanted me to give a statement.
15 Q. Thank you. After this event and this conversation with
16 Mr. Michael Koehler, were there any contacts with the Defence of
17 Mr. Zupljanin?
18 A. Yes, on that same day after the conversation with Mr. Koehler, I
19 called Ms. Jasmina because she had left her phone number with me on that
20 occasion when we met in Banja Luka. I called her and I told her about
21 this conversation briefly. And I asked for her advice as to how to
22 proceed further. However, Ms. Jasmina said another thing on that
23 occasion that also came as an unpleasant detail and that had been skipped
24 over by Mr. Caller, namely, that the Trial Chamber had already discussed
25 the proposal put forward by the Prosecution and that I was already on the
1 Prosecution list of witnesses, and that, as such, she was not allowed to
2 have any contacts or any conversations with me as a member of the Defence
3 team, that the only contact was allowed through the Prosecution. She
4 explained to me that a witness of a party can only be contacted by the
5 other party through that party that -- whose witness I was. And I told
6 Ms. Jasmina that I was offended, that I was angry, that I would get in
7 touch with a lawyer in Banja Luka and then decide after that -- after
8 those consultations what my position would be vis-a-vis both parties,
9 both the Prosecution and the Defence.
10 Q. Thank you. Did you have contacts with any attorneys in
11 Banja Luka and what happened following that if that was indeed the case?
12 A. Yes, I got in touch with Mr. Zivko Bojic, an attorney from
13 Banja Luka, whom I also knew from the time when both of us worked for the
14 police. I knew that he was a very experienced man, both as an attorney
15 and at his previous work. And he explained to me what the different
16 parties were, the Prosecution, the Defence, and the Trial Chamber. And
17 he told me that as a witness I did not have to respond to an invitation
18 by either party in the proceedings, that my only obligation was to
19 respond to a subpoena by the Trial Chamber, whereas all the other
20 contacts would really be left to my own free decision. And I could
21 decide whom I wanted to contact and how.
22 After this conversation I was left with the impression that I
23 could remain, if that was feasible, a Defence witness and that I did not
24 wish to be a Prosecution witness for all the reasons I've already
25 mentioned unless I was subpoenaed by the Trial Chamber.
1 Q. Following that conversation, were you contacted by anyone from
2 the Office of the Prosecutor?
3 A. The conversation with Ms. Jasmina that I mentioned and with
4 Mr. Michael Koehler took place on a Friday. I remember that because over
5 the weekend I contacted Mr. Bojic, and then on the following Monday I was
6 again contacted by Mr. Koehler. On this occasion he told me that he was
7 not clear whether I wanted to be called up by the Prosecution or by the
8 police. Now, that sounded very strange and I repeated what I had already
9 said to Mr. Koehler again, that I expected to be subpoenaed by the
10 Trial Chamber and not summoned by anyone else. And I asked him again --
11 I asked him on this occasion whether my testimony was discussed in any
12 way and whether I was on anyone's list of witnesses, and he again said to
13 me that the Trial Chamber had not discussed that at all and that it was
14 still unclear whose witness I was going to be. And I then reiterated
15 that I would not accept to be summoned by anyone unless there was a
16 Trial Chamber's subpoena. He thanked me and said he would not call me
17 again, but then on that same day a few hours later, I was again contacted
18 by the Prosecution. A gentleman whose name I cannot recall called me,
19 but from what I could understand he was the chief investigator or a
20 Prosecutor, I'm not really sure. And he asked me the same thing, whether
21 I would agree to meet with him, and I said that I did not, that the
22 Prosecution was not fair to me, and that I refused to respond unless I
23 was subpoenaed by the Trial Chamber. And I assumed that he concluded,
24 perhaps based on what I said or my voice, that I was upset. So he asked
25 me whether I had been under any pressure, and I said that I was. And
1 then he asked me, "Under whose pressure?" And I said, well, I felt that
2 I was pressured by the Prosecution and that's where our conversation
3 ended. And following that, there were no further contacts from anyone
4 from the Prosecution.
5 Q. Thank you. In -- at the beginning of this summer, were you
6 contacted by anyone from the Defence team of Mr. Zupljanin?
7 A. Yes. I was contacted by Mr. Mirko Bojinovic. On that occasion
8 he asked me whether I remained firm in my earlier decision, that I did
9 not wish to have any contacts with the Prosecution and that I wished to
10 be a Defence witness. And I confirmed. In other words, I said that I
11 still held that position.
12 Q. When you came to The Hague and after our conversation there, did
13 I put the same question to you and did I ask you whether your position
14 remained unchanged and that you did not wish to be contacted by the
15 Prosecution in any way?
16 A. Yes. When I arrived in The Hague, things went just the way you
17 described them.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could we now briefly
20 move into private session because there will be a reference to part of
21 the work.
22 [Private session]
11 Pages 25111-25114 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes, sir.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I'm sorry, could I get
5 some water, please.
6 JUDGE HALL: Certainly the usher will assist you.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
8 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, could you tell us what techniques and methods were
10 used by the group?
11 A. You mean technically? The group we discussed gathered
12 intelligence and information relevant to security. At that time the
13 object of our interest was the enemy side, their intelligence services,
14 et cetera. And the reports were typed up into a device which in terms of
15 appearance looks a bit like a laptop but it's smaller and has a smaller
16 display and that was an encryption device. When an entry is made into
17 the device, we would call a number in Belgrade. And in establishing
18 communication we would ask: "Is that the centre?" If the answer was
19 affirmative, we would respond with "270." The device would be leaned
20 against the receiver and in encrypted form it would be transmitted to its
21 destination. That entry would be then typed up onto a sheet of paper and
22 deposited in a safe in our office. And the information was filed by
23 region and it would sometimes happen that if we were not at the head
24 office a report would be prepared and transmitted the same day, but we
25 would only type it up and put it in the safe once we returned to the head
1 office. I hope that's clear.
2 Q. Do you know at the time when those reports were typed up onto a
3 sheet of paper, were there any records kept of the reports that had been
4 transmitted to Belgrade?
5 A. At the time when they were created, we did not have those
7 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we call up
8 1D281, that is tab 23, and I have a hard copy of all the documents on the
9 list for this witness. So the usher can hand it to the witness.
10 Q. Can you see this document? Do you recognise it?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. Could you explain what kind of document this is.
13 A. That's exactly what I talked about earlier. That is the kind of
14 communication we would send to Belgrade.
15 Q. You see below the date, and the date is 7 March 1992, something
16 was added in long-hand and on the right-hand side also handwritten the
17 word "Milos." First of all, do you recognise the handwriting?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I believe, Your Honours, we have to
20 move into private session briefly.
21 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
22 [Private session]
11 Page 25117 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
3 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, do you know when, in which time-period, the
5 reports were registered this way, according to these numbers?
6 A. Well, I cannot say with any certainty, but I know that it was
7 maybe 1993 or 1994. I really cannot remember exactly. I think that I
8 talked to the investigators about that as well, and that's what I said.
9 Q. Tell me, do you know how this was done, how the reports were
10 registered technically? Please do not say who because we're in public
11 court, but do you know how this was done?
12 A. All of these reports - and there were indeed quite a few of
13 them - were in this later period taken out of the safe and then, as I
14 explained a moment ago, they were classified according to the regions or
15 territories to which they pertained. Because in addition to the centre,
16 the group was present to -- present in other territories, that is to say
17 those who were not covered by the CSB, that is to say areas of
18 Republika Srpska that were under the control of Republika Srpska. So
19 they were taken out and classified according to regions and written up in
20 a notebook, depending on the date when they were created, starting with
21 smaller numbers and then going up to bigger numbers.
22 Q. Did you see this notebook where these reports were registered?
23 A. Well, the notebook was in the safe, where the reports were too,
24 in this metal safe in our office. As far as I can remember at the time
25 when my colleague was registering this, that's the way it was, if I can
1 put it that way.
2 Q. After that, did you ever see this notebook again containing these
3 records of the Milos reports?
4 A. No. After that I really never saw that notebook, nor do I know
5 where it ended up, like part of the reports maybe.
6 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] We have to go into private session
7 again now because of one particular question, and I believe that after
8 that we won't have to do that anymore.
9 JUDGE HALL: Very well.
10 [Private session]
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
1 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, you said that you sent these reports of the Milos
3 group to Belgrade. In addition to that, within the service that you
4 worked in did you -- did you actually send reports about your work in
5 some other way? Did you report to your superiors in some other way as
7 A. Of course, but I'd just like to correct you on one thing,
8 Mr. Aleksic. I hope you won't mind. I hope you won't hold it again me.
9 We did not report to our superiors at all. We were reporting to
10 Belgrade, the State Security Service in Belgrade.
11 Q. I beg your pardon. So the reports of the Milos group were sent
12 only to Belgrade and it was the centre in Belgrade that was reported to;
14 A. That's right. You have understood me correctly.
15 Q. As operatives, did you report to your superiors about other
16 matters through the regular chain, if I can put it that way?
17 A. Of course. As operatives we had that duty. Perhaps it would be
18 a good thing to mention that the information that was sent in this form,
19 Milos, that is, would often be translated into another form. That is to
20 say, this information and this other information that we received we
21 provided official notes, dispatches, et cetera, to our superiors,
22 depending on what kind of knowledge was obtained.
23 Q. These notes, reports, dispatches, were they filed somewhere? Do
24 you know anything about the administrative aspect of the matter at the
25 time when these documents were being created, that is?
1 A. I really don't know whether these notes and dispatches were filed
2 within the service. I cannot say anything with any degree of certainty.
3 I mean, I'd just be guessing. I really don't know.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Aleksic, could we clarify with the witness
5 exactly which matters were reported by Milos to Belgrade and which other
6 matters were reported in the hierarchy in the RS MUP.
7 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honour.
8 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, you understood His Honour Judge Harhoff?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you say which were the matters that you reported to Belgrade
11 and then after that your superiors in the CSB?
12 A. I see in the interpretation again that it only says "CSB," not
13 the State Security Service, but all right, never mind. As for our
14 regular information, our reporting to our superiors, that took place
15 within the sector of the State Security Service in Banja Luka. If I
16 understood His Honour, the Judge, correctly. The information that we
17 sent to Belgrade for the had to do with the situation at the time in the
18 area of Republika Srpska, that's to say our centre and beyond, in the
19 sense of hostile activities of the parties that were involved in a
20 conflict then. I mean, generally speaking, security-related information
21 that we could obtain, we sent that further on to Belgrade. Radulovic
22 told me then - I think you asked me about that and I did not
23 answer - that the objective of establishing the group and having these
24 contacts with Belgrade was the fact that the federal state still existed
25 and information was not being sent to Belgrade through regular channels.
1 We had information that our colleagues who were ethnic Croats and Muslims
2 were providing parallel information to other structures, that is to say
3 in Zagreb and in Sarajevo. At the time, that is the information that I
4 received, that that is why the group was established and why it operated
5 that way. The information that we provided to our superiors by way of
6 official notes, dispatches, within the State Security Service was
7 information that we collected down our line of work, and that is where
8 Radulovic belonged. We got these suggestions from the head of the
9 department and we collected information on that basis.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Mr. Sajinovic, let's just be clear
11 about exactly how this worked in practice. You told us that you --
12 rather, that the Milos group would send information about the security
13 situation in the Banja Luka area to Belgrade because they wouldn't
14 otherwise get this information and because the federal state still
15 existed. Now, the information that you sent to Belgrade, was that not
16 also passed on to your superior in the CSB and from there to the MUP in
17 Pale or wherever it was at the time?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you understood this
19 correctly as far as Belgrade was concerned. As for the information that
20 was sent to our superiors within the State Security Service, it is also
21 correct that some of this information or part of this information was
22 sent to our superiors but in a different form. That is to say the
23 content was similar, yes, but in the form of an official note, a
24 dispatch, or a memo where the names of the operatives who were the
25 authors of the particular information would be written, and that was not
1 the case with the Milos group reports. If I understood you correctly you
2 said it was our duty to inform our superiors. Yes, that was the case,
3 but within the State Security Service not the CSB, that is to say down
4 the line of work that we belonged to, 01, when we would write up an
5 official note we'd send it to the head of the department. His duty was
6 to convey that information to the chief of the CSB and then further on.
7 I really cannot say with any degree of certainty where all of this ended
8 up ultimately and who received all of this. How do I put this? How do I
9 explain this to you? This was within the authority of our chief, to
10 decide whether this information is noteworthy and whose attention it
11 merited. So then it would be provided to those who could use it, if that
12 was the assessment. It could have been the military security or the
13 judiciary or the prosecutor's office. I don't know. Our obligation went
14 up to the head of department, I mean our obligation to provide
15 information to report.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. One last question. How long did your
17 transmission of encrypted messages continue to Belgrade from the Milos
18 group in Banja Luka?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise but I
20 did not understand you very well. How long did what happen?
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: The traffic of dispatches from Banja Luka to
22 Belgrade, how long did that last?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean what the time-period
24 involved was?
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. We have on the screen a dispatch which was
1 sent on the 7th of March, 1992, to Belgrade from the Milos group. My
2 question is: How long did that traffic continue, that sending messages
3 to Belgrade?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand now, Your Honour.
5 Well, as far as I know, 1992 and 1993, that went on in 1993 as well.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Do you know for how long in 1993?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can remember,
8 Your Honour, all of 1993. 1992 and 1993, perhaps somewhere up until the
9 beginning of 1994.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: And why did it stop?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, why? Mr. Radulovic at about
12 that time - I can't tell you exactly when - left Banja Luka and was
13 transferred to Belgrade to the State Security Service. When he left, the
14 work of that group ceased to exist because he was the focal point of all
15 of these activities.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much.
17 Back to you, Mr. Aleksic.
18 JUDGE HALL: Well, it's time for the break. So we resume in 20
20 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
22 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, just one last question about this topic. Did you
24 ever see any other records or books that were kept within the CSB
25 Banja Luka State Security Services?
1 A. No, I did not.
2 Q. Thank you. Now, while we still have this document before us,
3 which is 1D281, would you please take a look at it and tell us whether
4 you were aware of the information therein; and if so, how did you come to
5 learn about it?
6 A. Well, of course I am aware of the information contained in this
7 document before us. This is one of the documents relating to -- as we've
8 already said, the Milos group. And as for the contents of this
9 document -- rather, the retirement or layoff of employees of Serb
10 ethnicity, if I remember correctly sometime in May of this year the chief
11 of the state security department went to Sarajevo to meet the
12 under-secretary, Mr. Kvesic. Upon his return from Sarajevo he told us
13 and we already saw this outside the state security premises a new Golf
14 vehicle. He told us that Mr. Kvesic, the under-secretary for state
15 security at the time, assigned this one official vehicle to him to take
16 to Banja Luka because we were not very well equipped as far as vehicles
17 and other technical equipment was concerned. So he was issued this
18 vehicle by him and was told approximately the following: Go to
19 Banja Luka, establish a Serbian service, I am going to Mostar to
20 establish a Croatian service, whereas the Muslims have already
21 established their own service. And that's about all that I can recall
22 from this time. Now, in this document here we see that there is also
23 mention made of BH MUP strengthening with some 250 Muslim and Croatian
24 staff and I knew of this as well because we had information to that
25 effect at the time. We even had information about certain members of
1 Muslim and Croatian ethnicity who were undergoing training in Croatia at
2 the time and who were then being employed by the BH MUP. That's about
3 all that I can say about this document.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please have 1D282,
6 that's under tab 24.
7 Q. Please take a look at this document and tell us what you can
8 about what you know about it.
9 A. Yes, this was another one of the documents of the Milos group
10 that was sent to Belgrade. And I'm also familiar with the contents of
11 the document because we had the information at the time about members of
12 Muslim ethnicity in Banja Luka who were being -- who were organised
13 within the SDA and whose intention it was to establish a new municipality
14 and then their own police and other government bodies. And most of the
15 Muslims who worked at the centre where I worked would then be transferred
16 to those new newly established bodies. This municipality was supposed to
17 be established in the part of the town on the other side of the Vrbas
18 river, which at the time had a majority of Muslim citizens.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please have
21 Exhibit 1D289. That's under tab 25. Could we just zoom in a bit the
22 B/C/S version -- the Serbian version.
23 Q. Please take a look at this document and then give us your
24 comments if you can.
25 A. Well, yes, that's again one of the reports from which we can see
1 something similar to the last report, that is to say the intention of
2 Muslim forces at the time to organise their own military production and
3 to organise themselves militarily to confront the JNA which had a
4 presence then. And we had a lot of operative reports by then, mostly
5 verified, some unverified, about this. And through our contacts we got
6 confirmation of the reports we got earlier.
7 Q. Thank you. Perhaps it would have been a better idea to look at
8 this document previously for chronology purposes.
9 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] But could we now please have 1D293.
10 That's under tab 26.
11 Q. Please take a look at this document too and look at the
12 information contained therein.
13 A. Well, yes. That's exactly as you've said. Chronologically
14 speaking this would have come before the other one and it is correct as
15 far as the information contained therein is concerned.
16 Q. In other words, you knew about this, you knew that employees of
17 Muslim ethnicity were preparing to resign their jobs as part of the CSB
18 Banja Luka service?
19 A. Exactly. We had that information. We had learned of it earlier
20 on, even before the conflict broke out in our areas. We knew that these
21 people were planning to leave the service and the area of Banja Luka, or
22 if they managed to establish their own institutions to move over to those
23 new bodies.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have Exhibit 1D297,
1 that's under tab 27.
2 Q. Can you tell us anything about this information contained in this
3 document? Did you know of any of this?
4 A. Yes. This is one of our reports as well and we knew at the time
5 that members of the Croatian ethnicity, as stated here in these areas,
6 were organising and that they intended to attack some of the vital
7 facilities in Banja Luka. We were informed about and we informed -- we
8 reported about it.
9 Q. Thank you. Now another document relating to this, that's 2D85,
10 tab 11. Here we see a list of persons. Can you tell us anything about
11 this list.
12 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we also be shown page 2.
13 Q. Now, Witness, you also have a hard copy version. That's under
14 number -- under tab 11. Just so you can take a look at the entire
16 A. Yes. This is a document similar to the previous one, and I
17 remember that we had information contained therein, but here we also see
18 a list of persons for whom we knew that they had weapons and that they
19 were organising as a military group. And I believe, as far as I can
20 recall, that one of these lists for the areas mentioned in this report
21 were actually provided by me.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Exhibit 2D84, please, that's tab
25 Q. Please take a look at this document. Mention is made of some
1 individuals there. Could you tell us whether you know any of these
2 people and how you knew about them.
3 A. Yes, of course, all of these names are familiar, all the names
4 that appear in this report. These are people who were the organisers of
5 the arming and the organising of Muslims into military groups in
6 Banja Luka and its surroundings, and from the text of this report I see,
7 in fact, that I even know the person mentioned there, the person that we
8 are asking for -- to be actually arrested because we questioned this
9 individual on several occasions about the events mentioned therein.
10 Q. Tell us, please, the name of Mr. Asim Jakirlic is mentioned here
11 and it says we have teledocumented information. Can you explain to us
12 what exactly that means?
13 A. As far as I know, that refers to us having a videotaped or
14 recorded report, or rather, statement provided by the individual
15 mentioned on this list, in which he actually confirms the information
16 that we had about Mr. Jakirlic and other individuals mentioned in this
18 Q. Thank you. And if I can just follow-up on your reply.
19 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we have 2D86, that's under
20 tab 12, please.
21 Q. This document is a several-page document. Could you please take
22 a look at it and then tell us whether you know anything about it and what
23 kind of document it is and whatever you know about the contents.
24 A. Well, yes, exactly. That is the statement that I mentioned a few
25 moments ago, that I referred to a few moments ago, one of the statements
1 that was provided by this individual through -- in the course of
2 interviews, a number of interviews that we conducted with this
3 individual. And he provided a lot of information relating to the
4 organisation of these groups. And in fact, from what he said, we were
5 able to confirm a lot of and verify a lot of information that we had
6 already in possession from earlier on but that had not been verified. So
7 that in fact in this interview with this person we were able to confirm a
8 lot of the information that we had had from before relating to the
9 individuals mentioned in the document. And in fact, I know all of these
10 people and their names and the activities that they were involved in in
11 this area.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Sajinovic. In addition to these two -- couple of
13 documents that you commented on, could you tell us very briefly what was
14 the security situation in Banja Luka in early 1992, early spring?
15 A. At that time the security situation in Banja Luka was very
16 difficult, very complex. In the town and around there were many, many
17 refugees who had arrived from war-stricken areas. Most of them came
18 armed because they had already fought in the war in Croatia, in Slavonia.
19 The economy did not work. Payment transactions did not function. There
20 was no electricity, and the security situation was about to run out of
21 control. Everybody seemed to feel free to do as they please. But the
22 greatest problem in my view was that with members of the army, war
23 veterans, uniformed armed men. And I have to say that the
24 Army of Republika Srpska had not been established yet, there was no
25 military police to deal with these people and the police had been neither
1 trained nor equipped to deal with those people. So it was very, very
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can we see P1369, that's tab 5.
5 Q. Same thing as with the last few documents. Have a look. Tell us
6 if you recognise it.
7 A. Yes, I recognise it. Our group authored it.
8 Q. Is the acronym SOS familiar to you?
9 A. Yes. This document refers to this formation known as SOS that
10 blocked access roads to Banja Luka, set up check-points. The information
11 we had at that moment was that those men were members of the army,
12 veterans who had prior war experience from Croatia and Slavonia. And we
13 must say that various criminals from Banja Luka also found their way into
14 that unit. But according to the information we had at the time, the
15 reason for this action by the SOS was to prevent the departure of the JNA
16 from the Banja Luka region with their military equipment. The JNA still
17 existed at the time, and according to what we knew, they just had a
18 presence but did not do anything. They did not take any sides. But the
19 Serbian people in the Banja Luka region believed that as long as the JNA
20 was there, they would be protected. So the SOS members set up those
21 roadblocks and imposed certain conditions. Rumour had it at the time
22 that the JNA was about to withdraw with all their weaponry and equipment.
23 So the purpose of this action by the SOS was to prevent the JNA from
24 leaving. And if some individual members of the JNA wanted to leave the
25 area, nobody would stop them.
1 Q. Did you and your group have reports about whether they were
2 organised properly, whether they had leadership? Did you know?
3 A. We had some information because obviously it was impossible that
4 such a large group of soldiers and reservists had just spontaneously
5 organised themselves. We had information that it was the military's
6 security that was behind it all. Members of the military security,
7 Colonel Stevilovic and Bogojevic I think had organised this unit. That's
8 at least the information that I had.
9 Q. Thank you. You said they had some demands. Do you know to whom
10 these demands were addressed and if there were any negotiations?
11 A. Yes, we knew that they had made demands, and as far as I remember
12 their purpose was to detain the JNA there with all their equipment as a
13 guarantor of the safety of the Serbian people. And from what I know,
14 they did negotiate with members of the army and with politicians, with
15 public officials at the time.
16 Q. Tell us if you remember how long those negotiations with the
17 politicians and the army lasted?
18 A. Not long. All these roadblocks and negotiations. I could be off
19 by a day or two, but I think they lasted four or five days.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see 1D304. That's tab
23 Q. This document -- first of all, do you recognise it?
24 A. Of course, it's our document.
25 Q. It refers to the conflict in Doboj and it says it was between the
1 Green Berets and SOS units and small number of Muslims, civilians, joined
2 in. Can you comment and explain what this is about?
3 A. Yes, I remember those events sometime in early May in Doboj. I
4 don't see anything unusual here. Those were the reports we got at the
5 time, but the only thing that surprises me here is that it says "SOS
6 units." From what I know, the SOS existed at the time only in
7 Banja Luka, as we just discussed. However, during proofing here in
8 The Hague I saw a couple of documents that you showed me referring to SOS
9 units. And at that time it was not a reference to the SOS in Banja Luka
10 that blocked the town and made certain demands, but it's a reference here
11 to members of the Territorial Defence and the army in those. SOS in the
12 Serbian language, SOS is an acronym for Serbian Defence Forces. In
13 another sentence we see the acronym HOS, that is to say Croatian Armed
14 Forces. At that time we did not know whether these armed forces had yet
15 been organised into a proper Croatian army. The Serbian forces were not.
16 So those were members of the Territorial Defence possibly with some
17 volunteers who joined them to offer resistance in the area.
18 Q. You've also seen other reports mentioning SOS units. Did you
19 mean SOS units were mentioned in areas other than Banja Luka?
20 A. That's what I was trying to say. I saw a report indicating that
21 the SOS was involved in other places, not only Banja Luka. But I also
22 tried to explain that the SOS referred to in those reports is not the
23 Banja Luka SOS but members of the local Territorial Defence and the army,
24 possibly joined by some volunteers to make up Serbian armed forces.
25 Q. Thank you. We'll now move to another but related area. Did you
1 spend time in Doboj at any point in 1992?
2 A. Yes. We, the Milos group, were in Doboj in 1992. And if memory
3 serves, it was May, mid-May perhaps.
4 Q. Who told you to go there and what for?
5 A. Mr. Radulovic told me we should go, and the purpose as I was told
6 was to assist the security situation in that area and see what's going
7 on, what kind of activities are unfolding, as we normally did during our
8 existence as a group and as operative officers.
9 Q. In addition to the members of your group, were there any other
10 state security officers from Banja Luka in Doboj?
11 A. Yes. At that time there were operatives from the state security
12 sector in Banja Luka also in Doboj, inspectors from Banja Luka who were
13 reassigned for a while to Doboj, four or five of them perhaps.
14 Q. Could you tell us what their job was in Doboj?
15 A. As they told us themselves, they were investigating and taking
16 statements from people who were of interest in terms of security in areas
17 where combat operations were taking place and who were involved in
18 fighting against the Serbian people.
19 Q. Could you tell us some names? And we can go into private session
20 if you think that's necessary.
21 A. I'd prefer it, if possible.
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
23 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
14 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. In addition to these colleagues from yours from state security,
16 was there anyone else from the territory of Banja Luka that was in Doboj
17 at the time; and if so, could you tell us who these persons were?
18 A. Yes. In addition to us and the colleagues from state security,
19 at that point in time in Doboj there were a few members of the special
20 police unit from Banja Luka. Their role was to secure the operatives who
21 were in Doboj at the time, who came from Banja Luka, the ones we
22 mentioned a few moments ago. But Doboj was very, very close to the
23 separation line. Doboj would be shelled and some groups would also break
24 in. So there was a need to do that.
25 Q. These persons, in addition to providing physical security for
1 these operatives of the State Security Service, do you know whether they
2 had another role? Did they do anything else in Doboj while they were
4 A. As far as I know, their only role was the one that I have already
6 Q. Apart from these four or five persons, while you were in Doboj
7 did you see any other members of the special detachment from Banja Luka?
8 A. No. While we were in the town of Doboj, I did not see any other
9 members of the special detachment. From time to time, I would see them
10 when we were leaving Doboj or coming back; however, this was in the area
11 of combat operations where fighting was taking place at the time. It was
12 the battle for the corridor that was taking place then. I know that I
13 saw them out of town in the immediate vicinity of the lines.
14 Q. Can you remember how far away that separation line or front line
15 was from the town of Doboj?
16 A. Well, it was quite nearby. I've already said that it was perhaps
17 not more than 2 or 2 and a half or 3 kilometres. Not more than that. It
18 was very nearby.
19 Q. Thank you. Tell me, during your stay there and during your
20 operative work in Doboj, did you come to learn of the existence of some
21 criminal or paramilitary groups in Doboj?
22 A. Yes, yes. We came to learn that there were some groups that were
23 not under the control of the army and that were involved in some criminal
24 activity, if I can put it that way.
25 Q. Can you tell us something more in terms of the names of the
1 members or the leaders of these paramilitary groups? If necessary, we
2 can briefly move into private session for that purpose as well.
3 A. Well, I can tell you what I remember from that period, or rather,
4 some of these persons. But I would prefer if we would briefly go into
5 private session.
6 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
7 [Private session]
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
17 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. In addition to these groups that you mentioned just now, at the
19 time while you were in Doboj were there any others, any other groups and
20 units? If so, can you tell us which groups these were and can you tell
21 us what you remember in this regard?
22 A. In addition to us, the operatives, this group of the special
23 police and the group that we mentioned, the groups that we mentioned --
24 oh, yes, oh, yes, there was this group -- there was this certain Bozovic,
25 Rajo Bozovic from Serbia. And perhaps 10 or 15 individuals with him, I
1 don't know the exact number of members of that group. The information we
2 had at the time indicated that they were present there as instructors for
3 persons who were supposed to go into combat at the front line and who had
4 not had any previous military experience. So this group from Serbia was
5 training them. Allegedly they had some war experience and perhaps it may
6 be of interest to mention that they used red berets. They had red berets
7 as part of their uniform. There was another group there, I forgot to
8 mention that, a group of soldiers who wore camouflage military uniforms
9 and hats. They were members of some special unit, some reconnaissance
10 unit under the command of General Talic. When we asked about the role of
11 this group of individuals, the answer we received was that they provided
12 physical security for Andrija Bjelosevic, the then-head of the CSB Doboj.
13 That is what I can recall right now as regards the groups that were
14 present there at the time.
15 Q. Tell me, you mentioned Mr. Bozovic. As for him and his group,
16 did you have any contact with them while you were there, in Doboj, that
18 A. No, we did not have any contact. As a matter of fact, the
19 members of that group, at least that's the impression that I had now,
20 avoided all contact with us. And with other persons there -- how should
21 I put this? They acted independently at the time, independently of
22 anyone. Some of the information we had at the time indicated that these
23 were war veterans that I've already mentioned from Serbia. Their role
24 was to train soldiers in the area of Doboj who had not had any previous
25 war experience.
1 Q. Thank you. You mentioned that these soldiers under the command
2 of General Talic provided security for Mr. Andrija Bjelosevic, the
3 then-chief of the CSB Doboj. Can you tell us whether you saw
4 Mr. Bjelosevic while you were in Doboj?
5 A. Well, I saw Mr. Bjelosevic, if I'm not mistaken, once or twice
6 while we were in Doboj, and that is how many times I saw that group of
7 individuals that I spoke about.
8 Q. Did you have any knowledge as to where he was? Did you have any
9 information to that effect?
10 A. As far as I can remember, Radulovic told me that Mr. Bjelosevic
11 at the time was always at Duge Njive. That is a place where the military
12 command of the Doboj operative group was. That's the information that I
14 Q. Thank you. Tell me, do you know about something that happened
15 near the village of Stanari, on the road between Doboj and Teslic or
16 Prnjavor. I'm not sure anymore. Can you tell us a bit more about that
17 and can you tell us what you know actually.
18 A. Yes. I know about that particular event. This happened near
19 Stanari on the crossroads of the Prnjavor-Doboj-Teslic roads. Radulovic
20 and I were driving to Banja Luka from Doboj in our official vehicle, and
21 at that crossroads we saw a rather large group of civilians and a few
22 armed persons in uniform. When we stopped to check what that was all
23 about, the information we received was that this was a group of some 315
24 persons. If I'm not mistaken, if I remember correctly, these persons
25 were Muslims and Roma from the area around Derventa and Brod. They were
1 going to Tesanj, to the area of Tesanj, where at that time the majority
2 population was Muslim. Would you want me to describe what happened
3 there? All right.
4 Radulovic said to me then that these persons, these uniformed
5 armed persons, had the intention of executing these men. I did not know
6 these persons. However, I came to realise that Radulovic did know them
7 on the basis of the communication he had with them. They were wearing
8 military uniforms and they had long-barrelled weapons as we call them,
9 that is to say automatic rifles. Since the area where this was taking
10 place is a territorial boundary between Banja Luka, or rather, the CSB
11 Banja Luka and the CSB Doboj, we, or rather, I -- actually, to be very
12 precise, it is Radulovic who told me to call one of our superiors, that
13 is to say Mr. Kesic primarily, via radio link because there was no other
14 channel of communication. There weren't any mobile phones around at the
15 time and of course there wasn't a land-line there. Our intention was to
16 try to prevent that from happening, that is to say what these uniformed
17 persons wanted to do. Since Mr. Kesic was not answering the radio call
18 that I was making to him, I knew the code-name, though, from this
19 communication of ours, I knew the code-name of Mr. Zupljanin who was the
20 head of the CSB Banja Luka at the time. I called him and Mr. Zupljanin
21 answered. I informed him briefly about what was going on and where it
22 was happening. He told me that we should make every effort to keep
23 everyone safe and sound, that no civilians should be killed. And that he
24 would send the closest police unit he had to help us get the situation
25 under control. In the meantime, Radulovic was speaking to these
1 uniformed men and the conversation was not very pleasant naturally. So
2 this is, indeed, what happened. Soon afterwards a police unit or a group
3 of policemen came and I don't know exactly which formation this was.
4 They came from Prnjavor. That was in terms of territory the closest
5 police station. So we managed to prevent them from carrying out what
6 they had intended to do. Therefore, these persons safely continued their
7 journey to the area that they were heading towards. That is what I can
8 tell you in the briefest possible terms about what had happened. Believe
9 me, I'm a bit upset as I remember all of this, so I am sorry if I omitted
10 a thing or two.
11 Q. Would you tell me, please, since you told us that you did not
12 know these uniformed men, were you told afterwards, subsequently, who
13 these people were?
14 A. Well, yes, of course. It was logical after Radulovic and I
15 continued on our way to Banja Luka, he did tell me.
16 Q. Could you tell us some of these names and, if necessary, we can
17 again move to --
18 A. Your Honours, if it's all right, I would appreciate it if we
19 could briefly move to private session.
20 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
21 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE HALL: And it's time for the break. We would resume in 20
16 --- Recess taken at 12.04 p.m.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.
19 JUDGE HALL: While the witness is on his way in, although all the
20 parties would have seen it, I would remind you that we sit until 1.55 in
21 this session and then resume after a 60-minute break at 2.55 for the
22 final 90-minute session, that's today and tomorrow.
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, at the beginning of your testimony today you said
1 what the scope of interest of your group was, or rather, what your
2 primary task and job was, what type of information to collect. Now,
3 could you tell us, please, whether you had any information relating to
4 Prijedor and the Prijedor area in the course of May and June 1992?
5 A. Yes, we did have information coming from that area too. The
6 information that we had at the time mostly suggested that Muslims were
7 very well organised in Prijedor and the surrounding areas, Kozarac,
8 Hambarine, and some other towns, that they were arming and organising
9 militarily. In short, that they were preparing for war.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have Exhibit 1D310,
12 please. That would be under tab 16.
13 Q. Could you please give us your comments on this document briefly.
14 A. Well, first let me say that I know this document, I recognise it.
15 It is a document that came from us. It's our document. And as for the
16 contents of it, I've just said something to the same effect more or less.
17 There is mention here of the Kozarac area, the Prijedor municipality, and
18 we had at our disposal verified information that they were organising
19 into military units and that they had an intention to take over
20 militarily in the area.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see Exhibit 1D311.
23 That's under the next tab, 17.
24 Q. Would you briefly comment on this document, please.
25 A. Well, it's similar to the previous one. That's it. That the
1 security situation in the area was not good, that armed members and
2 extremists were concentrating in these areas. And we can see here that
3 there was an attack against members of the Territorial Defence mentioned
4 in this report. In other words, this is the information that we had and
5 that I mentioned earlier.
6 Q. Not to repeat ourselves, as these documents have already been
7 admitted into evidence, I will just repeat -- I will just show you one
8 other document of this nature, that's document -- Exhibit 1D312, tab 18.
9 Please take a look at this document too and give us your brief comments
10 if you can.
11 A. Well, this is based on the information that we had for this
12 particular area, the area of Prijedor and the surrounding towns. And
13 here, as we see from the title, we have a partial list of members of the
14 Patriotic League from the Prijedor area and this list was much longer.
15 But as far as I can see, yes, this is the information that we had.
16 Q. Very well. Can you tell us now, did you in the course of 1992
17 stay in Prijedor; and if so, when was the first time that you went there?
18 A. Yes, I did go to Prijedor in the course of 1992 together with my
19 colleague, Radulovic, and this was in the summer of 1992. I can't recall
20 the exact dates because a lot of time has elapsed, but I know that it was
21 very hot. As far as I remember, it was late June or early July in 1992
22 that I was there.
23 Q. Thank you. Did Mr. Radulovic tell you at the time what the
24 purpose of your visit in Prijedor was?
25 A. Yes, of course. We discussed this as we were driving towards
1 Prijedor, and he told me, he explained, because we had a number of
2 operatives there as well as in other areas who provided information that
3 we discussed a little earlier and that I commented on. Now, the purpose
4 was as at the time we had learned that there were some reception centres
5 established in Prijedor, in Keraterm and in Omarska, our intention was to
6 visit those two reception centres primarily in order to establish whether
7 one of our operatives and one of our associates or members of their
8 family were perhaps held there and if they needed any assistance from us.
9 Q. Tell us, please, where was the first place you went to?
10 A. We first went to Keraterm because the one-time factory of
11 Keraterm where the reception centre was was on the main road, on the road
12 to Prijedor. So we stayed there briefly, and then from there we
13 continued on our way to Omarska.
14 Q. Tell us, please, when you got to Keraterm, where did you go
15 physically? Whom did you meet there? Whom did you talk to? Could you
16 tell us, please.
17 A. When we arrived in Keraterm, we went to the administration
18 building. That was the headquarters of that factory where the offices of
19 the one-time factory were. And these premises were used at the time by
20 members and operatives of the state and public security services, and
21 this is where they interrogated individuals who had been brought to the
22 reception centre there.
23 Q. You told us what the primary purpose of your visit there was.
24 Now, did you find out whether any of these individuals who were of
25 security interest to you were, in fact, there?
1 A. We didn't have, or rather, I'm not even sure now whether any
2 lists existed there and whether it was possible to establish with any
3 precision what it was that we wanted to know. However, in our
4 conversations with our colleagues we did not learn that there were any
5 individuals that we had an interest in there, the individuals which
6 brought us, in fact, to the Prijedor area.
7 Q. Did you yourself know any of these colleagues who were there from
8 before? Do you know what organisational unit they belonged to, if you
9 know what department they were?
10 A. Are you referring to our colleagues?
11 Q. [No interpretation]
12 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter could not hear the counsel's
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I knew some of them and to be
15 honest - and I have no reason to hide anything - but I can't recall
16 exactly who of those people were there. But there were some colleagues
17 from the Prijedor detachment, from the state security department in
18 Prijedor, and there were some colleagues from Prijedor, itself, security
19 station. I did not know them as well. But I think and I'm not
20 absolutely certain, but I think there were even some people from the
21 military security there. They wore military uniforms and I believe they
22 were from the military security service.
23 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Could you tell us, please, whether, if you can of course, who
25 provided security in Keraterm? Who were the guards, if you know?
1 A. To be honest, we did not specifically inquire about any of those
2 details, but what I could see for myself when we arrived there, on our
3 way in and out of the Keraterm facility I saw that members of the
4 military provided security there.
5 Q. Would you tell us, please, after this brief visit in Keraterm
6 where did you go next?
7 A. As I've already said a moment ago, after Keraterm we went to
8 Omarska where there was another reception centre, and it was on the
9 premises of the Omarska mine.
10 Q. Tell us, please, do you recall who provided external security and
11 who provided internal security within the camp itself, if you recall?
12 A. As for the security guards in Omarska, the situation was similar
13 as in Keraterm. We could see a large number of military men there. They
14 even had some machine-gun nests deployed there, but at the very gate
15 itself at the desk, the reception desk, as it were, there were a couple
16 of police officers who were in police uniforms. And I believe they were
17 police officers from the public security station in Prijedor. But for
18 the most part, the security was provided by the military.
19 Q. Very well. Now tell us, please, when you arrived where did you
20 go, which rooms did you visit if you stayed there at all?
21 A. Well, we first went to a room that was on the ground floor of the
22 administration building. In fact, it was a cafeteria, the cafeteria of
23 the one-time mine works. There -- we saw some of our colleagues there,
24 we exchanged greetings, and I believe that we had lunch together there
25 because it was around lunchtime that we got there. And then from there
1 we went upstairs in the same building. In other words, I'm talking about
2 the administration building of the Omarska mine where the offices were,
3 similarly as was the case in the Keraterm facility.
4 Q. You said that you met some colleagues there on that occasion.
5 Could you tell us some of their names, please, if you can recall them.
6 A. Yes. We met some colleagues from the Prijedor centres of state
7 security and there were also a few colleagues from the Banja Luka state
8 security department. As for their names, if you don't mind, could we
9 move briefly ...
10 JUDGE HALL: Private session, yes.
11 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
20 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Those colleagues that you mentioned, did they tell you anything
22 about their work, about how they dealt with these detained persons? Did
23 you hear anything from them?
24 A. In principle, as I've already said, we did not spend much time
25 there and we did not really talk. I repeat, we were interested in doing
1 what we were supposed to do and what we were there for. The fact that
2 our colleagues were present would have made our engagement superfluous.
3 As far as I can remember, they were talking to persons who had been
4 detained there and they were carrying out a selection, or rather, who
5 does have some responsibility and who does not and how high various
6 persons' responsibility was in the armed rebellions that were taking
7 place during those days. So in addition to the colleagues from state
8 security, I saw some colleagues there who I heard were from public
9 security in Prijedor and also members of the army, or rather, military
11 Q. Tell me, when you finished this visit to Omarska, or rather, when
12 your stay in Omarska came to an end, what happened then? Where did you
14 A. After visiting Omarska, we returned to Banja Luka, Radulovic and
15 I did. It was the same day in the afternoon, late in the afternoon.
16 Q. Tell me, when you returned, where did you go in Banja Luka?
17 A. As far as I can remember, as usual, we would most often go to our
18 office that was in the CSB building to leave our vehicle in the
19 parking-lot. And if we had some equipment on us, say, a radio or
20 something, we'd leave that too. So that day we came in front of the CSB.
21 Q. Did you encounter anyone in front of the CSB building?
22 A. Yes. Yes. In front of the CSB building we came across
23 Mr. Zupljanin and Mr. Bulic, Mr. Djuro Bulic. So they were leaving the
24 building as we were walking towards the building. So we just happened to
25 see each other in front of the CSB building.
1 Q. What time of day was this? When did this happen, can you tell
3 A. Yes. I think I've already said a moment ago. It was in the
4 early evening or late afternoon on that day. I know that working hours
5 were over so I cannot actually tell you what time it was, but it was in
6 the early evening.
7 Q. Please tell me, if you remember, what were they wearing,
8 Mr. Zupljanin and Mr. Djuro Bulic?
9 A. Yes, I remember that. It was a bit characteristic and that's how
10 it stuck in my memory. Mr. Djuro Bulic was dressed in a track suit and
11 trainers. So it was like sports clothes, whereas Mr. Zupljanin was
12 wearing a suit and a tie, as he usually did if that's what you meant.
13 Q. Tell me, do you remember whether on that occasion Mr. Radulovic
14 said something to Mr. Zupljanin and to Mr. Bulic; and if you remember,
15 tell us what it is, what it is that you remember?
16 A. Yes, we exchanged greetings and Bulic actually made a comment
17 just that moment before we met up. Mr. Radulovic said it was good that
18 we came across Mr. Zupljanin and Mr. Bulic so that he could tell them
19 about what we saw on that day, Omarska and Keraterm. So after exchanging
20 greetings, Mr. Radulovic, as he addressed Mr. Zupljanin primarily and
21 Bulic as well who was the deputy, Mr. Zupljanin's deputy at the time, he
22 briefly said what it was that we saw on that day, namely, that the
23 situation in these reception centres was not the best, that the
24 accommodation conditions were not the best as far as these detainees were
25 concerned, and I think that would be it. I think he mentioned that there
1 was some abuse by the persons who were bringing these individuals in and
2 providing security at these reception centres. However, I do not
3 remember that Radulovic mentioned any specific names or events.
4 Basically he briefly said that the situation was worse than he had
5 thought and that's the essence of it.
6 Q. Do you remember whether Mr. Zupljanin reacted in any way, whether
7 he said anything?
8 A. I remember. I remember that Mr. Zupljanin -- well, that's what I
9 remember exactly. He looked surprised and it seemed that he was in
10 disbelief, that he did not believe that that was true. And as far as I
11 can remember, he said that he would check what Radulovic was saying and
12 that in accordance with the information he would receive he would react
13 within the scope of his possibilities. I think that's the way it was.
14 Q. After these words of Mr. Zupljanin's, what happened?
15 A. I'm afraid I did not quite understand what you were saying. I do
17 Q. Where did you and Mr. Radulovic go?
18 A. After this conversation between Mr. Radulovic and Mr. Zupljanin,
19 we went into the CSB building, that is to say into the office that we
20 were heading to anyway, and Mr. Zupljanin got into a car that was waiting
21 there in the parking-lot. And I think that finally Mr. Bulic made some
22 kind of comment, saying that he was in a hurry, that he was going to some
23 soccer game or something - I told you that he was wearing this sports
24 outfit - and he said, "Good-bye, see you, off I go to the game," words to
25 that effect.
1 Q. Tell me, if you remember, how did Mr. Radulovic behave after this
2 encounter with Mr. Zupljanin and Djuro Bulic?
3 A. I don't remember that there was anything unusual in his behaviour
4 in any way. I don't know. We went to the office. We stayed there very
5 briefly. I think that we typed up a report, if I remember correctly, and
6 then we went home. He went to his home and I went to my home.
7 Q. Did you notice any change in his behaviour after that
8 conversation with Mr. Zupljanin or did you see anything on his face?
9 A. Frankly, no. He behaved as usual. Like any other time when we
10 would be going back, we would be in a hurry to see our families. I don't
12 Q. How did you behave after that? Were there any changes in your
13 behaviour after that conversation and after going to your office?
14 A. I don't remember. Quite frankly, I don't remember that there
15 were any changes. Frankly, I was glad to have seen Mr. Zupljanin, the
16 chief, because I did not have the opportunity of being in contact with
17 him very often. So I was pleased. That was it. We saw each other and
18 we were in a hurry because we were away a lot. We were in a hurry to see
19 our families.
20 Q. Do you know whether after this encounter in front of the CSB
21 building of Banja Luka, the one that you had with Mr. Zupljanin and
22 Bulic, do you know whether Radulovic contacted anyone else in relation to
23 that conversation and your previous trip to Prijedor?
24 A. I don't know that Radulovic communicated with anyone in that
25 regard. It would only be logical for us to have written up an official
1 note and submitted it to the head of the department if necessary. I do
2 not know whether he communicated with anyone.
3 Q. Together with Mr. Radulovic, did you go to Belgrade? Did you
4 ever go to Belgrade in relation to your work in the group that we
5 mentioned and whose reports we've mentioned?
6 A. Yes, I went to Belgrade several times with Mr. Radulovic.
7 Q. Do you remember that after this event you went to Belgrade
8 together with him?
9 A. Well, look, we went before and after. I cannot say for sure. Do
10 I understand your question correctly, whether we went on account of this
11 particular event? No, if I remember correctly, we did not.
12 Q. Tell me, to the best of your knowledge from that period, who was
13 your contact in Belgrade and where did you go? If necessary, we can go
14 into private session.
15 A. It's not necessary as far as I'm concerned. I don't think
16 there's anything controversial about it. We went to the building of the
17 State Security Service in Belgrade. As for contacts, we, that is to say
18 Radulovic in particular, had Marko Lazovic from the State Security
19 Service in Belgrade as his contact.
20 Q. In addition to Mr. Lazovic, did you have any contact with some
21 other persons from the State Security Service of Serbia?
22 A. I do not remember, really, that we had contact with anyone else
23 except for Mr. Lazovic. I allow for the possibility of perhaps
24 encountering someone in passing while we were in the building, but even
25 that -- I mean, when I was present. Let me be very specific. There
1 weren't any contacts with anyone else except for Mr. Lazovic, but I have
2 to note that Radulovic often attended these meetings by himself. I would
3 wait for him either at the restaurant or downstairs by the reception desk
4 or in town somewhere.
5 Q. Tell me, does the name of Branko Pavic ring a bell?
6 A. Branko Pavic, Branko Pavic, I think that during proofing I saw an
7 official note that was signed with that name if I'm not mistaken. You
8 actually showed me that, this official note of the State Security Service
9 in Belgrade, that is to say not our State Security Service.
10 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we have document
11 P1370, it's a document under seal, tab 2.
12 Q. This document has five pages. On the first page it says:
13 "Source: Agent Milos" --
14 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Aleksic, if this is under seal, should you speak
15 to the contents in open session?
16 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] You're right, Your Honours. My
17 mistake. We can perhaps move into private session.
18 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
19 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We're in private session, Your Honours.
21 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Under Roman I we see:
23 "Source: Agent Milos."
24 We won't go into the contents for the moment. This is an agent
25 report. On the last page we see who drafted this agent report,
1 Branko Pavic, operative officer. And in the same line as his name and
2 signature it says: "Copied to 2nd administration and agent file."
3 Based on your many years of experience, do you have any comment
4 on the format of this document?
5 A. Yes, that's the report. It's clear from this report that it's
6 Milos and in proofing I had occasion to read this. And the pseudonym
7 Milos clearly indicates that this source, Mr. Predrag Radulovic. If I
8 can say briefly about this. I was surprised to see this report because I
9 understood that the gentleman from the state security sector in Belgrade
10 treated my colleague and the Milos group as their sources, not as their
11 colleagues on an equal footing, colleagues from Banja Luka with whom they
12 had professional co-operation as equals. That was the first thing that
13 struck me when I saw this report.
14 Q. Tell me about this note --
15 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I just wanted to inform you that we
16 do have a redacted version of this exhibit in evidence. It's P1370.1 and
17 that's pursuant to this Trial Chamber's decision with regard to these
18 kinds of documents. So perhaps to save us some trouble we can just do
19 this all in open session with the redacted version.
20 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Olmsted.
21 Yes, we would proceed in that manner.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Aleksic, do I take it from your hand gestures
24 that you are in accord with that suggestion?
25 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour. I don't have
1 the redacted version handy, but I agree. It won't be a problem to
2 continue. Just give me a moment, please.
3 Your Honours, my problem is that I want to ask the witness about
4 certain names of people and I'm not sure the same names are mentioned in
5 the redacted version --
6 JUDGE HALL: Well, we'll have to continue in private session for
7 the time being, yes.
8 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] We'll be finished with this
9 document very quickly.
10 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, at that time did you know about Mr. Brdjanin?
11 A. Of course. It was a familiar name and I know that he was in the
12 top echelons of the then-Republic of Krajina. I don't know what exactly
13 office he occupied, but I know the name.
14 Q. Do you know his first name?
15 A. Of course. Radoslav, Radoslav Brdjanin. It took me a moment to
17 Q. Does the name Kupresanin mean something to you? Does it ring a
19 A. Yes, yes.
20 Q. What's his first name?
21 A. Vojislav or Vojo, I'm not sure.
22 Q. Does the name Krnjajic sound familiar?
23 A. Of course. He was later one of the senior officers in my
25 Q. Can you tell us his first name?
1 A. Milan, Milan Krnjajic.
2 Q. Thank you. Could you now turn to page 2 of the same document and
3 look at the beginning of the second paragraph.
4 A. Right.
5 Q. Page 2 or 3. That will be on the previous page in English. It's
6 third paragraph in English and second in Serbian. It begins:
7 "In the so-called Banja Luka lobby, the central political figure
8 is Vojo Brdjanin ..."
9 Do you have any comment?
10 A. We can see that this document was written by somebody who was
11 very careless with his information. It refers, for instance, to
12 Vojo Brdjanin, whereas I said Brdjanin's name was Radoslav. Vojo is
13 somebody else.
14 Q. Look at page 3, last paragraph, last sentence. That begins with:
15 "Negative opinion" -- just wait for the English to appear.
16 Your Honours, I believe the witness said something additional in
17 the last answer that was not recorded. Could he repeat. He said
18 Brdjanin's name was Radoslav --
19 A. And then I said Vojo is somebody else. Here the document says
20 Vojo Brdjanin. It's a wrong combination of first and last names.
21 Q. That's been corrected. Thank you. In the last sentence in
22 Serbian and penultimate sentence in English, it says:
23 [As read] "Heads of SNB Banja Luka, Luka Krnjajic and Bera Vojin
24 were particularly negative in their attitude and opinion regarding the
25 state security sector."
1 Tell us who was the head of the state security Sector in
2 Banja Luka at the time?
3 A. Milan Krnjajic was head of the service at the time in Banja Luka,
4 but his name is -- Milan Krnjajic, not Luka Krnjajic. He does not exist.
5 And here it says chiefs of the SNB. There was only one chief. There
6 were not several chiefs. It was Milan Krnjajic, the chief.
7 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Sajinovic. I have no further questions for you.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, with regard to that last document, I
10 just checked it along with the redacted version and nothing that was
11 addressed in his testimony with regard to this P1370 touched on anything
12 that was redacted from that document. So we would move at this time to
13 make that testimony public.
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
15 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I agree fully.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --
17 JUDGE HALL: I believe we're still in private session. So we
18 move into open session.
19 Mr. Cvijetic.
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Before I begin my examination I
21 have what I believe to be a constructive suggestion --
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: [Previous translation continues]...
24 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I have a suggestion to make. I
1 was waiting for Mr. Aleksic to finish his examination. I believe the
2 Trial Chamber could perhaps reconsider their decision about the need to
3 continue sitting in the afternoon. It is now clear, I believe, that we
4 will use much less time in our examination of this witness than we had
5 all announced. So it could be a good idea to adjourn now for the day and
6 not work in the afternoon in order to not put additional strain on the
7 witness and the interpreters and everyone because I will finish my
8 examination of this witness tomorrow within one session. The entire time
9 remaining is for the Prosecutor. So perhaps it would be good to adjourn
10 today, now, and take some rest. We have only one session at most and my
11 learned friend from the Prosecution could use up the rest of tomorrow.
12 JUDGE HALL: I will hear what the other parties have to say on
13 your suggestion, Mr. Cvijetic, but I would remind you that when we
14 canvassed this issue last week our concern was what would happen towards
15 the end of this week to ensure that this witness's testimony is completed
16 before the two-week hiatus in the case occurs for -- to enable two of the
17 Judges who are sitting in another case. And subject to what the other
18 parties have to say about your suggestion, since the arrangements are in
19 place for the day, I would be inclined to continue with those
20 arrangements and then perhaps tomorrow we can assess. But I'll see what
21 the other parties have to say and, of course, I'll consult the other
22 members of the Bench.
23 Mr. Olmsted, do you have a view on this suggestion?
24 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour. I would agree with what
25 Your Honour has said, that we continue as planned today and then I think
1 at some point tomorrow I will have a sense of how much time I'm going to
2 need and perhaps we don't even have to sit on Wednesday which would solve
3 a lot of problems with regard to having to have this big giant break in
4 between two fairly short sessions. I think I'll certainly know by the
5 completion of the Stanisic Defence's case some idea of, you know, how
6 long I'm going to have to pursue in cross-examination.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
8 And the -- Mr. Sajinovic, although Mr. Cvijetic has been
9 solicitous about your well-being, could we inquire whether you are able
10 to go on for another 20 minutes now and then after an hour's break to sit
11 for another hour and a half today?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, I don't mind.
13 It's up to you. I'm here to testify. It's not a problem.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE HALL: Yes, so we will continue and, as everybody has said,
16 we will reassess the position tomorrow. So please begin, Mr. Cvijetic.
17 As I said, we would rise at 1.55.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just a moment. I'll
19 have to move to another desk.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, can I get some more
21 water, please. Sorry to bother you.
22 JUDGE HALL: Certainly, sir.
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Sajinovic, good afternoon.
25 A. Good afternoon.
1 Q. Let me begin my examination with a document that you have already
2 been shown by Mr. Aleksic.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we get back document 1D281.
4 Q. Just take another look to refresh your memory. Do you remember
6 A. Of course.
7 Q. When you were answering the questions put to you by my colleague,
8 Mr. Aleksic, you said at one point you had reports that a certain number
9 of Muslims were going to Croatia to be trained for work on the police
10 force. Is that what you said?
11 A. Roughly, yes.
12 Q. Tell me, did your service have operative reports, knowledge, that
13 it was the SDA party that was carrying out these activities and had been
14 pursuing them since 1991?
15 A. Mr. Cvijetic, my service and my colleagues - and you can see that
16 better from some other reports - saw this as one and the same thing. We
17 had information that the SDA party was recruiting those people and
18 sending them to be trained in Croatia.
19 Q. We're talking about the time when the former joint state still
20 existed and the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was still in
21 existence and it had regular police school at Vrace; correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. If a political party, nation-based political party, organises the
24 sending of Muslims to Croatia to be trained for police work, that would
25 be an illegal activity, wouldn't it? It would not be in keeping with the
1 regulations and legislation then prevailing in Yugoslavia and in the
2 Socialist Republic Bosnia-Herzegovina?
3 A. You're right, Mr. Cvijetic. It's precisely as you say. That
4 would be a violation of the current legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
5 and of Yugoslavia. It would be illegal activity.
6 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, did you have intelligence as to what they were
7 really doing there, what kind of training it really was?
8 A. To be quite frank, of course we had intelligence. The training
9 that we had knowledge about was actually preparation for war. Ethnic
10 conflicts were already writing on the wall. The Muslim services and the
11 Croatian service had already begun to operate in parallel with the joint
12 one. Colleagues were wary of one another, concealing information from
13 one another, and I had knowledge that those men were going to train for
14 war not for police work. Because as you say, after all, there was a
15 regular police school in Bosnia and Herzegovina and there was no need to
16 go train for police work elsewhere. It would just be an unnecessary
17 expense for the state. And in Croatia they did not train in regular
18 schools. They were training for war and preparing for war.
19 Q. If we look at this report you wrote, by infiltrating these men
20 into the personnel of the police force of the Socialist Republic of
21 Bosnia and Herzegovina, that would amount to militarising the police
22 force by one mono-ethnic party; correct?
23 A. Precisely.
24 Q. Were there any cases when men trained in such a way in Croatia
25 were infiltrated during the war into the territory of Republika Srpska?
1 A. Yes, we had intelligence, as I've already said, that the SDA was
2 organising training for them in Croatia, that these men were preparing
3 for war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. During the war, I believe in 1993,
4 perhaps even end 1992, one such unit made up of Bosnian Muslims who had
5 been trained in Croatia called the Berbir Battalion attacked Bosnia and
6 Herzegovina, more precisely Republika Srpska. They crossed the Sava
7 River near Gradiska from the Croatian side. They even used amphibian
8 combat vehicles for such river crossing. And on that occasion, 15 to 16
9 members of the Army of Republika Srpska were killed near Gradiska.
10 That's one of the incidents that happened in our area not far from
11 Banja Luka because Gradiska is about 50 kilometres from Banja Luka.
12 Q. While we're on this document, I'm looking at the date and I would
13 like to discuss this time-line with you, the state security sector where
14 you worked also existed in the times of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia
15 and Herzegovina and it was based in Banja Luka; right?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. I see from this document that the group we have been discussing
18 also existed before the war; right?
19 A. Correct. Before the war broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
20 Q. Your sector and the group in the times of the
21 Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina were connected with
22 Sarajevo, organisationally, and they also had reporting duty to Sarajevo.
23 And when I say "Sarajevo," I mean Sarajevo in the Socialist Republic of
24 Bosnia and Herzegovina; right?
25 A. You're right. I know which Sarajevo you mean and you're right.
1 Q. However, the group to which you belonged stopped reporting to
2 Sarajevo and ended that connection and only kept reporting to Belgrade.
3 Now, could you tell us something about the reasons why this decision was
4 made by the group to which you belonged?
5 A. Well, I believe I already discussed this a little earlier. The
6 reasons were that at the time the federal state was still in existence.
7 The communications with Belgrade had been interrupted. There was no
8 official reporting, which was the reason why the group was established
9 and why Belgrade was the place to which reports were sent. Another
10 reason was that all of us, members of the group and other individuals
11 with whom I had contact, we all believed at the time still that the
12 federal state would survive and we hoped that there would be no war,
13 although all intelligence that we had pointed to the opposite. In other
14 words, we could see that both sides or all sides were preparing for
15 conflict, that there would be a clash and all -- so there was an
16 interruption in the communications with Sarajevo.
17 Q. For all practical purposes, the group only had one line of
18 communication, one channel of communication, and that was Belgrade; am I
19 correct? That's where it reported after the breakdown in the
20 communication with Sarajevo; am I correct?
21 A. Yes, you're correct. As far as the group was concerned, that's
22 how it was.
23 Q. And I would also like to know when speaking about this document
24 in terms of personnel when the war broke out and the Ministry of the
25 Interior of Republika Srpska was established, in terms of employees and
1 personnel, all those individuals remained in their posts more or less and
2 they continued working for this new body; am I correct? Is that how it
4 A. Yes, you're correct. Most people retained their jobs and they
5 continued to work in their posts.
6 Q. In terms of personnel, the state security department too
7 continued in the same composition except for the colleagues of Muslim and
8 Croatian ethnicity who decided to leave, and you discussed this a little
9 earlier with Mr. Aleksic. Am I correct then, all of you remained to work
10 with the state security department; correct?
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as I intended to move
13 to a new topic and discuss a new document with the witness, perhaps we
14 could go to our lunch break now and then continue with our work after the
15 break as you've already suggested.
16 JUDGE HALL: Yes, we take the break now and return in an hour.
17 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.50 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 2.56 p.m.
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. My
20 apology, but could you please -- could I ask the usher to assist me
21 again. These are the documents for the witness.
22 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, I will now show you the next document. That's
23 from the OTP's 65 ter list number 10186, 10186. And in your binder,
24 that's under tab 2. Before I put any questions about this document,
25 would you please take a look at it and then we'll talk about it a bit.
1 First let me ask you this: Do you recognise this document and is
2 it a document that was produced by the group to which you belonged and do
3 you recognise the contents and the personalities mentioned in the
5 A. Yes, this is one of our documents, and as for its contents I am
6 familiar with it. And of course I also know all the persons mentioned in
7 this document.
8 Q. Very well. Now, would you tell us, please, whether all of these
9 individuals or some of them were processed by your service; and if so,
10 for what reasons?
11 A. One of these individuals mentioned in this report were -- was
12 being investigated operatively by the service for which I worked, and the
13 reason was that we had obtained intelligence that he was actively
14 involved in organising military units, Muslim military units, procuring
15 weapons for them and so on even while he was still an active-duty officer
16 in the public security station in Banja Luka.
17 Q. As you described him here, I conclude that this individual you
18 are referring to is Bajazid Jahic; am I correct?
19 A. Yes, you are correct.
20 Q. Did you have any intelligence about his involvement in these
21 activities as early as 1991?
22 A. Precisely so. I've already mentioned that we had this
23 intelligence that indicated that he was illegally engaged in these
24 activities as early as 1991, that's correct.
25 Q. The intelligence that you had, did they provide reasonable ground
1 for suspicion to justify criminal investigation of this person and his
3 A. According to the information that we had available, yes, there
4 were such grounds and we also verified the intelligence that we obtained
5 from several sources. So we could say that the information was rather
6 reliable and there was sufficient ground for his prosecution.
7 Q. In that case the fact that he left the territory of
8 Republika Srpska had something to do with this potential prosecution of
9 his and had nothing to do with some obligation to sign some oath of
10 allegiance or something else; right?
11 A. That's correct, precisely so. The information that we had at the
12 time, as I've already said, indicated that he was involved in this type
13 of activity. And I can say now that this was the main reason why he left
14 the territory. It had nothing to do with any statements or oaths of
15 loyalty or anything of that sort. Simply, he realised that we were at
16 his back and he understood that he was about to be prosecuted. And we
17 even learned, if I may add, and that is not mentioned in this document,
18 but I am sure it was written down somewhere, that this gentleman, taking
19 advantage of the position which he occupied in the public security
20 station whenever the opportunity arose would forward the information that
21 he came by to others about individuals who were being investigated by our
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to
24 tender this document as a Defence exhibit, and I believe that all the
25 requirements of -- for that have been met. The witness recognised the
1 document, he was able to discuss its contents, and I see no reason why it
2 would be denied.
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted.
4 MR. OLMSTED: No objection.
5 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D814, Your Honours.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I would now like to show to the
8 witness the last document, that's under tab 3 and it is on the Defence 65
9 ter list as D1. I will have to repeat the number it's 65 ter D1, D165,
10 at least that's what I have written down for me. 65D1. That's correct.
11 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, I see that you have this official note already
12 before you. Would you please just take a look at it and then we'll talk
13 about it a bit.
14 Mr. Sajinovic, do you recognise this official note, or rather, in
15 the heading we see that it was produced by the service for which you
16 worked; am I correct?
17 A. Yes, you're correct. We see that it comes from the service for
18 which I worked and at the bottom this document is signed by the authors
19 and among them my name appears as well.
20 Q. Very well. You actually pre-empted my next question.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see the last page of
22 the document and see who it was signed by.
23 Q. The second name as it appears here is your first and last name;
25 A. Yes, that's correct.
1 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, we've broached this subject. So would this be the
2 format of the other type of document that you officially drafted as the
3 State Security Service for internal use within the hierarchy to which you
4 belonged? So when you discussed this with Mr. Aleksic you made a
5 distinction between those documents and then you said that there was
6 another type, this type. Is this the typical format of those documents?
7 A. That's correct. This is the format and the form of documents
8 that we drafted for the needs of our service in the course of our regular
9 work, day-to-day work.
10 Q. Very well. I will briefly touch upon the contents of this
11 document. So could we go back to the first page, please.
12 Here on the first page we see a number of individuals mentioned
13 who were being investigated by your State Security Service, the national
14 security service. And we see that in paragraph 2 why these persons were
15 considered of interest for security. You mention it in the last
17 "All their activity in this field, as in the field of military
18 action ..." et cetera.
19 And then you mention some names at the bottom among which, on
20 page 1 in the Serbian version and page 2 in the English version, we see
21 the name of Mr. Bajazid Jahic. Can you see that?
22 A. Yes, I can.
23 Q. This would corroborate what you've already mentioned earlier and
24 what we discussed in relation to the previous document, that you had
25 learned about the activity of Mr. Bajazid and others and now this was
1 reported in an official note, as an official document. It was translated
2 into an official document; correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see page 2 of both
5 versions, both the B/C/S or Serbian and the English versions.
6 Q. In this lengthy first paragraph you discuss the various charges
7 and the criminal activity of these groups, and you mention that they were
8 organising Muslims militarily and in other ways. And then at the bottom
9 of page 2 in the Serbian version - could we just scroll it down, the
10 Serbian version, please, so that the last sentence can be -- the last
11 line can be visible. And in English that will be on page 3.
12 As for Mr. Bajazid - and you mention him there - and you say that
13 he was involved in procuring weapons and that for that purpose he
14 travelled with Pasalic on a number of occasions to Sarajevo. Did you
15 personally have any security-related information regarding the activity
16 of these individuals in procuring weapons?
17 A. The information we had then is contained, among other things, in
18 this note. That's the gist of it, if I understood the question.
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we move to page 3 in both
21 Q. The paragraph that begins with the words:
22 "Some of our operative information ..."
23 You say that the greatest amount of weapons were brought to the
24 Banja Luka area by Bajazid Jahic himself. We've seen that claim in prior
25 documents, but here you elaborate on it and you provide some evidence;
2 A. Yes, we kind of started discussing this. This official note
3 contains more details. And the document mentions also the person who
4 provided us with this operative information and confirmed it because we
5 contacted him, that person agreed to co-operate with our service, and
6 through many contacts with him we were able to verify this information.
7 It says here that certain persons named here were involved in the most
8 important arm shipments, which doesn't mean that there were no other
9 people involved, but they were the most responsible and that's the
10 information we had.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we see the middle of the
12 middle paragraph. In Serbian it's okay. We have to move to page 4 in
14 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, halfway through this large paragraph you talk
15 about the establishment of the certain groups that would operate in
16 threes and liquidate some of the most prominent Serbs. Can you tell us
17 about that?
18 A. At that time pursuing this line of work we got some operative
19 information that these groups were being formed for that purpose and
20 through our work with sources on the ground we were able to verify this
21 information which is reflected in this report.
22 Q. We could then skip to page 6 in Serbian and page 8 in English.
23 We need this second paragraph in Serbian that begins with the word:
24 "At the same time, work was pursued on co-ordination between the
25 SDA and HDZ ..."
1 We're trying to find it in English so that the Judges can see.
2 Could it be perhaps in the first paragraph. That's it. It's on the
4 Mr. Sajinovic, you talk here about the establishment of the
5 Crisis Staff of the Croatian Democratic Union, that is to say the
6 Croatian political party that was, according to you, a mirror image of
7 the SDA on the Muslim side. What can you tell us about the intelligence
8 that was available to you then about that?
9 A. We also had intelligence at the time that members of another
10 ethnic community in areas that were ethnically homogenous, including the
11 area around Banja Luka, were working to organise themselves militarily.
12 And you can see here how far they went in those efforts and what
13 incidents they tried to cause, which they would later blame on the Serbs.
14 And it says here that a Croat set explosives to the business of another
15 Croat and they were actually acting in cahoots with each other trying to
16 create an impression that the safety of Croats in Banja Luka is
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the last page with the
20 Q. About the signature, you, or rather, your service quotes the
21 sources of that information?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. So it's correct what you said in your previous answer, that this
24 information you had was sufficient for prosecuting the named people?
25 A. It is certainly true. I said that we had operative information,
1 that we were able also to document by taking a number of statements from
2 some people, including those mentioned in the official note. And it is
3 my belief that we had quite enough grounds for prosecution.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It's obvious that requirements are
6 now met for me to tender this document as well because one of the
7 signatories is the witness himself and he did operative work with the
8 suspects named here. So I don't see why anybody would question
10 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted.
11 MR. OLMSTED: No objection.
12 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D815, Your Honours.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. We've finished with the documents, Mr. Sajinovic. This one will
16 just provide me with the basis for my next question. When examined by my
17 colleague Mr. Aleksic you said that official notes of this type were
18 written within the state security sector and you, operative officers,
19 wrote them and sent them to the chief of the 01 department; is that
21 A. Yes, it is, Mr. Cvijetic.
22 Q. Were you -- sorry, who was the chief of department 01 at the
24 A. At that time it was Mr. Vojin Bera.
25 Q. The way you explained it to Mr. Aleksic, you had no further
1 insight into the road such an official note or report would take, where
2 it would go. Is that a fair understanding, that you had no further
4 A. Yes, it's exactly as you say. According to my place in the
5 hierarchy of the service -- from my place in the hierarchy, I was not
6 able to see what went on later with the reports we provided from the
7 information we had gathered once we had submitted that report to our
8 superior officer.
9 Q. On that ladder, the person above your chief of department was the
10 chief of national security sector; correct?
11 A. That's correct, Mr. Cvijetic.
12 Q. That was Mr. Kesic; right?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. Mr. Kvesic [sic] was appointed to that position multi-party
15 elections -- sorry, it should be Kesic without the V. Would you please
16 repeat the answer.
17 A. That's correct. Mr. Kesic was appointed to that position after
18 the multi-party elections and before the war.
19 Q. Having said what you said before about your place in the
20 hierarchy, you had even less insight into what Mr. Kesic would do with
21 the reports received from your superior?
22 A. Precisely. As I said, and perhaps I should have added earlier
23 that if I, myself, got some information and wrote it up in a report,
24 there was Mr. Radulovic between me and Mr. Bera and Mr. Radulovic would
25 have to look at it and decide if it was worth sending to Bera. And above
1 Bera there was Kesic and of course I had no idea what Kesic received and
2 what he did with it.
3 Q. At that time in 1992 did you know the hierarchy, the entire
4 hierarchy, in your service at the level of the centre in Pale in all
6 A. I'm a bit taken aback by this question. To be quite honest and
7 to be quite, quite honest, I had no clue. And of course while preparing
8 for giving evidence I tried to recall as many details as possible to try
9 to assist the court and I gave a lot of thought to what you asked me
10 right now because it's really difficult now to remember even the chief of
11 the service in Pale because the communications were broken and from my
12 position, which was rather lowly, I did not attend any meetings of the
13 collegium or meetings of senior officers so I could not answer that
15 Q. So you didn't know it then and you don't know it now?
16 A. I told you I tried to recall and maybe I could perhaps recall
17 some names that were often mentioned at the time, but to say under oath
18 I'm sure that these are the people, hardly.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Sajinovic. No further questions.
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I've concluded, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Aleksic.
22 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, to
23 avoid interrupting Mr. Olmsted, I've looked at the list of documents that
24 he scheduled for his cross-examination of this witness and before he
25 begins I would like to object to the admission of some of those documents
1 because out of the 50 that he announced, most of them -- most are not on
2 the 65 ter list of the Prosecution. According to your guide-line number
3 6 which reads that lists of documents can be revised but only after a
4 written motion was filed to amend the list, it would be difficult because
5 no such motion was made. And if we recall difficulties with some prior
6 witnesses during the Stanisic defence, on the 19th of August you amended
7 those guide-lines and added item 15(A), and the guide-line is now that if
8 a party asks for additional documents to be added to the 65 ter
9 list - and this guide-line applies specifically to the Prosecution - the
10 Prosecution must specify such motion, explaining why such documents have
11 not been tendered during their case and explain the reasons why they seek
12 to introduce the documents through a specific Defence witness. That was
13 not done in this case.
14 And one more thing. I looked through some of those documents
15 briefly, the documents that were placed by the Prosecution additionally
16 on their list, and I can say that some of them I've seen before, some
17 not. Many of them pertain to the Milos group. And from the viewpoint of
18 the Zupljanin Defence, I would say that - although I'm speculating here
19 because we have had no prior notification - I suppose that these
20 documents have been in the possession of the OTP for years, the Milos
21 group documents. I may be mistaken, and in that case I would like to be
22 corrected and told when exactly they got hold of them. But it was up to
23 Mr. Olmsted and his colleagues for the Prosecution to review the
24 documents and see what they want to put on their 65 ter list during their
25 case. That has not been done for many of these documents.
1 Also, they had their own witness, Mr. Radulovic, and they made
2 their own assessments what they need to present. If they failed to
3 present these documents, it is their responsibility. The Defence has
4 nothing to do with it. I can list these documents tab by tab, but the
5 point is I object to the amendment of the list without appropriate motion
6 to revise the list, specifying why they had not been suggested before and
7 why they had not been disclosed to us.
8 If my learned friend is allowed to proceed, I will rise and
9 object document by document. But I believe that until this issue is
10 resolved, Mr. Olmsted should not be allowed to use them. If some of
11 these documents are already on their 65 list, of course they are not the
12 subject of my objection.
13 JUDGE HALL: Of course the fact that you have been notified that
14 they intend to use them in cross-examination doesn't necessarily follow
15 they are seeking to tender them as exhibits.
16 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour. But that is
17 precisely why I said this, to err on the side of caution, if you will.
18 If necessary, I will repeat every time he does that. However, I see that
19 they have new 65 ter numbers. So I don't know what the intention of the
20 OTP is, I agree with you. But it is far too many documents.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, do you have a response?
23 MR. OLMSTED: I would like to address these issues, but perhaps
24 the witness should either be excused or take his headphones off so I can
25 explain why we have these documents on our list.
1 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Sajinovic, do you understand English?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
3 JUDGE HALL: In which case you needn't withdraw from the
4 courtroom, but if you could remove your headphones while we canvas this
5 matter with counsel.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honour.
7 MR. OLMSTED: First let me address a couple of issues. With
8 regard to disclosure, the Prosecution disclosed to the Defence back in
9 2009, I believe, a complete list of all the Milos reports and Radulovic
10 documents that we had in our possession, authenticated by Mr. Radulovic.
11 We informed them that we weren't going to turn them over individually
12 because they were available on EDS and there's quite a number of them.
13 In fact, when Mr. Radulovic was testifying, the Defence utilised that
14 list and pulled off, I think, 30-odd documents of their own that they
15 wanted to tender through Radulovic. So they certainly are aware of that
16 list and they utilise it themselves. So disclosure is not an issue here.
17 Secondly, it is my understanding that cross-examination documents
18 do not have to be on the 65 ter exhibit list. I'm well aware of this
19 Trial Chamber's requirements with regard to tendering into evidence fresh
20 evidence, so to speak. And I will be seeking to perhaps tender some of
21 these because, one, they go to issues of credibility. They also will
22 deal with contested issues in this case, in particular the extent that
23 the accused and other members of the leadership of the CSB authorised the
24 Milos group in their activities, were aware of their reports, to the
25 extent that Mr. Radulovic had access to the accused. And many of these
1 issues came up for the first time in the cross-examination of
2 Mr. Radulovic. So the Prosecution did not have the opportunity to
3 research and obtain the documents necessary. And as you are aware, the
4 procedure with regard to this witness is that the Prosecution wanted to
5 call this witness in its case in chief and present this evidence. Now
6 it's forced to do so in the Defence's case, and so these documents will
7 address that. Now, to the extent they should be admitted or not, I think
8 we need to deal with that on a case-by-case basis.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE HALL: So, Mr. Olmsted, you may proceed. But from what you
11 have already said in your reply, you appreciate that if you seek to
12 tender any of these then a proper motion is going to have to be made in
13 terms of the amendment of the -- well, what you've already said about
14 fresh evidence. But we will deal with these -- this application when it
16 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Olmsted:
18 Q. Mr. Sajinovic, I first want to start with the topic that --
19 JUDGE HALL: Yes --
20 MR. OLMSTED: I'm sorry? Yes, headphones are useful here.
21 Q. Sorry about that, Mr. Sajinovic.
22 I first want to just touch upon briefly the last topic that you
23 dealt with with Mr. Cvijetic, and that's with regard to the formal chain
24 of command within the State Security Service back in 1992. You've
25 mentioned that the Milos group's direct report, at least under the formal
1 procedures, would have been Vojin Bera. He was head of 01; is that
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise, but that's not
4 what the witness said. I think that this question is leading the witness
5 to a completely erroneous answer. The witness had said something
6 completely different. That group, Milos, did not send their reports, as
7 you have interpreted it just now. That's not correct.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Well, thank you for your objection but that wasn't
9 the point I was trying to get to. And if you think I was confusing the
10 witness, that was not the case.
11 Q. Sir, all I'm trying to get to is your immediate superior was
12 Mr. Vojin Bera, is that correct, under the formal structure?
13 A. Again, I don't understand you. I don't know whether you wanted
14 to confuse me but you have confused me. I do apologise. The first thing
15 you said was not corrected. The Milos group did not send any reports to
16 Mr. Vojin Bera. That's my answer to that first question of yours.
17 Q. And you're misunderstanding me. Let me see if I can put it this
18 way. As state security officials within the RS MUP structure, formally
19 you reported to Vojin Bera as head of 01?
20 A. Yes, that's correct. Formally in the structure of the State
21 Security Service we sent out reports to Vojin Bera, just as you said, he
22 was head of 01, the department that Radulovic belonged to when I joined
23 them coming from 04.
24 Q. And Mr. Bera reported to SNB Banja Luka chief Kesic?
25 A. This is the way I put it, Mr. Bera was supposed to report to the
1 chief, Mr. Kesic. However, as I've already said in response to the
2 questions put by Defence counsel, I don't know whether Mr. Bera did that.
3 And I was not in that hierarchy and in a position to know about that.
4 Q. And right now all I'm talking about is the formal structure
5 within the RS MUP in 1992. Now, Mr. Kesic reported both to Mr. Zupljanin
6 as well as to the state security headquarters in Pale or Bijeljina,
7 depending on where their offices were; is that correct?
8 A. Yes, that would be correct in terms of the formal hierarchy.
9 Q. Thank you. And we'll talk about any informal reporting in a
10 little bit. I want to return now to the interviews you conducted prior
11 to testifying here today. You've testified that you were interviewed by
12 the Office of the Prosecution twice, once in 2004 and the second time in
13 2010. That was on the 31st of August, 2010; is that correct?
14 A. Yes, that's correct.
15 Q. And --
16 A. No, sorry. I don't remember the exact date, but there is no
17 reason for me not to believe that it was the 31st of August.
18 Q. And between those two interviews I think you mentioned sometime
19 in the summer of 2010 you were contacted by a member of the Zupljanin
21 A. Correct, that's what I said and that was the case.
22 Q. You mentioned the name of the person who contacted you as
23 Mirko Bojinovic. Was that -- was he a former member of the State
24 Security Service for the RS MUP?
25 A. It is correct that that person's name is Mirko Bojinovic, but I'm
1 not aware of his ever having been a member of the State Security Service.
2 Q. You mentioned he was a former colleague of yours, I think. I
3 don't have it in front of me. Did you know him previously?
4 A. You understood that well. I said that he was a former colleague.
5 However, he worked in the public security service. As far as I know, he
6 never worked for state security. As a rule, we considered people who
7 worked in the MUP to be colleagues, regardless of the organisational unit
8 they belonged to.
9 Q. And at that time, as I understand your testimony is, he asked you
10 to be a Defence witness and you agreed. Did you engage in any interview
11 with him at that time?
12 A. During this contact with Mr. Mirko Bojinovic in the summer last
13 year -- he telephoned me actually. Ms. Jasmina was with him and she was
14 introduced to me as an investigator from the Defence team. We had a
15 drink at a cafe in Banja Luka. This was a brief contact. As far as I
16 can remember, I had some personal engagements and we didn't really say
17 much except for those few sentences that I've already mentioned.
18 Q. Now, when you agreed to testify for Mr. Zupljanin, did
19 Ms. Jasmina instruct you not to speak with the Office of the Prosecution
20 from that point forward?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Did she instruct you that you were to request a member of the
23 Defence team to be present during any interviews with the Office of the
25 A. That's not what she said to me. She said that investigators of
1 the OTP could get in touch with me, but from the moment one agrees to
2 become a witness these interviews have to take place through this other
3 side, other side, if you will.
4 Q. Would -- and when you say "other side," is that the opposing
5 side, in other words, that you should, in fact, be allowed to meet with
6 Office of the Prosecution?
7 A. My understanding of what Ms. Jasmina said was - and that's what
8 I've already spoken about when questioned by Mr. Aleksic - as follows:
9 If I agree to be on the list of potential witnesses, no one has an
10 exclusive right to a witness. So the other side, you call it the
11 opposing side, but the other side can also get in touch with me but only
12 through the side with which contact had already been established.
13 Q. And, in fact, when you met with Mr. Koehler in August of 2010 you
14 told him that you weren't supposed to meet with him without the Defence
15 approving that, allowing that, the Zupljanin Defence allowing that?
16 A. That's not right.
17 Q. Well, what did you tell him, then, about why you weren't supposed
18 to meet with him but that you would do so anyway?
19 A. I do apologise. I never said to anyone that I was not supposed
20 to meet with them. No one could have forced me to do something like that
21 except for a court subpoena. So this is a misinterpretation of what I
22 had said, if I said anything along those lines, although I do not recall
23 anything like that and I thought that I did not really have to remember
24 each and every little thing that -- well, if I said anything, I could
25 have said only what I'm saying just now, that is to say in 2004 I was
1 contacted by the OTP, that what was said to me was that there would be
2 another contact and that never took place. And then a month or two
3 before that I was contacted by Mr. Bojinovic and Ms. Jasmina and they
4 asked me whether I would agree to be a witness for the Defence and I
5 agreed to that. However, Mr. Koehler told me during our telephone
6 conversation that the OTP is not interested in me as a witness, that they
7 are not going to put me forth as a witness. He asked me, rather, to come
8 to a meeting to explain, as he had put it, some facts related to the
9 testimony of my colleague Mr. Radulovic.
10 Q. What day did you arrive here in The Hague for testimony?
11 A. It was a Sunday. I'm not sure of the date, the 9th or 10th, but
12 it was a Sunday.
13 Q. So you were here all of last week?
14 A. Yes, I was here all of last week.
15 Q. And on which days did you meet with the Zupljanin Defence?
16 A. You mean here in The Hague?
17 Q. That's correct.
18 A. Well, I think that up until the weekend it was every day, that is
19 to say Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday -- I'm not sure about Friday
20 or perhaps it was just very short. But we did meet on those four days,
21 that's for sure.
22 Q. And did the Stanisic Defence team meet with you as well?
23 A. I met Mr. Cvijetic yesterday, yesterday. Yesterday was the first
24 time I saw Mr. Cvijetic. Mr. Aleksic introduced him as a person from the
25 Defence team of Mr. Stanisic.
1 Q. And during that meeting did you discuss with him most of what
2 you've told us today about the Muslims being trained in Croatia and then
3 joining the police force as well as the efforts by Bajazid Jahic and
4 others to militarise non-Serbs in the Banja Luka region? Did you discuss
5 those issues?
6 A. No, not with Mr. Cvijetic. I saw him very briefly. This was
7 just a very formal introduction, as I've already said. Mr. Aleksic
8 introduced him as a member of the Stanisic Defence team and he said that
9 he would be putting questions to me one of these days as well. I didn't
10 realise that it would be today. And that would be it.
11 Q. Were those issues that I just mentioned discussed between you and
12 Mr. Aleksic?
13 A. No, I did not discuss that with Mr. Aleksic either. Mr. Aleksic
14 showed me some documents, basically reports of the Milos group. I read
15 them. I familiarised myself with them and that would be it.
16 Q. I want to now ask you some questions about your background. When
17 you --
18 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, if I -- Mr. Olmsted, as you move into the
19 substance of your examination-in-chief, you're probably aware that your
20 side has requested ten minutes this afternoon, so if you could keep an
21 eye on the clock and at 4.15 that would be a convenient time for us to
22 take -- to break the testimony of this witness.
23 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour.
24 Q. Sir, when you joined the Banja Luka State Security Service in
25 1986, I believe, your primary duty was that of an administrative officer,
1 a typist; is that correct?
2 A. Yes, that's correct, something like that.
3 Q. Well, how have I gotten it wrong? What were your other duties
4 between that time-period?
5 A. Well, in principle, you did not make a big mistake of any kind.
6 I was an administrative officer, so yes I was typing and things like
8 Q. From 1987 through 1991 you were in the state security Banja Luka
9 technical department, 04; is that correct?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. And during that period you also were primarily a typist?
12 A. Well, among other things, yes.
13 Q. Can you tell us what your other responsibilities were?
14 A. Well, to be quite honest, I can tell you but at this moment I am
15 not sure that I would dare speak about that because it has to do with
16 certain matters in state security that were highly confidential and a
17 state secret. When I left the service, I was not relieved of this
18 obligation to keep official secrets, so I'm not sure that I would be
19 allowed to speak about that.
20 Q. Well, perhaps we can go into private session.
21 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
22 [Private session]
11 Page 25189 redacted. Private session.
13 [Open session]
14 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
15 MR. OLMSTED:
16 Q. And just to confirm, you've never received any training on the
17 investigation or the charging of criminal offences, either in this period
18 leading up to 1992 or thereafter. You've always been on the state
19 security side of things?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Now, in 1992 you moved from line 04 to 01, and that was prompted
22 by your joining the intelligence team of Mr. Radulovic?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And it was SDB Banja Luka Chief Kesic who authorised that
25 transfer to 01 so that you could join Mr. Radulovic's team; isn't that
2 A. That's correct. Mr. Radulovic informed me that that's how it
4 Q. You never received a formal letter or something that indicated
5 that you were transferring from one department to another?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. So this was more or less an informal type of move -- it was done
8 informally, moving you from one line to another. It didn't have to go
9 through a certain procedure?
10 A. That's correct, yes.
11 Q. Now, as a member of Mr. Radulovic's team, again your primary
12 responsibility was that of a typist and on occasion a driver; is that
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Who decided what issues to gather intelligence on? I'm referring
16 to the Milos team now, Radulovic's team. Who decided what issues to
17 gather intelligence on on that team?
18 A. Well, as far as I know, at the level where I learned it from,
20 Q. Well, you may have been learning something from Mr. Radulovic,
21 but it was he who decided that the team would gather -- collect
22 intelligence on a particular matter. Isn't that correct? He was the
23 leader of the team, he made the decision what to gather intelligence on.
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. And he's also the one who maintained the network of operatives
1 and informants. It was Mr. Radulovic who had the skills and the
2 knowledge to do that?
3 A. Well, yes. Although we, the other members of that team, also had
4 contact with the network that we were discussing here about, talking here
5 about. So yes.
6 Q. And when you conducted or when the team conducted an interview of
7 an operatives and/or informant, it was Mr. Radulovic who was conducting
8 those interviews, wasn't it? He was the one who was gathering the
9 information, he was asking the questions?
10 A. Well, not always.
11 Q. Are you saying that you were also asking questions and obtaining
12 intelligence information during this time-period?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. But that wasn't your role. You were primarily a typist and you
15 would accompany Mr. Radulovic on these missions to gather intelligence.
16 That was primarily what you were doing.
17 A. As far as group work was concerned, the group that was led by
18 Mr. Radulovic, I've already said earlier on and I'm saying it again, it
19 is true that I provided technical support for the group and
20 Mr. Radulovic. But I also worked on other assignments as well. And as
21 far as the group is concerned, the colleague that I mentioned earlier and
22 I, we provided and did the technical part of the work. He was a
23 signalsman and we provided technical support. But I was also sometimes
24 recruited to do -- to work independently and of course very frequently I
25 would do this with Mr. Radulovic, I would accompany him.
1 Q. The reports that were written by the Milos group as well as the
2 reports that Mr. Radulovic would send up the RS MUP chain of command,
3 those were authored by Mr. Radulovic; is that correct?
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I believe there is, again, the
5 same misleading of the witness. It was not about this chain of
6 reporting, this chain of command.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Again, I think Defence counsel is not understanding
8 my question. You're reading way too much into it.
9 Q. My question is quite simple, sir. The reports that were authored
10 by the Milos group or the group of individuals who were around
11 Mr. Radulovic, those reports were authored by Mr. Radulovic, he was the
12 writer; isn't that correct? Whether it was an official note or whether
13 it was a Milos report or otherwise, he was the one who was writing these
15 A. Well, I think I've already talked about this earlier. There was
16 him, there was me, and there was this third colleague.
17 Q. I understand who were the members of the team. I'm talking about
18 who authored the reports. Will you confirm that who authored the reports
19 were, in fact, Mr. Radulovic and you would type them up for him?
20 A. No, that's not how it was.
21 Q. So you're asserting that sometimes you wrote -- you actually
22 wrote some of the reports?
23 A. Exactly. And in some of these cases I was -- well, let's say the
24 co-author. I will now speak about the other type of report, the official
25 notes, that we sent up the regular chain of command. You could see that
1 on the several notes that we saw here, there would always be a couple of
2 names at the bottom which would mean that all those people were authors
3 of that particular report.
4 JUDGE HALL: Well, I think that we must leave it there for the
6 Mr. Sajinovic, we're about to take the adjournment for the day.
7 There are some administrative and procedural matters with which the
8 Chamber has to deal, so the Chamber is not rising immediately. But we
9 are excusing you and the usher would escort you out momentarily. But
10 before you leave, I would point out to you that having been sworn as a
11 witness, you cannot have communication with counsel from either side
12 until you are released by the Chamber. Moreover, in such conversations
13 that you may have with persons outside of the courtroom, you cannot
14 discuss your testimony. Do you understand what I've just explained?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour. It's
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes, thank you.
18 So the usher would escort you out and we would continue your
19 cross-examination tomorrow morning in this courtroom at 9.00.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, the -- having had the benefit of
23 today's testimony and cross-examination by counsel for the co-accused, it
24 appears to us that you're in a better position to estimate where you are
25 in terms of your -- the time you need to complete your cross-examination.
1 So it would be helpful if you could indicate that now, but if you wish to
2 reflect on it we would expect your answer first thing tomorrow morning.
3 MR. OLMSTED: If I may reflect on it, I would appreciate that,
4 Your Honour. I certainly do not think we need to sit tomorrow afternoon,
5 if that provides any assistance as far as scheduling things. I don't
6 think we'll need that much time.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Olmsted.
8 Yes, Ms. Korner.
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I deal very briefly with two
10 matters that have arisen today. Basically because I've been dealing with
11 them more often than Mr. Olmsted has.
12 The first is what Mr. Krgovic said when he got up to object to
13 part of the list for cross-examination, when he asserted that under
14 Rule 15(A) --
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Not Krgovic.
16 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Aleksic, but we understand what you meant.
17 MS. KORNER: Mr. Aleksic.
18 JUDGE HALL: You did have us confused there for a second, but we
19 understand what you meant.
20 MS. KORNER: Mr. Aleksic. Sorry, Mr. Aleksic. You're absolutely
21 right, it was Mr. Aleksic.
22 Was that under Rule 15(A) that you drafted after the Stanisic --
23 I believe it was -- yes, after the Stanisic case -- Defence case had
24 finished, it says:
25 "If the Prosecution seeks the admission into evidence of
1 documents not included on their 65 ter list but which they wish to use --
2 have used or wish to use, it has to specifically justify its request ..."
3 and so on.
4 Your Honours, that does not mean and has never meant, and it is
5 quite wrong to assert it, that we have to file a motion in advance of
6 putting lists in for cross-examination. Your Honours, if we were to do
7 so, that would utterly render useless the necessity for us to put the
8 list out only when the witness goes into the witness box and would
9 undercut even further our ability to effectively cross-examine.
10 Your Honours have already ruled that under Rule 66(B), the Defence are
11 entitled to see in advance effectively any -- virtually any documents
12 which affect their witnesses.
13 Your Honours, what has happened so far is that at the stage where
14 if we do seek to tender as an exhibit a document which was not on our
15 65 ter list, then, Your Honours, we argue it at the stage if there is an
16 objection. As I say, there has never been nor does the Rule state that
17 we have to file a motion in advance of cross-examination.
18 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, did we -- did the Chamber in its response
19 suggest the contrary? I --
20 MS. KORNER: I think, Your Honour -- I'm afraid -- for some
21 reason I can't get into e-trans where I'm sitting. But it was what
22 Mr. Krgovic -- what Mr. Aleksic suggested and I rather thought
23 Your Honours may have agreed with it.
24 JUDGE HALL: No, my recollection is --
25 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues]...
1 JUDGE HALL: What you are now articulating is what we in fact
3 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, it was argued at the time --
4 Mr. Aleksic certainly said there should have been a motion filed and we
5 utterly disagree with that, but, Your Honours, I'm sorry, I obviously
6 misunderstood Your Honour's ruling in which case I wasted my time on that
7 and I'm sorry about that.
8 Your Honours, the second matter relates to this morning and this
9 question of the proofing notes. Your Honours, what, as Mr. Olmsted
10 pointed out, came out of a five-day proofing with this witness, as we now
11 learnt for the first time is a considerable amount of extra evidence.
12 And as we've said before, we're hampered by the fact that we have no
13 statements, occasionally an interview. On this occasion, as Your Honours
14 heard from the witness, some short chats which were not specifically
15 helpful and certainly, as Mr. Olmsted pointed out, didn't deal with any
16 of the topics.
17 Your Honours, as it so happens, we got the proofing note at just
18 after 9.00 on Friday night and we do say, given how long this witness was
19 here, that was far too late. Of course Mr. Olmsted is prepared to work
20 over the weekend, but we don't want to ask administrative staff to come
21 in over the weekend to prepare extra documents as a result of extra
22 information which could have been ascertained months and months ago and
23 we should have been provided with proper amended 65 ter summaries.
24 Your Honours, the 65 ter summaries for upcoming witnesses are
25 just as bad. They are vague in the extreme, they give the Prosecution
1 absolutely only the -- a surface indication of what the witness is going
2 to talk about. Your Honours, therefore, given there's now going to be a
3 further two-week break, first of all, Your Honour, we would ask for
4 confirmation by Wednesday of which witness is actually coming after the
5 break. I understand from Mr. Krgovic there may be difficulties with the
6 order as it presently is. And so if there's to be a change, we would
7 like to know about it. Secondly, that the -- a proper proofing note is
8 supplied to us with details of what the witness is actually going to talk
9 about 72 hours in advance of the witness coming into the witness box.
10 Your Honours, we don't think that's an unreasonable request. As
11 I say, we have no statements, nothing for most of these witnesses. So,
12 Your Honours, that's the situation as -- in respect we would ask for
13 proper notification.
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Aleksic.
15 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I will be brief, Your Honour. My
16 colleague, Mr. Olmsted, had occasion to respond to my objection and of
17 course he did say what he had to say, and I do appreciate that
18 Mrs. Korner is entitled to come and further expand on the position of
19 their party. But I would also appreciate it, since Mr. Zecevic and
20 Krgovic are not present today, to be allowed to address the Trial Chamber
21 tomorrow morning in relation to the first item. As for the second
22 matter --
23 JUDGE HALL: Well, I thought that matter was -- I don't think we
24 need to hear counsel further on that. And as regards the -- I don't know
25 what your response is going to be the second item, but the frustration
1 that Ms. Korner has indicated in terms of inadequacy of a proofing note
2 is clearly understood and everybody's going to agree that there ought to
3 be proper proofing notes. But the question that I would ask you to
4 address, either now or first thing tomorrow morning, is that once we get
5 past the motherhood and apple pie stage, in other words, the point at
6 which we all agree, how do you propose practically to address this
8 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to
9 consult Mr. Krgovic on this issue, and if that is suitable I would like
10 to address the Trial Chamber tomorrow morning if that's acceptable.
11 Thank you.
12 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues]... Practical
14 Yes, so we rise to resume tomorrow morning at 9.00.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.27 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 18th day of
17 October, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.